I have no idea if black Africans are less intelligent than white Europeans or vice versa, or if they are of equal intelligence. James Watson seems to believe they are and has so stated. There are now those who are calling for him to be legally punished for his remarks. "It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."

While what Watson has said is unpopular and runs counter to accepted thinking he should not be forbidden to say it. James Watson is not simply some streetcorner kook ranting from a soapbox in Hyde Park Speaker's Corner. He is a respected scientist who shared the Nobel Prize for his work on DNA.

Stifling ideas simply because they are unpopular or run counter to current, accepted thinking is seldom a good idea.



Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners
Celebrated scientist attacked for race comments: "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really"
By Cahal Milmo
Published: 17 October 2007
One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.

The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks " in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of " scientific racism".

Dr Watson arrives in Britain today for a speaking tour to publicise his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Among his first engagements is a speech to an audience at the Science Museum organised by the Dana Centre, which held a discussion last night on the history of scientific racism.

Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.

"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."

The American scientist earned a place in the history of great scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s and formed part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA. He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins.

But despite serving for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics, Dr Watson has frequently courted controversy with some of his views on politics, sexuality and race. The respected journal Science wrote in 1990: "To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script."

In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that " stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."

The Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory said yesterday that Dr Watson could not be contacted to comment on his remarks.

Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: " This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."

Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece

interesting thread...frankly i don't know if some races have more intelligence than some other ones, and i'm not sure on the meaning of intelligence..i mean: what is the unit of measurement of the intelligence?
maybe everyone has got a unique type of intelligence and by the way i don't know 2 people who have equal intelligence

Howard Gardner recognizes seven distinct intelligences.

1. Linguistic
Children with this kind of intelligence enjoy writing, reading, telling stories or doing crossword puzzles.

2. Logical-Mathematical
Children with lots of logical intelligence are interested in patterns, categories and relationships. They are drawn to arithmetic problems, strategy games and experiments.

3. Bodily-Kinesthetic
These kids process knowledge through bodily sensations. They are often athletic, dancers or good at crafts such as sewing or woodworking.

4. Spatial
These children think in images and pictures. They may be fascinated with mazes or jigsaw puzzles, or spend free time drawing, building with Leggos or daydreaming.

5. Musical
Musical children are always singing or drumming to themselves. They are usually quite aware of sounds others may miss. These kids are often discriminating listeners.

6. Interpersonal
Children who are leaders among their peers, who are good at communicating and who seem to understand others' feelings and motives possess interpersonal intelligence.

7. Intrapersonal
These children may be shy. They are very aware of their own feelings and are self-motivated.

What we commonly recognize as intelligence is usually a combination of linguistic, logical and perhaps musical intelligence. We might also include interpersonal intelligence.

Kinesthetic, spatial and intrapersonal intelligence are not usually recognized by most people. The majority of people do not consider athletes to be intelligent. In fact there is the generalizaation of athletes as being unintelligent, ie. the dumb jock. Artist and people who tend to keep to themselves are also not usually high on the list of intelligent people although some, like DaVinci who were artist as well as scientist are considered highly intelligent.

I think Dr. Gardner is talking about that type intelligence that manifest itself in problem solving and being able to communicate which would be linguistic and logical/mathematical intelligence.

Howard Gardner recognizes seven distinct intelligences.

1. Linguistic
Children with this kind of intelligence enjoy writing, reading, telling stories or doing crossword puzzles.

2. Logical-Mathematical
Children with lots of logical intelligence are interested in patterns, categories and relationships. They are drawn to arithmetic problems, strategy games and experiments.

3. Bodily-Kinesthetic
These kids process knowledge through bodily sensations. They are often athletic, dancers or good at crafts such as sewing or woodworking.

4. Spatial
These children think in images and pictures. They may be fascinated with mazes or jigsaw puzzles, or spend free time drawing, building with Leggos or daydreaming.

5. Musical
Musical children are always singing or drumming to themselves. They are usually quite aware of sounds others may miss. These kids are often discriminating listeners.

6. Interpersonal
Children who are leaders among their peers, who are good at communicating and who seem to understand others' feelings and motives possess interpersonal intelligence.

7. Intrapersonal
These children may be shy. They are very aware of their own feelings and are self-motivated.

What we commonly recognize as intelligence is usually a combination of linguistic, logical and perhaps musical intelligence. We might also include interpersonal intelligence.

Kinesthetic, spatial and intrapersonal intelligence are not usually recognized by most people. The majority of people do not consider athletes to be intelligent. In fact there is the generalizaation of athletes as being unintelligent, ie. the dumb jock. Artist and people who tend to keep to themselves are also not usually high on the list of intelligent people although some, like DaVinci who were artist as well as scientist are considered highly intelligent.

I think Dr. Gardner is talking about that type intelligence that manifest itself in problem solving and being able to communicate which would be linguistic and logical/mathematical intelligence.

sounds so interesting..could u reccomend me a good book about that argument? :)

Years back I attended a series of lectures by Howard Gardner and found him to have one of the most boring lecturing styles I have ever encountered. He seems to be lacking in the field of Interpersonal Intelligence. That lack of communicating ability does not carry over to his books though. I would recommend any of the following books written by him.


Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences


Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice


Five Minds for the Future


Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century more books


Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons

Years back I attended a series of lectures by Howard Gardner and found him to have one of the most boring lecturing styles I have ever encountered. He seems to be lacking in the field of Interpersonal Intelligence. That lack of communicating ability does not carry over to his books though. I would recommend any of the following books written by him.


Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences


Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice


Five Minds for the Future


Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century more books


Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons

thanks, i hope i'll find one of those books in an italian edition somewhere, this argument is quite fascinating :)

...thanks, i hope i'll find one of those books in an italian edition somewhere

I know how frustrating it can be to find books in a foreign language. I spent quite a bit of time before I found an English language book in Firenza that I could read on the airplane ride back to the United States. I finally found one in a book store that had books in quite a few foreign languages, including English.

Howard Gardner recognizes seven distinct intelligences.

1. Linguistic
Children with this kind of intelligence enjoy writing, reading, telling stories or doing crossword puzzles.

2. Logical-Mathematical
Children with lots of logical intelligence are interested in patterns, categories and relationships. They are drawn to arithmetic problems, strategy games and experiments.

