www.slate.com/.../
In a nutshell
"Anthropometric measurements of large populations show that systematic differences exist among blacks, whites and Asians. The published evidence is massive: blacks have longer limbs than whites, and because blacks have longer legs and smaller circumferences (e.g. calves and arms), their center of mass is higher than that in other individuals of the same height. Asians and whites have longer torsos, therefore their centers of mass are lower.
These structural differences, they argue, generate differences in performance. Using equations about the physics of locomotion, they analyze racing as a process of falling forward. Based on this analysis, they conclude that having a higher center of body mass in a standing position is advantageous in running but disadvantageous in swimming."
Parents
Former Member
as for the charge that race is not scientific, there are about 150,000 scientific studies involving race in the readily searchable medical literature. Any attempt in making your point, even though It's just semantic will meet some resistance and trigger controversy.
In biology the term "race" is used with caution because it can be ambiguous, "'Race' is not being defined or used consistently; its referents are varied and shift depending on context. The term is often used colloquially to refer to a range of human groupings. Religious, cultural, social, national, ethnic, linguistic, genetic, geographical and anatomical groups have been and sometimes still are called 'races'". Generally when it is used it is synonymous with subspecies. (Keita et al. 2004); (empleton, 1998); (Long and Kittles, 2003).
Now don't get me wrong. It's not a sin to speak like that. It is just blurred and is severely lacking accuracy.
as this sensitive topic shows, the subject generates much heat and finger pointing by some Which is just normal. That is why UNESCO proposed in the 50s, to stop using this term. Not only because it could lead people to discriminate, but rather because it generally leads nowhere. Again, for the avg white folk, Black is a race. However, the differences between genetic backgrounds showed by Blacks belonging to various ethnic groups is such that , you'd have to split the Black race into multiple races.
What about those blacks from Cuba, Brazil, Ethiopia, etc.... How many races would you define for these?
Find me a solid human races classification, and I'll agree to talk about human ethnic background differences in term of race. The the truth is that such a list does not exist. If there are no race classification list, then why bother continuing talking about races? That is the idea behind UNESCO's proposal. Why bother talking about something that is pure classification, when no classification can be made.
almost every clinical trial and medical topic includes consideration of race. ignoring race in human studies and medical care would be anti-scientific and offer less than optimum health care delivery. hundreds of thousands of scientists and health care providers are not racists for considering race. Of course, you now know what I (as well as several others) think about this statement...
It case it wasn't clear enough, science has to rely on scientifically accepted means. If they can't even validate their 'race' (as you call it) classification against a scientifically accepted list. Find this list, and your comment will makesense.
as for the charge that race is not scientific, there are about 150,000 scientific studies involving race in the readily searchable medical literature. Any attempt in making your point, even though It's just semantic will meet some resistance and trigger controversy.
In biology the term "race" is used with caution because it can be ambiguous, "'Race' is not being defined or used consistently; its referents are varied and shift depending on context. The term is often used colloquially to refer to a range of human groupings. Religious, cultural, social, national, ethnic, linguistic, genetic, geographical and anatomical groups have been and sometimes still are called 'races'". Generally when it is used it is synonymous with subspecies. (Keita et al. 2004); (empleton, 1998); (Long and Kittles, 2003).
Now don't get me wrong. It's not a sin to speak like that. It is just blurred and is severely lacking accuracy.
as this sensitive topic shows, the subject generates much heat and finger pointing by some Which is just normal. That is why UNESCO proposed in the 50s, to stop using this term. Not only because it could lead people to discriminate, but rather because it generally leads nowhere. Again, for the avg white folk, Black is a race. However, the differences between genetic backgrounds showed by Blacks belonging to various ethnic groups is such that , you'd have to split the Black race into multiple races.
What about those blacks from Cuba, Brazil, Ethiopia, etc.... How many races would you define for these?
Find me a solid human races classification, and I'll agree to talk about human ethnic background differences in term of race. The the truth is that such a list does not exist. If there are no race classification list, then why bother continuing talking about races? That is the idea behind UNESCO's proposal. Why bother talking about something that is pure classification, when no classification can be made.
almost every clinical trial and medical topic includes consideration of race. ignoring race in human studies and medical care would be anti-scientific and offer less than optimum health care delivery. hundreds of thousands of scientists and health care providers are not racists for considering race. Of course, you now know what I (as well as several others) think about this statement...
It case it wasn't clear enough, science has to rely on scientifically accepted means. If they can't even validate their 'race' (as you call it) classification against a scientifically accepted list. Find this list, and your comment will makesense.
