Race is a human/social construct.

[Delvo]

it does put Gould/Kamin/Lewontin's "race is just a social construct"-meme into further questioning.

I'm aware of Lewontin's dishonesty and don't know anything about Kamin, but I don't believe Gould ever pretended that human races weren't real. I've read a few articles he wrote about the subject, and he was acknowledging the biological differences, just arguing against using them to treat people differently or inferring additional differences above & beyond the known ones.

If you want to define race as having the tiniest of fractions of these genetic markers, you could. However, the vast majority of biologists do not identify race (aka sub-species) by such a tiny fraction of genetic markers.

True, for most other species, a whole lot less will do.

...the problem of overlap and continuum of those genetic markers in the population.

That would only be a problem for someone who claimed that that wouldn't be there.

But that doesn't go to supporting race or sub-species genetically unless the isolation of the two groups goes on for hundreds of thousands of years, not tens of thousands when the population is a large as the human population is.

What is the basis for these numbers, and what would you call populations that have identifiable distinctions and are on their way to this arbitrary threshold but haven't crossed the magic line yet?

you need the isolation to go on much longer than sub-groups within the human species currently have.

"You need" this for what exactly?

 

[RandFan]

"You need" this for what exactly?

Statistically significant differences in allele frequency would be my guess but I can't speak for SG.

 

[mike3]

I'm aware of Lewontin's dishonesty and don't know anything about Kamin, but I don't believe Gould ever pretended that human races weren't real. I've read a few articles he wrote about the subject, and he was acknowledging the biological differences, just arguing against using them to treat people differently or inferring additional differences above & beyond the known ones.

This then is what I'm curious about: not so much whether or not races 'exist', but whether those differences, if any, mean anything with regard to how one race should treat the members of the other. What's your opinion on that issue? How do you believe, say, whites should approach and treat blacks? How does your belief in the reality of race shape how you view those from other races, and of your own race?

True, for most other species, a whole lot less will do.

So does this mean there's more difference between the races in the human species than there is between analogous groupings in most other species?

That would only be a problem for someone who claimed that that wouldn't be there.

What is the basis for these numbers, and what would you call populations that have identifiable distinctions and are on their way to this arbitrary threshold but haven't crossed the magic line yet?

"You need" this for what exactly?

So what condition do you use to distinguish "races"? How would you define where one race begins and ends?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
"You need" this for what exactly?

You need isolation and natural selection pressures to get a new species or sub-species. Otherwise you just get diversity within a species.

Dark skin evolved more than once. If the human species were in groups isolated at different latitudes, a sub-species differentiation would likely develop. But we aren't and it didn't.

Suppose you arbitrarily claim that different blood types represent speciation or sub-speciation. You could make a stronger argument since after a woman who is RH- gives birth to an infant that is RH+, subsequent fetuses that are RH+ will be lost or born severely ill. An important aspect defining different species is the inability to bear offspring together. RH - and + are further long the way to sub-speciation than individuals with different surface features.

It makes more sense then biologically, to define race by blood group than by skin/eye, color combined with hair/body types, four completely compatible features in reproduction. But we can't see blood types. We can see skin/eye color and body/hair type.

The problem here is, lay-persons are defining race, and the archaic biological view of race has been replaced with a wealth of genetic evidence that didn't exist half a century ago. Most of what biologists determined before genetic research, as well as most of what anthropologists determined about human migration, turned out to be consistent with genetic evidence. But some things did not and genetic science has refined a number of things, one of them being our concept of racial divisions. The human race is one species by biological definitions. We don't even rate sub-species. It's more accurate to simply divide us up as different families with a lot of intermarriage.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Wouldn't the correct term be ethnicity?

 

[Zelenius]

I've never encountered a person who doesn't believe in "race". They just use different words for describing essentially the same thing. I've read a lot of Cavalli-Sforza, and it is obvious to me that his work often focuses on "race", but he's smart enough not to call it that. I often chuckle when I read things like "Cavalli-Sforza's work challenges the assumption that there are significant genetic differences between human races, and indeed, the idea that 'race' has any useful biological meaning at all". It's hilarious because if you actually bother to read his works, he doesn't challenge "race", he simply renames it.

