Thread: Humans vary biologically, but race is a social construct

Thread is worthless rhetoric until you actually define your terms.

race: each of the major groupings of humans, i.e. Black, White, and Asian, formulated via biological essentialism.

• "relates to a person's appearance - chiefly the color of their skin. It is determined biologically, with genetic traits such as skin color, eye color, hair color, bone/jaw structure etc."

ethnicity: each of the groupings of humans, i.e. the traditional Jew, Arab, Latino etc, formulated in accordance to inherited traits, tendencies, and ties.

• "relates to cultural factors such as nationality, culture, ancestry, language and beliefs."
• "defined in terms of shared genealogy, whether actual or presumed."

sources:
1. diffen.com/difference/Ethnicity_vs_Race
2. academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/race.htm <= sums up argument well
3. dictionary.reference.com/browse/race

I'm guessing you're not arguing that people don't have different genetic traits, so your issue must be with biological essentialism. I didn't know what that was and there wasn't a Wiki article on it, but I found it defined elsewhere as 'the belief that white European races are biologically superior and other non-white races are inherently inferior'. Well... duh, of course that's wrong.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm guessing you're not arguing that people don't have different genetic traits, so your issue must be with biological essentialism.

Affirmative.

Originally Posted by Xei

I didn't know what that was and there wasn't a Wiki article on it, but I found it defined elsewhere as 'the belief that white European races are biologically superior and other non-white races are inherently inferior'. Well... duh, of course that's wrong.

...

Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[10] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[6][11]

essentialism is the view that, for any specific kind of entity, there is a set of characteristics or properties all of which any entity of that kind must possess.

source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28classification_of_humans%29 (second paragraph)

I don't really get what that means in context.

essentialism is the view that, for any specific kind of entity, there is a set of characteristics or properties all of which any entity of that kind must possess.

In context: (from academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/race.htm)

There are no genetic characteristics possessed by all Blacks but not by non- Blacks; similarly, there is no gene or cluster of genes common to all Whites but not to non-Whites. One's race is not determined by a single gene or gene cluster, as is, for example, sickle cell anemia. Nor are races marked by important differences in gene frequencies, the rates of appearance of certain gene types. The data compiled by various scientists demonstrates, contrary to popular opinion, that intra-group differences exceed inter-group differences. That is, greater genetic variation exists within the populations typically labeled Black and White than between these populations. This finding refutes the supposition that racial divisions reflect fundamental genetic differences.

Originally Posted by Izrail

There are no genetic characteristics possessed by all Blacks but not by non- Blacks

Well that's wrong, isn't it.

There's two lines of evolutionary biology. You can either analyze the actual molecular genetics or you can analyze the traits. Though certain genes have been linked to traits, it's been a very difficult process and much more progress has been made by analyzing traits rather than genes. It is important to note, as Izrael mentioned, that:

The data compiled by various scientists demonstrates, contrary to popular opinion, that intra-group differences exceed inter-group differences.

Genetically speaking, a white person is likely to have just as many genetic differences with another white person as they are with a black person. We have formed these categories which are becoming more and more meaningless and research continues. Skin color is a rather minute genetic difference compared to height, hormonal balance, build, etc. While surfing websites with large white supremacist populations, I've seen pictures posted of Albino Blacks to show skin color is not the only genetic difference. This is true, but it's also a trait-relative inquiry. Speaking purely of molecular genetics, diversity is far greater within a race than between races.

Well every chinese person has those 'east asian eyes' and no europeans have this. This is a trait present in 100.00% of 1 group but 0.00% of another. Forensic scientists can tell the race of a person by skeleton and teeth alone. Race is as much of a social constucts as humans are a social construct.

I assume you don't believe racism exists, seeing as races dont?

I don't see the problem with identifying people to be members of a certain race. The DNA similarities are irrelevant. If our brains naturally divide people into categories based on shared phenotypes, then why try to deny it?

