# Race: Yea or nay? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 14, 2010, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699 "2010-09-14T05:21:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/121 "2010-09-17T10:14:57Z")
> [@bukkake....huh, wha'???](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bukkake-huh-wha/63969/3): > > > [@bukkake....huh, wha'???](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bukkake-huh-wha/63969/3): > > > > 1Black isn’t, African-American is, or close enough. I’d say there are likely a few different A-A ethnicities, actually. > > Well, if “blacks” do no represent an ethnicity, just what do they represent ? An artefact of history and a big mistake. Oh, and a high level of melanin content in the skin. > [@Malthus](#): > > An example: Ethiopian Jews are Black Africans and Ashkenazic Jews are White Caucasians. They share an ethnicity, based on common ancestry No, they don’t, and you’re severely mangling the meaning of the word. They share a religion, and some common ancestry, but they don’t share a common culture, for instance, nor do they share a (first) language. Same with the Lemba, same with Indian Jews, same with Chinese Jews. > [@Chen019](#): > > In fact so did Cavalli-Sforza previously, although his statements have changed as the intellectual climate has changed. Or, you know, as the data came in…but don’t let’s stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory :dubious: ---
**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:** [September 17, 2010, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/122 "2010-09-17T11:42:46Z")
“The differences that exist between the major racial groups are such that races could be called subspecies if we adopted for man a criterion suggested by Mayr (1963) for systematic zoology. Mayr’s criterion is that two or more groups become subspecies when 75 percent or more of all the individuals constituting the groups can be unequivocally classified as belonging to a particular group.” That is not a definition of “subspecies” that any biologist would use today. Not for humans, not for monkeys, not for lizards. Really, **Chen019** , we’ve learned a thing or two in the last 50 years. There’s this little thing called DNA, for one thing. ---
**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:** [September 17, 2010, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/123 "2010-09-17T13:00:58Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > > [@orcenio](#): > > > > 1. Do you believe in biologically determined races? > > … > > 2. No. > > 3. Because I am not in the habit of following 18th century determined, physical taxonomy and pretending that it trumps 21st century determined, human genetic variation. > > Do you believe in biologically determined breeds? > > Do you believe in Pit Bulls ? That makes no sense. “The races” are not breeds, nor are they a breeding population, nor do they share a distinct/common ancestry. They are defined (well…implied; racialists can’t even define them) by on highly subjective (and often vague) physical grounds such as hair texture, skin colour, eye shape. **It is an inaccurate representation/model of human genetic variation and decent**. Grouping unrelated subjects who “look close enough” is normally called [folk taxonomy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_taxonomy) and it holds no sway in the world of science. ---
**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:** [September 17, 2010, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/124 "2010-09-17T13:31:24Z")
> [@A Monkey With a Gun](#): > > > [@orcenio](#): > > > > I want to continue the debate [started here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=577677), with a few questions. > > > > 1. Do you believe in biologically determined races? > > 2. Why/why not? > > 3. If yes… > > a) What are they (the number)? > > b) What are the parameters of the groups? > > Personally, I don’t believe in “races” per se, but we have to realize that we don’t have the same ancestors. It is a very touchy subject, but biological differences are obvious. Your error is thinking that “we” is divided racially. > [@](#): > > Humans are remarkably genetically similar to each other. Their is some “plumage” change in skin, hair, and eyes, but we are not even _remotely_ close to seperating into subspecies like some racial supremacists desire. However, our own medical science tells us that their are differences that go a bit more than skin deep. This is due to the fact that humans are NOT immune to evolutionary pressures. Sickle cell trait gives a person a modicum of resistance to malaria. The trait is far, far more common in people who can trace their ancestry to Africa. If race = “plumage change” then race ≠ sickle cell trait; you are in error when you project beyond “plumage change.” > [@](#): > > The interesting thing about modern medical science is that we have found that we are more similar to each other than most species are to themselves (I think there was an evolutionary bottleneck somewhere back in our history), but we are beginning to get the tools to examine, and treat, medical problems tailored to the specific individual. But for that, we have to examine family history. Race ≠ family history. > [@](#): > > “Race” is just family history on a larger scale. That is not correct, where did you get that idea? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/125 "2010-09-17T14:31:24Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > No, they don’t, and you’re severely mangling the meaning of the word. They share a religion, and some common ancestry, but they don’t share a common culture, for instance, nor do they share a (first) language. Same with the Lemba, same with Indian Jews, same with Chinese Jews. Not true. If Jews do not form an ethnicity, what exactly do they form? They do **not** share a religion - because many are not religious at all: it is pefectly possible to be a so-called “ethnic Jew” (that word again!) and an atheist, so that can’t be it - they are not a “nation” in the sense of common citizenship in a nation-state like “Americans”, because not all Jews are Israelis - they do not share a language, nor a culture, nor a race. So, what are they? What are Jews? What do they all have in common? They have self-identity as a _nation_ or _people_ born of _real, fictive or adopted common descent_ - in short, they form an _ethnicity_. Jews regard themselves as one “people”, one “nation” (in the ethnic sense), even though they may be Chinese or Indian in location and appearance - though divided into different sun-cultures, like Ashkenazic, Shephardic or Mizrai (which may also, confusingly, be called “ethnic groups” - as explained below, ethnicity is situational). You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that “ethnicity” has a hard-and-fast definition, and moreover, one that is under your control. There are in fact numerous anthropological theories of ethnicity, often mutually contradictory: [Ethnicity - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity) Amusingly, the very term “ethnic” was originally used as a translation meaning “not Jewish”: > [@](#): > > The terms ethnicity and ethnic group are derived from the Greek word ἔθνος ethnos, normally translated as “nation.” The terms refer currently to people thought to have common ancestry who share a distinctive culture. > > The term “ethnic” and related forms from the 14th century through the middle of the 19th century were used in English in the meaning of “pagan, heathen”, as ethnikos was used as the LXX translation of Hebrew goyim “the nations, non-Hebrews, non-Jews”.[7] In reality, ethnicity tends to be _[situational_. What is meant by that, as in the _original_ translation of “ethnic” to mean “not Jewish”, people often define ethnicity by what they are _not_ in comparision to other folks. Jews form a “nation” and have since long before modern nationalism - at least, in their own minds, which is what counts; they claim a (perhaps fictive) common ancestry; and self-identify as “Jews” in opposition to “non-Jews”. This is not to deny that there are divisions among them, but these divisions are less significant than the commonalities. From the very beginning of the use of the term “ethnicity”, Jews and non-Jews alike have been using the term to describe the definitional opposition between themselves and others. Therefore, you are incorrect in stating that it is a “mangling of the word”. Far from it. It is those for whom “ethnicity” is just another word for “race” (that is, of purely biological descent) who are of the opinion that Jews are not an “ethnicity” - and indeed, no-one denies that they are not a _race_. ---
**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:** [September 17, 2010, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/126 "2010-09-17T15:07:20Z")
We could do a whole thread on “Are Jews and ethnic group”. They are a special case, though, and it doesn’t really address the topic at hand. I would say that although many (or even most) Jews might feel they are an ethnic group, to an objective outsider they do not appear to be one. Not in the sense that we usually use that term and for the reason Mr. Dibble listed. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/127 "2010-09-17T15:24:54Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > We could do a whole thread on “Are Jews and ethnic group”. They are a special case, though, and it doesn’t really address the topic at hand. I would say that although many (or even most) Jews might feel they are an ethnic group, to an objective outsider they do not appear to be one. Not in the sense that we usually use that term and for the reason Mr. Dibble listed. The point, though, is that there is no “objective outsider” definition of an ethnic group - at least, if one is interested in actual anthropological theory. The term is one of self-idenification in opposition to others, as in the classic “who is a Lue?” problem: > [@](#): > > The word “ethnic group” has come to