# Is there such a biological thing as a racial group? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 3, 2011, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007 "2011-04-03T03:39:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/441 "2011-04-08T17:55:49Z")
Question for the Racers in the thread: What are the qualifications that make a group a race? If I am congeniality Deaf and I marry another Deaf person and our descendants all keep marrying other Deaf and so forth until we have our own Deaf Martha’s Vineyard, does that make us a racial group? ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/442 "2011-04-08T18:01:37Z")
_edit - sorry, I got reply happy there_ Those who sign from birth also use significantly more of their right hemisphere when signing than non-native signers = a different cognitive process. (This is similar to native Chinese character readers.) This is not an inherited trait, but a sort of “nurture” function in cognitive development. Over the course of thousands of years, would it be biologically possible for this group of people to be \*naturally \*wired to process language in this way? Because, you know, according to plenty of people on this board, some “racial” groups are just less cognitively apt. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/443 "2011-04-08T19:52:40Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > When did I ever claim that races had objective existence? And as I said in my last post, the “black” race clearly exists, in the sense that it is a grouping into which people (in the US in particular) mentally sort people. What else is a race other than that, at least in common parlance? And what’s your point?. You’re not actually contending that “Blacks” (a.k.a “_African_ Americans”) are just grouped on the basis of pigmentations, are you (as opposed to, oh, say geographic ancestry)? (Here is the US census classification “Black, African Am., or Negro”). ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/444 "2011-04-08T20:00:11Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > You’re not actually contending that “Blacks” (a.k.a “_African_ Americans”) are just grouped on the basis of pigmentations, are you (as opposed to, oh, say geographic ancestry)? (Here is the US census classification “Black, African Am., or Negro”). There are certainly times when that’s the grouping that’s made. Which is not to say that every person with dark skin would be viewed as “black”, but in a normal everyday conversation about race, something like “Oh, who’s that guy over there?” “You mean, the guy with the red sweatshirt” “No, the black guy with the hat” Then physical appearance is certainly the relevant factor. Not like the next line in that little dialog is usually going to be “well, given that I do not know the genetic or ancestral origin of each of the ‘guys over there’, I find your question impossible to answer with the information I currently have”. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/445 "2011-04-08T20:09:18Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Again, the majority of physical scientists are acknowledging that the old concept of race [qua subspecies] was imposed to biology, and are abandoning that old use. What I have seen so far, even from the medical cites produced so far, is a look at the populations and the propensities that they have or might have to specific diseases, but just like we don’t go right away to say that since a German Shepperd has a propensity to have their hind bones fall apart that therefore that is what we would use to call it a different race, so it is becoming more silly to continue using the old way race was defined to the human race. > > [http://faculty.sgc.edu/lsteverson/SOC1101/readings/brown.pdf](http://faculty.sgc.edu/lsteverson/SOC1101/readings/brown.pdf) To clarify, do you mean “again, the majority of physical scientists are acknowledging that the old concept of race _qua subspecies_ was imposed”? Or do you mean that the majority of physical scientists are acknowledging that the old concept of race _qua population cluster_ was imposed"? Either way, the statement is incorrect and rather ethnoocentric. There is substantial global variation with regards to what physical anthropologists think. See: Lieberman, 2004. _The race concept in six regions: variation without consensus_ As for the majority opinion in the Anglosphere, it’s not at all clear to me. To quote one leading biological anthropologist: ‘‘Slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The other half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the “racial lens.”…At the beginning of the twenty-first century, _even as a majority of biological anthropologists favor the reality of the race perspective_, not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship’’ Gill, 2000. [Does race exist? A proponent’s perspective. PB](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html) ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/446 "2011-04-08T20:23:47Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > To clarify, do you mean Edit. My previous comment wasn’t well thought out and it was based on a sloppy reading of your comment. Apologies. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Again, the majority of physical scientists are acknowledging that the old concept of race [qua subspecies] was imposed to biology, and are abandoning that old use. What I have seen so far, even from the medical cites produced so far, is a look at the populations and the propensities that they have or might have to specific diseases, but just like we don’t go right away to say that since a German Shepperd has a propensity to have their hind bones fall apart that therefore that is what we would use to call it a different race, so it is becoming more silly to continue using the old way race was defined to the human race. To clarify, do you mean “the majority of physical scientists [e.g physical anthropologists, genetics, and biologists] are acknowledging that the old concept of race _qua subspecies_ was imposed”? Or do you mean that the majority of physical scientists are acknowledging that the old concept of race _qua population cluster_ was imposed"? Either way, the statement (“majority of physical scientists are acknowledging” is misleading. (Are you saying they do acknowledge or don’t?) As it is, there is substantial global variation with regards to what physical anthropologists etc. think. See: Lieberman, 2004. _The race concept in six regions: variation without consensus_ As for the majority opinion in the Anglosphere, it’s not at all clear to me. To quote one leading biological anthropologist: ‘‘Slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The other half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the “racial lens.”…At the beginning of the twenty-first century, _even as a majority of biological anthropologists favor the reality of the race perspective_, not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship’’ Gill, 2000. [Does race exist? A proponent’s perspective. PB](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html) The last poll taken (granted it’s 20 years old) showed that more physical anthropologists supported the biological reality of race position (To be candid, I’m never sure what that means since, as I noted, races could be “biologically real” without them being subspecies.) ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/447 "2011-04-08T20:36:15Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > There are certainly times when that’s the grouping that’s made. Which is not to say that every person with dark skin would be viewed as “black”, but in a normal everyday conversation about race, something like > > “Oh, who’s that guy over there?” > “You mean, the guy with the red sweatshirt” > “No, the black guy with the hat” > > Then physical appearance is certainly the relevant factor. Not like the next line in that little dialog is usually going to be “well, given that I do not know the genetic or ancestral origin of each of the ‘guys over there’, I find your question impossible to answer with the information I currently have”. … In my experience, when people say, “Oh, who’s that guy over there?” “You mean, the guy with the red sweatshirt” “No, the black guy with the hat” They are not equating “Blacks” with “African-Americans” and are not referring to “race” but are referring to “color.” Continuing your dialogue: “Oh, you mean the African-American guy” “No, I mean the South Asian one” “What’s the difference” “What do you mean? One’s ancestors were from African and the other’s were from South Asian” “I mean, what’s the difference in appearance” “You can’t tell” “No” “Look at the hair texture and facial features – notice a difference?” “Oh, ya, I get it” ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/448 "2011-04-08T20:50:23Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Again, the majority of physical scientists are acknowledging that the old concept of race was imposed to biology, and are abandoning that old use. Anyways, Given the diversity of scientific opinion on this matter (as noted in my last comment) and given that we are debating it, it might be useful to clarify what would be needed for a given human population to be a subspecies. Since you are maintaining that there are no human subspecies (as I noted, I am agnostic), I am just inquiring about the criteria that you are using in coming to this conclusion. Hopefully the criteria is more than “what the majority of physical scientists are coming to think.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/449 "2011-04-08T20:58:53Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > What’s the criteria for a race = subspecies? What would our biological groupings however we decide to delineate them (e.g population clusters, clades) need to have to qualify as zoological races? To put it another way – just so we’re all clear on the matter – what disqualifies them? I’ve already posted this about half a dozen times in this thread. What disqualifies us is that the morphological differences are clinal. I posed this question to one of the new posters here, and no one answered: \*Let’s restrict ourselves to Europe, the Middle East and Africa. What are the races, and where do you draw the lines so that you don’t have people on either side of the lines who don’t look just like each other. \* ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/450 "2011-04-08T21:12:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’ve already posted this about half a dozen times in this thread. What disqualifies us is that the morphological differences are clinal. > > I posed this question to one of the new posters here, and no one answered: \*Let’s restrict ourselves to Europe, the Middle East and Africa. What are the races, and where do you draw the lines so that you don’t have people on either side of the lines who don’t look just like each other. > \* Missed the edit. That was supposed to be: .