Archonsod said:
uncreative said:
The definitions are pretty vague and hardly universal.
No they're not. From the dictionary:
The term "Racism" isn't the controversy he speaks of, but rather the term "Race". The definition of racism is only as correct as the term race itself in this manner.
[quote author=Wikipedia]The term race or racial group usually refers to the categorization of humans into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics. The most widely used human racial categories are based on salient traits (especially skin color, cranial or facial features and hair texture), and self-identification.
Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial for scientific as well as social and political reasons. The controversy ultimately revolves around whether or not the concept of race is biologically warranted; the ways in which political correctness might fuel either the affirmation or the denial of race; and the degree to which perceived differences in ability and achievement, categorized on the basis of race, are a product of inherited (i.e., genetic) traits or environmental, social and cultural factors.
Some argue that although race is a valid taxonomic concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans. Many scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; thus they reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity. Today many scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation". Many contend that while racial categorizations may be marked by phenotypic or genotypic traits, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into races or racial groups, are social constructs. However, the concept of race may be useful in forensic anthropology. According to forensic anthropologist George W. Gill, "race denial" not only contradicts biological evidence, but may stem from "politically motivated censorship" in the belief that "race promotes racism".[/quote]
For us to try and break down our species into separate races is indeed controversial.
I guess there is the terming "Caucasoid", "Africanoid", "Mongoloid" which may be as good as it gets, but that still leaves our species disenfranchised for many types of peoples such as Indians for example.
As the wiki mentions, most of race classifications are social constructs and really have no place relevant to the term, and certainly not with science.
A good example is the race classification here in the States "African American" which is used to describe black people in many profile cases. Now, obviously this is inaccurate because the majority of black people termed with this have in fact not lived in Africa. Compounding this is also the fact that not all people from Africa are black, so that would be an incorrect classification.
Its mostly social and political and really has no grounds in science or logic at all.
****ing, and regardless how you spin our inception, be it creation, or evolution, we came from one people.. so it's really ignorant to go around branding someone a racist when we have common origins.
