How many people still think there are races of humans?

[L. Coyote]

Anthropologists and most scientists are aware that race is a cultural idea, not a reality.
There are no actual "races" of people. People who think there are are "racists" in my view.

It is about time for humans to get with science, and recognize the facts. No such thing as race!!

[HeresyLives]

1. Pretty well everybody.

That bit of knowledge hasn't trickled down yet.

[ZombieHorde]

2. The races are

Human, Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Half-Orc, Ogre, Minotaur, etc.

[TheKentuckian]

7. That's was going to be my answer. You rock.

[Historic NY]

48. morans.

[ZombieHorde]

79. Poopy butt face. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. DnD 3 or 4?

Couldn't help.

[ZombieHorde]

97. I have not had to time to role play in a while, so 3 and some 3.5 are the last editions I have

played. Sigh.

[hlthe2b]

3. phenotypic expressions...actually

[Maru Kitteh]

5. ding ding!

correct.

[terrell9584]

4. You're actually wrong

There are actual scientific reasons and genetic reasons for why apperances vary. They may be a very small part of the human genome but the fact of the matter is it exists. Now, culture is an important factor but to deny that races do exist biologically is to deny science. Science has yet to come out and say that there is "no such thing as race"

[HeresyLives]

6. There is only one race - human.

We all have the same DNA.

And we all come from Africa.

[imdjh]

13. This week.

Next week they are going to find Atlantis under the ice.

[HeresyLives]

16. Well unless Atlanteans

are aliens, humans are all one race.

[optimal-tomato]

18. For someone with a Darwin avatar, you're butchering the science...

As others are saying: There are shared genetic traits among people whose lineage are traced to the same parts of the globe. Of course if you go back far enough, all lineages converge in Africa. But your denying the adaptation and genetic drift among (somewhat) isolated populations since then.

Like a ring species, there are no distinct "races" or barriers between groups of people, but there really are shared traits that can be used to trace a person's lineage. The only difference between humans and a true ring species is that there are no breeding barriers.

If the OP gets upset by the term "race" then I'm sorry. That's what we call the shared package of traits from various regions. If they're arguing that the stereotypical definitions of "white" or "black" or "asian" are not realistic depictions, and that the edges are blurred to the point where these terms lose meaning, I agree.

But "Irish" does mean something. "Persian" does mean something. And "Semetic" does mean something. Understanding the definitions, and using them properly, is linguistically useful and scientifically accurate.

EDIT: Reword for clarity.

[HeresyLives]

20. Talk to your own American Anthropological Association

The following message is from the American Anthropological Association:

“race” has no scientific justification in human biology.


http://www.aaanet.org/gvt/ombsumm.htm

'Irish, Persian, Semitic'....just means where groups lived for a long time, and adapted to the conditions.

[optimal-tomato]

35. Your link is hilarious.

Because of the biological connotations and misunderstandings associated with the term "race," the American Anthropological Association recommends eliminating "race" and replacing the term with a more correct term, such as "ethnic origins."

This is a political statement, not a scientific one. They still recognize that these differences exist, but want to change which term we use (which I don't necessarily oppose, for the same reasons). "Race" as it is used now is describing what the AAA wants to refer to as "ethnic group". It's the same thing.

You said: "'Irish, Persian, Semitic'....just means where groups lived for a long time, and adapted to the conditions."
And that's exactly what race means.

[HeresyLives]

40. Hey, it's your American association

I'm Canadian.

Which means where 7 generations of my family have lived.

And has nothing whatever to do with my 'race'...which is human.

[optimal-tomato]

60. If you want to call it "ethnicity", then go ahead.

But race is a thing. Too big a deal is made of it, culturally, but it exists.

I'd also sign on with the sentiment that our definitions are not flexible enough, are too influenced by culture/tradition, and that our understanding of biology is not complete enough that we can even make real definitions of what distinctions count as race-specific. All good.

