History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VI

[awesome]

We did that for our benefit, not theirs. We needed markets postwar for our economy, and we were very afraid of them going over to The Reds.

debatable. we obviously had our own benefit in mind, but i don't think we only did it so that we had another trade partner. it's not like we demanded that they trade with us and only us.
cue someone saying that we did.

I think my favorite part is where you pretend this is a valid excuse for murdering hundreds of thousands of people.

By the way, this wasn't what it would take to win, it was what it would take to get the Japanese to surrender unconditionally. We could have ended the war before, but Roosevelt and Co. swore themselves not to have a negotiated peace with the enemy.

But nope, it's those Japanese defending their home islands that are crazy and bloodthirsty.

nice job taking everything out of context. i didn't say it was a valid excuse, just that we did it because we had the ability to do it and we wanted to scare the crap out of them. it's true that they were basically defeated before we even dropped the bombs, but i personally don't think they would have surrendered if we didn't do something drastic. that "something drastic" didn't have to necessarily be an atomic bomb, since we were also planning a main island invasion.
and, if we're going to go on technicalities, then the japanese didn't surrender unconditionally, they surrendered on the condition that their emperor remained head of state...but nobody really likes technicalities and semantics.

The Soviet Union was never a German ally. Germany and the USSR signed a non-aggression pact, not an alliance. Neither was obliged to defend the other, merely not to attack the other.

at the very least, they were helping each other out with land deals.
regardless, breaking the non-agression treaty and invading russia was a bad idea and possibly the beginning of the proverbial nail in the coffin.

Ps. Shouldn't the US be a militaristic nation in the game Civilization? Quite possibly the greatest number of possible historically significant/ground breaking unique military units (first developed by the US), of all nations, of all time, think about it.

problem is, with us being so strong, it would have to have bonuses in just about everything. same goes with a lot of other super powerful factions in the game. you'd just get a bunch of guys with the same stuff and maybe a few guys without some of it.
but, i wouldn't mind us being more militaristic.

 

[Domen]

Louis XXIV:

I think you are confusing ethnicity with nationality.

In another thread I explained differences between ethnic affiliation, national identity, ancestry and citizenship.

I guess believed national origin might be a helpful way of thinking about it with an emphasis on origin

National origin (i.e. ancestry) is also yet another different thing. Please don't mix up so many distinct concepts together.

The black Frenchman, for example, would be of African ethnicity.

Every Frenchman is of African origin (not ethnicity, don't mix them up), but some came 40000 years ago, some 400 ya and some only 4 ya. Those who came at least few thousand years ago rather can't be distinguished from the rest, due to slow climate-influenced drift in pigmentation over dozens of generations:

Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 years

Significance

Eye, hair, and skin pigmentation are highly variable in humans, particularly in western Eurasian populations. This diversity may be explained by population history, the relaxation of selection pressures, or positive selection. To investigate whether positive natural selection is responsible for depigmentation within Europe, we estimated the strength of selection acting on three genes known to have significant effects on human pigmentation. In a direct approach, these estimates were made using ancient DNA from prehistoric Europeans and computer simulations. This allowed us to determine selection coefficients for a precisely bounded period in the deep past. Our results indicate that strong selection has been operating on pigmentation-related genes within western Eurasia for the past 5,000 years.

Abstract

Pigmentation is a polygenic trait encompassing some of the most visible phenotypic variation observed in humans. Here we present direct estimates of selection acting on functional alleles in three key genes known to be involved in human pigmentation pathways—HERC2, SLC45A2, and TYR—using allele frequency estimates from Eneolithic, Bronze Age, and modern Eastern European samples and forward simulations. Neutrality was overwhelmingly rejected for all alleles studied, with point estimates of selection ranging from around 2–10% per generation. Our results provide direct evidence that strong selection favoring lighter skin, hair, and eye pigmentation has been operating in European populations over the last 5,000 years.