3. Bodily-Kinesthetic
These kids process knowledge through bodily sensations. They are often athletic, dancers or good at crafts such as sewing or woodworking.

4. Spatial
These children think in images and pictures. They may be fascinated with mazes or jigsaw puzzles, or spend free time drawing, building with Leggos or daydreaming.

5. Musical
Musical children are always singing or drumming to themselves. They are usually quite aware of sounds others may miss. These kids are often discriminating listeners.

6. Interpersonal
Children who are leaders among their peers, who are good at communicating and who seem to understand others' feelings and motives possess interpersonal intelligence.

7. Intrapersonal
These children may be shy. They are very aware of their own feelings and are self-motivated.

What we commonly recognize as intelligence is usually a combination of linguistic, logical and perhaps musical intelligence. We might also include interpersonal intelligence.

Kinesthetic, spatial and intrapersonal intelligence are not usually recognized by most people. The majority of people do not consider athletes to be intelligent. In fact there is the generalizaation of athletes as being unintelligent, ie. the dumb jock. Artist and people who tend to keep to themselves are also not usually high on the list of intelligent people although some, like DaVinci who were artist as well as scientist are considered highly intelligent.

I think Dr. Gardner is talking about that type intelligence that manifest itself in problem solving and being able to communicate which would be linguistic and logical/mathematical intelligence.
None of which can be measured properly. Intelligence is a vague, misunderstood and misapplied concept. The idea to test it scientifically came about in the fifties, and selective testing was used to give about the impression that science favored whites over blacks. No matter how smart James Watson is, he's a product of his times like anyone else, and was just as likely to be racist as anybody else. We're still in the stone age of cognitive science, and letting Watson tell us who's smarter than anyone else is relying on flint and steel.

None of which can be measured properly. Intelligence is a vague, misunderstood and misapplied concept. The idea to test it scientifically came about in the fifties, and selective testing was used to give about the impression that science favored whites over blacks. No matter how smart James Watson is, he's a product of his times like anyone else, and was just as likely to be racist as anybody else. We're still in the stone age of cognitive science, and letting Watson tell us who's smarter than anyone else is relying on flint and steel.


Not allowing him to have his say because of political correctness is worse than relying on flint and steel. It is living in the dark.

C'mon Frogger. We don't build cars the same way Henry Ford did, we shouldn't use fifty year old conceptions of how the mind works. Watson isn't talking politically, he's talking scientifically. We have a bright new scientific field relating to the brain, it's called cognitive science. Get with the times, man!

Napsterbater,

I am not endorsing Watson's views. I am saying that trying to squelch unpopular views because you don't like them is wrong. Allow science to do the investigating. If Watson is wrong it will soon be evident. If he is not wrong it will have implications for how we deal with African nations. He is probably wrong but that is for science to decide not some politically correct people who want to keep him from having his say.

Well, one could start with this Wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

Your Wiki article does nothing to address the question of whether unpopular scientific theories are to be not studied or discussed simply because they are not politically correct.

None of which can be measured properly. Intelligence is a vague, misunderstood and misapplied concept. The idea to test it scientifically came about in the fifties, and selective testing was used to give about the impression that science favored whites over blacks. No matter how smart James Watson is, he's a product of his times like anyone else, and was just as likely to be racist as anybody else. We're still in the stone age of cognitive science, and letting Watson tell us who's smarter than anyone else is relying on flint and steel.


I would hypothesize that blacks are more athletic than other races. Does that make me a racist too?

He is a respected scientist who shared the Nobel Prize for his work on DNA.I've noticed that some folks around here are not impressed by Nobel recognition, lately. (Or do they just hate Al Gore?):drinktoth

I would hypothesize that blacks are more athletic than other races. Does that make me a racist too?

Are you referring to blacks who have ancient ties to the United States or blacks overall? Very unpopular commentary from some years back theorized that selective breeding by slave owners has a lot to do with that idea.

Are you referring to blacks who have ancient ties to the United States or blacks overall? Very unpopular commentary from some years back theorized that selective breeding by slave owners has a lot to do with that idea.

I'll restrict my hypothesis to blacks in the U.S. I won't speculate as to the reasons why they would be more athletic.

Your Wiki article does nothing to address the question of whether unpopular scientific theories are to be not studied or discussed simply because they are not politically correct.This is Ahmedinijab's argument re the Holocaust.

I'll restrict my hypothesis to blacks in the U.S. I won't speculate as to the reasons why they would be more athletic.Muscle density is directly linked to explosiveness. As a rule, blacks have greater mucsle density, which may partly explain their success in certain (explosive) sports.

I would say Asians are smarter then whites. I am white, does that make me a racist?

This is Ahmedinijab's argument re the Holocaust.

While I don't agree with Ahmedinijab's contention that the holocaust did not take place I also don't agree with those who say we cannot discuss the matter. No matters should be closed to discussion simply because some people say they should. All ideas deserve a public hearing. Those that are found to have no merit will be discredited.

Agreed.

I would say Asians are smarter then whites. I am white, does that make me a racist?
Nah,that makes you dumber than Asians.

On average, blacks have greater mucsle density, which may partly explain their success in certain (explosive) sports.
FTFY

Your Wiki article does nothing to address the question of whether unpopular scientific theories are to be not studied or discussed simply because they are not politically correct.
Why should it? I never said Watson shouldn't be listened to because he wasn't politically correct, I said he was doing stone age science.

FTFYWhat? I guess I'm an old dog. Translation for the poor!

FTFY = fixed that for you. In other words, Nappy was doing you a favor!

I'll take payment in USD, checks, or money orders.

I definitely agree with you, Frogger. He should not be shut up just because his views are politically incorrect and possibly wrong. The accuracy of his claims shall eventually become clear.

I'm not saying he should shut up. I'm saying people shouldn't listen to him. Big difference.

I'm not saying he should shut up. I'm saying people shouldn't listen to him. Big difference.
I didn't say anything about you. I was replying to Frogger's original opinion.

I bet most intelligence tests are biased in favour of a particular culture. Normally the culture of the test developer.
I'd like to see how North Americans would score on tests developed by say Australian aboriginals, Amazonian tribes, or African nomads. What's important to them is probably unknown to us and we'd fail abysmally.

