"Race may not even exist" - I've heard this a few times

[Taverner]

And I think there's some truth to this - but can someone lead me down the line of reasoning on this one?

Thanks

[ck4829]

1. The idea of "race"; that 3 colors, white, black, and asian exist, is a myth

What defines a certain "race" is simply subjective. A hundred years ago, I would have been called "Irish", and very few people would consider an Irish person to be white back then, not the case today.

Race is little more a social construct.

[Taverner]

3. Very true...

We are hammered with race at all angles - not just in the US but elsewhere.

Japanese and EU passports actually have a section for "race"

And one could not argue that "Race" is merely a collection of genetic characteristics

[Call Me Wesley]

83. EU Passports with a race section?

Well, that's news to me. Link?

[Taverner]

85. It doesn't??? Now I want to know for sure

Checking - pardon the inconvenience

[Taverner]

86. Nope - you are right - all apologies

Overall format
Paper size B7 (ISO/IEC 7810 ID-3, 88 mm × 125 mm)
32 pages (this number is given on the bottom of the last page)
Colour of cover: burgundy red
Cover page
Information on the cover, in this order, in the language(s) of the issuing state:

The words "European Union - EU" (before 1997: "European Community")
Name of the issuing state (similar typeface as "European Union")
Emblem of the state
The word "Passport"
First page
Information on the first page, in some of the official languages of the European Union:

The words "European Union"
Name of the issuing state (similar typeface to that of "European Union")
The word "Passport"
Serial number (may also be repeated on the other pages)
Identification page
Information on the (possibly laminated) identification page, in the languages of the issuing state plus English and French, accompanied by numbers that refer to an index that lists the meaning of these fields in all official EU languages:

1. Surname 2. Forename(s)
3. Nationality 4. Date of birth
5. Sex 6. Place of birth
7. Date of issue 8. Date of expiry
9. Authority

10. Signature of holder

Following page
Optional information on the following page (not available on all EU passports):

11. Residence 12. Height
13. Colour of eyes 14. Extension of the passport
15. Name at birth (if now using married name or have legally changed names)

Remaining pages
The following page is reserved for:
Details concerning the spouse of the holder of the passport (where a family passport is issued)
Details concerning children accompanying the holder (name, first name, date of birth, sex)
Photographs of spouse and children
The following page is reserved for use by the issuing authorities
The following page carries the index that translates the field numbers into the official languages of the EU
The following pages are reserved for visa
The inside back cover is reserved for additional information or recommendations by the issuing state in its own official language(s)

[anigbrowl]

109. EU passports do NOT have a section for 'race'

I am an EU citizen. I hold a current and recent passport.

The information therein is:

Number
Name
Nationality
Date & place of birth
Dates of issue and expiration
My picture
My signature

There is nothing about ethnicity or race. Please correct your false statement. edit: I see you already did. Thanks.

[Gman2]

2. There was a terriblew dyoff of humans, not that long ago, and so, there is very little genetic

diversity in the human genome. Likely far greater at one time.

[Taverner]

4. Really? Now this is f'ing intersting

Have any good reads you can point me to on that?

[HeresyLives]

13. Toba catastrophe population bottleneck

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

[Taverner]

15. So do we have any mitochondrial DNA in fossils from the ancestors that did not fare so well?

I'd be interested to find out what humanity "lost" in terms of memes

[HeresyLives]

19. You'd have to check Neanderthal and Hobbit DNA

for that. I haven't been following it closely enough to know.

[Taverner]

21. Oh yeah there was that "hobbit" fossil they found in Sumatra

Was that parallel evolution or was it a branch that shrunk after being "Galapagosed" on Sumatra?

[HeresyLives]

22. Yeah, a lot more is known about it now,

and it seems to be legit. Another branch altogether.

[4lbs]

95. I believe scientists have already compared some mDNA from early human ancestors.

For example, Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthals). They compared mDNA from Neanderthal fossils to human DNA and found a 99% similarity.


