"Races don't exist"

[God Fearing Atheist]

*Snip*

You misunderstand. It is not that I deny there are genetic differences between groups, for that is blindingly obvious. It's the definition here I'm contesting. The genetic differences between individuals, clusters, populations, whatever you want to use, is not related to the accepted concept of "race" or "ethnicity". It simply isn't accurate enough, because within the Big 5 (Caucasian, black, Asian etc.) accepted groups, there is far, far more variety. Africa alone has massive swathes of genetic groups varying distinctly from one to the next. How is this paper any use when it doesn't give me a concrete definition but simply points out that, unsurprisingly, certain geographically isolated people exhibit different genetics with superficial phenotypical differences?

I want to see a good classification for this concept before I accept "races", and not something else. Because if you start using that term when really you mean something different and more scientific, then what good is it to society? I personally see no reason to invoke the term and bring back those negative connotations when the salient point is more subtle.

When one looks at more than two dozen or so polymorphisms, individuals cluster into several discrete, non-overlapping phenetic groups. Every member of that group is genetically more similar to ingroup members than to members of other groups. These clusters, in turn, correspond to classical racial categories (African, Caucasian, Pacific Islander, etc).

Now if this is the case, and the evidence seems to suggest it is, in what sense is it "unrelated to the accepted concept of race"? What do you think "races" are, and how is the genetic data inconsistant with that? Is it that there is more within-group than between-group variance? Has that ever been an essential part of what races were thought to be?

[Admiral Valdemar]

When one looks at more than two dozen or so polymorphisms, individuals cluster into several discrete, non-overlapping phenetic groups. Every member of that group is genetically more similar to ingroup members than to members of other groups. These clusters, in turn, correspond to classical racial categories (African, Caucasian, Pacific Islander, etc).

Now if this is the case, and the evidence seems to suggest it is, in what sense is it "unrelated to the accepted concept of race"? What do you think "races" are, and how is the genetic data inconsistant with that? Is it that there is more within-group than between-group variance? Has that ever been an essential part of what races were thought to be?

This would require a better definition in my mind, since the data in that paper you linked reminds me of the tailoring of certain new drugs to specific groups of people. I think some board needs to look over what the variance really means, since when you look at it, you can further break down the traditional races into other groups (likely to the point that you get to individuals, which would be a tad silly). That means it's not the black or white view, but a further emphasis on the differences in those groupings themselves.

I find the normal concept of races to be a tad simplistic when you look at supposed "sub-races" as it were. That, I find, is what is causing people to debate this concept rather than simply say "Well, these groups are that distinct, ergo, we'll reimplement the normal terminology for this phenomenon". A lot of papers and oped pieces on the subject mention word games as being the only new development here, not the genetic data backing up variance already studied in pathology, for instance.

[PainRack]

Now if this is the case, and the evidence seems to suggest it is, in what sense is it "unrelated to the accepted concept of race"? What do you think "races" are, and how is the genetic data inconsistant with that? Is it that there is more within-group than between-group variance? Has that ever been an essential part of what races were thought to be?

I think the real problem of classifying races is how does one seperate races? For example, if a jew and a caucasian marry, is the child white or a jew? Or a black and white marry, what is the child race?

[Rye]

They'd be mixed race offspring, you could then determine the likely ancestry/family groups said offspring descended from.

[Darth Wong]

Racial discrimination schemes have always been stymied by the concept of intermarriage, which is one of the reasons why racists are so vehemently opposed to the practice.

[petesampras]

Racial discrimination schemes have always been stymied by the concept of intermarriage, which is one of the reasons why racists are so vehemently opposed to the practice.

In my experience most racists get pissed off with women of their race dating men of other races, the reverse tends not to annoy them. In terms of creating problems of mixing up racial discrimination schemes, it makes no difference. I think the most important thing is the absurd concepts of 'stealing our women'.

I used to have a Japanese friend who was dating a white girl, but would get pissed off whenever he saw a white guy dating a Japanese girl and moan about white guys coming to Japan and 'stealing' the cute girls. I would hazard a guess that an asian or black guy dating a white girl in a redneck part of america would encounter more hostility than the reverse.

[Darth Wong]

Racial discrimination schemes have always been stymied by the concept of intermarriage, which is one of the reasons why racists are so vehemently opposed to the practice.

In my experience most racists get pissed off with women of their race dating men of other races, the reverse tends not to annoy them. In terms of creating problems of mixing up racial discrimination schemes, it makes no difference. I think the most important thing is the absurd concepts of 'stealing our women'.

I used to have a Japanese friend who was dating a white girl, but would get pissed off whenever he saw a white guy dating a Japanese girl and moan about white guys coming to Japan and 'stealing' the cute girls. I would hazard a guess that an asian or black guy dating a white girl in a redneck part of america would encounter more hostility than the reverse.

Then again, if most of your friends are male, you will naturally get the male perspective on interracial dating. The females might be just as upset about male "race traitors" as males are about female "race traitors", but you wouldn't see as much of that if your friends are mostly male.

[God Fearing Atheist]

This would require a better definition in my mind, since the data in that paper you linked reminds me of the tailoring of certain new drugs to specific groups of people. I think some board needs to look over what the variance really means, since when you look at it, you can further break down the traditional races into other groups (likely to the point that you get to individuals, which would be a tad silly). That means it's not the black or white view, but a further emphasis on the differences in those groupings themselves.

I find the normal concept of races to be a tad simplistic when you look at supposed "sub-races" as it were. That, I find, is what is causing people to debate this concept rather than simply say "Well, these groups are that distinct, ergo, we'll reimplement the normal terminology for this phenomenon". A lot of papers and oped pieces on the subject mention word games as being the only new development here, not the genetic data backing up variance already studied in pathology, for instance.

1) I fail to understand how the possibility of finding "groups within racial groups" would dimish their reality. Okay, so we can speak of (say) a Danish group and an Arab group within the Caucasian race. That does not mean a Caucasian group cannot be objectively delimited with genetic data. And isn't that the issue here? That "Caucasian" and "African" and the rest of them aren't just arbitrary constructs, like slicing the spectrum into distinct colors?

2) And speaking of that, I have never found in my reading a person who argued for the biological fiction of race on the grounds that there might be "sub-races" (or whatever). The argument always seems to be that genetic differences/similarities are distributed clinally and not into discrete "buckets."

But it does form buckets.

[Darth Wong]

The argument always seems to be that genetic differences/similarities are distributed clinally and not into discrete "buckets."

But it does form buckets.

Bullshit. These groups overlap, which is not a characteristic of anything you would call "discrete buckets".

[Admiral Valdemar]

And that just rubs me the wrong way when you get people using this data to back up the black or white racial groupings of traditional thinking. It's just not that well defined to start bringing in the overly simplistic races concept, unless you want to start getting horribly convoluted in the designation of every possible mixing there is.

[ray245]

Hell, even among same races you can feel or see that they are different.

You can spot the differences between a mainland chinese to a Chinese living in Hong Kong, or to a ABC(american born chinese). It will be easier if you yourself are chinese.

The same reason you are able to see if the person is from Russia as compared to US by his looks. It will also be way easier if you yourself are Caucasians.