Does Race Exist?

[naTia]

This is completely false. Why not take 30 minutes and read some reliable sources, or even Wikipedia, to learn a little about the (lack of) basis in science and genetics for the social concept of race.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics

 

Like this?

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1762596/

 

Or this?

 

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/humanities/claims-genetic-race-differences-rise-again

 

Or this?

 

Clearly this isn't a black and white issue and the argument is there even among scientists so I can't see how you would believe him to be completely wrong. The social definition of race being supported by genetics has a basis in the fact that there is a concentration of certain alleles in certain areas. The basic example of course being how Europeans tend to have lighter skin, whereas Africans tend to have darker skin. I admit these articles could be refuted, but it seems obvious that there is scientific basis for a definition of race.

Edited May 28, 2015 by The Captain Nao

[Avruch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics

 

Like this?

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1762596/

 

Or this?

 

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/humanities/claims-genetic-race-differences-rise-again

 

Or this?

 

Clearly this isn't a black and white issue and the argument is there even among scientists so I can't see how you would believe him to be completely wrong. The social definition of race being supported by genetics has a basis in the fact that there is a concentration of certain alleles in certain areas. The basic example of course being how Europeans tend to have lighter skin, whereas Africans tend to have darker skin. I admit these articles could be refuted, but it seems obvious that there is scientific basis for a definition of race.

Did you read any of the stuff you linked, or just look for likely titles? From the introduction in the Wikipedia article: "...it is not the case that there are any specific genes, that can be used to determine a person's race." The point, borne out by a fairly broad consensus of scientists, is that subjective categorization of race does not align with any particular or meaningful set of genes. Race is a purely social construct that has little or no meaning in any non-social scientific context.

 

Even in clinical practice and research, where race has historically been used as a proxy for clusters of disease predispositions, the concept has declined in use - precisely because the correlations are weak. You can't, for instance, reliably apply a presumption linked to people of southern African descent to an individual of north African descent simply because both are considered "black" in America.

 

Since race doesn't have a biological basis, it's worth it to ask - what is race? What makes it a social construct, what does that even mean? If we use American society as an example, we can observe that populations in the U.S. have socioeconomic histories that create divisions and differences - in economic circumstances, cultural habits, customs and perspectives, etc. While skin color globally is a smooth gradient linked to sun exposure, historical factors in the U.S. have created sharper distinctions in skin color than nature provided. What look like distinct racial differences in the U.S. - millions of pretty white white people, millions of pretty dark black people - are actually the result of migration and social circumstances. These same social factors also give rise to (and reinforce) other cultural distinctions. But sharp skin color distinctions in the U.S. are not indicative of actual racial distinctions in the human species, and any other differences in expressed characteristics have much more to do with sociohistorical baggage than they do with any variations in DNA.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Avruch

[naTia]

Did you read any of the stuff you linked, or just look for likely titles?

 

 

The argument is there even among scientists... The social definition of race being supported by genetics has a basis in the fact that there is a concentration of certain alleles in certain areas...  I admit these articles could be refuted, but it seems obvious that there is scientific basis for a definition of race.

 

From the wikipedia page I linked:  "The frequencies of alleles tend to form clusters where populations live closely together and interact over periods of time... This causes genetic clusters to correlate statistically with population groups when a number of alleles are evaluated. Different clines align around the different centers, resulting in more complex variations than those observed comparing continental groups."

 

Edit: I am not suggesting this to the extent of the fellow you previously quoted, but to dismiss any differences in DNA between "races" is to turn a blind eye to obvious differences in "races".

Edited May 28, 2015 by The Captain Nao

[Avruch]

Soo... if all you are saying is that every person has a set of genes linked to skin color, then sure. Everyone has genes for skin color. I'm not sure that is very meaningful. Ok, I'm sure it actually isn't. 

[naTia]

Soo... if all you are saying is that every person has a set of genes linked to skin color, then sure. Everyone has genes for skin color. I'm not sure that is very meaningful. Ok, I'm sure it actually isn't. 

Does this mean I can just say "everyone has different genes, so everyone is a different race"? No, of course not. The point is not simply "everyone has genes for skin color". It is "genes for skin color vary between "races" because of the alleles that have been concentrated in certain areas", meaning saying

 

This is completely false.

 

is the only thing that is false.

[Avruch]

Does this mean I can just say "everyone has different genes, so everyone is a different race"? No, of course not. The point is not simply "everyone has genes for skin color". It is "genes for skin color vary between "races" because of the alleles that have been concentrated in certain areas", meaning saying

 

 

is the only thing that is false.

 

I don't think you really follow what those articles are saying. Stating that certain genes cluster geographically around populations isn't an assertion of the biological basis of "race" - it's simply the obvious consequence of evolution. But these alleles cluster geographically, not by skin color - whereas race is purely a skin-color based distinction. So differences between groups of Sudanese and groups of Ghanaian people may be more significant than those between Sudanese and Egyptian or Egyptian and Anglo-Saxon, etc., just as differences between white groups of Norwegian people and white Spanish people may also be more substantial than any of the above. These genetic variations aren't racial at all; it just so happens that skin color also enjoys a clinal variation that roughly conforms to a smooth light to dark gradient moving out from the equator. 

[naTia]

I don't think you really follow what those articles are saying. Stating that certain genes cluster geographically around populations isn't an assertion of the biological basis of "race" - it's simply the obvious consequence of evolution. But these alleles cluster geographically, not by skin color - whereas race is purely a skin-color based distinction. So differences between groups of Sudanese and groups of Ghanaian people may be more significant than those between Sudanese and Egyptian or Egyptian and Anglo-Saxon, etc., just as differences between white groups of Norwegian people and white Spanish people may also be more substantial than any of the above. These genetic variations aren't racial at all; it just so happens that skin color also enjoys a clinal variation that roughly conforms to a smooth light to dark gradient moving out from the equator. 

I would disagree very much with this. Race is not based purely on skin color. Race is a distinction that is based on similar traits and characteristics. This includes language and national affiliation.

[Avruch]

Ok! I'm out. 

[Odin]

Art 3

(3) Niemand darf wegen seines Geschlechtes, seiner Abstammung, seiner Rasse, seiner Sprache, seiner Heimat und Herkunft, seines Glaubens, seiner religiösen oder politischen Anschauungen benachteiligt oder bevorzugt werden. Niemand darf wegen seiner Behinderung benachteiligt werden.

Article 3 from the german constitution:

(3) No person shall be favored or disfavored because of sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith, or religious or political opinions. No person shall be disfavored because of disability.

 

So, there you have even a differentiation between heritage and race written as law. There are different races based on appearance.  

If you want to buy a Labrador and you get a Pitbull, and the seller/breeder tells you "What are you talking about, a dog is a dog, there are only dogs in our world, whats that "race thing" you're talking about??", would that answer be ok for you?

 

 

And don't come with "you can't compare a human to a dog". Who gave us the right to not do so? God? No, damn individual selfpersuaded standards. We're both just species, the one more the other less intelligent. 

 

And what Arthur James was talking about, and yes he is no native english speaker, is that americans tend to denounce the existence of races since they can't figure their own ancestry anymore, and just call it human. Sounds boring, heh?

 

Or others start to  "Iam 1/16 Irish, 1/4 german 1/128 indian, 6/4² hawaiian" ... so lame, to even have aquired such data, they really must have wanted to know their ..human.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Wilhelm II