But when you say: "my race is the human race" you're intentionally changing the historical (and somewhat dubious) definition of race.


On a purely hypothetical note: I sometimes wonder how our cultural understanding of these topics would have changed if, say, Neanderthals had survived into modern times. Or if there were other bipedal apes that were clearly not closely related to humans. Would Neanderthals be considered fully human despite the fact that their mRNA places them clearly outside of Homo Sapiens? Would our definition grow to include them, or shrink to exlude them?

I tend to think that a non-Sapiens human species would unite all of our species and make race/ethnicity a non-issue. Of course, I'm not sure I'd like what we'd do to those outside of our species...

[ContinentalOp]

68. Now that's just silly. You're the one who is trying to redefine race.

"You said: "'Irish, Persian, Semitic'....just means where groups lived for a long time, and adapted to the conditions."
And that's exactly what race means."

So the English, Irish, Scottish, Germans, French, etc are separate races? Ethnicity refers in part to cultural practices as well, while race only ever refers to surface appearances.

[WillyT]

24. Exactly !!!

:yourock:

[Ohio Joe]

31. I come from Jersey...

But I'm not sure it has been proven we are human anyway :rofl:

[imdjh]

37. Perhaps not, but there is a Jersey look. Is there not?

I realize that there is an entire half of the state which is something completely foreign to most people's idea of New Jersey, with farms and blonds and everything. But isn't there a "Jersey boy" and "Jersey girl" look?

[Ohio Joe]

50. ummm... no

We don't talk like Joe Piscopo either... You know, it is amazing how many times I've actually had people say to me in surprise at finding out I'm from Jersey "Really? You don't talk like Joe Piscopo". Honestly, I've never met anyone that does and I grew up just outside of NYC in the NE of Jersey.

[imdjh]

62. I had a roomie from Franklin Lakes who was blond, snobby, and spoke with Connecticut lockjaw.

That's why I allowed that there are some variations.

[Dogmudgeon]

15. Nonsense

It's like saying there are four races -- A, B, AB, and O. That even fits in better with "racial blood" mysticism. But science, it isn't.

The concept of race only has value within its own cultural context. There is NO biological or genetic value to it otherwise. Some day, there may actually be a useful scientific definition of what race is, one that subsumes cultural definitions and rejects pseudoscience. But it's not here today.

http://www.google.com/search?1gK&q=no+such+thing+as+race&btnG=Search">Google - No such thing as race -- fifty million opinions.

--d!

[terrell9584]

22. Then how is it that they have been able to divine the race of skeletons

[HeresyLives]

28. Putting together a puzzle.

Where was the skeleton found? What age is it? What can we determine about food and geography from the bones? What disease, or possibly ritual killing gave us the skeleton? Is there evidence of some kind of surgery?

All of these things narrow it down. Then DNA can relate it to the closest group...since variations are so tiny, this isn't easy to do. In fact we've often mistaken females for males and vice versa.

In the end, it's an educated guess.

[uppityperson]

84. I didn't know there was a race of skeletons, I thought skeletons were just our bones.

A Skeleton Race, cool!

[ContinentalOp]

19. Sure, the concept of race exists, just like the concept of hair color exists.

Now please define for me the scientific criteria than can be used to organize race or hair color into clear cut, concrete categories.

[optimal-tomato]

30. There is none.

But describe to me the specific point where a medieval bulldogs became modern bulldogs. There wasn't one specific point. They changed over time. But to deny that there is a difference is not helpful.

In the same way, some human phenotypes change among populations as you sample people from different regions. Denying those differences doesn't do anything helpful. Now if you want to challenge social conceptions of race as clear-cut categories, then I'm all for it...

[ContinentalOp]

58. Does the distinction between medieval bulldogs and modern bulldogs have any relevance to science?

Is it useful in any way? Can there be any possible scientific reason for caring if a dog is brown with white spots or white with black spots? Yes, there is a difference there. The difference is not in any way remarkable or relevant. My father has brown hair I have blond hair, and I'm a little bit taller. So what?

