Race

[Pearlgem]

Honestly, folks, there are no such things as different races. There is only one race - the human race - to which we all belong equally - black, white, yellow, mixed, Chinese, African etc. There are different colours of skin, different cultures, different ethnicities, but to talk about different races is inaccurate and demeans and dehumanises us all.

[mkemse]

Honestly, folks, there are no such things as different races. There is only one race - the human race - to which we all belong equally - black, white, yellow, mixed, Chinese, African etc. There are different colours of skin, different cultures, different ethnicities, but to talk about different races is inaccurate and demeans and dehumanises us all.

Could not agree more, we ar the United States, Not the Black Sttes, Asian States ect butthe United States, we are all 1 just different back ground

[craven]

i could not agree more, i have often felt that the word racist was indeed itself a derogatory and for want of a better word a "racist" or exclusive term

all humans irrespective of colour, religion or creed belong to the human race, we are the same, to treat another human differently or to disadvantage them because of their ethnicity cant therefore be racist, i feel it is maybe more akin to xenophobia.

Dont get me wrong i am all to aware sadly that such bigotry and small mindedness happens and is prevalent in some societies, however as pearlgem says to label such unpleasant behaviour as racist is i feel demeaning to the people siffering such treatment.

racist, racism is i feel an outdated concept, construed out of ignorance and a lack if understanding, given that we are all of the same race it is surely not possible to be racist to anything other than something not from the human race, a horse or a goat etc.

Thank you pearlgem for having the courage to raise this subject, i am not in any way trying to say or infer that people are not disadvantaged or suffer mistreatment or negative stereotyping as a result of their colour, religion or backgrounds, but it cant be racism.

Lets move into the 21st century here and call this disgusting treatment what it is, xenophobic; and not, all be it possibly unintentionally infer that people who are different from us are a different race.

Humans are one race, fact !!!!

[mkemse]

i could not agree more, i have often felt that the word racist was indeed itself a derogatory and for want of a better word a "racist" or exclusive term

all humans irrespective of colour, religion or creed belong to the human race, we are the same, to treat another human differently or to disadvantage them because of their ethnicity cant therefore be racist, i feel it is maybe more akin to xenophobia.

Dont get me wrong i am all to aware sadly that such bigotry and small mindedness happens and is prevalent in some societies, however as pearlgem says to label such unpleasant behaviour as racist is i feel demeaning to the people siffering such treatment.

racist, racism is i feel an outdated concept, construed out of ignorance and a lack if understanding, given that we are all of the same race it is surely not possible to be racist to anything other than something not from the human race, a horse or a goat etc.

Thank you pearlgem for having the courage to raise this subject, i am not in any way trying to say or infer that people are not disadvantaged or suffer mistreatment or negative stereotyping as a result of their colour, religion or backgrounds, but it cant be racism.

Lets move into the 21st century here and call this disgusting treatment what it is, xenophobic; and not, all be it possibly unintentionally infer that people who are different from us are a different race.

Humans are one race, fact !!!!

.........

[hopperboo]

Are we talking about race

Open eyes.



I do not believe in judging someone on color at all. I think some people would be horrible if they were pink with lavender polka dots. (And those are my two favorite colors!)

There are however, different cultures, and different...ways of acting that one can see, and yes, sometimes based on color.

No one should be judged right off on their skin color though.

No one.

[rce]

..........

[Pearlgem]

racist, racism is I feel an outdated concept, construed out of ignorance and a lack of understanding

Thank you, craven. I must admit I am constantly amazed that no ever seems to challenge the use of this term. (Another one I object to is 'ethnic cleansing' which make murder sound like good hygiene.)

I wonder how many of you remember way back in your school books or children's encyclopaedias illustrations of evolution equating to 'the ascent of man'? Not the monkey to human ones but so-called 'evolution of race'. I'm guessing/trying to remember here how it went but probably something like -

lowest - the African 'race'
next up - oh, I don't know, the Chinese 'race'
Inuits
Asians
etc
etc
And at the top of the pile? White Europeans/Americans, of course.

This was presented as scientific fact. It seemed obvious to the powers that be that techologically advanced cultures are superior morally and even on an evolutionary level to 'backward' 'races.'

All complete bollocks!

Using the term 'race' to express differences between us is to my mind an example of 'an outdated concept, construed out of ignorance and a lack of understanding.'

[Thorne]

This is all very nice and politically correct, but face it, people: there are differences between ethnic groups, whether you call them races or not. For lack of a better term, I'll use the term 'race' here.

