The existence of human races.

[jjfun]

I don't believe in human races. I'm convinced that the differences between the proposed races are entirely subjective and purely cosmetic. The definitions of race has changed so much over time that to me it seems like "race" is just a way to separate people.

The proposed races can interbreed and have virtually no difference if raised in the same environment. The division of people into races seems childish, like little boys hating little girls childish. Racism seems like zealous devotion to a team or culture. The existence of the definition of race seems to justify xenophobia and promote and exaggerate imaginary differences.

It's not that I'm uncomfortable with the idea, I find it scary. When people are separated from people it's easier for them to distance themselves from them, it's a lot easier to be unsympathetic to someone who is perceived to be an alien. Countless wars and other disgusting things have been justified by the notion that the opposition are absolutely nothing like the fighters and are wrong.

The Romans considered themselves a different race to the Germans and Carthaginians. The Japanese considered themselves different to the Chinese who they lined up and shot in the back of the head and performed medical experiments on.

Globalization and extremely multicultural nations like England, USA and India have allowed for the bleeding of different cultures and many have appreciated what each culture can share with each other. For instance, many white people I know find African American humor hilarious and enjoy Asian food.

The more I examine people and cultures it seems to me like race is an imaginary social construct and should be replaced with "culture". A prime example of this is "Judaism". Is it a race, a religion or a culture? I believe that it's the second two options (obviously you can't convert to a race, or can you?). There are many different people with many different cultural and racial background who identify as Jewish. I believe that this is the same as any race or culture.

Race means nothing. I believe that it's a useless part of someones identity.

I suppose I should also contribute some of my own personal experience to this thread:

I've had little experience with racism being directed at me because I'm a white male in a predominantly white country, in a predominantly white region. However, my girlfriend is black and I didn't tell my grandmother for around three months because of her extreme views. She found out when one of her friends from church saw us and she was upset and disappointed. Whenever I see her now she ignores the topic of my girlfriend whom I've been lived with for about a year now. It disturbs me a lot, luckily the rest of my family have accepted her.

Anyway, I made this thread to see how many share my opinions and who have different opinions. Race is an idea that has always seemed stupid to me.

 

[Caelum]

It's kind of nonsensical to say races don't exist. Race is merely a term we use to identify a polymorphism in skin coloration among human species. Morphological difference among species are quite common and that's really all we are categorizing with the term "race". It's a "social construct" in that every categorical system is a construct, but the classification isn't arbitrary.

That said, the classification that differentiates certain qualities among us shouldn't be used as any sort of justification for racism or bigotry. The application of how we use and interpret the categories of race is the heart of the issue of racism; not the actual categorization itself.

edit:

Is it because whitey is the most civilised race in the world?

Was this a serious question ...

 

[Coram_Boy]

What are you trying to say? I really can't see that you're saying anything that is controversial, or indeed, is not accepted as fact. It is sadly almost natural that people are more suspicious of people who are different to them than those who are the same. It's a real shame that humanity is so divided by unimportant issues like race. There are a few reasons that race is used to describe someone in news reports (which is pretty much where you see it in the media) is that skin color is the most noticeable feature of a person's body. However, hopefully the new generation (which I'm part of) will help to solve the problems we have with racism - it is less a problem today than it has been in previous history - no more do we see lynchings, and in almost all countries that are not under control of dictatorships/1-party states there is no more legislation that is racist (I really hope I don't have to be corrected here...) However, the situation is still problematic - Black-skinned people living in america earning less than white-skinned ones on average, for example. Incidentally, britain, not england,is the nation (>welsh<), and you're right, living in a melting pot of cultures is great - there's so much variety.
​

 

[Morm]

I don't believe in human races.

Some people don't believe in evolution, just to show you how that opening statement holds no grounds whatsoever.

I'm convinced that the differences between the proposed races are entirely subjective and purely cosmetic.

Tell that to the prevalence of sickle cell anemia in blacks, or their hoards of olympic running records.

