Is Race Truly Defined or Just a Social Construct?

[catdogking]

your view on "race"

anthropologist have debated this for years...

is there such thing as "race" are people different races

are mongolians, caucasians, africans different to an extend that they would be classified as a different "race"

or is "race" just a social construct

is there differences in the different "races"

are some races advantaged at some things compared to others


whats your opinion

 

[arildno]

Do "numbers" exist?
it depends on how you define "numbers", and what criteria you place on "existence".

first off:
Anthropologists are an utterly irrelevant group to debate "race".

It is a trivial fact that:
There exist distinct lines of descendence of mankind, with many subclusters that have evolved, reproductively speaking, wholly independent of each other for a number of milennia.
Those subclusters are readily identified by a number of diverging genetic criteria, and if you like to call them different "races", you can do so if you wish. Or choose not to, if you don't wish.

As for relative "advantages":
It is advantageous in southern climes to retain maximum melanin production in the body, rendering it "dark" skinned.
So, yes, different clusters of mankind, as long as they have had enough separation time, will have developed divergent aptitudes in order to optimize their local functioning, whenever the distinct localities are so distinct that they require slightly different skills to function in..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for blatherings about "social constructs", they are just that: Blatherings, and nothing-explaining pseudo-explanations performed with accompanying meaningless and noisome brouhaha.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

"Race" is not a biological distinction of humans and arguably is just a social construct. That's not to say that certain races aren't genetically distinct from others but in many cases different races have the same genetics and conversely the same race can contain many different genetic groups.

 

[Pythagorean]

Race is often classified by appearance, which is not the whole genetic story. To restate what Ryan said, people across different races can sometimes be more genetically similar than people within a race because within each race, there is plenty of genetic diversity.

So I think yes, race is a social construct the way most people use it: (where you're from and what you look like).

 

[aroc91]

"Race" is not a biological distinction of humans and arguably is just a social construct. That's not to say that certain races aren't genetically distinct from others but in many cases different races have the same genetics and conversely the same race can contain many different genetic groups.

Race is often classified by appearance, which is not the whole genetic story. To restate what Ryan said, people across different races can sometimes be more genetically similar than people within a race because within each race, there is plenty of genetic diversity.

So I think yes, race is a social construct the way most people use it: (where you're from and what you look like).

General homogeneity does not preclude the existence of group-specific gene combinations. What you're both describing is Lewontin's fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin's_Fallacy

A.W.F. Edwards made an excellent rebuttal concerning this.

Edwards argued that while Lewontin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different alleles (variants of a particular gene) at an individual locus (the location of a particular gene) between individuals, it is nonetheless possible to classify individuals into different racial groups with an accuracy that approaches 100% when one takes into account the frequency of the alleles at several loci at the same time. This happens because differences in the frequency of alleles at different loci are correlated across populations — the alleles that are more frequent in a population at two or more loci are correlated when we consider the two populations simultaneously. Or in other words, the frequency of the alleles tends to cluster differently for different populations.

 

[Pythagorean]

I think you're confusing our weak versions of Lewontin's argument with his strong version. As the first sentence points out, it really depends on how you're asking the question. Ryan and I also seem to also both concede to there being a genetic distinction (him explicitly, me by way of qualifier).

But we're really talking about how the word "race" is used by the public. I can assure you that they are not counting allele frequencies (which I would liken more to phenotype than race; the concept of race implied genotype to me the way I most often hear it used.. realize that it's not a word we use when studying birds, worms, or squirrels... it's not part of a standard classification scheme that I know of.)

 

[Evo]

And the rest of the wiki argues against. (referring to aroc's post)

Biological anthropologists such as Jonathan Marks and philosopher Jonathan Kaplan have argued that while Edwards argument is correct it does not invalidate Lewontin's original argument, because the fact that racial groups can be seen to be genetically distinct on average does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population. Nor does it mean that races are not social constructs as is the prevailing view among anthropologists and social scientists, because the particular genetic differences that correspond to races only become salient when racial categories take on social importance. According to this view Edwards and Lewontin are therefore both correct. [11]

Similarly, Marks agree with Edwards that correlations between geographical areas and genetics obviously exists in human populations, but goes on to note that "What is unclear is what this has to do with "race" as that term has been though much in the twentieth century - the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards' critique does not contradict that interpretation."[12]

continued

 

[aroc91]

I think you're confusing our weak versions of Lewontin's argument with his strong version. As the first sentence points out, it really depends on how you're asking the question. Ryan and I also seem to also both concede to there being a genetic distinction (him explicitly, me by way of qualifier).

