From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Jun 26 2004 - 20:40:34 BST
Dan Glover said:
One example of racial difference comes up in the use of DNA analysis during
crime investigations. From what I understand, a researcher can pinpoint race
by looking at just three sections of DNA. That isn't racism. But it is a
racial difference. I think you could say the same for doctors working on
cures for the many diseases which tend to run enthically. They're looking
for racial differences at the genetic level to better understand what's
going on.
dmb says:
Hmmm. I think you've missed the point of what we've learned about race from
genetics. We've learned that the concept has no scientific meaning. Genetics
has taught us that there is no such thing as race. Certain physicial
features have been construed as racial differences by social conventions.
You mean to say that these physical features can be detected by genes, not
that race can be detected - because there is no such thing. Did you know,
for example, that there are black skinned caucasians in India? There are
black-skinned Asians too. The categories that we have traditionally used to
divide people, such as skin color, is shown by genetics to be a relatively
tiny difference compared to the differences that social convention tends to
ignore WITHIN so-called racial groups. The fact is, every person on this
planet is related to you. The greatest distance possible is somthing like
20th cousin and this would describe the two most distantly related
individuals on earth. Chances are good that no one is quite that far removed
from you. The 20th cousins would be probably be a Kalahari bushman and the
captian of the Swedish bikini team.
Dan continued:
According to the MOQ, I think these examples might be considered biological
level patterns of value. DNA can be seen with a scientific instrument and
analyzed. When you talk about racism though, you enter into the social
realm. Ye cannae spot a bigot under a microscope no matter how closely ye
look.
dmb says:
Right. But more than that. One need not be a hateful bigot to mistakenly
accept "race" as a meaningful term. Its a social convention and its one that
happens to be contradicted by science. This is a very important thing to
notice because race only serves to divide and/or oppress people. If there is
a historical case where it was used for good instead of evil, it would be
news to me. And even if there is such a case, it would only be an exception
that proves the rule.
Thanks.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 26 2004 - 22:07:55 BST