Here's more info, from the Human Genome Project.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/humanmigration.shtml

<snip>
Neanderthal DNA sequences were found to be about 99.5% similar to the modern human genome, indicating that modern humans and Neanderthals had a common ancestor about 700,000 years ago. The genetic difference between Neanderthals and modern humans, however, was on average about three times greater than the genetic difference between any two modern humans. Studies of the mtDNA of nearly 80,000 people found no traces of mutations known to be common in Neanderthal mtDNA. These differences indicate no significant interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans after the two species diverged.
<snip>

[Berry Cool]

10. "Dyoff"?

You mean, this stuff on our skins that makes us think we're different colors is just dye?

[Enrique]

5. it does not exist as a biological thing

but if they deny it exists as a social thing, they can't be serious.

[Taverner]

7. Well there IS a term called race in Biology

For example there are several "races" of Western Honey Bee - but the more common term is sub-species

[iris27]

111. Well, yeah, but not in humans.

We're all homo sapiens sapiens.

[HeresyLives]

6. There's no such thing as race.

http://diversityinc.com/content/1757/article/3062/

[Taverner]

9. Thanks!

[Orsino]

69. If there is a genetic definition, we haven't found it yet.

It seems rather foolhardy to pretend that these very real cultural distinctions don't exist...but revering them is just plain dangerous.

[mzteris]

8. race is a "social construct" -

that's what my sociology teacher told us.

Here are a couple of links about it:

http://anthropology.net/2008/10/01/race-as-a-social-construct/

http://www.amazon.com/Social-Construction-Ethnicity-United-States/dp/0321011333

http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/papers/chang_dodd.html

[ShortnFiery]

11. I'm becoming consigned to the following adage:

With regard to the highest Socio-Economic echelon: Green is the only color that matters.

[texastoast]

From what I read, "race" has to do with adaptation

The latest I heard is that all of us have a specific mitochondrial DNA marker that originated in a tribe in Africa (everyone's long ago cousins). Those people traveled north and across and natural selection did the rest.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/participate.html

[G_j]

12. Here is a book about that

The Invention of Race (Roman Rhetoric and) The Columbian Turn in Modern Consciousness
Agathon Books: Lander, WY,1998, by A.A. Huemer

the author says the word "race" does not even appear in history until the time of Christopher Columbus

[Taverner]

16. " the word "race" does not even appear in history until the time of Christopher Columbus"

I have heard that before - it was a new word at the time...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. It was hardly a new concept, regardless of etymology.

[Political Heretic]

14. Ethnicity is more meaningful, yet still cultural

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. There's no scientific basis for the modern concept of race.

There's also no scientific basis for the modern concept of being American, March Madness, the HCR bill, or Democratic Underground either, that doesn't mean these things don't exist.

Why people think race doesn't exist is beyond me. Wishful thinking maybe. Or this "color-blindness" RW shit.

[Taverner]

18. Homo Sapiens is a visual creature

We have evolved to trust what we see more than what we think

[HeresyLives]

20. We all come from Africa, and all have the same DNA.

There is only one 'race'....human.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Therefore, there's no such thing as America, right?

Since we all come from Africa?

Yes, there's such a thing as America. Yes, there's such a thing as DU. Yes, there's such a thing as race.

No, we don't all have the same DNA.

Yes, we're all the same species.

No, we're not all the same race.

[G_j]

24. try reading reply #6 nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. I read it. It's wrong.

See post #17 for an explanation.

[HeresyLives]

27. Sorry, only one race, human.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. Being purposefully obtuse won't change the fact that there are numerous races.

I don't know why diversity scares people so much.

[Taverner]

33. If there are numerous races, how would you define each?

[HeresyLives]

36. Sorry, none. Take the non-science elsewhere Dr Woo-Woo.

Culture ensures we have plenty of diversity.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. As I clearly stated in my original post, this is not a scientific argument.

Try to keep up.

[HeresyLives]

41. Yes, actually it is.

Scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as race.

Since you like Wikipedia so much:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. No shit.

That's exactly what I said in my original point, and you'd have read that if you weren't as obtuse as you accuse me of being.

There's no scientific basis for the concept of race.

But race still exists, and that's why it's not a scientific debate.

