Caucasians

Bonam · July 16, 2007

People saying race doesn't exist are just being evasive. You can look at people originating from one region of the Earth and see that they have certain physical characteristics in common. You can see that other people, from other regions of the Earth, have certain other characteristics in common. You can then define groups based upon the prevalence of some of these shared characteristics, which are common within a given group and uncommon outside it. The groups defined in this way are called "races" and to deny that they exist is to live in a fantasy world.

And, like Jefferiah says above, the fact that one acknowledges that races exist does not mean that they necessarily value any race(s) over any other race(s). Nor, furthermore, does the desire (expressed at the beginning of this thread) to preserve the continued existence of any given one of those races express any racism either.

It's like endangered animal species. If we can, we take steps to preserve them and keep them from going extinct. It's not because we value the endangered species higher than other species that aren't endangered, but rather because we want to maintain a level of diversity and in general, on an emotional and sentimental level, don't like to see distinct species becoming extinct.

Obviously, Caucasians aren't "endangered" right now, but there is nothing wrong with discussing whether they may become so in the future, and what the causes for this might be, and whether anything should or can be done to prevent it.

Bonam · July 16, 2007

People saying race doesn't exist are just being evasive. You can look at people originating from one region of the Earth and see that they have certain physical characteristics in common. You can see that other people, from other regions of the Earth, have certain other characteristics in common. You can then define groups based upon the prevalence of some of these shared characteristics, which are common within a given group and uncommon outside it. The groups defined in this way are called "races" and to deny that they exist is to live in a fantasy world.

And, like Jefferiah says above, the fact that one acknowledges that races exist does not mean that they necessarily value any race(s) over any other race(s). Nor, furthermore, does the desire (expressed at the beginning of this thread) to preserve the continued existence of any given one of those races express any racism either.

It's like endangered animal species. If we can, we take steps to preserve them and keep them from going extinct. It's not because we value the endangered species higher than other species that aren't endangered, but rather because we want to maintain a level of diversity and in general, on an emotional and sentimental level, don't like to see distinct types of life with distinct characteristics becoming extinct.

Obviously, Caucasians aren't "endangered" right now, but there is nothing wrong with discussing whether they may become so in the future, and what the causes for this might be, and whether anything should or can be done to prevent it.

jefferiah · July 17, 2007

People saying race doesn't exist are just being evasive. You can look at people originating from one region of the Earth and see that they have certain physical characteristics in common. You can see that other people, from other regions of the Earth, have certain other characteristics in common. You can then define groups based upon the prevalence of some of these shared characteristics, which are common within a given group and uncommon outside it. The groups defined in this way are called "races" and to deny that they exist is to live in a fantasy world.
And, like Jefferiah says above, the fact that one acknowledges that races exist does not mean that they necessarily value any race(s) over any other race(s). Nor, furthermore, does the desire (expressed at the beginning of this thread) to preserve the continued existence of any given one of those races express any racism either.

It's like endangered animal species. If we can, we take steps to preserve them and keep them from going extinct. It's not because we value the endangered species higher than other species that aren't endangered, but rather because we want to maintain a level of diversity and in general, on an emotional and sentimental level, don't like to see distinct types of life with distinct characteristics becoming extinct.

Obviously, Caucasians aren't "endangered" right now, but there is nothing wrong with discussing whether they may become so in the future, and what the causes for this might be, and whether anything should or can be done to prevent it.

Maybe the idea they are putting forth is that race is "relative" (hmm sort of a double meaning there maybe). Temperature is neither hot nor cold, its just different degrees of heat. But nonetheless aside from the relativity of races, I am sure the people making that point would have no trouble picking out what Scott means by a white person. And if they can see it, that means they can discriminate as well. By this I dont mean "discriminate" by treating someone badly because of the color, but to distinguish.

jefferiah · July 17, 2007

And also January can be pretty cold, even though there is the presence of some relative amount of heat.

ScottSA · July 17, 2007

BTW, not only did they start out as the same race, they are still the same race.

No kidding.

There is only one race - the human race.

The classification of humans by 'race' was the action of racists creating the classifications to match their subjective bias and justify them.

The idea of 'races' is no more scientifically established now than it was two hundred years ago.

