I am saying that a greater number of people with a shared history of intermarriage will have a higher percentage of traits that have been passed through inheritance, although, as pravnik has pointed out, there is very much dissimilarity within any group, as well. Nothing precludes a white or a black from receiving donor organs from a person of the other group. There is simply a greater probability of finding a match among people with a shared history.
As to the “no such thing as race” threads, you’d have to dig up sjgouldrocks and ask him what his position is. On the race threads, my position has been and continues to be that we have no single set of markers that clearly identifies race and that there is too much blending for race to be a biological term. I have never denied that there are populations (smaller than the usual concept of race) who might share specific characteristics or that there are not physical similarities that allow us to create the social notion of race, based on appearance.
I do not find race to be a useful concept when we know, for example, that sickle-cell anemia crosses “racial” boundaries, that adult lactose intolerance crosses “racial” boundaries, and that people of different “races” can be organ donors and recipients for each other.
Well, yes, it is an anecdote, but it concerns biology, Zwalld. Don’t you agree?
And, since you enjoy playing with semantics, let’s not call me “racist”. Let’s call me prejudiced. I heard a stirring speech by a black activist–who hated whites–wherein he carefully explained that black people–lacking economic power in the US–cannot be racist, as the word apparently indicates the ability to “shut out” another race from benefits or rights. He was merely prejudiced because he hadn’t the power to do either to whites. I liked that explaination and have subscribed to it since then.
And also–such venom! You make it sounds like I hate black people, which is far from the actual situation. I just find them distasteful when compared to whites, that’s all. It’s as innocent as preferring blondes to brunettes.
Now, when are these esteemed board members returning? Are they physicians or in the medical profession.
I’m not sure what they mean, but I’ll stick to my statement, although I wouldn’t want you to make too much of it; I’m just saying that people we identify as black or white or what have you tend to share traits in common other than just the color and structure of the skin around the body; they also share other traits, for example skeletal similarities of the nose, cranium, and femur. It’s similar to saying a blond person is more likely to have blue eyes and fair skin.
Burns, a person who identifies as “black” has a higher chance of having matching HLA markers with another person that self identifies as “black” than someone who self-identifies as “white”, just the same as they have a higher chance of having a similar complexion.
I’ve heard the argument that certain individuals or groups can’t be racist, because racism is an institution, and if you lack the power of the institution you can’t be a racist, Q.E.D. It’s sophistry and doesn’t fly. Racism is an institution, but it is also the personal belief of the individual giving rise to the institution. Discrimination or predjudice based on race is racism.
No, it’s not. Comparing racial predjudice to a discriminating choice of sex partners is a false analogy.
Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
Date: 1936
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
I used this definition because Websters is a fairly unbiased source, and the word ‘racist’ sounded less clunky in my statment than ‘person prejudiced against blacks’. Didn’t mean to offend. I 'll leave it to your prerogative to compile definitions from racist…I mean prejudiced…activists.
Well, he has already indicated that he is limited in time and opportunity and that, for now, he is going to limit his participation to a single thread in GD, so I will take the liberty of quoting him on the subject (although I certainly welcome his participation if he chooses to join in).
In So, what’s the matter with eugenics? he posted
(bolding mine)
His earliest “tract” on the subject seems to have been in the Differences between humans thread in which he did use a “no races” phrase once or twice, but very clearly indicated that he was pointing out, not that there can be no similarities, but that we have only varying frequencies of the same alleles and that there are no traits that can be idenitified as belong to “one race.”
In the Races don’t exist thread, he set out the statement that most nearly resembles my perspective on the issue:
[Separately: regarding the charge of and definition of “racist”:
I don’t take my word usage from Louis Farrkhan, but if you guys aren’t careful, this thread is going to get hurled into GD. I think we can answer the OP without either a debate or a feud, but you guys do what you feel you must.]
Back to the issue -Did my link to the Donor Alliance donor FAQ not answer the question on the table? As to mixed race peope it would seem logical that to the extent the race “mixing” (churn baby, churn), distances them from the requirement to have close tissue matching (for the body parts that require this) the less compatible they will be on a relative basis.
I believe astro’s link to Donor Alliance does answer the factual question here, so I’ll close this thread. Race debates may be continued in the Great Debates forum.