PC Debate: Your preferred term?

[toddjh]

Yes after decades of hearing that sort of smarmy, patronizing, for lack of a better analogy, 'passive aggressive' racism, I am quick to call it out into the open.

Part of the problem is that the term "race" has not been adequately defined for the purposes of this discussion. It is true that attempts to define "race" in terms of genetics have been flawed, but some people here seem not to realize that the average person doesn't care about genetics at all.

Different races may not be genetically distinct, but they are certainly recognizable to the average person based on physical characteristics. And that's all it takes. Biology and genetics are utterly irrelevant if the concept can be defined adequately in a social context.

Edited to add: That said, I don't think the initial comment meant anything disparaging. It was simply a linguistic quibble about the literal meaning of the word "Hispanic," not a comment on the people who identify themselves as such.

Jeremy

 

[Larspeart]

Boy, looking at the poll, we have a VERY white forum audience.

We sure aren't big on multiculturalism here, are we? Perhaps a little bit 'exclusive'?

 

[toddjh]

Boy, looking at the poll, we have a VERY white forum audience.

"Not black" is not the same as "white."

We sure aren't big on multiculturalism here, are we? Perhaps a little bit 'exclusive'?

Er...in what way? I have no idea what skin color other posters have unless they say so, and they have no idea what mine is. It's hard to be exclusive when everyone's anonymous.

Jeremy

 

[DanishDynamite]

RandFan,

I don't think the case is closed yet as far as whether race or the equivalent term sub-species, can be applied to humans.

Article from Wikipedia

Some excerpts:

Many biologists feel that in this usage we may justifiably speak of dividing Homo sapiens into races. Many others, however, assert that in humans there is in fact insufficient categorical variation to justify the classification of humans into multiple races in a strictly biological sense.

Humans clearly vary considerably – enough to make early scientists accept the view of Carolus Linnaeus that humans should be divided into several sub-species. By far the greater part of human genetic variation, however, occurs within "racial" groups and the variation between racial groups accounts for less than 10% of the total.² Nevertheless, although the difference between "races" is less than 10% of the difference within any particular "race", this does not in itself invalidate the suggestion that there might be different races of Homo sapiens sapiens. The rules of biological classification do not set any 'smallest allowable difference' between taxa: any distinct difference is sufficient.

However, a distinct difference is only one of the two conditions that must be satisfied before a different form can be classified as a sub-species or even a race; the second is the lack of significant gene flow between populations. In the case of human "races", there historically has been little or no gene flow between, for example, aboriginal Australians and black Africans, between Asians and Caucasian Europeans, or between native American Indians and Hispanics. As such, interbreeding, although theoretically possible, was rare.

In recent centuries there has been a significant change in this situation. People from one continent began to travel to others on a regular basis; today such travel is widespread. As such, interbreeding is not only possible but widespread. Give this change, the lines between races are fading, and perhaps totally removed, in some regions.

It would appear then that a few centuries ago, races did exist, but that with advent of modern travel means, the mixing of these races is beginning to make the term untenable.

 

[Larspeart]

"Not black" is not the same as "white."

touche


[/B][/QUOTE]
Er...in what way? I have no idea what skin color other posters have unless they say so, and they have no idea what mine is. It's hard to be exclusive when everyone's anonymous.

Jeremy [/B][/QUOTE]


But here you are wrong. I said 'based on the poll'. The resluts are (as of my writing this) 35 posters who are 'not black' and 1 that stated they 'are black'.

Wow! 1 whole black person! We sure are a diverse crowd!


http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/

 

[fishbob]

07-23-2004 09:27 AM

There it is.

 

[RandFan]

I don't think the case is closed yet as far as whether race or the equivalent term sub-species, can be applied to humans.

Words are simply tools for communiation. It really comes down to what is meant by race. As I said earlier, there is perhaps some value to use the word race when discussing the variations of humans that resulted in the separation of those humans by geographical areas. However, it is significant to note that any one of us could have offspring that could very possible match the variations of any other group given the right conditions. In other words, if natives of scandinavia were moved to certain parts of Africa and reproduced and their offspring in turn reproduced they would eventully take on the charachterisitcs of native Africans. I think 6 generations is necassary.

