# 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:** 25
**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 10, 2011, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/481 "2011-04-10T07:54:24Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > I can’t say I’ve read the whole blog, but it seems to be a painstaking collection & analysis of various peer reviewed academic papers. My comment was at **Belowjob2.0** , who suggested that arguments in those papers had been refuted here. I couldn’t recall that happening. In fact I think there was a thread on the topic a few months previously & it basically ended in a stalemate. I’m not **Belowjob2.0** but my point is that it is the spin given to those papers that has been refuted. Clearly the users of the old definitions are on retreat, but on some scientific groups they continue to be used a good number of them, but it is really silly to ignore that even there -like the Forensic expert on the NOVA show say- the use of race does not mean what the scientific racists are assuming. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/482 "2011-04-10T09:35:16Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I’m not **Belowjob2.0** but my point is that it is the spin given to those papers that has been refuted. Clearly the users of the old definitions are on retreat, but on some scientific groups they continue to be used a good number of them, but it is really silly to ignore that even there -like the Forensic expert on the NOVA show say- the use of race does not mean what the scientific racists are assuming. The spin given to those papers? I think you need to be more specific if you’re referring to something on that blog. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/483 "2011-04-11T18:32:14Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Oh, I understand clades just fine. I understand them well enough to know that “Europeans” aren’t one. Europeans are not “reasonably isolated”. Anyone looking at Europe, Western Asia and Middle East can see that, and the paper you linked to earlier by C-S demonstrated it. > > I don’t know why you switched to “Caucasian”, when the chart you linked to had “Europeans”, but what that chart calls “Caucasoid” is not a group of people originating in the Caucus region. It was early racialists who came up with the term “Caucasian” because they took current residents of that area to be what we’d call the type specimen for the race, if there was such a thing. I linked to [this chart](http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dadamo.com/wiki/pcclass.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.drpeterjdadamo.com/wiki/wiki.pl/Average_linkage_tree_(classical_methods)&usg=__0caoFm8SwiRS_aB6cZ_tXxYWrtE=&h=413&w=374&sz=40&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=UWUBgR6CHh1ReM:&tbnh=136&tbnw=111&ei=N0ieTaWYEsa9tgeAg6WMAw&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCavalli-Sforza%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D709%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1025&vpy=358&dur=739&hovh=236&hovw=214&tx=165&ty=135&oei=_UeeTbmiN8agtgf8z_j7Ag&page=1&ndsp=29&ved=1t:429,r:21,s:0). “European” is listed as an end population. The grouping that I’m referring to is called “Caucasoid” (CS’s term not mine). I have no idea where you came up with European. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/484 "2011-04-11T19:06:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > In particular: How does the quote contradict what I said? This is what I said: Cavalli-Sforza… rejects the idea of human subspecies; he argued that there is no major genetic discontinuity. Yet, he clearly recognizes population clusters that correspond to what others consider to be human subspecies and he clearly thinks there is some genetic discontinuity between the groupings that he, himself, has called races. He, of course, has never stated (in any of the articles that you cite or that I am aware of) what would qualify as a major genetic discontinuity or what criteria we should use to determine if there are human subspecies… This is what you quoted: Further support for the conclusions of this study comes from the observation that, almost without exception, gene frequencies form smooth clines over all continents (22). [\*\*Ok, but the the issue is _between_ “racial or continents groups” \*\*]. Zones of discontinuity in human gene frequency distributions are present [**See, he agrees that there is discontinuity**], but the local gradients are so small that they can be identified only by simultaneously studying many loci using complex statistical techniques (23) [**As needs to be done in classifying a number of mammalian populations; note, he agrees that it can be done.**]. In addition, such regions of relatively sharp genetic change do not surround large clusters of populations, on a continental or nearly continental scale. On the contrary, they occur irregularly, within continents and even within single countries (24, 25), often overlapping with geographic and linguistic barriers (26–29) [**So there are sharp differences within some major clusters and the major clusters are not sharply different. Oh**.]… However, this has little to do with the subdivision of the human population into a small number of clearly distinct, racial or continental, groups. The existence **of such** broad groups is not supported by the present analysis of DNA. [**This is an amazing sentence, because it is often misinterpreted. As I was pointing out to Blake and others, C S clearly believes that there are large clusters that can be identified (by cluster analysis). Here he is repeating that these are not “clearly distinct, racial or continental, groups” with “sharp genetic” difference – because there are not clearly distinct with sharp borders**.] I have yet to argued that there are “clearly distinct” “racial or continents groups” with “sharp genetic” boundaries. I was arguing that there are racial groups or clades that can be distinguished. I am now inquiring as to what the criteria for subspecies is, so we can see which of these group qualifies as subspecies. The whole “sharp” genetic" boundaries is another red herring. Let’s first find a source that gives the criteria for subpopultions 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 11, 2011, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/485 "2011-04-11T19:21:14Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Of course they are. Explain why the two issues are logically interdependent. ---
**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 11, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/486 "2011-04-11T19:25:43Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > I linked to [this chart](http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dadamo.com/wiki/pcclass.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.drpeterjdadamo.com/wiki/wiki.pl/Average_linkage_tree_(classical_methods)&usg=__0caoFm8SwiRS_aB6cZ_tXxYWrtE=&h=413&w=374&sz=40&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=UWUBgR6CHh1ReM:&tbnh=136&tbnw=111&ei=N0ieTaWYEsa9tgeAg6WMAw&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCavalli-Sforza%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D709%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1025&vpy=358&dur=739&hovh=236&hovw=214&tx=165&ty=135&oei=_UeeTbmiN8agtgf8z_j7Ag&page=1&ndsp=29&ved=1t:429,r:21,s:0). “European” is listed as an end population. Yes. “End population” as in people who are living now, as in the people we are talking about in this thread. > [@](#): > > The grouping that I’m referring to is called “Caucasoid” (CS’s term not mine). I have no idea where you came up with European. From your cite. That’s where. I was the one who first broke down that chart and referred to “European”. You know, the people who are alive today. You wanted to start talking about some proto-population that doesn’t exist today. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/487 "2011-04-11T19:32:19Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > Your blog merely regurgitates the same racialist pseudoscience that’s been refuted on this board over and over again. I wish I could have just regurgitated that. Unfortunately, the “race realist” community isn’t too strong on the intellectual side (my opinion). I end up having to work through all these arguments myself … Anyways… Were’re getting off track. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/488 "2011-04-11T19:53:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yes. “End population” as in people who are living now, as in the people we are talking about in this thread. > > From your cite. That’s where. I was the one who first broke down that chart and referred to “European”. You know, the people who are alive today. Again, the idea is that races are clades. They are populations defined by their ancestral relations. Follow the branches. Europeans, etc. are the branches of the Caucasian population; Caucasians, etc. are the branches of the Out of African Population. The Out of African population + all the many African branches (many of them very mixed now) are the branches of the human population. By your logic, we can’t say that humans exist because the protohumans that we all branched from don’t exits. > [@](#): > > You wanted to start talking about some proto-population that doesn’t exist today. I’m talking about our cladistic (i.e racial = ancestral) relations. ---
**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 11, 2011, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/489 "2011-04-11T20:30:52Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > Again, the idea is that races are clades. They are populations defined by their ancestral relations. Follow the branches. Europeans, etc. are the branches of the Caucasian population; Caucasians, etc. are the branches of the Out of African Population. The Out of African population + all the many African branches (many of them very mixed now) are the branches of the human population. By your logic, we can’t say that humans exist because the protohumans that we all branched from don’t exits. > > I’m talking about our cladistic (i.e racial = ancestral) relations. Current populations are not clades. One thing that might be confusing you is that C-S isn’t using the term “cluster” the way you are. He just means a bunch of people who live within the same general area (not that they are clades). Hence his emphasis that such gradients that do exist (small as they are) occur within clusters (ie, people living in relatively close proximity) rather than outside of the clusters, as one would expect if such clades existed. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/490 "2011-04-11T20:58:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Current populations are not clades. A clade, in this usage, is the set of populations that descend from a common population. “Caucasian” denotes the set we are talking about. ---
**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 11, 2011, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/491 "2011-04-11T21:02:02Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > A clade, in this usage, is the set of populations that descend from a common population. “Caucasian” denotes that set. No. It’s one that is descended from a common and unique population. “Caucasian” isn’t a clade. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/492 "2011-04-12T03:11:14Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > 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). file=Race.pdf"]here: Chen, I was thinking about our different models of race. [Picture here](http://abc102.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=305). It really comes down to a difference in perspective, Caldistics versus Phenetics. \*\*Cladistics can be defined as the study of the pathways of evolution. In other words, cladists are interested in such questions as: how many branches there are among a group of organisms; which branch connects to which other branch; and what is the branching sequence. A tree-like network that expresses such ancestor-descendant relationships is called a cladogram. Thus, a cladogram refers to the topology of a rooted phylogenetic tree. Phenetics is the study of relationships among a group of organisms on the basis of the degree of similarity between them, be that similarity molecular, phenotypic, or anatomical. A tree-like network expressing phenetic relationships is called a phenogram.\*\* They seem to diverge in two key respects: 1) dealing with the diversity in Africa and 2) dealing with hybrids. With regards to hybrids, once my races mix, they mix away; they become historic ancestries and exist like archaic species exist in us (Neanderthals, etc). Your races may mix away, but can then just readily form new races. As for Africa, my model envisions numerous (largely mixed by now) ancestral lines; you model may see 1 or 2 large cluster. Apart from that, they say the same thing. Different (historic) regional-meta-population lineages. This leaves us with the subspecies question. Do our meta-population lineages qualify as a subspecies. I found a definition (used by the Fed) for us: > [@](#): > > The subspecies category has been defined as “a geographically defined aggregate of local populations which differ taxonomically from other subdivisions of the species.” A valuable recent modification urged that the evidence for BCS subspecies designation should come from the concordant distribution of multiple, independent, genetically based traits. In an attempt to provide formal criteria for subspecies classifications we offer the following guidelines: [1] Members of a subspecies share a unique geographical range or habitat, [2] a group of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters, [3] and a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species. Because they are below the species level, different subspecies are reproductively compatible, They will normally be allotropic and they will exhibit recognizable [4] phylogentic partitioning, because of time dependent accumulations of genetic difference in absence of gene flow. Most subspecies will be monophyletic, however they will also derive from ancestral subspecies hybridization. ….Occasional introgression or inbreeding should not be viewed as inconsistent with subspecies status, they simply change the phylogenic description. O’Brien and Mayr, 1991.[Bureaucratic Mischief: Recognizing Endangered Species and Subspecies](http://www.life.illinois.edu/ib/451/OBrien%20(1991).pdf) 2 and 4 are clear cut in favor of human subspecies. 1 is also when the rule is seen in practice. It basically means a historical geographic range (i.e. NE Asia, Europe, etc.) as opposed to having to be restricted to a location; (animals in the zoo don’t lose subspecies status because they are in the Zoo). [2] seems to be the issue: share a group of phenotypic characteristics which result from the same gene pool (i,e. share a group of heritable phenotypes). (It’s not clear if “share a group of“… means “share a pattern of” or “share a set of“; we’ll have to see how this is put in practice with other subspecies) … Why don’t we see if the anti-racers agree with this criteria and go from there. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/493 "2011-04-12T03:33:48Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No. It’s one that is descended from a common and unique population. “Caucasian” isn’t a clade. I don’t know where you’re getting your “unique” from. Clade is a generic term. [For example:](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1377722/pdf/9915963.pdf) \*In a previous article (Richards et al. 1998), we proposed a flexible and consistent nomenclature for mtDNA clades, which is reviewed here. The set of all mtDNAs derived by descent from any maternal ancestor could be distinguished, in principle, by a name. In practice, only clades with, for example, interesting geographical patterning or those derived from major early branchings of the phylogeny need to be named. \* [Or](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC379225/) _Clades Q and R share a common phylogenetic node P in the Y-chromosomal tree defined by markers M45 and 92R7 (YCC 2002). The P_(xM207) chromosomes are widespread—although found at low frequencies—over central and eastern Asia (Underhill et al. 2000) and were also found only in two Indian samples (fig. 3). In contrast, their sister branch R, defined by M207, accounts for more than one-third of Indian Y chromosomes and is the most common clade throughout northwestern Eurasia.