# In which Danielinthewolvesden defends his racist GD statement... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 25, 2001, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-danielinthewolvesden-defends-his-racist-gd-statement/51719 "2001-01-25T14:35:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2001, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-danielinthewolvesden-defends-his-racist-gd-statement/51719/21 "2001-01-25T20:51:27Z")
> [@](#): > > Biologically humans are just one race. actually, biologically, humans are just one **species**. race in this context divides humans by genetic differences, as in websters 3c definition: “a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type”. > [@](#): > > Before we can speak of one race being inferior in any context he didn’t say one race **is** inferior in some context. he said it’s **possible**. and the fact that he capitalized that word means it was the operative word in his statement. to argue that anything is impossible requires at least some scientifically sound studies. > [@](#): > > we must first figure out on what we are basing this concept of race. from the quote in the op, daniel’s comment about ‘negroid’ and ‘oriental’ races imply that he’s basing racial differences on at least skin color and eye shape. i think it’s possible that there are scientific studies that conclusively prove there are no physical differences in intellectual capacity along skin color or eye shape lines, however i haven’t found any and nobody has posted any. while i would contend that to prove something impossible requires a large body of evidence, to even get the op’s argument off the ground i would like to see at least one study. ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2001, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-danielinthewolvesden-defends-his-racist-gd-statement/51719/22 "2001-01-25T21:15:57Z")
Sorry zwaldd, you are going to have to be more specific. Which genetic differences are you speaking of? Every human is genetically different from each other unless you have an identical twin, so are we all different races? DITWD said that some races have superior intelligence and there were studies to prove this. If one “race” has superior intelligence, then obviously another must be inferior. Again: define race. ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2001, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-danielinthewolvesden-defends-his-racist-gd-statement/51719/23 "2001-01-25T21:18:31Z")
The superior race being the one that uses preview to check for spelling errors. Sorry 'bout that. ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2001, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-danielinthewolvesden-defends-his-racist-gd-statement/51719/24 "2001-01-25T21:36:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Which genetic differences are you speaking of? i was castigated in a recent thread for being unwilling to repeat myself so… ‘skin color and eye shape.’ > [@](#): > > DITWD said that some races have superior intelligence and there were studies to prove this. after re-reading the op, i still don’t see this. was that from the original thread? > [@](#): > > Again: define race. again: “a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type.” ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2001, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-danielinthewolvesden-defends-his-racist-gd-statement/51719/25 "2001-01-25T21:55:38Z")
Humans are quite varied. Our skin color ranges from very dark brown to very light pink with graduating shades in between. At which point does one race start and the other end? There is no biological dividing line, only a cultural one. All human traits are transmittable by descent, what does this have to do with race? Eye shape? You have got to be kidding. You can distinguish a race by eye shape? Define race _scientifically._ ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2001, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-danielinthewolvesden-defends-his-racist-gd-statement/51719/26 "2001-01-25T21:59:35Z")
Humans are quite varied. Our skin color ranges from very dark brown to very light pink with graduating shades in between. At which point does one race start and the other end? There is no biological dividing line, only a cultural one. All human traits are transmittable by descent, what does this have to do with race? Eye shape? You have got to be kidding. You can distinguish a race by eye shape? Define race _scientifically._ I timed out. If this is a double post, please disregard the whole post. If it isn’t, then just disregard these two lines. ---
