I think there is such a thing as race and racism, but this is for those who don't believe in the concept of race.

Definition of race:
a : an interbreeding group within a species
also : a taxonomic category (such as a subspecies) representing such a group
b : BREED
c : a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race


Definition of racism:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2
a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism

3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Well, this should be fun. I'm sure everyone will be civil, articulate, and unbiased in their posting. Where's my popcorn...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2019 03:59PM by Finally Free!.

At least we have our recurring "Recovery From Racism" post's to help us through this debacle!

Roy G Biv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least we have our recurring "Recovery From
> Racism" post's to help us through this debacle!

I don't know about you, but I was born into one of the most racist institutions in the history of the world, next to Fundamentalist MORmONs.
I was definitely brainwashed to believe deeply white supremacist myths, like the whole and having learned racism from my parents and grandparents, who were actually about as liberal as they came, for Mormons, but were still pretty racist, sexist, homophobic, by today's standards.

Definition of race:
a : an interbreeding group within a species
also : a taxonomic category (such as a subspecies) representing such a group
b : BREED
c : a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits

It's a cliche to say, "There's no such thing as race. We're all one race, the human race. Race is just a social construct."

We have different races of people.
The US Census requires you to identify yourself according to race. The most accurate figures we have on race in America is the US census. It has White on the left and Islander on the right, and 5 different races in between.

Overall Children
White, 61% 51%
Hispanic, 18 25%
Asian, 12 14%
Multi-racial, 6 5%
Native American, 2 4%
or Islander .7 < 0.5%

Those groups are all, "a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits"


https://www.aecf.org/blog/what-the-data-say-about-race-ethnicity-and-american-youth/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwgezoBRDNARIsAGzEfe6-VFFDD54Mxekmzq2UJdvP2znGNEfGZ8JLuZhG8jHQkfYwC-MV3PcaAn_-EALw_wcB/

"Members of the alt-right are enthusiastic proponents of ancestry testing as a way to prove their “pure” white heritage (with Scandinavian and Germanic ancestry being among the most desirable) and to rule out undesired descent from any other groups (including, unsurprisingly, Africans and the Ashkenazi Jews, but even certain European groups, such as Italians and Armenians). The belief in white superiority, and the need to preserve it, drives the alt-right movement—and genetics is both the weapon and battle standard of this new, supposedly “scientific” racism.

Those who disagree with alt-right ideologies may assume that the alt-right is merely spewing ignorant nonsense. This is certainly true for some of the alt-right. What is perhaps a more difficult truth is that many of the alt-right do, in fact, understand biology and genetics to an impressive extent, even if this understanding is flawed.

For instance, alt-right proponents have stated, correctly, that many people with European and Asian descent have inherited 1-4% of their DNA from Neanderthals ancestors, and those of African descent do not have Neanderthal heritage. They are similarly correct that Neanderthals had larger skulls than humans. Based on these facts, some within the alt-right have claimed that Europeans and Asians have superior intelligence because they have inherited larger brains from their Neanderthal ancestors.

However, this claim ignores that while there is evidence for the effect of Neanderthal DNA on certain traits, there has been no evidence for its effect on intelligence. Furthermore, scientific research indicates that the Neanderthals were not necessarily more intelligent simply because they had larger skulls. Unsurprisingly, the alt-right tends cherry-pick the ideas that align with their preconceived notions of racial hierarchies, ignoring the broader context of the field of human genetics.

Fighting racism with understanding
Just as the alt-right is no longer an easily dismissed fringe group, their arguments have some factual basis, and cannot be swept aside as the babbling of the scientific illiterate. The alt-right is not clumsy in their use of science and genetics in their battle for their “ideals.” Those who oppose the alt-right, and other racist entities, must arm themselves with the same weapons: education, namely scientific and genetic literacy.

Mounting scientific evidence has shown that humans are fundamentally more similar than different from each other. Nonetheless, racism has persisted. Scientific findings are often ignored, or otherwise actively misinterpreted and misused to further racist agendas of extreme political groups. Opponents of these forces must, through their own education and awareness, combat these misleading interpretations and representations of scientific findings.

Today, the question of “race” is no longer merely a political and social issue: as science has rapidly advanced, it has become irrevocably intertwined. The genome contains powerful insights about our biology that could unite us as a species, but which could also be dangerous and divisive if used without understanding. As we look forward to 2017 and onwards, it becomes ever more important to understand what our DNA says about what it means to be human."

Vivian Chou is a Ph.D. candidate in the Biological and Biomedical Sciences program at Harvard Medical School.

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

One thing can be said with certainty Hipanic (or Latino) is not a race but a cultural group. People from that background can come from a range of different origins.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing can be said with certainty Hipanic (or
> Latino) is not a race but a cultural group. People
> from that background can come from a range of
> different origins.
Stop the presses!
Jordan says the census is fatally flawed! How on earth could anybody possibly determine whether or not
They were Hispanic?

Hispanic means you come from a Spanish speaking culture. You could be white, black, native American (by which I mean the Americas not just the USA) or even of Asian origin, or some combination of the above and still be Hispanic. You could be of nearly all Spanish ancestry, from a family whose origins lie in France, Britain or Austria (yes there are such people), but your distant relatives in those countries would not be Hispanic.

It's not as if the American government is infallible, right?

> It's not as if the American
> government is infallible, right?


Unlike yourself...

Right? Did you see his post on the other thread in which he said "I actually met Lech Walesa back in the early 1980s" under circumstances he is not at liberty to disclose?

Jordan continues "I would like to say we had a long conversation and I helped him out but I didn't. It was only later it dawned on me that I should have done."

I mean, that is some Walter Mitty-level shit right there. Jordan thinks that he should have been more generous with his time and wisdom and that that would have "helped" Walesa in his work. If Jordan had fully engaged, perhaps the Iron Curtain would have fallen a few years earlier.

I guess the world can only lament the lost opportunity.

We've known he has a high opinion of himself, but wow!

I don't know how old Jordan is now, but 35 years ago he was already mature enough, educated enough, and experienced enough to "help" Walesa liberate Poland.

Pretty impressive.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2019 05:07PM by Lot's Wife.

It reads like he couldn't wait to divulge this secret information to showcase his "importance". We could just start randomly mentioning important historical figures from the last 50 years or so and watch how he responds with his "I shouldn't say anything, but I've met him and they used my advice to become what they were!"

At least Walter Mitty didn't ask others to believe his daydreams.

Ta-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa!!

science vs the social construct

That should close out the thread.

It should... but will it?

Not yet!

db: Science vs. the social construct

LW: That should close out the thread.

FF: It should, but will it?
________________________________________________

COMMENT: Exactly. But in case this isn't clear enough:

The OP definitions of "race" represent categories within humankind as socially and culturally identified and defined, primarily based upon perceived general physical traits, or stereotypical ancestral origins. The physical sciences do not naturally point to such "racial" categories. (Compare this with the term "gender" which *is* established by natural biological categories through distinct reproductive mechanisms, without any need for social constructs.) Racism represents the discriminatory attitudes that arise out of psychological and social projections within the social construct of "race."

In short, nobody here has denied that "race" (the term) exists as a social construct. What is denied is that race (no quotes) exists as a scientific, biological, genetic, or otherwise natural category.

Now, if someone thinks that "race" is naturally identified within the physical sciences, they need to: (1) Identify the necessary and sufficient conditions for a person to be identified with a race; and (2) locate such conditions within the physical sciences. When you try to do this, you will find that (1) is quite difficult and arbitrary. And even if you can correlate some racially motivated "trait" with a genetic marker, it will be very difficult to generalize that marker as a distinct, discrete (yes or no) category sufficient for meaningful racial identification.

Now, that should end it. . . It should, but will it?

Some joker will inevitably want to post something right after you just for the sake of annoyance.

I agree completely.


HH =)

Where's a Darwinian when you need one. They usually eat these arguments for lunch.

