There is STILL no such thing as "race"! But there IS such thing as racism.

This source was even quicker, to debunk. First off, it says right from the top, that their statement does NOT reflect a consensus opinion, among even American anthropologists, though they believe it represents a majority opinion. It then makes its argument which, like the biological argument, and the argument of the OP, begins with the assumption, that anyone using the concept of "race," is doing so, to indicate differences of major importance, between peoples, with the clear implication, from the tone, that they have prejudged that those noting differences, are doing so for the purpose of disparaging races other than one's own. The OP makes the same argument. I contend that this is a flaw in the argument. If the main objection to the term "race," is its association with dramatic differences, then you and the anthropologists, if you all had any sense, would be suggesting the use of a different word, to apply to the same four groups-- so not the word "ethnicity," which already has a meaning, which is far narrower than that of "race"-- but some other word, that does not imply that the differences, while they might be readily noticable, are especially consequential, for anything other than, perhaps, being a great help when it comes to identification of particular individuals, by sight.


This anthropological group, also begins with a genetics argument, saying that 94% of the variation in human beings, is seen within "race" groups. So there is only 6% of human DNA variation, which differentiates the different "races." The fact, by the way, that they could assess how much genetic difference there is, between races, proves-- FYI-- that races do exist, that is, that they are distinguishable!

Again, this is completely consistent with the way that I, personally, think of race-- and I can't be the only one! So the subtext of these statements, saying that race is a false notion, is really that racism, is a bad thing, and that at the root of racism, is the belief in different "races." This is overly presumptuous: it only applies, to those who consider the differences between races to be meaningful, which I do not; but that does not mean that those differences don't exist, or are not noticable. So, while the intent may be a good one, telling people that something they can see, with their own eyes, does not actually exist, I believe is obviously a misguided way to go about achieving their goal of "educating," people.

<Snip>
The following statement was adopted by the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association on May 17, 1998, acting on a draft prepared by a committee of representative American anthropologists. It does not reflect a consensus of all members of the AAA, as individuals vary in their approaches to the study of "race." We believe that it represents generally the contemporary thinking and scholarly positions of a majority of anthropologists.
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.
<End Snip>

No foolin'; anyone who doesn't realize that all humans are the same species, is a moron. But this statement only supports the idea that "conventional geographical 'racial' groupings" are real, and are visibly discernible. The objection is only to the word "race"-- I think it is safe to say because of its history of being used to claim superiority of, specifically, the White race, or some particular ethnicity, within that race, over the other races. So, fine, give me a different word, that applies to those superficial differences in appearance, between the four major groups, for which they exist, accounting for only 6% of human DNA variation. But I am not going to say a mouthful, like "adaptive trait differentiation groups."

 

That's right. That's NOT the basis. It's just one example. By a biologist. There are many many studies that conclude that there is no such thing as race. A biologist, BTW, who has no formal expertise in Anthropology. Therefore, as any honest researcher would do, declares themselves unfit to determine if it exists in a cultural sense or not. You clearly didn't understand the text you highlighted.

The fact that it doesn't exist in a cultural sense is a topic to be settled by Anthropologists. And it HAS. It doesn't exist in that sense EITHER. And the link to the American Anthropological Association is one example.

Oh God! A biologist has NO business making a case against using the word "race". NO scientist would. Science is about FACTS. Not about what we should or shouldn't do. And the FACT that is demonstrated in that paper is that what we have been referring to as "race" does not correspond to anything in biology.

You actually expected to see a political activist manifesto in a scientific paper?

 

THAT is how you expect to debunk the statement? God!

First of all, that statement was written 25 years ago. A much stronger agreement exists today. Here is another statement by the American Association of Biological Anthropologists.
https://bioanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statement-race-and-racism-2019/

But what you're doing is NOT the way a rational person debunks anything. If you think there are anthropologists or groups who defend the existence of "races", QUOTE them. Let's hear their arguments.

Most Anthropologists are not biologists. So it's, of course, possible that anthropologists exist who don't know that races don't exist. But what you should do is provide a reference of a reputable source, a group of anthropologists. Or a relevant anthropologist citing actual studies.

THAT's how you debunk the statement. Because it's no rational to expect evidence that something DOESN'T exist. It's very easy to show that it DOES exist. By showing it! So... show it!

You claimed this thread was "a joke". Well, I have shown that I have scientists, anthropologists, researcheres, scientific associations, studies, references... that support where I stand. You have a ton of MAGAs and White Supremacists who agree with you. I know you're neither of those. I'm just saying those are the ones who, according to you, are "laughing". I like where I stand much better than where you stand. So you need to start making your case.

 

Scientific studies of popular misconceptions about race and obligatory woke statements by anthropological associations do not support your claim that race does not exist.

<yawn> Speaking of ridiculous comment, I read the OP, and it doesn't support your claim.

 

All you need to convince yourself, perhaps...

Read the thread and stop makin' $#!+ up.

 

That's right. And the scientific studies DEMONSTRATED they were popular misconceptions.