[L. Coyote]

89. I'll send back my degree and sk for my money back.

Oh wait, I'm so damn smart they paid me to go to school :rofl:

[Naturyl]

8. Race does exist, at least the way "race" is broadly understood.

Minor genetic differences and traits which result in certain varying characteristics among the human species do exist.

Acknowledging this fact does not make one a racist.

[imdjh]

59. true

[ContinentalOp]

61. That is not at all "the way race is broadly understood."

You admit that race is nothing but minor genetic differences, and yet there are probably thousands of minor genetic differences that we have no common words or concepts to describe or categorize. The popular concept of race is based on a few really obvious, easily observable differences, and ignores all of the rest. It's not a relevant scientific concept.

[Naturyl]

82. Are you a scientist?

If not, who decides what is and isn't a "relevant scientific concept?"

Look, race exists. This is the kind of stuff that gets the left painted as whacky. You can't just wish things like race and gender away. When progressives try to do that, it alienates the mainstream.

But hey, who am I to talk? I have some on "whacky" ideas of my own, so if you really believe this, then preach it.

[ContinentalOp]

86. Are you?

Groupings of physical features such as skin and hair color exist, but they don't always correlate with actual genetic differences that are useful to medical science. When we're talking about the concept of race, we're talking solely about popular perception. And that has historically led to situations where for example a parent could visually be identified as being black and their child could be light skinned enough to "pass".

Likewise, while there are important genetic similarities among people that can help us understand disease and other medical issues, there can also be two people who would both be considered "negroid" by the categories some here are advocating, and yet they could be completely dissimilar genetically.

[L. Coyote]

90. What? Now science is "whacky" ??

Who said anything about wishing gender away? Who's Waxing Whacky!

[imdjh]

9. The terminology is all over the place, but ultimately the answer is: yes there are races

It would probably be more accurate to say that there are breeds and cross breeds but we don't like to use animal terminology to describe humans. There also seems to be some disagreement on what constitutes a "species", because if you will look at some canine articles, they will refer to dog breeds as "species". In addition, we have false species (like polar bears) which are accepted as a species because they are significantly different though not reproductively excluded from the larger species.

Race is a cultural idea because race is generated by geography and culture. The "pure" Japanese are distinct from the "pure" Korean because of physical and cultural isolation, the same way that there is a noticable difference between various nations (or subraces) within a larger racial category. Endogamy has traditionally been more or less a feature of most established cultures throughout history. Endogamy can have the effect of isolation even in a cultural crossroads area like western Asia or North America.

So I would say that it's pretty well established that there are races, where I would disagree with some folks is that there are only three, or five; I think there are dozens of larger racial groups and perhaps a hundred smaller ones. Just like dogs.

[ContinentalOp]

63. But dog breeds are arbitrary categories defined by a dog breeding association.

Where is the human equivalent?

[imdjh]

69. Dog breeds and breeding predates kennel clubs.

The Greyhound is mentioned in the Bible. The Rottweiler dates to Roman times. Dogs themselves may be indiscriminate reproductively, but human beings for all of our bad reputation don't appear to be.

The smart assed answer to your question would be: Well we used to have this thing called society, and if you didn't know what you breed was they would remind you. I sort of borrowed that from Waiting For God.

But seriously, I read an article the other day that said that men with blue eyes were overwhelmingly likely to choose women who have blue eyes. After reading that article, I started paying attention in public, and it's actually noticeable. Keep your eyes out for blue eyed and blond couples, couples with blond children. There is a startling similarity with the adult couple. The question is if this is deliberate, or if it's just people seeking out similar mates. Opposites tend to be pretty rare too, to the point at which they stand out.