>> "Where's a Darwinian when you need one."

Probably busy evolving.

Or engaged in lighthearted banter of the sort that offends some RfMers.

Racism: a set of actions or behaviors related to what one "believes" about another supposed out-group.

Race: A genetic relationship between phenotypes.

Or, as dogblogger put it... a social construct versus a verifiable and quantifiable fact.

Apples and Salamanders comparison.

HH =)

This is silly.

The best example is traditional class discrimination in European countries.

Even amongst the nobility there was a strict social hierarchy -- the Austrian court was especially known for this.

Caste in India uses terms that are colour based from centuries ago but groups come in all colours and it's family and tradition based.

Catholics face discrimination in Northern Ireland and they are pretty good at telling who is who and it's not by colour.

The far right, fascists and white supremacists will always hate on anyone who doesn't look exactly like them...complete with missing teeth.

...complete with missing teeth.

No. No, you didn't!

They are all white Europeans and they can still tell who's who.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48760442

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They are all white Europeans and they can still
> tell who's who.
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48760442

Like I said, I believe there is such a thing as racism, and race, but what you referenced is just tribalism, separating people based upon their religious identity, which is far more superficial than race.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Like I said, I believe there is such a thing as
> racism, and race, but what you referenced is just
> tribalism, separating people based upon their
> religious identity, which is far more superficial
> than race.

I disagree. It is just as superficial. That is the point people are making which I believe you don't like.

Separating people based upon anything reduces them as people.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> schrodingerscat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Like I said, I believe there is such a thing as
> > racism, and race, but what you referenced is
> just
> > tribalism, separating people based upon their
> > religious identity, which is far more
> superficial
> > than race.
>
> I disagree. It is just as superficial. That is the
> point people are making which I believe you don't
> like.
>
> Separating people based upon anything reduces them
> as people.

If race was as superficial as religion why doesn't the US Census require us to identify ourselves according to religion?

Also, something you refuse to acknowledge, when an African sends their DNA in to be tested, it predictably returns results with 0% Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA.
If a European or Asian sends in their DNA it returns 3% Neanderthal and 4% Denisovan for Asians on average.
Is that as superficial as your CHOSEN religion?

Probably the same reason they don't ask about citizenship.

And we all have DNA variances. These don't make race.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Probably the same reason they don't ask about
> citizenship.
>
> And we all have DNA variances. These don't make
> race.
>
> https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/0
> 4/race-genetics-science-africa/
You didn't answer my question to you, but I did read the article, which debunks the headline, "There is no scientific basis for race" by admitting, "Somewhere along the way, perhaps in the Middle East, the travelers met and had sex with another human species, the Neanderthals; farther east they encountered yet another, the Denisovans. It’s believed that both species evolved in Eurasia from a hominin that had migrated out of Africa much earlier."
There in lies the huge scientific basis for different races.

Kori, show us one reputable geneticist who agrees with what you just said. Genetic admixture does not make for "race."

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kori, show us one reputable geneticist who agrees
> with what you just said. Genetic admixture does
> not make for "race."

You think it's just a completely random coincidence that DNA tests come back, predictably, negative for Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in Africans and predictably positive for Eurasians?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2019 03:46PM by schrodingerscat.

No, it is not coincidence. But patterns of genetic variations do not amount to "race."

Which genes should we care about when delineating a race?

Should there be a number of common genes that should define a race? If so, how many genes?

Do certain genes matter more than other genes?

Do we only care about genes that define appearance when defining a race?

What happens in mutations in which those genes that define a race appear in someone who doesn't share parentage of that race? (random mutations do happen after all) Is that person officially a member of that race?

Are all redheads a "race"? Is the fact that they are dying out make them protected?

There's a reason why pluto isn't a planet anymore. A group of scientists got together and realized there is no formal definition of a planet. When they made one, pluto no longer fit that definition and was reclassified. Science cares about definitions, they need to be specific. If you are going to claim that "race" is scientific, then you are going to need to point to the specific science definition of what constitutes race. Not the Webster's dictionary definition. Science requires much more specific definitions than that.

