Is 'race' real?

[hongi]

I've been ruminating on this for a little while and I've come to the conclusion that races are real, and race describes populations that inhabit a geographical area. Hence we define races by where they live or their ancestors have lived.

And like any other organism, human populations in wildly different environments are influenced by selective forces in different ways. Hence accounting for the physiological and genetic differences between populations/races. I think it's been pretty much shown through scientific research that we are not all the same.

What do you think?

[B5B7]

Biologically we are one race - homo sapiens.
Variations could be called different breeds (but even that has negative connotations).
Apparently, genetic differences between individuals of the same "race" can be greater than that between different "races".

[Illuminatus Primus]

I've been ruminating on this for a little while and I've come to the conclusion that races are real, and race describes populations that inhabit a geographical area. Hence we define races by where they live or their ancestors have lived.

And like any other organism, human populations in wildly different environments are influenced by selective forces in different ways. Hence accounting for the physiological and genetic differences between populations/races. I think it's been pretty much shown through scientific research that we are not all the same.

What do you think?

Wrong. The supposed "black African" race exhibits more genetic variation internally than exists between many subpopulations and the other world races, much less each of the other world races from each other. There's a difference between phenotype and genotype. Educate yourself about real genetics.

[mr friendly guy]

Race (in reference to human ethnic groups) is more of a social construct than biological one. So as long you are refering to race in the former concept than its "real". However, I am willing to bet most people when they say "race" are referring to both, hence where errors creep in.

[hongi]

Wrong. The supposed "black African" race exhibits more genetic variation internally than exists between many subpopulations and the other world races, much less each of the other world races from each other.

When I mean populations, I mean exactly what I stated in the OP. Populations defined by (perhaps arbitrary) geographical borders. So an Anglo-Saxon race, a Korean race, a Japanese race, a multitude of Australian Aboriginal races, a Maori race, many Polynesian races etc. Black African race is too general for my definition because black Africans basically fill up an entire continent.

IMO, race is simply a synonym for population (a community of individuals).

Race (in reference to human ethnic groups) is more of a social construct than biological one. So as long you are refering to race in the former concept than its "real". However, I am willing to bet most people when they say "race" are referring to both, hence where errors creep in.

I tend to think of race as an example of both a social construct and a biological one. In some way it's 'real', in others it isn't. IMO, race is just a convenient way to describe people living in different areas.

As a metaphor, take the domestic cat. It's spread all over the world, in a vast diversity of shapes and colours. To distinguish between the different races/breeds/subpopulations/populations, we give them names like Siamese or the Abyssinian. That's a social construct. But also in a real biologically definable way, these different races have physical differences (one is on average more susceptible to heart disease than the other etc). And of course it's the same species in the end.

[Target2006]

You must have started this topic after seeing the article on Economist.com?

http://www.economist.com/science/displa ... d=10283306

[Broomstick]

I realize there's a current fashion to poo-poo the concept of race, and certainly historically it's been misused and overused, but it does matter who your ancestors are. There are real, physical differences between populations for particular genes that are of importance in particular contexts. It is silly to pretend there aren't visible differences between someone of Swedish ancestry and someone of Nigerian ancestry. So now we are likely to call these differences "ethnic" rather than "racial", and perhaps the newer term is better, but the "social construct" of race is not entirely built out of pixie dust.

In strict scientific terms we are all one species, homo sapiens, but in casual conversation and social contexts we frequently use looser definitions than the scientific. If I tell someone to meet someone at the airport they've never seen before I don't say "look for a homo sapiens" I'll describe them - and it may well include such terms as "Asian" because it is shorter than saying "medium brown skin, straight black hair, high cheek bones, with epicanthal eye folds" and there are enough people in the world of Asian ancestry that it's convenient to have a concise label for those traits. That doesn't mean I think all people in Asia (and their relatives elsewhere in the world) are one homogeneous blob, and I may even refine the description further by specifying height, a darker or lighter skin tone, or mentioning someone looks more Thai or Phillipino than Chinese or Japanese or Korean. In such context, "What race is the person I'm meeting?" is easily understood to be shorthand for "Please give me a short description of what this person looks like" and hence the emphasis on visual cues.

