# How many races are there? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 5, 2002, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-races-are-there/127179 "2002-09-05T20:34:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-races-are-there/127179/141 "2002-10-05T14:36:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > \*\* > > The reason is that “genetic matching” involves greater costs. It also costs resources to convince people to submit to testing. In a world with finite resources, then, there may be some sense in targeting those resources even if the aim is not excellent. \*\* But this cost is not lessoned by pre-selecting by the race (but wait, you haven’t defined what it is you mean by race, have you?) How are you reducing “recruitement”? Even if we the medical community decides to start classifying people by whatever racial scheme you think _may_ exists biologically–I still don’t know what criteria you’re using here since you have yet to define it-- they still have to recruite from all these “races”. And using organ donation as some sort of proof that racial classification is useful is conterproductive, if you ask me. Your own cite states that only 30% of donors find matches within their own families. What does this say about the usefulness of the classical race scheme when you have a better chance of matching a perfect stranger than your own family where the relationship is already known? It has been said (repeatedly) that there are populations that share some distinctive genetics. These populations do not resemble the classical race system. Why should scientist use a system that does not work when there is one that does? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-races-are-there/127179/142 "2002-10-05T15:08:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Thus, in a world of finite resources where it costs money to urge people to submit to testing, and testing itself costs money, there is some sense in targeting these resources. However, _everyone_ who volunteers to be a donor is tested, already. The purpose is of the NMDP is to increase the overall participation of _all_ peoples so that more matches are found for any individual. There is no selection (or prediction) based on “race.” ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-races-are-there/127179/143 "2002-10-05T21:56:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Telemark \* > \*\* > 4) Well break my arm and call me Lefty, what are you arguing? > > \*\* My basic point is that “race doesn’t exist” is ambiguous and potentially misleading. A few other debates have emerged, but that’s my basic point. And you are welcome to ask me questions about my position and pin it down. But as I mentioned before, I am not particularly trying to defend the concept of race. (Although I have argued that it may have use in some situations.) ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-races-are-there/127179/144 "2002-10-05T22:15:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Biggirl \* > \*\* > > But this cost is not lessoned by pre-selecting by the race > > \*\* Disagree. Let me pose a hypothetical: Let’s suppose that you are Black, and that a Black family member of yours needs a bone marrow transplant. Unfortunately, the transplant organization is unable to find a match. However, you have the resources to organize a campaign in the community to test a good number of people in hopes of finding a match for your family member. You have the resources to run a few ads in the paper; to pass out flyers; and to test a decent (but limited) number of people. Would you target the Black community? Would you test people without regard to race or would you try to focus on testing Blacks? (And by the way, I will concede in advance that it would be better to target your own particular ethnic group; however, let’s suppose that further, the Blacks in your area tend to self-identify as “Black” and do not really think of themselves as belonging to a more narrow ethnic group.) ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-races-are-there/127179/145 "2002-10-05T22:26:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\* However, _everyone_ who volunteers to be a donor is tested, already. The purpose is of the NMDP is to increase the overall participation of _all_ peoples so that more matches are found for any individual. There is no selection (or prediction) based on “race.” \*\* Can we agree that there are limited resources to advertise and make people aware of the need for volunteers? In any event, before we go on, let me ask you this: Even if you take issue with the example I offered, do you agree with my underlying point – that there are situations (related to science/biology) where it can be useful to consider race? If your answer is “yes,” then there’s really no need to continue this discussion about bone marrow or organ donation. (Although I am happy to read what you have to say on the subject.) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-races-are-there/127179/146 "2002-10-05T23:21:52Z")
> [@](#): > > do you agree with my underlying point – that there are situations (related to science/biology) where it can be useful to consider race? I can’t see anywhere that race can be useful in a biological context. Sociologically, yes. I don’t even see where one can adequately _define_ race in a biological context. In this thread, alone, we have talked about a “race” of people in Africa that comprises no fewer than three separated, and basically unrelated, groups; we have seen it used to name a group of people in the U.S. that begins with a limited selection of African forebears and then includes quite a bit of European and American input. (And there is certainly an underlkying assumption in some quarters that those two groups are, somehow, the same. How does one use, biologically, a group that has nebulous boundaries and means something quite different depending on context? Sociologically, one can use the external referents to identify races, so that exact biology is nearly unimportant. Biologically, I do not see how that can be done. ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2002, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-races-are-there/127179/147 "2002-10-06T01:26:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > \*\* > > Disagree. Let me pose a hypothetical: Let’s suppose that you are Black, and that a Black family member of yours needs a bone marrow transplant. Unfortunately, the transplant organization is unable to find a match. However, you have the resources to organize a campaign in the community to test a good number of people in hopes of finding a match for your family member. You have the resources to run a few ads in the paper; to pass out flyers; and to test a decent (but limited) number of people. Would you target the Black community? Would you test people without regard to race or would you try to focus on testing Blacks? > > \*\* Let’s not be so hypothetical. I’m according to classical race definition, I am black. I have no idea where my “blackness” comes from since my grandfather was the son of slaves and their roots are lost to us. My grandmother is half Blackfoot Indian. My maternal grandmother was born in Spain and my maternal grandfather was a dusty, freckled red-head from Puerto Rico. You explain to me-- a black person-- how narrowing my search to only blacks is somehow using my resources more efficiently or that it would increase my chances of finding a match. My background is not strange or very different from other American blacks. What is it, genetically, that makes focusing my search in on blacks more efficient than, say, focusing it on blood type? Or Europeans? ---
**Author:** ![eponymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e0b2c6/32.png) [@eponymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eponymous)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2002, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-races-are-there/127179/148 "2002-10-06T06:20:42Z")
_Originally posted by eponymous_ > [@](#): > > Sorry - I probably should have said human beings \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > [@](#): > > Well, human beings do not always devise (or even know about) classification schemes collectively. How long has the Chinese zodiac existed? Since long before those cute placemats made the rounds in New York City. Sigh - I apologize. I’m not doing a very good job of communicating. Let me try again… Here’s my original statement a few posts back: > [@](#): > > OK, Now help me out with this. If you’re saying that all kinds of classification schemes can exist (which can provide varying degrees of interesting results and/or predictions), then they exist by virtue of our devising those schemes. You didn’t quite know what I meant by “our”. I said I meant “human beings”. Which you replied as above. Try reading the very last part as follows: ,…then they (concepts/classifications schemes) exist by virtue of the human intellect (that is, they were created by human beings, either individually (one person created it) or collectively (two or more people created it). > [@](#): > > I basically don’t object, although (1) there may be room for debate over just how useless race is Depends on the context. Just because you think the concept (as classically defined) has utility in a scientific context (biology/genetics), doesn’t necessarily mean that others would agree. > [@](#): > > (2) the way you seem to be using the word “meaningless” may be a little misleading and in any event doesn’t seem to square with the way you were using the word “meaningful” earlier when you conceded that race might have meaningful predictive value Again, it depends on the context. Race (in the classical sense) might have meaningful predictive value in biology/genetics if the conceptualization of race (in the classical sense) accords with what is known about reaility. And for a long time, it did. But today, it doesn’t anymore. Likewise, race might have meaningful predictive value in another context (such as sociology or economics). No one here (wait, just to be safe, no one that I’m aware of) has taken the position you can’t/shouldn’t use the concept of race in other contexts. > [@](#): > > (3) I object to “real existence” for the same reasons expressed earlier. Wait - you’ve previously stated that it is your position that “race” exists by virtue of it being created/defined by the human intellect. Are you now saying that “race” isn’t a creation of the human intellect? Can you clarify by what “you” mean by “real existence?” > [@](#): > > I would also ask you to explain what you mean by “adhere/correspond to what is actually known about reality” and describe how one could test whether a particular classification scheme adheres or corresponds to what is actually known about reality. I think if you do that, it may help expose a deeper weakness in your above statement. OK - let’s create a concept, call it “gravitation”. Provide a definition for it (gravitation is a force whereby two or more material bodies attract each other). Provide a correlary definition to the original one (gravity - gravitation as manifested by the tendency of material bodies to fall towards the center of the earth). Examine phenomena to see if this tendency takes place; Conduct tests to see if the above definitions (original and correlary) are accurate (that is, the definitions reflect what actually takes place in the material world). Here’s a simple test: Climb to the top of the Empire State Building. Jump off. If you levitate somewhere between the point where you jumped off and the ground, then there is a very strong likelihood that the above definitions for gravitation/gravity needs to be reworked. If you survive (or not) the fall to the bottom, you then have evidence that the original definition mirrors/adheres/corresponds to what actually happened when you jumpred from the top of the Empire State Building. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2002, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-races-are-there/127179/149 "2002-10-08T01:19:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\* I can’t see anywhere that race can be useful in a biological context. \*\* I would point you to page three of the following thread: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=100467&perpage=50&pagenumber=3](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=100467&perpage=50&pagenumber=3) In particular, the exchange among you, **edwino** , and **IzzyR** regarding diagnosis. (And yes, I’ll give you exact quotes if necessary.) I also repeat my earlier question: **Can we agree that there are limited resources to advertise and make people aware of the need for volunteers?** ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2002, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-races-are-there/127179/150 "2002-10-08T02:00:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Biggirl \* > \*\* > > Let’s not be so hypothetical. > > [discussion of personal circumstances] > > \*\* Look, I’m happy to concede that there are circumstances in which race is useless. That doesn’t mean it’s useless under all circumstances. Do you agree with my underlying point – that there are situations (related to science/biology) where it can be useful to consider race? If your answer is “yes,” then there’s really no need to continue this discussion about bone marrow or organ donation. (Although I am happy to read what you have to say on the subject.) (By the way, it occurs to me that the phrase I used --“underlying point” – is not entirely accurate, since my basic point is something different. I should have said “the point underlying the example I gave about organ donation.”) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2002, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-races-are-there/127179/151 "2002-10-08T02:05:55Z")
> [@](#): > > I would point you to page three of the following thread: And I would note that that is simply a _sociological_ use of the word “race.” We are not discussing the ill-defined (or, pretty much undefined) “race,” we are talkng about using a cultural clue to an ethnic group, with very mixed genetic background that does not meet any biological definition of race, to point a doctor toward a quick inventory of possible indicators of disease. While we use the word race to identify one population of people in the U.S., that U.S. population has a wider group of ancestors that includes Europeans and Americans than any purported group of Africans, while having less in common with a several other groups of Africans, themselves. To what _biological_ “race” does that group belong? I would also point out that I would not depict a doctor’s or nurse’s rough-cut decision regarding things to examine as a _scientific_ application. After their cultural categorization has occurred, they will then have to go back and continue with actual scientific tests that may be completely refuted by the guesses they made based on cultural indicators. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2002, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-races-are-there/127179/152 "2002-10-08T02:21:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by eponymous \* > \*\* > > ,…then they (concepts/classifications schemes) exist by virtue of the human intellect (that is, they were created by human beings, either individually (one person created it) or collectively (two or more people created it). \*\* Sounds ok. \*\* > [@](#): > > Just because you think the concept (as classically defined) has utility in a scientific context (biology/genetics), doesn’t necessarily mean that others would agree.\*\* I’m not sure what your point is here. Sadly, it’s true that, as a general matter, people don’t always agree with me. So what? \*\* > [@](#): > > Again, it depends on the context. Race (in the classical sense) might have meaningful predictive value in biology/genetics if the conceptualization of race (in the classical sense) accords with what is known about reaility. And for a long time, it did. But today, it doesn’t anymore.\*\* Earlier, you seemed to be conceding that race may have meaningful predictive value. Are you backing away from that now? Are you limiting your concession to areas outside of biology/science? \*\* > [@](#): > > Wait - you’ve previously stated that it is your position that “race” exists by virtue of it being created/defined by the human intellect. Are you now saying that “race” isn’t a creation of the human intellect? Can you clarify by what “you” mean by “real existence?”\*\* I was quoting your words. Earlier, you said the following: > [@](#): > > Therefore, as a practical matter, the concept of race (as classically defined and in the context of biology/genetics) is viewed by the scientific community as having no “real” existence. And I was objecting to this statement, for the same reasons I’ve been saying all along. Incidentally, my position on the existence of race is that yes, it may exist as a technical matter, but I object to discussing race in terms of existence and non-existence. Do you remember the following exchange between us? You: > [@](#): > > Then I suppose you would also have problems with someone making the following claim: > > Q: “Do races exist?” > > A: “Yes” Me: > [@](#): > > I would have a problem, yes. Perhaps not as big of a problem, since, as a technical matter, any classification scheme that is described can be said to exist. \*\* > [@](#): > > [a discussion about gravitation] > > \*\* Umm, I asked about classification schemes. While it’s true that concepts such as gravitation are analogous in certain respects to classification schemes, I think that there’s enough of a difference that looking at your analysis of gravitation will create lots of confusion. Would you care to take another crack at my question? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2002, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-races-are-there/127179/153 "2002-10-08T03:08:50Z")
> [@](#): > > Can we agree that there are limited resources to advertise and make people aware of the need for volunteers? Sure. ---
**Author:** ![eponymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e0b2c6/32.png) [@eponymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eponymous)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2002, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-races-are-there/127179/154 "2002-10-08T07:03:53Z")
\*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > [@](#): > > Earlier, you seemed to be conceding that race may have meaningful predictive value. Are you backing away from that now? Are you limiting your concession to areas outside of biology/science? Sorry, I should have stated that, yes, race may have meaningful predictive value, if it can be demonstrated that 1) race (in the classical sense) really does mirror/reflect was is known in biology/genetics today or 2) race (in the classical sense) is modified or “redefined” so as to better reflect what is known in biology/genetics. Since I don’t think that 1) can be achieved in the foreseeable future given what is currently known in biology/genetics, then 2) is the more likely avenue in which to demonstrate meaningful predictions. Again, this is strictly in the context of biology/genetics. Of course, race (in the clasical sense) may have meaningful predictive values in other contexts if race is defined in that particular context (for example, in a sociological context where people self-identify as one particular race or another). > [@](#): > > Incidentally, my position on the existence of race is that yes, it may exist as a technical matter, but I object to discussing race in terms of existence and non-existence. Ugh - disappearing quotes!! Just to be clear - you’d rather see the discussion on race be framed on whether it is useful and may provide interesting/meaningful results? If so, this presupposes that race does exist, which it does (as a concept). We’ve agreed that race as a concept exists by virtue of it being created by the human intellect. No problems here. However, I’ve tried to explain that, even though race can exist as a concept, scientists (in the context of biology/genetics) can state that race doesn’t exist because it doesn’t mirror/correspond/adhere to what is known about reality (or real phenomenon - that is, phenomenon that can be detected, either directly or indirectly, by the senses). This is important because 'reality", so to speak, is used for grounding what can be studied in science. If that were not the case, then one couldn’t object to discussing _in science_ the non-existence of entities such as “Santa Claus”, “The Tooth Fairy”, “The Loch Ness Monster”, or even “God”. If you wanted to discuss these entities, you would need to leave the realm of science and enter the realm of philosophy, theology, and the like. If there was direct, physical evidence (real evidence, or evidence that can be detected by the senses) or indirect, physical evidence of, say, “The Loch Ness Monster”, then it could become the concern of science. And I hope you wouldn’t object to the following claim - “Q: Does the Tooth Fairy Exist? A: No” (justification/explanation for position)? While I can understand why you (or anyone) may object to it on strict philosophical grounds (one can indeed conceptualize what the Tooth Fairy is - that is, to say, the concept of the Tooth Fairy can exist by vitue of the human intellect), I don’t think you would object to it _in the context of science_. Unless, of course, you could provide physical evidence to the contrary. Now, you may state that the above is a rather ridiculous example, but it does help to illustrate the framework in which science grounds itself. Concepts/classifications schemes, for them to be useful/meaningful in science (particularly biology/genetics), need to be grounded in (or correspond/adhere to) real existence (i. e. physical reaility - reality than can be aprehended by the senses). > [@](#): > > Umm, I asked about classification schemes. While it’s true that concepts such as gravitation are analogous in certain respects to classification schemes, I think that there’s enough of a difference that looking at your analysis of gravitation will create lots of confusion. Would you care to take another crack at my question? OK - how about Mendeleyev’s Perodic Table of the Elements? Wouldn’t you agree that that is a classification scheme? Mendeleyev devised a way to arrange the known elements, based on what what known about those elements at the time he devised it and on certain assumptions about those elements. His table, when finished, had gaps indicating where certain elements should be. But there wasn’t any physical evidence (at the time of his creating the table) that those elements actually existed. Based on what was known about the other elements and using certain assumptions, Mendeleyev was confident that those elements, in fact, did exist and that they would have certain properties. Over time, those elements were discovered to exist and did have the properties that Mendeleyev predicted that they should have based on his organization of the elements in his periodic table. So you have a classification system that exists (by virtue of the human intellect) that nicely mirrors what is known about the elements. It had the additional benefit of being able to (correctly) hypothesize the existence of unknown