"Is Race Real?"

Hi Tenson Prime:
You're absolutely right in my opinion. There actually seems to be less genetic distance between breeds of dogs than there are between races of humans.
I've been raising and training dogs for thirty years, and I can tell you from experience that "Breed" is just a social construct.
Every year I enter a dog in the sheep dog contest. Those other guys think that there is some genetic basis for breed, and they always enter Border Collies and Australian Shepherds. What fools!
Last year I entered a Labrador Retriever. He showed no interest in the sheep at all, and came in last place. But I was real proud of him. While he was in the arena ignoring the sheep, somebody threw a beer can. He ran over and picked it up and brought it to me.
Gotta go. Right now I'm trying to train a dachsund to point at quail so I can use him when hunting season starts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let me state it again: races are collections of traits.

Your argument above is a strawman: misconstrue another's argument, and then defeat the fake argument.

You'd have to be dumb as a hockey puck to keep advancing that dead theory.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"the problem with this is that it's subjective. it is not logically or scientifically valid to say, 'all these people look alike based on these characteristics, therefore they are a race (or group or whatever).' it is, however a valid question becasue it can be tested genetically, and can be refuted."

Observational data has been part of science for years. Since genetics doesn't measure grouped traits, it's obviously unscientific in this context, by your assessment.

So you people have failed to disprove Race yet? How can that be so? Seeing how there's furious activity here to banish the Taboo. You don't have any arguments, but you're well-trained to chase that Taboo away.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Christian Sodomy,

Spend some time and read through the thread before you decide to make a fool of your self.

 

Race?

But... CS... If races are collections of non-unique traits, then what makes them distinct?

Let's see now...

If we have group A, characterized by traits 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Then we have group B, characterized by traits 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Then we have group C, characterised by traits 2, 3, 4, and 5.

If an Aish person and a Bish person have a kid together, the kid could inherit several trait sets, but definitely traits 3 and 4, and possibly 2 and 5. This makes them... Cish.

Except that if we replace "Aish" and "Bish" with terms like Italian or African, then this sounds incorrect; we can't judge a person to have a cultural background on the basis of their genetic traits.

Of course, even this example is a little unfortunate because most of the arguments which are arguing that different races can be genetically divided seem to operate on the basis of phenotypic expression as the dividing criterion.

(You know, "I know what a Somali looks like" and all that)

It should then be said that phenotypic expression isn't really such a great indication of a person's genetic makeup.

In any case, I suppose my real question is, what's the purpose of finding such a division? Earlier in the forum I think it was said that it would be of historical or cultural importance, but the idea of inferring cultural information about a person from their genetic background seems wrong to me somehow.

What's the point then?

 

What's the point? You're absolutely right! There is no point, no utility to it at all. I mean, there is so little genetic difference that there is absolutely no point in recognizing differences. So, if somebody claims that there is a link between someone's race and a tendency to be affected by a metabolic disorder or pathogen, that person should be told to just shut up. Also, if some forensics guys analyze some DNA from a crime scene and they identify the perp as a European, just tell the cops to keep looking for a black guy. See all those descendants of West Africans in the NFL? And all of those lithe, adroit Asian gymnasts? Those short, squat power lifters from central Asia? That's all just a social construct.
And then there's all that about a continuum in the major so-called races for r and k selected traits, stuff like age to sexual maturity, testosterone levels, numbers of gametes produced, and on and on. That's all due to nurture. Let's be reasonable. There's no way that humans could have evolved to be substantially different in any way, even if some populations have been isolated from each other for 2500 generations or so. Have you seen that stuff in the evolutionary biology books, those equations that show that a given allele with a slightly more advantageous selection coefficient can approach fixation in 10 or 20 or 30 generations? That only applies to fruit flies and plants and things like that. That stuff doesn't apply to humans. This whole business of a biological basis for race is nonsense.

 

Re: Race?

Back to the same explanation.

The traits are not unique, the collection is.

