Race Statistics are Overvalued

[WellIntentioned101]

Many have argued that race is not real and I would both agree and disagree. Race is real in a similar way to how state boundaries are real. Races are subjective categories defined by imaginary lines that define some people by skin color, some by ancestral origins, and some by community affiliation. Race is real in the sense that it has been defined into existence. Race is not real in the sense that it is not an objective measure. Height is real, eye color is real, IQ is real-- objectively real, they can be measured or observed reliably. This is where my issue with racial statistics begins. What is race? Is it skin color? If so, why are there so many different shades of black and white people? Are there no differences between peach-colored people and olive-colored people? Is race about ancestry? If so, are there no differences between all of the people who immigrated from East Asia over the past couple hundred years? When you hear a statistic that says something like "one in four Latino men are at risk for diabetes" or "black children are however many times more likely to end up in prison than white children," what information are you really getting? When terms like white, black, latino, and asian are so loosely defined (they are also very often self-reported), attempting to correlate them to concrete data like income becomes extremely trivial. Why not let people self-report their skin color from a list of options and see the wage gap between milk-chocolate colored people and chestnut colored people? When you change the boundary lines for these categories we call race, the stats start to sound pretty useless. I think in a lot of cases, these stats end up being more harmful than beneficial. I could go into a whole anti-identity politics argument but I think I'll just stop here.

 

[SeaGal]

When you hear a statistic that says something like "one in four Latino men are at risk for diabetes" or "black children are however many times more likely to end up in prison than white children," what information are you really getting?

The one is genetic at the cellular level. The other is empirical.

When terms like white, black, latino, and asian are so loosely defined (they are also very often self-reported), attempting to correlate them to concrete data like income becomes extremely trivial. Why not let people self-report their skin color from a list of options and see the wage gap between milk-chocolate colored people and chestnut colored people? When you change the boundary lines for these categories we call race, the stats start to sound pretty useless. I think in a lot of cases, these stats end up being more harmful than beneficial. I could go into a whole anti-identity politics argument but I think I'll just stop here.

Don't confuse stats with science. Race is determined genetically, as is sex, eye color, height, etc. Some diseases predominantly affect those of a certain race, or sex... such as sickle cell anemia or hemophilia.

External characteristics, imho - build, gender, skin color, etc are useful only for descriptive purposes. Race, gender and/or ethnicity have no place on official forms or in hiring practices or in determining special treatment - equality in the eyes of the law was a hard won victory. Sadly, today they are being used for political purposes. Distinguishing between the races - Caucasian, Black African and Asian - is useful only in the fields of medicine and science.

 

[AKIP]

When you hear a statistic that says something like "one in four Latino men are at risk for diabetes" or "black children are however many times more likely to end up in prison than white children," what information are you really getting?

The one is genetic at the cellular level. The other is empirical.

When terms like white, black, latino, and asian are so loosely defined (they are also very often self-reported), attempting to correlate them to concrete data like income becomes extremely trivial. Why not let people self-report their skin color from a list of options and see the wage gap between milk-chocolate colored people and chestnut colored people? When you change the boundary lines for these categories we call race, the stats start to sound pretty useless. I think in a lot of cases, these stats end up being more harmful than beneficial. I could go into a whole anti-identity politics argument but I think I'll just stop here.

Don't confuse stats with science. Race is determined genetically, as is sex, eye color, height, etc. Some diseases predominantly affect those of a certain race, or sex... such as sickle cell anemia or hemophilia.

External characteristics, imho - build, gender, skin color, etc are useful only for descriptive purposes. Race, gender and/or ethnicity have no place on official forms or in hiring practices or in determining special treatment - equality in the eyes of the law was a hard won victory. Sadly, today they are being used for political purposes. Distinguishing between the races - Caucasian, Black African and Asian - is useful only in the fields of medicine and science.

