Is the concept of human race a valid concept? What does it mean for something to be a valid concept? How do you define race? Is the concept invalid, trivially valid by some esoteric definition, or valid by the usual standards of similar concepts? Is it informative or uninformative?
Does race exist?
- Thread starter Phill
- Start date
- Status
Are you native ; to me only a Native People ; person can think this way .
The most advanced thinking upon Humanity is from North American natives.
Last edited:
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
The word "race" is not commonly used among anthropologists anymore.
Obviously, in the distant past there were populations with distinct gene pools. The most visible difference was the concentration of melanin, which protects the skin from sunburn--and of course gives the skin a dark tone. People in the equatorial latitudes needed that protection, whereas people nearer the arctic regions needed all the sunshine they could get, because it catalyzes the production of Vitamin D.
Other genetic trends were the result of our own technology. People in grassy regions where various species of cattle lived (bison, yak, bovines) found themselves with a steady supply of milk. Their descendants slowly evolved the mutation for lactose-tolerance, which spurred population growth. (One acre of grassland used to feed dairy cattle produces ten times as much food as the same acre used to feed beef cattle.)
But the Bronze Age (which started around 4000BCE in Mesopotamia, a bit later in China and other regions, much later in the New World) began to break down the differences between the various human populations. Metal blades allowed our ancestors to invent the wheel (stone tools don't have the precision), and they quickly realized that some of their already-domesticated grazing animals could be trained to pull carts and, eventually, wagons and coaches.
Metal tools also increased the size of boats. Both of these kinds of vehicles were obviously used for commerce but they also made it possible for people to migrate across distances that would have taken their ancestors several generations.
We don't have enough well-preserved cadavers to identify a moment in history at which we can announce authoritatively, "This is when the various races of humans merged into a single population." But by the Age of Exploration (around 500 years ago) the people of the Old World (Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia) had been intermarrying for so long that there were no more "races." The only visible difference was in skin color, because suntan lotion had not been invented to protect the British from dying of skin cancer in Africa, and likewise, fortified milk had not been invented to protect Africans from dying of Vitamin D deficiency in Siberia.
As the New World was invaded and its population treated like pests by the Christian marauders, the final blending of human DNA began.
Today, the difference in DNA between a human born in Iceland and a human born in Borneo is LESS than the difference between two breeds of dogs.
So the word "race" has been appropriated as a shorthand term for people who look and/or behave differently from the people who use it.
Obviously, in the distant past there were populations with distinct gene pools. The most visible difference was the concentration of melanin, which protects the skin from sunburn--and of course gives the skin a dark tone. People in the equatorial latitudes needed that protection, whereas people nearer the arctic regions needed all the sunshine they could get, because it catalyzes the production of Vitamin D.
Other genetic trends were the result of our own technology. People in grassy regions where various species of cattle lived (bison, yak, bovines) found themselves with a steady supply of milk. Their descendants slowly evolved the mutation for lactose-tolerance, which spurred population growth. (One acre of grassland used to feed dairy cattle produces ten times as much food as the same acre used to feed beef cattle.)
But the Bronze Age (which started around 4000BCE in Mesopotamia, a bit later in China and other regions, much later in the New World) began to break down the differences between the various human populations. Metal blades allowed our ancestors to invent the wheel (stone tools don't have the precision), and they quickly realized that some of their already-domesticated grazing animals could be trained to pull carts and, eventually, wagons and coaches.
Metal tools also increased the size of boats. Both of these kinds of vehicles were obviously used for commerce but they also made it possible for people to migrate across distances that would have taken their ancestors several generations.
We don't have enough well-preserved cadavers to identify a moment in history at which we can announce authoritatively, "This is when the various races of humans merged into a single population." But by the Age of Exploration (around 500 years ago) the people of the Old World (Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia) had been intermarrying for so long that there were no more "races." The only visible difference was in skin color, because suntan lotion had not been invented to protect the British from dying of skin cancer in Africa, and likewise, fortified milk had not been invented to protect Africans from dying of Vitamin D deficiency in Siberia.
As the New World was invaded and its population treated like pests by the Christian marauders, the final blending of human DNA began.
Today, the difference in DNA between a human born in Iceland and a human born in Borneo is LESS than the difference between two breeds of dogs.
So the word "race" has been appropriated as a shorthand term for people who look and/or behave differently from the people who use it.
Yes, but you can not deny that there are three races: The brunets, the blonds & the red heads; perhaps a fourth: the hairless. If we are going to be "race silly," lets go all the way.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
To clarify, are you talking about the genetically differentiated variations of humans? Typically Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid and sometimes Polynesian?
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
anecdote:
In the army, I had a friend, Monty, who was a self described 1/2 breed. He grew up on the reservation as a perpetual outsider. On the res, they called him whiteboy, and in town, they called him a fucking indian. One night, some townies tried to molest his little sister so Monty went to confront them.
