Human (specie) not to be confused with humans

[Babbylonian]

But still no answer to what I guess I am asking, so allow me to ask it a different way.
3 people, one each from Sweden, Africa and Japan, side by side.

Please describe what makes them different in a socially acceptable way, thanks!

Tall, fat, and short. <---that answer makes as much sense as your question.

Seriously, are you just picking your baseball team from people you don't know and can think of no other way to do so than describing their perceived race using archaic language?

ETA: I feel compelled to give a serious answer...ask people their names when you don't know them.

 

[Cain]

"Oriental" is anachronistic, not much different than calling a black man "colored." Instead you should have said, "He looked like he was good at math," or "he might run a donut shop."

 

[trustbutverify]

Which reminds me, I said continent of origin, I should have said continent the appearance is associated with. We're all Africans if you go back far enough, and like Ryo says, not everyone from Africa is dark skinned.

We're all one-celled organisms, if you go back far enough. The highlighted is meaningless, since the topic of the thread is genetic variation occurring as a result of us not being all Africans anymore, and how to accurately characterize those group variations.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Alright so if you want to describe someone in a group to point them out, and all of them are wearing the same uniform, what is the proper way to do that.

How about "the third in from the right on the back row."

Why is this an issue?

I'm reminded of a time I was watching a boxing match on TV and they were mentioning one guy's history. My friend asked me "Which one is Smith?"

"The guy in the red trunks," I replied.

He acted like I'd done something really strange and almost insulting because I didn't think to say "the black guy".

Also, African and Japanese have a lot more differences than skin color. From statue, to bone structure, to facial features, to hair texture.

So do any two given African people, or any two given Japanese people.

I do not see why acknowledging those differences is so terrible

It's not so much acknowledging these differences as presuming them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We're all one-celled organisms, if you go back far enough. The highlighted is meaningless, since the topic of the thread is genetic variation occurring as a result of us not being all Africans anymore, and how to accurately characterize those group variations.

Since the ancestors I was referring to were humans, I'm wondering why that pushed your button?

Is Obama an African? His father was African and his mother not. You are of African descent whether some of your ancestors drifted genetically or not.

 

[icerat]

3 people, one each from Sweden, Africa and Japan, side by side.

Please describe what makes them different in a socially acceptable way, thanks!

Their nationality?

Check out these pictures -

one
two
three

Now, pick the swede.

they're all swedish singers.

 

[Mister Earl]

I think there's more important questions. Like:

1.) Why are some people so hung up over race?
2.) Why do people put value on percieved racial differences?
3.) Why do some people not realize we're all descended from Africans?

We're all the same type of meaty critter. Everything else is mere window dressing.

 

[geni]

Also, African and Japanese have a lot more differences than skin color. From statue, to bone structure, to facial features, to hair texture. It is not like saying two cats with different colors are just cats. They are completely different.
I do not see why acknowledging those differences is so terrible, just because they were used historically to do some really bad stuff to each other. They are still different, regardless of how humans have reacted to those differences.

Well the obvious problem is that you are prepared to lump Bantu, Khoisan, Aka etc together as African but then feel the need for a separate term for the Japanese which is really rather odd.

 

[JPK]

Good evening.
When I sat down with a census guy and he asked my race I said to him like I do to everyone, I'm African American. (I could give an albino a run in that race) I'm pretty light. In either case he stared at me for a moment and marked that down. When all was done I asked if he was going to change that answer and he said yes.
This PC word play due to overly sensitive feelings are really making it hard to communicate.
African American Police officer: Can you describe the man who assaulted you sir?
Victim: He was ahhh. Kinda ahhh. Big and very tan ahhh maybe black.
Officer : why didn't you just say so?
Kinda like the scene in Pulp Fiction where Samuel Jackson is asking Brad "What does Marseilles look like? " He didn't want to say black. Athoulgh probably the first best description.
I'm not saying we are differant types of humans. Not at all. Should I get offended if someone called me white? (No this where my sister says only white people can be racist) people are way to easily offended.
There is a visually discriptive (and not necessarily racist) point here that has little to do with the biological unity that we all share. If that makes any sense.
Ok I'm in my Ken Norton/Evander Hollyfield crab like defense ready to get beat up on.

