Is anyone willing to abandon the concept of RACE

[enoch007]

The concept of seperate races of homo sapiens is false. There are no such thing as racial differences between human beings. Culture is the operative distinction which generally seperates communities of humans, and this has no ties whatsoever to supposed "racial" differences. Cultural antagonisms exist more frequently intra-racially as opposed to inter-racially, as any cursory study of the history of conflict will attest. The belief that mankind is seperated, one from another, along lines of race was created for, supports and justifies the the institution of Racism. The modern science of Genetics attributes a scant handful of genes as determinative of the color of any individuals skin, yet, these fractional elements of the make up of individuals is suppose to account for a wide range of factor which are supposed to delineate human beings from one another. As a community which prides itself upon its liberation from centuries of religious superstition, is it not now time to liberate ourselves for the few centuries old false assumptions of seperate, distinct human races. What immutable attributes can be associated with race, cannot those of allegedly different races interbreed, as they have since the beginnig of time? And then what is the product of this, additional races? How many races are there? Where does one begin and another end? And is it not usual to simply regard someone with a different language/culture as belonging to a different race?

As Americans we are indocrinated to believe that these false distinctions exist, always to the detriment of examining the root causes of social dysfunctions, as a shorthand to understanding and indeed compassion. Because the false concept of race has the primary function of separating communities (artificially) that may, indeed, have mutual interests and needs.
It was in the interest of power to seperate the poor white man from the poor black man lest their mutual needs for social opportunities compromise the vested interests of property. And what of the burgeoning Latino "race(?)" in America, being an amalgam of Native, European and African heritage?

People of Good Will and Compassion, the first step to isolating, then marginalizing racism is the recognition that the concept of race itself is false.

[Nitrousoxide]

Eh? Race will always be useful for providing descriptions of people.

Example: You see that black guy over there in the red shirt? Yeah, he has the paper you need.

[dug_down_deep]

Amen, enoch.

The only problem I have with your post is the implication that this is an American problem. No, it's a human problem.

[li po]

i'm not buying it :huh:

it seems obvious that evolution has dealt out small differences between what we call the "races".

i think by denying those differences we only confuse ourselves.

we need to embrace the differences between "races" and find ways to get along.

[enoch007]

Amen, enoch.

The only problem I have with your post is the implication that this is an American problem. No, it's a human problem.

Good point, thank you, presumed I was speaking to a primarily American audience and would like this ripple to start among Americans, but of course this idea is for all people.

[enoch007]

Eh? Race will always be useful for providing descriptions of people.

Example: You see that black guy over there in the red shirt? Yeah, he has the paper you need.

but what if he is a red guy in a black shirt selling Pravda?

[enoch007]

i'm not buying it :huh:

it seems obvious that evolution has dealt out small differences between what we call the "races".

i think by denying those differences we only confuse ourselves.

we need to embrace the differences between "races" and find ways to get along.

Then, what are these small differences? and if they are indeed small what useful purpose do they serve that examinations of class, nationality, language group, political and/or religious perspectives would not better serve?

Why not forget arbitrary differences couched as races and still get along?

[Tom Sawyer]

but what if he is a red guy in a black shirt selling Pravda?

Then he's an f-ing pinko commie and you shouldn't be referring to him in the first place, traitor.

[enoch007]

Then he's an f-ing pinko commie and you shouldn't be referring to him in the first place, traitor.

Good Tom, the commies are our friends, they want to share our markets, don't you have a nice muslim to critisize?

And when do I get a shot at that fence of yours, I have my own paint.

[Gracchus]

but what if he is a red guy in a black shirt selling Pravda?

Sorry, I'm looking for the gringo in the purple shirt selling pot.

:grin:

Race is not a biological concept, it is a social one. As a concept it can be useful. It can also be misused.

Everyone is a racist. Everyone discriminates. Not everyone is a bigot.

:wave:

[enoch007]

Sorry, I'm looking for the gringo in the purple shirt selling pot.

:grin:

Race is not a biological concept, it is a social one. As a concept it can be useful. It can also be misused.

Everyone is a racist. Everyone discriminates. Not everyone is a bigot.

:wave:


Firstly, I saw that guy.....

Secondly, for all who see some benefit to maintaining what I still maintain is an archaic and useless division of people, please explain how it "can be useful" or any other positive attributes it may have.

Thank you.

[li po]

Then, what are these small differences? and if they are indeed small what useful purpose do they serve that examinations of class, nationality, language group, political and/or religious perspectives would not better serve?

Why not forget arbitrary differences couched as races and still get along?

i'd say the concept of "race" is tied very closely to those differences listed above, although i'd say that learned behavior can usually overcome the small differences between races.

i think the small evolutionary differences that took place thousands of years ago account for the cultural differences we see today.

how do you accont for differences in culture?

where does culture come from?

[nixon]

I'm still waiting (3 years now) for someone to tell me that there is a serious difference in the designation of race in humans VS the designation of breed in dogs. I still postulate that due to dogs shorter lives and human intervention, that breeds are what would have been known as races in dogs, but the extreme features have been brought out and magnified. This could happen to humans, and may have to some extent in the past. The push for humans now is to try to combine the races/breeds and make us more similar. And if you did it to dogs, the same effect would result.

So how is race actually an artificial construct if dog breeds are not? Or are dog breeds also an artificial construct. Afterall, a Chihuahua is genetically very similar to a Great Dane. See

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/chihuahua-or-great-dane-one-gene-sets-size-12955.html

for info on a size gene that has a similar effect in humans. A pigmy is genetically similar to a giant.

I don't buy that theres no actual differences in the races. I do believe that they can be coupled for a blending of effects/features, or with controlled breeding one could separate out even more differences in the races just like with dog breeds. Of course the silliness here in America is that we are mostly mutts here anyway. Most white people are not the original race from whatever country they inhabited before coming here (How many blond hair blue eyed whites have you seen today Americans?), and the same with blacks and most others.

As a self admitted racist, but not a bigot, I don't generally favor one races members over another. I find that the common foibles of humans are common to us all. On the other hand, I admit that I am attracted to certain races more than others. I think we all are to some degree.

[enoch007]

i'd say the concept of "race" is tied very closely to those differences listed above, although i'd say that learned behavior can usually overcome the small differences between races.

i think the small evolutionary differences that took place thousands of years ago account for the cultural differences we see today.

how do you accont for differences in culture?

where does culture come from?

I think that is a different question. And I give more credence to the presence of Cultural difference than I do any presumed racial distinction.

People of Good Will, if the differences between "races" (irrespective of Culture) are so small, can we not come together to eliminate any credance in this concept altogether? To see ourselves as Human Beings, different in language, origin and custom but of the same animal species. Is there not already enough dividing us that dispensing with categories that are meaningless at best and horridly divisive at worst cannot but help to promote understanding?

[enoch007]

I'm still waiting (3 years now) for someone to tell me that there is a serious difference in the designation of race in humans VS the designation of breed in dogs. I still postulate that due to dogs shorter lives and human intervention, that breeds are what would have been known as races in dogs, but the extreme features have been brought out and magnified. This could happen to humans, and may have to some extent in the past. The push for humans now is to try to combine the races/breeds and make us more similar. And if you did it to dogs, the same effect would result.

So how is race actually an artificial construct if dog breeds are not? Or are dog breeds also an artificial construct. Afterall, a Chihuahua is genetically very similar to a Great Dane. See

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/chihuahua-or-great-dane-one-gene-sets-size-12955.html

for info on a size gene that has a similar effect in humans. A pigmy is genetically similar to a giant.


As I saw on a PBS program about Dogs (sorry, forgot the title but did wish to cite the source) dog breeding took off during the Victorian era (the American, et al, Kennel Societies or whatever they designate themselves) which, coincidentally, coincided with the popular acceptance of Social Darwinism and the Eugenics movements. Principle among their opinions was that the "purity" of bloodlines was the greatest goal of any breeder. Some decades later the National Socialist regime in Germany attempted to introduse this concept throughout Europe with well known results. The presence of serious genetic diseases among these "pure-bred" animals is tragically well known. Of course, the breeders simply wanted more genetic research implemented so they could continue their activities while breeding out genetic malformations. As noted earlier, such activities applied to Human Beings must be considered simply monstrous.

[dug_down_deep]

I think history is full of examples of why maintaining the notion of race is probably a bad idea. Eugenics, anyone? Why can't we just talk about intraspecies variation?

[li po]

I think that is a different question. And I give more credence to the presence of Cultural difference than I do any presumed racial distinction.

People of Good Will, if the differences between "races" (irrespective of Culture) are so small, can we not come together to eliminate any credance in this concept altogether? To see ourselves as Human Beings, different in language, origin and custom but of the same animal species. Is there not already enough dividing us that dispensing with categories that are meaningless at best and horridly divisive at worst cannot but help to promote understanding?

ultimately, i guess the point i'm trying to make is that if you do away with the concept of race, people will just latch on to some other difference as a reason to hate people.

i think you instead have to take a look at why people hate that which is different; trying to make everybody the same ignores the larger problem.

i still think race can be a useful concept. i think it can give us an idea about how certain difference among people have arisen and how we can find solutions to the problems these differences create.

[nixon]

As noted earlier, such activities applied to Human Beings must be considered simply monstrous.

Keep in mind, I do not support eugenics. I would support it for myself. That is if I could modify myself like a "six million dollar man". But inevitably eugenics affects the next generation who had no say. Also it seems as if those who want to modify the next generation of humans always has some darker motive such as breeding out homosexuality, or making black people not have kids or something like that.

[nixon]

I'm with li po. I think race is useful as a concept. I just happen to think there are real differences between people in different races. Thats not to say that I would hate someone because of these differences. I'll reserve my hate for folks who actually earn it. I also would say that I don't know to what extent those differences are. They may be less or more than I can imagine. No one is able to measure this without genome info from everyone on the planet and knowledge of every aspect of the human genome.

