How many races do the dolls at your kids' daycare represent?

[This is The End]

The "denial" of race is msotly because they do not exists except in a very very subjective way, their definition varying from person to person.

I'm not quite sure that I agree with that quote. Isn't there a scientific definition?

It was used in reference to a DNA Haplogroup test in a Discover magazine article that I referred to in a previous "Universal common ancestry" thread. The races (ethnicities, if you prefer) migration through history was tested and charted.

I remember it being specifically used in one of the conclusions from the testing:

Human races are evolving away from each other. We are getting less alike, not merging into a single mixed humanity.

I have never understood why it is soooooo important to sort people by melanine content really. I find much more important to sort them by non visible criteria (like trustable/not trustable, has already commited a crime/never has etc...).

Did you see the latter part of my post you quoted? I thought that, scientifically, race means the same thing as ethnicity which doesn't just include "melanine content".

That would fall under the "characteristics".

It was one of 4 criteria: "as distinguished by customs, characteristics, language, common history". As seen in the chart linked to above.

So do you agree that we should use the word ethnicity instead?

 

[RandFan]

I'm firmly behind the reasoning that we should ignore race completely, but I am a bit confused by this race denial act. Is there some other word we should be using? I just don't get it.

There is as much genetic diversity between any two people of the same "race" as there is between any two people from different races? So what exactly is "race"?

Genetic Studies Show Race Is Not A Scientific Concept

Are we just being coy as a means to ignore race completely?

I don't think so, no. I think we are trying to be accurate. As a means to understand biological differences in people race has little bearing. Two points though.

1. Since there are superficial differences that tend to show markers for cultural differences there is some reason to use non-ethnic distinctions to track cultural evolution.
2. There are pathologies that are more likely associated with groups that we often think of as racial i.e. Cicle Cell Anemia

Should we use the word ethnicity instead?

It's not that simple. I think we should phase out the word race. I don't know what word will replace it. National origin perhaps. Ethnicity has more to do with culture as you note further in your post and there are valid reasons to track groups of people.

 

[Cavemonster]

This discussion comes up again and again, and to me, it feels like a combination of Loki's wager ( If you cannot define categories neatly then none must exist) and outdated definitions of race as high level genetic categories.

Look at the children in this image.

I am going to bet that every poster who believes race does not exist could still tell me which child is white and which is black.

And yes, this difference is just one of many characteristics, like intelligence, upbringing, genes, language, economic status, favorite food. But it is a difference. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have been able to pick out which was which. We can say that it should hold the same lack of importance as hair color. But if we pretend it actually does at this moment in history, then we're being deliberately blind

 

[This is The End]

It's not that simple. I think we should phase out the word race. I don't know what word will replace it. National origin perhaps. Ethnicity has more to do with culture as you note further in your post and there are valid reasons to track groups of people.

One of the criteria for ethnicity is "characteristics", which is, as I understand it, what the old definition for race solely consisted of. I'm pretty sure that in most areas of science, when the word race is used, it has included more of the other qualifications (customs, language, and common history) in recent years. To become more closely identified with ethnicity.

I know that in the article I cited, it was used to refer to all 4 criteria, not just "characteristics". Which, by the way, includes many things besides skin color. Various facial features are the main characteristics I believe.

 

[RandFan]

That would fall under the "characteristics".

I'm not sure "characteristics" refers to biological characteristics. I think it is social characteristics.

Human races are evolving away from each other. We are getting less alike, not merging into a single mixed humanity.

But by no means are we becoming "breeds" like dogs or other domesticated animals. It's a plain and simple fact that we are not artificially selecting traits and biological characteristics to determine reproduction. Given that fact and the absence of a genetic bottleneck or other environmental pressures to allow for genetic drift or any other selection there is no reason to think that we are creating the equivalent of significantly different genetic groups.

I would go back and look at the context of that claim a little bit closer. If the claim deviates from the above then I think there is good reason to be skeptical of it. Without a mechanism for movement toward speciation you've got nothing but horizontal gene transfer through a large number of *networked clusters.

*see BBC Two Programmes - Six Degrees of Separation

 

[This is The End]

Genetic Studies Show Race Is Not A Scientific Concept

That's a fairly odd title to that article with the last line being:

And of the differences between individuals, 88 to 90 percent can be found within a local population, while only about 10 to 12 percent distinguish one race from another.

I'm pretty sure they aren't using the same definition of race as the (newer) article I quoted from is.

 

[slingblade]

I'm firmly behind the reasoning that we should ignore race completely

Why?

Do you think everyone has that option, to ignore it completely?

Who is the "we" who could do this?

If we experimented, and asked certain people to do this, to ignore race completely starting tomorrow, how long do you think it would be before race asserted itself in a way they couldn't ignore?

And what should they do then?

 

[This is The End]

Why?

Do you think everyone has that option, to ignore it completely?

Who is the "we" who could do this?

If we experimented, and asked certain people to do this, to ignore race completely starting tomorrow, how long do you think it would be before race asserted itself in a way they couldn't ignore?

And what should they do then?

I should have added the words "aspire to".

 

[RandFan]

One of the criteria for ethnicity is "characteristics", which is, as I understand it, what the old definition for race solely consisted of. I'm pretty sure that in most areas of science, when the word race is used, it has included more of the other qualifications (customs, language, and common history) in recent years. To become more closely identified with ethnicity.