I chose ethnicity over race because race is an extremely fluid concept

Ethnicity is a cultural-linguistic concept. Race is a biological-anthropological concept. National identity is political-ideological. Citizenship is a legal concept. Ancestry is a matter of genealogy and geography but not of genetics. You can't mix up all these notions. They are all essentially different in nature.

You live in the USA, where public media officially adopted word "ethnicity" as a replacement word for "race".

Maybe this is why you are confusing the two things. Which in turn leads to a number of other mistakes.

Disabled Germans are still German. Hitler was not racist towards them.

In thread "Will Hitler be seen in a more positive way in the far future?" I quoted evidence that Hitler did not equate races with ethnic groups.

He believed in large overlaps between races and corresponding ethnic groups, but still he did not equate them entirely.

For Hitler there were some "racially useless" people among Germans, as well as many "racially useful" people among Non-Germans.

 

[Domen]

Hitler could be racist against Polish people because of their Slavic ethnicity even though both are "white" by most definitions.

Ethno-linguistically and culturally Poles are Slavic, but if you say "ethnicity" as something genetic, then we don't even know what exactly is "Slavic DNA".

There are three types of DNA useful in establishing genetic origins - Y-DNA haplogroup (HG), mtDNA and autosomal DNA (autosomal DNA is actually the most meaningful in establishing "race" since it actually consists of 22 pairs of chromosome, while YX pair of chromosome can only be used to trace one line of ancestors - direct paternal ancestry; just like mitochondrial DNA in case of direct maternal ancestry - also one line of ancestors out of hundreds).

HGs divide further into subclades. For example R1b is not homogeneous but consists of many major and minor clades. Each subclade indicates a distinct ancestor at some point in time. Haplogroup R1b can be found from Congo to Scotland, R1a from Bangladesh to Norway and I from Siberia to Bosnia:

R1b:

Spoiler :

I:

Spoiler :

R1a:

Spoiler :

Yet these people are not identical (but then Y chromosome is not responsible for phenotypes - this is what 44 autosomal chromosomes are responsible for). In Western Europe alone, there are several major clades of R1b (for example U106, U152, L21 and DF27, etc.), each of them at least a couple of thousands years old. You can see clear geographic distribution of these clades. L21 can be found in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany and England:

DF27 can be seen mostly in Iberia:

Similar situation is of course with R1a. There exist many major and minor subclades. Major ones are at least a couple of thousands years old each.

There seem to be only one Y-DNA gene which is common to all Slavic and Baltic people - Z280 subclade of R1a haplogroup (except for Z92 which is one of further variants of Z280, but it is only common for East Slavs). This confirms what linguists and archaeologists have for long been assuming, the existence of Balto-Slavic peoples as one ethnicity in the past (before they split into Slavs and Balts) - who were probably responsible for spreading this gene:

even though both are "white" by most definitions.

You can barely distinguish Poles as a group from Germans as a group.

Photos of 454 Poles (men and women) plus 2 German women:

http://postimg.org/image/tjqu82n59/full/

Spoiler :

Photos of 453 Germans (men and women) plus 3 Polish men:

http://postimg.org/image/pt9dwzx23/full/

Spoiler :

Boths samples are perhaps about as representative as you can get, since they are democratically and geographically representative.

These are deputies of Bundestag and deputies of Sejm.

"white" by most definitions.

Skin pigmentation in Europe (Poles are actually slightly whiter than Germans, but not as white as their Baltic and Slavic north-eastern neighbours):

In terms of eye colours and hair colours Poles are also mostly light, but % of light blonde hair is smaller than among Balts and North-East Slavs.

 

[Louis XXIV]

God, I really don't have time to parse that in detail. You have a weird mix of splitting hairs and overgeneralizing at the same time (along with some assumptions in there). I'm not even sure what your point is besides trying to literally argue semantics (i.e., arguing over terminology solely because you prefer different terminology not because there's any kind of confusion). I'll cherrypick a few points, though.

Race is absolutely not a biological concept, it is a cultural concept, at least on the margins. And my point is it's possible to be racist against Hispanic people without having to debate whether Hispanic is a race or if they're white. The goal was simplification, not complication and look where that got me. I just wanted to say the antecedents of racism could be found in the kind of stereotyping present in Roman propaganda, plays, etc. directed against those who were not Roman or Greek (although, as time went on, they often associated Greeks with the stereotypes of Easterners as well).

I absolutely would not say that ethnicity is genetic. You won't find that anywhere in my post because my whole point is that it's cultural. But I also would absolutely not say race is genetic either. There is greater diversity in DNA among so-called races than between them. Yes, Germans and Poles have a lot in common genetically, but so do Germans and Kenyans.

I will try this again. Ethnicity is about believed national origin. It is in the eye of the person making the distinction and is absolutely not objective. It is, however, determined by cultural norms so you can't just go around making things up and defining them yourself. That's why the fact that everyone is from Africa is irrelevant. People who define those of African origin differently from French origin don't believe that's relevant. They think you should look to more recent history. Hair-splitting on technicalities didn't change my point.

Anyway, since my point has apparently been lost in the morass of technicalities, hair-splitting, and quibbles that you have focused on based on the use of two words, which you think can be somehow objectively defined without reference to culture, I'll just bow out here. It's not the point of my post and it's not what I was discussing. You can pour a deluge of information in response to those words if you want, but I'd prefer to return to the topic.

 

[Domen]

Race is absolutely not a biological concept, it is a cultural concept, at least on the margins.

Nope. In science word "race" is used in a taxonomic sense, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.

Ethnicity is about believed national origin.

Nope. This is ancestry not ethnicity. Ethnography is how the science researching human cultures (not human migrations), is called.

Ethnolinguistics (cultural linguistics) is another science researching some aspects of ethnic groups (i.e. cultural-linguistic groups).

There is greater diversity in DNA among so-called races than between them.

In case of overall human genome - yes. But in case of some particular genes responsible for some specific characteristics - not at all.

For example genes HERC2, SLC45A2 and TYR - responsible for pigmentation - have greater diversity between races than among them.

arguing over terminology solely because you prefer different terminology not because there's any kind of confusion).

I was not arguing about terminology. You were mixing up and merging several distinct concepts of essentially distinct nature into one.

arguing over terminology solely because you prefer different terminology

Entire Europe prefers different terminology. You can use your own if you want but don't impose your Americano-centrism on us, please.

race has barely any meaning and some kind of simplistic black/white divide is seldom helpful.

Taking a look at the list of champions of Competitive Running in athletics shows that this "simplistic black/white divide" is sometimes helpful.

 

[awesome]

At the end of the day, no counter-point will be convincing enough to a racist. They know that every human is a human (whether they believe it or not) and, just like any other opinionated person, can twist words to suit their needs.

In science

There's your problem. Most people don't look at it scientifically, but rather culturally. And if they do use science to back up their claims, it's pseudoscience.

 

[Domen]

use of two words, which you think can be somehow objectively defined without reference to culture

Words can't be defined because words are only tools used to denote concepts. Concepts, not their names, can be defined.

You can call these concepts using different words (names), if you want. But please don't mix up the concepts themselves.

Kenyans

Kenyans are not a race. But perhaps people of a few different races live in Kenya, and call themselves Kenyans.

Of course racial divisions always depend on how much detail the classifying one goes into. That's why there is no any scientific consensus regarding the number of races. The general picture is that we are all similar, but basing on details you can distinguish various anthropological components. Because you can only divide people into biological races if you look at details. Now if you go into more detail you get more sub-races, if you go into less detail you get only a few races. This is the main work of scientists known as anthropologists. Anthropology and genetics exist whether you like it or not. Moreover - they are often used as supplementary tools in archaeology, when some ancient cemeteries or graves are discovered. Of course don't confuse science with amateurish folk beliefs.

 

[bhsup]

I know of one living human race. Homo sapiens sapiens. It seems many scientists concur with this layman's thought process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)

Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications. While some researchers sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive or simplistic way, and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.

 

[Domen]

I know of one living human race. Homo sapiens sapiens.

Yet another person confusing distinct concepts. Homo sapiens sapiens is a species, not a race:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies

In biology, a species (plural: species) is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem. Differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology, or ecological niche.

(...)

In biological classification, subspecies (abbreviated "subsp." or "ssp."; plural: "subspecies") is either a taxonomic rank subordinate to species, or a taxonomic unit in that rank. A subspecies cannot be recognized in isolation: a species will either be recognized as having no subspecies at all or two or more (including any that are extinct), never just one.

The issue of species and subspecies, just like the issue of races, is also confusing - and both are fluid concepts. For example today we know that there was interbreeding between Homo sapiens sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, and other archaic humans. So if Homo sapiens sapiens and those archaic humans produced fertile offspring (which has been proven by geneticists), a question appears, whether they were different species / subspecies than us, or the same species. It has been proven that genetic differences between us and - for example - Neanderthals, were not as big as was assumed in the past.

In fact ca. 20% of Neanderthal genome continues to "live" within all 7 billion humans altogether. And if we take genes of an average guy in Europe as 100%, then - on average - 96% comes from Homo sapiens sapiens and 4% from Neanderthals. Nethertheless, even if you gather all Neanderthal genes from all living humans, you will get only ca. 20% of complete genome (the remaining 80% was bred out in selection or due to a small amount of original admixture). It should be possible to find - among 7 billion humans - at least one who looks like a descendant of 3 human grandparents and 1 Neanderthal grandparent. On the other hand, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens sapiens shared a lot of similar genes already before mixing with each other. After all, they had common ancestors.

=========================================

Just to avoid another confusion of concepts - Homo (which includes all hominids, not just us but also archaic humans) is a genus, not a species:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo

 

[Agent327]

Nope. In science word "race" is used in a taxonomic sense, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.

I'm not sure where you found this 'information', but race isn't a scientific term when applied to humans, species is. Biologically speaking the differences between 'races' are negligible.

Yet another person confusing distinct concepts. Homo sapiens sapiens is a species, not a race

If you know the difference between the terms I suggest you stop using 'race' when discussing humans.

 

[Domen]

If you know the difference between the terms I suggest you stop using 'race' when discussing humans.

Some works use term "anthropological type" instead of "race", but I'm not sure if this is correct as your looks not always reflect your genetic origin. Some people also age in a strange way (for example Yeltsin is often cited as a "proof for Mongol-Russian marriages", but only old Yeltsin looked like this):

Young Yeltsin / Old Yeltsin:

I'm not sure where you found this 'information'

That was a direct quotation from an encyclopedical definition.

but race isn't a scientific term when applied to humans, species is.

Nope. Race has been a scientific term when applied to humans. It is rarely applied to animals, actually.

Species is applied to both animals and hominids. Breed is usually applied to domesticated animals.

Biologically speaking the differences between 'races' are negligible.

Who says they aren't negligible?

Of course they are. Differences in DNA between, for example, Koreans, Swedes and Pygmies amount to only fractions of percentiles.

But biologically speaking, humans share also nearly 99% of common DNA with chimpanzees and as much as 30% with onions.

You are looking at a 1/3 Human:

race has barely any meaning and some kind of simplistic black/white divide is seldom helpful.

Since 1968, all world record holders in the men's 100-meter dash have been black. Mostly people with origins in Western Africa.

Not that blacks are worse at long-distance running, the only difference is that males with origins in Eastern Africa dominate here.

In Poland the best male long-distance runner is also a Pole of Ethiopian origin - Yared Shegumo.

Now think how many Poles of Ethiopian or Kenyan origin are there. Hint - not too many.

Americans are rarely winning men's long-distance running competitions because they imported slaves only from Western Africa.

 

[awesome]

Words can't be defined because words are only tools used to denote concepts. Concepts, not their names, can be defined.

You can call these concepts using different words (names), if you want. But please don't mix up the concepts themselves.



Kenyans are not a race. But perhaps people of a few different races live in Kenya, and call themselves Kenyans.

Of course racial divisions always depend on how much detail the classifying one goes into. That's why there is no any scientific consensus regarding the number of races. The general picture is that we are all similar, but basing on details you can distinguish various anthropological components. Because you can only divide people into biological races if you look at details. Now if you go into more detail you get more sub-races, if you go into less detail you get only a few races. This is the main work of scientists known as anthropologists. Anthropology and genetics exist whether you like it or not. Moreover - they are often used as supplementary tools in archaeology, when some ancient cemeteries or graves are discovered. Of course don't confuse science with amateurish folk beliefs.

>use pseudoscientific argument
>make a single claim that's true, but not because of the arguments you present
>claim scientists agree with you
>even though they don't, especially the ones in social science fields you're using in your argument
>make minor claims that are backed up by actual science
>claim cuz science
>even though the cultural arguments both assume and explain those scientific arguments
>but still claim it's not cultural at all

 

[Domen]

>even though they don't, especially the ones in social science fields
(...)
>even though the cultural arguments both assume and explain those scientific arguments
>but still claim it's not cultural at all

Awesome - are you claiming that black pigmentation and broad noses, etc., are "social" or "cultural" ???

BTW - people who want to create a "more multicultural Europe" are going to fail. Europe will eventually turn terribly white again, because this is what happens with people who migrate to cold climates - they become white. Of course not immediately, only after dozens of generations (several thousand years).

Must be kind of depressing for leftists that all these Bangladeshis in London will look and act just like regular native Brits by year 7014.

Broad noses of Sub-Saharan Brits are also not necessary in Europe since you can easily get a cold due to such a nose in such a climate. So noses will turn more narrow as well. Unless of course global warming makes Britain as hot as Bangladesh. The only hope for multicultarists to live in a colorful future, instead of boring whiteness. Such a terribly racist climate we have in Europe, unfortunately. Let's promote global warming as part of the anti-race campaign.

Meanwhile continue to delude yourself that champion male sprint runners are black only "culturally".

And because of their "culture" they comprise 100% of men's world record holders since 1968.

the ones in social science fields you're using in your argument

I used anthropologists in my argument.

Anthropology might be included by most classifications as one of social sciences, but it has little to do with psychology or sociology.

Especially paleoanthropology - which is used, alongside genetics, as one of auxiliary sciences of archaeology and history.

 

[Flying Pig]

It's quite manifest that different people have different physical characteristics, and that some of those characteristics are hereditary. That much is scientific, but the notion that one can divide people into categories based on those characteristics - that is, races - and claim that their divisions are anything other than totally arbitrary is not. It is perfectly scientific to observe that some people have darker skin and broader noses than others, but totally unscientific to argue that people with a certain shade of skin and a certain broadness of nose belong to race A while those with another shade and broadness belong to race B - those labels are entirely the choice of the person doing the categorisation, which is not how scientific categories work.

 

[Domen]

In science

There's your problem. Most people don't look at it scientifically, but rather culturally.

Most people also don't look at the issue of intelligent life on other planets scientifically, but rather they have a culture of strange beliefs about UFO.

Sorry - difference between "race" in popular culture and "race" in science is like difference between conventional medicine and shamanism.

But why are you encouraging me to reject scientific approach and to stick to "racial shamanism", I have no idea.

It's quite manifest that different people have different physical characteristics, and that some of those characteristics are hereditary. That much is scientific, but the notion that one can divide people into categories based on those characteristics - that is, races - and claim that their divisions are anything other than totally arbitrary is not. It is perfectly scientific to observe that some people have darker skin and broader noses than others, but totally unscientific to argue that people with a certain shade of skin and a certain broadness of nose belong to race A while those with another shade and broadness belong to race B - those labels are entirely the choice of the person doing the categorisation, which is not how scientific categories work.

I'm not sure if you really believe in what you are talking above, but skin shades of Chinese people are completely different than skin shades of Kenyans. And you are claiming that the range and frequencies of skin shades among all groups of people - both Chinese, Kenyans, etc., etc. - are the same. Obviously claiming that there is no obvious difference in particular characteristics between the natives of Kenya and the natives of China is unscientific. Not the other way around.

Do you also believe for example that Protestants in the USA are descendants of converted Native Americans ??? This idea borders on similar naivety.

Genetics is used in forensic science and in medicine. You can tell from perpetrator's DNA collected on murder site whether he was White or Black, etc. If there were no differences between races, then distinguishing between race of murder perpetrators basing just on their DNA would be impossible. And it is possible.

In medicine, Whites have increased risks of certain diseases and Blacks have increased risks of other diseases. Recognizing this fact saves lifes.

The recognition that races exist is not racist by itself. In medicine it is better if doctors are such "racists", because they can save more lifes then.

In forensic science DNA of perpetrator collected from murder site can sometimes significantly narrow down the range of suspects.

 

[awesome]

Awesome - are you claiming that black pigmentation and broad noses, etc., are "social" or "cultural" ???

BTW - people who want to create a "more multicultural Europe" are going to fail. Europe will eventually turn terribly white again, because this is what happens with people who migrate to cold climates - they become white. Of course not immediately, only after dozens of generations (several thousand years).

Must be kind of depressing for leftists that all these Bangladeshis in London will look and act just like regular native Brits by year 7014.

Broad noses of Sub-Saharan Brits are also not necessary in Europe since you can easily get a cold due to such a nose in such a climate. So noses will turn more narrow as well. Unless of course global warming makes Britain as hot as Bangladesh. The only hope for multicultarists to live in a colorful future, instead of boring whiteness. Such a terribly racist climate we have in Europe, unfortunately. Let's promote global warming as part of the anti-race campaign.

Meanwhile continue to delude yourself that champion male sprint runners are black only "culturally".

And because of their "culture" they comprise 100% of men's world record holders since 1968.



I used anthropologists in my argument.

Anthropology might be included by most classifications as one of social sciences, but it has little to do with psychology or sociology.

Especially paleoanthropology - which is used, alongside genetics, as one of auxiliary sciences of archaeology and history.

what i am claiming is that culture has just as much to do with these things as science does, if not more. for example, why is sickle-cell anemia so prevalent in africans? not just because they're black, but because it meant that you were less likely to get malaria. there were actual social and cultural decisions that went into that. people made an active decision that "not dying" is one of many traits to look for in a mate.
again, that's not saying that there is no science involved at all, but that the cultural arguments both assume that the scientific facts are true and explain them. the same can be said of narrow noses in europe.

and if you think that anthropologists don't study the sociology and psychology, then you should probably talk to an actual anthropologist.

 

[Domen]

why is sickle-cell anemia so prevalent in africans? not just because they're black, but because it meant that you were less likely to get malaria.

Whites who migrate to malaria-stricken part of Africa are not immediately becoming less likely to get malaria and more likely to get sickle-cell anemia.

So your argument is a failure. Blacks live there for thousands of years. That's why they are Black and that's why they are less likely to get malaria.

And when a Black person who has this malaria-immunity gene moves to the United States, this gene does not disappear. Because he or she is Black.

and if you think that anthropologists don't study the sociology and psychology, then you should probably talk to an actual anthropologist.

Anthropologists do study the connections between behaviour and race. So they study psychology & sociology of various races. Or at least they did so in the past. It is considered racist nowadays to think that various races might be even slightly behavorally different, so psychology of race is no longer popular.

actual social and cultural decisions that went into that. people made an active decision that "not dying" is one of many traits to look for in a mate.

That's called selection and is related to genes & biology - not culture. And not people made those decisions, but nature itself. Simply those who developed that malaria-immunity gene, lived longer and had more offspring. While those who didn't have it, were more likely to die young, and didn't pass on their genes.