mean something like “a people”. But what is a people? Does the population of Britain constitute a people, does it comprise several peoples (as Nairn, 1977, tends to argue), or does it rather form part of a Germanic, or an English-speaking, or a European people? All of these positions may have their defenders, and this very ambiguity in the designation of peoples has been taken on as a challenge by anthropologists. In a study of ethnic relations in Thailand, Michael Moerman (1965) asks himself: “Who are the Lue?” The Lue were the ethnic group his research focused on, but when he tried to describe who they were - in which ways they were distinctive from other ethnic groups - he quickly ran into trouble. His problem, a very common one in contemporary social anthropology, concerned the boundaries of the group. After listing a number of criteria commonly used by anthropologists to demarcate cultural groups, such as language, political organisation and territorial contiguity, he states: “Since language, culture, political organization, etc., do not correlate completely, the units delimited by one criterion do not coincide with the units delimited by another” (Moerman, 1965: 1215). When he asked individual Lue what were their typical characteristics, they would mention cultural traits which they in fact shared with other, neighbouring groups. They lived in close interaction with other groups in the area; they had no exclusive livelihood, no exclusive language, no exclusive customs, no exclusive religion. Why was it appropriate to describe them as an ethnic group? After posing these problems, Moerman was forced to conclude that “[s]omeone is Lue by virtue of believing and calling himself Lue and of acting in ways that validate his Lueness” (Moerman, 1965: 1219). Being unable to argue that this “Lueness” can be defined with reference to objective cultural features or clear-cut boundaries, Moerman defines it as an emic category of ascription. This way of delineating ethnic groups has become very influential in social anthropology (cf. Chapter 3). Cite: [http://folk.uio.no/geirthe/Ethnicity.html](http://folk.uio.no/geirthe/Ethnicity.html) The “who is a Jew?” problem is not, as you have asserted, a “special case”; it is _exactly_ analogous to the “who is a Lue?” problem. They even rhyme! 😃 **Mr. Dibble** is, quite simply, wrong. At least, if he’s claiming some sort of scientific analysis based on consensus of anthropological opinion. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/128 "2010-09-17T15:27:56Z")
I tend towards the left side of the political persuasion, but this is a true example of the dreaded “political correctness” Like people who wanted to pretend that there were no differences aside from genitalia between men and women, Liberals have take up the cause that there is no such thing as race. Anyone with a modicum of sense can see that there are variations in physical characteristics among populations that trace their genetic heritage to geographical areas. These include obvious ones hair color and texture, skin color, relative length of limbs, and eye lid shape, as well as things such as susceptibility to certain diseases. Now it is all well and good to say that the traditional, 19th century view of races such as black, oriental, white are too broad and too European centric to be of any use. As another poster not so originally pointed out, there are big differences among North African, East African, and sub-Saharan people. The real question is not whether there are physical differences between men and women or among “races”, but so fucking what if there are? Men tend to be taller and stronger than women, but many women are taller and stronger than many men. So let’s not classify jobs by gender, but by ability. As for races, it is possible that we may find that Han Chinese are more intelligent on average than Northern Europeans, but that does not mean that some jobs should be reserved for Han Chinese, or that white kids should go to different schools. ---
**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:** [September 17, 2010, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/129 "2010-09-17T16:39:57Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > I tend towards the left side of the political persuasion, but this is a true example of the dreaded “political correctness” Like people who wanted to pretend that there were no differences aside from genitalia between men and women, Liberals have take up the cause that there is no such thing as race. Anyone with a modicum of sense can see that there are variations in physical characteristics among populations that trace their genetic heritage to geographical areas. These include obvious ones hair color and texture, skin color, relative length of limbs, and eye lid shape, as well as things such as susceptibility to certain diseases. > > Now it is all well and good to say that the traditional, 19th century view of races such as black, oriental, white are too broad and too European centric to be of any