The early findings of Kennewick Man was reported as “Caucasian”, but I think the press kind of blew that out of proportion. The final verdic was that the cranial features resembled the Ainu in Japan more than any other group. And that might make sense from a multi-wave theory of the polulation of the Americas.
I haven’t seen it, but I assume there MUST be some assemblage of cranial measuremets from around the world. The F.A.s are always talking about figuring out race from cranial measurements, and they don’t just mean black and white.
No. You have argued that the statement “there is no such thing as race” can be defined in different ways and you have claimed (without evidence) that various posters have changed position on it. You are now adding a new claim regarding “race is a social construct.”
Do you have any evidence for your claim this time?
(I am not claiming that there cannot be the three different interpretations of “there is no such thing as race,” as indicated on your FAQ. I simply note that your implication that different people have argued all three positions has not been supported.)
I hate to be a fallacy quoter, but I’m starting to see that argument as a strawman. It’s been a while since anyone here has defined race as a distinct classification. There seem to be some racial patterns that are relevant to medicine and forensics that don’t require a hard distinction, but are helpful nonetheless. To dismiss the concept of race as non-existent just because the groupings don’t have the hard boundaries of ‘species’ seems pointless. It has been shown that ancestral divisions, however blurred they have become, are of some practical use in certain fields.
As scientific definitions go, that one looks exactly like a social one. The National Marrow Donor Program is looking for black and Hispanic donors. They used the term race in its societal sense-- unless Hispanics are now a scientifically classified race.
Sorry, but I’m simply not going to engage you. In past threads, your posts have been so intellectually dishonest that I’m just not gonna bother. And yeah, I can give examples.
If someone else cares to question my position, I’ll be happy to attempt answering.
I like to compare classifying people by race to classifying cars by their colour. Some people apparently do classify cars by colour - “What kind of car was it?” “A blue one.” However, the practice is pretty much useless. However, in spite of the fact that classifying cars by colour is pretty much useless, one could do comparative studies of variously coloured cars. We might find, for example, that red cars have on average 15hp more than white cars, and brown cars have 5.7% higher fuel economy than silver cars. These kinds of studies would be silly and useless to anyone wanting to learn about cars. However, they aren’t much less useful than many studies about the characteristics of races.
As to the forensic anthropology question - we humans are good at classifying people according to their superficial characteristics. Forensic scientists are good at determining what people’s superficial characteristics were based on their skeletal remains. This has about as much relevance to the usefulness of race as a biological category as the ability of wreckers to determine what colour of a rusted out and crushed wreck of a car had been has to the usefulness of colour as an automotive category.
Not sure about the Hispanics, but it’s because blacks are more likely to find a match among black donors then white donors, who are apparently already well represented. You may call that ‘social’, but it’s still a medically relevant use for a broad division of humanity called ‘race’. I think most people are in agreement that racial groupings are not drawn along the hard lines they were once thought to have been. At some point in the future, populations may mix to the point where racial classifications of any relevancy no longer exist, but I don’t believe we are there yet.
** No it really isn’t. In the linked thread there was a poster whose white father recieved a liver from a black female. Your sister has a higher chance of matching you than your second cousin, does that mean that you and your sister are now a seperate race?
Most scientist would agree that there are no racial groupings at all. We have never as a species been so isolated from each other that we somehow morphed into discreet biological little islands of raciality. No one can even say what a race is-- groupings of people who kinda look like each other and may have ancestors who lived near each other does not have any biological or scientific basis at all.
As have been pointed out in these types of threads-- repeatedly-- there is more diversity within these so called races than between these so called races. This means that it is entirely possible that a Somalian could have more in common genetically with a Laplander than with a Nigerian.
Thanks for the link. Yes, I remember him using the term “caucasoid” and then the popular press used the term “white”, which was pretty stupid. To give him some credit, though, the Ainu are often referred to as having “caucasoid” features, so I think his original assesment wasn’t too far off.
Biggirl:
“it is entirely possible that a Somalian could have more in common genetically with a Laplander than with a Nigerian”. That’s a good point, but is really only true about Africans. Because Africans have the most genetic diversity of any geographical group, any given African may be genetically closer to a non-African than to another African. However, if you said that a Vietnmese might be more closely related genetically to a Pole than to a Chinese person, you would be wrong. Just as it is highly unlikely that a Maori was more genetically related to a Brit than to a Hawaiian. Africans are unique in that way.
I know you don’t believe in the concept of race at all, but I would say it has less meaning for Africans than for other groups of people, even if you ignore the border blending effect. Africans are, in effect, the descendants of the seed poplulation of all people and the rest of the races are, in effect, a subset of Africans.