FTFYJust curious: What do you find unacceptable about the phrase "as a rule" in this usage?

rule: 2 a (1): a usually valid generalization (2): a generally prevailing quality, state, or mode <fair weather was the rule yesterday — New York Times> b: a standard of judgment : criterion c: a regulating principle

(btw, you missed the FTFY potential as it relates to the transposed s & c in muscle.:cool:)

I bet most intelligence tests are biased in favour of a particular culture. Normally the culture of the test developer.
I'd like to see how North Americans would score on tests developed by say Australian aboriginals, Amazonian tribes, or African nomads. What's important to them is probably unknown to us and we'd fail abysmally.Bingo!

Just curious: What do you find unacceptable about the phrase "as a rule" in this usage?

rule: 2 a (1): a usually valid generalization (2): a generally prevailing quality, state, or mode <fair weather was the rule yesterday — New York Times> b: a standard of judgment : criterion c: a regulating principle

(btw, you missed the FTFY potential as it relates to the transposed s & c in muscle.:cool:)
Simple. Because this "rule" doesn't bear out in many cases. A black grandma is unlikely to have more muscle density than a white athlete. It doesn't make sense to use it as a standard of judgment, because only in a specific case does the statement make sense, when comparing black athletes to white athletes.

So is there no way to guage human intelligence between races? There are experiences ive had of differences in intelligence among races in job related tests where certain races predominantly score lower then other races. It's not a scientific way of quantification, but is there anything we can understand from an example like this? Do we just discount personal experience because it didnt take place in a laboratory?

Are cultures that different among north american races that a test created for north americans is biased towards/against a race always? Are there any intelligence tests that are accepted as non-biased?

Simple. Because this "rule" doesn't bear out in many cases. A black grandma is unlikely to have more muscle density than a white athlete. It doesn't make sense to use it as a standard of judgment, because only in a specific case does the statement make sense, when comparing black athletes to white athletes.Sorry I didn't spell out the controls. It seemed obvious to me.

The point was this: all other things being similar, the black subject will, as a rule, have greater muscle density than the white subject. This is not a matter of training, but of genetics. It is not a function of fitness, rather a predictor of one, for certain explosive types of activities.

http://run-down.com/guests/je_black_athletes_p2.php

Read the above article and you will see that while Shiloproject should have been talking about slow twitch vs fast twitch muscles, his, 'as a rule' statement is true and there was no reason for Napsterbater to correct it since his correction was itself incorrect.

I bet most intelligence tests are biased in favour of a particular culture. Normally the culture of the test developer.
I'd like to see how North Americans would score on tests developed by say Australian aboriginals, Amazonian tribes, or African nomads. What's important to them is probably unknown to us and we'd fail abysmally.

It's funny you say this because the highest scorers on North American IQ tests are East Asians and Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Race

Do you think that means American tests have a cultural bias toward Asians?

Read the above article and you will see that while Shiloproject should have been talking about slow twitch vs fast twitch muscles...The "twitch facter," as we lunks in the gym call it, is often viewed as a performance characteristic, but the density issue is one of physical "stuff." All generalizations have exceptions, of course. I am 6'0" and weigh about 215, but you'd never know it by looking, as my waist is still the 32" it was in college. Density is how much stuff is stuffed into a given volume, and stuff.:cool:

But I fear we have highjacked Leper's thread. Sorry, Lep.

Do you think that means American tests have a cultural bias toward Asians?

No, I think it means that Asian cultures value a lot of the same things as we do.

No, I think it means that Asian cultures value a lot of the same things as we do.

I disagree. There is a Pacific-Ocean-sized difference between Asian and American culture.

Face it. Your cultural bias argument holds no water when a foreign culture scores better on the intelligence test.

You guys may find this, if nothing else, pretty interesting and fun:

http://wilderdom.com/personality/intelligenceCulturalBias.html

I disagree. There is a Pacific-Ocean-sized difference between Asian and American culture.

Face it. Your cultural bias argument holds no water when a foreign culture scores better on the intelligence test.

Of course there are cultural differences. However their educational standards, general concepts of civilized behaviour and overall lifestyles are not that dis-similar.
Perhaps it is the differences between the cultures that make our intelligence tests easy for them.

Fascinating, I particularly liked the aboriginal test. I failed abysmally.

however i really think races don't exist, it's just a myth in my opinion...in the world history there have been hundreds or, better, thousands of migrations..in italy there have been hundreds of preromanic ppl (picens, etrurians, celts, greeks and so on), cartaginians, slaves from each part of the roman empire, goths, illiric populations, etc etc etc...same happened everywhere on the earth, so how can we talk about the races? maybe just a race exists: the human one

Valentina


While in some countries races have intermingled so much that the original races may not be discernable races still exist. There are genetic differences among the different races, epicanthic fold, fast twitch/slow twitch muscles, facial features, etc.. While it is true that in Italy, particularly Sicily, many different people contributed to the current gene pool Italians are still basically members of the Caucasian race. The people you mentioned, are all members of the white race. The only non-whites who entered the Italian gene pool in any numbers were the moors who were at one time in Sicily.



There is nothing wrong with recognizing different races. There is nothing wrong with recognizing inherent differences among the different races. The only wrong is when members of a race are treated unfairly because they are members of that race.


Dr. D.R.Johnson
The fact that cultures evolve in different places and at different rates tends to segregate man into distinct groups. The presence of distinct groups tends to lead to genetic divergence.

These two facts are both plausible, but the second does not necessarily follow from the first. A group of animals that cannot, or normally does not breed with another group to produce fertile offspring is a species. Often we have to infer this with fossils, until better evidence comes along. Yet we have seen gradual transitions between say habilis and erectus, and who is to say that Neanderthals didn't breed with sapiens to produce those troublesome intermediate types? As far as we know all groups of modern man have always been able to interbreed, and have interbred where this is Geographically feasible. Overlap has produced hybridisation - there are no pure races of man.

But there are still major groupings of interrelated people possessing distinctive physical traits which are the result of inheritance. If I say to you Negro, or Chinaman, or Aborigine, or Amerindian a picture appears of distinct facial and body type. General anatomical relationships indicate common ancestry. In 1961 this table was published in Teach Yourself Anthropology

At present our view of these racial groupings is a snapshot: a snapshot taken a hundred years ago and one taken in a hundred years time would be very different. Races are changing, and always have. They are probably changing now faster than ever before.

