[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Carnyx

Better not to; we have laws here.

Yes, institutionalized stigmatization and penalty for dealing with the topic of race.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

To want is to believe.
Not really. Notice that the notion of "racism" is virtually absent in those physical spaces where there is no different races living side by side. Therefore there is no need to define anything in terms of race.

The notion of biological human races was discovered primarily by English and other European anthropologists, when they discovered other continents and their primitive civilizations with e.g. Negroid people. At that point, they did not live among them. But yes, the only way you can distinguish between multiple races, is for you to know that multiple races exist. That is epistemological.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

It is a terrible mistake to define one's political beliefs in terms of racism. Racism is not --or it should not be-- a political doctrine.

Excuse me, but where does this come from? I didnt mention any political doctrine in my post, and the question of racism and racist political doctrines are very distinctive. If you cant distinguish between them, you're name must be Adolf Hitler. Please read it again.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

"Racism", unless specified further, does not imply evil, nor racial hatred. It implies any semantic that can be derived from combining "race" with "ism", and that is a broad spectrum of ideas and conceptions. That the term in these days is abused as meaning inherently the evil racial hatred towards other races (specifically "white" versus "black"), is perhaps, the product of an opposition towards the realization and conception of the existence of races and their significance, which people are kept from understanding with a social stigmatization, characterized by this one term, which people are so willing to avoid being labeled as, that they do not learn about academic racism and the reality of races. The only way to counter that, is to stop caring about the stigma when someone uses it as a straw man argument.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Don't you admit having different races (or sub-races) as part of the Danish nation?

First of all - lets get the taxonomy straight. One race is not the same as a sub-race. A sub-species of the human race is not the same as a sub-race - it can, in its taxonomic nature, contain a larger scope of variation than one phenotype, when we're talking biology, and anthropology. Nevertheless, I dont think sub-races are significant. No one in the general population distinguishes between them, whereas the general population can grasp and see the visible differences between entire human races. The approach of judging after the visible is also why physical anthropology is largely abolished in understanding human differences. The racial differences go under our skin and bones.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

The anthropological differences between the derivatives of Cromagnoids and of Aurignacoids are wide enough to call for a contructionism of a racist doctrine.

I disagree that its possible. What evidence and practical examples do you have to support this claim, that its possible in a modern context to make a racist doctrine based on the differences Aurignacoids and Cromagnoids? All I see is claims, and no evidence. If this was the case, there would be some mention of these two "sub-races" in the general population and culture. The thing is, the general population does not adhere to retro-academic physical anthropology.

My elaborated take on your opinion that Europe is still to this day bi-racial is here: European Race or European Races

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Yet we don't do that, do we?

No! We dont. So what makes you think its possible? The anthropological differences themselves? Phenotypology and sub-racial traits obviously dont have any real significance in society. People breed and mix between sub-races.
I just explained why - the general population do not have the expertise, knowledge, or care, to distinguish between sub-races. One of the reasons for this is that they are scattered across all populations, extremely mixed, and the majority of Europe is of mixed sub-race, the people of only 1 sub-race are either only visually so, and have ancestors of several sub-races, or are part of the only possible exception to this, which must comprise a very low part of the population, considering the general breeding trends for the last 2000-4000 years.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

We define a political doctrine in terms of ethnicity, not of race. Ethnic nations are made up of different anthropological types, which have come together to make up what we today know as the nation, at the time of its ethnogenesis. Or which have been assimilated over time, after that ethnogenesis.

Ethnogenesis has a basis in identity, and sub-race is not the prerequisite. Race, however, is at least more significant than sub-race, since the fewest ethnicities would accept a completely radically different person, i.e. a black-skinned sub-Saharan African with extremely visible different traits (thick lips, flat, broad nose), and the examples of such are very few, whereas the examples of different sub-races breeding together, i.e. what we today might call an "Alpinid" breeding with a "Baltid", or "Mediterranid" breading with a "Dinarid" (random examples) are numerous, something it is impossible to hold count of.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

You can see the results of defining politics in terms of racism, in the discussions of some individuals desperately (and pathetically) trying to prove that the different anthropological types in their nations are not what they look, but they are something altogether different. I'm referring to the pathetic attempts to define, for example, all Germans (be them Alpinids, Baltids, Dinarids or Mediterranids/Atlantids) as Nordids. How much time should we waste with such people? How much should we allow them to burden our possibilities of progressing, with their pseudo-scientifical speculations?

I agree we should not waste our times with sub-races and the father/mother races of Europids in general, as if they had any significance after millenia of interbreeding. But that is what you do, isnt it? I dont consider it any better to suggest that there is any significant racial difference between one sub-race and another that somehow has political implications in a modern context, such as what you say seems to suggest, than to suggest that one nation are all one sub-race. Both claims and approaches are equally irrelevant and time-wasting, because they are based on the presumption that sub-races are somehow significant, important, un-mixed, pure and that political measurements should be taken that we base our ideals in them - sub-racialism.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Personally, I believe that we should not waste one second and we should instead put a strong cordon sanitaire around them.

I believe we should, but on sub-racialism, such as that of yours. Its like a plague for nationalist forums like these, that people put too much emphasis on racial taxonomy and typology. Its okay for the anthropology forum, but the political exploitation of sub-races is childish.