There Is No Such Thing as Race

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Dumb OP is dumb.
Humans aren't just different colors.
Even so, higher pigmentation influences Tyrosine & thus increasing Dopamine & Noradrenaline.

It's far from trivial.

"Even so, higher pigmentation influences Tyrosine & thus increasing Dopamine & Noradrenaline."

Another reason Blacks are so tremendously gifted and amazing..

Yeah, well it might also contribute to Black criminality, people with high Dopamine, and Noradrenaline can be hyper-belligerent, Schizophrenics, and Bi Polar peoples have such issues, themselves.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Blame your white ancestors for doing that.

And Democrats for continuing to carry the torch of hate from the dead.

The KKK supports the Repubs not the Dems.

So you agree that race should be removed from census questions, employment papers, and never used in a government document.

That had absolutely nothing to do with what I just said. The next time you wish to deflect at least post a warning notice.

The elimination of race being of importance is the basis of the OP. Why do you disagree with Rev MLK?

Culture is important, no matter the race, so sorry you don't think so.

 

[well named]

I think those commonalities are race based and exist across the board depending on the race you are from. There is a distinct connection I feel to other Blacks that I dont feel with whites or other races no matter where those Blacks are from.

I'm not trying to tell you that your feeling is wrong, but the best available evidence would suggest that this feeling is the result of cultural/social processes and not really biology.

On the topic of the reality of race, there's an important sociological principle that points out that socially constructed categories (like race) are "real" in their effects, even if they don't reflect some fundamental underlying physical reality. So race and racism are real in the sense of being enormously consequential in people's lived experiences, and it seems reasonable to me to think that the solidarity you feel with other black people might be related to the reality of racism, if that makes sense. It's the idea that the shared experience of adversity creates solidarity. Obviously I can't tell you that this is correct or that your interpretation is wrong, I don't and can't know that. But scientifically that explanation is at least more plausible to me.

 

[80zephyr]

Facts dictate there are people and these people have different appearances and cultures.

I think usually when people say that race doesn't exist they don't mean that ethnicity doesn't exist. They just mean that there's no particularly good reason to think that "white" people from Iowa share a lot of common culture with "white" people from Finland, or that "black" people from Milwaukee share a culture with "black" people from Tanzania, despite their superficially similar appearances. The point is that culture (i.e. ethnicity) is far more important and also varies in many ways which "race" doesn't capture at all.

You could say the same thing about dog breeds.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

I think those commonalities are race based and exist across the board depending on the race you are from. There is a distinct connection I feel to other Blacks that I dont feel with whites or other races no matter where those Blacks are from.

I'm not trying to tell you that your feeling is wrong, but the best available evidence would suggest that this feeling is the result of cultural/social processes and not really biology.

On the topic of the reality of race, there's an important sociological principle that points out that socially constructed categories (like race) are "real" in their effects, even if they don't reflect some fundamental underlying physical reality. So race and racism are real in the sense of being enormously consequential in people's lived experiences, and it seems reasonable to me to think that the solidarity you feel with other black people might be related to the reality of racism, if that makes sense. It's the idea that the shared experience of adversity creates solidarity. Obviously I can't tell you that this is correct or that your interpretation is wrong, I don't and can't know that. But scientifically that explanation is at least more plausible to me.

Scientifically, race exists.

Mark

 

[well named]

Scientifically, race exists.

The best attempt to capture the complexity of the relationship between popularly used racial categories and underlying biology which I've found comes from the physical anthropologist John Relethford, who writes that race "is a culturally constructed label which crudely and imprecisely describes real variation" (2009:20). The underlying real variation is "geographically structured" (as the abstract puts it), but is much more complex and parallels the point I made before about cultural variation. So, for example, there is more genetic variation between distinct ethnic groups in Africa, all of whom are labeled "black", than there is between ethnic groups in Europe and Asia for whom we have distinct racial labels.

So, basically when we say that race doesn't exist scientifically the point is that the complexity of population genetics and human biological variation between sub-populations is not at all well captured by the simple racial classification most people use, and that many of the cultural meanings we attach to race (like stereotypes) are entirely independent from any biological basis.

 

[harmonica]

Humans are like dogs, only smarter and less diverse.

dogs are smarter

 

[80zephyr]

Scientifically, race exists.

The best attempt to capture the complexity of the relationship between popularly used racial categories and underlying biology which I've found comes from the physical anthropologist John Relethford, who writes that race "is a culturally constructed label which crudely and imprecisely describes real variation" (2009:20). The underlying real variation is "geographically structured" (as the abstract puts it), but is much more complex and parallels the point I made before about cultural variation. So, for example, there is more genetic variation between distinct ethnic groups in Africa, all of whom are labeled "black", than there is between ethnic groups in Europe and Asia for whom we have distinct racial labels.

So, basically when we say that race doesn't exist scientifically the point is that the complexity of population genetics and human biological variation between sub-populations is not at all well captured by the simple racial classification most people use, and that many of the cultural meanings we attach to race (like stereotypes) are entirely independent from any biological basis.

This is misdirection. The amount of genetic variation is not as important as the variation itself. If five variations caused people to have 5 feet, 3 eyes and purple hair, and all their other genes were the same, would we still call them the same race?

Look at dogs. I am fairly certain they have mostly the same genetic code as other dogs, but breeds do exist.

Mark

 

[well named]

Look at dogs. I am fairly certain they have mostly the same genetic code as other dogs, but breeds do exist.

You are wrong. The level of genetic diversity between breeds (and homogeneity within breeds) is much greater for dogs than for any human sub-populations, as a result of domestication and selective breeding practices (see here). Humans are not like dogs. If we were domesticated and selectively breeded by some other species for tens of thousands of years then you could imagine human sub-populations emerging with genotypic/phenotypic variations as large as exist between dog breeds, but that has not in fact actually happened, and it's probably the only imaginable way that patterns in variation like exists with dog breeds could occur, which is why dogs are unique among other mammals in that regard.

 

[80zephyr]

Look at dogs. I am fairly certain they have mostly the same genetic code as other dogs, but breeds do exist.

You are wrong. The level of genetic diversity between breeds (and homogeneity within breeds) is much greater for dogs than for any human sub-populations, as a result of domestication and selective breeding practices (see here). Humans are not like dogs. If we were domesticated and selectively breeded by some other species for tens of thousands of years then you could imagine human sub-populations emerging with genotypic/phenotypic variations as large as exist between dog breeds, but that has not in fact actually happened, and it's probably the only imaginable way that patterns in variation like exists with dog breeds could occur, which is why dogs are unique among other mammals in that regard.

Humans, until recently in human history, pretty much lived and died right where they were born. If they intermingled as much as you believe, then blacks would also have Neanderthal DNA in them, they don't, further proof that the populations were segregated a long period of time.

As for dogs, men started breeding them only 7,000 years ago. A blink of an eye in genetic terms, and look at the diversity that was created.

BTW, all dogs share 99.8% of their DNA. So theres that.

Mark

 

[MarcATL]

A classic misrepresentation of MLK. Here are words from MLK.

“Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn. The reality of substantial investment to assist Negroes into the twentieth century, adjusting to Negro neighbors and genuine school integration, is still a nightmare for all too many white Americans…These are the deepest causes for contemporary abrasions between the races. Loose and easy language about equality, resonant resolutions about brotherhood fall pleasantly on the ear, but for the Negro there is a credibility gap he cannot overlook. He remembers that with each modest advance (the Negro makes) -- the white population promptly raises the argument that the Negro has come far enough. Each step forward accents an ever-present tendency to backlash.”

Martin Luther King Jr.

Many whites have adopted the colorblind claim of non-racism. There is one problem with this. This belief about colorblindness is a form of racism. Being white and not having to deal directly with racism, it is simple for whites to ignore or discount the impact of racism upon anyone. They can claim to be colorblind even as they practice racism because they don’t face it. One of the main problems with this coming from whites is this belief ignores some 400 years of American history. We could all go colorblind relative to race tomorrow, but the damage created by almost four centuries of abuses will still exist. Whites will be colorblind then continue not hiring blacks because blacks do not have work experience. Yet that lack of work experience would have been due to the racism that occurred before everybody turned colorblind. But now that we would have become colorblind we can ignore those years because we don’t see color and are only hiring based on merit.

POWERFUL!!!!

 

[Asclepias]

I think those commonalities are race based and exist across the board depending on the race you are from. There is a distinct connection I feel to other Blacks that I dont feel with whites or other races no matter where those Blacks are from.

I'm not trying to tell you that your feeling is wrong, but the best available evidence would suggest that this feeling is the result of cultural/social processes and not really biology.

On the topic of the reality of race, there's an important sociological principle that points out that socially constructed categories (like race) are "real" in their effects, even if they don't reflect some fundamental underlying physical reality. So race and racism are real in the sense of being enormously consequential in people's lived experiences, and it seems reasonable to me to think that the solidarity you feel with other black people might be related to the reality of racism, if that makes sense. It's the idea that the shared experience of adversity creates solidarity. Obviously I can't tell you that this is correct or that your interpretation is wrong, I don't and can't know that. But scientifically that explanation is at least more plausible to me.

"...that this feeling is the result of cultural/social processes and not really biology."

I think that white people separate things that are actually combined and work together. Much like spirituality and science. I'd have to disagree that culture and social processes dont influence biology.

 

[well named]

I'd have to disagree that culture and social processes dont influence biology.

I would disagree with that statement as well, if someone made it without qualification. There's evidence to the contrary. But I wasn't stating a general rule, I was responding to your specific post about your feeling of connection to others. It's not that I think there's never any connection between the cultural and biological. There are many connections, and in both directions. I just think that in this particular case the social processes are probably far more important than biology.

 

[abu afak]

Scientifically, race exists.

The best attempt to capture the complexity of the relationship between popularly used racial categories and underlying biology which I've found comes from the physical anthropologist John Relethford, who writes that race "is a culturally constructed label which crudely and imprecisely describes real variation" (2009:20). The underlying real variation is "geographically structured" (as the abstract puts it), but is much more complex and parallels the point I made before about cultural variation. So, for example, there is more genetic variation between distinct ethnic groups in Africa, all of whom are labeled "black", than there is between ethnic groups in Europe and Asia for whom we have distinct racial labels.

So, basically when we say that race doesn't exist scientifically the point is that the complexity of population genetics and human biological variation between sub-populations is not at all well captured by the simple racial classification most people use, and that many of the cultural meanings we attach to race (like stereotypes) are entirely independent from any biological basis.

Human Races do exist: Scientifically.
Forensic anthropologists use it every day.. as do commercial DNA tests.

There is alot of poor Colloquial usage, especially in re 'Black'..
Black is not a Race, it's a slang term for anyone of brown color in, ie, America.
Mostly it's used for the recent 'African American' admixture (since slavery) of, on Average, sub-Saharan (75%), and Euro/'white,' (25%).

For others here: dogs are not a Species, and breeds are not subspecies/Races. (Race =subspecies)
All 'breeds' of Domestic dogs are just One of 37 subspecies/Races of Gray Wolves. (and can interbreed)
There is little-to-no real knowledge being posted here.
`

 

[Oddball]

A classic misrepresentation of MLK. Here are words from MLK.

“Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn. The reality of substantial investment to assist Negroes into the twentieth century, adjusting to Negro neighbors and genuine school integration, is still a nightmare for all too many white Americans…These are the deepest causes for contemporary abrasions between the races. Loose and easy language about equality, resonant resolutions about brotherhood fall pleasantly on the ear, but for the Negro there is a credibility gap he cannot overlook. He remembers that with each modest advance (the Negro makes) -- the white population promptly raises the argument that the Negro has come far enough. Each step forward accents an ever-present tendency to backlash.”

Martin Luther King Jr.

Many whites have adopted the colorblind claim of non-racism. There is one problem with this. This belief about colorblindness is a form of racism. Being white and not having to deal directly with racism, it is simple for whites to ignore or discount the impact of racism upon anyone. They can claim to be colorblind even as they practice racism because they don’t face it. One of the main problems with this coming from whites is this belief ignores some 400 years of American history. We could all go colorblind relative to race tomorrow, but the damage created by almost four centuries of abuses will still exist. Whites will be colorblind then continue not hiring blacks because blacks do not have work experience. Yet that lack of work experience would have been due to the racism that occurred before everybody turned colorblind. But now that we would have become colorblind we can ignore those years because we don’t see color and are only hiring based on merit.

POWERFUL!!!!

Everything is racist, therefore nothing is really racist.

 

[Oddball]

 

[well named]

Human Races do exist: Scientifically. Forensic anthropologists use it every day...

I recommend this special issue of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology: Race Reconciled: How Biological Anthropologists View Human Variation (2009)

In the introductory article (full text here), you'll find this statement on p. 2 (emphasis mine):

The points of agreement in the following articles reflect a shared evolutionary perspective that focuses on describing and interpreting the apportionment of biologi- cal variation between individuals both within and among groups (see also Lee et al., 2008). We agreed that:

• There is substantial variation among individuals within populations.
• Some biological variation is apportioned between individuals in different populations and among larger population groupings.
• Patterns of within- and among-group variation have been substantially shaped by culture, language, ecology, and geography.
• Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation.
• Human variation research has important social, bio- medical, and forensic implications.

There's another article in this issue you may find helpful: Understanding race and human variation: Why forensic anthropologists are good at identifying race (full text here). From the conclusion (again emphasis mine):

Worldwide craniometric variation shows strong geographic patterning. However, if biological distinctiveness is an accepted criterion for biological races, a very large number of biological races can be discerned using craniometric data alone. Given this fact and the many populations with unique histories, it makes sense to collect data from as many populations as possible to aid in accurate classification, as Howells (1995) and Ubelaker et al. (2002) concluded. With other biological systems and traits, the distribution and number of biological races will change. There are so many possible distinctive biological races that the concept is virtually meaningless. We can only concur with Howells’ (1995, p 103) modification of Livingstone’s 1962 quote: ‘‘There are no races, only populations.’’
​

I think the point which often gets lost, but which you will find explained reasonably well in this article, is that human variation is geographically structured (as discussed also in post #46) but that if you're going to use that structure to assign individuals into groups in a scientifically reasonable way then you will end up with a very large number of distinct groups, hence the bolded parts of the quote above. This is the reason why ethnicity is a scientifically useful concept (both in terms of biological variation and cultural variation) but race as typically defined is not.

So, as the article on forensic anthropology discusses, forensics can typically distinguish the ancestry of Americans with European ancestry from those with African ancestry via skeletal features, because of that geographic structuring in variation, and because social forces have largely prevented intermixing of the two gene pools (i.e. European-Americans are not intermarrying much with African-Americans). Saying that "race" isn't scientific doesn't mean saying that there are no patterns in variation between human sub-populations, as I keep saying. It means that the the racial categories we use are only crude approximations of the actual scientific evidence about that patterning, and so our categories are quite arbitrary.

... as do commercial DNA tests.

Commercial DNA tests tell you about your ancestry by identifying specific ethnic groups and geographic locations, e.g. Northern Europe or West Africa. That's not the same as race. Most of the articles in the above cited journal are about making clear the relationship between human variation (especially as a function of geography) and the concept of race. So hopefully the above helps to clarify your confusion.

 

[abu afak]

Human Races do exist: Scientifically. Forensic anthropologists use it every day...

I recommend this special issue of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology: Race Reconciled: How Biological Anthropologists View Human Variation (2009)
....

You can argue/DENY all you like, but Race does exist, and people like Forensic Anthropologists use it every day.
So it's Moot.
You can claim the sun doesn't come up, but this guy/others have a tan!

NOVA | Does Race Exist?
Two different opinions. I post the one from George Gill who actually, even necessarily, deals with race.
Ergo, the other is moot.

Slightly Over Half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the Traditional view that human Races are biologically valid and Real.
Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The Other Half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the "racial lens."
[......]
Bones don't lie
First, I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a high degree of accuracy in determining geographic racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80% accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon just one of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations..... My students ask, "How can this be? They can Identify skeletons as to Racial origins but do not believe in Race!"
.....
"The idea that Race is 'only skin deep' is simply not true."
Deeper than the skin
[.......]The "reality of race" therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans.
The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual Legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing Race from skeletal remains than from Looking at living people standing before me.
....
On political correctness
Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the Clinical perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the "race denial" faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and Not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in "race denial" are in "reality denial" as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the Politically Correct Agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the Evidence.

