"Human race" most nebulous social construct?

[Jovialis]

Despite the fact that the past 11 years of population genetic breakthroughs have informed us that we are divergent inter-species amalgamations, apparently there is only one "race"?

But trying to describe more finer-scaled analysis of populations as even sub-divisions (insert preferred nomenclature) is pseudo-science? Or a dog whistle for racism?

I always hear that the differences are very slight, 0.1% between other humans. But to me, that doesn't seem like a compelling argument considering we're 98.8% genetically similar to chimps. So 0.1% in that relative difference seems like a lot actually. Especially considering we are 60% related to bananas and fruit flies.

Just like in dealing with code, even if one symbol is different in millions of lines of syntax, that operation WILL fail. It seems like even very slight difference in DNA have massive implication, when looking at whole species.

 

[ihype02]

Using ancient hominids as a source of defining race, you have to put Australian Aboriginals together with Native Americans and East Asians. Assuming East Asian have Denisovan DNA or else you have to put East Asians together with Europeans.

Also not all Caucasians have the exact same amount of Neanderthal DNA. A light skin African American (in some cases) which pushes 44% European he might nearly reach the amount of Neanderthal DNA that a certain pure Caucasian has (I don't know for sure). Does this make them a "Caucasian" instead?

Genetic and phenotypical differences between people regarding their geography of origin exist more in a form of sequence than racial groups like "White" "Black" "Yellow" "Red".

I am not sensitive to this race issue at all though. I have tried defining race and it did not work out for me. It made sense decades ago when distinguishing Northwestern Europeans with Western Africans in the New World but as a general rule for the whole world I am not sure.

 

[Jovialis]

Perhaps I should have elaborated more, but I'm not suggesting acknowledging "racial" difference is solely facilitated by the percentage of ancient hominid ancestry.

Interesting I asked AI to give me the percentage of difference between people who are part of the same race or ethnic group. It couldn't make the determination, only admitting it is likely less than 0.1% that they say is the general difference not controlling for race.

 

[Jovialis]

So basically if the similarities between a chimp and a human is 98.8% genetically; the difference between races is 0.1%.

What is the difference between two Albanians for example, 0.00000001%?

For some reason, the AI constantly reminds me not to make generalized assumptions based on genetics. Yet, it will only give me a generalized assumption on the difference between races being 0.1%, and cannot give me a more fine-scale percentage for one single group.

Logic has been so tortured, we live in a time of an intellectual inquisition.

 

[ihype02]

Perhaps I should have elaborated more, but I'm not suggesting acknowledging "racial" difference is solely facilitated by the percentage of ancient hominid ancestry.
Interesting I asked AI to give me the percentage of difference between people who are part of the same race or ethnic group. It couldn't make the determination, only admitting it is likely less than 0.1% that they say is the general difference not controlling for race.

AI implies that there are unknown ancient hominids so maybe they can help giving a more appropriate definition of race in the future.

 

[ThirdTerm]

Genetic and phenotypical differences between people regarding their geography of origin exist more in a form of sequence than racial groups like "White" "Black" "Yellow" "Red".

They are primarily driven by pigmentation genes. The SLC45A2 gene is strongly associated with the lighter pigmentation phenotypes of Europeans. OCA2 is associated with the brown eye, brown hair and lighter skin pigmentation phenotypes of East Asians. A single single-nucleotide polymorphism in the neighboring HERC2 gene, which affects an OCA2 regulatory element, results in blue eye color. The four racial groups are labeled as West Eurasians (Europeans), Africans, East Asians, and Americans as ancestry components in principal component analysis (PCA) of genetic data. Liberal scientists were not comfortable with such ancestry labels to replace old race categories, according to David Reich.

