NationStates Jolt Archive

Race, as an idea is an aberration, artificial, and abhorrent. It has no basis in either biology or genetics. The narrowest classification in biology is "species." A species is defined by all of its members being interfertile. All members of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens are interfertile ( discounting special cases of couples who are infertile due to medical problems ).

The term "race" is simply an attempt to construct artificial sub-categories within the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens by color of skin, facial characteristics or other factors having nothing to do with substantive differences.

What are your thoughts on this?

I agree. There is no 'race' but the human race.

What are your thoughts on this?
I second your thoughts!

(btw, you're a Vietnam veteran, right? My English class is going to visit a Vietnam War memorial in NJ, in May)

I'd never called it into question. Needless to say, I entirely agree.

Race, as an idea is an aberration, artificial, and abhorrent. It has no basis in either biology or genetics. The narrowest classification in biology is "species." A species is defined by all of its members being interfertile. All members of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens are interfertile ( discounting special cases of couples who are infertile due to medical problems ).

The term "race" is simply an attempt to construct artificial sub-categories within the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens by color of skin, facial characteristics or other factors having nothing to do with substantive differences.

What are your thoughts on this?

Troublemaker

I agree much!

Race is...a category of people sharing biologically transmitted traits.

...

Ethnicity is a shared cultural heritage
.

Nadkor's quote
J. Macionis and K. Plummer are idiots ^-_-

J. Macionis and K. Plummer are idiots ^-_-
they got me through my sociology exam...they are gods


(doesnt mean i agree with them on stuff)

J. Macionis and K. Plummer are idiots ^-_-
Idiots has dropped out of use in recent years- they prefer to be called sociologists now. <==============joke

J. Macionis and K. Plummer are idiots ^-_-
Very much so, according to their defintion people with green eyes are a separate race

Idiots has dropped out of use in recent years- they prefer to be called sociologists now.
Ah yes, I must be politically correct lest I offend somebody

My anthropology book says that the genetic variations amongst modern humans are insufficient to constitute individual races.

Boaz and Almquist are the authors.

I second your thoughts!

(btw, you're a Vietnam veteran, right? My English class is going to visit a Vietnam War memorial in NJ, in May)

Kewl! Look up my best friend from college and say hello to him for me:

Peter Samuel Borsay
Army - PFC - E3
1st Cav Division (AMBL)
Age - 24
Date of Birth - Feb 17, 1945
From - MORGANTOWN , WEST VIRGINIA

There are about 12 more on the Wall I know, but I won't list all the names because I don't need to be crying just now. Just look on that same panel. All of them are my bros.

EDIT: I wasn't going to say this, but I wrote a poem dedicated to Pete. You may or may not like it, but I know he does: http://paradigmassociates.org/ParadigmHeart.html

My anthropology book says that the genetic variations amongst modern humans are insufficient to constitute individual races.

Boaz and Almquist are the authors.
is this the same Boaz and Almquist that wrote the controversial 90 volume series
"Why Everyone Should Ignore Macionis and Plummer" ?

Race, as an idea is an aberration, artificial, and abhorrent. It has no basis in either biology or genetics. The narrowest classification in biology is "species." A species is defined by all of its members being interfertile. All members of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens are interfertile ( discounting special cases of couples who are infertile due to medical problems ).

The term "race" is simply an attempt to construct artificial sub-categories within the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens by color of skin, facial characteristics or other factors having nothing to do with substantive differences.

What are your thoughts on this?

You are absolulety right.
I watched a documental about this on the discovery channel explaining the same facts that you are saying here.

is this the same Boaz and Almquist that wrote the controversial 90 volume series
"Why Everyone Should Ignore Macionis and Plummer" ?
Possibly ;)

My anthropology book says that the genetic variations amongst modern humans are insufficient to constitute individual races.

Boaz and Almquist are the authors.

Kewl! But then again, anthropology is just a TAD more scientific than sociology ( referring to another thread on here ).

.

Yes ... the HUMAN "race."

Race, as an idea is an aberration, artificial, and abhorrent. It has no basis in either biology or genetics. The narrowest classification in biology is "species." A species is defined by all of its members being interfertile. All members of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens are interfertile ( discounting special cases of couples who are infertile due to medical problems ).

The term "race" is simply an attempt to construct artificial sub-categories within the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens by color of skin, facial characteristics or other factors having nothing to do with substantive differences.

