Does race exist?

polishpaddy

Isn't race a social construct,with no biological basis? Or is there something more going on here?

watty

Pretty much. More differences between different breeds of Dogs.

There is not much difference between Klu Klux Klan and NAZI in their racial dogma that has no scientific basis.

Where is the Conspiracy theory?

6th

There isnt a CT here. Moved to Humanities.

Mods feel free to lock/delete.

Affable

Race is taken as though it's a discrete difference rather than a continuous scale.

Diogenes

I can't believe I'm the first person to point out the irony of someone who's username is defined by their race(s) is questioning the entire concept of race.

turgon

Racism is often ironic. These racist people think they are better than others so they feel they have to go casting them out, and attacking them and scorning them. The irony being that if they wholeheartedly believed they were better than therm they wouldn't need to engage in symbolic racist action imo. Thyd be content enough in the racist conviction alone.

The Corinthian

polishpaddy wrote: »

Isn't race a social construct,with no biological basis? Or is there something more going on here?

Race is certainly biological - groups pass on common hereditary traits, such as skin pigmentation, hair colour or even medical conditions - in fact, there is no social construct to race, it's purely biological.

Ethnicity however is largely a social construct, in that while it includes biological commonalities, it also includes things such as language and religion.

The problem arises, not in recognising differences based on biological or social criteria, but when one ascribes deeper meaning to this, placing one group as better than another, or justifying different treatment of one group against another - essentially, humanity's love affair with tribalism.

Of course, what the specific lines of what constitutes a race is another matter. Humans are broadly divided into three; Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid; however (and especially with racialist groups) these can be subdivided to a level that becomes ridiculous - especially if you consider that if you go back a few generations, you'll quickly find people outside of your immediate community in the family tree.

ChocolateSauce

Diogenes wrote: »

I can't believe I'm the first person to point out the irony of someone who's username is defined by their race(s) is questioning the entire concept of race.

I would say the username defines nationality. There is no Polish race.

Malari

Diogenes wrote: »

I can't believe I'm the first person to point out the irony of someone who's username is defined by their race(s) is questioning the entire concept of race.

I think this is a large part of the confusion - people mix up "race" with ethnicity or nationality. The OP hasn't actually said anything about his race. His username only suggests where he was born/grew up/parentage.

DTrotter

It's a conspiracy but the eveidence was destroyed in wtc7, as you've pointed out with your many lucid posts.

watty

However Red Haired people are predominately in Celtic, Finnish and Jewish ethnic/national backgrounds.

Stereotypical Racism has little biological basis.
see also http://hiberniagirl.blogspot.com/2008/03/ireland-and-un-declaration-on-rights-of.html

The Irish and British are predominately pre-Celtic, pre-Viking, pre-Norman!

The most genetic diversity is NOT worldwide, but WITHIN Africa.

Most concepts of Race are really cultural sterotypes, not backed up Genetically. In one sense Racism is pointless, as Race (in their terms) actually doesn't really exist.

DTrotter

Tell this fella that.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/clearly_no_one_watches_fox_new.php?utm_source=combinedfeed&utm_medium=rss

The Corinthian

watty wrote: »

Most concepts of Race are really cultural sterotypes, not backed up Genetically. In one sense Racism is pointless, as Race (in their terms) actually doesn't really exist.

I think that that you are either confusing race and ethnic group, of which the latter is largely cultural and the former biological, or oversimplifying it.

Certainly race, meaning broad biological groupings within our species, does exist - not only on a superficial level, such as skin colour, but also where it comes to other higher incidences of inherited traits (e.g. lactose intolerance in Asians) or certain diseases (e.g. sickle cell anaemia in Africans).

Of course, the endless sub-division that exists in races in some quarters is certainly a (pointless) social construct, but as I said earlier, one can safely say that there are at least three principle races - more correctly racial groupings - which naturally overlap.

So, ultimately, I'm not disagreeing with you - just qualifying what you said.

watty

I was being simplistic. Race in this guy's terms is another thing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8129182.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/8144874.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8150619.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8152159.stm
(Actually this guy is sad. Probably more risk to himself than anyone else).

