Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!news.moat.net!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "richasiankid@hotmail.com" Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american,soc.culture.japan,soc.culture.china,fj.life.in-japan,soc.culture.korean Subject: Re: Why are white people so ridiculously superior? Date: 19 Oct 2005 08:18:55 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 81 Message-ID: <1129735135.560841.17090@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1129264394.851181.131310@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1129472073.113387.92300@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1129632546.255607.250390@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1129669874.410090.33850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <43560d2d$0$1732$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.42.58.182 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1129735140 18836 127.0.0.1 (19 Oct 2005 15:19:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:19:00 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.42.58.182; posting-account=OO0giAwAAAB7Mp7hRgy3BGZ96NFGyDC4 Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.life.in-japan:30047 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