In the medical world "race" also matters - cystic fibrosis is very rare outside of people of European ancestry, but if a child does have European ancestry and is exhibiting certain symptoms then testing for this disease is definitely required. In North America, people of African descent whose ancestors residence on the continent date back to the days of the slave trade are at significant risk of hypertension... but Africans recently arrived from Africa are not. People of Native America or Pacific Island ancestry are significantly more likely to suffer from both obesity and diabetes. Ashkenazi Jews - those of Eastern European ancestry - are more likely than anyone else to carry the Tay Sachs gene. These differences matter, and the genes concerned travel with a certain ancestry and appearance which, yes, is linked to the concept of "race". Nor is it a matter of negatives - long distance running endurance is linked to peoples from Eastern Africa, high altitude tolerance to people of Tibetan ancestry, ability to digest lactose into adulthood with northern Europeans and with some tribes in eastern and northern Africa. And some of it is likely neutral or only weakly adaptive - Europeans vary more in coloration, Africans vary more in height. That doesn't mean everyone of a given ancestry or population is identical or even has a particular trait (there are, after all, albinos in Africa born to very dark parents) but most do.

As an analogy - generally, when I look at my neighbor's backyard I might say "the grass is green" even though I know perfectly well that there are stray blades of grass that are brown or yellowed, and that not every single plant in the lawn is actually grass... but most of the time that level of specificity is not required for understanding and communication. If I say "The grass is on fire!" it's really not a time for that level of nit-picking, the important thing to know is that the vegetation next door is combusting and I need to call the fire department. So, while I would agree that in some conversations the term "race" should be avoided I don't see banning it entirely.

[Admiral Valdemar]

There was a huge thread on this in the past, I'll see if I can dig it up. Short answer, I find the idea of "race" a bit vague today and don't feel it exists in the way certain people believe it does, as if we were made of many breeds like dogs.

[Rye]

Race is a case of extended family genetics. You get certain trends within certain areas depending on where certain families migrated in the past. I would argue there are significantly more races than we think of when we use the word. If one such race group breeds within much more than out of the group, you'll expect traits to become more pronounced within that group compared to other groups across the human spectrum.

The jewish culture, for instance is apparently particularly hostile to marrying someone outside of the religion, with some 90-odd percent marrying within the cultural group only. This will gradually have genetic effects, good and bad as certain traits become easier to get within the gene pool if you're from that group.

Malaria resistence through sickle cell anemia will occur in one group of africans (i.e. those that spread the genes where it offers a biological advantage, around inland water) whereas other groups in africa that haven't had any contact with their cousins near water sources for centuries may be at no more risk of sickle cell anemia than a family that has been in Norway for centuries.

[Adrian Laguna]

It should be noted that concept of "race" does have a biological meaning. Dogs have races, as do horses and cattle. The differences between a dachshund and a saluki are significant and a names should exist to point out this difference while still recognizing them as part of the same species. Races in that sense do not exist in humans. However they do exist in a looser sense which, as Broomstick noted, can be more accurately called "ethnic variation".

[Darth Wong]

The notion that race is a mere cultural contrivance reminds me of the idiotic idea (fashionable among psychologists in the 1970s) that gender-related behaviour was also a mere cultural contrivance.

[Winston Blake]

It should be noted that concept of "race" does have a biological meaning. Dogs have races, as do horses and cattle. The differences between a dachshund and a saluki are significant and a names should exist to point out this difference while still recognizing them as part of the same species. Races in that sense do not exist in humans.

My understanding is that that's exactly what exists in humans. Dachshunds and chihuahuas aren't just part of the same species (Canis lupis) - they are in the same subspecies too i.e. race (Canis lupis familiaris).

Despite 'ethnic variations' that vastly exceed any genetic differences among humans, all dogs are still biologically the same race. So the idea that people with black skin are actually a different subspecies to those with white skin is absurd, and has been rightly laughed out of science. The variations are so minor that we are all of the race 'Homo sapiens sapiens'.

Within that subspecies, however, there are obviously hereditary groupings, just like in many plant and animal species. In dogs they're called breeds, which would be a bit crude if applied to humans, so instead the term 'ethnicities' has been introduced. This distinguishes the real infrasubspecific groupings that we're familiar with, without giving legitimacy to old-fashioned ideas about 'races' being technical subspecies.

[Superman]

The notion that race is a mere cultural contrivance reminds me of the idiotic idea (fashionable among psychologists in the 1970s) that gender-related behaviour was also a mere cultural contrivance.

That's very true, although I can tell you that I've had more than a few anthropology professors basically say that no anthropologists take the idea of race seriously anymore.

[Gullible Jones]

I think it's more accurate to say that the popular concept of race is bogus. There are more genetic differences that aren't visible to the naked eye than ones that are, and one of the former is not always associated with a given set of the latter. Sickle-cell anemia is a good example actually, since it crops up wherever malaria is - see here.

[Gullible Jones]

Re gender-related behavior, yeah, we know it isn't purely a cultural contrivance - hormone levels and other things influence behavior. However, I have to say, people often seem to ascribe way too much of it to genetics. Just look at all the news articles out there that cherry-pick findings from research papers to make it sound like all women have to be horribly bad at math and spacial reasoning, and all men have to be emotionally immature babies. At the risk of sounding like I've got a Golden Mean fetish - dismissing the influence of either genetic or environmental factors out of hand is incredibly stupid.

