mangxema
I
It's mostly in Africa.
I've always thought that the opposite of what the OP is complaining about, that we're all the same, was equally garbage too, due to the whole genetic variation thing.
Why do some people still believe in racial science?
- Thread starter LesCanadiens
- Start date
It's mostly in Africa.
I've always thought that the opposite of what the OP is complaining about, that we're all the same, was equally garbage too, due to the whole genetic variation thing.
Enkidu Warrior
Ultramagnetic
No, it's an evolutionary response based on geographical location. The above map clearly indicates a correlation with climate, not skin colour. There are clearly areas you could chose whereby "black people" would have lower counts of sickle cell than "white people". Ascribing these climactic variations to some imaginary racial identity is at best a gross oversimplification.
Enkidu Warrior
Ultramagnetic
Where that line of thought goes wrong is when you start classifying those genetic variations into distinct groups of "white people" and "black people" etc. We've all adapted to our local environments in our own ways, and it would be madness to bunch these intricate adaptions into a handful of fundamentally different "races" when there is just no scientific case to support it whatsoever.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
People are different in mild ways, it's all about the region you come from. Skin color is an adaption.
TheBladeRoden
Deity
So the theory that africans and east asians have differing facial structures is just a myth?
Infantry#14
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,606
"Why do some people still believe in racial science?"
Why not? Those ppl are jerks.
Why not? Those ppl are jerks.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
But...black people do get sickle cell anemia more than white people because of their genetics.....
And yes, some races do indeed have anatomical and physiological differences. While there are exceptions, such generalizations are still true to form. For example, some races of people experiences far lesser (or greater) instances of heart disease....this is well documented to be true afaik, and would qualify as your racial science that hasnt been 'debunked'.
I like how anybody trying to ascribe genuine differences between the races is immediately shot down.
Like how when studies are given that show Asian-Americans scoring higher on IQ tests than people of other races, that's incredibly racist and the work is disqualified.
Like how when studies are given that show Asian-Americans scoring higher on IQ tests than people of other races, that's incredibly racist and the work is disqualified.
Homie
Anti-Lefty
LesCanadiens, by your own (wrong, IMO) defintion of racial science you are giving it validity. Clearly there are physical differences between races. Sure, defining a race can be hard and is wholly arbitrary because where do you draw the line between one race and the other? Still, people like to put things in categories because it helps us in many ways, and most often can be beneficial, although sometimes can be abused. Races is just that, it is just another man-made category to help us sort things out. It is no less or more true than any other man-made category.
For some people there are just two races:
Black and white people. For some, there are black, white and asian. For others yet, black, white, asian and arab. Add on aborigines, east and west African divide, native Americans, etc...How specific do you want to be? Even though races are nothing more than categories, they are still based on obvious, true physiological differences.
They can be helpful in medicine and in describing an individual. Say there is only one black kid in a classroom of new pupils. Tom asks John: Have you invited Peter to your birthday party?
John: Who's Peter?
Tom: The black kid
John: ahhh
Now take that and apply it to law enforcement, it is a useful tool. Some of you are gonna say racist, but you're being stupid. It is only a tool to help an officer narrow down his search, like any other characteristic, such as sex, age, height and weight.
So races, or more aptly named, abritrary racial categories, are helpful in most cases, and are as true as any other arbitrary category.
For some people there are just two races:
Black and white people. For some, there are black, white and asian. For others yet, black, white, asian and arab. Add on aborigines, east and west African divide, native Americans, etc...How specific do you want to be? Even though races are nothing more than categories, they are still based on obvious, true physiological differences.
They can be helpful in medicine and in describing an individual. Say there is only one black kid in a classroom of new pupils. Tom asks John: Have you invited Peter to your birthday party?
John: Who's Peter?
Tom: The black kid
John: ahhh
Now take that and apply it to law enforcement, it is a useful tool. Some of you are gonna say racist, but you're being stupid. It is only a tool to help an officer narrow down his search, like any other characteristic, such as sex, age, height and weight.
So races, or more aptly named, abritrary racial categories, are helpful in most cases, and are as true as any other arbitrary category.
Yes... I agree.
However, like much of psychology and sociology, these studies I hardly would qualify as science, and are ALWAYS tainted by the observer. There is no way to get a pure psychology or sociology test, IMO.
holy king
Deity
i dont know, why do you keep using the term "race" when speaking about humans in english?
