Racism is baseless

[Delvo]

The original concepts and categories “race” was intended to encapsule have been disproved... While there are no doubt a few alleles who’s frequency is impacted by natural selection, this number is small and doesn’t match on any of the groupings proposed thus far.

The last time I showed that this is a lie, I did so in the form of linked text. At this point, you clearly now rely on people not having clicked the link and seen what was there. I shall eliminate the need for clicking so everyone can see it right here:

The genetic clusters showing ancestry in several distinct groups not only exist; they exist in exactly the same parts of the world where people's visible phenotypic traits had already been grouped; the two completely independent methods perfectly agreed.

How does lying about the most basic facts of human biology help our cultural situation? This thread was started for the latter, and the former has done nothing but sidetrack it. It's like you're trying to avoid any chance of making progress on the latter.

It's not that race doesn't exist. It's that you think we shouldn't use it for ethical reasons. I think you'd have a much easier argument and hit far less flack arguing that.

Ya, they're trading in a fight that they can win and have been winning for one that they can't... very bizarre.

 

[Vortigern99]

The last time I showed that this is a lie, I did so in the form of linked text. At this point, you clearly now rely on people not having clicked the link and seen what was there. I shall eliminate the need for clicking so everyone can see it right here:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=12102[/qimg]

The genetic clusters showing ancestry in several distinct groups not only exist; they exist in exactly the same parts of the world where people's visible phenotypic traits had already been grouped; the two completely independent methods perfectly agreed.

How does lying about the most basic facts of human biology help our cultural situation? This thread was started for the latter, and the former has done nothing but sidetrack it. It's like you're trying to avoid any chance of making progress on the latter.

Ya, they're trading in a fight that they can win and have been winning for one that they can't... very bizarre.

I don't understand how you think that chart falsifies lomiller's assertion that "The original concepts and categories 'race' was intended to encapsule have been disproved". The basis for establishing the concept of race was to prove white European superiority, which has unarguably been disproven.

The rise of the Atlantic slave trade, which gradually displaced an earlier trade in slaves from throughout the world, created a further incentive to categorize human groups in order to justify the subordination of African slaves. (Meltzer, M. (1993). Slavery: a world history (revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: DaCapo Press. ISBN 0306805367.)

The scientific classification of phenotypic variation was frequently coupled with racist ideas about innate predispositions of different groups, always attributing the most desirable features to the White, European race and arranging the other races along a continuum of progressively undesirable attributes. The 1735 classification of Carl Linnaeus, inventor of zoological taxonomy, divided the human species Homo sapiens into continental varieties of europaeus, asiaticus, americanus, and afer, each associated with a different humour: sanguine, melancholic, choleric, and phlegmatic, respectively.(Brace, C. Loring (2005). Race is a four letter word. Oxford University Press. p. 326. ISBN 9780195173512.)

Such were the arrogant notions of the early classifiers of race. Lomiller's assertion "The original concepts and categories 'race' was intended to encapsule have been disproved" is factually correct. He has not been "lying about the most basic facts of human biology". Even that latter statement is a gross error; as any biologist will agree, the "most basic facts of human biology" are not found in the .5% difference between human populations, but in the workings of the cells, organs and tissues of the body -- none of which has anything to do with the question of race.

As to your argument by chart, even assuming that the employees of The New York Times have managed to restate complex scientific conclusions and data with 100% accuracy in about 100 words and a color-coded map, the five "modern genetic clusters" identified in the chart do not correspond to the definition of race currently in usage in the Anglosphere.

In the chart, Bedouin, Israeli, Egyptian, East Indian and Russian populations, et al., are grouped together with French, Italian, Scottish and Hungarian populations, et al., as "European". Scots, Jews and Arabs belong to the same genetic cluster, IE "the white race"? No person using the term race today posits such an absurdity. And if no two groups can agree on what this "white race" is, exactly, then what and where is the purpose, validity or applicability of the term?

 

[Delvo]

The basis for establishing the concept of race was to prove white European superiority, which has unarguably been disproven.

