The science is in.

"Race" is a fallacy with no basis in science.

Fairly recent DNA studies have revealed no indication of the concept of race, or separate classifiable subspecies -- there is no such thing. Individuals have genes for certain traits (skin, hair, etc.,) that are passed genetically, but there are no consistent patterns of any genes across the human genome that would suggest the existence of a "race". Similarly, there is also no genetic basis for human ethnicity.

One would think this would be bigger news, especially since the word (and concept of) race is used so often in the media. Seeing as how "race" has been proved to be non-existent, why don't the media use other terms, like "skin color"? Couldn't they at least comment on how "race" doesn't actually exist? They could at least say "what some people view as race, but doesn't actually exist", when they refer to race. I mean, let's be honest -- Even though "race" doesn't exist, the belief that it does results in people using the term and concept, but shouldn't the [objective] media at least refrain from reporting news in a manner that implies that race exists? WTF?


I like this new definition that I found on the web:

Quote :

"A "racist" is "a person, organization or institution continuing to believe in, advocate, perpetuate or passively accept the proposition that there are separate 'races' among the human species, in spite of all of the well-known Human Genome Project evidence that separate human "races" do not exist."

I think it's fairly clear to see that the use of the word (and concept of) "race" will inevitably lead to prolonged belief in the unscientific fallacy of separate "races" within the human species.

Discuss.

4/7/2011 6:10:35 PM

this is silly

when people say "race" they are not talking about patterns of genes, they are talking about physical characteristics. physical characteristic differences exist and are observable. some people do think that there are genetically passed differences, and it is true that there needs to be a better effort to show how this is not true, but when people are using "race" in conversation that is usually not what they are talking about.

4/7/2011 6:13:40 PM

ummm...

race from wikipedia:

Quote :

"In biology, races are distinct genetically divergent populations within the same species with relatively small morphological and genetic differences. The populations can be described as ecological races if they arise from adaptation to different local habitats or geographic races when they are geographically isolated. If sufficiently different, two or more races can be identified as subspecies, which is an official biological taxonomy unit subordinate to species. If not, they are denoted as races, which means that a formal rank should not be given to the group, or taxonomists are unsure whether or not a formal rank should be given."

Can you explain how humans don't fit this definition?

4/7/2011 6:22:08 PM

Quote :

"when people say "race" they are not talking about patterns of genes, they are talking about physical characteristics. physical characteristic differences exist and are observable. some people do think that there are genetically passed differences, and it is true that there needs to be a better effort to show how this is not true, but when people are using "race" in conversation that is usually not what they are talking about."

Is sickle cell anemia not a genetically passed difference?

4/7/2011 6:29:30 PM

oh sorry you forgot to include this part.... maybe you should be a little more clear when plagiarizing

Quote :

"DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other. http://www.nowpublic.com/world/human-genome-project-announces-race-does-not-exist#ixzz1IsZPrxHu"

On the last part.... I have no idea if that's required for a "race"

4/7/2011 6:31:16 PM

of course there are races. genetics just hasn't been able to define them concretely.

4/7/2011 7:40:29 PM

A racial group is real if there are more genetic differences between members of different groups than members of the same group. So if all black people were more closely related than a black person and a white person, race would be genetically true. But that's not the case. If you take two random people from Africa, we would call them both "black," but they could have less in common than with a "white" guy.

so race doesn't exist biologically, but it does exist socially. So it still matters

4/7/2011 8:01:26 PM

^that would just seem to suggest that "black" and "white" are not races and that it gets more granular than that, no?

4/7/2011 8:12:57 PM

Classic indy.

1) Talk out of ass
2) Be proven wrong or misinformed
3) Continue to talk out of ass and get caught in semantics
4) Still be wrong.
5) Still proclaim other people are wrong after being proven wrong
6) Stomp off in a fit of rage.
7) Read new news piece
8) Rinse and repeat
9) If after 126 times of repeating this sequence of events, take a 1.5 month break.

4/7/2011 8:15:21 PM

4/7/2011 9:11:55 PM

Quote :

"A racial group is real if there are more genetic differences between members of different groups than members of the same group. So if all black people were more closely related than a black person and a white person, race would be genetically true. But that's not the case. If you take two random people from Africa, we would call them both "black," but they could have less in common than with a "white" guy. so race doesn't exist biologically, but it does exist socially. So it still matters "

Well for one thing they both have black skin. That's biological.