 

[Mister Earl]

It's one thing to be descriptive. It's another to pretend that it's a matter of differing species.

 

[JPK]

Good evening.
Agreed. Humans are humans.

 

[Noztradamus]

We are one specie, human. There are no sub-categories of sorting below that.
(such as race, etc.)

The word is "species" singular and plural.

"specie" is coined money.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The word is "species" singular and plural....

Yes, post #15.

 

[triforcharity]

Good thing no one has claimed that then.

Did you not just say that? Seemed like you said something along the lines of "the differences are only skin deep", which is demonstrably false.

There's still not enough variation to divide the humans species into races.

By the way, until recently the tallest man in the world was Chinese.

But yet, you put a forensic scientist in a room with a skeleton of 10 different races of people, and they'll be able to tell you MANY things about that skeleton, including race, with amazing accuracy. Just by using measurements and their eyes.

WRT: The tallest person being Chinese. Yes, I'm well aware of that. However, that is not TYPICAL, which I said very specifically.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
But yet, you put a forensic scientist in a room with a skeleton of 10 different races of people, and they'll be able to tell you MANY things about that skeleton, including race, with amazing accuracy. Just by using measurements and their eyes. .....

Do you ever look before you leap to these conclusions?

But all of these traits are imprecise indicators. It's impossible to identify a person's ancestry definitively from a single bone.

Investigators can also take bone measurements using calipers, then input the data into a University of Tennessee database containing a reference library of measurements from more than 1,800 bones of known ancestry, age, and gender. The program will determine whether the mystery bone falls within the typical ranges for various racial groups. It's pretty hard to hazard a reliable guess with one or two measurements, since the ranges overlap. But if a series of measurements for a whole skull, or an entire skeleton, tend to fall more comfortably within one range than another, the forensic anthropologist can make a determination.
Racial classification is an inexact science, if that's even the right word for it. Forensic anthropologists never make definitive ancestry pronouncements. They say a bone is "consistent with" European ancestry or "likely" of Asian ancestry. And practitioners say it takes years of experience to achieve mastery, since you have to see piles and piles of disembodied mandibles to be able to recognize the sometimes subtle differences among them. (Although one study (PDF) has suggested that the grizzled veterans of forensic anthropology are no better at surmising race than their bright-eyed protégés.)

And then there's this cocky site that still has to admit:

Despite these numerous points of identification, racial determination is not always obvious, particularly with the increasing likelihood of mixed-race victims. The remains of such individuals are likely to display signs of two ethnic groups, making the deduction of race much more difficult.

 

[Ben Adams]

One remark that prompted me to post this thread was I was called an ignorant idiot in a discussion because I used the word race to describe someone. Apparently there is no such thing as race if I am to believe these rather judgemental people.
If it isn't race then what is it.

 

[Brian-M]

But yet, you put a forensic scientist in a room with a skeleton of 10 different races of people, and they'll be able to tell you MANY things about that skeleton, including race, with amazing accuracy. Just by using measurements and their eyes.

It's impossible to identify a person's ancestry definitively from a single bone.

Last time I checked, a skeleton consisted of more than "a single bone".

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

BTW, 'species' is singular or plural.

It's also worth noting that "specie" is a word that to corrency, or more specifically coinage.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/specie#English

eta - I should read the whole thread first.

The word is "species" singular and plural.

"specie" is coined money.

 

[SusanB-M1]

I thought the word 'species' applied to the fact that members can inter-breed. When one species has evolved into two separate ones so that they can no longer breed with those of the other species, they become a new one.

 

[icerat]

One remark that prompted me to post this thread was I was called an ignorant idiot in a discussion because I used the word race to describe someone. Apparently there is no such thing as race if I am to believe these rather judgemental people.

That there is no such thing as race is quite a common scientific viewpoint. As per that link there are two sides to that argument.

If it isn't race then what is it.

A cluster of visible characteristics that can be categorised for those who wish to do so.

Why I don't prescribe to theories of "race" is because there's no particular reason to choose one cluster of characteristics over any another cluster (say ear lobe detachment and index finger length) other than their visibility. You'll note the "pro" view on that link is "pro" primarily because of something he can see - differences in bone structure. If he worked in another field he might think "races" should be grouped by hair colour.