Nice rant, Shocker, but I'll just address a point you tried to make before your medication apparently wore off.

Shocker: "So, Race *isn't* body? It's not biology? Prey (sic) tell, what is it then?"

When applied to humans, 'race' is a cultural category that is used to categorise people on the basis of superficial or phenotypical criteria, such as skin colour. While human 'races' have lost any scientific salience they might once have had since the development of modern genetics, the concept continues to have force among those who wish to attribute complex sociocultural phenomena to simple causes that are apparently more easily understood by them.

The reason that anthropologists and other scientists no longer refer to human 'races' is quite simply that there is far greater genetic diversity within the so-called races than there is between them, thus rendering biological explanations for apparent differences meaningless.

However, this doesn't stop many people from thinking and acting as if 'race' was actually something beyond a cultural category. In fact, it is precisely this contemporary reification of the artificial category of 'race' that denotes current forms of racism.

I hope this helps, and that you're feeling better today.

Shockadelic

It seems that, when faced with actual evidence that demonstrates your ignorance, you panic and get a dose of verbal diarrheoa.

Books can contain dangerous and uncomfortable facts and ideas, but I don't think your illness is due to reading.

Books can contain dangerous and uncomfortable facts and ideas, but I don't think your illness is due to reading.
Posted by FrankGol, Sunday, 28 October 2007 3:23:52 PM

What is your illness due to then?

VK3AUU

What's my ilness due to? Shockerholic's total lack of logic has given me the sh**s.

CJ Morgan: "I'll just address a point you tried to make" (and ignore all the others).

"Race is a cultural category that is used to categorise people on the basis of superficial or phenotypical criteria, such as skin colour."

Didn't I just say that?
That "race" is a *body-defined* concept.
I'm being "corrected" by somebody saying the same thing!

"The concept continues to have force among those who wish to attribute complex sociocultural phenomena to simple causes"

I didn't say race *causes* culture.
I said they *coincide*.

It's quite obvious that:
1. The "race" of Vietnam and the "race" of Italy are *biologically* different.
2. The traditional culture of Vietnam is different from the traditional culture of Italy.
3. That both these differences *developed simultaneously* and are therefore *linked together* (whether you like it or not!).

Tell the Vietnamese and Italians that their races and/or cultures could be *imperceptibly* swapped, and they'll laugh at and/or punch you!

Modern genetics has discredited "race"?
So-called "White Australia" existed *before* this, over a century ago!
When "race" and "culture" were inseparable.

FrankGol: "Books can contain dangerous and uncomfortable facts and ideas".

But does merely reading them make you wise?

How many (and which) books must you read before FrankGol bestows his blessing?
500? 6000? 5 trillion?

"Mein Kampf"
"The Female Eunuch"
"The Communist Manifesto"
"The Road To Serfdom"
"The Golden Bough"
"The Satanic Bible"
"The Origin Of Species"
"The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs and Other Principal Saints"

All of these books contain "information" and "ideas".

Does this make them true?
Does reading them make you wise?

You can agree or *disagree* with the authors.

But how do you make this judgement?
Your own personal life experience (which cannot be found at your local library).

If I haven't read the books you have, that doesn't mean I haven't read *any*.

Nor, having read the same books, do I have to draw the same conclusions as you.

Facts? Even historians disagree on what the "facts" actually are!

Information isn't "truth".
Knowledge isn't "wisdom".

FrankGol isn't God.
(But don't tell his Ego, it's too fragile.)

Shockadelic

When you say: 'The "race" of Vietnam and the "race" of Italy are *biologically* different', which people of Vietnam are you referring to? Would it be the Kinh, the Muong, the Thai, the Meo, the Kmer, the Man, the Cham or those of Chinese ancestry?

Likewise, which of the above represent what you call “the traditional culture of Vietnam”?

You ask: ‘How many (and which) books must you read before FrankGol bestows his blessing?’ I answer: just a few on the topic before you pontificate on it would do for starters.

You ask: ‘But does merely reading them make you wise?” I answer: No (see below).

You gave a list of books all of which contain information and ideas and ask: ‘Does this make them true?’ My answer: Not just because they were published (see below).

You ask: ‘Does reading them make you wise?’ My answer: No, not that alone.

You state: ‘You can agree or *disagree* with the authors. But how do you make this judgement? Your own personal life experience (which cannot be found at your local library).’ My response: Personal life experience is an important source for judging a book. Others include assessing: the quality and quantity of the evidence used by the author, the quality of the author’s logic, the book’s internal consistency, its coherence, the proportion devoted to solid argument as against personal preference or ideology, etc.

That’s why I’m confident that “The Origin of the Species” is a better book than “Mein Kampf”.

You state: ‘If I haven't read the books you have, that doesn't mean I haven't read *any*.’ I agree.

You ask: ‘Nor, having read the same books, do I have to draw the same conclusions as you? I answer: No (see above).

You state: ‘Even historians disagree on what the "facts" actually are!’ Yes, I’ve noticed that too.

You assert: ‘Information isn't "truth". Knowledge isn't "wisdom".’ That’s obvious, but knowledge is a pre-requisite to wisdom.

You conclude: ‘FrankGol isn't God. (But don't tell his Ego, it's too fragile.)’ I’m shocked you noticed. Damn!