**Author:** ![delphica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e9a140/32.png) [@delphica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/delphica)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2001, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-danielinthewolvesden-defends-his-racist-gd-statement/51719/27 "2001-01-25T22:17:29Z")
The problem I am having with DITWD’s original statement is that it strikes me as saying two different things. First, he says (with liberal snipping on my part): “Gould & co state that there not only is not, but I think that they believe there CAN NOT be any differences between the races intellecually.” I’m inclined to agree with the fine point in this discussion that it is essentially impossible to prove that anything is impossible (paradox intended) … thus I guess I reluctantly agree with DITWD’s questioning of Gould’s position that differences CAN NOT exist. Also, the use of the word “difference” is significant. Groups of people living in relative isolation over many generations can result in differences in height, body shape, eye color, skin color, hair color etc. This seems to have given rise to the classic constructions of “race.” This would also explain why people who are generally grouped together as Negroid also exhibit huge variations among themselves (likewise with any other racial group). Groups such as the Pygmies have been isolated, and have developed a very unique characteristic in their size. As a society, our ideas about race seem to be changing and becoming more flexible, probably because in some measure we see more and more groups of people who cannot easily be classified into one of the traditional racial groups. DITWD then goes on to say: “It is certainly POSSIBLE than one race is slightly smarter, on the average, than another.” This is where I have major problems, and I can see where **DDG** is coming from in her complaint. “Smarter” implies “better.” Just because something is different, does that mean it is better? Fair skin is different from dark skin, which is better? Eyes with an epicantal fold are different from eyes without one, which is better? To quote **Sua** , there is no commonly accepted measure of intelligence. There seem to be different kinds of intelligence, and I am willing to believe that these same isolated groups of people **might** have valued some kinds of intellectual ability more than others, **perhaps** resulting in a greater frequency of those traits in subsequent generations. Depending on the needs and preferences of a society, possessing an almost photographic memory might be considered the sign of highest intelligence, while another group values a thought process based more on abstractions. This doesn’t even take into consideration culture, education and language. Again, this will break down as these people move out of isolation and have a more diverse gene pool contributing to future generations. After reading this over, I realize it seems I am making a case for differences. What I am actually attempting to do is give this position the very greatest benefit of the doubt. In general, I think that any differences that **might** exist are slight, so slight as to be considered vestigal (meaning they have zero impact on how we live and function in society today), and extremely difficult to measure or evaluate on a purely genetic basis that would completely exclude culture and education. So, different is ok. Smarter is not. I think most of the responses so far have focused on the idea of differences, and since this is the Pit, I will say that I think this quibbling over semantics has not been fair to the point that **DDG** was trying to make. ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2001, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-danielinthewolvesden-defends-his-racist-gd-statement/51719/28 "2001-01-25T22:20:16Z")
> [@](#): > > All human traits are transmittable by descent, what does this have to do with race? per your request, i’m trying to come to an agreement on what we mean by race. i’m offering ‘a common inherited characteristic’. i specified skin color and eye shape for this discussion because daniel referred to ‘negroid’(skin color), and ‘oriental’ (skin color and eye shape). > [@](#): > > Eye shape? You have got to be kidding. You can distinguish a race by eye shape? you can distinguish a race by any inherited characteristic. blue eyes can be a race. red hair can be a race. cleft palate can be a race. if specifying ‘skin color’ is too politically charged to consider objectively, then lets use another. let’s say it’s possible that red heads have higher intellectual capacity than blondes. show me a study that says otherwise. > [@](#): > > Define race scientifically. why? it’s not a ‘scientific’ term; it’s just a word with an arbitrary meaning. ---
**Author:** ![eponymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e0b2c6/32.png) [@eponymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eponymous)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2001, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-danielinthewolvesden-defends-his-racist-gd-statement/51719/29 "2001-01-25T22:26:14Z")
\*Originally posted by zwaldd \* [/quote] i was castigated in a recent thread for being unwilling to repeat myself so… ‘skin color and eye shape.’ again: “a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type.” [/QUOTE] Problem is, skin color and eye shape do not correlate with genetic similarity. Example: Bushmen of Kalahari desert and Australian Aborigiones have similar outward features (skin color, hair texture, eue shape and color, physical stature, etc.). But genetically, they are at the OPPOSITE ends of the spectrum. That is, the genetic makeup of the two groups are the most dissimilar. Since Collunsbury isn’t around, try checking out his responses in the following threads: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=49062](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=49062) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=45048](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=45048) Some of the links embeddied within these should also reference earlier posts regarding the issue of “race”. Mods or others, feel free to correct any errors or post additional responses/comments by Collunsbury. Making cheese, indeed!! ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2001, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-danielinthewolvesden-defends-his-racist-gd-statement/51719/30 "2001-01-25T22:54:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Problem is, skin color and eye shape do not correlate with genetic similarity. well those were some long threads so i’ll just concede that they may have contained proof for what you say. answer me this, though. if skin color has no correlation with genetic similarities, then why does every black male i work with have the same tight curly hair, which is a genetic trait. is this just an incredible coincidence? to me it shows a physical genetic similarity beyond skin color. same goes for eye shape. how come all the asians that i have ever known have had straight black hair, with some remote exceptions? another coincidence? ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2001, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-danielinthewolvesden-defends-his-racist-gd-statement/51719/31 "2001-01-25T23:05:17Z")
oh never mind, you already addressed that. let’s look just at the australian aborigiones. they have a similar genetic makeup that accounts for similar physical characteristics. can you show me studies that conclusively demonstrate that their intellectual abilities are no different than those of the kalahari bushmen? that’s really the point i’m making. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2001, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-danielinthewolvesden-defends-his-racist-gd-statement/51719/32 "2001-01-25T23:14:39Z")
I dunno, DDG. I think you’re on shaky ground here. I don’t think Dan’s comments were racist. He was saying there’s a possibility that, on average, different races have different mental characteristics. I haven’t seen proof either way, and I don’t really care to research the matter. But I think Dan’s analysis is much more honest and scientific than is yours. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2001, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-danielinthewolvesden-defends-his-racist-gd-statement/51719/33 "2001-01-25T23:23:25Z")
The dictionary definition of “race”. > **[Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/)** > > The dictionary by Merriam-Webster is America's most trusted online dictionary for English word definitions, meanings, and pronunciation. #wordsmatter > [@](#): > > Main Entry: 3race > Function: noun > Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza > Date: 1580 > 1 : a breeding stock of animals > 2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics \ > 3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type An anthropologist’s definition of race: [http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/origins/campus/Lec9.html](http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/origins/campus/Lec9.html) > [@](#): > > How many races are there? > How do you define a race biologically? > > A. A formal genetic definition says that if you can correctly assign individuals to their correct population with an accuracy of 75% or more, then you have a race. If you can’t assign them with 75% accuracy, then you don’t have a race. > > Using the formal definition of race, humanity has been divided into varying numbers of races ranging from 3 to several hundred. > > Using the biological concept of race, the goal of classifying humanity is now considered a waste of time. There are some useful reasons to study racial variation, but classification for the sake of classification is not one of them. Biological scientists use racial labels only for convenience, and define races in terms of a particular goal of a particular study. From their Adult Education course in Anthropology. [http://www.library.utoronto.ca/typ/typnewsletter/common.htm](http://www.library.utoronto.ca/typ/typnewsletter/common.htm) > [@](#): > > A genetic theory of racial intelligence obviously requires a precisely genetic distinction of races (taxonomy). Today’s sociobiologists and race scientists can point to none. The effort at race delineation by blood group (serological genetics), attempted for over 75 years now, has not produced any discrete, genetic definition of race. And from the Skeptic’s Dictionary. [http://www.skepdic.com/iqrace.html](http://www.skepdic.com/iqrace.html) > [@](#): > > Of course, physical features such as skin color, shape of eyelid, color of eyes, texture of hair, etc., are genetically determined. It is also true that an individual’s capacity for any particular kind of intelligence is largely dependent upon genetic factors. What isn’t true is the notion that whole races of people have sets of genes which make them as a group more intelligent than other races. The genes which affect musical talent, the power to visualize or to think abstractly, for example, are not established as the same ones which affect those characteristics which are associated with being Caucasian, Mongoloid or Negroid. If you want to find out why Asians are overrepresented in California’s universities while blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented, you will probably search in vain for a genetic answer. Those who are interested in such things would do better to look at family structure, ethnic traditions, and social conditions. I will concede that, statistically speaking, the Japanese may be shorter, on average, that Caucasians living in the U.S., Germany, or the Netherlands. [http://www.tallpages.com/axyzuk/statist.htm](http://www.tallpages.com/axyzuk/statist.htm) I can’t seem to find any kind of statistics giving the average body height of Africans. It’s possible that things have been in such turmoil that nobody has ever gotten around to measuring it. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2001, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-danielinthewolvesden-defends-his-racist-gd-statement/51719/34 "2001-01-26T00:52:45Z")
