Is this the best definition of race ever?

[Cheetah]

I think that is by far the best definition we can have on the topic of race, that it is just a pigment of our imagination. Do you think we should stop using the term race when we are describing ourselves?

Except race isn't just our imagination. That different groups of people are different genetically is quite obvious.

However, unlike, say, domesticated dogs or horses, there are far fewer restrictions on who humans can mate with, so we mix a lot more. That makes the "dividing lines" between different races of humans extremely difficult to point out, but anyone who is unwilling to lie to themselves are perfectly aware that there are such a thing as different human races (even though some are more comfortable using a different terminology).

The issue has always been that Hispanics are a mixed heritage people. I went to college with a Puerto Rican guy, his family had been there for centuries, and he was near as white as I am. But some others are near as black as Africans. And some Hispanics are near pure Native American. 3 groups that look distinctly different. So 'race' just doesn't work when applied to Hispanics or other mixed heritage groups. So of course answers are fluid.

That just means that people from separate races are grouped together as one ethnicity for some reason, not that races does not exist. The reason is of course that there has been so much interbreeding between the races that several individuals within that ethnicity are so mixed it is futile to easily decide which race(s) they primarily belong to. One just ends up categorising such people relative to more pure-bred individuals, or just lumping everyone together in a big ethnicity.

Answers are absolutely fluid, but everyone can still point out what race "pure-breeds" belong to.

Absolutely outrageous.

Which part? Your reply or him arguing that there is in fact such a thing as different races within the human specie?

Good point. If we can't find it in the genome, why poll for it census? I suppose on paper in a census it's only useful to know what people classify themselves as and what their primary reading/writing language is.

It may very well be that we aren't currently able to find some genomes to effectively classify people into races or a qualified mix of races, but it seems pretty obvious that there must be some genetic markers to go with the differences that exists among the different races.

Though not only may it be hard to tell which race an individual belongs to, but even determining which races exists is quite a task. Hopefully better dna sequencing techniques and heritage studies will be able to solve that problem.

 

[classical_hero]

Cheetah, most of the differences between the different peoples of the world are basically just superficial. They are very minor and really do not need us to make a distinction between two different groups. We are part of the same family the humane race and that is all that should matter. Skin colour is just a matter of pigmentation and other features are just external differences and yet what makes a human human, is what is on the inside of us.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Cheetah, most of the differences between the different peoples of the world are basically just superficial. They are very minor and really do not need us to make a distinction between two different groups. We are part of the same family the humane race and that is all that should matter. Skin colour is just a matter of pigmentation and other features are just external differences and yet what makes a human human, is what is on the inside of us.

So the different between homo sapien and neandrathal DNA is negligible?

 

[vornan19]

So you're comparing me to a Nazi, and you were rude to me. You don't have to be rude to me when you disagree, I'm sure Bill was quite polite. If I offended you, I'm sorry, but really now, comparing me to a Nazi? I do not appreciate that.

Due to the appalling history of the 20th century any generalisations that are made about creed/sexuality/ethnicity etc. one only has to substitute the word Jew for Muslim/gay/black to show exactly how racist/bigoted those statements are.

And you know, you don't have to be a racist when you acknowledge racial differences, especially when they're physical.

You're quite correct. But as Bill3000 demonstrated with his photo, this is not acknowledging differences:

Hispanics are different, but I don't think they should be classified with white people...

 

[Dachs]

Anybody who needs further instruction in why this hard cap on race is stupid is hereby referred to the Egyptian genetics threads in OT and WH.

 

[vornan19]

Which part? Your reply or him arguing that there is in fact such a thing as different races within the human specie?

I wrote post #24 before reading yours, so I'll quote myself (sorry if it's confusing but can't work out how to do a quote within a quote )

Due to the appalling history of the 20th century any generalisations that are made about creed/sexuality/ethnicity etc. one only has to substitute the word Jew for Muslim/gay/black to show exactly how racist/bigoted those statements are.

And you know, you don't have to be a racist when you acknowledge racial differences, especially when they're physical.

You're quite correct. But as Bill3000 demonstrated with his photo, this is not acknowledging differences:

Hispanics are different, but I don't think they should be classified with white people..