\*..so that you don’t have people on either side of the lines who look just like each other. \* ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/451 "2011-04-08T21:21:13Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Question for the Racers in the thread:What are the qualifications that make a group a race? One obvious qualification is shared ancestry. To verify that this isn’t an arbitrary criteria, we can look at the etymological root of the term (_ra_), which roughly mean “ancestry” or “origin.” We can also look at the context of the debate and the questions debated "e.g. “can we meaningfully group human populations biologically (i.e genetically)?” or “are there subspecies?” These questions imply genetic = ancestral relations. Finally, we can look at the social context of the debate and the social use of the term in the countries in which it was used in. When doing so (at least up till the last decade), we get the following cluster of terms “race, breed, lineage, population, ethnicity, tribe, common stock, genetic, geneology, ancestry, descendancy, breed, subspecies, etc.” The obvious common denominator is ancestry (genetic relatedness.) > [@](#): > > If I am congeniality Deaf and I marry another Deaf person and our descendants all keep marrying other Deaf and so forth until we have our own Deaf Martha’s Vineyard, does that make us a racial group? Well, at very least, the population you created would be a breed. Of course, this population would not be defined by deafness per se, but by your lineage and gene pool which frequently manifests deafness. Whether the population would qualify as a race would depend on how exactly we are conceptualizing race (clade, population cluster, subspecies, regional ancestry) and would depend on the criteria we use for classification. By my conceptualization, your population theoretically could qualify as a race (qua clade) after a few hundred generations > [@](#): > > Those who sign from birth also use significantly more of their right hemisphere when signing than non-native signers = a different cognitive process. This is not an inherited trait, but a sort of “nurture” function in cognitive development. Over the course of thousands of years, would it be biologically possible for this group of people to be naturally wired to process language in this way? . That sounds rather lamarckian. If the particular type of native singing required some biological trait which was heritable (such as high pitch), and there was selection pressure for that trait, over thousands of years … ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/452 "2011-04-08T21:29:43Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > … > In my experience, when people say, > > “Oh, who’s that guy over there?” > “You mean, the guy with the red sweatshirt” > “No, the black guy with the hat” > > They are not equating “Blacks” with “African-Americans” and are not referring to “race” but are referring to “color.” Obviously “race” can be defined a zillion different ways. Sometimes it’s super-precise-biological. Sometimes it’s perceived national/regional origin. Sometimes it’s just plain appearance. I think the latter is the most interesting because it’s arguably the one that’s caused the most problems over time. Someone who, say, has mild internalized prejudices and is subconsciously less likely to hire a black guy for a job than a white guy, is presumably making a snap judgment at a job interview, and isn’t going to be asking about ethnic origin or family history. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/453 "2011-04-08T22:09:31Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Missed the edit. That was supposed to be: > > .\*..so that you don’t have people on either side of the lines who look just like each other. \* In [a post a while back](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13663298&postcount=397), I said: > [@](#): > > Nonetheless, to demonstrate the robustness of the cladistic scheme, we can see if the ordinary understanding matches any level of cladistic analysis. Using Cavalli-Sforza’s diagram and looking at an fst of .01-.018 we find out commonly referred to branches: West Africans, East African, Caucasians, North East Asians, Amerindians, Mainsland and insular South east asians, pacific islanders, Oceanians. These groupings match regional differences and patters of phenotypic differences. (I also noted that the exact populations were not set – it’s an empirical question, not a philosophical one) I take it that you don’t dispute that we could biologically divide populations. Instead, you argue that since populations are phenotypically continuous, such divisions are biologically (as opposed to socially – if you grant that distinction) arbitrary. [Elsewhere](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13663962&postcount=434), I pointed out that this is a non sequitur: > [@](#): > > Another reference would be Witherspoon, et al., 2007. “Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations” > > Due to this, advocates (like yourself) of the population race concept only need to argue that there are patterns of between population differences (which is trivially true) for your position to be readily defensible. Common sets of shared traits are unneeded to establish within population relations. See, if there are different genetically identifiable populations/clades (these terms are not synonymous – the former referring to a genetic cluster and the latter referring to an ancestral line), individuals from those groups are more genetically/ancestrally related to each other. That’s their connection to the group (as opposed