use. As another poster not so originally pointed out, there are big differences among North African, East African, and sub-Saharan people. > > The real question is not whether there are physical differences between men and women or among “races”, but so fucking what if there are? Men tend to be taller and stronger than women, but many women are taller and stronger than many men. So let’s not classify jobs by gender, but by ability. As for races, it is possible that we may find that Han Chinese are more intelligent on average than Northern Europeans, but that does not mean that some jobs should be reserved for Han Chinese, or that white kids should go to different schools. No one in this thread is denying that humans don’t vary in physical differences and those variations are often well defined geographically. The issue we are talking about is whether there are biological races of humans, the answer is no. The variations we see are clinal, and there are not genetically isolated populations. Anyone can easily distinguish between a Beijing native and a Berlin native. But to get from Beijing to Berlin, you see a continuous variation of one type leading to the other. It may seem like a trivial matter, but in terms of biology, it is very important. ---
**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:** [September 17, 2010, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/130 "2010-09-17T17:04:15Z")
> [@Krokodil](#): > > _1. Do you believe in biologically determined races?_ Yes. > _2. Why/why not?_ When my Sociology professor explained to me that there was only one race in the human species, he exuded all the credibility of a small child shouting “La la la I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” Blacks and East Asians have consistent and observable physical differences from, say, me and my extended family, and all Blacks and Asians I’ve met seem to feel there’s such a thing as race. So your definition of race is: a set of “observable physical differences.” Do you not see that this is a highly subjective and social definition? > [@](#): > > _3. If yes… > a) What are they (the number)?_ I don’t know. I believe there are over a thousand species of fish and insects, most of them yet undiscovered, but no credible individual can put an exact number on those either. > _b) What are the parameters of the groups?_ Hard to say. The phrasing of the OP seems to discount sociological or cultural parameters and I don’t feel personally qualified to discuss biological ones. Fortunately, not even the OP gets to dictate the parameters of how people are allowed to disagree with him. You seem to be unable to define, number, and name the very race categories that you are pleading are bio-genetically deliminated. Why is that? ---
**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:** [September 17, 2010, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/131 "2010-09-17T17:27:16Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > Because “race” and African ancestry aren’t the same thing. > > No they aren’t, that’s why Semitic people aren’t the same ‘race’ as Sub-Saharan blacks and why Charlize Theron is not considered black even though she was born in Africa. BTW [Semite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic) is a word with many meanings, but the only scientific use of the word Semitic is for the [language group](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages), of which includes many Sub-Saharan Africans. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/132 "2010-09-17T17:36:06Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Not true. If Jews do not form an ethnicity, what exactly do they form? Hell if I know. There’s _a_ “Jewish ethnicity”, sure, but _not all Jews fall under it_. > [@](#): > > They do **not** share a religion - because many are not religious at all: it is pefectly possible to be a so-called “ethnic Jew” (that word again!) and an atheist, An Ethiopian Jew who was no longer Jewish would become simply Ethiopian in people’s eyes, not a Jew. Ditto with an Indian Jew. No-one would consider him an “ethnic Jew”, they’d consider him “Indian”. IME, “ethnic Jewish” seems to map quite nicely onto “White Jew”. > [@](#): > > So, what are they? What are Jews? What do they all have in common? The Jewish religion. Yes, they may themselves be atheist, but I’m willing to bet their great-grandparents weren’t. And like I said, who would consider a non-religious Ethiopian Jew an ethnic Jew? Do you think such a one would have Right of Return, for instance? > [@](#): > > They have self-identity as a _nation_ or _people_ born of _real, fictive or adopted common descent_ - in short, they form an _ethnicity_. You’re the one putting adopted in there. It doesn’t stem from any definition of ethnicity I’ve encountered. > [@](#): > > You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that “ethnicity” has a hard-and-fast definition, and moreover, one that is under your control. No. But I do know when it is being used in a way that