On 'race'

I'm of the opinion that biologically, races don't exist. Not in humans anyway. Recently on Skype I was talking to a friend who told me 'races don't exist in the same way dog breeds don't exist'. The problem here is that dogs are geographically separated, humans are not. The only biological differences between humans are in fact purely superficial, that being skin color, hair texture and color, and eye color.

Taxonomically, there is no taxon ranking beneath that of sub species, and humans are most certainly all the same sub species, homo sapien sapien. We evolved around 200,000 years ago in Africa, and migrated to different parts of the planet from there; for more on Out of Africa Theory, see "Why evolution is true" by Jerry Coyne.

So if one is to argue for a biological basis for race, then I have to ask: How do you define race? It's important to be careful with your definition of race, because if you view all black people as the same 'race' then any biological allele you think is particular to africans probably isn't particular to the black people of the united states.

Now you might say that skin color is enough to differntiate between races, as it's a derived characteristic used to seperate between different taxon rankings. A derived characteristic is something universal to a particular taxon ranking not found in other taxa. Think, feathers in avian therapods, or a post-anal tale in chordates.

Alone, a phenotypical difference such as the superficial differences listed above aren't enough to create a taxon ranking, especially since they're not informal. Simply from one's skin color for instance, I can't tell what kind of thought processes they have or patterns in characteristics in their day to day lives. And none of what I do observe makes the different skin color unique in and of itself in reference to other skin colors.

I'm going to guess that the majority of Fakku is white. Would it surprise you to know that some alleles that some of you have will not be found within my genetics as another white person? Or that I might have some alleles that in fact you don't have? This is what's known as genetic drift and it tends to occur within population groups.

I do, however, accept that race exists as a sociopolitical construct. That is, that people see others that they see a superficial difference in, and then label them differently accordingly. That exists. What also exists is an environmental effect that has an affect as to what happens to you and how you react to different situations. But this isn't biological, it's environmental. These tell us nothing about the different 'races'. For instance, if someone is black, are they more, or less likely to rob you? I don't think that question can be answered. I do however think that if someone is born in a low economic area, they are more likely to rob you, regardless of race. If someone is asian, are they more or less likely to be intelligent? Again, I think this question cannot be answered biologically, only socially. Asians grow up in a culture that is strict and demands success, and as such they tend to be a bit more intelligent on average. But there isn't a biological basis for this.

Allow me to counter some examples some people might give before they begin arguing:

1. The lactase gene. The lactase gene lactase is an enzyme that allows for the break down of lactose sugar into glucose and galactose sugars so that they can be further catabolyzed for energy.

This is a common gene in all europeans. This gene is also shared by american, african, and asian populations. Funnily enough this allele is also not universally shared by all white people. We all have the gene, but not everyone produces lactase. So it wouldn't be accurate to say that white people are a different race in accordance to this gene(derived characteristics again). For more on this and the citation for it see the peer reviewed paper - Watson, James and Andrew Berry. "DNA: The Secret of Life." New York. Alfred A. Knopf: 2006. 256, 257. Print.

2. the CCR5 gene - The CCR5 gene. Everyone has this gene. It's a gene that controls the receptor sights and formation in your body's cells. Retroviruses use these receptor sites to inject their genetic material into the host cell.

For more on CCR5 see "Sabeti, Pardis et al. "The Case for Selection at CCR5-Delta-32." 01 Nov 2005: 1963. PloS Biology. Print."

3. CYP3A5 - Also known as cytochrome. This gene controls for metabolization of lipids, steroids, and things like testosterone. The thing about this gene is that it has more to do with genetic drift rather than a specific ancestral lineage. It fluctuates even within populations. For instance, members of populations 10 degrees from the equator tend to have a 74% on average genetic variance in adaptability to heat. But only 43 percent can be found in populations within 10 degrees of the arctic circle. It's not really all that specific. For more on this gene see Young, J. Hunter et al. "Differential Susceptibility to Hypertension is Due to Selection During the Out-of-Africa Expansion." 01 Dec 2005: 731. PloS Genetics. Print.

4. CASP12 - this gene protects against malaria if you have a single copy, and gives you sickle cell anemia if you have 2 copies. White populations and black populations have copies of this gene, but african populations tend to, though do not exclusively, carry the double copy of the gene. In fact, everyone who is of non african descent seeem to have the single copy recessive form of the gene. For more on the distribution of this gene see "Wang, Xioaxia et al. "Gene Losses During Human Evolution." 01 Mar 2006: 0371. PloS Biology. Print."

