If you don't believe in Race, does Racism Exist?

[Back2Reality]

Genetic diversity in Africa is extremely high, even between closely related or located groups and much higher than diversity in other human populations.

 

ScienceDaily: Little-Explored African Genetic Diversity May Hold Key To Human Origins, Medical Questions

 

The argument against racial categorisation is based on facts such as that there can be as much genetic variation between two Africans of different tribes as there is between on of the Africans and a European.

This argument makes sense.

 

So, I agree that talking of race is too vague to be scientific. But all scientists agree that genetic and ethnic diversity exists.

So do we agree that the term "racism" is outdated and should be replaced by something else? Especially if it is desired that "racists" should stop talking about race?

 

It seems hypocritical to say racial differences are nonsense, and then to accuse someone of "racism", often of unintended or subconscious "racism" at that!

 

Just to clarify a point that often causes confusion, no scientists are saying that everyone has the same mixture of genes, or that our genetic mix is random. In fact, the further from Africa, the less genetic variety there is in the population.

 

ScienceDaily: Geography Predicts Human Genetic Diversity

In the new work reported this week, researchers Franck Prugnolle, Andrea Manica, and François Balloux of the University of Cambridge show that geographic distance from East Africa along ancient colonization routes is an excellent predictor for the genetic diversity of present human populations, with those farther from Ethiopia being characterized by lower genetic variability. This result implies that information regarding the geographic coordinates of present populations alone is sufficient for predicting their genetic diversity.

[Ganoderma]

Perhaps "veriety" is a better term? there are certainly black people white peple asian people latin people. they ahvea certain look. like your favourite rose. its all one specie but there are reds, pinks, yellows, whites etc...

 

Homo sapien var. whiteus

 

we gotta give everything different a name, and skin colour is a clear difference in phenotype.

[Back2Reality]

But what if someone is in court accused of "incitement to racial hatred" just because they said there were too many Asians in Bradford and they couldn't stand the sight of them - could they say in their defense "What race am I accused of incitement to hate?" and then the prosecution says "Asians", and then they say "And so, are Asians a race?"

what happens next? It is all very odd! :)

[CraigD]

So do we agree that the term "racism" is outdated and should be replaced by something else?

I don’t.

 

The genes that produce recognizable “racial” characteristics (eg: skin color) are, as B2R accurately notes, only weakly correlated with other genes, invalidating old arguments that visually recognizable races are in some sense human subspecies, and inspiring the modern aphorism “race doesn’t exist”. Consequential arguments (eg: that people of different races should not have children together) have been nearly completely discredited by biological science.

 

However, people continue to have recognizable characteristics that allow quick visual categorization. That a dark-skinned person treated with contempt by a light-skinned one, or any other social interaction between different-appearing people, may be due in part or entirely to this categorization, is undeniable. This categorization is termed “race” (and has been for Millennia before the scientific understanding of genetics), so, in a social context, race very much does exist.

 

Although rationally-minded people often wish that distinct concepts were always referred to by distinct words, and in technical language, such a rule is often followed, I think we must acknowledge that everyday, natural language commonly uses the same words in different contexts to mean different things. So a sociologist observing social differences between “races” may be using the term in a valid and useful way, while the biological concept and term falls into disuse, in the same manner that the word caloric, which continues to be commonly used to mean “having food value”, is no longer used to mean “a subtle fluid responsible for heat”.

Especially if it is desired that "racists" should stop talking about race?

I don’t think it is desired by most reasonable people that people should stop talking about race, any more than we should stop talking about height, hair style, or clothing. The differences between individuals, both innate and affected, are to be celebrated. What is desired is that people discard the obsolete notion that any person is unsuitable for any education, profession, or other course he or she wishes to pursue, based on outward appearance. Not only is this notion incorrect, it has and continues to be instrumental in some of the greatest atrocities and injustices witnessed by human history.

 

PS: The idea of extending the “precision of language” characteristic of technical language into everyday language has an interesting and ongoing history. Two such examples and explorations of this idea that I’ve found interesting are Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics, and Lois Lowry’s 1993 novel “The Giver”. While GS is a complicated and controversial discipline requiring considerable time to research well, “The Giver” is a recognized excellent novel, intended for young adults but enjoyable by mature readers, that I highly recommend.

[C1ay]

Food for thought, are a black Ethiopian, black Jamaican and black Australian Aborigine, all living in New York, correctly classified as blacks for the purpose of racial classification?

[Back2Reality]

Food for thought, are a black Ethiopian, black Jamaican and black Australian Aborigine, all living in New York, correctly classified as blacks for the purpose of racial classification?

 

Scientifically speaking they are not of the same race because there is at least as much difference genetically between an Ethopian and an Aborigine as between either of them and a Swede.