Biologically speaking, there are fundamental structural differences between the Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid races. I'm not certain, but there may also be structural variations between, say, Chinese, Japanese, American Indians, etc. of the Mongoloid races. And I'm not sure if the Middle East groups constitute a structurally different group. But the fact is, such structural differences are there.

There also seem to be differences in brain structure between different races, not necessarily in capability or potential, but in the actual structure and how the brain works. Again, I'm not certain of the extent or effects of such differences, but they are there.

On the other hand, all groups which comprise the human race are capable of interbreeding with all other groups, making for other, more subtle differences between both groups. And, as people travel more and interact more, there will be more and more interbreeding, thus blending all groups into one. Not a bad thing, by any means.

The key thing to remember here is that each of these groups is different, but not necessarily better or worse than any other group. Each evolved to survive in its own particular environment, and are thus better suited in that environment than other groups might be. That doesn't make them fundamentally better, just better in some situations.

This is not a cultural issue, of course. Not one of semantics, or vocabulary. This is a biological truth, whether people like it or not. Contrary to poetic license, we are not all the same under the skin.

[Pearlgem]

This is all very nice and politically correct, but face it, people: there are differences between ethnic groups, whether you call them races or not. For lack of a better term, I'll use the term 'race' here.

I'd use the term 'race' to signify ethnic differences if it didn't already mean something else scientifically which makes a nonsense of trying to describe differences between us this way. Might as well say 'human' and sub-human.'

Biologically speaking, there are fundamental structural differences between the Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid races. I'm not certain, but there may also be structural variations between, say, Chinese, Japanese, American Indians, etc. of the Mongoloid races. And I'm not sure if the Middle East groups constitute a structurally different group. But the fact is, such structural differences are there.

Sure, and if we all stuck to our own and only interbred like with like we'd end up with different species. But humans mix, throughout history, all over the world. Differences are fluid, not set! And just because there are variations in ethnic types does not mean we are different races.

This is not a cultural issue, of course. Not one of semantics, or vocabulary. This is a biological truth, whether people like it or not. Contrary to poetic license, we are not all the same under the skin.

I disagree. It's a scientific, semantic, cultural and moral issue. Using the term 'race' to describe ethnic differences encourages those with the advantages to view those different from themselves as lesser, a different category of human almost, and inhumanely castigates the disadvantaged.

[Thorne]

Sure, and if we all stuck to our own and only interbred like with like we'd end up with different species. But humans mix, throughout history, all over the world. Differences are fluid, not set! And just because there are variations in ethnic types does not mean we are different races.

I thought I had made this point, and that this is not necessarily bad.

I disagree. It's a scientific, semantic, cultural and moral issue. Using the term 'race' to describe ethnic differences encourages those with the advantages to view those different from themselves as lesser, a different category of human almost, and inhumanely castigates the disadvantaged.

Yes, I have to agree that 'ethnic group' is a less inflammatory way of describing our differences than 'race'. And please remember, these are simply differences, not necessarily better or worse, just different.

Humans are basicly the same, regardless of that which is traditionally called race. No human is better or worse on this or that, just because of his/her race. Compare this to dog breeds, a dog of a hunting breed is better at hunting than a dog of a herding breed. There are no such differences between the traditionally defined different human races.

I respectfully disagree with this statement. Evolution has allowed different groups to survive in different environments, making them more adapted to those environments. As denuseri points out in her post, these traits are crucial to individuals survival, even in a modern culture. But these are not necessarily bad or good! A native of Saharan Africa would have just as much difficulty surviving in a Himalayan country, as a Sherpa would in the Sahara.

I saw a program today which stated that all of humanity's genes can be traced back about 75,000 years to about 5,000 breeding females on the African continent. Humans are among the least genetically diverse species on the planet, something which came as a surprise to me. According to this program, a person from, say, Scandinavia has fewer genetic differences from a person from Africa, than do two chimpanzees in the same social group!

At the genetic level, we are more alike than I ever realized. And continued interbreeding between ethnic groups narrows those differences even more. The time will come, I have no doubt, when we will all be same, both genetically and politically. It's inevitable.

[rce]

This is all very nice and politically correct, but face it, people: there are differences between ethnic groups, whether you call them races or not. For lack of a better term, I'll use the term 'race' here.

Biologically speaking, there are fundamental structural differences between the Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid races. I'm not certain, but there may also be structural variations between, say, Chinese, Japanese, American Indians, etc. of the Mongoloid races. And I'm not sure if the Middle East groups constitute a structurally different group. But the fact is, such structural differences are there.