[enoch007]

ultimately, i guess the point i'm trying to make is that if you do away with the concept of race, people will just latch on to some other difference as a reason to hate people.

i think you instead have to take a look at why people hate that which is different; trying to make everybody the same ignores the larger problem.

i still think race can be a useful concept. i think it can give us an idea about how certain difference among people have arisen and how we can find solutions to the problems these differences create.

Yes, but to examine the history of, and recognize the process of indoctrination associated with, the false concept of race can also provide the benefits which I believe we both seek. No examination of any presumed racial differences cannot be better addressed within a broader examination of issues of class, culture or national history.

Holding on to concepts which are demonstrated to be false at their core in order to attain some benefit of understanding seems to me counter-productive.

[RareBird]

"Race" is not "truth". It is therefore a subjective generalization that is always in some part WRONG. IMO the balancing argument to the idea of race is the acknowledgement of the truth that we are all unique individuals. The differences in our appearance from person to person is nature's punctuation of that FACT. Unfortunately our social constructs do not embrace uniqueness and instead pass us through an educational meat-grinder that seeks to "process us" as relatively uniform units of sameness. A properly reformed educational paradigm will release us from definition of ourslves by our "place" in a pseudo "class structure" and make it primary to build a sociology around synergy between people who bring their uniqueness to new wholes greater than the sum of their parts.

[xunzian]

Some dogs can't really breed with other dogs . . . so that is a bit of a different can of worms. Breeds are relatively genetically distinct, unlike humans.

Race is an arbitrary construct created for social reasons -- the basic 'us' vs. 'them' mentality. And, really, it has gotten better. 100 years ago, people spoke about the English, the Irish, the French, the German, ect. as different races because people cared. Now people don't care as much about that distinction (well, the Irish/English is still a bit testy) and very few people would consider that a 'racial' distinction.

I mean, honestly, how many people on this board can tell the difference between a Korean, a Han, a Hmong, and a Japanese individual? Yet in Asia the difference is immediate and apparent because people have trained themselves to hone in on the distinctions. Same thing in the Balkans. Same thing in Turkey. Same thing with Ahkenazi (sp) Jews and other Europeans. The list goes on and on.

Now, the 'usefulness' of race can be debated (I think it is an archaic hangover) but the fact that, at a biological level, humans are very good at creating a line between 'us' and 'them', I think that the concept of race is unavoidable.

[Trout]

i'm not buying it :huh:

it seems obvious that evolution has dealt out small differences between what we call the "races".

i think by denying those differences we only confuse ourselves.

we need to embrace the differences between "races" and find ways to get along.


Danger Danger!

Identifying and accepting physical differences leads to the exploration of mental differences, leads to absolute craziness.

It was fashionable once and it will be again.

[Gracchus]

Secondly, for all who see some benefit to maintaining what I still maintain is an archaic and useless division of people, please explain how it "can be useful" or any other positive attributes it may have.

Such terms are short ways to describe a suite of physical characteristics, like child, or old man, or baby. The terms can be misused as pejoratives, or as conveniently succinct descriptives.

{MOD SNIP}

[li po]

Danger Danger!

Identifying and accepting physical differences leads to the exploration of mental differences, leads to absolute craziness.

It was fashionable once and it will be again.

:rolleyes:

[dug_down_deep]

<edit>
Why do you think that political correctness is motivating enoch's post? I don't see that at all. Reality may be unpopular and inconvenient, but it's reality.

[enoch007]

Keep in mind, I do not support eugenics. I would support it for myself. That is if I could modify myself like a "six million dollar man". But inevitably eugenics affects the next generation who had no say. Also it seems as if those who want to modify the next generation of humans always has some darker motive such as breeding out homosexuality, or making black people not have kids or something like that.

Never thought so, you were talking about dog breeding, if I believe. I just found the info from the PBS series on dogs germaine.

[enoch007]

I think that the concept of race is unavoidable.

It is only unavoidable because of points you raised earlier in your post, quite correctly, and comes down to this: INDOCTRINATION.

At least in America, we are totally indoctrinated to believe that this distinction exists, often couched in the term "The Race Problem in America"
The "race" problem in America is that we recognize a false division of citizens into races. Income levels, in many arguments, would be an exceedingly more accurate determinant of social conditions, such as the availability of health care. Health care may be lacking among African Americans in a variety of circumstances, but it is also lacking in Appalachia among rural whites etc. There are just better ways to talk about social problems.

Thanks for your thoughts, which I did not include in this reply.

[Gracchus]

It is only unavoidable because of points you raised earlier in your post, quite correctly, and comes down to this: INDOCTRINATION.

At least in America, we are totally indoctrinated to believe that this distinction exists, often couched in the term "The Race Problem in America"
The "race" problem in America is that we recognize a false division of citizens into races. Income levels, in many arguments, would be an exceedingly more accurate determinant of social conditions, such as the availability of health care. Health care may be lacking among African Americans in a variety of circumstances, but it is also lacking in Appalachia among rural whites etc. There are just better ways to talk about social problems.

Thanks for your thoughts, which I did not include in this reply.

If race has any real meaning or use at all it is about physical appearance.

:wave:

[enoch007]

<edit>

:wave:

Hail Gracchus, correctness blinds not my eye, but compassion guides my heart.

[nixon]

Some dogs can't really breed with other dogs . . . so that is a bit of a different can of worms. Breeds are relatively genetically distinct, unlike humans.

One of the things that define a species is it's ability to procreate among it's members. If there are actually dogs who cannot breed with other dogs due to breed, then I would say they are not the same species. Wolves which are pretty far removed from most other dog breeds can breed among other types of dogs. So the statement above is not valid. In addition, I have said that the breeding of dogs is further evolved than the races of humans.

Why is it that people can believe in evolution for animals, but not for people? If my tribe spends thousands of years in a hot dusty environment, and your tribe spends thousands of years in a cold harsh environment, what makes you think there wouldn't evolve some differences, some possibly extreme. And unlike others, I will not take the mental side out of the realm of possibilities. If 2 people with low intelligence will generally create offspring with low intelligence, then how can groups not do the same? Or high intelligence for that matter? Or mental illnesses that are mostly hereditary?

I don't judge folks based on race, but I don't discount the effects that it can have. I have said in a previous posting that no one qualified to determine the full extent of those differences, but I still think they are there. I also think that even if some effects on an individual are likely due to race, there is nothing that says that they aren't an exception and have some quality not normally found with that race. Or lack a quality that is normal to that race. Such as an black albino, or a really tall person from Mexico.

[enoch007]

If race has any real meaning or use at all it is about physical appearance.

:wave:

And physical appearance will always be such. This is no panacea idea that will make us all any friendlier per se. But it will make it easier to identify a Racist argument and debunk it as without merit on it's face. We will still have "beauty" so this will not cure anorexia.

[li po]

One of the things that define a species is it's ability to procreate among it's members. If there are actually dogs who cannot breed with other dogs due to breed, then I would say they are not the same species. Wolves which are pretty far removed from most other dog breeds can breed among other types of dogs. So the statement above is not valid. In addition, I have said that the breeding of dogs is further evolved than the races of humans.

Why is it that people can believe in evolution for animals, but not for people? If my tribe spends thousands of years in a hot dusty environment, and your tribe spends thousands of years in a cold harsh environment, what makes you think there wouldn't evolve some differences, some possibly extreme. And unlike others, I will not take the mental side out of the realm of possibilities. If 2 people with low intelligence will generally create offspring with low intelligence, then how can groups not do the same? Or high intelligence for that matter? Or mental illnesses that are mostly hereditary?

I don't judge folks based on race, but I don't discount the effects that it can have. I have said in a previous posting that no one qualified to determine the full extent of those differences, but I still think they are there. I also think that even if some effects on an individual are likely due to race, there is nothing that says that they aren't an exception and have some quality not normally found with that race. Or lack a quality that is normal to that race. Such as an black albino, or a really tall person from Mexico.

makes sense to me :huh:

[Trout]

:rolleyes:

OK so I was a bit flippant.

Doesn't make it less true as a typical societal reaction to the issue.

People begin to seriously poke around in the nature vs nuture issue and things get out of hand more often than not.

[Gracchus]

And physical appearance will always be such. This is no panacea idea that will make us all any friendlier per se. But it will make it easier to identify a Racist argument and debunk it as without merit on it's face. We will still have "beauty" so this will not cure anorexia.

Acknowledgment of race is not the same thing as racial bigotry. One does not, I think, have to abandon the concept of race to abandon bigotry.

:wave:

[enoch007]

One of the things that define a species is it's ability to procreate among it's members. If there are actually dogs who cannot breed with other dogs due to breed, then I would say they are not the same species. Wolves which are pretty far removed from most other dog breeds can breed among other types of dogs. So the statement above is not valid. In addition, I have said that the breeding of dogs is further evolved than the races of humans.

Why is it that people can believe in evolution for animals, but not for people? If my tribe spends thousands of years in a hot dusty environment, and your tribe spends thousands of years in a cold harsh environment, what makes you think there wouldn't evolve some differences, some possibly extreme. And unlike others, I will not take the mental side out of the realm of possibilities. If 2 people with low intelligence will generally create offspring with low intelligence, then how can groups not do the same? Or high intelligence for that matter? Or mental illnesses that are mostly hereditary?

I don't judge folks based on race, but I don't discount the effects that it can have. I have said in a previous posting that no one qualified to determine the full extent of those differences, but I still think they are there. I also think that even if some effects on an individual are likely due to race, there is nothing that says that they aren't an exception and have some quality not normally found with that race. Or lack a quality that is normal to that race. Such as an black albino, or a really tall person from Mexico.

Firstly, despite your moniker I, for one, am not imputing your motives or beliefs, nor calling you a crook.

