There's no such thing as racial equality... Fact.

My own personal opinion on the subject:

I think we are all equal racially, but culture are not equal. There are some culture that promote violence, racism, torture, war, fear. And other culture that promote peace. There are some culture that attack everyone who dare to think differently, and other that promote freedom of speech.



I think all races are equal but ideologies, religions, cultures... all of these are not equal.

"

diablofdb wrote:

My own personal opinion on the subject:

I think we are all equal racially, but culture are not equal. There are some culture that promote violence, racism, torture, war, fear. And other culture that promote peace. There are some culture that attack everyone who dare to think differently, and other that promote freedom of speech.



I think all races are equal but ideologies, religions, cultures... all of these are not equal.

You mean replace "the Arabs" with "the Islam" ? That might work out. Because within any given group people are all the same, there´s no cultural development, exchange or discussion, right ?

"Torture", "fear" - yeah I remember someone talking about that lately...

A race is "a population within a species that is [biologically] distinct in some way, especially a subspecies." So let's consider race in dogs.

Canis lupus is a diverse species. It includes gray wolves, dingoes, and over 400 "pure" races — aka breeds — of domesticated dog create by a millennia-long human-driven eugenics program. Consider, for a moment, under what sort of control, under what sort of enslavement, would humans be separated into "pure" breeds. Make no mistake; those who promote eugenics programs are advocates for the people who look at human populations as their pets.

The amount of variance between races of dogs is staggering, covering not just colors but size, from chihuahua to mastiff. In comparison, the differences between the so-called "races" of homo sapiens are trivial. We're simply not that different; racial differences are low-impact in humans relative to many other species.

Furthermore, all kinds of characteristics are racial in dogs: height, length, fur color, temperament, sense of smell, intelligence. Similarly, a eugenicist looking at breeding humans wouldn't stop at skin color, but also might consider height, hair color, eye color, right-handedness, intelligence, muscle mass, etc; for example, Finnish might be considered a race. When most people say "race" they're doing it wrong; white isn't a race, white is a skin color. It's not a reliable indicator of overall genetics when analysing a (delightfully!) mongrelized population.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly: dog owners know not every dog within the same race is the same. Even very domesticated animals like dogs develop differently under different conditions, both physically and mentally. It's silly to go to an animal shelter and take a dog home based purely on breed, because you don't know what they dog has been through and need to inspect how such hidden events may have effected its temperament.

You can't just compare humans to dogs (or to animals in general). Especially when the latter are a result of selections done by the former, shaped by their will.
It just makes no sense.
Humans are the dominating specie on earth without competition, which evolution and progression through the ages weren't affected by any other specie, but themself.

When comparing stuff in such topics, you ask yourself different questions, like:

"Why on a certain continent a certain race domesticated 18 useful species out of 122 in total and put them to work (which resulted in a rapid progression), while on another continent a certain race domesticated 0 of 51."
or
"Why a group of countries founded by a certain race hold around 65% of world wealth."
and
"Is there any relation between both?"
followed by
"And if so, why?"

You can't explain it with dog breeding analogies, don't you.

Mk.