(Getting a bit off topic: what also pisses me off about that state of things is the way people are so damn indifferent. Being unable to read a map is not just another personality trait, it is a fucking disability; likewise for being unable to comprehend other peoples' emotions.)

[Tanasinn]

The notion that race is a mere cultural contrivance reminds me of the idiotic idea (fashionable among psychologists in the 1970s) that gender-related behaviour was also a mere cultural contrivance.

That's very true, although I can tell you that I've had more than a few anthropology professors basically say that no anthropologists take the idea of race seriously anymore.

I've heard the same sort of thing. I got the impression that it was because the idea of "race" as we know it really was based mostly on cultural attitudes and overly-simplified visual cues. Census race options over various time periods might be one example, I guess.


How do I see it, personally? "Race," of a sort, exists. Different populations have different minor adaptations to different environments. This is to be expected. Is race some sort of sharply-defined thing? I don't really think so.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

When we learned about race in Anthropology, the professors did imply it was a social construct, but when they talked about it as such, they specifically referred to the traditional understanding of the term. They went on to explain a more accurate version of the biological basis of population genetics and helped dispel the overly-simplistic skin-colour = subgroup misconceptions some people had.

What they do is change the term to populations in my old textbooks and describe them as groups of individuals stemming from certain geographic positions with a common genetic background of traits unique to their conditions.

[Elfdart]

It should be noted that concept of "race" does have a biological meaning. Dogs have races, as do horses and cattle. The differences between a dachshund and a saluki are significant and a names should exist to point out this difference while still recognizing them as part of the same species. Races in that sense do not exist in humans.

My understanding is that that's exactly what exists in humans. Dachshunds and chihuahuas aren't just part of the same species (Canis lupis) - they are in the same subspecies too i.e. race (Canis lupis familiaris).

Despite 'ethnic variations' that vastly exceed any genetic differences among humans, all dogs are still biologically the same race. So the idea that people with black skin are actually a different subspecies to those with white skin is absurd, and has been rightly laughed out of science. The variations are so minor that we are all of the race 'Homo sapiens sapiens'.

Within that subspecies, however, there are obviously hereditary groupings, just like in many plant and animal species. In dogs they're called breeds, which would be a bit crude if applied to humans, so instead the term 'ethnicities' has been introduced. This distinguishes the real infrasubspecific groupings that we're familiar with, without giving legitimacy to old-fashioned ideas about 'races' being technical subspecies.

The funny thing is, if a naturalist didn't know about dog breeds (or they didn't exist, hypothetically) and were to encounter dachshunds and chihuahuas in the wild, they would definitely be considered different species.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I realize there's a current fashion to poo-poo the concept of race, and certainly historically it's been misused and overused, but it does matter who your ancestors are. There are real, physical differences between populations for particular genes that are of importance in particular contexts. It is silly to pretend there aren't visible differences between someone of Swedish ancestry and someone of Nigerian ancestry. So now we are likely to call these differences "ethnic" rather than "racial", and perhaps the newer term is better, but the "social construct" of race is not entirely built out of pixie dust.

In strict scientific terms we are all one species, homo sapiens, but in casual conversation and social contexts we frequently use looser definitions than the scientific. If I tell someone to meet someone at the airport they've never seen before I don't say "look for a homo sapiens" I'll describe them - and it may well include such terms as "Asian" because it is shorter than saying "medium brown skin, straight black hair, high cheek bones, with epicanthal eye folds" and there are enough people in the world of Asian ancestry that it's convenient to have a concise label for those traits. That doesn't mean I think all people in Asia (and their relatives elsewhere in the world) are one homogeneous blob, and I may even refine the description further by specifying height, a darker or lighter skin tone, or mentioning someone looks more Thai or Phillipino than Chinese or Japanese or Korean. In such context, "What race is the person I'm meeting?" is easily understood to be shorthand for "Please give me a short description of what this person looks like" and hence the emphasis on visual cues.

