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."
For the record I don't think you're a racist, taruky, and I realize this is largely a question of semantics. Absolutely differences in people exist and need to be recognized. My only issue is with trying to group people into races. You mentioned Filipinos and African Americans. Are these races or ethnic groups? I prefer to think of them as the latter.
Knelson, the problem with grouping as ethnic groups is this. Ethnic groups can consist of different races. Pele and Kaka might both consider themselves ethnically Brazilian, but the chance that Pele would carry the sickle cell trait is much higher. Race is a broader term that loosely defines certain physical characteristics. Another example; an African American and an immigrant from Nigeria might have little in common ethnically. But going back to the sickle cell example, they are both at risk to carry the trait. An Irishman and a Chechen might both be blond and blue eyed but have little in common ethnically. However, medically there are some risks they share as caucasians. I suppose if you have a homogeneous ethnic group then you can use ethnicity. A good example would be Ashkanazi Jews, who have many genetic disorders because historically they tended not to intermarry.
I understand the connotation of race. The word causes people to shudder. Keep in mind, though, that studies are not trying to force people into categories. They are simply observations about risk factors in people who share certain characteristics; physical in some cases, social in others. Some of these risk factors continue when the the particular subject relocates, some do not and may be more a function of environment. But studies today are very well designed, especially when published in reputable journals. They account for environment.
For the record I don't think you're a racist, taruky, and I realize this is largely a question of semantics. Absolutely differences in people exist and need to be recognized. My only issue is with trying to group people into races. You mentioned Filipinos and African Americans. Are these races or ethnic groups? I prefer to think of them as the latter.
Knelson, the problem with grouping as ethnic groups is this. Ethnic groups can consist of different races. Pele and Kaka might both consider themselves ethnically Brazilian, but the chance that Pele would carry the sickle cell trait is much higher. Race is a broader term that loosely defines certain physical characteristics. Another example; an African American and an immigrant from Nigeria might have little in common ethnically. But going back to the sickle cell example, they are both at risk to carry the trait. An Irishman and a Chechen might both be blond and blue eyed but have little in common ethnically. However, medically there are some risks they share as caucasians. I suppose if you have a homogeneous ethnic group then you can use ethnicity. A good example would be Ashkanazi Jews, who have many genetic disorders because historically they tended not to intermarry.
I understand the connotation of race. The word causes people to shudder. Keep in mind, though, that studies are not trying to force people into categories. They are simply observations about risk factors in people who share certain characteristics; physical in some cases, social in others. Some of these risk factors continue when the the particular subject relocates, some do not and may be more a function of environment. But studies today are very well designed, especially when published in reputable journals. They account for environment.
