Race

[Pearlgem]

racist, racism is I feel an outdated concept, construed out of ignorance and a lack of understanding

Thank you, craven. I must admit I am constantly amazed that no ever seems to challenge the use of this term. (Another one I object to is 'ethnic cleansing' which make murder sound like good hygiene.)

I wonder how many of you remember way back in your school books or children's encyclopaedias illustrations of evolution equating to 'the ascent of man'? Not the monkey to human ones but so-called 'evolution of race'. I'm guessing/trying to remember here how it went but probably something like -

lowest - the African 'race'
next up - oh, I don't know, the Chinese 'race'
Inuits
Asians
etc
etc
And at the top of the pile? White Europeans/Americans, of course.

This was presented as scientific fact. It seemed obvious to the powers that be that techologically advanced cultures are superior morally and even on an evolutionary level to 'backward' 'races.'

All complete bollocks!

Using the term 'race' to express differences between us is to my mind an example of 'an outdated concept, construed out of ignorance and a lack of understanding.'

[Thorne]

This is all very nice and politically correct, but face it, people: there are differences between ethnic groups, whether you call them races or not. For lack of a better term, I'll use the term 'race' here.

Biologically speaking, there are fundamental structural differences between the Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid races. I'm not certain, but there may also be structural variations between, say, Chinese, Japanese, American Indians, etc. of the Mongoloid races. And I'm not sure if the Middle East groups constitute a structurally different group. But the fact is, such structural differences are there.

There also seem to be differences in brain structure between different races, not necessarily in capability or potential, but in the actual structure and how the brain works. Again, I'm not certain of the extent or effects of such differences, but they are there.

On the other hand, all groups which comprise the human race are capable of interbreeding with all other groups, making for other, more subtle differences between both groups. And, as people travel more and interact more, there will be more and more interbreeding, thus blending all groups into one. Not a bad thing, by any means.

The key thing to remember here is that each of these groups is different, but not necessarily better or worse than any other group. Each evolved to survive in its own particular environment, and are thus better suited in that environment than other groups might be. That doesn't make them fundamentally better, just better in some situations.

This is not a cultural issue, of course. Not one of semantics, or vocabulary. This is a biological truth, whether people like it or not. Contrary to poetic license, we are not all the same under the skin.

[Pearlgem]

This is all very nice and politically correct, but face it, people: there are differences between ethnic groups, whether you call them races or not. For lack of a better term, I'll use the term 'race' here.

I'd use the term 'race' to signify ethnic differences if it didn't already mean something else scientifically which makes a nonsense of trying to describe differences between us this way. Might as well say 'human' and sub-human.'

Biologically speaking, there are fundamental structural differences between the Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid races. I'm not certain, but there may also be structural variations between, say, Chinese, Japanese, American Indians, etc. of the Mongoloid races. And I'm not sure if the Middle East groups constitute a structurally different group. But the fact is, such structural differences are there.

Sure, and if we all stuck to our own and only interbred like with like we'd end up with different species. But humans mix, throughout history, all over the world. Differences are fluid, not set! And just because there are variations in ethnic types does not mean we are different races.

This is not a cultural issue, of course. Not one of semantics, or vocabulary. This is a biological truth, whether people like it or not. Contrary to poetic license, we are not all the same under the skin.

I disagree. It's a scientific, semantic, cultural and moral issue. Using the term 'race' to describe ethnic differences encourages those with the advantages to view those different from themselves as lesser, a different category of human almost, and inhumanely castigates the disadvantaged.

[Thorne]

Sure, and if we all stuck to our own and only interbred like with like we'd end up with different species. But humans mix, throughout history, all over the world. Differences are fluid, not set! And just because there are variations in ethnic types does not mean we are different races.

I thought I had made this point, and that this is not necessarily bad.

I disagree. It's a scientific, semantic, cultural and moral issue. Using the term 'race' to describe ethnic differences encourages those with the advantages to view those different from themselves as lesser, a different category of human almost, and inhumanely castigates the disadvantaged.

Yes, I have to agree that 'ethnic group' is a less inflammatory way of describing our differences than 'race'. And please remember, these are simply differences, not necessarily better or worse, just different.

Humans are basicly the same, regardless of that which is traditionally called race. No human is better or worse on this or that, just because of his/her race. Compare this to dog breeds, a dog of a hunting breed is better at hunting than a dog of a herding breed. There are no such differences between the traditionally defined different human races.

