Odds and Ends
6 10, 7:21pm
: Although I sorta didn't want to get into the whole debate again, but thank you for making essentially the statement that I was trying to convey. In a far more eloquent fashion.
I don't find it racist to point out that a given society had insufficient cultural defenses against a potentially destructive substance due to lack of exposure.
Neither do I find it racist to point out a given genotype has specific traits, as long as it has basis in real science and you have the understanding that it does not imply any kind of inferiority.
Example: Lactose intolerance runs as high as 90% in Asia, but is around 5% in Scandinavia. Does that mean that either is inferior? Hell no. It might mean that you should ask before offering an Asian person your quattro formaggio. It might mean that both groups would be good for related medical and historical studies.
I am not aware of any genotype that is inherently more intelligent, physically superior, or morally superior.
Some population groups have traits that may serve as situational advantages or disadvantages. The genes that may result in sickle cell anemia is one such trait, although for the population group in general it's a huge advantage. Because malaria is terrible.
Melanoma is by far the most common in Northern Europe, but being Whitey McWhite in an area with little sun is still an advantage for the group as a whole, because vitamin deficiency is terrible.
No inherent inferiority of either group. Just gradual adaptation to their environments. I don't think our species is lessened by recognizing such adaptation. Neither do I think we're lessened by accepting that a given group might be vulnerable to a given environmental hazard/substance/pathogen/technology with which they have little or no experience.