We have seen that what would probably nowadays be called racial differences were present between different forms of habilis, of erectus and the early sapiens types: so it is not surprising that they are present today. But these differences within populations make it difficult to trace exactly where modern man came from and when.

Molecular data, such as blood grouping, DNA analysis and linguistic studies all point to an African origin for man, as indeed does the fossil record. However the timing and pattern of the subsequent spread are as controversial as ever. Also molecular and morphological traits are not necessarily coupled: a tool which gives a 99% likeness between man and chimp is obviously not a good discriminator, and the molecular data may well be recording the earlier spread of H erectus early sapiens out of Africa rather than the radiation of modern man. DNA data relies on the rate of mutation of its bases: if DNA evolution is constant then the differentiation of modern populations must have been >0.25 - 0.75 mya - i.e. in the erectus phase. If DNA evolution is not constant we can't use it as a tool.

There are also problems with the data. The original 'out of Africa' hypothesis was based upon phylogenetic trees which in turn reflected the DNA structure of population from all over the world. A shortest possible tree was constructed to relate all these samples to each other. Subsequent re-analysis has shown at least 10,000 other possible trees with 5 less steps than the original - some not based on Africa. So there are two more problems: the shortest tree isn't and there are another 10,000 choices, all as good as each other. Also the preferred trees do not reflect similarities in morphological traits.

So, we don't have a detailed pedigree of where we came from, and we know that races are changing. But how do we account for the sets of characteristics which define a Chinese or a Red Indian? As Biologists we can sort out some likely causes:

Mutation. Changes occur in the structure of the genetic material
Natural selection. Such changes may have survival value
Genetic drift: if a breakaway group has some genetic characters unlike those of a main population, then after a time divergence may occur
Population mixture will bring in different genes.
What do we choose as racial characteristics? Taking Teach Yourself Anthropology as a guide we can say usually things that are biologically trivial, and usually things that are very visible.
Skin Colour
Probably the most visible characteristic is skin colour. Historically long standing division into white, yellow and black. This is probably due originally to mutation: the classic story says that a darker pigment will give more protection against the sun. Probably more likely, if we believe an out of Africa scenario is that mutation giving a less pigmented skin allowed greater synthesis of vitamin D from the rather reduced sunshine of northern areas. Anyway, there was presumably a selective advantage. Skin colour is therefore a good racial classifier, highly visible, not terribly accurate (some Caucasoid races are darker than some Negroids and there is a huge range of variation).

Eye colour
All non-Caucasoid populations have a dark brown or a black iris: Caucasoids have a range from light blue to brown. Many Asiatics have an epicanthic fold over the inner cornea of the eye which gives there appearance of a slant

Hair colour and texture
Hair is dark and woolly in Negroids, straighter and lighter coloured in most Caucasoids, black and flat in cross section in Chinese.

Other indices
Cephalic index has also been used i.e. relative broadness of the head. This is not really useful because of inter-group variability. Stature, nose shape, lips, ears and body hair have also been used. Blood groups are useful - Caucasians and Asiatics have a very similar distribution, American Indians are largely O

Overlaps
Of course these are generalisations and there is much variation: Swedes are tall, fair haired and blue eyed aren't they? Well 11% of them are according to the Swedish army recruiting figures.

But even allowing for overlaps and generalisations and mixtures we can classify three broad racial types in the modern world.

Caucasoids. 1,000 million people with variable skin colour; white-dark brown. Hair variable, never woolly, body hair often thick. Lips tend to be thin. Three subdivisions exist, the Nordic, the Mediterranean and the Alpine.

The Nordic group are often tall, blonde and narrow headed - Scandinavia, Baltic, Germany, France, Britain The Mediterranean group (Southern France, Spain, Italy and oddly, Wales Egyptians, Semites, Persians, Afghans and some Indians. Lighter in body build, dark and narrow headed. The Alpine group extends from the Mediterranean to Asia. Broad headed, square jaws, olive skin, brown hair.

Mongoloids Most numerous of the present day populations, split into three groups

The Eastern Siberians, Eskimos and the Northern American Indians
The Japanese, Koreans, Chinese
The Indonesians and Malays
Negroids 100 million from Africa south of the Sahara and Melanesians of the S Pacific.
Others. We also have to fit in somewhere the Central African pigmies, the Bushmen and the Australoids.

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Lifescience/HumanRaces/RacesMan/RacesMan.htm

Valentina


While in some countries races have intermingled so much that the original races may not be discernable races still exist. There are genetic differences among the different races, epicanthic fold, fast twitch/slow twitch muscles, facial features, etc.. While it is true that in Italy, particularly Sicily, many different people contributed to the current gene pool Italians are still basically members of the Caucasian race. The people you mentioned, are all members of the white race. The only non-whites who entered the Italian gene pool in any numbers were the moors who were at one time in Sicily.



There is nothing wrong with recognizing different races. There is nothing wrong with recognizing inherent differences among the different races. The only wrong is when members of a race are treated unfairly because they are members of that race.


Dr. D.R.Johnson
The fact that cultures evolve in different places and at different rates tends to segregate man into distinct groups. The presence of distinct groups tends to lead to genetic divergence.

These two facts are both plausible, but the second does not necessarily follow from the first. A group of animals that cannot, or normally does not breed with another group to produce fertile offspring is a species. Often we have to infer this with fossils, until better evidence comes along. Yet we have seen gradual transitions between say habilis and erectus, and who is to say that Neanderthals didn't breed with sapiens to produce those troublesome intermediate types? As far as we know all groups of modern man have always been able to interbreed, and have interbred where this is Geographically feasible. Overlap has produced hybridisation - there are no pure races of man.

But there are still major groupings of interrelated people possessing distinctive physical traits which are the result of inheritance. If I say to you Negro, or Chinaman, or Aborigine, or Amerindian a picture appears of distinct facial and body type. General anatomical relationships indicate common ancestry. In 1961 this table was published in Teach Yourself Anthropology

At present our view of these racial groupings is a snapshot: a snapshot taken a hundred years ago and one taken in a hundred years time would be very different. Races are changing, and always have. They are probably changing now faster than ever before.

