[perryp]

And as we all know, the field of psychology does not lend itself very well to "empirical" scientific study.

That's because psychology has as much relevance as astrology. Neuroscience is replacing psychology.

[OAW]

Originally posted by christ:
So, as I asked above, do you contend that white folk interbreeding will produce black folk as these 'dominants' come to the fore? I think not - therefore this theory is seriously flawed.

christ,

I'm really confused as to how you are getting that out of what I've said. Obviously "white" people interbreeding will not produce "black" people. Yet the opposite can occur given the right conditions. I don't really know what to say to make this clearer to you.

Originally posted by christ:

Or it could be that the white folk developed as a mutation that was better suited to polar climes, but in this case, your interesting example notwithstanding, why aren't there as many whites from the southern hemisphere as from the northern hemisphere?

Why aren't whites hairier? (Or, to put it differently, what advantage does a beard give that full body hair wouldn't give better?)

Well now you are getting into tricky areas. Keep in mind that "race" is not a biological reality. It is primarily a social/ethnic construct. Having said that, "whites" in general tend to be hairier than blacks. "Asians" in general tend to have the least amount of body hair. However, there are variations within groups so these are "tendencies", not absolutes. Modern DNA studies have shown that on a genetic level there were "black" people who had more in common genetically with "white" people than they had with other "black" people. Keep in mind that the genes that control melanin and facial feature size are but a handful of all the genes that make up a human being.

Originally posted by christ:

Or could it be that there are different 'species' of human, like there are different 'species' of dog, and 11% of those human species are fair-skiined? (This is not to say that any species is more advanced than any other)

Well it is my understanding that there is only one species of dog. Now there are different breeds which exhibit different physical characteristics. Many, if not most of which were created by selective breeding controlled by humans. Similarly there is only one "species" of human. And the human family has come to exhibit a variety of physical features for a variety of reasons. Some of these physical features have come to be associated with this notion called "race". But in the end we have to keep in mind that "race" is really nothing more than a social/ethnic construct ... not a biological reality.

OAW

[perryp]

Keep in mind that "race" is not a biological reality

You keep saying this, but you provide no evidence. As such, your opinion has as much scientific validity as Creationism.

The fact of the matter is that "whites" did not wipe out most of the rest of the human race (though they did make some serious efforts in some parts of the world ... just ask the Native Americans! :hmm

Most Native Americans died because from diseases of which they had no immunity. Hence they were unsuitable for slavery. African slaves had stronger immune systems which is why they were preferred to Native Americans. The difference in immune systems is of course another indication that race is a biological reality.

Additionally, Australia does have some of the darkest skinned people on the planet. After all they are "black" people who happen to live in Australia. Just as there are "black" people who happen to live in India, etc. Having said all that, there are still "black" people who happen to live in Africa who are just as dark as the darkest Australian "aborigine". Are all Africans "blacker than a thousand midnights"? Absolutely not, since there is variation in skin tone from region to region. The central point is that a group of people who have a severely limited ability to produce melanin can not produce a group of people who have a great ability to produce melanin.

You have a traditionally American view of race as having something purely to do with skin tone.

Additionally, I'm not a big believer in "evolution" anyway .... at least in the sense of one species changing into another. The fact of the matter is that has never been observed and I'm not aware of any evidence that it ever has. Now certainly we witness mutation within a species ... but a fish suddenly sprouting legs and walking out of the water is another thing altogether!

Ah - so you are a creationist!

[Krusty]

Originally posted by christ:
So, as I asked above, do you contend that white folk interbreeding will produce black folk as these 'dominants' come to the fore? I think not - therefore this theory is seriously flawed.

True. "Blackness" and "whiteness" are not simple either/or traits (as BG mentioned). Skin tones are a continuum and not "recessive" or "dominant". That'd be like saying that there is a dominant gene that makes a person 6'4" and a recessive one that makes people 5'6" -- clearly a nearly infinite (err, very large) number of possibilities is available.

Originally posted by christ:

Or it could be that the white folk developed as a mutation that was better suited to polar climes, but in this case, your interesting example notwithstanding, why aren't there as many whites from the southern hemisphere as from the northern hemisphere?

note: I'm not agreeing with OAW on this:
Look at a world map. The only inhabited parts of the planet that are in the Southern Hemisphere are Tropical/sub-Tropical southern Africa (very close to where original black humans evolved), South America (whose native populations are relatively recent arrivals), and Australia (whose aboriginal population is black). There is only a tiny portion of inhabited land south of the equator that is in the temperate or arctic zones. Why would "whiteness" develop in any of these places?? Contrast to the huge temperate and arctic landmass of the northern hemisphere.