I respectfully disagree with this statement. Evolution has allowed different groups to survive in different environments, making them more adapted to those environments. As denuseri points out in her post, these traits are crucial to individuals survival, even in a modern culture. But these are not necessarily bad or good! A native of Saharan Africa would have just as much difficulty surviving in a Himalayan country, as a Sherpa would in the Sahara.

I saw a program today which stated that all of humanity's genes can be traced back about 75,000 years to about 5,000 breeding females on the African continent. Humans are among the least genetically diverse species on the planet, something which came as a surprise to me. According to this program, a person from, say, Scandinavia has fewer genetic differences from a person from Africa, than do two chimpanzees in the same social group!

At the genetic level, we are more alike than I ever realized. And continued interbreeding between ethnic groups narrows those differences even more. The time will come, I have no doubt, when we will all be same, both genetically and politically. It's inevitable.

[rce]

This is all very nice and politically correct, but face it, people: there are differences between ethnic groups, whether you call them races or not. For lack of a better term, I'll use the term 'race' here.

Biologically speaking, there are fundamental structural differences between the Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid races. I'm not certain, but there may also be structural variations between, say, Chinese, Japanese, American Indians, etc. of the Mongoloid races. And I'm not sure if the Middle East groups constitute a structurally different group. But the fact is, such structural differences are there.

There also seem to be differences in brain structure between different races, not necessarily in capability or potential, but in the actual structure and how the brain works. Again, I'm not certain of the extent or effects of such differences, but they are there.

On the other hand, all groups which comprise the human race are capable of interbreeding with all other groups, making for other, more subtle differences between both groups. And, as people travel more and interact more, there will be more and more interbreeding, thus blending all groups into one. Not a bad thing, by any means.

The key thing to remember here is that each of these groups is different, but not necessarily better or worse than any other group. Each evolved to survive in its own particular environment, and are thus better suited in that environment than other groups might be. That doesn't make them fundamentally better, just better in some situations.

This is not a cultural issue, of course. Not one of semantics, or vocabulary. This is a biological truth, whether people like it or not. Contrary to poetic license, we are not all the same under the skin.

Modern medicine and genetics have determined that there are more differences between people within one of the traditionally defined human races than between many people of different such races.

Humans are basicly the same, regardless of that which is traditionally called race. No human is better or worse on this or that, just because of his/her race. Compare this to dog breeds, a dog of a hunting breed is better at hunting than a dog of a herding breed. There are no such differences between the traditionally defined different human races.

[Pearlgem]

I wonder how many of you remember way back in your school books or children's encyclopaedias illustrations of evolution equating to 'the ascent of man'? Not the monkey to human ones but so-called 'evolution of race'. I'm guessing/trying to remember here how it went but probably something like -

lowest - the African 'race'
next up - oh, I don't know, the Chinese 'race'
Inuits
Asians
etc
etc
And at the top of the pile? White Europeans/Americans, of course.

This was presented as scientific fact. It seemed obvious to the powers that be that techologically advanced cultures are superior morally and even on an evolutionary level to 'backward' 'races.'

All complete bollocks!

Using the term 'race' to express differences between us is to my mind an example of 'an outdated concept, construed out of ignorance and a lack of understanding.'

The post I was referring to above.

[Ragoczy]

I wonder how many of you remember way back in your school books or children's encyclopaedias illustrations of evolution equating to 'the ascent of man'? Not the monkey to human ones but so-called 'evolution of race'. I'm guessing/trying to remember here how it went but probably something like -

lowest - the African 'race'
next up - oh, I don't know, the Chinese 'race'
Inuits
Asians
etc
etc
And at the top of the pile? White Europeans/Americans, of course.

This was presented as scientific fact. It seemed obvious to the powers that be that techologically advanced cultures are superior morally and even on an evolutionary level to 'backward' 'races.'

All complete bollocks!

Using the term 'race' to express differences between us is to my mind an example of 'an outdated concept, construed out of ignorance and a lack of understanding.'

Never saw that textbook and would've raised a little hell about it if I had.

Regardless, we don't throw out a valid scientific principle because some yahoo misapplies it. What you're describing above shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the concepts of race and evolution. That text implies a linear evolution from a common ancestor through all races -- that isn't how race works. It's a divergent principle -- from a common ancestor group, different, isolated groups develop different characteristics simultaneously, not in sequence. The text would only be remotely valid if each racial "step" stopped evolving, which simply isn't the case. There may be some common ancestor from Africa for all races, but the people of Africa today will have diverged genetically from that ancestor just as much as those in Scandinavia or China.

