The myth of race: Why are we divided by race when there is no such thing?

Before some of you misunderstand my statement that some breeds are more intelligent than others. let me make this point.

Studies have shown that humans have the highest success rate as couples when matched in intelligence among other factors. And truth be told, the more highly intelligent are far more likely to marry inter-racially than any other type of human is to marry inter-racially.


So this statement if some groups being more intelligent, as some breeds of dogs are, is not a racist statement, it is just a simple truth with no connotation either way. I was referring on page 3 to within groups. You tend to see the same group of related people in control and smarter within a given (breed) (racial) group etc.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

what they are saying is that there is no "hard/fast" rule for what you will find in a race. You can limit it to skin color, but even that isn't exactly very apt. Since you have all manner of skin tone among all racial groupings.

There is no hard and fast rules, which means that from a biological standpoint there is no basis for the term "race". A good example: olmec heads. they look like africans, but we can find ample examples of all skin colors that have those exact facial features. Including some of the indigenous folks in the region that the olmec heads are found.

originally posted by: MX61000
I went back an read your comments, that was others that label me as racist.
Anyone who knows me knows I'm not racist.
I'm just one who stands for the truth regardless to who it may condemn.
a reply to: InhaleExhale

you went back and read my comments?



Seriously?


So you call others trolls and reply to posts you don't read?



Anyone who knows you?


You are on a anonymous internet blog site, who knows you has very little relevance here, that's the truth and you don't seem to strand for it because everything you posting is going the opposite direction.

Condemn yourself as only you know your wrong doings and can only speculate at others.

The term "race" when applied to humans doesn't mean the same thing as it does when talking about animals. Everyone understands that "race" means...black, white, hispanic- whatever. I even wonder if it is just an english language thing. Does anyone know the direct translation for other languages when the term "white/black/etc race" is used?

I don't like "breed" as then people will start to refer to some breeds as inferior or not pure bred and such.

I used to like "flavor" but as I get older that just sounds silly.

We really need to decide on something. Can we take a vote?

For the record I can't stand some we use today, alone or in groups.

"African American" bugs me because it implies nationality. Seems like all kids (in the U.S. anyway) have the misunderstanding that all black people are Americans. One time my young (at the time) son got told I shouldn't refer to Lennox Lewis as black, but as african american ... and just lately there was crime and the news reported unknown suspect as "African American" ... I thought he was unknown? Maybe he was Nigerian or Kenyan. Also it isn't consistent with "white" (as a programmer I'm obsessed with consistency.)

So, if you use "white" you should use "black" right? Wait, no because then you have to use "red", "brown", "yellow" to stay consistent...and that's not going to fly.

I have no idea what the correct terminology we should use, but let's lay down some rules as we do need a way to describe our different geographical origins and physical traits.
1. Consistency. All terms used to describe different peoples should be comparable to the set.
2. Politically Correct. No terms used to describe different peoples should be perceived as derogatory in any way.
3. Intuitive. Terms used to describe different peoples should be clear and obvious.

OK, go.

a reply to: grandmakdw

While austrian/hungarian people may have a very storied background in promoting some of the sciences we are using today, that says nothing about their intelligence. Or anyone elses. sure, the bantu people didn't invent nuclear physics. because the culture had no use for it.

Intelligence translates fairly equally across all peoples. at least in my experience. the difference is in experience, background, and culture.

Meanwhile, any less intelligent "race" can still tell you how to survive a night without being eaten by any manner of beast looking to eat you. I completely different measurement of what is intelligence. some would even say that surviving a night is of greater importance than building a nuclear reactor. That whole Mazlow thing.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I gave a good, I think, and very simple, I think, explanation of the OP on page 3.

You must have missed it as there were a lot of posts between the time I started the simple explanation and the time it was posted.

I taught in a couple of major universities and students always had a hard time with the science and truth of it.

Why, because society has brainwashed them so thoroughly with mythology of race that the science was hard to grasp for them.

a reply to: RedParrotHead

The closest a race is on animal levels is breed. Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, race isn't on the taxonomic scale.

a reply to: RedParrotHead

Personally I perfer the term African American as an ethnic identifier it points to a place of ancestral origins with an American cultural experience and nationality I am cool with Black but it only somewhat describe my complexion and not even that accurately,although I sometimes go by Jamaican American or just plain ol American until someone digs further..but thats just me Iam easy like that.

Yet cats have many different 'races' lions, tigers, Civets, mountain lions, snow tigers, Bengal tigers, Siberian tigers, they can inter breed, just like human 'races' but are totally different to each other, just like human races, I am human, white, anglo-saxon, not brown-Aryan, (from the Indian subcontinent, as they are the original Aryans), so why the hysteria about 'race' I consider my 'race' to be white-Anglo-Saxon, with a smattering of Norse from about forty generations ago.

a reply to: RedParrotHead


I used the term breed because someone asked for a very simple explanation - see page 3.

That is the simplest and most easily understood explanation of how races developed.

Truly probably culture would be a better "classification" of race, if you want a classification system.

We should hold onto different cultures, as they add flavor, and each provides its own wisdom for the rest of humanity.

Preserving "race" as a construct is NOT something we should do as humans,

because it has become a catchall for the worst of bigotry and hatred.

We can all enjoy and celebrate culture, the foods, the clothing, the wisdom teachings and embrace them as a part of our heritage.

Why do you insist to fuel the fire... And no I don't read the entire post when multiple people are trying to oppose me, I don't read nonsense. Please get back on topic Mr and stop worrying about me.
a reply to: InhaleExhale

a reply to: grandmakdw

I understand all that. My ONLY issue was with the word BIOLOGY and the statement that "race is not a part of our biology". The physical differences associated with what we call "race" are biological. I don't think there are ANY non-physical differences in what we call "races". We are all one people with the same potential. But the physical differences are biological, as sure as my dark eyes and hair are biological. Yes, I have these traits because of where my ancestors were born, but they are biological, nonetheless.