OK, let’s think about this. Suppose that, somewhere in Scandinavia, a population of Neandertal humans still existed. As we know from skeletal finds, Neandertals had different brain structures than _Homo sapiens sapiens_. So, it would not be surprising to discover that Neandertals had different intelligence than Hss. With me so far? So, if Neandertals still existed, they would be a “race” that unequivocally had different intelligence levels than Hss. However, it seems that all currently existing branches of humanity are Hss, no other branches of Homo still exist. But this is a historical accident. IF such people existed, THEN intelligence WOULD have a racial component. SINCE no such people still exist, intelligence DOESN’T have a racial component. So, we can easily see the idea that racial intelligence differences are impossible is not correct. It happens that there are no racial intelligence differences (as far as can be determined, blah, blah, blah…). But this was contingent on all other Homo species and subspecies becoming extinct. But they did, and here we are. All humans alive today are very closely related, and so they all have very similar “intelligence” levels. ---
**Author:** ![johnson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@johnson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnson)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2001, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-danielinthewolvesden-defends-his-racist-gd-statement/51719/35 "2001-01-26T01:16:44Z")
> [@](#): > > _ **DDG** said:_ > I will concede that, statistically speaking, the Japanese may be shorter, on average, that Caucasians living in the U.S., Germany, or the Netherlands. But wait a minute… > [@](#): > > _ **biggirl** said:_ > Any percieved difference in **size** , speed and intelligence is superficial and culturally based. **Perceived** difference in size? And speed? \*Perhaps \* it’s true that in some cultures sprinting is pushed over, say, ice fishing. But how exactly are “perceptions” of size (and probably speed) superficial and culturally based? ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2001, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-danielinthewolvesden-defends-his-racist-gd-statement/51719/36 "2001-01-26T03:35:31Z")
\. First- I stated quite clearly that differences between individuals are far more distinct & important that rase. Race is a MINOR part of who we are. I have used the example of basketball- where height & speed are important. A team made up of 5 randomly selected Watusi’s or Zulus would be better than a team of 5 randomly selected Mongolians or Montanards. However- if you still had that team of 5 randomly selected Negroids (i do not care much for the term, but it is a scientific one), and set them against the Chinese Olympic team- the Chinese would wipe the floor with them like the Haarlem Globtrotters do to their ‘stooge’ team. So- if you look at your “racist” definition- then I am not one. What you are saying is that anyone that says there are any differences at all, or that any race is even a little better than any other race at ANYTHING is a racist- and on that we disagree. what I am saying is that MINOR differences DO exist, and some races MIGHT be SLIGHTLY better at SOME things. MAYBE! And, DDG- this is why we don’t like hijacks. We were NOT discussing the difference between races, but Hovind & Evolution. And, thus i was only trying to answer your question- instead of proving a point. And so you misunderstood and got all excited over naught. Next Gould & others have shown that any differences between skull or brain size between races has no bearing on intelligence. No big surprize there, and a “straw=man” aguement if I ever saw one- as every well known expert says there is no relationship beteen (normal) skull size & intelligence- IN ANY CASE, let alone race. The size of your brain (within normal parameters) seems to have nothing to do with your IQ. Gould attacks the “Bell Curve” and its authors- not on a “scientific” basis- but on the same basis some of you folks are. Since he KNOWS there CAN BE NO difference between races re Intelligence- anyone who posits a study to show there MIGHT be a SMALL one- must be a racist. I have read “the Bell Curve”- i have doubts at being able to prove a scientific theory on the basis of rather weak statisics. And, there very well could be a different explanation for the small statistical difference; maybe nutrition- who knows? But, unless you assume that anyone that posits such a theory MUST be racist- i see nothing racist in their theory & conclusion. Wrong, they may well be- but until their theory & numbers are attacked on