Originally posted by christ:

Why aren't whites hairier? (Or, to put it differently, what advantage does a beard give that full body hair wouldn't give better?)

Okay, I'll try to be brief. Africans largely lost body hair when they started walking upright. When populations moved north, they started w/o hair but it was too cold to survive so they had to wear clothes or die. So, now with clothing to protect them, body hair became non-selective (or at least a lot less of a selection factor). If a trait is non-selective, then it doesn't really matter about variation. Some people are more hairy than others, some are less .. doesn't matter anymore because the "use" for body hair is now defunct due to clothing. As far as beards: some have postulated that it a big beard is almost like a lion's mane. It creates a larger and more imposing appearance on the person who has the beard. Also, even when wearing clothes, the face is typically exposed for seeing, smelling and eating, so the warmth factor might still come into play somewhat for facial hair as opposed to having a full pelt of body hair. Both Africans and Caucasians have beards, though heavy beards seem to be more common amongst Caucasians.

Originally posted by christ:

Or could it be that there are different 'species' of human, like there are different 'species' of dog, and 11% of those human species are fair-skiined? (This is not to say that any species is more advanced than any other)

I agree with the sentiment, but I think the word "species" probably implies even more difference than there really is. Pardon my forgetting the exact percentages, but I do at least remember one point made in one of my Anthro classes: The genetic differences between human populations is actually very tiny. Highland and lowland gorillas are actually more genetically different from one another than any human group is from any other human group.

Originally posted by christ:

Like I said "white" = "racist". Welcome to doublethink.

I'm not sure how you draw this conclusion from the statements you made above -- but, whatever.

Again, I'm basically "on your side" as far as the points you're making ... but some of the specific arguments you've used (hairiness etc.) have actually been addressed/explained by evolutionary theorists.

[perryp]

Look at a world map. The only inhabited parts of the planet that are in the Southern Hemisphere are Tropical/sub-Tropical southern Africa (very close to where original black humans evolved), South America (whose native populations are relatively recent arrivals), and Australia (whose aboriginal population is black). There is only a tiny portion of inhabited land south of the equator that is in the temperate or arctic zones. Why would "whiteness" develop in any of these places?? Contrast to the huge temperate and arctic landmass of the northern hemisphere.

While 'whiteness' hasn't developed in the southern hemisphere, 'lightness' has. Witness people living on the Islands in the Pacific. Closer to the equator you have dark, african-looking people. And to the far south you have the Maoris (who are obviously lighter than the Australian Aborigines in the north.

Lighter pigmentation in the south is also evident in Africa. Look at the difference between former presidents of a Southern African (lighter reddish) coutry and a Central African one (darker brown).

[Krusty]

Originally posted by perryp:
While 'whiteness' hasn't developed in the southern hemisphere, 'lightness' has ...

Excellent point.

[OAW]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Thanks OAW. I'd appreciate a link if you can find one - that tribe would be very interesting to see.

Here's a couple I was able to dig up ...

http://www.adventist.org.au/SPD%5CAH...2569A800022AE3

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...UTF-8%26sa%3DN

OAW

[OAW]

Originally posted by perryp:
You keep saying this, but you provide no evidence. As such, your opinion has as much scientific validity as Creationism.

http://racerelations.about.com/libra.../aa021501a.htm

Originally posted by perryp:

Most Native Americans died because from diseases of which they had no immunity. Hence they were unsuitable for slavery. African slaves had stronger immune systems which is why they were preferred to Native Americans. The difference in immune systems is of course another indication that race is a biological reality.

Certainly most Native Americans were wiped out by the diseases that the Europeans brought with them. Some of these deaths were accidental ... others were quite intentional. Keep in mind that it is well known that times the British Army (Lord Jeffrey Amherst), some colonial settlers, and later the US Army essentially practiced biological warfare against the Native Americans by deliberately giving them smallpox infected blankets.

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal...lord_jeff.html

http://www.wakeupmag.co.uk/articles/apartheid.htm

But I digress. The point is that the Native American's greater susceptibility to European diseases relative to African's has more to do with proximity than "race". The Native American and the European had an ocean between them. Unlike Europe and Africa, there was practically no trade, wars, intermingling or other forms of contact in which diseases could be spread. Additionally, don't forget that millions of Africans died from the "diseases of the white man" on the slave ships in the Middle Passage and never even made it to the shores of the Americas.

Originally posted by perryp:

Ah - so you are a creationist!

