Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 150

Thread: Racism, facists, and seperatist movements.

  1. #76
    ςȊOl Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Thor's Avatar
    Join Date
    15-07-04
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    104


    Country: United States





    Prejudice in general is a human trait. We were born, and raised with it as our companion. It is what helps us makes decisions, friends, and social skills. Idealists who say a world without prejudice would be a good world are fools. Without prejudice there would be no social structure.

  2. #77
    Economist in Residence Achievements:
    1 year registered
    lonesoullost3's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-06-05
    Location
    Ithaca
    Posts
    59


    Ethnic group
    Caucasian...Polish and French I think
    Country: United States



    Ok, I only skimmed this long thread and read some of the last posts, but here is a fault I find in some responses here:

    I have read several articles by scientists that say that race is not a scientific concept and that say it has no value.
    & other articles say that it has value. (maybe they use other terms than race, but that doesn't change the underlying concept very much)
    Where are these articles that are mentioned? I see that some articles have been posted, but from the breif synopsis given (and the excerpts) they don't seem to pertain to these arguments.

    As far the definition of race as scientific or social distinction, it really depends where you look. Here are some examples of definitions I have found:

    -A subjective term used to distinguish groups of people but not necessarily to denote biological or physical differences (Institute for Rural Health Research)

    -subspecies: (biology) a taxonomic group that is a division of a species; usually arises as a consequence of geographical isolation within a species (Cognitive Science Dept., Princeton)

    -The concept of race, as used by the Census Bureau, does not denote any clear-cut scientific definition of biological stock. The data for race represent self-classification by people according to the race with which they most closely identify. Furthermore, it is recognized that the categories of the race item include both racial and national origin or socio-cultural groups (locationxpert.com)

    -1 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED
    2 : one of the three, four, or five divisions based on inherited physical characteristics into which human beings are usually divided (Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary)

    -A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
    +A genealogical line; a lineage.
    +Humans considered as a group.
    Biology.
    +An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
    +A breed or strain, as of domestic animals (all of the above: American Hertiage Dictionary)

    A note from AHDict.: "The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans...The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other pointssuch as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in anothermany cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact."

    As you can see, race is either defined by biology or sociology, though there seems to be more emphasis on the social aspect than the biological. Therefore, it appears that race can be one of those concepts that can only be defined by the individual and therefore 'racism' differs from person to person. However, one thing is certain that race does inherently imply a group. Therefore, semantically speaking, RockLee's definition of racism is not accurate (being racist for hating one person of a certain ethnicity/race - this is my understanding of your definition).

    Perhaps to reconcile differences in opinion of the definition of race it is best to use "ethnicism" than racism. However, this still presents a problem. Ethnicity is not based on biology, it is based on cultural background. A simple case that proves the difficulty with this is my friend: half-taiwanese, half-swiss, born and raised in Japan. What is his ethnicity? If we had to come up with a specific way of defining race and ethnicity, I would almost say ethnicity is the purely social aspect of race (the other side being biology). Therefore, by turning to ethnicity only, we no longer run into the difficulty of science (as was mentioned with hermaphrodites, XY-XX chromosomes, and the definition of gender). As soon as we through a social aspect into a definition, all possibility of a concrete be-all end-all definition is lost. This does not mean that there is no meaning - far from it. The meaning becomes greater as this social aspect is discussed. I can say that my insight into the definition of race has been furthered through this thread (I shall have to go back and read more though).
    http://www.operationdeep.org
    Create Possibilities.

  3. #78
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    lonesoullost3- Great reply.

    I think what gets confusing is the shift from the old paradigm of 3 races to new science of human genome variation. We're arguing about labels and if there is enough biological differences to warrant a categorization into subspecies and just what that categorzation might mean. The very term "race" seems to muddle it up. One article I read, and somewhat understood: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPa...ll/ng1435.html seemed to explain the argument quite well.

    What I have come to think based on this research is that the three "old world" race classifications are unscientific. That race, thus defined, is "biologically meaningless" (RS Scwhartz, NEJM 344, 1392-1392 (2001) and "not based on scientific evidence," SB Haga & JC Venter Science 301, 466 (2003). A guy named Templeton wrote that "humans fail the test for biological races." (1998) But the fact remains that humans vary in visible/measurable traits by geographic region, and that eventually we will be able to see this by testing genetic material. The questions remain however about the validity, necessity, and values of a classification of humans below species. There are doubts even in the medical field, that "race...is a weak surrogate for various genetic and non-genetic factors in correlation with health status." Chramaine DM Royal & Georgia M Dunston (2003). So the old definition of Race is, in my thinking, a sociological construct not based on science at all. (Unless you consider our innate, instinctive ability to group, cluster, and classify things scientific.)

    Bossel is probably more familiar with the scientific aspects of this argument, including the efforts of the Genographic project. He considers race a valid subdivision of species.(https://www5.nationalgeographic.com/...hic/about.html) He could better explain the scientific validity of race and genomic research. We could through these efforts have a better understanding of human variation and form a reliable and verifiable definition for "race" based on science.

    A lot of what I am saying came from that Wikipedia article and the links it has.

    Here are some references to the articles the quotes came from:

    http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/6/844
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...6?view=summary (fee may be required)
    http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/7/1607
    http://www.asanet.org/media/race.html
    Last edited by No-name; 06-07-05 at 18:41. Reason: typo

  4. #79
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by lonesoullost3
    Where are these articles that are mentioned?
    I think, you summed up the argument pretty well. For the articles, well, since most of the stuff I read is German & the only one I read who is (what I know of) published in English is Cavalli-Sforza (member of the PC faction & acc. to Sabro quite "esoteric"), it's hard to find English sources. But I've tried to come up with some stuff (see below).

    As far the definition of race as scientific or social distinction, it really depends where you look.
    [...]
    As you can see, race is either defined by biology or sociology, though there seems to be more emphasis on the social aspect than the biological.
    IMO this emphasis is only in the public discussion. As long as they are not buggered by some journalists who want them to take a stance most scientists just go along with their research. It may get problematic when the institution which finances research is infected with the PC virus, though. Then the researchers could have to change terminology & camouflage their area of research.

    A social distinction of race is not very useful IMO. One of the problems I have with members of the PC faction is the fact that they often base their criticism on the superficial social distinction rather than what is really going on in science.

    Perhaps to reconcile differences in opinion of the definition of race it is best to use "ethnicism" than racism.
    [...]Therefore, by turning to ethnicity only, we no longer run into the difficulty of science
    I don't think, changing terminology is very useful. As can be seen in case of "race" it only seems to confuse people even more than was the case before. I'd prefer education over re-definition or PC.


    Some articles I found:

    The Biological Meaning of "Race"
    Quote:
    " In short, we must, as Cavalli-Sforza advises (but fails to heed), examine all the existing evidence, and realize that it is the unique ensemble of all the aforementioned characteristics--gene freqencies, and physical and geographical characteristics--which differentiate races, not just a few arbitrary chosen traits."

