Define race--because now I'm confused

Keita and Co. are basically running the gamut of race denying fallacies. It would be amusing to cross out the fallacies one by one. Another sneaky point in the article to investigate is the claim that "Because this identification is possible does not mean that there is a level of differentiation equal to 'races'. The genetics of Homo sapiens shows gradients of differentiation" (clines). This line of thinking goes back to Blumenbach who remarked "one race does pass so sensibly into another you cannot mark out the limits between them". However it should be clear that if variation is not consistently continuous that any significant discontinuities would be the best place to draw lines to operationalise geographically associated human variation for description. This is an empirical question. Keita references Serre and Paabo on this question. Needless to say they found no significant discontinuities using cluster analysis and by "uncorrelating" alleles (which sounds dubious). Keita doesn't mention that Serre and Paalo's data comes from Rosenberg, who had conducted the largest global survey and genetic analysis at that time. Rosenberg's own analysis using correlated alleles led him to conclude that human global variation was structured along traditional racial lines. Keita simply ignores this in favor of Serre and Paabo. This is Serre and Paabo's graph.



This 2004 controversy has been explored further in more recent studies that used a much larger amount of data; evenly distributed, wide range sampling; and perhaps most imporantly, principle components analysis. PCA makes no assumptions about population structure. The data is fed in and commonalities in the autosome are identified and used to cluster populations based on shared ancestry. PCA generates clusters but is NOT cluster analysis. PCA is computationally demanding and cheap powerful computers have been the key factor enabling its use on large quantities of genetic data.



The 2009 study "Mapping Genetic Diveristy in Asia" sampled populations across Asia and found a major disconinuity between India and South East Asia. The admixed populations scatter between "Major Population Groups" or Races: (CN-UG (Uyghyrs), SG-ID (Singapore Indians), IN-TB (Ladakh), IN-NI (Tharu)). Some pertinent comments:

This flatly contradicts Serre and Paabo, confirms Rosenberg, and leaves Keita without a leg to stand on.

Admittedly there is little here about Africa, especially the boundary between SS Africa and N Africa. That will doubtless be coming soon. But as far as Keita's race denying "gradients" argument goes, it is simply full of crap. A major discontinuity between East Asia and Caucasians can be considered confirmed. In fact Bengalis cluster closer to North West Europeans than South East Asians, just a stones throw away. It probably isn't wise to give Keita the benefit of the doubt that there is a "gradient" between and among Caucasians and SS Africans also. In fact I think most studies find an even larger discontinuity.

It would still be possible for race to be a purely social category arbitrarily fitted to continuous variation, and then find clusters which match those categories. The PCA analysis proves this is not the case. Race categories are based on major biological divisions related to ancestry patterns.

The Role of Geography in Human Adaptation is another nail in the coffin of race denialists. The authors of this paper identified genes and SNPs that most differentiated French, Han and Yoruba. The race denialists would have you believe that these genes would then be found to be "discordant" and "clinal" when identified in other populations.

In fact the vast majority of them fractured nicely into the 3 major races:

 

The existence of an admixed population (Hispanics) does not mean the major races do not exist. People with significant Native American ancestry will never be called Caucasian by people who understand the meaning of the term.

 

Any Hispanic with Native American blood is not Caucasian. Granted they have Caucasian in their blood but still. As a mestizo, I don't want to be identified as a white person and vice versa. Both sides are happy being different.

 

we all came out of africa, we are all related, we are all one family....there are no races...

different physical appearances are the result of isolationism,environment and sexual selection, just as family members have a similar appearance so do tribal/ethnic groups...

 

there are other theories other than the out of africa model.

 

Australopithicus Afarensis (line from whence G.W.Bush comes from)




Australopithicus Africanus (line from whence Obama comes from)



Austalopithicus Frankensteinus (line from whence comes Romney Anomaly)

 

I recommend people interested in the topic re-read Kessy Athena's posts from around page 5 onwards.

They present a simplified version of the biological answer. Just about the most thorough answer possible, keeping with terminology the lay person will understand.

 

The idea that "more genetic variation within groups than between invalidates the race concept" is known as Lewontin's fallacy. There is more variation within chimps and humans than between them (Long 2010).

I can very easily tell apart Caucasians, East Asians and Negroes. That's because there is a major genetic discontinuity between them. Loving the "argumentum ad anime". Why not go for "smiley faces".

To understand why Lewontin's fallacy is a fallacy. Consider the fact that most living things share genes. I think we are 60% similar to bananas or something, and 90% similar to any other mammal. All of those common genes will have several variants or alleles that are randomly spread between individuals within species and races. But when populations diverge, due to geographic isolation, some genes will change in frequency. It could only be 0.01%, just one or two genes, but it enough to make a distinction. Let's apply this thinking to humans. Let's say there are 20,000 genes in humans. Let's imagine a population with no genetic divergence, all genes are randomly spread throughout the population. Individuals may have different alleles. Now, a geographic barrier emerges in the middle of this population. After 10,000 years we may see for example just 20 genes are at different frequencies. In "population A" 5 genes for +light skin, 5 genes for +body fat and 10 genes for +IQ. These may have secondary effects also. ("Asian straight hair gene also causes shovel teeth"). For example +IQ may reduce eyesight, "owing to the mysterious laws of the correlation of growth" (Darwin). In "population B" no change. Now there is a 20 out 20,000 gene difference. 20 genes between groups, 19,980 within. And yet they are distinctive. Lewontin's fallacy really is BS, it's sad so many parrot it.