I don't see it as an "either-or" situation. Just because I don't believe in evolution in the sense of one species turning into another doesn't mean I'm a "creationist" trying to argue that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

OAW

[perryp]

Originally posted by OAW:
Certainly most Native Americans were wiped out by the diseases that the Europeans brought with them. Some of these deaths were accidental ... others were quite intentional. Keep in mind that it is well known that times the British Army (Lord Jeffrey Amherst), some colonial settlers, and later the US Army essentially practiced biological warfare against the Native Americans by deliberately giving them smallpox infected blankets.

Exactly. Europeans used the genetic RACIAL differences to their advantage. Likewise syphilis was brought back from North America by Europeans.

Originally posted by OAW:
But I digress. The point is that the Native American's greater susceptibility to European diseases relative to African's has more to do with proximity than "race". The Native American and the European had an ocean between them.

The lesser proximity resulted in racial differences. They caught diseases not because of the Atlantic ocean, but because of genetic differences.

Originally posted by OAW:
I don't see it as an "either-or" situation. Just because I don't believe in evolution in the sense of one species turning into another doesn't mean I'm a "creationist" trying to argue that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

What exactly do you believe? Nothing?

Race is a biological reality. Look at this article. In it, it says:
'By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity. '

There is continuous variation, but denying the existence of well-formed clusters because of fuzzy boundaries is a classic statistical category error.

DNA markers indicate the presence of population groups

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by christ:
But if it can be proven false by observation, doesn't that prove that it is an erroneous theory?

"Can be" not "has been".

BG

[christ]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
"Can be" not "has been".

BG

But if it is true, it "can't be" disproven.

I'm only joshing - I understand the point.

Sorry for wasting your energy.

[christ]

Originally posted by Krusty:
I'm not sure how you draw this conclusion from the statements you made above -- but, whatever...

I didn't - I drew this conclusion (white = racist) from the following part of OAW's post:

[he presented an ideology that] centers around a deeply held, almost subconscious fear of the "genetic annihilation" of "white" people. That is, because of the dominant/recessive trait situation that I discussed above, the minority that wishes to preserve its existence as a phenotypically distinct group feels it must dominate and control the majority in order to prevent widespread interbreeding which would result in them being absorbed back into the fold

which, roughly translated appears to me to say "whites, being the minority, must use whatever means necessary to subjugate, and if possible destroy, other races" Which in turn translates pretty close to exactly to "whites are (and inddeed are bound to be) racists.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
Europeans used the genetic RACIAL differences to their advantage.

nope. "use" implies a conscious choice, which certainly wasn't the case here.

Originally posted by perryp:

Race is a biological reality.

and wrong again. population groups exist in clines of genetic relations.

on the surface, it is quite easy to draw distinctions, but when looking at the genetic code and variants more closely, a lot of times, you will find that "superficially" opposite groups have more in common, than ones "close" to each other.

it really all depends on how much you look "into" the matter. when examined closely it is absolutely worthless to devide humans into races based on genetics (or anything else for that matter).

"racism" is a construct of the late 19th century, which, at the time, might have worked as a valid "identifier". but it's pretty much outta the door today.

[christ]

Originally posted by deekay1:
"racism" is a construct of the late 19th century

I would dispute this. Races/ Clans/ Religions have been fighting because of their differences ever since there were differences to fight over. It may be that the term 'racism' only grew to prominence in the 19thC, but I would hazard that the actual phenomenon has been around ever since the ability to discriminate between humans. It almost certainly exists in animals too - watch a family of chimps chase out a non-family member, or one pack of dogs set on another.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by christ:
I would dispute this. Races/ Clans/ Religions have been fighting because of their differences ever since there were differences to fight over. It may be that the term 'racism' only grew to prominence in the 19thC, but I would hazard that the actual phenomenon has been around ever since the ability to discriminate between humans. It almost certainly exists in animals too - watch a family of chimps chase out a non-family member, or one pack of dogs set on another.

i think you are confusing a few things here.

a) as far as your chimp example goes, you can also make the observation that, at times, chimps (and other primates) take "in" non family members and raise them as their own...

b) "race" is a specific term and does not mean "different" in general. sure there have been wares/fights/struggles throughout history.

but the question is: "does it make sense to devide human beings into different races?"

"what good does it do anybody?"

"does it further science, the arts, humanity, individuals, peoples?"

no, it doesnt! it simply divides. if you are looking at some really interesting ways to distinguish between humans (at least in the western and more "advanced" societies) - look at "consumer bahavior"! there is some really crazy stuff going on there!

[christ]

OK - but your statement wasn't that 'racism doesn't make sense' (which I can't disagree with), but that it is a construct of the late 19th century (which I can).

(As an example, the Egyptians and the Jews had some pretty mean stuff going on, which was probably down to ethnic, and religious, differences - which in modern parlance would definitely qualify as 'racism', and that was way before the nineteenth century!)