    Cavalli-Sforza II: Seven Dumb Ideas about Race
    Quote:
    "Race is a topic of such enormous importance that it's essential to think clearly about it. Yet much of the intelligentsia now attempts to deal with the problem by defining race as merely a mass hallucination afflicting the entire human race - other than we few members of the Great and the Good"

    From the same author:
    Race Flat-Earthers Dangerous To Everyonefs Health
    Quote:
    "Some of the Race Has No Biological Reality ideologues are so fanatical that, rather than be proven wrong about the reality of race, they'd apparently prefer to see members of their own race die"

    related article:
    FDA Approves First Racially Targeted Drug
    Quote:
    "Two earlier trials of the drug on the general population of heart failure patients found no benefit, the FDA said, but they did suggest that BiDil helped the few blacks participating."

    THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE (pdf)
    Quote:
    "Denial of any genetic component in human variation,
    including between groups, is not only poor science, it is likely to be injurious both to unique individuals and to the complex structure of societies."

    specifically for Sabro, who thinks you can't see race in the DNA:
    Molecular eyewitness: DNA gets a human face
    Quote:
    "Of the 8,000 DNA samples they have tested by this method in the course of their research and work, 95 per cent of people turn out to be of significant mixed heritage, said Zach Gaskin, a technical co-ordinator of forensics at the company.
    Still, Mr. Gaskin said, once a DNA sample suggests that at least 30 per cent of a person's heritage belongs to a particular racial group, a person starts "to exhibit features consistent with that population.""

    Not too closely related to the issue of race:
    Genomics refutes an exclusively African origin of humans
    Quote:
    "Numerical simulations of this process replicate many of the seemingly contradictory features of the genetic data, and suggest that as much as 80% of nuclear loci have assimilated genetic material from non-African archaic humans."


    BTW, Sabro, you didn't answer my questions!

  5. #80
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    What question was that?

  6. #81
    Economist in Residence Achievements:
    1 year registered
    lonesoullost3's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-06-05
    Location
    Ithaca
    Posts
    59


    Ethnic group
    Caucasian...Polish and French I think
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by bossel
    A social distinction of race is not very useful IMO. One of the problems I have with members of the PC faction is the fact that they often base their criticism on the superficial social distinction rather than what is really going on in science.
    Trying to define race through social aspects doesn't mean it's PC. I'm personally fed up with PC - people are getting offended too easily now a days. By taking the social aspect of race in to perspective then you add an additional layer (more like layers) to the objective scientific definition. And if viewed closely, the social distinction is hardly superficial - one only has to make the effort. There is an excellent book "Consilience" by Edward O Wilson that I wish I had on hand (I read it in high school). It's subtitle: "The Unity of Knowledge". It pretty much tries to reconcile the differences in biological definitions and social defintions.

  7. #82
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by lonesoullost3
    Trying to define race through social aspects doesn't mean it's PC.
    Sorry if I wasn't clear enough (should probably work more on my English). I meant that the PC faction confuses (deliberately?) in its criticism the biological & the social concepts of race: eg. by quoting the "popular notion that skin colour can indicate physical or mental differences" & then on this basis criticising race as a biological model.

  8. #83
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Bossel, do I detect a bit of a snippy tone?
    I'm impressed, but I'm still not persuaded, but I did read some of the articles. I'm stuck in the semantics either due to my lack of eduation in this area or because the arguments are basically semantical.
    Quote Originally Posted by bossel
    specifically for Sabro, who thinks you can't see race in the DNA:
    Molecular eyewitness: DNA gets a human face
    Quote:
    "Of the 8,000 DNA samples they have tested by this method in the course of their research and work, 95 per cent of people turn out to be of significant mixed heritage, said Zach Gaskin, a technical co-ordinator of forensics at the company.
    Still, Mr. Gaskin said, once a DNA sample suggests that at least 30 per cent of a person's heritage belongs to a particular racial group, a person starts "to exhibit features consistent with that population.""


    BTW, Sabro, you didn't answer my questions!
    I could not access the article you referenced. It seems like some of the ones I was looking at where you have to pay a fee or have a membership.

    Race was well defined and accepted by eugenicists long before genomics (and really any microbiology) was even concieved. The problem is, it wasn't and still isn't scientific. That is not to say that there is no genomic variation in humans according to geography, or that people that have lived in distinct geographical reasons do not share some physical characteristics. Scientists are debating the significance of these variations, and several of them that are brighter than I am and have far more letters after their name dispute the concept of race as meaningless, useless and not significant as a category. The analogy to linguistics (and please give me a break, I am not a linguist) is that you can divide communication into languages and languages into dialects, you may be able to further divide sub-dialects, but at some point further division becomes meaningless.

    Steve Sailer's (President of Human Biodiversity Institute) article (that was deeply critical of Cavalli-Svorza ) (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/cavalli-sforza_ii.htm) attacks each of my basic arguments quite well, but it does little to dispel two of them. Humans share a common ancestry 100,000 years or less old. Most European, African, and Asians share ancestry that is even younger (perhaps as little as 10,000). Variations in the species do not merit subdivision of the species. One of his "myths" that he dispels is "Nobody can agree on how many racial groups there are, exactly who is in each one, or what to call them." Which I am still stuck on. Labels like language, only work when people agree on a shared meaning. Add to this Mr. Gaskins assertion that "95 per cent of people turn out to be of significant mixed heritage." and I begin to wonder why anyone would feel the need to hold onto the concept.

    Again, I am not well versed in all of this. The scientific community seems to be disputing the validity of race, and new information based on our tiny chemical bits is causing a deep reassessment of the definition and taxonomy of race. What I'm certain of is that the old world conception of three races is definitely unscientific, antiquated and dead, and that most of the revisions into four, five, or nine categories are likewise falling by the wayside. Race is old school, and may not fit well with new information on human variation.

    Bossel, You may wish to restate your questions. i didn't mean to ignore them, but I either don't know the answers or I thought you were asking them rhetorically. I may not be the best one to answer but at least someone could find a response.

  9. #84
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    I'm stuck in the semantics either due to my lack of eduation in this area or because the arguments are basically semantical.
    Well, it's mostly about semantics: do you call it race, population, subspecies or cline... & how do you define it.


    I could not access the article you referenced.
    Strange, try this one.

    Race was well defined and accepted by eugenicists long before genomics (and really any microbiology) was even concieved.
    Well defined? In how far?
    They based their ideas on the at the time rather crude ideas of evolution. Evolution was a pretty new concept at the time & the understanding of its principles rather rudimentary.

    The problem is, it wasn't and still isn't scientific.
    Wrong, it was a crude idea in the beginning, but has been refined/redefined over time.

    That is not to say that there is no genomic variation in humans according to geography, or that people that have lived in distinct geographical reasons do not share some physical characteristics.
    Then, basically, you're saying variation is there but we are not allowed to call it race. No wonder that you're stuck in semantics.