Actually Skin colour is curious.

As subsequent generations are born, of very pale Eurpeans, in places like Israel or South Africa, without selection due deaths or intermarriage the babies are born with darker and darker skin in each generation.

Paler Afro Americans are NOT always due to intermarriage either, but multigenerational in a Northern region.

Skin colour may not be as strong a racial trait as originally thought.

Ethnic groups can be Cultural or Biological surely?

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think that that you are either confusing race and ethnic group, of which the latter is largely cultural and the former biological, or oversimplifying it.

Certainly race, meaning broad biological groupings within our species, does exist - not only on a superficial level, such as skin colour, but also where it comes to other higher incidences of inherited traits (e.g. lactose intolerance in Asians) or certain diseases (e.g. sickle cell anaemia in Africans).

Of course, the endless sub-division that exists in races in some quarters is certainly a (pointless) social construct, but as I said earlier, one can safely say that there are at least three principle races - more correctly racial groupings - which naturally overlap.

So, ultimately, I'm not disagreeing with you - just qualifying what you said.

That isn't quite true that race is biological. Race is a social construct of selecting phenotypes that we hold as more significant than others, such as skin colour.

I agree that there are certain phenotypes that common in certain groups (as you say skin colour or disease resistance), but it is some what arbitrary whether we take these phenotypes over any other ones.

Two Africans may share the genes that produce the phenotype for black skin but have very little else in common. One of the Africans may have far more genes in common with an Asian than with another African living next door. We select the common phenotypes that mean something significant to us and say these two Africans are the same "race", and ignore the fact that one of the Africans on average has far more genes in common with the Asian.

We can select certain phenotypes and say right we are going to group people whether or not they have this, but that is an arbitrary human classification.

watty

That's kind of closer to what I was trying (poorly) to say...

Yes there are biological differences, but our selection of them to form Racial Groups is historical/Geographic/Cultural rather than science based.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

We can select certain phenotypes and say right we are going to group people whether or not they have this, but that is an arbitrary human classification.

I get the impression that people are trying to do the opposite of racialists and claim that there is no such thing as race, as opposed to the racialist over reliance on the concept.

Race does exist on a purely biological basis, but only in the most general and fuzzy terms. As I said earlier, you can broadly divide humanity into three racial groupings - Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid - but there are limits to how distinct these are. After all, we are all still part of the same species, and as a result phenotypes will cross over from one group to another in time, essentially because we cross-breed. Additionally, as the differences in race are essentially due to environmental specialization, we are all changing anyway.

The problem with the concept of race, from what I can see, is largely political. On one side you have racialists, who essentially employ largely discredited pseudo-science to induce superiority theories and on the other side you have the more politically correct who would prefer to redefine the issue so that it is simply censored, regardless of whether there is any scientific validity in the subject or not - the militant reaction to the book The Bell Curve is an example of this, if you consider that many of the book's critics had not even read it, let alone questioned it from a scientific angle.

The Corinthian

watty wrote: »

I was being simplistic. Race in this guy's terms is another thing.

Well yes, but if a nutcase believes in evolution, does that invalidate the theory? Personally I prefer to ignore such types and make up my own mind.

Skin colour may not be as strong a racial trait as originally thought.

It almost certainly does change over time, of course, how long is another question. Do you have sources for this?

Ethnic groups can be Cultural or Biological surely?

My understanding it that ethnic groups fall into the "and/or" category, although in modern usage, I think cultural tends to be the primary factor, while race is still used when biological traits are the sole defining characteristic. Purely an opinion/observation, mind you.

william hicks

"Race", is just a convenient term of reference.
beneath the skin,there is no difference.;)

The Corinthian

william hicks wrote: »

"Race", is just a convenient term of reference.
beneath the skin,there is no difference.;)

That's a nice thought, but not entirely true. While not exclusive to any racial group, certain medical conditions are significantly more prevalent to some racial groups than others.

Of course, if you meant what you said in a more philosophical way, I'd agree.