twists the meaning beyond common usage. > [@](#): > > Amusingly, the very term “ethnic” was originally used as a translation meaning “not Jewish”: Which is a complete _non sequitur_. What does ancient translation have to do with modern usage? And do you even read your own quotes? Look at what I bolded: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The terms ethnicity and ethnic group are derived from the Greek word ἔθνος ethnos, normally translated as “nation.” The terms refer currently to **people thought to have common ancestry** who share a distinctive culture. > > […]Therefore, you are incorrect in stating that it is a “mangling of the word”. Far from it. It is, indeed, a mangling of the word to apply it to disparate groups _with no common culture or language._ All they have in common is religion and some genetic markers. But they don’t form a biological population or anything like it. Maybe after a few millennia of blending in Israel, you could call the amalgamation of Ethiopian and Sephardic Jews an ethnicity, but now? No way. > [@](#): > > It is those for whom “ethnicity” is just another word for “race” (that is, of purely biological descent) who are of the opinion that Jews are not an “ethnicity” - and indeed, no-one denies that they are not a _race_. I do. There’s no such thing as a Jewish “race”. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/133 "2010-09-17T18:00:20Z")
[QUOTE=MrDibble;12926225Hell if I know. There’s _a_ “Jewish ethnicity”, sure, but _not all Jews fall under it_.[/quote] I recommend that you read my subsequent email, on the anthropological definition of “ethnicity”. > [@](#): > > An Ethiopian Jew who was no longer Jewish would become simply Ethiopian in people’s eyes, not a Jew. Ditto with an Indian Jew. No-one would consider him an “ethnic Jew”, they’d consider him “Indian”. IME, “ethnic Jewish” seems to map quite nicely onto “White Jew”. The Jewish religion. Yes, they may themselves be atheist, but I’m willing to bet their great-grandparents weren’t. And like I said, who would consider a non-religious Ethiopian Jew an ethnic Jew? No. You are simply wrong. An Ethiopian Jew who was an athiest would be an “ethnic Jew”, and there are some in Israel right now. Being an “ethnic Jew” has nothing whatsoever to do with being “White”. > [@](#): > > You’re the one putting adopted in there. It doesn’t stem from any definition of ethnicity I’ve encountered. Ancestry can be fictive, assumed, adopted. Just because _you_ have never heard of it being done, doesn’t mean it isn’t done - I’ve given not one but two real-life examples. > [@](#): > > No. But I do know when it is being used in a way that twists the meaning beyond common usage. We aren’t discussing “common usage”. In this very thread, _you_ are insisting on using the term “race” in its consensus scientific meaning. I approve of that - but you are now asserting that “ethnicity” must mean what \*you \* think it means in “common usage”, and not what the consensus of scientific opinion believes it to mean? Where’s the logic in that? By the same token, I _could_ announce “I think Blacks are a race and I’m right because it’s the common usage”. I won’t, because common usage (whatever that means) isn’t determinative of what either “race” or “ethnicity” really means. Jews believe they are a “nation”. Anthropologists believe they are an “ethnicity”. You don’t. You are simply incorrect. > [@](#): > > Which is a complete _non sequitur_. What does ancient translation have to do with modern usage? And do you even read your own quotes? Look at what I bolded: Indeed. to repeat what you have bolded: > [@](#): > > people thought to have common ancestry This supports my thesis. Jews believe in a common, though partly fictive, descent from the Hebrews of the Bible. Whether they appear Black or White, they claim a common ancestry - ask any Eheopian Jew. > [@](#): > > It is, indeed, a mangling of the word to apply it to disparate groups _with no common culture or language._ All they have in common is religion and some genetic markers. But they don’t form a biological population or anything like it. What has being a “biological population” have to do with ethnicity? Being a Jew, like being Lue, is a matter of self-reference and belief, not biology. Like the Lue, Jews may in fact appear to share more in culture with those non-Jews with whom they live, than with each other - and yet be an ethnic group. > [@](#): > > Maybe after a few millennia of blending in Israel, you could call the amalgamation of Ethiopian and Sephardic Jews an ethnicity, but now? No way. > do. There’s no such thing as a Jewish “race”. Read what I wrote again. I am not claiming that there is a “Jewish race”. I’m saying there isn’t a “Jewish race”. You are conflating “ethnicity” with “race”. Although they share some characteristics in common, they are not the same thing. Whatever definition one is using, everyone agrees 'race" has something to do with biology. Ethnicity does not - necessarily. ---