[Back2Reality]

I don’t.

 

The genes that produce recognizable “racial” characteristics (eg: skin color) are, as B2R accurately notes, only weakly correlated with other genes, invalidating old arguments that visually recognizable races are in some sense human subspecies, and inspiring the modern aphorism “race doesn’t exist”. Consequential arguments (eg: that people of different races should not have children together) have been nearly completely discredited by biological science.

 

However, people continue to have recognizable characteristics that allow quick visual categorization. That a dark-skinned person treated with contempt by a light-skinned one, or any other social interaction between different-appearing people, may be due in part or entirely to this categorization, is undeniable. This categorization is termed “race” (and has been for Millennia before the scientific understanding of genetics), so, in a social context, race very much does exist.

 

Although rationally-minded people often wish that distinct concepts were always referred to by distinct words, and in technical language, such a rule is often followed, I think we must acknowledge that everyday, natural language commonly uses the same words in different contexts to mean different things. So a sociologist observing social differences between “races” may be using the term in a valid and useful way, while the biological concept and term falls into disuse, in the same manner that the word caloric, which continues to be commonly used to mean “having food value”, is no longer used to mean “a subtle fluid responsible for heat”.I don’t think it is desired by most reasonable people that people should stop talking about race, any more than we should stop talking about height, hair style, or clothing. The differences between individuals, both innate and affected, are to be celebrated. What is desired is that people discard the obsolete notion that any person is unsuitable for any education, profession, or other course he or she wishes to pursue, based on outward appearance. Not only is this notion incorrect, it has and continues to be instrumental in some of the greatest atrocities and injustices witnessed by human history.

 

PS: The idea of extending the “precision of language” characteristic of technical language into everyday language has an interesting and ongoing history. Two such examples and explorations of this idea that I’ve found interesting are Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics, and Lois Lowry’s 1993 novel “The Giver”. While GS is a complicated and controversial discipline requiring considerable time to research well, “The Giver” is a recognized excellent novel, intended for young adults but enjoyable by mature readers, that I highly recommend.

 

The problem I have with this is that if we use racial terms sociologically there will be statements regarding the evaluation of whether one race is more prone to a certain behaviour, for eg. which the other race considers abhorrent or in some way derisable. If we accept the racial categorisation as valid then it seems unfair to prosecute someone who makes such an observation - such as "Blacks are more likely to rape" - because it may be accurate according to their subjective and inaccurate appraisal of what a "Black" actually is.

Should someone effectively be prosecuted for their vociferous observation of what people from a fictitious and vague categorisation of humanity supposedly do?

 

On the other hand if someone doesn't believe in race, but excludes people from their hotel on the basis of whether he likes the look of them or not, and it is shown that those he excludes all happen to have the darkest pigmented skin - should he be prosecuted for "racial discrimination" when , as I said he doesn't accept race exists and neither does it actually exist.

Now there's a conundrum!

 

And should a Police Force be censured because the pigmentation of its officers is considered to appear more on the pale side than the government feels it should be - while using the term "racial discrimination" to describe this, when really it just happened that way purely by not having positive discrimination in favour of the browner looking people?

 

What's the use of saying race is a fictitious concept if you are going to have policies such as "positive discrimination" and who decides if someone is White or not? Surely they are being racist in even making that evaluation and therefore open to be prosecuted? :eek_big:

[HydrogenBond]

We are all human beings with more in common than the superfisical things that make us different. Racial, ethic, etc., diversity, by celebrating these differences keeps them under the microscope. How about human Americans or Europeans, with the word human coming first before black, white, green, etc. Instead we put the target first and the unity in the fine print and then complain about people focusing on the target.

 

It is like saying don't look at that mole on my face. What mole?. Now that you mention it and made such a big deal about it, it is hard to take my eyes off of it. You should have kept your mouth shut and I would have looked you in the eyes.

[Boerseun]

I don't believe in God, but Religion surely exist.

[Qfwfq]

The term race is taken from the age-old practice of breeding, as in a race of horses, dogs or cattle. People obviously aren't being bred, (at least, not that we know of!) but of course, people from an area or even a town may be more or less recognizeable when travel and migration haven't been prevalent for quite a while. This doesn't make it quite right to use the term race, however taxonomy of homo sapiens has used a few names of races on the large scale.

 

Racism is simply when education and culture haven't gotten one past the natural animal instinct of considering others differently, according to how genetically similar or different they are. Blood is thicker than water, and not all water is quite the same. Nationalism originates from practically the same thing although it often acquires a more cultural and social basis.

[Back2Reality]

I don't believe in God, but Religion surely exist.

 

Yeah but there are no religions that are illegal are there? No one is saying that if you believe your religion is right and others are inferior that you go to jail are they?

