Does Race exist?

[jarred!]

I hope I haven't said the idea of race doesn't exist. I'm saying Science(TM) doesn't support classifying humans into 'race' categories.

If you think I'm arguing that Racism doesn't exist, I'm not. They are two separate ideas. Race doesn't have to be scientifically supported for people to pretend it matters.

 

[Senethro]

An atheist doesn't think god exists when they take into account other people act as if god exists

 

[Archon_Wing]

I'm saying Science(TM) doesn't support classifying humans into 'race' categories.

I know; I never said that; in fact I sorta implied it already. I have been defining race as a social construct since my initial post

I don't think it's enough on its own to denounce racism; but also the entire concept of race itself.

An atheist doesn't think god exists when they take into account other people act as if god exists

Could you show me a census form that allows me to identify as God or some other deity?

God may not exist, but the concept of god or gods-- usually through some religion-- certainly exists. Though regardless your analogy doesn't really work, since God is from the point of an atheist-- a fictional character-- not an categorization in and of itself. I mean, you're not an atheist, if you simply lack a belief in the Christian god, the Muslim God, or the spaghetti monster; it requires a lack of belief in the very concept of such a deity.

 

[Senethro]

Ok, that analogy seems to have crashed and burned. Sorry. Hmmm.

 

[brennan]

I hope I haven't said the idea of race doesn't exist. I'm saying Science(TM) doesn't support classifying humans into 'race' categories.

What is the scientific justification for classifying organisms into Genera? What is the scientific justification for classifying politics into left and right? What is the scientific justification for classifying paper into 'A' sizes?

This is an entirely false standard.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Ok, that analogy seems to have crashed and burned. Sorry. Hmmm.

Nah, I'm just being sorta super pedantic here; I mean no hostility to anyone, except for people that try to force you to believe in 19th century imperialist propaganda. Or people that kill because some guy in the sky told them to. But lol, well, while I do not hate anyone for just being religious, my opinions on that, well.... let's save that for another time. I do agree that people are using appeal to ignorance to force certain ideas upon us.

What is the scientific justification for classifying organisms into Genera? What is the scientific justification for classifying politics into left and right? What is the scientific justification for classifying paper into 'A' sizes?

This is an entirely false standard.

I mean, that's a lot of questions, but that conclusion does not follow. Need an argument somewhere I think.

 

[Berzerker]

If racism is the reason for the disparity, can you list a law that is specifically racist that would create this disparity?

White privilege most certainly existed before, during, and then after the civil rights movement up to some point (and elsewhere even longer, e.g. South Africa and other colonised African countries among others), but to say that white people have this privileged advantaged (privilege that is unearned) in today's society I think is a hyperbole, especially when you take into consideration affirmative action and other racial programs, then it starts to go the other way.

Slavery, Jim Crow and the modern drug war specifically targeted black people.

(Most) non-white people know racism is real. Aside from a few people who can be safely dismissed as marginal crackpots, it's pretty much all white people who think race is real. And of course it's pretty much only whites who feel like the humanity of non-whites is something to be debated politely over cocktails...

Marginal crackpots dont think race is real? People of all colors have been slaughtering each other for eons so I dont know how you decided only white people dehumanize 'them'.

 

[Truthy]

So Anatolian Turkic are European dwellers?

I dunno, if you count Turkey as part of Europe, sure why not.

when the emerging of nation-state concept meets globalization, flog of immigration and many of other factor, this racial understanding not only incorrect but also becomes problematic.

Do Abdul Latif Jandali Ibn Abdul Fattah aka Steve Jobs is European Dweller or Middle Eastern Sand Dwellers?

I find these two lines to be cryptic, but I think you're taking exception because you perceived my phrase "Europe-dweller" as excluding, say, Middle Eastern immigrants to Western countries. I'm not saying such people aren't European (or American, in Jobs' case). There's a reason I said "most modern Europe-dwellers." I thought this exact thing while I was writing that post. I do not believe in making whiteness a prereq for being a European.

Also, to be clear, I said "Europe-dweller," not "European-dweller." This was done deliberately to emphasize the inhabited area, as opposed to insinuating a racial component. Not sure if this misreading was a source of confusion for you.

 

[Truthy]

What a lot of reading to catch up...
We have genes. Many genes. Genes in all kinds of variety and combinations. The not so many genes coding for physical appearance go skindeep only and not telling that much on all the other genes.
So... why using the word "race" ?
A word that has been abused so much in the last centuries. So much variety in connotations that are not helpful for effective communication. And the word "race" is anyway not descriptive enough for all kinds of biological-medical effects ?

Some remarks/info
1.
2.
Historical tribal genocides and/or surpression/social stratification.

Also, just for the record, if you follow the links to the studies and check out the authors, you find that almost all of this research had as an author (a) David Reich or (b) members of David Reich's lab. For example, his lab was one of the main groups involved in linking the Yamnaya culture to the proto-Indo-European language family. This research was linked to by the articles you shared. He is a colossus in this field who has helped make our understanding of human history vastly richer and more interesting. He is not some fringe lunatic Charles Murray type (edit: nor is he some James Watson-styled racist). I highly recommend his book "Who we are and how we got here." It is easily one of the most interesting things I've ever read.

