[General Battuta]

(if edits aren't working double posts ftw)

Think of it as working like the obsolete medical term 'humors'. In the past one might speak about 'humors' and how to alter them to treat disease. In some cases this theory of humors did seem to match symptoms and treatments. Eventually, it was discovered that a far more complicated system actually explained disease, and eventually 'humors' was phased out. Imagine, though, that 'humors' had remained in common use as parlance to describe the superficial symptoms of disease.

That's kind of what race is. It never meant anything biologically meaningful, but it's still used socially.

**** I could've thought of a better example than that.

[Black Wolf]

Fine, counter example. Australian aboriginals separated from the rest of the human poulation 40000 odd years ago. There are common genetic, physiological and physical markers that link them together as a population. They are also considered a race. Ergo, the term exists and maps to the science at least once.

The problem with saying "Races don't exist" is that it's the wrong message to put out. It's an interpretation of data coloured by modern political correctness which results in a position that is not only counterintuitive, but in at least one case (see above) incorrect. Plus, it does nothing to advance racial equality - the message we should be pushing is that race doesn't matter, not that t doesn't exist.

[General Battuta]

Yes, in that case I think that'd be a good place to argue for a homology between the social construct and the biological population. It's a good matchup. However...the aborigines are still almost impossibly homogeneous with the rest of the species. Variance between the Aborigines and white Australians is smaller than variance within the race of 'Africans'. If the Africans are one race, then, surely you and the Aborigines are one race!

It's an interpretation of data coloured by modern political correctness which results in a position that is not only counterintuitive, but in at least one case (see above) incorrect

I have no interest whatsoever in political correctness, in fact I've never been sure what it means or says. Race, the term that has existed for God knows how many centuries, does not exist. It is not a biological fact. It has little if any validity in predicting anything biologically.

The fact that something works once is no evidence whatsoever for its value. The race-population coupling doesn't work far more than it does work; it is therefore useless.

[MP-Ryan]

Fine, counter example. Australian aboriginals separated from the rest of the human poulation 40000 odd years ago. There are common genetic, physiological and physical markers that link them together as a population. They are also considered a race. Ergo, the term exists and maps to the science at least once.

The problem with saying "Races don't exist" is that it's the wrong message to put out. It's an interpretation of data coloured by modern political correctness which results in a position that is not only counterintuitive, but in at least one case (see above) incorrect. Plus, it does nothing to advance racial equality - the message we should be pushing is that race doesn't matter, not that t doesn't exist.

Wrong on all counts.

Australian aborigines are indistinguishable from the general human population except by a very select set of genetic markers which exist due to reproductive isolation.  The same is equally true of the Amish, Ashkenaze Jews, and numerous other reproductively-isolated populations.

HOWEVER:

Taking a person from any member of these identifiable "races" (or any other, African, Slav, Celt, Hispanic, Mongol, Han Chinese, etc) and comparing them genetically to any other yields no significant genetic difference.  Indeed, there is more genetic variation among individuals in a single "race" than there is between "races."  SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) markers do not equate with identifiable differences between races.  Even full-on allelic differences do not equate.  Biologically, races do not exist.  There is, generally speaking, a greater genetic difference between aborigines that do not share immediate common ancestry than there is between any aborigine and any other "race."

Race is entirely a social construct.  It is biologically meaningless, and to put it any other way is to give credence to the failed and simply wrong ideas of a bunch of racist sociologists and psychologists dating back well beyond the 19th century.

[MP-Ryan]

To avoid editing a post potentially being replied to, reproductively-isolated and pedigree groups DO exist in human biology, but they do not equate with visible characteristics that would allow you to define a biological race (because it implies distinctness to a level that is historically associated with that of a subspecies).  The visible markers that people associate with races are utterly meaningless, biologically, and do not provide an indicator of any key biological difference between individuals.

Skin colour, the most commonly abused "indication" is controlled by only a few genes and depends at least partially on dosage mediation.  It's typically selected for due to the climate of a reproductively-isolated population.  It can be altered in a single generation of breeding due to dosage variation.  Real reliable indicator /sarcasm.

This is a dead horse I've beaten many times in front of many people, and it is appalling that fully 10 years after the completion of the HGP people STILL think race is something other than a classification system developed entirely socially based on meaningless cues of arbitrary "difference."

[Bobboau]

it is a classification system based on differences in physical heritable characteristics found within reproductively isolated populations. it may be useless but that does not mean that it does not exist.

[General Battuta]

it is a classification system based on differences in physical heritable characteristics found within reproductively isolated populations. it may be useless but that does not mean that it does not exist.

It exists socially. It doesn't exist biologically.

[Black Wolf]

I had a long post, but frankly, there's a simpler way.
The genetic basis for the concept of race as it was understood is pissweak, I agree.
My problem with the statement "Race does not exist" is more social than scientific - there are groups with specific needs, both medical and social, which correspond to the old ideas of race, here if nowhere else in the world. Deny the difference and you take just a little more wind out of the sails of the people making positive changes, while those who're on the opposite side aren't going to believe you anyway.

Maybe this sort of thinking doesn't apply where you guys are, since the social/racial dynamics are different across the world. Unfortunately, I haven't the time  to go through the issues that racial oversensitivity has caused and is causing here, especially in the north and isolated communities in the outback, but I'm not willing to concede the non-existence of race, as long as there is any genetic backing at all, when to do so would hinder social progress.

[General Battuta]

My problem with the statement "Race does not exist" is more social than scientific

Well that makes sense, race is more social than scientific; but the statement was that race does not exist biologically.

there are groups with specific needs, both medical

Populations, yes

and social

Of course.

which correspond to the old ideas of race, here if nowhere else in the world. Deny the difference and you take just a little more wind out of the sails of the people making positive changes, while those who're on the opposite side aren't going to believe you anyway.

Why do you need to talk about race at all if you can just talk about populations?

Maybe this sort of thinking doesn't apply where you guys are, since the social/racial dynamics are different across the world. Unfortunately, I haven't the time  to go through the issues that racial oversensitivity has caused and is causing here, especially in the north and isolated communities in the outback, but I'm not willing to concede the non-existence of race, as long as there is any genetic backing at all, when to do so would hinder social progress.

Ah, so it's a local politics thing. Well that makes a lot more sense (not in a negative or positive way, just more sense) out of your objections past and present.

Fortunately you can concede the non-existence of race, since there is pretty much no genetic backing at all, and it won't hinder social progress!

[Black Wolf]

Fortunately you can concede the non-existence of race, since there is pretty much no genetic backing at all, and it won't hinder social progress!

No, I don't think I can. You have to frame things correctly, even science, for it to have a positive impact on things. I see no benefit to the statement "Race does not exist", since it has the potential, however slight, to diminish positive change, and therefore I will not concede while there is biological difference (evidence being both genetic similarities and group based differences in medical needs, which can and has been filtered for social factors like lifestyle).

[StarSlayer]

Durant: Six-One, this is Six-Four, go to UHF secure. I've got some bad news.
Cliff Wolcott: Race is a word, Durant. I don't want to hear about it.
Durant: It is not a word. It's an obsolete social concept of a word.
Cliff Wolcott: Race is a word in common usage. That is the key phrase in scrabble, my friend, common usage.
Durant: No! If it's not in the dictionary, it doesn't count.
Cliff Wolcott: It doesn't have to be in the dictionary!
Durant: It does have to be in the dictionary! Listen, when we get back to base, it's coming off the board.
Cliff Wolcott: You touch my race and I'll spank you, Night Stalker. You hear me?
Durant: Yeah. Promises.

[General Battuta]

No, I don't think I can. You have to frame things correctly, even science, for it to have a positive impact on things

Indeed. Why, then, would you frame them incorrectly, as you're arguing for?

Let's take as a given that your argument about biological differences is correct (I'll leave that to MP-Ryan). What positive change can you achieve by using the incorrect term race when you could be using the correct term population, which drops the baggage attached to the incorrect term race?

Please don't go off about political correctness, that's a meaningless and unscientific digression and nobody knows what it means. But from a social standpoint, this

I see no benefit to the statement "Race does not exist"

is privilege at its finest. I'm not sure I've ever seen a better single statement encapsulating the notion of privilege.

[General Battuta]

I didn't mean that to come off as uncivil.

The way I see it is, we're both now arguing about the social framing of the illusion of race, and you think it's beneficial to retain it and I think it's beneficial to discard it.

[MP-Ryan]

I had a long post, but frankly, there's a simpler way.
The genetic basis for the concept of race as it was understood is pissweak, I agree.
My problem with the statement "Race does not exist" is more social than scientific - there are groups with specific needs, both medical and social, which correspond to the old ideas of race, here if nowhere else in the world. Deny the difference and you take just a little more wind out of the sails of the people making positive changes, while those who're on the opposite side aren't going to believe you anyway.

Maybe this sort of thinking doesn't apply where you guys are, since the social/racial dynamics are different across the world. Unfortunately, I haven't the time  to go through the issues that racial oversensitivity has caused and is causing here, especially in the north and isolated communities in the outback, but I'm not willing to concede the non-existence of race, as long as there is any genetic backing at all, when to do so would hinder social progress.

