Does Race exist?

[El_Machinae]

I cannot easily think of a way to determine the 'true' level of drug usage among a population. It's going to be a difficult piece of evidence to find. As well, arrests won't track linearly with usage. You expect them to be on some type of hyperbolic curve.

This might not matter. The better statistic would be the number of bad-faith stop and seizure .

 

[Hehehe]

Policy proposals?

1 what are you measures?

Stop mass immigration from the third world.

2 how has immigration been "disastrous"?
3 for whom has immigration been "disastrous"?

On average, third world immigrants are a fiscal net drain, and they commit more crime than the native population*.

*Some caveats may apply in the US, where certain segments of the native population commit a disproportionate amount of crime

No

We've reached disagreement bedrock, huh? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

So.. You don't explain your measures for why mass immigration is bad, the only talking point you manage is "fiscal drain" and "crime" (without posting any sources), and you don't specifiy a country you're talking about. Thanks for the worthless post and the reminder that there is absolutely no point ever replying to you.

 

[H4run]

like Estenbonrober stated, most probably he is just a racist in disguised.

"I'm not a racist, but...."

Moderator Action: Overtly calling someone a racist is flaming (as well as trolling) and is unacceptable. You may think it, but please don't post it as it adds nothing to the discussion and just causes hard feelings. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[red_elk]

As far as I understand, this issue related to immigration politics, not "races".
Countries like Canada have huge number of immigrants and mostly benefit from them.
Whereas problems in EU are mostly related not to immigrants per se, but to refugees from the countries recently democratized by the US.

 

[H4run]

As far as I understand, this issue related to immigration politics, not "races".

The answer of this can be yes or no, I believe you agree that many immigrant suffered racism at least to some degree. And most of the narration that is used against the immigrant have a racist tone in it (even though under the disguised of "I'm not a racist, but..."), like, protecting the local culture and native people (like the one from the Angst's thread) etc etc

 

[El_Machinae]

It becomes important to not conflate immigrants with refugees. An immigrant policy has to be carried under strategic thinking. A refugee policy is part of humanitarian treaties

 

[Lexicus]

It becomes important to not conflate immigrants with refugees.

I mean, I guess, if you're looking for excuses to keep people out of your country...

 

[H4run]

I mean, I guess, if you're looking for excuses to keep people out of your country...

But aren't those two are actually different in definition and priority?

 

[Lexicus]

But aren't those two are actually different in definition and priority?

All depends on what you want to do. The distinction in this context appears to be a way to create a class of people whom the far-right can be "right" about, at least in principle. It's a way of saying "oh their analysis is reasonable for immigrants, just not when they try to apply it to refugees" which I obviously disagree with completely.

My own view is that the actual distinction between immigrant and refugee is already sliding into irrelevance as more and more stated become "failed states" with constant slow-burn violence (ie, the situation in much of Latin America today) while we're only seeing the beginning of the disruptions that will be wrought by global warming that will begin to make "refugees" out of a significant chunk of the world's population.

One issue is that the framework of the "refugee" in the humanitarian treaties that were mentioned was created for the circumstances surrounding World War II and the Holocaust, they are not necessarily easy to generalize outside of that context.

 

[El_Machinae]

I mean, I guess, if you're looking for excuses to keep people out of your country...

Not really. If a strategic case can be made for open borders, it's still part of an immigration policy. Refugee policy is a very different thing. The only similarity us that both groups are 'not citizens'.

 

[red_elk]

The answer of this can be yes or no, I believe you agree that many immigrant suffered racism at least to some degree. And most of the narration that is used against the immigrant have a racist tone in it (even though under the disguised of "I'm not a racist, but..."), like, protecting the local culture and native people (like the one from the Angst's thread) etc etc

I was talking about immigrants impact on economy. Whether immigrants suffer from racism in particular country or not is a separate issue.

 

[H4run]

Not really. If a strategic case can be made for open borders, it's still part of an immigration policy. Refugee policy is a very different thing. The only similarity us that both groups are 'not citizens'.

I agree with you they are both different, however under wrong intention these differences can be politicized for further supporting policies that scrutinized and restricted the immigrant in inhumanely different level. When that narration already normalized and accepted, the refugee will be the next easy target.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't know. In Canada, I find that many of our people use immigration based rhetoric when talking about us helping with the refugee crisis.

People conflate the two concepts, I think it's an error

 

[H4run]

I don't know. In Canada, I find that many of our people use immigration based rhetoric when talking about us helping with the refugee crisis.

People conflate the two concepts, I think it's an error

You are right, while one group of population are moved to save their life, while the other migrated for a better chance/opportunity in life. But I think what Lexicus worried is when this differentiation is (mis)used as a rhetoric to squeeze (is it the right word?) the immigrant

 

[Lexicus]

You are right, while one group of population are moved to save their life, while the other migrated for a better chance/opportunity in life. But I think what Lexicus worried is when this differentiation is (mis)used as a rhetoric to squeeze (is it the right word?) the immigrant

Kind of, I guess. My basic point is that factually the distinction between these two things is not easy to make and only going to get harder over time - that is why it's important we understand that these treaties and the "refugee" framework we have in place arose in a specific set of circumstances. And so my fear is that dividing the discussion between refugees on the one hand and immigrants on the other only gives credit and rhetorical ground to the far-right, who have shown through e.g. Trump's de facto policy of shutting down the asylum application process that they won't bother even trying to make such distinctions anyway. I mean there have been people risking death to cross the Mediterannean for years and they are called "economic migrants" and greeted by "Fortress Europe" so I don't think this is an idle concern on my part.

