I truly hope your thinking is not the result of current university curriculum. To so broadly dismiss “The Short History of the World” as an old book of no significance with nothing of value in its factual contents because it was written by “HG Wells” a “science fiction writer” speaks volumes about your lack of classical and science based education or appreciation of its values.
You are trying to argue points that are not arguable within the world of science, except within social science which has its own interpretation of “race”, that has nothing to do with biology and hard science based anthropological studies.
If you think that the facts cited and illustrated in The Short History of the World have changed substantially about the origins of man from its earliest emergence, then you lack appreciation of knowledge in general. If anything, current anthropological work has produced vaster insights into the early beginnings of man within foundational races.
For instance, from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Pygmies
“The Congo Pygmy groups were regarded as a sub-race of the Negroid race by European anthropologists in the late 19th through to the first half of the 20th century.[5] The Congo Pygmy speak languages of the Niger–Congo and Central Sudaniclanguage families. There has been significant intermixing between the Bantu and Pygmies.
The current racial or ethnic designation was conceived by European anthropologists to describe the various small-framed groups of the Congo rain forests that appeared to be related.”
I’m finished arguing with you over something that is argued between academics within the fields of hard science and social science. Social science academics postulating the non-existence of “races” are not drawing their conclusions from hard science based anthropological evidence, biologists and similar hard fields of study, they are presenting interpretations based on the underlying and understated agenda to extinguish “racism”. Their doing so is at the expense of factual hard science as argued by scientists outside the field of “social science” and within its framework of hard anthropological interpretations.
Here is an article to read: http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/
Its title is “What Science Says About Race and Genetics.
And I’ll leave you pondering one question you probably dare not to think too long over if our previous communications is any example of your openness to reason, logic and empirical evidence..
Why do ONLY people of the negroid race get sickle cell anemia and what is the science based consensus on the genesis of this blood condition?
Don’t respond anymore to me because arguing with you is like arguing with a brick and I’ve got better things to do than waste my time on someone who is so obviously set in his “beliefs” that facts and appreciation for scientific inquiry is not important.
