Does Race exist?

[Senethro]

This doesn't need an unshakeable philosophical underpinning or an faultless top logic argument.

Just be nice! Don't say the n-word!

 

[El_Machinae]

I think some white people have an unhealthy fascination with the word and some other white people just can't stand to be told they can have every other word but not this one.

Just don't say it! Jeez!

This doesn't answer my question. When you call someone 'white', you are describing *what*? What is the lingo for that word?

I'm trying to figure out how people are using the terms!

 

[red_elk]

You mentioned the list, but you just hesitate

What's the point with listing?
I can give you examples of different cultures, languages, music genres or biological species, but cannot give you full list of them or even strict rules of classification.
Doesn't mean all these concepts are useless.

 

[H4run]

What's the point with listing?
I can give you examples of different cultures, languages, music genres or biological species, but cannot give you full list of them or even strict rules of classification.
Doesn't mean all these concepts are useless.

I get your point, however all the categorization that you used as example has its classification rules, people can debate about which band classified as psychedelic rock and which are not using a clear list of aspects as measurement, the same goes with language, while the fact that you cannot list all of them doesn't mean it doesn't have a clear list. To concludes that my objection of human classification of race implied me being against the concept of classification as a whole is an overt extension, it is a fallacious statement.

In the other hand we still even not clearly understand what type of classification of race that the pro race poster defending? is it with the nation or the skin color? your list of classification above pretty much pictured the confusion, having "Asian" and "Black" in the same list is totally picture the problem, Asia is a continent, while black is a color, the only things its implied is a oblivious generalization of human group.

 

[Truthy]

@Truthy look truthy, either you agreed Europe dweller includes immigrant or not it is not helping our discussion about race.

The fact that there are genetic difference between human doesnt implied or helping anything in the disputed object of discussion which is the reality of race as a concept of human classification, if you agree that race is a political term than a term that emerged from biological reality, then I dont understand what we are disagreeing here.

Here is my position:

These clusters are also correlated with some traditional concepts of race, but the correlations are imperfect because genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous, overlapping fashion among populations. Therefore, ancestry, or even race, may in some cases prove useful in the biomedical setting, but direct assessment of disease-related genetic variation will ultimately yield more accurate and beneficial information.

The above statements are from this paper and are further supported empirically by high-quality, highly-cited, mainstream research such as this and this. There are many other studies on unsupervised clustering and population structures. It is a mainstream area of research that uses thoroughly-vetted, high-quality algorithms and statistical practices to analyze increasingly huge and comprehensive genetic datasets. I provide some summaries of these sources here. You can also learn more by googling the 1000 Genomes Project or you can head to google scholar.

The question is how can we believe:
(1) race is a social construct and
(2) the quoted statements above?

I have tried to convey that the answer is quite simple: (a) our cultural identifications are correlated (imperfectly) with actual geographic places and (b) the genetics of people with similarly distributed ancestors are correlated (imperfectly). Part (b) is especially true if you focus on many loci, rather than just individual SNPs, as the above linked papers show--this is an important point that distinguishes modern high-throughput genomics population structure research from the 1970s-era research by people such as Lewontin (his work, though it continues to be highly influential in humanities academia, is very much outdated. A more detailed explanation is here).

What I am saying, though very much misunderstood, is well supported scientifically and is not controversial among humanities scholars who have taken the time to actually understand the research and its nuances. For example, here you can find renowned African American Studies scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr recommending David Reich's book, calling it "brilliant." Note carefully that everything claimed in this New York Times column was in the book Gates is praising. Note also that Gates and Reich are good friends and close collaborators. Once you take the time to think carefully about this topic and understand the nuances, there is really nothing to argue about.

If you don't dispute any of this, then we have nothing to disagree about. And as far I am concerned, this is the answer to the thread's title. Apart from refuting the people comparing different human groups to different species or to different breeds of dogs, or saying white privilege and racism don't exist, I don't see what else there is to be said.

 

[red_elk]

is it with the nation or the skin color?

It's the same set of features you use to recognize person on the street as white/black/asian.
If you witnessed a crime and police asked you to describe suspect, did he look Black or White, I think you will be able to understand what they mean.
Of course there is an option to answer "He looked nohow, because, you know, races do not exist"

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm bringing forward the 'rule' about the N-word because I think it's probably the strongest social rule out with regards to consensus among non-racists. So, it's not a 'race-based' social rule, we'd call it a 'color-based' social rule, then? Is this because color is an identifiable characteristic while 'race' connotes some type of heritage? And would saying "knowing someone's ethnicity would allow me to predict their color" be (at least) a coherent question?

I'm trying to unpack how the words 'color' and 'race' should be used in the discussion.

 

[Senethro]

I'm bringing forward the 'rule' about the N-word because I think it's probably the strongest social rule out with regards to consensus among non-racists. So, it's not a 'race-based' social rule, we'd call it a 'color-based' social rule, then? Is this because color is an identifiable characteristic while 'race' connotes some type of heritage? And would saying "knowing someone's ethnicity would allow me to predict their color" be (at least) a coherent question?