I really don't care what anyone calls it any more, it's just semantics.

 

[Jono]

I've never encountered a person who doesn't believe in "race". They just use different words for describing essentially the same thing. I've read a lot of Cavalli-Sforza, and it is obvious to me that his work often focuses on "race", but he's smart enough not to call it that. I often chuckle when I read things like "Cavalli-Sforza's work challenges the assumption that there are significant genetic differences between human races, and indeed, the idea that 'race' has any useful biological meaning at all". It's hilarious because if you actually bother to read his works, he doesn't challenge "race", he simply renames it.

I really don't care what anyone calls it any more, it's just semantics.

Exactemundo, semantics. The fact that Sforza's groupings are notably similar to Carleton Coon's racial groupings is interesting, especially as the former is supposed/argued to be somewhat of the 'dean' on the human genome and its viable "biogeographical" groups.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've never encountered a person who doesn't believe in "race". They just use different words for describing essentially the same thing. I've read a lot of Cavalli-Sforza, and it is obvious to me that his work often focuses on "race", but he's smart enough not to call it that. I often chuckle when I read things like "Cavalli-Sforza's work challenges the assumption that there are significant genetic differences between human races, and indeed, the idea that 'race' has any useful biological meaning at all". It's hilarious because if you actually bother to read his works, he doesn't challenge "race", he simply renames it.

I really don't care what anyone calls it any more, it's just semantics.

Well that's just not true unless you are claiming you haven't encountered me. If you want to call a few inherited traits race, then you might as well call a family a unique race. Why not blondes and brunettes being different races? How about making blood groups different races?

When you use the term, race, for a few centuries or more to indicate different blood lines, and you find out now that definition is seriously problematic then it is not a semantics argument, it is a problem in definitions.

Define 'race' and see what you come up with.

 

[Jono]

So what condition do you use to distinguish "races"? How would you define where one race begins and ends?

Basic hereditary breeds within a species whose geographical, genetic as well as historical isolations can account for their genetic distances inbetween each other. In a much simpler, conventional way, we do the same with dog breeds et al. As Templeton wrote in 'Human races: a genetic and evolutionary perspective':

subspecies (race) is a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. This definition requires that a subspecies be genetically differentiated due to barriers to genetic exchange that have persisted for long periods of time; that is, the subspecies must have historical continuity in addition to current genetic differentiation

People react toward the term 'race', usually because of knee-jerk association with "bad" things and political musings thereof of course. Rationalizing this, the argument is that it isn't precise or defined enough to be valid, all while not realising/recognising that by the same token we could then throw out most of our classifications of the animal kingdom right out the window. Still, it isn't even necessary to use the r-word. Ashley Montague (allthough arguing on behalf of extreme enviromentalism as opposed to nature) termed it ethniticity, making it appliable even more six ways from sunday... all while the same darn observations are made empirically, showing us that nature will come out (as Feynman put it) they way it is no matter what we call it or what our expectations are. This is why, for example, Coon's own groupings of human beings (many times his added musings and elaborations were beyond reason) matches up quite well with Sforsa's volumnous work and studies on the human genome project; showing the basic, prime groups and genetic distances inbetween them amongst human beings.

 

[Jono]

When you have children from very divergent family lineages the odds of a match go down. Races (social construct) can result in family lineages remaining far apart genetically. Then when that family lineages are mixed there will be rarer combinations in the offspring. But that doesn't go to supporting race or sub-species genetically unless the isolation of the two groups goes on for hundreds of thousands of years, not tens of thousands when the population is a large as the human population is.

