Subj : Re: race
To : Gamgee
From : jimmylogan
Date : Fri May 23 2025 11:33 am
-=> Gamgee wrote to jimmylogan <=-
-=> jimmylogan wrote to Gamgee <=-
ji> As for the 'one race' thing - we are ALL one "RACE" - there are
ji> different ethnicities, but we are all human. I think there are
ji> STILL a lot of people that miss that point...
Ga> Not exactly correct. We are *NOT* all one race. We (humans) are all
Ga> one *species*, but not all one *race*. Big difference.
Ga> So, I think you are among those who have missed that point...
ji> I hear you, and I appreciate the correction, but I think this comes
ji> down to how we define race.
Ga> Not really. There is a clear definition of what race is, and it's not
Ga> open to your personal interpretation. It's biology/science, and
Ga> factual.
Can you give me an example? I've read a lot of references on
this tonight, and the general consensus has changed over time.
Race is now broadly considered a social construct rather than
a biological one.
Have you looked into the "one drop" rule? The geographical
theory? Do you consider races to be subspecies?
ji> Biologically, you are right: humans are all one species: Homo sapiens.
ji> Scientifically, race is often considered a social construct with no
ji> significant biological basis. The Human Genome Project confirmed we
ji> are over 99.9% genetically identical across all so-called races.
Ga> Again, "biology" *is* science. There aren't two definitions. Species
Ga> is one thing, and race is another. You don't get to create your own
Ga> definition.
You're right, I don't get to make up definitions. So whose do
we follow? Scientists today? Or scientists from the past? As
a wise man once said, science doesn't say anything - **scientists**
do. In other words, science is a process of gathering and interpreting
data. If it always delivered absolute facts, its conclusions
wouldn't change over time.
ji> But my original point was more moral and spiritual: we are one
ji> human race with different ethnicities, cultures, and appearances,
ji> but all made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). That is not ignoring
ji> our differences but instead it recognizes our shared humanity.
Ga> When discussing scientific / technical things (of any sort), it's
Ga> important to use proper terminology to avoid misunderstandings. There
Ga> is no such thing as the "human race". It really is that simple. There
Ga> is the human species, which has multiple races. That's how science
Ga> works. Words matter.
As for your point about "proper terminology," I agree that words
matter - which is why I checked a few sources. Here's how
**dictionary.com** defines things:
**Species** A group of related individuals that resemble one
another, breed among themselves, and are biologically distinct
from other such groups. Also: a group of persons related by
common descent or heredity.
**Race** Multiple definitions:
1) A group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
3a) *(no longer in technical use)* traditional divisions of humankind.
3b) An arbitrary classification based on physical characteristics
(skin, eye shape, etc.).
3c) A **socially constructed** category based on appearance,
ancestry, or shared culture.
6) *The human race* - humankind.
So... while you might not like the phrase 'human race,'
it's still used, even in formal dictionaries, as a synonym
for humankind. It carries spiritual and moral weight, and yes,
it still exists in scientific and educational language as a
broad reference to all people.
If you're discussing gene flow or breeding populations,
sure - use precise taxonomy. But if you're talking about
our shared humanity and dignity, I still say 'one race -
the human race' fits just fine.
... He who seeks a friend without a fault remains friendless
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
� Synchronet � Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