[HeresyLives]

54. Race does not exist scientifically, as I said.

I am not responsible for your prejudices.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. You said race doesn't exist period.

That's different from their being no scientific basis.

[HeresyLives]

57. It doesn't.

Like I said, I'm not responsible for your personal prejudices.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. And I'm not responsible for your denials.

It's not prejudiced to claim that race does not exist, HeresyLives.

I mean, I know there are all sorts of white people falling over themselves to complain that organizations that recognize race, the NAACP being a prominent example, are racist. It's usually those same people who like to pat themselves on the back for being "color blind" too.

[HeresyLives]

61. You aren't even responsible for your low IQ.

You are, however, responsible for the semantic game-playing, so kindly stop it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. If I've got a low IQ...

why is it every debate we get into end up looking the same way? With you generally embarassing yourself?

[HeresyLives]

65. I'm sure your low IQ sees it that way.

Nobody else does.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

68. Well, let's see...

There's this thread where you argue that there's no sociological concept of race even though everybody agrees that there is.

There was that thread where you claimed that NASA invented all sorts of things like MRI and CAT scans and velcro, even after being shown that they didn't. I suppose that most people may not know who invented what and when, but will probably, unlike you, admit that they were wrong after being proven that they were wrong.

There's that absolutley crazy woo woo thread about quantum mechanics and Immanuel Kant and "Avatar" which was just some nut randomly arranging words like "algorithm" that had absolutely nothing to do with science at all.

There's that thread where you were arguing the Chilean earthquake was caused by global warming. I didn't argue with you in that one, I just like it as a good example of woo woo.

And then there were a few others I'm forgetting. But I'm sure they were just as one sided.

Denial's not just a river in Egypt.

[HeresyLives]

77. No, sorry. I won't go along with misquotes either.

Nor your memories of past threads.

Especially ones I was never on, since I've never had occasion to mention Avatar, Kant or algorithms on this site.

You are definitely smoking your corn syrup.

[Taverner]

52. A sociological argument perhaps

But you could divide watchers of "LOST" and "Survivor" into different groups.

Hell, in sociology, the sky's the limit! (this is not to say sociology is a bad science. just that the groups are by definition, user defined sometimes)

[Taverner]

29. OK mister smarty pants - riddle me this then...

What is race?

What is the Negroid Race?

What is the Caucasian Race?

What is the Asian Race?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. The dictionary defines race as...

"a group of persons related by common descent or heredity...

an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups. "

:shrug:

[Taverner]

35. By that definition, would President Obama not be Negroid nor Caucasian but a 3rd race?

I know I may be getting into silly season here, but it makes a point, no?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. Obama's black.

And therein is the source of an awful lot of sturm and drang.

[Taverner]

50. But biologically there is that Roulette of inherited characteristics

And 99% of those between his mom and his dad match

Reading up on the Toba explosion - we really did dodge a bullet there

And think about that - who survived that? This was before the ag rev. So it would be the "conniving" humans that we are that survived.

And those descendants became us.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. Biology doesn't enter into this.

Again, this is not a scientific argument.

And the Toba bottleneck doesn't have anything to do with any of this other discussion either.

[G_j]

71. Biology doesn't enter into this. why not?

white supremacists and other racists think it does. One point of pointing out that race doesn't exist, is that there are people who preach certain groups are inferior.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

73. This may be a shock to you, but white supremacists and racists are wrong.

"One point of pointing out that race doesn't exist, is that there are people who preach certain groups are inferior."

You can argue against racism without arguing that race exists.

In fact, it's usually the people who argue that race doesn't exist that also argue that racism doesn't exist.

[G_j]

102. duh

thanks for telling me that they're wrong.

:banghead:

[HeresyLives]

28. American is a nationality, not a race.

[Taverner]

31. Yes but HFPS was arguing that American is a distinction that has no basis in biology

Yet is very real

HOWEVER - My contention is that if it has no basis in biology, and only in our minds, what good is it?

[HeresyLives]

46. It doesn't.

There is nothing in the DNA of Americans ...who come in all colors...to set them apart from anyone else.