I don't rightly agree or perhaps even understand the above. Why is race not a notably biological reality, in light of the more notable groups that consistently are categorized as the genetic marker hubs being main biogeographical groups of ancestry/heritage? It still just appears to me as if the rejection of 'race' is on a semantic level, about the fine convention of it and not about the empirically observed groupings/dna-hubs that in turn branch out to which there are shades/spectrums (as with all animals more or less, like I noted on earlier).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't rightly agree or perhaps even understand the above. Why is race not a notably biological reality, in light of the more notable groups that consistently are categorized as the genetic marker hubs being main biogeographical groups of ancestry/heritage? It still just appears to me as if the rejection of 'race' is on a semantic level, about the fine convention of it and not about the empirically observed groupings/dna-hubs that in turn branch out to which there are shades/spectrums (as with all animals more or less, like I noted on earlier).

From the FreeDictionary:

race 1 (rs)
n.
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
5. Biology

a. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.​

6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.

Pick one. What do you mean by race? Are you talking biology or ethnic heritage?

Start there and I might be better able to explain.

 

[bpesta22]

I think race is a continuum (probably several) rather than an all or none classification.

My definition: skin color and it's covariates arising from shared ancestry and evolution via reproductive isolation over time.

Steve Sailor's definition is not bad either:

A racial group is an extended family that is inbred to some degree.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/its-all-relative-putting-race-in-its-proper-perspective

If anyone doubts race can be categorized biologically / genetically, you should read Before the Dawn:

http://www.vdare.com/articles/nicho...-milestone-on-long-road-back-from-race-denial

 

[Pup]

From the FreeDictionary:
Pick one. What do you mean by race? Are you talking biology or ethnic heritage?

Start there and I might be better able to explain.

a. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.

Can I just pick the bolded parts, and ignore the classification as a subspecies? Seems to me that race in humans is similar to a "variety" or "breed," caused by interbreeding of an isolated population, though I'm not up on the currect exact scientific definition of a subspecies.

How are, say, quarter horses and thoroughbreds categorized, or Jersey cattle and Angus cattle? I don't think they're subspecies, but I could be wrong. However, I'd say they're similar to races in humans, with the same problems of identification and classification.

They could disappear in a few decades if all the Jersey cows were bred to Angus bulls next year and vice versa. Even the first year there would be some cattle uncategorizable as either Jersey or Angus and before long both Jersey and Angus breeds would be gone.

But if the cattle most similar to the Jersey type were always bred to each other, and same for the Anguses, the breeds/races/varieties could continue as distinct things indefinitely (with some genetic drift), and even a slightly knowledgeable person could put one in the appropriate category at a glance.

Rather than artificial selection, the same thing has happened to humans by natural selection, but with better transportation and more cultural mixing, previously established races are becoming less distinct. And of course, it took isolation to create those races from previous races.

The problem with races in humans is what humans tend to do to each other after they categorize by race.

 

[Delvo]

The human race is one species by biological definitions. We don't even rate sub-species. It's more accurate to simply divide us up as different families with a lot of intermarriage.

I've never encountered a person who doesn't believe in "race". They just use different words for describing essentially the same thing.

Well that's just not true unless you are claiming you haven't encountered me.

Holy wow, that was just classic! It went so smoothly and right-on-cue it was like it came from a scripted comedy!

This then is what I'm curious about: not so much whether or not races 'exist', but whether those differences, if any, mean anything with regard to how one race should treat the members of the other.

Why would they or how could they?

So does this mean there's more difference between the races in the human species than there is between analogous groupings in most other species?

There is a lot less in some, but not in others. However, I was talking about what it would take for the existence of subspecies/breeds/varieties/races/whatever to be universally admitted and not argued. And based on the complete lack of argument about it in those cases with less variation than between human races, it certainly seems that that wouldn't have been a problem for any of the rest. Just for humans.

It makes more sense then biologically, to define race by blood group than by skin/eye, color combined with hair/body types, four completely compatible features in reproduction.

Except that, as has been pointed out when you tried pulling this same nonsense before, you're trying to equate a single trait found spread out all over the world with a group of traits with high internal correlation and specific regional distribution. No matter how many times a false equivalency is asserted, it won't magically make the things actually equivalent.

you might as well call a family a unique race. Why not blondes and brunettes being different races?

Same irrelevant dishonest song, second hundredth verse.

the archaic biological view of race

And what is that exactly?

