Not having learned the word in your youth is almost credible, Yuyutsu.

>>I never learned that word in school or ever used it. I'm afraid that Hasbeen's hint did not help me find it either.<<

But not knowing the name of Wing Commander Guy Gibson's black dog - and not even being able to find it on the internet - is a suspension of disbelief too far.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgePEO7GUtE

Have a great, politically correct, day.

"Not having learned the word in your youth is almost credible, Yuyutsu."

- English is not my first language. I've learnt it from good teachers and good books.

"But not knowing the name of Wing Commander Guy Gibson's black dog"

- I don't have a TV at home - one of the last things I miss. The only occasion when I may be exposed to this kind of movies is up in the air on international flights. So, until I actually saw your clip I was convinced that this "Wing Commander" is something out of Star-Wars.

Have a great day too, Pericles.

To Cardigan.

The word "race" exists in the English language, and it denotes an abstract concept. That is, that the world's population is roughly divided into three recognisable races, Asian, Caucasian, and Negro. To claim that races do not exist, is to make the same mistake which the Socialists made when they tried to tell everyone that "class" did not exist.

Both race and class may be abstract terms, and both of them may be social constructs, but they denote concepts which are very real.

And to claim that races are equal in every way with each other, is as stupid as saying that classes within communities are equal in every way with each other. Especially when those claiming that races and classes must be equal, are themselves claiming social, moral and intellectual superiority over despised suburbanites, and anyone else who disagrees with them.

Lego,

Let's check your logic with a quick word swap:

The word "God" exists in the English language, and it denotes an abstract concept.

Does that settle the question? Yeh, brilliant. All those philosophers and theologians have spilt all that ink, and Lego solves the question by looking up the dictionary. Well done. It's in the language, therefore it exists. Who would have thought?

Human difference exists, an undeniable and obvious biological fact. How we divide that difference up, however, is a cultural artefact. There is no substance to any of the putative "races" you mention. What appears self-evident to you (and many others) is nineteenth century science become folklore.

You will find web-pages that claim otherwise, sure. But the view I summarise in the preceding paragraph is that of all the major anthropological associations that have issued statements on "race".

Cardigan, are you asserting, in effect, that “race” is not recognised in any discipline as being capable of definition in such a manner as would enable it to be distinguished for the purposes of study?

If so, this is a little different to race being non existent.

Your statement has a similar basis to saying that Love, Justice, Beauty or Art do not exist. They exist, but are not able to be defined scientifically.

Definitions of such concepts are varied, and sometimes even contradictory, but they still exist as concepts, even if there are differences of opinion as to what they are.

Perhaps if you and Lego could agree on a definition of “exist”, your differences would disappear.

Lego’s definition seems to be “able to be conceived or described” whereas yours appears to be “able to be scientifically defined and studied”.

Leo,

The power of the idea of race and racial groups lies in its false claim to a basis in nature.

Earlier you cited statements about different groups and their "abilities" and "aptitudes": those kinds of attributes have no hereditary basis which is “able to be scientifically defined and studied", as you put it. Here is what the American Anthropological Association has to say about "abilities and aptitudes":

At the end of the 20th century, we now understand that human cultural behavior is learned, conditioned into infants beginning at birth, and always subject to modification. No human is born with a built-in culture or language. Our temperaments, dispositions, and personalities, regardless of genetic propensities, are developed within sets of meanings and values that we call "culture." Studies of infant and early childhood learning and behavior attest to the reality of our cultures in forming who we are.

And just in case you see "genetic propensities" as signaling some basis for race, here is what they say about the distribution of physical attributes:

Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. ... These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm

I wonder if Lego wants to acknowledge this last conclusion based on the facts of human variation? Or does he prefer to base his approach to other people on a set of racial illusions?