    The analogy to linguistics (and please give me a break, I am not a linguist)
    Didn't you say somewhere you were an English major?

    is that you can divide communication into languages and languages into dialects, you may be able to further divide sub-dialects, but at some point further division becomes meaningless.
    Which proves that you're no linguist. Some of the newest research I read regarding UG (Universal Grammar) is focused on the fact that each person has their own grammar (or even several grammars, depending on the situation). It's hard to divide further.

    Variations in the species do not merit subdivision of the species.
    Semantics?

    Labels like language, only work when people agree on a shared meaning. Add to this Mr. Gaskins assertion that "95 per cent of people turn out to be of significant mixed heritage."
    As in race, in language you have varying schools of thought, each with their own labels. Some outright denying the existence of language, simply calling it a dialect continuum, there may be other who see every dialect as a language of its own. Dutch & German are generally referred to as distinct languages, although they are closer together than Mandarin & Cantonese, the latter of which is often considered a dialect of Mandarin.

    "Significant"? I wonder what that means.

    The scientific community seems to be disputing the validity of race
    Which scientific community? The PC faction doesn't make up the scientific community.

    Race is old school, and may not fit well with new information on human variation.
    Well, it doesn't fit well with modern PC.

    Bossel, You may wish to restate your questions.
    http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpos...5&postcount=75
    I still don't understand, which meaning you are hinting at.
    What meaning does the differentiation (which you seem to accept) into male/female have?
    Which meaning is there in differentiating dialects, why would that meaning disappear if you have 60 or more?

  10. #85
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Bossel- thanks for the link- this time the article worked. The research seems promising, but only time will tell. If most people (85%) are of mixed ethnicity- it will be interesting to see if it will have any value. If police could get just a hint of what a perp might look like it would be a positive step.

    Thanks for the questions. I was an English Literature major which has very little to do with linguistic. The semantic question is at the center of our disagreement. If you could see that race was a concept formed well before the seventeenth century in the absence of real science, DNA, genetics and even before evolution... and it has been used to define, justify, and exclude to the point of the eugenics movement and the holocaust you would understand why the negative connotation precludes the use of race as a category by many laymen like me and many scientists. What you may mean by race and what race meant in the popular lexicon just a few decades ago are totally different concepts that should be differentiated. Hence the use of terminology like genomic variation or cline is not some effort to be PC, just an effort to be more accurate and avoid the negative connotation the older term carries.

    You can with utter simplicity define almost anyone's gender with almost perfect accuracy. There are rare exceptions, but in over 99% of the cases, you can be 100% correct. You can't do that with race. What is defined as black in Brazil, or African American in the United States are different. The catch all term "Hispanic" may define a person with blood in combination from any or all of three different continents. In many cases a person is a mix of two or more continental blood lines- and so where do you sort them? How do you label them? And Cavalli-Svorza notes that there is as much variation in the native populations of the African continent as there are among all other population groups. The meaning of sub-category labels disappears when you can no longer accurately put the things you are classifying into the boxes you think they belong in. If you can identify which London neighborhood a person comes from by their accent alone, great. But if the label you give is somehow vague, inspecific, disputed, and gives little more information than the label itself, than it is rather random and quite useless.

    I may not respond for a bit, I am on vacation.

  11. #86
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    If most people (85%) are of mixed ethnicity
    Sorry, but this percentage is highly dubious. From my own perception it's more like the other way round: 90-95% of people are not of mixed race. Perhaps this is different in countries like the US, but even there I can't see more than 50% being of mixed origin. IIRC, even in Mexico, where you have a longer tradition of interbreeding between Indians & Europeans you only have a percentage of 60 with mixed heritage.

    I was an English Literature major which has very little to do with linguistic.
    Interesting. If you study English in Germany (which I do) at least 50% of your studies should cover linguistics.

    What you may mean by race and what race meant in the popular lexicon just a few decades ago are totally different concepts that should be differentiated.
    You may not have noticed it, but I do differentiate. I think, I mentioned it several times: The popular notion of race is not the same as the scientific concept of race.

    Hence the use of terminology like genomic variation or cline is not some effort to be PC, just an effort to be more accurate and avoid the negative connotation the older term carries.
    How can it be more accurate if it essentially means the same? Nah, it boils down to PC.There are some populists (often politicians) who don't like a word & declare it un-PC, then it's only a matter of propaganda & political pressure.

    You can with utter simplicity define almost anyone's gender with almost perfect accuracy. There are rare exceptions, but in over 99% of the cases, you can be 100% correct. You can't do that with race.
    You can, only you need the right markers. Female/male differentiation maybe easier (on the surface, not scientifically, though), but just as in the case of race there is no clear borderline.

    What is defined as black in Brazil, or African American in the United States are different. The catch all term "Hispanic" may define a person with blood in combination from any or all of three different continents. In many cases a person is a mix of two or more continental blood lines- and so where do you sort them? How do you label them?
    Ooooaaargh! You do it again! You take some social concept of race to argue against the scientific concept. "Black" is not a race, neither is "hispanic." People with mixed heritage are just that: mixed (I don't know the correct English scientific terminology, I'd simply call them mongrels.) I suppose, you could count them to a certain race if they have more than 95% of the distinct features.

    The meaning of sub-category labels disappears when you can no longer accurately put the things you are classifying into the boxes you think they belong in.
    It depends on the meaning you apply. I really have problems with understanding your insistence on meaning. If you research the differences as such, there is not necessarily meaning applied. If you research the origins of differentiation you could ask for reasons for this or that particular difference. If you research the effects of differentiation you could ask why this or that particular gene has that function in this race, while it is turned off (or suppressed by another gene) in that race & how this difference might affect medication or whatever. It all depends.

    If you can identify which London neighborhood a person comes from by their accent alone, great.
    But what would be the meaning?

    I may not respond for a bit, I am on vacation.
    Well, have a nice time. I could use some time off as well, but don't have enough money. *envy*

  12. #87
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Thanks Bossel, I think we have totally played this thing out.

    So there is a "social" concept and a "scientific" concept? That would be agreeable...

    The "social" one being the one piloted by ethnocentric europeans three hundred years ago that is totally debunked and the "scientific" one currently in development, but not defined as of yet. The problem of "race" semantically is one of connotation- the denotation may be somewhat applicable to what science is doing, but harnessing your terminology to some outdated term that has no scientific value. It seems like putting new tires on an old jalopy. (but I will leave that to scientists to debate.)

    I got the 85% thing from one of the articles we parsed. (By the Gaskin guy who said that "95% of people turn out to be of significant mixed heritage.") It probably refers to North and South Americans who are almost all of mixed blood. (But I definitely wouldn't use "mongrel" as it is a term mostly used for dogs and has racist connotations. Not very pc at all) I can't imagine many northern Europeans, Central Asians or Central Africans being all that mixed- just far more diverse than three labels.