It's a nationality, nothing more. An accident of geography.

If you'd been born in England, or if you emmigrated there, you'd be English. Same with any other country.

[Taverner]

53. I agree with you 100%

I just want to keep everything focused :)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. No shit. Really? Next you'll be telling me that DU is a website.

[HeresyLives]

39. It appears I'll have to explain your ass and your elbow.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. I'd like to try to see you explaining anything about anything.

You appear to have a problem with the written word.

[HeresyLives]

42. Nothing can be explained to a brick wall.

And yours stretches as far as the Great Wall of China.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. There's no scientific basis for a "Great Wall of China"

[HeresyLives]

48. I think you've been SMOKING corn syrup.

[Sebastian Doyle]

60. I think he mainlines the shit, actually.

Just like Chimpy with his cocaine, it's easy to come by when you work for the biggest dealer on the planet.

[HeresyLives]

62. LOL sounds like it!

He's come up with some dillies on here before, but this is the most bizarre one yet!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

64. It must be all the fluoride.

:rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=230902&mesg_id=231155

[Ignis]

123. I don't care who you are...

This amuses.

:thumbsup:

[fishwax]

67. exactly

Socially constructed does not equal nonexistent.

[HeresyLives]

78. People 'believe' in all manner of things.

But like the concept of 'God', believing in it doesn't make any 'God' real.

[fishwax]

82. whether or not there's any such thing as god, there is certainly such a thing as religion

And even though there isn't a scientific basis for race, race clearly exists as a social construct, with real consequences in the lives of individuals and communities.

[HeresyLives]

89. Only in some societies.

Islam has all colors. So does Judaism. So does Christianity in fact.

Some countries are predominently one 'color'...like China or India...but most countries today are mult-colored.

The problem isn't the color...it's the prejudice.

[fishwax]

93. I didn't say it was the same everywhere

The concept differs over space and time (as social constructs tend to do).

"The problem isn't the color...it's the prejudice."

I certainly agree that prejudice is the problem.

[HeresyLives]

96. You have no idea how odd this sounds to me.

Perhaps 'race' plays a bigger part in the US than what I realized.

I've never seen an all-white or all-English Canada, and I'm 63, so I've never thought about it.

We certainly have racists, but people seem to be either baffled by, or contemptuous of them.
.
Thank you

[Ignis]

125. Hi, HFPS. Why are you mixing woo in with your science?

Look, I'd no more ask Hallmark to stop publishing greeting cards with the word "love" in them than I'd ask the NAACP to stop using the word "race" in their press releases, but let's not wallow in sophistry because the argumentum ad populam is a low-hanging fruit.

I'm not the sort of pedant who will bluster and correct someone who geocentrically claims, "the sun rises :eyes: in the west," but I think your perpetuation of the sub-species myth does more harm than good.

Have scientists done a poor job (or been given poor opportunity in mainstream culture) to refute the link between phenotype and sub-species? Sure. But why cling to 19th-century models and terminology when they're inaccurate and misleading?

I say, do your part for Science, man! :thumbsup:

[DavidDvorkin]

43. The meaning of the word has changed throughout history

People used to talk of the English race, the French race, etc. Some people still talk of the Jewish race. In previous eras, ethnic identification was much more important than skin color.

It may or may not be a convenient way to classify people, but it doesn't have any biological meaning, and its modern usage - skin color - is fairly recent.

[Warpy]

44. It's all melanin and we're all different shades of the same color

and the characteristics we associate with one "race" or another can be found across all human populations in various combination.

The only race is the human race. The sooner we figure that out, the sooner we can realize all these other divisions are equally artificial and we can join together to focus on the real problems.

[Gman2]

49. It's more like latitudinal variations. More than just melanin, bone structure.

[Taverner]

75. Although despite this, Mitochondrial Eve is not very far behind

Which means these changes are very small changes, in the span of humanity.

Familiarity breeds the ability to distinguish greater variations.

[Warpy]

76. Not really, since all variations exist throughout the human population

at all latitudes.

Again, race is a fiction used to artificially divide the people who should be uniting against the power structure.