I know that in the article I cited, it was used to refer to all 4 criteria, not just "characteristics". Which, by the way, includes many things besides skin color. Various facial features are the main characteristics I believe.

Yeah, I will concede that. But bear in mind these characteristics are superficial. They can help identify what area a person comes from but they have little bearing on what it means to be human or do they tell us fundamental difference about humans from different areas. Since all humans can successfully breed with all others there is no specialization and certainly no "breeds" like there are dogs. Just some genetic variability due to geographical bottle necks and genetic drift.

 

[slingblade]

But isn't ignoring a problem, instead of solving it, simply denial?

And if we have to aspire to it, then it means there's something there to ignore, even in the future, right? It doesn't go away in the future to which you aspire; it just remains, to be ignored.

If it were really gone, you wouldn't have anything to ignore...right?

 

[This is The End]

Given that fact and the absence of a genetic bottleneck or other environmental pressures to allow for genetic drift or any other selection there is no reason to think that we are creating the equivalent of significantly different genetic groups.

I would note that that is very recent history. Up until only a few hundred years ago there were huge genetic bottlenecks.

That's only 200 of the 140,000 years since our common ancestor. I believe 138,000 years of bottleneck is why they determined that races are evolving away from each other. As you note though, in modern times that has probably been overcome, eventually to be reversed.

 

[This is The End]

Yeah, I will concede that. But bear in mind these characteristics are superficial. They can help identify what area a person comes from but they have little bearing on what it means to be human or do they tell us fundamental difference about humans from different areas. Since all humans can successfully breed with all others there is no specialization and certainly no "breeds" like there are dogs. Just some genetic variability due to geographical bottle necks and genetic drift.

Don't forget that I agree (as slingblade brought up again) that it is superficial and has little bearing on what a human can do.

That (what slingblade quoted) was the very first thing I said in this thread.

 

[RandFan]

That's a fairly odd title to that article with the last line being:

I think you should re-read the two lines. I'll concede that the wording makes them look different. Half a dozen of one and six of the other. Actually it's written wrong. A typo. You need to look at the supporting data.

I'm pretty sure they aren't using the same definition of race as the (newer) article I quoted from is.

Would you provide the link? FWIW: This debate has raged on JREF on and off for as long as I've been here, which is nearly a decade. I've read a lot on the topic and seen nothing but a move away from the idea that race is a scientific concept. So, I would have to see the article. Thanks.

 

[RandFan]

Don't forget that I agree (as slingblade brought up again) that it is superficial and has little bearing on what a human can do.

That (what slingblade quoted) was the very first thing I said in this thread.

That's fine but let's not drift away from that fact. Let's not try to make race something that it isn't. At best it's superficial.

 

[This is The End]

But isn't ignoring a problem, instead of solving it, simply denial?

And if we have to aspire to it, then it means there's something there to ignore, even in the future, right? It doesn't go away in the future to which you aspire; it just remains, to be ignored.

If it were really gone, you wouldn't have anything to ignore...right?

OK slingblade, I agree that I wasn't anywhere near as clear as I should have been and I thank you for making me clarify.

Add "to resolve" to "aspire to" and maybe throw in a "so that we may".

I'm firmly behind the reasoning that we should aspire to resolve differences so that we may ignore race completely.

Is that better at all?

 

[RandFan]

But isn't ignoring a problem, instead of solving it, simply denial?

And if we have to aspire to it, then it means there's something there to ignore, even in the future, right? It doesn't go away in the future to which you aspire; it just remains, to be ignored.

If it were really gone, you wouldn't have anything to ignore...right?

What we can't ignore are perceptions. If people with blue eyes are denied housing and jobs then that shouldn't be ignored regardless of how idiotic the notion is. It's something that is real in people's minds only. "Perception is reality". I would that it were not so. Alas it's our evolutionary heritage. We are going to have to work to overcome it.

 

[This is The End]

That's fine but let's not drift away from that fact. Let's not try to make race something that it isn't. At best it's superficial.

I agree, though, as I have tried to point out, we are against what I believe is an old definition of race that was based solely on characteristics like skin color and facial features. I believe that much of the scientific community has moved past that definition to something that is more aligned with ethnicity.

Which, again, as I said in my first post; we should start saying ethnicity instead, to be clear that we aren't referring to the classic definition of race.

 

[RandFan]

OK slingblade, I agree that I wasn't anywhere near as clear as I should have been and I thank you for making me clarify.

Add "to resolve" to "aspire to" and maybe throw in a "so that we may".

I'm firmly behind the reasoning that we should aspire to resolve differences so that we may ignore race completely.

Is that better at all?

I'll settle at that.

 

[slingblade]

OK slingblade, I agree that I wasn't anywhere near as clear as I should have been and I thank you for making me clarify.

Add "to resolve" to "aspire to" and maybe throw in a "so that we may".

I'm firmly behind the reasoning that we should aspire to resolve differences so that we may ignore race completely.

Is that better at all?

Sure. Thank you for clarifying. I've learned some things about "color blindness," and so that notion is one I find...unrealistic. But I do see what you're saying.

 

[slingblade]

What we can't ignore are perceptions. If people with blue eyes are denied housing and jobs then that shouldn't be ignored regardless of how idiotic the notion is. It's something that is real in people's minds only. "Perception is reality". I would that it were not so. Alas it's our evolutionary heritage. We are going to have to work to overcome it.

Firmly agree. It reminds me of a line from the last Harry Potter film:

"Of course it's all in your head, but why should that mean it's not real?"