In the medical world "race" also matters - cystic fibrosis is very rare outside of people of European ancestry, but if a child does have European ancestry and is exhibiting certain symptoms then testing for this disease is definitely required. In North America, people of African descent whose ancestors residence on the continent date back to the days of the slave trade are at significant risk of hypertension... but Africans recently arrived from Africa are not. People of Native America or Pacific Island ancestry are significantly more likely to suffer from both obesity and diabetes. Ashkenazi Jews - those of Eastern European ancestry - are more likely than anyone else to carry the Tay Sachs gene. These differences matter, and the genes concerned travel with a certain ancestry and appearance which, yes, is linked to the concept of "race". Nor is it a matter of negatives - long distance running endurance is linked to peoples from Eastern Africa, high altitude tolerance to people of Tibetan ancestry, ability to digest lactose into adulthood with northern Europeans and with some tribes in eastern and northern Africa. And some of it is likely neutral or only weakly adaptive - Europeans vary more in coloration, Africans vary more in height. That doesn't mean everyone of a given ancestry or population is identical or even has a particular trait (there are, after all, albinos in Africa born to very dark parents) but most do.

As an analogy - generally, when I look at my neighbor's backyard I might say "the grass is green" even though I know perfectly well that there are stray blades of grass that are brown or yellowed, and that not every single plant in the lawn is actually grass... but most of the time that level of specificity is not required for understanding and communication. If I say "The grass is on fire!" it's really not a time for that level of nit-picking, the important thing to know is that the vegetation next door is combusting and I need to call the fire department. So, while I would agree that in some conversations the term "race" should be avoided I don't see banning it entirely.

All of the things you're describing describe population genetics, but NOT race as it is culturally recognized and used. For example, Americans like to think their idea of "black" is fundamental and the way everyone sees it. This is hardly the case in Latin America or elsewhere.

[Broomstick]

I realize there's a current fashion to poo-poo the concept of race, and certainly historically it's been misused and overused, but it does matter who your ancestors are. There are real, physical differences between populations for particular genes that are of importance in particular contexts. It is silly to pretend there aren't visible differences between someone of Swedish ancestry and someone of Nigerian ancestry. So now we are likely to call these differences "ethnic" rather than "racial", and perhaps the newer term is better, but the "social construct" of race is not entirely built out of pixie dust.

In strict scientific terms we are all one species, homo sapiens, but in casual conversation and social contexts we frequently use looser definitions than the scientific. If I tell someone to meet someone at the airport they've never seen before I don't say "look for a homo sapiens" I'll describe them - and it may well include such terms as "Asian" because it is shorter than saying "medium brown skin, straight black hair, high cheek bones, with epicanthal eye folds" and there are enough people in the world of Asian ancestry that it's convenient to have a concise label for those traits. That doesn't mean I think all people in Asia (and their relatives elsewhere in the world) are one homogeneous blob, and I may even refine the description further by specifying height, a darker or lighter skin tone, or mentioning someone looks more Thai or Phillipino than Chinese or Japanese or Korean. In such context, "What race is the person I'm meeting?" is easily understood to be shorthand for "Please give me a short description of what this person looks like" and hence the emphasis on visual cues.

In the medical world "race" also matters - cystic fibrosis is very rare outside of people of European ancestry, but if a child does have European ancestry and is exhibiting certain symptoms then testing for this disease is definitely required. In North America, people of African descent whose ancestors residence on the continent date back to the days of the slave trade are at significant risk of hypertension... but Africans recently arrived from Africa are not. People of Native America or Pacific Island ancestry are significantly more likely to suffer from both obesity and diabetes. Ashkenazi Jews - those of Eastern European ancestry - are more likely than anyone else to carry the Tay Sachs gene. These differences matter, and the genes concerned travel with a certain ancestry and appearance which, yes, is linked to the concept of "race". Nor is it a matter of negatives - long distance running endurance is linked to peoples from Eastern Africa, high altitude tolerance to people of Tibetan ancestry, ability to digest lactose into adulthood with northern Europeans and with some tribes in eastern and northern Africa. And some of it is likely neutral or only weakly adaptive - Europeans vary more in coloration, Africans vary more in height. That doesn't mean everyone of a given ancestry or population is identical or even has a particular trait (there are, after all, albinos in Africa born to very dark parents) but most do.

As an analogy - generally, when I look at my neighbor's backyard I might say "the grass is green" even though I know perfectly well that there are stray blades of grass that are brown or yellowed, and that not every single plant in the lawn is actually grass... but most of the time that level of specificity is not required for understanding and communication. If I say "The grass is on fire!" it's really not a time for that level of nit-picking, the important thing to know is that the vegetation next door is combusting and I need to call the fire department. So, while I would agree that in some conversations the term "race" should be avoided I don't see banning it entirely.

All of the things you're describing describe population genetics, but NOT race as it is culturally recognized and used. For example, Americans like to think their idea of "black" is fundamental and the way everyone sees it. This is hardly the case in Latin America or elsewhere.

