Does biological race exist or is it a social construct?

[mercanucaribe]

I'm not going to post my view yet because I don't want to bias the thread. Please discuss.

 

[Keyvan]

according to my Sociology professor (intro course), there is no biological basis for the concept of "race". the variations that we observe make up a tiny superficial portion of who we are. Although we call ourselves black or white, we are neither black or white.
The idea of racism was made up by those who stood to gain from it.

 

[bradruth]

Caucosoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: bradruth
Caucosoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid.

</thread>

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: bradruth
Caucosoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid.

Glad someone said it early on.
Thats pretty much it right there.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: bradruth
Caucosoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid.

/done

/end thread

 

[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

 

[Syringer]

There are different races and different genetic associations within each race.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is blind.

 

[CollectiveUnconscious]

It depends on which definition of race you are using.

 

[ManSnake]

Originally posted by: bradruth
Caucosoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid.

Wrong! There are more than 3. White, Black, Brown, Yellow, Red. 5 total.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: bradruth
Caucosoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid.

/done

/end thread

That doesn't really conclude the OPs question. Those classes(or whatever they are) were established a longtime before DNA was even imagined to exist. So in fact, they themselves drew conclusions based on the same superficial "evidence" Keyvan brought up.

 

[swimscubasteve]

The scientific consensus is that race is a social construct.

 

[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.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: Keyvan
according to my Sociology professor (intro course), there is no biological basis for the concept of "race". the variations that we observe make up a tiny superficial portion of who we are. Although we call ourselves black or white, we are neither black or white.
The idea of racism was made up by those who stood to gain from it.

Does your biology professor have eyeballs?

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: bradruth
Caucosoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid.

/done

/end thread

That doesn't really conclude the OPs question. Those classes(or whatever they are) were established a longtime before DNA was even imagined to exist. So in fact, they themselves drew conclusions based on the same superficial "evidence" Keyvan brought up.

Yes but they were also established not just on skin color. Sure now we have DNA but it does not take race out of the equation to know that we are all really similar or that two people of one race can vary more than two people of different races. Race exist. Medicines that work on specific races along with diseases that affect only certain races are proof IMO.

Are the difference significant in the grand scheme of things? Not really..........

 

[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.

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: ManSnake

Originally posted by: bradruth
Caucosoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid.

Wrong! There are more than 3. White, Black, Brown, Yellow, Red. 5 total.

You're thinking of M&Ms.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: bradruth
Caucosoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid.

/done

/end thread

That doesn't really conclude the OPs question. Those classes(or whatever they are) were established a longtime before DNA was even imagined to exist. So in fact, they themselves drew conclusions based on the same superficial "evidence" Keyvan brought up.

Yes but they were also established not just on skin color. Sure now we have DNA but it does not take race out of the equation to know that we are all really similar or that two people of one race can vary more than two people of different races. Race exist. Medicines that work on specific races along with diseases that affect only certain races are proof IMO.

Are the difference significant in the grand scheme of things? Not really..........

That still doesn't establish those old classifications as Fact IMO. Do the same variances in Drug Medicine effectieness also exist amongst Cultural Groups? Has anyone even attempted to test Drugs in that way?

If you're same "race" neighbour has a Inheritable disease that your family doesn't, does that make your neighbour a different Race?

If your neighbour requires a different Drug than you to effectively treat the same condition you have, does that mean they are a different Race than you?

I'm not saying the Classifications posted are wrong, just pointing out that they are old and may no longer apply given a greater understanding of Human Anatomy/DNA/etc.

 

[sandorski]

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.

"Governed by DNA"? A linky confirming that would certainly help your position. I haven't heard of any such thing.

 

[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.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: bradruth
Caucosoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid.

/done

/end thread

That doesn't really conclude the OPs question. Those classes(or whatever they are) were established a longtime before DNA was even imagined to exist. So in fact, they themselves drew conclusions based on the same superficial "evidence" Keyvan brought up.

Yes but they were also established not just on skin color. Sure now we have DNA but it does not take race out of the equation to know that we are all really similar or that two people of one race can vary more than two people of different races. Race exist. Medicines that work on specific races along with diseases that affect only certain races are proof IMO.

Are the difference significant in the grand scheme of things? Not really..........

That still doesn't establish those old classifications as Fact IMO. Do the same variances in Drug Medicine effectieness also exist amongst Cultural Groups? Has anyone even attempted to test Drugs in that way?

If you're same "race" neighbour has a Inheritable disease that your family doesn't, does that make your neighbour a different Race?

If your neighbour requires a different Drug than you to effectively treat the same condition you have, does that mean they are a different Race than you?

I'm not saying the Classifications posted are wrong, just pointing out that they are old and may no longer apply given a greater understanding of Human Anatomy/DNA/etc.

I think your examples are a bit flawed but anyway.....

I think you are right to a point. If anything there should be more classifications which are based more on the geographic origin because there are further differences. The one thing I wouldn't want to do is completely deny race because of the potential for racism.......

More on one of the drugs I was speaking of:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51424-2004Nov15.html

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: sandorski

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.

"Governed by DNA"? A linky confirming that would certainly help your position. I haven't heard of any such thing.

http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=19464&repository=0001_article
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fc...v.View..ShowSection&rid=gnd.section.98

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: sandorski

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.

"Governed by DNA"? A linky confirming that would certainly help your position. I haven't heard of any such thing.

http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=19464&repository=0001_article
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fc...v.View..ShowSection&rid=gnd.section.98

First link says "may have" isolated skin colour gene, not proof, but certainly the possibility.

Here's a list of diseases that have much higher incidence in various people.. One disease is more common in a Race(Sickle Cell in Blacks) all the others are more regional and not associated with Race. I would be surprised if Sickle Cell is also Regional and not common to all Black populations.

 

[Iron Woode]

there is only one race, the human race.

 

[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.