There also seem to be differences in brain structure between different races, not necessarily in capability or potential, but in the actual structure and how the brain works. Again, I'm not certain of the extent or effects of such differences, but they are there.

On the other hand, all groups which comprise the human race are capable of interbreeding with all other groups, making for other, more subtle differences between both groups. And, as people travel more and interact more, there will be more and more interbreeding, thus blending all groups into one. Not a bad thing, by any means.

The key thing to remember here is that each of these groups is different, but not necessarily better or worse than any other group. Each evolved to survive in its own particular environment, and are thus better suited in that environment than other groups might be. That doesn't make them fundamentally better, just better in some situations.

This is not a cultural issue, of course. Not one of semantics, or vocabulary. This is a biological truth, whether people like it or not. Contrary to poetic license, we are not all the same under the skin.

Modern medicine and genetics have determined that there are more differences between people within one of the traditionally defined human races than between many people of different such races.

Humans are basicly the same, regardless of that which is traditionally called race. No human is better or worse on this or that, just because of his/her race. Compare this to dog breeds, a dog of a hunting breed is better at hunting than a dog of a herding breed. There are no such differences between the traditionally defined different human races.

[Pearlgem]

I wonder how many of you remember way back in your school books or children's encyclopaedias illustrations of evolution equating to 'the ascent of man'? Not the monkey to human ones but so-called 'evolution of race'. I'm guessing/trying to remember here how it went but probably something like -

lowest - the African 'race'
next up - oh, I don't know, the Chinese 'race'
Inuits
Asians
etc
etc
And at the top of the pile? White Europeans/Americans, of course.

This was presented as scientific fact. It seemed obvious to the powers that be that techologically advanced cultures are superior morally and even on an evolutionary level to 'backward' 'races.'

All complete bollocks!

Using the term 'race' to express differences between us is to my mind an example of 'an outdated concept, construed out of ignorance and a lack of understanding.'

The post I was referring to above.

[Ragoczy]

I wonder how many of you remember way back in your school books or children's encyclopaedias illustrations of evolution equating to 'the ascent of man'? Not the monkey to human ones but so-called 'evolution of race'. I'm guessing/trying to remember here how it went but probably something like -

lowest - the African 'race'
next up - oh, I don't know, the Chinese 'race'
Inuits
Asians
etc
etc
And at the top of the pile? White Europeans/Americans, of course.

This was presented as scientific fact. It seemed obvious to the powers that be that techologically advanced cultures are superior morally and even on an evolutionary level to 'backward' 'races.'

All complete bollocks!

Using the term 'race' to express differences between us is to my mind an example of 'an outdated concept, construed out of ignorance and a lack of understanding.'

Never saw that textbook and would've raised a little hell about it if I had.

Regardless, we don't throw out a valid scientific principle because some yahoo misapplies it. What you're describing above shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the concepts of race and evolution. That text implies a linear evolution from a common ancestor through all races -- that isn't how race works. It's a divergent principle -- from a common ancestor group, different, isolated groups develop different characteristics simultaneously, not in sequence. The text would only be remotely valid if each racial "step" stopped evolving, which simply isn't the case. There may be some common ancestor from Africa for all races, but the people of Africa today will have diverged genetically from that ancestor just as much as those in Scandinavia or China.

And again I have to point out that the people who see the differences and treat others negatively because of them don't care about the legitimacy of the science, so they'll misuse the concept of evolution to come up with crap like that to support their point -- through either ignorance or malice. They will use every study in a twisted way to justify their beliefs and actions, regardless of the facts.

It's a statistical fact that there are more blacks than whites in prison in the United States, despite there being more whites than blacks in the overall population. A racist is going to take that study and argue that blacks are predisposed to be criminals, despite the fact that there's nothing in the study to support the claim. So do we not do the study, try to determine the cause and address the societal and cultural issues that cause it just because the data is going to be misapplied by the ignorant?

[Pearlgem]

Never saw that textbook and would've raised a little hell about it if I had.

Nice to imagine so but you probably wouldn't, being a child and absorbing that information like hundreds and thousands of others in schools across the land. It was presented as the scientific orthodoxy of the time, not the crazy notion of some 'yahoo.' Just as well established 'facts' are sometimes challenged, eh?

And again I have to point out that the people who see the differences and treat others negatively because of them don't care about the legitimacy of the science, so they'll misuse the concept of evolution to come up with crap like that to support their point -- through either ignorance or malice. They will use every study in a twisted way to justify their beliefs and actions, regardless of the facts.