    Your 95% of the "distinct features" statement sound like- if you look black, you're negroid- which isn't very scientific. This goes to the heart of my "race is not scientific" argument. (Since it doesn't take into account which features are dominant.) But perhaps I am misreading this.

    The America's are filled with mixes-- tri-racial isolates, creoles, half breeds, ancestries secreted away, hidden or falsified. Mixed race couples are not all that rare, nor is the one latino, Indian or Black ancestor hidden in your closet. The out-marriage rate among Japanese Americans for example is over 70%. Jewish out-marriage is about as high. "Hispanic" (a Nixon era political term) includes those formerly classified as "white" and some identified previously as "black."

    In Mexico- Mestizos, mexicanos, and latinos are generally mixed and the social strata tends to be along the European/Native American Blood line. The more european looking tend to be at the top of society and the more indian at the bottom. And there are full blooded indigeneos "indios" in Mexico, but they don't make up 35% of the population. Add into this the euro-african and african/native american mixes throughout the Carribean and central american region and "race" at least on this side of the pond has lost all meaning. (No one fits in the cute little boxes anymore.)

    I have blonde blue eyed friends that are registered Cherokee. My wife is Creole/Mexican which means she has all three of those precious "races" (if you still consider native american "mongoloid"). I recall in one of those studies that genomicists were able to identify "non- European" markers in over 60% of Americans self-identified as "White" and "non-African" markers in 80% of those identified as "African American". I'd have to research it though. (That 100 alleles with matches of 85% having common with self identified labels...or something like that...) And I definitely like to think of us as a salad bowl rather than a melting pot.

    As for being an English "Literature" major- it covers literature-- mostly written by dead English guys, and no linguistics at all. Criticism, rhetoric, poetry, prose, lots of Shakespeare and history...but nothing linguistic, grammatical, mechanical, or scientific about it.

  13. #88
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    So there is a "social" concept and a "scientific" concept? That would be agreeable...
    There is a whole bunch of concepts, but this is the basic distinction, I think (BTW, I already said this much earlier in this thread, you notice it rather late).

    It seems like putting new tires on an old jalopy.
    May be better to speak of a building which is still being built, but gets new paint because some obnoxious neighbours complained about the old grey one.

    I got the 85% thing from one of the articles we parsed.
    I doubt that this number applies for the US; for Mexico, though, it's like that (looked it up, it's somewhere around 80%, haven't found numbers for the US)

    Your 95% of the "distinct features" statement sound like- if you look black, you're negroid- which isn't very scientific.
    Sorry, but your reasoning isn't very scientific either, not even very logical. Even if skin colour was a distinct marker of race (which it isn't), it would be only one of many. How could that make up 95%?

    nor is the one latino, Indian or Black ancestor hidden in your closet.
    Which wouldn't make you necessarily a mix. If it was one guy 200 years ago, the probability that you have more than 5% of his genetic material left is rather low.

    Add into this the euro-african and african/native american mixes throughout the Carribean and central american region and "race" at least on this side of the pond has lost all meaning.
    Which meaning, dammit?
    Even if 99% of a population is mixed, that wouldn't mean that races don't exist. It only means that those of "pure" race don't form a significant (well...) part of the population. So what?

    As for being an English "Literature" major- it covers literature-[...]but nothing [...] scientific about it.
    You mean literary studies is not accepted as a science in the US? Again interesting.

    Back to the race argument: I suppose we have to agree to disagree. You seem to only recognise the social concept of race (& some social values associated with race?), while I solely argue on the biological concept of race.

  14. #89
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Hey Bossel,
    Thanks for keeping this alive for so long, but I think we may have passed some logical expiration point. You have said that you 'solely argue on the biological concept of race." but I don't even know what that means. Perhaps you can explain in laymans terms.

    At UCLA- the campus is divided north and south- North campus is the more creative artistic side of campus. South campus houses the science majors. English literature lives up in the northern section, clearly more art than science. I'm sure that many of us literature jockies would love to be considered more scietific, but the degree you get reads BA, and MA- not BS or MS.

    Quote Originally Posted by bossel
    Sorry, but your reasoning isn't very scientific either, not even very logical. Even if skin colour was a distinct marker of race (which it isn't), it would be only one of many. How could that make up 95%?
    I used "looked Black" in the most scientific way- that if a person displayed 95% of the distinct features -and I never mentioned skin color-- whatever they might be (and whatever in science that might mean) they would be negroid.

    So what I began with was that "race is not scientific." The best we can come up with is yes it is, but you have to ignore the widely popular and debunked "social" concept in favor of a "scientific" concept that doesn't fit the same parametrics and isn't entirely agreed upon by a large percentage of biologists. So I am back to my original statement: Race (the way most people including a large number of scientists define it) is not a valid scientific concept- in that it does not have clearly defined parameters that result in a logical systematic method of definition or distinction (ie meaning). (I made that up myself.) So what would be the point of holding kicking and screaming on to the old terminology? I'm glad you seem so certain. I still can't seem to make it work.

    Bossel: Last question: What is a "pure" race? "Pure" seems to again convey a scary connotation that is the very reason why I guess so many people shudder at the suggestion of scientific racialism. "Pure" is better than "mongrelized" right? (Or is this like the hybrid vigor question where the opposite is true?) Even Europeans have been mixed, mongrelized, invaded, and integrated by exploration, trade, travel, warfare, and invasion and...fill in the exploit of your choice. Genetic material seemed to rush back and forth across three continents constantly over the last few thousand years. (People don't stay put and don't keep their pants on.)

    I suppose there are some isolated Europeans from pockets of people that never went anywhere, were never invaded, and never exchanged biological material with anyone not directly related to someone close to them- (Like the kid from Deliverence) but wouldn't that be rare?

    What is the "Hun" in Hungary from? Where did the Mongol horde leave behind little hordies? Didn't Spain expel the last Moore in 1492? And there really is no physical border with Asia or Africa that hasn't been continually crossed over the last 6000 years? I keep thinking of the spectrum thing- how every population on earth tends to look quite like the ones around it, and there tends to be few places where a natural "race" line exists....And if Race is scientific where would Hungarians, Persians, Arabs, Jews, Indians, Pakastanis... fit in? Do they have more biologically in common with Swedes or Japanese? What is a pure race anyway? (That's the real question...The internal questions in this section of the post are mostly rhetorical.) (And wouldn't you eventually end up with a bunch of inbred hemopheliacs?)

    I say we either kill this thing soon or find a new and interesting direction to pull it into. We haven't discussed facism or racism....

  15. #90
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    2 more points:
    That Steve Sailer character I found seems to agree with you (Bossel). Cavalli-Svorza seems to be trying to redefine terminology not to be PC, but to be exact, specific and scientific.

    Bossel, you are absolutely correct: An ancestor of mine living about two hundred years ago would be my great great or great great great grandfather...one half to the power of four or five...or 1/32 or 1/64th of my genetic heritage...so it is less than 1/20th...unless two or more of the intervening ancestors also have a skeleton or two in the closet or of course the more likely that the "im-pure" ancestor is much closer.

