# 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:** 7
**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 4, 2011, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/121 "2011-04-04T00:46:04Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Clearly all humans can interbreed. No one has claimed otherwise. That is mentioned because it seems that others are missing one of the important reasons why biologically speaking there are no races. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > At the same time, in the year 1400, Australian aborignes were a distinct race/genetic group/population/subspecies from, say, inhabitants of Tierra Del Fuego. Which is in no way a value judgment… Not race, but I can see that there is a point with /genetic group/population/subspecies ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/122 "2011-04-04T00:51:10Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But we’re talking science here, and there is not scientific definition of the color red that isn’t arbitrarily drawn. Color is a social construct, and it’s useful in that sense. Race is the same. It works as a social construct, but not so much as a scientific one. Except that I’m not arguing that any particular set of races is correct and scientifically superior and defineable. I’m arguing that the idea of grouping people together based on “race” is not a biologically meaningless one. Similarly, a scientist might not be able to prove that “red” exists, but might say “I’ve demonstrated that this species of bat can not see red”. That’s a potentially 100% objective scientific useful statement that a full-on science-y peer reviewed study might study, which would use the word “red”. Presumably somewhere inside the study it would more explicitly describe exactly what wavelengths were involved, but the scientist would still use the word “red”. But that analogy fails if taken TOO far, as do most, even useful ones, so there’s no point in pursuing it to the bitter end. Again, my point is not “scientists all know that humans can be divided into precisely these 3 races: whites, blacks, and asians… and if they’re denying it it’s only because of political correctness”. I’m merely objecting to the completely and absolute denial of any biological underpinnings to the concept of race, which I think takes a valid point too far. ---
**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 4, 2011, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/123 "2011-04-04T00:54:06Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Which is a poor reason to take a position. I would say that that is what experts are doing, so excuse if I agree more with them. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Certainly I don’t believe I’m motivated by racism even in the slightest… Of course, but then that is why there is also the option of then being a follower of crackpot ideas. It would be as in Astronomy a renegade group insisted to call Pluto a planet, but instead of making the case in the astronomical circles they made their case to the public. It may convince many among the public, but the scientists would already be farther along. The Pluto fans would be stuck forever in 2005 ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/124 "2011-04-04T00:59:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Science is not subjective. We don’t say: It’s OK if different chemists use different elements to describe the world. Science uses facts to test hypothesis. If you want to state the hypothesis that races exist, you have to test that against the facts. And the facts can’t be subjective, otherwise we have no way of arriving at the correct conclusion. > > Now, we might use science to test our own propensity to divide people into races, but that’s not the same thing as scientifically dividing people into races. Science does plenty of organization of things into groups in a way that is not purely objective. For instance, if our hypothetical ETs set out to taxonomize all living beings, they might well not end up with a grouping that precisely matched subphylum vertebratae, including precisely 7 subgroups, precisely matching the following classes: Class Agnatha (jawless fish) Class Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes) Class Osteichthyes (bony fishes) Class Amphibia (amphibians) Class Reptilia (reptiles) Class Aves (birds) Class Mammalia (mammals) They might put the dividing lines somewhat higher or lower, maybe diving those 7 classes into 2 or 3 groupings. Or maybe they would have the division between placental mammals, marsupials and monotremes up at that same level. Or whatever. Those divisions are a human-made description of the complexity of life. They are in a sense arbitrary. That does not make them unscientific. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/125 "2011-04-04T01:02:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s funny, though, that all the people in this thread who claim that races exist can never tell us what the races are. Can you? I can’t tell you exactly what all the cultures are, or exactly what all the languages are, or exactly what all the sports are, or exactly what all the arts are. Yet people devote their lives to categorizing and studying and grouping all those things. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/126 "2011-04-04T01:04:23Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And we also did this before: Yes, and those traditional racial groups aren’t imaginary. People do fall into these clusters. > [@](#): > > Numerous recent studies using a variety of genetic markers have shown that, for example, individuals sampled worldwide fall into clusters that roughly correspond to continental lines, as well as to the commonly used self-identifying racial groups: Africans, European/West Asians, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans (Bowcock et al. 1994; Calafell et al. 1998; Rosenberg et al. 2002). > > Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. > **[Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in...](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1196372/)** > > We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects ... Or as Risch points out: > [@](#): > > If biological is defined as genetic then, as detailed above, a decade or more of population genetics research has documented genetic, and therefore biological, differentiation among the races. This conclusion was most recently reinforced by the analysis of Wilson et al. [2]. If biological is defined by susceptibility to, and natural history of, a chronic disease, then again numerous studies over past decades have documented biological differences among the races. In this context, it is difficult to imagine that such differences are not meaningful. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a definition of ‘biological’ that does not lead to racial differentiation, except perhaps one as extreme as speciation. [http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007](http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007) ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/127 "2011-04-04T01:07:26Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Science does plenty of organization of things into groups in a way that is not purely objective. For instance, if our hypothetical ETs set out to taxonomize all living beings, they might well not end up with a grouping that precisely matched subphylum vertebratae, including precisely 7 subgroups, precisely matching the following classes: > Class Agnatha (jawless fish) > Class Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes) > Class Osteichthyes (bony fishes) > Class Amphibia (amphibians) > Class Reptilia (reptiles) > Class Aves (birds) > Class Mammalia (mammals) > > They might put the dividing lines somewhat higher or lower, maybe diving those 7 classes into 2 or 3 groupings. Or maybe they would have the division between placental mammals, marsupials and monotremes up at that same level. Or whatever. Those divisions are a human-made description of the complexity of life. They are in a sense arbitrary. That does not make them unscientific. You’ll find that biologists make those distinctions not on randomly chosen physical morphology (like colour, hair form, etc) -which is [called folk taxonomy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_taxonomy), but on something called [common descent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent). The latter has been done ever since Darwin which replaced the former published by [Carl Linnaeus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systema_Naturae). ---
**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 4, 2011, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/128 "2011-04-04T01:11:18Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Is there such an astronomical thing as a “planet”? > > Here’s a quote from the wikipedia entry on Pluto: > > So, a “planet” is a category of objects with subjective criteria. I guess John Mace and orcenio et al would say "the concept of a planet is not scientific, it’s only a social construct. Not exactly. I think any astronomer would admit that they are sort of stuck with this term “planet” as a hold-over from pre-scientific times, and what they really do is study “objects that orbit the sun”, whatever they are called. But the analogy would only hold if we had one definition for “planet” in our solar system, but used a different definition for other solar systems. We have a definition of race (or subspecies) that we use for animals. Humans simply fail the test. It’s not scientific to use one set of criteria for deciding how many chimp subspecies there are and a different set for determining how many subspecies of humans there are. > [@](#): > > Therefore, scientists can’t study planets." They study “objects that orbit the sun”, and we call a bunch of them planets because some ancient Babylonians (or equivalent) thought they had magical properties to predict the future. ---
**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 4, 2011, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/129 "2011-04-04T01:15:52Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > They are in a sense arbitrary. That does not make them unscientific. It seems to me that you are missing an important point. Those divisions are made in such a way that there is agreement among scientists and experts on the field, otherwise science would had a hard time going forward. The problem was the old race definitions, the arbitrary divisions in the case of homo sapiens that were imposed in the past hit a wall specially when DNA entered the picture, it has made more sense then nowadays for the researchers to agree that first they have to assume that there are no races. Once that was established the differences that \*\*are \*\*being researched depend less on the artificial (or mistaken) division that was imposed in the past. IIUC then any attempts to force the scientists to comply with popular views on this is a no go. Scientists just do not bend easy to the attacks on science coming from creationists, climate change deniers, anti-vaxers and other crackpots out there, so it is with the race issue. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/130 "2011-04-04T01:16:25Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > We have a definition of race (or subspecies) that we use for animals. Humans simply fail the test. It’s not scientific to use one set of criteria for deciding how many chimp subspecies there are and a different set for determining how many subspecies of humans there are. What criteria? Who is “we”? I mentioned the sub-species concept above: > [@](#): > > Before the advent of conservation biology and modern phylogenetics, subspecies were normally delineated by morphological characteristics. The “seventy-five percent rule” goes back to 1949, stating that subspecies classification is merited if at least 75% of individuals can be correctly assigned to their group by inspection.[74] This rule isn’t in common use today, but the importance of genetically-based morphological differences is still apparent in many recent phylogenetic studies. Some biologists argue that a 70 or 75 percent rule should still be a standard criterion in taxonomy, as applied to individuals outside of hybrid zones where the ranges of subspecies overlap.[75] > > On the basis of morphology, we can compare the traditional human races (as well as some minor races) to chimpanzee subspecies. Individuals of the former can be correctly assigned at much greater than 75% accuracy,[76] while the latter are morphologically indistinct, and difficult or impossible to classify when raised in captivity.[77,78] … > > Human FST values of 12-15% are typical not just for microsatellites, but also for classical protein polymorphisms,[102] autosomal RFLPs[103] and Alu insertions.[104] Values for mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome are substantially higher. It would seem, then, that the level of genetic differentiation among human populations is not especially small, and in fact is entirely adequate for race designation, particularly when coupled with consistent morphological differences. [http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html](http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html) ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/131 "2011-04-04T01:21:38Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The problem was the old race definitions, the arbitrary divisions in the case of homo sapiens that were imposed in the past hit a wall specially when DNA entered the picture, it has made more sense then nowadays for the researchers to agree that first they have to assume that there are no races. Once that was established the differences that \*\*are \*\*being researched depend less on the artificial (or mistaken) division that was imposed in the past. . Not true. As I posted above, DNA confirms the existence of those traditional anthropological groups. > [@](#): > > Numerous recent studies using a variety of genetic markers have shown that, for example, **individuals sampled worldwide fall into clusters that roughly correspond to continental lines, as well as to the commonly used self-identifying racial groups: Africans, European/West Asians, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans** (Bowcock et al. 1994; Calafell et al. 1998; Rosenberg et al. 2002). > > Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. > **[Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in...](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1196372/)** > > We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects ... ---
**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 4, 2011, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/132 "2011-04-04T01:23:09Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > What criteria? Who is “we”? I mentioned the sub-species concept above: > > [http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html](http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html) Antiquated. What part of “This rule isn’t in common use today” do you not understand? ---
**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 4, 2011, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/133 "2011-04-04T01:23:11Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Or as Risch points out: > > [http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007](http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007) > [@](#): > > Finally, we believe that identifying genetic differences between races and ethnic groups, be they for random genetic markers, genes that lead to disease susceptibility or variation in drug response, is scientifically appropriate. **What is not scientific is a value system attached to any such findings. Great abuse has occurred in the past with notions of ‘genetic superiority’ of one particular group over another. The notion of superiority is not scientific, only political, and can only be used for political purposes.** Just saying, but it is clear that you do not like it or that it is just part of the conspiracy.. ---
**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 4, 2011, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/134 "2011-04-04T01:26:59Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Not true. As I posted above, DNA confirms the existence of those traditional anthropological groups. > > [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/) NO ONE IS DISAGREEING THAT GENETICS DON"T CORRESPOND ROUGHLY TO GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN. NO ONE. But that genetic “clustering” isn’t anything special. We can “cluster” people at any number of levels. We can “cluster” Africans and non-Africans. We can “cluster” Europeans and Asians. We can “cluster” northern Europeans and southern Europeans. We can “cluster” Sicilians and mainland Italians. So what? ---
**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 4, 2011, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/135 "2011-04-04T01:33:09Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Not true. As I posted above, DNA confirms the existence of those traditional anthropological groups. > > [Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies - PMC](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/) > [@](#): > > One significant consequence of population genetic structure is confounding in case-control association studies. Because of the unique political and social history of the United States, genetic structure in the contemporary U.S. population is extremely complicated. Most prominently, the level of white admixture among African Americans has been estimated at 10%–20% (Parra et al. 1998); more complicated are Hispanic groups, which may have European, Native American, and African ancestries that vary regionally (Hanis et al. 1991). In addition, stratification and admixture occur at finer levels. Such subtle heterogeneity is not readily detected with a limited number of genetic markers, yet their implications in biomedical research may be important. Their research is to be used for controlled experimentation of medicines. I don’t see that they do not agree with what other researchers have said. > [@](#): > > Finally, we believe that identifying genetic differences between races and ethnic groups, be they for random genetic markers, genes that lead to disease susceptibility or variation in drug response, is scientifically appropriate. What is not scientific is a value system attached to any such findings. Great abuse has occurred in the past with notions of ‘genetic superiority’ of one particular group over another. The notion of superiority is not scientific, only political, and can only be used for political purposes. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/136 "2011-04-04T01:34:54Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > NO ONE IS DISAGREEING THAT GENETICS DON"T CORRESPOND ROUGHLY TO GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN. NO ONE. > > But that genetic “clustering” isn’t anything special. We can “cluster” people at any number of levels. We can “cluster” Africans and non-Africans. We can “cluster” Europeans and Asians. We can “cluster” northern Europeans and southern Europeans. We can “cluster” Sicilians and mainland Italians. > > So what? Well, there you go. You can call some of those clusterings a “race” if you want to. That’s all there is to it. ---
**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 4, 2011, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/137 "2011-04-04T01:45:23Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Well, there you go. You can call some of those clusterings a “race” if you want to. That’s all there is to it. Popularly speaking, I see no problem with it, the problem is by assuming that academic and scientific circles should take heed, and there is also a problem when politicians tell the scientists what to do. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/138 "2011-04-04T02:21:25Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Well, there you go. You can call some of those clusterings a “race” if you want to. That’s all there is to it. Of course, there is no honest reason to do so, since using that word conjures up false images in the minds of most people of fixed groups with fixed traits that do not actually existy outside statistical analysis. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/139 "2011-04-04T03:08:02Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Of course, there is no honest reason to do so, since using that word conjures up false images in the minds of most people of fixed groups with fixed traits that do not actually existy outside statistical analysis. That has no bearing on whether there is a biological thing as a racial group. People should emphasise treating people as individuals and suggest equal treatment/human rights rather than deny that racial groups exist. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007/140 "2011-04-04T03:21:00Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > That has no bearing on whether there is a biological thing as a racial group. People should emphasise treating people as individuals and suggest equal treatment/human rights rather than deny that racial groups exist. Take it up with Rand Rover. His position is that there is nothing wrong with applying the word “race” to any of several different ways to categorize, lump, or split humanity. In the real world, the use of the word “race” conjures up the specific notions of “Caucasian,” “Negro,” and “Mongoloid” or “white” and “all those others.” If there is supposed to be some reality to “race” in regards to humanity, then throwing the word around to identify different groups at different levels of division is not accurate and if there is no such legitimate category in biology, then claiming that we can use the word to mean different things to different people when the reality is that it will invoke a specific (erroneous) meaning is dishonest. Those are the options. I did not make the argument, Rand Rover did, so you need to be addressing him. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-biological-thing-as-a-racial-group/577007.md?page=8)