Amazon.com Widgets

Human races or human race: Are there different "races" among humans (yes) or are we all simply part of the "human race" (no)?

  • No! Of Course not!

    This thread makes me sick... But i will use my superior knowledge to help you out. Africans have a smaller frontal lobe, therefore lower IQ. This is because Africans weren't exposed to the harsh conditions (Mongoloid, Caucasian)
    the other races were exposed to. Harsh weather etc. They had less opportunities to use their brains/minds and according to scientific research, using your mind (Mind games, solving problems etc) to overcome or thinking will.. Basically.. ''grow your brain''
    The Caucasian has a medium sized brain (When compared to African, Asian skull/brain size) and have a average IQ of 100. Caucasians were exposed to harsh conditions (Cold weather) and therefore they probably ''thought'' or ''think'' a lot.
    Asians (Mostly Chinese, Korean, Japanese) have the largest skull and the highest average IQ recorded. 110. (Or 106), the Asians were exposed to harsh weather and droughts, they began farming at a early age compared to most European cultures. They also encouraged learning and inventing (Which also attributes to their brain advancement). The first clock/computer was made during the Song dynasty 800 years ago, along with the first possible Industrial evolution 800 years ago. These were facts brought along to help denying white people to understand they are not ''superior''.
    Physical comparison- 90% of physical appearance is genetic, while the other 10% is based on nutrition. Let's say my parents are 5'3 (They are)
    and i am 5'6 (I'm 14), my parents are from China and they were born during the ''great leap forward'' where famine and drought were common. So they had less nutrition, and therefore they couldn't grow any taller. Btw, my diet consists of hamburgers, meat, and milk.
    If you compare these 3 main race's heights 300 years ago you couldn't tell the difference.. Even now. Malnutrition African/Asian people are shorter than whites who had their whole lives stuffed on hamburgers and milkshakes.
    There isn't really any difference besides brain size and iq.

  • Yes, there are unique characteristics.

    Yes, there are difference races among humans, because there are genetic traits that determine skin color that are passed down by parents. If there were not races, a person would not be born with the same skin color as their parents. Race is arbitrary, but it is true that some people have different color skin than others, and this is differences in race.

  • Yes, there are characteristics of races.

    Yes, although we are all part of the human race, there are different characteristics of certain types of people that are passed down from generation to generation. This is not to say that we are not also the human race, but there are distinct characteristics in skin tone, height, hair type, etc, that are passed down genetically.

  • Racial types exist

    There is a collection of unique characteristics for racial groups, it's not about white, black, brown,.. Though those characteristics are part of the total sum of physical characteristics which distinguish certain groups of people from others (yet not really scientifically categorizable in referring to all those characteristics, "but you know it when you see it") ,.. And of course there are 'sub-racial' types within the white, black, brown, or continental term... Groupings. Different kinds of 'white' races, different kinds of African races, different kinds of Asian races, and et cetera for other human types of the world.

  • Race is non-exsistant

    There is no such thing as race in the real world. Race is something made up by humans to categorize people into different groups. Race is a concept, an imaginary idea thought up by humans. Therefore, race is non-existant and does not exist in the real world, only in our imaginations

  • We are a human race/species and like any other species there are variations.

    The argument depends on what we consider race. If defined by this: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/sciences/sociology/race-and-ethnicity/race-and-ethnicity-defined, then race is concept of phenotypes that have been deemed important to distinguish. That is why people think race they think skin color, which is merely the amount of melanin produced by your melanocytes and even that amount can change (i.E. Vitiligo, albinism, tanning, etc), but no one questions eye color.

    However these are illusions that social-political agendas have deemed important to keep us separate. In fact anatomically, and physiologically, despite some exceptions, we are all the same. Now many people will mistake ethnicity (cultural and geographical background) as race and that causes false distinctions among people. As you can tell black Americans are not the same as black Africans, or black Russians. If different races were actually real then the ones we "just know when we see them" would all have the same characteristics among that group. The mere fact that we cannot validly classify, group, or box other human beings into different groups without finding a significant amount of exceptions should be evidence enough that race is a fallible concept that does not have a tangible representation.