Umm, not a “distinct classification” but a distinct (but huge) population within the classification of human.
What is a “biological race” if it is not distinct? We must have a couple of thousand posts going around and around with peace on this very issue. No one is claiming that biological and genetic events do not control the features that people have used to identify races. The point is that they do not lead to a biological definition of race. Five races or three? Based on what? Five races or sixty? Based on what? Where do we categorize the millions of people who live in areas where the “racial” features are blended, mixed, blurred, and not testable? Why do we (under one racial system) put 4 1/2 foot tall Pygmies, 6 1/2 foot tall Masai, and Bushmen (all of whom have quite different features) into the same race when they look so different? Why do we put Australian aborigines into a different “race” than some African groups when they look so similar? The whole issue among some proponents of race as a biological construct is that the “races” differ in some way. If they are not different, why hold on to the word?
No. I played word games with the accusations of dishonesty that you posted in three threads (and then enshrined in your disingenuous FAQ). So if you choose to ignore me, that is fine–although it would be better to stop pointing out others’ “dishonesty” from your position of inventing positions for other people and lying about what has been said.
I notice that you entered this thread on the same footing of making false claims.
Do you disagree that increasing the number of black donors increases the chance of a match for a black recipient more than increasing the number of white donors would?
That means my sister and I are immediate family. That would be a more specific grouping than extended family, which would be a more specific grouping than race.
And where are you drawing this line of relatedness? Immediate family is not a seperate race. Extended family-- still not a seperate race. Share a great-great-great-great grandmother? Well, now things get a little murky, don’t they?
This is why I keep asking for a scientific definition of biological race. How many races are there? On under what principles are these racial groupings classified? What criteria are you using to seperate these races? What biological identifiers are you using to mark person as a member of one particular race instead of another?
And that’s precisely where you are mistaken. They are distinguishable genetically and epigenetically, because they can all be traced back to the originators of that breed. Obviously, the differences are minute, but they are more related to each other than to members of a different breed. The same is not generally true for human ‘races’.
I certainly agree that it has proven to be – and will doubtless remain so in the foreseeable future – difficult to overcome the traditional yet erroneous view that there is a uniform, clear-cut set of genetic distinctions between the races or between individuals of different races.
But my point is that even in light of the latest research, race as a functional, observable, and social concept for good or for ill most certainly still exists; it is simply that genetic racial differences are only readily detectable over averages. Many who claim – quite correctly – that race isn’t much of a scientifically useful, quantitative concept too often then jump to the fallacious conclusion that since it isn’t apparently scientifically useful, it doesn’t exist. But that’s obviously absurd. There are countless concepts which represent real states of affairs which have little or no scientific utility.
So I stand by my earlier post: Race objectively exists, and is not merely a “social construction” for which no objective evidence exists. Although it may not be a particularly useful scientific classification, race is nevertheless an intuitive, recognizable on average, socially real concept that is not completely without scientific utility (applying increased focus in certain races for disease pre-screening, for one example). The concept of race is surely subject to severe abuses, but as I tried to make clear in my first post, hiding the truth is the worst possible solution and causes real damage to the integrity of science in the process.
The problem is that your entire argumentation is based on premises that have no basis in facts.
a)Race IS a scientific concept. A biological to be exact. That concept IS applicable in numerous biological species.
b)Homo sapiens is NOT among the above species.
c)Genetic variance within an ethnic group is higher than between ethnic groups. As such, looking at the ‘average’ member of an ethnic group is not useful. There is no such thing.
Race is a useful scientific concept. However, it does not apply to the human species. Ethnic groups aren’t races.
See Tamerlane’s proffered definition in his response to my first post. I’m not sufficiently well-versed in population genetics or similar fields to be able provide a strict scientific definition myself.
**
I don’t like that definition because the term “alike” seems too vague and improperly loaded. I prefer to say that race consists of a general set of broad phenotypic and genotypic “clusters” which loosely distinguish – on average – one population group from another. (So I had to try to define it anyway…)
**
By that closing admission, are you not agreeing with me that race objectively exists and is not a purely social construction?
I have enormous respect for you tomndebb, and the last thing I want is to annoy you, but I need evidence before accepting your suggestion that no scientific justification at all is used in generating any and every such “list”. Does your statement imply that, because there may be variance between any two such “lists”, there can be no objective, scientific basis to include anything at all on such “lists”?
Isn’t that evidence for the objective existence of race? Even though, as I’ve stated previously, these distinctions are only reliably detected over averages?
So I stand still by my first post: Although genotypic differences are certainly not reliably ascertained by visible phenotypic differences, race objectively exists, and is not merely a “social construction”.