When you use the term, race, for a few centuries or more to indicate different blood lines, and you find out now that definition is seriously problematic

What kind of problems?

it is not a semantics argument, it is a problem in definitions.

More gold!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think race is a continuum (probably several) rather than an all or none classification.

Where is the person on the continuum that has 10% Asian, 60% European, 20% African and say the last 10% being a mix of Polynesian and American Eskimo?

My definition: skin color and it's covariates arising from shared ancestry and evolution via reproductive isolation over time.

When were blacks and Europeans isolated over time?

Australian Aboriginals were isolated for 40-60 thousand years (I believe). When do they become 'not a race' now that they've been mixing genetically with Europeans for a few hundred years? What race would the offspring be of an Aussie Aboriginal who married a European of the above mix of ancestors?

Steve Sailor's definition is not bad either:

A racial group is an extended family that is inbred to some degree.

So when do European Royals become a separate race?

If anyone doubts race can be categorized biologically / genetically, you should read Before the Dawn:

http://www.vdare.com/articles/nicho...-milestone-on-long-road-back-from-race-denial

It's not the only opinion out there, and just from the link, I can see all kinds of problems already:

Last September, for instance, Wade's article about University of Chicago geneticist Bruce T. Lahn's discovery of two human brain genes that have been evolving differently on different continents earned Lahn global publicity. (Researchers Say Human Brain Is Still Evolving, September 8, 2005)

In contrast, just before Christmas, the Hap-Map team led by Robert Moyzis of UC Irvine released an even more important paper listing 1,800 genes, many of them related to cognition, that have similarly been diverging racially within the last 50,000 years. But Wade, who can't work 365 days of the year, didn't get a chance to cover it when it came out. So Moyzis's landmark study has largely been ignored.

That there are diverging and emerging genetic lines is not in question. The question is when do these genetic lines diverge enough to truly represent a subspecies. And if you have continual remixing, how many races are you going to divide the human population into?

Let me give you a hypothetical. Suppose it's determined that someone with a certain cluster of genetic identifiers successfully predicts the person will appear as a Negro and someone with another cluster of genetic identifiers will predictably appear to be of Asian descent. You then determine the amount of genetic differences between the two groups.

Now you take two people of European descent and find they have the same % of genetic differences between them, but they are traditionally considered to be from the same race.

Why are the 4 of them not 4 different races?

You've chosen outward appearance. Genetically within the human population, you've simply chosen to arbitrarily single out certain unimportant genetic differences.

Socially, those differences have been important. But they are not important genetic divisions. Blood groups, for example, are much more significant genetic differences when it comes to reproductive compatibility, an important biologic distinction when considering species and sub-species.

As for the claim brain genetic lines are diverging, does that translate into intelligence being the racial divide? Maybe I'm a different race from my siblings, after all, we all had different IQs.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Can I just pick the bolded parts, and ignore the classification as a subspecies?

You can take any part of the definition you want or provide your own. I'm asking for a definition of race before arguing past someone who is talking about ethnic divisions (something that I don't disagree with).

Seems to me that race in humans is similar to a "variety" or "breed," caused by interbreeding of an isolated population, though I'm not up on the currect exact scientific definition of a subspecies.

How are, say, quarter horses and thoroughbreds categorized, or Jersey cattle and Angus cattle? I don't think they're subspecies, but I could be wrong. However, I'd say they're similar to races in humans, with the same problems of identification and classification.

They could disappear in a few decades if all the Jersey cows were bred to Angus bulls next year and vice versa. Even the first year there would be some cattle uncategorizable as either Jersey or Angus and before long both Jersey and Angus breeds would be gone.

But if the cattle most similar to the Jersey type were always bred to each other, and same for the Anguses, the breeds/races/varieties could continue as distinct things indefinitely (with some genetic drift), and even a slightly knowledgeable person could put one in the appropriate category at a glance.

Rather than artificial selection, the same thing has happened to humans by natural selection, but with better transportation and more cultural mixing, previously established races are becoming less distinct. And of course, it took isolation to create those races from previous races.

The problem with races in humans is what humans tend to do to each other after they categorize by race.

