you_chosethis

Hello Kelly! I brought this up to my science teacher last week and he wouldn't answer my question. And whenever I bring this up as a genuine inquiry online, others are fast to call me names instead of engaging in an honest discussion.

We can talk about animals honestly and objectively. For example, no one get upset when you state that Siberian Huskies and Beagles are both dogs who can mate with each other, after all they are of the same species. But they also look different, have different colored eyes/fur, and most importantly have different temperaments that allow them to good at different things. No one finds these differences offensive, they are just what they are. But apply this line of thinking to people and everyone gets up in arms. Is it that hard to believe similar genetic differences exist between people and even genders? Whenever these differences are pointed out you will find words "racist" or "bigot" attached to them. For example there is nothing bigoted about pointing out that men physically stronger than women. Or that African Americans are more prone to diabetes than Caucasians. Why is the topic so snuffed, even when the science behind genetics all proves that the differences are there?

I guess my questions to you is why are discussions that focus on biological and hereditary differences so taboo in social science? Don't you feel like they stifle honest discussions? Furthermore, what are you doing to keep these discussions honest?

You mention your own race to prove your point. But "Columbian" isn't a race, as much as Mexican or modern Americans are races of people. According to [Wikipeida]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_Colombia)

Genetic research with over 60,000 blood tests and 25 variables, determined that the average Colombian has an admixture of 65% European, 22% native Amerindian and 13% African ancestry.

Therefore you although you are half "Columbian" on your mom's side you are still overwhelmingly white European genetically. I wanted to avoid naming my own race and gender because the topic should be about the ideas not the identities of the authors (P.S. I'm not white or male if you are wondering)

Skin tone does not equal race or ancestry

Nor did I ever say it did. What I'm talking about is the denial or omitence of genetic racial differences in social sciences in regards to IQ, temperament and physical ability between the different races. Again, as a society we have no problem making distinctions of these qualities with animals such as dogs. But when it comes to people it's almost always just "because of their social environment" or "it's complicated"

So you honestly believe that if every person on Earth will rise up to the standards of white Europeans if we just shift their culture to be more white and European? When Americans talk about diversity, they are mostly implying that people of other races and cultures will talk, act and conduct themselves as they do once admitted into the institutions and communities of the majority. But the reality is that there is a chance this may not be true. No one ever wants to admit that, let alone have an honest discussion about it.