[perryp]

Originally posted by deekay1:
but the question is: "does it make sense to devide human beings into different races?"

"what good does it do anybody?"

That's a political question, not a scientific one.

Originally posted by deekay1:
and wrong again. population groups exist in clines of genetic relations.

You either didn't bother to read what I wrote, or you ignored it because you couldn't refute it. So I'll say it again:

Look at this article. In it, it says:
'By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity. '

There is continuous variation, but denying the existence of well-formed clusters because of fuzzy boundaries is a classic statistical category error.

DNA markers indicate the presence of population groups:

[deekay1]

Originally posted by christ:
OK - but your statement wasn't that 'racism doesn't make sense' (which I can't disagree with), but that it is a construct of the late 19th century (which I can).

the term racism as such, and the ideology behind it (politically categorizing and discriminating (against) people in terms of their physical attributes (skin color etc.)) is largely a construct of the late nineteenth century.

Originally posted by christ:

(As an example, the Egyptians and the Jews had some pretty mean stuff going on, which was probably down to ethnic, and religious, differences - which in modern parlance would definitely qualify as 'racism', and that was way before the nineteenth century!)

see what i posted above.

and the "pretty mean stuff" going on between egyptians and "teh jews" was pretty much down to (socio)cultural and religious differences :: ...let my people gooooooooo ::

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
That's a political question, not a scientific one.

actually it's a philosophical one!

Originally posted by perryp:

You either didn't bother to read what I wrote, or you ignored it because you couldn't refute it.

Does Race Exist?

If races are defined as genetically discrete groups, no.

nuff said!

[perryp]

Originally posted by deekay1:
If races are defined as genetically discrete groups, no.

That's a straw man argument. No one is claiming they are genetically discreet, only that there are well-formed clusters. But I see you will continue to ignore the evidence for your own reasons.

[OAW]

Originally posted by christ:
I didn't - I drew this conclusion (white = racist) from the following part of OAW's post:



which, roughly translated appears to me to say "whites, being the minority, must use whatever means necessary to subjugate, and if possible destroy, other races" Which in turn translates pretty close to exactly to "whites are (and inddeed are bound to be) racists.

christ,

I fear you see what you want to see and not what is written. The statement you are referring to dealt with a theory as to the origins of the ideology of white supremacy. In no way, shape, form, or fashion did I say or even imply that all whites subscribe to that ideology ... or that whites are somehow genetically predestined to be racists.

Having said that, a wise man once said ...

"If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs the only one that hollers is the one that got hit."



OAW

[OAW]

Originally posted by christ:
OK - but your statement wasn't that 'racism doesn't make sense' (which I can't disagree with), but that it is a construct of the late 19th century (which I can).

(As an example, the Egyptians and the Jews had some pretty mean stuff going on, which was probably down to ethnic, and religious, differences - which in modern parlance would definitely qualify as 'racism', and that was way before the nineteenth century!)

You seem to have a very uh, "loose" understanding of the term "race". You reference the situation with Egyptians and Jews and say that it was about "ethnic and religious differences". And then you make the leap to say that is an example of "racism". By that logic, the white Anglican Brits are being "racist" to the white Catholic Irish huh? I think not. Certainly there is an ethnic/religious conflict going on ... but it definitely isn't based upon "race". It seems quite obvious that they are all "white" people involved. Similarly, the various conflicts in Nigeria are ethnically and religiously based ... but everyone involved is "black".

OAW

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
That's a straw man argument. No one is claiming they are genetically discreet, only that there are well-formed clusters. But I see you will continue to ignore the evidence for your own reasons.

ermm, dude, that was a quote from the article you posted.

btw, mac "owners" constitute "well formed" clusters as well, - so why not divide the world into "mac owners" and those who "don't own macs"...oh, wait...

[perryp]

deekay1,
I know it was a quote from the article. And if you actually ****ing read the article you would have seen this (which you haven't responded to TWICE now! ha!):
'By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity. '



Basically, your argument is like saying that because some shades of blue are close to green, then COLORS DON'T EXIST. It's an idiotic semantic argument.

[OAW]

Originally posted by perryp:
That's a straw man argument. No one is claiming they are genetically discreet, only that there are well-formed clusters. But I see you will continue to ignore the evidence for your own reasons.

Well now you are contradicting yourself. I originally made the contention that "race has no biological basis". That it was merely a "sociopolitical and ethnic construct". I even referenced DNA studies that verify this. You then turned around and claimed ....

"Race is a biological reality...."

