NationStates Jolt Archive

As I sit here in front of my eMac, listening to the new System of a Down album...A thought pops into my head.

Years of study have provided evidence that individual humans have more in common with eachother genetically than they are different. Some people choose to believe this, others have decided not to. I'd like to know, do you believe in different "races" in humanity?

I believe that as far as asthetics and skin-deep physiology go, there is a "race", insofar that if a white mother bares the child of a black father, the child will have slightly darker skin.

That's as far as "race" goes for me. Everything else is the same internally.

What I think people are really talking about when refering to race...is really culture. In the end, I think it is our psychological and cultural differences that set us apart from one and other. Racists, I think, fear a blending of cultures...not really a blending of races. That isn't to say that there are certainly people out there who believe that on a genetic level, mixing is destroying us...

So, I believe in different cultures, no race. And you?

My race is superior to all others, all hail the Morlocks.

My race is superior to all others, all hail the Morlocks.

...Morlocks? :confused:

Of course there's such thing as "race"

Ready, Set, GO!

That kinda race.

Of course there's such thing as "race"

Ready, Set, GO!

That kinda race.

That's it, Bolol is going home!

*goes home...has some Spaghettios*

"Race" as most people know it is a socio-political construct with no valid basis in science -- including genetics, biology, and anthropology.

There are some complicated population groupings that have mostly to do with area of origin that have shown some scientific validity. These have only tenuous connections with common concepts of race.

Even among scientists, however, race is still sometimes used as quick-and-dirty replacement for more (if at all) accurate population groupings.

But, as I said, "race" as commonly known has no scientific validity. It is merely a construct.

...Morlocks? :confused:
sewer-dwelling mutants from the X-Men universe


Led by Marrow, IIRC

That's it, Bolol is going home!

*goes home...has some Spaghettios*
Those things slowly consume you from the inside, you should know.

sewer-dwelling mutants from the X-Men universe


Led by Marrow, IIRC

Who are actually named after one of the races of the furture from H.G. Wells, The Time Machine.

*shakes head, mumbles something about "kids today ;) * :D

This is so un-PC, but if Captain Obvious has to come to the rescue today, sobeit.

Yes, I "believe" in race. There are certainly different races, and these races seem to have developed differently (albeit in minute ways). I would not want to run track against an African, nor would I want to perform in a "Math-Off" with an Asian (or have a test of patience). It's not suprising to me that evolution would equip different races of humans with different skill-sets in their toolbox more befitting their environments or cultures.
There are many exceptions, but sometimes the obvious really is the best answer.

Nobody's better or worse, they just are.

From a biological standpoint, we're all African. No more than a couple thousand generations separate the blackest black person and the whitest white person - which might sound like a lot, but is really a very, very small number indeed.

Who are actually named after one of the races of the furture from H.G. Wells, The Time Machine.

*shakes head, mumbles something about "kids today ;) * :D


I knew that, but I figured a lot of people on here would be more familiar with X-Men than H.G. Wells, and those that did know about H.G. Wells, would possibly know about the Morlocks. And besides, you brought that point up very nicely, so now we have 2 references of the morlocks in different locations. </hijack>

I'm searching for some of my old posts with more easily digested material. Here are some published peer-reviewed scientific discussions, however:

Changing the paradigm from 'race' to human genome variation (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1454.html)
Conceptualizing human variation (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1455.html)
Commentary on the Meaning of Race in Science and Society (http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/12/3/232S?maxtoshow=&HITS=&hits=&RESULTFORMAT=1&title=race&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&fulltext=genetics&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1114039544645_36028&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=100&sortspec=relevance&fdate=1/1/1995&resourcetype=1)
The Medicalization of Race: Scientific Legitimization of a Flawed Social Construct (http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/125/8/675)
Are medical and nonmedical uses of large-scale genomic markers conflating genetics and 'race'? (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1439.html)
Evidence for Gradients of Human Genetic Diversity Within and Among Continents (http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/14/9/1679)

I have more, but I'll work on getting the more palatable stuff. ;)

As I sit here in front of my eMac, listening to the new System of a Down album...A thought pops into my head.

Years of study have provided evidence that individual humans have more in common with eachother genetically than they are different. Some people choose to believe this, others have decided not to. I'd like to know, do you believe in different "races" in humanity?