Zombrex

william hicks wrote: »

"Race", is just a convenient term of reference.
beneath the skin,there is no difference.;)

Actually a better way of putting it is that beneath the skin we are equally different.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

I get the impression that people are trying to do the opposite of racialists and claim that there is no such thing as race, as opposed to the racialist over reliance on the concept.

Well yes, isn't that the point. "Race" is a concept that was created before understanding of modern biology such as genetics, or understanding of historical migration spread.

Both biology and history show that there were too few humans around too soon ago for races to develop. To are too genetically similar to each other.

The Corinthian wrote: »

As I said earlier, you can broadly divide humanity into three racial groupings - Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid

You can but this is some what arbitrary. You could equally divide humans into completely different racial groupings depending on what phenotypes we want to classify by.

Depending on what phenotypes you decide to pick as significant you could divide one town in Wales as a different racial grouping from another town in Wales.

What you call "racial groups" can be helpful in understanding of a person is at risk of certain diseases or genetic disorders, or simply interest in tracking migration patterns and history.

But it would be a mistake to give the impression that the human species has some how divided itself into 3 distinct groups, which is what the concept of "race" implies.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The problem with the concept of race, from what I can see, is largely political. On one side you have racialists, who essentially employ largely discredited pseudo-science to induce superiority theories and on the other side you have the more politically correct who would prefer to redefine the issue so that it is simply censored, regardless of whether there is any scientific validity in the subject or not - the militant reaction to the book The Bell Curve is an example of this, if you consider that many of the book's critics had not even read it, let alone questioned it from a scientific angle.

All that may be true but it is some what irrelevant to this topic. I don't support censorship but just because someone wants to censor something doesn't mean there is a basis to it. I don't want to censor holocaust deniers but just because someone wants to censor them I don't think "Ah those deniers must be on to something"

Emme

Race determines how fast you burn when you go out in the sun! It's important to know what race you are so you can get the right suncream - we paddies should always use Factor 50+

Apart from that it isn't really important.

Joycey

Emme wrote: »

Race determines how fast you burn when you go out in the sun! It's important to know what race you are so you can get the right suncream - we paddies should always use Factor 50+

Apart from that it isn't really important.

What about Somalian born immigrants with Irish citizenship?

I agree with virtually everything Wicknight has said. The definition of both the word "race" and what constitutes or does not constitute each individual race are socially constructed, not biological fact.

Emme

Joycey wrote: »

What about Somalian born immigrants with Irish citizenship?

I agree with virtually everything Wicknight has said. The definition of both the word "race" and what constitutes or does not constitute each individual race are socially constructed, not biological fact.

On a more serious note the word "race" and its connotations shouldn't exist. So the Somalian could say "I'm Irish, of African origin". An indigenous Irish person could say "I'm Irish, of Celtic origin" but that might stir up a hornets nest - does an indigenous Irish person define themselves to be of Celtic, Viking, Norman, Jewish, Palatine, Huguenot, English Planter, Italian, Spanish or African origin?

That's my two cents, I'm not getting into a serious discussion here. A race is something that should be won, possibly by an Irish citizen of Kenyan origin!

Fratton Fred

If race does not exist, could someone explain why every single runner in the 100m finals is of Afro-Caribbean decent?

I firmly believe that there are physical differences and the world would be a poorer more boring place without them.

Salvelinus

Joycey wrote: »

What about Somalian born immigrants with Irish citizenship?

I agree with virtually everything Wicknight has said. The definition of both the word "race" and what constitutes or does not constitute each individual race are socially constructed, not biological fact.

What about the Americans people are fond of laughing at when they say they are Irish?

Salvelinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If race does not exist, could someone explain why every single runner in the 100m finals is of Afro-Caribbean decent?

I firmly believe that there are physical differences and the world would be a poorer more boring place without them.

Definitely, but are these attributes inheritied from ancestors who adapted to an environment? Aren't the best runners usually form Ethiopia or Kenya, so should the African race be split up?
I'm reading The Journey of Man by Spencer Wells, it's about how humans spread worldwideform Africa which is traced using gentics. Very interesting, especially that tehre is more genetic diversity within Africa than without.

