# Race is a social, not biological / scientific concept **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 17, 2012, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461 "2012-06-17T22:20:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/21 "2012-06-18T18:56:19Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Only by an overly broad notion of “genetic” that doesn’t stand up to any but the most superficial level of scrutiny. Well, no. Any characteristic that is inherited is genetic. Racial characteristics are genetic. > [@](#): > > Maybe that’s sociologically meaningful, but it’s certainly next to useless for anything but simple biology/anatomy. I agree. I’m not saying it’s genetically significant, just genetic. > [@](#): > > The problem here is that while those physical characteristics have a genetic component, grouping all people that share those physical characteristics as being a single genetic grouping can’t actually be done in a scientifically meaningful way. We agree. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/22 "2012-06-18T18:57:27Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This is the part that’s wrong- they don’t, really. There are many “black” populations in Africa that are more closely related to “white” and “Asian” populations than to other “black” populations. Plus, sub-Saharan Africa contains more genetic diversity then the rest of the world combined. But those racial characteristics that form “race” are grouped. Which is why they form race. You’re right, they aren’t genetically important, just genetic. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/23 "2012-06-18T18:58:12Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Any characteristic that is inherited is genetic. Racial characteristics are genetic. I think you’re going by the “letter of the law” of the OP while ignoring the spirit. Tigers and lizards are both quadrupeds, but I don’t think “quadrupeds” can be considered a genetic classification in any useful sense. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/24 "2012-06-18T19:19:17Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Well, no. Any characteristic that is inherited is genetic. Racial characteristics are genetic. The characteristics themselves may be genetic among sub-populations, but not when you broadly group them. It’s maybe a more subtle distinction than you expected, but it exists. For one example, in the racial classifications that **NDD** uses, sub-Saharan Africans are all “black”. The problem is that while darker skin is itself a genetic characteristic, it’s not a **single** genetic characteristic. For example, the San (while “black” to Americans) are actually much lighter skinned than the Bantu. This is due to the fact that the genetic expression of the San’s skin color is different from the Bantu’s. So, we have two groups of people who are both “black” by common notions of race, whose not-actually-the-same skin color express differently genetically. That’s what I mean. The San and Bantu apparently have the same skin colors in the sociological-race sense, which express differently genetically. So, yeah, technically, their racial characteristics are genetic. But they’re also different from each other, yet we are to accept that they can be grouped together genetically based on that? That doesn’t stand to reason. ---
**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:** [June 18, 2012, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/25 "2012-06-18T19:20:01Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > No. > > Tell me, is a white-skinned person in England the same race as a black-skinned person in Africa? > > Please don’t make me get more specific - it goes without saying. > > Genetically, race is irrelevant. Socially, it is relevant (or has been - doesn’t mean we can’t change that). Race is still genetic though. Obviously. I can’t make heads nor tails of what you are trying to say here. Especially in that last paragraph, you seem to be contradicting yourself. But I can see you’re new here, and probably not familiar with the level of debate expected in this forum. If you’ve got an opinion, that’s fine, but this is a scientific discussion and needs to be at that level. ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/26 "2012-06-18T19:32:53Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I can’t make heads nor tails of what you are trying to say here. Especially in that last paragraph, you seem to be contradicting yourself. But I can see you’re new here, and probably not familiar with the level of debate expected in this forum. If you’ve got an opinion, that’s fine, but this is a scientific discussion and needs to be at that level. Rather condescending, old boy. ---
**Author:** ![Deegeea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Deegeea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deegeea)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/27 "2012-06-18T19:36:15Z")
I think a more precise way of phrasing what the subject/original post is saying is: Race may be a deeply meaningful cultural/social concept structure, but it is only a trivially meaningful biological/genetic concept structure. Analogically, the quadruped example is a good fit. Quadruped or biped is determined genetically, but does not imply a great deal of connectedness over the entire set. Humans, birds, and kangaroos are among the biped species. Bipedness is inherited in these categories of organisms genetically. But humans, kangaroos, and sparrows are not particularly closely related to one another. My husband has tightly curled/kinked reddish-brown hair that went white in his early 20s, visible epicanthic folds on his hazel eyes, pale skin that burns easily. All his ancestry is in one category as far as the typical USA resident would categorize race, but his features not so much. ---