If you use race as basically a synonym for skin color and ethnic background then yeah it totally exists.

I mean if you want to speak genetically, from what I understand Africa is much more genetically diverse than the rest of the world, and if you just classify race as genetic there are certainly multiple different races of africans.

4/7/2011 10:55:01 PM

Yeah that African thing flopped (by nerdchick).

If you go by the well-know classification from the 60s:

Caucasoid
Australoid
Mongoloid
Negroid
Capoid

There are 2 from Africa (the last 2). If someone were to classify in the same manner today (using physical differences), they might find, I don't know, anywhere from 5 to 15 distinct looking groups, many of them in Africa and India.

True that a genetic basis hasn't been found -- so far -- for those 'races', but it is obvious that something codes for the way we are built, and why a Chinese couple's baby will never come out looking like a Nigerian, and vice versa.

4/8/2011 6:23:45 AM

This is essentially what I've been saying. What's strange to me is that the same people that supposedly are anti-racist/pro-unity/whatever are the ones most hung up on keeping these artificial classifications around.

We could, conceivably, block humanity off into distinct sects. I don't see the point. Race, as a classification, has become increasingly meaningless, especially as people of different "races" have begun breeding in greater numbers. Why can't we view skin color as one of many physical attributes and leave it at that?

[Edited on April 8, 2011 at 2:53 PM. Reason : ]

4/8/2011 2:39:46 PM

i'm only racist against UNC fans

4/8/2011 4:05:01 PM

^^ I agree... I don't care about race in any practical sense, just in an academic sense.

I work in a job where I have many minorities (religious, ethnic, national, skin hue, etc) as my clients (college lecturer). I am completely blind when it comes to teaching, helping during office hours, and marking exams.

I myself encounter/have encountered racism/group-ism and see others encountering it, and I stand up against it whenever I can.

Just for the sake of it, though, I am curious to know if there is any genetic basis for race. Our physicality, including skin color, eye shape, hair type, build, head shape, etc, are determined by our genes. And that leads me to believe that there is some genetic basis, even if very fuzzy. Genetics as a science is still in its infancy, so I will wait a few more decades for any conclusive results.

4/8/2011 4:10:57 PM

^^^Personally, I don't like this game where we pretend that there are no biological differences between anyone at all in order to be politically correct.

This trend is a lot more annoying when talking about sex. People get all uppity if you suggest that men and women, in general, tend to think differently, communicate differently, perform differently in athletics, prefer different professions, prefer different hobbies, or whatever. Even though there are perfectly logical reasons why we might expect some small differences between the sexes. I'm sorry, but my genitals are not a fucking social construct. From a practical perspective, one of the most effective ways I've improved my communication is recognize some of these differences.

As far as race goes, I think you're right that it's usually pretty meaningless... except in a few cases when it's not. My genetic background affects what diseases I'm susceptible to, how much sun I should get daily, what I should eat, etc. Now, maybe race is a terrible shorthand for addressing these issues (on some of them, I think it's pretty effective actually). But the part that bothers me is imagining that we're all biologically identical.

That's probably why this kind of thread pisses me off just on principle.

[Edited on April 8, 2011 at 4:24 PM. Reason : asdfasdf]

4/8/2011 4:22:25 PM

Quote :

"^^^Personally, I don't like this game where we pretend that there are no biological differences between anyone at all in order to be politically correct. This trend is a lot more annoying when talking about sex. People get all uppity if you suggest that men and women, in general, tend to think differently, communicate differently, perform differently in athletics, prefer different professions, prefer different hobbies, or whatever. Even though there are perfectly logical reasons why we might expect some small H-U-G-E differences between the sexes. I'm sorry, but my genitals are not a fucking social construct."

Agreed.

[Edited on April 8, 2011 at 4:33 PM. Reason : and modified ]

4/8/2011 4:32:40 PM

Quote :

"Personally, I don't like this game where we pretend that there are no biological differences between anyone at all in order to be politically correct."

Neither do I, which is why I don't play that game. Clearly, there are differences, and science has allowed us to quantify those differences. I just don't think race is a useful classification. Lineage probably is, because it allows us to identify potential health risks, as you mentioned. This business of blocking people off into "white" and "black" isn't at all helpful, though, because it really is judging a book by its cover, so to speak.

