One more time: Racism exists. But there is no such thing as "Race"

I am not taking a solid stance on the fundamental question. I am not a scientist, and I know my limits. I have read this scientific view you are expressing and citing, before and I find it a credible assertion. I am going to try to reword what I think you are trying to say and you tell me if they gel.

Not all that long ago, science was still absolutely convinced of the idea of race after spending hundreds of years selling it as fact, even as they gradually began minimizing its actual importance. Now they are telling us that modern genetic science proves that what they sold us on 'race' was a myth. In fact there is no scientific basis to categorize people by 'race'. We still have a cultural construct of racism because the myth was so universal for so long, that 'scientific 'myth begat a social and cultural reality that will be hanging around for a long time, especially since its so hard to kill the myth.

Its not remotely contradictory. The belief in a myth is real and it can drive the creation and construction of racism and the cultural and social institutions that racism begat.

Sometimes another way of putting an assertion, helps clear things up, for those who are not so invested in their agenda they refuse to understand.

 

As so (lamentably) happens in threads, the response has nothing to do with a quoted post and everything to do with something else that the responder 'needs' to get out.
No mention nor suggestion of a panacea was made. The fact of 'racism' being counter productive was stated.
"So far, the 'advantages' of insisting on racial difference have not outweighed what history has shown to be the shortcomings thereof. Clearly, seeing oneness and unity would be infinitely more constructive."
It could not have been more clear and simple.

 

I apologize that my point wasn't clear.

There are several points I'm trying to make.

1st our nature as the human species is distrust of people we view as different.

2nd
Pretending race doesn't exist gets us nowhere

If these two points have nothing to do with what you stated I think you're posting in the wrong thread.

 

Your rebuttal is predicated upon a false premise. The same problem your source had. That in order for race to be a valid premise it must be a subspecies and not an eco type. An assertion which is patently false and wholly illogical. A subjective argument which is solely made in an effort to be politically correct and remove the concept of race.

As I’ve already pointed out before, minute changes in genetic code cause huge differentiation between groups. For instance we share 80% of our genetic code is shared with domesticated cattle, 91% of our genetic code with a cat and 96% with chimpanzees.

Race is NOT a subspecies and was not intended to be. Race is simply the observation of the distinct and OBSERVABLE and clearly distinguishable traits that different groups of humans belong to.

Race is not based solely on eye color. It’s based upon a myriad of different categories which each group can be easily distinguished from the others; ranging from skin color to skull and brain size, to skull shape, teeth patterns, facial structure, musculoskeletal structure, the inclusion or absence of different biological aspects such as fast twitch fibers, to intelligence, aggression and susceptibility and immunities to certain diseases.

The caucasoid, negroid and mongoloid races are inherently different and easily distinguished and identifiable attributes between each race.

 

The 3 pictures shows different races - blacks (or African), Aborigibals (I believe they are the most archaic human group), and Indians, who are actually considered Caucasian, or white.
Race is not defined just by skin color. There are visible characteristics that are pretty distinguishing, and these differences are visible in DNA.
Each race has its own distinguishing features that go beyond skin color. That’s why the differences between what’s commonly considered Black people and what’s commonly considered White people go way beyond skin color. The differences present are in body chemistry, bone shapes, muscle shapes and other features. In biology when we are talking about species and subspecies these differences would be used to differentiate between these groups (call them species, subspecies, races, etc).
Here is an example - the easiest way to tell whether a canine you are looking at is a coyote or a dog is by looking at tail - dogs never have strait tails. So, if that one fairly small difference can be used to differentiate between a dog and a coyote (full blown separate species that can produce viable hybrids), then why can’t we use common features to describe a race?

