NationStates Jolt Archive

I read some stuff about races around the world and this seemed to interest me. What do you think?
Some Americans view all Turks, Arabs and Iranians as non-white, even though these groups are believed to be close genetically to Mediterranean Europeans.

Quoted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whites

Well its true Americans can think this!
If you look at Italians Noses they are similar to the Arab Hook nose(Unless the Italian Army is packed with Arabs :confused: )
ITs well known that Iran is part of the Aryan race!

Well its true Americans can think this!
If you look at Italians Noses they are similar to the Arab Hook nose(Unless the Italian Army is packed with Arabs :confused: )
ITs well known that Iran is part of the Aryan race!
Well from I what I learnt, there's two groups - Aryans and Semites.

I'm european (I admit stupid to compair Europe[continent] to USA[country])
and I consider mediterrian europeans 'non-white'.

Well from I what I learnt, there's two groups - Aryans and Semites.
Hmm *Nods Head*
Tuaregs rule(Nice attitude to life).

I consider mediterrian europeans 'non-white'.

Same here.

I've always considered Arabs to be Arabs. If people asked me to name a race, I would have to consider them Mulatto. I do know people who think that though. The Arabs are a mixture of European and African descent. Right? No? I think that races need to should have different clasification then what we have now.

I'm european (I admit stupid to compair Europe[continent] to USA[country])
and I consider mediterrian europeans 'non-white'.
So would that be the same for Arabs?

From what I understand, Hannibal's Moors from Africa invaded Italy and especially Sicily leaving their mark in the gene pool. I could be mistaken but I believe the European Aryans have a lot to do with Attila the Hun's conquest (he came from Central Asia.)

as an american iranian, i have a belief that we should do away with the concept of iranians (aryans) as white. (and no, arabs are not aryans, they are semites). I think we should change Caucasian to European American and give the middle easterners Arab Americans and Persian Americans, or give the entire middle east Middle Eastern Americans.

thoughts?

as an american iranian, i have a belief that we should do away with the concept of iranians (aryans) as white. (and no, arabs are not aryans, they are semites). I think we should change Caucasian to European American and give the middle easterners Arab Americans and Persian Americans, or give the entire middle east Middle Eastern Americans.

thoughts?
I like the idea!

as an american iranian, i have a belief that we should do away with the concept of iranians (aryans) as white. (and no, arabs are not aryans, they are semites). I think we should change Caucasian to European American and give the middle easterners Arab Americans and Persian Americans, or give the entire middle east Middle Eastern Americans.

thoughts?
As a Canadian Syrian, I guess that would be alright.

Arabs are their own race. They are, for the most part, descended from Ishmael in the bible (secular sources confirm this). The closest thing to Arabs are, surprisingly, Jews. They are the only two that are close to one another genetically. Both are the only two still-existing Semitic groups in the world.

So would that be the same for Arabs?

I'm not sure, but people here seem to be pretty sure they belong
to the same 'race'. So guess so!

as an american iranian, i have a belief that we should do away with the concept of iranians (aryans) as white. (and no, arabs are not aryans, they are semites). I think we should change Caucasian to European American and give the middle easterners Arab Americans and Persian Americans, or give the entire middle east Middle Eastern Americans.

thoughts?

I would have to agree with that. Obviously, I do not know as much the individual ancestry of Arab peoples. I think the idea of Mulatto and Mestizo should not be used, although I am guilty of using it. I think people when they must be classified, should be, according to their phenotype and genotype. For example, I have a friend who is 1/4 African-American, 3/4 white. On our standardized testing he had 2 choices: African-American or Caucasian. If he said Caucasian, then the results would be tainted. If he put African-American, that wouldn't be completely true because he is mostly Caucasian and shows most of his Causcasian traits.

So would that be the same for Arabs?
Careful JAmil i think you just awoke the HerrenVolk. :eek:
Racial Purity!!!

I honestly don't care. They look white enough to me. *shrugs*

I recall reading an encyclopedia I have at home and they only had three races defined - caucasian, negroid and mongoloid. And hey, if native americans go under the same grouping as people from china, then why wouldn't arabs go under the same classification as someone whose ancestory is from england?

Racial Purity!!!
Seig Heil!
14/88 or 18/44 or 42 or whatever!
And all that other arcane mumbo-jumbo!

:p

Seig Heil!
14/88 or 18/44 or 42 or whatever!
And all that other arcane mumbo-jumbo!

:p
Hes Gestapo get him!!!! :p

Kind of off-topic but whatever (this makes my blood boil). Since we're all from Africa then why the hell don't we pay more attention to it. It's the poorest continent in the world and I think the world should spend less time fighting wars and spend more time teaching.

