There is no biological factor behind racism. Yes, you might suggest that it's genetic (or, more properly, evolutionary) in that it was of benefit to the survival of early tribal 'proto-humans' to be instinctively distrustful of creatures who were significantly different from them, but there hasn't been ANY biological evidence that different races of human beings exist today. Of course you get stereotypes arising out cultures, appearance etc, but in the genetic level there aren't much differences from a person of African or Asian descent.
That is such a huge claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I suspect this belief has come into people because of the human genome project. They state "All human races are 99.99 % alike, so racial differences are genetically insignificant." The proof that they claim is unfortunately no proof at all. Everybody knows that in genetics, a difference of 0.1% is an ENORMOUS difference,
Comparing all the sources it has been found that the percentage difference is 99.5% not 99.99%. This 99.9 % thing is due to source error.
But if we compare it like that,Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.
- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice.
- Cows are 80% genetically similar to humans
- 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans , 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans (source)
- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans
- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene.
- Bananas share about 50% to 70 % of its DNA with humans. (So are we bananas?)
A difference of only 0.1% therefore shows that people will have around three million base pairs in their DNA.(Keep in mind that it's about 0.5%) Yes, three million. And remember that it only takes ONE to turn an otherwise healthy human into someone who has Progeria for example. Just a single error out of more than one million base pairs prevented it from working at first. At that level, a very little can mean an awful lot.
Also Human genome project never proved that races don't exist. It proved that every human being on the planet is a human being. This point is irrefutable. You're just trying to say that because we're all the same SPECIES that there are no separate RACES. If that was the case, we'd all be one color with all the same traits...etc...etc. I don't understand why it is so hard to wrap one's mind around the fact that because you can determine differences between different populations, race is real.
Every other species on the planet has group variations WITHIN the species, yet current liberal dogma insists that human beings are an exception to this rule. As far as biology is concerned, putting human beings on a pedestal apart from other animals is about as "non scientific" as you can get.
If you dug up bones from hundreds/thousands of years ago, you could determine what the race of the skeleton was. If race isn't real, how is this possible? If science can determine this, how is there no genetic basis for race?And a dna test can determine someone’s racial ancestry even though race doesn't exist? Lol
Race is a "social construct" in the sense that, the classification is man made - as are all classifications. One can argue gender does not exist on the same ground one argues race does not exist - you won't get far with either. Race is real, to the extent any other genetic classification is real.
Bear in mind that race is perhaps the most polarizing and sensitive issue in the scientific community today and as such, it's very difficult for people in academia to present their unfettered opinion on the subject without serious repercussions (i.e., the Dr. James Watson controversy surrounding his views on Africa).
Most physical anthropologists, population geneticists, behavior geneticists, and psychologists who wish to keep their reputations untarnished understand that they have to do the ceremonial "race denial" at the beginning of their published works involving race; if they fail to do this, they face mass condemnation (as James Watson did). However, there do exist scientists who won't be intimated by the political climate and will openly state the biological validity of race. These people aren't crazed lunatics on the fringes of the scientific establishment, but rather published/peer-reviewed, widely respected, award-winning experts in their fields of research.
Most scientists don't deny race at all; they simply replace the word "race" with more
politically correct terms, such as
"population groups" or "
clines", and so on. Seems familiar?
The truth of the matter is, the scientific community hasn't disproved race at all, it's one of the areas of most contention in the discipline. Most scientists will tell you that "not enough research has been done on the subject to know one way or another" (when in actuality there has been), then you'll find a minority of scientists who say that race, does indeed, exist and opposing minority which contends that it doesn't.
The reason why most anthropology textbooks, for example, get away with saying race "doesn't exist" is because they invariably set up an outdated straw man as a definition for race. However, after burning that straw man and claiming that, as a result, race is merely a "social construct," they always subsequently make mention of the bell curve theory and sociobiology, and state how "controversial" race remains in the academic community today.
Slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The other half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the 'racial lens.'Is it wrong wishing things were different? Is it wrong disagreeing with natures unjustness?
What about reality?
What about the the truth?
What about the obvious?
Sorry to break it down to you , but race exists BIOLOGICALLY. Go on and ignore all of those to make yourself feel better. See, human beings are not equal. "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS"
The fact that a racial denier is happier than a believer is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