  16. #91
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    You have said that you 'solely argue on the biological concept of race." but I don't even know what that means. Perhaps you can explain in laymans terms.
    We had this already:
    "Taxonomic Mayr (1969) : "An aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species, inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of a species, and differing taxonomically from other populations of the species."
    Population Dobzhansky (1970) : "Races are genetically distinct Mendelian populations. They are neither individuals nor particular genotypes, they consist of individuals who differ genetically among themselves.""

    I don't know how to put this into laymen's terms, because invariably the original definition gets lost. But let's try: Some more or less isolated population developed distinct biological characteristics which differ from those of another population. If a certain number of differing features comes together, you can speak of 2 races.

    I used "looked Black" in the most scientific way- that if a person displayed 95% of the distinct features -and I never mentioned skin color--
    Black is used to denote skin colour. There is probably a major problem in our perception here. I can recognise black only as denominator for colour, while you seem to have some racist social differentiation in mind.

    Race (the way most people including a large number of scientists define it) is not a valid scientific concept- in that it does not have clearly defined parameters that result in a logical systematic method of definition or distinction (ie meaning).
    Sorry, but science is not religion. You don't have a dogma, which all scientists have to follow. Coming back to my favourite comparison, linguistics: Just because many linguists deny the existence of Universal Grammar, doesn't make it a less valid scientific theory. Just because UG is defined differently by different groups of linguists (& is redefined with every new research paper) doesn't make it invalid either.

    I'm glad you seem so certain
    Certain? I simply haven't seen any valid criticism yet. The ones with the necessary background to actually debunk race as a concept, don't really do that. They only change their terminology to bootlick the PC faction.

    BTW, in that regard I found it rather curious that someone who argues against race uses it for his argument. "95% of people turn out to be of significant mixed heritage." How can people be of mixed heritage if there isn't anything to mix in the 1st place. I don't remember the exact argument, but this is kind of strange.

    What is a "pure" race?
    I don't know, you tell me! I didn't say that there is "a "pure" race", but that there are people of "pure" (noticed the "" in my post?) race. Which simply means that they show 100% of the markers for one particular race, depending on the definition it could be only 99%.

    "Pure" seems to again convey a scary connotation that is the very reason why I guess so many people shudder at the suggestion of scientific racialism.
    Scary? Only for those who use to see connotations where there aren't any. Since I already feared that you would (deliberately?) misunderstand the term I put it in "".

    "Pure" is better than "mongrelized" right?
    Why?

    Genetic material seemed to rush back and forth across three continents constantly over the last few thousand years. (People don't stay put and don't keep their pants on.)
    Sorry, but you overestimate human mobility. IIRC, recent research actually showed that eg. populations in Europe showed remarkably consistent structures even into the 20th century. Anyway, there is a lot mixing, there are even mix-races like in Ethiopia, so what?

    I suppose there are some isolated Europeans from pockets of people that never went anywhere, were never invaded, and never exchanged biological material with anyone not directly related to someone close to them- (Like the kid from Deliverence) but wouldn't that be rare?
    Depends where you look. In some Alpes valleys you may find villages which didn't interbreed with "foreigners" (IE anybody from outside the valley) for hundreds, if not thousands of years.
    It's not that extreme in many other parts of Europe, but mobility was very limited.

    What is the "Hun" in Hungary from?
    The Huns were of mixed origin.

    Where did the Mongol horde leave behind little hordies?
    In some parts of Europe, so what? Actually, they can be used as a nice example that European populations were not as mobile as you think. In a few Alpes valleys you can still find the Mongolian Spot on babies, while in directly neighbouring valleys you won't. (Although, the Mongolian Spot is not necessarily a racial marker, but there is a certain probability of it being mongoloid.)

    Didn't Spain expel the last Moore in 1492?
    Er, those Moors were caucasoid (Arabs & Berbers).

    there tends to be few places where a natural "race" line exists...
    What is a "natural "race" line"?

    And if Race is scientific where would Hungarians, Persians, Arabs, Jews, Indians, Pakastanis...
    Hungarians, Persians, Arabs & Pakistani are mainly caucasoid. Indians are partly caucasoid, partly an Altschichtrasse, partly mixed. Jews are members of a religion.

    Do they have more biologically in common with Swedes or Japanese?
    Most of those you mentioned definitely have more in common with Swedes.

    What is a pure race anyway?
    See above.

    (And wouldn't you eventually end up with a bunch of inbred hemopheliacs?)
    The effects of inbreeding are largely overrated.

    We haven't discussed facism or racism....
    Oh, I don't know, you show quite well how racism can influence perception. & the methods sometimes adopted by the PC faction to decry scientists researching racial differences look pretty fascist to me.

  17. #92
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Bossel--
    Thanks again. I think we have pretty much exhausted this thread. In spite of the two great definitions of genetic differences (or would that be genomic differences?) among populations living in different geographic regions- which I agree is absolutely true- I still don't believe race is a scientific concept. No one is saying that people everywhere are exactly the same, or that people in distinct regions don't share charactersitics.

    The basic argument is to whether these diffeneces are consistent, significant, and distinct enough to merit some type of taxonomic subdivision of the species and if this subdividing should be along the same limited (and I would argue discredited) lines of the non-scientific past terminology (Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid, Australioid). Scientists are arguing among themselves whether the basic concept is valid and I choose to agree with the growing many that say that it is not. Again, I have given you my reasons, and cited as best I could some sources- some of which I would have to take a bit more time to read up on to make sense of. (And so we circle in a ungraceful rhetorical dance.)

    Race is often used in the popular lexicon in a very non-scientific way to describe people, to develop arguments regarding social problems, as a term to attempt to break down people into distinct groups that have something in common, and in these context "race" has some meaning. Even the census bureau in the US does this. It is used interchangeably with heritage, ethnicity, and country of origin (and in the case of Jews- religion). (eg. The thread about Japan and Korean relations has many references to the two "races.") It was the key factor in American immigration policy for a century and a half, for slavery in the US, for American Indian policy, Japanese internment, the eugenics movement and the Holocaust. It has been used and misused for centuries, well before the discovery of DNA.

    I don't think it is inaccurate for police to use race as a description when looking for a suspect or a lost child. It is a shorthand that fits the limited way our human minds function. This has little to do with genetics, genomics, or research and everything to do with our social history.

    The "pure" thing was not meant as a slam. I kept the little quotes intact and I was trying to get to the implication that somehow homo sapiens have three different origins or that one stock may be better than another, and that mixing and "inter-breeding" is some kind of recent event. In a semantical argument such as this one connotations such as this are key and should not be ignored.

    And the "95%... mixed heritage" statement I made was a quote that I cited, but I neither originated it nor did the research to back it up-- I guess you could find the citation and argue with the original author. (I actually think it was from one of Sailer's pro-Race-as-Science article quoting someone and then ripping him appart...but I could be wrong.)