**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:** [September 17, 2010, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/134 "2010-09-17T18:28:26Z")
The topic of this thread is biology, so I think we should go with the way biologists use “ethnic group”, not how sociologists do. But as long as we’re clear which one we’re using, then it’s fine with me. I can’t see that “Jewish” would be a useful biological term, taken in the context of the entirety of the Jewish people in the world. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/135 "2010-09-17T19:15:41Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > > Lets assume you have some idea of what I’m talking about when I say black, Asian and white. Do you think there are biological differences between what I would call black, white and Asian? > > Not more than transient and arbitrary ones, no. Less so than putting green eyed and blue eyed people in separate categories, since there are so many people that don’t share the supposed physical characteristics of the “race” they belong to. There are plenty of pale “black people”, for example. > > > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > > Maybe I’m not clear on what “biologically determined” means but I am pretty sure that black parents tend to have black babies and white parents tend to have white babies. > > Because their parents consider themselves black or white not because of some biological reason. “Black” isn’t a skin color; there are “whites” darker than some “blacks”. It’s a social category. We call people “black” because some of their ancestors are known to have came from Africa and we still tend to hold to the old racist standard of treating “white” as purity and “black” as contamination. If you’ve got a little bit of “black blood” in you you’re contaminated and not “white”, while the guy who has more “white” ancestors than “black” still doesn’t count as “white”. > > It’s a combination of leftover racism and essentialism; treating things as if they had some kind of unalterable essence. It’s treating “black” or “white” people as parts of groups not because they are actually genetically similar to each other but because they have some sort of mystic essence passed down generation by generation that can’t ever change. Very common among conservatives, who freak out over the idea that such near categories aren’t absolutes, that species can change or that people aren’t always neatly, innately “male” and “female” or “black” and “white”. What I hear is /fingers in ears “lalalalala, I CAN"T HEAR YOU BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SUCH THING AS RACES” I don’t know what biologically determined means but it seems pretty clear and unassailable to me that race is heritable. Youa re saying no its not because there is no suchy thing as race, there is a social construct that racist people have create that they THINK passes from one generation to the next but it really doesn’t. An Asian couple is just as likely to have what these racists would call a black kid as a black couple would. That is what you sound like you are saying. If two Asians have a kid, how likely is that child to be what racists would call black? ---
**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:** [September 17, 2010, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/136 "2010-09-17T19:34:30Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > What I hear is /fingers in ears “lalalalala, I CAN"T HEAR YOU BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SUCH THING AS RACES” I don’t know what biologically determined means but it seems pretty clear and unassailable to me that race is heritable. Youa re saying no its not because there is no suchy thing as race, there is a social construct that racist people have create that they THINK passes from one generation to the next but it really doesn’t. An Asian couple is just as likely to have what these racists would call a black kid as a black couple would. > > That is what you sound like you are saying. > > If two Asians have a kid, how likely is that child to be what racists would call black? No one is denying that humans vary in appearance and that those variations are heritable. What we are saying is that those variations are clinal in nature (ie, they change gradually over distant), that populations blend into each other, and there are not genetically isolated populations. What you are describing is not “race”, which requires abrupt changes and isolated populations. We have any number of differing populations, depending on how you choose to slice and dice it, but there is no biological way to separate humans into races. It jsut doesn’t work because we are one, big breeding population. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/137 "2010-09-17T19:35:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The topic of this thread is biology, so I think we should go with the way biologists use “ethnic group”, not how sociologists do. But as long as we’re clear which one we’re using, then it’s fine with me. > > I can’t see that “Jewish” would be a useful biological term, taken in the context of the entirety of the Jewish people in the world. Do biologists ever use the term “ethnic group” - unless they are discussing anthropology? Or to put it differently - does any species other than humans have “ethnicity”? Edit: no-one is claiming that Jews form a distinct biological group, or that Jewish would be a useful biological term. ---
**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:** [September 17, 2010, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/138 "2010-09-17T19:43:13Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > > [@John\_Mace](#): > > > > The topic of this thread is biology, so I think we should go with the way biologists use “ethnic group”, not how sociologists do. But as long as we’re clear which one we’re using, then it’s fine with me. > > > > I can’t see that “Jewish” would be a useful biological term, taken in the context of the entirety of the Jewish people in the world. > > Do biologists ever use the term “ethnic group” - unless they are discussing anthropology? > > Or to put it differently - does any species other than humans have “ethnicity”? We might be getting there. It is noted that different groups of chimps and different groups of orangs have different “cultural” practices. But I don’t know that we, as humans, can detect the different physical traits that chimps might consider important. It might even be different smells. > [@](#): > > Edit: no-one is claiming that Jews form a distinct biological group, or that Jewish would be a useful biological term. OK. I just wanted to clear things up from the standpoint of where I think **Mr. Dibble** is coming from. Things can be much squishier in Sociology than in Biology. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/139 "2010-09-17T19:51:06Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > What I hear is /fingers in ears “lalalalala, I CAN"T HEAR YOU BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SUCH THING AS RACES” I don’t know what biologically determined means but it seems pretty clear and unassailable to me that race is heritable. No, it’s not because it’s imaginary, and you can’t inherit imaginary things. Two genetically and visually identical people can be labeled “black” or “white”, depending on how they are raised to look at themselves and the racial mythology of society at the time. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699/140 "2010-09-17T20:22:46Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > We might be getting there. It is noted that different groups of chimps and different groups of orangs have different “cultural” practices. But I don’t know that we, as humans, can detect the different physical traits that chimps might consider important. It might even be different smells. That is indeed interesting, but I am also interested if the term “ethnicity” has some sort of meaning to a biologist that would differ from that known to an anthropologist. > [@](#): > > OK. I just wanted to clear things up from the standpoint of where I think **Mr. Dibble** is coming from. Things can be much squishier in Sociology than in Biology. I think the problem here is that many people confuse biological traits with biological “race”, and that with “ethnicity”. Biologically, there is only one human “race” (though I understand at one time in the distant past there may have been several living simultaneously). However, there is a subset of group identification in which persons base either self-identification, or identification by others, on _real or perceived_ inherited differences. This is an inherently “squishy” concept, because the _choice_ of which differences matter, and how much difference is necessary, is a _cultural_ and not a biological one: for example, in America, any amount of _visible_ African ancestry makes you of the “Black race”, even though this may be nonsense biologically (hence, President Obama, with one White and one Black parent, is “Black” rather than “White”). In short, the question really has two answers - biologically there is no such thing as “race” (or rather, there is, and we all belong to the same one); OTOH, culturally there is a form of group identity known as “race”, by which persons in our culture have made a set of choices as to which sets of inherited features “qualify”, at to what extent. There is also another form of group identity known as “ethnicity”, which is based on somewhat different factors - real, fictive or adopted notions of shared ancestry and destiny and self-chosen identification, often but not always based on such factors as shared language, culture, religion or rituals. Naturally, in many cases (but not always!) notions of "ethnicity’ will overlap with notions of “race” or even, in some cases, “nationality” (as in ethno-nationalism). Hence, the person-on-the-street will often be justifiably confused and use the terms interchangably. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/race-yea-or-nay/553699.md?page=8)