Pretty much right… we just tend to use race as a rough visual basis to assume what genes are probably common among groups of people. I dug this up.
Just an aside but that issue is far from being a local one , that has global implications and I for one am thouroughly disguisted by this ridiculous neaveaux PC attitude that is preventing science from advancing.
Sorry. Carry on.
FTR. European (Irish) with a direct family bloodline that can be traced back 600 years here…with crooked teeth…and 3 sisters and 1 brother with straight teeth and 1 sister with crooked teeth. Make of that what you will.
What sickens you is a topic for The Pit, not for GQ.
bibliphage
moderator GQ
Then tell me why black (African American) men are at greater risk for heart disease, sicil cell anemia and colon cancer please. There are genetic traits that correspond with race - and one of the 3 mentioned above has been proven to be 100% genetic.
If you ignore my misplaced rant and reread my 1st post you will see what I was saying is that I was open minded enought to think it’s a possibility and I am not dismissing it closed mindedly. 
My apologies bibliophage for the rant.
Well, take a look at the epidemiology. Higher incidences of diet and general health practices which are high risk in re heart disease. Stress I believe is also a factor but I defer to doctors on this issue.
Really, these questions have been done to death for those with an open mind. (Hint: open mind for science means openness to data and rigor, not believing any old idiotic thing like a fucking coach potato watching “In Search Of.”)
Like Lebs (i.e. Med. Basin origin folks) and South Asians, many are descended from populations long resident in endemic malaria zones.
Diet, etc. are the known risk factors as far as I know.
Argument by assertion. Beauty. Why don’t you take yourself over to the links where, horrors of horrors, you might find actual information.
There are no genetic traits which correspond to race. There are some which correspond, imperfectly, with some populations, but past threads have taken this apart --ad nauseum-- in detial in the past. I’m sure you can trouble yourself to read them.
As for our 100% genetic piece, you’re ref’ing sickle cell. Indeed, the roots of sickle cell are genetic. But they are not racial. As has been noted, with references, many times in the past, sickle cell is not restricted to African populations and not all African (sub-Saharan) populations are sickle cell carriers. It’s all about long-term exposure to malaria, not race.
As for the other items, I note in passing that recent “black” immigrant communities show a different profile than American “black” communities. Anyone who’s taken the trouble to get up off their fat butt and look at data rather than presuppositions should thereby understand a racial explanation is nonesensical, on the data.
{i]Open-minded*? Oh. (You may imagine me laughing wildly at this gem) Hmm, K2dave has come in with a number of counter-factual assertions which have been repeatedly debunked on this board with reference to original scientific research – that is objective analysis and he claims there is some kind of close minded dismissal? Same kind of argument we get from the creation-“science” folks being “open-minded.”
I’d rather see apologies for aggressive and inexcusable ignorance.
Come back when you show the slightest signs of having done the basic homeowork.
Well, Collounsbury said nearly everything I wanted to say (and much better), but I wanted to add something.
Nearly every study that correlates “race” and disease is done in the U.S. The distribution of race in America is not even close to the distribution around the globe. The majority of Americans can trace their origins to a few countries in Europe, a (probably limited) number of tribe in Africa, and the native indians. With such a skewed sampling, any American study that looks at race is worthless.
As for the OP, even if I didn’t have other good reasons to disagree, it sounds too much like a “blame the victim” scenario. “See, if you hadn’t married that furriner, your children’s teeth woul be straight.”
So you just stated that any study in the US is ‘worthless’ if I read the above correctly?
If so how can you dismiss race genetics / interracial unions might be a factor in crooked teath? - do you have overseas studies that might be worth something?
I disagree. Considering that all my male siblings and myself had crooked teeth, and that my wife and our daughters had crooked teeth, and that none of us sucked our thumbs beyond infancy, I can only conclude that genetics can play a significant role in maloclusions. In fact I have seen Xrays of our daughters teeth prior to erruption, and was horrified to see the chaos that was about to errupt.
Interestingly though, my five sisters all had perfect teeth.
Greinspace if you don’t understand the vast difference between “There is no concievable genetic mechanism by which interracial children will be more prone to orthodontic problems”
and
“There is no concievable genetic mechanism by which children will be prone to orthodontic problems”
then I really can’t help you.
If you can understand that fairly basic difference re-read the thread. Re-read everything that has been posted by both myself and others and get back to me if you still have problems, mmmkay?
Similar to what Gaspode told grienspace: If you can’t tell the difference between a medical study done in the US, and a medical study done in the U.S. that is about the influence of race on disease, there is no help for you.