We have seen that what would probably nowadays be called racial differences were present between different forms of habilis, of erectus and the early sapiens types: so it is not surprising that they are present today. But these differences within populations make it difficult to trace exactly where modern man came from and when.

Molecular data, such as blood grouping, DNA analysis and linguistic studies all point to an African origin for man, as indeed does the fossil record. However the timing and pattern of the subsequent spread are as controversial as ever. Also molecular and morphological traits are not necessarily coupled: a tool which gives a 99% likeness between man and chimp is obviously not a good discriminator, and the molecular data may well be recording the earlier spread of H erectus early sapiens out of Africa rather than the radiation of modern man. DNA data relies on the rate of mutation of its bases: if DNA evolution is constant then the differentiation of modern populations must have been >0.25 - 0.75 mya - i.e. in the erectus phase. If DNA evolution is not constant we can't use it as a tool.

There are also problems with the data. The original 'out of Africa' hypothesis was based upon phylogenetic trees which in turn reflected the DNA structure of population from all over the world. A shortest possible tree was constructed to relate all these samples to each other. Subsequent re-analysis has shown at least 10,000 other possible trees with 5 less steps than the original - some not based on Africa. So there are two more problems: the shortest tree isn't and there are another 10,000 choices, all as good as each other. Also the preferred trees do not reflect similarities in morphological traits.

So, we don't have a detailed pedigree of where we came from, and we know that races are changing. But how do we account for the sets of characteristics which define a Chinese or a Red Indian? As Biologists we can sort out some likely causes:

Mutation. Changes occur in the structure of the genetic material
Natural selection. Such changes may have survival value
Genetic drift: if a breakaway group has some genetic characters unlike those of a main population, then after a time divergence may occur
Population mixture will bring in different genes.
What do we choose as racial characteristics? Taking Teach Yourself Anthropology as a guide we can say usually things that are biologically trivial, and usually things that are very visible.
Skin Colour
Probably the most visible characteristic is skin colour. Historically long standing division into white, yellow and black. This is probably due originally to mutation: the classic story says that a darker pigment will give more protection against the sun. Probably more likely, if we believe an out of Africa scenario is that mutation giving a less pigmented skin allowed greater synthesis of vitamin D from the rather reduced sunshine of northern areas. Anyway, there was presumably a selective advantage. Skin colour is therefore a good racial classifier, highly visible, not terribly accurate (some Caucasoid races are darker than some Negroids and there is a huge range of variation).

Eye colour
All non-Caucasoid populations have a dark brown or a black iris: Caucasoids have a range from light blue to brown. Many Asiatics have an epicanthic fold over the inner cornea of the eye which gives there appearance of a slant

Hair colour and texture
Hair is dark and woolly in Negroids, straighter and lighter coloured in most Caucasoids, black and flat in cross section in Chinese.

Other indices
Cephalic index has also been used i.e. relative broadness of the head. This is not really useful because of inter-group variability. Stature, nose shape, lips, ears and body hair have also been used. Blood groups are useful - Caucasians and Asiatics have a very similar distribution, American Indians are largely O

Overlaps
Of course these are generalisations and there is much variation: Swedes are tall, fair haired and blue eyed aren't they? Well 11% of them are according to the Swedish army recruiting figures.

But even allowing for overlaps and generalisations and mixtures we can classify three broad racial types in the modern world.

Caucasoids. 1,000 million people with variable skin colour; white-dark brown. Hair variable, never woolly, body hair often thick. Lips tend to be thin. Three subdivisions exist, the Nordic, the Mediterranean and the Alpine.

The Nordic group are often tall, blonde and narrow headed - Scandinavia, Baltic, Germany, France, Britain The Mediterranean group (Southern France, Spain, Italy and oddly, Wales Egyptians, Semites, Persians, Afghans and some Indians. Lighter in body build, dark and narrow headed. The Alpine group extends from the Mediterranean to Asia. Broad headed, square jaws, olive skin, brown hair.

Mongoloids Most numerous of the present day populations, split into three groups

The Eastern Siberians, Eskimos and the Northern American Indians
The Japanese, Koreans, Chinese
The Indonesians and Malays
Negroids 100 million from Africa south of the Sahara and Melanesians of the S Pacific.
Others. We also have to fit in somewhere the Central African pigmies, the Bushmen and the Australoids.

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Lifescience/HumanRaces/RacesMan/RacesMan.htm

very interesting, but i'd be more interested into those genetic differences: if we humans have 98% of the same genetic code of some primates, i could suppose that the differences among the humans would be something like 0.xxx per cent...and so why should we remark insignificant differences and not the fact that there aren't any significant differences among us all?

and finally this argumeng is quite dangerous in my opinion: if we start thinking that there are some genetic differences among the races, why shouldn't we think that some races are better than some other ones? this is exactly the thesis of the racial theories, based on the supremacy of some races

I think that there are significant differences between races (besides obvious physical qualities), although we have yet to sort out entirely which are genetic and which are simply cultural.

We are all Africans.

Valentina,

While we are all members of the same species and can therefore breed with and among each other we are not all the same. Some people are amalgamations or permutations of different races something that is more common today than in the past but in general one can still differentiate between a Sub-Saharan negro and a Nordic Caucasian. If a person from Beijing walks into a room he will be recognizable as being a member of the Mongolian race. To deny that there are different races is to deny reality. It might make you feel good but it is simply an exercise in self delusion.

And, yes, there are differences among the races. Many Caucasians have blue or green eyes, something no member of the Negro race have. The majority of Sub-Saharan Negros have what would be classified as wooly hair. Caucasians do not, nor do Asians.

There are even differences within the same race. Inuits, members of the Mongolian race can reduce the temperature of their extremities in order to keep the core body warmer, something other members of the Mongolian race cannot do. Not all Sub-Saharan Negroes are the same. Nilotic Negroes are tall and slender while many others are short and stocky. Some are almost black in color while others are more a cafe au lait color. Some Whites are very fair skinned while some are darker than some Negroes.

These differences do not negate the fact that there are different races though. You can divide the world into three major races, Negro, Caucasian and Asian or you can further divide it and include Negrito, Australasian, Polynesian, etc., but you cannot truthfully say there is only one race unless you are using a different definition of race than that being discussed in this thread.

