Curtman Curtman:
There's no such thing as a "white race". It's like the sasquatch, a figment of your imagination. There's only Homo Sapiens.
There is an agreement between Canada, and the people who inhabited the land called Canada, before there was a Canada.
No such thing as a 'white race'?
![[huh]](./images/smilies/icon_scratch.gif "huh?")
It's a stupid, obsolete concept.
Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, or social affiliation. First used to denote national affiliations, the term began to be used to relate to physical traits in the 17th century and promoted hierarchies favorable to differing ethnic groups. Starting from the 19th century the term was often used, in a taxonomic sense, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.[1][2][3]
While biologists sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[4] or simplistic way,[5] i.e. that among humans, race has no taxonomic significance: all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[6][7]
Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies [8] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[9] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[4][10][11][12][13]
Since the second half of the 20th century the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts, it is now often replaced by other words which are less ambiguous and emotionally charged, such as populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities depending on context.[14][15]
...
In the last two decades of the 18th century polygenism, the belief that different races had evolved separately in each continent and shared no common ancestor,[48] was advocated in England by historian Edward Long and anatomist Charles White, in Germany by ethnographers Christoph Meiners and Georg Forster, and in France by Julien-Joseph Virey, and prominently in the US by Samuel Morton, Josiah Nott and Louis Agassiz. Polygenism was popular and most widespread in the 19th century, culminating in the creation of the Anthropological Society of London during the American Civil War, in opposition to the Abolitionist Ethnological Society.[49]
...
Today, all humans are classified as belonging to the species Homo sapiens and sub-species Homo sapiens sapiens. However, this is not the first species of homininae: the first species of genus Homo, Homo habilis, are theorized to have evolved in East Africa at least 2 million years ago, and members of this species populated different parts of Africa in a relatively short time. Homo erectus is theorized to have evolved more than 1.8 million years ago, and by 1.5 million years ago had spread throughout Europe and Asia. Virtually all physical anthropologists agree that Archaic Homo sapiens (A group including the possible species H. heidelgergensis, H. rhodesiensis and H. neanderthalensis) evolved out of African Homo erectus ((sensu lato) or Homo ergaster).[50][51]
Today anthropologists increasingly believe that anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) evolved in North or East Africa from H. heidelbergensis and then migrated out of Africa, mixing with and replacing H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis populations throughout Europe and Asia, and H. rhodesiensis populations in Sub-Saharan Africa (a combination of the Out of Africa and Multiregional models).[52][verification needed]
SubspeciesFurther information: Race (biology), Species, Subspecies, Systematics, Phylogenetics, and Cladistics.
In the early 20th century, many anthropologists accepted and taught the belief that biologically distinct races were isomorphic with distinct linguistic, cultural, and social groups, while popularly applying that belief to the field of eugenics, in conjunction with a practice that is now called scientific racism.[53]
Following the Nazi eugenics program, racial essentialism lost widespread popularity. Subsequently, race anthropologists were pressured to acknowledge findings coming from studies of culture and population genetics, and to revise their conclusions about the sources of phenotypic variation.[54] A significant number of modern anthropologists and biologists in the West came to view race as an invalid genetic or biological designation.[55]
The first to challenge the concept of race on empirical grounds were anthropologists Franz Boas, who demonstrated phenotypic plasticity due to environmental factors,[56] and Ashley Montagu who relied on evidence from genetics.[57] E. O. Wilson then challenged the concept from the perspective of general animal systematics, and further rejected the claim that "races" were equivalent to "subspecies".[58]
According to Jonathan Marks,[46]
$1:
By the 1970s, it had become clear that (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic – that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal – that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left – the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal – was very small.
A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it – as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools – did not exist.
In biology the term "race" is used with caution because it can be ambiguous. Generally when it is used it is synonymous with subspecies.[59] For mammals, the taxonomic unit below the species level is usually the subspecies.[60]
Population geneticists have debated whether the concept of population can provide a basis for a new conception of race. In order to do this, a working definition of population must be found. Surprisingly, there is no generally accepted concept of population that biologists use. Although the concept of population is central to ecology, evolutionary biology and conservation biology, most definitions of population rely on qualitative descriptions such as "a group of organisms of the same species occupying a particular space at a particular time"[61] Waples and Gaggiotti identify two broad types of definitions for populations; those that fall into an ecological paradigm, and those that fall into an evolutionary paradigm. Examples of such definitions are:
Ecological paradigm: A group of individuals of the same species that co-occur in space and time and have an opportunity to interact with each other.
Evolutionary paradigm: A group of individuals of the same species living in close-enough proximity that any member of the group can potentially mate with any other member.[61]
There is no meaningful use to talking about a "white race". There's a very diverse group of people who claim to be part of it. Most of them are known today as "hillbillies", or "rednecks".
CKA Uber 
CKA Super Elite 
CKA Uber 