Secondly, I apologise to those who (probably rightly) critisize the Wikipedia as research but I will endeavor to posit this cause it sounds good, supports my argument, and allows me to offer another opinion while at work:

The rejection of race and the rise of "population" and "cline"
At the beginning of the 20th century, anthropologists questioned, and eventually abandoned, the claim that biologically distinct races are isomorphic with distinct linguistic, cultural, and social groups. Then, the rise of population genetics led some mainstream evolutionary scientists in anthropology and biology to question the very validity of race as scientific concept describing an objectively real phenomenon. Those who came to reject the validity of the concept, race, did so for four reasons: empirical, definitional, the availability of alternative concepts, and ethical (Lieberman and Byrne 1993).

The first to challenge the concept of race on empirical grounds were anthropologists Franz Boas, who demonstrated phenotypic plasticity due to environmental factors (Boas 1912), and Ashley Montagu (1941, 1942), who relied on evidence from genetics. Zoologists Edward O. Wilson and W. Brown then challenged the concept from the perspective of general animal systematics, and further rejected the claim that "races" were equivalent to "subspecies" (Wilson and Brown 1953).

One of the crucial innovations in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation was anthropologist C. Loring Brace's observation that such variations, insofar as it is affected by natural selection, migration, or genetic drift, are distributed along geographic gradations; these gradations are called "clines" (Brace 1964). This point called attention to a problem common to phenotypic-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and difference (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race. Thus, anthropologist Frank Livingstone's conclusion that, since clines cross racial boundaries, "there are no races, only clines" (Livingstone 1962: 279). In 1964, biologists Paul Ehrlich and Holm pointed out cases where two or more clines are distributed discordantly—for example, melanin is distributed in a decreasing pattern from the equator north and south; frequencies for the haplotype for beta-S hemoglobin, on the other hand, radiate out of specific geographical points in Africa (Ehrlich and Holm 1964). As anthropologists Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Linda Jackson observe, "Discordant patterns of heterogeneity falsify any description of a population as if it were genotypically or even phenotypically homogeneous" (Lieverman and Jackson 1995).

Finally, geneticist Richard Lewontin, observing that 85 percent of human variation occurs within populations, and not between populations, argued that neither "race" nor "subspecies" were appropriate or useful ways to describe populations (Lewontin 1973). Some researchers report the variation between racial groups (measured by Sewall Wright's population structure statistic FST) accounts for as little as 5% of human genetic variation2.

A. W. F. Edwards claimed in 2003 that such conclusions are unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors.[7] While it makes Lewontin's argument unwarranted, Edward's paper does not address the existence or absence of human race, see Lewontin's Fallacy.

Also, it has been argued that the calculation of within group and between group diversity has violated certain assumptions regarding human genetic variation. Calculation of this variation is known as FST and Long and Kittles (2003) have questioned the validity of this reproducible statistic. The first problem is that effective population size is assumed to be equal in the calculation of FST, if population sizes vary, then allele relatedness among alleles will also vary. The second problem is that FST calculation has assumed that each population is evolutionarily independent. Calculation of FST can therefore only be made for the set of populations being observed, and generalisations from specific data sets cannot be applied to the species as a whole.[8]

Long and Kittles tested four models for determining FST and concluded that the model used most often for estimating this statistic is the simplest and worst fitting. Their best fit model was still a poor fit for the observed genetic variation, and calculation of FST for this model can only be made on a population by population basis. They conclude that African populations have the highest level of genetic diversity, with diversity much reduced in populations outside of Africa. They postulate that if an extra-terrestrial alien life form killed the entire human species, but kept a single population which it preserved, the choice of population to keep would greatly effect the level of diversity represented. If an African population were selected then no diversity would be lost, whereas nearly a third of genetic diversity would be lost if a Papuan New Guinea population were chosen. Indeed within population genetic diversity in African populations has been shown to be greater than between population genetic diversity for Asians and Europeans. They conclude that their findings are consistent with the American Association of Physical Anthropologists 1996 statement on race

that all human populations derive from a common ancestral group, that there is great genetic diversity within all human populations, and that the geographic pattern of variation is complex and presents no major discontinuity.

They also state that none of the race concepts they discuss are compatible with their results.[8]

These empirical challenges to the concept of race forced evolutionary sciences to reconsider their definition of race. Mid-century, anthropologist William Boyd defined race as:

A population which differs significantly from other populations in regard to the frequency of one or more of the genes it possesses. It is an arbitrary matter which, and how many, gene loci we choose to consider as a significant "constellation" (Boyd 1950).

Lieberman and Jackson (1994) have pointed out that "the weakness of this statement is that if one gene can distinguish races then the number of races is as numerous as the number of human couples reproducing." Moreover, anthropologist Stephen Molnar has suggested that the discordance of clines inevitably results in a multiplication of races that renders the concept itself useless (Molnar 1992).

[enoch007]

Acknowledgment of race is not the same thing as racial bigotry. One does not, I think, have to abandon the concept of race to abandon bigotry.

:wave:


Hail Gracchus.

Let me ask you this. If one accepts that the concept of race is false, let us say.

Once upon a time, it was believed in Europe that Jewish people had horns.
Would it be constructive to begin a conversation about the ill treatment of Jewish people by asking "What about the ones with horns?"

[B.S. Lewis]

I think race is real, in some ways. The important thing to realize is that race accounts for much less variation in individual personalities than people typically think it does. In other words, you'll find much more variation within races than between them. And I agree that culture is a tremendously more significant factor than race.

[enoch007]

I think race is real, in some ways. The important thing to realize is that race accounts for much less variation in individual personalities than people typically think it does. In other words, you'll find much more variation within races than between them. And I agree that culture is a tremendously more significant factor than race.

But if race is real what is it really?

[B.S. Lewis]

So how is race actually an artificial construct if dog breeds are not? Or are dog breeds also an artificial construct.

In a sense, yeah, they are. A "new breed" exists, not when some biological barrier is broken, but when the Kennel Club (or whatever--in Europe I'm sure they have something else) decides to certify it.

[B.S. Lewis]

But if race is real what is it really?

When people refer to "races," nowadays, they aren't usually referring to much more than mere physical differences (skin color, body proportions). And those differences obviously do exist.

[enoch007]

When people refer to "races," nowadays, they aren't usually referring to much more than mere physical differences (skin color, body proportions). And those differences obviously do exist.

And they obviously exist intra-"racially" just as much as inter-"racially". I think when people are talking about appearances they are either looking for a date or a policeman. The impact of division based on a false concept of difference, loaded with alot of bad history and bad blood should not continue in order to get laid or view a line-up.

[nixon]

They conclude that African populations have the highest level of genetic diversity, with diversity much reduced in populations outside of Africa.

I won't criticize the source (Wiki) in this case, but I have a concern about this finding of the paper. As I said before, in order to make the statement above, you would have to check the DNA of everyone (Or at least a really good size sample) in order to make the statement above. Given that the Human genome project was just completed in 2003, I highly doubt a paper published in 2003 can make the claims this one has.

whereas nearly a third of genetic diversity would be lost if a Papuan New Guinea population were chosen.

This statement doesn't jibe with the previous statement. After all if a population of 1/2 of a medium size island in Oceana has 2/3 of the worlds genetic diversity, then I imagine that the worlds 2nd largest continent should have 4/3's or more of the genetic diversity. I suspect they made the usual mistake and sampled people in various countries including countries in Africa and then lumped the African countries together and called it Africa, but did not lump the other continents together. I suspect an honest study today would find the most diversity in North America as a whole with Canada and USA being much more diverse than Mexico or any/all the countries in Central America. I suspect the least diverse continent would be australia followed by South America. Europe would be more diverse now than 50 years ago by far, and Africa as a whole would still be very diverse. But most countries in Africa would not be diverse internally.

None of this is saying that I reject evidence against the physical construct of race. Just this piece of evidence.

[Gracchus]

Hail Gracchus.

Let me ask you this. If one accepts that the concept of race is false, let us say.

Once upon a time, it was believed in Europe that Jewish people had horns.
Would it be constructive to begin a conversation about the ill treatment of
Jewish people by asking "What about the ones with horns?"

It would not be constructive to begin such a conversation if one could not produce a Jew with horns. By the way, there is, of course, no "Jewish race".

People identify themselves in racial terms. It helps them to be part of the "in group", which is sometimes the "out group", and that gives them something to gripe about, and justify their villainies. (e.g. American Christians like to pretend that they are being persecuted.)

In the matter of race, I have some trouble with that ploy, because I am racially mixed. I let people think what they will about me in that respect. I can't stop people from trying to offend me, but I can stop being offended.

:wave:

[nixon]

Those who came to reject the validity of the concept, race, did so for four reasons: empirical, definitional, the availability of alternative concepts, and ethical

The last 2 reasons are not a reason to have a scientific opinion either way. You don't reject gravity because there is no alternative concept or because gravity is in some way unethical. I have to question the motives of these folks.

[enoch007]

I won't criticize the source (Wiki) in this case, but I have a concern about this finding of the paper. As I said before, in order to make the statement above, you would have to check the DNA of everyone (Or at least a really good size sample) in order to make the statement above.



This statement doesn't jibe with the previous statement. After all if a population of 1/2 of a medium size island in Oceana has 2/3 of the worlds genetic diversity, then I imagine that the worlds 2nd largest continent should have 4/3's or more of the genetic diversity. I suspect they made the usual mistake and sampled people in various countries including countries in Africa and then lumped the African countries together and called it Africa, but did not lump the other continents together. I suspect an honest study today would find the most diversity in North America as a whole with Canada and USA being much more diverse than Mexico or any/all the countries in Central America. I suspect the least diverse continent would be australia followed by South America. Europe would be more diverse now than 50 years ago by far, and Africa as a whole would still be very diverse. But most countries in Africa would not be diverse internally.