When you can produce such a definition, we'll talk. Up to now though, respected biologists have stated that there is no biological basis for "race".

Race as a social construct does, unfortunately exist, that's what used for the class of hate (thanks fossilman) we commonly call "racism". Social rules can be and often are separate from science.

But all this has been pointed out to you before. You claim to want to correct people's notions of things, yet you refuse to update your own information set when inaccuracies are pointed out to you.

Finally Free! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which genes should we care about when delineating
> a race?
>
The ones that come back from your DNA test results. If you have Neanderthal DNA you are Eurasian. If you don't you are African. If you have Denisovan DNA you are Asian or Melanesian. If you don't you are not.
Pretty simple really.
How is that not obvious?

I await your published paper showing that DNA, even the ones you've suggested have any relevance scientifically to define "race".

For the sake of argument though, let's say that a neanderthal made their way to africa, and a small group of people with obvious african lineage were shown to have neanderthal DNA, would that make them instantly Eurasian? If we go by your "rule" then yes, it would.

How much of Neanderthal or Denisovan is required? Are there specific genes that are required, or is it any? How do you handle random mutation?

It isn't as simple as you're claiming it to be.

And today, interbreeding has happened, where there are people who have the two genetic sets that you've stated, what "race" are those people. Are they all three races? That renders the term "race" using genes scientifically useless.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The ones that come back from your DNA test
> results. If you have Neanderthal DNA you are
> Eurasian. If you don't you are African. If you
> have Denisovan DNA you are Asian or Melanesian. If
> you don't you are not.
> Pretty simple really.
> How is that not obvious?

The bones have spoken. I'm through throwing them again and again hoping that they say something species-ific.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kori, show us one reputable geneticist who agrees
> with what you just said. Genetic admixture does
> not make for "race."

"After humans and Neanderthals met many thousands of years ago, the two species began interbreeding. Recent studies have shown that some of those Neanderthal genes have contributed to human immunity and modern diseases. Now researchers have found that our Neanderthal inheritance has contributed to other characteristics, too, including skin tone, hair color, sleep patterns, mood, and even a person's smoking status."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171005121106.htm

Immunity to modern diseases, skin tone, hair color, sleep patterns, mood and even smoking status, are proven to have all been determined by the presence of Neanderthal DNA in Eurasians and the absence in Africans. How is that NOT a genetic basis for race?
Personally, I think political correctness has warped our perception of the story obviously told by our DNA.

DNA does all the things you suggest. But there is still no biologically meaningful definition of "race." My argument with you is simply over that term.

Again, your position would be more persuasive if you could adduce two or three geneticists who agree with you that "race" is a meaningful biological concept.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DNA does all the things you suggest. But there is
> still no biologically meaningful definition of
> "race." My argument with you is simply over that
> term.
>
> Again, your position would be more persuasive if
> you could adduce two or three geneticists who
> agree with you that "race" is a meaningful
> biological concept.

Is "breed" a meaningful biological concept in dogs, cats, horses, cows or Pigs?
"Breed" is another word for "race", see Webster's 2nd definition in OP.
Just like some breeds (hybrids) of dogs are closer to wolves than others, some human races (breeds) are closer to our predecessor (Homo Sapiens Idaltu) than others. Europeans are a hybrid mix of Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Neanderthals. Asians are a hybrid mix between Homo Sapiens Sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans. Even Africans (the only "purebred" breed of Homo Sapiens Sapiens) are a hybrid between Homo Sapiens Idaltu and any number of Hominids who co-existed with them in Africa over the past 300,000 years.
Bottom line, we are all hybrids (mutts).

Just give us the names and research of experts who agree with you. Or explain why your views are more authoritative than those of geneticists.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just give us the names and research of experts who
> agree with you. Or explain why your views are
> more authoritative than those of geneticists.
The geneticists at 23andme.com and National Geographic who sent me my DNA test results indicating that I have 3% Neanderthal DNA and 4% Denisovan DNA, predictably, since I am Eurasian.
That and Paabo Svante who published Neanderthal Man, after mapping their genome.

