Does biological race exist or is it a social construct?

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Iron Woode
there is only one race, the human race.

That's the Ideal view that I wish everyone would adopt, but in the end there might actually be multiple Races on a Genetic level.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: Keyvan

Originally posted by: BullsOnParade

The whole idea of racism is very normative,

What exactly did you mean by that ? The genetic basis for race is a pretty well established scientifically and as another poster pointed out, it is at the very least the basis for a great deal of medical research given the obvious descrepancies in risk for particular cancers, heart diseases and other chronic diseases.

What I meant to say when I said that racism is normative is that your view on the subject will have a basis on your norms and values.
Again, whether a certain "race" is more prone to a certain disease or not does not mean that people should be categorically singled out by race.
If the average life expectancy of someone in Angola is nearly half of someone from Canada, does that mean that the people of Angola have defective genes or that their race is simply no good? Or is it more likely that their environment is the cause of this?

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Keyvan

Originally posted by: BriGy86
i believe there are different biological races

people are physically different

the problem is that when issues like this pop up people assume that some one is being racist, so everyone tries to drill into each others head that we are all exactly the same

nobody is denying that people are physically different, but the problem is when people translate these physical traits into "races", and then extend to make generalizations about people of certain origins. The whole idea of racism is very normative, and what I am saying is that it is simply pointless to classify people by their physical attributes under the guise of "race". our differences with one another isn't in an innate biological difference, but it is in our culture.

*sigh*

this is a prime example of PC taken to the extreme.

there are three different races each with their own distictive traits governed by DNA.

what you are proposing is that all tulips are the same and we cannot classify them any futher.

If you truly believe our difference is not an innate biological difference then you have much to learn.

What I am saying is that it is more useful, since we are being very pragmatic in this discussion, to study cultures in order to understand those different from us.

Like I've said, I am not denying that there are physical differences between different peoples. However, I insist that these differences are superficial.

To quote the article linked from The Stanford Daily: "that variations in skin color may arise from a single gene among the billions that determine human appearance".
You can interpret this however you wish, but to me, that one gene that determines your skin colour is just that, your skin colour.

It is getting a little more complicated these days now that there is less isolation. However that one gene that determines skin color is usually accompanied by others like bone structure/ density, genetic disease, etc..

Also what you toss up to just skin colour is actually functional

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Iron Woode
there is only one race, the human race.

That's the Ideal view that I wish everyone would adopt, but in the end there might actually be multiple Races on a Genetic level.

I agree.............

 

[swimscubasteve]

Originally posted by: Keyvan

Originally posted by: BullsOnParade

The whole idea of racism is very normative,

What exactly did you mean by that ? The genetic basis for race is a pretty well established scientifically and as another poster pointed out, it is at the very least the basis for a great deal of medical research given the obvious descrepancies in risk for particular cancers, heart diseases and other chronic diseases.

What I meant to say when I said that racism is normative is that your view on the subject will have a basis on your norms and values.
Again, whether a certain "race" is more prone to a certain disease or not does not mean that people should be categorically singled out by race.
If the average life expectancy of someone in Angola is nearly half of someone from Canada, does that mean that the people of Angola have defective genes or that their race is simply no good? Or is it more likely that their environment is the cause of this?

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Keyvan

Originally posted by: BriGy86
i believe there are different biological races

people are physically different

the problem is that when issues like this pop up people assume that some one is being racist, so everyone tries to drill into each others head that we are all exactly the same

nobody is denying that people are physically different, but the problem is when people translate these physical traits into "races", and then extend to make generalizations about people of certain origins. The whole idea of racism is very normative, and what I am saying is that it is simply pointless to classify people by their physical attributes under the guise of "race". our differences with one another isn't in an innate biological difference, but it is in our culture.

*sigh*

this is a prime example of PC taken to the extreme.

there are three different races each with their own distictive traits governed by DNA.

what you are proposing is that all tulips are the same and we cannot classify them any futher.

If you truly believe our difference is not an innate biological difference then you have much to learn.

What I am saying is that it is more useful, since we are being very pragmatic in this discussion, to study cultures in order to understand those different from us.

Like I've said, I am not denying that there are physical differences between different peoples. However, I insist that these differences are superficial.

To quote the article linked from The Stanford Daily: "that variations in skin color may arise from a single gene among the billions that determine human appearance".
You can interpret this however you wish, but to me, that one gene that determines your skin colour is just that, your skin colour.

Example of how said normative values affect our perception of "race": What do we call someone that is half black and half white?

Race is simply a social construction (an understandable one). Yes it may be true that disease susceptibility may be higher in certain social/geographic groups but in those same groups you cannot find another trait with a statistically significant occurrence (e.g. height, skin color, metabolic rate, brain weight, etc...).

 

[Compton]

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

What do we call someone that is half black and half white?

Interracial.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: Compton

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

What do we call someone that is half black and half white?

Interracial.

