>>>The fact of the matter is
>>>if we are to conduct
>>>ourselves and our society farily
>>>and truthfully then we are
>>>obligated to admit to ourselves
>>>and one another that race
>>>classifications have no basis in
>>>science or biology.
>>
>>That sounds lovely, but I don't
>>see how it solves any
>>of the issues currently facing
>>black people. Folks have been
>>saying "we're all human" for
>>decades now.
>
>THIS IS SILLY- that problem IS
>the very issue that has
>faced Black people since the
>beginning of colonialism and racist
>theory. Its not just the
>oppression of race ideology it
>is that the ideology itself
>encourages such oppression.
>Folks may have been saying "we're
>all human" but as long
>as we continue to allow
>people to say they are
>"white" and as long as
>we allow the government to
>recognize them as such then
>they are quite simply saying
>that we are all human
>but some of us are
>"less human" as that is
>the idea that race ideology
>professes.

frankly, the usage of "white" as a group identifier, even if it was erased, wouldn't change the economic and social status of "black" people.

If that is the
>case then the logical conclusion
>is that we be dominated
>by the superior race- i
>would call that a pretty
>current problem.
>
>>also, if race had "no basis
>>in biology", how do you
>>explain the re-occurence of racial
>>traits among certain groups?
>
>what traits are those? thick lips,
>"nappy hair" those are ethnic
>traits of african peoples. dark
>curly hair - those would
>be traits of middle eastern
>people, red hair- irish peoples
>etc.

exactly. why are two brown people more likely to have a brown baby than two "white" people? if the odds of a baby from similarly hued parents sharing the parental hue (or close to that hue), isn't that *some* biological basis for racial classification? By saying there is *no* biological basis for racial classification, you speak contrary to common sense and basic genetics. Surely you must acknowledge that two "black" parents are more likely to reproduce a "black" baby than two "white" parents.

>the "racial traits" of white people
>is that they are supposedly
>less similar to apes, other
>traits like plae skin and
>thin hair

APES HAVE PALE SKIN AND THIN HAIR (look at a baboon's pink behind for the evidence...under their often black hair, they are pale). Yes, Darwin was wrong about the whole "ape/racial theory". That doesn't mean that there is no validity to racial classification...frankly, the fact that babies from "same race" parents exhibit, more often than not, similar racial traits (hair type, some facial features) is evidence that there is some correlation between racial classification and biology.

>Study genetics there is no genetic
>difference between supposedly white and
>supposedly black people.

there is enough of a genetic difference to result in higher incidences of certain hair types, skin tones, and facial features across racial groups.

> There is
>howvere a difference in ethnicty
>and that fosters the variance
>that you suggest.

Granted, you can break down larger racial groups into ethnicities, but there are also similarities across racial groups. This is how people visually identify race, 99 times out of 100 (surely you will admit that there are physical generalities about blacks as a group that 99% of the time allow you to visually identify someone as "black").

>if a jewish person had a
>baby with a so-called "white"
>person
>
>what would the baby be?

"Jew" has never been one of the main racial types (negroid, caucasoid, mongolian and...??). also, the terminology "black Jew" is indicative implictly of an acknowledgement that Jews are not a homogenous racial group, but rather a diverse ethnic group.

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.