... and presented a nice little graphic (which BTW, only includes half the planet!). And now you say that "No one is claiming they are genetically discreet, only that there are well-formed clusters."

If so-called "racial" groups are not "genetically discreet" as you concede ... then there is "no biological basis for race" ... n'est pas? The last time I looked our biology is based upon DNA ... genetic material is it not? The fact that there are groups or "clusters" of people who tend to share certain physical characteristics does not negate the fact that the notion of "race" is essentially bogus from a biological standpoint.

OAW

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
deekay1,
I know it was a quote from the article. And if you actually ****ing read the article you would have seen this... '

To distinguish among groups, the ideal genetic polymorphism would be one that is present in all the members of one group and absent in the members of all other groups. But the major human groups have separated from one another too recently and have mixed too much for such differences to exist....

Given that people can be sorted broadly into groups using genetic data, do common notions of race correspond to underlying genetic differences among populations? In some cases they do, but often they do not...

But groups with similar physical characteristics as a result of selection can be quite different genetically...

have you read it?

do you you even have the slightest idea what this article is about? i find it a shame that you (ab)use a scientific journal/article (which actually has to do with determening the orignis of genetically related diseases) to make a case for (your?) racist views.

[perryp]

Originally posted by deekay1:


have you read it?

do you you even have the slightest idea what this article is about? i find it a shame that you (ab)use a scientific journal/article (which actually has to do with determening the orignis of genetically related diseases) to make a case for (your?) racist views. [/B]

Please explain in detail in what way I am racist? And secondly, how can some one be racist if races 'don't exist'?

And so, FOR THE FOURTH TIME, i will quote (you will, of course, ignore it again, for the fourth time!!!):
'By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity. '

f so-called "racial" groups are not "genetically discreet" as you concede ... then there is "no biological basis for race" ... n'est pas?

So you agree that COLORS DON'T EXIST BECAUSE SOME BLUES ARE CLOSE TO GREEN? You've already conceded that you don't believe in evolution, so I guess you're ready to believe anything.

[OAW]

Originally posted by perryp:
deekay1,
I know it was a quote from the article. And if you actually ****ing read the article you would have seen this (which you haven't responded to TWICE now! ha!):
'By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity. '

Basically, your argument is like saying that because some shades of blue are close to green, then COLORS DON'T EXIST. It's an idiotic semantic argument.

No one is saying that ethnic groups don't exist. No one is saying that colors don't exist. But to make the leap from that to the concept of race is uh ... "problematic" to say the least.

An example of this foolishness. According to the US government and the so-called "science" in the graphic you presented ... the people who are indigenous to North Africa are "caucasian". Now that is BS of course because the so-called "caucasians" who live there today are not the original inhabitants .... but that is beside the point. Let's say that one accepts this contention as fact. We end up with situations where people are "racially" classified in a manner that is simply preposterous. Take for example the case of Mostafa Hefny ... a native Egyptian whose family had always lived in Egypt for generations ..... is classified as "white" or "caucasian" because of this foolishness. Now even Stevie Wonder can see that this man is "black" ... but nevertheless, our good government basically said ...

"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

http://www.cnn.com/US/9707/16/racial.suit/

There's a lot of sociopolitical dimensions to these classifications. Suffice it to say that it can get real silly.

OAW

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
Please explain in detail in what way I am racist?...

:: shakes head ::



okay, why do you think it is important and meaningful, to divide the human species into different "races"? (yes, that is a scientific question) why not, say, divide them into groups that eat candybars, and others that don't? or on a gentic level, ones that have one single genetic trait in common...? why stop there?

again: "what are the implications?"

Originally posted by perryp:

You've already conceded that you don't believe in evolution, so I guess you're ready to believe anything.

WTF?

[OAW]

Originally posted by perryp:
Please explain in detail in what way I am racist? And secondly, how can some one be racist if races 'don't exist'?

And so, FOR THE FOURTH TIME, i will quote (you will, of course, ignore it again, for the fourth time!!!):
'By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity. '

The problem here is that you are using that quote to say that the "five different groups" being referenced are racial groups. That is not what the article is saying. That quote references 5 broad groups of humanity based upon common genetic ancestry ... and they do not necessarily correspond to common notions of "race". As the article itself said ...

"The Human Race

Given that people can be sorted broadly into groups using genetic data, do common notions of race correspond to underlying genetic differences among populations? In some cases they do, but often they do not. For instance, skin color or facial features--traits influenced by natural selection--are routinely used to divide people into races. But groups with similar physical characteristics as a result of selection can be quite different genetically. Individuals from sub-Saharan Africa and Australian Aborigines might have similar skin pigmentation (because of adapting to strong sun), but genetically they are quite dissimilar.