Obvious hogwash, pretending that how something eventually got used must equal its basis for existence... like saying that the fact that I have built things of wood must mean that I invented trees for their use in building things.

The basis for observing and categorizing easily observable real-world differences in any animal, vegetable, or mineral is always simply the fact that those grouped and categorizable traits are there. You know that as well as I do. You also know as well as I do that how people react to and use those differences and categories is a separate issue, and one which can not possibly come first; it has to be second, after what's been observed has been observed because it was there. You can't devise nefarious schemes for how to use something that nobody has any concept of yet. There is no way this could be otherwise in a universe in which time has a linear flow. All you're doing is piling on ever more to your collection of thoroughly obvious lies.

Nice try at sneaking in your latest accusation of racism in in such a subtle and clever disguise, though; I'm sure nobody saw thr.... oh... oops, sorry.

In the chart, Bedouin, Israeli, Egyptian, East Indian and Russian populations, et al., are grouped together with French, Italian, Scottish and Hungarian populations... Scots, Jews and Arabs belong to the same genetic cluster... No person using the term race today posits such an absurdity.

Please. It's like you're not even trying. Caucasoid.

 

[Delvo]

More important than the fact that races clearly exist and even those who claim to think otherwise aren't fooled because nobody possibly could be...

What purpose does that pretense serve? You claim it's up uphold a moral imperative, but that would only make sense if the premise were accepted that people should only be treated fairly if there aren't differences between them. Unnecessarily coupling the idea of how to treat people with how similar or different they are is destructive to the far better goal of having people treated fairly regardless of which group they're in and who else they're similar to or different from. If anyone could take your laughable nonsense seriously, the direct result would be more harm to actual people. You're striving against the most egalitarian of all possible positions while constantly venom-spitting at others about not being egalitarian enough like you. That high horse of yours is a giant slug... in a trench.

 

[Pup]

I don't see why I'm supposed to reject something like that chart. It shows the basic movements of humans (before the slave trade, probably in imprecise, somewhat overlapping eras). It's not meant to have high precision.

"In the chart, Bedouin, Israeli, Egyptian, East Indian and Russian populations, et al., are grouped together with French, Italian, Scottish and Hungarian populations, et al., as "European". Scots, Jews and Arabs belong to the same genetic cluster, IE "the white race"? No person using the term race today posits such an absurdity. "

Why not? Why is that upsetting? I don't think the chart is meant to produce pinpoint accuracy, but it makes sense that some humans stayed around the Mediterranean/European area, while others moved on and settled in the eastern Asia area, and those two subpopulations became isolated and turned out differently. They'd need to be studied more specifically if one wanted to see how people north of the Mediterranean differed from those south of it, but for a quick-and-dirt grouping of groups, I don't see anything wrong with throwing all the Mediterranean/European groups together. Or in other words, calling both Scots and Arabs White. Really--does that upset people so much? It's two or three times more distance to go from Italy or Scotland to Japan than to go from Italy or Scotland to Iran (measured by holding my fingers on the map). Makes sense that people would be more apt to intermarry closer than farther, especially with mountains in the way.

I don't know that there would be any reason for someone to study everyone in the Mediterranean/European region as a group indicated by the blue figurines. They'd have to explain what they were looking for. But if someone wants that broad of a group, it seems a natural one, rather than, say, grouping those yellow figurines in West Africa with the purple figurines in northern South America, because they're both on the equiator.

But I guess I'm supposed to reject the map, and talk about good white Scots and evil non-white Jews, regardless of common sense.

The main disagreement I have with the map is its claim that there's a Jonathan Coram[?] subpopulation on an island in the southwest Atlantic Ocean. No one can produce a subpopulation that quickly, no matter how many women he has to breed with.



Just in case, last paragraph:

 

[Vortigern99]

Obvious hogwash, pretending that how something eventually got used must equal its basis for existence... like saying that the fact that I have built things of wood must mean that I invented trees for their use in building things.