[HeresyLives]

56. Yup, I'm Celtic, as 'white' as it gets outside

being albino. But actually I'm beige, which is just a lighter shade of brown.

[yawnmaster]

105. That would mean my race specifier invention is worthless...

I propose that we use a simple detector that can be applied to the skin and which outputs a 24bit RGB value.
yes, there are a potential of over 16 million races that way, but at least one would know exactly where they are in the race range.
And really, practically, there wouldn't be 16 million - ever see a cyan person?? many of the values would be impossible for humans, right now.

And yes, I know your race might vary depending on how much time you've spent in the sun, but we can help limit that by testing behind the ear. Also testing over time and averaging might be a good idea.
Some might say 12 bits (4bits each for rgb) would work better, but that only gives a range of about 4000 races (much less considering many colors are biologically impossible). I like more resolution than that, and we can break up the 24 bit range into regions if we need to.

It makes it so easy to categorize people - we would need to know nothing of their background. Even a color picture would work to specify their race!






-note to readers: this is satire if you haven't figured it out-

[Warpy]

118. Yeah, I look like a lily white generic northern European

until you look closely and realize I'm lactose intolerant and have the flushing reaction if I try to drink alcohol, among other things.

My ancestors were sailors, scholars and itinerant musicians.

[David Zephyr]

51. We are all cousins. There is no such thing as race.

.

[L. Coyote]

66. Can you provide a single bit of reasonng that races exist?

You know, scientific reasoning, not something from the Glenn Beck zone.

[Taverner]

70. Good point

Sociological Identification is the only place it "exists" - and in Sociology you can group anything you want. "Red Headed Left Handed Watchmen" for example

[L. Coyote]

72. Why should we hve to defend reason? Let those who have false ideas try to defend their thinking

One of the tactics of spreading lies is to place those who know the truth on the defensive. That's BS

[Taverner]

74. Well there is the argument for it being a Sociological Grouping

But thats all it is - a sociological grouping based in our minds - like Raider fans or D&D DMs.

[HeresyLives]

79. A 'belief', mostly restricted to those who have to have

an 'other' to blame, or feel superior to.

Skin color makes no more difference in human beings than hair color, or eye color.

[Taverner]

84. No it makes no more difference - but in the eyes of others, it has value as a descriptor

Although so does Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Masters as a classification

[HeresyLives]

87. LOL oh there are lots of ways you can differentiate

amongst humans...but most of it is cultural.

[Taverner]

88. Agreed

Its all in what your hypothesis is

Problem is, "Race" has been used by too many false studies. They are making connections where there are none

It would be much easier to do studies based on SocioEconomic Background.

[FarCenter]

80. From DNA analysis, you can tell quite accurately where most people came from

There are roughly 5 races.

sub-Saharan Africans

Europeans,

Asians,

Native Americans, and

Austronesians.

Using principle component analysis of DNA variations, these can be quite easily distinguished, although some populations in places like central Asia show definite mixing, in that case European and Asian.

It has mainly to do with where your ancestors spent the winters during the last glacial maximum about 18,000 years ago. Since then especially Europeans, Asians and Native Americans expanded out of certain refugia and went on to populate large areas that became ice-free during the Holocene.

[HeresyLives]

81. You can tell what their ancestors adapted to.

And from there you can make an educated guess...and still be completely wrong.

[FarCenter]

90. You can tell precisely what your Y and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups are

Which come from the paternal and maternal line of ancestors. The rest is a mishmash of genes from the 2^N ancestors N generations ago as modified by the slow rate of mutation.

People did not migrate or mate outside of their immediate locale all that much until fairly recently. Even today, in most parts of the world there are large sedentary populations that are not very much affected by migration. In the US we have weird ideas about race since there has been a lot of immigration. Things would be different for varous tribals in India or for people living in various parts of southeast Asia. Myanmar is, for example, a mosaic of tribal people.

So DNA analysis is pretty accurate for the great majority of peopl.

[HeresyLives]

98. Not something that comes up on a first date,

or in a friendship I'm sure. :)

History shows humans have travelled globally since the earliest times.