to a set of shared phenotypes). It follows, taxonomically, that all that is needed, then, are patterns of between group morphological differences. So the common phenotype business is a non issue. The substantial issue that you bring up is: are there identifiable genetically different populations or clades, say as opposed to a pure genetic continuum or series of clines? This is an empirical question. I would note that the question should be “were there identifiable genetically different populations or clades?” That was, if you follow my posts, [my point](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13663897&postcount=430) concerning the elephants (I’m trying to cover all bases): > [@](#): > > African Savanna and African Forest elephants are classified as African subspecies (some argue species). If 95% of the African elephants interbred, would that mean that the remaining 5% were no longer members of different subspecies. Now, the answer is yet undetermined. Much of the research seems to agree that there was (and is) some genetic/genealogical discontinuity between these populations. The real question is: how much? ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/454 "2011-04-08T22:28:33Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Obviously “race” can be defined a zillion different ways. Sometimes it’s super-precise-biological. Sometimes it’s perceived national/regional origin. Sometimes it’s just plain appearance. I disagree. If “race qua appearance” was the real problem, why would there be so much controversy about population genetics, subspecies, heritable differences, etc. ? Why would we even be discussing this topic ["Is there such a biological (i.e genetic) thing as a racial groups?]. Phenotypic differences are manifest – if race meant “looks different,” how could the other bloggers on this thread (most of whom make rather sophisticated arguments) argue that “races are social constructs”, etc. > [@](#): > > I think the latter is the most interesting because it’s arguably the one that’s caused the most problems over time. Someone who, say, has mild internalized prejudices and is subconsciously less likely to hire a black guy for a job than a white guy, is presumably making a snap judgment at a job interview, and isn’t going to be asking about ethnic origin or family history. Someone who needs to avoid adverse impact lawsuits and who needs to [discriminate for Blacks (in the sense of African Americans) in order to fill their ethnoracial quotas](http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publications/McDaniel%20(2009)%20Gerrymandering.pdf), will be concerned with ethnic origin or family history. Since, [adverse impact is a big-big thing](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2011.00531.x/full), many people are quite interested in race as ancestry – the government is, the media is always discussing it. As a result of the current legal situation, this type of racial discrimination is the most prevalent type. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/455 "2011-04-08T23:51:03Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > Anyways, > > Given the diversity of scientific opinion on this matter (as noted in my last comment) and given that we are debating it, it might be useful to clarify what would be needed for a given human population to be a subspecies. Since you are maintaining that there are no human subspecies (as I noted, I am agnostic), I am just inquiring about the criteria that you are using in coming to this conclusion. Hopefully the criteria is more than “what the majority of physical scientists are coming to think.” IMHO that diversity of opinion has to be taken in the context that originally the old concept of race was imposed on science and widely used, that is the consensus was that the old race concepts could be used in science. That now we have a mixed view among researchers shows how far this change has gone and continues. What I have seen is that now there are no official positions pro or against the continuing usage of old race terms applied to humans among scientific groups, what it is clear is that many that investigate the issue are correct in the affirmation that there is a retreat among scientific groups on using the common race terms of the past. > **[Retired Site | PBS](https://www.pbs.org/retired-site/)** > > This Content is No Longer Available > [@](#): > > Back to Basics > > To judge from the discussions at the 1997 AAA presidential panel on race, it is now widely accepted in anthropology that race is a biological myth but that racial discrimination and racism are all too real (C Mukhopadhyay, March 1998, AN, p. 28). This consensus, however, does not yet include many physical anthropologists. Fundamental errors are voiced in recent letters and commentaries in the AN submitted by skeletal biologists who, with other physical anthropologists, lay claim to scientific authority and are key to articulating anthropological perspectives on human diversity. The first error is that the idea of race is confused with the reality of human biological variation. A second error occurs when race as biology is confused with race as sociocultural construct. It’s time to go back to basics. > > It has been known for decades that racial typology fails to explain human variation, that is, our species does not fit into a small number of fixed, ideal types. We know, for example, that: > > - Human variation is generally continuous, with no clear points of demarcation. (It is impossible to reliably say where one race