In contrast, two groups that are genetically similar to each other might be exposed to different selective forces. In this case, natural selection can exaggerate some of the differences between groups, making them appear more dissimilar on the surface than they are underneath. Because traits such as skin color have been strongly affected by natural selection, they do not necessarily reflect the population processes that have shaped the distribution of neutral polymorphisms such as Alus or short tandem repeats. Therefore, traits or polymorphisms affected by natural selection may be poor predictors of group membership and may imply genetic relatedness where, in fact, little exists."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...mber=3&catID=2

Let me break out the stick figures for you ...

Broad groups based upon common genetic ancestry does NOT equate to "racial" groups.

OAW

[christ]

Originally posted by OAW:
You seem to have a very uh, "loose" understanding of the term "race". You reference the situation with Egyptians and Jews and say that it was about "ethnic and religious differences". And then you make the leap to say that is an example of "racism". By that logic, the white Anglican Brits are being "racist" to the white Catholic Irish huh? I think not. Certainly there is an ethnic/religious conflict going on ... but it definitely isn't based upon "race". It seems quite obvious that they are all "white" people involved. Similarly, the various conflicts in Nigeria are ethnically and religiously based ... but everyone involved is "black".

OAW

You "originally made the contention that "race has no biological basis" (and then restated it). You contend that race is merely a "sociopolitical and ethnic construct", and yet you criticise me for having a "very uh, "loose" understanding of the term "race"." Which is it dude?

We don't have a term for "religionism", but "racism" definitely seems to fit the bill for religious discrimination if race is "merely a sociopolitical and ethnic construct", especially when the religion is closely associated with a particular ethnic group.

I do not subscribe to the theory that white vs black is the only possible form of racism - either racism does not exist, or it can be committed by any 'group' against any other 'group'.

And I have no idea what you intended by the rock/ dog crack.

[perryp]

Originally posted by OAW:
No one is saying that ethnic groups don't exist. No one is saying that colors don't exist. But to make the leap from that to the concept of race is uh ... "problematic" to say the least.

Actually it's not because you are using the same arguments as someone who argues that color doesn't exist simply because their is variation in those colors. In the same way you could say 'breeds of dogs don't exist because I own a mongrel'.

Originally posted by OAW:
An example of this foolishness. According to the US government and the so-called "science" in the graphic you presented ... the people who are indigenous to North Africa are "caucasian".

Can you point out exactly where it says Caucasian in the graphic I presented? As for "so-called science", it's DNA analysis - nothing 'so-called' about it. And I'm not interested in what the US government thinks at all.

Originally posted by OAW:
We end up with situations where people are "racially" classified in a manner that is simply preposterous. Take for example the case of Mostafa Hefny ... a native Egyptian whose family had always lived in Egypt for generations ..... is classified as "white" or "caucasian" because of this foolishness. Now even Stevie Wonder can see that this man is "black" ... but nevertheless, our good government basically said

So first you say race "doesn't exist" and then you complain when someone is misclassified. You can't really have it both ways.

Originally posted by OAW:
There's a lot of sociopolitical dimensions to these classifications.

Only if you allow that to impede your thinking. I don't - do you?

okay, why do you think it is important and meaningful, to divide the human species into different "races"?

Whether it's important is not the point (though obviously it is for medical reasons for instance), but that doesn't stop it being a fact. I see you've ignored the quote again. Why?

again: "what are the implications?"

Not interested in the implications. But the fact that you think I am suggests your hesitancy to admit that race exist has something to do with what you think the implications are.

That quote references 5 broad groups of humanity based upon common genetic ancestry

Which is longhand for 'races'

Given that people can be sorted broadly into groups using genetic data, do common notions of race correspond to underlying genetic differences among populations? In some cases they do, but often they do not. For instance, skin color or facial features--traits influenced by natural selection--are routinely used to divide people into races. But groups with similar physical characteristics as a result of selection can be quite different genetically. Individuals from sub-Saharan Africa and Australian Aborigines might have similar skin pigmentation (because of adapting to strong sun), but genetically they are quite dissimilar.

In contrast, two groups that are genetically similar to each other might be exposed to different selective forces. In this case, natural selection can exaggerate some of the differences between groups, making them appear more dissimilar on the surface than they are underneath. Because traits such as skin color have been strongly affected by natural selection, they do not necessarily reflect the population processes that have shaped the distribution of neutral polymorphisms such as Alus or short tandem repeats. Therefore, traits or polymorphisms affected by natural selection may be poor predictors of group membership and may imply genetic relatedness where, in fact, little exists."

What in those paragraphs invalidates what I have said?