If you honestly can’t tell the difference between people in those photos then that would explain why you claim people are the same and all blacks are considered blacks just because of people’s skin color. Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there, and anyone who is not woke can see these differences. Instead of arguing that races don’t exist, a more accurate way for you would be to actually insist on using ethnicities, as Africans from west Africa are quite different from Africans in the East. But that would counter your own claims that we are all the same.
Also, each race is supreme in the environment it evolved, not a single race is supreme over another. So, it’s OK to discuss races, eco-types, species, subspecies, or whatever label you choose to use, without getting into race supremacy. One can argue that races don’t exist because there is more to a race than skin color, like the differences between Africans from East and west Africa. But then the correct assertion would be to use ethnicity instead of race.
I also would like to add that even though human speciation is a subject of great interest to me, and I read a lot on the subject, I would never advocate any form of discrimination against any race, including white (in contrast to current progressives who attempt to achieve equality via legal systematic discrimination). I think biologists by being honest and open about human speciation would improve medicine and treatment, and this knowledge could be used even in dating.
Honest question to you - why pretend races don’t exist? Why not unify all people by celebrating their racial differences instead?

 

You are saying there are no eco-types in humans?

 

such outdated terms no longer have any scientific basis in fact.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

 

Again the same argument they’re making is the same problem I addressed earlier. A quote from your article:

“If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others.“

This is simply not true. For instance we all have alleles for height but the average height of mongoloids and caucasoids is significantly different. We all share alleles for eye color but the distribution within the races is vastly different.

Again, they’re attempting to make the argument that the term race Is synonymous with subspecies which is just factually incorrect.

 

The problem is rather that there are too many such things. The most important one is the social construct, based primarily on skin color and secondarily on eye and hair color, facial features, hair form, etc., which is centuries old, divides people into white or caucasoid (European), black or negroid (sub-Saharan African) and yellow or mongoloid (East Asian) on the basis of superficial appearance, and has no scientific basis. Then there is the one that is actually scientifically valid: statistical clusters of gene frequency associated with geographical ancestry. The problem arises because there is some overlap between the two, but people tend to make judgments of race based on what is readily perceptible, not what is scientifically measurable. So there may be four people, A, B, C and D, of whom A and B are considered "white" and C and D "black" based on appearance, or even self-identification, yet their genes would show that A is more similar genetically to C than to B, and D more similar to B than to C. In that sense, what we normally think of as a person's "race" has no scientific validity. But that doesn't mean there is no validity to studies of different gene frequencies in different populations. Indeed, evolution runs on such differences.

 

In biology physical differences between groups of the same species are known as sub species. With humans, we use the term race. It isn't that there aren't differences between humans. It is that we use a special word to describe them than we do for the rest of species.

Usually sub species are creatures that are on the verge of speciation. They are likely to evolve into separate species in the future. With the term race, this isn't the case. All human races are so close to being identical that there is no indication of future speciation. When races are mixed, the offspring share characteristics of the races of both parents, just like they do with parents of the same race.

You could call a litter of domestic cats creatures of different races because their coats are colored differently. But

Good, I get a chance to agree with Golem for a change. In the science of Taxonomy (classification of living beings) the last classification in the tree is species which is a group than can reproduce with any other member of of the group assuming the right mix of genders.

There is no race. To be more accurate I should say that there are sub species. These are animals of the same species with some things in their genome that would suggest they are tending toward speciation (evolving into separate species.) There are no sub species of human beings. The genome of all "races" is the same. Skin color or other differences in appearance make no more difference in humans than fur color does in domestic cats. There is nothing in the genome suggesting any march toward speciation. Genetically, we are all the same.

So Golem is correct. Race is a sociological construct driven, apparently, by a dislike for some of the things that make us look different from one another. It is bias with no basis in science at all. If one wants to practice racism or change opinions about it, science is the last place to go.

 

With few exceptions, looking different from one another is not the definition of a sub species. It happens all over the animal world. Every animal looks different from every other one in the same species at least in mammals. A genome that suggests future speciation is a sub species. The sub species will have a different appearance from each other and even carry different common names but they are sub species because it looks like the species will break up into two or more species over time. For now they are all of the same species and can reproduce among each other.

We humans are all unique in terms of appearance but we are exactly the same genetically.