elements as well as those elements properties. If, as time goes on, scientists discover elements and/or properties of those elements that don’t correspond with the periodic table, then it’s safe to assume that the table will need to be reworked or scrapped all together. Of course this will also have implications in other sciences (such as physics, for example). The (old) Periodic Table can still exist (by virtue of it being created by the human intellect), but it now doens’t correspond/adhere/mirror to what is know about reality. So the relationship amongst the elements (which is what the Perodic Table is) that we had originally thought existed (by virtue of what was known about the elements and their properties), now doesn’t exist as it had in the past. The elements (and their properties) still exist as real phenomena (can be dected by the senses), but we need to account for this in a new/revised classification scheme of elements (that is, we need to take into account the new elements and their properties). **lucwarm** , I’m going to have to back away from this discussion. I’m afraid I’ve probably made matters more confusing rather than clarified them. I apologize if this has been the case… ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2002, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-races-are-there/127179/155 "2002-10-08T07:43:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by eponymous \* > > **lucwarm** , I’m going to have to back away from this discussion. I’m afraid I’ve probably made matters more confusing rather than clarified them. Join the club ;). - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2002, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-races-are-there/127179/156 "2002-10-08T13:28:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > \*\* > > Look, I’m happy to concede that there are circumstances in which race is useless. That doesn’t mean it’s useless under all circumstances. \*\* Well, you brought up a circumstance in which you thought the classical race scheme would be usefull and I used personal circumstances to hightlight how using race would not be useful at all. My personal circumstances are not atypical-- as many in this thread have repeated over and over again. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > \*\* > Do you agree with my underlying point – that there are situations (related to science/biology) where it can be useful to consider race? \*\* No. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > \*\* > If your answer is “yes,” then there’s really no need to continue this discussion about bone marrow or organ donation. (Although I am happy to read what you have to say on the subject.) > > (By the way, it occurs to me that the phrase I used --“underlying point” – is not entirely accurate, since my basic point is something different. I should have said “the point underlying the example I gave about organ donation.”) \*\* And my point is that there is no biological underpinings for using race in your example about organ donation. None. American blacks are an amalgamation of many different ethnic groups from many different geographical locations with many different populations represented within. What _scientific and biological_ facts do you have to show that there is a good reason to pre-select by race. What do you _mean_ by race? ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-races-are-there/127179/157 "2002-10-10T00:52:35Z")
A New Look at Old Data May Discredit a Theory on Race > [@](#): > > Two physical anthropologists have reanalyzed data gathered by Franz Boas, a founder of American anthropology, and report that he erred in saying environment influenced human head shape. Boas’s data, the two scientists say, show almost no such effect. > > The reanalysis bears on whether craniometrics, the measurement of skull shape, can validly identify ethnic origin. As such, it may prompt a re-evaluation of the definition of human races and of ancient skulls like that of Kennewick Man. > > “I have used Boas’s study to fight what I guess could be considered racist approaches to anthropology,” said Dr. David Thomas, curator of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. “I have to say I am shocked at the findings.” > > Forensic anthropologists believe that by taking some 90 measurements of a skull they can correctly assign its owner’s continent of origin — broadly speaking, its race, though many anthropologists prefer not to use that term — with 80 percent accuracy. > > Opponents of the technique, who cite Boas’s data, say the technique is useless, in part because environmental influences, like nutrition or the chewiness of food, would overwhelm genetic effects. > [@](#): > > As to why he drew the wrong conclusion, Drs. Sparks and Jantz note that he was much involved in disputing contemporary belief that many different racial types could be reliably distinguished. > > Boas’s motives, they write, “could have been entwined in his view that the racist and typological nature of early anthropology should end, and his argument for dramatic changes in head form would provide evidence sufficient to cull the typological thinking.” > > Dr. Jantz said that Boas “was intent on showing that the scientific racism of the day had no basis, but he did have to shade his data some to make it work that way.” > > “Corey and I,” Dr. Jantz said, “certainly aren’t arguing that scientific racism is something you should go back to. But that doesn’t mean cranial morphology is meaningless, either.” > > The new report raises the issue of whether an earlier generation’s efforts to play down the role of genetics in fields like behavior and racial variation may not have been carried to extremes. Dr. Steven Pinker, who assigns a larger role to genetics in shaping behavior in his new book, “The Blank Slate,” said it was not Boas but his