What I meant to say is that race does not determine our genetic differences. A white man can have DNA that is completely similar to a yellow man or black man. Or completely different. The point is that race tells you nothing of genetic traits like different breeds of dog might (but sometimes don't). It can be generally assumed that a pitbul has above average fighting ability, or that a bloodhound will generally have a better sense of smell. Breeds can often determine genetic differences in doge. Thing is, the external appearance of human beings does not. You can't really say that black men are automatically better at sports than white men, for example. These kind of generalizations are not only hurtful, they are wrong. Yes, there seem to be more blacks in sports, but a big reason for that has to do with the social economic situation that a disproportionate number of blacks are put into. And structural racism also prevents many blacks from obtaining white collar jobs.
Anyway, I was miscommunicating when I said that there are no genetic differences between people. There are differences, of course, but the point is that race does not determine them.
Here, check out this documentary if you want proof and just want to see something interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0Iw8PCl-ho&feature=related
Your proof is moot - I never saw "races" of people as anything other than differing physical appearances, and actually use the word "race" interchangeably with "ethnicity." The reason I used "breeds of dog" as a comparison is because dogs really don't give a damn what other dogs look like depending on temperament, and all of them can still safely mate with one another provided literal anatomical compatibility: Male St. Bernard + Female Teacup Poodle = Horror
I never meant that if people look differently they do certain things better, though it is possible for there to be a breed of human
with the same myostatin inhibitor gene as bully whippets and double lean cattle, should they be forced to only reproduce with each other for a specific purpose.
You've based your argument on the assumption that I'm a racist (by my use of "race"), and I'm not. There are real genetic differences between ethnicities to the point that people of the same ethnicity will be more likely to have similar genes than when compared to someone not of the same genotype, and specific ethnicities appear to be more vulnerable to certain diseases
, as well as women being more vulnerable to certain diseases than men and vice versa. There is indeed random mutation in the mix of all of this, but more often than not, if you happen to have all Scottish ancestors, you're more related to other people with similar ancestry than you would be to someone with all French, Spanish, Russian or Japanese ancestors - but even among the Japanese, the majority population is more related to Mongolians (and a great number of people throughout the world happen to be related directly to Genghis Khan) than they are to the indigenous Japanese, the Ainu. I never meant it as more than a "different genes result in a different outward appearance" idea, and I said right away that the difference in dogs is quite extraordinary in scope, which has lead to, at least
, the most varied physical appearance seen in any known species on the entire planet.
Have I dealt with aggression from other people? Of course. Not any more than the aggression I've received from people more externally similar to me if I relate it to compared total populations of each, so I really wouldn't have a reason to think different people are better or worse at anything. Though random chance could have allowed for a disproportionate amount of hate from one specific group, I don't think it's reasonable to consider certain people lesser under those circumstances - but possibly because I'm fortunate. I have friends (and I use that term loosely) from a wide range of ethnicities, but the proportion of each representative is dependent solely on the amount of any one ethnicity in any area I happen to go, and whether or not I have similar interests to any of these people. However, I myself am a "mutt" of 7 different ethnicities, as well are any of my friends more likely to be "mixed."
Bear in mind that I don't use the term ethnicity to delineate skin tone, I mean people from specific ethnic groups that may very well have differing skin tones. My last name literally means "dark skinned" in Old French, but you wouldn't know that by looking at me or nearly everyone else with my last name.
Our disagreement seems to stem from our differed uses of the word "race." I use it in a broader sense not in line with the former sense of the word relating to eugenics, which appears to be how you're using it. However, given how my use of the word looks inappropriate given the original meaning, I would definitely feel less comfortable using it now than I had been in the past. I would hope I've satisfactorily explained myself, and after watching that video I understand why you're so opposed to the word I used and comparisons I've made.