Two OCA2 polymorphisms (rs1800414 and rs74653330) have been associated with pigmentation in East Asians. We explored the distribution of these markers in a panel of samples from populations around the world. The derived allele of rs1800414 has high frequencies in a broad East-Asian region, whereas the derived allele of rs74653330 is primarily restricted to northern East Asia. Our data suggest that these polymorphisms may have been selected independently in different regions of East Asia.
https://www.nature.com/articles/hgv201558

 

[Northener]

These are imo sensible words:

[FONT=var(--subbuzz-text-body-fontfamily)]In short, there is a difference between finding genetic differences between individuals and constructing genetic differences across groups by making conscious choices about which types of group matter for your purposes. These sorts of groups do not exist “in nature.” They are made by human choice. This is not to say that such groups have no biological attributes in common. Rather, it is to say that the meaning and significance of the groups is produced through social interventions.[/FONT]
[FONT=var(--subbuzz-text-body-fontfamily)]In support of his argument for the biological relevance of race, Reich also writes about genetic differences between Northern and Southern Europeans. Again, this should not be an argument for the biological reality of race. Of course, we could go back to the early 20th century when many believed that the “industrious” Northern Teutons were a race distinct from the “slothful” Southern Europeans. Such thinking informed the creation of racially restrictive immigration laws in 1924, but we think even Reich would not consider this sort of thinking useful today.[/FONT]
[FONT=var(--subbuzz-text-body-fontfamily)]Instead, we need to recognize that meaningful patterns of genetic and biological variation exist in our species that are not racial.[/FONT]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bfopinion/race-genetics-david-reich#.jqQ6X6057b

 

[Jovialis]

@Northener,

Check it out, they finally convicted the leader of the Proud Boys, here's the neo-fascist white supremacist:

https://nypost.com/2023/05/04/ex-pr...e-tarrio-found-guilty-of-jan-6-sedition-plot/

Maybe he is like Sammy Sosa?

Also, you can kind of turn that sentiment on it's head regarding more southern vs northern people.

For example, the English, who are indeed more southern in genetics racially discriminated against the more "Northern" more Steppe rich Irish and Scottish. Even comparing them to negros in terms of character.

There's an old racist English saying that a "Irishman is a ****** turned inside out".

I think it would be more interesting if the article explored this aspect as well.

@Northerner,

You may also be interested in reading Aristotle's "Politica". There he argues that only Greek-males are fully-human, and all other are half-animal and of a servile and barbaric disposition, only fit to be slaves. In that they deserved to be conquered, and treated like plants and animals. Even the cotton kings of the old South cited the work as a justification for the institution of slavery. The idea of racial supremacy is far older than what the article from buzzfeed shows.

I like it how you and every other left-winger uses this dichotomy to obfuscate any real discussion of biological differences. It is underhanded, and quite obvious.

 

[Northener]

Biological differences are real. Nevertheless the classification of races is not a given thing, this is man made and therefore arbitrary.

 

[Jovialis]

Biological differences are real. Nevertheless the classification of races is not a given thing, this is man made and therefore arbitrary.

Fine, "race", as we know if from the past, is indeed inaccurate, because the researchers lived in a time before human population genetics.

It was also politically en vouge to be more nationalistic, so they had a slant on their analysis. Just like there's always been a slant, based on the politics of the time.

Going back the the original topic, if all humans are more or less 0.1% different, not controlling for race, than what is the difference between two Northern Germans from the same town? 0.000000000001%?

I would like to explore that issue without being brow beaten and listen to the obligatory caveat about outmoded concepts of "race". I get it.

If there's anywhere this question should be discussed in a civilized manner, it will be on a population genetics forum.

As a moderator of the forum, I will allow it. I'm establishing right now, any attempts to shut down the conversation will not be tolerated.

Indeed humans are 0.1% different more or less, not controlling for "race" or ethnicity.

Now we need to know what is the difference between people of the same "race" or ethnicity".

 

[real expert]

These are imo sensible words:



https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bfopinion/race-genetics-david-reich#.jqQ6X6057b

Before Reich (and other geneticists) apparently joined a clear mainstream bias in favorof liberal Marxist ideology, he stated the following:



“I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveriescould be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticistI also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”

“Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology have beenmade over the last two decades. These advances enable us to measurewith exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s geneticancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — beforethe mixing in the Americas of the West African and European genepools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years.With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real.”


“To insist that no meaningful average differences among human populations are possible is harmful. It is perceived as misleading, even patronizing, by the general public. And it encourages people not to trust the honesty of scholars and instead to embrace theories that are not scientifically grounded and often racist.”


