NationStates Jolt Archive


"Race" is not a valid concept genetically

The Cat-Tribe
09-04-2005, 18:40
It is rather well established that there is no such thing as race biologically or genetically.

Race is a socio-political construct. As such, it is very real.

There is a great deal of scientific evidence -- particularly from the Human Genome Project and Human Genome Diversity Project-- that proves that there are no genetically distinguishable races. The scientific community is in general agreement that "race" does not exist as a biological concept.

There are some indications that it may sometimes be possible to roughly group people by certain genetic characteristics for medical purposes, but that such groupings to not correlate well with conventional concepts of race.

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 is another summary of facts (and I recognize the last is not necessarily a scientific "fact"):

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.

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.
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.
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.”
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)
HUMAN DIVERSITY AND "RACE" (http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0072500506/23746/CHAPTER5.doc)
The Geometer of Race (http://www.greeninformation.com/The%20Geometer%20of%20Race.htm)
Dakhistan
09-04-2005, 18:43
RACIST! :p
Nekone
09-04-2005, 19:06
actually there is another big difference in race... the distance one needs to travel...

after all, the 50 meter Dash is alot shorter than a Marathon... :D
Ashmoria
09-04-2005, 19:09
so should we replace such an easy shorthand way of thinking about people with a more continental one? american (north and south) european, asian (maybe divided into east, west and south, since its so big) african, australian and pan-pacific? without regard to skin color or other "racial" characteristics?
Dogburg
09-04-2005, 19:15
Whether or not race does exist shouldn't really have any bearing on law or politics. Even if it does (I think it does to a degree - some people are clearly white while some others are clearly asian or black), people of all races should still be considered equals under the law.
Bolol
09-04-2005, 19:15
Excellent post Cat.

(Gives Cat a Nulcear Cookie)

It's what some people have been trying to tell society. Between people there is only a minute difference in genetic makeup.

My greatest hope is that in a few generations the bloodlines will be so diverse that you wont have "black" or "white" or "Asian" or "Hispanic", you'll just have "human".
Letila
09-04-2005, 19:17
Indeed, I'm glad to see someone say what needs to be said, Cat-tribe.
Super-power
09-04-2005, 19:19
It is rather well established that there is no such thing as race from a biologically or genetically.

Race is a socio-political construct. As such, it is very real.
Yes, we know
Nekone
09-04-2005, 19:19
Indeed, I'm glad to see someone say what needs to be said, Cat-tribe.Now... how to get the world to listen... or read...


that is the question.
Bolol
09-04-2005, 19:21
Nothing pisses me off more than ignorant supremacists of any stripe; people who are so stupid they seem to embrace it, the same people who are convinced that ______ is better than _______, and only pure ________ can be considered truly _______, as they atempt to half-ass their way through genetic theory.

I wan't to take these people...put them on a plane, send them over to Antarctica, and let them fight amongst themselves for a while.
Nekone
09-04-2005, 19:22
so should we replace such an easy shorthand way of thinking about people with a more continental one? american (north and south) european, asian (maybe divided into east, west and south, since its so big) african, australian and pan-pacific? without regard to skin color or other "racial" characteristics?howabout by non-crossable boarders... if someone lives in a area that cannot be gotten to by any means, then we can use that for separation... like... hmmm... can cross Oceans... can cross mountains... I know... other planets! for now anyways.
The Cat-Tribe
09-04-2005, 20:33
Excellent post Cat.

(Gives Cat a Nulcear Cookie)

It's what some people have been trying to tell society. Between people there is only a minute difference in genetic makeup.

My greatest hope is that in a few generations the bloodlines will be so diverse that you wont have "black" or "white" or "Asian" or "Hispanic", you'll just have "human".

Yeah, nummy cookies. MMMMMMM. Thanks.
Nekone
09-04-2005, 20:39
Yeah, nummy cookies. MMMMMMM. Thanks.
Psst... from one cat to another... you're glowing now! :D
Potaria
09-04-2005, 20:40
You da man, Cat! You da man!
The Cat-Tribe
09-04-2005, 20:45
Psst... from one cat to another... you're glowing now! :D

Grew up near nuclear sites. Glow already. ;)

You da man, Cat! You da man!

Thank you, thank you very much.
Isanyonehome
09-04-2005, 21:18
snip

Uhm, who cares?? [edit] by this I mean that it doesnt make a differance to me(and I think most people) whether there is a genetic differance between people or not(well, maybe the KKK cares, but they need police protection these days)

I read a bit of what you posted, but who really cares?

Oh, and as a side point, because I sort of remember you being a defender of AA, how do you justify it given this?

If you are gonna argue cultural stigma/oppression, then dont you think that the chinese should get at least as much consideration as African Americans? Or how about the Irish, people used to value a dog life higher than an irishmans. Granted, they were never slaves, but people used to use the chinese to play fetch with dynomite sticks(was too expensive to use "colored" people). Bigotry based on race/class/religion/whatever u please has existed in all countries through all times.

The way to get around it isnt to have the govt continue to make the distinction between people.. PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE

As long as you, me or the govt continue to make distinctions(for whatever reason) then those distinctions will hold.

I addressed this to you in another post(I dont think you replied)

I wont go(nor would anyone I know) to a backward caste doctor in India(I would in the US) because in India I have no idea if he is competant or got in because of quota. If he he is in the US I know he had to pass the same entry exam as every other foreigner.

This is unfortunate because it diminishes all backward caste doctors regardless of whether they are doctors because of merit or quota. I am sure you can follow the logic(based on your other posts)

so, I will ask you for a second time(at risk of being forumbanned/deleted for non PC statements) why should I view a white/asian Harvard grad the same way as a black Harvard grad(given that AA exists in the USA)?

