Well if usenet or the web is any indication, apparently so. I searched and turned up a whole bunch of references from today, and even here in a.u.e cybercypher and Raymond Wise seem to have used it.

Yet it has been some time, perhaps 20 years, since I've heard the term deployed either by an acquaintance or in the mass media. My mother used to talk of "the human race" and even more stupidly in context "the Australian race" but that was a very long time ago now.

At one level it seems an odd term. There is of course an energetic debate over exactly what "race" is in this context and I certainly don't propose to start one of those here.
We have a term species to cover all humanity and I wonder why anyone would use race when it has such a problematic and contentious history. For the most part, it seems to refer to some sub-group within the species.
I wonder how most of us think of this term.
Fran
 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14
Well if usenet or the web is any indication, apparently so. I searched and turned up a whole bunch of ... some time, perhaps 20 years, since I've heard the term deployed either by an acquaintance or in the mass media.

You must hang out with people who are far too young to know anything of value, and you seem to pay much too much attention to the wheezings and screechings of the mass media.
My mother used to talk of "the human race" and even more stupidly in context "the Australian race" but that ... it seems an odd term. There is of course an energetic debate over exactly what "race" is in this context

Nonsense. Nobody misunderstands what "race" mean in this context: "the human race". It means only homo sapiens sapiens. In the context of "the Australian race", however, there are questions to debate, but they mostly have to do with whether one puts the potato sack over the the feet or over the heads of the two contestants before applying the duck tape.
and I certainly don't propose to start one of those here. We have a term species to ... it seems to refer to some sub-group within the species. I wonder how most of us think of this term.

"The human species" is a clumsy term because "species" has two syllables instead of one, and because one should use it in the phrase "our species" rather than "the human species", it seems to me. In any case, there's no way to win with the words "human" or "humanity".

Perhaps we should coin a new word: "anthropopod". It goes well with cephalopod. I have also suggested that we change the phrase to "the depradators", but nobody thinks it's flattering enough even if it is true. Most of the 20,000 emails I received in response to that one said "The Destroyers" had a better ring to it, and "Lords of All Things" was more fitting. Their authors, too, listen much too much to the mass media.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
"I'm sitting out this race."
Well if usenet or the web is any indication, apparently ... deployed either by an acquaintance or in the mass media.

You must hang out with people who are far too young to know anything of value,

Well I am somewhat in the top half of the age band at my workplace. Most of my acquaintances are younger I'm nearly 47.
and you seem to pay much too much attention to the wheezings and screechings of the mass media.

Pardon??? How so?
My mother used to talk of "the human race" and ... energetic debate over exactly what "race" is in this context

Nonsense. Nobody misunderstands what "race" mean in this context: "the human race". It means only homo sapiens sapiens.

I meant the use of the word "race" as a descriptor of human features. Is it a biological or cultural term? (Another context might be "gear race" or "horse race").
In the context of "the Australian race", however, there are questions to debate, but they mostly have to do with whether one puts the potato sack over the the feet or over the heads of the two contestants before applying the duck tape.

Isn't that "Duct tape"?
and I certainly don't propose to start one of ... I wonder how most of us think of this term.

"The human species" is a clumsy term because "species" has two syllables instead of one, and because one should use ... human species", it seems to me. In any case, there's no way to win with the words "human" or "humanity".

Why not?
Perhaps we should coin a new word: "anthropopod".

There are even more syllables in that.
It goes well with cephalopod. I have also suggested that we change the phrase to "the depradators", but nobody thinks it's flattering enough even if it is true.

Why "even if"? Do you mean "albeit"?
Most of the 20,000 emails I received in response to that one said "The Destroyers" had a better ring to it, and "Lords of All Things" was more fitting. Their authors, too, listen much too much to the mass media.

Maybe "Lords of the Rings", if only for theme.
Fran
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Well if usenet or the web is any indication, apparently ... deployed either by an acquaintance or in the mass media.

You must hang out with people who are far too young to know anything of value,

Well I am somewhat in the top half of the age band at my workplace. Most of my acquaintances are younger I'm nearly 47.
and you seem to pay much too much attention to the wheezings and screechings of the mass media.

Pardon??? How so?
My mother used to talk of "the human race" and ... energetic debate over exactly what "race" is in this context

Nonsense. Nobody misunderstands what "race" mean in this context: "the human race". It means only homo sapiens sapiens.

I meant the use of the word "race" as a descriptor of human features. Is it a biological or cultural term? (Another context might be "gear race" or "horse race").
In the context of "the Australian race", however, there are questions to debate, but they mostly have to do with whether one puts the potato sack over the the feet or over the heads of the two contestants before applying the duck tape.

Isn't that "Duct tape"?
and I certainly don't propose to start one of ... I wonder how most of us think of this term.