What you're missing is that the term "race" implies a readily-identifiable biological difference between human population groups based on gross physical characteristics.  That doesn't exist.  The aborigine's are no different than any other "race" in that regard.

What you are confounding with race is populations, which ARE heavily biologically-tied to particular traits and are ABSOLUTELY useful in identifying and treating certain medical ailments (screening for Tay-Sachs is a perfect example).  But populations are defined genetically, based on quantifiable differences while races are not.  Medical screening is based on population analysis and not overt characteristics of race because appearance belies population traits, and race is completely bound up in superficial appearances.

Human reproduction is such that it is possible for individuals to easily fit a "race" definition without the matching population markers in a single generation of reproduction.  Now, the aborigine population is confounded with the social construct of race because in their case there is little interbreeding with persons of different "racial" characteristics, so population roughly conforms with the "racial" definition - but that is not to say that all or even of the majority of members which conform with the racial definition also match the population characteristics and vice-versa.    Using racial characteristics as a marker for any sort of biomedical program will cause one to miss the true population mark in almost every circumstance, including that of the aborigine's in Australia.

Using race in any sort of meaningful way is a huge hindrance on social and medical progress because it confounds understanding of population principles, and promotes cause-effect misunderstanding.  Not all people that one could identify as members of a race belong to the same population, nor do all the members of a population belong to a single race - under ANY circumstances, aborigine's included.

Race is a social term used by the confused, the uninformed, and the ignorant.  In sociology, one is better to speak of cultural groups, and in biology, one should always speak of populations.  Hernstein may be dead, but if I ever get my hands on Charles Murray I have a thing or two I'd like to explain to his apparently mediocre intellect (Wikipedia makes some useful background reading here).  J. Phillipe Rushton is another one in the same club, and he's geographically located in the same country as me.

[Mustang19]

Please don't go off about political correctness, that's a meaningless and unscientific digression and nobody knows what it means.

This is academia at it's finest.  Wikipedia knows. ^{Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, religious belief, disability, and age-related contexts, and doing so to an excessive extent.}

The main problem with the use of "race" is it's nineteenth century connotations of white supremacy. So there are more inoffensive terms that accomplish the same thing.

[General Battuta]

That's just pushing back the definition, though, then you've got to work on 'offense' and you've got to define 'excessive extent'.

In any case the use of the term is more interesting than the book definition and judging by the use it is very clear nobody has any idea what it means. It's been reduced to 'things I disagree with'.

[MP-Ryan]

I will not concede while there is biological difference

Then concede.  There is no statistical biological difference between one race and any other.  There is also no statistical biological difference between one population and any other.  There are differences in allelic frequencies between populations, although those differences also exist (on other alleles) within populations, but these are not statistically significant biological differences (one consistent allelic variation among hundreds of thousands of genes does not a statistically-significant difference make).

Aborigine's have different ancestral SNPs than people from different populations, but those genetic markers are tied to their population and not their race.  It is perfectly possible for someone to be "racially" aborigine and match few or none of the associated population markers.

Like I said, when speaking about social issues replace race with culture, and when speaking biologically replaced it with population.  Not only will you be factually correct, you won't sound like an uneducated bumpkin to anyone who actually knows what they're talking about.  The only people who actually use race anymore are the general public which really fails at the concept anyway, uneducated sociologists who simply don't know better, and sociologists who try to fashion themselves as serious scientists by spouting ridiculous silliness that any serious biologist can debunk in about 30 seconds flat (see references above).  I say this as someone with a degree in sociology as well as a degree in molecular genetics, so I've met a number of these sadly misguided individuals.

[Mustang19]

That's just pushing back the definition, though, then you've got to work on 'offense' and you've got to define 'excessive extent'.

In any case the use of the term is more interesting than the book definition and judging by the use it is very clear nobody has any idea what it means. It's been reduced to 'things I disagree with'.

Boy what a sheltered privileged ivory tower etc etc existence you live. If you don't even know why words like "African American" or "mentally challenged" were invented then you will make one good women's studies professor some day.

[General Battuta]

I get why they were invented and I certainly think they have been overused in some places, but I don't think I necessarily agree with 'offense' or 'excessive extent' to describe them. Even if those are appropriate phrases to talk about political correctness, that doesn't mean the term hasn't now been prostituted to a billion different agendas.

Also women's studies is cool

[Mustang19]

Well that's right up your alley, you'll be a regular Zizek some day.