\* In what possible way are different lmitochondrial DNA clades or different haplotpe clades unique in a manner that excludes me from speaking of human clades? ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/494 "2011-04-12T03:46:14Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Now, now, point of order: you are supposedly defending group differences over here, my beef was with the all encompassing trash that is included in the site that Chuck11 pointed at, do you really want to be on the record of defending all that?. If you have an actual point to make about an argument-- as opposed to a sneer – make it. If you want to make a point, summarize it and cite a source if you can. If you want to know the actually weaknesses in a argument with the intent of discussing them-- I will be happy to let you know them. ---
**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 12, 2011, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/495 "2011-04-12T03:57:48Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > If you have an actual point to make about an argument-- as opposed to a sneer – make it. If you want to make a point, summarize it and cite a source if you can. If you want to know the actually weaknesses in a argument with the intent of discussing them-- I will be happy to let you know them. Meh, as in academic circles your ideas are not being taught at basic levels anymore, one wonders what is the hurry or the need, the idea of using the old race terms is passing by. > **[Retired Site | PBS](https://www.pbs.org/retired-site/)** > > This Content is No Longer Available ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/496 "2011-04-12T04:52:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Meh, as in academic circles your ideas are not being taught at basic levels anymore, one wonders what is the hurry or the need, the idea of using the old race terms is passing by. > > [Retired Site | PBS](http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-teachers.htm) Really? Do you think governments are going to copy France & stop collecting data by race/ethnicity? ---
**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 12, 2011, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/497 "2011-04-12T05:19:36Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Really? Do you think governments are going to copy France & stop collecting data by race/ethnicity? Meh, the point deals with the use of the use of the term in biology and how far it has retreated in educational settings, even if there is an assumption that “teaching the controversy” and posting in a message board would change that. The unfortunate case is that there are groups that do continue to discriminate based on appearance, that is why sociologists and others see race as a social construct and the sad reality is that that racism is still there and it has to be dealt with still. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/498 "2011-04-12T13:36:54Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The unfortunate case is that there are groups that do continue to discriminate based on appearance, that is why sociologists and others see race as a social construct and the sad reality is that that racism is still there and it has to be dealt with still. Do you perhaps believe that people can somehow be taught not to see obvious physical and cultural differences among themselves? That we can somehow suppress instincts like tribalism and ethnocentrism with a program of propaganda and education, and we can somehow do this on a global basis? Or perhaps you believe that humans are devoid of all instincts except sex, and the brain of every newborn baby is a blank slate upon which you can write anything you wish? I am immensely skeptical of all this. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/499 "2011-04-12T14:04:48Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Do you perhaps believe that people can somehow be taught not to see obvious physical and cultural differences among themselves? That we can somehow suppress instincts like tribalism and ethnocentrism with a program of propaganda and education, and we can somehow do this on a global basis? Or perhaps you believe that humans are devoid of all instincts except sex, and the brain of every newborn baby is a blank slate upon which you can write anything you wish? I am immensely skeptical of all this. I would be skeptical of any claims that we can eradicate xenophobia and clannishness through simple efforts of education, as well. Since no one has made any claim to do that, that point does not appear to be relevant to this thread. What is more relevant to this thread is the effort to stop pretending that science, particularly the biological sciences, provide some sort of factual support for the discrimination that does occur, particularly when the “facts” are imaginary artifacts from previous and discredited theories. People will tend to organize themselves in ways that allows them to establish in-groups and out-groups. Among religion, class, wealth, local ethnicity, food preferences, and sports, we have a plenitude of criteria over which we can include or exclude other humans from “our” group. Pretending that science actually identifies people whom we should include or exclude based on some “factual” scale of qualities that do not really exist is silly. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/500 "2011-04-12T17:37:01Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > People will tend to organize themselves in ways that allows them to establish in-groups and out-groups. Among religion, class, wealth, local ethnicity, food preferences, and sports, we have a plenitude of criteria over which we can include or exclude other humans from “our” group. Pretending that science actually identifies people whom we should include or exclude based on some “factual” scale of qualities that do not really exist is silly. The above is a good point. Yet, I think the mistake is to see something special about taxonomic race categories. These categories were used in the Angloshpere (US, Canada, South African), no doubt, but beyond that they were not the basis for defining in and out groups. Across continental Europe during the 1800s and early 1900’s, for example, nation (or ethnicity) was. Whether you like it or not, there is a biological reality, and therefore scientific reality, to race (in the inclusive sense of “ancestry”). The issue then – for someone who wants to use this concept to define identity or other who want to dismiss the concept – are the boundaries. As such, much of the debate about the “reality of race” revolves around the ability to distinguish this race form that. But this is an artificial debate. One can define the boundaries in terms of non-biological terms (e.g religion, culture, geography), giving the concepts of relgiorace, ethnorace, and geographic race. Ethnorace is more or less “nationalism” in the traditional sense; religioracial identification is something like what Jews and others practice – some kind of religious identity tied to ancestral myths of peoplehood or maybe actual genealogies; geographic race is what “white nationalists” use to define themselves, most not identifying with non-European Caucasians. This is why many antiracers are not satisfied with arguing that subspecies don’t exist; rather, they argue: [1] Races are not subspecies, since there are no sharp distinctions. [2[Races have no “biological reality”; in this case (as opposed to the case of culture and religion), things without “biological reality” are not real, [3] so races are illusions and “social constructs” [4] and so there can be no heritable differences between racial groupings. The above, of course, makes no sense. Race can have “biological reality” without representing subspecies. There can be distinctions without them being sharp. There can be coherent racial concepts in absence of biologically defined boundaries. And the idea of heritable difference is completely separate from the existence of subspecies-- obviously, if we have a social category called race that classifies people on the basis of regional ancestry, and those people differ in heritable traits (skin color, behavioral tendencies, etc) due to ancestry, there will be heritable differences independent of whether the global genetic diversity is continous or not. From the anti-race perspective, the point, of course, is not to make sense – but to a) convince people that racial identification is not important and that b) none of the social differences between racial groups in society are due to genetics. Why? With regards to social identifications, to the extent racial identification was problematic, as you note, religious, ethnic, cultural, national, class, political, etc can be and historically have been more problematic. So the issue is tribalism. As I see it, tribalism is not the problems but rather the externalities of tribalism (conflict, inhumane exclusion, etc) are. Tribalism is a way of relating to others that gives many people meaning; if that’s not your way, don’t be a hater because others find that that works for them. Why? With regards to heritable differences, to the extent that differences between socially delineated “racial” populations are heritble, differences can’t be blamed on institutional racism and arguments for legal “racial” preferences (i.e. quotas) need to be revised. As I see it, anti-hereditarians do not have the moral right (of way), since they are making the case for legally mandated racial discrimination; as such, they need to prove that the cause of differences is something that warrants compensatory discrimination. Or make their case on the basis of the merits of ethnic/racial diversity. In general, in my view, we should keep the discussion of the biological status of race separate from that of the implications of various statuses. You don’t see to want to do this. Given that, maybe you could elaborate on why the taxonomic race concept [subspecies] is especially dangerous. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007.md?page=26)