**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:** [June 18, 2012, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/28 "2012-06-18T19:40:09Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > Rather condescending, old boy. OK. You tell me what this means: > [@](#): > > Genetically, race is irrelevant… Race is still genetic though. Obviously. 😕 ---
**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:** [June 18, 2012, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/29 "2012-06-18T19:46:14Z")
> [@Deegeea](#): > > I think a more precise way of phrasing what the subject/original post is saying is: > > Race may be a deeply meaningful cultural/social concept structure, but it is only a trivially meaningful biological/genetic concept structure. We get that. But the OP’s example is not a good proof of his thesis. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/30 "2012-06-18T19:49:35Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I think you’re going by the “letter of the law” of the OP while ignoring the spirit. Tigers and lizards are both quadrupeds, but I don’t think “quadrupeds” can be considered a genetic classification in any useful sense. Yes. This is getting too deep. ---
**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:** [June 18, 2012, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/31 "2012-06-18T19:51:34Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I think you’re going by the “letter of the law” of the OP while ignoring the spirit. Tigers and lizards are both quadrupeds, but I don’t think “quadrupeds” can be considered a genetic classification in any useful sense. Why not? It defines a certain clade. A ver large clade, but I don’t see why it’s any more useless than, say, vertebrates-- an even larger clade. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/32 "2012-06-18T19:55:29Z")
> [@Deegeea](#): > > I think a more precise way of phrasing what the subject/original post is saying is: > > Race may be a deeply meaningful cultural/social concept structure, but it is only a trivially meaningful biological/genetic concept structure. I’ll take that. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/33 "2012-06-18T20:08:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Why not? It defines a certain clade. A ver large clade, but I don’t see why it’s any more useless than, say, vertebrates-- an even larger clade. In the analogy I’m using, “quadrupeds” only includes animals that walk on four legs. Snakes are in a different category, so are birds, whales, and humans, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/34 "2012-06-18T20:53:08Z")
I think John was thinking of the term “tetrapods” which means all land vertebrates. “Quadrupeds”, if that means “all creatures with four legs” isn’t a good clade, because any clade that includes both lizards and tigers is also going to have to include kangaroos, pigeons, humans, and snakes. If that’s OK with you, then you can use the term, as long as you realize that there will be lots of quadrupeds that don’t have four legs. ---
**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:** [June 18, 2012, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/35 "2012-06-18T23:24:19Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > I think John was thinking of the term “tetrapods” which means all land vertebrates. “Quadrupeds”, if that means “all creatures with four legs” isn’t a good clade, because any clade that includes both lizards and tigers is also going to have to include kangaroos, pigeons, humans, and snakes. If that’s OK with you, then you can use the term, as long as you realize that there will be lots of quadrupeds that don’t have four legs. You’re right. Thanks. I saw “quadruped”, but my mind went to “tetrapod”. But if we’re just using the actual physical characteristics, then yes it’s not a good clade. Perhaps a better analogy to the black skin/white skin issue is “swims in the ocean/lives on land”. The first one puts cetaceans and fish in the same category and humans and spiders in the same category. There are people all over the world with skin as dark as people who live in Africa. Saying there is a “black skin race” is nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/36 "2012-06-19T08:25:22Z")
> [@BigAppleBucky](#): > > Nothing shows it more than today’s very interesting NY Times article on Michelle Obama and her white cousins. > > [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/us/dna-gives-new-insights-into-michelle-obamas-roots.html?\_r=1&hp](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/us/dna-gives-new-insights-into-michelle-obamas-roots.html?_r=1&hp) > > We’re all of the human race - period. Err, we are all of the species homo sapiens. Race is a concept in biology. Are there human races? [Yes](http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/). This [comment](http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/30/science/race-is-seen-as-real-guide-to-track-roots-of-disease.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm) nicely sums up the reason for all the obfuscation on this: > [@](#): > > Dr. Stephen O’Brien, a geneticist at the National Cancer Institute, said that the conclusion that race was not a valid concept ‘‘comes from honest and brilliant people who are not population geneticists.’’ > > ‘‘That doesn’t mean they are insincere,’’ Dr. O’Brien said. ‘‘It’s just that they haven’t really looked at it. What is happening here is that Neil and his colleagues have decided the pendulum of political correctness has taken the field in a direction that will hurt epidemiological assessment of disease in the very minorities the defenders of political correctness wish to protect.’’ Also, I would recommend the [long debate on this subject](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=609125) a year ago. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/37 "2012-06-19T09:23:08Z")