The definitions of race has changed so much over time that to me it seems like "race" is just a way to separate people.

A way to seperate people based on characters such as melanistic skin, a slighty more prognathic jaw, taller and thinner stature...I could go on but I've singled out blacks enough already. Funny that the Bushmen in Africa are the genetically most basal, but I guess them as a race isn't something you should believe in?

The proposed races can interbreed and have virtually no difference if raised in the same environment.

Hence they are the same species. Races are tantamount to breed in dogs, essentially. Only stupid anthropologists can't get this stuff straight, it seems.

Racism seems like zealous devotion to a team or culture. The existence of the definition of race seems to justify xenophobia and promote and exaggerate imaginary differences.

Imaginary differences? Okay, find me a pure native american that looks exactly like a person from Norway and I'll concede the point.

When people are separated from people it's easier for them to distance themselves from them, it's a lot easier to be unsympathetic to someone who is perceived to be an alien.

Yeah, it's called looking out for your own. It's not surprising in the least. To build on this a little, I find that being Pro-white, which I am, is like cheering for the hometeam- I don't exactly cheer against any other races, I just happen to think highly of my own. I don't see any fault in loving what you are.

Countless wars and other disgusting things have been justified by the notion that the opposition are absolutely nothing like the fighters and are wrong.

I think you're imposing cultural things into biological traits and obervable qualities to make a point, but I'm not sure at this point what that point is.

The Romans considered themselves a different race to the Germans and Carthaginians.

The Japanese considered themselves different to the Chinese who they lined up and shot in the back of the head and performed medical experiments on.

See this is where people are mixing up nationality and race. It's kind of a non sequitor to be backing up "there is no such thing as race" with misperceived national qualities as racial differences.

Globalization and extremely multicultural nations like England, USA and India have allowed for the bleeding of different cultures and many have appreciated what each culture can share with each other. For instance, many white people I know find African American humor hilarious and enjoy Asian food.

You yourself make the distinction between asian and african in this quote; Call it globalization as much as you want, but a 4 year old can see the differences between the actual races.

The more I examine people and cultures it seems to me like race is an imaginary social construct and should be replaced with "culture".

Okay, I see where you're going. The answer to this is NO. Race is a very real biological difference and culture is the imaginary construct, since it's very much more fluid than races (interbreeding notwithstanding but still, the point is legit).

A prime example of this is "Judaism". Is it a race, a religion or a culture?

Yes to the last two, an undeserved sense of entitlement to the first; being exterminated as a group a race does not make.

Race means nothing. I believe that it's a useless part of someones identity.

A much higher rate of diabetes in Native North Americans disagrees with you.


Why are you dancing around racism and culture when the point of this appears to be that race doesn't exist?

It's kind of nonsensical to say races don't exist. Race is merely a term we use to identify a polymorphism in skin coloration among human species. Morphological difference among species are quite common and that's really all we are categorizing with the term "race". It's a "social construct" in that every categorical system is a construct, but the classification isn't arbitrary.

It's more than just skin color caelum, there are strongly correlated disease and secondary characters that are associated between the races. I like how elegant your wording is though; I'm quite envious of your conciseness and abilities.

 

[ivar]

I hate to be the racist bigot of the thread, but, to me, claiming that there are no inherent relative strengths and weaknesses in a respective race is naive (and shot down purely on the basis that it is "racist" and "unsympathetic", even though there is empirical evidence suggesting the contrary). Jews are generally smarter than most and blacks are generally not as smart, but more athletic. Of course, I am not suggesting that every black is a dumb basketball playing nig, it is just that, on average, a white will be smarter, but less athletic, than a black. And an asian will be, on average, smarter than a white, but shorter, too.

Seriously, we are not all born equal and there are inequalities of aptitude amongst race (especially since we tend to breed within our race, only perpetuating these general trends). I mean, if we acknowledge that a certain race is generally taller than another, why the fuck do we have such a difficult time acknowledging that a certain race is generally smarter than another? Because we are all a bunch of goddamn hippies, that's why.

