From: vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:58:31 GMT

In article <Hhc=Zk@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>In article <C0D8ED.A9B@ecf.toronto.edu> vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan4.191155.6570@cs.ucla.edu> pierce@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
>>>Racism is the pseudoscience (akin to astrology and phrenology) of
>>>dividing the human species into subspecies called "races", supposedly
>>>decisively different biologically. Delusions that "race" determines
>>>psychocultural traits and capacities, that some "race" is inherently
>>>superior to some other "race", that some "race" has the right to dominate
>>>other "races", as well as the political systems based on such delusions,
>>>are a natural chain of symptoms that will only find permanent relief
>>>in the uprooting of the underlying cause, namely a belief in racism.
>>>
>>>-- Brad Pierce --
>>>
>>Oriental people tend to be shorter and black people tend to have bigger
>>cocks.  These are facts.  Facts are not racism.  Buy yourself a dictionary!
>>
>>If you agree with me, CONFESS!!!! If you don't, ARTICULATE!!!!
>>
>>-Nick
>>( Hail the Glorious Resolution! )
>
> Okay, you got it. I might be willing to accept the idea that the group
>commonly referred to as Orientals has a shorter average height than the
>group that is commonly referred to as Caucasian.
> But I defy you to point to a refereed study that says that blacks have
>a larger average penis size than other groups. Just one will do. 
>
> Second point. Take three random people (of the same gender), two from the
>same "race" and one from another. Number them 1a, 1b, and 2. Compare
>genomes. Define "genetically closer" as "having more matching alleles."
> Now, you will find that it is just as likely that 1a will be 'genetically
>closer' to 2 than to 1b as vice versa.
> You can define a 'race' based on any features you want. But you will find
>that few if any other genetic traits will correlate with the ones you choose.
> In this sense, there's no such thing as 'race.'
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
>                            || not those of the University of
>ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.

Looking at the original post I realize that it is mostly vaporous and not
clear in what it means.  I assumed it was a rabid politically correct attack
on common anthropology. Re-reading the post now, I see that it has no clear
point and one has to guess what the author is trying to say.  Racism ( proper
definition) is horrible and it should be contested whereever it is found.  If
that is the point, I agree.  As for your point of genetic closeness, etc., I 
don't clearly understand what you are saying.  I guess what you are saying is
that anything we use to define the human races are typically external,
superficial qualities- that the differences are the frosting on the cake, the
paint on the car, etc.  Again, if this is the case, I agree totally.  But
back to the original post- if the message is simply racism is bad, why say it
in such a complicated manner.  I guess thats why I assume the attack was 
against any mention of race in mankind.  As a final point, due to the nature
of geography and history, people of different parts of the world have quite
different cultures.  The people attached to these different cultures typically
have slight or major distinguishing features.  When we talk of race, we do so
more so with respect to culture, than to anything else.  Historically, there
just often happens to be a match to distinguishing physical features as well.
As for my example of penis length- it is something that I took from common
folklore.  I have heard of studies, but can only think of one, and its author
does not hold much credibility.  I think the Master and Johnson's study may
also have some mention.  I don't really know- its never been an subject of
great interest to me. I'm guilty of trying to be cute in my choice of racial
attributes- and frankly I had problems even thinking of any.  In summary, my
response to the original post should have been "Excuse me, what do you mean?
If this ...., well I disagree and think it rather outrageous.  I also disagree
with your method of presentation.".  My apologies.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism