Of course and the different 'types' of people are all people.
No one is disputing that. Why did you have to say it?
As all people are people.
Why did you have to ask the question?
Why not[use the term breed]? No, I mean why don't we?
You, though, appear to accept that it is the equivalent of 'types'.
It's not considered polite. we don't use udders for mammary glands, we don't use trotters for feet, we don't use hooves either, etc. There's lots of words that are not interchangeable between humans and animals.
When we were ignorant and really thought that there were different classifications of humans.
As I said a while ago, when I was young people with parents of different 'types' were called half-breeds.
This became unacceptable (as normal words do) and was replaced with 'mixed-race'.
Therefore, we can accept that in normal usage, whether scientifically accurate or not, 'race' was a substitute for 'breed'.
But now we know that we are all the same breed or race. So the concept of race has changed to accommodate the outdated concept and move to the more modern scientific, socially constructed concept that acknowledges that there is only one race or breed.
We now use the socially constructed term 'race' as interchangeable for ethnicity, nationality, religion or custom
As such 'racism' is prejudice against someone solely on the grounds that they are of a different 'race' - meaning 'breed'.
And as we now use the term race, interchangeably with ethnicity, religion, nationality, custom, it equally applies to those differences.
On the subject of scientifically, you said that there were chimpanzees of different races which had a 0.3% difference in genes
I didn't. I might have reproduced a scientific article showing such evidence, (but it doesn't sound familiar) but it wasn't mine. if you'd like to look it up, you'll find the reference so that you can take it up with the author.
but people of different 'types' had less than 0.1% and this was not enough to be a different race. I don't know if that is true or who decides that but as it is the sole determinator of the 'types' of people regardless of nationality, ethnicity, religion etc. then whether that results in actual races or it is just a name used for the 'types' is immaterial.
There are no actual 'races' in humans. Human is the race.
So your rather verbose explanation concludes with a fallacious hypothesis.
You also said that different races of species could not breed. This is not true with the Chimpanzees.
Well then, they are either not different races, or your are reproducing a distorted version of what I said.
Please reproduce what I said, rather than vague reference to something you claim I have said.
...but they are separate things unrelated to the 'types'.
Ethnicity or even family genes is what accounts for the difference in what you refer to types. But nationality or custom can also account for the differences, For instance, what is referred to as a black person is different in South America, North American, Russia, etc. They are all different socially constructed concepts. otherwise South America would have to have a definition for a black person, which would be different from a North American definition, which would be different from a Russian definition, etc. They do have different definitions, because it is a socially constructed concept.
As with the cats, one is Persian and one is Siamese, (albeit names of countries but that is not relevant) it is nothing to do with their nationality, ethnicity, religion etc. It does not matter where they are born or how they are brought up, the 'types' will still be the same.
They inherit their characteristics from their parents, via the genes. They are not direct clones, but a mixture of the two. However, over time subtle differences will develop, even new 'types' will appear by mating the different 'breeds'. But theyll still all be cats. That will never change.
People of different 'types' can have the same nationality, ethnicity, religion etc. so those things might not be the reason for the prejudice.
Absolutely not,. We have established that we are using the word type to be interchangeable with race, breed, ethnicity, nationality, or religion.
Type, breed, race are socially constructed concepts. As can be ethnicity, religion, nationality, etc. if we create a new country, we create a new nationality.
It might be something else. What could it be?
It does not apply, see above.
Or not. They might use it in a way everyone understands.
Evreyone, except you, sodthisforfun, notch, and others that believe in racial essentialism, do understand it.
That is nonsense. I have no prejudice against any [don't complicate the discussion with verbosity]'type' of people.
Racial essentialism is a racist ideology. If you believe in communism, you are a communist. If you believe in Christianity, you are a Christian, etc.
As you and Bas are saying, the meaning of words changes therefore it could have changed to mean what I (and the general population) think it is, not your definition.
Except I have produced numerous articles proving that the general population, except those believing in racial essentialism, do understand that race is a socially constructed concept, not your as yet un-presented definition.
Please stop saying that disagreement on a meaning of a word means that someone is that word. It is nonsense.
Racial essentialism is a racist ideology. If you believe in communism, you are a communist. If you believe in Christianity, you are a Christian, etc.
The word 'race' cannot, does not and does not need to, mean nationality, ethnicity, religion etc. as well.
They do for those not relying on a Victorian, outdated, scientifically dis-proven definition and ideology to justify their racism.
