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

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

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.

While it's true that the "typical Asian" would fit very few people exactly, a randomly chosen Asian would (presumably) have a higher correlation with the "typical Asian", than would a randomly chosen Scandinavian, or Native American, or whatever. The point isn't to build a model that encompasses everyone exactly.

Originally Posted by khh

While it's true that the "typical Asian" would fit very few people exactly, a randomly chosen Asian would (presumably) have a higher correlation with the "typical Asian", than would a randomly chosen Scandinavian, or Native American, or whatever. The point isn't to build a model that encompasses everyone exactly.

The point is that we're better off erring on the side of under-emphasizing race--the concept's explanatory power and utility--than over-emphasizing it, because there's ultimately not much to it.