the basis of a BETTER study- attacking them on “Goulds” basis seems specious & unfair. IF, and i repeat IF there is a MINOR difference between the races in the matter of intelligence- then the difference is clearly MUCH smaller than the difference between the normal range of human IQ. EG, if there WAS a difference- then it MIGHT be as much as a big 5%, whereas normal humans vary around 20\>25%+. Now- I do NOT think there IS a difference. But I agree there is a small but mathematically significant possibility there MIGHT be one (greater than “little green men on mars”). I would say it there is some statisical evidence that certain African tribes are FASTER (on the average) than the average person. I would say that any idiot can see that Blacks are more resistant to sunburn & thus skin cancer than the palest varients of whites- and is that not "better’? At least a bit? OH and PLD? You’re a cheap pissant. Your ego is so inflated, that if anyone DARES to disagree with the great & powerful PLDennison, that…they are not merely “disagreeing”, no- not even “wrong”- but they MUST be a “liar”. Sure, guy. I am rather surprized they let you have computers at the “home”, I thought modeling clay was more like it. :rolleyes: Biggirl- did you even read the freaken thread? I did NOT say that 'some races had superiour intelligence and there were studies to prove this". I do NOT think so. BUT- I think it is POSSIBLE, and that any studies that purport to show this must be dismissed on their scientific merits- not by saying “There are no differences (because i said so), and thus any study that show there is MUST thereby be racist & wrong”. I am sure there ARE some studies that attempt to show that- that ARE “racist & wrong”- but you cannot dismiss them just becuase they disagree with your pre-concieved notions. That just ain’t the 'scientific method" that Gould is (otherwise) so very fond of. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2001, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-danielinthewolvesden-defends-his-racist-gd-statement/51719/37 "2001-01-26T04:24:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > [BThis seems to be based on a misconception that differences in races are _related_ one to another - that if there were differences in intelligence between different races it would be _related_ to the other differences in physical characterisitics. I have never heard anyone make this claim (outside of Leonard Jeffries and the melanin=intelligence school of thought). The significance of differences in physical characteristics is only in that they show that it is _possible_ for different races to differ physically. From which logic would dictate that it is also possible for them to differ mentally. > > \*\* I don’t know how the “Leonard Jefferies and the melanin=intelligence” comment relates to what I said. Take a look at page 32 of the February issue of Discover magazine to see what I was talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2001, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-danielinthewolvesden-defends-his-racist-gd-statement/51719/38 "2001-01-26T05:10:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > **\. First- I stated quite clearly that differences between individuals are far more distinct & important that rase. Race is a MINOR part of who we are.** \* Dammit all Daniel! Define RACE! > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > \*\* > I have used the example of basketball- where height & speed are important. A team made up of 5 randomly selected Watusi’s or Zulus would be better than a team of 5 randomly selected Mongolians or Montanards. However- if you still had that team of 5 randomly selected Negroids (i do not care much for the term, but it is a scientific one),_\*\* No it is **NOT.** Please, _please_, _ **please** _ find me a reputable cite that states that Negroid is a _scientific classification._ > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > \*\* > and set them against the Chinese Olympic team- the Chinese would wipe the floor with them like the Haarlem Globtrotters do to their ‘stooge’ team. So- if you look at your “racist” definition- then I am not one._\*\* I really don’t want to get personal here as it takes away from the logic of my arguement, but shit on a curly stick, Daniel. If you don’t see the difference between the Harlem Globetrotters and the Chinese Olympic team as a cultral one, then I am truly wasting my pixels here. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > \*\* > So- if you look at your “racist” definition- then I am not one. What you are saying is that anyone that says there are any differences at all, or that any race is even a little better than any other race at ANYTHING is a racist- and on that we disagree._\*\* Then we must disagree. Any differences are defined by the person making the assumptions. By this logic, we can make a race of anything we choose. If we want to define race by any abitrary yardstick we want, then the definition becomes meaningless. Hey, intelligence seems to run in families. Why don’t we just say that anyone with an IQ of over 130 is a new race! > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > \*\* > what I am saying is that MINOR differences DO exist, and some races MIGHT be SLIGHTLY better at SOME things. MAYBE! * * * Again and again and again I will repeat this. Define Race. You cannot tell me that MAYBE some races are better at some things than others until you tell me what the fuck you mean by race. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > \*\* > And, DDG- this is why we don’t like hijacks. We were NOT discussing the difference between races, but Hovind & Evolution. And, thus i was only trying to answer your question- instead of proving a point. And so you misunderstood and got all excited over naught._\*\* Red herring. In _this_ thread we are discussing how racist use the arbitrary term “race” to try and _scientifically_ prove something that cannot be proven. As a matter of fact, the entire basis of your rationale is based on a race theory that has proven to be incorrect. Proven. Scientifically. Find genetic research that shows humans can be broken down into descrete races before you show me evidence that there are differences in these so-called “races”. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by friedo \* > \*\*I dunno, DDG. I think you’re on shaky ground here. I don’t think Dan’s comments were racist. He was saying there’s a possibility that, on average, different races have different mental characteristics. I haven’t seen proof either way, and I don’t really care to research the matter. But I think Dan’s analysis is much more honest and scientific than is yours. > \*\* Define race. Scientifically. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by johnson \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > _ **biggirl** said:_ > > Any percieved difference in **size** , speed and intelligence is superficial and culturally based. > > **Perceived** difference in size? And speed? \*Perhaps \* it’s true that in some cultures sprinting is pushed over, say, ice fishing. But how exactly are “perceptions” of size (and probably speed) superficial and culturally based? > \*\* I know a 6’1" Korean. Even if I didn’t, height is a superficial definition of race if we are speaking genetics. Are you saying that all people under a certain height are a different race? A light-skinned black person is no longer a “Negroid”? A Chinese person with smaller eye-folds is no longer Mogoloid? Read the links. Do the research. Then come back to me. ---
**Author:** ![johnson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@johnson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnson)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2001, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-danielinthewolvesden-defends-his-racist-gd-statement/51719/39 "2001-01-26T05:33:59Z")
I haven’t seen anyone suggest that races can be defined by height. I certainly did no such thing. To suggest, however, that Asians are, on average, the same height as Northern Europeans is very likely (I don’t have cites, and I’ll likely not waste my time looking) incorrect. Sure, there are 6’1" Koreans, and 7’3" Chinese. There are also such things as _means_, _medians_, _standard deviations_, and _outliers_. To recognize that physical differences exist is not racist. As **Enderw24** said, > [@](#): > > There are differences physically between an Asian, a Caucasian, and a black. That’s not racist. Let’s just take the difference between males and females. Males, on average, are stronger than females. On average they run faster and on average they jump higher. That isn’t sexist. That’s a fact! The endless fight against ignorance, indeed. ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2001, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-danielinthewolvesden-defends-his-racist-gd-statement/51719/40 "2001-01-26T05:48:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Enderw24 \* > Interracial does not mean interspecies. One race can mate with another race just fine. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t differences between them! There are HUGE differences between an Irish Setter and a Chow (both physically and mentally) but they can still mate and produce offspring. There are differences physically between an Asian, a Caucasian, and a black. That’s not racist. \*\* Slight nitpick : There is actually very little genetic difference between an Irish Setter and a Chow. Man domesticated _Canis familiaris_ several thousand years ago. Until that point, all dogs were basically wolves. An experiment done in the 1970s where they took several breeds of dogs (big little, different shapes, etc.) and put them on a farm showed that in a few generations, the progeny looked quite wolf-like. This is due to the nature of breed selection, which depends mostly on dominant traits. Human populations may not have interbred for hundreds of thousands of years. There is much more genetic heterogeneity between “races” (which as others have pointed out has no real scientific meaning) which in essence at some point were non-interbreeding (for the most part) populations. Anyway, I am studying to be a human geneticist (among other things). In order to define frequencies of particular traits in a population, we must first define our population. There are no good definitions for the populations which make up different “races” so we cannot scientifically define the population. Therefore, we cannot really measure trait frequency. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-danielinthewolvesden-defends-his-racist-gd-statement/51719.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-danielinthewolvesden-defends-his-racist-gd-statement/51719.md?page=3)