The basis for observing and categorizing easily observable real-world differences in any animal, vegetable, or mineral is always simply the fact that those grouped and categorizable traits are there. You know that as well as I do. You also know as well as I do that how people react to and use those differences and categories is a separate issue, and one which can not possibly come first; it has to be second, after what's been observed has been observed because was there. You can't devise nefarious schemes for how to use something that nobody has any concept of yet. There is no way this could be otherwise in a universe in which time has a linear flow. All you're doing is piling on ever more to your collection of thoroughly obvious lies.

Nice try at sneaking in your latest accusation of racism in in such a subtle and clever disguise, though; I'm sure nobody saw thr.... oh... oops, sorry.

Please. It's like you're not even trying. Caucasoid.

It's worth pointing out that I'm not "pretending" or "sneaking" or "venom spitting", or any variation of those slights against my character. Neither am I accusing you of any kind of racism, either implicitly or explicitly. We have a difference of opinion in how we interpret the data before us. You called lomiier's assertion a lie; I supplied evidence to contradict your accusation and to support his claim.

Your hostility towards me is undeserved. I'm interested in a debate, not a mud-slinging contest.

 

[Pup]

More important than the fact that races clearly exist and even those who claim to think otherwise aren't fooled because nobody possibly could be...

What purpose does that pretense serve? You claim it's up uphold a moral imperative, but that would only make sense if the premise were accepted that people should only be treated fairly if there aren't differences between them. Unnecessarily coupling the idea of how to treat people with how similar or different they are is destructive to the far better goal of having people treated fairly regardless of which group they're in and who else they're similar to or different from. If anyone could take your laughable nonsense seriously, the direct result would be more harm to actual people. You're striving against the most egalitarian of all possible positions while constantly venom-spitting at others about not being egalitarian enough like you. That high horse of yours is a giant slug... in a trench.

I wholeheartedly agree. It just makes no sense to tell me I should pretend people don't have groups--subpopulations, races, whatever they're called. We can talk about the most useful way to categorize them, with all the usual arguments between lumpers and splitters, even talk about the silly ways they were categorized in the past,

But I just don't see why it has to be such a vicious conversation, among people arguing that racists are the bad ones. People are different. I can see it. I can read about their disease resistence or susceptibility. Or their allergies or any number of differences. I'm not going to ignore it.

Mistakes get made. I have a cancer that they used to think was more common among Asians--and they phrased it just that way, physicians talking about Asians. Then they realized the hospitals and universities studying it were in Korea and guess what population they were testing. Now that it's being tested worldwide, it's not considered Asian any more.

So why this hostility toward noticing people are in groups? I don't get it. As you say, all people should be treated equally well, regardless what differences they have, rather than pretending they don't have differences.

 

[shuttlt]

I don't understand how you think that chart falsifies lomiller's assertion that "The original concepts and categories 'race' was intended to encapsule have been disproved". The basis for establishing the concept of race was to prove white European superiority, which has unarguably been disproven.

I dispute that that is what the original concept of race was for, in as much as it was for anything.

The rise of the Atlantic slave trade, which gradually displaced an earlier trade in slaves from throughout the world, created a further incentive to categorize human groups in order to justify the subordination of African slaves. (Meltzer, M. (1993). Slavery: a world history (revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: DaCapo Press. ISBN 0306805367.)

Is the argument then that nobody had noticed groupings of the kind in Delvo's graphic before the slave trade?

The scientific classification of phenotypic variation was frequently coupled with racist ideas about innate predispositions of different groups, always attributing the most desirable features to the White, European race and arranging the other races along a continuum of progressively undesirable attributes. The 1735 classification of Carl Linnaeus, inventor of zoological taxonomy, divided the human species Homo sapiens into continental varieties of europaeus, asiaticus, americanus, and afer, each associated with a different humour: sanguine, melancholic, choleric, and phlegmatic, respectively.(Brace, C. Loring (2005). Race is a four letter word. Oxford University Press. p. 326. ISBN 9780195173512.)

This seems to map tolerably well to the diagram Delvo has been touting, particularly when one considers the tools he had available and looks broadly similar to classifications from a couple of centuries prior.

Such were the arrogant notions of the early classifiers of race. Lomiller's assertion "The original concepts and categories 'race' was intended to encapsule have been disproved" is factually correct.

