Does Race exist?

[Naskra]

both are "black" and somehow have an essence in common with each other

No. Speed and endurance are different things, not a common essence.x

 

[Senethro]

Ethnicities and cultures also exist as social constructs. Who cares?
Nobody claims they should be abolished. Why races should be different?

Because the concept of race has no use except performing racism. Thats what it was invented for.

So a better question is why maintain it - which you never answer.

 

[Senethro]

No. Speed and endurance are different things, not a common essence.x

Quite so! Thank you for agreeing with me that the racial category black is ridiculous! Those who maintain it exists must truly be foolish.

 

[red_elk]

Because the concept of race has no use except performing racism. Thats what it was invented for.

I gave several examples of fair usage. Off the top of my head - medical articles, visual description of a person, affirmative action.

So a better question is why maintain it - which you never answer.

Just like distinction between blue and green eyes, it doesn't require any "maintenance".

 

[H4run]

Quite so! Thank you for agreeing with me that the racial category black is ridiculous!

His previous example about the inclusion of eyes color in pilot standardization test during WW II, which referenced heavily from how people wrongly assumed that those with blue eyes color get better chance to be a better pilot than the other eyes color pretty much demonstrate the very fallacy that can come out from the physical classification, it's root from the false reality that statistic can gives. I don't understand why he is debating this while he seems very aware of the ridiculousness of the subject.

In WWII the army and navy noticed that their pilots who achieved ace status (5 kills) were blue-eyed quite disproportionately. Standardized tests in the '50s routinely asked eye-color

 

[Senethro]

I gave several examples of fair usage. Off the top of my head - medical articles, visual description of a person, affirmative action.

Ethnicity would be more useful for medical articles, racial terms are actually a really bad way to visually describe someone, and affirmative action is a temporary exercise in error checking that will be phased out when it is not needed (the sooner the better). Affirmative action style interventions are correction for past use of racial caste systems, not an end in themselves.

Just like distinction between blue and green eyes, it doesn't require any "maintenance".

Racists disagree with you and are trying very hard to maintain that the categories exist and have supposed essences associated with them, and that we should make decisions using these categories.

Racism isn't inevitable - its a learned/taught behaviour. It will only remain in usage if maintained by its adherents.

 

[Estebonrober]

The Women's 100m will be won by a white guy.

Guess which is the social construct.

Care to elaborate on this post? It seems hyperbolic and rhetorical right wing identity politics to the extreme.

You are demonstrating the exact kind of nonsense the OP is pointing out is irrational and counterproductive.

Race is a negative social construct. You can play in it until you die and you will not have helped humanity not even one little bit. The genetics are what matter (in real terms) to a much larger extent and they are pretty clear about our differences. Race is politics of stigmatization, that is all.

 

[red_elk]

Ethnicity would be more useful for medical articles, racial terms are actually a really bad way to visually describe someone

Racial background is in fact used in medical articles (I gave link before). Your opinion that ethnicity would be more useful is kind of irrelevant, unless you are a medical researcher.

and affirmative action is a temporary exercise in error checking that will be phased out when it is not needed

It seems we cannot abolish the term race, while it's being used to fight racism. Ironical, isn't it?

Racists disagree with you and are trying very hard to maintain that the categories exist and have supposed essences associated with them, and that we should make decisions using these categories.

And some decisions are fair to make, using racial categories.
If someone stole woman's wallet and she says it was white guy, the police should probably let black suspect go.
If doctor recommends you to do melanoma screening once a year, basing his decision (among other things) on your race and hair color, there is nothing wrong with this too.

 

[Naskra]

Care to elaborate on this post? It seems hyperbolic and rhetorical

Sure. A few weeks ago I was channel surfing, wishing to see the Ky Derby. Not being tv facile, I stumbled on an ESPN broadcast of some women's sprint event. I paused to watch it. What's 11 seconds anyhow? "I like #7 here, she looks like a guy" thinks me to myself. Sure enough #7 wins, and the booth guys start talking about (her, former his) testosterone issues.

 

[Senethro]

Racial background is in fact used in medical articles (I gave link before). Your opinion that ethnicity would be more useful is kind of irrelevant, unless you are a medical researcher.

Yeah, but it is suboptimal to do so. Different countries have different conceptions or interpretations of race. A superficial example - the racial category of "black" is very different in mainland US and Brazil. Good practice would be for researchers to use culture when they mean culture (like for stuff relating to behaviour), ethnicity/population when its to do with relatedness/recent ancestry, or to carefully describe the limitations present on definitions if they are taking a patients self-identified race.

In short: racial categories don't have a universal meaning so good scientific communication should avoid them without qualification.

It seems we cannot abolish the term race, until it's being used to fight racism. Ironical, isn't it?

I have no idea what you're saying here.

If someone stole woman's wallet and she says it was white guy, the police should probably let black suspect go.

Haha, go read about witness reliability.

If doctor recommends you to do melanoma screening once a year, basing his decision (among other things) on your race and hair color, there is nothing wrong with this too.

The doctor isn't doing it on your race, they're doing it based on your skin colour. The correlation is imperfect so you don't get to say they're making a decision here based on race. Light skinned people are vulnerable to solar radiation damage, end of.

 

[red_elk]

Yeah, but it is suboptimal to do so. Different countries have different conceptions or interpretations of race.

Using ethnicity in medical research doesn't make sense, because the differences between many ethnicities are mostly cultural.
You won't find the difference in disease rates between Belarussians and Poles, but may find ones between Belarussians/Poles and South Africans/Kenyans

I have no idea what you're saying here.