I believe that as far as asthetics and skin-deep physiology go, there is a "race", insofar that if a white mother bares the child of a black father, the child will have slightly darker skin.

That's as far as "race" goes for me. Everything else is the same internally.

What I think people are really talking about when refering to race...is really culture. In the end, I think it is our psychological and cultural differences that set us apart from one and other. Racists, I think, fear a blending of cultures...not really a blending of races. That isn't to say that there are certainly people out there who believe that on a genetic level, mixing is destroying us...

So, I believe in different cultures, no race. And you?


Race exists. There is no denying this. I am not racist, but the fact of race sadly remains. The question is, how much does race apply to socitey? In other words, should race matter? In my very strong opinion, no is the ansewer.

I tend to think of race more as collections of bloodlines then anything else. Geography isn't very accurate though (Hitler's Aryans came from central Asia, black Carthaginian mercenaries bred with Sicilians, that sort of thing...) so just calling someone "black" or "African" or "Asian" really doesn't cut it.

Like it or not, there are differences between one group of humans and another group of humans, even if it is just superficial. Personally I find the whole thing very interesting.

Who are actually named after one of the races of the furture from H.G. Wells, The Time Machine.

*shakes head, mumbles something about "kids today ;) * :D

Argh! Beat me to it....

Anyway, back to topic. Sure we are all the same internally but that doesnt change the fact that a black guy looks different from a asian guy and an asian guy looks different from a white guy. So in that sense I do believe in different races.

Race exists. There is no denying this. I am not racist, but the fact of race sadly remains. The question is, how much does race apply to socitey? In other words, should race matter? In my very strong opinion, no is the ansewer.

Really?

Define "race," define the different races, and explain how you identify members of each race.

Good luck. :eek: :D

Argh! Beat me to it....

Anyway, back to topic. Sure we are all the same internally but that doesnt change the fact that a black guy looks different from a asian guy and an asian guy looks different from a white guy. So in that sense I do believe in different races.

Come now. One can find "asians" that look more "black" than other "blacks."

No one has successfully come up with a way to identify racial groups accurately using phenotypes. And most phenotype identification doesn't match well with genetic information.

In addition to what I already posted, here is additional evidence. It is rather well established that there is no such thing as race -- as we usually think of it -- biologically or genetically. Race has only very, very limited viability scientifically -- and even then does not fit our preconceptions.

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 as such. The scientific community is in general agreement that the common concept of "race" does not exist biologically.

As noted, 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)

Argh! Beat me to it....

Anyway, back to topic. Sure we are all the same internally but that doesnt change the fact that a black guy looks different from a asian guy and an asian guy looks different from a white guy. So in that sense I do believe in different races.

Well, sure...but a black guy also looks different from another black guy, a white guy from another white guy, and so forth. By that definition, anyone other than one's identical twin would be a member of a different race! :p

I don't believe in race as anything other than a social construct.

Well, sure...but a black guy also looks different from another black guy, a white guy from another white guy, and so forth. By that definition, anyone other than one's identical twin would be a member of a different race! :p

No..... thats not it at all and you know it. But all members of the same "race" look similar to each other and share characteristics with other members of their "race". For example, you dont see blacks or asians with red or blond hair do you? But of course the outside physical differences are only superficial since genetically we're all human. Even when you take this account its still undeniable that there are races... even if its only on the outside.

Come now. One can find "asians" that look more "black" than other "blacks."

Really? I would pay money to see that.

Really? I would pay money to see that.

Meh.

You've never met a light-skinned "black" that can "pass" for "white."

You've never seen a dark-skinned asian?

My sister and her husband are both "black." She is medium-skinned and he is very dark. They have a dark-skinned child, a medium-skinned child, and a light-skinned child.

We we were growing up, my sister was mistaken for Native American, Asian, white, etc. My light-skinned niece is often presumed to be white. Enough so that one time someone called the cops and thought she was being abducted by her dark-skinned father.

You really have not seen such variation?

Really? I would pay money to see that.
Tiger Woods.

Really? I would pay money to see that.

how much?

Who are actually named after one of the races of the furture from H.G. Wells, The Time Machine.

*shakes head, mumbles something about "kids today ;) * :D

Didn't they try to kindof kill him?

You really have not seen such variation?