How can we combat racism if no one is willing to talk about race?"
Consequently, at the beginning of the 21st century, even as a majority of biological anthropologists favor the reality of the race perspective, not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship. But, you may ask, are the politically correct actually correct? Is there a relationship between thinking about race and racism?
[.......]​

Commercial DNA tests tell you about your ancestry by identifying specific ethnic groups and geographic locations, e.g. Northern Europe or West Africa. That's not the same as race. Most of the articles in the above cited journal are about making clear the relationship between human variation (especially as a function of geography) and the concept of race. So hopefully the above helps to clarify your confusion.

I have no "confusion".
I understand this subject through years of study far in excess of your PC nonsense

The fact that there are Mixes, or that Races can be further subdivided, doesn't negate races.
DNA Tests might just tell you areas, but they will use RACES/representative local indigenous Races, to decide which area you're from.
If you're sub-Saharan, be it with it's own variations, it's still part of a larger Macro Race which share many identifiable similarities.
If they (ie, NatGeo's Genographic Project) sees a 'white' guy in Beijing/sub-Sahara, they're not going to use him as part of the Base group/'location.'

Which brings me to something else Necessary YOU are clueLess about.
The Actual and functional DEFINITION of Race (aka subspecies).
("aka subspecies" being something you were clueless about as well)
No, not from Websters.

Race/subspecies in ALL animals/life are different Sets of features (and genes) born of thousands of years of separate geographic evolution.
And... have enough morphological/physical difference so that they can be identified consistently. (separated and regrouped with very high accuracy.)
That IS the rule of thumb for race as used by all the founders of modern taxonomy.
Ernst Mayer, Sewall Wright, etc.

The confusion is all yours as you have no background in the topic.
Zero.
Just Google up some PC nonsense which is, alas, the spoken/PC consensus.
`

 

[well named]

Slightly Over Half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the Traditional view that human Races are biologically valid and Real.

Although your author does not actually provide a citation, he is clearly referencing a survey from 1985 (described on page 652 here), i.e. one that is over 30 years old. There's been a tremendous amount of progress in population genetics since then, and the consensus view of the discipline has changed, hence the special issue of the Journal I cited, which is entirely devoted to physical anthropology and which arose as a result of a 2007 symposium. So sure, if you go far enough back in time you'll find biological and forensic anthropologists using race concepts uncritically. The entirety of the journal issue I cited is about reconsidering those prior views in the light of new evidence.

I understand that you are likely to be too attached to your racist ideology to be willing to let it be challenged by actual scientific research, but you really ought to take the time to read more recent work.

 

[abu afak]

Slightly Over Half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the Traditional view that human Races are biologically valid and Real.

Although your author does not actually provide a citation, he is clearly referencing a survey from 1985 (described on page 652 here), i.e. one that is over 30 years old. There's been a tremendous amount of progress in population genetics since then, and the consensus view of the discipline has changed, hence the special issue of the Journal I cited, which is entirely devoted to physical anthropology and which arose as a result of a 2007 symposium. So sure, if you go far enough back in time you'll find biological and forensic anthropologists using race concepts uncritically. The entirety of the journal issue I cited is about reconsidering those prior views in the light of new evidence.

I understand that you are likely to be too attached to your racist ideology to be willing to let it be challenged by actual scientific research, but you really ought to take the time to read more recent work.

IOW, you have NO factual answers to not just Forensic anthropologists actually (And STILL) using Race daily...
making the issue - still - Moot...
But were totally MUM on my other points, Including Race in DNA tests, the DEFINITION OF Race (and subspecies)
Ouch!
Busted on being 100% Ignorant of what Race even was/is with no rebuttal whatsoever.
You are/remain Non-conversant on the topic.

If, as some sort of LOSING parting shot/smear, you want to call Race Realism - "racism" - be my guest.
You were exposed as totally Empty/100% goofy PC clown.

PS: Newer studies reveal yet more backing for genetic differences among Races.
Make my day!
`