Then, by this argument, any consideration of some unique, pre-supposed "racial" purity is moot. This is my point, no matter how or where one wishes to locate or calculate diversity, all groups everywhere are so diverse within themselves that any discussion of valuation based upon "racial differences" would be inaccurate to the point of being useless to determine anything. The concept itself is false, and without value.

[nixon]

Lieberman and Jackson (1994) have pointed out that "the weakness of this statement is that if one gene can distinguish races then the number of races is as numerous as the number of human couples reproducing." Moreover, anthropologist Stephen Molnar has suggested that the discordance of clines inevitably results in a multiplication of races that renders the concept itself useless (Molnar 1992).

I fully agree with this. However, it says nothing about the validity of race. Only of that means of determining it.

[enoch007]

It would not be constructive to begin such a conversation if one could not produce a Jew with horns. By the way, there is, of course, no "Jewish race".

People identify themselves in racial terms. It helps them to be part of the "in group", which is sometimes the "out group", and that gives them something to gripe about, and justify their villainies. (e.g. American Christians like to pretend that they are being persecuted.)

In the matter of race, I have some trouble with that ploy, because I am racially mixed. I let people think what they will about me in that respect. I can't stop people from trying to offend me, but I can stop being offended.

:wave:

Hail Gracchus, man of many peoples:

the identification of race among anyone is the product of indoctrination. When one recognizes this, and liberates oneself from its fallacious grip, there comes a small ray of hope that can spread, perhaps painfully slowly, until the tipping point of consensus is reached and progress ensues. Let us join together to simply reject falsehood, no matter how tightly held.

[nixon]

they ignore a host of other similarities and difference (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race.

This actually makes a lot of sense, but I can easily dismiss this due to the fact that all humans have a common ancestry, and that those things may not be affected by environment, unlike the racially identifying features. I would note, however, that some races do seem to have more susceptibility to certain diseases than others.

Note the black proclivity towards sickle cell anemia, and the white proclivity towards cystic fibrosis.

[li po]

This actually makes a lot of sense, but I can easily dismiss this due to the fact that all humans have a common ancestry, and that those things may not be affected by environment, unlike the racially identifying features. I would note, however, that some races do seem to have more susceptibility to certain diseases than others.

Note the black proclivity towards sickle cell anemia, and the white proclivity towards cystic fibrosis.

one of the prime examples of how knowing where you came from can help you get to where you want to go.

[enoch007]

This actually makes a lot of sense, but I can easily dismiss this due to the fact that all humans have a common ancestry, and that those things may not be affected by environment, unlike the racially identifying features. I would note, however, that some races do seem to have more susceptibility to certain diseases than others.

Note the black proclivity towards sickle cell anemia, and the white proclivity towards cystic fibrosis.


and the jewish condition of Tay Sachs disease etc. But as posted earlier, Jewish people do not necissarily comprise a "race". These are genetic disorders which are transmitted within certain families and certain groups. As I am in no way versed in either genetic medicine (specifically or in general) I cannot comment upon the corralation of these conditions and their tie to alleged racial groupings. There are a wide variety of conditions which may be transmitted across generations, I surmise, with a frequency that still does not necissarily corralate to the traditional construct of what is recognized as races. Furthermore, what impact does intermarraige or interbreeding have? African Americans suffer from sickle cell anemia, but can anyone point to a more diluted bloodline group than African Americans (identified as a "race" but really an admixture of European, African and Native American bloodlines)

[nixon]

Then, by this argument, any consideration of some unique, pre-supposed "racial" purity is moot. This is my point, no matter how or where one wishes to locate or calculate diversity, all groups everywhere are so diverse within themselves that any discussion of valuation based upon "racial differences" would be inaccurate to the point of being useless to determine anything. The concept itself is false, and without value.

I don't believe in racial purity, nor have I promoted it. We all have common ancestry, and thus any feature in one person of one race could show up in someone else of another race. What I am saying is that due to environment, the races have formed from certain traits being promoted in survival over others in different groups. This has caused enough differences to show up in the groups in general and that is what we see as a race. And due to genetics, those features don't generally change a lot between generations.

For instance when was the last time you saw the offspring of 2 white people look black unless there was a black ancestor very close to them (Like a grand parent).

Back to the dogs: If we look at the offspring of a poodle, it will generally look like a poodle. However, it is possible for it to look more like whatever a poodle used to look like before the breed was a poodle (As I don't know what 2 breeds was put together to make the poodle). As generations go on, this becomes more unlikely until nowadays a poodle giving birth to a dog that isn't really a poodle is considered a deformation.

[AthenaAwakened]

I have posted this before (MANY times). So I guess I'll post it again.

TEN THINGS EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT RACE

Our eyes tell us that people look different. No one has trouble distinguishing a Czech from a Chinese. But what do those differences mean? Are they biological? Has race always been with us? How does race affect people today?

There's less - and more - to race than meets the eye:

1. Race is a modern idea. Ancient societies, like the Greeks, did not divide people according to physical distinctions, but according to religion, status, class, even language. The English language didn't even have the word 'race' until it turns up in 1508 in a poem by William Dunbar referring to a line of kings.

2. Race has no genetic basis. Not one characteristic, trait or even gene distinguishes all the members of one so-called race from all the members of another so-called race.

3. Human subspecies don't exist. Unlike many animals, modern humans simply haven't been around long enough or isolated enough to evolve into separate subspecies or races. Despite surface appearances, we are one of the most similar of all species.

4. Skin color really is only skin deep. Most traits are inherited independently from one another. The genes influencing skin color have nothing to do with the genes influencing hair form, eye shape, blood type, musical talent, athletic ability or forms of intelligence. Knowing someone's skin color doesn't necessarily tell you anything else about him or her.

5. Most variation is within, not between, "races." Of the small amount of total human variation, 85% exists within any local population, be they Italians, Kurds, Koreans or Cherokees. About 94% can be found within any continent. That means two random Koreans may be as genetically different as a Korean and an Italian.

6. Slavery predates race. Throughout much of human history, societies have enslaved others, often as a result of conquest or war, even debt, but not because of physical characteristics or a belief in natural inferiority. Due to a unique set of historical circumstances, ours was the first slave system where all the slaves shared similar physical characteristics.

7. Race and freedom evolved together. The U.S. was founded on the radical new principle that "All men are created equal." But our early economy was based largely on slavery. How could this anomaly be rationalized? The new idea of race helped explain why some people could be denied the rights and freedoms that others took for granted.

8. Race justified social inequalities as natural. As the race idea evolved, white superiority became "common sense" in America. It justified not only slavery but also the extermination of Indians, exclusion of Asian immigrants, and the taking of Mexican lands by a nation that professed a belief in democracy. Racial practices were institutionalized within American government, laws, and society.

9. Race isn't biological, but racism is still real. Race is a powerful social idea that gives people different access to opportunities and resources. Our government and social institutions have created advantages that disproportionately channel wealth, power, and resources to white people. This affects everyone, whether we are aware of it or not.

10. Colorblindness will not end racism. Pretending race doesn't exist is not the same as creating equality. Race is more than stereotypes and individual prejudice. To combat racism, we need to identify and remedy social policies and institutional practices that advantage some groups at the expense of others.


TEN THINGS EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT RACE (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-x.htm)

[enoch007]

I don't believe in racial purity, nor have I promoted it. We all have common ancestry, and thus any feature in one person of one race could show up in someone else of another race. What I am saying is that due to environment, the races have formed from certain traits being promoted in survival over others in different groups. This has caused enough differences to show up in the groups in general and that is what we see as a race. And due to genetics, those features don't generally change a lot between generations.

For instance when was the last time you saw the offspring of 2 white people look black unless there was a black ancestor very close to them (Like a grand parent).

Back to the dogs: If we look at the offspring of a poodle, it will generally look like a poodle. However, it is possible for it to look more like whatever a poodle used to look like before the breed was a poodle (As I don't know what 2 breeds was put together to make the poodle). As generations go on, this becomes more unlikely until nowadays a poodle giving birth to a dog that isn't really a poodle is considered a deformation.

But the fact that anyone will look like their parents is a commonality that humans share, just as mixed marraiges produce children with traits of both parents. The entire concept of "race" was originated to determine immutable differences between human beings, nominally to establish a heirarchy of value in certain areas of culture (and, for the record, I am surely not commenting on anything you personally may believe or have written). This is the pernicious lie that must be refuted. To continue to use the labels of race, as they are so often erroniously applied as a determinant of social conditions, when they may only come down to some few shades of skin color and hair texture, does more harm through innaccuracy than sheds light.

[nixon]

and the jewish condition of Tay Sachs disease etc. But as posted earlier, Jewish people do not necissarily comprise a "race". These are genetic disorders which are transmitted within certain families and certain groups.

Actually many people including many Jews do see Jews as their own race. Also, the fact that certain families transmit errors down the line says little to nothing about race in general, which concerns bigger groups.

Furthermore, what impact does intermarraige or interbreeding have? African Americans suffer from sickle cell anemia, but can anyone point to a more diluted bloodline group than African Americans

I assume that the decendents of these inbreedings will have the strengths and weaknesses of their racial heritages. Or they might get a weakness from somewhere way back in the line. On an individual level, it's hard to tell. But as interbreeding between say blacks and whites in America progresses, the progeny will get it from both sides. As far a dilutes bloodlines go, I suspect very few peoples are not in this day and age. If you want to use "purity" of bloodline as a benchmark, then I would say that anytime after the 1700's with the discovery of the new world, and the greater ease of travel that "purity" started getting mixed. Only with populations that don't migrate far are the races going to stay "pure". as far as sickle cell anemia goes:

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/Sca/SCA_WhoIsAtRisk.html

states who's most at risk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease

under history tracks the trait back. Note that eastern Asian and europian's are not in that ancestry list since it's a mutation that happened after those races split off. However, it could be introduced into those populations by interbreeding. And if the decendents of those people are isolated for thousands of years for some reason, the race they become will have that trait represented within it.