National Geographic and 23andme have never endorsed the notion that "race" is biologically meaningful, have they. There's a reason for that.

23andme.com??? You mean the same geneticists who frequently return different results for the same person? Yep, I'll trust what they have to say on this topic... Where's their's and National Geographic's published paper on race and genetics? Oh, that's right, they don't have one.

Yeah, there's no way they would endorse "race" as a biological term. They know that their entire system relies on arbitrary dating. If they measure things at 300 years ago, they get one set of data; 600 years ago, a different set of origins; at 2,000 a very different one. And if they chose 120,000 years ago, every single one of us were entirely African.

There is nothing in that system that equates with "race."

How are you Eurasian? you have both Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA, according to you, wouldn't that make you both Asian and Eurasian?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just give us the names and research of experts who
> agree with you.
Just answer my question, "Is "breed" a meaningful biological concept in dogs, cats, horses, cows or Pigs?"

I am not a biologist, so I don't know. My hunch is that "breed" is as relevant as the term "nationality." "Nationality" is a real thing although a social and political construct as opposed to biological phenomenon. "Breed" strikes me as something comparable to that.

But "breed" per se makes no biological sense because it would disappear within two or three generations of interbreeding.

"Is "breed" a meaningful biological concept in dogs, cats, horses, cows or Pigs?"

Nope, take Dogs for example. In a pure breed dog, when a line is getting too inbreed, they introduce a dog from a different breed and within just a couple generations from that the line is once again considered pure-breed.

Dog breeds were entirely and literally man made.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bottom line, we are all hybrids (mutts).

You have to believe in Dog to get this.

Imagine you are a geneticist and you want to define race in genetic terms. So, you isolate a genome and say to yourself, "This genome shall from now on be identified as race X." Of course, in the next generation the genome will not be the same, so the racial identity that you so explicitly defined is now lost--right out of the gate.

What this shows is that any genetic identification of race that could endure through populations must be stable, and thus must consist of some relevant subset of a genome, along with whatever traits are associated with that subset, that persist in time. But even assuming that such a relevant subset could be meaningfully identified, in the next generation even that subset will likely prove unstable and after several generations it will be diffused through populations, such that the original racial identification project becomes entirely meaningless, making the race-defining project hopelessly untenable.

That is why there is no scientific basis for race.

So you are the master race ?

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you are the master race ?

I am mixed race. The concept of a master race should have died with Hitler and the Nazis.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The concept of a master race
> should have died with Hitler and the Nazis.

The concept of race should have died with the 4 humors of the body. People are people and why should it be, you and I should get along so awfully?

Well, if there's no such thing as race, and therefore no such thing as racism, then let's just give it a new name: hate.

Nice.

fossilman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, if there's no such thing as race, and
> therefore no such thing as racism, then let's just
> give it a new name: hate.

"Hate" is a verb. "Hatred" is the noun you are looking for.

Funnily Orwell predicted this direction of language, where grammar would be reduced to in turn reduce thinking. A bit Sapir-Worf but that's how it goes.

Funny, but the dictionaries I checked state that "hate" can be a noun. Merriam-Webster even gives the example, "These crimes are motivated by prejudice and hate." which seems fitting.

It's almost as if you didn't look this up before you posted nonsense. It's like you posted this to gain attention and feel self important.

> Funnily Orwell predicted this direction of
> language, where grammar would be reduced to in
> turn reduce thinking. A bit Sapir-Worf but that's
> how it goes.

No one who writes like that, or who doesn't know "hate" is a noun, has any business lecturing others on grammar.

We had a very long discussion about dreadlocks on a couple of other threads, regarding some stupid rules a temple presidency brought in. Of course, this is one of the biological differences that don't exist in humans... Since we all have rhe same type of hair, same eyes, same noses etc. But none of these exist, biologically speaking.

Fool.