I'm trying to unpack how the words 'color' and 'race' should be used in the discussion.

If you don't have authentic membership of a group you probably shouldn't use a reclaimed slur relating to that group. There, thats an even more general rule.

 

[El_Machinae]

If you don't have authentic membership of a group you probably shouldn't use a reclaimed slur relating to that group. There, thats an even more general rule.

This is becoming less than helpful. I don't know which side of the discussion you're on when it comes to the existence of 'race', but your inability to put to words the social considerations of whether a beatdown is appropriate or not is ... well, less than helpful. Look through all your replies to me. You've said nothing. I mean, I get it, there are social considerations around the usage of the word. You and I both know how to apply those rules. But unless someone can use the same lingo regarding those considerations, there's no discussion.

What generates this 'authentic membership'? Who decides whether it's authentic? What do you call the category under which this membership is defined?

Have you already rage-quit on the topic? Did I miss that this has already been discussed? There's no 'trap' here. I'm trying to figure out what people mean

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm willing to reply but I'm in a hurry because I'm going out.

I'm not sure what you mean, here.

Okay, I'm trying to figure out what we call the category by which we look at someone and determine whether or not we extended the social permission to use a racial slur contemptuously.

 

[H4run]

Ok I need a little help from you here

These clusters are also correlated with some traditional concepts of race, but the correlations are imperfect because genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous, overlapping fashion among populations. Therefore, ancestry, or even race, may in some cases prove useful in the biomedical setting, but direct assessment of disease-related genetic variation will ultimately yield more accurate and beneficial information.

There are two statement here:

1. The genetic's clusters are correlated with traditional race, because specific geographic place may represent a specific dominant type of cluster.
2. This first statement is useful in biomedical setting because they can use this reality to generalized the type of dominant cluster that available there.

Here you already established a claim that there is a relation between the traditional concept of race with certain genetic group. You also argued that this categorization is beneficial for biomedical purpose because it can generalize the genetic population of certain geography group. Ok.

The above statements are from this paper and are further supported empirically by high-quality, highly-cited, mainstream research such as this and this. There are many other studies on unsupervised clustering and population structures. It is a mainstream area of research that uses thoroughly-vetted, high-quality algorithms and statistical practices to analyze increasingly huge and comprehensive genetic datasets. I provide some summaries of these sources here. You can also learn more by googling the 1000 Genomes Project or you can head to google scholar.

You are establishing your previous argument here.

I have tried to convey that the answer is quite simple: (a) our cultural identifications are correlated (imperfectly) with actual geographic places

Of course, culture is tied with its land, but culture is not vis a vis race. People from every back ground and color can adopted certain culture, a white William Adams can be a Japanese and get recognized as a Japanese, this is not genetically defined, this is defined culturally; the adoption of language, custom, manners, arts of certain cultural products makes one adopted the said culture.

the genetics of people with similarly distributed ancestors are correlated (imperfectly).

What you going to use this statement for?

a. That race are genetic based classification because the genetics of people with similarly distributed ancestors are correlated (imperfectly).
b. You just simply want to say that the genetics of people with similarly distributed ancestors are correlated (imperfectly).

which one?

if it is "a" then by your definition using our previous example Steve Jobs is an Arab while the Turk are European. Because genetically Steve Jobs has Arab ancestor, while majority of the Turk genetically more resemble to Italy and France than that of Central Asian.

This is totally negating your concept of Europe Dweller, because who walk where is not the object of the importance, but who is the one who walking is the object of importance.

Part (b) is especially true if you focus on many loci, rather than just individual SNPs, as the above linked papers show--this is an important point that distinguishes modern high-throughput genomics population structure research from the 1970s-era research by people such as Lewontin (his work, though it continues to be highly influential in humanities academia, is very much outdated. A more detailed explanation is here).

What I am saying, though very much misunderstood, is well supported scientifically and is not controversial among humanities scholars who have taken the time to actually understand the research and its nuances. For example, here you can find renowned African American Studies scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr recommending David Reich's book, calling it "brilliant." Note carefully that everything claimed in this New York Times column was in the book Gates is praising. Note also that Gates and Reich are good friends and close collaborators. Once you take the time to think carefully about this topic and understand the nuances, there is really nothing to argue about.

again trying to convince me about the validity and how academically based your arguments are

If you don't dispute any of this, then we have nothing to disagree about.

I really hope everything this will be clear soon, and thank you for your respond

 

[Estebonrober]

I'm going to blur this picture even more by using an anecdote I was witness to the other day. Some coworkers of mine were having a discussion about trans people and their complaining about their treatment by people. This is complicated but these coworkers views on it were not, they basically had come to the conclusion that if you are not normal than you should live with the reality that that brings harassment and condemnation. What really got them worked up was the idea that they are being compelled not to harass and bully these people. They were literally trying to defend their right to be mean to trans people because they think it should be socially the norm. In regards to overt racism that has sprouted back up I think there are similar strains of thought.