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Due to the appalling history of the 20th century any generalisations that are made about creed/sexuality/ethnicity etc. one only has to substitute the word Jew for Muslim/gay/black to show exactly how racist/bigoted those statements are.[/QOUTE] So after 100 000 Iraqis died we should stop talking about oil?

You're quite correct. But as Bill3000 demonstrated with his photo, this is not acknowledging differences:

What did he demonstrate? That German football fans can have blonde hair? Or that if two white people cross an ocean and have children they still would be white? That kind of strengthens the argument that race is real and not just a social construct.

 

[Miles Teg]

The Neanderthal genes have no doubt given the Australian race a disturbing tendency to think that puns are insightful, or even *gasp* funny.

Also, is it just me, or is Al arguing that the higher rate of Neanderthal genes is what makes whites superior?

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

The Neanderthal genes have no doubt given the Australian race a disturbing tendency to think that puns are insightful, or even *gasp* funny.

Also, is it just me, or is Al arguing that the higher rate of Neanderthal genes is what makes whites superior?

I have never claimed that. I have just said that we are different. Evolution doesn't make superior/inferior. Fish aren't better or worse than rabbits. It is about biodiversity.

 

[Miles Teg]

Then you need to brush up on your white nationalism.

 

[aneeshm]

It is astounding how those who would without any hesitation acknowledge the existence of different breeds of dogs (and probably have strong preferences as to which they like) are obstinately unwilling to apply the same logic - or, rather, even entertain the null hypothesis - with respect to humans.

It is also, from a purely intellectual point of view, extremely entertaining to watch these same people perform magnificent feats of pious, politically correct casuistry in the attempt to 'assimilate' the growing mountains of data and evidence against their 'strongly, deeply-held, sacred' position. (Forensic anthropology, the military's IQ data, along with the correlations of the SAT/ACT/GRE with IQ, and disparate racial performances in pretty much everything, are cases in point. An excellent reference, made much more useful by the fact that it is, so to speak, from someone on the 'other side' of the political spectrum, is this summary of the question of race and intelligence.)

 

[Hygro]

The Neanderthal genes have no doubt given the Australian race a disturbing tendency to think that puns are insightful, or even *gasp* funny.

Now that you mention it I do have a slightly prominent brow...

It is astounding how those who would without any hesitation acknowledge the existence of different breeds of dogs (and probably have strong preferences as to which they like) are obstinately unwilling to apply the same logic - or, rather, even entertain the null hypothesis - with respect to humans.

Maybe because our vastly longer generations combined with non-selective breeding combined with a fairly uniform division of labor due to human nature/necessity across cultures prevented significant non-cosmetic differences.

 

[Miles Teg]

It is astounding how those who would without any hesitation acknowledge the existence of different breeds of dogs (and probably have strong preferences as to which they like) are obstinately unwilling to apply the same logic - or, rather, even entertain the null hypothesis - with respect to humans.

It is also, from a purely intellectual point of view, extremely entertaining to watch these same people perform magnificent feats of pious, politically correct casuistry in the attempt to 'assimilate' the growing mountains of data and evidence against their 'strongly, deeply-held, sacred' position. (Forensic anthropology, the military's IQ data, along with the correlations of the SAT/ACT/GRE with IQ, and disparate racial performances in pretty much everything, are cases in point.)

Really? Personally, I find the lengths to which racists go to misinterpret data in favor of their own biases to be astounding. The same people might dismiss the differences between entirely different sub-orders of beetles as minute trivia, but will obstinately declare the differences between human populations, which never rise above the level of differentiation between individuals, is somehow critically important to our understanding of humanity.

It is also, from a purely intellectual point of view, extremely entertaining to watch these same people perform magnificent feats of "edgy" casuistry to attempt to deny and deliberately misinterpret mountains of data. The idea that you could use crude tests to distinguish the effects of individual variables, such as race, would surely be seen as absurd folly if it wasn't for the biases of the people making the correlations.

 

[vornan19]

What did he demonstrate? That German football fans can have blonde hair? Or that if two white people cross an ocean and have children they still would be white? That kind of strengthens the argument that race is real and not just a social construct.

I'm originally of German descent so the whole issue is probably more sensitive than it should be - it's a whole lot baggage to carry around even though I wasn't alive at the time.

