Originally
posted by
Watertowers:
Being scientific is my motto. Something that is most influential to my views on human beings is the contention that humans are similar to other animals in most respects. Just like in other species, there are breeds of humans that we, of course, call races.
And we use breeds for specific competitions, obviously. Huskies for dog racing, bloodhounds for tracking, etc. My proposal is simply to to the same for a species that has breeds just as in dogs.
Breeds and races are very typological. They are only distinctions in the human mind and are not hard and fast boundaries. They only help people to discriminate (and I don't mean that with any connotations) between similar things and have no inherent meaning. Just because you can select a subset of humans that on average are different in some way does not mean that 1) these differences do not arise from social factors and 2) that the best from each group are not on equal footing in a given competition.
Your arguments are very much like the ones that black guys can not be quarterbacks. It was conventional wisdom until people who cared about winning more than racism let the best players play where they played best. You specifically mention black people as being better at marathons but if you look at the historic progression of marathon record times
http://en.wikipedia.org/..._world_record_progression (and ignoring the stuff in the 50's and earlier when there clearly were not widespread opportunities for lots of ethnicities to compete) we see that there are lots of different ethnicities which are all perfectly competitive in marathons.
I think the problem is you think you understand how science works and you try to think rationally but when you try to you don't get it right.