[Back2Reality]

We are all human beings with more in common than the superfisical things that make us different. Racial, ethic, etc., diversity, by celebrating these differences keeps them under the microscope. How about human Americans or Europeans, with the word human coming first before black, white, green, etc. Instead we put the target first and the unity in the fine print and then complain about people focusing on the target.

 

It is like saying don't look at that mole on my face. What mole?. Now that you mention it and made such a big deal about it, it is hard to take my eyes off of it. You should have kept your mouth shut and I would have looked you in the eyes.

 

We are all animals as well but for no particularly scientific reason a line is drawn between humans and animals by the humanists who go on about "one human race" and human rights. How is this justified?

 

Anyone noticed how, for eg. Mexicans insist they be accepted by Americans, but Metizo Mexicans hate the native Indians from neighbouring countries and kill them and Turks want to be accepted into the European Union yet they have ethnic minorities they hate. There are a lot of ethnicties and tribes competing with eachother and to stop that is to go against Nature. Fine then, go against nature, it can be done by individuals. The trouble is that the ones that keep to their own always end up surviving as a group while those that mix are always at their mercy. History is full of this happening right from when Persia was multiethnic and was beaten by the Greeks, and then Alexander the Great made all his men forcibly marry into the Persian mixture so that later the Romans easily defeated them with the Romans suffering a small fraction of the casualties. Later Rome became multiethnic and were easily defeated by the Germanic barbarians. History repeats itself

Life is cruel that way....

[HydrogenBond]

America was once called the melting pot, where all the cultural diversity of the world was blending into a historically unique singularity, with a common language that had terms, food, customs, from all the groups. Very unique compared to any time in history. For example, during my grandparent's time, each culture would have its own separate place in the city, where they would maintain their cultural uniqueness. By my parents time, there was a lot of cross marriage between cultures such that the old separation in the city became smaller and smaller. By my generation, we were all mutts, with few of us overly identifying with one culture except on certain holidays. Without the strict demarcation of ethicity, friends had access to all the groups via each others grandparents. Being friends we were all welcome in each others worlds.

 

By about the seventies-eighties, political correctness began to reverse the melting pot, trying to reintroduce new distinctions to honor gay, feminine, racial, ethic, etc., pride and diversity. So instead of the melting pot mindset, people were taught to chose teams, once again, with each team looking for special treatment, as though their unique difference gave them special rights. What we have today is a regressive situation, with the pin-heads of change unable to see how they made a unique and historical melting pot situation, go in reverse. All the ingredients were told to leave the pot, like 60-100 years ago. Instead of human stew we have a bunch of ethic hors d'overs.

 

The solution is to get the melting pot back on the stove and learn to make a human stew instead of a bunch of appetizers. If culture put as much energy trying to reblend the ingredients into a stew, as we are putting into separating them into of hors d'orvers, we would all have a more balanced meal.

[C1ay]

Scientifically speaking they are not of the same race because there is at least as much difference genetically between an Ethopian and an Aborigine as between either of them and a Swede.

 

Yes but....

 

Suppose all three of these diverse people with a common skin color all band together and mug some white guy just because he's white. Can the district attorney accurately prosecute these muggers for a hate crime based on race? The dictionary does say:

 

race noun

1 each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.

2 racial origin or distinction: rights based on race.

3 a group of people sharing the same culture, language, etc.; an ethnic group.

4 a group of people or things with a common feature.

5 Biology a distinct population within a species; a subspecies.

 

There is no "genetic only" restriction on the term race. Is the dictionary wrong? Is race a genetic classification only?

[Pyrotex]

I think the word "race" was originally used (by the dude in the street) simply as a means of categorizing skin color. There was no scientific rationalization going on. There were blacks and whites and yellows and... what were these categories? Let's call them "races". Decades later, we find ourselves trying to establish the scientific rationale for "races" and are hard pressed to do so. "Varieties" would be a more sensible word. but, alas, we are stuck with "race".

[Qfwfq]

I think the word "race" was originally used (by the dude in the street) simply as a means of categorizing skin color. There was no scientific rationalization going on.

Not quite just by the dude in the street.

 

Blumenbach - Google Search

Agassiz - Google Search

Cuvier - Google Search

 

Searches on Pritchard and Pickering are full of non-relevant results.

 

The trouble started when taxonomy was hijacked and pseudoscience used to justify the use of Africans as slaves. This happened simply because Western culture no longer accepted the idea that a defeated or subdued people could be enslaved. Unfortunately there was still a demand for slaves and that's why our ancestors were taught that the black Africans were less evolved than us, not quite the same species. They thence could be sold like livestock, bred at Massa's will and forbidden to learn too much because it would cause them suffering due to their lower intelligence. These lies persisted longest in the Cotton belt, sustained by the strong interests.