[Bobboau]

...

so, as I said in my first post, black people are not black?

the premise of the article is that there is a greater diversity of traits in the subset than the whole (which seems logically impossible, is would have to be at most equal to, but I guess he's using a specific definition of greater than here), what traits was he measuring? all of them? well that doesn't matter then, cause I said a (small) set of specific traits not that they were over all more genetically similar than anyone else, but that there were specific traits with a higher incidence.

[General Battuta]

The idea is that if you tried to start defining a bundle of characteristics that identifies 'black people', you'd find yourself getting more specific, narrowing down to a smaller and smaller group...until you finally arrived at a race of one person.

Black people, in other words, aren't black; except as a common social, rather than biological, identity.

[Bobboau]

IIRC there are something like eight genes which code for skin pigment which are different in 'black people' than most of the rest of the population, that seems like a good place to start, I'm sure there are plenty of other more usefull commonalities. I never claimed a race would have a solidly defined boundary.

[Mars]

The idea that the color of one's skin determines a number of other characteristics is false. There are cultural races: how "black" someone is is not determined so much by the color of skin and genetics, but what culture one was raised in.

Eight genes out of how many useful genes that humans have? Yes, those genes are passed on, but they aren't an indication of what else was or was not passed on. To say that a black person has a specific set of unrelated characteristics is to say that blonde people with blue eyes have certain characteristics. How often do you hear brunettes are smart these days? Not a lot, because it's obviously a false claim

[Bobboau]

what was your point?

the whole argument here is centered around somepeople saying races do not exsist, when they clearly do.

[Mars]

Please define race, in your own thoughts.

Race as a social concept is real

Race as a biological entity is not

[Mongoose]

what was your point?

the whole argument here is centered around somepeople saying races do not exsist, when they clearly do.

But as the article stated, they don't, at least not genetically.  There may be a few physical features that define someone as "black," but those same physical features can be found in different combinations and varying intensities among disparate populations all around the world.  When you get down to the level of DNA, there are more variations in genetic code amongst the members of a certain vaguely-defined "race" than there are between average members of different races.  The whole idea that you can separate people by certain vague groups of physical characteristics and extend that across the entirety of a person's genetic makeup is a falsehood, one which I fell victim to as well before reading about the research that's been done.

[Bobboau]

But as the article stated, they don't, at least not genetically.  There may be a few physical features that define someone as "black," but those same physical features can be found in different combinations and varying intensities among disparate populations all around the world.  When you get down to the level of DNA, there are more variations in genetic code amongst the members of a certain vaguely-defined "race" than there are between average members of different races.

 
I think you identified the flaw in the reasoning well.
it is specifically the combination and intensity that are the relevant components.

The whole idea that you can separate people by certain vague groups of physical characteristics and extend that across the entirety of a person's genetic makeup is a falsehood, one which I fell victim to as well before reading about the research that's been done.

this is nice, and very telling of what is going on in your mind, at what point did I EVER say that the collection of traits that defined a race should be extended beyond what they were?

Please define race, in your own thoughts.

a race is a population of individuals with a widely shared set of physical traits inherited from common heredity.

to further refine that, it's not that all members of a race have all the traits, but of the traits that define the race the members have a higher chance of having them (to the point where they all have a good portion of them). I used the eight genes for skin color as an example because it was the only thing I could remember off the top of my head with a specific number.

[Agent_Koopa]

do not listen to the weak one, feel your anger, let it run through you, it is your strength, only then will you know true POWER!

Only a Sith deals in absolutes!

Anyways, people who say that "races" do not exist, because it is impossible to clearly define a set of genes that make one black or white or Asian, are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

I'm no expert on the matter, of course. But consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

A person isn't considered "black" because of one single gene. They are considered black because to one degree or another they fit a sort of general pattern, a set of characteristics. This includes skin colour, facial features and arrangement thereof, hair colour, and perhaps more of which I am unaware. People who resemble this set of characteristics are considered "black". This is not to suggest that there is some sort of archetypical black person, of course. Instead it means that there is no precise definition of what makes up a certain race, but on the other hand, it is usually easy to identify a person as belonging to a certain race.


EDIT: Oh, I see I've failed to read the last two posts. Hmm. Let me think of something to write so this post isn't a complete waste.

Please define race, in your own thoughts.

Race as a social concept is real

Race as a biological entity is not

On the contrary. I think we define race purely as a biological concept, or we try to. In being "colour-blind", we make an attempt not to distinguish between people of different genetic makeup or backgrounds, in the overall environment of society. We separate mind from body, we call the minds equal even when the bodies are clearly not the same. Thus, in the context of society, race disappears and is replaced by "culture", which is the collectively-held beliefs, traditions, tendencies, and practices of a group. It just so happens that geographical areas have their own culture, and even though international migration has been made easier in recent years, individual "races" retain their own sense of culture. I think you confuse "culture" with race.