5. LTA4H - This gene when a double copy is received(think dominant vs. recessive) will increase the likelihood of heart attacks in the person who has it. Non africans tend not to have this gene, but black people found outside of Africa do. So if this is an indicator of race, then...I suppose africans and american blacks are...different races? They're both of recent african ancestry but the american africans have it more expressed than the africans...so....yeah. Also, white people have this gene as well, just not as many. The thing is, this also has a statistical problem, because many african americans have...european descent in their DNA. We didn't just bring the slaves over from africa to do work after all, there was a lot of fucking going on.

For more on this see "Drake, Katherine et al. "Race, Ethnicity and Social Class and the Complex Etiologies of Asthma." 01 Apr 2008: 3. Pharmacogenetics. Print."

Pretty much every example of a gene that's supposed to count as a derived characteristic to separate the 'races' has the same errors. Indicators of Out of Africa Theory, as well as genetic drift, but nothing unique to any one 'race'.

For the TL:DR version here it goes.

1. Race exists purely as a social concept, it's not biological.
2. If you argue against 1, define race.
3. What are the derived characteristics that separate the races into different taxa?

This pretty much, as far as I'm concerned, boils all 'racist' attitudes or racial stereotypes into nothing more but social constructs that have little real rational basis behind them.

Edit: I got 2 rep for this post, and minus 2 rep for this post...is anyone gonna tell me why?

WTF?

please expound on this portion. i don't understand what is meant by "dog breeds don't exist", or "geographically seperated".

It's pretty simple. I accept that dog breeds exist, but they're not equivalent to human races because they're geographically isolated, humans are not because we have these things called boats, and we fuck each other, regardless of skin color, and interbreed too much to be that genetically diverse like dogs are.

I would argue our interbreeding is what allows for genetic diversification in the first place and if the social racial theories of the 30's had won out, said stagnation and isolation would have taken place.

Just because Humans can visit other countries and make love with other Humans, doesn't mean geographic isolation doesn't exist. What you meant to say, is that it doesn't impact us as much as say the animal kingdom.

However, I have to contend that races in fact, exist. Whether they be religiously based(IE: The Middle east) or culturally based(Everyone else), each race has it's own set of rules, regulations and ideas for how they want to live their lives. Which is why you had the racial wars to begin with, the idea of putting two separate civilizations together, ignoring their civil personification is something of retarded idiocy.


Real Equality, will come from the recognition of the personification of all of the various Peoples of the world, and allowing for either unity or separation as those civilizations see fit. Basically, drop the 'one glove fits all' approach, it doesn't work in our world as much as it doesn't in the Animal World.

I salute you sir. your flawless logic has proven me an idiot.

obviously no dog has ever set foot on a boat(they get sea sick so easily). and of course the pressure change of air travel causes them to explode. who wants to have to clean that up?

i was foolish to assume dogs reproduced in a way similar to the mighty human(by fucking each other, regardless of skin color). there is of course the well know fact that dogs are extremely picky about who they mate with. mixed breed dogs are extremely rare flukes of nature and are usually killed on sight for the abominations they are. the only exception i know of, the labradoodle, was created in a lab(using gamma rays probably). hence the name: LAB-radoodle.

I'll also dispute this claim as a Great Dane while fundamentally the same as a pug still has plenty of differences. If a trained man takes a look skeleton he can tell you the gender AND race from its characteristics. On that same note we are all different but if we all grew up with the same conditions we would all act the same even if we would look different. The point is however different races do exist but we are not animals so this shouldn't mean anything besides for research.

Not gonna even touch this one, playin' with fire.

The classification system for animals has flaws and the debates to change it has been going on for some time. Its an old system and is not perfect for having or making differences clear or showing how closely related something is.

For the purposes of dog breeding, all dogs can breed with each other despite obvious differences but viability of the cross is only limited by the size of the animal that would be produced and the size of the mother. Geology has little bearing on dog breeds nowadays. We have dictated dog breeding for a very long time. Traits of many domesticated animals were due to breeding. Dogs are basically the same animal as Wolves, in fact the traits that make a wolf a wild animal can be lost in just a few Generations by simply encouraging the omega or non aggressive animals to breed. Basically the domestication of the wolf or dog could have taken just a few generations, not thousands of years. This has been proven though many experiments and the most alarming has been the recent domestication of the fox.