We are all Africans.

While that theory was once accepted it is no longer considered to be definite. There are other theories that seem just as valid saying we are not all Africans.

frogger

I find this thread extremely interesting;by the way i still don't believe in the "myth" of the race. nevertheless
if you give me the scientific certainty of the existence of the races, i'll change my opinion because i think i'm an open-minded person.

First i gotta say i'd love a scientific approach on this argument: you have an hypothesis (existence of the races), and so you ought to:
1) tell me your predictions from that hypothesis
2) test that hypothesis with several experiments
3) have the confirmation of your predictions or you should change the hypothesis
But no experiments or tests can be done because i should live for a really long time, some thousands of years, to see if are right or wrong :) so the scientific approach doesn't work for this argument, and so i think i can say something different about that

I'm not sure about the existance of the "Races": i think the modern genetics can't tell us if your hypothesis is correct and genetics only can give us the answer :what we are is written in our genetic code and just the sequence of nucleotides in DNA can determine the defference between me and another person.
Of course my phenotype isn't the same of a typical chinese girl, but what about the genotype? would a genotype between me and another "caucasian" (according to your definition) girl be really less different?
And what exactly would the population of a race have similar? The pehotype only or the genotype? Different phenotypes come from mutations in genetic material that, for example, from gene flow--->migration between population
Another one of the reasons of those mutations in the genomes comes from the natural selection
So if your hypothesis is: a race is a group of people that has ALWAYS lived in the area A WITHOUT CONTAMINATIONS i agree with you. I also agree if u say that a race is that group of people created by the contaminations of 2 isolated groups of people.
The history of the human specie is based on migrations, on contaminations between populations, that's why i personally don't believe in the myth of the "races"

Valentina,

Both genotype and phenotype are part of what makes a particular race unique. The genotype is often manifested in the phenotype. The genes passed on to an individual by his/her parents often determines phenotype or the outward manifestation of genetic coding.

If I am fair skinned and my wife is fair skinned our genetic genotype will manifest itself in a fair skinned child rather than a dark skinned child. Two parents exhibiting an epicanthic fold will almost invariable give birth to a child exhibiting the same fold.

I am not discussing how different races arose but merely the fact that different races exist. These different races can be classified in many ways so as to have three races, six races or even more.

but if i'm brunette and someone of my ancestors was blond, maybe i'll have a blond kid who knows...phenotype doesn't describe our genotype at all

Valentina,

The blonde phenotype would not manifest itself unless there was a blonde gene somewhere. Genotype manifest itself in phenotype. That is a simple scientific fact.

It would be quite possible for you, as an Italian to have a gene for blondness. Remember the Olympic skier, Gustavo Tourna, he skied for Italy but couldn't speak a word of Italian and was a blonde haired man from the Dolomite region of northern Italy.

Italy has been invaded both peacefully and less peacefully many times during its history and I have no doubt there are blonde genes in some of the population.



Bye the way, I would like to compliment you on both your command of English and your knowledge of so many areas. Are you in university?

Valentina,

The blonde phenotype would not manifest itself unless there was a blonde gene somewhere. Genotype manifest itself in phenotype. That is a simple scientific fact.

It would be quite possible for you, as an Italian to have a gene for blondness. Remember the Olympic skier, Gustavo Tourna, he skied for Italy but couldn't speak a word of Italian and was a blonde haired man from the Dolomite region of northern Italy.

Italy has been invaded both peacefully and less peacefully many times during its history and I have no doubt there are blonde genes in some of the population.



Bye the way, I would like to compliment you on both your command of English and your knowledge of so many areas. Are you in university?
yea right but if you see me somewhere maybe
u'd think i'm a typical mediterranean girl and maybe if u'd see my mother u would think she's scandinavian, coz she has a fair complexion, blond hair and light-blue eyes...i mean phenotype can't tell us anything certain because it's true that genotype maifests itself in phenotype , but it manifests just a little part, u can't really know the other part by phenotype only

gustavo thoeni was born in "Alto adige-south tyrol", that area became italian just a little after the end of the IWW and so ppl livin there usually speak german quite better than italian ..some of them would join Austria right now coz they consider themselves austrians, not italians

btw thanks but i'm still studying at "liceo scientifico", a type of high school where we can improve our knowledge mainly of several scientific and some classical areas, but honestly my favourite area is the ancient-historical one

While that theory was once accepted it is no longer considered to be definite. There are other theories that seem just as valid saying we are not all Africans.Care to name one or two?

No, but you can do the Googling if you are that interested. It was an article I came across while researching something else and I just don't feel like searching for it at present.

Since it didn't really take all that much effort I decided to help you out, Sedan. Here are just a few sites that support alternate theories of the origin of modern man. You really could have googled them yourself were you not so lazy.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0703_020704_georgianskull.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1108413.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid-origin

http://www.hhmi.org/cgi-bin/askascientist/highlight.pl?kw=&file=answers%2Fgeneral%2Fans_045.html

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200210/12/eng20021012_104924.shtml

http://info.anu.edu.au/mac/Newsletters_and_Journals/ANU_Reporter/_pdf/vol_28_no_08/easteal.html

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/06/skepticism-about-out-of-africa.html

Since it didn't really take all that much effort I decided to help you out, Sedan.Thanks, Frogger, but you really shouldn't have. Here are just a few sites that support alternate theories of the origin of modern man.OK. You really could have googled them yourself were you not so lazy.I didn't ask you to Google anything. I asked you to name one or two of your supposedly "just as valid" theories. I thought this would make a decent starting point for a discussion, but maybe we should wait until you've used the restroom this morning.

You're obviously feeling more than a little pissy.

Too bad Watson wasn't asked exactly why he made those statements. I wonder which studies he was referring to and how he drew his conclusions.

Thanks, Frogger, but you really shouldn't have.OK.I didn't ask you to Google anything. I asked you to name one or two of your supposedly "just as valid" theories. I thought this would make a decent starting point for a discussion, but maybe we should wait until you've used the restroom this morning.

You're obviously feeling more than a little pissy.

There was nothing pissy about it, Sedan. You could just as easily have Googled the sites. It isn't like it would have taken any great effort on your part.

