Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectps:
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=22478&mesg_id=22525
22525, ps:
Posted by spirit, Wed Aug-02-00 04:48 PM
>The amount of melanin is
>provided for by your ethnic
>and natural origins- not those
>fostered by race ideology.

Oh, the amount of melanin is provided by "natural origins", but according to you "race has no biological basis"? In that case, what do you call "natural origins"? And the amount of melanin a child will possess is determined by ethnicity not race? Where's your scientific backing on that one? Now you're really getting illogical.

ethnic - of or pertaining to a group of people recognized as a class on the basis of certain distinctive characteristics, such as religion, ancestry, culture, or national origin
(American Heritage Dictionary)

ethnicity - The condition of belonging to a particular ethnic group

No mention of melanin or any other physical traits in that definition, although I'll concede the point that "ethnic features" is a generally used term to refer to features associated with an ethnic group. However, the same people that talk about ethnic groups also believe in racial groups, of which ethnic groups are subsets, so that doesn't help your position much.

You really can't argue that ethnicity is more real than race as a dividing line and simultaneously argue that all humans are essentially genetically the same.

As far as your assertion that "all humans have melanin", that's a no brainer. Sure we all have melanin, but the racial background of your parentage determines _how much_ melanin you will possess, as a general rule. "Black" grandparents, "black" parents, you grow up with "Asian" features, as a general rule. Nothing in genetics is a sure thing (that's why there are mutations), but that's a pretty sure bet. And that, my friend, is the biological basis behind racial classification: physical features passed down as genetic traits.

>The fact that two
>>"black" parents are more likely
>>to have a "black" child
>>than two "white" parents is
>>indicative of _some_ genetic difference,
>
>yuck- thats a horribly simplistic view
>of reproduction ethnicity and genetics.

No matter how simplistic you claim it is, you can't refute it. And it's the biological basis for racial classifcation.

(back to your argument that people should be classified as national origin...since national origin is comprised of historical borders which are created through warfare and political compromise, I don't see how such an arbitrary distinction could be considered a more logical classification than race (which is equally arbitrary), when in certain countries, ethnic groups are divided by borders which were arbitrarily created during colonialism. European colonialism created most of the world's borders anyway, so national origin is a highly specious dividing line...what honestly seperates a Tutsi in Rwanda from a Tutsi in Burundi other than a border created by a European?)

Spread love,

Spirit
http://www.theamphibians.com

9 out of 10 people with two arms find something interesting about http://www.theamphibians.com
This summer: new audio, same odd sense of humor. Don't get "left" out, mossie your two-armed self on over and check it out.