Yeah but you just cant call a white guy with a really dark tan "black". Or vise versa. (spelling?) Of course its not just skin color per say, you could have a light skinned black person but still you have the other physical charactristics of that particular race. (i.e. hair, height, other physical variations etc.) But of course since humans are very adaptable creatures the different races you see are most likely the product of human evolution in the areas they lived in.

Tiger Woods.

Black father asian mother. Sorry but no cigar.

Didn't they try to kindof kill him?

They were actually cannibals....

Yeah but you just cant call a white guy with a really dark tan "black". Or vise versa. (spelling?) Of course its not just skin color per say, you could have a light skinned black person but still you have the other physical charactristics of that particular race. (i.e. hair, height, other physical variations etc.) But of course since humans are very adaptable creatures the different races you see are most likely the product of human evolution in the areas they lived in.

Read some of what I posted.

These phenotypes you are talking about are bogus as a measure of "race." You would be better off going with genetics.

Yeah but you just cant call a white guy with a really dark tan "black". Or vise versa. (spelling?)

Honestly...why not? I'm genuinely curious.

Of course its not just skin color per say, you could have a light skinned black person but still you have the other physical charactristics of that particular race. (i.e. hair, height, other physical variations etc.)

See Cat-Tribe's long post for an answer to this.

But of course since humans are very adaptable creatures the different races you see are most likely the product of human evolution in the areas they lived in.

No "most likely" about it. The earliest humans lived in Africa and had dark skin. As various groups migrated northward to regions with less sunlight (which provides vitamin D, necessary for our health), humans with lighter skin were selected for, as they absorbed more sunlight and thus more vitamin D. That's all skin color is - an evolutionary response to more or less sunlight.

People who say there is no such thing as race are saying that there is no difference between a white man and a black man. Even if the only difference they have is in skin color, that is still a difference.

No "most likely" about it. The earliest humans lived in Africa and had dark skin. As various groups migrated northward to regions with less sunlight (which provides vitamin D, necessary for our health), humans with lighter skin were selected for, as they absorbed more sunlight and thus more vitamin D. That's all skin color is - an evolutionary response to more or less sunlight.

Lighter colors tend to reflect sunlight there for the last paragraph makes little sense. (The part with the vitamin D).

Ummm, yeah there are three basic races that we know:
Mongoliods, Caucazoids, and neg....(Forgot the rest of the name).
Phenotypes help identify different races so ja, like the different species of grass, first you have your normal annoying grass, then the Kentucky blue grass, then the rest of the grasses.

People who say there is no such thing as race are saying that there is no difference between a white man and a black man. Even if the only difference they have is in skin color, that is still a difference.

Define "white" and "black." Explain what range of skin tones makes one "black" and what makes one "white."

Good luck. :eek: :D

Define "whate" and "black." Explain what range of skin tones makes one "black" and what makes one "white."

Good luck. :eek: :D

White-Light skinned people primarily from European descent
Black-Dark skinned people primarily from African descent
Orientalian(?)- Medium skinned people primarily from Asia

Then there are a lot of subraces.

Race is much easier to use when you shed pure science ties and turn it into a social-sciences term, which is used to describe a group with similar cultures, appearances, location of origin, etc. Perhaps if that's what you mean by race, then it exists. If you mean a scientific, taxonomic difference, then it doesn't. There is no such thing as Homo sapiens mongoliensis or Homo sapiens africanus

Lighter colors tend to reflect sunlight there for the last paragraph makes little sense. (The part with the vitamin D).


If it were just a matter of color, this would be true. However, dark skin in humans is caused by a substance called melanin, which helps prevent the absorption of sunlight. Thus, in sunny climates, humans with darker skin (rich in melanin) are selected for, while in darker regions, paler skin is more advantageous.

Hence why pale people get sunburned much more easily than darker-skinned folks, but why black people are more prone to get vitamin-D deficiencies than white people. :)

Race is much easier to use when you shed pure science ties and turn it into a social-sciences term, which is used to describe a group with similar cultures, appearances, location of origin, etc. Perhaps if that's what you mean by race, then it exists. If you mean a scientific, taxonomic difference, then it doesn't. There is no such thing as Homo sapiens mongoliensis or Homo sapiens africanus

That is only the family(?) name. There are sub dominians as well.