[ContinentalOp]

71. You're the one who used the dog example.

You seemed to be using dog breeds as proof that races exist. And yet you admit that dogs are indiscriminate in their breeding and that dog breeds only exist through human intervention and are only defined arbitrarily by humans.

So who defines the human races? It doesn't matter what aesthetic preferences any individuals may have, show me some actual scientific evidence. There's a well, documented fetish for asian women among some white guys. That isn't proof of a new race that's trying to emerge, it's merely a cultural and aesthetic trend.

[imdjh]

78. No, the sky isn't actually blue.

[ContinentalOp]

80. Well, I could actually measure the wavelength of light reflected from the sky...

arbitrarily set certain boundaries, and give names to the different wavelengths. And hey, what do you know, that's precisely what science does!

So how do you measure race?

[L. Coyote]

92. U: "Race is a cultural idea because race is generated by geography and culture."

Which is it? That's an oxymoranic phrase!

A cultural idea it is, but it has no biological basis.
Obama wasn't born in the USA is also a cultural idea, and likely a racist one too!!

[HeresyLives]

10. All of us

All of us are Kingdom Animalia, Phylum Chordata, Class Mammalia, Order Primates, Family Hominidae, Genus Homo, Species Homo sapiens, and Subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, all of us. It doesn’t matter if someone’s dark skinned, blue-eyed, tall, heavy-set, light-skinned, curly-haired, big-nosed, smart, web-toed, etc, etc, they are only about 0.1 percent genetically different from anyone else.

http://ideonexus.com/2008/01/21/theres-only-one-human-race/

[sorcrow]

11. There are races

I know. I'm a member of the rat race, and the rats are winning.

[napoleon_in_rags]

12. In my family, I can't tell you the race of many of my family members, because they are mixed.

So its a more and more useless concept as time goes on in the melting pot.

[HeresyLives]

14. Yes, eventually we'll all be brown.

[MellowDem]

21. I'm not so sure...

something tells me that patterns of immigration will continue to change as such that the dominant skin color of each continent will generally remain dominant. Only through continued massive human migration will skin colors in any area truly shift, and from the bleak future ahead of us, I think that localization will become more the norm again and kill off the truly "globalized world" that we see in futuristic movies before it actually happens.

Even then, it's not too hard to see that over time, skin color shift due to migration could shift back to what it was before simply because it is an evolutionary trait that will adapt (relatively quickly) to the available sunlight.

How young are modern humans and how fast did we develop such different skin tones in each part of the world dependant on sunlight?

[HeresyLives]

23. Well, 'something tells me' is not

scientific.

And since mass migrations are now underway, and will strengthen with global warming, we'll all be brown eventually.

[MellowDem]

26. It is an opinion...

based on science.

"We'll all brown eventually" is also not scientific. :eyes:

[HeresyLives]

29. Go mix the colors in your paint box,

and you'll see how scientific it is.

[MellowDem]

36. It turned black...

not brown. Guess you're wrong. ;)

[HeresyLives]

41. No it didn't.

And I've mixed enough paint to know. :)

[imdjh]

44. lol I "heard" that in Judge Judy's voice.

[HeresyLives]

47. You have exceptional hearing!

;)

[MellowDem]

52. psshhhaaa...

we'll have to agree to disagree.

[imdjh]

25. That sounds logical, but is it?

Look at the racial subgroups of sub-Saharan Africa. These people have presumably been somewhat in place since we crawled out of Olduvai Gorge, and there are no giant water barriers or modern other race infusions, but do they not have physically recognizable tribes which amount to micro-races?

We've been around a long time. How do we know that we haven't merged and resorted several times?

[HeresyLives]

32. We know we've been through at least one bottleneck,

in which the number of humans left was very small.

We multiplied again, and different characteristics expressed themselves, but we are still all one race.

