Condemn racism, and bigotry

The "facts" (i.e., "group-based physical differences") are of relevance only when used to rationalize the hierachy of worth. As such, both the hierarchy and the justificatory facts are interpretive phenomena.
I do not see a situation where a purely ideological hierarchy is justfied by purely empirical facts. They are both ontologically problematical. Perhaps that's the sense in which we acknowledge that facts are little theories.

To my view unfortunately Racism is natural in the process of differentiation...and that´s precisely why we must fight it even further...
...that said and recognizing the differences are negligible in many aspects I still sustain that observable differences exist...or why on the hell do you think Ethiopians always win the marathons or that nobody can cook like Latin's do or dance and have the sense of rhythm that Africans have? its not just culture is natural aptitude...to say the opposite is positive racism...what I believe in turn goes very much in the direction of what I think regarding the differences between man and women...they exist, they are complementary, and present in the overall sum an equivalent result although in the specific you can see the effects of different strategy´s of adaptation to the environment...it is for instance my personal belief that Nords needed to be inventive regarding tools design to survive an Ice Age, or simply the bad weather with or without it...

This is the problem - 'anything that serves' is a generalisation because 'anything that serves' may serve one person to believe in an heriachy of worth supported by 'facts' about their different races, while another person views the same 'fact' in an entirely beneficial and compassionate way. And any generalisation (that is generally true) can serve serve both ways.

At times, generalisations are necessary. XXXX are caught in a cycle of poverty - does not necessarily apply to an individual from that race. With a poverty cycle comes increased crime, lower education, poorer parenting skills etc...all things that are necessary to talk about in order to address them, but which may lead less 'intelligent' inviduals to believe their 'race' or culture is superior to XXXX, while the more 'intelligent' views it as a chance to dig for the 'why's' and question 'in what ways can we address this problem'

1 - Its obvious that statistics should be carefully approached when analysing the meaning on the data we are fed with...nevertheless statistics are useful to retrieve information upon almost every field...

2 - I am ultimately convinced that the worst way to fight racism, like in the 70´s with feminism, is to say that we are all alike...it does n´t sell. Its not a matter of superiority or inferiority which is obviously a subjective evaluation but rather a matter of complementarity in the difference...we all know that biodiversity is needed...

Vikorr says, "...anything that serves' is a generalisation because 'anything that serves' may serve one person to believe in an heriachy of worth supported by 'facts' about their different races, while another person views the same 'fact' in an entirely beneficial and compassionate way. And any generalisation (that is generally true) can serve serve both ways." RIGHT.

Fil says that we are not all alike. Who has ever said that? It's the racist interpretation of the significance of differences that is the problem. Noone is identical to anything else (even "identical twins").

Well that is true not only at an individual level...but it seams that many believe otherwise as a one more mean to fight racism...Noble yet ineffective as to my understanding the resulting effect is perverse achieving precisely the opposite of what it aims for...in my perspective there are races just as there are genotypes, groups with different strategies for success, from the playful personality, to the seductive, up to the order abiding straight hard working type, they compose society and make it work as an ecosystem...intriguingly the variety is not that much, I wonder if it is related with the Homo Sapiens mass extinction in the ice age period...
...Concerning races, to my understanding, is not gene X or Y alone that make the difference, its very much true that any gene for itself is almost negligible...but nonetheless there is an holistic overall effect that makes some groups more similar then others, and that is so bluntly plain self evident that necessarily should not be denied...again, as for genotypes, to my observation they are trams-racial, and in any race can be found the similar traits of mood, disposition and forms of moral or ways of engaging work...as I said being more related with Society as an ecosystem I suppose they are needed in all, although not necessarily in the same amount.
For last I want to clarify that this description concerns my experience and opinion from my observations and years of interpretation upon the matter, thus having no pretension to any scientific status.

I t's strange to me that the American ethnic groups that most embrace the reality of that pernicious concept, race, are its greatest vicitms: Chicanos with their emphasis on the solidarity of raza (race) and Blacks with their biologically based sense of brother/sisterhoodhood (a notable exception is a Black novelist, Walter Mosley, who says that "the only true race is the human race."

I agree that mostly people go wrong about it...

Please cite a reference that proves that the sense of "brother/sisterhood' has a molecular basis.

Miller, I intended no such reference. Most Blacks I know would not grant an individual brother status unless he was considered to have Black genes. I consider that to be an expression of ethnicity, the drawing of group/membership boundaries (insider/outsider status) on some kind of meaningful basis, historical origins, language, lineage, e.g., "blood" or ancestry.
But I did NOT mean to suggest that Blacks (or anyone) believe something because of their own genetic (molecular) characteristics. That would be absurd of me.

But, who would feed the pigs?