I think perhaps you speak to different Americans than I do - I have heard terms such as "the Jewish race", "the German race", "the Japanese race", etc., etc. which are clearly ethnic groupings. I've also heard "Southern blacks" vs. "Northern blacks". Terms such as mulatto, quadroon, and octroon have fallen out of favor but they were used when my parents were young, so even within the past hundred years in the US the "black" race was defined and described differently. In general language "race" is not very strictly defined. The larger groupings, where you have 3-5 "races" very broadly define continental origin of ancestors whereas the more numerous "races" are ethnic references.

If there is an argument for getting rid of the word "race" I'd say it was that - it's not well defined, and it varies culturally. Certainly, Americans are not culturally homogenous and just because you subgroup uses the term one way does not mean mine does.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I think perhaps you speak to different Americans than I do - I have heard terms such as "the Jewish race", "the German race", "the Japanese race", etc., etc. which are clearly ethnic groupings. I've also heard "Southern blacks" vs. "Northern blacks". Terms such as mulatto, quadroon, and octroon have fallen out of favor but they were used when my parents were young, so even within the past hundred years in the US the "black" race was defined and described differently. In general language "race" is not very strictly defined. The larger groupings, where you have 3-5 "races" very broadly define continental origin of ancestors whereas the more numerous "races" are ethnic references.

Right. The "3-5 colored races" scheme is a bullshit from the 1800s. Those popular and visible conceptions to not necessarily reflect population genetics. Phenotype and genotype.

If there is an argument for getting rid of the word "race" I'd say it was that - it's not well defined, and it varies culturally. Certainly, Americans are not culturally homogenous and just because you subgroup uses the term one way does not mean mine does.

Right; its an epistemologically useless term. Ethnic group describes the cultural units amply, and genetic population groups cannot be meaningfully identified by mere sight.

[Broomstick]

Right; its an epistemologically useless term. Ethnic group describes the cultural units amply, and genetic population groups cannot be meaningfully identified by mere sight.

You mean to tell me that I couldn't look at our esteemed Mr. Wong and deduce his ancestors came from Asia? Or that the aforementioned Mr. Wong couldn't look at pale little me and conclude I have European ancestry?

Yes, you CAN identify certain "genetic population groups" by sight. The question then becomes whether or not that grouping tells you anything important, and in some circumstances it can. As I mentioned previously, it does aid in visual identification of an individual. A doctor could reasonably inquire as to family history of cystic fibrosis in people of the European group or sickle cell anemia in people of African ancestry. In both cases skin color is a fairly reliable indicator of group membership. Yes, different subpopulations on each continent have greater or lesser vulnerability to those particular defects, but both are pretty rare among people of Asia ancestry.

Again, the groupings aren't total social fabrications, the problem is that they have accreted so much baggage. It's as wrong to assert visible characteristics have no relationship to ancestry as to assert that such group membership has sharp borders bordering on making them sub-species.

And, of course, there are some characteristics, such as the ability to digest lactose into adulthood, which can't be discerned from visual appearance alone. That trait shows up most frequently in both European and African sub-populations with very different visual appearances.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You mean to tell me that I couldn't look at our esteemed Mr. Wong and deduce his ancestors came from Asia? Or that the aforementioned Mr. Wong couldn't look at pale little me and conclude I have European ancestry?

Yes, you CAN identify certain "genetic population groups" by sight. The question then becomes whether or not that grouping tells you anything important, and in some circumstances it can. As I mentioned previously, it does aid in visual identification of an individual. A doctor could reasonably inquire as to family history of cystic fibrosis in people of the European group or sickle cell anemia in people of African ancestry. In both cases skin color is a fairly reliable indicator of group membership. Yes, different subpopulations on each continent have greater or lesser vulnerability to those particular defects, but both are pretty rare among people of Asia ancestry.

Okay, but is this in any precise or useful for laymen? No. And again, what you think is black is qualified by just about minimal sub-Saharan African heritage. In Latin America, they just would not notice "black" the way you do, and would not readily identify their blacks correctly with all those with sub-Saharan African heritage. Furthermore, its not merely skin-tone, because are you telling me with a straight face that you see an Australian aboriginal walking around and would correctly think he was at risk for sickle-cell?

No, you pick out speech and cultural cues, facial features, and skin tone that you typically identify with fellow citizens who are descended from black African slaves. Are you saying you could walk through Rio and correctly identify those who are at risk for sickle cell?

Or how about me, I'm a biracial individual. I'm frequently identified as "Arab", "[East] Indian", "Filipino", "Greek", and "Eastern European." In fact I have virtually no ancestry from those backgrounds.

Again, the groupings aren't total social fabrications, the problem is that they have accreted so much baggage. It's as wrong to assert visible characteristics have no relationship to ancestry as to assert that such group membership has sharp borders bordering on making them sub-species.

