Joe Dees wrote:
>
> >Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 18:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
> > Party of Citizens <citizens@vcn.bc.ca>:
> >
> >How about simply observing scientifically verifiable race differences? Is
> >that racism?
> >
> "Jimmy the Greek" Snyder probably thought his opinion on physical differences in athletes was scientifically based (he even gave his reason - forced plantation eugenics), and the baseball guy who said black "didn't have the prerequisites" (intelligence)
to manage sports teams - a claim also made by bigoted football coaches as to why they didn't permit blacks to try out for quarterback - most likely thought that there was a test for that sort of thing. Of course, blacks have now successfully managed man
y teams, now that they've been given the chance, just as black quarterbacks have played well now that they're allowed to try (Doug Williams won a Super Bowl), which proves that anecdotes and preconceptions are a poor substitute for genuine science. It is
not racist to observe that a greater percentage of blacks have the genes for sickle cell anemia, or that a greater percentage of Semites (both Jews and Palestinians) have the genes for Tay-Sachs syndrome, or that a greater percentage of caucasians posses
s t
he genes for hemophilia, than in the general population, or that differing racial groups possess differing complexional spectra, eye color spectra, and hair texture spectra. These distinctions have good hard science behind them.
Yes they do, and good points, Joe. However, this doesn't address the
idea in academia that specifically looking for genetic differences
between races for anything other than diseases is itself a racist
practice. I think that being so PC about it is itself racist. If you
refuse to look for differences, you are guaranteed to never find them.
How do you KNOW that what Jimmy the Greek was saying was not, in fact,
true? His reasoning certainly applies to breeding farm animals and race
horses. Why then would similar methodologies not also apply to a
historically documentable program of breeding humans for physical
performance?
I understand the moral issues about treating humans like farm animals,
but why deny the facts completely? Why not just acknowledge that the
facts are in fact, true, but stating that performing eugenics on humans
outside of parental discretion is wrong, despite its proven scientific
advantages?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:06 MDT