 

Only he would care ...

 

Not quite. There's the human species with various subspecies or races. Stop feigning intelligence. You parrot propaganda.

All dogs are canines.
There are different breeds of dogs, though. A poodle is not the same as a St. Bernard...but they're both the same species.


This holds true with chickens, horses, cattle...and humans.

All people are human beings....but not all human beings are the same "breed".

 

But we can all agree ... All Racist are Cowards ...

 

Don't agree at all, but all race baiters are surely cowards.

 

So you DO agree that race exists and that there are more differences between the species than skin color. Good.

I don't at all agree that all "racists" are cowards.

Let's clarify. What is a "racist"?

 

All Racially motivated bigots are cowards in the fact that they have to desperately grasp at minute enviromentally motivated genetic anamolies to validate themselves or to reinforce a delusional percieved sense of superiority they could not otherwise justify.

 

No...that's your opinion...not a fact.

All (normal) humans prefer their own race and culture. negroes, asians and caucasians..."racist" is an invented word used as an attempt to discredit (usually white) people who speak out about differences in the races.

racism (noun)
An undetectable “systemic, societal, institutional, omnipresent, and epistemologically embedded phenomenon that pervades every vestige of our reality” (in the words of Negro scholar Omowale Akintunde),
It forces brown-skinned people to fail out of school, smoke crack, not get a job, abandon their kids, contract AIDS, commit every crime at a staggering rate, underperform on culturally unbiased tests of highly heritable cognitive abilities, and generally act like a bunch of god(*)(*)(*)(*) jungle savages, thus making them seem inferior to whites in every way outside of certain sports, or at least certain positions in certain sports (and to which Asians are somehow, mysteriously immune).
Usually rendered "blatant racism".
In minorities, the leading cause of depression, death, animal and child abuse, tears, impotence, low self-esteem, persistent whining, and congestive heart failure. Literally the worst thing in the entire world.

racist (adjective)

Expressing, suggesting, or hinting at discomforting truths about race.
Failing to sufficiently denigrate and discriminate against whites.
Directed at a white person by a non-white person: causing the speaker, or some (actual or hypothetical) like-race individual, to feel (or suspect that he may feel) unwanted, uncared for, unlikeable, uneasy, uncomfortable, upset, angry, guilty, hurt, cross, inferior, or stupid in some way, usually by the offending party being racist Often rendered as raciss, as in you raciss and das raciss.

 

Your arguement would have merit if I had not used the generic term racist. I said "racially motivated bigots"... consider this group a subspecies of the generic "racist".

As far as you claiming that "normal" people seek out their own race... and only feel comfortable among them... those are cowards and usually bigots. I live in a neighborhood where myself and my family are the only one that are different in pigmentation from the rest of the people in the cul-de-sac. I love it there... since they leave us to our own and pretend that we dont exist for the most part. I could have chosen a place where I would have been accepted by the average moron on the basis of skin color or a neighborhood where people of my profession have colonized ... but I hate those kind of people anyway and would much rather live ostracized.. but in peace.

Its really funny that these people who pretend I dont exist 99.9% of the time always run to my house when they feel they need protection or help from a percieved threat... they forget all about pigmentation then... I become a good freind who should come by sometime and how happy they are that we moved in.. how much safer they feel having an LEO living next door.

Its not normal people that you point out... its cowards and hypocrites.

 

How does one "act white" exactly?

 

If a man says he's a woman and acts like a woman, is that man a woman?

 

One way is that he fails to talk in Ebonics. He also fails to use a different voice in front of whites than he does in front of other races.

It's more a matter of omission than action.

 

That is a racist post. None of my black friends "talk in Ebonics" and none of them "use a different voice in front of whites than he does in front of other races."

 

Usta be there were 3 races...Caucasian (white)..Negroid (Black) and Mongoloid (Oriental). Then came a huge number of 'mixed races' (which were varying percentages of the 3 'original' races). In the last few years that became somewhat watered down. Ethnicity became a race. Jews became a 'race'. Italians became a race, Mexicans became a race...hell, every ethnicity and culture became a race. Religiosity became a race..sexual preference and dietary preferences became a race, gender is now a race. What part of town you came from became a race.
What with everyone having some form of preference for something, anything, the new racism prevails. How anyone can avoid being labeled a racist these days, is beyond me. Order a pepperoni pizza, and you apparently have a 'race issue'.

 

My advice? Back away from the keyboard. Open a window. And get some fresh air.

 

stop feigning knowledge you don't have.

"breed" is not a biological classification...a dog is a dog regardless of appearance, saying otherwise would be as bizarre as saying redheads are different "breeds" than blondes or brunettes...tall people are different "breeds" than short...

 

But ain't it the truth? c'mon, just look at the various replies over the years on this forum. People have been called 'racists' for everything from disagreeing over global warming to not subscribing to evolution. Look at the number of racist accusations leveled at people who prefer to let the courts handle the T/Z affair rather than weigh in with an automatic 'guilty' verdict. Ordering a pepperoni pizza, in the eyes and mind of a liberal vegan must be 'racist'.

 

I have NEVER seen any of the behavior your are describing. Do you have any links? Just because someone disagrees with a right winger doesn't mean they are calling the right winger "racist." Global warming, acceptance of evolution, and pizza do not have anything to do with race or racism. Is this a big problem in your life? People are calling you racist because you like pizza?! C'mon dude. The faux outrage destroys your credibility.