Did C-S write this about his map?

"The color map of the world shows very distinctly the differences that
we know exist among the continents: Africans (yellow), Caucasoids
(green), Mongoloids ... (purple), and Australian Aborigines (red). The
map does not show well the strong Caucasoid component in northern
Africa, but it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe,
and in West, South, and much of Central Asia."

Also, how do you explain this?
http://shrn.stanford.edu/workshops/revisitingrace/Risch_confound.pdf

Note that in my reply I was emphasizing *in groups* and *out groups*
and **NOT race** -- in fact I think there will be a blurring of
populations in the 21st century especially in North America. HOwever
most of the people in Japan will still marry Japanese, most in AFrica
AFricans etc, so admixture in these areas will be less.

My point is that genetic, biological and yes cultural differences
between individuals and populations will still exist - as pointed out
by C-S, and therefore a difference in societal outcome between
individuals and groups will be expected.

Egalitarianism and especially material egalitarian will therefore have
to constantly fight this losing battle - as I've said before. There are
no castes today but there will always be a continuum of socioeconomic
status, as we well know (hahahaha!) unless you subscribe to a system
like communism and even there some are more equal than others.

Whether races exist or not is not germane to my response.


b wrote:
> > But gene clines exist:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cavalli-SforzaMap.jpg
> >
> > Human groups differ in many ways, and different genetic diseases
> > cluster in different frequencies in different human populations.
> >
> > Humans form ingroups and outgroups readily. Me against my brother, me
> > and my brother against my cousin, me and my cousin against the world.
> > See, ingroup amity and outgroup enmity since the beginning of human
> > history.
> >
> > Egalitarians will always fight an uphill losing battle. Afterall you
> > can blend in all the races, but clines still exist. Look at Brazil.
>
> Funny that you should refer to Cavalli-Sforza's book, which concludes that
> raciation fails when applied to humans. the map is quoted from the section
> where C-S tries to define human races, only to conclude that it is
> impossible.
>
> The concept of "race", when applied to humans, is an ideological one, and
> not a scientific one.
> Raciation cannot be applied to mankind because of the lack of homogeneity :
> the necessary factors which are used to define races to do not converge
> enough to define a "race". And they *do not* match physical criteria : the
> concept of a "caucasian" race is as worthwhile as that of a "green eyed"
> race...
> An example :  genetic distance between 2 french population groups is only
> *inferior" by 15 % to the distance of 2 other populations chosen *at random*
> throughout the world. Subdivision into "races" are based only on criteria
> and exclude taking in the genetic diversity which characterises the human
> species. Human population went through a phase when only aroud an estimated
> 30 000 individuals were left on the entire planet. All modern humans come
> from that stock...
> Racial subdivisions used are arbitrarily defined, based on ideological
> reasons or reluctance to give up the mental comfort of a logic of
> classification.
>
> Cavalli Sforza, in the quoted book you mention in your post, offers a
> definition of "human races" *only* to demonstrate that it NOT APPLICABLE, it
> doesn't work, for geneticians and anthropologists. Cavalli Sforza's
> conclusion is, i translate " all attempts at classification of mankind into
> races are arbitrary and prove impossible". Read the book ( Genes Peoples and
> Languages) it's well worth it !
> 
> Now off course cultures exist, but that's another story
> 
> b