How come you pop up every few pages to repeat the same slogan, and then slink away without addressing any of the grownup points being presented?

White Doors · July 17, 2007

BTW, not only did they start out as the same race, they are still the same race.

No kidding.

There is only one race - the human race.

The classification of humans by 'race' was the action of racists creating the classifications to match their subjective bias and justify them.

The idea of 'races' is no more scientifically established now than it was two hundred years ago.

Do you enjoy repeating yourself? You have stated that repeatedly and everyone has addressed it.

Your point is moot and repeating it doesn't change that.

White Doors · July 17, 2007

That's plainly nonsense.

So are most of the posts/threads at this forum. I can't take this place seriously - or you.

Who cares what you think?

White Doors · July 17, 2007

I understand the arguments saying that race doesnt exist. I am not sure either way, nobody has compelled me to any conclusion on that matter, but I think it is extremely wrong to jump to the conclusion that the idea of different races within humanity is the reason for racism. Is it not possible to see people as being of different races as being equal---if in fact you believe there are different races? I think that if you truly believe in the non-discriminated, you can also understand the discriminated without being caught up by ideas of what is more valuable. If you understand this you can say there are different races and there is one race without contradicting yourself. I can discriminate between broccoli and carrots, but it does not mean I think one has more inherent worth than the other.

Some people believe, deep down, that in order to be truly 'equal' we must be the SAME. They cannot tolerate 'difference' in their strict ideaology. It's is akin to a stick in their spokes. They deny it in the face of all logic.

Logical, well adjusted people realize there are differences and do not get caught up in them. Celebrate our diversity. That's what it used to be about. Now alot of people don't like this. They pretend that diversity does not exist. This leads to all sorts of slippery slopes. Look at moral equivelency. This is bourne from the same source. Some people are so obsessed with their anti-western PC nazism that they even excuse ACTIONS.

I say celebate our cultural and racial diversity and differences and learn from each other.

Other people refuse to see it that way and hence - are not able to learn and grow.

And it is ok to judge people on their ACTIONS.

I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

But again, that's just me. I do think that if more people thought this way, we would be a better country however.

Edited July 17, 2007 by White Doors

M.Dancer · July 17, 2007

When I say that as a scientific concept, race doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that race doesn't exist, period. It just means that from a point of view that doesn't encompass socio-cultural facters, race is irrelevent.

Like saying that Christmas as a scientific concept doesn't exist......

Another way of looking at it, from a scintists point of view, deep down we all have the same relative potential (overlooking that some are born with higher inate IQs, Taller etc) and given the same environment and nourishing we are all the same, deep down.

...but superficially we are increadibly different. But in my opinion, the major differences between people are not racial but cultural.

White Doors · July 17, 2007

When I say that as a scientific concept, race doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that race doesn't exist, period. It just means that from a point of view that doesn't encompass socio-cultural facters, race is irrelevent.
Like saying that Christmas as a scientific concept doesn't exist......

Another way of looking at it, from a scintists point of view, deep down we all have the same relative potential (overlooking that some are born with higher inate IQs, Taller etc) and given the same environment and nourishing we are all the same, deep down.

...but superficially we are increadibly different. But in my opinion, the major differences between people are not racial but cultural.

Yes, agreed. The people who don't see it this way are not stupid, their idealology doesn't allow them.

ScottSA · July 17, 2007

But in my opinion, the major differences between people are not racial but cultural.

I agree with that, except that I believe that race has a profound multiplier effect on the cultural phenomenon. Irish are easier to integrate with Caucasians than Indians from India, and it is, I believe, because of the push of the hegemonic group and the pull of the 'other' group towards a homogeniety of their own. In the case of the Irish, they are almost indistinguishable from the rest of society, except for the odd quaint borough where the last remnants of "Irish culture" hangs on by a potato skin. But Chinatowns exist today all over North America, and their establishment predates in many cases the arrival of the Irish.

M.Dancer · July 17, 2007

Irish are easier to integrate with Caucasians than Indians from India, and it is, I believe, because of the push of the hegemonic group and the pull of the 'other' group towards a homogeniety of their own. In the case of the Irish, they are almost indistinguishable from the rest of society, except for the odd quaint borough where the last remnants of "Irish culture" hangs on by a potato skin. But Chinatowns exist today all over North America, and their establishment predates in many cases the arrival of the Irish.