Race as a biological entity, however, is indisputable.

[General Battuta]

Race as a biological entity, however, is indisputable.

Good God, please read the article I linked to, which shows that scientists dispute it -- and, in fact, negate it -- in some depth.

Race does not exist biologically, as several posts have now argued (quite conclusively.) It is a cultural construct.

And I think Bobbau is actually agreeing with us. Bobbau's argument seems to be 'well, there are certain clusters of traits which you can identify as 'race.'' Sure there are, if you say 'everyone with this group of genes is black/Asian/Hispanic'.

Only, the results you'll get won't match what we perceive to be any existing races. They'll be just as valid as saying that everyone with a widow's peak is one race and everyone without is another.

Race does not exist on a biological level. Genetically, the human race is a spectrum, and there are no notches or gaps where we can clearly chop things up. We can set boundaries, but they are arbitrary and socially constructed.

[Scuddie]

The lines are not clearly drawn (if at all), but if a person has darker skin, more matted hair, sensitivity to salts, leaner muscle mass, larger reptilian brain, and features that are more prevalent than most other beings, it'd be plainly obvious he's part of the negroid subspecies.  Meanwhile, if a person has lighter skin, thicker hair, sensitivity to fats, bulkier muscle mass, larger mammalian brain, and features that are more prevalent than most other beings, it's somewhat safe to say that he's part of the caucasoid subspecies.

Races exist.  It is indisputable.  Period.  What is disputable, however, is where the boundaries are.

[Agent_Koopa]

Oh, yes, I see what you mean now. Thanks for clearing that up.

Now, we're using different definitions of "exist" and "biological level". (or perhaps "race" and "on". I just know we're using different definitions somewhere.)

Sure, race doesn't exist on a genetic level; in that there is no gene that makes a person black or white or Asian or Native American. But the term "race" is used for a collection of attributes and traits that typically appear together. It's a cultural construct in the same way that "blue" is a cultural construct. An object's colour is an inherent physical attribute of that object, or at least of the atoms on its surface. What is "blue"? Who can tell? It's a group of wavelengths on the visible spectrum. Yet the term describes something that exists indisputably in nature. There are blue objects and green objects. It's hard to tell precisely where one begins and one ends, but you can clearly see the polar extremes in the middle of each region.

Race exists on the biological level in that there's no other possible level for something so inherently biological to exist on. Race is a group of genetic characteristics that tend to occur together. That's it. Biological characteristics. Society may have formed the concept of race, but race exists. Geographic congregations of humans, at least historically, shared the same genetic traits. That's it. Biological. A set of genetic traits shared among a certain population. The genes are there. Even if it's hard to determine which genes are part of the overall category of the race, the category still exists.

To sum up: as has already been agreed upon, you can't determine race on a gene-by-gene basis. "Race" refers to a collection of genes associated with a given population, some of which are subject to wide variation and some of which are subject to relatively little variation.


Actually, I don't think it's Bobbau that's agreeing with you, it's me. I don't think there's anything we're arguing over except the definition of the term itself.

[Mars]

By arguing about the definition of the term itself we all have the ability to disagree in many, many ways.

The lines are not clearly drawn (if at all), but if a person has darker skin, more matted hair, sensitivity to salts, leaner muscle mass, larger reptilian brain, and features that are more prevalent than most other beings, it'd be plainly obvious he's part of the negroid subspecies.  Meanwhile, if a person has lighter skin, thicker hair, sensitivity to fats, bulkier muscle mass, larger mammalian brain, and features that are more prevalent than most other beings, it's somewhat safe to say that he's part of the caucasoid subspecies.

Except there are so many exceptions to these broad generalizations, it's not an effective method for any type of categorization. Race, that people perceive every day has literally nothing to do with anything but the color of one's skin. Generally speaking, people aren't categorized together by careful examination of their response to salts, ratio of Reptilian to Mammalian brain and measure of fat levels in their bodies. In our culture(s) a fat black person is no less black, and a muscular white person is no less white. This is because the concept or race has nothing to do with anything you just mentioned, it depends entirely on skin color and occasionally on other aspects of outward appearance.

To say someone with black skin most certainly has a smaller mammalian brain is clearly false. Such "theories" were introduced to justify the subjection of millions of people, not created off of any observable scientific data. The higher incidence of athletes in the "black" population can easily be explained by the fact that society as a whole and black society as its own entity rewards strong black kids more than it rewards smart black kids.

To be clear, there is a definite cultural difference, however, it is not strictly based on anything but skin color.

[Scuddie]

You do realize race and culture are two entirely different things, right? 

It's not a good thing to believe they are even closely related, unless you like to think like Adolf Hitler, David Duke, or Al Sharpton.

[General Battuta]

Oh, yes, I see what you mean now. Thanks for clearing that up.