Natives...'Indians' ...in NA come from Asia.

Vikings were in Canada a long time before Columbus showed up in the Caribbean.

People in China have been found mummified in tartans.

I think there is far more 'mixing' than we are aware of. We are in the early days of DNA testing as yet.

[FarCenter]

100. Swapping DNA on a first date is probably a bad idea

[HeresyLives]

101. LOL agreed, in more ways than one.

[Taverner]

91. Agreed

But the probem again is "Observer Error". We are a visual species, yet appearance in humans doesn't account for as much as we think it does.

[FarCenter]

94. Appearance is a poor indicator -- that's why you need to do the DNA analysis

Particularly for people who have ancestry from different parts of the world. You need to look at single nucleotide polymorphisms of a variety of genes in order to characterize the percentage of ancestry from each geographic region.

[Xithras]

92. Technically, there are 9 morphological/genetic subspecies of humans.

Humanity is a single species with multiple morphological variants introduced by genetic drift and localized selective pressures. The variations are relatively minor, given the rather short time window that has existed for divergence. It's theoretically possible that humans could have branched into multiple species if we'd had a few hundred thousand more years to work on it, but modern mobility has ensured that true subspeciation will never occur.



The length of the forks also demonstrates the relative length of time that each population group has existed. White people, as you can see, are an extremely recent evolutionary invention.

[FarCenter]

99. That gives the general picture, although I think there's been a lot more refinement since '94

In '94 there was not the number and geographic dispersion of samples.

I think that it has been pretty well established that the Pacific Islanders originated in Taiwan, migrated to the Philipines and then South and East across the Pacific, picking up an admixture with New Guinea populations on the way.

Also, there has been a lot of work on Siberian populations and the likely ancestry of American Indians.

South India tribals, Andaman Islanders, and similar tribes in Southeast Asia are the probably remnants of the population that dispersed from Africa via the Indian Ocean coast all the way to Australia.

[FarCenter]

103. There are probably also multiple races of subSaharan Africans

Most likely Niger-Congo, Nilotic, and South African click-language speakers are likely as differentiable as some of the other 8 groups. There was a recent paper that compared the DNA of click speakers with a Bantu language speaker in South Africa.

[RainDog]

97. Race came about as a construct from "jumping" from one location to another

...as opposed to land routes.

If you were to travel from Iceland down through Europe, you would find that, on average, people in one area of the world have similar skin tones because their ancestors adapted to the level of sun available.

people have lighter skin to take in more sunshine/vit. d. and have less need for protection from equatorial-levels of sunshine.

people have darker skin to protect against more sun.

anyway, back to that Icelander - going from there to Italy and Greece and Spain, etc. people whose ancestors were from the area have more melanin in their skin.

over to the middle east and they're also darker skinned. In Africa, the same.

If that person in Iceland went east to west, they would find people who have features identified with asians.. including that person who came from Iceland. the land bridge or whatever that allowed migration long ago allowed migration in all directions. Native Americans have features that showed a common ancestral tie with people from Siberia, etc, just as that Icelander would have common ancestry.

If that person went from the middle east to India, he or she would find darker-skinned people with features that show a common ancestry with those from the middle east and with those in Africa.

"Race" came about as adaptations to climates.

Jews and Muslims in the middle east are closely related to one another. Their differences are political, not racial.

If you were that Icelander and you were traveling on foot, you would find gradations of change, not "white" and then "brown." There would be variations all along the way that also demonstrated the effect of migration and settlements over tens of thousands of years.

We don't think someone with blue eyes is of a different race than someone with brown eyes or green eyes. But, like skin color, these are variations on a theme. And those variations come out of the same genetic mix. There is no "brown-eyed race."

Whether or not a group has green eyes or brown eyes has to do with long-term populations in an area (and traits that, again, encouraged survival in one climate v another) and things like dominant and recessive genes... someone may have all the genes for blue eyes and white skin but have brown eyes and brown hair for the same reason your earlobe is attached or not. One gene tends to be expressed more often while the other is there but not seen... genotype v phenotype.

