Race is a human/social construct.

[Ferguson]

There still is far, far more in common than there are differences and the pygmy certainly can reproduce with non-pygmies so besides some insignificant phenotypes what's the point?

I think this highlights the point pretty well. That such a thing as "pygmy" and "non-pygmy" can be recognized. That is all.

For example in the photo at the top of this page:
http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/images4/pygmy.jpg
I am pretty confidant that no one in the front row is Inuit, Chinese, or Danish. Different phenotypes can be observed in different regions of the globe, most of them influenced by adaptation to climate. That's what people are referring to when they refer to someone's race. That it's not important or easy to define is irrelevant. So are species, so are continents, so are breeds of dog, so is everything on Earth we apply labels to.

Also, I don't even have an idea what point you were attempting to make with the fact that the "pygmy certainly can reproduce with non-pygmies." No one at all was arguing that some people are of a different species, and of the species we've defined even some of them can reproduce.

 

[openingmind]

The big question to me is:

Even if we can scientifically verify "race," can we really draw any meaningful conclusions from it? Can we actually say "Yes, ALL 'white' people have this trait"?

I doubt it. I mean, I doubt that we could say it and have it be meaningful. We can say that all "black" people have more melanin than "white" people, but...so what? That's trivia. Red-haired people (generally) have more sensitive skin. So what?

What's true of groups, what's true statistically, is never true for all individuals. That's why it's called statistics.

Plus, RandFans question about how many races/sub-races are there, is a valid one. How many times crossing of black and white people do you have to have before you have a "real white" person? Or a "real black" person?

 

[RandFan]

I think this highlights the point pretty well. That such a thing as "pygmy" and "non-pygmy" can be recognized. That is all.

And can we pick out tall people? Are all tall people unified to justify the label of race? Eye color?

I am pretty confidant that no one in the front row is Inuit, Chinese, or Danish. Different phenotypes can be observed in different regions of the globe, most of them influenced by adaptation to climate. That's what people are referring to when they refer to someone's race. That it's not important or easy to define is irrelevant. So are species, so are continents, so are breeds of dog, so is everything on Earth we apply labels to.

So, by your logic, NBA stars, regardless of skin color, could be labeled a race? Bald people could be labeled a race? All we are doing is labeling them, right? Don't get me wrong, I understand that "tall" is a label. I don't mind categorizing people by height or haplogroup, national origin or ethnicity. Race is an anachronistic term that is loaded and conveys little information.

Also, I don't even have an idea what point you were attempting to make with the fact that the "pygmy certainly can reproduce with non-pygmies."

Very simple, if pygmies can reproduce with non-pygmies then the example is possible, right? Black women have given birth to white babies and white women have given birth to black babies, right?

 

[Jono]

In any event, the ancestry bit is nonsense. Due to recombination we can't get every ancestral line. My mitocondrial DNA might track back to Ireland (and that can be determined) while I also have ancestors from Germany, native America and Sweden right? And how would a geneticist know since recombination erases those lines?

That means what is givenly approximated by commonplace taxonomy might not always by as accurately noted as could be. It does nothing to negate the ease by which it is to compare the classical racial groupings and many contemporary and mainstream biogeographical groupings. Coincidence? No, of course not. Important? Well within forensic anthropology and medicine any statistical expectency is of importance (and normally used), and it's routine to consider ones racial background into a lot of such surveys and expectations. Individually it might be very less so important, then again as humans differ by geographical origin in some genetic ways, we also genetically differ on an individual basis.

Hey, it's like we're actually an animal like the rest of the kingdom.

So, tell me, what is a race and

I just wrote a response but deleted it since I noticed I did mentioned Sarich's and Miele's book on the matter a bit earlier. I think they give a decent argument for what many/most know but pretend to not know about what it is. I could transcribe it by hand which would be slightly more eloquently put than my attempt at translating my personal writings from swedish to english more elaborately, or you could buy it/lend it.