What are your thoughts on this?

Correct. The term "race" is merely a holdover from bygone days. It exists now only to describe (perceived) social groups, but it is an archaic term which will, hopefully, phase out soon.

Ah yes, I must be politically correct lest I offend somebody

Not to put too fine a point on it, but ... fuck political correctness!

Very much so, according to their defintion people with green eyes are a separate race
whoa i never thought of myself as mixed race before, my dad had BLUE EYES, i have GREEN!!

whoa i never thought of myself as mixed race before, my dad had BLUE EYES, i have GREEN!!

OMG! You would NEVER be accepted in MY neighborhood! Tsk! :D

It really doesn't matter whether race exists or not. The very fact that we are different in looks and ideology from one another is enough to maintain tension and animosity among people. As long as people look different, there will always be racists.

The term "race" is simply an attempt to construct artificial sub-categories within the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens by color of skin, facial characteristics or other factors having nothing to do with substantive differences.


The Orcs are gonna be pissed.

Race, as an idea is an aberration, artificial, and abhorrent. It has no basis in either biology or genetics. The narrowest classification in biology is "species." A species is defined by all of its members being interfertile. All members of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens are interfertile ( discounting special cases of couples who are infertile due to medical problems ).

The term "race" is simply an attempt to construct artificial sub-categories within the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens by color of skin, facial characteristics or other factors having nothing to do with substantive differences.

What are your thoughts on this?
In other news the sky is blue.

Just kidding, you make a excellent and concise argument. One which I find hard to believe some people have trouble accepting. The idea that race is really anymore than cultural doesn't stand up against modern genetic research.

Mmm.. not to get off of topic, but as for the poem, I almost cried. Nice job.

Race? Well, I agree with Etrusca. However, race, artificial or not, is very much a part of life. We won't be getting away from it any time soon, so it hardly matters if we think that race exists or not.

Race, as an idea is an aberration, artificial, and abhorrent. It has no basis in either biology or genetics.
That is partially untrue. There are sufficient phenotypic differences between the three main "races" of caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid to constite different races from a sociological viewpoint. There is certainly no sufficient genotypic difference, you are correct there.

The narrowest classification in biology is "species."
Now that is just plain wrong. There are several smaller classifications in taxonomy, "cultivate" being the first one to come to mind.

A species is defined by all of its members being interfertile. All members of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens are interfertile ( discounting special cases of couples who are infertile due to medical problems ).
Kind of. There are other factors as well. Otherwise, Canis lupus and Canis familiaris would not be able to interbreed. Taxonomy is one the most complex and difficult sections of all of biology. Richard Dawkins goes into a lot of that near the end of The Blind Watchmaker. And, again, in proper Linnaean taxonomy, the genus is capitalised and the species is lowercase. It should always be either italicised or underlined.

The term "race" is simply an attempt to construct artificial sub-categories within the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens by color of skin, facial characteristics or other factors having nothing to do with substantive differences.
Actually, race is indeed a biological entity. Just not in humans, but in other species, it certainly is.

And, overall, I do agree. Biologically speaking, there are no races of human. There are obvious anthropological and sociological races, but no biological or genetic races in humans. This has already been debated ad nauseum, though not as bad as some other topics. *cough*theology*cough*

... you make a excellent and concise argument. One which I find hard to believe some people have trouble accepting.

Thank you. Unfortunately, there's a term for this too ... it's "prejudice," which is the unreasoned tendency to discriminate against another human being for irrelevancies. :(

Mmm.. not to get off of topic, but as for the poem, I almost cried. Nice job.

Race? Well, I agree with Etrusca. However, race, artificial or not, is very much a part of life. We won't be getting away from it any time soon, so it hardly matters if we think that race exists or not.

True, unfortunately. :(

Thank you for the compliment on the poem. It truly was "written from the heart." :)

(btw, you're a Vietnam veteran, right? My English class is going to visit a Vietnam War memorial in NJ, in May)
You should see the Viet Nam memorial in D.C. I swear, it is one of the most depressing things I've ever seen. I can not think of how there could have been a message more strongly imparted onto me from a memorial-type thing. The few times I've visited (I very near to D.C.), it's always stirred up very strong emotions in me...

You should see the Viet Nam memorial in D.C. I swear, it is one of the most depressing things I've ever seen. I can not think of how there could have been a message more strongly imparted onto me from a memorial-type thing. The few times I've visited (I very near to D.C.), it's always stirred up very strong emotions in me...

