Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stingc
What does "scientifically false" mean? I'm caucasian, and I really doubt you could find anybody who would confuse me or anybody else in my family for another race. The same can be said for most people. There are clearly different sets of inherited traits which we can (reliably) use to categorize people into one race or another. Why is it so hard to believe that these (physical) traits don't go together with certain mental ones (on average)?
I'm certainly not saying that mental differences are entirely due to race. I think (at least in this case) that most of it is cultural, but I wouldn't be surprised at all to see that certain mental characteristics are correlated to race.
|
That is a good question. No doubt there are variable degree of "traits" one can ascribe to the HUMAN RACE. (i.e. - a spectrum of skin pigmentation). When I say "scientifically false", I mean race is a social construct as opposed to anything scientifically meaningful.
You mention yourself to be caucasian. What does that mean? From the Caucasus region? Are you Russian? Georgian? Ukranian? (which are nationalities, not races). Or are you white? Are Irish folk caucasian too? They say Indians (from India) are Aryan. If Germans are Aryan (white), does that make them Caucasian too? If so, are Indians Caucasian?
There really isn't any scientific basis for "race". We are all variations (that is, insignificant phenotypes) of one human race.
In regards to your second part, I've never heard of nor read of any correlation between physical traits and mental. Does that implie (and correct me if I did not understand your post) for example, the lighter the skin, the smarter the person? Or how about the slantier the eyes (physical trait) the better at math (mental trait)?
I understand what you are saying about inherited traits (skin color, etc) but how does that make one better at math than another?
If it was that easy, if we could just slap everyone into neatly ordered groups like oh, race, then racial profiling would make sense. Gender bias would make sense because there would be scientific proof and basis or grounds for discrimination. For example: All accountants would be Asian. Hmmm....maybe that's why Enron happened. Those silly causcasians aren't good at math so that's why their company screwed up. We should let all the Asians take over. And those poor blacks. Don't they know that they are genetically inferior? Forget med school or law school. Stick to dancing and singing or sports. Maybe manual labor too if it's not too difficult mentally. And how about those Latinos? Can you even give me an accurate description of one? You see how this is flawed right? If I told a cop that I was mugged by a Latino chick, how would he recognize or draw a picture or describe it? Can anyone? Latino is probably one of the worst "racial" or whatever descriptions ever constructed. No two alike. Two famous Latinos look nothing alike: Sammy Sosa and Ricky Martin. Tell me: What physical traits do they share? How could anyone then, correlate mental traits to go with these supposed physical traits?
I think one of the problems in these type of discussions is the oversimplification of complex subjects. We could probably spend hours just trying to define "race" etc. I don't know how old you are, so you may not remember or know what I am talking about next. When I was in 8th grade, our biology book classified the human race in 3 categories: negroid, mongoloid, and caucasoid. In 10th grade, they added a 4th, australoid (I think it referred to the aboriginal group). 15 years later, in anthro class, we are informed that the previous classification is no longer valid etc and all this other stuff. That was a cool class, we got to study DNA, genetics etc and worked with a lot of primate skeletons. Anyways.... I felt like an idiot cause I was still stuck in the whole 3 (or 4) races mentality and I felt dated.