If you wish to discuss the. 'out of Africa' theory it is fine with me. I happen to lean towards that theory myself. I was just posting that there are other theories as a point of information. No need for you to get so testy about it.

It does sound kind of pissy. This is a discussion board. If we were just here to study, all we would do is google and wiki and never post at all. But we come here, not just to learn but to hear another's take on things.

Thats very good Nap.
I like that,well done.

There was nothing pissy about it, Sedan. You could just as easily have Googled the sites. It isn't like it would have taken any great effort on your part.Well, here's the thing, Frogger. I spent over an hour doing research (mostly to refresh my memory and to catch a few new takes on the issue) before I even asked you the question. Your automatic assumption that I'm too lazy to look anything up was pretty knee-jerk and insulting -- contrary to what you may tell yourself, I usually attempt to inform myself before initiating a discussion.If you wish to discuss the. 'out of Africa' theory it is fine with me. I happen to lean towards that theory myself.I think one of the problems here is defining what we mean by the "out of Africa" theory. Those who argue against it don't deny that our earliest ancestors came from Africa, they dispute when and where the evolution from homo erectus to homo sapiens occurred. For example, your National Geographic link says:

The researchers conclude that the Dmanisi hominids are among the most primitive individuals attributed to H. erectus and that "it now seems that the first humans to disperse from the African homeland were similar in grade to H. habilis."

And from the Wikipedia:

Because of the scarcity of fossils and the discovery of important new finds every few years, researchers disagree about the details and sometimes even basic elements of human evolutionary history. While they have revised this history several times over the last decades, researchers currently agree that the oldest named species of the genus Homo, Homo habilis, evolved in Africa around two million years ago, and that members of the genus migrated out of Africa somewhat later, at least 1.5 million years ago.

The point here is that no one seems to be disputing that humans originally came from Africa. That was why I made the statement that we are all Africans. To tell the truth I had no idea what your answer to my question would be. Given your views on evolution I thought possibly you might take a more creationist view of the problem -- that's why I asked the question.I was just posting that there are other theories as a point of information. No need for you to get so testy about it.Ha ha! Next you'll be telling me I'm pompous. :)

I would say Asians are smarter then whites. I am white, does that make me a racist?

No, just dumb!:)

It does sound kind of pissy. This is a discussion board. If we were just here to study, all we would do is google and wiki and never post at all. But we come here, not just to learn but to hear another's take on things.

I wasn't going to Google anything, Nap. I had made a statement as part of a discussion and it was your buddy, Sedan who went and asked for supporting sites. If anyone was being pissy it was he, not me.

Aren't you supposed to be in Aruba about now instead of sitting there injecting comments when you don't know what you are talking about?

Well, here's the thing, Frogger. I spent over an hour doing research (mostly to refresh my memory and to catch a few new takes on the issue) before I even asked you the question. Your automatic assumption that I'm too lazy to look anything up was pretty knee-jerk and insulting -- contrary to what you may tell yourself, I usually attempt to inform myself before initiating a discussion.


Well, here the other thing, Sedan. If you had already spent an hour doing research, (mostly to refresh your memory and to catch a few new takes on the issue) you must have already found the sites saying there were other theories. That means your request of me for sites was simply an examply of you being pissy.

People usually ask for site information if they have not already done the research and found the sites so your request was not a case of your wanting information but simply you being your usual pissy self.

I wonder if Nappy is going to inject a comment about that.

I think one of the problems here is defining what we mean by the "out of Africa" theory. Those who argue against it don't deny that our earliest ancestors came from Africa, they dispute when and where the evolution from homo erectus to homo sapiens occurred.

Perhaps you should do another hour of research. Not all th eories say all modern men originated in Africa. That is the gist of the theories that go counter to the our of Africa theory. As I stated before, I lean toward the out of Africa theory but not everyone does. Your saying those who argue against it dont dey that our earlies ancestors came out of Africa does not make it so.

Well, here the other thing, Sedan. If you had already spent an hour doing research, (mostly to refresh your memory and to catch a few new takes on the issue) you must have already found the sites saying there were other theories. That means your request of me for sites was simply an examply of you being pissy.Let's recap, shall we?

sedan: We are all Africans.

Frogger: While that theory was once accepted it is no longer considered to be definite. There are other theories that seem just as valid saying we are not all Africans.

sedan: Care to name one or two?

Now, during the course of this brief exchange did I ask you to provide any websites? If you think that I did please read it again, very carefully. I did not ask you to do any such thing -- but it suits your purpose to pretend that I did. This is a commonplace in discussions with you; you argue so habitually from false premises that I wonder if you are even aware you are doing so.People usually ask for site information if they have not already done the research and found the sites so your request was not a case of your wanting information but simply you being your usual pissy self.I asked a simple question. Maybe where you come from asking a simple question is being pissy. What I'd call being pissy is more like this: you chose to infer an intent from a simple question that it did not imply. You did this so you could make a false accusation (that I am lazy) based upon a false premise (that I asked you to Google information). This is a fundamentally dishonest tactic on your part but there's no surprise -- that's just the way you are.Perhaps you should do another hour of research. Not all th eories say all modern men originated in Africa.I did not say one word about "modern men". I spoke of our "earliest ancestors" originating in Africa.

Nice try at the bait-and-switch, though. :rolleyes: That is the gist of the theories that go counter to the our of Africa theory. As I stated before, I lean toward the out of Africa theory but not everyone does. Your saying those who argue against it dont dey that our earlies ancestors came out of Africa does not make it so.Certainly there are people who believe that our earliest ancestors did not come from Africa. Some native Americans, for example, believe their ancestors sprang from a hole in the Earth. Folks who take the Bible literally also have a hard time with the idea. But I thought we were talking about what respected scientists believe.

Aren't you supposed to be in Aruba about now instead of sitting there injecting comments when you don't know what you are talking about?
I already went. Now I'm back, twenty grand richer. I think I'll buy one of those fancy computer chairs, so I can lounge around in style while I'm pissing you off! Maybe I should send a little to you, I think you need a new wheelchair!

send some to me so I can buy a new TV

I did not say one word about "modern men". I spoke of our "earliest ancestors" originating in Africa.

Apologies if I didn't make myself clear enough. By modern man I meant Homo sapiens. I didn't mean the guy who came to the West last month.