I don't see how this is correct. Classifying people into different geographic groups and thinking about why they look and act differently goes back to antiquity. In the centuries since, Arab philosophers and European ones have thought about this (and doubtless other philosophers besides). Sometimes it gets muddled up into ideas about the children of Noah, but it is surely an attempt to understand what they see around them. A good example of an early classifier seems to be François Bernier in the 17th century. He seems to have developed his system by travelling about a lot and looking at how different people looked in different places [and talking to other travellers] . But people have clearly been doing this for a couple of thousand years at least.

There certainly are ideas that begin to come in that seek to put these classifications into an ordered list of superiority, I don't see any argument so far that that is intrinsic to the notion of race.

 

[shuttlt]

How about this guy - Johann Friedrich Blumenbach

He seems to have originated the racial classification system that everything else was built on. Interestingly, he doesn't seem to have believed in a hierarchy of races beyond what we would broadly agree with today, that humanity has branched out from a single racial origin. Given that he was writing at the beginning of the 18th Century, he placed that in what ever bit of Asia he thought Eden was located in rather than Africa.

In any case, all he is doing is proposing a more precisely stated version of centuries old informal classifications.

 

[lomiller]

The last time I showed that this is a lie, I did so in the form of linked text. At this point, you clearly now rely on people not having clicked the link and seen what was there. I shall eliminate the need for clicking so everyone can see it right here:

The chart only vaguely agrees with haplogroup migration but draws lines down the middle of populations that hardly anyone within those populations would agree with. For example North African decent would look at you pretty funny if you tried to explain to them they were “white” or “European” instead of “black” or “African”. Likewise if you went to India and tried to explain to 2 neighbors that even though they have similar appearances one was really “Asian” and the other was really “European” I’m pretty sure they would both call you an idiot and tell you they were both Indian.

If you go into the details it’s even more nonsensical. There are 7 know major mitochondrial Haplogroups, L0, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5 and L6. The populations they label as clustering with “East Asian” are 3 subdivisions within the Haplogroup known as L3 (M, N and R). “European” is 2 Haplogroups (N and R). The other 8 clads within L3 are all found in Africa (L3b, L3d, L3e, L3f, L3h, L3i, L3x and L3w.)

Every subgroup within every other Haplogroups is also reduced to simply “African”.

If we map out the Haplogroups to the “races” being postulated
L0 – everyone from every clad in this Haplogroup is being categorized as “African”
L1 – everyone from every clad in this Haplogroup is being categorized as “African”
L2 – everyone from every clad in this Haplogroup is being categorized as “African”
L4 – everyone from every clad in this Haplogroup is being categorized as “African”
L5 – everyone from every clad in this Haplogroup is being categorized as “African”
L6 – everyone from every clad in this Haplogroup is being categorized as “African”

Under the L3 haplogroup we have:
L3b - “African”
L3d - “African”
L3e - “African”
L3f - “African”
L3h - “African”
L3i - “African”
L3x - “African”
L3w - “African”
M – Asians
N – Asians and Europeans
R - Asians and Europeans


So at the end after calling almost every human lineage “African” the other the supposedly separate race of “East Asian” consists of 3 clads, while the final race of “European” is actually 2 of the 3 clads it already considered “East Asian”.


W
T
F

 

[Vortigern99]

Exactly! The so-called "genetic clusters" shown in the NYT chart do not correspond to "races", either in how they are self-applied or as applied by others. Scots, Israelis and Iraqis would never agree that they are the same "race", EG. So, for all the race proponents out there, could you explain this discrepancy?

Given that no one can agree which subpopulation of which nation belongs to which race and corresponds to which genetic cluster, what is the purpose and validity of the term "race"?

 

[macdoc]

Exactly

did anyone ever even try to figure out the "race" of these girls??? Or what it would tell you about them or where they were from.

 

[shuttlt]

The chart only vaguely agrees with haplogroup migration but draws lines down the middle of populations that hardly anyone within those populations would agree with. For example North African decent would look at you pretty funny if you tried to explain to them they were “white” or “European” instead of “black” or “African”. Likewise if you went to India and tried to explain to 2 neighbors that even though they have similar appearances one was really “Asian” and the other was really “European” I’m pretty sure they would both call you an idiot and tell you they were both Indian.

