How many human races are there?

Great Debates
21

The rainbow is a continuum with definable properties. Blake’s point, as I read it, is that if you define the properties of “race” in any systematic way you don’t get such a continuum.

The difference between red and orange is obvious, except when it isn’t, and it’s easily definable when it isn’t and there are large pieces of spectrum that belong to one or the other. With races there are obvious differences between chosen labels. Except when there isn’t, and there are a lot more people in the “not easily definable”-group than in the perceived obvious groups.

22

Perhaps we could go even simpler:

As a number, how many colours are there?

23

How would you like to define race?

It does not make sense to try and define it biologically. Modern genetics can tell us a great deal about the source pools for your genetic ancestry using Y or mtDNA haplogroups for example, but how does that define “race” for a given individual or group? The best you could do with that kind of grouping is to say that prevalence for genetic variants within that group is different than the prevalence in a different group.

It is impossible to define it socially. Ask Shaun King, who feels his dad was a “light-skinned black,” but whose basic identification is based on how he feels he was raised.

In the US, it is simply a self-defined grouping, using (Federal) standards from the Office of Management and Budget. The standards were most recently revised in 1997 (I think) and in 2000 some OMB guidance was issued for implementing them. Not the first, and probably not the last, effort.

Two questions are used (one for race; one for ethnicity) and the sole determinant is the individual’s response.
Five race categories are created, and a separate one for Hispanic or Latino ethnicity.

From the guidelines:
*“The 1997 standards emphasize self-reporting or self-identification as the preferred method for collecting data on race and ethnicity. The standards do not establish criteria or qualifications (such as blood quantum levels) that are to be used in determining a particular individual’s racial or ethnic classification. They do not tell an individual who he or she is, or specify how an individual should classify himself or herself. Self-identification for race and Hispanic or Latino origin means that the responses are based on self-perception and therefore are subjective, but by definition, the responses are accurate.” *

Note that the purpose of the US Federal race standard is to drive data collection, and not to define race, per se. (Each individual essentially defines for himself which category he wants to associate with.)

Nothing wrong with coming up with your own definition of race, in which case the number of races would depend on whether you are a lumper or a splitter. But modern migration patterns would make the edges of your race categories pretty soft for any given individual.

My personal opinion is not of much value in GD, but “race” is kind of a meaningless term, and I’d be surprised if you got broad agreement on anything but discarding it except for casual shorthand.

24

Totally agree. As I said in my post, there is a lot of blurring, often with no distinct ‘borders’. Plus there has been mixing.
That does not negate that you can apply labels like ‘red’, although it both encompasses bordeaux and scarlett.

Which doesn’t mean there are NO colours.

you can subdivide it as far as you want, look at a RAL table f.i. Or RGB coding.
Look at how the DNA codes are growing.

25

Can you explain to us the practical, scientifically meaningful, difference between “There are far more races than there all the members of the *human *race that have ever lived” and “There are NO scientifically valid races”?

Because it seems to me that those statements both mean the same thing.

26

I don’t think there’s an agreed upon number of ethnic groups. Probably hundreds.

I think it’s funny when I read someone comment on a war in the Middle East or Afghanistan where there’s half a dozen different ethnic groups and they’re all dismissed as just a bunch of Ay-rabs.

Odder is how often the old system of three is still taken seriously on racist sites – negroid, caucasoid, and mongoloid. Talk about lumpers!

27

Ethnicity is not race.

28

Even for color you run into problems when accounting for the difference between spectral colors, defined by the wavelengths of the light involved, and perceived color, defined by the response elicited in cones and rods in the retina. And human characteristics, even when limited to apperance, are vastly more complex. Yes you can say that a Korean and an Ethiopean are distinctly different, but the concept of race is about creating larger groupings than that. It’s less like acknowledging there are different colors in the rainbow, with some bluring between each color, and more like hanging on to a language with only three words for colors and insisting those three meaningfully describe the rainbow.

29

Well first it is obvious for about 470 of those years I did not exist. Second, the word racism did not exist until 1902. Not sayin tension between cultures was not al ready in existence.

30

Sure it is. Why not?

“Race” means “a group of humans identified as distinct from other humans.” Race absolutely, unquestionably CAN mean ethnicity. In the late 18th century people thought of the British and their descendants in colonies as part of the “British race” whereas someone from France was of the French race."

You’re assuming “race” means “A group of people who are morphologically different in a visible way.” There is no semantic, scientific or historical basis for that; it’s just the way Westerners, especially Americans, have chosen to divvy the world up since roughly the late 19th century but really getting deep into it since the 1920s.