ends and another begins. Groups living close to each other tend to be biologically alike, and so race has an appearance of reality, but this is only geographic similarity.) > > - Human variation is highly nonconcordant. One trait infrequently predicts for another. (One can not read deeper meanings into physical cues.) > > - There is greater variation within than among purported races. (Knowing an individual’s purported race tells us little about the individual.) > > Although there is no disagreement with these points, about half of all physical anthropologists continue to think race is a salient concept and many teach and do research on human variation from a racial approach. They continue to use race because they think that race shifted from a typological to a population concept starting with Carleton Coon’s work after World War II. Gill writes that Ashley Montagu and his followers failed to notice (1990). > > But as much as my colleagues might want to see racial analysis as having made a paradigm shift from a typological to population concept, this is not possible because races are not populations, and adaptation and evolution work locally rather than at the abstracted level of races. In common usage, scientists, students and the public reduce human variation to 3 or 4 types, just as they did a century ago. Color lines shift, but the underlying concept, contra Gill, endures. Montagu did notice; he just did not buy it. As J. Buettner-Janusch remarked in his review of Coon’s The Living Races of Race (1965), “Typology, typology, typology, nothing by typology” (American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1966, p. 187). > > George Armelagos has characterized the race concept as a chameleon, which changed its color, but not its reality as a folk concept, to survive the Darwinian revolution, the evolutionary synthesis of the 1930s and the new physical anthropology of more recent years. Compare this with the common refrain that those who deny race are simply trying to be “politically correct.” Gill writes that “they have their hearts, but not their heads in the right place.” (Gill and S. Rhine, Skeletal Attribution of Race, 1990, p. viii). What is so “heady” about a concept that cannot be explained or defined? > > Classification Wrongs > > In addition to convincing themselves that race is an evolutionary concept, there is an additional reason why anthropologists still use the concept: race is convenient. By analogy, classifying hats by size allows us to pick those most likely to fit. The classification may not be perfect, but it is a useful start. Gill suggests that racial classification is no different than classification by sex, age or height (March 1998 AN, p. 1). The analogy, however, falls on its nasal spine. > > When a hatter sizes a hat, she knows what she is measuring and her work can be repeated. Classifications by sex, age or height might not be perfect, but the criteria are sensible, they fit the problem and they are agreed upon. Conversely, because race is socially defined, it is first like classifying by a concept such as “beauty,” with no way to compare standards of beauty across classifiers and then having others decide to classify by “purity.” The problem is that there is no objective and repeatable standard of classification. As a result, use of race in biomedicine, where repeatability is monumentally important, courts disaster. > > It gets worse. The unexamined movement from social definition of race to biology leads to conflation of nature and lived experience. This clouds whether observed racial differences in athletic performance, birth weight or IQ are due to lived experience, genes, or a tangled gene-environment combination. > > Furthermore, when genes come into play, the assumption is that a racial analysis might substitute for a more detailed individual genetic analysis. Separate U.S. black and white standards for diagnosis of anemia have been constructed because it was found that blacks have lower mean hemoglobin concentrations (the basis of diagnosis of anemia) than whites. It was thus suggested in the 1970s that the standard for diagnoses of anemia in blacks should match this inherited, pan-racial characteristic. The consequence of lowering the black standard halves the number of black women diagnosed as anemic and probably too the percent treated. > > Robert and Fatimah Jackson have demonstrated two grand leaps of scientific faith in constructing race specific standards (Ethnicity and Disease, 1991, p. 1). First, hemoglobin differences between blacks and whites are almost entirely explained by environmental factors (conflation of nature and lived experience). Second, there is no basis to assume that a genetic difference is pan African American (conflation of genes and race). Race as biology is not just wrong, it is harmful. > > James Chatters apologizes for using the term “Caucasoid” to describe Kennewick Man’s biology and then excuses himself by saying no other words would do. But there are many precise terms that are nonracial. For example, Chatters could have described Kennewick Man as having a large nasal spine. Because this trait is frequently seen in some contemporary groups, its presence in Kennewick Man might suggest a biological relationship. This is different, however, from proclaiming that Kennewick Man is a member of a group that only exists in an individual’s mind. > > If Frank Livingstone (U. Michigan) had continued to think of it as a racial disease (rather than as clinally distributed), he likely would not have so clearly seen the