This thread may be relevant: http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=584506

4/8/2011 5:48:22 PM

old

4/8/2011 8:28:57 PM

Quote :

"Can you explain how humans don't fit this definition?"

Read the first three words of the bold quote

"IF SUFFICIENTLY DIFFERENT"

That is not the case with any humans. 99+% similarity. Under isolation, it takes much more time for subspecies to develop than the time humans have had away from africa.

Quote :

"Is sickle cell anemia not a genetically passed difference?"

Yes it is. People with sickle cell are immune to malaria. Where does malaria kill a lot of people? Africa and Brazil. People without sickle cell die more often and you end up with higher rates in those areas. White people still get sickle cell. Its just much more rare. There is nothing genetic that cuases black people to get sickle cell more. if white people were exposed to malaria more often, sickle cell frequencies would rise in their populations

Quote :

"True that a genetic basis hasn't been found -- so far -- for those 'races', but it is obvious that something codes for the way we are built, and why a Chinese couple's baby will never come out looking like a Nigerian, and vice versa."

Its called inheritance. Children inherit traits from their parents. Skin color is based on probability and dominance. There is a small probability of a child having a different skin color because both of the parents possess very little of the dormant alleles for that skin color.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3060907/Black-parents-give-birth-to-white-baby.html


[Edited on April 8, 2011 at 8:48 PM. Reason : j]

4/8/2011 8:46:25 PM

I don't see race. People tell me I'm white, and I believe them, because I own a lot of Jimmy Buffett albums.

[Edited on April 8, 2011 at 9:33 PM. Reason : ]

4/8/2011 9:32:09 PM

Quote :

" If you take two random people from Africa, we would call them both "black," but they could have less in common than with a "white" guy. "

Oh Nerdchick. You fail at genetics. And statistics. Believing this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what geneticists are trying to say when they make the case that "race doesn't exist". Also, this example is gonna be false at least 90% of the time.

What is true is that there is more genetic variability between 2 individual blacks than the genetic variation between the "average black" and the "average white". But here is the kicker: that is true for any 2 individuals on Earth, no matter the race. It's because of the vast gene pool and the inherent randomness of mutations. Aside from peculiar genes you inherited from your parents, you also have hundreds of mutations in your genetic code. If you average billions of people's genes together, of course the averages will have fewer variations than when comparing 2 individuals. Simple statistics dictates as much. But ultimately, it's meaningless. It's a bullshit example that has been misunderstood by many, including you.

4/8/2011 9:34:31 PM

Since it has been so widely misunderstood, I don't think it's very cool to come down so hard on Nerdchick.

I think I follow your explanation. But it doesn't seem like a "meaningless" or "bullshit" example to me. If the average "white" and average "black" have more in common genetically than two people of the same "race," doesn't that indicate that our traditional conception of race is misguided? What am I missing?

You mentioned the "fundamental misunderstanding of what geneticists are trying to say when they make the case that 'race doesn't exist.'" Well, what are geneticists trying to say when they make the case that race doesn't exist? Like, are they using the example that you explained to us as "bullshit?" Are the geneticists wrong as well?

[Edited on April 8, 2011 at 9:55 PM. Reason : I'm confused.]

4/8/2011 9:52:22 PM

I still think charts like this show a good way to statistically assign populations into "races": https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:Rosenberg2007.png

and given that attempting genetic clustering with 7 (as opposed to 6) clusters merely splits off the small population of Kalash, that seems to be evidence of essentially 6 great genetic clusters that may be colloquially known as races.

4/8/2011 10:28:24 PM

I don't think I'll ever be colloquially discussing genetic clusters.

AHA

4/8/2011 10:43:51 PM

I think it's pretty clear that the whole point of this thread is for the OP to plant the seeds so that he may later accuse someone as being a racist for simply acknowledging that black people get pulled over by cops more often than white people.

The whole premise of this thread is stupid. You can deconstruct someone's DNA as much as you'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that people with very similar physical traits are often held at an observable disadvantage as their majority counterparts.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that this guy would like to argue the veracity of the very statistics that show racial inequality. After all, how can we be so sure of all of the statistical data that's been collected throughout the years that indicate racism exists if the conceit of "race" is built on shaky ground? Right, indy? Right? Isn't this what you want? Isn't this the direction you really want to take this discussion? Isn't this really the philosophical shift you want to see?