I honestly don't care. They look white enough to me. *shrugs*

I recall reading an encyclopedia I have at home and they only had three races defined - caucasian, negroid and mongoloid. And hey, if native americans go under the same grouping as people from china, then why wouldn't arabs go under the same classification as someone whose ancestory is from england?

That's extremely vague. Fact is as time goes by, the way races are classified needs to be modified. It takes approximately 4 generations for Caucasian traits to appear in a person who is a quarter Caucasian and 3/4 another race. In other words, nowadays, the appearance of peoples of certain races are not shall we say "pure" or as reflective as what they used to be, of that particular race. This is do to the fact that one, nobody has true racially pure genes, and two, the presence of two races in a person's physical appearance is finally starting to become prevalent. This is due to the 4 generations rule.

Kind of off-topic but whatever (this makes my blood boil). Since we're all from Africa then why the hell don't we pay more attention to it. It's the poorest continent in the world and I think the world should spend less time fighting wars and spend more time teaching.

I'm with you there. I can't speak for other countries, but a lot of the Americans I talk to about this seem to think America already does enough. Some even think it is a hopeless cause. It is not. Africa's the way it is due to imperialism and desertification (I may not have listed everything). Surely, there is something we can do provide them with food for what they already have. Africa has a ton of natural resources.

Or we could stop categorizing people into races...?

We're all the same species and unless we've got some equivalent to dog shows where specific "breeds" are judged, then what the hell does it matter?

Kind of off-topic but whatever (this makes my blood boil). Since we're all from Africa then why the hell don't we pay more attention to it. It's the poorest continent in the world and I think the world should spend less time fighting wars and spend more time teaching.
While that's all good, Africa has FAR too many problems for the outside world to solve. Countless tribal conflicts, civil wars, massive government corruption, instability, and an Aids epidemic. They need to solve some of these on their own before the world can truly help, but for now it's hopeless.

I'm with you there. I can't speak for other countries, but a lot of the Americans I talk to about this seem to think America already does enough. Some even think it is a hopeless cause. It is not. Africa's the way it is due to imperialism and desertification (I may not have listed everything). Surely, there is something we can do provide them withfood for what they already have. Africa hasaton of natural resources.
They have a hell of a lot of resources. We need to help them reach these resources and teach Africa how to prosper.

Kind of off-topic but whatever (this makes my blood boil). Since we're all from Africa then why the hell don't we pay more attention to it. It's the poorest continent in the world and I think the world should spend less time fighting wars and spend more time teaching.
Speak for yourself!LOL

The reason is The Colonist governments got/get blamed for all Africa's current problems but the reality is those BAnana Republics are just jokes!

African nations generaly have a policy of not allowing White direct help
Most peace keeping forces in Africa are African not European or Asian.
If we could actually sort out insurgents in Africa those roving bands would be wiped out but the UN can only observe the slaughter of the innocent.

Fighting would solve the problem although ive heard Sex is a game for 10 year olds in Africa.

The refusal of Large Corporations to generaly refuse the use of cheap but effective knock off Aids drugs is horrible!

African nations generaly dont want GM food(I dont)but there is never enough to go around.

If i had my way massive pipelines from the sea would be used to supply water to internal Africa(desalinisation plants to of course)but then youd need to wipe out those who would try and destroy such infrastructure.

Or we could stop categorizing people into races...?

We're all the same species and unless we've got some equivalent to dog shows where specific "breeds" are judged, then what the hell does it matter?
Seconded.

While that's all good, Africa has FAR too many problems for the outside world to solve. Countless tribal conflicts, civil wars, massive government corruption, instability, and an Aids epidemic. They need to solve some of these on their own before the world can truly help, but for now it's hopeless.
I'm not talking about charity through money. I'm talking about teaching and passing on knowledge so that people in Africa can solve these problems on their own.

They have a hell of a lot of resources. We need to help them reach these resources and teach Africa how to prosper.
Thats true its just that some hored them from others besides at least 20% of all aid goes straight to arming Warlords!

They look white to me, so they must be pretty much white. However, the Middle East was once the global marketplace, where Arabs, Chinese, blacks, Europeans, and virtually everyone else intermixed. It wouldn't surprise me in the least bit if Arabs are found to be genetically closer to blacks than Europeans are.

They look white to me, so they must be pretty much white. However, the Middle East was once the global marketplace, where Arabs, Chinese, blacks, Europeans, and virtually everyone else intermixed. It wouldn't surprise me in the least bit if Arabs are found to be genetically closer to blacks than Europeans are.
That's no surprise. I get along wonderfully with my African-Canadian neighborhood (The Ref Camp).

I consider middle easterners (arabs/jews, persians) to be more white than black or asian. However, they are not caucasian.

