Maybe in NZ, by in the US, there are many different races with many different disorders, and these disorders have stayed relatively in the race it started in. Look up the race of the people with Sickle Cell in America right now, you will find the vast majority of them are of African decent. Some of those family could have been in America for the past 400 years, and still, most of the remain AA. We are still of the same Nationality, however, we come from different places, all with different problems.
I'm in Australia, not NZ.
I'm not denying that there are genetic diseases that are more common in some races than others, but pointing out that there are also some that are national (eg in Europe, where populations are more static than the New World) and some that are prevalent in certain particular smaller groups such as small geographic areas with a particularly static population, and particular families even. If we start with the premise that such diseases should be contained by restricting marriage between groups, then the logical conclusion is that you should only allow incest!
The idea
sounds plausible, but it's really based on the idea that one (or more) races are clean, and shouldn't be contaminated by other races. In reality, the overall population is genetically improved if anything by inter-racial marriage. Yes, you may get in increase in the incidence of sickle cell in the non-african population, but you'll get a corresponding benefit in other genetic disorders and vice versa for the african decended population. Genetic diseases don't work like viruses where quarantine of a population my be a purposeful strategy.
It is a practical consideration in a racist society, yes. However, I don't think it contributes to racism, if that is what you are implying.
Whether it contributes to racism is a matter of opinion, but most of the time it is a cover for racism. Implicit is the idea of "we are genetically clean, and they are not", otherwise the concept makes little sense.
Face it, both sides make good arguements. And look, you can admitt that WITHOUT the name calling.
I'm not name calling. I'm not calling you racist, I'm saying that many who promote these ideas are, and are using them for racist ends.
Also implicit in this is the idea that race is obvious, when it is not; Hungarians (Magyar) and Finns (for example) look like most other Europeans, but are racially quite different. Anglo-saxons and Pakistanis look quite different, but are racially very close. Pakistanis and Tamils look quite similar, but are racially very different. Unless you are going to look in considerable depth into a prospective partners family history the idea isn't even practically workable except to separate black and white. If you are personally worried about specific diseases then it would be far more effective to screen for them. On a less personal level, why is it better for a fully "african" child to be born with sickle-cell than a child of mixed descent or an "anglo-saxon" child? Segregation doesn't reduced the overall incidence of the disease - if you want to do that you need to identify the specific carriers and persuade them not to have children.