Exactly

 

[RCN]

[Yes it may be true that disease susceptibility may be higher in certain social/geographic groups but in those same groups you cannot find another trait with a statistically significant occurrence (e.g. height, skin color, metabolic rate, brain weight, etc...).

So what you are saying is that I couldn't find a group with a high occurence of a specific disease that existed in many geographic areas that did not have a high rate of occurence of other traits like skin color, bone density, hip geometry, bone structure, etc?

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve
The scientific consensus is that race is a social construct.

Right, because your genes have NOTHING to do with the color of your skin :roll:

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve
The scientific consensus is that race is a social construct.

Right, because your genes have NOTHING to do with the color of your skin :roll:

Its just color......................

 

[swimscubasteve]

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: Compton

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

What do we call someone that is half black and half white?

Interracial.

Exactly

Black

 

[swimscubasteve]

Originally posted by: RCN

[Yes it may be true that disease susceptibility may be higher in certain social/geographic groups but in those same groups you cannot find another trait with a statistically significant occurrence (e.g. height, skin color, metabolic rate, brain weight, etc...).

So what you are saying is that I couldn't find a group with a high occurence of a specific disease that existed in many geographic areas that did not have a high rate of occurence of other traits like skin color, bone density, hip geometry, bone structure, etc?

Yes, I am saying exactly that.

 

[SampSon]

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

[Yes it may be true that disease susceptibility may be higher in certain social/geographic groups but in those same groups you cannot find another trait with a statistically significant occurrence (e.g. height, skin color, metabolic rate, brain weight, etc...).

So what you are saying is that I couldn't find a group with a high occurence of a specific disease that existed in many geographic areas that did not have a high rate of occurence of other traits like skin color, bone density, hip geometry, bone structure, etc?

Yes, I am saying exactly that.

What about sickle cell?

 

[swimscubasteve]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

[Yes it may be true that disease susceptibility may be higher in certain social/geographic groups but in those same groups you cannot find another trait with a statistically significant occurrence (e.g. height, skin color, metabolic rate, brain weight, etc...).

So what you are saying is that I couldn't find a group with a high occurence of a specific disease that existed in many geographic areas that did not have a high rate of occurence of other traits like skin color, bone density, hip geometry, bone structure, etc?

Yes, I am saying exactly that.

What about sickle cell?

Sickle cell is present in a number of ethnic groups.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

[Yes it may be true that disease susceptibility may be higher in certain social/geographic groups but in those same groups you cannot find another trait with a statistically significant occurrence (e.g. height, skin color, metabolic rate, brain weight, etc...).

So what you are saying is that I couldn't find a group with a high occurence of a specific disease that existed in many geographic areas that did not have a high rate of occurence of other traits like skin color, bone density, hip geometry, bone structure, etc?

Yes, I am saying exactly that.

People of African ancestry have a high occurence of sickle cell, a high occurence of dark skin, a high occurrence of greater bone density in the females when compared to other "races" along with a different hip geometry, and a high occurrence of unique bone structure relative to other "races".

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

[Yes it may be true that disease susceptibility may be higher in certain social/geographic groups but in those same groups you cannot find another trait with a statistically significant occurrence (e.g. height, skin color, metabolic rate, brain weight, etc...).

So what you are saying is that I couldn't find a group with a high occurence of a specific disease that existed in many geographic areas that did not have a high rate of occurence of other traits like skin color, bone density, hip geometry, bone structure, etc?

Yes, I am saying exactly that.

What about sickle cell?

Sickle cell is present in a number of ethnic groups.

Not really. It is mostly confined to African ancestry and some mediterranean peoples. I think we can figure out why the latter would occur. Nobody is saying that races cannot pass genes / traits to other races.

 

[swimscubasteve]

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

[Yes it may be true that disease susceptibility may be higher in certain social/geographic groups but in those same groups you cannot find another trait with a statistically significant occurrence (e.g. height, skin color, metabolic rate, brain weight, etc...).

So what you are saying is that I couldn't find a group with a high occurence of a specific disease that existed in many geographic areas that did not have a high rate of occurence of other traits like skin color, bone density, hip geometry, bone structure, etc?

Yes, I am saying exactly that.

People of African ancestry have a high occurence of sickle cell, a high occurence of dark skin, a high occurrence of greater bone density in the females when compared to other "races" along with a different hip geometry, and a high occurrence of unique bone structure relative to other "races".

All of those traits are not unique to people of african ancestry (everyone on earth). People in India also have dark skin, etc...

 

[swimscubasteve]

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

[Yes it may be true that disease susceptibility may be higher in certain social/geographic groups but in those same groups you cannot find another trait with a statistically significant occurrence (e.g. height, skin color, metabolic rate, brain weight, etc...).

So what you are saying is that I couldn't find a group with a high occurence of a specific disease that existed in many geographic areas that did not have a high rate of occurence of other traits like skin color, bone density, hip geometry, bone structure, etc?

Yes, I am saying exactly that.

What about sickle cell?