If I was an employer, and knew nothing else about them, would I be justified in offering them both the same salary(before I had a chance to see their actual performance)? Would you?
The Cat-Tribe
09-04-2005, 21:46
Uhm, who cares?? [edit] by this I mean that it doesnt make a differance to me(and I think most people) whether there is a genetic differance between people or not(well, maybe the KKK cares, but they need police protection these days)

I read a bit of what you posted, but who really cares?

1. Many people do believe there are biological or genetic differences among races.

2. Many people believe biological or genetic differences among races matter.

3. This came up in another thread where a quite intelligent, articulate member of these forums maintained there were such differences.

Oh, and as a side point, because I sort of remember you being a defender of AA, how do you justify it given this?

Because race does exist as a socio-political concept, people have been and are currently discriminated against and underprivileged based on race.

Affirmative action traces its moral roots to several related goals: (1) fighting discrimination, (2) compensating for past injuries, (3) striving for a fair distribution of opportunities and responsibilities, (4) seeking social well-being, and (5) promoting diversity.

If you are gonna argue cultural stigma/oppression, then dont you think that the chinese should get at least as much consideration as African Americans? Or how about the Irish, people used to value a dog life higher than an irishmans. Granted, they were never slaves, but people used to use the chinese to play fetch with dynomite sticks(was too expensive to use "colored" people). Bigotry based on race/class/religion/whatever u please has existed in all countries through all times.

Bigotry is hardly comparable to slavery and segregation.

See above.

And why do you assume only African-Americans benefit from AA -- they don't.

The way to get around it isnt to have the govt continue to make the distinction between people.. PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE

As long as you, me or the govt continue to make distinctions(for whatever reason) then those distinctions will hold.

1. That only addresses one of the 5 goals.

2. Racism does not exist simply because of AA.

3. Unless you have a magic wand, simply wishing discrimination away will not work. Achieving equality will be more effective.

I addressed this to you in another post(I dont think you replied)

I believe I replied, but nevermind.

I wont go(nor would anyone I know) to a backward caste doctor in India(I would in the US) because in India I have no idea if he is competant or got in because of quota. If he he is in the US I know he had to pass the same entry exam as every other foreigner.

This is unfortunate because it diminishes all backward caste doctors regardless of whether they are doctors because of merit or quota. I am sure you can follow the logic(based on your other posts)

I am not familiar with what a "backward caste doctor" is, but I think I understand your meaning.

But AA is not quotas -- except in very rare, specific circumstances as a court-ordered remedy for existing and past discrimination in a specific business or organization.

I'm afraid I do not have a source for the following which I am paraphrasing. I agree with it whole-heartedly.

The umbrella term "affirmative action" refers to a broad array of gender, race, national origin, ethnicity or color-conscious programs (what we'll call "gender- and race-conscious"). It includes outreach programs, targeted at specific groups, to notify them of education, employment and contracting opportunities. And it includes programs that favor -- among similar candidates, all of whom are otherwise qualified--members of historically subordinated and still underrepresented groups.

People can, in good faith, worry about the times affirmative action operates in the wrong way. In the name of affirmative action, for example, some employers have used illegal quotas and have hired unqualified people. They've done it; they were wrong to do it; and I won't defend them or their programs. But every serious study tells us these abuses of affirmative action are exceptions -- indeed, exceptions more prevalent in the very early years of affirmative action than in today's world.

Affirmative action programs should not impose -- and generally cannot impose under the law -- criteria that substitute a search for gender and race in place of a search for qualified candidates. Merit doesn't just matter as a part of affirmative action programs. Merit is and should be at the heart of every defensible outreach, educational, employment and contracting program. Because merit matters, it's wrong if an unqualified person gets a job, a scholarship, or a government contract over a qualified person. It's wrong if an unqualified white man gets a job over a qualified woman or minority. And it's every bit as wrong if an unqualified American Indian, Latino, African American, Asian Pacific American or woman gets a job, a scholarship, or a government contract over a qualified white man.

But it's not presumptively wrong, to award a qualified woman, Asian Pacific American, African American, American Indian, or Latino a job, a scholarship, or a government contract over other qualified candidates (perhaps white men, perhaps other women or people of color), even those with, say, more experience, or better standardized test scores. Merit rarely means -- and rarely should mean – automatically concluding that the person with the highest test score or the most years experience is demonstrably the best candidate. No single test or predictor reveals everything (or often very much about what) we might want or need to know about a candidate, and even the best tests and predictors are imperfect. Institutions regularly find themselves, in applying even the most trustworthy predictors, making carefully considered but necessarily tentative distinctions between qualified candidates. Done well, that's not violating merit or thwarting merit. That's taking merit seriously -- fully aware of its promise and limits.


so, I will ask you for a second time(at risk of being forumbanned/deleted for non PC statements) why should I view a white/asian Harvard grad the same way as a black Harvard grad(given that AA exists in the USA)?

1. See above.

2. AA does not mean an unqualified black person gets into Harvard. If anything that is more likely to occur from legacy programs (which tend to favor whites).

3. Most importantly, the graduation requirements from Harvard are unaffected. Even if you assume a black person who is underqualified gets into Harvard, that person must somehow meet requirements to graduate -- presuambly by working even harder and raising themselves up more than his/her fellow students.

If I was an employer, and knew nothing else about them, would I be justified in offering them both the same salary(before I had a chance to see their actual performance)? Would you?

Yes.

Yes.