31

Somehow the “I know it when I see it” standard strikes me as lacking in rigor.

32

Or, alternatively, as many as people wish to define themselves as. I’m in favor of people selecting and/or inventing a racial identity for themselves and of thus untying racial identity from physiological characteristics.

I know the first publicly covered foray into that wasn’t a good poster child for the idea (the self-identified black person occupying a paid NAACP office who had no black ancestors as far as anyone can tell), but I find that I’m kind of liking the general idea.

33

Why can’t he “convert” to black?

34

It means a lot ‘more’ than that, in the lexicons of those to whom “race” is a meaningful way to talk about people.

Have you not just essentially described the semantic and historical basis for it? I agree it is unscientific, of course.

I agree that in the 18th century the term was used differently. To my knowledge virtually all present-day racists would count British and French as of the same (“white”) race. Both racists and non-racists generally recognize the ethnic distinction.

Neither recognizing nor failing to recognizing sub-“racial” ethnic distinctions precludes a racist conception.

35

It is logically inconsistent to believe in evolution and not in race. Simple evolutionary theory should tell us that populations which are geographically separated for thousands of years will grow genetically distinct over time.
Genetic studies have shown this to be true. This study (pdf)shows five distinct genetic clusters that are concentrated in geographic areas. Those areas are Africa, Eurasia, East Asia, Oceania, and America.

36

The small degree of real genetic distinction that arises in just several thousand years separation is not what racists seem to imagine, as best I can follow them.

37

Japanese used to believe that they were a distinct race, although DNA studies show that they are related to Koreans, Han Chinese, Ainu, Okinawans, and Sino-Tibetan.

38

Ohhh, you don’t want to tell them that. Trust me on this.

To make the point of the ambiguity in the concept of race from a biological or morphological standpoint, “blacks” (Africans of subSaharan extraction) comprise a wider range of both genetic and morphological variation than the rest of the human population combined. While the predominate cultural view is that all ‘blacks’ (or ‘African-Americans’, or whathaveyou) are sufficiently morphologically similar, and by extension intellectually, physiologically, and culturally somehow comprising of a homogeneous group such that we can apply sweeping generalizations to, the reality is that the only common factor in most black populations outside of Africa is that their ancestors were largely abducted from somewhere along the west coast of Africa and were empressed into a new and wholly artificial culture of chattel slavery. And other ‘blacks’ such as the Australian and Melanisian aboriginal populations are as distantly related to the population of Africa as a Swede or an Amerindian.

Blake is correct that ‘race’ is purely a cultural construct, and one that is entirely fungible depending on the cultural mood toward immigrants and the need for a scapegoat on which to focus blame for economic and social troubles. We’ve been treated to prejudice against the Irish, Sicilian, Welsh, and Ashkenazi Jewish ‘races’ despite the fact that in modern terms we would and should describe all as “white”, which gives a good notion for the rigor of such descriptions.

There are certainly genetic and morphological differences between populations and especially those which have been subject to generations of geographic or ethniosocial isolation with limited intermixing with other populations, and we may make rough distinctions based upon genetic markers such as distributions of unique polymorphic genetic haplotypes and the phenotypical features associated with them, but even this doesn’t rise to a level of clear group distinctiveness, and in fact, mapings of haplotypes through various ethnicities have served to demonstrate just how much regular intermixing has occurred between supposed ‘pure races’ throughout history even before the modern era. ‘Race’ as a pseudoscientific concept has its roots in superstition, religious and social authoritarian control, and intentional scapegoating.

Stranger

39

Because skin color and other superficial traits are an easily recognizable proxy for culture and class differences.

40

I stand not to be right or wrong, only to understand the opinions of others to better develop my understanding of the issue. By sharing my opinion and reading the opinions and references of others I am able to see the different sides of the debate while slowly developing a intellectual level of understanding.

As far as the special snowflake, let me ask you these questions…are the words that I stated in any way offensive to you or do they provoke you into insulting me as an individual? Is it not just enough to say you disagree with my opinion and state why you disagree? Why doesn’t my argument hold water?

Let me provide you with my rebutal to your last paragraph now. I as an individual i have traced my ancestors through many different cultures, religions, and geographical regions. I have found that french, german, italian, native american, and African are all part of who I am today. Hence my opinion that the world is a melting pot of cultures. One could argue that if races exist, what race would I be?

Since I am the one that started this thread I need not provide the arguement. I only need provide the context that will drive others to respond. This was my goal and as such have achieved this goal while learning the opinions and theories of others. So please either provide your insight or move on. Thank you.