"Dan Holzman" <holzman at panix.com> wrote in message
news:anfvlj$72a$1 at panix1.panix.com...
> In article <ZBKm9.5141$%P2.398830 at news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Parse Tree <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Dan Holzman" <holzman at panix.com> wrote in message
> >news:andh5v$1hm$1 at panix2.panix.com...> >> In article <Nypm9.3430$zz2.779420 at news20.bellglobal.com>,
> >> Parse Tree <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >There's caucazoid, mongoloid and such. And it certainly is
> >> There is no scientific basis to those categories. To the extent that
> >> they were once presented as "biological," they have been debunked.
> >Isn't that like essentially stating there is no biological basis for
> >different skin colour and different facial structure?
>> The biological basis for different skin colour is the amount of
> melanin in one's skin cells. There is no melanin content, however,
> above which one is "Black" and below which one is "White." There are
> "Black" people with lighter skin than mine. There are "Black" people
> with blonde hair and blue eyes.
I have never met any, or heard about this. Is this like the Chinese girls
with green eyes in Big Trouble in Little China? You do know they were
wearing coloured contacts, right?
> Similarly, there is no metric for facial structure (or any other
> biological feature) that can be used to accurately categorize people
> into "races."
These are visual cues. There is no reason that things could not be properly
categorized. The problem is simply that it has no importance, and that it
is not PC.