James Stuart
King
Apartheid used the incorrect terminology of 'race' to describe a layer of (forced) ethnicity. This isn't a controversial concept.Look - South African Apartheid was about race, not about ethnicity. You could speak perfect English with nice accent, be a Protestant, drink tea at 5 o'clock every day, eat British breakfasts, read Shakespeare, enjoy British humour, adher to other British customs and traditions, etc. - but it did not matter, because if you were Black, then you still had to sit at the back of the bus and could be deported to a Bantustan. So Apartheid was clearly about race - not ethnicity.
Actually biologists commonly divide many species of wild (not just domesticated) animals into races.
For example, they distinguish between several races of a chimpanzee and several races of a gorilla.
If other species of primates are being divided into races, then humans can be too, as we are also primates.
That was 30 years before scientists learned to read the complete human genome. "Prehistory"!
So that research must be now considered obsolete because they had no sufficient tools nor sufficient evidence to either discredit or confirm the concept - yet despite lack of evidence some of them dur that motivated by political and ideological agenda, as well as by historical events. But you should know that even in the 1970s there was never any scientific consensus on races. Even at that time many scientists supported the validity of the concept of human races.
I have never, in my entire life, heard of different animal sub-species being divided into 'races.' Certainly not other primates. Perhaps this is a language issue? Maybe sub-species and 'race' are the same word in Polish?
Upon Googling "races of chimpanzee" I find a seven-year old article that says that "chimps, like us, are assigned to races!" Since the concept of humanity being split into three distinct races was abandoned in 1979, I find this article, from something called Softpedia, dubious. The use of an exclamation point doesn't instil a great deal of enthusiasm in me either. The second article is called "Resurrecting Racism: The Attack on Black People Using Phony Science," which concludes that, as I have always heard in the past, the different varieties of chimps are known as 'sub-species,' not 'races.' Then we have something from the PBS from a teaching curriculum called "Race: The Power of an Illusion," a typical Yahoo! Answers nonsense question, Stormfront, which supports your view of sub-species as races - which doesn't say much for your argument - and then we slide down the abyss into high-school level websites and Youtube videos about chimps competing against navy seals in obstacle courses (my money is on the seal, though I'd like the chimp to win).
Also, please don't edit your posts to include copious amounts of other information after I've already replied to them. I consider it very rude, and an unfair debating tactic. It gives the impression that I have failed to respond to your points, when in fact those points weren't there when I responded. I will NOT respond to the additions to your earlier post, dealing with Afro-Centrism in more detail, because I will not be checking your posts hours after I have replied to them for sneaky edits.
EDIT: I will respond to your last two paragraphs, as you added them while I was typing this answer, and not afterwards. The concept of race was most certainly discredited in the 1970s. Mapping the human genome merely confirmed what had already been settled by the end of the 1970s. To quote that Wikipedia page:
Jonathan Marks said: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.
So by the time Sewall Wright was arguing for the existence of human sub-species in 1978, the idea of human 'races' had already been debunked. Just because a few racists clung to the old prejudiced definitions - and still do, as evidenced by the supporters of your argument at Stormfront - does not mean that there was any real debate on the issue. Just because a minuscule portion of scientists disagree with the concept of anthropogenic climate change does not mean there is any debate on the issue today, after all; it's settled, anthropogenic climate change is real. The debate on 'race' was settled in the negative - it does not exist - forty years ago.