 

[Farm Boy]

let's save that for another time.

Why wait? Thread is kinda a natural clearing house for prejudice of all shapes and sizes. Ah well, if you choose to, it will be back around again, and again, and again...

 

[Estebonrober]

/smh Homo Sapiens amiright?

I'm pretty aware of white racism but isn't East Asian racism almost as vitriolic? Like the Han Chinese are dismissive to a lot of ethnicities. Looks at the human rights crisis that is the Uighur camps.

 

[Estebonrober]

Why wait? Thread is kinda a natural clearing house for prejudice of all shapes and sizes. Ah well, if you choose to, it will be back around again, and again, and again...

That took me right back to my Art Bell Coast to Coast nights. . . lol

 

[Farm Boy]

Neato, never heard of him until now. Sounds like it would have been, if nothing else, and interesting program. I do like classic radio.

 

[Berzerker]

FB got me watching youtube videos of the Highwaymen now. Had to watch the live version.

/smh Homo Sapiens amiright?

I'm pretty aware of white racism but isn't East Asian racism almost as vitriolic? Like the Han Chinese are dismissive to a lot of ethnicities. Looks at the human rights crisis that is the Uighur camps.

Chris Rock said old black men are the most racist but an Asian comic said Americans are nothing compared to East Asia when it comes to racism.

Art Bell did a bunch of shows on ancient aliens, Area 51 etc

 

[H4run]

I dunno, if you count Turkey as part of Europe, sure why not.

I find these two lines to be cryptic, but I think you're taking exception because you perceived my phrase "Europe-dweller" as excluding, say, Middle Eastern immigrants to Western countries. I'm not saying such people aren't European (or American, in Jobs' case). There's a reason I said "most modern Europe-dwellers." I thought this exact thing while I was writing that post. I do not believe in making whiteness a prereq for being a European.

Also, to be clear, I said "Europe-dweller," not "European-dweller." This was done deliberately to emphasize the inhabited area, as opposed to insinuating a racial component. Not sure if this misreading was a source of confusion for you.

So it is determined by their location, their language and culture not by genetic (yada yada yada)? Or is it depend from how cool the people/group was or were?

Steve Jobs? Of course that cool Syrian refugee son is from us, he is European sure! Very strange question you have here!

Errgh the Turk? I guess they can be European if you insist... why not? or can we percieved them as mideastern? What do you think?

LOL

 

[Peuri]

/smh Homo Sapiens amiright?

I'm pretty aware of white racism but isn't East Asian racism almost as vitriolic? Like the Han Chinese are dismissive to a lot of ethnicities. Looks at the human rights crisis that is the Uighur camps.

Yea, but, no, but, yea, but that's actually not the same because colonialism, the Atlantic slave trade, race science, the crusades, the reconqista, orientalism, prejudice + power, the patriarchy, white forms of knowing etc. etc. etc. Add some more -isms and -phobias for good measure.

 

[jarred!]

What is the scientific justification for classifying organisms into Genera? What is the scientific justification for classifying politics into left and right? What is the scientific justification for classifying paper into 'A' sizes?

This is an entirely false standard.

You're arguing that because 'race' is in The Dictionary, 'black people' are different from 'white people?'

 

[brennan]

I'm saying that almost every system of classification in use uses arbitrary standards to separate groups. The stance that the taxon 'race' makes no sense because it uses arbitrary standards (e.g. as simple as skin colour), is inconsistent with the stance people take on pretty much everything else. If you reject 'race' as a taxon, you must reject breeds of dogs, varieties of plants, sub species of anything, genus, family, order, class etc - and then for consistency apply the same standard to every other classification scheme. People do not do this, so their arguments must be based upon some other standard - which is the historical baggage of the idea of race.

Black people are different from white people - you can tell the difference with your eyes. Black people are black, white people are white.

 

[Senethro]

Yes, classification systems are social constructs. They have no independent existence outside our heads.

Taxons are useful ones because they describe something well for the purpose of taxonomists.

Race is a harmful one because it was developed and used by ******* imperialists who are still ruining some things centuries after their death.

Also,

Black people are different from white people - you can tell the difference with your eyes. Black people are black, white people are white.

The use of the word race is an assertion that all people who look "black" (or asian or w/e) have some essence of "blackness" about them, and this idea was used to make it permissible to oppress and exploit them. Racists assert that people still have this innate racial essence they can diagnose, usually by looking at someone.

 

[Kyriakos]

I do agree with Brennan regarding that obviously there is both object to differentiate and ability to differentiate. Of course skin colour doesn't mean anything other than skin colour. Yet it isn't correct to claim that skin colour isn't to be used in taxonomy; it is used in all other beings on earth too despite most other traits in those species being in common. In other words, the problem in my view isn't that people can identify "x colour human" as easy to differentiate from "y colour human"; that by itself isn't negative or biased.