Good points. But they don't suggest you can't apply taxonomy to humans. They only suggest it is not easy. But applying taxonomy to many living organisms is not easy, especially things like quickly mutating fungus and microorganisms. Taxonomists often don't agree on naming these organisms either. But does that mean there is inherent bigotry or racism involved? Not really. The inherent problem with tx is as you imply: the complexity of life and its mutant/adaptive capacity. As soon as you think you got something defined and named, you look up and the damned thing has changed on you already. Tx is a frustrating balance between splitting and lumping. Much of the points you make consist of the former, and the arguments between the two types of txists rage on. Oh well. What shall we do? Give up the science of naming and defining? That would be unfortunate, because that is the essence of much biological science - and we would be giving up a lot of the mechanics of understanding life along with it.
Let's consider dispensing with splitting. OK, but where would you prefer to draw the dividing line? Besides subspecies, should we also avoid species-rank nomenclature and start going up the taxon-tree? In other words, can we still call ourselves "homo sapiens" without fear of some kind of repercussion? Maybe we should just start calling ourselves "homos". Or is that also too selective? Let's go up another rank to "hominids". OK, but that still contains selectivity, so let's go with the more conservative "primates". Yeah well one man's "safe" is another man's "radical"; let's be safer and stick with good old dependable "mammal". Aww fuck all that complicated shit and admit that we are nothing more than "animalia"! (Surely the plants aren't gonna come around with some bs racial claim over that one!) No science is perfect. It's just "more perfect" than the alternative. Imperfect does not equal junk. -Mark _____ Actually, taxonomists can't even agree amongst themselves on the defining characteristics for the so-called" races", let alone with physical anthropologists or geneticists. Where is the dividing line? They can't answer that question. What "race" is a Melungeon, Brass Ankle, Redbone, Metis, or Roma? What "race" are the Lumbee when compared to Arapaho? What "race" is a Welsh individual when compared to a Serb? What "race" are the descendents of the Xinjiang area when compared to Eastern Chinese population groups? To what "racial" classification do Greeks, Italians and other Mediterranean population groups belong within the commonly used "racial" classifications by taxonomists and other "race is real" true believers? They can't do it consistently, coherently or with any measurable method of demarcation. The new "aha-I-gotcha" fad is to point to fast-twitch muscle groups and claim it's a clear indication of "racial" difference. Funny thing though, fast-twitch muscles are only present in a small minority of the members of the particular population group for which it is supposed to be a defining "racial" characteristic. Then they point to HLA alleles. Funny thing about HLA alleles, there are thousands of combinations which differ within the population groups they are being used to claim as evidence of a common trait. Then there is the "race" is an extended family argument which intentionally neglects the fact that these "extended families" didn't crop up magically in their present locations. The origins of such families, who are being left out of these "extended families" on the basis of skin color, migrated to these locations from Africa well after the establishment of homo sapiens sapiens as the latest incarnation of humanity. It is more of "faith" issue (I know its there, I desperately need it to be there, I just can't prove its there), than a hard science when applied to human population groups. And folks can sometimes get really, really emotional when challenged on these contradictions and their fuzzy logic. "Race" as means of claiming, sorting and identifying human population groups is not much different today from when it started by measuring skulls, noses and hair textures and then claiming three "racial" groups on that basis. It involves pointing, saying "they are different" because X or Y and then attaching a label on that basis, while completely ignoring the fact that those they've placed in said groups do not share such differences uniformly or consistently. _________________________________________________________________ _ James Landrith <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] cell: 703-593-2065 * fax: 760-875-8547 AIM: jlnales * ICQ: 148600159 MSN and Yahoo! Messenger: jlandrith Taking the Gloves Off - <http://www.jameslandrith.com> http://www.jameslandrith.com The Multiracial Activist - <http://www.multiracial.com> http://www.multiracial.com The Abolitionist Examiner - <http://www.multiracial.com/abolitionist/> http://www.multiracial.com/abolitionist/ _________________________________________________________________ _ _____ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/VpgUKB/pzNLAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