Now, we're using different definitions of "exist" and "biological level". (or perhaps "race" and "on". I just know we're using different definitions somewhere.)

Sure, race doesn't exist on a genetic level; in that there is no gene that makes a person black or white or Asian or Native American. But the term "race" is used for a collection of attributes and traits that typically appear together. It's a cultural construct in the same way that "blue" is a cultural construct. An object's colour is an inherent physical attribute of that object, or at least of the atoms on its surface. What is "blue"? Who can tell? It's a group of wavelengths on the visible spectrum. Yet the term describes something that exists indisputably in nature. There are blue objects and green objects. It's hard to tell precisely where one begins and one ends, but you can clearly see the polar extremes in the middle of each region.

Race exists on the biological level in that there's no other possible level for something so inherently biological to exist on. Race is a group of genetic characteristics that tend to occur together. That's it. Biological characteristics. Society may have formed the concept of race, but race exists. Geographic congregations of humans, at least historically, shared the same genetic traits. That's it. Biological. A set of genetic traits shared among a certain population. The genes are there. Even if it's hard to determine which genes are part of the overall category of the race, the category still exists.

To sum up: as has already been agreed upon, you can't determine race on a gene-by-gene basis. "Race" refers to a collection of genes associated with a given population, some of which are subject to wide variation and some of which are subject to relatively little variation.


Actually, I don't think it's Bobbau that's agreeing with you, it's me. I don't think there's anything we're arguing over except the definition of the term itself.

I think we're almost in agreement.

The only point I'd quibble with is the idea that "the term "race" is used for a collection of attributes and traits that typically appear together." It's a seductive definition, but, in fact, no such clusters of attributes can be found or agreed upon.

Weird, huh? Mars also did an excellent job of addressing that point.

And yes, Scuddie has a very valid point.

[Bobboau]

Race does not exist on a biological level. Genetically, the human race is a spectrum, and there are no notches or gaps where we can clearly chop things up. We can set boundaries, but they are arbitrary and socially constructed.

orange does not exsist.

[Mars]

Bobbou, that argument is flawed because Battua's argument was flawed. It's not so much a matter of differences not existing, it's a matter of this: the color of one's skin  is not an effective indicator of those differences. Skin color does not in any way demonstrate other genetic traits. No analogy can really be used to effectively illustrate the difference. To say black people are on average stronger than white is similar to saying people with green eyes are smarter than people with brown; these are unrelated things, and to claim they're related is a fallacy.

Although there may be a statistical example that yes, green eyed people are smarter, it doesn't have any real relevance in the end, people are smart because they're smart, not because they have green eyes. People are strong because they're strong, not because they're black.

You do realize race and culture are two entirely different things, right? 

It's not a good thing to believe they are even closely related, unless you like to think like Adolf Hitler, David Duke, or Al Sharpton.

You realize that race is almost entirely defined by culture, right? As I said before, the idea of race is a societal construct, something that humans invented in their own minds to make themselves feel better about how they were treating other people.

 There are separate cultures that exist, mostly distinguished by skin color, and it's undeniable. This is mostly because there are so many white people who refuse to associate with black people, whether they admit it or not. The Two Towns of Jasper is an excellent documentary on just this I think, people won't move outside their own spheres, and so in the end everyone loses.

It is not good to believe that having black skin makes you stronger and stupider. It is precisely this kind of thinking that perpetuates the lies of racial superiority and inferiority.

[General Battuta]

Race does not exist on a biological level. Genetically, the human race is a spectrum, and there are no notches or gaps where we can clearly chop things up. We can set boundaries, but they are arbitrary and socially constructed.

orange does not exsist.

Exactly!

You can point to the exact middle of 'orange' and say 'this is orange.'

Then you can drift a few NM to each side and say 'this is still orange.'

After a while you'll start hemming and hawing, and then you'll have to say, 'well, huh, this is yellow now. The line is..arbitrarily right here.' You could even find an exact halfway point -- though in this case you're dealing with only a change in a single variable, after all.

On a physical level, orange doesn't exist; it's just a very imprecise label. And so it is with race!

[NGTM-1R]

That sounds like the start of a jumping off the slippery slope for colors do not exist, yet, we know they exist, because we have spectrographs that recognize things' composition based on their color.

[Scuddie]

Orange does exist.  When there is twice as much red illumination as there is green, and an absence of blue light, it creates the color we all like to call "orange".  It's there.  Do not try to deny it, because you will just make yourself look like a fool.  In much of the artistic model, orange is still orange within a certain deviation of the reference point (often 20%).  Beyond that, lies yellow orange, orange yellow, and eventually yellow.  Where a person draws deviation is subjective, but to say that it does not exist is blatantly stupid.

Something may be orange, but more yellow than red.  How far the eye of the beholder deviates from pure orange is up to him, but to say that orange does not exist because the difference between orange and yellow is not split at precisely this location is absurd.