When will science start recognising races again and start studying the different social behaviours of different races? It's very frustrating seeing this obvious reality being ignored in every field where humans are involved. We would be much better off knowing that certain people react and comprehend in different ways when it comes to certain tasks and ways of conduct, or who don't comprehend them at all, instead of just forcing the same behaviours on all humans.
>>16991759>When will science start recognising races again and start studying the different social behaviours of different races?As soon as you can come up with a non-arbitrary way to differentiate races
lmao, you are in for a lot of hurt anon, keep churning out them useless threads while the rest of the world becomes more brown
>>16991864Blood donations and certain applications can only be given to certain races.
>>16991864Nothing is perfectly non-arbitrary. Why not use the same logic as for differentiating subspecies of animals? Like say, if one group appears primarily in northern Europe and has a fair coat and another group appears primarily in Subsaharan Africa and has a dark coat, there is zero chance these wouldn't be classified as two different subspecies.
>>16991759Here’s a better question.Would you support moving beyond blanket descriptors like “white, black, and Asian” and following this field to its absolute conclusion?You’re probably only so vested in this because you believe yourself to be at the “top” of the hierarchy, but this would almost certainly change if you moved beyond the elementary versions of this.>inb4 D&CThat would be the new cope in this new system, regardless of whether or not a tinyhat says it as part of an agenda.
>>16991869Are dog breeds different subspecies?
>>16991876retard thread gets hijacked by a high iq love to see it
>>16991869>there is zero chance these wouldn't be classified as two different subspecies.Don't try to speak of matters who know little of anon. There are many species who exist across extremely large areas of land and water that are all one subspecies. Some only have one species despite spanning continents.
>>16991759>We would be much better off knowing that certain people react and comprehend in different ways when it comes to certain tasks and ways of conduct, or who don't comprehend them at allBut we do, it's called material analysis and social studies for example>>16991876>because you believe yourself to be at the “top” of the hierarchyI've read something interesting on the topic recently, about how one of the origins of racism in its modern form stems from the time of slavery, when white indentured servants and black salves showed solidarity with each other. A racial wedge was driven between them, so they wouldn't fight their oppressors together. So even if you had a pitiful existence that was almost slavery in all but name you could still feels superior based on being white and would fight to suppress black slaves, instead of joining them to end their and your own oppression.Not so different from today, now that I think about it.
>>16991903This doesn't relate to scientific race study. And what you describe is the Virginia surrection in the late 17th century which only resulted in the abolition of slavery for white males during the early 18th century.
>>16991869>Why not use the same logic as for differentiating subspecies of animals?That is also arbitrary. If there isn’t even a good definition of subspecies how do you expect to come up with one for race?>Like say, if one group appears primarily in northern Europe and has a fair coat and another group appears primarily in Subsaharan Africa and has a dark coat, there is zero chance these wouldn't be classified as two different subspeciesThere isn’t zero chance of that, there are literally hundreds of examples of that. Coastal brown bears from Alaska are twice the size of inland grizzlies from Montana and have different shaped skulls but are the same subspecies. Barbary lions had dark manes that covered half their body while Indian lions have gimpy yellow neckbeards yet they’re still the same subspecies. Fur colour is the last thing anyone would use to designate subspecies
>>16991867They can also only be given to certain individuals within a single race
Are you really, really sure you want to poke this ant hill? You may not like the answer you get. Let's outline. There are physical differences which separate one mind from another. Via mental architectural, physical substrate abilities, etc. Not all minds are equally able to replicate themselves. More efficient minds can replicate themselves much easier than simple minds. There is no apparent mechanical reason life cannot adapt to the harsh uncaring universe and therefore displace other, more fragile life, like.. us.
>We can tell because of this animal's appearance that is belongs to a class of animals with a specific behavior>Heh, kind of like black people >WELL ACTUALLY YOU CAN'T EVEN DEFINE WHAT "BLACK" MEANS AND IN FACT ALL WORDS ARE ARBITRARY AND EVEN THE IDEA OF CLASSIFYING THINGS IS REALLY JUST A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT PLUS WHO KNOWS IF HUMAN BEINGS CAN EVEN SAY THAT PREDICTIVE POWER EQUALS DIFFERENTIATION OF CONCEPTSevery single time
>>16991759Why does the Australian skull look friendlier
>>16992036>anon doesn’t know taxonomyAs usual
