PDA

View Full Version : A coherent definition of race



Tomenable
03-09-16, 21:32
Here is a 2015 definition of race:

"Races are organismic (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/organismic) groups which differentiated (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/differentiate) from one another as a result of historic patterns of filiation (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/filiation?s=t); they are groups, which due to histories of sufficient linebreeding (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/linebreeding), form intraspecific (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intraspecific) natural divisions, ones which can be identified based on the correlations (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/correlation) between the organisms' inherited characters (https://www.britannica.com/science/character-biology#ref278286)."

Source (page 38 of this book):

PDF: http://openpsych.net/OBG/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/The-Nature-of-Race-the-Genealogy-of-the-Concept-and-the-Biological-Constructs-Contemporaneous-Utility-Final.pdf

MarkoZ
04-09-16, 03:11
A 2015 definition of race by an amateur with no credentials whatsoever (and, apparently, a history of involvement in various 'white nationalist' organisations), published in a journal created by an undergraduate in order to bypass peer review.

dodona
04-09-16, 09:08
A 2015 definition of race by an amateur with no credentials whatsoever (and, apparently, a history of involvement in various 'white nationalist' organisations), published in a journal created by an undergraduate in order to bypass peer review. not a single rational argument. Only denunciation at a personal level.

MarkoZ
04-09-16, 21:41
not a single rational argument. Only denunciation at a personal level.

I'm merely stating facts - if this sounds like denunciation to you, you have only the author of this piece to blame.

Ironically, even the first few sentences of the abstract come off as a thinly veiled personal attack on the author's perceived enemies. Truly a mark of quality scholarship.

Why even bother with that drivel?

Moi-même
06-09-16, 01:59
This definition is too imprecise, there is no threshold. If at least there was an objective percentage of difference between potential races, or some characteristic which differentiate "different but still same race" and "different race". This definition is just not workable.

Silesian
06-09-16, 03:17
I see you posted your paternal R1b-L617. Advice, don't waste time with people who don't know their biological parents, and are afraid to take paternity tests. Why discuss exchange ideas about biology? I often wondered what it is like going through life with not knowing who your father or grandfather or close family/ friends are. Not knowing where you come from, not caring.No paternal or maternal family/clan to take care of you when you grow old and weak, or the system fails or cannot afford to pay for your final days. Did I ever mention how lucky I was to have met my wife. Before we were married we had to take a biological test to see if we were compatible. It turned out she did not need rhogam shot : ) Lady Luck was on our side being stuck in a cult that forbid any medical treatment, such as the rhogam. Miscarriage, is a problem with rhesus isoimmunisation. When the disease is very severe it may cause hydrops fetalis or stillbirth. Anyway we were compatible, and had healthy rh negative children.

Angela
06-09-16, 16:25
Now I'm confused. Do you think someone's "race" is determined by their yDna haplogroup? So, black African Chadic speakers are Caucasians?

Also, are you assuming that people who don't post their "Y" (or their father's "Y") or "mtDna" don't know it? Maybe they just think it isn't anybody else's business. In terms of mtdna there are even health implications. I would bet that if someone posts a lot on these kinds of boards they've tested and do indeed know it.

Just because someone doesn't care about what "Y" they carry doesn't mean they don't identify with their ancestry, either. What gave you that idea? The only reason my husband knows his "Y" is because I asked him to test. He could care less. When the results came back he probably spent five minutes asking me a few questions about it and that was that. There are southern Italians who are R1b, G2, I2, R1a, E, J2 etc. What difference does it make? They're all Italian.

I also don't see how you get from I don't know or I don't care what "Y" I carry to I don't have a family. These determinations are all based on very recent discoveries. Did people not have close families before now? Most people don't give a darn about these sorts of things even if they're aware of them. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't come from close families. They just don't base their family life on their descent, or lack of it, from some obscure, ancient, ancestral group.

Tomenable
06-09-16, 17:36
On the other hand, according to "Rational Wiki" website:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Race

"The belief that race is 'real' (or, scientific and based in human biology) is called racialism, and is pseudoscience. The vast majority of scientists believe race to be a socially constructed - meaning that, for example, people with 'black' skin in America are treated differently than those with 'white' skin, and so 'race' has a very significant impact on their lives."

When it comes to this sentence from the defintion by "Rational Wiki":


The vast majority of scientists believe race to be a socially constructed

This is wrong. Opinions of scientists on the matter are split 50/50:

https://s32.postimg.io/dx80o8byt/Survey_race.png

And when it comes to this statement:


people with "black" skin in America are treated differently than those with "white" skin

This is also wrong. There has been no any racial discrimination in the USA for many decades by now.

Whatever is holding Afro-Amercians down, has nothing to due with unequal rights, treatment or opportunities.

The more intelligent fraction of African-Americans - such as Morgan Freeman - agree with me on this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0p_pQ7PTYU

Angela
06-09-16, 17:42
You know as little of America as you do of ancient history.

firetown
09-09-16, 16:25
Why do we need idiotic manmade labels based on visuals when we are so much more educated than the masses who have nothing else to go by than what their eyes see. I am most interested in recessive genes, what lies under the hood so to speak. It gives us the right idea on ancestry and not just part of it.

firetown
09-09-16, 16:40
So, black African Chadic speakers are Caucasians?



Am interested in more information about this group as Sforza wrote about their rh negative frequencies. Do you have more detail?