relationship between sickle cell anemia and the spread of malaria. Race science is bad science because it inhibits deeper understanding. > > From Biology to Lived Experience > > Human biological variability is real. But race is a biological sham: it is theoretically passé, does not fit the facts, holds back science and causes harm. A common sleight of hand of the political right is to conflate the myth of biological race with the cultural experience of race, e.g., “If race is a (biological) myth, let’s get rid of affirmative action.” But the truth is just the opposite. Showing that race is a biological myth leads us to clarify the sociopolitical salience of race and racism. Race as biology does not explain the persistent and shameful rate at which black babies suffer low birth weight and infant mortality. It doesn’t explain why the death rate from breast cancer recently fell for all women but did not budge for black women, who already had a higher rate of death. Nor does race as biology explain why black male life expectancy in Harlem is less than the life expectancy of men in Bangladesh. But the suffering is still there. > > There is no half way between seeing race as biologically valid or not. Any reformation of race as biology will simply be interpreted as race in the older typological paradigm. What do we lose by giving up race as a biological concept? We lost some instant recognition of what we do. It takes a bit longer to explain human variation. > > What do we gain by sending race to the dust heap of history? The possibilities are awesome. We could develop a new and exciting biocultural paradigm. More important still, we would literally save lives. > > _Alan Goodman is professor anthropology at Hampshire College and co-author of Building a New Biocultural Synthesis._ ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/456 "2011-04-09T01:38:48Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > In [a post a while back](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13663298&postcount=397), I said: > > (I also noted that the exact populations were not set – it’s an empirical question, not a philosophical one) > > I take it that you don’t dispute that we could biologically divide populations. Instead, you argue that since populations are phenotypically continuous, such divisions are biologically (as opposed to socially – if you grant that distinction) arbitrary. [Elsewhere](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13663962&postcount=434), I pointed out that this is a non sequitur: > See, if there are different genetically identifiable populations/clades (these terms are not synonymous – the former referring to a genetic cluster and the latter referring to an ancestral line), individuals from those groups are more genetically/ancestrally related to each other. That’s their connection to the group (as opposed to a set of shared phenotypes). It follows, taxonomically, that all that is needed, then, are patterns of between group morphological differences. > > So the common phenotype business is a non issue. The substantial issue that you bring up is: are there identifiable genetically different populations or clades, say as opposed to a pure genetic continuum or series of clines? This is an empirical question. I would note that the question should be “were there identifiable genetically different populations or clades?” That was, if you follow my posts, [my point](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13663897&postcount=430) concerning the elephants (I’m trying to cover all bases): > > Now, the answer is yet undetermined. Much of the research seems to agree that there was (and is) some genetic/genealogical discontinuity between these populations. The real question is: how much? First of all, you don’t know what “_non sequitur_” means. But that’s another issue. The chart from C-F are not clades. I mean, seriously, are you telling us that “Europeans” are clade? Where’s the boundary? Who is a “European” and who is a “non-European”? You are taking some general conclusion about the ancestry of certain populations and making claims about the reproductive isolation of those populations that simply aren’t correct. ---
**Author:** ![Clark\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c77e96/32.png) [@Clark\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clark_K)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/457 "2011-04-09T03:57:10Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Depends what you mean by “races” and “exist”. I mean, obviously the “black” race “exists” in the sense that people every day say “hey, that guy is black” and “hey, that guy isn’t black”, and different people will often (although not always) think the same guys are or not black. > > … > > Nor do I claim that races are DEFINED biologically, or that there is ever a single trait that everyone in a race has. Thanks for the reply, but this seems to be a clear acknowledgment that there is no such biological thing as a racial group, to use the language of your thread title. If people can’t agree on who is “black” and who isn’t, and if there’s no shared trait that defines a race, then what objective meaning could it possibly have? It’s just a label applied arbitrarily to people based on appearance. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/458 "2011-04-09T04:57:51Z")
> [@Clark\_K](#): > > Thanks for the reply, but this seems to be a clear acknowledgment that there is no such biological thing as a racial group, to use the language of your thread title. > > If people can’t agree on who is “black” and who isn’t, and if there’s no shared trait that defines a race, then what objective meaning could it possibly have? It’s just a label applied arbitrarily to people based on appearance. Well, that’s kind of what the whole thread is about, or at least a lot of what I said in it. The claim I keep trying to make is that it’s not an absolute… There’s a scale of how biologically meaningful a division is. Last digit of SSN is 0 on that scale. Male/Female is 99. Traditional “I know it what I see it” race is \> 0. It might be pretty damn low, but it’s not 0. I’ve gone over my argument for this way too many times in this thread to want to repeat it all, however. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/459 "2011-04-09T07:40:51Z")