Again, it was the orthodoxy of the day and plenty of decent, non racist folk would have thought this must be true if scientists say so. People who discriminate in a nasty way can't justify their malice with any reasonable arguments - there aren't any. But they can maintain a 'racial difference' rationale for cultural hatred. The rest of us needn't buy into that.

It's a statistical fact that there are more blacks than whites in prison in the United States, despite there being more whites than blacks in the overall population. A racist is going to take that study and argue that blacks are predisposed to be criminals, despite the fact that there's nothing in the study to support the claim. So do we not do the study, try to determine the cause and address the societal and cultural issues that cause it just because the data is going to be misapplied by the ignorant?

The data I cited is out of date and discredited already - it's not some sort of recent rogue study. My point in presenting it was to show an example of the scientific orthodoxy of the day. Right thinking people can look back on that now and see that 'science' was actually erroneous and discriminatory. Perhaps we also may decide that the 'neutral,' 'unproblematic' scientific language we use today may be less neutral and more problematic that we imagine.

[Thorne]

The data I cited is out of date and discredited already - it's not some sort of recent rogue study. My point in presenting it was to show an example of the scientific orthodoxy of the day. Right thinking people can look back on that now and see that 'science' was actually erroneous and discriminatory. Perhaps we also may decide that the 'neutral,' 'unproblematic' scientific language we use today may be less neutral and more problematic that we imagine.

I shudder when I hear that phrase, "right thinking people". Right by whose standards? Your's? Mine? bin Laden's?

Anyone can claim anything to be a "scientific fact" whenever they wish. But the true test of science is when those "facts" are corroborated by other scientists and found to be accurate. Over and over again. And even then, a true scientist will rarely come out and say that something is the absolute truth. At best, we can only say that there is currently no evidence to refute the data (or confirm them).

[craven]

er i am in no way inferring that you are wrong, in fact i made no reference at all to anything posted than to agree entirely with the sentiments originally posted by pearlgem, the title and subject matter of this thread.

Not at all sure why anyone could have taken any part of my thread and thought i was implying directly or indirectly that there was any race or xenophobic issues or undertones associated with a topic that i in no way referred to, posted on or made any reference to.

sorry if my post has been misconstrued, however this was never my intention, i was as stated contributing to the thread as started by pearlgem, one of race and the inclusiveness of the human race

[denuseri]

It is absurb to attempt to ignore issues of race by trying to ignore our differences.

Did not we as human beings adapt to the different enviroments on our planet in such a way that large divisons of us were seperated from one another for long enough time period to develope different dominant genitic traits??

Eskimos dont withstand the cold better then aboringines??

Tebitians and Andeans dont thrive in the higher altitudes better than people from Sri Lanka or Hawai?

That certian genitic based disease proccessess dont threaten some segments of the population more than others and that those divisions fall along those lines (in many cases) along the same lines as those divisons politically identified with the term "race"?

I wonder why in the medical community we are tuaght to diagnose using such identifying traits in taking patient histories then, if they are not factors. Humm, mabey all that time I spent as a nurse was just a racist indoctronation program.

We are in fact all a little different from one another, with a multitude of various ways of identifing and distinguishing ourselfs as both individuals and as groups, some divisions based on genitics that produce certian traits and others based on actions/ beliefs.

To ignore that is to ignore a primary component of what being human is all about.

Diversity and survival as a species go hand in hand.

Discrimination happens, it sucks, but it is there, and I believe belays the more animal side of human nature to fear and or try and destroy that which it doesnt understand or precieves (if even incorectly as a threat). A basic evolutionary survival instinct.

But what really seperates us from most animals is that we are capable of establishing relationships with those things (people and animals) that are different from us despite any primal fears.

Acceptance of one another despite our differences is for me what really should define us as human beings.

[mkemse]

It is absurb to attempt to ignore issues of race by trying to ignore our differences.

Did not we as human beings adapt to the different enviroments on our planet in such a way that large divisons of us were seperated from one another for long enough time period to develope different dominant genitic traits??

Eskimos dont withstand the cold better then aboringines??

Tebitians and Andeans dont thrive in the higher altitudes better than people from Sri Lanka or Hawai?

That certian genitic based disease proccessess dont threaten some segments of the population more than others and that those divisions fall along those lines (in many cases) along the same lines as those divisons politically identified with the term "race"?

I wonder why in the medical community we are tuaght to diagnose using such identifying traits in taking patient histories then, if they are not factors. Humm, mabey all that time I spent as a nurse was just a racist indoctronation program.