Fact is I have science, scientific associations, research, references, ... on my side. You have "Tucker Carlson tells me so". Uhmmm have fun with that!

 

There is STILL no such thing as "race"! But there IS such thing as racism.

Tyre Nichols beating: Race Theory vs CRITICAL Race Theory

It is probably only me, but I believe your choice of titles is hilarious.

You don't have "Race", but you have "Racism".

You don't have "Race", but you have "Race Theory".

Apparently no one else cares much, but I fill out numerous forms from numerous organizations, but they ask for my "race". This ranks real high in my "Don't give a crap list".

 

I think what he means is "There is no such thing as RACE unless its followed by other words that suit my political agenda"

There, fixed!

 

That's all fine and well, but how do scientists explain why blacks are great at basketball but suck at math?

 

Black ppl are better at everything. Imhotep was the greatest mathematician of all.

 

But not that there is no such thing as race.

But not the facts.

 

Of course! That there is such thing as race WAS the main popular misconception that scientific studies debunked. Two of those studies are referenced in the OP.

 

False.

Where do they say there is no such thing as race? Quote them.

 

A quote? What the hell are you talking about? Are you not capable of reading the conclusions of a scientific study and understanding the implications? If you're not, I already gave them to you. Can't do any better than that. If you can, and don't agree with the implications I explained, then discuss that.

Abstracts are usually written so even people who are only familiar with the basic concepts can understand the conclusion and apply it to any related area of interest.

 

Yes. A quote. You know: the thing that shows you aren't just makin' $#!+ up again.

The problem of you not being able to support your claims about what the scientific studies you referenced said.

I am indeed. Which is why I don't think those studies say what you claim they say.

And I noticed that they did not say what you claimed they said.

That's right. You can't. And that is very precisely the problem.

There's nothing to discuss. You have provided no support for your claim, and won't be doing so.

Which is why the abstracts also do not say what you claim they say.

 

So you answer is that you're not capable of inferring! Because you need a "quote."

This study analyses the many possible ways in which "race" has be defined in biology and related disciplines (like medicine). They conclude in EACH case that the definition does not correspond to reality.

If you need "a quote", you either have not made even the most basic effort to understand it, or that it's just not possible to convey science to you. In either case, you're on your own.

 

No, my answer is that I infer you are makin' $#!+ up because you cannot provide a quote.

So it finds deficiencies in some naive and obsolete definitions of race, but does not support your claim that there is no such thing as race.

Your claimed reference does not support your claim. Simple.

 

Instead of all this garbage, just provide ONE definition that is NOT "naïve and obsolete".

The fact that you haven't done this already, and that I even had to ASK, indicates that there is no such definition. Unless you plan to define "racism" as a four legged animal that give milk and goes "moooo".

 

What are the implications? Blacks still can't do math just because you've defined away race.

 

They can do math just as good as everyone else. Most CUL-DE-SAC Blacks have grades no different from whites in those types of neighborhoods. The problem is the EQUITY movement and the new battle against MERITOCRACY (the ONLY true system that works). Once you start teaching black kids that "MATH IS RACIST" they are not gonna make as much of an effort to learn
Silly liberals and their IDOTIC "education" ideas

 

Actually that is not true.

Comparing the SAT scores of Whites making less than $10,00 against the scores of blacks making more than $10,000 the Whites beat the blacks by 17 points.

jbhe.com/festures/53_SAT.html

 

The thread you are talking about is this one. So I am responding here.

The study is not about snips. It takes every scientific definition of "race" that has been used both in science and in informal conversations, and explains why each does not correspond to reality. It leaves out the anthropological definitions (because it's outside the realm of the analysis). So I included the anthropological analysis that also dispels that idea.

Simple as that.

My interpretation: there is no such thing as "race". If you are looking for a quote like "it has been scientifically proven that races don't exist" in a scientific analysis, you are not going to find it. Furthermore, demanding evidence of an existential negative indicates a gap in understanding how science... and, for that matter, rational thinking, works. The ONLY thing science can do is provide an analysis like the one I describe above.

On the other hand, if races DO exist it should be EASY to quote MANY studies that demonstrates it and provide many direct and distinct quotes from the conclusion.

No! It equates it to sub-species, to linages, to clines, to ancestry, to evolutionary trees, to the concept of "race" in other species (they use chimpanzees as an example), ...

But this is only ONE study. There are many. Some dispel one or two interpretations of "race". Some dispel the idea that there is such thing as "race" at a genetic level, others at a morphological level, others at the level of evolutionary trees, .... etc.

This one addresses the most. But if you misinterpreted this study by reading only ONE interpretation (sub-species) ... clearly you will use the fact that those do only address one aspect to misrepresent them.

But this isn't a matter of reading studies. The ONLY evidence any rational layperson needs is the consensus of the Academies of Sciences. I already quoted several. But this forum is full of MAGAs who are to create conspiracy theories. That's why the links I included are to studies.

The only way to use it correctly is to indicate that it refers to something (whatever that "something" is) that doesn't exist. And the "most correct" of all is to simply say "there is no such thing as 'race'"