[Rudolph]

Don't you guys ever use the word "ethnic" over there? Ehtnicity, ethnic group etc... nicer than race IMO. and I hate the term "mixed race"... in french, we have métis.

[enoch007]

I have posted this before (MANY times). So I guess I'll post it again.



TEN THINGS EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT RACE (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-x.htm)

thank you (once again). One point I will address is point #10, I am not advocating "colorblindness" inasmuch as socially disadvantaged groups may be identified with the names traditionally associated with them. But the problems explored are generally ill served by identifying them as "racial" problems, since the term itself is so innaccurate and generalized as not to offer any constructive parameter within which to see the actual dilema. When you speak of, let's say, health care inadequacies in certain communities, one could probalbly point to comparable situations in another when one dispenses with the appelation of "race". I mentioned earlier, African Americans who are economically disadvantaged also suffer from a lack of preventative care and this results in the exacerbation of many conditions. But this exists among economically disadvantged "white" Americans in Appalachia, Native Americans and probably all others who are economically disadvantaged. Is that a racial problem, and economic dilemma or a cultural norm? When one group is singled out for "special treatment" in many instances the roots of these policies can be labled as Racism (if not sexism, homophobia, xenophoia etc), but one of the central theses for Racism is the erroneous concept that races even exist to any appreciable degree. Social justice is a long process and a slog, at that, but the maintenance of false categories of seperation does not make it easier.

[nixon]

To continue to use the labels of race, as they are so often erroniously applied as a determinant of social conditions, when they may only come down to some few shades of skin color and hair texture, does more harm through innaccuracy than sheds light.

This is where we are going to have to agree to disagree. I see no reason that the identification of race must have harm. As a poster above mention, if someone wants to hate someone just because they look different, they need not use race in order to do so. I see it as simply identification in my life. Being able to say; "Go get the ball from the asian kid" in a society with few asian kids is much easier than saying; "Go get the ball from the olive colored kid with high cheekbones and slanted eyes".

[enoch007]

Don't you guys ever use the word "ethnic" over there? Ehtnicity, ethnic group etc... nicer than race IMO. and I hate the term "mixed race"... in french, we have métis.



Okay, let's go ethnic. I love ethnic food, never had race food, though.

[enoch007]

This is where we are going to have to agree to disagree. I see no reason that the identification of race must have harm. As a poster above mention, if someone wants to hate someone just because they look different, they need not use race in order to do so. I see it as simply identification in my life. Being able to say; "Go get the ball from the asian kid" in a society with few asian kids is much easier than saying; "Go get the ball from the olive colored kid with high cheekbones and slanted eyes".


We can always agree, but easier still is "Go get that ball from the child over there"

[nixon]

enoch007 I agree that for most things, including health care, poverty is a bigger problem than race. In fact race should not be a problem for anyone in an enlightened society. I personally think race is over emphasized by both blacks and whites in America. I think poverty is a much more pernicious problem.

[nixon]

We can always agree, but easier still is "Go get that ball from the child over there"

what if 5 kids are holding 5 identical balls?

[Smohg]

Eh? Race will always be useful for providing descriptions of people.

Example: You see that black guy over there in the red shirt? Yeah, he has the paper you need.

You see that tall guy over there in the red shirt? Yeah, he has the paper you need

or

You see that skinny guy over there in the red shirt? Yeah, he has the paper you need

or

You see that ugly guy over there in the red shirt? Yeah, he has the paper you need

or

You see that blond guy over there in the red shirt? Yeah, he has the paper you need

[nixon]

1. Race is a modern idea.

I have no doubt that this is due to isolation back then. I doubt that isolate villagers in oh say...China think much about race, or may not even know about it. Everyone is Chinese.

2. Race has no genetic basis. Not one characteristic, trait or even gene distinguishes all the members of one so-called race from all the members of another so-called race.

No single gene, but combinations of them causing the known features of the given races. If not one characteristic can distinguise race, then how do I or anyone know when we see it?

3. Human subspecies don't exist. Unlike many animals, modern humans simply haven't been around long enough or isolated enough to evolve into separate subspecies or races. Despite surface appearances, we are one of the most similar of all species.

I agree with the subspecies part. We have not gotten that far. Not the race part. The word race is being used to indicate the direction that various human groups are heading towards becoming subspecies assuming isolation which is now gone. I would expect the different races to start dissolving into a common theme except in places that are politically isolated.


4. Skin color really is only skin deep. Most traits are inherited independently from one another. The genes influencing skin color have nothing to do with the genes influencing hair form, eye shape, blood type, musical talent, athletic ability or forms of intelligence. Knowing someone's skin color doesn't necessarily tell you anything else about him or her.

Knowing a person has white skin tells me that 99 out of 100 times that his eyes will not be black, that he will have semi curly to straight hair that will not be black, will not have high cheek bones and will have a smalled nose than an average black person. The genes have nothing to do with each other, but are directly controlled by his ancestry.

5. Most variation is within, not between, "races." Of the small amount of total human variation, 85% exists within any local population, be they Italians, Kurds, Koreans or Cherokees. About 94% can be found within any continent. That means two random Koreans may be as genetically different as a Korean and an Italian.

And yet an Italian and a Korean don't look anything alike. See my previous posts for my opinion on the variation theme.

6. Slavery predates race. Throughout much of human history, societies have enslaved others, often as a result of conquest or war, even debt, but not because of physical characteristics or a belief in natural inferiority. Due to a unique set of historical circumstances, ours was the first slave system where all the slaves shared similar physical characteristics.

Has nothing to do with race at all.

7. Race and freedom evolved together. The U.S. was founded on the radical new principle that "All men are created equal." But our early economy was based largely on slavery. How could this anomaly be rationalized? The new idea of race helped explain why some people could be denied the rights and freedoms that others took for granted.

The stratification of race has nothing to do with the reality of race. I agree that enslaving folks for their race is wrong. Hell it's wrong to enslave anyone for any reason if you are a humanist, which I generally am.

8. Race justified social inequalities as natural. As the race idea evolved, white superiority became "common sense" in America. It justified not only slavery but also the extermination of Indians, exclusion of Asian immigrants, and the taking of Mexican lands by a nation that professed a belief in democracy. Racial practices were institutionalized within American government, laws, and society.

More of the same.

9. Race isn't biological, but racism is still real. Race is a powerful social idea that gives people different access to opportunities and resources. Our government and social institutions have created advantages that disproportionately channel wealth, power, and resources to white people. This affects everyone, whether we are aware of it or not.

Only if you agree with the premises above. I agree that racism is real. I don't agree that somehow that means race doesn't exist biologically.

10. Colorblindness will not end racism. Pretending race doesn't exist is not the same as creating equality. Race is more than stereotypes and individual prejudice. To combat racism, we need to identify and remedy social policies and institutional practices that advantage some groups at the expense of others.

I think it would help. A lot! So did MLK & Jesse Jackson.

[xunzian]

One of the things that define a species is it's ability to procreate among it's members. If there are actually dogs who cannot breed with other dogs due to breed, then I would say they are not the same species. Wolves which are pretty far removed from most other dog breeds can breed among other types of dogs. So the statement above is not valid. In addition, I have said that the breeding of dogs is further evolved than the races of humans.

Why is it that people can believe in evolution for animals, but not for people? If my tribe spends thousands of years in a hot dusty environment, and your tribe spends thousands of years in a cold harsh environment, what makes you think there wouldn't evolve some differences, some possibly extreme. And unlike others, I will not take the mental side out of the realm of possibilities. If 2 people with low intelligence will generally create offspring with low intelligence, then how can groups not do the same? Or high intelligence for that matter? Or mental illnesses that are mostly hereditary?

I don't judge folks based on race, but I don't discount the effects that it can have. I have said in a previous posting that no one qualified to determine the full extent of those differences, but I still think they are there. I also think that even if some effects on an individual are likely due to race, there is nothing that says that they aren't an exception and have some quality not normally found with that race. Or lack a quality that is normal to that race. Such as an black albino, or a really tall person from Mexico.


Try making a malmut/shih-tzu cross.

[enoch007]

what if 5 kids are holding 5 identical balls?

dressed identically? Then, go get a ball from one of those quintuplets.

[enoch007]

You see that tall guy over there in the red shirt? Yeah, he has the paper you need

or

You see that skinny guy over there in the red shirt? Yeah, he has the paper you need

or

You see that ugly guy over there in the red shirt? Yeah, he has the paper you need

or

You see that blond guy over there in the red shirt? Yeah, he has the paper you need


or

You see that short guy over there in the red shirt? That's no guy, that's my wife

[AthenaAwakened]

Knowing a person has white skin tells me that 99 out of 100 times that his eyes will not be black, that he will have semi curly to straight hair that will not be black, will not have high cheek bones and will have a smalled nose than an average black person. The genes have nothing to do with each other, but are directly controlled by his ancestry.

Try this: Sorting People activity (http://www.pbs.org/race/002_SortingPeople/002_00-home.htm).

Everybody is invited to try. It's fun and quite enlightening.

[enoch007]

Try this: Sorting People activity (http://www.pbs.org/race/002_SortingPeople/002_00-home.htm).

Everybody is invited to try. It's fun and quite enlightening.


All should try this, it demonstrates the futility of such classifications. (My opinion)

[AthenaAwakened]

phenotype (fē'nə-tīp') Pronunciation Key
The physical appearance of an organism as distinguished from its genetic makeup. The phenotype of an organism depends on which genes are dominant and on the interaction between genes and environment. Compare genotype.

genotype (jěn'ə-tīp', jē'nə-tīp') Pronunciation Key
The genetic makeup of an organism as distinguished from its physical characteristics. Compare phenotype.


