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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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'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"
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?
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.
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.
"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"
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.
"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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As informed as one can be based solely on appearances, whereas the discerning eye can paint a more detailed picture of a stranger. But both begin with 'race'. Or gender, or height, weight, build, or whatever else distinguishes them from the observer. I just dont see the logic is getting rid of race as a descriptor, we'd end up replacing it with other words. If you witness a crime 'race' will be among the first things you use to describe the culprit even if they're the same race as you.
Yes so when the old lady tells the cop the Asian guy did it, that will be really helpful for him in tracking the suspect based on his race, Harold and Kumar being the same race and all.
No, those are the regions populated by people typically seen as Asian (E Asian in Harold's case). I dont know why the census groups Indians and Pakistanis in with Japanese and Koreans, I posted the link for BiC to show there is such a thing as Asian people. If race was so stupid why did you make a distinction between Harold and Kumar?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