The problem comparing domestically bred animals is that species and subspecies have been induced by human interference in breeding.

A Dalmatian and a German Shepard are two subspecies of dogs. We keep them artificially segregated. Put a bunch of bred dogs together for a few generations and the subspecies begin to revert back to a single species of mutt. Or, put a number of different mixes into isolated but different environments and you'll get subspecies of mutts out of each group.

We're all mutts. There may have been subspecies divisions that were beginning to form, but then the human population became large enough and mobile enough to end the isolation between us. You could argue we might have reached true sub-speciation before human migration waves began to overlap each other. But that was tens of thousands of years ago.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....Except that, as has been pointed out when you tried pulling this same nonsense before, you're trying to equate a single trait found spread out all over the world with a group of traits with high internal correlation and specific regional distribution. No matter how many times a false equivalency is asserted, it won't magically make the things actually equivalent.

So because you didn't agree before I'm wrong by default? Your framing is crap. I could say the same thing, "as has been pointed out when you tried pulling this same nonsense before", you were wrong then and you continue to be wrong now.

Gee, glad we got that settled.

If you care to reframe any of your arguments and if I haven't already addressed the points in my other replies, I'll be happy to continue the discussion with you.

More gold!

I knew I was going to have to explain that further.

The point is, yes we are using different definitions, but that is what he OP question is asking. If you equate race to an ethnic division, then it is a human/social construct. The traditional definition of race is one of a biologic division. If it's biologic because people have different skin color, then explain why blonds and brunettes are not two different races.


One more thing, what's your problem that people don't see the world the way you do? This isn't even the politics forum. Are you invested in preserving racist beliefs or something? Why do you care that I don't agree with you?

 

[bpesta22]

Where is the person on the continuum that has 10% Asian, 60% European, 20% African and say the last 10% being a mix of Polynesian and American Eskimo?

I'd classify them as mixed race.

It's a statistical argument with fuzzy boundaries, but the classification can still be useful and scientific. Also, I am not an expert on this stuff, but it seems like you may be confusing levels of classification (e.g., national origin versus race; a beagle is a dog; a dog is an animal...)

When were blacks and Europeans isolated over time?

Those who stayed in Africa versus those who left-- and then faced different selection pressures?

Australian Aboriginals were isolated for 40-60 thousand years (I believe). When do they become 'not a race' now that they've been mixing genetically with Europeans for a few hundred years? What race would the offspring be of an Aussie Aboriginal who married a European of the above mix of ancestors?

I'd hazard a guess and say mixed race.

So when do European Royals become a separate race?

A statistical solution / criterion could be used to decide this, I think. I imagine each person can be given a % score based on how closely his/her genetics maps onto different races. I'll leave it up to taxonomists to decide whether there's three or four races and then map the hierarchy down from there.

It's not the only opinion out there, and just from the link, I can see all kinds of problems already:That there are diverging and emerging genetic lines is not in question. The question is when do these genetic lines diverge enough to truly represent a subspecies. And if you have continual remixing, how many races are you going to divide the human population into?

Let me give you a hypothetical. Suppose it's determined that someone with a certain cluster of genetic identifiers successfully predicts the person will appear as a Negro and someone with another cluster of genetic identifiers will predictably appear to be of Asian descent. You then determine the amount of genetic differences between the two groups.

Now you take two people of European descent and find they have the same % of genetic differences between them, but they are traditionally considered to be from the same race.

Why are the 4 of them not 4 different races?

You've chosen outward appearance. Genetically within the human population, you've simply chosen to arbitrarily single out certain unimportant genetic differences.

I admit outward appearance is a crude and indirect proxy for the genetics of race, but the former and later are highly correlated (the magnitude of the correlation dictates exactly how valid appearance is for classifying race).

The more we remix, the less the current population will cluster into traditional / now-existing race groups. So what (I don't see how this invalidates the past or present states in terms of categorizing people)?

 

[Robrob]

"Race" is a subjective term that only exists in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Cain]

The problem with races in humans is what humans tend to do to each other after they categorize by race.

Which is why there's no such thing as race.