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
Not interested in the implications. But the fact that you think I am suggests your hesitancy to admit that race exist has something to do with what you think the implications are.

and your sidestepping my question suggests that you are very much interested in the "implications" of such a "category" in fact "existing", n'est-ce pas?

my point is, that when observing things, one can always find some sorts of patterns (which is actually what we are talking about here), which in turn can be labled and "named".

your, meanwhile, famous "quote" doesn't refer to anything else. do you have any idea how many "categories" people have come up with throughout history to "define" things in a certain way (btw always reflecting a scoio cultural need!)? most of these categories have been discarded because, over time, they lost their meaning an RELEVANCE!!!.

[OAW]

Originally posted by christ:
You "originally made the contention that "race has no biological basis" (and then restated it). You contend that race is merely a "sociopolitical and ethnic construct", and yet you criticise me for having a "very uh, "loose" understanding of the term "race"." Which is it dude?

Let me try this one more time. There are commonly held notions of "race". My contention is that these are based upon common ethnicity and/or a shared set of physical features (skin tone and facial features primarily). My contention is also that the idea of focusing on these things is essentially a sociopolitical construct that was created in the last few centuries to further the goal of European expansion and conquest. But that's a subject for another thread. The point is that the physical features used to identify the commonly recognized "racial" groups are but a small fraction of the entire human gene pool ... so there is no biological basis to underscore the commonly held notions of "race".

An example. I am a dark-skinned African-American male. Now modern DNA studies show that I may very well have more in common genetically with my "white" neighbor than with my closest "black" friends. So on a social, ethnic, and cultural basis I have more in common with my "black" peers. Quite obviously, we even share certain physical characteristics. But when one examines the overall picture on a genetic or biological basis ... me and my "black" peers may be more dissimilar than me and my "white" peers.

Originally posted by christ:

We don't have a term for "religionism", but "racism" definitely seems to fit the bill for religious discrimination if race is "merely a sociopolitical and ethnic construct", especially when the religion is closely associated with a particular ethnic group.

Well see now you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. We do have a term for "religionism". It's called "religious bigotry". When it gets violent it's called "religious conflict".

Originally posted by christ:

I do not subscribe to the theory that white vs black is the only possible form of racism - either racism does not exist, or it can be committed by any 'group' against any other 'group'.

Well I suppose that is your prerogative but I must say that it only serves to confuse the issue. To say that "race" has no basis on an overall biological level does not warrant a "free for all" where any and every group conflict can be called "racism". Is the issue of gender equality a "racial" issue now because it involves one "group" (males) vs. another "group" (females)? Is the issue of homophobia a "racial" issue now because it involves one "group" (heterosexuals) vs. another "group" (homosexuals)? Quite frankly, that is beyond silly.

Originally posted by christ:

And I have no idea what you intended by the rock/ dog crack.

Nevermind.

OAW

[perryp]

Originally posted by deekay1:
and your sidestepping my question suggests that you are very much interested in the "implications" of such a "category" in fact "existing", n'est-ce pas? RELEVANCE!!!.

Why should it suggest that? Did you read it in a horoscope or something? No I'm not interested - why I should be?

Originally posted by deekay1:
my point is, that when observing things, one can always find some sorts of patterns (which is actually what we are talking about here), which in turn can be labled and "named".

Right. So what is your point? My point is that races exist, just as colors exist. Your point seems to be very vague, if you've even got one.

Originally posted by deekay1:
do you have any idea how many "categories" people have come up with throughout history to "define" things in a certain way (btw always reflecting a scoio cultural need!)? most of these categories have been discarted because, over time, they lost their meaning an RELEVANCE!!!.

No, I don't know how many "categories" people have come up with throughout history to "define" things in a certain way (do you put random words in quotes?). Perhaps you can tell me. To the nearest dozen please. As for 'scoio cultural need' (sic) - is DNA a social construct?

An example. I am a dark-skinned African-American male. Now modern DNA studies show that I may very well have more in common genetically with my "white" neighbor than with my closest "black" friends. So on a social, ethnic, and cultural basis I have more in common with my "black" peers. Quite obviously, we even share certain physical characteristics. But when one examines the overall picture on a genetic or biological basis ... me and my "black" peers may be more dissimilar than me and my "white" peers.

How can you talk about black and white if race doesn't exist? And why do you insist on an American-centric cultural definition of race (which doesn't exist!!).