“You will sometimes hear that any biological differences among populationsare likely to be small, because humans have diverged too recently from common ancestors forsubstantial differences to have arisen under the pressure of naturalselection. This is not true. The ancestors of East Asians, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were, until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work. Indeed,the study led by Dr. Kong showed that in Iceland, there has been measurable genetic selection against the genetic variations that predict more years of education in that population just within the last century.”

https://joelvelasco.net/teaching/3334/reich18-Genetics_race_1.pdf


So, despite official denials from top social science organizations, examination of genomes from all over the world demonstrates that race has a biological basis. The fact that mixed-race populations, like African Americans, allow geneticists to track along an individual's genome and assign each segment to an African or European ancestor serves as an illustration of the point. Such an exercise would not be possible if race had no biological basis.

The botton line is, humanity has enough genetic variation to justify subdividing it into racial groups. Having said that, all humans are members of one species, Homo sapiens sapiens.

 

[Jovialis]

Before Reich (and other geneticists) apparently joined a clear mainstream bias in favorof liberal Marxist ideology

I think this is why I feel this hobby has been losing a lot of gas lately. Is it me, or has there been a dearth of new and exciting papers to come out?

 

[Northener]

The botton line is, humanity has enough genetic variation to justify subdividing it into racial groups. Having said that, all humans are members of one species, Homo sapiens sapiens.

Imo this does not contradict to what I have said,yes there are biological differences, but defining races is a matter of classification, as said this is not "given", but man made, subjective.

Fine, "race", as we know if from the past, is indeed inaccurate, because the researchers lived in a time before human population genetics.

@Jovialis human population genetics doesn't change that imo, because racial differences stay a matter of classification of defining (and that is a human act) subsets so to say.

if all humans are more or less 0.1% different

Doesn't change that because that is only a number, not validation. When it comes to races the differences are even much much more smaller, because for races we look basically at the phenotypical differences. The 0,1% differences is the total auDNA. The phenotype SNP's are just a tiny fraction (frankly I don't know the percentage....). So seen from DNA perspective: numeric small but for the eye this is most visible.

See the third term contribution then it's immediately about lighter and darker features........

And yes when I jump to the market in the center of my city Groningen today and someone else does the same in Bari today and takes 10 random persons, the majority (8 of 10?) of Groningen are relative blonder, with ligher eyes and taller than those in Bari.

Enough to qualify them as different races? And why (not)?

Somehow this is kind of boring to me.....leads all to subjective and kind of nitpicking debates. Because what is the relevance Jovialis?

 

[Jovialis]

^^


"Doesn't change that because that is only a number, not validation."


Then it is also not validation to disprove it too going by that logic.




"Somehow this is kind of boring to me.....leads all to subjective and kind of nitpicking debates. Because what is the relevance Jovialis?"


Than do not post, who do you think you are that threads are only here to serve as stimulation for you?

I already outlined why I am making the post in the OP. I also warned people to reframe from trying to shut down the conversation. If you don't like it, I can ban you for a couple weeks, and you don't have to see any threads at all. Otherwise, I would like to carry on the conversation without comments like that please.

@Real Expert, thank you for those quotes. It is proof enough to satisfy the fact that the only reason why he changed is tune is due to political pressure from the left. Of which the vast majority of academia is a part of.

 

[Northener]

^^


"Doesn't change that because that is only a number, not validation."


Then it is also not validation to disprove it too going by that logic.

"Somehow this is kind of boring to me.....leads all to subjective and kind of nitpicking debates. Because what is the relevance Jovialis?"


Than do not post, who do you think you are that threads are only here to serve as stimulation for you?

The headline is imo quit accurat Jovialis:

Human race most nebulous social construct?

I tend to say: yes....

For the rest it's boring not because it has to serve as stimulation but that the outcomes are predicable because a to foreseen disagreement about what is a race or not, because indeed it's a nebulous social construct.

 

[MOESAN]

"Race" (lineage in old meaning) is a concept. Even in natural animals species races exist uniquely by isolation. Our genomes are all the time evolving by opposite trends (differenciating mutations, differenciating AND uniformising selection). The big difference between Humans and animals is that our extra-physical skills to adapt ourselves to diverse ecosystems allow us to ever lasting re-crossings. So before today globalisation, Humans were always balancing between raciation and "disraciation" processes. Today, the raciation aspect is close to zero. The only reliable wall against productive crossings is the difference in chromosomes numbers.