Besides that is not the whole name

It is something along the lines of:
...
Chordata
about 5 other things
Homo
Saipiens
Saipiens/Neanderthals

Define "whate" and "black." Explain what range of skin tones makes one "black" and what makes one "white."

Good luck. :eek: :D
White: If I look at this person and think that he looks white, then I think that he is white.

Black: If I look at this person and think that he looks black, then I think that he is black.

If it is hard to tell, then I do not care. This is no practical reason for racial classification anyway. The point I was trying to make is that when you look at someone who obviously has a different skin color than someone else, that is still a difference.

White-Light skinned people primarily from European descent
Black-Dark skinned people primarily from African descent
Orientalian(?)- Medium skinned people primarily from Asia

Then there are a lot of subraces.

which race is this man?

http://img326.imageshack.us/img326/1382/13kr.jpg

which race is this man?
http://img326.imageshack.us/img326/1382/13kr.jpg

He looks like a Pacific Islander to me.

White: If I look at this person and think that he looks white, then I think that he is white.

Black: If I look at this person and think that he looks black, then I think that he is black.

If it is hard to tell, then I do not care. This is no practical reason for racial classification anyway. The point I was trying to make is that when you look at someone who obviously has a different skin color than someone else, that is still a difference.

Sure, but isn't there just as much difference between a person with brown hair and a person with blond hair? Or a tall person and a short person? Or a fat person and a thin person? Until we classify people differently based on those traits, what's the point of classifying them differently based on skin color?

which race is this man?

http://img326.imageshack.us/img326/1382/13kr.jpg

I told you I forgot the technical term

The third one, neg...

I told you I forgot the technical term
The third one, neg...

Negroid?

As I sit here in front of my eMac, listening to the new System of a Down album...A thought pops into my head.

Years of study have provided evidence that individual humans have more in common with eachother genetically than they are different. Some people choose to believe this, others have decided not to. I'd like to know, do you believe in different "races" in humanity?

I believe that as far as asthetics and skin-deep physiology go, there is a "race", insofar that if a white mother bares the child of a black father, the child will have slightly darker skin.

That's as far as "race" goes for me. Everything else is the same internally.

What I think people are really talking about when refering to race...is really culture. In the end, I think it is our psychological and cultural differences that set us apart from one and other. Racists, I think, fear a blending of cultures...not really a blending of races. That isn't to say that there are certainly people out there who believe that on a genetic level, mixing is destroying us...

So, I believe in different cultures, no race. And you?
In that case I am as far away from racism as you can be. :p
I love the fusion of cultures. Isn't that how we live in America?(well most of us)

Negroid?

NO I think it is a longer name.

Am I the only person here who finds it incredibly funny that primarily white males are arguing the issue here (and affluent enough to own computers and internet connections)?

Just for shits and giggles, I called Rog to ask his opinion on "race" as mere illusion (very black dude, very proud of that).
Exact words:

E: "Is there such a thing as 'race'?"
R: "Hell yeah there is!"
E: "Why do you say that, dude?"
R: "Because at my family reunion, everyone can dance. I bet at yours nobody can."

:p He's a trip, and I think he's right. Plus, he mentioned that he identifies strongly with the idea of a black race. I read him a response or two, and his reaction was kinda unexpected. It was offensive to him to pretend that everyone is the same color. It implied an unwillingness to accept that he wasn't non-colored (white).

At the heart of it, I think this is true. And it was another heads-up to me concerning where PC went wrong. So wrong.

Sure, but isn't there just as much difference between a person with brown hair and a person with blond hair? Or a tall person and a short person? Or a fat person and a thin person? Until we classify people differently based on those traits, what's the point of classifying them differently based on skin color?
As I would classify a person who looks white as a white person, then I would classify a person who has brown colored hair a brown haired person. You are right, there is no difference. As I said, there is no need for the classification, it is a just a difference between person A and person B.

He looks like a Pacific Islander to me.

?

http://www.tahiti-tourisme.com/gallery/photos/big/People/ppl19.jpg

Here's a quick question for all of you, because I'm curious what people will say (or if you actually know the answer). Which of the following pairs of races have had the least time to diverge genetically, and thus are quite likely to be most genetically similar?

(a) Africans and Southeast Asians
(b) Africans and Europeans
(c) Africans and Australian Aboriginals

Ready...set...go!

