Just to clarify: There is no such thing as "Race". There is only "Racism"

The concept of race has been fluid. It use to be much closer to what we would now call ethnicity, as people use to say things like "the German race", "the American race", " the Irish race" etc. If you look at the racism of even the Nazis, this is the framework they used. A different dynamic developed primarily in the U.S. because of a fairly unique history.

Race is just a category used for grouping. Yeah, there isn't a singular "black gene" or anything like that. There also isn't a gene for "Polish", that doesn't mean that "Polish" isn't a real thing.

 

I understand your objection. So I will clarify.

Originally, my argument was actually a response to this one dummy here...

... who believes that those who discriminate against jews are not racists. But the thread in which we were discussing this was closed by the mods for reasons other than our own discussion. So I reopened our discussion in a new thread to see if he had learned anything. As you can see from his response quoted here, he "passed" on any rational discussion.

However (this to Concord) as a consideration to you, I will be glad to explain my case.

There seems to be a growing trend among white supremacists. They feel that if they can make a case that only 3 or 4 "races" exist (If I'm not mistaken, I believe they mean whites, blacks and Indians... but I'm not sure), they can still declare themselves "superior" to other groups of people, and they cannot be tagged as "racists"

My point is that "race" is not a real biological concept. It has no meaning either in Biology or in Anthropology. It's an arbitrary cultural construct. Which can be applied to any group of people. But racists apply to people from certain religions, ethnic groups, country (or region) of origin, etc. And they categorize them this way because they think that way they can prove they are "superior". The fact is that it's still "racism". Not meaning to compare these guys to mass criminals (these are just examples), the fact is that Hitler is an example of a racist who discriminated against jews. Pol Pot was a racist who discriminated against any religion except his own. Islamic Terrorists are racists who discriminate against people who do not ascribe to their particular brand of Islam.

Many sources use the term "race". The National Census Bureau, for example. There are even a few scientists who use the term to categorize certain groups arbitrarily. But, objectively, there is no such thing as race. But there are people who are "racists". Which are the people who believe what they perceive as "their race" is somehow superior to whatever is not "their race".

Hope that clarifies things.

 

Of course not. If you read the OP... and even if you just read the title, it should be clear that my position is that species is a real thing, but race is not. Not from either a biological or an anthropological point of view, at least.

 

I've given you the biological definition of race. It hasn't changed. The refinements are in how the differences in allele frequencies are measured. Look up SNP. What the differences are is matter of much research which is highly technical.

I've shown you the term used in peer reviewed respected scientific journals. So it is a scientific concept.

The differences aren't arbitrary which is why they are used in the medical literature to better understand and treat disease. One easily mentioned difference is the Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Astraloid races contain traces of Neanderthal genes.

There are races. They can be determined by scientific means and the results are meaningful in practical ways.

Your whole premise is blown.

BTW there are currently five races: Congoid, Capoid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Australoid.

 

Well, I've never been characterized as a partisan hack. When discussing a topic, I'll tell you what I think and why I think it. As I say, I'm registered as an NPP (No Party Preference) voter, and I take that designation seriously. What else can I say? You're welcome!

 

Yet you conflated the two, saying the only race is the human race - by which you mean the only race is the human species. Now, after saying race exists, you're saying it doesn't.

When I asked you to define precisely what concept of race you're objecting (because there isn't just one) you refused to - but from all you've said, it seems apparent you're not aware that there are multiple conceptions of race. So when you say there is no such thing as race, you're really just rejecting one single conception of it - one which, oddly, most racists don't actually have.

 

Ok. So which gene determines race?

Used, yes. Defined.... no. You provided an outdated definition which has not been used by biologists for more than 50 years.

Show what biological structure that is based on.

This is an arbitrary categorization used in some fields as forensics by tradition. But has been rejected by geneticists for a long time.

"The notion that five subspecies or geographic races of Homo erectus [...] "evolved independently into Homo sapiens not once but five times" at different times and in different places, seems to me a very far-fetched one. Coon has striven valiantly, to make out a case for this theory, but it simply does not square with the biological facts. Species and subspecies simply do not develop that way. The transmutation of one species into another is a very gradual process [...]["
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/200401​

Show a current-day definition of "race" in Biology and be done with it. Not that it's "used". It is used as an arbitrary categorization. Unless you can produce a standard definition in Biology that is current, by insisting that there is a biological basis for the term, you are just pushing pseudo-science.

I'll give you an example of a definition currently used

"Race
By historical and common usage the group (sub-species in traditional scientific use) a person belongs to as a result of a mix of physical features such as skin colour and hair texture, which reflect ancestry and geographical origins, as identified by others or, increasingly, as self identified."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1732794/pdf/v058p00441.pdf
​

So, basically, in this particular Glossary (used for specific studies) a race is a group with which you "self identify" (or others identify you with). Not an objective categorization.