Besides, I have German Shepherds. Some breeds ARE smarter than others. It's part of their biology. That's why I can't equate races to breeds. Some breeds are more stubborn, some are more prone to aggression, some easier to train, some have long hair, some are fuzzy, but it's ALL biological, not cultural.

I don't agree with the premise in the OP (as I understand it) that skin color, nose shape, hair texture, etc, are not biological.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Yes the word "race" as is currently applied to humans is a misnomer. What is actually meant is " breed" but that term, although more accurate, has been deemed offensive. However, just as all breeds of dogs are not necessarily equal in intelligence, temperament and whatnot, likewise with phenotypes of humans.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


I knew that would be a problem. The intelligence comment. I didn't not mean to imply any one specific breed of human is more intelligent than another breed.

As I said in an earlier post: The most successful human pair bonding's are between those of equal intelligence.

The more intelligent the human, the more likely they are to marry someone of a different race, but equal intelligence.

Make of that what you will, but I'm not saying any one breed of humans is smarter than another breed, it was simply an analogy I was making to help people try and understand the concept that there is no such thing as race.

originally posted by: pikestaff
Yet cats have many different 'races' lions, tigers, Civets, mountain lions, snow tigers, Bengal tigers, Siberian tigers, they can inter breed, just like human 'races' but are totally different to each other, just like human races, I am human, white, anglo-saxon, not brown-Aryan, (from the Indian subcontinent, as they are the original Aryans), so why the hysteria about 'race' I consider my 'race' to be white-Anglo-Saxon, with a smattering of Norse from about forty generations ago.

That's only your various ethnic strands that you know of if you have one or two non white -Anglo Saxon in your ancestral tree does it alter anything

I mean this guy lived in Anglo Saxon England and could very well be in your family tree,how different would that make you..perhap it wouldn't change a thing but he would still be an ancestor.

originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: RedParrotHead

Personally I perfer the term African American as an ethnic identifier it points to a place of ancestral origins with an American cultural experience and nationality I am cool with Black but it only somewhat describe my complexion and not even that accurately,although I sometimes go by Jamaican American or just plain ol American until someone digs further..but thats just me Iam easy like that.

OK but don't see the problem with using "African-American" as a standard term for all "black" people? I'd be more comfortable with this formula: "blank" of "blank" decent...as in 'American of African decent' or 'American of European decent' but I guess that's not very specific.

As a parent it was a truly amazing time when my children were at that age when they could speak well but before they recognized race. I would get a kick out of asking them to describe their friends...it was always "he has black, curly hair" or "she has blue eyes" or "he has a big smile" ...

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
I don't agree with the premise in the OP (as I understand it) that skin color, nose shape, hair texture, etc, are not biological.

I agree with you, I think it is an overly simplified and overly politically correct way to approach the topic.

originally posted by: MX61000
Why do you insist to fuel the fire... And no I don't read the entire post when multiple people are trying to oppose me, I don't read nonsense. Please get back on topic Mr and stop worrying about me.
a reply to: InhaleExhale

There was no fire until you started one in this thread, I am attempting to pour water over the flames you brought but you are having none of it I see.

enjoy the heat you create for yourself and don't complain when it gets to hot and you keep getting burnt.

The topic is a myth of race is it not?

Race or the concept of ... has been used to divide and conquer large groups, whole nations at times when its not used to divide nations internally.

I am trying to fuel the unity that can be found in the idea that race is myth, not trying to fuel your fire of division or worrying about you (a little worry towards you as you can be a part of the party where we all celebrate our differences instead condemn them) but it seems any action or recognition towards you does the opposite, so I will stop trying fuel what I want to and what you believe is being fueled.


Have a nice day.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: grandmakdw

While austrian/hungarian people may have a very storied background in promoting some of the sciences we are using today, that says nothing about their intelligence. Or anyone elses. sure, the bantu people didn't invent nuclear physics. because the culture had no use for it.

Intelligence translates fairly equally across all peoples. at least in my experience. the difference is in experience, background, and culture.

Meanwhile, any less intelligent "race" can still tell you how to survive a night without being eaten by any manner of beast looking to eat you. I completely different measurement of what is intelligence. some would even say that surviving a night is of greater importance than building a nuclear reactor. That whole Mazlow thing.

I do not disagree with you.

I went back and revised my earlier posts to clarify, as I realized from your comments that they were not clear and easily misunderstood.

originally posted by: RedParrotHead

originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: RedParrotHead

Personally I perfer the term African American as an ethnic identifier it points to a place of ancestral origins with an American cultural experience and nationality I am cool with Black but it only somewhat describe my complexion and not even that accurately,although I sometimes go by Jamaican American or just plain ol American until someone digs further..but thats just me Iam easy like that.

OK but don't see the problem with using "African-American" as a standard term for all "black" people? I'd be more comfortable with this formula: "blank" of "blank" decent...as in 'American of African decent' or 'American of European decent' but I guess that's not very specific.

As a parent it was a truly amazing time when my children were at that age when they could speak well but before they recognized race. I would get a kick out of asking them to describe their friends...it was always "he has black, curly hair" or "she has blue eyes" or "he has a big smile" ...

Well I hear on that put two kids in a sand box and it's all about getting dirty as they get older they will notice the differences but place no value judgment on it, that will come later with societies encouragement if they hold true through out their adult years then count that as a win.