Ummm....indians are caucasians.......and today Chinatowns do exists, and only 100 years ago, paddy towns existed too in every major city...after a life span of 200 years or more. In toronto we have Cabbagetown. In montreal they have Pointe St Charles.

The point I think, given 200 years, the chinatowns will go the way of the Paddy towns.....(like montreals near non existant chinatown)

On another tangential note, if there are two non "white" immigrant populations that are easily assimilated into north american western culture it has to be the japanese and indians.

ScottSA · July 17, 2007

Irish are easier to integrate with Caucasians than Indians from India, and it is, I believe, because of the push of the hegemonic group and the pull of the 'other' group towards a homogeniety of their own. In the case of the Irish, they are almost indistinguishable from the rest of society, except for the odd quaint borough where the last remnants of "Irish culture" hangs on by a potato skin. But Chinatowns exist today all over North America, and their establishment predates in many cases the arrival of the Irish.

Ummm....indians are caucasians.......and today Chinatowns do exists, and only 100 years ago, paddy towns existed too in every major city...after a life span of 200 years or more. In toronto we have Cabbagetown. In montreal they have Pointe St Charles.

The point I think, given 200 years, the chinatowns will go the way of the Paddy towns.....(like montreals near non existant chinatown)

On another tangential note, if there are two non "white" immigrant populations that are easily assimilated into north american western culture it has to be the japanese and indians.

If Chinatowns were going to go the way of Paddytowns, why are they expanding instead of getting smaller? Why do they exist at all when Paddytowns don't? That's my point...that they are NOT "going the way of Paddytowns." You can pretend all you want, but it's demonstrably not true. In two hundred years, if things go the way they are with immigration, it will be caucasians in "Whiteytowns" rather than the disappearance of Chinatowns, and I see no viable reason why we ought to let that happen.

The reason the Japanese have assimilated so well is that there simply aren't that many of them here, and while there may be a bit of crossover integration with the Indians, it certainly isn't appreciable. You really have blinders on when it comes to this subject, don't you?

M.Dancer · July 17, 2007

You really have blinders on when it comes to this subject, don't you?

I think it has to do with not living in buttlove BC.....I see, live and work with more ethnicities in one day than you do in an entire month. And not once have they ever asked if they could eat my young or marry my camels........

ScottSA · July 17, 2007

You really have blinders on when it comes to this subject, don't you?

I think it has to do with not living in buttlove BC.....I see, live and work with more ethnicities in one day than you do in an entire month. And not once have they ever asked if they could eat my young or marry my camels........

I think it has to do with you never having lived in New Delhi, a city with roughly the population of Canada living in it, speaking over 100 dialects, and holding ethnicities you've never even heard of. Or Mexico City, with a few less ethnicities, but a tad more foreign than Toronto, center of the world in the minds of Torontonians.

The hillbilly redneck spiel doesn't really work well with me, Momo. But it's a cute way to avoid the questions.

Hut tere maki chute, y pinche cabrone, gringo

Edited July 17, 2007 by ScottSA

M.Dancer · July 17, 2007

So in otherwords cities where 99% of the population will never immigrate to Canada has something to do with the top 1% making it here.....true enough as a boy you got dragged around with mom and pop to exotic and scary places......but since then your childish fears of foreigners haven't faded much.

Rue · July 17, 2007

And to my knowledge, it is still an anthropological concept.

It appears to be far more a 'religious' concept. Anthropologists use the term in a cultural sense. The religious types seem to be obsessed with it.

Actually MadGuy even anthropolists are loath to use it any more.

But before I address that I would like to defend your comments as to why race is in fact a social construct not a scientific one and so as you say used by religious types or I am sure you would agree politicians and I will try address comments Bonham made about race and physical difference.

It is a scientifically proven fact that just 2% of our genes are responsible for the visible differences such as our skin colour.

It is a scientifically proven fact that there is NO single gene, trait or characteristic that distinguishes one race from another for the simple reason that humans have not existed on the planet long enough to evolve into sub-species not to mention humans move about the planet mixing there genes with different populations.

It is a scientific fact humans inherit their genetic disposition spontaneously.