I don't see what the problem is with identifying black people, Hispanic people, etc. and putting those labels on them. I can only imagine it would be a problem to people who fear racism and are perhaps subconsciously racist themselves, and think there is anything wrong with being in a certain category.

You might as well say that no one really has a hair colour and that judging someone to be a 'blonde' or 'brunette' is a social construct.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Genetically speaking, a white person is likely to have just as many genetic differences with another white person as they are with a black person.

Irrelevant. There's also more variation within the human species than there is between humans and chimps. Are you saying that we're the same species?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Well every chinese person has those 'east asian eyes'

i.e. the epicanthic fold, and false.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

and no europeans have this.

and false.

The epicanthic fold is highly prevalent but not at all universal in people of recent East-Asian descent, and is also found in people with no recent East-Asian ancestry. You really have to be practicing some selective perception to have never encountered a European with epicanthic folds, unless you just assumed they were Eurasian to keep your worldview intact.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Forensic scientists can tell the race of a person by skeleton and teeth alone. Race is as much of a social constucts as humans are a social construct.

Forensic scientists can *sometimes* draw conclusions about recent ancestry to varying degrees of specificity. Whether they will frame those conclusions in terms of race, nationality, ethnicity, or even family depends on which framework will be most useful in identifying the person, which in turn depends on local social constructs.

I know, I know--pesky reality.

Originally Posted by Xei

Well that's wrong, isn't it.

In regards to dark skin, the quickest example coming to mind is people native to India. Even some Arabs are quite black.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Well every chinese person has those 'east asian eyes' and no europeans have this. This is a trait present in 100.00% of 1 group but 0.00% of another.

Ack! Taosaur sums it up quite well.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I don't see the problem with identifying people to be members of a certain race. The DNA similarities are irrelevant. If our brains naturally divide people into categories based on shared phenotypes, then why try to deny it?

I don't see what the problem is with identifying black people, Hispanic people, etc. and putting those labels on them. I can only imagine it would be a problem to people who fear racism and are perhaps subconsciously racist themselves, and think there is anything wrong with being in a certain category.

You might as well say that no one really has a hair colour and that judging someone to be a 'blonde' or 'brunette' is a social construct.

I am actually quite indifferent to classifying humans in general. It is obviously convenient to distinguish individuals in speech, as you mentioned our minds naturally do so, anyway. I wouldn't mind using the word race, if it weren't for the connotations attached to the blasted word.

The DNA similarities are irrelevant.

Today, most people understand and agree to this point. The whole purpose of this thread regards the problem of those, like Thatperson, who disagree this point. I assumed, as is being done academically, if race was replaced with ethnicity, one of the many "semantic battles" found at this forum would be eliminated.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I assume you don't believe racism exists, seeing as races dont?

False. This is another reason why I suggested we abstain from using race, since doing so would further isolate racists like Thatperson, who backwardly utilize biological essentialism in differentiating between groupings of people.

I can honestly say I have not even seen 1 european with an epicathic fold, although it doesnt need to be 100.00% just the fact that is is so common in east asians and so rare in europeans demonstrates just one racial difference that clearly exists, there may not be a single gene that is prevelent is absolutly 100.0000% of one group and 0.000000% of another but thats fine because race is about common descent. A race is a group of closely related ethnicities. Swedish, dutch and irish being ethnicities of the White race, han chinese, japanese and korean being ethnicities of the east asian race. Just because your sociology friends don't use the term race anymore, most of the population understand what it means.

The human term race is similar to that of 'breed' as used for dogs, mongrels may exist, but greyhounds and poodles still exist as distrint breeds.

im the worstest mongrel their ever wuz, yo


P.S. As for the epicanthic fold, aren't we forgetting Amerindians?

I understand what the OP means, and I believe yes that race (Black, White, etc.) is a social construct. You can even see it evolving, Armenians and some Turks are some of the most recent to be added to "white" as a race. Genetically, people of a "race" vary just as much as people of different "races."