Here's a quick question for all of you, because I'm curious what people will say (or if you actually know the answer). Which of the following pairs of races have had the least time to diverge genetically, and thus are quite likely to be most genetically similar?

(a) Africans and Southeast Asians
(b) Africans and Europeans
(c) Africans and Australian Aboriginals

Ready...set...go!

C.

*waits for more guesses before revealing the answer*

Well, regardless of whether there is or isnt a distinct and definitive definition of what attributes one has to have to belong to a specific 'race', regardless of whether or not there are distinct genetic differences, there most certainly are different groups that we put people into that we consider as their 'race'.

That fact that there are a lot of gray areas between these groups is not surprising. If most physical differences are adaptions to the surrounding environment, then given the variety of environments and the way that conditions often dont change suddenly (for example, the amount of sunlight) you can reasonably expect to find people who arent clearly from one or another.

As for what exactly is a 'race'... well, a mix of ethnicity, culture and perhaps other factors.

But at the end of the day, groupings such as 'White', 'Black', 'Asian' exist.. whether you call them 'races' or not.

*waits for more guesses before revealing the answer*
I guess Euros and Aboriginals have less. Go figure.

Now will you just give up the ghost, Mr. Trebek?

Well, regardless of whether there is or isnt a distinct and definitive definition of what attributes one has to have to belong to a specific 'race', regardless of whether or not there are distinct genetic differences, there most certainly are different groups that we put people into that we consider as their 'race'.

That fact that there are a lot of gray areas between these groups is not surprising. If most physical differences are adaptions to the surrounding environment, then given the variety of environments and the way that conditions often dont change suddenly (for example, the amount of sunlight) you can reasonably expect to find people who arent clearly from one or another.

As for what exactly is a 'race'... well, a mix of ethnicity, culture and perhaps other factors.

But at the end of the day, groupings such as 'White', 'Black', 'Asian' exist.. whether you call them 'races' or not.
Best first post ever. I look forward to seeing some more. :)

I guess Euros and Aboriginals have less. Go figure.

Now will you just give up the ghost, Mr. Trebek?

*laughs* That's the first time anyone's ever called me "Mr." anything... :p

At your request, I'll reveal the answer - it's B. Africans and Europeans diverged as races more recently than Africans and Asians, who diverged more recently than Africans and Aboriginals. In other words, there's a much larger gap in years (and, therefore, probably in genes) between the two races who look "black" than there is between the races that look most different. Which is one reason why our conventional definitions of race don't work very well.

Am I the only person here who finds it incredibly funny that primarily white males are arguing the issue here (and affluent enough to own computers and internet connections)?

Just for shits and giggles, I called Rog to ask his opinion on "race" as mere illusion (very black dude, very proud of that).
Exact words:

E: "Is there such a thing as 'race'?"
R: "Hell yeah there is!"
E: "Why do you say that, dude?"
R: "Because at my family reunion, everyone can dance. I bet at yours nobody can."

:p He's a trip, and I think he's right. Plus, he mentioned that he identifies strongly with the idea of a black race. I read him a response or two, and his reaction was kinda unexpected. It was offensive to him to pretend that everyone is the same color. It implied an unwillingness to accept that he wasn't non-colored (white).

At the heart of it, I think this is true. And it was another heads-up to me concerning where PC went wrong. So wrong.

You make a valid point, but I think the difference here is one of culture, not race. There are obviously people who are black in color who act in ways traditionally associated with white people and vice versa. That doesn't mean there's not a correlation between skin color and cultural identity - of course there is. Your cultural identity tends to be determined by that of your family, and your family tends to be the same color as you - and at least in this country, at one time the races were very much divided and left to produce their own distinct cultures. The cultural divide between races has already shrunk significantly with the end of slavery and then the end of segregation, and is likely to continue doing so over the next several decades.

*laughs* That's the first time anyone's ever called me "Mr." anything... :p

At your request, I'll reveal the answer - it's B. Africans and Europeans diverged as races more recently than Africans and Asians, who diverged more recently than Africans and Aboriginals.
Okay, so if I get this right... aboriginals are the most recent of our ancient descendants?
That's cool, even though that's one of the most ignored but interesting points I've heard in a long time on this subject. So in the end, we wound up black again?
If that's what you're saying (and it's right), then that's very symmetrical.

