Human Races

Your repeated non sequiturs grow wearisome.Where did I say that there were multiple cultures that could be distinguished between? Be specific. Obviously, their objectivity. Do I need to tell you what that means, or can I trust you to look at a dictionary? Obviously, both. The systems are equivalent. Both. They're equivalent. I disagree. Since my argument was that race has no meaning biologically, you'll have to show me a biological meaning to race in order to refute me. Otherwise I'm forced to consider your argument a non sequitur.

Do you think that it's possible that social constructions exist without all of reality being a social construction? You don't appear to. I do. Objective reality clearly exists, but race is not a part of that reality. Maybe that's because it's possible to argue that some thing are social constructions without arguing that everything is a social construction? Everybody seems to get that but you, I guess.

quote:

---

Why did Europeans seem to hit that civilization before anybody else?

---

They didn't, did they?I think most europeans were stil in a very low-state of
civilisation during the Egyptian, babylonian, and chinese
civilisations ... and India had a high culture well before
Europe ... possibly one of the oldest known with the Indus valley
etc.I don't think civilisation concepts are in any way meaningful
in regards to race though.

[I deleted something that has been touched on already]I still don't think that civilisation is a useful concept,
especially since different cultures will identify different
criteria for 'civilised'.[This message has been edited by Peter, 03-08-2004]

quote:

---

my argument was that race has no meaning biologically, you'll have to show me a biological meaning to race in order to refute me

---

I feel the need to put a disclaimer on this before I start:I do not agree with any inclusions of 'civilisation', 'culture'
ect. in the question of whether 'race' is a biological
reality. I am considering biology only.I also do not believe that it is possible to claim that
an individual of group is 'superior' to another in any
global sense ... one person may be a superior athlete to another,
or a superior mathematician, or craftsperson, or roofer,
BUT no absolute superiority exists and everyone deserves
equal treatment.OK. Disclaimer over.You have said a number of times that race does not exist
biologically.One reason was the 'more difference within than between' argument.You are aware that the studies upon which those results are
claimed discount coding sequences, and specifically state that
this is the case if we discount the parts of the genome that
govern phenotypic traits commonly used as racial identifiers.It is also evident that things most often used as racial markers
(like skin colour, hair type, bone structure, eye shape, etc.)
are heritable.Genetic studies show correlation between genetic similarity
and geographic separation even when the coding sequences
are ignored.It IS possible to identify (for example) a sub-saharan african
from others by genome alone (I posted reference to things like
this previously).Whether it matters that this 'race' exists or not is another
matter, but I find it odd that there is such an insistence
on it's absence, when the genetic evidence does not support
that.[This message has been edited by Peter, 03-08-2004]

Good point. And I knew that. I don't know what my problem was when I wrote that post. But thanks for pointing that out.

Yeah, but most people percieve that somebody is of a certain race not because they have all of those traits, but rather because they're a decendant of somebody of that race.For instance, what makes a person "black"? Most people would say the skin color. But it's entirely possible to pick a person considered "white" and a person considered "black" and have the white person's skin actually be darker than the black person's. But the black person is still "black" because his family is seen as black. And any children that person had with a white person would be considered black, not white. Race doesn't seem to follow the same rules as any other inheritable trait.I guess what I'm saying is that while the markers that people associate with race may be heritable and genetic, there's no marker where the presence of it always equals a certain race and the absence of it never equals that race. See what I mean?Dark skin doesn't always mean black, and light skin doesn't always mean not-black. Almond-shaped eyes doesn't always mean asian, and round eyes doesn't always mean non-asian. So what's the use of characterizing people into "races" if that characterization is always going to be essentially subjective?Race just isn't a useful characterization, biologically. On the other hand sometimes it makes sense to say "your ancestors were african, therefore there's a higher chance that you have such-and-such a gene." But I maintain that that's an entirely different situation than race.

So, because some people do the categorisation wrong, there
is no such thing as biological race in humans?I don't think racial categorisation IS necessarily subjective,
although from your post I think we may have a different idea
about what constututes someone who could be called 'black' ...
but that's not what I use to refer to races. I tend to think of
them along the lines of 'of african origin', or 'of european origin'.