We are in fact all a little different from one another, with a multitude of various ways of identifing and distinguishing ourselfs as both individuals and as groups, some divisions based on genitics that produce certian traits and others based on actions/ beliefs.

To ignore that is to ignore a primary component of what being human is all about.

Diversity and survival as a species go hand in hand.

Discrimination happens, it sucks, but it is there, and I believe belays the more animal side of human nature to fear and or try and destroy that which it doesnt understand or precieves (if even incorectly as a threat). A basic evolutionary survival instinct.

But what really seperates us from most animals is that we are capable of establishing relationships with those things (people and animals) that are different from us despite any primal fears.

Acceptance of one another despite our differences is for me what really should define us as human beings.

Nicely put and said

[Torq]

Honestly, folks, there are no such things as different races. There is only one race - the human race - to which we all belong equally - black, white, yellow, mixed, Chinese, African etc. There are different colours of skin, different cultures, different ethnicities, but to talk about different races is inaccurate and demeans and dehumanises us all.

Lets get back on track from the original post NOT POLITICS

If you wish to debate issues about Politics go to that area.

THANKS!!!

T

[Pearlgem]

Sorry folks, but I didn't start this thread to talk about Obama or to deny that there is diversity among humans. It's simply about the proposition that using the word 'race' to describe our differences is technically inaccurate and further, that it divides us in a way that I think is unhelpful and dangerous. If you see someone as a different 'race' from you, you are labelling them as less human than you, not merely different. We are all one race. Our differences are many and varied - biological, social, cultural - but they are not to do with 'race'.

[Ragoczy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

In biology, a race is any inbreeding group, including taxonomic subgroups such as subspecies, taxonomically subordinate to a species and superordinate to a subrace and marked by a pre-determined profile of latent factors of hereditary traits.

Biologically, "race" is the correct term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(c...f_human_beings)

Anthropologically, there is debate as to whether "race" is the correct term, especially given amount of genetic mixture between races in modern cultures, but that debate is primarily driven by political correctness and not real science. Race is simply a subset of genetic traits that tend to breed true.

The "only one race" line makes a nice bumper sticker, but it isn't scientifically accurate. Humanity is a species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species), as marked by humanity's ability to reproduce with fertile offspring.

Redefining terms for purposes of political correctness is a slippery-slope fraught with unforeseen peril. To use a racial example, since it's the topic of this thread, I was once taken to task for using the term "black" instead of African-American -- which might have made sense if the audience hadn't been multi-national. Go call a Frenchman who happens to be black an African-American and let me know how that works out for you ...

[TwistedTails]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

Go call a Frenchman who happens to be black an African-American and let me know how that works out for you ...

That would be an inrteresting conversation to hear!

[Pearlgem]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

Biologically, "race" is the correct term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(c...f_human_beings)

Anthropologically, there is debate as to whether "race" is the correct term, especially given amount of genetic mixture between races in modern cultures, but that debate is primarily driven by political correctness and not real science. Race is simply a subset of genetic traits that tend to breed true.

The "only one race" line makes a nice bumper sticker, but it isn't scientifically accurate. Humanity is a species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species), as marked by humanity's ability to reproduce with fertile offspring.

Redefining terms for purposes of political correctness is a slippery-slope fraught with unforeseen peril. To use a racial example, since it's the topic of this thread, I was once taken to task for using the term "black" instead of African-American -- which might have made sense if the audience hadn't been multi-national. Go call a Frenchman who happens to be black an African-American and let me know how that works out for you ...

Race - A classificatory term, broadly equivalent to subspecies...Though the concept is a very commonly used one, it has been largely scientifically discredited. The consensus among social scientists today is that race is a social construction, rather than a genuine biological category...Human populations constitute a genetic continuum where racial distinctions are relative, not absolute...
With the advent of mental testing as a means of attempting to measure intelligence, the concept of race became more controversial, with some researchers claiming that, because some groups of black children have performed badly on tests, they are genetically inferior to whites. Critics of this notion point out that intelligence and other 'mental' tests are designed from a white, middle class perspective that is skewed towards one group and will inevitably lead to poor performance by the other.
(Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, 1999)

All I'm saying is, if you think 'race' is a useful classification to describe differences between us then sometimes that's not neutral. It can also be used to ascribe superiority and inferiority between groups, which is all the more fixed and intractable because, after all, it leads to ideas like...

your type haven't the intelligence of 'my race',
your race is not as civilised as 'my kind',
I can tell just by looking at you that your inferiority to me is racial/ biological.

