Kirby Urner posted Feb 17, 2014 5:35 AM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9389861): I had earlier responded ( Feb 17, 2014 9:07 AM at http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9390110) - the following perhaps should be clarified: <snip> > > The question is whether "racial" means anything in > your sentence. Yes, > there are proteins that influence skin color which > trace back to one's > genetic ability to protect from / absorb sunlight. > Trees also have darker > barks towards the equator on average, or so I'm told. > Humans vary with > geography, that much is obvious. > Indeed.
The real question is whether "racial" means anything at all in the context of human abilities, etc, beyond the fact that certain proteins do influence skin colour and the like, just as certain trees have darker barks.
In their specific environments, those trees have evolved to meet certain environmental challenges - and that is about all that science can tell us today, whether about trees or about human beings.
Just so, the "bushman" is far better evolved to meet the challenges of his environment than is "Einstein" (or, for that matter, than "Adolf Hitler" would be).
There is really no "ubermensch" or "untermensch" - except that the "ubermenschen" appear to be more stupid. I believe this is a simple fact around which certain people appear to be unable to wrap their excuses for minds (e.g., jkisraeliteknight.com).
If my daughter were to live in bush-country, I'd much rather she marry the stupidest "bushman" than the cleverest "Adolf". If my daughter were to live in "Nazi-land", I'd exterminate the Nazis first. I have a good many German friends who agree with me.