Boundary issues are a feature of imposing a system of categories on the real world. Look at the categoriees of 'male' and 'female', in the sense of biology... I'm not going to touch gender, however you define the categories you end up with a number of people who don't fit 100% comfortably into either one. It seems like your argument would be an argument that biological sexes don't exist. Socially, it's pretty clear that for any given intersex person, some people put them in the male category, some people put them in the female category, and some people put them in another category altogether. None of those people are right or wrong and they are talking about real differences and (in as much as there are such things) real categories.

A different aspect of the same point is that you seem to me to be assuming that everybody should us racial categories the same. I don't see why that would be. Somebody living in Johannesburg encounters a completely different racial mix of people in their day to day life, to somebody living in London, or Beijing and is also able to extract different information. If I'd lived all my life in Beijing, I could probably make many racial distictions about different areas of China. If I'd lived all my life in Johannesburg, I could probably do the same with African populations. Having grown up in London, I can do that somewhat, but not very proficiently.

Further, you seem to be assuming that racial categories will operate at a single level, that is to say if the middle eastern population must fall into either the African or Eurasian populations, then we can't also talk about Arabs as a race. It seems to me pretty clear that people do talk about race as if you could nest the concept in this way.

Race is classifying real differences driven by a social need/desire/interest to do so. Can your clads be molded in this way so that sometimes I can talk about all Africans as one clad, sometimes Southern Africans as a clad, and other times Zulus as a clad, depending on the requirement? Can your North African guy exclude himself from the European category if he uses clines without being wrong? In the context of common usage, its a socially defined word not a scientific one, talking about real differences.

 

[Fudbucker]

Exactly

[qimg]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/xv2e3cvbcBerVKGUHZJked05a_FSXXLzXV-2E6_5Y1s4XFICEkXAqss5gEzuGrzcxod2mokV2CaGIhKizBtrNUNzmSZ1G2Y46UZUC7N0biVMjFr2peHN3H_BdUvl-Dy2EL5RJjYpqv92xFR1F8_cB77zOTBKO0SaZBCs0r6vGX_JqSoNOgcxneh8q8g9QkjIrgocR6iYKVpqNOefIaTafnbiYsZWVv94NY06HN3nqyMWeGbfqsZKMIdcaEPfYznu9QjTdKk3bCfgrgxE8GzaaOqeeTeNPZbR_sUdVtLh9F1EWd_eZWRcFso9Ps8APbg1kTia1jotP34AcLX-4TluaAwK4K2uQnDWm71cJNCXoKRfHcJWG1X_mEmSEXAUUrIWJqALd-Kk9gmSsvFs5SxjCCW_5N0-dUVbt9LwmLh6ywjNYcz0W2fuaj0KnsN7RKv8d50G2586j-7nOf8utEjx1K3cSKJUplMJy2_KcdiDxhA_9WxonXDHqVvGTY_pQlVRbzo8iCBXcrKEn4mfojgvbQhCpN7sXVrVkBCB4A1jYhpDM8tAHUr9N_PKujCgji3gUCZcjlCMDKnxg2cW99dJJ2hUTmpGAJcLdzKhZ7Dn0gLpEaVHZwT-cg=w200-h174-no[/qimg] [qimg]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ZF2UsiGn3Zp6g11JbegoXysxQameaYIo8FKF5zp488qnLKawIgyWvkIKg70LdWEkRRlhooNfG9wB6m6WB8x0Lstba3TMMmEaMNhfwK6w_fEiX08VGle7y3s7DeKSDindVL4tzml-HaMj4egtyiCPxbXynPKQe4HoLkiWqdoY7jtZWTsuJhNTE46x3UFAb0csxmleKWVrh7NpETSGjyD9IAT4akZ9_VbLeN4hl6l8Cr4XmTQniB0hQ2kR1YDTVOxxhKgqZ3wph49_-6M8YxCp66n1cOmgFcr7tZdbXWrcXLrnB7TjUtbqMNi8U81StKsI4tcQv1bsw-E8-ZDgn__ycRwnOHxfoIXWkkBYXDSPmCr_3zIRF9dwJxtMxAA6OlcPrGpjJmTaVdTJ67x9ugw8O_tuDjn6WlhQCYnOnFpdIwwrSqKBJkXToovM4xYIQ4YSzB9le9tVRqhBPghckV-jPBmQfKGVUAN1JE1aF3ReltTzfCFlaPcL8_nvTYHPIzmeIcjQlIyhTjVL_Y2KqKY-rA7Lh9k3SblVURUMOLouY-_7DxTIhvRwkA4cq-_XMq_FPQtG8TD310FUW9FmODwAR2XyyOMGwbZvAQZozw0SjMuBS81cip2MDA=w350-h200-no[/qimg]