 

...by which I mean that a common expression used by all English-speakers to refer to Humanity is "The Human Race" and, therefore, is the only appropriate objective use of the term "race". All others are arbitrary.

You might want to try reading messages in their context instead of just trying to make up criticisms just for the sake of seeing yourself in a post. You also might want to try asking what I mean before throwing in wild strawman arguments of the type that almost always follow the words "what you mean is..."

No "oddly". That is precisely my point. That racists have multiple conceptions of "race". Any arbitrary set of categories that they feel "superior" on, they treat as "race"

 

Dumb thread just set back medical research in race-specific diseases (or should I say "sub Saharan African blabedyblabla ...") diseases decades due to paper length bloat among other things.

EVEN THE ARTICLES I LOOKED AT ON THIS DEBATE CONTINUE TO USE THE TERM "RACE" WITHIN THEM. ROFL. Seems like it's not all that "arbitrary" after all. I'm certain the LW brain trust doesn't see the irony of that.

Reminds of the hilarious "multigendered LW t shirt slogan du jour" farce where when you got to buy the shirt, you are given M and F options. ROFL.

"Race" is not a formal taxonomic category, but a very useful informal one (abstract noun), particularly as shorthand... "informal" but highly useful formally. The term is also colloquially useful as well.

As a matter of irrefutable fact, our language is filled with informal terms, lots of them fungible abstract categories such as "race," (or bystanders, audience, jury, fans, etc.) that remain very useful in many ways, scientifically and otherwise, despite their not being "formal" within this or that subset of language.

OP's main error, "all informal language, and usages, 'race for example,' are necessarily 'arbitrary'" (they aren't). "Race" is a useful, legitimate word in several ways regardless of whatever vapid LW academic political manipulation is at play -this- week. Replacing it with -whatever- would be like mandating the replacement of "=" with "equals, equivalent to, or the same as." Moronic.

 

Let's recap the definition:

"A population which differs significantly from other populations in regard to the frequency of one or more of the genes it possesses. It is an arbitrary matter which, and how many, gene loci we choose to consider as a significant 'constellation'".

So there is not one gene location but a 'constellation' of gene locations. Your question does not apply.

The definition is not outdated and below I will discuss a paper which uses that definition.

But what your job is, given your assertion that races do not exist, is to show that you cannot find populations that possess significantly different allele frequencies from other populations, i.e. the definition defines nothing.

The gold standard for race identification is the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP). Here is a paper which discusses how SNP's are used to analyze race:

"Genetic variation among human races can be observed in almost any trait, from the physical and biochemical, to disease resistance. What role do single nucleotide polymorphisms play in this?"'

(example of the concept of race)

"By comparing alleles among individuals of various ethnic backgrounds, the researchers estimated how much differentiation has occurred in each of 2.8 million SNPs since the human population began to diverge from its African origins some 50,000 to 75,000 years ago."

(example of the use of allele frequency to discriminate "ethnic background", a common euphemism for race)

"The fixation index is a measure of how populations differ genetically. One derivation of the fixation index is FST = (HT – HS)/HT, in which HT and HS represent heterozygosity of the total population and of the subpopulation, respectively. This derivation measures the extent of genetic differentiation among subpopulations. The value of FST can theoretically range from 0.0 (no differentiation) to 1.0 (complete differentiation, in which subpopulations are fixed for different alleles)."

(Discussion how to measure populations' difference in allele frequency, i.e. race by my definition.)

So what? Coon is wrong. Doesn't mean there aren't races.​

I claim my definition is current and quoted a current paper that uses it. It is hardly an arbitrary categorization as important racial differences are being discovered all the time, which wouldn't happen if the categorization were arbitrary.

Look, if you want to use a euphemism for "race," like "ancestory" or ethnicity, go right ahead. You are only fooling yourself.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

 

race exists seperate of culture or ethnicity. It is largely based on physical appearance.

Race does exist in biology.

 

He clearly said the right does denounce it. But we shouldn't denounce science because it indicates there are superficial differences between races.

The point is people are obsessed with race.

incorrect. Its only left wing people that obsess about "white privilidge" and insist it exists. Its only left wing people rioting about the race of a person who attacked a police officer that was shot. It isn't disgust. Its delight.

No it's opposite of that. You should be disgusted by it in all forms. Not Just when it effects the favorite pet minority.

 

Racist is just a blanket term for 'I dont like you because of a feature' like skin tone or nose shape or w/e. Its all but dead in the US. What we have is culturism. Americans like to see other ethnicities assimilate. The left vs the right, urban vs rural, individualist vs collectivist... its all just people not liking that others have a different way they prefer to live. In other places, people might kill eachother because of the taper in their forehead, like in Africa, but in the US racism is for all intents and purposes, quite dead, having been replaced by culturism and a healthy dose of stereotyping certain ethnicities into certain cultures. You'd be hard pressed to find a 'racist' redneck that would turn down friendship with a minority who likes trucks, tractors, country music, red meat, flanel and shooting guns. The (somewhat bigotted) phrase '...but you're one of the good ones' in reference to making an exception to accept a minority is proof that the animosity is based on culture and stereotype, not ethnicity.