> [@Clark\_K](#): > > Thanks for the reply, but this seems to be a clear acknowledgment that there is no such biological thing as a racial group, to use the language of your thread title. > > If people can’t agree on who is “black” and who isn’t, and if there’s no shared trait that defines a race, then what objective meaning could it possibly have? It’s just a label applied arbitrarily to people based on appearance. Do you have a shared trait that defines the family you come from? Go back to the [biological definition](http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Race). You’re not looking at a single trait. Also, as pointed out [here](http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/getfile.php?file=Race.pdf): > [@](#): > > Professor Fried has correctly pointed out that there is no careful and objectivedefinition of race that would permit delimitation of races as exact, nonoverlapping,discrete entities. Indeed, such criteria do not exist because if they did, we would not have races, we would have distinct species. (Dobzhansky in Mead 1968, 165)… > > ‘‘In practice, the characters that define a species will not be present in all members of that species and absent from all members of other species. Nature is too variable’’ (Ridley 2004, 349). I’m not sure how much of the thread you’ve read, but you can identify someones race with remarkable precision from their [dna](http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007). You can see some of the familiar clusters that show up [here](http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2009/06/genetic-clustering-40-years-of-progress.html). You may think this has no objective meaning, but tell that to someone seeking a [bone marrow donor](http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html). The importance in medical treatment & research is discussed [here](http://bioethics.stanford.edu/events/documents/pdfs/burchard.pdf). ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/460 "2011-04-09T22:44:49Z")
> [@](#): > > IMHO that diversity of opinion has to be taken in the context that originally the old concept of race was imposed on science and widely used, that is the consensus was that the old race concepts could be used in science. That now we have a mixed view among researchers shows how far this change has gone and continues. I don’t know what you mean by “imposed on science.” Race, in the taxonomic sense, was first used by taxonomists who were trying to make sense of the world (e.g Linnaeus). Taxonomy, of course, is a human ordering imposed on the world. “Racial” divisions of mankind were just part and parcel of that human imposition. When it comes to the subspecies question, the questions is: are human racial (subspecies) classifications consistent with the other taxonomic classifications that we use for other organisms? (i.e. Are we consistently imposing on the world or are we scientifically gerrymandering when it comes to humans). The article that you cite suggests some clear scientific gerrymandering: > [@](#): > > What do we lose by giving up race as a biological concept? **We lost some instant recognition of what we do. It takes a bit longer to explain human variation**. What do we gain by sending race to the dust heap of history? The possibilities are awesome. We could develop a new and exciting biocultural paradigm. More important still, we would literally save lives. The author is quite clear. He argues that, given sociopolitical concerns, the race concept should not be used to characterize “human variation” even though it would be scientifically clearer (or something) to do otherwise. Perhaps doing so is socially wise. Whatever the case, some here are interested in the question I mentioned, (which is logically Independent of what the scientific community chooses to do given the social concern): “Are (human) racial (subspecies) classifications consistent with the other taxonomic classifications that we use for other organisms?” That question can only be answered by looking up the criteria for zoological subspecies classifications in addition to the data on “human variation” and seeing if different human populations fit the criteria for being subspecies. Now, last I checked [there were 26 independent species concepts](http://www.explorelifeonearth.org/cursos/summary_of_26_species_concepts.pdf). So I would guess that there are as many independent subspecies concepts. As a result, this is not a clear cut issue. Why don’t we start by seeing if we would get human subspecies, given what we know of the variation, if we consistently applied every one of these model. If so, we can evaluate the models and then debate whether of not those models are meaningful. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007.md?page=24)