Certainly there are people who believe that our earliest ancestors did not come from Africa. Some native Americans, for example, believe their ancestors sprang from a hole in the Earth. Folks who take the Bible literally also have a hard time with the idea. But I thought we were talking about what respected scientists believe.

Now who's being prissy. We were talking about theories of where mankind originated from from an anthroprological perspective. You bringing up the hole in the earth is just a prissy red herring. What, are the scientists you agree with the respected ones? How about the scientists you don't agree with? Are they respected scientists or are they simply hacks?

This article is sure to add to the controversy concerning race and intelligence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Some excerpts from the article:

The notion that race is more than skin deep, they fear, could undermine principles of equal treatment and opportunity that have relied on the presumption that we are all fundamentally equal.


Nonscientists are already beginning to stitch together highly speculative conclusions about the historically charged subject of race and intelligence from the new biological data. Last month, a blogger in Manhattan described a recently published study that linked several snippets of DNA to high I.Q. An online genetic database used by medical researchers, he told readers, showed that two of the snippets were found more often in Europeans and Asians than in Africans.

Because Africans can take fewer foods than us, they are in malnutrition. Therefore, they can have immature brain. It's not standing on gene.

james watson is the one who is less intelligent. he musta been dropped on his head when he was a babe.

Muscle density is directly linked to explosiveness. As a rule, blacks have greater mucsle density, which may partly explain their success in certain (explosive) sports.

I'm certain that that can be linked to the fact that white people started distancing themselves from nature hundreds of years ago. Natural selection still favours the strong amongst those people who still live outside the protective sphere that western civilization is.

The danger in debates like this is not discovering our differences, but putting a value to those differences.

I don't think this should be such a controversial issue. We have gotten to the point that we can identify differences in brain chemistry, and therefore in general cognitive ability or type of ability, between men and women. So why not between different races? If we can admit that women are generally better at verbal skills, owing to a certain difference in the brain, and that men are better at spatial abilities, why not admit that such differences could occur between races? I wouldn't be entirely offended to find out that Asians are better at math than white people, or something like that. :p

I don't think this should be such a controversial issue. We have gotten to the point that we can identify differences in brain chemistry, and therefore in general cognitive ability or type of ability, between men and women. So why not between different races? If we can admit that women are generally better at verbal skills, owing to a certain difference in the brain, and that men are better at spatial abilities, why not admit that such differences could occur between races? I wouldn't be entirely offended to find out that Asians are better at math than white people, or something like that. :p

Exactly, and the difference between men and women also have evolutionary reasons, so its naturally that its the same for groups of people who have been isolated for millennias.

The fact is that nature, being non-intelligent, makes no judgment or preference, it cannot be called racist or sexist. It is we who superimpose value on nature as a mean to quantify and understand it. Its artificial and can lead to dangerous ideas.

You can't be mad at nature, well, you can, but nature couldn't care less, and I emphasize "couldn't" :)

Great post, Angelina. We must be careful not to use differences between sexes and races to oppress people or to justify prejudices and structural violence.

So,if men and women are different thru evolutionary reasons-whats with equal rights for women then?

So,if men and women are different thru evolutionary reasons-whats with equal rights for women then?
Every person on earth should, theoretically, have the same exact rights and opportunities. Giving women the same opportunities as men is not saying that they are the same. However, I'm pretty traditional when it comes to the role of women. I want to be a stay at home mom and take care of my family after I have children.

So your gonna drop out and hang round the school gate having a fag at 3pm everyday-no doubt wearing the previous nites pyjamas and your Timberland desert boots with the laces hanging out-I know your type.

Twenty years later-when the kids have all up and left to 'live out west', youll be sitting asking yourself-where did it all go wrong hehe.

So your gonna drop out and hang round the school gate having a fag at 3pm everyday-no doubt wearing the previous nites pyjamas and your Timberland desert boots with the laces hanging out-I know your type.

Twenty years later-when the kids have all up and left to 'live out west', youll be sitting asking yourself-where did it all go wrong hehe.

You got an A in stereotyping in school or what? :P

Equal rights and opportunities doesn't mean we all have to do the same, just gives us the same options if we want to.

Assuming you're American here, I would think you believed in this little thing called freedom :)

You got an A in stereotyping in school or what? :P

Equal rights and opportunities doesn't mean we all have to do the same, just gives us the same options if we want to.

Assuming you're American here, I would think you believed in this little thing called freedom :)
Paul is from Ireland, and I believe he was jokingly making fun of my desire to be a stay at home mom.

Paul is from Ireland, and I believe he was jokingly making fun of my desire to be a stay at home mom.

Yeah, I didn't believe he was being serious of course :)

Assuming you're American here
Every single one of Paul's posts have "Location: ireland" on them. You're awfully unobservant.

Every single one of Paul's posts have "Location: ireland" on them. You're awfully unobservant.

I spend a lot of time on forums, and have gotten used to just reading the body text of peoples posts and generally ignore all the rest around it.

It must be my sense of humor-bloody women.

It must be my sense of humor-bloody women.

...but your avatar made you seem so serious... :)

...but your avatar made you seem so serious... :)
Thats Seamus-he's an ass.

Hahaha... I have a friend from school with the same name as your donkey, paul. His name is Seamus McNamara. And, get this, his brothers names are Sean and Colin. :p That's some Irish family, huh?

McNamara yeah.

Did you know that Mc-Mac-O and og all mean 'son of'.

Seamus McNamara-Seamus son of Namara.

Its not used any more but thats its origins.

Thus ends the lesson hehe.

Yeah, I did know that actually :D

Thought youd tell me that-brains and looks eh.

Well, all Scandinavian names ending with "sen" and "son" means son of whatever the first part is. But I guess that is slightly more obvious than what you mentioned :)

Yep... Part of my mom's family is Swedish. My great-grandfather Karl Henrickson came from Sweden almost 100 years ago.

Well, all Scandinavian names ending with "sen" and "son" means son of whatever the first part is. But I guess that is slightly more obvious than what you mentioned :)
As you can see Ang-DF has an answer for everything.

As you can see Ang-DF has an answer for everything.
:lolhit: Dammit, paul, you're gonna have everyone running to me for advice now. :D