06-29-2007, 07:30 AM
Husky. I do not disagree with your general assessment of wikipedia's crappy tendencies. But in this particular case that is not entirely relevant to the issue at hand. The problem is getting emotional and dogmatic over issues that have the potential to be unsettling. Human biological differences is one such topic. It is indirectly related to the Aryan invasion and such issues. Since this can "hit close to home" it is unsettling. Say we were discussing the varieties of cats, dogs or cattle, we will not be so emotional because it does not hit so close to home. In human conflict variety of memes can be infectious and destructive at the same time. Islam and Isaism are two well-known examples. The idea one's own race (=ethnic group) being superior is another similar one (it is both infectious and destructive). These ideas were prevalent amongst white European populations as well as various dark-skinned and light-skinned populations of the world. However, none of this means that a study of human differences is something invalid. One cannot reactively emotionally to a technical issue such as this. By wishing away differences they will not go away, and this only leads to more ignorance.
In a rooted tree of the extant<i> Homo sapiens</i> the bushmen come out as being the basal-most branch. So when one cuts the rooted tree up they may end up getting a race of their own. Is this meaningful? It depends on what scientific problem you want to answer. If some one uses it for politics one cannot blame the classification scheme. Even without it, in the past Niger-Congo speakers eliminated Khoi and San like populations. Even without west-imposed racial theories inter-ethnic human conflict and genocide happened and might happen in the future. Even the egalitarianist R. Dawkins had to grudgingly admit that humans might have been adapted in the past to elicit ethnic discrimination responses.
Of course you are free to take the arduous path of studying human biology yourself and reach appropriate conclusions.
In a rooted tree of the extant<i> Homo sapiens</i> the bushmen come out as being the basal-most branch. So when one cuts the rooted tree up they may end up getting a race of their own. Is this meaningful? It depends on what scientific problem you want to answer. If some one uses it for politics one cannot blame the classification scheme. Even without it, in the past Niger-Congo speakers eliminated Khoi and San like populations. Even without west-imposed racial theories inter-ethnic human conflict and genocide happened and might happen in the future. Even the egalitarianist R. Dawkins had to grudgingly admit that humans might have been adapted in the past to elicit ethnic discrimination responses.
Of course you are free to take the arduous path of studying human biology yourself and reach appropriate conclusions.