In biology, races are distinct populations within the same species and does not apply to genetic differences but phenotype. Because of this, an animal with parents of two different races will be considered to be the race that the animals resembles most closely.
Example of different phenotype in humans:
Rejection of race is moderate in Europe, sizeable in Poland and Cuba,
and lowest in Russia and China.
and I am from Europe, so I see the term "race" as a term for a group of people with certain biological characteristics (as the forensic anthropologists see them too) nothing connected with racism. I have European-African friends and they consider themselves as a Negroid race. Maybe that's because of what US did to Negroid people in the past. But here in EU it is not a stigma and you can call black or white whoever you want and he will be ok.
To me it seems that you want to deny the existence of races, which is very disrespectful to the Negroid race, human race from Africa, who were probably the oldest race on this planet.
I really think you are trying to sound "political" instead of being real to yourself.
Example: Jon Bon Jovi is in the Rock department of my music shop. It's because his music is mostly rock. But he has some Pop and Country flavor to it (especially on his recent albums).
But he is still a rocker (rock-n-roll) player when the reporters ask him. The same is true when a reporter asks an Afro-American. HE told him that he is black. I tell him that I am white. Of course, I can be more specific and go deeper and tell that I am of Czech and Hungarian ancestry.
If races don't exist then why are they used in anthropology (except of course politically correct USA and Canada), pathology, pharmacology, anatomy, histology and most importantly forensic anthropology
Main article: Forensic anthropology
Similarly, forensic anthropologists draw on highly heritable morphological features of human remains (e.g. cranial measurements) to aid in the identification of the body, including in terms of race. In a 1992 article anthropologist Norman Sauer noted that Anthropologists had generally abandoned the concept of race as a valid representation of human biological diversity except for Forensic anthropologists. This lead him to ask "if races don't exist, why are forensic anthropologists so good at identifying them?"He concluded that "the successful assignment of race to a skeletal specimen is not a vindication of the race concept, but rather a prediction that an individual, while alive was assigned to a particular socially constructed ‘racial’ category. A specimen may display features that point to African ancestry. In this country that person is likely to have been labeled Black regardless of whether or not such a race actually exists in nature. C. Loring Brace echoed this answer stating that: "The simple answer is that, as members of the society that poses the question, they are inculcated into the social conventions that determine the expected answer. They should also be aware of the biological inaccuracies contained in that "politically correct" answer. Skeletal analysis provides no direct assessment of skin color, but it does allow an accurate estimate of original geographical origins. African, eastern Asian, and European ancestry can be specified with a high degree of accuracy. Africa of course entails "black," but "black" does not entail African."
So my final question for the deniers of races is:
If races don't exist, why are forensic anthropologists so good at identifying them?
I expect the moderator that he take this problem as a grown up and reopen it for answers, because if forensic anthropology is unscientific, then I am not a Caucasoid and I don't have blue eyes and blonde hair and a pale skin and I don't look like a European at all and my friend is not from Angola.
This is a very good reading if you have enough time.
Taken from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1762596/
Your reactions lead me to the conclusion that it's still more about "political correctness" and not about science. Denying the truth is the worst thing in the long term.
Please, consider this:
MtDNA studies have shown that there are at least four distinct gray
wolf lineages: the most ancient is that of the African wolf (native to
North, West, and East Africa), which is thought to have originated as
early as the Middle to Late Pleistocene.
All other lineages occur together in the Indian Subcontinent, the
oldest of which is the Himalayan wolf (native to the Himalayan region
of eastern Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, parts of Tibet and eastern
Nepal), which is thought to have originated 800,000 years ago, when
the Himalayan region was going through major geologic and climatic
upheaval. The peninsular Indian wolf, C. l. pallipes, likely diverged
from the Himalayan wolf 400,000 years ago.
The youngest wolf lineage in India is represented by C. l. chanco
(native to the northwestern Himalayan region of Kashmir), which
originated 150,000 years ago. This last lineage, known as the
Holarctic clade, expanded into Europe and North America, as shown by
it sharing genetic markers with domestic dogs, European and North
Now, change the word "wolf" with the word... "human".