Of course, every individual person should be given the opportunity to prove they are, for instance, smart and it is unfair to assume a black to be comparably less intelligent than yourself on the basis of ethnic averages. And even then judging someone on the basis of intelligence is as unfair as judging them on the basis of attractiveness; it is a quality inherited from birth. Of course, we all do it anyways (and I can't say that I personally feel guilty doing so).

So, I disagree with your claim that there are no human races both by virtue of the above paragraphs and Caelum's and morm's respective posts.

 

[Coram_Boy]

... That's not actually right, DaBossMan. I won't call you racist, because you have tried to make a point about racism without generalising people too much. However, you are not right in what you are writing. Intelligence and strength are not characteristics affected by racial differences. The main characteristic differences between black-skinned and white-skinned peoples are vitamin D production (or E, I don't remember), which is higher in white skinned peoples, resistance to sickle-cell syndrome (higher in black skinned peoples) and a few others that I can't remember off of the top of my head. There is nothing in the human genome sequence that specifically codes for intelligence or strength, so therefore it is foolish at best to think that that is the case. Ethnic averages are a very bad way to check intelligence - black children on average get a worse education. Levels of intelligence between races are generally dependent on their average incomes. Please don't try to say something like that without solid evidence, which does not, AFAIK, exist.

even though there is empirical evidence suggesting the contrary

such as?

 

[gorm]

Humanity covers a larger geographical range than any mammal alive, and therefor any "observable differences" in physical appearances of people from different geographical areas are pretty predictably present. it's like west side and east side gastrodon heh


as I'm sure you know morm, sickle cells are malaria resistant and given that the geographical location of "blacks" is such that malaria is rampant, it's not surprising that sickle cells were selected for some time ago.

if we acknowledge that a certain race is generally taller than another, why the fuck do we have such a difficult time acknowledging that a certain race is generally smarter than another?

because there is no reliable measurement of intelligence. height on the other hand is pretty easy to measure.

Jews are generally smarter than most and blacks are generally not as smart, but more athletic.

lol

 

[mien]

That's not actually right, DaBossMan. I won't call you racist, because you have tried to make a point about racism without generalising people too much. However, you are not right in what you are writing. Intelligence and strength are not characteristics affected by racial differences. The main characteristic differences between black-skinned and white-skinned peoples are vitamin D production (or E, I don't remember), which is higher in white skinned peoples, resistance to sickle-cell syndrome (higher in black skinned peoples) and a few others that I can't remember off of the top of my head. There is nothing in the human genome sequence that specifically codes for intelligence or strength, so therefore it is foolish at best to think that that is the case. Ethnic averages are a very bad way to check intelligence - black children on average get a worse education. Levels of intelligence between races are generally dependent on their average incomes. Please don't try to say something like that without solid evidence, which does not, AFAIK, exist.

There have been test IQ tests in the past that would 'prove' the above statement

Of course that rises the question if IQ really is a good measurement for intelligence, as such these tests are no real proof when it comes to racial differences in intelligence.

Other tests has shown that Black people are on average 'the best' when it comes to sports in generall. Besides tests aren't even needed for that just like at American's best sportsplayers. Even though there are more white people in America the number of black top players are much higher then white.

 

[Polis4rule]

However, intelligence itself is not dependent on race. if one looks at the average level of income and other factors, such as the quality of education, you will find that intelligence varies greatly. Besides the fact that you mention IQ without the associated issues associated with that, but on average the average person of African descent will have lower income levels and quality of education, if they have any education at all, when compared to say white people.

That being said, although I'm not racist, it pisses me off when groups such as Jews and Hispanics claim that there race is Jewish or Hispanic. That is a bunch of bull. Being Jewish means that your belong to a religious group; you guys claim that a person can't be Christian as a race, so why should you act like being Jewish is having a race. And with Hispanics, it's an ethnic group, not a race. It's no different than someone putting American or Canadian as your race.

That being said, I agree with everything Morm said. Damn, I find myself agreeing with him more and more!

 

[Luduan]

Some people don't believe in evolution, just to show you how that opening statement holds no grounds whatsoever.

True; however, a vast majority of scholars disagree that "race" is a valid taxonomic delineation of human beings, unless you are using the term interchangeably with "population", which does not appear to be the case given your sweeping statements about "Africans" and "Asians". This confusion is even more evident in polis4rule's post (which explicitly distinguishes between ethnicity and race). Most scientists regard human populations as distributed into clines, which cross racial boundaries, rather than subspecies. Outside of its limited usefulness in forensic anthropology and police investigations (a witness is much more likely to recognize someone as "Asian" than "Chinese"), race is an inherently flawed concept.

http://www.modernhumanorigins.net/anth372.html

Tell that to the prevalence of sickle cell anemia in blacks, or their hoards of olympic running records.

Except that there is, as you are surely aware, a huge variety of "blacks". Triracial models (in which you seem to operate) of human taxonomy have been rejected for decades.

Hence they are the same species. Races are tantamount to breed in dogs, essentially. Only stupid anthropologists can't get this stuff straight, it seems.

Which is why the concept has also been rejected by well-respected evolutionary biologists such as E.O. Wilson, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin. It is a good point though that anthropologists reject the notion of race as a valid concept.

Imaginary differences? Okay, find me a pure native american that looks exactly like a person from Norway and I'll concede the point.

Do you think Amerindians, Tibetans, Pacific Islanders, Japanese and Chinese are members of the same "race" (Mongoloid)? Just how many "races" are there? two? three? four? five? six? more? The problem with "race" is that it cannot be defined, but must be intuited. It is unscientific.

Yeah, it's called looking out for your own. It's not surprising in the least. To build on this a little, I find that being Pro-white, which I am, is like cheering for the hometeam- I don't exactly cheer against any other races, I just happen to think highly of my own. I don't see any fault in loving what you are.

Because it is ignorant, divisive and pernicious.

I think you're imposing cultural things into biological traits and obervable qualities to make a point, but I'm not sure at this point what that point is.

I think you are as well.

Most differences in intelligence amongst "racial groups" cannot be separated from social, cultural and economic differences. Furthermore, both "race" and "intelligence" are ambiguous concepts.

 

[ivar]

because there is no reliable measurement of intelligence. height on the other hand is pretty easy to measure.
lol

IQ tests are generally reliable measurements of intelligence (I acknowledge, though, that imprecision and debates arguing against their efficacy can be reasonable). True, it is not as reliable as height measurement, but to say that the IQ difference between the average Jew (120) and the average North American black (85) is insignificant because you consider IQ tests to be an unreliable way of measuring intelligence is naive (this is even with culture fair iq tests, where they use circles and shapes and lines). Such a monstrous disparity is, simply put, because Jews are, on average, smarter than blacks. And to those who bring up the culturally biased argument (a test created by whites will score less other ethnicities due to inherent biases in testing material, misrepresenting intelligence), then explain to me why asians (who should suffer from this same bias) do better on iq tests than whites (even mainland Chinese score better than whites, and mainland Chinese live in the most disparaging economic and environmental conditions in the world--far worse than a black in the ghetto). Also, Jews, though they only represent about 0.2 percent of the world population, account for something like 25 % of nobel prize winners and half of chess grandmasters. And this coming from the historically most persecuted group of persons (or, at least, one of). Jews have a tradition of ethnic exclusion and those who survived were the most intelligent of money lenders (since Christians were not allowed to do this), so I don't see why it's so bizarre and "lol" for a Jew to be smarter than a black (or most any other ethnicity). Why are there so many Jews in academia and why are there so many rich, successful Jews, despite being hated by many, often being persecuted against (universities in North America, during the 1950s, set limits on the acceptance of Jewish students), and representing such a small portion of the world population? Because Jews are a generally comparatively smart race of people. Stereotypes exist for a reason; they represent generalities (the reason why stereotypes are often negative is that we cluster people according to generalities, even though there is no guarantee that they even fit under any generalities).