Greyham

The Corinthian wrote: »

Race is certainly biological - groups pass on common hereditary traits, such as skin pigmentation, hair colour or even medical conditions - in fact, there is no social construct to race, it's purely biological.

exactly , to say "race" doesnt exist would be ridiculous, there are most definitely inherited racial characteristics exclusive to certain "races " of people, and re Fratton Freds comment , people often offer the theory that those people of afro caribean origin train in conditions with less oxegen , and hotter conditions so they then therefore have an enormous advantage of endurance and stamina over those who they race against in the olympics , id like to take an irish runner and have them train in those conditions and see what happens

philologos

Of course there are different races. Humans exhibit biological differences that distinguish people from one another. To say this isn't based on biology is absurd. I would like someone to explain how people of different skin colour, or of different biological features came to be if it were a "mere social construct"?

The Corinthian

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course there are different races. Humans exhibit biological differences that distinguish people from one another. To say this isn't based on biology is absurd. I would like someone to explain how people of different skin colour, or of different biological features came to be if it were a "mere social construct"?

I think you are confusing what has been said.

The objection made against any definition of race is that any definition is arbitrary and even in it's most broadest terms is effectively an academic construct.

Personally I would agree with this broadly, however in the PC tradition of redefining language so as to redefine reality, they have debunked race, but in not replacing it with any comparable categorization system for humans, have in effect dismissed all those biological differences.

philologos

Yes, but just because we are trying to promote society as a multicultural, multiethic, and multiracial one doesn't mean that we have to deny that there are differences between us surely?

The Corinthian

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, but just because we are trying to promote society as a multicultural, multiethic, and multiracial one doesn't mean that we have to deny that there are differences between us surely?

Personally I have no objection to recognizing such differences. Where Wicknight and others object is in the creation of biological groupings, which we call races and I can understand that given the negative tribalism that such categorization can engender.

The flaw though is in doing this they do not offer an alternative to race, thus dismissing such differences.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course there are different races. Humans exhibit biological differences that distinguish people from one another. To say this isn't based on biology is absurd.

Well it depends on what you mean by "race"

Yes there are different races if you simply mean different human classifications for humans that are largely arbitrary and based on humans selecting phenotypes, such as skin colour, that they feel are more significant than others.

But there is no "race" in nature. Nature doesn't think skin colour is any more significant than height or head size or ability to eat peanuts.

Jakkass wrote: »

I would like someone to explain how people of different skin colour, or of different biological features came to be if it were a "mere social construct"?

The choosing of certain phenotypes to classify people into different "races" is the social construct.

Two black African males may be far more genetically different than the same African and a white man from Wales.

The social construct of race say that the two Africans are the same race because they have the same skin colour and that the white Welsh man is a different race because he has white skin colour.

But if you take the genetic material of the first African and the Welsh man they may share, on average, far more similar genes, and thus phenotypes, than the second black man.

So why do we say to them that yes you are very very genetically similar but you are a different race because one of you has black skin and the other white, despite sharing lot of other phenotypes, and say to the two black Africans that they are the same race despite not have much genetically in common at all compared to the first set of men?

Why do we decide that skin colour matters more than other phenotypes?

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

Personally I have no objection to recognizing such differences. Where Wicknight and others object is in the creation of biological groupings, which we call races and I can understand that given the negative tribalism that such categorization can engender.

The flaw though is in doing this they do not offer an alternative to race, thus dismissing such differences.

I didn't know I was being asked to :pac:

I would go on a historical ethnicity, so I would say someone is of "Chinese origin" or "Asian origin", or "African origin" or as we get more mixed "European/Asian origin" etc etc

This becomes less meaningful the more populations spread, but I think that works well as a compromise of recognising that humans have a genetic and cultural history while also recognising that this can have little to do with what the person in the present will be like.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

I would go on a historical ethnicity, so I would say someone is of "Chinese origin" or "Asian origin", or "African origin" or as we get more mixed "European/Asian origin" etc etc

And when I suggested the most basic racial groupings to be "Caucasoid (Europid), Mongoloid and Negroid" though, you rejected this, even though it is exactly what you have proposed now - indeed, it is even less restrictive than your definition as native south Americans are racially Mongoloid, but not quite of "Asian origin".