I find it more accurate to classify people into more defined groups:
Asian, indian, western european, slavic, middle eastern, north american native, south american native, different sorts of african, islander.

I read some stuff about races around the world and this seemed to interest me. What do you think?


Quoted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whites
Yeah, that's one of the things I learned in biology last year... Probably one of the only things...

I honestly don't care. They look white enough to me. *shrugs*

I recall reading an encyclopedia I have at home and they only had three races defined - caucasian, negroid and mongoloid. And hey, if native americans go under the same grouping as people from china, then why wouldn't arabs go under the same classification as someone whose ancestory is from england?


Very true. There are only three main variants of humans. The rest are sub variants of the main three. To me Arabs are white. I think when you start putting people in more and more "classifications" you open up more discrimination. Just my thought.

I read some stuff about races around the world and this seemed to interest me. What do you think?


Quoted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whites

I don't really see that it matters. I have friends of many different religions, from many different 'racial' backgrounds, from all over the world.

To me - every person I know is a 'person'... I couldn't really be any less interested in what 'colour' their skin is, or where their 'people' come from... to me - what is important is where they are NOW, WHO they are NOW.

I am a 'citizen of the world', and ALL OF THESE people, are MY people.

I've always considered Arabs to be Arabs. If people asked me to name a race, I would have to consider them Mulatto. I do know people who think that though. The Arabs are a mixture of European and African descent. Right? No? I think that races need to should have different clasification then what we have now.

No, they're not. There are physical characteristics beyond skin tone that define race. There are fatty deposits around African eyes that are absent in Arabs. Arabs have a good deal of body and facial hair where that of most African races tend to be rather sparse. And BTW the various African races we tend to lump together as black are far more genetically distinct than Anglos and Arabs will ever be.

I don't really see that it matters. I have friends of many different religions, from many different 'racial' backgrounds, from all over the world.

To me - every person I know is a 'person'... I couldn't really be any less interested in what 'colour' their skin is, or where their 'people' come from... to me - what is important is where they are NOW, WHO they are NOW.

I am a 'citizen of the world', and ALL OF THESE people, are MY people.

Well there are some phisiological reasons to make these distinctions. African Americans for example are more genetically diverse than White Americans and so for a long time they had almost no chance of recieving an organ transplant because they had to match according to 6 different genetic markers. For the relativly homogenous white population this was not terribly difficult, but for the relativly heterogenous African Americans it was like playing the lottery.

Eventually they dropped 1 of the 6 criteria to improve the odds of Africans recieving a transplant. The estimates I heard when they made the change were that this would increase the chance of a Black patient recieving a transplant by about 20% and rejecting a transplant by about 2%.

Well there are some phisiological reasons to make these distinctions. African Americans for example are more genetically diverse than White Americans and so for a long time they had almost no chance of recieving an organ transplant because they had to match according to 6 different genetic markers. For the relativly homogenous white population this was not terribly difficult, but for the relativly heterogenous African Americans it was like playing the lottery.

Eventually they dropped 1 of the 6 criteria to improve the odds of Africans recieving a transplant. The estimates I heard when they made the change were that this would increase the chance of a Black patient recieving a transplant by about 20% and rejecting a transplant by about 2%.

Yes - there are some medical instances in which a certain genetic accuracy may be required - but I see no relevence in the more 'superficial' everyday world.

I see no point in being 'proud' of my genetic origins, or railing against my genetic origins... since I had no input in my origins... all I can affect is where I go from here.

Similarly - I see no point in denegrating anyone else for THEIR genetic origin - because it isn't something you choose... and it isn't what makes you 'who you are'.

And - of course - the divergence in genetic markers is a result of isolations... what we should be working towards is homogenous culture, and cross-pollination of genetic diversity... such that isolation-diversity will be minimised.

My thoughts, anyway.

Well there are some phisiological reasons to make these distinctions. African Americans for example are more genetically diverse than White Americans and so for a long time they had almost no chance of recieving an organ transplant because they had to match according to 6 different genetic markers. For the relativly homogenous white population this was not terribly difficult, but for the relativly heterogenous African Americans it was like playing the lottery.

Eventually they dropped 1 of the 6 criteria to improve the odds of Africans recieving a transplant. The estimates I heard when they made the change were that this would increase the chance of a Black patient recieving a transplant by about 20% and rejecting a transplant by about 2%.
Maybe it's due to Africa being a bigger continent than Europe and beign broken up by natural barriers like jungle and desert and the like preventing exchanges between various groups and thus causing genetic divergance among the groups.

It seems rather interesting though.

Maybe it's due to Africa being a bigger continent than Europe and beign broken up by natural barriers like jungle and desert and the like preventing exchanges between various groups and thus causing genetic divergance among the groups.

It seems rather interesting though.
IIRC, it's got more to do with the fact that humans have been there longer than anywhere else. Plus, when humans exanded into new continents they tended to do so as discrete, genetically homogenous waves.

Maybe it's due to Africa being a bigger continent than Europe and beign broken up by natural barriers like jungle and desert and the like preventing exchanges between various groups and thus causing genetic divergance among the groups.

It seems rather interesting though.

It's also due to the entire population of the Earth outside of Africa being decended from about 100,000 people who crossed into the middle east while Africa retained a human population in the millions.

Should I use this time to point out that I'm not an anthropology student, I'm in physics. Geez. The last time I took biology was in highschool, I was just guessing and didn't really think of that kind of thing. (That only a limited amout of humans left africa in the first place)

[QUOTE=Mystic Mindinao]However, the Middle East was once the global marketplace, where Arabs, Chinese, blacks, Europeans, and virtually everyone else intermixed.QUOTE]

if thats true then maybe Arabs are what the human race would look like if we could just throw all the races into a melting pot and see what comes out

Arabs are of course non-White. They are Semitic like the Jews with lots of negroid admixture.

Or we could stop categorizing people into races...?

We're all the same species and unless we've got some equivalent to dog shows where specific "breeds" are judged, then what the hell does it matter?

Thank you

I read some stuff about races around the world and this seemed to interest me. What do you think?


Quoted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitesdunno... I'm color-blind.

I think it's really the color of one's skin.

I read some stuff about races around the world and this seemed to interest me. What do you think?


Quoted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whites

This is why race theory is bullshit, the boundaries drawn between "races" is entirely arbitrary. I mean, where the hell do Central Asians fit in?

Maybe if we stopped preoccupying ourselves with race we could actually see the human being underneath the classification...

This is why race theory is bullshit, the boundaries drawn between "races" is entirely arbitrary. I mean, where the hell do Central Asians fit in?
They are Yellows.

They are Yellows.

"Yellows"! If anyone's yellow it's Bush. :rolleyes:

They are Yellows.
*snort*
You're an idiot. Do they all have jaundice or something?

Run along and do some lynching why don't you.

How about just one race. The human race.

Turks are quite often as white-looking as anyone from western Europe, as are many Lebanese and Syrians. Poland and the Khans occupied modern-day Turkey in recent centuries, as have the Greeks intermixed through past conquest and recent occupation. I would say that many in those areas could be considered white.

How about just one race. The human race.
No. Too simplistic.

No. Too simplistic.

The truth is too simplistic? Science says that there is no such thing as race. Is that too simplictic?

The truth is too simplistic? Science says that there is no such thing as race. Is that too simplictic?

I think genetic science acknowledges phenotype, even if the result of miniscule differences in DNA.

Arabs are of course non-White. They are Semitic like the Jews with lots of negroid admixture.

Jews aren't a race, duh...


And Hannibal didn't come via Sicily.

I think genetic science acknowledges phenotype, even if the result of miniscule differences in DNA.

Science tells us that the differences between the so called races are too small to classify people by race--black, white, red, yellow. We all came from a common ancestor, out of Africa.

Science tells us that the differences between the so called races are too small to classify people by race--black, white, red, yellow. We all came from a common ancestor, out of Africa.

That is true but there are differences that we can see, which is what we humans judge by, that and psychological differences. So races do exist, even if it just in our own minds

That is true but there are differences that we can see, which is what we humans judge by, that and psychological differences. So races do exist, even if it just in our own minds

Then you admit that race is a figment of imagination. Good for you!!

There is no biological basis for race. The concept of race is a political and sociological phenomenon.

TEN THINGS EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT RACE (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-x.htm)

Our eyes tell us that people look different. No one has trouble distinguishing a Czech from a Chinese. But what do those differences mean? Are they biological? Has race always been with us? How does race affect people today?

There's less - and more - to race than meets the eye:

1. Race is a modern idea. Ancient societies, like the Greeks, did not divide people according to physical distinctions, but according to religion, status, class, even language. The English language didn't even have the word 'race' until it turns up in 1508 in a poem by William Dunbar referring to a line of kings.

2. Race has no genetic basis. Not one characteristic, trait or even gene distinguishes all the members of one so-called race from all the members of another so-called race.

3. Human subspecies don't exist. Unlike many animals, modern humans simply haven't been around long enough or isolated enough to evolve into separate subspecies or races. Despite surface appearances, we are one of the most similar of all species.

4. Skin color really is only skin deep. Most traits are inherited independently from one another. The genes influencing skin color have nothing to do with the genes influencing hair form, eye shape, blood type, musical talent, athletic ability or forms of intelligence. Knowing someone's skin color doesn't necessarily tell you anything else about him or her.