Is a person escaping a country controlled by kleptocrats where violence is routine, but who isn't under any specific imminent threat of violence a refugee or an immigrant? What if agriculture in their country is slowly being strangled by climate change? There are just too many wrinkles to this refugee-vs-immigrant distinction, I'm not sure it's really useful in the real world.

 

[H4run]

And so my fear is that dividing the discussion between refugees on the one hand and immigrants on the other only gives credit and rhetorical ground to the far-right, who have shown through e.g. Trump's de facto policy of shutting down the asylum application process that they won't bother even trying to make such distinctions anyway.

Agree with you completely, such distinction only serves when it benefits them, and can be neglected when it needed.

I mean there have been people risking death to cross the Mediterannean for years and they are called immigrants and greeted by "Fortress Europe" so I don't think this is an idle concern on my part.

This also pretty much question the immigrant vs refugee distinction by necessity differences which I mentioned in my previous post. Yes I agree, moving to save your life is a loose and relative condition, this can be apply in any condition, be that refugee or immigrant. Of course if it is not because of the matter of utmost important they will not put themselves at risk their life to cross the Mediterranean or South America border to reach either Europe or US.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Is a person escaping a country controlled by kleptocrats where violence is routine, but who isn't under any specific imminent threat of violence a refugee or an immigrant?

Neither. I can't believe you're so far behind on the nomenclature. Such a person is an "illegal."

 

[red_elk]

Refugee can't return back home, because he was either forcibly displaced from home country or fled from there.
Immigrant just looking for another place to live, can always go back if he wants.

 

[Truthy]

@TruthyThis is an A-B population comparison isn't it? Not particular A and general A comparison?

Oh yeah, that was a typo. I meant to say the probability in population A is 0.3 and the probability in population B is 0.7. I didn't realize it was a typo when you first quoted it two days ago.

I believe the opening of your post are consist of how the theory of race classification based on genetic are build and developed until its most contemporary state (UFG clustering), which also increased the accuracy of the classification. You also pretty much coined the importance of genetic classification in biomedical field. However the point of our discussion are mostly at the follow up commentary and I will answer it simultaneously.

Yeah, Fst is still used for a lot of things, but for creating clusters, unsupervised fuzzy clustering is more popular nowadays as far as I know.

There's another complication in the clustering I didn't mention before, but probably should have. The loci used in population structure research usually don't directly code for phenotypes, like skin color. They're actually from non-coding regions usually. So if you were wondering "how much of the variation between populations that these studies find is just unimportant stuff like skin color?", the answer is that I don't think many people directly use those parts of the genome (however, Lewontin did use loci from coding regions in his 1972 paper).

But then you might also wonder "if these studies are mostly based on non-coding DNA, how can the clusters even mean anything with respect to race?" Well, the clusters sort of align with the traditional concepts even though you aren't just checking phenotypes. Also, there's a misconception that non-coding DNA is "junk DNA." It's not known exactly what large swathes of the genome do, but a lot of non-coding DNA regions are known to do something. For example, they can affect transcription factor binding, which can impact whether a gene is transcribed (i.e., converted into a protein). Overall, it seems very likely polymorphisms in non-coding regions do affect observable outcomes, in addition to being correlated with polymorphisms that code for observable traits.

Look, we can surely classify and categorized people based on their skin color, their geographical origins, their nationality, their ideology, their genetics structure and many other variable that you can or cannot imagine, but such classification are pointless if it doesn't follow the mean to classify it. Classifying human based on their genetics loci may prove to be fruitful and true for biomedical reason, but it doesn't prove the sociocultural significant of race classification.

I think I agree with this.

As an aside, here's an interesting article from 2014 arguing that clustering doesn't support race realism. Lewontin is actually one of the authors (the dude's still alive; he's 90). For one, they argue the term "clinal class" some people use is just a euphemism for "race" and it's oxymoronic. They also argue that traits used in the traditional concept of race often don't covary (e.g., maybe skin color and hair texture). But I dunno, I disagree with some of what they say. They're sort of vague and hand wavy a lot of the time.

Can we argue that the socialcultural classification of human based on skin color, for instance black and white people, are truth based on how science recognize the difference level of melanin between these two human category (white lower level of Melanin, while black is higher)? The premise of that both skin color have different melanin level are true, however to conclude with that premise to approve the validity of the traditional sociocultural black and white category is incorrect. These two are not related.

So do the premise of how human can be classified genetically doesn't prove that the traditional category of human is right in a sociocultural level. It maybe have its function and benefit in biomedical, however it doesn't mean bringing this category to the sociocultural level is more sound than categorizing people based on their eyes color for instance, because both are equally pointless.

I agree, though to be fair, if you use someone's membership in a cluster you get a lot more information than just skin color or eye color.

Today science is believe to be an absolute measurement to justify nearly everything, while it has its limit. With genetic science giving a platform for the kind of people that believe that race and cultural classification are biological, this will give them the platform to believe that the (unequal) diversity of races and culture were evolutionary. This can be anytime used to give justification for any prejudice action when it needed.

A lot of the other posts in this thread make me worried.

The reality of human can be classify by genetic group explain nothing but the reality of human can be classify by genetic group. We may only can benefit only to the term that related on this reality, it is not explaining any socio or philosophical reality of human classification.

It is a 1+1=1+1 kind of thing

I'm not sure I understand.