So, the best they can hope for is that there is a table of relative frequency for those traits and they cannot ascertain that the person absolutely and incontrovertibly belongs to any particular (culturally identified) “race.”
Thank you.
That has been my point. There are characteristics that show up with greater frequency among people who have lived (and bred) together longer, but there is no way to identify with certainty the “race” of any particular individual.
Therefore, “race” is a construct of commonly occurring characteristics, but is not a determinant for any individual. If no individual can be identified clearly as belonging to a race, then what purpose does “race” serve? It is not an objective reality. It is a category of perception. Cultural, not biological.
(The “language” and “clothes” aspects of culture are irrelevant, here. Race is “created” by placing certain groups of people into categories, then defining enough rules to put a boundary around those groups while labelling everyone who falls outside those artificial boundaries as “multi-racial.” The biological “fact” rests on cultural definitions of who is to be put inside the boundaries.
I am not arguing that “race” is the product of “racism.” I am pointing out that the “Three Races” of the nineteenth century have NO biological significance and that, if we keep dividing by perceived traits, we arrive at hundreds of races rather than a few. The six races currently used by Cultural Anthropologists indicate patterns of migration and contact. As such, they provide Jared’s “shorthand” for discussing human history. Beyond that, they become meaningless when attempts are made to define them. The best we get to through biology is that an individual has x% chance of appearing in group Z. Hardly a biological fact.
Tom, your first two paragraphs are basically correct. A person may be placed in one of the groups (out of 3, 6, or n) with greater than 99.99& probability. The more markers are involved and the smaller the group is, the higher the probability.
<<Therefore, “race” is a construct of commonly occurring characteristics, but is not a determinant for any individual.>> Of course.
<<If no individual can be identified clearly as belonging to a race, then what purpose does “race” serve?>> It makes the life (at least some aspects of it) easier.
<<I am not arguing that “race” is the product of “racism.” I am pointing out that the “Three Races” of the nineteenth century have NO biological significance >> If you demand “signigicance”. then DNA or the survival of the fittest are more significant. Race could be vied as a convenient classification system, like canine breeds: not needed for the survival of the species, convenient for the ACC. Although many dogs do not fit in it, the classification is still useful.
<<Beyond that, they become meaningless when attempts are made to define them.>>
No, they become “hard to define”.
The best we get to through biology is that an individual has x% chance of appearing in group Z. Hardly a biological fact.
I belong to A(+) blood group, 100% (becase I have A antigen, but no B). A series of other biological markers in my tissues places me in the racial group XYZ, with 99.9999% probability. I can live with that. Or without (I mean that any other group would be OK, or if I didn’t know which one I belong to).
I love your statistics, pulled right out of your ass. Until you provide some support for your assertions you have zero credibility. Tom and I have repeatedly noted the lack of data supporting your assertion that distrubitions map coherently onto race, and in fact I provided substantive citations to the contrary.
I’d open a pit thread to describe your assinine method of argument, but its just not worth it.