If you think it stirred up strong emotions in you, try to imagine being so leery of the place that you delayed for many years before even making your first visit, largely because you knew that the names of quite a few of your friends were on there. When I finally did go, I was looking for the name of my best friend from college, and in the process discovered four names of men I had lead while in Vietnam who were killed after I left. As far as I knew, they were still alive. I've never been all that emotional, but I just totally, and I mean totally, lost it. :(

If you think it stirred up strong emotions in you, try to imagine being so leery of the place that you delayed for many years before even making your first visit, largely because you knew that the names of quite a few of your friends were on there.
Ugh...it's hard. My father was in Viet Nam, and was with the first time I visited it. He refused to go (not that I pressured him or anything, he just said he wasn't going and I left it at that). He hasn't ever gone into it as far as I know, though he's probably done so at one point. I can't either feel or understand your pain, but I can sympathise. I hope I never have the opportunity to. I know what war can do to people, and it is truly terrifying. What it is like to actually be in it is beyond my current imagination.

Ugh...it's hard. My father was in Viet Nam, and was with the first time I visited it. He refused to go (not that I pressured him or anything, he just said he wasn't going and I left it at that). He hasn't ever gone into it as far as I know, though he's probably done so at one point. I can't either feel or understand your pain, but I can sympathise. I hope I never have the opportunity to. I know what war can do to people, and it is truly terrifying. What it is like to actually be in it is beyond my current imagination.

I pray very fervently that you never have the opportunity to be in one.

Fortunately, I was never in a contact that lasted more than half an hour, with one exception. I was also blessed with a very strong emotional and mental constitution, in addition to which I went to Officer Candidate School and had just a bit more control over the course of events than the average ground-pounder. I came out of it changed, but still essentially whole, something for which I will be eternally thankful.

Just a thought, isn't most of human experience based upon artificial constructs and preconceived notions, especially when dealing with each other?

Race, as an idea is an aberration, artificial, and abhorrent. It has no basis in either biology or genetics. The narrowest classification in biology is "species." A species is defined by all of its members being interfertile. All members of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens are interfertile ( discounting special cases of couples who are infertile due to medical problems ).
The term "race" is simply an attempt to construct artificial sub-categories within the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens by color of skin, facial characteristics or other factors having nothing to do with substantive differences.
What are your thoughts on this?What's your point actually? The term "race" indeed specifies sub-categories in species. E.g. in other languages than English the word is used to specify breeds of animals like dogs or cats. And just as in those meanings the term in English refers to phenotypical differences. There is nothing wrong about that. That folks like in the US have problems with race has nothing to do with that.

Just a thought, isn't most of human experience based upon artificial constructs and preconceived notions, especially when dealing with each other?
Of course our words are our own construct, and if you view 'artificial' as referring to human intervention, manipulation, etc, then all of our language is an artificial construct, but what is being referred to here, isnt the word 'race' but the concept being described by it. Unlike the concept being described by the word 'fire' or the phrase 'green eyes' the concept described by the word race doesnt exist in reality. Whether or not we chose to notice and name 'fire' and 'green eye' fire and green eyes exist. The same cannot be said of seperate human races within anatamically modern humans, and no other type of human currently exists.

What's your point actually? The term "race" indeed specifies sub-categories in species. E.g. in other languages than English the word is used to specify breeds of animals like dogs or cats. And just as in those meanings the term in English refers to phenotypical differences. There is nothing wrong about that. That folks like in the US have problems with race has nothing to do with that.
It's not an accurate analogy. When I say 'tabby' (as in cat), I'm not referring specifically to a cat's breeding, I'm not saying that the cat had tabby parents and will have tabby brothers and sisters, this is akin to commenting on the colour of someone's hair. With regards to 'breeds' of cats or dogs and phenotypes, even though my dog looked like a German shepard he was a mongrel. His phenotype didnt make him a German shepard, and the same is true in humans. That my friend is blonde haired and blue eyed, and her sibling is dark skinned and dark haired, does not make them different races, indeed since they share both parents, how according to what we mean by races can they be different races?
Phenotypes in humans cannot be consistently and universally reconciled with what is meant by the word race. There is no exact pigmentation that will differentiate between all members who are in a 'race' and all members who are not, neither is there a hair colour, eye colour, facial feature, etc which can be used to identify all and only members of any 'race' except the human race as a whole.