Alas, an opportunity for racists to point their finger back at society and declare, "I'm not a racist! You are!"

Or am I mistaken? If so, then pray tell, what other semantic epiphany are you trying to share with the rest of us simpletons?

4/8/2011 10:48:54 PM

Quote :

"Read the first three words of the bold quote "IF SUFFICIENTLY DIFFERENT" That is not the case with any humans. 99+% similarity. Under isolation, it takes much more time for subspecies to develop than the time humans have had away from africa. "

Wow, I bolded the shit. And you still can't be bothered to read the entire 30 words I bolded. Let me try to help you.

Quote :

"If sufficiently different, two or more races can be identified as subspecies, which is an official biological taxonomy unit subordinate to species. If not, they are denoted as races"

Quote :

"IF NOT, THEY ARE DENOTED AS RACES"

Quote :

"IF NOT, THEY ARE DENOTED AS RACES"

Quote :

"IF NOT, THEY ARE DENOTED AS RACES"

Quote :

"IF NOT, THEY ARE DENOTED AS RACES"

Quote :

"IF NOT, THEY ARE DENOTED AS RACES"

No one said a goddamn thing about subspecies.

[Edited on April 9, 2011 at 11:49 AM. Reason : asdfasdf]

4/9/2011 11:48:47 AM

I guess I'll float my own thoughts about this thread... in general, I believe that genetics (and I suppose by extension race, subspecies, or whatever) create a theoretical limit in capabilities for individuals. However, comparisons and discussions of these limits are pretty much worthless because so few people will ever reach them: environmental issues ranging from nutrition, parenting, education, opportunities, and plain dumb luck will never give those individuals the opportunity to push to those limits.

Professional athletics are a good example. The general genetic pool of the nation probably has a much larger percentage of individuals who would be able to theoretically compete with or even exceed existing the best athletes today. However, few will ever get there for a variety of reasons: their fathers didn't start them playing golf at the age of three and talked football plays at the dinner table, they never developed the extreme self discipline and drive, they didn't have access multimillion dollar facilities and trainers, or they never even liked the sport and went off to be a programmer instead.

Discussions of race are interesting and all, but in the end, it has little to do with nearly all the human ills of this world. Historical circumstance, culture, collective experience, and resources have much more to do with it.

4/10/2011 5:57:25 PM

^^thats the only way biologically, there could be "race". People with different color skin is nothing to talk about. Just like hair color, eye color etc.

4/10/2011 8:14:44 PM

Quote :

"I think it's pretty clear that the whole point of this thread is for the OP to plant the seeds so that he may later accuse someone as being a racist for simply acknowledging that black people get pulled over by cops more often than white people."

Yup. Whether or not there are biological underpinnings of "race" or not, it exists in our society as a social construct and has a very real, undeniable effect on millions of people. Whether or not race exists does not bear on whether or not racism exists.

4/11/2011 10:51:02 AM

Probably the greatest evidence of the social construction of race is the "one-drop rule"

no goddam way a soundly biological notion of race would regard an octoroon as if she were 100% americanegro

[Edited on April 11, 2011 at 2:27 PM. Reason : or lump pinoys, spaniards, and mayans together as "Hispanic"

4/11/2011 2:26:22 PM

So is John Boehner an octoroon or what?

4/11/2011 2:29:59 PM

Someone, anyone, provide a coherent definition of race, and you'll win the thread.

4/11/2011 2:47:27 PM

That's irrelevant. Humans have done horrible things based on race and therefore, it must not exist.

4/11/2011 3:23:29 PM

^^^ He's an orangeroon.

4/11/2011 3:56:55 PM

There is not credible scientific basis for race on genetic terms, but that doesn't matter. Societal constructs don't need to be based off of genetics, or scientific evidence for that matter.

4/11/2011 4:37:34 PM

Even if we accept that race is purely a social construct, we still need to define our terms. What is race?