It would appear then that a few centuries ago, races did exist, but that with advent of modern travel means, the mixing of these races is beginning to make the term untenable.

And this mixing is significant when it comes to determining whether or not humans can truly be subdivided by race.

Race can also be examined from the angle of interbreeding. For example the Drosophila. A species of flies. Has a number of documented strains. When these strains are interbred, fully fertile and sometimes even larger flies are produced. Yet, when these hybrids reproduce, their offspring are prone to genetic defects and infertility. Further breeding of these offspring leads to more extreme cases of the same. This scenario has been documented in many different animal species (King 118).
This type of genetic divergence is nonexistent in the human species. To be classified as separate races, humans would need to possess this hybrid disability. The “races” of the human species are variable in degrees of melanin, which does not qualify them to be called as such.

Furthermore, the lack of gene flow was due to geogrophy or cultural norms and not biological. So it would seem the lack of gene flow was never really valid in determining whether or not there are seperate species.

 

[varwoche]

In other words, if natives of scandinavia were moved to certain parts of Africa and reproduced and their offspring in turn reproduced they would eventully take on the charachterisitcs of native Africans. I think 6 generations is necassary.

That is a mind-boggling statement. I hope it's true but I'm skeptical. Have a reference?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Words are simply tools for communiation. It really comes down to what is meant by race. As I said earlier, there is perhaps some value to use the word race when discussing the variations of humans that resulted in the separation of those humans by geographical areas. However, it is significant to note that any one of us could have offspring that could very possible match the variations of any other group given the right conditions. In other words, if natives of scandinavia were moved to certain parts of Africa and reproduced and their offspring in turn reproduced they would eventully take on the charachterisitcs of native Africans. I think 6 generations is necassary.

Not quite sure what you mean.

Firstly, the "variations of humans that resulted in the seperation of those humans by geographical areas" is backwards. The sepeartion resulted in the variation.

Secondly, if natives of Scandinavia moved to certain parts of Africa and interbred among themselves, they would take on no characteristics of native Africans, at least not in the first 1000 generations.

And this mixing is significant when it comes to determining whether or not humans can truly be subdivided by race.

Have the experiments you quoted on flies been tried on human races as well?

Furthermore, the lack of gene flow was due to geogrophy or cultural norms and not biological. So it would seem the lack of gene flow was never really valid in determining whether or not there are seperate species.

The reason for the lack of gene flow is immaterial. Could be geography, could be something else. The point is that it seems fairly clear that races among humans did exist a few centuries ago.

 

[RandFan]

Have the experiments you quoted on flies been tried on human races as well?

Are you kidding? Yes, humans have bred between species quite allot and the offspring of those specief have also bread with others of the same cross breeding.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Are you kidding? Yes, humans have bred between species quite allot and the offspring of those specief have also bread with others of the same cross breeding.

I can only assume this is sarcasm. Am I right?

 

[RandFan]

Not quite sure what you mean.

That it depends on what you mean by race.

Firstly, the "variations of humans that resulted in the seperation of those humans by geographical areas" is backwards. The sepeartion resulted in the variation.

Typographical error. I don't deny being human. But thank you for pointing it out.

Secondly, if natives of Scandinavia moved to certain parts of Africa and interbred among themselves, they would take on no characteristics of native Africans, at least not in the first 1000 generations.

And you base this on what? Before I'm forced to conced anything let me point out that I have not posted the references for my claim. I read it in what I believe is a science journal. I have been challenged on it and will withdraw it until I can back it up. Can you back up your claim?

The reason for the lack of gene flow is immaterial.

I disagree. What is the purpose of such designations?

Let's try this. If I seperate a species of animal based upon any given trait and then seperate them so there is no gene flow would that create a new species?

Could be geography, could be something else. The point is that it seems fairly clear that races among humans did exist a few centuries ago.

Not clear at all. Of course it depends on what you mean by race. I would say that most scientists disagree with you.

 

[RandFan]

I can only assume this is sarcasm. Am I right?

Is there a reason why you believe that humans have not met the criteria of the experiments for the flies?

 

[DanishDynamite]

That it depends on what you mean by race.

Ahh. Well that seems fairly obvious to me.