5. Most variation is within, not between, "races." Of the small amount of total human variation, 85% exists within any local population, be they Italians, Kurds, Koreans or Cherokees. About 94% can be found within any continent. That means two random Koreans may be as genetically different as a Korean and an Italian.

6. Slavery predates race. Throughout much of human history, societies have enslaved others, often as a result of conquest or war, even debt, but not because of physical characteristics or a belief in natural inferiority. Due to a unique set of historical circumstances, ours was the first slave system where all the slaves shared similar physical characteristics.

7. Race and freedom evolved together. The U.S. was founded on the radical new principle that "All men are created equal." But our early economy was based largely on slavery. How could this anomaly be rationalized? The new idea of race helped explain why some people could be denied the rights and freedoms that others took for granted.

8. Race justified social inequalities as natural. As the race idea evolved, white superiority became "common sense" in America. It justified not only slavery but also the extermination of Indians, exclusion of Asian immigrants, and the taking of Mexican lands by a nation that professed a belief in democracy. Racial practices were institutionalized within American government, laws, and society.

9. Race isn't biological, but racism is still real. Race is a powerful social idea that gives people different access to opportunities and resources. Our government and social institutions have created advantages that disproportionately channel wealth, power, and resources to white people. This affects everyone, whether we are aware of it or not.

10. Colorblindness will not end racism. Pretending race doesn't exist is not the same as creating equality. Race is more than stereotypes and individual prejudice. To combat racism, we need to identify and remedy social policies and institutional practices that advantage some groups at the expense of others.

Here are a few sources of information:
The Geometer of Race (http://www.greeninformation.com/The%20Geometer%20of%20Race.htm)
Scientific and Folk Ideas About Heredity (http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/interests/Baltimore.html)
Basically, we are all the same (http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1998/explanatory-reporting/works/2.html)
The Human Genome and Our View of Ourselves (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5507/1219?ijkey=z/aJLHX5GkJnA&key)
We're All Related to Kevin Bacon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A21167-2002Dec6&notFound=true)
Using Anthropology to Make Sense of Human Diversity (http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0305muk.htm)

No, they're not. There are physical characteristics beyond skin tone that define race. There are fatty deposits around African eyes that are absent in Arabs. Arabs have a good deal of body and facial hair where that of most African races tend to be rather sparse. And BTW the various African races we tend to lump together as black are far more genetically distinct than Anglos and Arabs will ever be.

I would have to disagree with that. I did not state any physical features I generalize Arab people to have. Fatty deposits around the eyes does not necessarily prove anything. The fact is that everyone has ascended from what we would consider today to be those with "African" phenotypes. Racial evolution suggests that whites have descended from blacks. This is apparent due to the fact that a dark person can have a "white" child given that they have a mate with the necessary genes and that these genes have been inherited by their descendants in certain proportions. Thus, all the races of the world are genetic variations of "African" genes that were the effect of isolations throughout human history. Therefore, in response to what Jamil had said, I stated that is how Iview Semitic peoples. I also stated that her view on how Caucasians and Americans view Semitic race is quite often to be true. In defense in how I see their race, race is not a straightforward idea. Unfortunately, it exists due to racism, scientific fact and research, culture, and racial pride. I acknowlegde the fact that Semitic peoples belong to seperate races . As far as racial classification goes, it is flawed and I agree with that. However, I am not going to say that Arab peoples or any people are justmembers of the human race. That obliterates history, heritage, and pride individual peoples and persons have for themselves. For this reason, I am not sure whether or not I support the idea of monoculture.

Then you admit that race is a figment of imagination. Good for you!!

There is no biological basis for race. The concept of race is a political and sociological phenomenon.



Here are a few sources of information:
The Geometer of Race (http://www.greeninformation.com/The%20Geometer%20of%20Race.htm)
Scientific and Folk Ideas About Heredity (http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/interests/Baltimore.html)
Basically, we are all the same (http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1998/explanatory-reporting/works/2.html)
The Human Genome and Our View of Ourselves (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5507/1219?ijkey=z/aJLHX5GkJnA&key)
We're All Related to Kevin Bacon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A21167-2002Dec6&notFound=true)
Using Anthropology to Make Sense of Human Diversity (http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0305muk.htm)

Great sources. So what should we learn from this? That knowledge is progressive, ie: all knowledge did not come to us at once. As humanity was able to absorb the knowledge humanity has progressed. The same is true with religion. As our spiritual ability expanded, newspiritual knowledge was given to us through the Messengers of God--to name a few Moses, Abraham, Muhammed, Christ and today Baha'u'llah.