4/11/2011 4:39:12 PM

BridgetSPK, idk whether Böhner has any sub-Saharan ancestry

BTW for those not in the know, "octoroon" is a term once in common use for people with 1/8 sub-Saharan African ancestry and usually 7/8 European ancestry; the typical line of descent went like this (usually every "white person" involved was a man taking advantage of his position of privilege)...
The child of a negro and a white person was a mulatto
The child of a mulatto and a white person was quadroon
The child of a quadroon person and a white person was octoroon
...and I don't think the old terms went far beyond that, and they went out of fashion when the "one-drop rule" took hold, under which any identifiable black ancestry meant someone was black, even if ze looked white and had 15 white great great grandparents

4/11/2011 6:01:57 PM

^^^^AHA, seriously though, dude is mixed. I saw a picture of his sister, and she looks Latina--like definitely Indian. All she said was that they get their complexions from their mother. And all Boehner has said is that he shares his natural glow with his 11 siblings and his mother. Here he is in high school before tanning beds and self-tannning lotions: http://www.flickr.com/photos/52095034@N02/5326884951/ You can probably figure out which one he is without looking at the names. Anyway, since he hasn't openly identified as Italian or Greek or Spanish or something, I think it is likely that he is definitely part Indian and probably part African.

But, since he hasn't said anything about it, everybody just makes these crazy jokes about his skin color, and he just goes along with it like, "Yeah, my skin sure is funny. It's hard being a person of color...AHAHAHA..." But he actually is a person of color!



Sorry for being weird, guys. This just puzzles me. The Speaker of the House is obviously part American Indian, and nobody is saying anything about it. Instead of acknowledging this historic development, we're just making jokes about his skin color.

[Edited on April 11, 2011 at 6:08 PM. Reason : Smaller picture.]

4/11/2011 6:04:33 PM

ohh, when you said "Indian" I thought you meant like Jindal

Anyway I'm reminded of when I read that ol' Honest Abe was accused of having black ancestry

4/11/2011 6:07:47 PM

I definitely don't want to "accuse" him of being non-white. He's just blatantly and obviously mixed with something that so far is only being described as a "natural glow." This is one of his sisters:



I don't expect him to come out and reveal his heritage, but it's crazy that we've so openly made so much fun of his skin color.

[Edited on April 11, 2011 at 6:22 PM. Reason : Maybe he's gypsy or something?]

4/11/2011 6:19:12 PM

Maybe he's racist?

4/11/2011 7:06:09 PM

^^Even though it would have been more comfortable to reveal a non-white ancestry if he had been a Democrat, I mean we do have notable non-white Republican officeholders in the past decade, like former Senator Ben Knighthorse Cambpell of Colorado is Native American, Governor Piyush "Bobby" Jindal of Louisiana is Indian, one of the new Teabagger-backed Representatives is black, and there are numerous Hispanic members of the GOP caucus (mostly Cuban).

4/11/2011 7:30:40 PM

We don't even have a stable universal definition of species so the concept of race is simply a lost cause.

4/11/2011 8:00:48 PM

^^I know! That's why this is so weird.

And, again, he doesn't have to talk about his ancestry. It's his business or whatever.

But all the jokes and comments about his skin color make the situation a little strange.

4/11/2011 8:10:00 PM

Quote :

"Even if we accept that race is purely a social construct, we still need to define our terms. What is race?"

A classification based partly on physical appearance and partly on self- and community-identity. As a societal construct, it is necessarily abstract.

[Edited on April 12, 2011 at 11:17 AM. Reason : .]

4/12/2011 11:15:39 AM

Quote :

"Someone, anyone, provide a coherent definition of race, and you'll win the thread."

Define "chair"

4/12/2011 11:20:21 AM

Quote :

"or lump pinoys, spaniards, and mayans together as "Hispanic""

Hispanic is not a race.

4/12/2011 11:36:18 AM

Quote :

"A classification based partly on physical appearance and partly on self- and community-identity. As a societal construct, it is necessarily abstract."

Great, let's apply that definition. What race is an African child, born to native African parents, but raised by a white American family?

4/12/2011 12:09:54 PM

We told you it's a social construct. What race that person is depends on the perspective of the person/group making the assessment.

[Edited on April 12, 2011 at 12:17 PM. Reason : What else do you need than "social construct"? Are you not listening?]

[Edited on April 12, 2011 at 12:17 PM. Reason : .]

4/12/2011 12:17:18 PM