And again I have to point out that the people who see the differences and treat others negatively because of them don't care about the legitimacy of the science, so they'll misuse the concept of evolution to come up with crap like that to support their point -- through either ignorance or malice. They will use every study in a twisted way to justify their beliefs and actions, regardless of the facts.

It's a statistical fact that there are more blacks than whites in prison in the United States, despite there being more whites than blacks in the overall population. A racist is going to take that study and argue that blacks are predisposed to be criminals, despite the fact that there's nothing in the study to support the claim. So do we not do the study, try to determine the cause and address the societal and cultural issues that cause it just because the data is going to be misapplied by the ignorant?

[Pearlgem]

Never saw that textbook and would've raised a little hell about it if I had.

Nice to imagine so but you probably wouldn't, being a child and absorbing that information like hundreds and thousands of others in schools across the land. It was presented as the scientific orthodoxy of the time, not the crazy notion of some 'yahoo.' Just as well established 'facts' are sometimes challenged, eh?

And again I have to point out that the people who see the differences and treat others negatively because of them don't care about the legitimacy of the science, so they'll misuse the concept of evolution to come up with crap like that to support their point -- through either ignorance or malice. They will use every study in a twisted way to justify their beliefs and actions, regardless of the facts.

Again, it was the orthodoxy of the day and plenty of decent, non racist folk would have thought this must be true if scientists say so. People who discriminate in a nasty way can't justify their malice with any reasonable arguments - there aren't any. But they can maintain a 'racial difference' rationale for cultural hatred. The rest of us needn't buy into that.

It's a statistical fact that there are more blacks than whites in prison in the United States, despite there being more whites than blacks in the overall population. A racist is going to take that study and argue that blacks are predisposed to be criminals, despite the fact that there's nothing in the study to support the claim. So do we not do the study, try to determine the cause and address the societal and cultural issues that cause it just because the data is going to be misapplied by the ignorant?

The data I cited is out of date and discredited already - it's not some sort of recent rogue study. My point in presenting it was to show an example of the scientific orthodoxy of the day. Right thinking people can look back on that now and see that 'science' was actually erroneous and discriminatory. Perhaps we also may decide that the 'neutral,' 'unproblematic' scientific language we use today may be less neutral and more problematic that we imagine.

[Thorne]

The data I cited is out of date and discredited already - it's not some sort of recent rogue study. My point in presenting it was to show an example of the scientific orthodoxy of the day. Right thinking people can look back on that now and see that 'science' was actually erroneous and discriminatory. Perhaps we also may decide that the 'neutral,' 'unproblematic' scientific language we use today may be less neutral and more problematic that we imagine.

I shudder when I hear that phrase, "right thinking people". Right by whose standards? Your's? Mine? bin Laden's?

Anyone can claim anything to be a "scientific fact" whenever they wish. But the true test of science is when those "facts" are corroborated by other scientists and found to be accurate. Over and over again. And even then, a true scientist will rarely come out and say that something is the absolute truth. At best, we can only say that there is currently no evidence to refute the data (or confirm them).

[tusayan]

I shudder when I hear that phrase, "right thinking people". Right by whose standards? Your's? Mine? bin Laden's?

Anyone can claim anything to be a "scientific fact" whenever they wish. But the true test of science is when those "facts" are corroborated by other scientists and found to be accurate. Over and over again. And even then, a true scientist will rarely come out and say that something is the absolute truth. At best, we can only say that there is currently no evidence to refute the data (or confirm them).

That's a bit of a nihilistic view that anyone can claim anything to be a scientific fact. While that's true on the internet, maybe, the system of testing and peer review tends to correct for spurious claims in actual practice.

You're right in the strict sense of testing the null hypothesis that there is simply no evidence to refute the hypothesis (not the data, since the data often form the evidence but I think you probably meant to say that). You don't ever truly close the door to further testing, even of established ideas. However, there is also the principle that you sample to redundancy, then can be confident of the results. We are still learning about genetics in many ways but I'm confident we can jettison outdated concepts based on the available evidence.

In any case, don't want to jack the thread with philosophy of science talk so I'll leave it there.