    I'm personally sick of all the things that we try to use to segregate ourselves. We have to except that yes we are one species, and yes we have decided in our history to harm our own species based on faulty premises. I think all our BS that we do to each other will be significantly reduced if we realize that we are not as different as we try to make it seem. Or more likely there is something that will come an almost wipe out our species making us realize how arbitrary and faulty the concept of race is in the first place.

  • No! Of Course not!

    This thread makes me sick... But i will use my superior knowledge to help you out. Africans have a smaller frontal lobe, therefore lower IQ. This is because Africans weren't exposed to the harsh conditions (Mongoloid, Caucasian)
    the other races were exposed to. Harsh weather etc. They had less opportunities to use their brains/minds and according to scientific research, using your mind (Mind games, solving problems etc) to overcome or thinking will.. Basically.. ''grow your brain''
    The Caucasian has a medium sized brain (When compared to African, Asian skull/brain size) and have a average IQ of 100. Caucasians were exposed to harsh conditions (Cold weather) and therefore they probably ''thought'' or ''think'' a lot.
    Asians (Mostly Chinese, Korean, Japanese) have the largest skull and the highest average IQ recorded. 110. (Or 106), the Asians were exposed to harsh weather and droughts, they began farming at a early age compared to most European cultures. They also encouraged learning and inventing (Which also attributes to their brain advancement). The first clock/computer was made during the Song dynasty 800 years ago, along with the first possible Industrial evolution 800 years ago. These were facts brought along to help denying white people to understand they are not ''superior''.
    Physical comparison- 90% of physical appearance is genetic, while the other 10% is based on nutrition. Let's say my parents are 5'3 (They are)
    and i am 5'6 (I'm 14), my parents are from China and they were born during the ''great leap forward'' where famine and drought were common. So they had less nutrition, and therefore they couldn't grow any taller. Btw, my diet consists of hamburgers, meat, and milk.
    If you compare these 3 main race's heights 300 years ago you couldn't tell the difference.. Even now. Malnutrition African/Asian people are shorter than whites who had their whole lives stuffed on hamburgers and milkshakes.
    There isn't really any difference besides brain size and iq.

  • Yes there are unique physical characteristics but this doesn't substantiate the concept of rigid, well defined genetic delineations between groups of people.

    Of course there are genetic differences that account for phenotypic as well as physiological differences, the latter most often manifesting as an individual's metabolization of chemical substances, and even this is not universal among "races", but this does not imply a clear and distinct genetic boundary between humans. Science has long settled this debate by demonstrating that more genetic variation exist within "races" than between them. Moreover, one need simply to ask the question, what defines "race"? Is it strictly physical characteristics? Is it skin color? What makes an African American or Eastern African with a brown complexion black compared to a southern Indian with even darker skin? What makes a fair skinned red haired individual from Ireland just as "white" as a swarthy, dark haired individual from Greece? Where is the line drawn when considering aboriginal Australians, some with dark skin and blonde hair, from someone of English descent with blond hair as well? Why are Jews considered white despite being a people with Mediterranean origins akin to their Arab neighbors? We need only examine the evolution of the concept of race to see that it is built upon social conventions rather than anything empirical. The British did not consider themselves and the Irish and Scottish to be of the same "race". Irish and Italian immigrants were discriminated against alongside "blacks" in America's infancy. Why did the Roman's consider the rest of Europeans as barbarians? Why did different groups of Greek people identify themselves differently than one another? Why did the contemporaries of Ancient Egyptians identify them as "black" while in modern times this is a great debate? The answers to all of these questions is because "race" does not scientifically exist. There are pronounced phenotypical differences between siblings, cousins, grandparents and their grand children, there are such differences between the different nations of Europe, Asia, and Africa, are we to believe then that these phenotypic markers are due to race?


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.