Yes - I posted a link to it in my first post in this thread:
And do you have a study that shows it does exist? So far in this thread we have one individual who claims this to be true, and that person’s information comes from someone with an agenda.
The Spaniards, Portuguese, south Italians, Greeks, and many Balkan peoples often are of mixed Semitic, Turkish, or Berber ancestry. People of non-European origin have come into Europe since the days of Alexander the Great and Hannibal. At some point, Muslim armies reached the Tours, France, the Ancona wall in Italy, and the gates of Vienna. But are southern Europeans any less European than Swedes and Norwegians? European is not a “race” but a geographic expression. And “White” has no precise meaning, as far as I am concerned. To my eyes a blond haired blue eyed Latino or pale skinned Arab may look completely “white”. But he may not consider himself white, or he may not be considered white by American society - so it becomes purely subjective.
And I didn’t say English, but “Anglo”; which is used by many Americans (erroneously) to mean a “non-Hispanic white” or a non-Hispanic European. Even Polish, Jewish, and Italian people are often called “Anglos” in the United States. I was saying Spanish or Hispanic people are just as European as other European people, not that Spaniards are as white or pale skinned as English people. And a English person can be of any “race” as well, as can an American, a Frenchman, and Australian, or a Brazilian.
And the only reason I brought this up was to point out a potential fallacy of saying someone was mixed “mixed Puerto Rican and European” or “mixed Puerto Rican and Asian”…when, as you said, the Spanish speaking peoples come in many races and colors. There are many fully European Puerto Ricans, and even a few thousand Asian Puerto Ricans.
http://factfinder.census.gov/bf/_lang=en_vt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_DP1_geo_id=04000US72.html
Gee, k2dave, I dunno. Maybe, maybe if just for the novelty value if checked out the links and past discussion you just might discover … the huge set of multinational data on human genetics which was cited to in the past.
Ah, no, perish the thought. Wouldn’t want to hurt the eyes looking at genome.org’s cluttered old layout now would we?
Bah.
Thanks for the clarification saudade. I took your post to mean that Spanish were as “white”(in terms of skin color) as another person whose ancestors where from northern Europe. Sorry for my mistake.
And you are right too that “white” has no definite meaning. What I was thinking is that when you mentioned the percent of Spanish descendant, you counted those as “pure” and “white”. Not the case. And because “white” has no definite meaning, many people put that as their only race(thinking as it was only about skin color), even though more of them are “mixed race”(or people whose ancestors had different skin colors, ok?). Why they did it? Racism, probably, better to say that they are white(presently) and deny that they had black ancestors. There has been literature and writing about people “passing for white” to gain entrance into the wealthy society.
Personal case: My parents left that question blank, as a protest of the way the census was made. My dad is white, but his hair is black and curly(i.e., he has an afro). Certainly, his ancestors where not all “white”(he also has genealogical proof), so he can’t count himself as having one race only. My mom? She has light tanned skin, green eyes. Yet she also knows her ancestors where not all “white”(her grandfather was mulatto, and someone else had probably taíno blood). Again, she doesn’t think that white is her only “race”. We are all Puerto Ricans, a mixture of whoever came here.
But her sister, my aunt, put “white” as her race. When asked why, she responded that was her skin color. Good, but she put it as her only race. It isn’t, and it is ironic because she is the one who keep tabs on family history that side of my family and she knows pretty well that it is not her only “race”. (Or ethnic origin)
In conclusion: I don’t trust much the results of the census, and what people say on it, and what I saw every day of my life for 18 years is different. What I saw? Mostly mixed people of all colors and shapes and sizes.
To go back to the discussion: Many Puerto Ricans are mixed, no matter where they are from(Europe, Asia, whatever). So saying one is Puerto Rican is in a way saying one is already a mutt. And no, I did not need orthodontia, nor my parents needed it(well, except for cavities). Those in my family that needed braces were the ones who sucked their thumbs until late in childhood. Nothing genetic there. Same thing for many of my friends.
Ok I assumed too much here - My mistake I was referring to medical studies in the US that had to do with the OP.
All you have stated is that most Ethiopians are incorrectly called ‘blacks’. The study says that genetics are a better predictor then race when it comes to the effects of drugs - which is just common sense - the genetic makeup will define how you react to various chemicals. It doesn’t mean that race is a bad indicator just genetics are more accurate and should be used if available - well that’s my take on it.
Well I could use your own study - it does hint that race is a factor :
It does hint that race is a classification system just less accurate then genetic classification.
I nowhere said that interracial couples will have offspring w/ a greater %age of crooked teeth - Just that there is a possibility that I am not willing to dismiss the possibility that it might be true - and I’d like to point out that I have seen nothing here (including links) that changes that view. If you are claiming that I stated that a member of the ‘black’ race is more likely to have sickle cell anemia then a member of the ‘white’ race and the sickle cell trait is genetic - I stand behind that statement.