What this line off posts and the other one from Leafless are about, is about taking the concept of race and using it as a social construct to arbitrarily create some definition of what the writer feels white means and then engage in an arbitrary categorization of human race that mixes both genetic and culture traits which are then used by Scott or Leafless in a subjective manner.

The term race in both lines of posts was appropriated for the purpose of engaging in a subjective series of arbitrary social constructs based on what-ever Scott or Leafless or the person defining white culture decides it means at any given time since if you notice the designation is never defined and deliberately left ambiguous so it can constantly be changed or varied to allow for maximum subjective assumptions to be stated without proving those assumptions with any objective evidence. In fact what we get are the subjective impressions of the particular writer-no more no less. In Leafless' case it is obvious he feels anyone who is gay, French, non-white or not his version of Christian is AUTOMATICALLY a threat. In Scott's case he takes more time to refine his expression and it is not about hating, it becomes a series of subjective assumptions as to how to perceive peoples' characteristics in a general way to assume they are competing with one another and one group can make another extinct.

I personally believe in Scott's case his arguements are genuinely based on him feeling cultural values are distinct and compete with one another and can't co-exist, while in Leafless' presentations I believe it is simply primative hatred based on feeling the other groups are getting what he isn't in terms of social benefits. His thesis appears based on seeing himself as a victim. In Scott's thesis he doesn't see any one group as a victim nor does he portray himself as a victim but genuinely fears his traditions and cultural could get wiped out.

However It is precisely because of such subjective use of the term race to suggest humans can be defined by physical difference or to say that one race has advantage over another or threatens another or is superior or inferior to another that The American Anthropological Association felt compelled to make a Statement on Race on May 17, 1998 to challenge precisely the use of race in this manner.

In that statement it was suggested that the general public has been conditioned to consider human races as natural and separate divisions within human species and it can be defined and be based on visible physical differences.

They went on to state that all the scientific and medical evidence we have proves objectively that humans are NOT distinct biological entities that can be divided into race categories because what we now know about DNA is that it proves 94% of physical variation exists within two people of the same so-called racial group. Genetic research has also proven that in regards to conventional geographic "racial" groupings there is only a difference between them in about 6% of their genes.

They also went on to state that science has proven there is in fact greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. and that in neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions.

They stated that the continued sharing of genetic materials between humans has maintained all of humankind as a single species and that physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas

This is precisely why they stated that the way we use the concept of race is to advocate a set of prejudgments that distort our ideas about human differences and group behavior.

They stated that racial beliefs are nothing more then myths suggesting diversity in the human species which has been proven by science to not exist.

They go on to say the concept of race is now used to justify negative, subjective prejudgements, as to peoples abilities or characteristics or beliefs.

Take a look at this line of posts and Leafless’s ones to see why these anrhtopologists made the above statements and conclusions, and stated such racial myths fuse behavior and physical features together and all that does is distort and misrepresent scientific fact and our understanding of true biological variations and cultural behavioral differences by implying that both are genetically determined.

Science has clearly rejected the use of race as means to define humans biologically and yet we still see humans using it in a social, political and religious context.

It is precisely because of the above Bonham I feel categorizing perceived physical differences is scientifically absurd. It is precisely because of the above I find fusing cultural and physical differences or race into the same category as absurd and that is why I felt compelled to defend Mad Michael's statement.

On the other hand Scott, I do not necessarily disagree with some of what you are suggesting but I would define it differently.

I think if humans use their religion or political beliefs to justify intolerance and terror and violence-and then they feel they can import that to Canada, yes its a problem.

But for me Scott the "threats" you are talking about are political. I personally believe culture and cultural differences and contrast are an essential ingredient for mental health. Humans to be healthy and happy need variety-we know that.

I don't see cultural variety as a problem in fact I welcome it. But I do concede Scott that some people take their religion and fuse it with political views and technically political and religious views if passed down from generation to generation can become cultural characteristics. If those values conflict with the ones we want to define as ideal in Canada, then yes there is a problem.

So the way I would construct it Scott is that someone wanting to celebrate their Muslim traditions or Hindu traditions or Scottish traditions or Gaelic traditions, etc., is NOT a threat to anyone, unless they insist everyone else conform to only their values and cease and desist with any other.