Race is merely a convention of categorisation based on definable extents of ancestral type and differents there-of in predominant markers, as it was almost always (and usually still is, with exceptions) similary predictable by morphology. The batting average for the given predictability is quite good in comparison to much else, so I see no biological reason to deny the consistently observed realities simply because one doesn't like the particular term 'race'.

 

[openingmind]

Race is a social construct, one that can be independently determined via DNA testing (like all social constructs).

I see your point here, but think about this: 1 in 5 "black" people in the United States have more genetically in common with Europeans than with Africans. How should we classify them? By their appearance, or by their DNA which says they're descended from Europeans?

 

[Jono]

And can we pick out tall people? Are all tall people unified to justify the label of race? Eye color?

Seriously Rand, your response with that to the pygmé-argument is similar that since we do not see a german shepard giving birth to a chiuahua of comparitive sheperd size, we therefor should expect dog breeds to be categories by size just as equally valid?

 

[RandFan]

That means what is givenly approximated by commonplace taxonomy might not always by as accurately noted as could be.

It means that it can and often is mostly wrong.

Race is merely a convention of categorisation based on definable extents of ancestral type and differents there-of in predominant markers, as it was almost always (and usually still is, with exceptions) similary predictable by morphology. The batting average for the given predictability is quite good in comparison to much else, so I see no biological reason to deny the consistently observed realities simply because one doesn't like the particular term 'race'.

So you reject the view held by the American Anthropological Association?

 

[openingmind]

JAMES WATSON, the DNA pioneer who claimed Africans are less intelligent than whites, has been found to have 16 times more genes of black origin than the average white European.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article3022190.ece

...Just saying.

 

[Jono]

So you reject the view held by the American Anthropological Association?

Like Pinker et al, I recognize that their statement has more to do with milding the term, doing away with "race", and merely talking about the same darn things in other terms which they all do when doing the work itself.

The reason and oddity of this, is again beautifully revealed in (amongst many others) Pinker's book on human nature.

 

[RandFan]

Seriously Rand, your response with that to the pygmé-argument is similar that since we do not see a german shepard giving birth to a chiuahua of comparitive sheperd size, we therefor should expect dog breeds to be categories by size just as equally valid?

Thank you yes. We can classify anything by any variable we want to. Albinos could all be the same breed. Now, there's little value to doing that. My point is that when it comes to humans there is far too much in common and far to little difference to justify the anachronism of race. And that was before we started mixing. If we stopped selectively breeding dogs there would be far fewer breeds and they likely would all disappear together, reverting back to a pye dog, wolf or something similar. Dogs are a quirk of selective breeding and humans of genetic bottle neck and genetic drift. The differences are largely superficial and insignificant. If humans were as varied as dogs you might have a compelling argument but as it is you don't which is why science is leaving race largely in dust bin of history.

 

[Jono]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article3022190.ece

...Just saying.

What are you thinking? Don't you know some will just call him a bigott and quote the time where he said sub-saharan africans (or something) are less intelligent than european folks because of heredity variables (gods of the atheist pantheon forbid).

 

[RandFan]

Like Pinker et al, I recognize that their statement has more to do with milding the term, doing away with "race", and merely talking about the same darn things in other terms which they all do when doing the work itself.

Doesn't really respond to the statement other than to offer an ad hoc rationale. The statement is a bit more substantive.

The reason and oddity of this, is again beautifully revealed in (amongst many others) Pinker's book on human nature.

A great book. I'm a big fan of Pinker.

 

[RandFan]

What are you thinking? Don't you know some will just call him a bigott and quote the time where he said sub-saharan africans (or something) are less intelligent than european folks because of heredity variables (gods of the atheist pantheon forbid).

Straw men are so much fun.

 

[Jono]

Thank you yes. We can classify anything by any variable we want to. Albinos could all be the same breed. Now, there's little value to doing that.

Yes, because it is not in-line with any scientific anthropological or genetic manner or purpose to taxonomically group.

My point is that when it comes to humans there is far too much in common and far to little difference to justify the anachronism of race.