It has a relationship to ancestry which cannot be ascertained definitively by laymen in most societies nor seperated from cultural baggage. Of course certain people can be clearly identified with their genetic global grouping. But most cannot, and it gets inevitably wrapped up with this baggage. If it matters, doctors can worry about it.

And, of course, there are some characteristics, such as the ability to digest lactose into adulthood, which can't be discerned from visual appearance alone. That trait shows up most frequently in both European and African sub-populations with very different visual appearances.

Proving my point. 95% of the time people pick out "obvious" physical appearance differences, they're dealing with their own cultural issues and social heirarchies. Not the person's genotype.

[Broomstick]

You mean to tell me that I couldn't look at our esteemed Mr. Wong and deduce his ancestors came from Asia? Or that the aforementioned Mr. Wong couldn't look at pale little me and conclude I have European ancestry?

Yes, you CAN identify certain "genetic population groups" by sight. The question then becomes whether or not that grouping tells you anything important, and in some circumstances it can. As I mentioned previously, it does aid in visual identification of an individual. A doctor could reasonably inquire as to family history of cystic fibrosis in people of the European group or sickle cell anemia in people of African ancestry. In both cases skin color is a fairly reliable indicator of group membership. Yes, different subpopulations on each continent have greater or lesser vulnerability to those particular defects, but both are pretty rare among people of Asia ancestry.

Okay, but is this in any precise or useful for laymen? No.

If these groupings weren't useful somehow to the "layman", why would "lay language" have them? Of course, sometimes the uses to which they were put were not what we would consider ethical, but to deny they have any use, meaning, or existence at all is ridiculous

And again, what you think is black is qualified by just about minimal sub-Saharan African heritage.

Do you mean "you" in a general sense, or me specifically? Because that statement is incorrect about me, personally. Oh, wait - the term "you" is imprecise. I guess the second person doesn't exist in the English language and we should stop using it.

In Latin America, they just would not notice "black" the way you do, and would not readily identify their blacks correctly with all those with sub-Saharan African heritage.

Yes, as amazing as it may seem, this northern US cracker is, in fact, aware that south of the Rio Grande there are different terms and groupings. Also, I don't get where you identify this "correctly" business. Although there certainly is a meme of "one drop of negro blood" definition of "black" in the US it is not and was not universal. At a certain point people either start to "pass" for white or are mistaken for white because the African traits are so dilute. As I have said before, the borders are not absolute on these groups (we are, after all, one species) but that doesn't mean they have no use at all.

Furthermore, its not merely skin-tone, because are you telling me with a straight face that you see an Australian aboriginal walking around and would correctly think he was at risk for sickle-cell?

That's not what I said.

To my eyes, at least, Australian Aborigines are visually distinct from sub-Saharn "black" Africans. While Australians (and Tasmanians) do share a dark skin with sub-Saharan Africans their faces are different as well as a few other traits. I doubt I would mistake one for the other. It's like saying you'd confuse a Chinese and a Greek because they are both lighter skinned than southern Africans and both have dark, straight hair.

Which, really, is why the "three races" division has never been entirely satisfactory and there are "five race" and other groupings which set peoples like the Khoi-San and native Australians/Tasmanians apart from everyone else. But in biological taxonomy there has long been a conflict between "lumpers' and "splitters" on whether a variety is a sub-species or not, and I fail to see why the human race should be an exception to such disagreements.

No, you pick out speech and cultural cues, facial features, and skin tone that you typically identify with fellow citizens who are descended from black African slaves. Are you saying you could walk through Rio and correctly identify those who are at risk for sickle cell?

I couldn't walk through the streets of Nigeria and correctly identify who is and isn't at risk for sickle cell, even though that country has the highest incidence on the planet of such - all I can say is that, statistically, you'll find more carriers and sufferers in any given group in Nigeria than elsewhere. Likewise, statistically, you'll find more sickle cell among US people of African descent than among other US groups. That does NOT mean you can predict on an individual basis. A lot of preventive medicine is based on this sort of statistical information rather than definitive predictions. I can confidently say that in Rio those with African ancestry are more likely to have sickle cell than those without, but in truth for each individual the answer is either a definite yes or no. That doesn't mean the statistical information is irrelevant.

Or how about me, I'm a biracial individual. I'm frequently identified as "Arab", "[East] Indian", "Filipino", "Greek", and "Eastern European." In fact I have virtually no ancestry from those backgrounds.

As I said, the "three races" organization makes no allowances for people of mixed ancestry. Some of the systems with many more terms/groupings do, such as "mestizo" and many other Latin American terms. Which is not surprising, given the way ethnic mixing has occurred in those countries, particularly places like Brazil.