 

Sub-species are typically on their way to speciation due to geographic and/or reproductive isolation: "Isolation drives speciation." One type of sub-species is the "breed" such as we have created artificially in domesticated plants and animals, and is encountered to a degree in nature, including human populations: individuals of a given breed will have offspring of the same breed, but hybridization -- i.e., reproductive mixing or "mongrelization" of populations -- leads to a situation where individuals who appear to be of the same breed may have offspring who are not. This is common in "white" populations, as European genetic ancestry is characterized by large-scale migrations, conquests, and assimilations of of previously isolated ancestral populations.

We certainly aren't exactly the same. There are gene frequency differences among populations with distinct geographic ancestry. There is no indication that geographically isolated populations of pre-modern humans did not speciate like any other organism, or that we would not have done so had our populations continued to be isolated long enough.

 

So? Did you have a point.

I'm assuming that if you bring that document, you read it. So what if ethnicity is a socially constructed concept? Ethnicity, unlike race, is socially constructed by definition. That's why, unlike race, it's a useful concept. State your point and support it with quotes, please.

 

Why would anybody think Socialism is immoral? It's a political position. I don't agree with libertarians. That doesn't mean I consider libertarianism immoral.

Legislation IS morality. By definition. The only reason it's illegal to kill, or steal, or rape, .... is because of the moral implications. But that's another matter.

Morals and ethics imply actions. Specifically to human action. I don't know what to tell you about somebody who has racist beliefs they never act on anymore than I can say anything about somebody fantasizing about rape.

 

I don't pretend anything. I simply explain the position of the different sciences. Up to you if you think that attributing it to me makes you feel better about your beliefs about "races".

 

It is much ado about nothing. Regardless of whether blacks are a different race or not, they are different. They have different physically different characteristics. If you look at your lab results and normal ranges, the blacks have different normal ranges. Whether it comes from heredity or is genetic, they have different values just like the other "races". Hispanics tend to put value on families while Orientals tend to value education. The blacks tend not to value education nor family as much as either the Hispanics or Orientals.

Like all "races", they have a large variation of characteristics within their "race". Some good, some bad.

I use the word "race" for lack of another word.

 

Well... I think you grasp the concept well. But I wouldn't quite rephrase it that way. Basically, Science wasn't "convinced" that races existed. There were many flaws in the classification even before geneticists finally put it to rest. And the fact that it's a social construct doesn't mean that the concept doesn't exist. It's just not useful. It doesn't define anything. The actual myth is that the concept is useful.

 

Thanks for the comments.

 

It's predicated on only one premise: that you cannot produce a paper, study, article.... anything that shows that "race" has any meaning whatsoever in biology or Anthropology. Which is my point. And my "premise" is proven by the fact that you keep responding to this, but never produce any credible document that would completely "obliterate" my point.

If I were you, I wouldn't bother wasting my time with semantics and start looking for that document.

But if you insist. The fact that there are no such thing as "black" or "white" "races" is easily demonstrable. By what I said: skin color is determined by one gene only while other characteristics like eye color are determined by way more (in this case 16)

Now... that is easy to understand, obvious and need no further explanation (I don't think). So the article goes on to find out if there is any use whatsoever for the classification called "race". And it turns out it doesn't. Since the term "race" is not usually used in biology, it tries to find an equivalent concept in biology. "Subspecies", "Ecotype", "population", ... and others were possible candidates. But they all fail.

None of which are unique to any significant group of human beings. And this is the reason why the term "race" is of absolutely no use and, therefore, does not exist in Science.

Oh God! Now you jumped from 20th century debunked concepts to 18th century debunked concepts that only exist in white supremacist pseudo-science.

 

Here is one. How many dozen more would you like? If you don't understand that there is a genetic difference between blacks and whites and that that difference carries PROFOUND medical implications, you haven't been paying any kind of attention.

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijeb/2014/108291/

 

Then you don't understand the science.

 

Considered by whom? And what does any of this have to do with this thread. There is no such thing as "races" in science. So whoever you are quoting as the "considering" part is probably not a scientist. At least not one who is alive today. And "archaic human group"???? That's straight out of a David Duke handbook.

Of curse they're visible in the DNA. Even the difference between siblings is visible in a DNA test. As are the similarities.