One thing led to another, and he killed one with a 2x4. The judge said 5 years in jail or 5 years in the army. He chose the army. Once there, he found that he liked the inclusive nature of army life. (Here's the part where: "never underestimate the power of dumb luck to see you through when planning and intellect fail" comes in.)
Monty had just reenlisted, and gotten a 10,000 dollar reenlistment bonus, when a judge ordered all such inductees freed. So, he got the discharge papers and reenlisted again for another 10,000 dollar bonus. (Not a bad annual bonus for an e-6)
OK
What about that anecdote had to do with race?
What I saw was peer group identification.
Which, I suspect can apply to "race" concepts. Which, by both indians and whites, negatively impacted Monty as a child.
And, therein lies the danger. When people use 'race" to define the other, the goyim, etc..., they use a shortcut that is largely dysfunctional.
So, From the above: "Race" may be a valid concept , But, most likely unimportant, and in some hands is most likely to be detrimental.
Is Obama black or white?
In the army, I had a friend, Monty, who was a self described 1/2 breed. He grew up on the reservation as a perpetual outsider. On the res, they called him whiteboy, and in town, they called him a fucking indian. One night, some townies tried to molest his little sister so Monty went to confront them.
One thing led to another, and he killed one with a 2x4. The judge said 5 years in jail or 5 years in the army. He chose the army. Once there, he found that he liked the inclusive nature of army life. (Here's the part where: "never underestimate the power of dumb luck to see you through when planning and intellect fail" comes in.)
Monty had just reenlisted, and gotten a 10,000 dollar reenlistment bonus, when a judge ordered all such inductees freed. So, he got the discharge papers and reenlisted again for another 10,000 dollar bonus. (Not a bad annual bonus for an e-6)
OK
What about that anecdote had to do with race?
What I saw was peer group identification.
Which, I suspect can apply to "race" concepts. Which, by both indians and whites, negatively impacted Monty as a child.
And, therein lies the danger. When people use 'race" to define the other, the goyim, etc..., they use a shortcut that is largely dysfunctional.
So, From the above: "Race" may be a valid concept , But, most likely unimportant, and in some hands is most likely to be detrimental.
Is Obama black or white?
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Khaki.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Race is a term invented and applied to visible differences, from a time when we were very ignorant of the human race as a whole, and a time when the world was still infinite and we could afford to see others as enemies.
We now know that we are all the same species, though genetics vary vastly between individuals. I have blue eyes, yet my distant ancestors are the same as yours. She is six feet tall, yet her ancestors are the same as mine. He has dark-pigmented skin, yet his distant ancestors are the same as hers.
It is a derogatory term used by the ignorant to distance themselves from others based on a superficial trait.
We now know that we are all the same species, though genetics vary vastly between individuals. I have blue eyes, yet my distant ancestors are the same as yours. She is six feet tall, yet her ancestors are the same as mine. He has dark-pigmented skin, yet his distant ancestors are the same as hers.
It is a derogatory term used by the ignorant to distance themselves from others based on a superficial trait.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This is of course, a false dichotomy.
He is one element in a set containing 7 billion elements.
When I was leading the effort to integrate the restaurants in Baltimore, one black guy, was really black - a shinning absolute black. He referred to him self as a "pure breed" and the other Negros as "half breeds."
ajanta
Registered Senior Member
Some birds can fly and some can't.
x
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
What would cause you to think so?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I do not believe that definition is adequately defined.
A racist is someone who uses race (whether real or perceived) to define or categorize.
He is Asian is not racist.
He is adept at math because he is Asian is racist.
Post edited for off-topic offensive language.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/race
Belonging to the same group! Single origin...
On a side note:
[DELETED BY MODERATION AS KNOWINGLY OFF-TOPIC AND OFFENSIVE]
- race noun (PEOPLE)
Belonging to the same group! Single origin...
On a side note:
[DELETED BY MODERATION AS KNOWINGLY OFF-TOPIC AND OFFENSIVE]
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
As is obvious, this is not a definition.
By that definition, I belong to the race of males. And the race of balding people. And the race of blue-eyed people. And brunettes. And overweight people. And astonishingly attractive people.
It is actually extremely offensive to most civil people regardless of their origin.
Is there a reason this needed to be posted? Does it inform the discussion somehow?
Last edited:
Your source does not support that there is a scientific case to be made for biological determination of human races. Without a universally applicable scientific means of classifying individuals into races based on biology, what remains is a human social construct without empirical basis.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/PAGE-ONE-No-Biological-Basis-For-Race-3310645.php
Your source does not establish that humans which you classify as a group of the same "type" had a common origin other than that shared by all humans.
- Status