Human (specie) not to be confused with humans

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

Is there a reason why we shouldn't recognize, name, and categorize these variations?

I dont think that people who want to purchase a car go onto a lot looking for a "ford" and not necessarily pay any attention to the cars ear lobes or other characteristics.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
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.

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

As Brian M pointed out, I said "skeleton" not "single bone". Perhaps spend more time reading what is written, before trying (futilely) to prove someone wrong. BTW, I know this for fact, as I have 2, yes, 2 different forensic anthropologists as acquaintances.
 
The terms I hear thrown around are things like "haplogroups"... Indicating peoples of a particular ethnicity that might be identified by means of the very insignificant genetic variations particular to that group.
These variations provide for differences in things like hair texture and susceptibility to certain diseases and the like, but they are all just variations within the current genome of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
"Race" is essentially 19th century thinking...
 
Ben Adams said:
A cluster of visible characteristics that can be categorised for those who wish to do so.

Is there a reason why we shouldn't recognize, name, and categorize these variations?
Click to expand...

Sure, if they're useful. I'm particularly partial to small female brunettes with green eyes as a category myself.

I haven't thought of a name for them though ..... :)
 
Edited by LashL: 
Edited for civility and breach of Rule 10.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
icerat said:
That there is no such thing as race is quite a common scientific viewpoint.
Click to expand...
That's like saying Creationism is: there are people claiming it, and they bring up scientific issues in the process, but every single argument they give, without any exceptions anywhere at all ever, is just another fallacy. And continuing to repeat them even after they've all been debunked and exposed over and over and over again means they're not just errors but lies. The link in this quote, for example, does nothing but trot out the old familiar "gradual gradients, no boundaries" canard and the old familiar "no single trait..." canard.

icerat said:
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.
Click to expand...
If there were competing sets of clusters to choose between, that might be so. But in reality, the traits that race deniers always point out as not linked to race are not in clusters.
 
Last edited:
Delvo said:
The link in this quote, for example, does nothing but trot out the old familiar "gradual gradients, no boundaries" canard and the old familiar "no single trait..." canard.

If there were competing sets of clusters to choose between, that might be so. But in reality, the traits that race deniers always point out as not linked to race are not in clusters.
Click to expand...

Delvo (and others). My sons were born in Sweden. I was born in Australia, as were my parents and grand parents. Of those grandparents, two of them we have no idea who their parents were. A dentist once told my mother she has an "asian jaw", a doctor when I was a baby that I must have aboriginal heritage.

My wife was born in Sweden. Her mother was born in what was then Poland, her father in what was then Manchuria. One Grandmother was born in siberia, another somewhere, probably in russia. One grandfather we know nothing about, but had a vaguely jewish surname. The other was either chinese or japanese, depending who you ask.

What "race" do you suggest I tell my sons they are, and what possible significance would it have?
 
Haha, race deniers. I learned a new term today. And from seeing it used, it seems the person puts a negative value on the term.
 
Ben Adams said:
A cluster of visible characteristics that can be categorised for those who wish to do so.

Is there a reason why we shouldn't recognize, name, and categorize these variations?
Click to expand...

Maybe you could get past any negative connotations by saying, "Asian-looking" or a similar construction. Then, if questioned, you could add: "Well, they looked like the completely false mischaracterization and stereotype often advanced for people with the morphology I observed."

You aren't really identifying them as Asian, just comparing them to a standard, albeit insulting, stereotype. Similar to, "He looks a lot like a turtle."
 
triforcharity said:
As Brian M pointed out, I said "skeleton" not "single bone". Perhaps spend more time reading what is written, before trying (futilely) to prove someone wrong. BTW, I know this for fact, as I have 2, yes, 2 different forensic anthropologists as acquaintances.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you paid selective attention to 'multiple markers' and ignored 'but people are mostly of mixed heritage and even with using multiple indicators IT IS NOT RELIABLE.'

Classically defined 'race' really amounts to a continuum that spreads out in all directions. Where are you going to divide the continuum? Any division you make is arbitrary. Is Obama white or black? Why ignore half his genetic heritage and call him black? Suppose he fathered children with a white wife. Are the kids still black?

People are all mutts. You can't say a mutt is a certain breed it happens to resemble, the inherited genetics is a mix of breeds.
 
icerat said:
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.
Click to expand...


Whether or not such a thing as race exists would depend on how race is defined. The author of that article only seems to be arguing that race does not exist on a biological level...

Note carefully, however, that my opening declaration did not claim that "there is no such thing as race." What I said is that there is no "biological entity that warrants the term 'race'."
Click to expand...


Interestingly, it does mention identification of race from bones...
I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a high degree of accuracy in determining geographic racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80 percent accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon just one of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations.
Click to expand...
So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether "real" or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is "only skin deep" is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.
Click to expand...
 
Brian-M said:
The author of that article only seems to be arguing that race does not exist on a biological level...
Click to expand...

With race being a biological term, on what other level are you expecting it to exist?
 
Ryokan said:
With race being a biological term, on what other level are you expecting it to exist?
Click to expand...


It seems to exist on a taxonomic level, in the form of common groupings of mostly superficial traits. It might be useless in biological terms, but it's still convenient for categorization. For example, the concept of race can come in handy when trying to describe what a person looks like.
 
You seem to believe that if race doesn't exist, then we suddenly can't use certain terms to describe someone.

Even without race, George Takei is still Asian, Nelson Mandela is still black and Mitt Romney is still white.

These aren't races, they're short short hand descriptions of their appearance and origins. But even this breaks down sometimes. Obama has been used as an example. What race or origin is he? Knowing that he's half black and half white, what race would you describe him as belonging to? How would you describe a typical person belonging to the white race when it comes to skin colour, hair colour, eye colour?

These are social constructs, not races - and I believe one of the only reasons we're still talking about this is because the word race has become stuck in the American English language. In Europe, the word race is not one you use in polite company, and for very good reasons. The theory of human races has caused a lot of suffering on this continent.
 
Brian-M said:
It seems to exist on a taxonomic level, in the form of common groupings of mostly superficial traits. It might be useless in biological terms, but it's still convenient for categorization. For example, the concept of race can come in handy when trying to describe what a person looks like.
Click to expand...

Race is both useful and useless. It's useful in an ethnographic sense, but not in a phenotypical sense. "Black" tends to describe Bantu and Nihlo-Saharan Africans. The same or similar characteristics manifest in Australian Aboriginals, Papuans, Samoans, and some Indians - but they would only be considered "black" by the most superficial of metrics. The same applies to East Asians of Mongolian descent who have remained within a relatively restricted gene pool. Native Americans are "Asian" but have lost most of the phenotypical characteristics by which one would normally classify the them as such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom