Ok...just listen to me. I'm going to tell you something you should really know if you are a carbon based life form with a rudimentary ability to functiong cognitively in the frontol lobal arena.
There are people out there who argue that our genes play a strong role in predicting our potential. They believe Certain genes make us more intelligent or violent etc. This is the basis for their thesis that certain "racial groups" behave in certain ways because they are pre-destined to.
You see even if we take a hard core socio-biological stance and assume that genes play a massive role in determing our behaviour, this thesis still fails. Why ?
There is no such thing as race.
I don't mean that is some floozy politically corrent little "South African peace crisps" bullshit way. I mean it in the cold, hard, scientifically objective, biological sense.
Research done in 2003 showed there is more diversity amongst people of the so called "same race" than between all the races together. Wrap your mind around that for a moment.
And even then the entire genetic diversity amongst humans of the same gender is 0.3%. Compare this to the genetic differences beween men and women which are over 1.5%. The differences between men and women and their behavioural potential are 5 times greater than the potential differences in "race".
And that's before we even consider that effectively all differences are phenotypical. The colour of the skin might be different etc , but this plays no considerable role in our behaviour (well with a few exceptions : melanin can explain why blacks develop muscle more effectively for example).
And even while clearly there are phenotypical differences between people it's still wrong to assume stereotypical potential onto them. Kenyans , Ethiopans and American blacks for example ....no one would argue they are blacks. Yet at the olympics one is not likely to find many black American long distance champions , nor is one likely to find many Ethiopian 100 meter sprinters. So while the color of the skin is the same the genetic differences ammongst the so called "race" iself is clearly vast.
Even if racial groups did not have massive racial diversity ammongst them it would not be significant. I wrote about this before but there are thousands of examples world wide of people with similiar genetic make up but are exposed to different cultural circumstances, and the glaringly obvious truth is that despite their genetic make up there is no correlation between their genes and their potential. Twin studies also show that outside a few niche areas , like alcoholism etc genetics generally is a poor indication of potential and culture plays a far more significant part.
I'm frankly seen so much evidence to disprove the idea of race, so much evidence entirely debunking the few people out their who still insist on it that I'm highly unmotivated to even debate it any more. I feel bored and unstimulated by the debate because the truth is so glaringly obvious when you have the data in front of you. There can be no other valid conclusion drawn than "Race" in any form of genetic definition does not exist.
So if you must debate me, then do so.......but please don't bore me with poorly made enecdotal arguments about "how certain races ..." ...oops...see the error you made there ? There is no such thing as a "race" outside the context of "culture". And therefore until you can prove to me there is (hint : you can't because...well...there isn't) you must accept that all differences in ability that seems to correlate to a certain skin color must be seen as a cultural or environmental differences and not a genetic one. The mutual conclusion therefore being that race plays no part in predicting someones potential. So save us both the headache and don't bother.