This is a sample of the text from the source our resident racist is presenting:
In our view, much of this discussion does not derive from an objective scientific perspective. This is understandable, given both historic and current inequities based on perceived racial or ethnic identities, both in the US and around the world, and the resulting sensitivities in such debates. Nonetheless, we demonstrate here that from both an objective and scientific (genetic and epidemiologic) perspective there is great validity in racial/ethnic self-categorizations, both from the research and public policy points of view.
Note that these authors are conflating ethnic groups with races. This is specious in the extreme. I've already pointed out, for example, that "West African Negroes" are at high risk of having a genetic propensity to sickle cell disease. However, that is true in only one other locale in the world, the Korean peninsula. It is hardly plausible to come up with a grouping of "African" with regard to the health risks of sickle cell disease, since it does not appear in other African locales--and, of course, you have problems such as that Madagascar was settled originally by Austrasians from the Indonesian archipelago. Obvious also is that you cannot include Koreans with West African Negroes in a racial category based on a genetic propensity to suffer from sickle cell disease.
This is nothing but the sloppy application of nomencalture by people whose expertise is epidemiology, and not ethnology or ethnological origins.
I'm sure it gives Pamela a warm fuzzy feeling, though.