JakePrime@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 98-06-15 19:15:58 EDT, you write:
>
> >>The question is, how do these fall out among the 3 differing races. Which,
> by the way, there are only 3 distinct seperations of race genetically
> speaking.<<
>
> The "3 distinct races" ("mongloid", "caucusoid", and "negroid") dogma of
> racial theory, was created before there was any capacity for DNA testing.
> Therefore these distinction could only have been culturally motivated. I
> won't be impressed with ANY genetic theories of race until they throw ALL of
> that old culturally motivated garbage, and start completely over from scratch
> with the only thing that matters at all - DNA.
>
I think that would be good, however, these differences have specific genes, and
phyically obvious results. And were a good start. Certainly not trashed as
worthless. Any descriptor that improves on the information acuracy and can be
viewed with maximum objectivity is preferable with me.
> Until that happens, I will remain skeptically agnostic about genetic race. As
> best as I can tell, all of the racial theories that I have heard are still
> using the old culturally generated distinctions. Anyone that clings to those
> distinctions is wasting my time as far as I am concerned.
>
> >>Jake, what a witty response, I am impressed with your semantic agility.<<
>
> This wasn't intended to display wit. It often takes a lot of words to dissect
> cultural artifacts which are themselves composed of a lot of words. Often
> nothing less will do the job. In the case of genetic "theories" of race that
> were culturally generated long before anything was known about DNA, it is
> worth the extra words, and the effort is sincere.
I think this sums it up: We would both like to see a genetic based descriptor
system that is empiricle in nature and objective in definition. The difference is
that I am willing to accept the current system as a good start, wheras you think
it is trash. Correct?
Sodom
Bill Roh