I'm saying that anti-racist affirmative action requires defining the concept of race.
Replying to your "the concept of race has no use except performing racism"

Haha, go read about witness reliability.

What witness reliability has to do with anything?
Describing suspect as "tall" or "man" isn't reliable either, so by your logic we should not use height and gender description in police reports too?

The doctor isn't doing it on your race, they're doing it based on your skin colour.

No.
Categories of patients in the article were named "African-American" and "Caucasian". South-Asian patients may have dark skin, but this research is not applicable to them.

A couple of other examples:
Hypertension affects African-Americans in unique ways
ALS statistics by sex, race, age and family
Race is a statistically significant medical factor, routinely used in research.

 

[Senethro]

Using ethnicity in medical research doesn't make sense, because the differences between many ethnicities are mostly cultural.

This sounds like a positive claim. One that would also require a definition of race so that you are able to distinguish race from ethnicity.

I'm saying that anti-racist affirmative action requires defining the concept of race.
Replying to your "the concept of race has no use except performing racism"

Its a reactive use that is fixing someone elses error/malice. Its simulating racial identification, but not using racial theory.

No.
Categories of patients in the article were named "African-American" and "Caucasian". South-Asian patients may have dark skin, but this research is not applicable to them.

What article?

A couple of other examples:
Hypertension affects African-Americans in unique ways
ALS statistics by sex, race, age and family
Race is a statistically significant medical factor, routinely used in research.

African-American is an ethnicity, not a race! Whats your point?

 

[red_elk]

Its a reactive use that is fixing someone elses error/malice. Its simulating racial identification, but not using racial theory.

Very well, so do I. So do medical researchers and police officers. It's possible to use the concept without engaging in racism.

What article?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5403065/

"Although melanoma is rare in African–Americans (AA), it is associated with a worse prognosis than in Caucasians."
"Patients of Caucasian or AA race (213,827 patients) with cutaneous melanoma were identified and exported to IBM SPSSv20.2"

African-American is an ethnicity, not a race! Whats your point?

Read the second article then - ALS statistics specifically mentions race of patients.
What's my point - see above. The concept of race has its uses outside of racism and discriminating people.

 

[Senethro]

Very well, so do I. So do medical researchers and police officers. It's possible to use the concept without engaging in racism.

Tell that to the police!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5403065/

"Although melanoma is rare in African–Americans (AA), it is associated with a worse prognosis than in Caucasians."
"Patients of Caucasian or AA race (213,827 patients) with cutaneous melanoma were identified and exported to IBM SPSSv20.2"

lol control-f the page. 28 incidences of ethnic (as in group, and a few extra hits in citations) and 2 results of race. They say ethnicity and they mean ethnicity. Mostly.

They are not making the magical claim that african-americans have the essence of blackness in common with the population of africa. they are treating african americans as an ethnic group with their own history

whereas you have been making little unexplained asides referring to the genes of "black" people as a group

its important to note that these studies are not diagnosing race or taking any kind of sample. they are asking the ethnicity of the patient and accepting their self-reported ethnicity without question. they are interested in the social group, not the supposed biological race

Read the second article then - ALS statistics specifically mentions race of patients.
What's my point - see above. The concept of race has its uses outside of racism and discriminating people.

Its a WebMD article that offers no explanation for how "race" has this action. It tends to be written for an american audience, leading to the poor relevence outside its context i described above

use of "race" in science is poor communication because there is not a functional and agreed definition of race in science. they mean ethnicity and they're just being sloppy/writing poorly

 

[Senethro]

Like, in general what you're doing is pretty dishonest. You want to use race in a biological sense (hence you refer to genes and stuff) but you give examples of race being used ambiguously, but to mostly mean the social group or ethnicity, and only in a US context.

If you really really want to use race neutrally, which gets an eyeroll and a tired shrug from me, then drop the idea of race being a biological/genetic group.

If you insist that what other people are describing as a social (and socially constructed) group has some kind of biological validity, prove it.

 

[Berzerker]

Because the concept of race has no use except performing racism. Thats what it was invented for.

So a better question is why maintain it - which you never answer.

Its easier than ethnicity, race is relevant to the lay man. I can identify someone as Asian without having the expertise required to distinguish between a Laotian and a Cambodian.

 

[BornInCantaloup]

Isn't Asia like a continent ?

I tell you, this thread will run circles past post 600.

 

[red_elk]

lol control-f the page. 28 incidences of ethnic (as in group, and a few extra hits in citations) and 2 results of race.

Not sure what you want to prove by this. There are 81 incidence of "Caucasian", by the way. Is it ethnicity too?

They are not making the magical claim that african-americans have the essence of blackness in common with the population of africa.

I don't care about the essence of blackness and all that stuff. They research differences between "Caucasian" and "AA" patients and distinction between these groups is racial, which is plainly stated in the article.

If you really really want to use race neutrally, which gets an eyeroll and a tired shrug from me, then drop the idea of race being a biological/genetic group.

Sounds like an ultimatum

 

[Senethro]

It is. One or the other. Either use race "neutrally" as a sloppy synonym for ethnicity, or admit that what you're really concerned about are supposed biological races which have some essence (or genes) that give them qualities that bear coincidental resemblance to racist stereotypes.

 

[Senethro]

Its easier than ethnicity, race is relevant to the lay man. I can identify someone as Asian without having the expertise required to distinguish between a Laotian and a Cambodian.

Yeah we already know that people who lack expertise are fans of the concept of race.

But seriously, this is just race as a folk taxonomy. As long as it isn't making claims about shared qualities and stereotypes its harmless but not especially well informed.