I see many so called agendas being expressed in this thread - funny thing about agendas is when someone else’s agrees with yours there is no agenda.
Now, if you actually understood you’d know how wrong you are. Of course it may be more entertaining simply to play the define race, define “blacks” in objective biological terms game.
Not that it hasn’t been done to death with far more interesting posters, but what the hell. Everyone’s got to have a hobby.
Brilliant. Now, the part I love is the italicized part. Your take on it, wonderfully naive and unlearned as it is, proposes that genetics is seperate from race.
This is a delicious little proposition. Nonesensical but delicious.
Sooooo, K2dave, pray tell could you elaborate on how genetics is different from race and what biological data informs your, oh what was your term, ah yes, take on it.
Now when I say elaborate, I mean, explain on objective, biological grounds. Not, “Well demn folks, dey look different from me so, uh, dey must be different” or something along those lines. I mean what biological criteria and perhaps if you could, if it wouldn’t prove too troublesome, how genetics is seperate.
(Oh yes, no cheating and looking at the actual science cites. I don’t want to be deprived of my entertainment.)
I could almost phrame this. I’d like Ben to read this thread too. I think he might get almost as much enjoyment out of it as I.
Oh, you’ve really demonstrated that you’ve read and understood the links so far.
A meaningless statement on biological grounds. I can equally, and with better results, state that dark skinned folks have a greater chance of having sickle cell than paler skin. Why, there is a correlation of malaria to climate, just about 100% given it needs certain climatic conditions. Skin color also correlates to climate, or rather insolation which helps determine climate. So your statement tells us what? My race of paler skinned Lebanese (e.g. my apartment mate in Cairo) has a family with a high rate of sickle cell. I guess he and his are nigs just like he claimed, although he’s about as pale as I. The grouping White tells us jack about the population’s real risk or even anything meaningful about the underlying genetics. It tells us that in a subjective and shifting set of cultural standards, some people are “White”.
Ah, never mind… The links are there. Anyone with a real desire can follow through.
I see many so called agendas being expressed in this thread - funny thing about agendas is when someone else’s agrees with yours there is no agenda. **
[/QUOTE]
Obviously Gaspode you missed my point . “interacial” or otherwise, as in my case, genetics plays a major role in crooked teeth. What I found interesting is that no one, including you, bothered to challenge the premise that “interracial people” have a significant increase in the incidence of maloclusions. If the premise has been statistically measured, then perhaps we might have a debate here.
Look greinspace your argument from ignorance is wearing just a little thin. Just about everyone has challenged the initial premise. We have
mmmiiikkkeee : “There’s a big chunk of the population that is “mixed race”…
Zyada: “Wasn’t there some king in Europe who’s teeth were so bad that he couldn’t chew meat?
Saudade: “:So who can tell whether being part Puerto Rican is a factor or not. Its almost like saying a person is “part American”.
Slithy Tove: “I called bullshit “
Bob Scene: “the racial mixing theories are old and thoroughly invalidated, and it has references “
Cougarfang: “most chinese have crooked teeth”
Tiburon :” Neither of my parents ever required braces.”
For God’s sake greinspace we’ve been through this ad nauseum in your race ‘debates’. Read the link provided by Bob Scene. The stats have been done. The premise has been completely invalidated.
I will try one last time greinspace. Try and understand the MASSIVE difference between “genetics plays a major role in crooked teeth"
and
“genetics plays major a role in a higher incidence of crooked teeth amongst interracial children.”
The fact that there are some genetic causes for crooked teeth has never been disputed. This in no way provides a plausible mechanism for an increased incidence of orthodontological problems in interracial children. There is no genetic coherence to race, a point you have long since conceded. As such there can not be any genetic coherence to racial orthodontic problems.
WTF is so had to understand?
It is you that doesn’t understand and just like your knee jerk responses to me in the athletic debates you are so wrapped up in the mantra of race protocols that you once again make a completely unsubstantiated assertion .
Now read carefully! Contrary to your above quoted statemnt, I’m stating there is no evidence “for an increased incidence of orthodontological problems in inter-racial children”
Period.
I would like you to back up your assertion for an increased incidence of maloclusions among interracial children.
Gaspode, sometimes you just gotta laugh. It’s laugh fucking Alice in Wonderland.
The General Question has been answered as well as it’s going to be (read Bob Scene’s posts especially). The rest is fodder for Great Debates. I invite you all to continue the debate there if you wish. This thread is closed.
bibliophage
moderator GQ