Ah, I see.

But we're really talking about how the word "race" is used by the public. I can assure you that they are not counting allele frequencies (which I would liken more to phenotype than race; the concept of race implied genotype to me the way I most often hear it used.. realize that it's not a word we use when studying birds, worms, or squirrels... it's not part of a standard classification scheme that I know of.)

Regarding the general population- true. How about dog breeds? We call them different breeds instead of different races, but I feel like it's analogous (besides the much greater amount of homogeneity in humans relative to dogs).

And the rest of the wiki argues against. (referring to aroc's post)

continued

I'm not so sure. I don't think the sections you've selected necessarily invalidate Edward's argument, they just point out that the differences don't really matter in the end. It's all just anthropology and I definitely agree with that position. So, can we make distinctions? Sure. Do they matter? Absolutely not. The most relevant racial differences are medical, I think. Tay Sachs susceptibility in Ashkenazi Jews, mutated acetalaldehyde dehydrogenase in Asian populations, that sort of thing.

 

[Pythagorean]

Regarding the general population- true. How about dog breeds? We call them different breeds instead of different races, but I feel like it's analogous (besides the much greater amount of homogeneity in humans relative to dogs).

dog breeders are not biologists, they don't care about the molecular story or the evolutionary story, they mostly just carea bout functional results. Race is similarly used by sociology applications (demographic studies, mostly) and in many cases the behavior being recorded is a results of cultural and environmental conditions.

For example, crime among black Americans in the US probably has a lot more to do with them having been shoved tightly into neglected sections of community and thus, receiving a terrible quality of education and social support then it has to do with any genetic aspect of personality/behavior.

I guess it's not a question of whether race is genetic or race is social so much as which aspect dominates particular interactions. Obviously, there's a huge problem with the social aspect of race dominating interactions (which is why we develop policie to counter it). With disease, on the other hand, the genetic component can become very important (but there's still envrionmnetally-driven disease, of course! Disease is a tricky one.)

 

[chiro]

Morgan Freeman once quoted when asked about race to "not bring it up" or "talk about it"



The best solution to this stupid problem.

 

[Bobbywhy]

catdogking, I cannot define what is "race". One thinks of "white, black, red, brown, etc." as separate races, but I don't know where you can draw a clear line and say "she is of X race, and he is from Y race" when there are so many mixutures.

Just as an observation: After living and working in the Far East for many years I can easily tell you, just by looking, if a person is Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, or Thai. Now, am I defining separate "races"? I am not sure. But their facial characteristics are all that's necessary to know that "ethnic" difference.

 

[Aero51]

My view on race? Winner takes all.

 

[nsaspook]

For example, crime among black Americans in the US probably has a lot more to do with them having been shoved tightly into neglected sections of community and thus, receiving a terrible quality of education and social support then it has to do with any genetic aspect of personality/behavior.

Crime in black America has more to do with the destruction of the family due to well meaning but counter-productive measures that made fathers unnecessary due to government rules that only supported women with children if no man is around to help. I was in school 1964 when separate but equal was abolished in Texas, the social divide between black and white could have not been wider then but the black family was still mainly intact so even the poorest black areas crime was very rare. The future destruction of fatherhood in black man was seen by some early but cries of racism drowned them out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Family:_The_Case_For_National_Action

The genetic aspect of race is meaningless as new poor African family's in this country mainly have completely different social and personal expectations while experiencing poverty and crime.

 

[Evo]

We really don't want to get too deeply into social racism as it always ends up in flame wars (it attracts people from the internet wanting to push racism). So far the thread has avoided this, I'm impressed.

 

[Astronuc]

There are many factors surrounding one's race. For example, there are historical, geographic, which include ethnic factors, and economic factors, as well as current environmental factors, which may or may not transcend race, and there are complex interrelationships with respect to these factors.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

As others have pointed out, there are slight, but apparent, genetic differences between certain races.

For example, different diseases are present in different areas. This means that some races have been exposed to diseases that others haven't been exposed to, which often leads to that particular race having a gene that protects them from that specific disease, which other races would not have.

No race is intrinsically better than another. Each has had their own history, each has developed in different areas, but they all are human.

 

[nevere]

you ever ben to the natural history museam in dc, something is wrong here.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

you ever ben to the natural history museam in dc, something is wrong here.

What exactly is wrong here? It's difficult to draw a conclusion from a vague, poorly written statement.

