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

Well this thread turned out to be an epic failure. It deserves a hallowed place in the PF archives.

But just remember.... Believe the science....
Except for when it comes to things like male and female and such basic obvious realities of race.

Those biologist and anthropologist, well you see they really don't know anything...

 

Well... I'm not talking about people's beliefs. This thread is about tangible: genetics, anthropology, biology.... And in the tangible world, there is no such thing as race; regardless of whatever "people's beliefs" you think might be.

Your posts are always way longer than necessary. Like in this one where you end up going waaaay off-topic. There are two signals I use to know when to stop reading: one is when you start talking about me, instead of about what I write. The other is when the poster starts going down the rabbit hole.

 

Racism can mean one of two things depending on the point of view: from a white supremacist or fascist point of view (or that of the corresponding nationalistic movement in different areas of the world), it's the perceived, but not real, categorization of human beings that are not part of the dominant group (in the US, that would be American white Christian males). From the point of view of Critical Race Theory this is, as you say, "prejudice". Not racism. Because, according to CRT, racism happens at an institutional level only.

What these two describe have in common is that the people involved in either type of racism require the existence of an objective concept of "race"

I considered the option to explain all this on the OP. But it would have made it too long.

So, you are correct, racism as it relates to the first definition, would be more adequately called "prejudice", if we were to follow CRT guidelines. But the main purpose of this thread is to focus on the false concept "race". The purpose of the reference to "racism" is simply to try (not always successfully) to eliminate the strawman "if 'race' then 'racism' can't exist".

 

Since you live IN the rabbit hole, I can see where that concerns you.

The words we use are functionally defined by the intent and the manner in which we use them, what we mean by them. Not some jerk in the university basement classroom who thinks he's the official hall monitor of language. That's probably why you are so often confused by them. "Ain't" is not a formally defined or proper words either, but I'd bet you know what is meant when it's used. When we speak of race, you know what's meant there too. The rest of your position is an adversary dodge to label others ignorant.

 

That's just self-evidently false.

That's also clearly false. Rosenberg et al. 2002 found five geographically distinct human lineages and associated genetic clusters that roughly correspond to our idea of races.

No it isn't, because it uses two strawman criteria for race that apply to animal -- specifically chimpanzee -- subspecies but are not applicable to human races:
1. Sharp geographical boundaries, and
2. A 25% threshold of genetic differentiation.

These criteria are not applicable to human populations because:
1. People move around and mix with other populations much more readily than typical animal populations that divide themselves into subspecies, like chimpanzees, and
2. The genetic history of modern humans is far shorter than that of geographically divided species like chimpanzees, meaning there has been far less time for population gene frequencies to diverge.

Once these two strawman criteria are relaxed, allowing for blurred geographical boundaries between ancestral populations and a lower threshold of genetic differentiation, race -- differentiation of gene frequencies in geographically distinct ancestral populations -- is readily apparent in human genetic clustering.

Garbage.

So one can be aware of the fact that races exist without being racist.

GARBAGE. No one believes that nationality, religion or sex are part of one's race.

Which mistakes the historical effects of economic institutions for current racism.

That is clearly false. Race IS genetic differentiation by geographic ancestry.

The definition may be precise, but it is rather arbitrary, and does not match the concept of race in human populations.

 

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

I recall reading something similar

http://reverent.org/einstein_or_hitler.html

 

And white supremacists use them to discriminate against minorities.

Anyway.... you keep trying to change the subject to avoid addressing the topic of this thread. So ... I guess that's that...

 

5 pages without a single sale and you end up referring to a group by race in your own thread. Doesn't look like you are buying what you are selling.

 

You can do it with a higher accuracy than you can tell a masterpiece of abstract expressionism from ape work. And those masterpieces cost as much as an average person makes in his lifetime. Why you do not protest this unfair discrimination?

If it can then you should be able to give an example.

Can't you predict the frequencies of many genes from skin color with good p-values?

What is your definition of similarity?

 

Careful what you say. "Minorities" is a word that some have decided has a nasty implication implying less than equal, and is therefore racist. But you can defend that by saying since race doesn't exist, it couldn't be so...

 

What nonsense! Being "less then equal" is an injustice. Not racism. It's only racism if your intention is to oppose doing something to solve the injustice.

 

If you were in favor of resolving injustice, half the posts you have put up here wouldn't have been. Justice to you is agreeing with your view. Period. Everything else is, to you- nonsense.
One of the things that I feel is perhaps the greatest barrier to progress in today's society is people who think like you. Considering you have the capacity for so much more, it's disappointing to find you the most closed mind, narrowest perception here, in my opinion. You know the language- but I think,has my inspiring Mr Kettering says- do not understand what you know.

 

So?

 

So?

 

I have thought of it and it seems you do not understand basic Mendelian genetics. For if a very white and a very black person could be different by merely two genes then from time to time either two white people would have a black child or two black people would have a white child. Depending on which gene is dominant. Just like it happens with eye color were two heterozygous brown eyed people can have a blue eyed child.

As nothing like this happens, skin color is determined by many genes.

 

Can you give any reference? Also I recall seeing a relatively recent paper saying that original Boas's results were statistically insignificant.

 

How dare you bring science and common sense into this!!!

 

Which is absurd

 

No such thing as race, but there is such as racism!
Yet, I thought I belonged to the human race, and some of the human race, are known to be prejudicial towards those of a different color or creed.

 

My first impression when reading the thread was that Golem is an AltRight prankster. For those are the people who do know the word and use it as a pejorative.

 

It makes NO difference what I'm in favor of. It's in the Constitution of the United States.

And, as I said before, I stop reading your posts the minute you try to make the topic about me. This is when I know you have NO arguments to debate the real topic, so you try to change the subject.

 

It is possible, theoretically. Though unlikely.

Over a hundred genes determine skin color. Way more than that to determine eye color. But we ALL carry all those genes. A difference in just two could differentiate between what we perceive as a white person and a black person. So it's nonsense to use the person's skin color to differentiate "race".

 

I suggest you stop reading my posts, even those in reply to yours- in that I'm pointing out facts to other members; certainly not expecting to shift your intransigent points of view- which indeed are about you. I often use analogies because they demonstrate a perception that is equivalent and help some people grasp the point. You see that as changing the subject, which means you missed the point in the first place, and the second. .
As an old friend from the country used to say- "Don't let your book-learnin' get in the way of your education...."

 

Reference to what? If you mean to other applications of CI, that would be off-topic. I'm just mentioning that, while CI has not been used by serious researchers to determine this thing they used to call "race" in the early 20th century, it is likely not completely useless.