Here in Britain we have people categorising themselves as 'British-Muslim; British-Sikh; British-Asian etc. We are first making a statement about our nationality, but in the US people are identifying themselves by their 'race' first: African-American; Hispanic-American; Chinese-American and so on. After the battles minorities in America have faced in achieving equality and their status as US citizens I'm constantly surprised how they are progressively self-segregating. Or is it because of the history of the country, perhaps an American can enlighten me?

----
Edit: Parents were German.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Then you need to brush up on your white nationalism.

White nationalism is in no way supremacist. I love all nationalities and races. They are all great in their own way. White people like building space ships, jews know their tax forms and blacks can dance. Lets keep it that way. Diversity is the best. We should mix everything together into a giant meltingpot. That would mean that the worlds diversity would disappear.

It is astounding how those who would without any hesitation acknowledge the existence of different breeds of dogs (and probably have strong preferences as to which they like) are obstinately unwilling to apply the same logic - or, rather, even entertain the null hypothesis - with respect to humans.

It is also, from a purely intellectual point of view, extremely entertaining to watch these same people perform magnificent feats of pious, politically correct casuistry in the attempt to 'assimilate' the growing mountains of data and evidence against their 'strongly, deeply-held, sacred' position. (Forensic anthropology, the military's IQ data, along with the correlations of the SAT/ACT/GRE with IQ, and disparate racial performances in pretty much everything, are cases in point.)

It is amazing how they are willing to accept any thesis except that race is real. I have bit of a feeling that they already made up their minds and then try to prove it. They are like creationists. Evolution doesn't fit their ideology so they try to create science that works with it.

 

[aneeshm]

Really? Personally, I find the lengths to which racists go to misinterpret data in favor of their own biases to be astounding. The same people might dismiss the differences between entirely different sub-orders of beetles as minute trivia, but will obstinately declare the differences between human populations, which never rise above the level of differentiation between individuals, is somehow critically important to our understanding of humanity.

It is also, from a purely intellectual point of view, extremely entertaining to watch these same people perform magnificent feats of "edgy" casuistry to attempt to deny and deliberately misinterpret mountains of data. The idea that you could use crude tests to distinguish the effects of individual variables, such as race, would surely be seen as absurd folly if it wasn't for the biases of the people making the correlations.

I see here I have inspired the most sincere form of flattery; I am honoured.

To address the meat of what you say, the claim that differences between populations never rise above the level of individual differences is, of course, an example of what I was saying ref. casuistry. You state the utterly, blatantly, irrefutably obvious. It is, alas, also equally irrelevant. Because it is obviously individuals that differ; races are not Platonic ideals or the abstractions of mathematics, that they can be said to exist in abstraction from the individuals of which they are composed.

The interesting questions with reference to race are the ones which deal with the qualities (in statistical terms) of these collections of individuals. And of the extent to which these qualities are genetic/heritable, which makes the grouping meaningful. Both of these are summarised quite brilliantly in the link I included in the original post.

(The last paragraph, of course, deserves no reply; so it will not get one.)

Maybe because our vastly longer generations combined with non-selective breeding combined with a fairly uniform division of labor due to human nature/necessity across cultures prevented significant non-cosmetic differences.

You have forgotten the fact of geography, which I think isn't exactly a minor one.

And if you are willing to put IQ and conscientiousness, not to mention the various sporting abilities, and the propensities to many fatal diseases, in the category of 'cosmetic' differences, I'm in complete agreement.

 

[vornan19]

It is amazing how they are willing to accept any thesis except that race is real. I have bit of a feeling that they already made up their minds and then try to prove it. They are like creationists. Evolution doesn't fit their ideology so they try to create science that works with it.

Creationists now prefer to call it 'intelligent design' to make it more palatable.

 

[Mango Elephant]

Due to the appalling history of the 20th century any generalisations that are made about creed/sexuality/ethnicity etc. one only has to substitute the word Jew for Muslim/gay/black to show exactly how racist/bigoted those statements are.

I don't accept that for a second. How does black people having big noses make them inferior in any way? So what if someone thought Jews were the scum of the earth, did I suggest anyone was? No, I did not, and since you seem to keen to dismiss that there are any differences between races, I think you must think some racial differences make some races inferior, otherwise what would the big deal be?