 

[Tautalus]

The problem is the weight and associations that certain words have. Words that carry a history of intolerance, persecution and suffering. Race is one of those words. The concept of race has historically been used to justify discrimination and racism. The Jim Crow laws in the US, for example. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, an alleged "scientific racism" was created and developed, which influenced politics and led to the suicide of Europe in the in the 30s, 40s of the 20th century. 50 million people killed. Those events are still fresh in the collective memory.

I think the concept of race as a rigid and arbitrary categorization of human beings doesn't make much sense nowadays. Can the concept of ancestry replace it ?

The concept of ancestry is better suited to describe the differences between human beings than the concept of race. The concept of ancestry describes the genetic makeup of individuals based on their geographic and population ancestry. This recognizes the genetic diversity among human populations without perpetuating false ideas of superiority or inferiority among them. Ancestry also takes into account the mixing of different population groups over time, which is common in many parts of the world. In short, ancestry is a more accurate and respectful approach to describing genetic differences among human beings than the concept of race.

But even the concept of ancestry is subject to different interpretations, there is a huge diversity of understandings of ancestry.

See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9900027/
“Background: Ancestry is often viewed as a more objective and less objectionable population descriptor than race or ethnicity. Perhaps reflecting this, usage of the term “ancestry” is rapidly growing in genetics research, with ancestry groups referenced in many situations. The appropriate usage of population descriptors in genetics research is an ongoing source of debate. Sound normative guidance should rest on an empirical understanding of current usage; in the case of ancestry, questions about how researchers use the concept, and what they mean by it, remain unanswered.”

There are fears that the genetic ancestry population descriptors will continue to replicate racial classifications and thus perpetuate harmful stereotypes.

 

[Jovialis]

The problem is the weight and associations that certain words have. Words that carry a history of intolerance, persecution and suffering. Race is one of those words. The concept of race has historically been used to justify discrimination and racism. The Jim Crow laws in the US, for example. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, an alleged "scientific racism" was created and developed, which influenced politics and led to the suicide of Europe in the in the 30s, 40s of the 20th century. 50 million people killed. Those events are still fresh in the collective memory.
I think the concept of race as a rigid and arbitrary categorization of human beings doesn't make much sense nowadays. Can the concept of ancestry replace it ?
The concept of ancestry is better suited to describe the differences between human beings than the concept of race. The concept of ancestry describes the genetic makeup of individuals based on their geographic and population ancestry. This recognizes the genetic diversity among human populations without perpetuating false ideas of superiority or inferiority among them. Ancestry also takes into account the mixing of different population groups over time, which is common in many parts of the world. In short, ancestry is a more accurate and respectful approach to describing genetic differences among human beings than the concept of race.
But even the concept of ancestry is subject to different interpretations, there is a huge diversity of understandings of ancestry.
See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9900027/
“Background: Ancestry is often viewed as a more objective and less objectionable population descriptor than race or ethnicity. Perhaps reflecting this, usage of the term “ancestry” is rapidly growing in genetics research, with ancestry groups referenced in many situations. The appropriate usage of population descriptors in genetics research is an ongoing source of debate. Sound normative guidance should rest on an empirical understanding of current usage; in the case of ancestry, questions about how researchers use the concept, and what they mean by it, remain unanswered.”
There are fears that the genetic ancestry population descriptors will continue to replicate racial classifications and thus perpetuate harmful stereotypes.

Point taken, but I also think it is important to remember that there isn't a monolithic consensus on what is appropriate to discuss regarding this topic (outside of the guidelines for academics, but they're constrained due to it being a profession. They cannot challenge the orthodoxy). But we don't have these constraints, but we just don't have their authority. But what is true, and what isn't doesn't necessarily line up with what is appropriate socially.

Frankly, I disagree with the sentiment, it does not perturbe me. I want there to be a frank discussion on it.

 

[Tautalus]

We shouldn't avoid the subject, we can have a frank discussion about it, as you said. It is important to approach the subject with sensitivity and respect because it can be a minefield as it is laden with deeply held emotions, opinions and prejudices.

 

[Jovialis]

We shouldn't avoid the subject, we can have a frank discussion about it, as you said. It is important to approach the subject with sensitivity and respect because it can be a minefield as it is laden with deeply held emotions, opinions and prejudices.

I agree that nobody should be discriminated against based on race. Merely, I think we should celebrate what makes us who we are, and encourage respect for one another.