Okay, so if I get this right... aboriginals are the most recent of our ancient descendants?
That's cool, even though that's one of the most ignored but interesting points I've heard in a long time on this subject. So in the end, we wound up black again?
If that's what you're saying (and it's right), then that's very symmetrical.

Well, basically, here's what happened -

- Human race comes into existence in Africa.
- First wave of migration occurs, from Africa to Australia.
- Second wave of migration occurs, from Africa to Asia.
- Third wave of migration occurs, from Africa to Europe.

This is a gross oversimplification of human racial divergence, but essentially, what this means is that Aboriginals have had far more time to diverge from Africans than have Europeans - which means that, from a genetic standpoint, the two "black" people are likely to be less closely related than a black African and a white European, since they would share great-to-the-2000th-power grandparents rather than great-to-the-1000th power grandparents. (Those numbers aren't at all accurate, but I don't have a textbook handy to give me the actual figures. You get the point, though, I hope.)

Basically, it means phenotypic race (e.g. black, white, etc.) lacks any causal relationship with either cultural race (as discussed above) or genetic race.

There is no such thing as race.

There is no such thing as race.
There is no such thing as gender.

Let's follow the yellow brick road...

Race exists. It goes more than skin deep. We not only developed the skin colors as an adaption to our environments, but also, we as races developed different skill adaptions to befit our surrounding and culture. I'll give you an example. In order to get anywhere in Asian countries, you have to be able to last on few numbers of sleep. Most Asians I know can do just that.

I believe that Myrth is a singular and greater race then all the rest of us.

I never really gave it a whole lot of thought until now, but my first impression of "race" is that as a result of populations not moving around all that much for the last million years of evolution, natural selection has favoured white skins for the northern climes, dark skins for the equatorial climes, etc. As a result of breeding largely within those geographical boundaries over a million years, certain characteristics gained prevalence within those populations, for whatever evolutionary benefit they brought. We don't generally have much difficulty differentiating between an asian and a caucasian, or an african from a south american native. Those phenotypes exist, albeit with vast genetic variation within them.

If it weren't for humans having become so good at moving around over vast distances in the past few hundred years, I suspect that over the course of thousands more generations the "races" we speak of might eventually have become subspecies through continued reinforcement of those specific traits.

I see it this way: 5 million years ago we were largely the same, all in Africa, all with dark skin, etc.. We spread out into widely disparate geographical and climatic environments, and through isolation from our old "kin" we developed along slightly different paths on a very superficial genetic level. We see the results of that today as "race", and if left to themselves those races may have become subspecies one day many many thousands of generations hence. Instead, though, we have now learned to travel the globe and mix up all that DNA again, potentially undoing what isolation and evolution have wrought. Call "race" an aborted attempt at subspecies creation.

Basically evolution was humming busily to itself as it went about its thing, got halfway done and then said "oh, bother, if you're all going to start moving around all over the place then forget about it" and went home.

It was offensive to him to pretend that everyone is the same color.

who did that?

Am I the only person here who finds it incredibly funny that primarily white males are arguing the issue here (and affluent enough to own computers and internet connections)?

Just for shits and giggles, I called Rog to ask his opinion on "race" as mere illusion (very black dude, very proud of that).
Exact words:

E: "Is there such a thing as 'race'?"
R: "Hell yeah there is!"
E: "Why do you say that, dude?"
R: "Because at my family reunion, everyone can dance. I bet at yours nobody can."

:p He's a trip, and I think he's right. Plus, he mentioned that he identifies strongly with the idea of a black race. I read him a response or two, and his reaction was kinda unexpected. It was offensive to him to pretend that everyone is the same color. It implied an unwillingness to accept that he wasn't non-colored (white).

At the heart of it, I think this is true. And it was another heads-up to me concerning where PC went wrong. So wrong.

Your problem is that you want to be so anti-PC that you aren't paying attention.

Of course race exists as a socio-political concept. That is very, very real.

But common concepts of race aren't supported by anthropology, biology, or genetics.

You are pissing in the wind.

Race is much easier to use when you shed pure science ties and turn it into a social-sciences term, which is used to describe a group with similar cultures, appearances, location of origin, etc. Perhaps if that's what you mean by race, then it exists. If you mean a scientific, taxonomic difference, then it doesn't. There is no such thing as Homo sapiens mongoliensis or Homo sapiens africanus

Exactically!

