"Is Race Real?"

"Genetics will increasingly show that most humans are mongrels, and it will make a mockery of racism." So says Nicholas D. Kristof, one of the loudest voices in support of the Iraq war and the pro-Christian, pro-Jewish, anti-materialist platform we know as NEOCONSERVATIVISM.

Unfortunately, Kristof neglects to prove this in his article, instead relying on blustery rhetoric and implications that are never followed up upon. Like most "race debunkers," he begins by talking about how there's no one gene that labels a person with race, but sidestepping the fact that most racists claim race is a collection of traits, he then goes on to admit the ability of geneticists to determine race from a semen sample, yet claims this is not important.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Race is as real as family .

if you can have family , you can have race as well . Its just bigger . However the question really should be what relevance should it have outside of anthropologic & historical study to better understand mankind , or simply todays sociology ?

I say nothing other than that , and I would love to see an argument that can prove me wrong , why race IS relevant outside of the given sciences .

As for the neocons position , I cant take their philosophy that serious can you ?

there's no one gene that labels a person with race, but sidestepping the fact that most racists claim race is a collection of traits

Im sure you mean well but the collection of traits isnt a racist position but a scietifical one . A racist position would be to link metaphysical values to those traits , not to merely describe them in order to define the developping of a peoples .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please give me the traits the 'scientifically' classify or define a Black, White, Latino and Asian(is it) race.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please give me the traits the 'scientifically' classify or define a Black, White, Latino and Asian(is it) race

Nobody said that that are the proper scientific ways to call a race . Most proper would be to start at linguistic-related and from there to check out the racial characteristics and fit them into the historical context as a peoples amongst other peoples.

Black is color , Asia is a continent and Latino , well ........
no comment

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Genetics will increasingly show that most humans are mongrels, and it will make a mockery of racism." So says Nicholas D. Kristof

Any links to that article?

Like most "race debunkers," he begins by talking about how there's no one gene that labels a person with race,

1) The problem is with a standard definition of "Race". No one seems to as yet agree on a standard definition, defined by a set of parameters hence the term "race" is far to geeralised, and is becomign increasingly nonsensical.
Personally I do not like to use the term "Race" but rather ethnicity.
2) As far as I am aware, there is no gene that determines one "race"


he then goes on to admit the ability of geneticists to determine race from a semen sample,

I'm not aware of this. Anyone shed any light?

 

Personally I do not like to use the term "Race" but rather ethnicity.

I think ethnicity is a far worse word , as far as the dictionary defines it . Basically it comes down to that its about a group that should have some overal picture dealing with race , religion etc . Its more of a "we dont know what to call it " word .

Others however would argue ethnicity is a smaller group within a race , or so Ive heard . Perhaps this is so in anthropological circles all im familliar with is the first one .

ethnicity is much rather used sociological oftenly in political context .

As far as I am aware, there is no gene that determines one "race"

There isnt , but the thing is that there doesnt have to be . It is a definition based an various genes .

I'm not aware of this. Anyone shed any light?

I dont know how they mdo it but obviously it would be possible to determine various genes through semen including the ones that would decide race .

 

how did political thread end up in the biology forum!!!!

 

1 - Very well stated.

2 - No, it's a racist position; anyone who believes in race is a racist, including scientists.

 

Yep, see the original post.

 

"Race" is, unfortunately, real. But it's only purpose is to exclude and not to include. Even with affirmitive action racial motivations, it is to exclude a certain number of one race in order to include others.

Race exists only at the insistance of man. It does not exist for science. As long as people choose to develop cultures of their own kind, they will point out the differences of others... physical differences being the most obvious.

If race exists as fact in science, I challenge someone to define how many races there are and why.

 

1 - Identifying people as individuals excludes others from being those people. Similarly, if you're part of a group, by definition others are not part of that group; thus you've stumbled across the definition of separation here and are whining about it. Not smart.

2/3 - Race exists as a record of evolution. Man did not invent it, nor by his insistence does it continue.

 

Bull.

 

I seem to remember my university physical anthropology textbooks explaining why it is often possible to determine the race of an individual simply by looking at certain parts of said individual's bone structure.

This "insistance of man" must be quite insistant indeed to result in consistantly appearing anatomical attributes.

 

Oh, I'm quite aware that I offered a contradictory explaination, but that is the nature of the concept. Race exists, but only at the discretion of man. The separation exists, but it is relative. And to your last two word sentance, I must agree. I'm really not a smart person at all.

See my next post.

 

Your books are out-dated.

It is true that there are some differences notable between the "so-called" races, but here's a quote from the American Anthropology Association (http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm):

So, as you can see, Science, once again, evolves.

Race exists only at the discretion and insistance of man.

 

are ethnicities real?

 

Hei Paulsamuel,

Are human races really a legimate scientific subject in modern population biology?

 

spurious

lol, i guess you remember the other thread.

human races are not really biologial entities

this is because of the distribution of genetic variation where variation within a race is greater than between races

that being said, there are genetic markers by which an individual's race can be determined.

problem with a discussion like this is that people confuse political, social or cultural distinction with biology

 

The question is “is race real”, depending on how you interpret it: yes and no.

From a purely racist stand point of using a persons race to label stereotypes and traits on them then race does not exist, You can not label a person with a trait common to there “race” since each person on a individual level has differences from s/he race. You can calculate the probability a person has a trait based of their ancestry or race but you cannot guaranty it without looking at the person individually.

If your looking at it from a sociological standpoint then race exist only to define how people define each other. Race is the classification of people into different groups based off physical traits.

From a genetic stand-point race exist, but is not the same interpretation as the common social races. What we may call a race might not exist genetically or may consist of several different genetic races or ancestries.

 

Don't encourage them