Of course individuals who look more healthy, or more adapted to a particular climate, are desired mating partners. And here sexual selection comes in. But in case of malaria-immunity gene I don't think that you can recognize a person who has it by just looking at him or her. So natural selection was important here.

When pale-skinned people migrate to sunny regions, they become darker due to adaptation and increased mortality rate of palest individuals (skin cancer). When dark-skinned people migrate to cold and cloudy places, they become lighter due to the same factors (e.g. not enough vitamin D and higher mortality).

So there is a genetic drift / adaptation going on, which is rather slow - about 2% of children per generation become lighter / darker than their parents.

If generation A moves to a cold cloudy climate, then among generation B, some 98% will be like their parents (A), but 2% will be slightly lighter. Etc.

 

[Flying Pig]

I'm not sure if you really believe in what you are talking above, but skin shades of Chinese people are completely different than skin shades of Kenyans. And you are claiming that the range and frequencies of skin shades among all groups of people - both Chinese, Kenyans, etc., etc. - are the same. Obviously claiming that there is no obvious difference in particular characteristics between the natives of Kenya and the natives of China is unscientific. Not the other way around.

Do you also believe for example that Protestants in the USA are descendants of converted Native Americans ??? This idea borders on similar naivety.

Genetics is used in forensic science and in medicine. You can tell from perpetrator's DNA collected on murder site whether he was White or Black, etc. If there were no differences between races, then distinguishing between race of murder perpetrators basing just on their DNA would be impossible. And it is possible.

In medicine, Whites have increased risks of certain diseases and Blacks have increased risks of other diseases. Recognizing this fact saves lifes.

The recognition that races exist is not racist by itself. In medicine it is better if doctors are such "racists", because they can save more lifes then.

In forensic science DNA of perpetrator collected from murder site can sometimes significantly narrow down the range of suspects.

None of that has any relation to what I said. It's legitimate to point out that different people have different characteristics - it's even fair to use 'black' or 'white' as a shorthand for those, because people acknowledge certain characteristics to fit into certain moulds. That's a socially-defined concept, though, not a scientific one. In the same way, it's fair to say that somebody is 'tall', but not fair to say that 'tall' is a scientific category.

 

[Domen]

That's a socially-defined concept, though, not a scientific one.

Well I'm not sure what do you mean by "socially-defined" ??? Do you claim that it is arbitrary?

Human societies invented science as well. So science itself is also socially-defined in a way.

In the same way, it's fair to say that somebody is 'tall', but not fair to say that 'tall' is a scientific category.

Why not fair ???

If you measure what is the average height, then you can scientifically define "tall" (well above average) and "short" (well below average).

Of course all of this is relative to something else. In this case relative to average height.

 

[Browd]

"Race" is, at best, a shorthand term used by some to categorize large populations that share characteristics that may be convenient (if not sometimes misleading) to discuss in a collective sense. If you were to catalog genetically driven physical characteristics (skin color, hair color, hair texture, prevalence of facial hair, shape of eyelid, shape of nose, lactose tolerance, sickle-cell gene, etc. etc.), which combinations constitute separate "races"? How should one categorize individuals without one or more characteristics typically found in others of their ostensible "race"? Obviously you can bail out and assert they are "mixed race", but what have you accomplished?

You can point to any common genetic difference among humans and baldly asset that "individuals with that genetic difference or combination of differences (or most of those differences or some of those differences) constitute a separate race," but that isn't science. If, for scientific or medical purposes, there is utility in distinguishing persons based on whether they have gene X or gene Y, that may be helpful in diagnosing disease (or its potential) or identifying a course of treatment or for criminal forensic purposes, but that isn't the same thing as "race."

Oh, as as for your question ("Do you also believe for example that Protestants in the USA are descendants of converted Native Americans ??? This idea borders on similar naivety."), many are descendants of native Americans who converted to Protestantism, including my wife's Cherokee great grandfather. (By the way, what "race" does that make my wife?) What point were you trying to make?