Sickle cell is present in a number of ethnic groups.

Not really. It is mostly confined to African ancestry and some mediterranean peoples. I think we can figure out why the latter would occur. Nobody is saying that races cannot pass genes / traits to other races.

Africans did not pass the sickle cell gene to other races. The gene evolved separately in both races due to obvious reasons.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

[Yes it may be true that disease susceptibility may be higher in certain social/geographic groups but in those same groups you cannot find another trait with a statistically significant occurrence (e.g. height, skin color, metabolic rate, brain weight, etc...).

So what you are saying is that I couldn't find a group with a high occurence of a specific disease that existed in many geographic areas that did not have a high rate of occurence of other traits like skin color, bone density, hip geometry, bone structure, etc?

Yes, I am saying exactly that.

People of African ancestry have a high occurence of sickle cell, a high occurence of dark skin, a high occurrence of greater bone density in the females when compared to other "races" along with a different hip geometry, and a high occurrence of unique bone structure relative to other "races".

All of those traits are not unique to people of african ancestry (everyone on earth). People in India also have dark skin, etc...

I'm curious. Can you tell me why I am white?

 

[SampSon]

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

[Yes it may be true that disease susceptibility may be higher in certain social/geographic groups but in those same groups you cannot find another trait with a statistically significant occurrence (e.g. height, skin color, metabolic rate, brain weight, etc...).

So what you are saying is that I couldn't find a group with a high occurence of a specific disease that existed in many geographic areas that did not have a high rate of occurence of other traits like skin color, bone density, hip geometry, bone structure, etc?

Yes, I am saying exactly that.

People of African ancestry have a high occurence of sickle cell, a high occurence of dark skin, a high occurrence of greater bone density in the females when compared to other "races" along with a different hip geometry, and a high occurrence of unique bone structure relative to other "races".

All of those traits are not unique to people of african ancestry (everyone on earth). People in India also have dark skin, etc...

But the vast majority of people who carry sickle cell are of african ancestry, this is basically fact.

What about the studies that show asians lack a gene that helps in breaking down alcohol?
That is confined basically to the asian race.

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve
The scientific consensus is that race is a social construct.

Right, because your genes have NOTHING to do with the color of your skin :roll:

Its just color......................

They've isolated at least 7 different genes that are responsible for skin color.

 

[Proletariat]

According to Wikipedia.

Caucasian - Europe, Some parts of the Middle East, Northern and western India.

Mongoloid - China, Japan, Native Americans etc.

Negroid - Africa, Australia

 

[swimscubasteve]

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

[Yes it may be true that disease susceptibility may be higher in certain social/geographic groups but in those same groups you cannot find another trait with a statistically significant occurrence (e.g. height, skin color, metabolic rate, brain weight, etc...).

So what you are saying is that I couldn't find a group with a high occurence of a specific disease that existed in many geographic areas that did not have a high rate of occurence of other traits like skin color, bone density, hip geometry, bone structure, etc?

Yes, I am saying exactly that.

People of African ancestry have a high occurence of sickle cell, a high occurence of dark skin, a high occurrence of greater bone density in the females when compared to other "races" along with a different hip geometry, and a high occurrence of unique bone structure relative to other "races".

All of those traits are not unique to people of african ancestry (everyone on earth). People in India also have dark skin, etc...

I'm curious. Can you tell me why I am white?

Ummm...yes. Your ancestor's skin lightened to allow for better UV absorbtion.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: swimscubasteve

Originally posted by: RCN

[Yes it may be true that disease susceptibility may be higher in certain social/geographic groups but in those same groups you cannot find another trait with a statistically significant occurrence (e.g. height, skin color, metabolic rate, brain weight, etc...).

So what you are saying is that I couldn't find a group with a high occurence of a specific disease that existed in many geographic areas that did not have a high rate of occurence of other traits like skin color, bone density, hip geometry, bone structure, etc?

Yes, I am saying exactly that.

What about sickle cell?

Sickle cell is present in a number of ethnic groups.

Not really. It is mostly confined to African ancestry and some mediterranean peoples. I think we can figure out why the latter would occur. Nobody is saying that races cannot pass genes / traits to other races.

Africans did not pass the sickle cell gene to other races. The gene evolved separately in both races due to obvious reasons.

Cool....now tell me why it would develop in certain regions

 

[hjo3]

How can anyone say race doesn't exist biologically? It's not some intangible concept... large groups of people look alike in certain ways and the differences between groups can be quantitatively measured. Black people have more melanin than white people -- this much is obvious. The only socially arbitrary thing about it is where the lines are drawn. How do you classify someone of mixed race, etc.

Would you say the difference in dog breeds is nothing more than a social construct? Would you say a chihuahua is the same as a golden retriever? For some misguided people, saying race is a figment of the imagination might feel like a way of promoting tolerance, but it's really just delusion.

 

[SampSon]

This is also a good article on this topic.
Actually it has everythign to do with the topic of this thread.