Well I suppose that is your prerogative but I must say that it only serves to confuse the issue. To say that "race" has no basis on an overall biological level does not warrant a "free for all" where any and every group conflict can be called "racism". Is the issue of gender equality a "racial" issue now because it involves one "group" (males) vs. another "group" (females)? Is the issue of homophobia a "racial" issue now because it involves one "group" (heterosexuals) vs. another "group" (homosexuals)? Quite frankly, that is beyond silly

Yes, very silly. but that's not what he said at all. Do find it useful to make up stupid arguments and argue against them instead of the issue at hand?

[OAW]

Originally posted by perryp:


Which is longhand for 'races'

No it is NOT "longhand for 'races'". The article explicitly says this is not the case.

Originally posted by perryp:

What in those paragraphs invalidates what I have said?

Uh ... how about you actually read the quote? Or perhaps you actually read it but you slept through your Reading Comprehension 101 class? Let me break it down for you ...

Given that people can be sorted broadly into groups using genetic data, do common notions of race correspond to underlying genetic differences among populations?

So the article states that people can be "broadly" grouped using "genetic data". Now keep in mind that this "genetic data" is the overall picture ... not just the handful of genes that cause skin tone and facial feature variation. Let's also keep in mind that thus far it has not used the term "races" to refer to these "broad groups". In fact, it poses the question of whether or not these "broad groups" constitute the "common notions of race". Still paying attention? Let's continue ...

In some cases they do, but often they do not.

Did you see that? The question has been answered and the article explicitly stated that these "broad groups" based upon common genetic data do not constitute "race". It even uses the term "often" ... not "sometimes" ... not "every now and again" ... not "infrequently" ... to emphasize this point. Let's continue ...

For instance, skin color or facial features--traits influenced by natural selection--are routinely used to divide people into races. But groups with similar physical characteristics as a result of selection can be quite different genetically. Individuals from sub-Saharan Africa and Australian Aborigines might have similar skin pigmentation (because of adapting to strong sun), but genetically they are quite dissimilar.

Now the point is driven home. The most commonly used physical traits (skin tone and facial features) used to define the commonly held notions of "race" ... does not necessarily constitute overall genetic similarity. It even goes on to give an example.

I as a dark-skinned African-American male with naturally black, straight hair (when it still grew! ) could hang out with a group of Australian Aborigines ... and if you dressed me in a similar fashion ... I would look just like them. However, on an overall genetic basis I would likely have more in common with a "white" American. Conversely, if you took an Australian Aborigine and dressed him up as a typical "black" American ... even though we are relatively dissimilar genetically he'd have just a bad a day as I would if we had the misfortune of running out of gas in "Rednecks Only, USA" during the middle of a KKK rally.

I fail to see why this doesn't seem to register with you. Quite frankly, it causes me to question if you were born this dense, or if you just practice really hard?

OAW

[OAW]

Originally posted by perryp:
How can you talk about black and white if race doesn't exist? And why do you insist on an American-centric cultural definition of race (which doesn't exist!!).

Your ability to be obtuse is absolutely astounding!

I never said "race doesn't exist". I said that "race has no biological basis". I also said explicitly that "race" was a sociopolitical and ethnic construct based upon
shared physical features (skin tone and facial features) ... so obviously it exists on some level ... just not a "biological" one.

Originally posted by perryp:

Yes, very silly. but that's not what he said at all. Do find it useful to make up stupid arguments and argue against them instead of the issue at hand?

Oh he didn't say that huh? So what do you call this ...

Originally posted by christ:
I do not subscribe to the theory that white vs black is the only possible form of racism - either racism does not exist, or it can be committed by any 'group' against any other 'group'.

Did he not explicitly state that in his view "white vs. black" was not the only possible form of racism? Did he not explicitly state that racism can be committed by any "group" against any other "group"? If it can be any arbitrary "group" vs any other arbitrary "group" then why not males vs. females? Why not heterosexuals vs. homosexuals? Hell ... why not people who can roll their tongue vs people who can't? All of these constitute "any group" as he stated, n'est pas?

OAW

[perryp]

I'm arguing with someone who doesn't believe in evolution!

This is not a Wire Hair Dachshund because breeds don't exist


This is not a Black Labrador because breeds don't exist


IT'S ALL AN ILLUSION

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by OAW:
christ,

I fear you see what you want to see and not what is written. The statement you are referring to dealt with a theory as to the origins of the ideology of white supremacy. In no way, shape, form, or fashion did I say or even imply that all whites subscribe to that ideology ... or that whites are somehow genetically predestined to be racists.

Having said that, a wise man once said ...

"If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs the only one that hollers is the one that got hit."



OAW

So, criticizing the statement automatically makes one a racist, eh?



BlackGriffen

[christ]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
So, criticizing the statement automatically makes one a racist, eh?

Funnily enough, that is what I thought that he meant too, but he declined to elaborate when asked.