Discussion in 'Congress' started by ScreamingEagle, Mar 13, 2008.
You're nitpicky? Imagine that.
According to this definition, your statement that we are all the same race is "technically" a steaming pile of feces. No offense.
Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
1: a breeding stock of animals
2 a: a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b: a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
3 a: an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b: breed c: a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits
This means we aren't the same race by almost every one of your definitions.
I'm not going to say I'm surprised.
Who said they were my definitions?
I merely pasted them from Merriam Websters.
If there is anything decidedly un-surprising about any of this, it's your refusal to answer the question.
In your understanding, is the concept of "race" more analogous to "species" or "breed?"
I'm taking it on faith that we at least share a common understanding of species and breed.
I missed that question.
My answer is species. I think of breed as a term for dogs, like in your musing above, with the dogs. It seems logical that we all came from one tribe, spread out, and developed different traits based on climate, etc, (geograhy???). Dogs have been selectively bred for certain characteristics.
What do you think?
I disagree. It's not analogous to species at all. Not even a tiny bit.
btw: Various breeds of dog also came from a single, common, ancestral stock. What makes them all members of the same species is the ability to produce fertile offspring. Breed, like race, has nothing to do with this. It is merely a layer of segmentation within a particular species based on any number of traits.
You want to explain that in greater detail or shall I attempt to read your mind?
Separate names with a comma.