Re: "Racial" medicine

On Sat, 6 May 2006 03:24:05 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins ,
dmcanzi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (David Canzi -- non-mailable) in
<e3h4sl$je7$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <brqn5290m45ue5tv5gk2r717a527ag644a@xxxxxxx>,
r norman <NotMyRealEmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 6 May 2006 00:04:29 +0000 (UTC),
dmcanzi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (David Canzi -- non-mailable) wrote:
There is no clear-cut demarcation, therefore the distinction
between chairs and benches is invalid and they must be considered
indistinguishably the same kind of furniture.

Are you trying to make a point here? If so, what would it be?

It is quite obvious that there are chairs and there are benches. It
is quite obvious that there are people who look "black" and people who
look "white". The point is that there is not a valid biological
category "black" or "white".

If a black couple had a white child, you would be surprised and
so, probably, would the husband. Similarly if a white couple had
a black child. So the difference in appearance between people
originating from different regions of the world is a biological
phenomenon. What makes it "invalid"? I'll skip here to the
point where you confirmed my suspicions:

If you wish to sort on one characteristic, the amount of melanin in
the skin, you can do so easily. It is when you try to associate other
characteristics with that one characteristic that you get serious
problems. Do you think that "race" just means skin color or do you
have something else in mind?

[snip]

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

.

Quantcast