Typographical error. I don't deny being human. But thank you for pointing it out.

No problem. And let me assure you that I shall always try to point out errors in your posts. No extra charge.

And you base this on what? Before I'm forced to conced anything let me point out that I have not posted the references for my claim. I read it in what I believe is a science journal. I have been challenged on it and will withdraw it until I can back it up. Can you back up your claim?

I can only back my claim by refering to the theory of evolution. Still, it seems a fairly strong source.

I disagree. What is the purpose of such designations?

Kindly have a look at the link I provided earlier. It explains hoe sub-species are determined.

Let's try this. If I seperate a species of animal based upon any given trait and then seperate them so there is no gene flow would that create a new species?

Depends on your time scale of sepearation.

Not clear at all. Of course it depends on what you mean by race. I would say that most scientists disagree with you.

And I would refer you to the link I gave earlier.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Is there a reason why you believe that humans have not met the criteria of the experiments for the flies?

Is there a reason you can't answer my question?

Is there a reason that drug tests done on monkeys or pigs must subsequently be done on humans before the drug is released?

 

[RandFan]

I can only back my claim by refering to the theory of evolution. Still, it seems a fairly strong source.

Oh, I like that. I back my claim by referring to the theory of evolution also. Cool, I didn't realize it would be so easy.

Depends on your time scale of separation.

Why? I don't see anything about time scale in the information you provided.

And I would refer you to the link I gave earlier.

It's one link and it does not say what ratio of scientists support what theory. There is ample evidence that the notion of race is dismissed by many if not most biologists and anthropologists. I will get you some links. I have to go for an hour but I will be back.

 

[RSLancastr]

Or did you think the entire world was black and white?

No mention of whites was there. The poll was about how blacks are referred to, and how they wish to be referred to. So the categories were black and non-black. You fall into the latter category, and so were represented.

Chill.

 

[toddjh]

But here you are wrong. I said 'based on the poll'. The resluts are (as of my writing this) 35 posters who are 'not black' and 1 that stated they 'are black'.

Wow! 1 whole black person! We sure are a diverse crowd!

What I disagree with is that those numbers are due to some kind of "exclusion." I don't even see how this type of forum has the mechanism to exclude based on race. It's certainly better than a lot of other places on the net.

And as for the lack of racial diversity, I'm not sure. I suppose it would be a sign that all is well if we had a spread that was more representative of the general English-speaking population, but I don't really understand the concept that we don't have "enough" black people here. What are we supposed to do, implement some kind of Affirmative Action plan? Block white people from joining JREF until the racial quotas have been met? Advertise for more black posters?

Jeremy

 

[RSLancastr]

Hispanic is easy. There's only one term.

Oh, really? Off the top of my head, there are:

• Hispanic
• Hispanic-American
• American of Hispanic descent
• Latino
• Latino-American
• Latino-Americano
• American of Latino descent
• Chicano
• *Mexican
• *Mexicano
• *Mexican-American
• *Mexicano-Americano
• *American of Mexican descent
• * - (Repeat these for all predominantly Spanish-speaking countries)

I grew up in a suburb of Los Angeles which, at the time, was about 50% latino/hispanic/whatever, and at one time or another heard people referring to themselves as each of the above (and more).

 

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by RandFan Oh, I like that. I back my claim by referring to the theory of evolution also. Cool, I didn't realize it would be so easy.

RandFan, for Ed's sake! If a population only interbreeds among itself, why in the world would it take on some characteristics of a seperate sub-species, unless these characteristics were determined by Darwinian evolution? And if they are so determined, then hundreds or thousands of generation are generally required. This is commen knowledge.

Why? I don't see anything about time scale in the information you provided.

You claimed that differences would occur within 6 generations. Kindly show how this is probable given that the population interbreeds among itself.

It's one link and it does not say what ratio of scientists support what theory. There is ample evidence that the notion of race is dismissed by many if not most biologists and anthropologists. I will get you some links. I have to go for an hour but I will be back.

There is ample evidence that untill a few centuries ago, races among humans were a fact. It is also reasonable to claim that due to the much higher availability of fast transport of individuals from different races to other races, the intermingling of racial characteristics will blur the racial line.