Chen- how do you respond to the fact that there are many sub-Saharan African populations that are closer, genetically, to European and Asian populations than to other sub-Saharan African populations? [For example](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7290/fig_tab/nature08976_F3.html), the Bamileke have a more recent common ancestor with Europeans and Asians then with Kikuyu; as do the Mandenka compared to the Hausa. And there are lots more examples. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/38 "2012-06-19T09:49:21Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Chen- how do you respond to the fact that there are many sub-Saharan African populations that are closer, genetically, to European and Asian populations than to other sub-Saharan African populations? > > [For example](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7290/fig_tab/nature08976_F3.html), the Bamileke have a more recent common ancestor with Europeans and Asians then with Kikuyu; as do the Mandenka compared to the Hausa. And there are lots more examples. I haven’t looked in detail at those examples, but that is not inconsistent with the existence of biological races in the human species (see Coyne’s comment above concerning the existence of numerous races depending on how exact a definition or fine grained analysis you want). Note Razib Khan’s [comments](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/02/the-race-question-are-bonobos-human/) when this debate arose earlier in the year concerning sub-saharan africa: > [@](#): > > And that’s the key: racial typologies are coarse reflections of genuine history. In other words, race is a reflection and reification of genuine lower level dynamics, it is not the prior phenomenon. This sidesteps many of the technical complaints which arise in the papers Antrosio linked to. I can quibble with them well enough though. For example, figure 2 in the Genome Research paper relies upon a rather shitty (in relative terms) genetic relatedness statistic, IBS, in my opinion. Don’t take my word for it, play around with data sets in Plink and you’ll see what I mean. It tends to be history-blind. My parents, who are South Asian, but with a non-trivial East Asian component, are often clustered with a host of other South Asians who also have non-trivial East Asian components. This is a real result, but it ignores the history that all that is common across these individuals is a particular admixture pair. It’s not a “real” cluster, reflecting real shared history. > > A more interesting concern is the fact that in most trees non-Africans tend to be on their own branch, while Sub-Saharan Africans tend diversify into distinct basal branches. The question ensues: are Sub-Saharan Africans several distinct races? Using evolutionary history as a measure I would say yes! This is definitely one area where social expectations have led us astray. It turns out that it may be that the Bushmen/non-Bushmen separation is only 1/3 as long ago in the past as the Neanderthal/modern human separation. In fact, the Bushmen may predate, and not be part of, the “Out of Africa” event. Along with the Pygmies and Hadza there seems to be a very ancient differentiation between the agriculturalist and hunter-gatherers in the African continent. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/39 "2012-06-19T10:03:03Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > I haven’t looked in detail at those examples, but that is not inconsistent with the existence of biological races in the human species (see Coyne’s comment above concerning the existence of numerous races depending on how exact a definition or fine grained analysis you want). Note Razib Khan’s [comments](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/02/the-race-question-are-bonobos-human/) when this debate arose earlier in the year concerning sub-saharan africa: So you’d agree that it’s absurd to consider population A and B both part of the “black” race when population A is closer, genetically, to “white” and “Asian” populations than to population B? ---
**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:** [June 19, 2012, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461/40 "2012-06-19T13:24:18Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Err, we are all of the species homo sapiens. Race is a concept in biology. Are there human races? [Yes](http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/). This [comment](http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/30/science/race-is-seen-as-real-guide-to-track-roots-of-disease.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm) nicely sums up the reason for all the obfuscation on this: > > Also, I would recommend the [long debate on this subject](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=609125) a year ago. Absolute bullshit. Most “population geneticists” disagree with the good doctor, who does not, as he claims, speak for that profession. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-is-a-social-not-biological-scientific-concept/625461.md?page=3)