you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]worm[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

An oft-repeated claim is that there are more similarities between polar bears and grizzly bears than between distinct human races. Consider the "cosmestic" differences between a Pacific Islander and a Tibetan Highlander; I find it absurd to allege that such differences are merely cosmetic.

Even at a cursory physical examination, we find different adaptations to their local environment; there are Pacific Islanders who can control pupil dilation to see further underwater, and the highland races have more efficient cardiovascular systems compared to sea-level peoples. Those who live in the United States are familiar with the different health risks faced by people of different races, and all of this is merely a consideration of the physical differences. When one considers the differences in diets, cultures, lifestyles, and so on, which were also vastly divergent prior to the onslaught of globalization - and many would argue that even now such differences still persist - the comparison with the bears seems much less absurd than one might think.

While the bears are an amusing example, the point of the matter is that races do have clear differences beyond cosmetic ones. The true argument lies in whether these general differences justify treating individuals from different races differently, and whether we might medicate people into doing so.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Those are all pretty much cosmetic things. And you won't find those levels of adaption in the "mongrel" populations of most countries. I've got "adaptations" that aren't present in the traditional stereotype of my race, because that stereotype is flawed.

A Tibetan Highlander has adaptions. But somebody who looks like a Tibetan Highlander from three generations of cross-"race" breeding will probably only resemble a "pure" Tibetan Highlander cosmetically; they lack the selection pressures that enforce Highlanderness.

More relevantly, none of the differences you've highlighted are vast or dangerous. Name one dangerous difference between "races" that argues racial bias is justified, and I'll concede.

[–]worm[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If you would define all of those as cosmetic, then I'll accept your definition of cosmetic and move on; for it would seem quite clear then that the differences between different species of bears, or different breeds of dogs, horses, chickens, and other domesticated animals, are purely cosmetic as well. I would be satisfied with that term so long as we accept that the differences between different human races are comparable to the differences between subspecies of animals. True, it is entirely possible to cross-breed between subspecies to produce "mongrels" (your words, not mine), but I for one don't see why the ability to cross-breed should deny the fact that such differences clearly exist between different subspecies.

Regardless of how we define these differences, I would maintain that there are clear physical and cultural differences between people of different races. I am uncertain as to why you insist that differences are dangerous, but I'd be open to hearing your explanation on why they must be so.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I am uncertain as to why you insist that differences are dangerous,

That was /u/Avalanche's original claim. I forgot you weren't the same person who made that claim.