Explain how a group could be said to have rights that could in any way trump individuals’ rights.

There is a tribe of Asian pygmies called the T’rung – the only of a kind (all other pygmy groups are either Sub-Saharan African or Australoid/Oceanic). There are very few left and I don’t know the number, but let’s say for argument’s sake, there are only 10 left. Which is worse, killing all 10 of them or killing 100 Han Chinese people (who have no risk of perishing as an ethnic group from a mere 100 deaths)? It seems obvious to me, the answer is killing 100 people is worse than killing 10 people. The only thing that could differentiate between one death and another would be the circumstances (I’d rather be one of Stalin’s dead than Hitler’s death camp dead). Arne Naess, in his Ecosophy T doesn’t even hold species to hold rights, though he is of course the biggest advocate of preserving biodiversity for its own ends, not only ours.

Can races have rights? I think not, but a lot of people all over the political spectrum (united in their racialism) seem to think otherwise. Why should the Holocaust only refer to the half (or less, depending on the estimate) that were killed that happened to be Jewish? Why do racialists of every color and type cringe at the sight of miscegenation? Explain or forever hold your peace!