did anyone ever even try to figure out the "race" of these girls??? Or what it would tell you about them or where they were from.

So when police issue something like this:
SAPD is still looking to identify this individual in connection with the shooting death of Detective Ben Marconi. He is a black male; 20-30 years old, 5'7"-6' tall, slim build with a goatee. He may also have a tattoo(s) on his left arm.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/san-antonio-cop-shot-giving-traffic-ticket/story?id=43672428

What's the image that pops into your mind? A white guy with a red goatee?

 

[Vortigern99]

We agree that race is a socially defined term, "not a scientific one". That is the purpose of this thread in the Science forum.

The categories of race are based on observable physical traits, but those categories change from society to society; what constitutes "white" in one place and time does not correspond to the same word in another place and time.

This flexible, unscientific, biologically invalid definition is not only inconsistent, introducing confusion into discussion (which defeats the very purpose of human language, which is communication), it has encouraged since its inception the tendency of one group to promote themselves as superior over another group.

These problems -- inconsistency with the usage of the categories and the promotion of superiority by one "race" over another -- are what lead race opponents to declare the term outdated, impractical and scientifically invalid.

 

[shuttlt]

Exactly! The so-called "genetic clusters" shown in the NYT chart do not correspond to "races", either in how they are self-applied or as applied by others. Scots, Israelis and Iraqis would never agree that they are the same "race", EG. So, for all the race proponents out there, could you explain this discrepancy?

Race is a socially defined term (at least in it's every day usage), not a scientific term, talking about real differences.

Given that no one can agree which subpopulation of which nation belongs to which race and corresponds to which genetic cluster, what is the purpose and validity of the term "race"?

People seem to be able to communicate using the concept, and derive information from using such categories... I guess about peoples likely culture (to some statistical accuracy) and ancestry which they must either find interesting, useful, or something else.

 

[Vortigern99]

Race is a socially defined term (at least in it's every day usage), not a scientific term, talking about real differences.


People seem to be able to communicate using the concept, and derive information from using such categories... I guess about peoples likely culture (to some statistical accuracy) and ancestry which they must either find interesting, useful, or something else.

Please see the post above yours.

 

[shuttlt]