"The human species" is a clumsy term because "species" has two syllables instead of one, and because one should use ... human species", it seems to me. In any case, there's no way to win with the words "human" or "humanity".

Why not?
Perhaps we should coin a new word: "anthropopod".

There are even more syllables in that.
It goes well with cephalopod. I have also suggested that we change the phrase to "the depradators", but nobody thinks it's flattering enough even if it is true.

Why "even if"? Do you mean "albeit"?
Most of the 20,000 emails I received in response to that one said "The Destroyers" had a better ring to it, and "Lords of All Things" was more fitting. Their authors, too, listen much too much to the mass media.

Maybe "Lords of the Rings", if only for theme.
Fran
You must hang out with people who are far too young to know anything of value,

Well I am somewhat in the top half of the age band at my workplace. Most of my acquaintances are younger I'm nearly 47.

Aha! Just as I thought: a relative youngster.
and you seem to pay much too much attention to the wheezings and screechings of the mass media.

Pardon??? How so?

You say you haven't heard the phrase "the human race" in the mass media for the past 20 years. I say "Who cares?".
Nonsense. Nobody misunderstands what "race" mean in this context: "the human race". It means only homo sapiens sapiens.

I meant the use of the word "race" as a descriptor of human features.

That's not what you said, though. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Somebody important said that.
Is it a biological or cultural term? (Another context might be "gear race" or "horse race").

It's an old biological term that has become gutted of biological content now that we don't believe in phrenology. But there are countless millions who still believe in astrology, palmistry, and blood-type as indicators of personality, character, and intelligence.
In the context of "the Australian race", however, there are ... heads of the two contestants before applying the duck tape.

Isn't that "Duct tape"?

Truthfully, it is, but in the provided context of "the Australian race" above, it's "duck tape".
"The human species" is a clumsy term because "species" has ... no way to win with the words "human" or "humanity".

Why not?

Why, because I say so, that's why. Isn't that a good enough reason for a personal opinion? It is for most parents and supervisors and other types of leaders I've known.
Perhaps we should coin a new word: "anthropopod".

There are even more syllables in that.

That's okay because it adds new information about the significance of the human foot in describing a member of the human race.
It goes well with cephalopod. I have also suggested that ... nobody thinks it's flattering enough even if it is true.

Why "even if"? Do you mean "albeit"?

I don't use that word in informal writing, but I do sling it around liberally when I write formal essays. In any case, I usually say what I mean and mean what I say.
Most of the 20,000 emails I received in response to ... authors, too, listen much too much to the mass media.

Maybe "Lords of the Rings", if only for theme.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
Well if usenet or the web is any indication, apparently ... deployed either by an acquaintance or in the mass media.

You must hang out with people who are far too young to know anything of value, and you seem to pay much too much attention to the wheezings and screechings of the mass media.

Perhaps, Franke, but you've gotta admit she's a good writer.
Charles Riggs
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Well if usenet or the web is any indication, apparently so. I searched and turned up a whole bunch of references from today, and even here in a.u.e cybercypher and Raymond Wise seem to have used it.

Well, when Ray's right, he's right.

Charles Riggs
Speak for yourself, old boy. Has anyone ever met a person with a sloped forehead who wasn't a borderline halfwit, or less smart? I know I haven't.
Not phrenology, but men with hairy backs, too. Would you expect one to carry on a coherent discussion of special relativity, Franke? Yes, one might be able to, but a less hairy man would be more likely to. Hair on the face is OK, of course, along with reasonably hairy chests, but backs are an entirely different matter.

Charles Riggs
Well I am somewhat in the top half of the age band at my workplace. Most of my acquaintances are younger I'm nearly 47.

Aha! Just as I thought: a relative youngster.

Thanks ... I assume.
Pardon??? How so?

You say you haven't heard the phrase "the human race" in the mass media for the past 20 years. I say "Who cares?".

Many people, evidently, whether they should or not.
I meant the use of the word "race" as a descriptor of human features.

That's not what you said, though. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Somebody important said that.

I believe I did, but as you misapprehended, I felt inclined to clarify the matter, as a service to those who may have suffered the misapprehension you evinced.

Here you're on good ground, but I was seeking further information. As this is a discussion group, I thought you might care to develop your proposition, offering a rationale for the inadequacy of "humanity" as a term.
There are even more syllables in that.

That's okay because it adds new information about the significance of the human foot in describing a member of the human race.

Truly a foundation for many things. Our footprint is large.
Why "even if"? Do you mean "albeit"?

I don't use that word in informal writing, but I do sling it around liberally when I write formal essays. In any case, I usually say what I mean and mean what I say.

Me too, I maintain.
Fran
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Show more