To me culture only becomes a threat where one group tries to shove it down another's throat and with due respect I think certain white people on this post have confused people simply celebrating what they are openly with expecting certain white people to agree with it. They don't.

I think the more insecure someone is about themself, the more likely they see anything different then them as a threat and the more secure they are about themself the less likely they will see anything different as a threat.

So for me personally Scott, I do not want only one cultural in Canada. I want many and I want to be able to enjoy them all as I do different flavours of food. I do not like to buy the same wine, I like different types of wine.

As a male I enjoyed before I became smelly and old, beautiful women of many categories because I believe it is the spiritual responsibility of all heterosexual men before they die to have sex with every colour of woman there is.

That said Scott on a more serious note, if we specify what social values you are talking about precisely, then I think you would find consensus from most everyone that no one feels someone should think they can come to Canada and expect certian specific values to be honoured, i.e., terror as an expression of political will, polygamy, child-sex, violence against women, lying, committing crime and then trying to defend such behaviour by saying if someone else questions it, the questioner is racist or a bigot.

I think Scott you have not done a sufficient job of clearly defining what values you think are being threatened because I think if you did most of us would not debate you at all and simply say yah that's obvious.

But I think the threats you are presenting are not particular to any group and could just as easily originate from whites and especially the white Christians Leafless envisons himself a member of.

Here is what I would say Scott. A healthy democratic society is not afraid of individual difference the celebration of different ideas but yes I agree and I am sure we all do-there are limits to anything including freedom of belief or freedom of expression.

Yes we will as the years go on precisely because we have so many cultures, have to construct a more

precise Canadian one to glue them all together and prevent them from conflicting.

For me I believe the starting point is to take the aboriginal values and British parliamentary values that have worked and be proud of them and then not be afraid to add on other values that complement them which is pretty much what we have done and has worked damn well compared to other countries.

I personally find people who whine about Canada sheltered brats. There are people literally dying who can not imagine what it is like to have what we have.

Me I am a realist. I believe the clash between the East and West politically had to happen and that this clash is religious and political in nature. We use race and culture as a way to mince around the fact we are in conflict over our religious and political views.

I do not subscribe to the naive belief that the East only clashes with us because we are in their countries. This idea you can hide from people with different values then you by not going to their countries is absurd.

ScottSA · July 18, 2007

[snip]

Rue, I read every bit of your thoughtfully written post.

First, I believe in terms of race you are falling into the trap of arguing, very scientifically and quite likely correctly, that the trees do not exist. The problem is that you are standing in the middle of a forest while you're doing it. Race may not exist in scientific terms, but as everyone knows, it exists anyway. If I am standing next to an Australian aborigine, one need not take blood samples to know which one of us is caucasian. Phenotypically, there are differences between humans, and between what we know as races. That is a simple fact, and pretending through what amounts to Sophism that there are no differences is...well, it's silly. Race is apparent to the eye of the beholder. More than that it is obvious to the eye of the beholder, no matter how far they have burrowed under the covers of science or whatever mechanism they prefer to deny the bleeding obvious.

Second, I'm talking about race. I am not arguing about culture, or any mixture of the two; "ethnicity"; that's Leafless' bag. I happen to think that in the case of Canada there is overlap between race and culture to the extent that our society is still culturally western, which happens to correlate to caucasian (not in a causal relationship, but in a correlation to be sure), and that the reason we Canadians feel we are western has to do with the fact that caucasians are still the hegemonic population. But again, that's really another question and not one that I want to get into here.

Third, you say "A healthy democratic society is not afraid of individual difference". That makes great copy on billboards, but how true is it, really? Let's drop the "democratic," since that's political and doesn't really belong here. Now we have "A healthy society isn't afraid of individual difference." Is that a fair enough characterization of what you said?

If so, I agree. But we don't live in a society that sees "individual" differences within our current social construct, and in some cases even under the law. We don't see a homosexual as an individual, but instead see a homosexual. That's why we are forever treated to Liam's announcements that he's "gay;" because it's a statement of the 'group' he is a member of. Race is an even more obvious divider: We don't see an Indian as an individual; instead we see an Indian as an Indian; as a member of the group "Indians," and we apply social and legal attributes accordingly. Ironically, we are supposed to, on one hand, ignore our differences because we're all the same, doncha know, and on the other celebrate our differences, as you suggest above. But no matter which way one wants to go, race is front and center. More than anything else, the strong emotions it raises are evident on this very board.