This becomes less meaningful the more populations spread, but I think that works well as a compromise of recognising that humans have a genetic and cultural history while also recognising that this can have little to do with what the person in the present will be like.

Never disagreed with that and that has never been what was discussed.

Of course races vary and merge and there have been numerous attempts to sub divide these racial groupings over the years. Personally I am very sceptical of such sub divisions as they are more often than not founded in pseudo-science designed to support an ideology - just as abolishing any reference to race is.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

And when I suggested the most basic racial groupings to be "Caucasoid (Europid), Mongoloid and Negroid" though, you rejected this, even though it is exactly what you have proposed now - indeed, it is even less restrictive than your definition as native south Americans are racially Mongoloid, but not quite of "Asian origin".

If you guys, for some reason, want to change what race means and still use the term "race" I think that is a bit short sighted given that to most people race means something specific, the division of the human species into sub-groups based on biology. Sub groups that do not exist in nature.

To say that two black men are of the racial grouping Negroid implies something about their shared physical make up, a grouping that doesn't exist in nature, where as to say that they are both of African origin doesn't, it says something only about their long span history of their ancestors.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

If you guys, for some reason, want to change what race means and still use the term "race" I think that is a bit short sighted given that to most people race means something specific, the division of the human species into sub-groups based on biology. Sub groups that do not exist in nature.

We're not discussing what race means to "most people", we're discussing what it actually is and I while I do not think that it can realistically be used in any but the most general terms, I do think that is a bit short sighted to pretend that it does not exist either, just because we might be worried that the great unwashed might get the wrong idea.

To say that two black men are of the racial grouping Negroid implies something about their shared physical make up, a grouping that doesn't exist in nature, where as to say that they are both of African origin doesn't, it says something only about their long span history of their ancestors.

Except that something about their shared physical make up does exist in nature - their skin colour, for a start.

And simply ascribing such traits to geography is inaccurate; as I already pointed out the Mongoloid racial grouping is not simply Asian - but also American. Additionally the Caucasoid grouping is not European alone, but can be found throughout the middle east and as far as India. And last time I checked, Australia was not part of Africa.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/human-genome-project-announces-race-does-not-exist

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

We're not discussing what race means to "most people", we're discussing what it actually is

What does that mean? Are you claiming that the traditional and common usage of the word, that divides the human species up into distinct sub sets based on sets of biological phenotypes picked for significance to humans, is not the actual proper usage of the word?

That is news to me.

The Corinthian wrote: »

just because we might be worried that the great unwashed might get the wrong idea.

I'm not really worried about anything. It is simply a matter of truth. Races don't exist in the human species. The political implications of that are irrelevant. If they did exist in the human species I would have no problem saying this even if it meant that people drew conclusions from that which were dangerous.

I've never been one to shy away from the conclusions of biology.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Except that something about their shared physical make up does exist in nature - their skin colour, for a start.

Lots of things exist about their shared nature, but we don't consider them significant.

For example we do not classify all short people as a distinct race from tall people based on their height, because height has never been of that significance to us. We don't think that a tall, white, Egyptian is the same race as a tall black South African, but we would think that a short black Egyptian is the same race as a tall black South African.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And simply ascribing such traits to geography is inaccurate; as I already pointed out the Mongoloid racial grouping is not simply Asian - but also American. Additionally the Caucasoid grouping is not European alone, but can be found throughout the middle east and as far as India. And last time I checked, Australia was not part of Africa.

Is that the point. It is abritrary. You pick the phenotypes you want and the historical period you want and then you divide the human species into races. You change the phenotypes that are significant to you and change the historial period you are interested in and you get a different classification.

Which is fine if that fact is build into the classification, ie it is obvious that its is arbitary based on the initial critera.

The term "race" does not imply that, it implies the opposite, that this is something present in nature independently of how we classify.

How on earth can you use phenotypes to classify races when phenotypes can change regardless of racial heritage? The majority of the things I've seen mentioned here as proof that race exists can be put down to geography.