Sickle Cell is not race based, but rather a mutation that became favored due to its ability to thwart sometimes deadly malaria in children in Africa. Those with the sickle cell trait were more like to reach the age to reproduce offspring than the young in some areas of Africa who did not have the trait. However, all black people do not have the sickle cell traits and not only black people have the sickle cell trait.

I think there are mutations that manifested in certain isolated regions that are endemic to people from that region, but not endemic to "race". In other words, a trait that is mostly found in "blacks" does not make it a racial trait, because some blacks don't have it and are of the same supposed "race".

 

[DGS49]

Many "racial" statistics are based on self-reported race. That method seems to be good enough.

It has become a cultural faux pas to point out, or even mention, real differences between the races - even ones that are physical and easily measurable. God help you if you want to study differences in cognitive abilities, even though these are also obvious and measurable.

The stupidity of the general audience also plays a huge role in the dissemination of race-based information. We still live in a society where you can produce a mountain of evidence that proves that green people are better at math than blue people...and there will still be listeners who think that you are "wrong" because they know a blue person who's good at math.

 

[SeaGal]

However, all black people do not have the sickle cell traits and not only black people have the sickle cell trait.

Please re-read my post - pay particular attention to the qualifier 'predominantly' in context. I've not made the statement that all blacks have sickle cell and that no one else does. Sickle cell is transmitted genetically, and in the US is predominantly (more commonly) found among blacks of sub-Sahara African heritage. Just as mostly males have hemophilia, also transmitted genetically, though a few females can also have the disease....but that's not the same as stating most males have hemophilia.

The OP was questioning the physical (genetic) implications of race identification, as well as ethnicity, in comparison to the political implications of racial and ethnic designations. I made an attempt to respond. That is all.

 

[ATL]

Of course race is real, that's why forensics are able to determine someone's race with nothing but DNA and/or bones as evidence. The crux of the matter is being derogatory of someone's race due to someone else sharing their same melanin content. When the Irish first arrived to this country, the status quo did not consider them to be white, even though they are based upon their European DNA. That is when the concept of race being used as a social stigma started to take root. Couple that with the implementation of the "one-drop" rule, which later morphed into policies that attempted to determine someone's "worth" by how light their skin is. There is no other reason for the way things are the way they are today, other than the status quo having the power to marginalize a group or groups of people to place blame for their own shortfalls. All one has to do is read the comments made after a person does a terrible act, to see how the entire group will be blamed for their actions, or if it was a member of the status quo, see how the comments then label such an act as a "lone wolf" or "an individual with mental issues".

 

[alang1216]

Many have argued that race is not real and I would both agree and disagree. Race is real in a similar way to how state boundaries are real. Races are subjective categories defined by imaginary lines that define some people by skin color, some by ancestral origins, and some by community affiliation. Race is real in the sense that it has been defined into existence. Race is not real in the sense that it is not an objective measure. Height is real, eye color is real, IQ is real-- objectively real, they can be measured or observed reliably. This is where my issue with racial statistics begins. What is race? Is it skin color? If so, why are there so many different shades of black and white people? Are there no differences between peach-colored people and olive-colored people? Is race about ancestry? If so, are there no differences between all of the people who immigrated from East Asia over the past couple hundred years? When you hear a statistic that says something like "one in four Latino men are at risk for diabetes" or "black children are however many times more likely to end up in prison than white children," what information are you really getting? When terms like white, black, latino, and asian are so loosely defined (they are also very often self-reported), attempting to correlate them to concrete data like income becomes extremely trivial. Why not let people self-report their skin color from a list of options and see the wage gap between milk-chocolate colored people and chestnut colored people? When you change the boundary lines for these categories we call race, the stats start to sound pretty useless. I think in a lot of cases, these stats end up being more harmful than beneficial. I could go into a whole anti-identity politics argument but I think I'll just stop here.