If you look at DNA of Americans, we are, thankfully, scrapper mongrels with mixes of DNA from all over that represents our heritage of immigration and assimilation.

Race is a social construct.

[Locrian]

104. fascinating

All this talk reminds me of this episode: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Let_That_Be_Your_Last_Battlefield_%28episode%29

[HeresyLives]

107. One of the many things I loved about Star Trek

I didn't even notice the difference until it was pointed out at the end...an experience I'm sure everybody shared.

And yet how many had died over this stupidity?

[jdp349]

106. Race maybe a social construct, but abstracting it doesn't make it any less real

it's the same as arguing that countries don't exist because borders are just lines an map.

If something exists as a social construct than it exists, the state in which it exists doesn't change anything.

[HeresyLives]

108. Only to people who believe in it.

Social constructs can appear and also vanish on a moment's notice...so they were never there to begin with.

It's all just 'belief'.

[jdp349]

112. sure it's an arbitrary grouping of physical characteristics

Coupled with other various visible cultural factors. But when enough people treat something non real as real that Incorporeal entity can't be disposed of by denying its existence because it is so very real by the impact belief in its existence has.

The ultimate goal is to minimize the harmful impact race has on human affairs, a strategy conceived on the notion that it isn't real will likely be an ineffective one. Whether it exists or not is irrelevant in devising a strategy to deal with racial issues. A social construct could theoretically vanish on a moments notice but it won't because the concept is in many ways self reinforcing and it would be impossible to devise a plan that would have the mentioned effect. You're better off working to improve racial harmony.

I'm not arguing for some sort of "pinnochio effect", I'm trying to articulate ultimately that most people will make the incorrect leap that because race is a social construct it is somehow less important to understanding and analyzing human affairs prior to this realization.

[HeresyLives]

113. I don't know of any two nations

that are arguing over race. I'm not sure there were any two nations that ever did.

Religion, yes. Power, money, land, yes.

Race...even in the broader sense of color...no.

WITHIN a country is another matter. 'Fellow-citizens' will argue over anything.

Americans can't tell the difference between a Hutu and a Tutsi ...but Rwandans certainly can.

[CBR]

114. I agree JDP. It may be a social construct but that construct has

severe implications in real lives. As long as the construct impacts social norms, values, relations and policy, it continues to have disparate impacts, regardless of biological facts.

[HeresyLives]

115. Well...all social constructs do that

And we have thousands of social constructs.

[CBR]

122. Exactly why when discussing things like the census we cannot ignore them. nt

[HeresyLives]

124. I do.

[Ignis]

110. "Race" has no more place in science than does "The Invisible Hand."

They both "exist"--inasmuch as they are mental constructs created by and discussed by humans--but neither has a scientific basis. They are both examples of 19th-century philosophy. IMHO, neither has a place on a government census.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7939839#7941253

To wit: Morphology =/= culture/sub-culture/ethnicity.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

119. No, the invisible hand is meaningful

It's not at all like something uber-flimsy like race.

The invisible hand is a metaphor for a mathematical process that nobody denies. If someone then says that price discovery involves virtue or morality they're nuts, but the underlying concept is sound and infinitely testable.

It is important to separate ideas from their craziest interpretations.

For instance, evolution has been the topic of more mysticism and moralizing and general gibberish than almost any idea, but evolution itself isn't the problem.

But unlike evolution and market economics (which are almost the same idea, actually) race started out as an arbitrary social concept. It isn't a perverted scientific idea but rather a social idea that was then pervertedly treated as scientific.

[Ignis]

121. Not the best example, I'll admit. It has a useful role in economics.

But I'm glad we agree on the OP issue: Race is a flawed, "perverted" construct--based on outmoded and discredited science--that has little use in either the "hard" sciences or the sociological ones, because it stubbornly blurs the lines between morphological traits and cultural origins.

:toast:

However, I'm not sure I follow your extension of the metaphor into the theory of evolution. Mind spelling out for us non-economists how evolution and market economics are "almost the same idea, actually?" :)

[RoyGBiv]

116. Read this book ...

Race: The History of an Idea in the West by Ivan Hannaford.

http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0801852234?tag=betteraddons-20

Whether race exists depends on your terms. As a concept/idea/social construction, then, yes, races exist.