Phenotype. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Science Dictionary. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Phenotype
genotype. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Science Dictionary. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genotype

Just a couple of helpful definitions. Just because a rose looks red, doesn't mean it's a red rose thru and thru. ;)

[Jolly_Penguin]

Racial characteristics exist. It is nonsensical to try to tell people that they don't. We developed in different places so have differing traits and those traits have tendencies to run together. Denying this is pointless and dishonest.

You don't have to blind yourself to racial characteristics to not be racist.

I tried the sorting people excercise and did quite well, even though the pictures are small and hard to see and even though they obviously chose people who are borderline. Most people are not hard to classify at all.

[xunzian]

To be fair . . . such sites normally include the edges of the bellcurve. Race is, to a certain extent, intuative to those who have been taught it, and such sites normally run counter to those intuative leanings.


For example, if you are trying to distinguish different kinds of Asians in the United States, a pretty good indicator is:

Strange clothes = Japanese
Cruxifix/Visibly Christian = Korean
'bird-like' bone structure = Vietnamese (also probably Christian, watch out!)
Visibily Thai (you know what I mean) = Thai
Everything else = Chinese (Don't worry about the different ethnicities)

(There are better markers, but those get too phrenological for civilized discussion)

That is a guideline to seperate groups of people that (except for Thai) all look relatively similar. Granted, it has the same finesse as:

Drinking wine = Mediterranian
Drinking beer = Northern Europe

((There are better markers, but those get too phrenological for civilized discussion)

But you get the idea. I think the story about the Hutus and the Tsotsis is indicative of race -- the Dutch created those races. Now they are killing each other.

Now, I'm not sure where this drunken, rambling post is going . . . but I do think that creating races is a fundamentally human activity. Remember what Cheng Hao has to say about qi in light of the Mencius. If I may paraphrase: those who are paralyzed fail to make themselves one with their body in the same way that most people fail to make themselves one with their own humanity.

Anyway, society recognizes races because of indoctrination whereas the individual seperates ins and outs.

I mean, come on, are you seriously gonna tell me The Rock isn't white? Frankly sir, I don't believe it.

[AthenaAwakened]

The argument isnt with the visual differences between people. It's with the conclusions people draw about people based on how they look.(The Taylor side of my family all look like carmel colored Lorne Greenes, doesn't mean that any of them can ride a horse or command a starship.)

[Loren Pechtel]

The argument isnt with the visual differences between people. It's with the conclusions people draw about people based on how they look.(The Taylor side of my family all look like carmel colored Lorne Greenes, doesn't mean that any of them can ride a horse or command a starship.)

Exactly. Race means nothing but how you look and a few genetic issues. It shouldn't be of concern to anyone but a doctor.

Just about everything that's normally attributed to race is really a matter of culture.

[Condraz23]

The various races of the world are a product of natural selection. For example, Negroids have dark skin because increased melanin levels protected skin against the sun. Caucasoids developed pale skin because their environment did not nessecitate a need for darker skin. In other words, the concept of "race" can be better described as "natural species variation".

[Loren Pechtel]

The various races of the world are a product of natural selection. For example, Negroids have dark skin because increased melanin levels protected skin against the sun. Caucasoids developed pale skin because their environment did not nessecitate a need for darker skin. In other words, the concept of "race" can be better described as "natural species variation".

Agreed.

[xunzian]

Natural selection doesn't really work when applied to other racial characteristics, such as noses, epicanthal folds, hair colour, hair texture, ect.

The idea of artificial/sexual selection makes more sense. All the things that we identify in a 'race' are the result of polygenic traits that exist along a continuum. It makes identifying ins and outs very easy as well as ensuring that the father of the child is, indeed, who he is supposed to be.

[premjan]

It is fairly natural that African populations will show greater net genetic diversity as Africa is the ancestral home of humanity. The same pattern is noted during the differentiation of a language to form language groups - the greatest diversity of the given language group is observed at the linguistic homeland and this pattern may be a way to help discover the homeland, e.g. Taiwan for Austronesian languages, and Ethiopia for Semitic languages.

[xunzian]

Heck, we notice the same pattern with phytophthora (the protist that caused that potato famine). In the Andes (where phytophthora is from) there is a much greater genetic diversity than there is in Europe.

That makes perfect sense.

[enoch007]

When one seperates out the varieties of distinction in human beings, and the causes for same, whether genetic or enviornmental, then how is this diversity satisfied with the reductavist "race" model. Let's be clear, no one says humans do not display diversity in any number of ways, no one is saying that Racism is easily dispatched when one gives up the archaic concept of "race", no one is calling anyone else a Nazi, it is only that, in end effect, what has been indoctrinated within all of us is a totally false, and socially constructed model of human natural selection/organization which is too innacurate to be of use (except within the perview of a reductavist racist ideology). The genetics side demonstrates the amount of diversity within a so-called racial group can equal, if not exceed, the diversity between groups.
Many others have written here that "race" allows for a ease of identification, something that is not lost when "race" is dispensed with (adjectives and other descriptive features will still exist). If one wants to apply descriptives to a racial argument, how accurate can one be when so vast a majority of people are simply brown? From Indians in India to Indians in Guatamala, and all the other features also bleed between groups (hair texture, shape of skull etc). Whatever presents itself as a "classification" of the tremendous diversity of humans on earth by localizing them in, what, a three, or four or five major groups (labled as races) with nothing but some physical similarities and perhaps some geographic coincidences, perhaps some genetic markers in common (but with no consideration of cultural history, linguistic families, political history, income and economic strata, etc) is too innacurate to really mean anything. Everyone embraces terminology that is common and introduced to them from very early ages, but one of the benefits of our language in the post Civil Rights era has been its ability to adapt to new social circumstances and the element of self reflection which accompanies this. Laying aside innacurate and useless patterns of speech and thought may seem difficult, but it is nothing we have not done before, and in many cases for the improvement of not only society, but also ourselves.

[dug_down_deep]

Such revisionism is typical of blue eyed people.

;)

[enoch007]

Such revisionism is typical of blue eyed people.

;)


I thank you for the small measure of support you have shown.

But for those who may reason to the contrary, can you please

LIST SOME POSITIVE ATTRIBUTES OF OR NECESSITY FOR CONTINUED CLASSIFICATIONS BASED ON THE "RACIAL" CLASSIFICATIONS WE SEE TODAY.

and please don't say, "But how will I say the 'Chinese' man". China will still exist independant of lumping Chinese, Japanese, Phillipinoes, Koreans, Vietnamese, Polyneasians et al into some big fantastic "Asians" bag (and we're not even talking Indians/Pakastanies).

[anders]

The only problem I have with your post is the implication that this is an American problem. No, it's a human problem.
So, why don't I ever hear the word "race" in Sweden? For people with extremely black skin, you may hear "black" in referencing them, but that has in my eyes no connection with "race". The darkest-skinned people I have seen IRL were from southern India.

And I think that I have mentioned before somewhere hereabouts that I find no consistent difference between the skin colour of people born in the Mediterranean area and those from East Asia or many standard Swedes.

[DietCoke]

LIST SOME POSITIVE ATTRIBUTES OF OR NECESSITY FOR CONTINUED CLASSIFICATIONS BASED ON THE "RACIAL" CLASSIFICATIONS WE SEE TODAY.


Blood quantum...Native Americans...federal recognition.

[enoch007]

Blood quantum...Native Americans...federal recognition.

Blood quantum: various laws enacted to determine membership in a Native American Tribe based on percentage of tribal blood. Whether these rules are or are not efficacious for determining benefits vis a vis the Federal Government, they have only to do with certain Native American peoples and their relationship to the government of the United States.

In the traditional concept of "race" then, what does membership or not to a Native American nation prove? Firstly, what "race" do natives belong to? Are they their own race?

No one is claiming (at least I am not) that ethnicity disappear, of course there a varying ethnicities, and they can be traced through language, custom, religious belief etc. It is probably innaccurate to lump all Native peoples into the same ethnicity, especially when one includes Native peoples from Central and South America. The fallacious concept of "race" would maintain that there exists a connection between all Native peoples based on their membership in the Indian (or Native) race (sic). In this way, blood quantum need only determine blood relationship to any Native group for inclusion to any specific Native Nation (unless one wishes to establish the Cherokee race, the Iriquois race, the Lakota race ad nauseum).

Establishing bonds to any ethnicity does not validate the wildly innaccurate classification of race.

[dug_down_deep]

So, why don't I ever hear the word "race" in Sweden? For people with extremely black skin, you may hear "black" in referencing them, but that has in my eyes no connection with "race". The darkest-skinned people I have seen IRL were from southern India.
I have no idea what's going on in Sweden. My comment was meant as a refutation that racism was an 'American problem'. I can prove that refutation pretty easily by referring to the history of Germany, though I don't want to violate Godwin's Rule...

[DietCoke]

Establishing bonds to any ethnicity does not validate the wildly innaccurate classification of race.

You threw down an all caps gauntlet, challenging people to list reasons to continue using the concept of race. I wasn't making the claim that blood quantum is true, fair, just, or accurate. I simply pointed out that there is at least one valid reason in existence for continuing to use the concept of race, namely, that if you eliminated the concept of race tomarrow that would have, to say the least, a major impact on many Native American people's lives. That is a "reason."

As for your original question, about whether we should abandon race, I think most scientists have already done this. Carolus Linnaeus came up with a system that was racist from the start, but his system does point toward something we can all observe. There are all kinds of things I could say to show how flawed Linnaeus' system was and is, but I think that is all beside the point. People see differences. Sometimes they use these differences to justify horrible things, but they would see these differences, adn they would do the horrible things regardless of whether Linnaeus came along and put names on some of these apparent differences.