Again, the groupings aren't total social fabrications, the problem is that they have accreted so much baggage. It's as wrong to assert visible characteristics have no relationship to ancestry as to assert that such group membership has sharp borders bordering on making them sub-species.

It has a relationship to ancestry which cannot be ascertained definitively by laymen in most societies nor seperated from cultural baggage. Of course certain people can be clearly identified with their genetic global grouping. But most cannot, and it gets inevitably wrapped up with this baggage. If it matters, doctors can worry about it.

Whether or not "most" applies depends greatly on where you live. In areas where there has been much mixing of people of diverse ancestry no, the "three races" system doesn't work well - which is why in such areas you have new terms arise. The point is, these terms/groupings wouldn't exist if they didn't have some utility.

As for "doctors can worry about it" - um, actually, it's more a worry of individuals and families. Personally, if my particular ancestry puts me at risk of a certain disease I'd like to know so I can make choices that will minimize my risk. As an example, although I might never get skin cancer even if I bake in the sun 12 hours a day and live to 70, my ethnicity puts me at high statistical risk and I therefore limit my sun exposure to reduce my odds of that particular illness. Should we say "well, we're all one species everyone is at X risk for skin cancer" when clearly that is a false statement? In this case, risk for a disease DOES relate to the "three races" system. On the other hand, my friends with African ancestry worry less about skin cancer and more about high blood pressure causing illness. I have a half-Hawaiian friend who worries considerably about her ethinic tendencies towards obesity and diabetes. Should all of these people just ignore their vulnerabilities because they happen to be linked to ethnicity and it's not politically correct to do so? Bullshit.

And, of course, there are some characteristics, such as the ability to digest lactose into adulthood, which can't be discerned from visual appearance alone. That trait shows up most frequently in both European and African sub-populations with very different visual appearances.

Proving my point. 95% of the time people pick out "obvious" physical appearance differences, they're dealing with their own cultural issues and social heirarchies. Not the person's genotype.

But the groups in Europe and Africa who do maintain lactase production actually ARE distinct from their neighbors! It's also why, if someone of Asian ancestry is having certain digestive problems they are told eliminate dairy as a first step whereas if it's someone of, say, Irish ancestry the doctors are more likely to consider multiple causes from the first. Because ancestry matters. It's not doom, it's not your entire destiny, but it does matter.

[Illuminatus Primus]

If these groupings weren't useful somehow to the "layman", why would "lay language" have them? Of course, sometimes the uses to which they were put were not what we would consider ethical, but to deny they have any use, meaning, or existence at all is ridiculous

Of course I'm talking about objective use. Clearly any excuse available to delineate a "them" from an "us" which is then used to apologize for exploiting the them is used by human societies. No shit.

Do you mean "you" in a general sense, or me specifically? Because that statement is incorrect about me, personally. Oh, wait - the term "you" is imprecise. I guess the second person doesn't exist in the English language and we should stop using it.

Hur hur hur! I can use strawmen! You used an example about blacks in America; which has everything to do with how you were raised and cultural conception of blackness that have everything to do with American cultural traditions of "one-drop doctrine" and hypodescent. If you'd been born somewhere else, the people you'd readily identify as black wouldn't meet neat conventions.

Yes, as amazing as it may seem, this northern US cracker is, in fact, aware that south of the Rio Grande there are different terms and groupings. Also, I don't get where you identify this "correctly" business. Although there certainly is a meme of "one drop of negro blood" definition of "black" in the US it is not and was not universal. At a certain point people either start to "pass" for white or are mistaken for white because the African traits are so dilute. As I have said before, the borders are not absolute on these groups (we are, after all, one species) but that doesn't mean they have no use at all.

But its inherently unfair. A hundred years ago, the slightest hint of blackness would have given that person total descrimination before civil society. You keep acting like there's this "objective race" that people ignore and this "mean racist race" people just use because they're mean. What are those objective races? And if that is NOT how race is actually used as a concept, who cares? Race is typically used to group superficially alike-looking people (relative to the judging group; typically within the judged group they see many difference - black Africans do not see themselves as homogenous) as sharing characteristics. In reality, race only means that the person seeing the race superficially notices those characteristics in common. It does not mean those supposedly belonging to the race agree.

The term "race" refers to a term used primarily culturally to imply a biological root to cultural traditions and exploitation. It is not the term used by geneticists or anthropologists or biologists. So what use is it? There are ethnic groups - cultural groupings, and there are genotypes. Furthermore, most of your "well I can tell" BS is just that. The supposedly "Anglo-Saxon" British are predominantly Stone Age-era peoples; i.e., they were there long before the Germanic, and probably even Celtic migrations.