You're quite correct. But as Bill3000 demonstrated with his photo, this is not acknowledging differences:

Wearing a Mexican shirt doesn't make one hispanic, but even if it did, would you call those girls black? I don't think you would, because those girls have differences between their appearance and that of black people that would make them non-black. If races didn't acknowledge differences, than those girls would be every race under the sun, including black, asian, white, and all.

 

[Miles Teg]

Al Da Great, If we're going to bring creationism into this, I think the problem is that racists have a view of evolution that's about as scientifically grounded as the creationist view.

In order to produce distinct "kinds", evolution requires millions of years of population isolation, selective pressures that differ drastically between populations, and a bunch of other things that haven't happened in the history of the human race. As such, evolution hasn't produced anything like a real "race", because their hasn't been any impetus towards such. Instead, we have vague and fuzzy population tendencies, which pale in significance to the differences between two persons. More importantly, the lack of population isolation means that it's impossible to distinguish races in any meaningful senses. Examples of interbreeding aren't confined to the obvious cases of mixed-parentage, like President Obama. Instead, pretty much everyone shares a genetically recent common ancestor with everyone else.

And of course, Hygro was spot on earlier when he noted that dog breeds say nothing relevant about human populations. The chihuahua and the great dane are both the result of incredibly artificial circumstances, with an intelligent force actively controlling the breeding process and selecting for desired traits aimed at the specific goal of producing a certain kind of dog. Natural evolution looks nothing like that whatsoever.

 

[aneeshm]

Al Da Great, If we're going to bring creationism into this, I think the problem is that racists have a view if evolution that's about as scientifically grounded as the creationist view.

I'm sure that somewhere, there is a bunch of 'racists' to whom this description applies. It is an enormous tragedy that they are not taking part in this thread, and all your beautiful replies to them will go unread. It would be nice if, for a change, you would address those who are actually talking to you.

In order to produce distinct "kinds", evolution requires millions of years of population isolation, selective pressures that differ drastically between populations, and a bunch of other things that haven't happened in the history of the human race.

That's true if we're talking about totally different species with totally different characteristics. But we're not. We're talking about loosely-defined subspecies that differ from each other mildly in some characteristics, and more strongly in some others, but where interbreeding is still trivially possible. Speciation doesn't 'split' species at a given point, where a parent is of one species and the child of the next. It's a process of incremental, you may say even continuous divergence between two populations, where there is a 'dropoff' in the (hypothetical) ability to interbreed as time progresses, and with the divergence growing ever-larger with time.

There is no reason why, if the process operates for a shorter time, you cannot have mild divergences in some traits and strong ones in some others, all without sacrificing the ability to interbreed.

As such, evolution hasn't produced anything like a real "race", because their hasn't been any impetus towards such. Instead, we have vague and fuzzy population tendencies, which pale in significance to the differences between two persons.

Which is pretty much what I said above, but I also drew the obvious inference this leads to.

Further, the 'differences between individuals' argument misses the point. Differences can only exist between individuals. The question is about the statistics of these differences when considered between ancestral groups.

More importantly, the lack of population isolation means that it's impossible to distinguish races in any meaningful senses. Examples of interbreeding aren't confined to the obvious cases of mixed-parentage, like President Obama. Instead, pretty much everyone shares a genetically recent common ancestor with everyone else.

Again, completely correct and completely irrelevant to the discussion, as noted above; the existence of interbreeding does not negate the possibility of significant differences in traits between groups based on ancestry.

And of course, Hygro was spot on earlier when he noted that dog breeds say nothing relevant about human populations. The chihuahua and the great dane are both the result of incredibly artificial circumstances, with an intelligent force actively controlling the breeding process and selecting for desired traits aimed at the specific goal of producing a certain kind of dog. Natural evolution looks nothing like that whatsoever.

And here we come to the crux of it, because when it comes to humans, we are as much a product of self-selection (our own 'incredibly artificial circumstance, with an intelligent force - us - directing the breeding process and selecting for desired traits aimed at the specific goal of mating with a certain kind of human') as we are of 'natural selection'. The Ashkenazim are a case in point. For an overview of this, I suggest you look at the book The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilisation Accelerated Human Evolution.