[Thorne]

[I]...it leads to ideas like...
your type haven't the intelligence of 'my race',
your race is not as civilised as 'my kind',
I can tell just by looking at you that your inferiority to me is racial/ biological.

You can be just as cruel and 'racist' by replacing the term 'race' in those statements with the term 'ethnic group'.

Sure, social scientists downplay the term. They are SOCIAL scientists, more interested in social interactions than in biological development. And in social situations the term 'race' can be construed as derogatory or demeaning, if you think of it that way. Try thinking of it in scientific terms, biological, genetic, what-have-you, rather than in social or psychological terms. Biologically the term is quite well defined and bears no connotations of inferiority.

[Pearlgem]

You can be just as cruel and 'racist' by replacing the term 'race' in those statements with the term 'ethnic group'.

Sure, social scientists downplay the term. They are SOCIAL scientists, more interested in social interactions than in biological development. And in social situations the term 'race' can be construed as derogatory or demeaning, if you think of it that way. Try thinking of it in scientific terms, biological, genetic, what-have-you, rather than in social or psychological terms. Biologically the term is quite well defined and bears no connotations of inferiority

It's really not and that's the problem. There are simply no scientifically credible races of human. There are types, characteristics, genetic strains, but not races. And none of this would matter - I don't care about the terms scientists wish to use per se - but when we in the general population use the term 'race' so casually to mean differences, we are wrongly and dangerously, in my opinion, ascribing cultural differences to biological ones. Cultural - you can do something about, if you have the will. Biological - fixed, it's just the way 'they' are.

[Ragoczy]

It's really not and that's the problem. There are simply no scientifically credible races of human. There are types, characteristics, genetic strains, but not races. And none of this would matter - I don't care about the terms scientists wish to use per se - but when we in the general population use the term 'race' so casually to mean differences, we are wrongly and dangerously, in my opinion, ascribing cultural differences to biological ones. Cultural - you can do something about, if you have the will. Biological - fixed, it's just the way 'they' are.

Please read the actual definition of race -- it's simply a subset of a species with a set of identifiable, inheritable genetic traits.

Again, misuse of the term by "scientists" who's studies are demonstrably garbage and follow a flawed methodology aren't relevant to the definition of a word. By concentrating on the definition, rather than the real problem of bigotry and racism, the real problem is ignored and allowed to grow.

It's like repainting the ceiling to cover a water stain but never fixing the roof.

[Ragoczy]

Race - A classificatory term, broadly equivalent to subspecies...Though the concept is a very commonly used one, it has been largely scientifically discredited. The consensus among social scientists today is that race is a social construction, rather than a genuine biological category...Human populations constitute a genetic continuum where racial distinctions are relative, not absolute...
With the advent of mental testing as a means of attempting to measure intelligence, the concept of race became more controversial, with some researchers claiming that, because some groups of black children have performed badly on tests, they are genetically inferior to whites. Critics of this notion point out that intelligence and other 'mental' tests are designed from a white, middle class perspective that is skewed towards one group and will inevitably lead to poor performance by the other.
(Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, 1999)

All I'm saying is, if you think 'race' is a useful classification to describe differences between us then sometimes that's not neutral. It can also be used to ascribe superiority and inferiority between groups, which is all the more fixed and intractable because, after all, it leads to ideas like...

your type haven't the intelligence of 'my race',
your race is not as civilised as 'my kind',
I can tell just by looking at you that your inferiority to me is racial/ biological.

There is nothing in the legitimate definition of race to indicate superiority or inferiority. It refers to a set of inheritable characteristics, some good and some bad in each group.

Misuse of the term and bad science done in testing do not justify redefining scientific terms.

[Thorne]

Go call a Frenchman who happens to be black an African-American and let me know how that works out for you ...

LOL! Yeah, that might make things a bit sticky. And what about white Africans who've emmigrated to the US? Aren't they also African-Americans?

[Ragoczy]

Honestly, folks, there are no such things as different races. There is only one race - the human race - to which we all belong equally - black, white, yellow, mixed, Chinese, African etc. There are different colours of skin, different cultures, different ethnicities, but to talk about different races is inaccurate and demeans and dehumanises us all.

What demeans and dehumanizes us all is racism, bigotry and irrational prejudice (three very different things) -- changing the terms won't do away with them.

[clipcrop]

Back in the 50's and 60's, eugenics was (to some) a serious branch of scientific study.