I think we use race in this country as a shorthand for culture. Most Blacks in the US are descended from slaves and have been here for many generations so it is easy to lump them into a single box like I just did. It is convenient. Do they share more in common with people born and raised in Africa than they share with other US whites? I doubt it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Many have argued that race is not real and I would both agree and disagree. Race is real in a similar way to how state boundaries are real. Races are subjective categories defined by imaginary lines that define some people by skin color, some by ancestral origins, and some by community affiliation. Race is real in the sense that it has been defined into existence. Race is not real in the sense that it is not an objective measure. Height is real, eye color is real, IQ is real-- objectively real, they can be measured or observed reliably. This is where my issue with racial statistics begins. What is race? Is it skin color? If so, why are there so many different shades of black and white people? Are there no differences between peach-colored people and olive-colored people? Is race about ancestry? If so, are there no differences between all of the people who immigrated from East Asia over the past couple hundred years? When you hear a statistic that says something like "one in four Latino men are at risk for diabetes" or "black children are however many times more likely to end up in prison than white children," what information are you really getting? When terms like white, black, latino, and asian are so loosely defined (they are also very often self-reported), attempting to correlate them to concrete data like income becomes extremely trivial. Why not let people self-report their skin color from a list of options and see the wage gap between milk-chocolate colored people and chestnut colored people? When you change the boundary lines for these categories we call race, the stats start to sound pretty useless. I think in a lot of cases, these stats end up being more harmful than beneficial. I could go into a whole anti-identity politics argument but I think I'll just stop here.

Race is important because we, as humans, make it important. Simple as. People will determine who is worthy and who isn't based on silly things like skin color. That people do this is what people are looking at.

 

[alang1216]

Of course race is real, that's why forensics are able to determine someone's race with nothing but DNA and/or bones as evidence. The crux of the matter is being derogatory of someone's race due to someone else sharing their same melanin content. When the Irish first arrived to this country, the status quo did not consider them to be white, even though they are based upon their European DNA. That is when the concept of race being used as a social stigma started to take root. Couple that with the implementation of the "one-drop" rule, which later morphed into policies that attempted to determine someone's "worth" by how light their skin is. There is no other reason for the way things are the way they are today, other than the status quo having the power to marginalize a group or groups of people to place blame for their own shortfalls. All one has to do is read the comments made after a person does a terrible act, to see how the entire group will be blamed for their actions, or if it was a member of the status quo, see how the comments then label such an act as a "lone wolf" or "an individual with mental issues".

Race is real in the same way youth and old age are real. Vague and arbitrary groupings.

 

[Paul Essien]

Of course race is real, that's why forensics are able to determine someone's race with nothing but DNA and/or bones as evidence.

Show me a forensic specialist who can tell a racial difference on the bones of one year old and I’ll show you a liar

The concept of race isn't biological. It's socially defined. No matter what physical trait you try to isolate you can find examples of those traits that are more pronounced in other ethnic groups.

The question of racial affiliation is difficult to answer because although racial classification has some biological components, it's based primarily on social affiliation.

Anthropologists, forensic pathologists don't really consult much outside their own workplace or would be eager to testify in court to justify their determinations (Most stick to minimal use as a shorthand in their ordinary duties)

There is a great deal of science in this field. Anthropological reconstructionists throw around a blizzard of numbers and try and sound smart "The thickness of the skin at the apex of the the zygomatic arch of in a female of X ethnicity and Y body size is typically Z mm, per the standard tables"

This precision shouldn't be mistaken for equivalent accuracy. In fact, many of the leading facial reconstructors in the US are primarily sculptors who have studied the anthropometry and data, rather than the PhDs who gather that data.

Look - You can not tell the race from the bones alone. If there are clothes, soft tissue then it is another thing, but you originally claimed that they can determine the race from the bones. No you can't.

They look at a lot of other things mainly environment. It's not what you think like "O there is a bone....and that belongs to white person"

Dark skin occurs in warmer climates so too do other physiological features which enable a population to better survive and thrive in a particular environment. However, this also means that it is passed-on, since Black people in Chicago don’t suddenly get white skin. This demonstrates the sheer length of time necessary for any environmental constraint to affect our physiology on a genetic level.

So environmental factors which affect us and our ancestors shape the physical features we ascribe as part of the definition for race.

Which is why a forensic anthropologist can often determine race from bones yet geneticists can prove that distant populations are more closely related than troops of chimps.

Which is why we see people of different races as looking different, yet none is greater or lesser than another.

There is only one race - The human race. That's not me being PC and liberal. That's just how it is.

And this evidence from the human genome project.

There are very minor differences in the frequency of certain genes within human populations. But here’s the point all genes are the same across the human species.

This is why blood transfusions and bone marrow transplants work. This is why Asians can give blood to African descended people. This is why a black man's blood can save an white man’s life with a transfusion.and do so on a daily basis.. Some blood types have an affinity for certain groups of people but the genes are the same.

The racist pseudoscience promoted by Europeans white supremacists justified racism. Well, I must say, the propaganda machine has worked for about 500 yrs.

I know you don't like what I'm saying here since like many on USMB you're trying so hard to be a serious guy and give scientific arguments on race, but what I saId (if you've read this far) is the way it is.

 

[WellIntentioned101]

I'd just like to point out that I wasn't trying to say that you cant find generalized differences between people of different parts of the world or of different skin tones or cultures. Of course you can do that, you could go around and collect data on health or crime and look at how that data varies across people with different hair color to find that brown haired people commit more murders than blondes. But just because information like that could be found, doesn't make it meaningful or useful because at some point you (or someone) defined the line between brown haired and blonde haired. Studies that find health differences between "black" and "white" and other races mean much less than people give them credit for. It's not the data that I'm dismissing, it's the categories by which you choose to separate that data. If you asked every person in the US how much money they made last week, obviously you would get a spectrum of data, some people making lots of money last week and others making none. Now the question becomes how do you want do further delve into that data? Say you wanted to look at the differences between how much money a person makes and where s/he lives in the US. Would you look at the differences between each state? What about each county? How about living on a particular street versus another street? All of these options are possible, and you have to choose which categories you want to separate the data by, but no matter what you choose, you could have always chosen differently. It becomes a game of which categories make for the most meaningful interpretation of the data and I think in many cases race isn't a useful category because it is vaguely defined and way too broad. A 3rd generation Nigerian immigrant who is 60 years old, has a PhD and 4 daughters would check the same box on the census as the slave-descended, black, 18 year old, high school drop out who wants to be a gang member. When you look at a crime statistic like "the number of black people killed by whites" or something similar, are you telling me that those two people I described both being in the "black" category is a useful measure of understanding why certain people murder or how to prevent it?

 

[ATL]

Of course race is real, that's why forensics are able to determine someone's race with nothing but DNA and/or bones as evidence.

Show me a forensic specialist who can tell a racial difference on the bones of one year old and I’ll show you a liar

The concept of race isn't biological. It's socially defined. No matter what physical trait you try to isolate you can find examples of those traits that are more pronounced in other ethnic groups.

The question of racial affiliation is difficult to answer because although racial classification has some biological components, it's based primarily on social affiliation.

Anthropologists, forensic pathologists don't really consult much outside their own workplace or would be eager to testify in court to justify their determinations (Most stick to minimal use as a shorthand in their ordinary duties)

There is a great deal of science in this field. Anthropological reconstructionists throw around a blizzard of numbers and try and sound smart "The thickness of the skin at the apex of the the zygomatic arch of in a female of X ethnicity and Y body size is typically Z mm, per the standard tables"

This precision shouldn't be mistaken for equivalent accuracy. In fact, many of the leading facial reconstructors in the US are primarily sculptors who have studied the anthropometry and data, rather than the PhDs who gather that data.

Look - You can not tell the race from the bones alone. If there are clothes, soft tissue then it is another thing, but you originally claimed that they can determine the race from the bones. No you can't.

They look at a lot of other things mainly environment. It's not what you think like "O there is a bone....and that belongs to white person"

Dark skin occurs in warmer climates so too do other physiological features which enable a population to better survive and thrive in a particular environment. However, this also means that it is passed-on, since Black people in Chicago don’t suddenly get white skin. This demonstrates the sheer length of time necessary for any environmental constraint to affect our physiology on a genetic level.

So environmental factors which affect us and our ancestors shape the physical features we ascribe as part of the definition for race.

Which is why a forensic anthropologist can often determine race from bones yet geneticists can prove that distant populations are more closely related than troops of chimps.

Which is why we see people of different races as looking different, yet none is greater or lesser than another.

There is only one race - The human race. That's not me being PC and liberal. That's just how it is.

And this evidence from the human genome project.

There are very minor differences in the frequency of certain genes within human populations. But here’s the point all genes are the same across the human species.

This is why blood transfusions and bone marrow transplants work. This is why Asians can give blood to African descended people. This is why a black man's blood can save an white man’s life with a transfusion.and do so on a daily basis.. Some blood types have an affinity for certain groups of people but the genes are the same.

The racist pseudoscience promoted by Europeans white supremacists justified racism. Well, I must say, the propaganda machine has worked for about 500 yrs.

I know you don't like what I'm saying here since like many on USMB you're trying so hard to be a serious guy and give scientific arguments on race, but what I saId (if you've read this far) is the way it is.

Ummm....I suggest you read my posting history because the only way you can make such a statement is because you have me confused with another member.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Race stats matter, because when you bring in more of a certain group who are say more murderous, then the neighborhood will continue to become more murderous as you increase the concentrations of that race.

Explain how this doesn't matter?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Many have argued that race is not real and I would both agree and disagree. Race is real in a similar way to how state boundaries are real. Races are subjective categories defined by imaginary lines that define some people by skin color, some by ancestral origins, and some by community affiliation. Race is real in the sense that it has been defined into existence. Race is not real in the sense that it is not an objective measure. Height is real, eye color is real, IQ is real-- objectively real, they can be measured or observed reliably. This is where my issue with racial statistics begins. What is race? Is it skin color? If so, why are there so many different shades of black and white people? Are there no differences between peach-colored people and olive-colored people? Is race about ancestry? If so, are there no differences between all of the people who immigrated from East Asia over the past couple hundred years? When you hear a statistic that says something like "one in four Latino men are at risk for diabetes" or "black children are however many times more likely to end up in prison than white children," what information are you really getting? When terms like white, black, latino, and asian are so loosely defined (they are also very often self-reported), attempting to correlate them to concrete data like income becomes extremely trivial. Why not let people self-report their skin color from a list of options and see the wage gap between milk-chocolate colored people and chestnut colored people? When you change the boundary lines for these categories we call race, the stats start to sound pretty useless. I think in a lot of cases, these stats end up being more harmful than beneficial. I could go into a whole anti-identity politics argument but I think I'll just stop here.

Echoes of a Prehistoric Horror

The races each evolved from different primate species; some long ago reached their evolutionary expiration date but are still hanging on because of the decadent rule suffocating the evolved races.

 

[miketx]

Blacks commit more crime. We don't need a scientist to tell us that. You just ask a corrections officer.

 

[IM2]

Essen is right. Race is actually an artificial construct.

ATL has been consistent in his rebuking of the racists here.

 

[IM2]

Blacks commit more crime. We don't need a scientist to tell us that. You just ask a corrections officer.

That's not what the UCR says.

 

[miketx]

Blacks commit more crime. We don't need a scientist to tell us that. You just ask a corrections officer.

That's not what the UCR says.

Like you, they lie.

 

[IM2]

Blacks commit more crime. We don't need a scientist to tell us that. You just ask a corrections officer.

That's not what the UCR says.

Like you, they lie.

You are the one lying.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Essen is right. Race is actually an artificial construct.

ATL has been consistent in his rebuking of the racists here.

If Race is artificial, why do you use it anytime you can to make out Black victim-hood, or White villainy?