http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=%3c32446FC4.5635@sgi.net%3e&server=dnserver.db96q4&CONTEXT=845763224.5647&hitnum=79

--------------255D53B2179
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="getdoc.xp"

 [Previous]   [Next Hitlist]   [Hitlist]   [Get Thread]   [Author Profile]
 [Post]   [Post]   [Reply]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article 80 of 81

Subject:      Re: more "redneck" stuff
From:         "Ken P." 
Date:         1996/09/21
Message-Id:   <32446FC4.5635@sgi.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-Ascii
Organization: Stargate Industries, Inc.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:   misc.education
X-Mailer:     Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; U)

Lisa E. Gregory wrote:
>
> What does this post have to do with education?
>
> I think that we should worry more about preserving species not
> races.  After all, we are all Homo sapiens sapiens.
>
> ---
> ****************
> L. Gregory
> Biology Teacher
> Science Rules!

Your brief posting raises three important issues.

First, as I think you recognize, humans are part of the natural world.  That is, the
rules that can be observed to apply to the non-human parts of nature, such as those
related to competition for scarce resources, natural selection, and limitations on
population growth, apply to humans as well.  Further, it is demonstrable that humans are
descendant from non-human ancestors.

It follows then, that the man-made rules related to zoological nomenclature and
classification should be applied to humans in the same manner in which these rules are
applied to all other organisms.

(This should all be obvious.  However, popular ideology is dominated by those who hold
that humans are either "sacred" (religious humanists) or "precious" (secular humanists)
and are separated by an unbridgeable gulf from the rest of nature.  On the human side of
this gulf, humanists/egalitarianists imagine a level plane and refuse to see any
differences between individual humans or groups of humans.  The only exception to this
being that those, like me, who do see differences are uniquely evil.)

Second, the distinction between "species" and the next lower unit of classification,
"race" or "variety" is also not as profound as is commonly thought.

"Differences, however slight, between any two forms, if not blended by intermediate
gradations, are looked at by most naturalists as sufficient to raise both forms to the
rank of species.  Hereafter, we shall be compelled to acknowledge that the only
distinction between species and well-marked varieties is, that the latter are known, or
believed, to be connected at the present day by intermediate gradations whereas species
were formerly thus connected. . . . It is quite possible that forms now generally
acknowledged to be merely varieties may hereafter be though worthy of specific names. .
. . we shall at least be freed from the vain search for the undiscovered and
undiscoverable essence of the term species."  [Darwin, C. 1859 _On the origin of species
by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for
life_ 1st ed. London (Murray)]

As one moves away from the (liberal-dominated) arena of socio-political discourse to the
realm of life scientists quietly practicing their trade, this view is the norm.
Consider the following passage from a prominent botanical reference:

"Possibly the most important unit of classification is the species, however, the term is
more a concept than an absolute entity.  Lawrence noted that botanist of every
generation have attempted to define the term species for which there may be no single
definition.  L.H. Bailey defined a species as a kind of plant or animal distinct from
other kinds in marked or essential features that has good characters of identification,
and may be assumed to represent a continued succession of individuals from generation to
generation.  He then went on to say that the term is incapable of exact definition for
nature is not laid out in formal lines.  Actually, the species term is a concept, the
product of each individual's judgement." [Dirr, M.A. 1983 _Manual of woody landscape
plants_ 3rd ed. (Stipes)]

Third, the distinctions between the various groups of humans are far, far greater than
the distinctions between many other groups of organisms for which scientists have
awarded separate specific names.

For example, consider two species of gazelle *Gazella granti* and *G. thomsoni*, which
live together in mixed herds in the great Ngorongoro crater of Tanzania.  The two
species are similar in appearance and newcomers to the region almost invariably confused
them.  There are certain minor differences in coloration, and the *granti* is slightly
taller at the shoulders, has smaller scent glands in the face, and has a larger skull
than the *thomsoni*.  But the only morphological differences are rather trivial.

Skulls play such a large part in human taxonomy that it interesting to compare those of
the two species of gazelles.  They are remarkably similar, very much more so than those
of an Eskimo and a Lapp, for instance, and indeed than those of a typical Nordid and a
typical Alpinid, though the two latter are only SUBRACES of the Europid RACE.

One final thought.  Suppose an honest and bold physical anthropologist were to publicly
declare that what were refer to human "races" would be better classified as human
"species."  How many hours do you think it would take for him to be stripped of his
livelihood and his reputation?

Ken P.
Observer
Ignorance rules!  (unfortunately)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 [Previous]   [Next Hitlist]   [Hitlist]   [Get Thread]   [Author Profile]
 [Post]   [Post]   [Reply]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------255D53B2179--


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------64A5151D7BB0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=%3c32477249.68DE@sgi.net%3e&server=dnserver.db96q4&CONTEXT=845763224.5647&hitnum=78

--------------64A5151D7BB0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="getdoc.xp"

 [Previous]   [Next]   [Hitlist]   [Get Thread]   [Author Profile]   [Post]
 [Post]   [Reply]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article 79 of 81

Subject:      Re: Alberto C. Moreira
From:         "Ken P." 
Date:         1996/09/23
Message-Id:   <32477249.68DE@sgi.net>
References:    <50lup6$jp8@newsbf02.news.aol.com>  <50sjng$s12@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <50uo7a$8jh@mtha.usc.edu> <
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-Ascii
Organization: Stargate Industries, Inc.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:   misc.education
X-Mailer:     Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; U)

Einar Oryall wrote:

> ****My race, your race - guess what guys, no matter what color you
> are, we are ALL part of the HUMAN race and it is this type of immuture
> bickering about color that is going to eventually bring about the
> demise of the ENTIRE race of humans (unless we stop ourselves and
> accept that we are all the same, just in different colors). So wake up
> & smell the coffee. Try making a friend instead of arguing all the
> time!
> In Christ,
> Betty

"Human race" is nothing more than a cutesy egalitarianist term used to
obscure the real and important differences between the races.

Second, the idea that the only differences between the races are those of color
is to physical anthropology what illiteracy is to literature.  As I have
recommended in previous posts here, read _Race_ by John Baker and/or
_Race, Evolution, and Behavior_ by J. Philippe Rushton.  The reader will find
that race effects more than just skin color.  It effects, among other things:
bone structure and density; resistance to various diseases; brain size; IQ;
gestation time; hormone levels; genitalia; aggressiveness; and criminality.
Given this, it would seem odd that any intellectually honest  person would use
a term like "human race."

Lastly, I cannot avoid noticing that you close you post with, "In Christ."  If
you believe that your Christian faith teaches you your egalitarianist dogma
then you are greatly mistaken.  Consider this from Fr. James Thornton of the
True Orthodox Church:

" . . . I would be the first to admit that among those who call themselves
"Christians," and especially within the leadership councils of certain official,
mainstream, ostensibly Christian groups, there are a multitude of spiritual
charlatans and cultural Bolsheviks.  Just as the early Church was disturbed by
heretical offshoots that amalgamated elements of Christianity with some of the
more bizarre forms of paganism, so in our day do we witness the proliferation
of heretical, sectarian modes of thought.  These are perfectly described by the
Russian Orthodox philosopher and sociologist Pitirim Sokokin in these words:

'A wild concoction of a dozen various "Social Gospels," diversified by several
beliefs of Christianity diluted by those of Marxism, Democracy, and
Theosophy, enriched by a dozen vulgarized philosophical ideas, corrected by
several scientific theories, peacefully squatting side by side with the most
atrocious magical superstitions.'

"What he refers to, of course, is the World Council of Churches kind of
Christianity -- that artificial, ideological, politically correct substitute for the
 original product.  It is indeed the very antithesis of traditional Christianity."
["American Renaissance," August 1996]

Or consider this from Fr. Ronald K. Tacelli, R.C. priest:

"I realize that there is nothing more tedious than for a professor of philosophy
to try to trace down the roots of some intellectual current.  But the more I
study and live with Liberals (and especially the more I study the French
Enlightenment), the more come to see that Liberalism is a form of Christianity
-- not a Christian heresy exactly, but a kind of ersatz Christianity: something
that rejects Christianity itself, but attempts to keep some of the things within
Christian teaching it found attractive and appealing.  One of these notions is
equality.

"Within Christian teaching there is a sense in which all men are equal; all men
come from one source -- God.  They are called to share God's plan of salvation.  Since
this plan is God's, it is also the ground of the dignity of all
who fall under it.  But notice:  This does not mean, and was never thought in
orthodox Christianity to mean, that all have the same abilities, are equally
good or talented. . . .

"Now with the coming of Liberalism, there was a denial of the Christian God.
And therefore equality and dignity could no longer be grounded in God's
salvific plan.  How then could they be grounded?  Liberalism had to find a
ground for equality and dignity within nature.  But where?  Christians had
believed that we have a common origin and that in this sense we are one.  But
accidents of evolution could never convincingly ground a kind of equality that
is something to prize: a kind that has real worth.  And since empirically it was
(and is) obvious that there is much inequality and difference among different
races, this equality had to be seen as *potential*: an equality of the *seeming* worst
in the best: an equality unverified only because of accidental
circumstances, because of a lack of opportunity, a lack of education, a lack of
justice on the part of the privileged toward the deprived.  The engine that
drives Liberalism is the need to prove concretely -- to verify in history -- the
dignity of man: to eliminate those obstacles that hinder the nobleman waiting
to emerge from every peasant.

"Note: This is nothing less than a program to salvage something of a religion
long abandoned.  That something -- human dignity -- is thus the object of a
secular faith.  And since Liberals see equality as among the necessary conditions for
this object of their faith, it isn't really possible to have empirical
arguments about it.  The data can always be interpreted in such a way as to
reinforce the belief."  ["American Renaissance," January 1995]

Ken P.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 [Previous]   [Next]   [Hitlist]   [Get Thread]   [Author Profile]   [Post]
 [Post]   [Reply]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------64A5151D7BB0--

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor