"James Michael Howard"  wrote in message
> [moderator's note: Yes, with the same pained grimace, and I am
> wondering what you are implying, sir. Clearly, this newsgroup is not the
> best for any aspect of human evolution in particular, since this should
> fall into the sci.anthropology or .sociology hierarchies, but it is at
least
> tangentially related to our topic as a whole, so I allow it as long
> as the threads do not devolve into mere vituperation. - JAH]
>
IMO the post was only topical in so far as any aspect of human behaviour is
the result of evolution.
There seems to be a tendency to favour the "in" group in
important decisions
such as hiring. The question is whether there is an innate tendency to
define that "in" group by race, or whether the selected trait is
arbitrary -
now race, now social class, now religion. I would also want to see whether
the white hirers favour whites indiscriminately, or whether they favour
friends and family, who happen to be mostly white.

However this is really much more sociological than biological. In biological
terms, as someone pointed out, African Americans don't seem to be suffering
any reproductive disadvantage for being at the bottom of the social heap.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/1/03 6:03:22 AM