Same way Dells and Macs are made from roughly the same parts.

 

Are you trying to intimidate me?

It don't work, son.

Also, I have yet to see the great coherent world-bending argument that race is not real; in fact, I've seen it defeated.

So maybe you're trying to get me to go away before you are further battered?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This post kicks ass.

Many people are so caught up in self-image they can't admit reality is actually, to some degree, "real" and consistent.

So they make up oversocialized truths and then adamantly insist they're true, even when shown otherwise as in this debate.

 

Christian Sodomy,

not at all I'm asking you to read the thread there are answers to your questions here.

 

I thought race was just a classification based on looks (I forget the genetics term). Clearly, a black person has darker skin and a white person has lighter skin (or some combination of traits). So who can honestly say race doesn't exist under that definition?

And someone doesn't have to be exactly a single race (a sort of false dichotomy). There could be some inbetween - a mix of races. Like how some "black" people only have dark skin [that isn't as dark] but not a flat nose, or whatever specific you want to use as an example.

Isn't any race argument that concludes race doesn't exist biased by political issues?

 

Generally Race is just due to Evolution, so we all pretty much come from similar roots (in fact the same roots), thats why racism is so damn stupid if it's just built on the colour of a persons skin rather the content of someones character.

(you don't need me to quote where thats partially ripped from right? the inbold said by Malcolm X)

 

I never said anybody should act on race, obviously. Seems like many of the posts here strive to be politically correct. I had no clue about that quote - some topics are too boring to read about.

I would seriously like an aswer to this question, which I'm annoyed at not knowing. There is a genetics term for the look of something, as opposed to the genetic coding of it. What is it? It may have started with a P, but I don't really know. I went looking it up on google but after going through one glossary I wasn't up for going through another.

 

phenotype

phenotype vs. genotype

 

Don't worry about it.
The bottom line is there are different races of homo-sapien, just like there are different breeds of canis-familiaris, genetically they are similar, but race is still a real thing.
Why do people try to claim otherwise? I don't see the point, unless you find it impossible to accept that which is different than yourself as an equal, in which case I think it is a good idea you keep deluding yourself into thinking there is no such thing as race

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Dr Lou Natic,

Yes race is a real thing... when your willing to make classifications of hundreds to thousands of different races, there are no 5 races that society came up with.

 

You could break it up into as many groups as you want.
Hundreds of thousands is pushing it, there might be a thousand if you really got to work. But hey in a way each family line could be considered its own race.
Whats the problem with breaking it into 5 races though? Well yeah 5 is a short list, but again dogs are a good example. There are hundreds of thousands of breeds but dogs can be broken into less than 20 groups if you want, like mollossers, terriers, hounds etc, etc.
You could do the same with people, I don't see the big deal thats all I'm saying. Making an issue out of something that shouldn't be is what starts problems. There are lots of different races, that can be categorised into fewer groups if you really feel like it, who cares?

 

I recommend the Bell Curve as a good source of information on this subject. It shows not only a difference in IQ between various races but shows also specific intellectual strengths and weaknesses. For example: Asians show a remarkable proficiency at spatial-mathematical logic while lacking slightly in linguistic skills.

There is nothing strange in this. If races differ on average in physical appearance and performance, why shouldn't they differ in intelligence? No rational individual is going to judge a person in accordance with the tendencies of his/her race. It presents absolutely no social dilemma whatsoever.

 

The bell curve though did not prove those differences being genetic; those differences are much more likely to be social which is what race is. People of Asian ancestry tested in western countries had the result of a western mindset so it is the difference in how western and eastern philosophies effect thinking and learning.

 

This is where you have to use your brain, WellCookedFetus.

It's called independent thinking.

If

- The Evolutionary Record
- The Histories of Various People
- And IQ Testing

All suggest certain tendencies to groups, it isn't social pressures at work.

The Bell Curve also addresses that question.

Now I ask you this: please present evidence/testing that supports your point.