I will abide by your instruction. But I would like to discuss the interpretation of the rules, which is not on topic for this thread. Would you be amenable to continuing that in PM or ATMB?
Heh. 
FWIW, I believe your question was a valid one, whose explanation may be any combination of biology and culture. You should have known, though, that whenever bringing up (possible) differences between races, the thread WILL end the same: The hyper-sensitive will scurry to tell you there is absolutely no differences between races that are not cultural, and the unabashed racists will run in, early harping on another opportunity to extol the genetic inferiority of blacks.
In answer to your question, Markxxx is correct. Black people don’t want to get their hair wet. More seriously, and I’m not being lazy by dismissing everything with culture, but I believe that to be the case, although that navel thing was interesting. Someone made the point earlier (and I forgot who it was – sorry!) if it were really a matter of bone density, why do white people dominate swimming gold medals, instead of Asians?
It’ll be interesting to see the shift, if any, in black gold medalists over the next 20 years.
So has Family Guy.
'Cause Seth McFarlane lives in LA, where there are a veritable fuckload of Asian people. I’ve lived in LA most my life. I lived in Korea Town in LA for maybe four years total. The Asians: good at math, not so good at driving. No no, I keed. I keed the Asians. They’re terrific.
Of course its a continuum but its not a SMOOTH continuum. Its very clumpy. It gets clumped up into what we call races (or ethnicities if you prefer that term).
The Han Chinese are very distinct and have very distinct genetic markers compared to Scandinavians or Sub-Saharan West Africans. When you get to the middle east, you might get a melting pot of all three but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t meaningful differences between them. I share your skepticism of why SOME people focus on racial genetics but to pretend that race doesn’t exist seems like an attempt to ignore the issue.
So how many ‘races’ are there according to your definition?
The claim that “race doesn’t exist” has to be put in context.
There are clearly populations of humans, i.e., groups of humans with sufficiently related DNA that they share various characterisitics that are genetically determined. Linnaeus thought that there were four such groups in the late eighteenth century. Blumenbach, (based on either more information reaching Europe than Linnaeus had available or based on some other criteria), determined that there were five races. In some way or another, you have decided that there are only three. Who did you lump together that Linnaeus and Blumnebach separated?
For a very long time, scientists acted in the belief that there really were some number of “races.” However, some of those very same scientists, Cavalli-Sforza prominent among them, who were attempting to define the races to a scientific certitude discovered that as they gathered more information, they had to keep splitting off different groups from among the four or five or three (or sixty) “races” that had already been identified. They also began to note that various traits attributed to one race or another were rarely consistent throughout the entire population or that those traits appeared in other populations, making them a less useful marker to identify a “race.” Beyond that, as they began to identify the various strains of DNA that were shared–or not shared–among various populations of humans tended to show up in “races” where they did not “belong.” From that, they drew the conclusion that the concept of “race,” meaning a very large population of humans with close biological ties, was a flawed concept that bore no useful purpose in science.
People who claim that “race does not exist” are using a shorthand expression that denies that you can tell the difference between someone from Beijing, Oslo, and Kinshasa-Brazzavile when you clearly can separate people from those extreme locations.
People who claim that race is “real” want to pretend that they can look at a person’s appearance and deduce something about the person’s biology or brain. They choose to ignore the facts that appearances deceive in many ways, that the huge numbers of various groups lumped into the small numbers of “races” frequently have less in common with people of the same “race” than they do with some other different-appearing group. For example, Ibo people from Nigeria and Greek people are both susceptible to sickle-cell disease while Zulu people from South Africa are not, yet the racialists will insist that sickle-cell is a “black” disease.
While the people saying “there is no such thing as race” create their own problems by not defining the terms well enough to be clear, they, at least, have more facts on their side than do the people who simply look at skin color and eye shape and make broad generalizations about disparate groups that are not related.
Sorry, but ‘there is no such thing as race’, at least in my case, is based on the failure of the proponents of ‘race’ to provide a consistent and meaningful definition of ‘race’. It is the proponents who are required to provide the definition of the thing they claim exists.
Are you white or caucasian ? Perhaps you should inform the US government that there is no such thing as race. Most people don’t seem to have a problem answering that question on the census.
Unfortunately, there clearly is a concept identified by the word “race.” It is not a useful indicator of biological facts, but it has been applied in Law and occurs in sociological and cultural discussions all the time.
One may note that the concept is based on error and that it is useless in a biological discussion of humanity, but simply the bold declaration that “there is no such thing as race” has to be couched in explicit terms of biology or genetics, otherwise, it is simply wrong.
Millions of people have been harmed, based on the fact that they had ancestors imported from Africa to the U.S. and laws were written to exclude them from participating in the affairs of this nation. Tens of thousands are still harmed because they are treated differently because of the color of their skin. If you wish to invent a new term to identify the perception on which they have been persecuted and suffered discrimination, go ahead, but the standard speakers of English will continue to use the word with which they are already familiar. Regardless that many, (probably most), beliefs regarding those people are rooted in error, those beliefs are still rooted in a discernible phenomenon–their separate appearance from others among who they live. Declaring “there is no such thing as race” simply feeds the egos of those who claim we do not need any laws to protect others from “racial” discrimination.
I do, and never answer questions like that, because any answer other than ‘I decline to answer’ would be dishonest for me. I have no problem with people believing there is such a thing as a ‘race’. I have a problem who take such a belief and assert it as a consistently defined fact.
I don’t think you have anything to worry about.
For example are Jews, Italians or Arabs white ?
Are the Khoi-San of South Africa bleck ?
Are the Indo-Chinese oriental ?
Its always been loosely defined .
Are you agreeing with me?
No. I see race as an inconsistently defined construction .
Yes, you have repeated that position ad nauseum, and it is with that position that I continue to find the most fundamental error - the same one that our op started this thread off with.
You are saying that for any two groups that are not exactly matched as genetic population pools (which means any two groups really), any outcome difference is due to biologic differences. And to me that is as strange as saying that it is impossible for biologic differences to contribute to outcome differences between population groups.
People who live in France are not the exact same genetic pool as those who live in Russia. Mortality rates, suicide rates, alcoholism rates, fertility rates, frequency of sexual encounter rates, education level, etc … are all different between those groups. By your thesis all those differences MUST be due to biologic differences between those groups.
If you, and our op, instead were saying that biologic factors contributed to these outcome differences, and offered up say, evidence that a genetic marker known to be associated with a predisposition to alcoholism was more common in the Russian population than in the French one, then that could be a discussion worth having. It would not disprove that cultural factors played a role, but it would be part of rational discussion.
But what you and our op are doing is saying that a difference in outcome means that biologic factors MUST play a role (not “may”, “must”), and you go farther than our op, and claim that “genetic differences drive outcome differences. Period.” That takes the discussion out of a looking at the evidence for each outcome and the ways in which culture, environment, and biologic factors) some genetic, some epigenetic, some environmentally mediated) may affect the particular outcome and how those factors may interact with each other. It just concludes an answer - outcome difference means outcome difference caused by biologic factors.
Here’s a good break-down of this entire argument by a credible source.
Dr. George W. Gill is a professor of anthropology at the University of Wyoming. He also serves as the forensic anthropologist for Wyoming law-enforcement agencies and the Wyoming State Crime Laboratory.:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html
“… I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a high degree of accuracy in determining geographic racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80 percent accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon just one of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations.”
“The “reality of race” therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether “real” or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is “only skin deep” is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.”
" Although recognizing that embracing the race concept can have risks attached, we were (and are) more fearful of the form of racism likely to emerge if race is denied and dialogue about it lessened. We fear that the social taboo about the subject of race has served to suppress open discussion about a very important subject in need of dispassionate debate. One of my teammates, an affirmative-action lawyer, is afraid that a denial that races exist also serves to encourage a denial that racism exists. He asks, “How can we combat racism if no one is willing to talk about race?”
“Furthermore, the politically correct “race denial” perspective in society as a whole suppresses dialogue, allowing ignorance to replace knowledge and suspicion to replace familiarity. This encourages ethnocentrism and racism more than it discourages it.”
And they do. There you go, that’s all “race” is–a set of characteristics. People can argue about which characteristics belong to which race, and that’s OK. Individual people can exhibit characteristics belonging to lots of different races, and that’s OK. Just because someone makes a list of characteristics and looks at people to determine whether they have those characteristics doesn’t mean they are doing anything bad.
That is meaningless. A thing which exists is consistently defined. That doesn’t mean definitions never change as they become more precise, or even less so. But it does mean that it is not redefined to justify different arguments. That is akin to saying a raven is like a writing desk if you redefine a writing desk to be a black bird. If you have a consistent definition of race, say what it is. Then explain how it applies to this thread.
You talk like it is well accepted fact that there is no such thing as race. This is certainly not the case among lay people asnd it seems to be the case amongst most anthropologists as well:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/race.html
Did you catch that last part, some of the almost half of anthropologists think that race exists but that there are better way to look at human variation than through race.
So maybe the OP’s cite wasn’t so full of shit.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html
Even the contra-argument doesn’t dismiss the notion of race:
One reason I think its stupid to deny the existance of race is that even the anthropologists that fall on the side of denying race, they fall on the side of denying the “concept” of race. In practice, they are able to examine remains and determine with a high degree of accuracy the “race” of the decedent.
I think it weakens the credibility of anyone to deny the existence of race just as it weakens your credibility if you deny that IQ scores represent anything meaningful at all. An Anthropologist might attribute a great deal of the popular concept of race to unnecessary distinctions between biologically indistinct populations and a psychiatrist might assign a great deal of the difference in IQ between races to “nurture”
For example the prevalence of sickle cell really has very little to do with being black as it does with living in an area where malaria is enough of a factor that sickle cell can be a survival trait. This is correlation but geographies create “bundles” of correlations from skin color to bone density and those bundles are what anyone on the street is going to call race.
The reason all of this has become such a sensitive topic is that there is scientific evidence that one of those correlations might be IQ. This is such a horrible concept to so many people that they prefer to deny that the concepts of race or IQ have any validity at all. These people become very easy to ignore.
I don’t think you can win a debate with the likes of Chief Pedant by saying “nothing you say has any validity because both IQ and race do not exist” when psychiatrists and anthropologists both agree that they do (though they disagree on what it means).