Read more about the genetic ancestry of the Andaman Islanders here. In short, their superficial similarity to some African populations is a result of convergence, not shared ancestry (at least no more shared than the common ancestor of all humans). They are not closely related to any other groups except perhaps for some nearby islanders, and their closest (but still distant) mainland relatives are certain populations in India.
Exactly. I could correctly sort both groups into their accepted racial category. Thanks for conceding my accuracy. I don’t care if you don’t like the category negroid; it exists and people use it.
This is not their “accepted racial category”, unless you’re talking to a 19th century ‘race scientist’. And how is this at all relevant in a discussion about genetics? “Negroid” is an archaic term that’s useless in any discussion related to ancestry or genetics. You could say they’re “short dark people”, and you’d be right – and many people use such terminology. That doesn’t make it useful or relevant at all in this discussion.
I didn’t realize this was a discussion of genetics. I thought it was about race. Specifically, I thought it was about black American kids. “Negroid” is used by anthropologists around the world. I learned it in college 16 years ago. Both the groups I was asked about are classified by Wikipedia as negroid. Wikipedia, I believe, may be more recent than the 19th century.
It’s been about race and genetics (among other things). This particular sub-topic (and MrDibble’s examples of Andaman Islanders) came up in response to claims about the genetics of “black people”. Since “black people” include many groups that are not closely related to each other, it’s not a useful categorization when discussing population genetics.
“Negroid” is used today in forensic anthropology and not much else. Certainly not in any discussions of population genetics or human ancestry and evolution.
“Black people” may be an unhelpful category in genetics, but it’s helpful, and accurate, in American racial discussions. Particularly once one realizes that there are genetic and cultural components to race in the US.
Are you arguing that there is no genetic identifier or cluster of identifiers to define “genetic black people” and therefore, there’s no such thing as “black people” in the US?
It’s certainly relevant to some discussions about race. The particular sub-discussion we’ve been having (with the Andaman Islanders stuff) was about genetic ancestry, and thus “black people” and “negroid” are useless and even deceptive categories.
No, there’s definitely such a thing as “black people”, in the US and elsewhere. I’m unaware, though, of any genetic identifiers that distinguish all “black people” in the US or elsewhere from all “non-black people”.
nm
Well, good, as long as we all agree black kids exist, we can discuss their academic performance.
I’m fully aware that racial categories are terrible science. But race matters in the US, people self-identify as members of races, and pretending that races don’t exist is dishonest. They do exist.
Who is saying they don’t exist, at least as a sociological categorization? The discussion of performance has veered into discussions about the inherent genetic intelligence of black people.
And if were just a sociological categorization I wouldn’t be able to make so much money in my turnstile experiment, would I?
The two have nothing to do with each other. American society defines ‘kind of dark’ people as black. If you pick every ‘kind of dark’ person, most of them might self-identify in the sociological group of “black”. That doesn’t tell you anything about anything other than how the sociological grouping is defined – which is, for the most part, by superficial features.
Thanks, I think I’m catching up. So black people exist, but the categorization is too broad, genetically, to be meaningful. Therefore, any discrete differences in intelligence must be attributable to cultural differences, not genetic ones.
And I suppose the other side is: what we identify as race is largely genetic, so heritable intelligence cannot be dismissed as the basis for racial differences.
Am I close?
Somewhat. The “blacks are inherently genetically less intelligent” crowd actively argues that not only should such an explanation not be dismissed, it must be accepted. And I (among others), arguing on the other side, point to specific experimental evidence that refutes genes as an explanation for the test-score gap between various race/population groups (among other reasons to reject this explanation at this point).
YOU are the one that brought up sociological groups. I know you’re trying you’re hardest to make this difficult and conflate and do everything you can to suggest the term “the Black race”, as it is used and applies in the U.S. is utterly meaningless, but guess what? It’s not. Pick a turnstile and bring cash and I’ll prove it to you.
Where did I say it’s meaningless? It’s not meaningless, unless we’re talking about genetic ancestry. It has plenty of meaning sociologically speaking. Your “turnstile” hypothetical proves nothing except that the sociological grouping “black people” is based on superficial features.
And what causes those superficial features to be there?
Genes (and other things), some of which are common in related groups and some of which aren’t. In your turnstile hypothetical, you’ll pick lots of “black” people who are actually much more closely related to various white people and white populations than to various black people and black populations.
As an example – whenever my wife and I get around to reproducing, our kids will be seen as “black”, but they will be much more closely related to Ashkenazi Jews and Scottish people than to pretty much all groups and all people in Africa except (relatively) an extremely small number.
I see what this is, and I’m not playing. Andy has defined the terms of the debate, and under those terms has declared himself the victor. I’m unimpressed.
Andy, I’m sure you think you are both anthropologically and morally correct. But stifling debate on this topic hurts blacks far more than whites.
Let’s assume intellectual differences are cultural. What’s the correction? Ban rap music, saggy jeans, and fatherless homes? Try and educate all American blacks that their very culture is inherently deficient?
Now let us assume that genetic studies (which are politically impossible now) reveal no differences in intellectual capabilities of adults, but show brain developmental rates differ by race and gender. It may be the case that only Asian females should have a full high school schedule in 9th grade. Asian boys and white girls should wait a year, black girls and white boys should wait two years, black males 3. We could shift the curriculum to support all. Boys would take ALL their English, History, and Foreign Language in 9th and 10th grade, all Math and Science in 11th and 12th.
What would be wrong with this? Nothing, but we’ll never know if it should be done because “black people” have no measurable genetic differences from Asians so there’s nothing to research.
And yet, Daquan can’t find the equilibrium price of butter.
Kind of making my point for me, here.
Genetic, yes. Racially-correlated, not in the slightest.
This sentence doesn’t make any sense at all.
And are you sure you are the one to talk about correlation? From what I remember, you’re incapable of doing the simplest r-value calculation.