[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Obviously there are actual physical differences between the races.

[/ QUOTE ]





Nothing about race is obvious or universally accepted. From the Columbia Encyclopedia: ...


[/ QUOTE ]


I think it may be that the definition of "race" is giving the trouble here. Maybe "race" is not the best term for certain obvious group characteristics or differences (what would a better term than "race"? I don't know). However, whatever term is used, there are certain obvious differences such as skin pigmentations, greater susceptibility to certain diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and high blood pressure, etc. It is A FACT that those characteristics are not randomly distributed. So if you don't want to call it "race", what then would you call it?

Since there are some clear physical differences, it is not wrong to suppose that there may be other physical differences as well--one of which is borne out by the example of tremendous black dominance in the sport of running. By the way, I recall reading, many years ago, that blacks on average have a higher proportion of fast-twitch leg muscle, compared to whites who have a relatively higher proportion of slow-twitch leg muscle, which helps account for the fact that blacks are even more dominant in sprinting, whereas whites tend to be more distance runners.

Even if there is argument about the word "race", it cannot be denied that there is medical evidence which shows that "African-Americans" are more susceptible to, which diseases? Sickle-cell anemia and high blood pressure? And that is the main point, in my opinion--that the "groups" (since the word "race" seems so controversial) have definite tendencies toward certain physical characteristics which are not in all respects equal. That some such characteristics and differences clearly exist is what I meant by "obvious."