I've started a thread about this topic before mainly trying to discern the different levels of racism. There is the white supremacists racists, the white nationalists racists, the bell curve type racists, the social class type racists, the casual racists, and on and on it goes. The reality I've found is that most of us put up walls to the "other", racism is probably one of the most overt methods of that and it really takes being able to view yourself as the "other" to be able to start to fight the propensity of "other" discrimination.

 

[red_elk]

There is a theory that the most aggressive homophobes (like, the ones who urge to line up and shoot gays), are often closet homosexuals. Probably works for transphobes too.

 

[Senethro]

This is becoming less than helpful. I don't know which side of the discussion you're on when it comes to the existence of 'race', but your inability to put to words the social considerations of whether a beatdown is appropriate or not is ... well, less than helpful. Look through all your replies to me. You've said nothing. I mean, I get it, there are social considerations around the usage of the word. You and I both know how to apply those rules. But unless someone can use the same lingo regarding those considerations, there's no discussion.

What generates this 'authentic membership'? Who decides whether it's authentic? What do you call the category under which this membership is defined?

Have you already rage-quit on the topic? Did I miss that this has already been discussed? There's no 'trap' here. I'm trying to figure out what people mean

k, uhhh, sorry for the stress. I was mostly not even replying to you. Just doing that thing where I sort of talk around the topic.

I honestly don't think it an interesting question and don't care to think about it. Like, I nearly made a joke on how its a subject for a Sesame Street song or something. Basic socialization and not saying the n-word. Just don't do it.

 

[H4run]

It's the same set of features you use to recognize person on the street as white/black/asian.
If you witnessed a crime and police asked you to describe suspect, did he look Black or White, I think you will be able to understand what they mean.
Of course there is an option to answer "He looked nohow, because, you know, races do not exist"

that's funny but nowhere its constitute a good argumentation.

People recognized a suspect through a profile, not race, ugh. Short hair, blue eyes, pimples, scar, are used to picture a suspect, even a big or small nose, so do skin complexion, it doesn't have anything to do with regard of "oh wow, how race classification helps us on detecting the bad guy and makes the world a saver place!" it is just the opposite.

That's why Asia is not a the same group with Black and White. This might not surprise you but there is black Asian also, because Asian is people who live in Asia continent, in truthy language these are "Asia Dwellers" people who live there have so many difference color and facial structure, while Black is a color.

I suggest you chose one of these:

Race List using continent as category:
1. Asian
2. European
3. African
4. American
5. Australian
6. Antartican

Race List using color as category:

Black race
White race
Red race
Yellow race
Grey race (black white combination)
Light yellow race (yellow white combination)
Orange race (yellow red combination)
Pink race (white red combination)
etc

which one? I suggest you chose color category, you might label yourselves as Pink race, how cool is that?

 

[Senethro]

I'm going to blur this picture even more by using an anecdote I was witness to the other day. Some coworkers of mine were having a discussion about trans people and their complaining about their treatment by people. This is complicated but these coworkers views on it were not, they basically had come to the conclusion that if you are not normal than you should live with the reality that that brings harassment and condemnation. What really got them worked up was the idea that they are being compelled not to harass and bully these people. They were literally trying to defend their right to be mean to trans people because they think it should be socially the norm. In regards to overt racism that has sprouted back up I think there are similar strains of thought.

Most people aren't good or evil in the D&D sense, they're just socialized to the local standard norms in time and space. Where different standards encounter each other there is friction.

If there is a large enough movement in their local social norms I'd expect your coworkers to go along with it and, based on my own observations, probably forget/deny they ever held a different opinion.

 

[El_Machinae]

k, uhhh, sorry for the stress. I was mostly not even replying to you. Just doing that thing where I sort of talk around the topic.

I honestly don't think it an interesting question and don't care to think about it. Like, I nearly made a joke on how its a subject for a Sesame Street song or something. Basic socialization and not saying the n-word. Just don't do it.

We both know the social rule and how it's applied. I'm just trying to figure out what we call the category under which it's applied. I'm not asking how the social rule is applied. We already both know that.

Keep in mind, there's been a lot of conversation in this thread, but people are using the words in a precise manner. It can't interpret some of the posts.

 

[red_elk]

that's funny but nowhere its constitute a good argumentation.

Why? If you can see the difference between black and white person, you already understand what features define race.

I suggest you chose one of these:

Thank you for suggestion.

 

[Naskra]

what we call the category under which it's applied

The word is "taboo".

 

[H4run]

Why? If you can tell the difference between black and white person, you already understand what features define race.

Not in denial here, but skin complexion is not a race, you mentioned Asian and Black seperately. Look the Maluku, Timor Leste, Papuan are Asian by definition but many of them have dark skin. You just can't do that especially with the globalization right now, the Maluku same like Brazillian their skin complexion are getting more lighter and lighter in general population, hence skin color really don't explain anything except skin color, same like blue eyes, curly hair, etc, it's just our body's accidents.

Do you understand my objection?