There is less variation in humans than in the canines. While there are differences with traits, and with genetics and even looks, these traits are minor and are more dictated by geography than the canines making for areas to have traits and other areas to have other traits. To say there is no difference is blind, to say there is enough differences to have subspecies is stupid because it tries to use a system of organization to further separate the races of man who have no reason to be apart. Science doesn't need to support our petty sociological difference by backing it up with classifying us as separate species or sub species.

I agree that skin color is a result of geography because, even though I suck as far as science is concerned, I'm still interested in it.

The most significant problem with what you're saying is that you're comparing humans with different skin colors to differences among canine species. I'm not saying that you're insensitive, but that is a bold line to draw, as far as comparisons are concerned.

Personally, I'm more about education than outrage. I'm fucking drunk and I can't give any reliable suggestions, but I came across Nina Jablonski's research while I was sober. It's important because it is legitimate science that undermines the foundation of racism.

Actually, about my comparison to dog breeds I was stating that because the OP stated a comparison and I was trying to say how different it actually is and how its kinda wrong while not trying to attach the obvious emotional response one might have being compared to a dog and was trying to look at it scientifically.

Please understand me, I in no way was meaning to insult by it.

[color=#2e1a6b]I don't really feel like arguing this again.

Some differences in race cannot be caused by social environments, such as physical capability or IQ. So at the very least, you can't say that there aren't biological differences in races

On a somewhat related note, I heard that there were race riots in most major US cities, but there's a media blackout. I can't find evidence for this, but has anyone else heard about anything like this?

I don't see much of a point either, I mean, nobody sound of mind would argue in favor of social distinction of race, the people who do are a minority, extremists.

I actually think that to use human miscegenation to destroy the notion of race is like shooting on a dead lion. Of course we all have genes from many different ethnics around the globe, as we also probably have the genes of many criminals and sick people in your genealogical tree, but that wouldn't be enough reason to imprison us, in the same way that our hidden ethnic genes wouldn't be enough to include someone in that ethnic group.

The way Biglundi argues makes it seem there is no biological differences between ethnic groups, and anyone who studied just a little about melanism knows this is a big lie. The social argument on “race” falls more or less in the same line of the social argument on gender: it recognizes there is a biological distinction between us (which is much minor in the case of the distinctions between ethnic groups), but that distinction shouldn't and doesn't hamper the social power of these groups.



Going a little off-topic:

If you are talking about groups of blacks attacking whites for no reason, yes there is. Mainstream media is reporting the crimes but refraining from identifying the common perpetrator’s ethnicity. Actually, there is a book on the subject called White girl bleed a lot by Colin Flatherty which makes a very good documentation on these cases and an analysis on media cover-up. I can give you a list of reports on case by case basis but the list is huge, don't think this would be the proper place.

I'm confused. Are you trying to say it's ridiculous to say that humans travel to each other and have sex? Or that it's ridiculous to claim that dogs don't do the same? Because they don't. I mean, it's possible for us to forcibly make them do so, but they tend to stay in whatever area they're native to.



Of course there are biological differdnces. I listed them in the original post. Skin, hair, and eye color.



Interesting, since that paints the vast majority of geneticists as 'extreme minority'.



What race is Tiger Woods?

What race is Halle Berry?



Considering in the beginning of my post I SAY that melanin is a difference that would count as a biological difference, I find this to be you admitting you don't read the whole post you're talking about.



Well. There are people out there, one of the most prominent being Philippe J. Rushton, who observe a racial IQ gap in the world, and then say that this is a genetic thing, essentially saying black people are genetically dumber than white people.

Other people like Richard Flynn say that there is no evidence for such a hypothesis, and say, "No, this is a social effect." and provide evidence to that case.



Is this a socially influenced thing or a genetic thing? In other words, is it a genetic thing that black people attack white people or is it a social thing?

This whole topic is in part about nature vs. nurture. I'm on the nurture side. I don't deny that there is SOME genetic basis for something like IQ, but that there is no evidence to infer that genetics are the reason Africa scores less on average than other countries on IQ tests.

How can you get so wrong with so little?

First, there is a comma between the words “minority” and “extremists”, which clearly shows they cannot be drawn together to form “extreme minority”. How the hell did you get to that? There is an absurd difference between “extreme minority” and “minorities which are extremists”.