That is true but there are differences that we can see, which is what we humans judge by, that and psychological differences. So races do exist, even if it just in our own minds

Curious - maybe that is what YOU judge by... but I don't believe you can speak for everyone.

Someone mentioned earlier that there are genetic differences between 'races' that somehow sanctify the delineation into such groups... but failed to mention that the variation WITHIN any given genetic 'culture' is far greater than the variations BETWEEN any two genetic 'cultures'.

(Assuming, of course, that we choose both of our genetic 'cultures' from the human 'race').

I think genetic science acknowledges phenotype, even if the result of miniscule differences in DNA.

You are in error.

Or we could stop categorizing people into races...?

We're all the same species and unless we've got some equivalent to dog shows where specific "breeds" are judged, then what the hell does it matter?
Thirded?

You are in error.
No, Pepe Dominguez is right. There are differences in phenotype between various groups of people. Starting with differences in skin color. Sure, things like skin color are by no means sound basis for discrimination, but these differences do exist and can be scientifically measured.

No, Pepe Dominguez is right. There are differences in phenotype between various groups of people. Starting with differences in skin color. Sure, things like skin color are by no means sound basis for discrimination, but these differences do exist and can be scientifically measured.

No. Trying reading some of the material I posted earlier.

There is no way to scientifically categorize people into races by phenotype. Moreover, attempts to classify people by phenotype characteristics such as skin color are directly contradicted by genotypes. I challenge you to produce reliable modern scientific evidence that you can scientifically categorize people by race based on phenotype, biology, or genetics.

The evidence that you cannot is overwhelming. See for example:

What are the differences between races? (http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/race.htm)
Attempts to create categories of biological races have centered on phenotypic differences. A phenotype is the entirety of traits that an individual possesses, including external characteristics such as eye color and shape, body size and shape, hair color and texture, and skin color. In recent years attempts have also been made to evaluate genotypic differences to justify biological races. Genotype refers to a person's genetic makeup. These attempts have tried to define clusters of characteristics in one population that are not found in other populations. These clusters supposedly would enable different populations to be divided into distinct races. Such attempts have failed, however, and what researchers have found is that biological variations exist on a cline rather than in delimited geographic clusters with gaps in between. A cline refers to a gradual change of a trait and its frequency from one place to another within a species or population. The change usually corresponds to some change in the environment across the geographic range of a species. Any boundary line drawn at a point along the continuum is therefore arbitrary. So, the idea of distinct races defined by hard-and-fast differences has fallen apart as anthropologists have studied the genetic and physical characteristics of human populations.

Here are the first 2 paragraphs of the American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" (http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm)

In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.

Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.

Here are a few more sources of information:

Scientific and Folk Ideas About Heredity (http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/interests/Baltimore.html)
Race is inherited, but in a different fashion from biological heredity. Race is inherited according to no scientific laws, rather, by a commonsense or folk cultural system. Like the way we name our relatives, it’s not determined by biology, and doesn’t map very well onto genetic relationships. In fact that’s precisely what races are -- named groups, nothing more. ...

The key thing is to appreciate that race and genetics aren’t from the same worlds. So it’s not that one is good and the other is bad. It’s that one is scientific, and the other provides a means of localizing yourself and others in a very subjective world of social relations. The difficulty comes when we confuse them for one another. It’s not that race doesn’t exist, as I occasionally see it in the newspaper; it’s that race doesn’t exist as a biological entity. It certainly exists as a symbolic, social category; and that makes it more real and more important than if it were biological.Basically, we are all the same (http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1998/explanatory-reporting/works/2.html)
After analyzing thousands of DNA samples collected in smaller studies, experts are amazed at the genetic unity that binds our diverse, polyglot species. Any two people, regardless of geography or ethnicity, share at least 99.99 percent of their genetic makeups--a deep sameness that makes a mockery of racist ideologies such as Nazism.

Paradoxically, the minuscule .01 percent of our genome that does make people different doesn't shake out along visible racial lines. Instead, some 85 percent of human genetic diversity occurs within ethnic groups, not between them. The traits that so polarize our culture--the shade of our skin, the shape of an eye, hair texture--actually hide a dazzling and unexpected molecular tapestry that reflects our true origins. The European gene pool, for example, carries the story of where its members came from--and where they later migrated. It is a swirl of 35 percent African genes and 65 percent Asian genes.
Using Anthropology to Make Sense of Human Diversity (http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0305muk.htm)
Race and Ethnicity (http://cas-courses.buffalo.edu/classes/apy/anab/apy106/handouts/Race_and_Ethnicity.htm)
In the US the general public has been conditioned to view human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences (phenotype). It has now become clear to anthropologists that human populations are not unambiguous clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from genetics (e.g. DNA) indicates that there is greater variation within "racial groups" (94%) than between racial groups (6%). The attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations is arbitrary and subjective.
The Biology of Race (http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/LifeScience/HumanRaces/BiologyRace/BiologyRace.htm)
Race is a concept of society that insists there is a genetic significance behind human variations in skin color that transcends out ward appearance. However, race has no scientific merit outside of sociological classification. There are no significant genetic variations within the human species to justify the division of “ races.”

