> I don't subscribe [to] a racial or ethnic delineation between civilized and uncivilized (in the evolutionary sense) but if it were to become clear that some e

> I don't subscribe [to] a racial or ethnic delineation between civilized and uncivilized (in the evolutionary sense) but if it were to become clear that some evidence of this phenomenon exists, why should we take the social implications of science as important? The premise of your postulate is not a factual question - it is a social construct that necessarily involves arbitrary value judgements. Who is more civilised than whom? It depends on what you mean by "civilised". The only way you will ever prove that a person of one race is more "civilised" than a person of another race is by rigging the definition of "civilised" to favour your preferred outcome. That's exactly what the Spanish, Portugese, British, Germans and French did in the Americas, the British did in Australia, the Belgians, French, Germans and Dutch did in Africa and Indochina, and the Han Chinese are doing in Tibet and Xinjiang.