I brought up the blood quantum issue because I happen to be very close to people who have been working on this subject for years. Our discussions have challenged many of my ideas about race. Years ago, I thought that color-blindness was the most enlightened world view. Then I came to the conclusion that recognizing differences was cool. Now I'm pretty much at the "what a terrible mess we have created" stage. There is a very tangled web that has been spun around notions of race. Simply discarding the notion, particularly in the political/social realm isn't really a practical possibility. There needs to be a conscious, methodical replacement with alternative concepts. Blood quantum is an example of this paradox.

[enoch007]

I brought up the blood quantum issue because I happen to be very close to people who have been working on this subject for years. Our discussions have challenged many of my ideas about race. Years ago, I thought that color-blindness was the most enlightened world view. Then I came to the conclusion that recognizing differences was cool. Now I'm pretty much at the "what a terrible mess we have created" stage. There is a very tangled web that has been spun around notions of race. Simply discarding the notion, particularly in the political/social realm isn't really a practical possibility. There needs to be a conscious, methodical replacement with alternative concepts. Blood quantum is an example of this paradox.

I thank you for your contribution, I assure you that the "gauntlet" was in no way personal, yet I did want to elicit more justification than just "people look different".

Your contribution was interesting as an issue probably not widely known outside of circles that deal with Native American issues.

Nevertheless (because I am stubborn), alternative concepts do readily exist, and they need not be invented or revised. The concept of Ethnicity is a more modern and accurate classification than the archaic notion of race. Many who have posted here acknowledge the degree of disrepute which the "race" model has fallen. A Chinese person will still be just as Chinese (Ethnically, Nationality-wise and Culturally). No one's ethnic origin, religion, or cultural heritage would be compromised by replacing race with ethnic origin(neither would anyone's prejudice, bigotry or outright racism). So at this point I ask myself "Then what is the difference".

Well, the concept of race was inhearantly based upon an unsaid but acknowledged heirarchy of races (and we can all surmise how this pyramid looked). What is missing is a more accurate examination of differences within the so-called races, the difference between the English and Russian cultures, or the Cultures of West Africa as oppossed to Central or Southern Africa, or the variances of Sino-Japanese cultural affinities as opposed to the culture of Islam in both Indonesia and the Phillipines. The concept of race does not account for any of these, lumping all of the above groupings into a single categeories of Caucasian, Negroid or Mongoloid (archaic classifications).

I find it an unfortunate tendancy that the American people love shorthand as oppossed to investigation and clarification. The traditional model of "race relations" in the US has revolved upon the black/white axis. While this history is compelling in itself, it still obscures the preseance of Latino people, for example, unless one examines the Latino experience specifically, and then discovers not only the uniqueness thereof but also where the Latino experience has overlapped portions of the African American experience. A race concept (even if one mistakenly concluding that Hispanic people comprise a "race") does nothing to shed any light whatever on this (other than to say Latinoes and Afr. Americans experienced "racial" prejudice, but how much of that was skin color based, how much language barrier, how much xenophobic?). And this traditional model is totally out to sea when examining immigration patterns post 1960's (where does the South Asians fit into a racial model? Are African immigrants the same as African American residents within a "race" model?). I believe this will be the future of social examination and classification. Race is a big word in the American lexicon, but so was Slave.

[DietCoke]

Your contribution was interesting as an issue probably not widely known outside of circles that deal with Native American issues.

I'm not familiar with how political status is determined on a worldwide basis, but I assume this is an issue for many indigenous people throughout the world. At the very least, I know it is an issue in Canada and Australia, as well as the U.S..

Nevertheless (because I am stubborn), alternative concepts do readily exist, and they need not be invented or revised.

Here is the problem. I agree with your thesis. Race is a faulty concept. However, I disagree that alternative concepts "readily" exist. This is not, of course, a defense of the concept of race, but merely me pointing out that the solution to replacing the concept of race is not limited to rethinking our racist notions. There is the very real, practical problem of the political status of people who are classified according to race.

So, my point is, in order for you to convince me to abandon the concept of race, you must first convince me you have a viable alternative. Without a viable alternative, I can't abandon the concept because it could mean tossing millions of people off their land, closing down public health systems, throwing into question the distribution of billions of dollars of trust monies.... The list goes on and on.

Please understand, I'd like to abandon the concept, but without an alternative that accounts for the things I've mentioned, the cure is worse than the disease.

[Tubby Lardmore]

The modern science of Genetics attributes a scant handful of genes as determinative of the color of any individuals skin, yet, these fractional elements of the make up of individuals is suppose to account for a wide range of factor which are supposed to delineate human beings from one another.

I'm a big cheerleader for us mixing all together to eliminate once and for all the whole race concept. But until that has been accomplished, I think there is some validity to the concept.

The woman and man who win the gold medal in the 100 meter sprints in the next Olympics will be darker than Condoleezza Rice.

The woman and man who win the gold medal in the 1,500 meter freestyle swim in the next Olympics will be lighter than Condoleezza Rice.

I've seen people try to explain away this phenomenon on the basis of opportunities, or lack thereof, but I'm not convinced.

[And if it should turn out that my Olympic predictions are wrong, I trust somebody will remember this and will rub my nose in it.]

[enoch007]

Here is the problem. I agree with your thesis. Race is a faulty concept. However, I disagree that alternative concepts "readily" exist. This is not, of course, a defense of the concept of race, but merely me pointing out that the solution to replacing the concept of race is not limited to rethinking our racist notions. There is the very real, practical problem of the political status of people who are classified according to race.

So, my point is, in order for you to convince me to abandon the concept of race, you must first convince me you have a viable alternative. Without a viable alternative, I can't abandon the concept because it could mean tossing millions of people off their land, closing down public health systems, throwing into question the distribution of billions of dollars of trust monies.... The list goes on and on.

Please understand, I'd like to abandon the concept, but without an alternative that accounts for the things I've mentioned, the cure is worse than the disease.


I understand your point and, not being an economist, statictician or social theorist of any weight, I must admit I don't have anything more than a vague belief that classification by ethnicity, economic strata etc can be sustituted for race. But without anything more definitive or rigorously researched I grant your objection as valid.

Your point actually is germaine to the racial (oooops) situation in France at the moment, as I have heard it in the media. The French stand upon their
liberty, equality and fraternity franchise as models for "racial" conduct vis a vis their minorities. In practice, however, no minorities (or very few) are actually hired by French firms because (suprise!) they don't look French. I would hope that the USA would have this condition somewhat better addressed (through anti-discrimination legislation etc) but of course no one can legislate someone else's heart. This problem was not directly addressed in the last elections. The Socialists were simply inerested in maintaining the status quo of social benefits available to current French workers (I heard of nothing about extending the employment franchise in any meaningful way), while the Conservatives simply wanted more free market, more opportunity to work longer hours and make more money (with some trickle down benefit for the poor, one surmises). On this note I exit, thanks to all for their participation and thoughts on this issue.

[premjan]

The woman and man who win the gold medal in the 100 meter sprints in the next Olympics will be darker than Condoleezza Rice.

The woman and man who win the gold medal in the 1,500 meter freestyle swim in the next Olympics will be lighter than Condoleezza Rice.

[And if it should turn out that my Olympic predictions are wrong, I trust somebody will remember this and will rub my nose in it.]
2004 Olympics women's 100m gold medallist was from Belarus (Yuliya Nesterenko).
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200408/r27859_69252.jpg
And there is no women's 1500m freestyle swim in the Olympics at present.

[nixon]

I've kind of burned out on arguing race itself at the moment, but I would like to point out that I have always considered ethnicity to be the totally socially constructed system. For instance, I, a white person, could have been raised with aborigines in Australia. I would by culture be ethnically aborigine. However, no one would believe it because I'm white. So you see ethnicity is not something that is readily measurable, whereas (For the most part) race at least visually is.

[nixon]

Tubby Lardmore means the next olympics, not the last ;)

[dug_down_deep]

I've kind of burned out on arguing race itself at the moment, but I would like to point out that I have always considered ethnicity to be the totally socially constructed system. For instance, I, a white person, could have been raised with aborigines in Australia. I would by culture be ethnically aborigine. However, no one would believe it because I'm white. So you see ethnicity is not something that is readily measurable, whereas (For the most part) race at least visually is.
I really have no idea what the races are supposed to be (except for some vague memory of a 5-race ontology in some old racist textbook). Seriously, when I look at someone, I don't know what the hell race they are supposed to be. I can see the same features as everyone else, but they don't mean race to me. They sometimes mean ethnicity, when related to other signs, such as personal effects, accents, and locale. But race? Nah. I already don't see it.

[Tubby Lardmore]

2004 Olympics women's 100m gold medallist was from Belarus (Yuliya Nesterenko).

I am amazed to see that. I stand corrected. (Unless it can be shown she was using steroids or something.)

[Fedor Emelianenko]

I say we can be different, but we don't have to kill eachother over it. how's that?

[RationalMaterialist]

Am I a racist ?

I acknowledge race... its hard not to. I acknowledge that races have generalised traits that are statistically valid - but I am not allowed to speak of such traits as this violates 'political correctness' in some bizarre way.

The japanese are shorter than we westerners, its true. But their children, on the whole, are better behaved and more responsible ... we can learn a lot from their culture - which in many senses is superior. Particularly in terms of etiquette and the treatment of the old.

They also have great hair : )

Then you have certain africans with wide noses and large nostrils. I do sometimes feel threatened by their visual appearance... particularly at night. Perhaps that is just media conditioning. However, I have to say that I've found them quite pleasant. Though they do smell a little strange to me... not sure if that is natural or a cultural cologne choice. I'm too polite to ask.


What I DONT do is look down on people. I think we're all, generally speaking, equally intelligent for example. It wouldn't surprise me if some races were more spacially aware... and perhaps others have less problem with abstract tasks. It really wouldn't surprise me in the lease... But differences in education are hardly a racial thing.