disciples, including the anthropologists Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead and Ashley Montagu, who “helped establish the blank-slate, social-constructionist, antibiology mindset of the social sciences.” > > Dr. Thomas said that “once we anthropologists said race doesn’t exist, we have ignored it since then.” In that context, the reanalysis of Boas’s data “really does have far-reaching ramifications,” he said. Genes Linked to Black Heart Failure > [@](#): > > The study found that a pair of genes that does nothing bad by itself can double the risk created by a second pair, generating a tenfold risk for heart failure in black people who have both. > > About 5 percent of U.S. blacks have that combination, Liggett said. But it is far rarer among whites. > > The study was published in Thursday’s New England Journal of Medicine. > > In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Roger J. Hajjar of Massachusetts General Hospital called the study ``provocative,’’ but said the researchers hadn’t proven cause and effect. > > Doctors have long known that blacks are more likely than whites to suffer from heart diseases and certain other illnesses, and are more likely to die from them. Some researchers have suggested that blacks receive inferior care, perhaps because of unconscious prejudice among doctors. > > In fact, an analysis of 81 studies, released Wednesday as part of a campaign by major health foundations to close the racial health gap, found that the evidence that minorities get inferior cardiac care is compelling. > > Liggett’s study, however, is part of a growing body of research indicating that at least part the racial gap can be explained by genetics. (For some reason these links add the SDMB address onto the URL. I’ve had this happen before, but don’t know what causes it or how to correct it. If you delete the leading SDMB address the links work). ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-races-are-there/127179/158 "2002-10-10T19:13:27Z")
Regarding the second story: we’re right back to the issue of Sickle Cell Anemia. They have found that the gene combination occurs in 5% of “U.S. blacks” but in “far fewer” whites. OK. So we have a population with a certain amount of intramarriage with a higher incidence. Is the same rate displayed in the section of Africa from Senegal to Congo? Is the same rate displayed in all sub-Saharan Africans? Is it a founder effect in the U.S. or is it pan-African in nature. U.S. blacks are a population that can be described as distinct within the U.S., but if we try to expand the definition to a black race, who do we include? Who do we exclude? Do the Ashkenazi Jews become a separate race based on Tays-Sachs prevalence? ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-races-are-there/127179/159 "2002-10-10T21:11:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/08/science/social/08HEAD.html” A New Look at Old Data May Discredit a Theory on Race Well, I’m a bit puzzled at the relevance of the article, although it is, if it holds up, a real blow to Boas. Of course as Boas dates to the 1930s… My impression is the writer did not have a good grasp of the actual underlying articles. The comments on K-man strike me as a bit odd as my recollection of the articles (non-popular) on K-man was that the id in re race was wrong based on further analysis, was linked to hypothetical ‘different’ wave with a divergent set of characteristics (re Ainu and related groups - Ainu btw genetically are not associated with “Caucasians” meaning Western Europeans - as I recall, South East Asians.) So, more incoherence? In regards to id’ing skulls, I can only point to the Chamla articles I cited to in the past. The author, a French researcher operating in the 1960s in West Africa found a range of skull and skeletal types in her survey of remains from the Paleolithic and Neolithic, with a consistent mix of 1/3 in each region (sorry, North Africa, Saharan, sub-Saharan) matching the other region’s dominant type. Shrug. No surprise in re morphologies having regional groupings and changing only slowly, would be wierd if they changed in but one generation. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Heart-Genes-Blacks.html]Genes Linked to Black Heart Failure As the other, the problem with this is the American sample and the fact that we still have majorities of either group w/o the characteristic, and some % with it, in each group. Same same. Don’t see much of immediate relevance in either. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2002, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-races-are-there/127179/160 "2002-10-10T21:39:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > Regarding the second story: we’re right back to the issue of Sickle Cell Anemia. Agreed. I believe we’ve disagreed about SSA in the past - I don’t see this as being substantively different. No need to revisit the old issues - they’re still online. I thought it might be of interest to the readership - if not, ignore. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > Well, I’m a bit puzzled at the relevance of the article, although it is, if it holds up, a real blow to Boas. Of course as Boas dates to the 1930s… Well, yes. Of course, Relativity dates back even further than that. And so on. Of significance is not when something dates to, but whether it is still relied on today. > [@](#): > > So, more incoherence? If you are referring to the rest of your comments, yes. If you actually wish to make a substantive contribution, I would suggest that you make clear what points you are making (and responding to) and how the various facts you toss around have relevance. Of course, that may not be your intention. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-races-are-there/127179.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-races-are-there/127179.md?page=9)