Verbose
Deity
Because it's part of a genetic packade which provides resistance to Malaria in the regions where their ancestors lived long enough, consistently enough, and where Malaria was a much bigger killer. This provided a specific selective preassure. If you send "white" people in there long enough ceteris paribus (no modern medicine etc.), they will end up with the same. It's population history and genetics, but not "race" in any meaningful way.But...black people do get sickle cell anemia more than white people because of their genetics.....
The on average slight anatomical differences that are discernible within humanity are handled within the definition of "ethnic group" by science these days. Back in the 18th c. the same thing was handled with the concept of "variety". "Race" as a concept was never necessary to allow us to speak about biological difference, and is in fact rotten to the core with connotations of different absolute value and biological determinism.
holy king
Deity
Tell me, LesCanadiens, is it still considered possible in your surreal world of political over-correctness to be able to tell ethnic Africans from ethnic Europeans by taking a look at them? Since you claim there are no physiological differences whatsoever, it must be impossible, right? Oh, the racist delusions of the world we've been living in!
You should really post more often, you are hilarious.
For the record, public education system of in Finland is widely considered best in the world.
This actually very much reminds me about medieval superstition, where one would call a wolf "pup of the forest" or "graycoat" or whatever, out of fear that mentioning its "true name" might somehow summon it to attack his livestock.
Take any anthropologist, give him some random guy for a quick visual check, and he will tell you with reasonable accuracy, which part of the world the guys ancestors were from. At the very least he'll be able to tell, whether they were Caucasoids, Congoids, Capoids, Mongoloids or Australoids - because each of these classifications corresponds to certain range of anthropometric measures, which can be quite distinctive visually. How "meaningful" this classification is, can of course be debated - but at the very least it enables us to describe people with a degree of accuracy. You can tell to the police, that the guy who attacked you was "Caucasian" and that will convey enough totally sensible information.
Verbose
Deity
Yeah, the bogeyman here is named The Holocaust.This actually very much reminds me about medieval superstition, where one would call a wolf "pup of the forest" or "graycoat" or whatever, out of fear that mentioning its "true name" might somehow summon it to attack his livestock.
Don't tell me you're naive enough to think humans exist in some kind of state of logical purity where these things are concerned?
Anything which so clearly is about identity and origin will be brimming with politics and ideology."Ethnic group" is an attempt to take a situation and so to speak wipe the slate blank again, to revert back to something of a situation prior to the problems - the situation being WWII and the Holocaust.
It was a very conscious decision within the panels of scientific "wise men" the UNESCO assembled for this purpose in the late 1940's.
The problem they set out to tackle was "race", which never (seriously never) has been given a tenable scientific definition. The concept/word was infact introduced in the late 18th c. by those natural historians who for political and ideological reasons wanted to talk about differences between groups of humans as a difference between species, but were precluded from this because, well, humanity could be shown not to be made up of different species (Buffon's species definition in particular). Those who didn't were fine with the older concept of "variety" to describe superficial, non-deterministic differences.
Sure.
I know for a fact that not a few organisations for Native Peoples employ their own physical anthropologists to make calls about probable ethnicity of human remains in various historical collections, no problem at all, as long as it's understood that one is talking about averages and probabilities.
King of Town
Adventuring
Everyones a little bit racist, it's trueeeee, but everyone is just about as racist as youuuuu
Yeah, the bogeyman here is named The Holocaust.
Don't tell me you're naive enough to think humans exist in some kind of state of logical purity where these things are concerned?
"Ethnic group" is an attempt to take a situation and so to speak wipe the slate blank again, to revert back to something of a situation prior to the problems - the situation being WWII and the Holocaust.
It was a very conscious decision within the panels of scientific "wise men" the UNESCO assembled for this purpose in the late 1940's.
That is totally understandable. Just that while it was possible to establish some morally incomprehensible crap doctrine telling us that some "races" are inherently inferior and should be destroyed, it is still similarly possible to preach that some "ethnic groups" are inherently inferior and should be destroyed.
Changing vocabulary may make some of us feel better, but that is really little more than attempted self-deception.Denial of races "existing" at all or BSing about there not being ANY physiological differences between them whatsoever, does not make things better either. It is so plainly and obviously wrong that, imho, it achieves quite the opposite effect to what is intended - it discredits the well-meaning scientists and leads people to trust all kinds of racist idiots. It is like one guy telling: "There are no black cats! This is racist drivel!" while another says: "Black cats do exist - and they are all witches who should be burned alive!" People will see that one is obviously BSing, while another is at least partially right. First loses credibility, second may gain some.
Of course - world is imperfect. Any truth can be misinterpreted, misused and misrepresented. But this should not make us try and ignore reality.
Similar threads