There is no meaningful scientific basis for it though, and ironically, the strained attempt to define "race" in scientific terms is what created the social construction in the first place.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

117. Race both exists and doesn't exist

On a molecular biology level there's nothing magic about the social distinctions we draw.

People we associate as members of a socially defined race do have some genetic similarities but nothing so distinctive as to constitute a sensible boundary.

Societies try to draw lines but there are no lines, just gradations and spectra.

That said, the imperfect social race divisions we have made up do offer some information about kinship. People who share certain physical characteristics are usually more closely related.

Sub-species are real and useful categories when we talk about animals. Geographic seperation does create distinct differences in groups where drawing lines makes sense.

But humans do not have nearly the level of sub-speciation we would need to justify the lines people have drawn over history. We are very inter-group breeding creatures and we all came from the same small group not so long ago. (In evolutionary terms.)

There is nothing scientifically meaningful about the category 'caucasian' but once the category is created it wouldn't be surprising to find that caucasian people are likelier organ donors for caucasian people than are east asian people. Each of us is more similar to some folks than other folks in various ways, but it does not follow from that that there are categories.

Call 1-5 a race and 6-10 a race. 7 will be closer to 9 in the trait "size" than it is to 3. But that doesn't mean that there is any actual sensible line between 5 and 6. 5 and 6 are not different than 7 and 8 in terms of difference.

Human differences: genetically real. Kinship: genetically real. Race as we think of it: not genetically real.

[moc]

120. Race is a social construct; here are some readings/resources you may find helpful..

Some academic, some just entertaining. FWIW, as a public health professor, I have frequently lectured in my classes about the social determinants of health, including race as a social construct.

*There was a special issue of the journal Nature Genetics that dealt with the whole issue of the concept of "race" using data from the Human Genome project. Not being a geneticist myself, much of it was way over my head technically, but I could follow enough of it. It was very interesting. Here are some of the most relevant cites from that issue:

Tishkoff, S.A., & Kidd, K.K. (2004). Implications of biogeography of human populations for 'race' and medicine. Nature Genetics, 36 (11), S21-S27.

Jorde, L.B., & Wooding S.P. (2004). Genetic variation, classification and 'race'. Nature Genetics, 36 (11), S28-S33.

Mountain, J.L. & Risch, N. (2004). Assessing genetic contributions to phenotypic differences among 'racial' and 'ethnic' groups. Nature Genetics, 36 (11), S48-S53

*A very interesting essay from Alternet:

Kaplan, E.A. Black like I thought I was. Available from http://www.alternet.org/story/16917. Posted October 7, 2003.

*A nice lit review by David Williams. An oldy but a goody:

Williams, D. R., Lavizzo, R., & Warren, R. C. (1994). The concept of race and health status in America. Public Health Reports, 109, 26-41.

*Another nice reference:

Herman, A. A. (1996). Toward a conceptualization of race in epidemilogic research. Ethnicity & Disease, 6, 7-20.

One of the things I like in the Herman paper is the citation of the "legal definition of a white person" from apartheid South Africa:

“The legal definition of a white person was one who ‘in appearance is obviously a white person.’ In deciding whether a person is obviously white, ‘his habits, education and speech, and deportment and demeanour in general shall be taken into account… Moreover, a person shall not be deemed to be generally accepted as white unless he is so accepted in the place he resides, works, and mixes socially.'”

*Tom LaVeist has published some nice papers on the issue:

LaVeist, T. (1994). Beyond dummy variables and sample selection: What health services researchers ought to know about race as a variable. Health Services Research, 29, 1-16.

LaVeist, T. A. (1996). Why we should continue to study race...but do a better job: An essay on race, racism and health. Ethnicity & Disease, 6, 21-29.

Hope this helps.

[Taverner]

129. Thanks! Perfect!

[deaniac21]

126. Tell that to NASCAR.

[Ignis]

127. A Google search agrees with you.

I get NASCAR in 6 hits. :D

[deaniac21]

128. There you go.