Race, as an idea is an aberration, artificial, and abhorrent. It has no basis in either biology or genetics. The narrowest classification in biology is "species." A species is defined by all of its members being interfertile. All members of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens are interfertile ( discounting special cases of couples who are infertile due to medical problems ).

The term "race" is simply an attempt to construct artificial sub-categories within the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens by color of skin, facial characteristics or other factors having nothing to do with substantive differences.

What are your thoughts on this?

I think you're absolutely correct.

Race, as an idea is an aberration, artificial, and abhorrent. It has no basis in either biology or genetics. The narrowest classification in biology is "species." A species is defined by all of its members being interfertile. All members of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens are interfertile ( discounting special cases of couples who are infertile due to medical problems ).

The term "race" is simply an attempt to construct artificial sub-categories within the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens by color of skin, facial characteristics or other factors having nothing to do with substantive differences.

What are your thoughts on this?

For the record, there are biological ways to classify "race" or "breeds". However, no human groups meet said classification.

Very true. It is an antiquated term that only divides people. It gives jerks a so-called 'valid scientific justification' to treat other people as inferiors and it unecessarily underlines what makes them different while ignoring what makes them so alike.

The only place where 'race' actually matters would be in the tracking of genetic traits/diseases, and believe me no race is 'pure'. They all have a nice distribution of nasty and annoying genetic diseases.

The only place where 'race' actually matters would be in the tracking of genetic traits/diseases, and believe me no race is 'pure'. They all have a nice distribution of nasty and annoying genetic diseases.
Er, race doesnt cause one to get a disease, nor prevent one from getting a disease, in fact since there is no such thing as races (amongst humans) how could it?

Er, race doesnt cause one to get a disease, nor prevent one from getting a disease, in fact since there is no such thing as races (amongst humans) how could it?

I suspect he was referring to certain genetic predispositions toward certain diseases among limited groups of people. One example would be sickle-cell anemia. This appears to be an attempt to adapt to endemic malaria and seems to be limited to certain groups of people: Primarily Africans, and to a limited degree, Italians and Jews.

Thus this disease seems to have a somewhat "racially specific" etiology. However, all of the "races" I mentioned are still interfertile. The adaptation which gives rise to the disease does not affect interfertility between the "races" listed.

I suspect he was referring to certain genetic predispositions toward certain diseases among limited groups of people. One example would be sickle-cell anemia. This appears to be an attempt to adapt to endemic malaria and seems to be limited to certain groups of people: Primarily Africans, and to a limited degree, Italians and Jews.
Except that it's not complete sickle-cell anaemia, it is only partial, to be precise. And obviously it is not considered as much of a disease in areas with malaria problems, which is why the humans in those areas developed the tendency towards sickle-cell anaemia.

Idiots has dropped out of use in recent years- they prefer to be called sociologists now. <==============joke

:D

I suspect he was referring to certain genetic predispositions toward certain diseases among limited groups of people.
My understanding is that there are no predispositions to diseases caused by race.

One example would be sickle-cell anemia. This appears to be an attempt to adapt to endemic malaria and seems to be limited to certain groups of people: Primarily Africans, and to a limited degree, Italians and Jews.
Variations are not attempts at anything. With regards to sickle cell, whether or not you have sickle cell is (unless your own genes are a mutation from that of your parents) herediatary. The reason why it is more common among certain groups is enviromental. Heterozygotes for the gene experiance an advantage against maleria without experiancing the disadvantage of suffering from sickle cell, ergo they are more likely to pass their genetic material on. This is demonstrated by the lesser occurance of sickle cell in areas where maleria is not endemic, regardless of race.

Thus this disease seems to have a somewhat "racially specific" etiology.
No it is hereditary...if neither of your parents have the gene for sickle cell (or only one does) then barring a mutation occuring, neither will you, regardless of your race.

However, all of the "races" I mentioned are still interfertile. The adaptation which gives rise to the disease does not affect interfertility between the "races" listed.
I'm not actually sure what this means.

Race doesnt cause sickle cell, (indeed there's no such thing as race, so how could it?) Hereditary diseases are hereditary, not racial. For them to be racial, there must first be races, and since there isnt....

The Orcs are gonna be pissed.

RARRRRRRRGH!!!

*waves battleaxe around head*

:p

To be serious now, I totally agree with Eutrusca.