No. Trying reading some of the material I posted earlier.

There is no way to scientifically categorize people into races by phenotype. Moreover, attempts to classify people by phenotype characteristics such as skin color are directly contradicted by genotypes. I challenge you to produce reliable modern scientific evidence that you can scientifically categorize people by race based on phenotype, biology, or genetics.



http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001313.html
(http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=00055DC8-3BAA-1FA8-BBAA83414B7F0000&pageNumber=1&catID=2)
If races are defined as genetically discrete groups, no. But researchers can use some genetic information to group individuals into clusters with medical relevance
and
Whether you want to divide human genetic variation into races or population groups is purely a semantic question. There is continuous variation, but denying the existence of well-formed clusters because of fuzzy boundaries is a classic statistical category error.
...thus refuting the claim that the existence of clines precludes the validity of racial classification

It is impossible to use science to corrobrate your claim that everyone is the same or that there are no differences between various groups of people. ~99% of our genes may be the same, but it is the <1% that attribute to important and scientifically relevant differences. Men and women share more than 99% of genes in common, but no one will argue that men and women are the same. Men and women have differences in strength, types of diseases, etc. Same with races... people from different parts of the world clearly have different physiologies.

Ancestry may also be relevant for some diseases that are widespread in particular populations. Most common diseases, such as hypertension and diabetes, are the cumulative results of polymorphisms in several genes, each of which has a small influence on its own. Recent research suggests that polymorphisms that have a particular effect in one group may have a different effect in another group. This kind of complexity would make it much more difficult to use detected polymorphisms as a guide to therapy. Until further studies are done on the genetic and environmental contributions to complex diseases, physicians may have to rely on information about an individual's ancestry to know how best to treat some diseases.

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001313.html
(http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=00055DC8-3BAA-1FA8-BBAA83414B7F0000&pageNumber=1&catID=2)

If races are defined as genetically discrete groups, no. But researchers can use some genetic information to group individuals into clusters with medical relevance

and

Whether you want to divide human genetic variation into races or population groups is purely a semantic question. There is continuous variation, but denying the existence of well-formed clusters because of fuzzy boundaries is a classic statistical category error.

...thus refuting the claim that the existence of clines precludes the validity of racial classification

I'll get back to you in more detail, as I have to log off soon. Your main source here, however, is merely a blog. The second quote you rely on so heavily is merely a comment by a blogger, not part of the article.

You may note the first quote (which is merely the subtitle of the article) expressly states that races do not exist as genetically distinct groups. The second sentence does not state that you can classify by race, but merely that you can group individuals in population clusters that have some medical relevance.

If you had read the article, as I have, you would note that it never states you can make scientifically meaningful racial classifications. The article, in fact, primarily discusses the ability to cluster some populations by continent -- but only with the caveat that this works primarily for isolated populations like Mbuti Pygmies.

I never made the claim that "the existence of clines precludes the validity of racial classifications." At most that is one of many points raised by the sources I cited. Moreover, the article you cite does not (as you claim) ever say anything rebutting such an assertion. To the contrary, it states this:

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.

There is more from the article that contradicts your weak synopsis, but I do not have time here.

It is impossible to use science to corrobrate your claim that everyone is the same or that there are no differences between various groups of people. ~99% of our genes may be the same, but it is the <1% that attribute to important and scientifically relevant differences.

Hmm. This sentence is -- taken literally -- a truism. To the extent you are implying that science does not corroborate the claim that there is no biological basis for race, the scientific community generally disagrees with you -- as I have already documented.

Men and women share more than 99% of genes in common, but no one will argue that men and women are the same. Men and women have differences in strength, types of diseases, etc.

Weak. Men and women have obvious biological differences and are genetically distinct. "Races" don't and aren't.

Same with races... people from different parts of the world clearly have different physiologies.

Nope. And -- in contrast to the copious evidence that I presented that this is not true -- you've presented nothing but your own opinion on this. Nothing in your article supports this assertion.

I'll get back to you in more detail, as I have to log off soon. Your main source here, however, is merely a blog. The second quote you rely on so heavily is merely a comment by a blogger, not part of the article.
A valid point is valid no matter where it comes from, a child could have made that second quote and it still would've been true. Attack the point, not the author.