NO I think it is a longer name.

Negroid is term you are looking for.

Under the scheme you are using, the terms are: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid.

There is sometimes a fourth category for Australoid.

Negroid is term you are looking for.

Under the scheme you are using, the terms are: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid.

There is sometimes a fourth category for Australoid.

the last becoming necessary when people like me start pointing inconvenient things out. and then they have to add another one to deal with my next trick, the non-black subsaharan africans. and so on.

Race is reality. As long as America continues to delude itself on the subject of race, her collapse is signed, sealed, and delivered.

I believe in racial purity and its benefits and above all beauty.
Why have a muddy looking mongrel that looks like every other person, when by keeping racial pedigree intact, you have many different species.

I believe in racial purity and its benefits and above all beauty.
Why have a muddy looking mongrel that looks like every other person, when by keeping racial pedigree intact, you have many different species.

You're kidding, right?

You're kidding, right?

No.
Racial purity is beautiful, lets keep the Earths races seperate.
Imagine the peace.

No.
Racial purity is beautiful, lets keep the Earths races seperate.
Imagine the peace.

And killing billions to achieve it.

Some dream, eh?

And killing billions to achieve it.

Some dream, eh?

How would killing billions achieve it?
It would also destroy my ideal of having seperate races if their all dead too. :rolleyes: `

By scientific definition, race denotes members of a same species with different phenotypes (that means appearance) that are still capable of producing offspring capable of reproduction. Therefore, by definition, certain types of dogs are different "races" since their offspring can reproduce, while horses and donkeys are different species, since mules cannot reproduce.
This used to be my definition of species until one fateful lesson in Conservation of Regional and Global Biodiversity wherein I was shown that nature adamantly refuses to be placed in categories. While horses and donkeys are phenotypically very similar and are different species, certain orchids are radically different, but are still capable of mutual offspring. They are, however considered different species, because such mating never occurs in the wild.
Basically, theories on race are pointless, since there is no universal way of categorizing anything.

No.
Racial purity is beautiful, lets keep the Earths races seperate.
Imagine the peace.
Wouldn't it be easier for people to get along if they all looked the same and we didn't havy any unteachables preaching they're better because of their skin color/hair color/toe nail growth speed?

Wouldn't it be easier for people to get along if they all looked the same and we didn't havy any unteachables preaching they're better because of their skin color/hair color/toe nail growth speed?

How dull and boring, dont you appreciate the benefits of diversity?

How dull and boring, dont you appreciate the benefits of diversity?I do. Do you appreciate them? Would you want to go out with someon of a "different race"?

I do. Do you appreciate them? Would you want to go out with someon of a "different race"?

Not really, see my racial purity views again, also this isnt the point Im making anyway.

*laughs* That's the first time anyone's ever called me "Mr." anything... :p

At your request, I'll reveal the answer - it's B. Africans and Europeans diverged as races more recently than Africans and Asians, who diverged more recently than Africans and Aboriginals. In other words, there's a much larger gap in years (and, therefore, probably in genes) between the two races who look "black" than there is between the races that look most different. Which is one reason why our conventional definitions of race don't work very well.

Does not Stephen Oppenheimer's recent book "The real eve" contradict that?

Since the earliest humans took the southern route and reached India and subsequently from there settlers migrated to Europe and elsewhere , your answer might be wrong. Oppenheimer's studies show that that all non-Africans trace their genes to the group that settled in India 50,000 years ago which traces from Africa.

Here's an animation of the route that humans took while spreading across the world

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

He also debunks the Aryan Invasion nonsense.

From the book. Page 116.

QUOTE

South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his ancestors; and sure enough we find highest rates and greatest diversity of M17 line in Pakistan, India and eastern Iran and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in south Asia than in Central Asia, but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a "Male Aryan Invasion" of India. One age estimate for the origin of this line in India is as much as 51,000 years. All this suggests that M17 could have found his way initially from India or Pakistan through Kashmir, than via Central Asia and Russia, before finally coming to Eruope.