    Go in peace. I happily trod a planet in which there is only one human species, all closely related, with a great deal in common, and whose diversity should be enjoyed and celebrated. Should science find a reasonably accurate method and a valid reason to break down the species into big tribes, than so be it. (And if they- like many 20th century "scientists" again say that one "pure" line is better than the others, I will still declare them wrong.) Like I said earlier, strip us of our skin and we all look like the same bloody mess.

  18. #93
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    The basic argument is to whether these diffeneces are consistent, significant, and distinct enough to merit some type of taxonomic subdivision of the species
    Consistent: -yes, since the split happened probably at least 40,000 years ago, but always developing
    Significant: -it depends
    Distinct: -obviously, the closer to the core of a race the more distinct, blurry on the borderline

    I can't see why humans should be treated differently from other animals by biology.

    and if this subdividing should be along the same limited (and I would argue discredited) lines of the non-scientific past terminology (Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid, Australioid).
    Discredited: -only among the PC faction (which usually does not argue on biological grounds)
    Limited: -wrong; it's not limited to these 3 major & a number of smaller lines, there is a lot of subdivision possible (eg. caucasoid: Brünn, Borreby, Alpine, Ladogan, Nordic, Noric, etc.), although some of those subdivisions are going to become extinct (IE so mixed that they aren't recognisable anymore) in the near future.

    Scientists are arguing among themselves whether the basic concept is valid
    Now you sound like a creationist: "Because scientists argue about the details of evolution, it doesn't exist."

    I was trying to get to the implication that somehow homo sapiens have three different origins
    3? There are a lot of origins, but if you look back far enough, you may find one specific combination of amino acids which is our single ancestor.

    or that one stock may be better than another
    Every stock is better (adapted to the specific environment it evolved in) than another.

    mixing and "inter-breeding" is some kind of recent event.
    It is & it is not. There were times of interbreeding & there were times of inbreeding. It depends where & when you look.

    I happily trod a planet in which there is only one human species, all closely related, with a great deal in common, and whose diversity should be enjoyed and celebrated.
    Can't see why the concept of race should interfere with that.

    Like I said earlier, strip us of our skin and we all look like the same bloody mess.
    Only if you don't look at the details.

  19. #94
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    On Paradigm shift from Race to Genomic Variation

    I searched some articles and abstracts and came up with this:

    From an article written by health care academics: The Reification of Race in Health Research (http://academic.udayton.edu/health/0...research01.htm)
    Some have argued that the concept should be abandoned, based on the overwhelming scientific evidence that human races do not exist. Others argue for retaining the term, but limiting its application to the social, as opposed to the biological, realm. Recently, the American Anthropological Association, the official professional organization of physical, biological, social, and cultural anthropologists and archeologists in the United States, released a statement emphasizing the social and historical construction of race. Reflecting a general consensus among social scientists, physical and biological scientists and other scholars, the statement contended that race could not be considered a valid biological classification:

    The "racial" worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth. The tragedy in the U.S. has been that the policies and practices stemming from this worldview succeeded all too well in constructing unequal populations among Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of African descent. Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances.
    http://hum-molgen.org/NewsGen/11-2004/msg06.html: Human genome variation and 'race'
    The human genome contains both enough variation for us all to be genetically unique individuals and little enough variation that it is clear we are all members of one human race.

    A special issue of the journal Nature Genetics, "Genetics for the Human presents a comprehensive survey of what we currently know about the science of human genetic variation. It emerges that the widespread use of 'race' as a proxy is inhibiting scientists from doing their job of separating and identifying the real environmental and genetic causes of disease.

    http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/12/6/844 Race, Ethnicity, and Genomics: Social Classifications as Proxies of Biological Heterogeneity
    by Morris W. Foster, and Richard R. Sharp
    Debates about race and ethnicity have changed in one important respect---today nearly all geneticists reject the idea that biological differences belie racial and ethnic distinctions. Geneticists have abandoned the search for "Indian" or "African" genes, for example, and few if any accept racial typologies. Even so, although simplistic biological interpretations of race and ethnicity have been discredited for decades, studies in clinical and population genetics continue to associate biological findings with the social identities of research participants.
    1. "...the overwhelming scientific evidence that human races do not exist...race could not be considered a valid biological classification."
    2. This statements reflects "a general consensus among social scientists, physical and biological scientists and other scholars."
    3. "...we are all members of one human race."
    4. "..nearly all geneticists reject the idea that biological differences belie racial and ethnic distinctions....and few if any accept racial typologies."
    5 "...simplistic biological interpretations of race and ethnicity have been discredited for decades."

    I think I have asked this before, and it was answered, but do we use race as a subcategory of any other species? I think it is used exclusively for homo sapiens.
    Last edited by No-name; 24-07-05 at 01:04. Reason: add elipses and last question.

  20. #95
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Sorry for hijacking this thread... People were having a fine time discussing Racism and universally condemning it. I especially like TimF's post.

    Digicross said there was no such thing as racism because there is only one human race. Bossel responded that scientists told him that there was "race" to which I answered that "race is not a scientific concept." Since then we have gone around in a circle..."no it's not"..."yes it is." Although I have read a great deal of material about race and science- it seems that science is moving toward a different paradigm to describe human variation and has entirely abandoned the concept of race. I learned a lot about the current state of human genomics, but I think we lost the main point of the discussion and may people stopped participating.

    People who originate in different places often look different than people that originated in other places. This is due to "minor superficial differences" that have developed in the last 40,000 years. Historically this was used to define us into "races"- and the social-historical concept of race developed and is used today by social scientist to try to determine what is going on in multi-ethnic societies such as we have in the United States.

    You can determine a person's origins with some accuracy just by looking at them. Some people also assume that you can know a whole lot more about a person just by looking at them. Others falsley asssume elements of a persons character, intelligence or personality are somehow related to this appearance. All of this makes racism seem so reasonable- almost scientific. After all, if what I see is scientifically accurate, and based on biology- than it is rational to believe that there should be differences in character, intelligence, and personality...and that no one should be upset if one group just happens to be superior to all the rest.

    The Nisei uncle I grew up with was an incredible bigot. Although we lived in East LA where he had daily contact with Latinos, he hated them. He hated blacks. (Even though he was Wilt Chamberlin's Gardner) He hated other Asians. He hated Jews. He hated whites. and he even refered to other Japanese Americans as Buddha Heads. (He was terribly unhappy). The only thing he seemed to like was fishing.

    Racism is hooey. It has no rational or scientific basis. I does as much harm to its bitter adherents as it does to the object of its hate. Most insidiously, it is not outright bigots that are the most harmful- for they are easily dismissed- it is the institutionalization of racism into our global society. Race is not a scientific concept, but it is a social reality- however we separate and categorize ourselves into little tribes- we no longer have the space or the resources on our planet to ignore each other.
    Last edited by No-name; 25-07-05 at 04:58. Reason: punctuation

  21. #96
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    1. "...the overwhelming scientific evidence that human races do not exist...race could not be considered a valid biological classification."
    Haven't seen that. Anyway, I can't see why variation among humans is not sufficient to differentiate races while less variation among other species is.