'This is consistent with the Toba catastrophe theory which suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to c.15,000 individuals<5> when the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change. The theory is based on geological evidences of sudden climate change, and on coalescence evidences of some genes (including mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome and some nuclear genes)<6> and the relatively low level of genetic variation with humans.<5>

On the other hand, in 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.<7> This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age<8>'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck#Population_bottlenecks_in_evolutionary_theory

[napoleon_in_rags]

87. I don't know, genes mix in funny ways.

Like my nephew for instance has asian eyes, light brown/auburn hair. My understanding is that you never know when a recessive gene will pop up, and two brown hair hair brown eyes folks of mixed race could easily pop out a blond haired blue eyed kid, if those are recessive genes. If I remember high school biology I think its like this:

TT = Brown hair (or whatever)
tt = Blond hair (or whatever)

one TT parent + one tt parnet == Tt (Brown hair carrying recessive blond gene) kids. If two of them marry, you have 25% chance of blond kid, 50% chance of another kid carrying recessive gene.

[ContinentalOp]

17. Thank you! I feel like I've had to mention this too many times recently.

Somebody recently told me in an authoritative way that Jews weren't a race because there are only 3 races. I didn't ask her to explain what 3 those were. :crazy:

[LisaL]

38. Jews aren't a race.

Not even considered to be an ethnicity in US.
It's a religion.

[imdjh]

42. With the marriage rate outside the faith going the way it is, that might be true one day.

But Jews are traditionally an endogamous people, people who only marry members of their own tribe. Their culture allows for religious conversion yes, but it also confers Jewishness through heredity.

[LisaL]

45. Right. But US census doesn't consider it neither race nor ethnicity.

[imdjh]

51. In case you hadn't noticed, the US census is fucked up when it comes to race.

That is because it's corrupted by politics and politics and science don't mix.

The census has "asian" as a racial category. Asia has indigenous people of every major racial group (unlike Africa which only has one, but we all come from Africa because Richard Leakey said so). So if people are taking "Asian" literally and not as a euphemism for "oriental" or "mongoloid" then you have ethnic Israelis, Persians, Arabs, Aryans, Slavs, Huns, Hans, Hindus, Mongols, Australoids, Negritos, and a dozen other oids and ians all reporting as a false racial grouping called "Asian".

[LisaL]

53. Yea well.

When the time comes all of us will have to click a box.

[imdjh]

57. I'm going to be something exotic this time.

[L. Coyote]

95. I'm approaching the "too old" (to race) reply! LOL

I still reply to sex? with "yes" :rofl:

[ContinentalOp]

65. Wow, you sound like the person I was talking to. I dropped it at the time, but now I'll follow up..

So if "asian" isn't a race, what are the "major racial groups"?

[imdjh]

70. The scientific names for major racial groups are: if my memory serves

... World Book Encyclopedia:

Caucasoid
Negroid
Mongoloid
Australoid

[ContinentalOp]

75. So you're still using a classification from the late 1800s?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Huxley

[imdjh]

77. Have they invented new races?

Asian isn't a new racial category, it's a euphemism for "mongoloid" which people stopped using because it was considered a derogatory reference to Down's Syndrome and "oriental" which somebody decided was offensive along about 1982.

It's also an extremely inaccurate term. Asia is a continent, not a race. Asian Pacific Islander is also extremely inaccurate.

[ContinentalOp]

81. Ha. No, because race doesn't exist.

What is the scientific definition of mongoloid, and why is Asian an inaccurate category?

[HeresyLives]

46. Jews and Arabs are both semitic.

Only religion separates them.

[imdjh]

56. Yes, but they are distinct subgroups.

They have a common ancestor, but they have been substantially divided for a very long time. Mohawks and Mayans are both Indians, but they are not the same thing.

[ContinentalOp]

64. I wasn't arguing that they were.

This person simply offered this up out of the blue as some kind of established fact.

[LisaL]

72. Well it is an established fact.

[ContinentalOp]

76. Well, of course they're not a race because race doesn't exist as any sort of meaningful category.

That was my point. I wasn't focusing on the Jewish part of it so much as the fact that this woman seemed to be convinced that there were only 3 races (or maybe four. there's someone on this very thread who still believes it!).

[Naturyl]

83. I'd consider it a culture.

Plenty of people identify as "Jewish" who practice no religion, and are in some cases atheists.

[Iggo]

27. I bought into "The Human Race" at a very young age.

My being what is called "mixed race", and not really a full-fledged member of either one, has helped to reinforce it over the years. But the cultural and visual differences remain. To the Mexicans I'm half-white and to the white folks I'm half Mexican. I'm both but neither and therefore "other". And I'll never live long enough to see that change.

[HeresyLives]

39. But there are people like you everywhere!

We are all of 'mixed race' whether we know it or not, or whether we look like it or not.

Just like Obama, we are all 'mutts', as he said.

So say it loud, and say it proud...mixed is ALWAYS better. Cuz we are all the same biologically anyway, no matter what we look like.

[Iggo]

55. Well, yeah. There's that.

:toast:

[Art_from_Ark]

67. Yes, we're all "mutts"

That's why people here in Japan always ask me, who had heretofore been erroneously classified as a "Caucasian", what part of Japan I'm from. They would never suspect that I am not Japanese.

NOT!!!!

[imdjh]

74. Ultimately that would be true. If I were to have a DNA test, I would expect Turkish markers...

...from ten centuries ago. Other than that, there wouldn't be much diversity in my veins. Maybe when you get back to Roman rule in Britain.

[noamnety]

33. "I don't see race"

channeling Stephen Colbert

A lot of times when people start in on this line of thought, it tends to lead to dismissal of very real oppression based on racism. I don't see a lot of people who are victims of racism explaining that there's no such thing as race - because they're living the effects of their race every day. I do, however, see a fair amount white people claiming they are colorblind.

[ContinentalOp]

66. I don't think anyone would deny that there is a popular, cultural concept of "race"

but that doesn't mean that the concept has any scientific validity. To point that out is not to deny racism but to deny the archaic ideas that underpin racism.

[burning rain]

34. There is only one race -- the human race, which includes various species & ethnics.

I am a PhD, a Phoxnooz Doctor, and my word is the last word, beeyotch.

[HeresyLives]

43. Love the spelling.

:rofl:

[HeresyLives]

49. Well, there's your answer.

Pretty much everybody, cuz that bit of knowledge hasn't trickled down yet.

:hi:

[MADem]

54. A lot of people do. People confuse it with ethnicity. NT

[grantcart]

73. me

Every 4 years the have a big one called the Olympics


They also have races of dogs and cars too.

[uppityperson]

85. I have put down "three legged" under "race" in surveys. "sometimes" for sex also.

[redqueen]

94. Hehehehe...

at first I was surprised to see your answer... then I clicked and read. :P

[Romulox]

88. A lot of people upthread are arguing that race exists without defining it...

It can't merely mean "genetic variations", because people said to be of the same "race" also have genetic variations from one another. Nor can it be, as some have argued upthread, based on domicile in a particular political unit for X amount of time--nobody posits an "American" race, after all.

So, what, pray tell, is the "scientific" definition of "race" in human beings, and how does this differ from "race" amongst anything other animal?

[redqueen]

93. Far too many, sadly. (nt)

[marshall]

96. The same will be said of gender expression one day too

Two distinct genders rooted in whatever genitals the child is born with is a cultural creation.

[L. Coyote]

98. Gender is a biological reality. Race is a mental categorization without actual divisions

Nowhere near "the same" at all, except that the mental categories may not align with actuality.

[marshall]

99. That's why I used the term "gender expression"

That is NOT a biological reality. It is a creation of society.

[hootinholler]

100. I do!

Every 4th year it's on teh TeeVee! Them humans running around in circles to see who's fastest!

Sheesh! Why is this even an issue? It's harmless fun!

-Hoot