No. Because nobody can do it right, there's no such thing as biological race in humans. But even those are arbitrary. Why "african" and "european"? Why not "Nigerian" and "Teutonic"? Especially since all the europeans originally came from Africa? How long do your ancestors have to have lived somewhere before you can say they're from there?Why not get even more specific and say that somebody was of "London" origin?I think it can be worthwhile to consider somebody as part of a group with origins in a certain area, but that's hardly the same thing as "race", and I think it shows in the specific cases of people of "mixed" ancestry.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-10-2004]

quote:

---

Because nobody can do it right

---

Scientific American had an article on race, where it pointed out
that one study was able to identify, by genome alone, african
individuals from european and asian.The categorisation IS possible, but why take laymen inability to
do it right as evidence against the concept of genetic race,
or even that biologists only have the first clues.Opinion is not an argument against anything.

quote:

---

Why "african" and "european"?

---

Because genetic studies show a measureable difference between
genomes of individuals from those regions.Genomic difference and geographic separation ARE correlated.

quote:

---

Why not "Nigerian" and "Teutonic"?

---

I would have no problem with that, so long as Nigerian where
distinguishable from other Africans, or Tuetonics from other
europeans.

quote:

---

Especially since all the europeans originally came from Africa?

---

The 'out-of-africa' hypothesis has problems of it's own. I'm
not convnced that that claim can be made with any certainty
just yet.Still, race is about divergence so that would make little
difference.

quote:

---

How long do your ancestors have to have lived somewhere before you can say they're from there?

---

Long enough for the fixation of a genomic difference that is
a populational separator.

quote:

---

Why not get even more specific and say that somebody was of "London" origin?

---

One could, if one could find a 'London' population that had
existed for sufficient time.

quote:

---

I think it shows in the specific cases of people of "mixed" ancestry.

---

Mixed ancestry has little or no bearing on the issue of race. [QUOTE]

I'm familiar with a study in Brazil that was unable to identify race by genome alone. Reigion isn't race. If you're considered black, you're considered black no matter how long you've lived in Detriot. To the contrary - it has plenty to do with race, because it's a percieved feature of race. Now, if what you're saying is that there's no biological basis for percieved features of race, then we agree.

quote:

---

I'm familiar with a study in Brazil that was unable to identify race by genome alone.

---

This relates directly to my suggestion that mixed-race
indivdiuals have no bearing on the concept or existence
of a genetically determined race.The population of Brazil is extraordinarily mixed, so it is
a correct indicator that with sufficient interaction race would
be erradicated -- not that race is not a biological reality.

quote:

---

Reigion isn't race. If you're considered black, you're considered black no matter how long you've lived in Detriot.

---

Apart from native americans, there are no indigenous American
populations ... indeed none older than, what, 500 (ish) years.
This makes America a poor choice for consideration of
biological race.The level of inter-race interactions has been remarkably low
(though not non-existent) and I would not tend to think
of american negroes as 'african' in any sense (although some
communities do hence 'African American').

quote:

---

if what you're saying is that there's no biological
basis for percieved features of race, then we agree.

---

I'm clearly not saying that, since I have referred a few times
to the simple observation that the perceived features of
race are heritable.

Clearly some of them are, yes. But what I'm saying is that those perceived features of the cultural concept of race that are actually heritable are not sufficient by themselves to validate the cultural concept of race from a biological standpoint.

I just read a book called Mapping the Human Genome. It looks at genes, languages, cultures and human forms worldwide in an attempt to explain human origins and migrations.They only looked at indigenous people and languages etc. One problem they had was that with travel these days, there has been so much intermixing of races that it is getting harder to distinguish pure indigenous types.They conclude that there are obvious differences between different races which are related to adaptation to climate, Skin colour can be correlated with the intensity of sunlight in certain areas.( White Australians are not adapted to their climate thus skin cancer s high.)Resistance to diseases is also looked at - like malaria and blood groups.The Bushmen of Southern Africa are interesting. They have some Asian characteristics.So I would say that we are all of the same species, but we have become adapted to varying degrees to the different climates we have migrated into over the last 100,000 years or more.

Which is more evidence that race, as people think of it culturally, simply doesn't exist. Imagine if you will the situation of total intermixing. According to science, that would mean that there were no races. According to racists, that would mean that all human beings are black.I can't think of any better evidence that there's no biological reality to the cultural model of race.