I just read an article on this. I wish I could find it now because it would be so timely >.<

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I can honestly say I have not even seen 1 european with an epicathic fold, although it doesnt need to be 100.00% just the fact that is is so common in east asians and so rare in europeans demonstrates just one racial difference that clearly exists,

Your insistence doesn't make it so. The only difference that exists is a high incidence of the trait in more populations that you would consider Asian, but also in some populations of Scandinavians, South Americans, Africans and Poles. The trait is not a racial characteristic; the trend for the trait to be prevalent may be characteristic of the large population you want to group as Asian, but is not characteristic of every sub-population, and certainly not of every individual. The more traits you add on, while all of them might be individually prevalent in the large population, the more you come up with a stereotype that fits a smaller and smaller number of sub-populations, and then a smaller and smaller number of individuals within those populations, until your idea of a typical Asian fits very few if any humans on earth.

Race is an heuristic with limited useful applications and considerable risks when misapplied. The useful applications further decline and the risks increase as transportation and communications advance, creating more points of contact between formerly insulated populations.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

The human term race is similar to that of 'breed' as used for dogs, mongrels may exist, but greyhounds and poodles still exist as distrint breeds.

The closest human analog to dog breeds is a situation like medieval European nobility, where inbreeding was forced but carefully monitored to minimize the negative consequences. Breeds are something we created and actively maintain. Race is an idea we imposed on patterns of ancestry and migration after the fact.

I dont really know whats to argue about :/

I learned about this in high school! HIGH SCHOOL! Anthropologists recognize only one living human race, for them at least, the term race is rather specific, it basically means a sub-species. We haven't seen another human sub-species or "race" walking the earth since the time of neanderthals! Thats how different the term "race" means.

Even today most people think our race is superior to the neanderthals, that the neanderthals were barbaric idiots *like we werent*. Thats the problem with using the word race - it leads to racist ideas!

Genetically, there is only one human race alive today. I mean, even saying the white race really makes no sense. Why are so many british blonde with blue eyes while so many french are brunette? Today we just stay they're both white, but it wasn't always like that. The celtic and latin peoples didn't always get along.

But anyways, outside of superficial skeletal or color differences, were all pretty much wired the same on the inside.

Oh yeah, and dog breeds is a horrible example. But if you wanna talk dog breeds then we are all labradors, just some are blonde and some are brown, some are short, some are taller - thats it - we get one breed with variations!!

Originally Posted by cmind

Irrelevant. There's also more variation within the human species than there is between humans and chimps. Are you saying that we're the same species?

No but it likewise nullifies any argument to support racial differences rooted in molecular genetics, and requires all claims to be based on the study of traits, not genes.

The only reason I have a problem with the word "race", and I have brought this up before, is that we are a "human race". 'Heal the world', anyone?
It's a common saying but then you also hear that someone is of a different race, which has this racist (lol) feeling to it. It's like saying the person of another race is not human, in a way.
I'm not sure if that's how the word came in to use to describe someone with different skin colour, but that's how I perceive it anyway.

Originally Posted by tommo

The only reason I have a problem with the word "race", and I have brought this up before, is that we are a "human race".

Oh... I thought we were a "species."

What exactly are the implications of whether or not race is a "social construct"? Is this intended as a kind of indirect argument that racial discrimination is irrational? If it were decided that race is not a social construct, would racial discrimination then be rational?

Originally Posted by DuB

What exactly are the implications of whether or not race is a "social construct"? Is this intended as a kind of indirect argument that racial discrimination is irrational? If it were decided that race is not a social construct, would racial discrimination then be rational?

I take the OP's implication to be that excessive investment in the concept of race is unrealistic, and I would add that it is rarely beneficial and often counter to one's own interests and the interests of society, regardless of whether it results in discrimination from or against you.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Oh... I thought we were a "species."

We are.