Exactly

[qimg]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/xv2e3cvbcBerVKGUHZJked05a_FSXXLzXV-2E6_5Y1s4XFICEkXAqss5gEzuGrzcxod2mokV2CaGIhKizBtrNUNzmSZ1G2Y46UZUC7N0biVMjFr2peHN3H_BdUvl-Dy2EL5RJjYpqv92xFR1F8_cB77zOTBKO0SaZBCs0r6vGX_JqSoNOgcxneh8q8g9QkjIrgocR6iYKVpqNOefIaTafnbiYsZWVv94NY06HN3nqyMWeGbfqsZKMIdcaEPfYznu9QjTdKk3bCfgrgxE8GzaaOqeeTeNPZbR_sUdVtLh9F1EWd_eZWRcFso9Ps8APbg1kTia1jotP34AcLX-4TluaAwK4K2uQnDWm71cJNCXoKRfHcJWG1X_mEmSEXAUUrIWJqALd-Kk9gmSsvFs5SxjCCW_5N0-dUVbt9LwmLh6ywjNYcz0W2fuaj0KnsN7RKv8d50G2586j-7nOf8utEjx1K3cSKJUplMJy2_KcdiDxhA_9WxonXDHqVvGTY_pQlVRbzo8iCBXcrKEn4mfojgvbQhCpN7sXVrVkBCB4A1jYhpDM8tAHUr9N_PKujCgji3gUCZcjlCMDKnxg2cW99dJJ2hUTmpGAJcLdzKhZ7Dn0gLpEaVHZwT-cg=w200-h174-no[/qimg] [qimg]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ZF2UsiGn3Zp6g11JbegoXysxQameaYIo8FKF5zp488qnLKawIgyWvkIKg70LdWEkRRlhooNfG9wB6m6WB8x0Lstba3TMMmEaMNhfwK6w_fEiX08VGle7y3s7DeKSDindVL4tzml-HaMj4egtyiCPxbXynPKQe4HoLkiWqdoY7jtZWTsuJhNTE46x3UFAb0csxmleKWVrh7NpETSGjyD9IAT4akZ9_VbLeN4hl6l8Cr4XmTQniB0hQ2kR1YDTVOxxhKgqZ3wph49_-6M8YxCp66n1cOmgFcr7tZdbXWrcXLrnB7TjUtbqMNi8U81StKsI4tcQv1bsw-E8-ZDgn__ycRwnOHxfoIXWkkBYXDSPmCr_3zIRF9dwJxtMxAA6OlcPrGpjJmTaVdTJ67x9ugw8O_tuDjn6WlhQCYnOnFpdIwwrSqKBJkXToovM4xYIQ4YSzB9le9tVRqhBPghckV-jPBmQfKGVUAN1JE1aF3ReltTzfCFlaPcL8_nvTYHPIzmeIcjQlIyhTjVL_Y2KqKY-rA7Lh9k3SblVURUMOLouY-_7DxTIhvRwkA4cq-_XMq_FPQtG8TD310FUW9FmODwAR2XyyOMGwbZvAQZozw0SjMuBS81cip2MDA=w350-h200-no[/qimg]

did anyone ever even try to figure out the "race" of these girls??? Or what it would tell you about them or where they were from.

I don't see why it is important. Nobody has claimed to be able to assign race with 100% accuracy. I'm not at all sure that anybody has claimed that there is necessarily a single correct answer for every individual. See my post mentioning intersex.

 

[Fudbucker]

We agree that race is a socially defined term, "not a scientific one". That is the purpose of this thread in the Science forum.

It didn't take long to find disagreement with the above:

Slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The other half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the "racial lens."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html

Sounds like there's quite a debate about it going on.

 

[shuttlt]

This flexible, unscientific, biologically invalid definition is not only inconsistent, introducing confusion into discussion (which defeats the very purpose of human language, which is communication)

I disagree. We accept blurred definitions and edge cases as part of human language and categorisation systems. If you have a better classification system that isn't a massive pain in the ass, doesn't involve people having to learn a bunch of theory and is based around socially useful judgements that people can make by eye... by all means push it. That though isn't an argument that race is baseless, it's an argument that you have a more efficient system. I'm not arguing that a more efficient system may not exist.

it has encouraged since its inception the tendency of one group to promote themselves as superior over another group.

I guess being able to classify people as "from my tribe" and "not from my tribe", "from my region" not "from my region" etc... etc... by sight does indeed encourage this. I'm aware of pretty explicit examples of such going back a couple of thousand years at least. I'm not at all sure that having words to talk about these visual differences is the root of the problem so much as the visual differences enabling us to tell "us" from "them". In any case, it's not an argument that race is baseless.

These problems -- inconsistency with the usage of the categories and the promotion of superiority by one "race" over another -- are what lead race opponents to declare the term outdated, impractical and scientifically invalid.

That's not the same as saying that it's baseless. It seems to me that its for these race opponents to suggest a new word that can be used to distinguish groups of people based around the statistical association between physical appearance and somebody's ancestry. If you find one that is better/easier/whatever than race by all means start promoting it.