Creationists are characterized in their steadfast refusal to see humans as being on the same plane as the rest of the animal kingdom. To them, there is something about humans that completely sets them apart from the rest of the animal kingdom (the alleged existence of our souls). They go through all sorts of torturous, ridiculous ad hoc explanations for why their dogma trumps scientific evidence to the contrary. Racial egalitarians will happily concede that intra-species differences in intelligence, personality, etc. exist in various other species, but insist that humans are somehow an exception. Humans must be treated as separate from the rest of the animal kingdom according to their belief system. They go through all sorts of torturous, ridiculous ad hoc explanations for why their dogma trumps scientific evidence to the contrary. Creationists and racial egalitarians are both human exceptionalists and they are also both dogmatic idiots.
People stopped believing that one race was better than the other after WWI. People after WWI, started to realize that one race wasn't better then the other. I'm refering to social darwinism of course.
That's nonsense. "Separate but equal" was in effect until the 60's. That's the decade when social Marxism really took root.
During the war, Europeans were forced to call upon their colonies. Britian, for instance, would take over a million men from India to fight as Sepoys. After the war, no to few promises during the war were kept. Plus it probably didn't hurt that those fighting in the trenches would also get to see the colonized fight. The colonized rose up, and showed the Europeans what they were capable of. Then social dwarnism just couldn't be maintained.
1) This is not true. Race realism has thrived to the present day, particularly in countries less afflicted with political correctness, like Japan, but also in a more underground form in Western countries like the United States. 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Then I pointed out that race realism has survived in the West down to the present day, and I then also alluded (via the link) to the fact that you're engaging in a logical fallacy, as the truth value of a position is independent of the number of people who accept it (Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin ).