Given that truth, I see no reason why I would voluntarly want to become a minority. Given the fact that this is the land of last resort for caucasians, I see no reason why caucasians would want to allow themselves to become a minority. There is another, darker truth afoot out there too. There is not one instance in historical memory that races with parity of numbers and power have been able to co-exist peacefully for any length of time, and no reason to believe they were able in pre-history either.

Forgive me for saying so, but this kind of trite nonsense makes me want to gag:

"I want many and I want to be able to enjoy them all as I do different flavours of food. I do not like to buy the same wine, I like different types of wine."

August1991 · July 18, 2007

Every so often, this forum produces a post that is exceptional.

Rue, above, you have written such a post. In this case, you have not only made points that are thought-provoking but you have done it in a way that is polite.

My hat is off.

ft.niagara · July 18, 2007

I think that the arguement that the racial differences are explainable by only a six percent difference in DNA make race SCIENTIFICALLY a nonissue is nieve. Race is a huge issue because it ties together hosts of other issues which impact on humanity. In fact, it is the glue which ties them together. Further, that six percent of DNA impacts on perhaps eighty five percent of those qualities people are evaluating every day: intelligence, appearance, strength, speed, health.

Someday, if humanity lasts long enough, there will be no races. There will have been so much mixing that there will not be any discussions as to the importance of race, but that is then, and this is now.

kuzadd · July 18, 2007

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...11683414B7F0000

Scientists Identify Gene Difference Between Humans and Chimps

The DNA sequences of humans and chimpanzees are 98 percent identical.

Should apes have human rights?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6505691.stm

"Apes are special because they are so closely related to us," says Mr Redmond. "Chimpanzees and bonobos are our joint closest living relatives, differing by only one per cent of DNA - so close we could accept a blood transfusion or a kidney. Gorillas are next, then orang-utans.

Gene Separates Early Humans From the Apes"

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/SciTech/reuters20020826_393.html

It may help influence how viruses and bacteria infect cells, and with how cancer cells interact, Varki said. "There are some clues that it might have something to do with brain plasticity," he added.

Humans and chimps share more than 98 percent of their DNA,

Edited July 18, 2007 by kuzadd

kuzadd · July 18, 2007

I don't know where the 6 percent variation between human dna came from but it is patently incorrect.

Apes do not even have more then a 2 percent variation between there genes and ours.

A 6 percent genetic differential between humans is not correct.

Any variations between humans are evolved responses to environment.

They are then passed genetically on to there offspring.

An example of this is, the blood disorder

Thalasemia:Thalassemia is an inherited blood disorder that causes mild or severe anemia (uh-NEE-me-uh). The anemia is due to reduced hemoglobin (HEE-muh-glow-bin) and fewer red blood cells than normal.

vhttp://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/26/14736

Thalassemia protects children against disease caused by other infections as well as malaria

Thalassemia, though now passed on genetically, evolved as a protection against malaria, an environmental response to a geographic location.

ScottSA · July 18, 2007

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...11683414B7F0000
Scientists Identify Gene Difference Between Humans and Chimps

The DNA sequences of humans and chimpanzees are 98 percent identical.

Should apes have human rights?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6505691.stm

"Apes are special because they are so closely related to us," says Mr Redmond. "Chimpanzees and bonobos are our joint closest living relatives, differing by only one per cent of DNA - so close we could accept a blood transfusion or a kidney. Gorillas are next, then orang-utans.

Gene Separates Early Humans From the Apes"

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/SciTech/reuters20020826_393.html

It may help influence how viruses and bacteria infect cells, and with how cancer cells interact, Varki said. "There are some clues that it might have something to do with brain plasticity," he added.

Humans and chimps share more than 98 percent of their DNA,

Who cares? If anything this degrades the argument that race doesn't exist. If the claim is being made that there is very little difference between apes and humans, it makes it very hard to argue that race doesn't exist because there is very little difference between races.

In any event its moot. To claim that race doesn't exist is more or less claiming that the emperor's new clothes are very nice.