He is basically trying to say, even in gradients you can classify. For example, visible light is a gradient ranging from red to violet, with red-orange and all sorts of "mixed" light. That does not prevent us from making up classifications like "red," "green," "blue" etc.
You may note the first quote (which is merely the subtitle of the article) expressly states that races do not exist as genetically distinct groups. The second sentence does not state that you can classify by race, but merely that you can group individuals in population clusters that have some medical relevance.
More semantic quibbling... you can call a population cluster a "cluster" or "race"... it makes no difference. The point is, there are different groups among humanity (generally a function of geographical location) whose members have more in common with each other than with individuals outside the group.

If you had read the article, as I have, you would note that it never states you can make scientifically meaningful racial classifications. The article, in fact, primarily discusses the ability to cluster some populations by continent -- but only with the caveat that this works primarily for isolated populations like Mbuti Pygmies.
Cluster, race, whatever you want to call it. The blog also links to a peer-reviewed study of racial classification of old world populations, not just pygmies, based on highly quantifiable genetic markers.

I never made the claim that "the existence of clines precludes the validity of racial classifications." At most that is one of many points raised by the sources I cited. Moreover, the article you cite does not (as you claim) ever say anything rebutting such an assertion.
Yes it does. The article acknowledges that it is often useful to group people into "clusters." Whether you call it race or cluster, there are undoubtedly physiological differences among different populations.
To the contrary, it states this:

There is more from the article that contradicts your weak synopsis, but I do not have time here.
Race is not completely based on skin color. Genetically the dark southeast Asian is closer to the light Japanese than a similarly dark Ethiopian. But skin color, combined with other physical characteristics may not definitively establish racial boundaries but can point to useful classification based on shared genetic/geographic background of particular groups of people.



Hmm. This sentence is -- taken literally -- a truism. To the extent you are implying that science does not corroborate the claim that there is no biological basis for race, the scientific community generally disagrees with you -- as I have already documented.
Scientific studies are frequently conducted on different ethnic groups with the purpose of studying particular aspects exclusive to the ethnic group, for example bone density in Asian women or alcoholism in Native Americans. Many times there is proof that differences exist. Countless studies have identified genetic predisposition to alcoholism in native Americans, and lowered bone density in Asian women. Sure, you can call it "cluster" and not "race" because race would be politically incorrect, but in the biological and medical fields, valid classification of humans based on physical descriptions is everywhere.

Weak. Men and women have obvious biological differences and are genetically distinct. "Races" don't and aren't.
Genetically, based on nucleotide sequences, men and women are less distinct than white Europeans and black Africans. Races also have obvious biological differences. Black Africans have curly hair and dark skin. northeast Asians have light skin and straight hair. These are rather obvious biological differences anyone can identify.

Nope. And -- in contrast to the copious evidence that I presented that this is not true -- you've presented nothing but your own opinion on this. Nothing in your article supports this assertion.
You have also presented reams of opinion by humanities professors and anthropologists who only deny the use of "race" because it is politically incorrect. Hard science - biologists and doctors in the real world are forced to acknowledge the importance of ancestry, because this is a matter of life or death. Blacks, whites, Asians, etc. are susceptible to various different diseases, and knowing the inborn physiological traits of each individual ethnicity often is critical to sucesful treatment.

Well of course diffrent grops can for example have specific medical needs, just like men and women have. But you can awknowledge that without starting to talk about races. Because I think that is no prof of no big general diffrences between specific raceses.

Because of diffrent things like that the humangenpol have very small variation compared with other animals. So in one sens we are all inbreeds. Another reason it have been alot of mixing between diffrent groups ecpecially amongst the people in the euroasia region, there most people live. For example asian, arabic, ,african, southeurope northeurope people have mix. Just think of the group I belong to sweds that is percieved by some as the most aryan race. Even if we mixed up with finns and lapps that is a diffrent group of people then the germanic people. And the last thousand year we have mixed with alot of people and even if who's people mainly was from europe, they probably was mixed with other groups of people before they came to sweden..

Another problem that you define a group because of there language history sweds germans=germanic langauge=germanic and finns lapps=ungrianfinn (sorry not the the correct english word)=ungrian finn. Then you are in on culture instead of races another proof I think that culture instead of races is the important thing.

Or just look at people with african deceent that seens as homegenius groups of blacks, by the people who are for the race theory. Even if africans is the most diversifed groups genetically, like for example one european and one aisan can have more genetically similarities the two africans. Just by the simple facts the the human raced originated from africa. Even if as said before the diffences are small. Basicly therefor my point is that is how you been raced up not that genetic group you belongs to that matters.

Well from I what I learnt, there's two groups - Aryans and Semites.

I've generally heard more racial categories from Germans than I have from Americans.

Go to Germany and try to tell some people that "you look just like the Poles" and see if they don't get upset.