So am I a racist ? The whole thing is getting so complicated that I don't know anymore.

Now, I could pretend to go blind to these differences... I could be 'PC'... but isn't refusing to even acknowledge someones race more disrespectful than open acknowledgement ? Who said that describing someone as 'black' is a bad thing... I certainly don't care if they describe me as white.

Perhaps the PC people think we shouldn't call them 'black' because THEY are the true racists... they think that describing a man as 'black' is pointing out his inferiority... Yes, maybe the 'PC' people are the true racists!

I have a few black freinds, I have had a few asian freinds, I have many spanish freinds... I can safely count them as having been more dependable than many of my white english freinds. I think racism is a growing problem... in people who think that 'black', 'brown', 'Asian'... are, or should be, dirty words.

But then. Maybe I'm just being racist. So hard to tell ain't it.


-Gary

[dug_down_deep]

I think you're missing the point, RM. Races, unlike species, cannot be distinctly defined. It's pseudoscience that perseveres for cultural reasons. Is Japanese a race? Nobody here is arguing that biological variation does not exist -- that would be silly. What's being argued is that race does not constitute a coherent taxonomy.

[AthenaAwakened]

What can race tell you about someone else?

Parentage (at least partly)
Ancient ancestry (at least partly)

And that about it. Race is based of PHENOTYPES not GENOTYPES, and even the meaning of that is filtered through a cultural lens. RM talks about us (in the US I suppose) being able to learn much the Japanese culture. This is true, but I somehow doubt many people posting here would have said that December 8, 1941. Has Japanese culture dramatically changed sense 1941? Not the part that raises respectful children. THat was the same, perhaps even stronger.

And what of multiracial people? What does race tell us about them? Must we divide tham up into percantages and then ascribe meaning to each percentage?

EXAMPLE

She is


25% native american -- That's why she is so at home in nature
25% african american -- That's why she dances so well and can play basketball.
25% asian american -- That's why she is so good in math
25% irish american -- That's why she is so short tempered and drinks so much.


I know many of you here will NOT agree with this list and I don't agree with it either, but if you can seperate stereotyping from study of race, I would love to know how.

[Reign_Cryogen]

but if you can seperate stereotyping from study of race, I would love to know how.It's called thinking. I wouldn't recommend trying to teach the entire world about it, as they will very violently reject the notion.

But you can start with your child(ren). Baby steps, as it were.

[Reign_Cryogen]

The japanese are shorter than we westerners, its true. But their children, on the whole, are better behaved and more responsible ... we can learn a lot from their culture - which in many senses is superior. Particularly in terms of etiquette and the treatment of the old.

They also have great hair : )If you were to toss some random white/black/whatever kid at an extraordinarily young age into Japan to live, grow, learn, etc. - pretend for a moment that they wouldn't be ostricized for a filthy gaijin - and they will grow up to have superb etiquette and treat their elders with exempliary respect.

They won't have great hair, however.

It would be wise of us not to confuse such things.

[AthenaAwakened]

but if you can seperate stereotyping from study of race, I would love to know how.It's called thinking. I wouldn't recommend trying to teach the entire world about it, as they will very violently reject the notion.

But you can start with your child(ren). Baby steps, as it were.

Thinking. What a concept. Thinking about what exactly? Like,


why study race at all since the very concept of race is only about 500 years old and just happenes to coincide with the beginnings of New World exploitation, I mean. exploration and the African Slave Trade.
or that the historical study of race has always lead to practices such as segregation and eugenics,
or that institutions like the Pioneer Fund are heavily involved in race "research" and are flooding the academic marketplace with dubious conclusions at best,
or that leading researchers in the field of genetics consider race to be an illusion (www.pbs.org/race/).


Just what are we to think about?

[premjan]

Race is, sadly present in times prior to new world exploitation, for instance Aristotle is on record as considering the Persians an inferior race, though the Persians were hardly a different race from the Greeks by modern reckoning. In those days, race meant what we call ethnicity today.

[AthenaAwakened]

Race is, sadly present in times prior to new world exploitation, for instance Aristotle is on record as considering the Persians an inferior race, though the Persians were hardly a different race from the Greeks by modern reckoning. In those days, race meant what we call ethnicity today.

A timeline of the concept of race. (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-02-12.htm)

Here are some Highlights


Race is a modern idea - it hasn't always been with us. In ancient times, language, religion, status, and class distinctions were more important than physical appearance. In America, a set of specific historical circumstances led to the world's first race-based slave system.
The concept of race did not originate with science. On the contrary, science emerged in the late 18th century and helped validate existing racial ideas and "prove" a natural hierarchy of groups. Throughout our history, the search for racial differences has been fueled by preconceived notions of inferiority and superiority. Even today, scientists are influenced by their social context.
Ideas and definitions of race have changed over time, depending on social and political climate. Historically, racial categories were not neutral or objective. Groups were differentiated so they could be excluded or disadvantaged, often in explicit ways. For example, in the early 20th century, U.S. courts had to decide who was legally white and who wasn't for the purposes of naturalized citizenship. This was done in arbitrary and sometimes contradictory ways.




This from an article (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-02-01.htm) by George M. Fredrickson


No clear and unequivocal evidence of racism has been found in other cultures or in Europe before the Middle Ages. The identification of the Jews with the devil and witchcraft in the popular mind of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was perhaps the first sign of a racist view of the world. Official sanction for such attitudes came in sixteenth century Spain when Jews who had converted to Christianity and their descendents became the victims of a pattern of discrimination and exclusion.


This (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-02-09.htm) from Audrey Smedley
ORIGIN OF THE IDEA OF RACE
by Audrey Smedley
Anthropology Newsletter, November 1997



Contemporary scholars agree that "race" was a recent invention and that it was essentially a folk idea, not a product of scientific research and discovery. This is not new to anthropologists. Since the 1940s when Ashley Montagu argued against the use of the term "race" in science, a growing number of scholars in many disciplines have declared that the real meaning of race in American society has to do with social realities, quite distinct from physical variations in the human species. I argue that race was institutionalized beginning in the 18th century as a worldview, a set of culturally created attitudes and beliefs about human group differences.

[Reign_Cryogen]

Thinking. What a concept. Thinking about what exactly?Don't be obtuse. Any numbnuts with a few functional grams of gray matter knows that the quotient of reasonable prediction based on skin tone, nose size/shape, etc., etc., etc. is about as reliable and enlightening as any two people who look quite a bit alike.

Just because the grandchildren of the dim-wits who came up with the bell curve are hard at work filling our eyes with more bullshit doesn't invalidate any useful conclusions about anything whatsoever that might come from the raw data; it just means a bunch of dim-wits are doing the legwork and drawing their not-even-baked conclusions. What can ya do?

[premjan]

Race is a surrogate European identity for descendants of European colonists worldwide. Of course many people who are classified as white are barely European, e.g. Armenians like Cher or part-Iranians like Andre Agassi.

[Reign_Cryogen]

...which sort of exasperates how useless it has been. And likely will continue to be.

[AthenaAwakened]

Thinking. What a concept. Thinking about what exactly?Don't be obtuse. Any numbnuts with a few functional grams of gray matter knows that the quotient of reasonable prediction based on skin tone, nose size/shape, etc., etc., etc. is about as reliable and enlightening as any two people who look quite a bit alike.

Just because the grandchildren of the dim-wits who came up with the bell curve are hard at work filling our eyes with more bullshit doesn't invalidate any useful conclusions about anything whatsoever that might come from the raw data; it just means a bunch of dim-wits are doing the legwork and drawing their not-even-baked conclusions. What can ya do?

I'm not being obtuse.


Show one time in history when the proponents of race as a biological certainty used that hypothesis to show equality among said races.
Show one time in history when the a study of race as a biological certainty did not lead to a stratification of people with those determined to be on the bottom of the pecking order suffering injustice.
Show one time in history when the study of race as a biological certainty did not lead to stereotyping and murder.


Now if you want to discuss race as a cultural construct, then that is a horse of another color.

[dostfez]

The major issue I have is peoples IDENTIFICATION with and how they define WHO they are by any number of "categories".

Primarily these would be race, gender, culture, religion, occupation, sexual orientation and often many more.

They are nothing but a point of separation among HUMAN BEINGS.

Inevitably they lead to conflict and are a major detriment to the progression of human beings.

Further they have nothing to do with the "reality" that is the human being.

These "categories" are oft times "given" (genetically) or "educated" (socialization) into us which "grow" to accept as "who we are".

Further and tragically so, we revel in the "pride" of being "such and such" as if such a categorization makes one "better" or "different" or "exclusive" of others.

Until humanity goes beyond such limiting ideas as a basis for defining who and what they are, we cannot progress and we all suffer the consequences.

[Reign_Cryogen]

I'm not being obtuse.


Show one time in history when the proponents of race as a biological certainty used that hypothesis to show equality among said races.
Show one time in history when the a study of race as a biological certainty did not lead to a stratification of people with those determined to be on the bottom of the pecking order suffering injustice.
Show one time in history when the study of race as a biological certainty did not lead to stereotyping and murder.


Now if you want to discuss race as a cultural construct, then that is a horse of another color.Yeah, I get all that. Problem is, it's precisely like the arguments against socialism.

People are the problem; not the data or the collection or study thereof.

[AthenaAwakened]

Not quite,

The goal of socialism is to bring more of the good things of life to more people. (We can argue if that is what socialism actually does.) The goal of race study has always been to divide people into levels and then develop public policy that benefits the top levels and exploits and/or eliminates the lower levels.

BTW I have never said the people were the only problem and I certainly never said data or collection of data were not important.

[premjan]

I totally agree that collecting data on the IQ of human races is motivated simply by pandering to the current power status quo. As more countries reach a state of development, their national IQ will be shown to have been artificially depressed by bad measurement in the past.