    2. This statements reflects "a general consensus among social scientists, physical and biological scientists and other scholars."
    A general consensus? Mind you that was from the AAA, PC crap if you ask me. You yourself have seen the statistics where a majority of biologists agreed with the concept of race. Then, either the AAA is a bunch of liars or they deliberately constructed their statement that it can be interpreted as you did. Either way, it discredits the scientific value of any AAA statement.

    3. "...we are all members of one human race."
    Since the link doesn't work I can only assume that the guy who wrote this has problems with scientific terminology. It should read "...we are all members of one human species."

    4. "..nearly all geneticists reject the idea that biological differences belie racial and ethnic distinctions....and few if any accept racial typologies."
    Where you left out the fact that they are talking about "the simplistic biological understanding of race and ethnicity associated with the eugenics movement." Phhh!

    5 "...simplistic biological interpretations of race and ethnicity have been discredited for decades."
    Exactly, just what I keep saying all around.

    I think I have asked this before, and it was answered, but do we use race as a subcategory of any other species? I think it is used exclusively for homo sapiens.
    & I think I answered that repeatedly (here , here , here & here, Lonesoullost has posted an explanation as well). Race as a concept is widely used in biology, race as a term in English seems somewhat limited to homo sapiens, although there is no reason why it should be that way.


    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    if what I see is scientifically accurate, and based on biology- than it is rational to believe that there should be differences in character, intelligence, and personality...and that no one should be upset if one group just happens to be superior to all the rest.
    Interesting logic, though none that I could follow.

    Racism is hooey. It has no rational or scientific basis.
    Of course it hasn't.

    Race is not a scientific concept, but it is a social reality
    Nope, race is a scientific concept, & it is a social construct (reality?). Those 2 should not be confused, which you repeatedly did. The social construct is what leads to racism ("they look different -> they are different -> what's different is inferior -> they are inferior").

  22. #97
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Hey Bossel, I thought you might have gone on vacation or something. It's good to hear from you again.

    [QUOTE=bossel]Haven't seen that. Anyway, I can't see why variation among humans is not sufficient to differentiate races while less variation among other species is.[QUOTE=bossel] Again although you say thaqt you have give examples, I clicked on the here, here, and here and there is nothing there. Perhaps it is just a peculiarity in English, but the human species is the only to be divided into anything "called race."


    Quote Originally Posted by bossel
    A general consensus? Mind you that was from the AAA, PC crap if you ask me. You yourself have seen the statistics where a majority of biologists agreed with the concept of race. Then, either the AAA is a bunch of liars or they deliberately constructed their statement that it can be interpreted as you did. Either way, it discredits the scientific value of any AAA statement.
    Since the link doesn't work I can only assume that the guy who wrote this has problems with scientific terminology. It should read "...we are all members of one human species."
    There are plenty of other quotes we can go over including Levi-Strausse, Cavalli Sforza, Desmond Morris, Charmaine D M Royal & Georgia M Dunston. I took the quote from an article that is subject to peer review. I didn't say it. But if you have problem with the statement contact the publishers of the article for the appropriate method of responding. It may have little or nothing to do with PC, but you seem fixated on this.

    Quote Originally Posted by bossel
    Where you left out the fact that they are talking about "the simplistic biological understanding of race and ethnicity associated with the eugenics movement." Phhh!
    Actually, I don't think they mentioned eugenics at all in that context. I'll have to look at the entire quote again.

    Quote Originally Posted by bossel
    & I think I answered that repeatedly
    I don't really think you have. I reviewed those posts- I could just take your word for it, or you could provide an example and some sources. But I have never heard race used in that context. Perhaps this is just unique to English, but my brilliant sister in law who has a MS from Washington University in Human Biology agrees with me.

    Quote Originally Posted by bossel
    Race as a concept is widely used in biology, race as a term in English seems somewhat limited to homo sapiens, although there is no reason why it should be that way.
    I don't think it would be used that way simply because if it is not usually used in that way it won't be understood.

    Quote Originally Posted by bossel
    Nope, race is a scientific concept, & it is a social construct (reality?). Those 2 should not be confused, which you repeatedly did. The social construct is what leads to racism ("they look different -> they are different -> what's different is inferior -> they are inferior").
    Many scientists, some of whom are quite well known and are at the top of their field disagree with you. As you have pointed out before, because I am not a biologist, I am not qualified to give an opinion. I will defer to these experts especially since their opinion seems to agree with mine and there does seem to be evidence of a growing consensus. I don't feel confused at all. I originally expressed an opinion that race is not a scientific concept. I did quite a bit of research and found that most sources I could find seem to agree with this point of view. Although I don't run in Biology circles and can't say if it is some covert attempt at political correctness, my feeling is that it is an attempt as Cavalli-Sforzato says in "The History and Geography of Human Genes" to "change an old paradigm." I don't think I confused the concepts- I only said that one is discredited and antiquated. Check some of your sources, two of them that you reference are 30 years old. That Sailer guy might be a white supremacist.

    The PBS series Nova had a program called "Does Race Exist?" I think we have hit every point of the arguments they went over. For a summary:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/race.html
    Last edited by No-name; 28-07-05 at 05:37. Reason: Add website.

  23. #98
    DON'T PANIC! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tsuyoiko's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-05
    Posts
    979


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by bossel
    Nope, race is a scientific concept, & it is a social construct (reality?). Those 2 should not be confused, which you repeatedly did. The social construct is what leads to racism ("they look different -> they are different -> what's different is inferior -> they are inferior").
    I think it is a fact that much racism has occurred under the auspices of science - the field of genetics grew partly out of eugenics. To say that the two meanings should not be confused is naive. Society motivates science, and science changes society.

  24. #99
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    [QUOTE=Sabro][QUOTE=bossel]Haven't seen that. Anyway, I can't see why variation among humans is not sufficient to differentiate races while less variation among other species is.
    Quote Originally Posted by bossel
    Again although you say thaqt you have give examples, I clicked on the here, here, and here and there is nothing there. Perhaps it is just a peculiarity in English, but the human species is the only to be divided into anything "called race."
    Oh man! Examples from the linked posts:
    "Taxonomic Mayr (1969) : "An aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species, inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of a species, and differing taxonomically from other populations of the species."

    "members of a subspecies [IE race] would share a unique, geographic locale, a set of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters, and a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species. Although subspecies are not reproductively isolated, they will normally be allopatric and exhibit recognizable phylogenetic partitioning
    [...]
    I already told you that this is not the case, race is used as a subdivision in other species, only the terminology might differ a bit (eg. variety for plants, breed for domesticated animals, subspecies). It seems a distinct phenomenon of English that the term race is more or less limited to humans.
    Chimpanzees are subdivided into at least 4 subspecies, Eastern Gorillas into 2-3, the Long-tailed Macaque into at least 10, you can go on..."