Look. I don't think you're getting it. If you take any of those and put them in a suit, depending on which part of the world you are they will be considered white, black, indian, .... If starting at birth, you give them proper nourishment, proper healthcare, send them to the best schools and universities, one of them is likely to earn a Nobel Prize one day.

From a genetic point of view, the degree of difference between two DNA sequences is usually done through an analysis called AMOVA (Analysis of MOlecular VAriations). From this test you can extract the differences off different variations between two individuals of the same species. Just because variations exist, that doesn't mean doesn't mean they are different species because there are large variations even among siblings. The threshold to determine that there is a subdevision within the species (race, for example) is 25% The AMOVA comparing chimpanzees in Upper Guinea, and those in the Gulf of Guinea show a 36% variation. Which means they are different species.

If you take the most different individuals you can find. Say an aborigine from the Patagonia, and a tall blue-eyed Swedish person... even of the opposite sex... the most difference you are likely to find is 4.3%

So no! There is absolutely no such thing as "races"

That's a great question. Why WOULD I pretend races don't exist if they did exist? If they did exist, why bring up scientific references one after another, and challenge everybody else to do the same. I should learn from you, right? Just pull crap out of my ass. It's waaaay easier just to repeat the same garbage that is all over white supremacist webpages without looking at the actual science, like many have done here, wouldn't it?

Why do you think I go to all that trouble of researching the scientific literature when it's easier to just... repeat the readily available pseudoscience?

 

Perhaps because it mandates that the individual sacrifice for the collective, in part by replacing morality (the individual code of right and wrong) with ethics (the collective majority opinion of right and wrong). Or perhaps because it relies upon an unnecessary degree of authoritarian control to succeed. Could be a lot of reasons, including the ones that other people use to claim that Capitalism is similarly (or diametrically) immoral. Just because its a political position doesn't preclude it from also being a moral one. But those interested in objective legislation do not base their political support or opposition of it on the moral implications of it.

Not necessarily.

legislation
[ˌlejəˈslāSH(ə)n]
NOUN

1. laws, considered collectively

law
[lô]
NOUN
law (noun) · the law (noun) · laws (plural noun) · Law (noun) · the Law (noun)

1. (the law) the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

morality
[məˈralədē]
NOUN
​

1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior

We don't regulate all actions that are 'wrong' or 'bad.' We regulate those actions which are unacceptably disorderly. This is because the purpose of our laws are not to make people moral, but to facilitate the peace necessary for self propelled prosperity. Our laws are not our morals. The countries that legislate their morals are all Theocracies.

We legislate to preserve order, not rightness. Those are illegal because they cause dissorder and dysfunction of society. Its also immoral to lie, hoard, verbally offend, cheat... but these things are legal (with rare and specific exceptions) because they do not disrupt the functions of society enough to warrant legal attention.

Agreed.

Sure you do. You just said: "Morals and ethics imply actions." Unless you'd posit that fantasizing is an 'action' that warrants intervention by the state, then there's nothing more to be said about it.
​

Theocracies legislate morality and concern themselves with what ppl may be fantasizing about to prevent us from damning our souls to hell. Its Nanny State with a 'god' as Nanny. That's how racism and homophobia and mysogeny were ever institutionalized into govt in the first place- by claiming they were morally acceptable or even obligatory by social controllers using moral codes as legal codes. Theocracy and regulating morality by law are directly contrary to having a free and intellectually diverse society.

...which is why a lot of our political elite would very much like to be able to define and legislate morality for us.

 

What I'm saying is that they are NOT the same, equivalent, or.... [insert any word you want to use (since you seem intent on using semantics as your defense)]... comparable to "race" in human beings. "Race" doesn't exist in human beings according to science. Nor does anything equivalent to race.

 

Exactly! And well put!

You are correct that the concept of "race" isn't typical in biology at all. Even in other species. The corresponding and more accurate term is sub-species, as you say. If it's ever used (which is rarely) it is a shorthand for "sub-species". Which simply means "any division you can come up with under species" Because, as you said, "Species" is at the bottom of the "tree".