Second, I said nobody believes there is a social distinction between them, not a biological distinction (last I heard, genetics is a field of biology). A social distinction means that they would need to be treated socially different than the rest of people, while the consensus today is that they should be treated all equally, regardless of their biological differences, because – unless we're talking about a disease – they are not substantial to the social competences of each individual.

And third, where did I say “majority of geneticists”? I said just “majority”, which doesn't have any special circumstances so it is the majority of people. And from 7 billion humans around this world, I don't believe the majority of them are geneticists, so yeah, the majority of geneticists is still a minority.

Seriously, are you again reading everything I write while trying to form some kind of rhetoric against it?



That's when the problem of trying to determine race only by genetics arise. Human characteristics are gradual in transformation. They're not pure. The presence of a “black gene” in a white blonde blue eye man called Austerlitz Ehrlichmann won't be enough to call him black because what counts is not the presence of said gene but how much influential it is on the individual's body. The whole picture, the calculus of all characteristics is where the line will be drawn, and as human genetics is not developed enough to be knowledgeable of all genes that control all characteristics it is impossible – till now – for genetics alone to be the formulator of such concept as “race”.

I'm not familiar with these two figures (don't give a dime about celebrities, didn't even know who the hell Halle Berry was before you mentioned her. Tiger Woods sounded familiar but from what I see he is a golfer, don't really know much about him. And yes I live under a rock), but from what I could identify in very few photos of both I would call them more black than white, therefore black even though some political correctness would bind me to use “mixed race” as if the rest of the world was pure and homogeneous like the a patch of snow and an onyx jewel.

Anyways, photos don't provide enough data for these kinds of judgment so in the end it is just guessing.



No, you talk about color, not melanism. Melanin is a pigment which controls color, Melanism is a natural condition of excess of said pigment in the natural metabolism, which has a wide range of effects in the body way greater than simply color. Melanism won't change “just color therefore superficial”. That's the difference.



And what does this have to do with my argument? There are also a lot of researches pointing the difference of intelligence between men and women (Annica Dahlström and Germund Hesslow for example), but the point being made in my previous paragraph was that such biological differences, even if real, are not substantial to affect social competences. That was the analogy.



Glad you ignored the “Going a little off-topic“ that infers that I'm just providing off-topic information Lelouch asked.

And if you read the book there is no inference to genetics as cause in it, it is purely social and political. If it were predominantly genetic, it would be way more widespread than it actually is.

I, for one, am on the same side. Pretty much because genetic behavioral determinism is bullshit. Genetics, as a behavior characteristic – even with imperative genes – imply only in a tendency in a given individual, not an inescapable rule, if it wasn't for that evolution would be impossible.

Could you be so kind as to go into a little more detail 42 statues.

i'm glad you finally admited it.

My good sir, I must agree with you. "Race" is something created by the xenophobia biologically programmed into every human. Any slight differences are sought out and inflated so that one might identify any whom are strangers; which, going back a few thousand years, was a highly successful survival mechanism.

Evolution also made us incredibly similar. Emotional expression, basis for language, all have common similarities across the world. It is the cultural differences which account for differences in things such as intelligence when regarding "Race". We posses more genetic variance between individuals of the same "race" then between two distinct "Races".

Fantastic counter. I love how you didn't address anything and essentially just decided to take a cheap shot...and funnily enough got a rep for it. I'm amazed at how easy it is to please the masses in this forum. Apparently all I have to do is take the popular position and call the person who has the unpopular position as not knowing what they're talking about and I'll get rep.

Good to know.



The fact that you are on my side makes me simply say, "Yay, moving on." Since I have no idea what we're arguing about at this point.

Funny race dosnt exsist in gentics or anything of the sort yet Ignorant dumb fucks still belive it has meaning.LoL its a fucking social construct of humanity and there desire to always have an enemy

Well, clarifying:

I'm on your side when it comes to genetics. The nurture side. Not when it comes to the definition race.

Your opinion on race is that in humans they don't exist biologically, that all the biological differences are only physical trivialities therefore superficial.

I'm on the opinion that race does exist biologically, that our differences are not only aesthetics, and that our current understanding of genetics is unprepared to define race. My opinion is that the definition of race is not drawn on one or two genes, but the calculus of all bodily features from an individual. It's a quantitative measure. But in the end it is just a label.

And I was arguing over this discussion being useless because even if one finds a decisive and firm biological definition of race, it won't make a difference for the sociological definition of such. You don't need to destroy the definition of race biologically to find an axiom for equality. So the question of race here is merely an epistemological one.