The Smithsonian unveiled an exhibit last year called RACE: Are We So Different? The main purpose of the exhibit (from what I've read from various blogs and the website of the exhibit itself) is to examine the various factors that have played into the separation of humanity that has been attributed the terminology of race. These range from religion, in the Middle Ages, to the current widespread interpretation of race; mainly skin color and facial appearances.

I don't see how anything that we have discussed thus far contradicts the exhibit at the Smithsonian. Sure, some of us have pointed out that there are slight genetic differences, and how the pigmentation of skin is clearly different for beneficial reasons regarding protection from the sun, but nobody here has expressed any belief that races are different, and some of us wonder if "race" is a word that we should even be using.

I'm mainly just confused about your post. If you were attempting to agree with what has been said so far, then your mentioning of that exhibit fits in very well with the discussion. It's the phrase "something is wrong here" that makes me think that your intentions are elsewhere.

 

[nevere]

if i post i'll look like a racist, lmfao

 

[Ryan_m_b]

if i post i'll look like a racist, lmfao

If your information is incorrect and racist then you will yes, if it is the result of credible science then no you wont.

 

[Curious3141]

if i post i'll look like a racist, lmfao

you ever ben to the natural history museam in dc, something is wrong here.

We really don't want to get too deeply into social racism as it always ends up in flame wars (it attracts people from the internet wanting to push racism). So far the thread has avoided this, I'm impressed.

Oh dear, methinks Evo hath spoken too soon.

 

[Ken Natton]

This can be a delicate and sensitive subject, but it is very silly if it becomes unmentionable. The only real problem, of course, comes when someone begins with a particular agenda, and builds an interpretation specifically to support that agenda. For anyone asking honest questions with an open mind, it ought to be a subject that can be discussed without offence to anyone. My understanding is that anthropologists are reasonably satisfied with the evidence that today’s population of the world, outside Africa, is descended from a migration from Africa that dates to about 70,000 years ago. That, in evolutionary terms, is a mere blink of an eye, and thus it should not be a surprise that whatever our diversity of appearance, we are all demonstrably the same species, with extremely recent common ancestors. Modern communications that mean that we are now essentially a single world community date so recently that it should also not be a surprise that previous isolation between different populations has been sufficient for the ethnic diversity we observe today to have developed. But this ethnic diversity is very shallow and only a matter of appearance. Those modern communications and the reality of human nature means that those distinctions are already beginning to blur, and it won’t be so long before the very concept of ‘mixed marriage’ will become anachronistic.

There are undoubtedly some things that have to be addressed carefully. One elephant in the room has been the dominance of black people in athletic sprinting events, for example. A recent program on British television, presented by the black American athlete Michael Johnson, considered opinions from geneticists that suggested that the harsh realities of the transportation of slaves from Africa to America meant that survivors had a tendency to be those with high testosterone levels. There is therefore a credible possibility that this has lead to a high proportion of people with higher than the mean levels of testosterone among the black population of the Americas. But it is a vital point that this, by no means constitutes evolution. It is far too short term for that. And again, the way in which modern society works means that concentration of high testosterone levels will tend to re-disperse through the broader population. And it remains equally credible that social differences in lives of the different communities is at least as much of a factor. Whatever may be the case about that, those who seek to suggest that this dominance of black athletes constitutes any kind of evidence of deeper levels of differences between ethnicities are usually motivated by some kind of racist agenda and their arguments are not difficult to refute.

 

[cheahchungyin]

When genes get more and more international, hopefully one day the younger generations will forget the meaning of the word 'race'.

Well, the meaning of race? Race cars! :D

 

[member 392791]

Call it whatever you want, but it is clear that people in different geographic regions look different from each other in appearance.

 

[crabrol]

In my own views, it's all about the genes differ but whatever races you belong we are all the same i.e., have heart to be able to feel things and have mind to be able to think, discover and learn things that will find on earth.

 

[ImaLooser]

It is possible to determine race through DNA tests, examining hair, etc.

Some people seem to think that they can get the human race to forget the troublesome concept of race. I do not think that they will succeed.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

It is possible to determine race through DNA tests, examining hair, etc.

Some people seem to think that they can get the human race to forget the troublesome concept of race. I do not think that they will succeed.

I think it's more like the troublesome concept of "people who are different from you". And people can be different in more ways than just race.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It is possible to determine race through DNA tests, examining hair, etc.

Some people seem to think that they can get the human race to forget the troublesome concept of race. I do not think that they will succeed.

DNA differences amongst populations is not a signifier for "race", that is a social construction.

 

[Evo]

Unfortunately the thread went downhill as expected, with citations of two heads of a racist hate group.