What? We differ lice as a multitude of species pending on just some remote morphological difference. Don't you see, race is just as perfectly valid as "ethniticity", "biogeographical group" etc etc, it's all conventions and one which the former has an increadibly solid track-record of accuracy-per-test via forensics, medicine and genetics. Do we really need to pretend anymore that it's all just a social construct and bitch about the words themselves???

If humans were as varied as dogs you might have a compelling argument but as it is you don't which is why science is leaving race largely in dust bin of history.

Dogs is oft used as an example of sub-specie variation since they happen to be one of the mammals with, thanks to human intervention, one of the greatest thereof. But that doesn't magically negate the field of taxonomy does it, or as I said before what we routinely categorise and observe to be said differences.

If we were to bring this to a neurological playing field, while differences would be expected (why wouldn't there be any?), I've mostly looked at work detailing neurological differences inbetween genders. Hopefully, you do not deny the existence of those, or that gender roles are solely social constructs as well?!

 

[Jono]

Straw men are so much fun.

No, actually I didn't have you in mind Rand on that note. I had others whom I'd surely expect to respond in such a way. Let's not break out the "skeptic's guide to critical thinking-responses" on that one shall we?

 

[Jono]

It means that it can and often is mostly wrong.

Well when guided by morphology only, it is more often wrong, yet not even then 'mostly wrong'. But it is all about conventions based on either observable differences as well as physiological/neurological ones, or guided by the latter alone. That's the gist of it. Anyone can make up conventions as they see fit, but to keep them within accordance of the established fields sans political sentiments and indoctrination is another issue... for the third time I have to name-drop Pinker as this is exactly what he talks about.

And yes, Pinker's is great.

 

[RandFan]

Don't you see, race is just as perfectly valid as "ethniticity", "biogeographical group" etc etc, it's all conventions and one which the former has an increadibly solid track-record of accuracy-per-test via forensics, medicine and genetics.

Not even close. Ethnicity is culture and traits. Haplogroups are specific and scientifically based on genetics and not traits.

If we were to bring this to a neurological playing field, while differences would be expected (why wouldn't there be any?), I've mostly looked at work detailing neurological differences inbetween genders. Hopefully, you do not deny the existence of those, or that gender roles are solely social constructs as well?!

Nope. Pretty easy to define so long as we take into account identity I don't have a problem with it. But gender bears no resemblance to race.

BTW, I'm reading the Blank slate (chapter 8 the fear of inequality) between posts and I don't think it says quite what you think it does. Do you have a copy?

 

[RandFan]

No, actually I didn't have you in mind Rand on that note. I had others whom I'd surely expect to respond in such a way. Let's not break out the "skeptic's guide to critical thinking-responses" on that one shall we?

I didn't think you did have me in mind. It's still a straw man. Look, Ill avoid them if you will, okay?

 

[RandFan]

Well when guided by morphology only, it is more often wrong, yet not even then 'mostly wrong'. But it is all about conventions based on either observable differences as well as physiological/neurological ones, or guided by the latter alone. That's the gist of it. Anyone can make up conventions as they see fit, but to keep them within accordance of the established fields sans political sentiments and indoctrination is another issue... for the third time I have to name-drop Pinker as this is exactly what he talks about.

And yes, Pinker's is great.

Yeah, I'd very much like to talk to you about that. Could you get your copy?

 

[Dessi]

If we were to bring this to a neurological playing field, while differences would be expected (why wouldn't there be any?), I've mostly looked at work detailing neurological differences inbetween genders. Hopefully, you do not deny the existence of those, or that gender roles are solely social constructs as well?!

Seems like an odd comparison to race. If you've ever seen any discussion on transgender or feminist issues, you will be immediately aware that biological sex is, at best, fuzzily defined for intersex people, and gender roles are socially constructed. There is nothing "inherently" male about being a construction worker, nothing "inherently" female about being a secretary, historically men have worn skirts and heels and make up, nothing inherently gendered about which parent stays home to rear children, modesty regarding bare chests in public, standards of beauty like shaved legs, and most other norms regarding gender behavior are entirely culturally relative.