    I took the quote from an article that is subject to peer review.
    Probably the same peer reviewed magazines that refuse to publish articles that don't follow the PC line.

    I didn't say it. But if you have problem with the statement contact the publishers of the article for the appropriate method of responding.
    How condescending & arrogant, eh. Or does that actually mean that you contacted the publishers of those articles I linked earlier in this thread. Or, wait, did you perhaps simply discuss further with me, although "I didn't say it."?

    Actually, I don't think they mentioned eugenics at all in that context
    Since I quoted from the very same article, they probably did.

    I don't think it would be used that way simply because if it is not usually used in that way it won't be understood.
    From M-W:
    1 : a breeding stock of animals
    2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>
    3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type

    Many scientists, some of whom are quite well known and are at the top of their field disagree with you.
    Top of which field? Sociology, anthropology or biology.
    What do they disagree with? Concept of race or what I described as what leads to racism.

    I don't feel confused at all.
    But you show confusion.

    I originally expressed an opinion that race is not a scientific concept. I did quite a bit of research and found that most sources I could find seem to agree with this point of view.
    Nope, as I said earlier those people working in the field (as C-S) simply changed their terminology (from race to population/cline/etc), but the concept essentially stayed the same. If you look at the cover of C-S' "The History and Geography of Human Genes" you will find the very same distribution of populations as in the "old" race concept. Surprise!

    I don't think I confused the concepts- I only said that one is discredited and antiquated.
    Nope, you repeatedly criticised the scientific concept with references to folk-taxonomy. Looked a lot like you're confused.

    Check some of your sources, two of them that you reference are 30 years old.
    Which ones exactly?

    That Sailer guy might be a white supremacist.
    Perfect example of PC propaganda.


    BTW, you still haven't told me what Persians consider themselves to be, if not caucasoid.





    Quote Originally Posted by Tsuyoiko
    To say that the two meanings should not be confused is naive.
    Nope, to think that everybody could be able to differentiate would be naive.
    To say they should not be confused is not.

    I think, at this point of the discussion it is pretty obvious that not everybody is able or willing to differentiate. That doesn't mean, though, that the terminology has to be changed. If we would always go for the lowest common denominator in communication (IE what really everybody would be able to understand/differentiate), there wouldn't be much left of our language.





    edit:
    BTW, they just recognised a fifth Chimp-race (subspecies if you want).
    Last edited by bossel; 30-07-05 at 01:17. Reason: insertion of edit from deleted post

  25. #100
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    OK> I stated that race is not a scientific concept and then found sources- some prominent scientists who are rather well known. And the more I looked for a consensus in what is available mostly on line (which is not very scientific), including the university library search ERIC- seems to indicate a growing majority that dismiss race as a discredited and antiquated concept. This would suggenst to me that in the twenty years since that 1985 poll Wikipedia quoted, that even fewer scientists subscribe to the concept- especially based upon what current researchers are finding. (I don't think I am confused here.)

    So race is a concept that is like subspecies, except that it is unusually confined in the English language to discussions of homo-sapiens. Again I have never heard it used in biology to discuss any other species (Like Chimp-race) in spite of m-w. A lot of scientists including prominent behavioral anthropologist Desmond Morris, Biologist Harold Freeman, and the American Anthropologist Association don't consider Race a scientific concept. Others such as Evolutionary Biologist Luigi Cavalli Sforza favor a change in terminology to better and more accurately fit what he believes is a new paradigm to match the empirical data coming out of the study of genomics. Even though I am not a scientist and I find much of the work that is published a bit difficult to follow, I am supposed to question them because Bossel says race is a scientific certainty. Is this correct? or am I confused. I cited the articles that I thought best argued my points and gave the names of the authors. I could go back and cite them again- but I feel a growing certainty about my position, bolstered by articles and a brief survey of recent publications. (Absolutely no confusion here...)

    There is actually nothing wrong with using 35 year old sources (Taxonomic Mayr (1969) and Population Dobzhansky (1970)) except that we are discussing what may represent a shift in the field of biology. There is also nothing wrong with Steven Sailer. Others have charged him with the racism agenda, and I probably erred in repeating it, but I thought I gave it sufficent context. I did actually find several scientists like Sailer that did argue that race was a valid and valuable concept.

    Hey, if anyone has better information, please correct me: Persians, at least my Farsi friends that I have spoken to long ago, believe that their people founded the original civilization and have continually inhabited the area from prehistory. They believe that they are a unique and pure race separate and unrelated to the later Bakhtiyari, Qashqaie, Arabs, Turks, Lurs, and Kurds. I'm not sure how the term Caucasian would even fit into this ethnogenesis.

    Many peoples believe themselves to be an original and separate "race" unique in origin and bloodline to the human species. (Aren't the Japanese descended from gods and princes?) I'm not certain that this point belongs in our discussion, but the point was something to the fact that the Three Race theory was a European construct and is no more scientific than some aboriginal people believing themselves unique and declaring themselves a race and giving a two race construct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bossel
    I think, at this point of the discussion it is pretty obvious that not everybody is able or willing to differentiate.
    I think here you are absolutely correct. I am unable to differentiate because the subdivision of the species does not fit current data and science is not in agreement, and unwilling because it serves no useful purpose.

    I certainly did not mean to come off as condescending and arrogant. Quite the contrary. I have repeatedly admitted to being a layman and novice: An English Literature major in very foreign territory. I thought I made this quite clear. I quoted what I found to be qualified experts, and I can't really speak for them and answer back in any kind of adequate manner when the information I have borrowed is directly questioned. I defer to the scientists in the scientific argument. Bossel, you however have pronounced yourself a scientist and an expert- a defender of the truth against the rising tide of political correctness-- which I think is a really good thing. But the scientific community would need to counter your arguments- hence the whole peer review thing- I can only repeat what I have read. I am sorry for any confusion.

    You criticised me for using the terms "insignificant differnces" which was lifted from one of your quotes. If I can't use your quotes to prove my points than maybe I am confused. It's quite different than asking if you have as a scientist weighed in through the normal channels such as peer review. As I am not a scientist, I am not a peer- I am absolutely unqualified to take such action.

    I think the whole Merriam Webster definition fits the race is a social/historical construct argument perfectly. Especially def 2.

    This has been fascinating. I appreciate the time and effort that Bossel has put into this discussion, and the comments by Lonsomesoul and Tsyoiko. I think that this has become circular. If anyone has anything to add or can take this in a different direction, I would certainly appreciate it.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Racism
    By smurf in forum Other Serious Discussion
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 03-01-20, 02:54
  2. The psychology of racism
    By Ma Cherie in forum Psychology
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 05-09-14, 14:24
  3. Reincarnation and racism
    By ralian in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-05-05, 20:14

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •