I have a friend, not just any kind of friend but that special friend who looks at you and knows exactly what's up. The guy/girl you go to when you're in love, scared, confused. The brother from another mother. The sister you never had. That person we all have or should have.
That friend that knows everything about you. But I should say I used to have that friend. My buddy who was one of the few true connections I had. Connections in this age are a rare thing. I mean we called instead of texted. We met up, we gave each other gifts. The gift of our time. A true connection. A true buddy.
My buddy took his own life last year. At the age of 21, my friend jumped off a building because he was made so clouded in his own mind about his own self-worth. The result of endless bullying when he was younger. Bullied because he was different, more specifically because he looked different. My friend was black. He had a different skin color. My friend is no longer among us, for the simple fact that people didn't accept his skin color.
After this incident I started wondering why people still do black and white things; we've heard countless speeches, songs. Read countless articles, inspiring novels about how we are all equal. I believe that we are all responsible for this issue because as long as we keep saying the word “race,” Black race, Caucasian race, Arabic race, whatever race. Racism will exist because we allow it to be. However, the word race just doesn't make sense.
In biology, what is the difference between species and race?
“Race is a taxonomic classification below species. It is also less formalized than species. Contrary to the other answers, race is definitely used in biology, especially historically and in certain fields.
The use of "race" has fallen out of favor for obvious reasons with hominids, but this has probably also influenced its decline in fields that have nothing to do with humans. In my work, it's still commonly used to describe plant pathogens, however, although there's a movement towards describing virulence. Race was also commonly used for plants. I'm not old enough to know why its use has declined, but my guess is that it was too arbitrary, informal, and non-scientific. We simply switched to more descriptive classifications (e.g. heterotic groups, ecotypes...or just "type," "group" or "population"), and the defined race simply didn't match up so we changed terms. My last point is simply that it might be linguistic evolution, not any basis in science.”
Or another one.
“Races may exist in humans in a cultural sense, but biological concepts of race are needed to access their reality in a non-species-specific manner and to see if cultural categories correspond to biological categories within humans. Modern biological concepts of race can be implemented objectively with molecular genetic data through hypothesis-testing. Genetic data sets are used to see if biological races exist in humans and in our closest evolutionary relative, the chimpanzee. Using the two most commonly used biological concepts of race, chimpanzees are indeed subdivided into races but humans are not. Adaptive traits, such as skin color, have frequently been used to define races in humans, but such adaptive traits reflect the underlying environmental factor to which they are adaptive and not overall genetic differentiation, and different adaptive traits define discordant groups. There are no objective criteria for choosing one adaptive trait over another to define race. As a consequence, adaptive traits do not define races in humans. Much of the recent scientific literature on human evolution portrays human populations as separate branches on an evolutionary tree. A tree-like structure among humans has been falsified whenever tested, so this practice is scientifically indefensible. It is also socially irresponsible as these pictorial representations of human evolution have more impact on the general public than nuanced phrases in the text of a scientific paper. Humans have much genetic diversity, but the vast majority of this diversity reflects individual uniqueness and not race.”
Now I could keep going all scientific on your asses all day and quote countless of scientific articles to why the usage of the word race is just plain wrong. However, I'll give a very simple example that everyone can follow and understand.
Let's look at the biology. Race in other SPECIES defines the type of that species.
To make my point I will use the bear species; in particular, polar bears and panda bears.
While both are bears there are some major differences. A panda bear only chews on bamboo and greens his entire life, whereas a polar bear eats meat only. If a panda would eat meat, it would, in fact, get sick and possibly die. However, a panda comes in many shapes and fur patterns. When looking at the biological terminology, these fundamental differences define the race within a species.
When relating back to us human beings we cannot find these key differences. Even when talking "scientifically" there is only 1 race left within the human species. The Homo sapiens. The other races, Homo erectus, etc, are extinct.
The word race is misused in the sense of it not making any sense when applied to human beings. Biologists around the world probably laugh at people who say human race. Thinking they are completely stupid to use their terminology in the wrong way.
However, the majority of the world keeps using it to define the issue of racism. I believe racism will cease to exist if we stop acknowledging its excitants. When as a collective we stop to use something, usually it disappears from excitants. For the need for it is gone.
In this time and age, where information is so easily obtainable. Why do we all still sound so stupid by applying race to humans?
So let's all stop saying human race. It's just plain stupid. Because it's human species. At least be correct with the terminology!