by principle, it is rather right to classify under cultural factor.
but this netter may ignore a very important factor, inheritage.
the belief and character is likely to be brought forward from one's
mother or father,
even the children hates his father or mother very much.
it is difficult or may have to take a very long time to make the change.
so is the foundation of race-theory.


b wrote:
> 
> >You people are the types that shove racial based programs down our throats,
> >then argue on USENET that there are NO races.
> 
> Support or non support of American positive discrimination policies is not
> the issue here.
> To put things in a more simple way :
> Human "races" don't exist, raciation cannot be applied to humans, for the
> reasons fore mentioned.
> Which doesn't mean that there are no ethnic or cultural groups, and that
> humans don't have physical differences. Differences in pigmentation, eye
> color, bone length, blood type, hair color etc exist. But none of these
> factors are coherent enough in humans to define "race".
> The choice to use this concept is a political one, since it is based on
> arbitrary and ideological criteria.
> People use and have used physical or cultural traits to discriminate
> positively or not, origin, descent, skin color or penis length, whatever
> strikes your fancy, it still doesn't make the concept of "race" applicable
> to humans.
> I don't really know much about American positive discrimination programs,
> but from what i gathered it was more based on cultural and origin / descent
> criteria ( like Asian or African ) than actual scales of physical
> criteria...
> The fact that this said governement uses the *word or concept* of "race"
> when refering to humans is still an ideological choice, since this
> classification is based on arbitrary criteria.
> Saying that there are no human "races" doesn't mean that there are no
> cultural or physical differences between human population groups.