 

Umm no. Just please stop. Stop it now. No one else believes your whining and it just needs to cease. Stop playing the race card where it does not exist. If you want to be more intelligent about it just call it bigotry.
Because that is all it is. An aversion to other cultures and religions..........in most cases for good reasons when it is something like radical jihadism. We are all bigots in some manner of speaking. I for one detest meth heads and rap artists. (no matter the race). It's my right to shun those jackals and nothing you can say will make me feel otherwise. You seem really butthurt and persecuted about Jews which to me personally I don't get. I don't dislike Jews in the least, but I have noticed they act extremely sensitive even though they assume some of the most powerful positions in the country. You would think they would get over their insecurities. Jews even created a show about this self misery. It was called Seinfeld, a little self deprecating humor at their own expense. It seems that you perhaps might have the George Costanza syndrome of self loathing and guilt?

 

Besides the use of buzzword sentences like "there's only one race, the human race" which are deliberately misleading (confuses race and species), there's an important point to make.

Believing that human races exist does not imply believing that certain races are superior to others.

The first assertion is reliably backed by science. The second one is not.

House cats constitute a species, which excludes wildcats, tigers etc. You surely accept that cat races exist, right? So tell me : which race of house cats is the superior race destined to rule all others?

 

Toxic female lion predation is a construct of systemic carnivora. If only they had a feline version of humanities courses lion societies might have learned by now that they don't need to be so violent.

 

Race is polygenic in all species. There's not a race gene. There are different combinations of genes.

For example, populations in the Andes have evolved genes that produce greater lung capacity than populations in lower elevations.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8907759

 

Liberals circa 2000: How dare you teach creationism in school? It's wrong. Evolution is scientifically correct.

Liberals circa 2017: Sex, race, & inequality are all created by a societal system that wrongly imposes identity labels based on biological traits.

 

Coon is obviously not wrong. There is no way that 5 sub-species of Homo Erectus evolved into the same species independently.

I don't think you have understood my point, I'ts unnecessary to get into a detailed discussion on genetics. From what I have seen both on what I read and what you have brought, especially from the last reference I sent, it's clear that biologists use the term "race" as an arbitrary categorization. There is also a strong trend to abandon that word because of its implications. I predict that Biologists and Anthropologists will cease using it within the next 10 years. But that's not important. The important thing is that everywhere you see the word, and this applies both to your quotes and to mine, the word is used as an arbitrary categorization. Not a real thing.

And that's the only point I'm trying to make.

It is arbitrary, and even your definition claims it's arbitrary. "...It is an arbitrary matter which [genes]..." As a matter of fact, finding new "differences"

That is very easy to solve. I don't. Here you show again that you haven't understood my point. "Race" has nothing to do with "ancestory" or "ethnicity". It has nothing to do with any objective concept. There is no objective parameter to define "race" in human beings as there is to define "ancestry" and "ethnicity". There is no objective concept of "race". But there is an objective concept of "racism": those who treat arbitrary human traits as if they referred to a "race" in order to claim that their individual traits are "superior"

 

I reject that it exists even in physical appearance.

I hold that it's 3 things:
1- It's an arbitrary categorization used in some sciences as sort of a "place-holder". But is not even consistent between researchers.
2- An cultural group with which some people self-identify.
3- Any arbitrary group in which racists categorize people in order to declare them "inferior"

 

Don't fear learning. It may be painful for you. But one day you'll see that staying in ignorance is worse.

No. Bigotry has it's own specific meaning. Which attempts to hide the worst characteristic of racism: the fact that it's immoral. Objectively immoral. Bad as bigotry is, it is not fundamentally immoral as racism is.

 

What evidence would change your mind?

 

Under "golem's theory" how does biology evolve?

Do you think two prehistoric sharks mate, and then suddenly a health breeding stock of chicken?

 

lolololololol!!!!!

 

I am not expert enough to say whether it is obvious or not. Coon did claim that five subspecies did evolve independently. So you disagree with Coon.

All categorizations are arbitrary in your sense. The question is whether or not the categorization is useful. And it has been highly useful in medicine. Astronomers categorize stars into white dwarfs, red giants, etc. It is an arbitrary categorization, but they find it useful.

Race has everything to do with ancestry. Humans evolved and they evolved into different races. And race is certainly objective. Independent observers will agree with what race an individual is, in most cases. (And that is all objective means.)

And there are many objective methods to determine race. Forensic anthropologists do it all the time.

Racists claim that different races evolved differently and have different traits. That this happened I should hope is indisputable. They make a value judgement as to which traits are preferable and can declare certain races as superior.