To my eyes, at least, Australian Aborigines are visually distinct from sub-Saharn "black" Africans. While Australians (and Tasmanians) do share a dark skin with sub-Saharan Africans their faces are different as well as a few other traits. I doubt I would mistake one for the other. It's like saying you'd confuse a Chinese and a Greek because they are both lighter skinned than southern Africans and both have dark, straight hair.

Okay, so I guess white people never lump me in stupid catagories because they think their perception of nationality is pefect. Thank you, I'm so glad I am freed from my self-delusions.

Which, really, is why the "three races" division has never been entirely satisfactory and there are "five race" and other groupings which set peoples like the Khoi-San and native Australians/Tasmanians apart from everyone else. But in biological taxonomy there has long been a conflict between "lumpers' and "splitters" on whether a variety is a sub-species or not, and I fail to see why the human race should be an exception to such disagreements.

Nice appeal to authority. No respectible biologist has compared the historical "racial science" five color-races to real subspecies.

I couldn't walk through the streets of Nigeria and correctly identify who is and isn't at risk for sickle cell, even though that country has the highest incidence on the planet of such - all I can say is that, statistically, you'll find more carriers and sufferers in any given group in Nigeria than elsewhere.

Right, and Nigerians don't look different to you from Bantu. Thank you for proving my point.

Likewise, statistically, you'll find more sickle cell among US people of African descent than among other US groups. That does NOT mean you can predict on an individual basis. A lot of preventive medicine is based on this sort of statistical information rather than definitive predictions. I can confidently say that in Rio those with African ancestry are more likely to have sickle cell than those without, but in truth for each individual the answer is either a definite yes or no. That doesn't mean the statistical information is irrelevant.

Except race in the U.S. is about mucking up that pristine white blood with mud people blood, not about the prevelence of sickle cell disease.

As I said, the "three races" organization makes no allowances for people of mixed ancestry. Some of the systems with many more terms/groupings do, such as "mestizo" and many other Latin American terms. Which is not surprising, given the way ethnic mixing has occurred in those countries, particularly places like Brazil.

Okay, so I'm now the same as anyone who is 75% Indian to 5% or less. Admit this is cultural. These groups make up these catagories because it benefits certain socioeconomic strata who typically belong to a privileged group. The point is that if the scientists do not find it rigorous or useful, why perpetuate it, especially when virtually all race distinctions AS THEY ARE ACTUALLY USED are superficial, not rigorious, and culturally-based.

Whether or not "most" applies depends greatly on where you live. In areas where there has been much mixing of people of diverse ancestry no, the "three races" system doesn't work well - which is why in such areas you have new terms arise. The point is, these terms/groupings wouldn't exist if they didn't have some utility.

As for "doctors can worry about it" - um, actually, it's more a worry of individuals and families. Personally, if my particular ancestry puts me at risk of a certain disease I'd like to know so I can make choices that will minimize my risk. As an example, although I might never get skin cancer even if I bake in the sun 12 hours a day and live to 70, my ethnicity puts me at high statistical risk and I therefore limit my sun exposure to reduce my odds of that particular illness.

Your natural melinin content is the issue, NOT your ancestry. Obviously, since many disparate genetic groups have had parallel evolution to adapt to tropical zones. Tying these specific aspects to race is MISLEADING because it implies "dark races" ought to be related. They are not, anymore than all "races" are. You really need more than a Google or Wiki search to understand these things, honey.

Should we say "well, we're all one species everyone is at X risk for skin cancer" when clearly that is a false statement? In this case, risk for a disease DOES relate to the "three races" system. On the other hand, my friends with African ancestry worry less about skin cancer and more about high blood pressure causing illness. I have a half-Hawaiian friend who worries considerably about her ethinic tendencies towards obesity and diabetes. Should all of these people just ignore their vulnerabilities because they happen to be linked to ethnicity and it's not politically correct to do so? Bullshit.

Right, I'm sure Americans descended from slaves are in desperate need of that being pointed out to him. Your long-windedness might mean shit if this was actually a pressing problem of recognition, but it is not. As if somehow we couldn't tell people that heritage from sub-Saharan Africa is a risk factor for sickle-cell, we have to call people black and hire and accept applications on that basis and perpetuate the racism of hypodescent.

But the groups in Europe and Africa who do maintain lactase production actually ARE distinct from their neighbors! It's also why, if someone of Asian ancestry is having certain digestive problems they are told eliminate dairy as a first step whereas if it's someone of, say, Irish ancestry the doctors are more likely to consider multiple causes from the first. Because ancestry matters. It's not doom, it's not your entire destiny, but it does matter.

Ancestry is not race. How is it geneticists can work this out, but you apparently think without "race" as you see it, they'll be crippled into not being able to do any of their work. They seem to be doing fine. So you're just a bunch of hot air.