Page 83

Mitochondrial DNA study

The main African Eve circa 150k years ago is denoted as L

L had several daughters of which a branch of L3 , rooted in Ethiopia
During the ice age circa 85k years ago, the red sea was shallow and the gulf was above water

A small band of L3 migrated to coastal Yemen and on the beach road and the first inhabitable non-coastal area was India

L3 then splits into N and M lines
N was born near baluchistan and M deeper in India

Europeans and middle eastern people have no M lines

India has the deepest variety of M lines dated to 75k years
M is found in Central Asia, Australia, New Guinea

Page 87

Europeans came from South asia circa 50k years ago

He asserts that the entire mtDNA of Europe is rooted in India which in turn is rooted in Africa. In a crude way, it makes sense. Black became brown which became white and yellow.

Not really, see my racial purity views again, also this isnt the point Im making anyway.Then maybe you shouldn't argue about how beautiful diversity is if you don't believe in it.

*hugs Aryavartha*

I believe in racial purity and its benefits and above all beauty.
Why have a muddy looking mongrel that looks like every other person, when by keeping racial pedigree intact, you have many different species.

and what race are you? I assume you can't be of european decent as we're a very mixed bunch made up of many different cultures and "races"...

Then maybe you shouldn't argue about how beautiful diversity is if you don't believe in it.

Huh? But that would exactly prove my point in having racial diversity by each race keeping seperate in the first place.

and what race are you? I assume you can't be of european decent as we're a very mixed bunch made up of many different cultures and "races"...

Celtic. White as.

Celtic. White as.

*lol

I can assure you, there is no such thing as a celtic race.

Historically, they emerged in the rgion of the Danube springs in southern Germany, spread over all of Europe in the course of a rough 500 years, absorbing every culture and "race" they found. They were then included in the Roman empire with its enormous mixture of different culture and its new-found diversity of people before, on the continent, they were more or less swept away by Germanic and Slavic tribes.

If, however, you should be refering to England, Scotland or Ireland : isolated though they may have been, the Celts were never alone on these islands either. Those parts that the Romans didn't reach were in course invaded by the Normans, who settled and reproduced there, the French Hugenots, Sinti and Roma, Jews fleeing prosecution, the list is almost endless....

Celtic. White as.

need more information than that, if you believe in purity of races...

What type of celt? Helvetii/scotti/etc....
It's good to know for the mix that would be involved....

ie. Helvetii mixed with alemani (i believe) and romans, etc..

Scotti mixed with picts, angles, saxons, etc....

so if you don't mind, could you supply more information if you have it? which i assume as you believe in purity of the races

I was suprised to see how close the vote was. In no way am I racist or dislike people of different races then me. Even though we are very genetically similar I believe race still exist. Did you know that most black people have an extra tendon in their legs that lets them jump higher and run faster? Little adaptations like that make us different races but were still one species. Our genetic similaritites far outweigh our differences. I'm about 99.7 percent genetically the same as you!

*lol

I can assure you, there is no such thing as a celtic race.

Historically, they emerged in the rgion of the Danube springs in southern Germany, spread over all of Europe in the course of a rough 500 years, absorbing every culture and "race" they found. They were then included in the Roman empire with its enormous mixture of different culture and its new-found diversity of people before, on the continent, they were more or less swept away by Germanic and Slavic tribes.

If, however, you should be refering to England, Scotland or Ireland : isolated though they may have been, the Celts were never alone on these islands either. Those parts that the Romans didn't reach were in course invaded by the Normans, who settled and reproduced there, the French Hugenots, Sinti and Roma, Jews fleeing prosecution, the list is almost endless....

I know, Caucasian then. White as.

need more information than that, if you believe in purity of races...
What type of celt? Helvetii/scotti/etc....
It's good to know for the mix that would be involved....
ie. Helvetii mixed with alemani (i believe) and romans, etc..
Scotti mixed with picts, angles, saxons, etc....
so if you don't mind, could you supply more information if you have it? which i assume as you believe in purity of the races

Regardless of the different white tribes their all causcasian arent they?
The mixing of these different white races with each other, creates different white people, not half castes with other races, like Negroid, mongoloid etc.

I was suprised to see how close the vote was. In no way am I racist or dislike people of different races then me. Even though we are very genetically similar I believe race still exist. Did you know that most black people have an extra tendon in their legs that lets them jump higher and run faster? Little adaptations like that make us different races but were still one species. Our genetic similaritites far outweigh our differences. I'm about 99.7 percent genetically the same as you!

The .03 seems to make a hell of a difference.