Now, you could argue what intelligence really is, and say that there is no reliable measurement of creative, musical and kinetic (I believe athletic technique to be intelligence) intelligence, but when I refer to intelligence, I mean abilities in academia, be it talents with math or language. I believe blacks, on average, are more intelligent kinetically--that is, with how to manipulate one's body, hence why they are overrepresented in athletics, unless you just happen to think that is some coincidence (it likely is not). There are only a small amount of blacks in hockey, but this is due to the fact that hockey is a really expensive sport to play. And how many Jews do you see tearing up the NBA? Virtually none. Jews are brittle--honestly, half of us have some obscure allergy or needs prescription glasses.

That being said, although I'm not racist, it pisses me off when groups such as Jews and Hispanics claim that there race is Jewish or Hispanic. That is a bunch of bull. Being Jewish means that your belong to a religious group; you guys claim that a person can't be Christian as a race, so why should you act like being Jewish is having a race. And with Hispanics, it's an ethnic group, not a race. It's no different than someone putting American or Canadian as your race.

The reason why Jews generally consider themselves a separate ethnicity (even though Judaism is, ultimately, a religion as you say) is due to the ethnic exclusion of other religious groups customarily done by Jews when copulating. I also think that it probably has something to do with being PC and respecting Jews as their own people. It is a bit bullshit, though; I agree.

Edit: I want to add, as an edit, that it is foolish to think everyone is born equal. And it is equally foolish to think that there are no inherent differences amongst each other due to race (since races tend to interbreed, propagating the qualities of the race). However, I think it is most foolish to judge others according to these difference, when these differences should either be accepted, embraced, or at least tolerated. We should focus less on equalization and more on the differences (absent the xenophobia). There are different races and different people and some have associated weakness and strengths, which should all be taken into account. I will admit that I do find stupid people annoying, but I generally take into account that they are just born that way, and try my best to tolerate, or find something else that is valuable about the person. That is what I think we should do with race--acknowledge differences, but don't hate by virtue of them.

 

[Morm]

gorm: yes im aware of sickle cell anemias prevalence in relation to malaria, races are regional same as that sickness.

luduan: im on my phone so i cant reply in depth, but ibthink me using bushmen as an example clearly indicates im aware of different black populations. they can still be generally lumped together though, since morphologies support it and this discussion is simply based on superficial morphologies and apparently not much more.

 

[Darkflagrance]

they can still be generally lumped together though, since morphologies support it and this discussion is simply based on superficial morphologies and apparently not much more.

It could be deeper if people who actually knew something scientific about the subject weighed in, for example someone who maintained that race used scientifically corresponds mainly to geographical origin and relative genetic similarity, and also said that interestingly enough, there were originally two genetic lineages that together generated all the people in China, so that so use even, say, Chinese as a race ignores the fact that there are two different genetic populations there.

 

[Wishy]

I hate to be the racist bigot of the thread, but, to me, claiming that there are no inherent relative strengths and weaknesses in a respective race is naive (and shot down purely on the basis that it is "racist" and "unsympathetic", even though there is empirical evidence suggesting the contrary). Jews are generally smarter than most and blacks are generally not as smart, but more athletic. Of course, I am not suggesting that every black is a dumb basketball playing nig, it is just that, on average, a white will be smarter, but less athletic, than a black. And an asian will be, on average, smarter than a white, but shorter, too.

That doesn't have much to do with 'race' though. That has more to do cultural influences.

And there actually are biological, physical differences between whites/blacks/asians. Blacks have a wider nose, the fusing of parts of asian skulls is much more prominent. There were a few other ones, but that's all I could recall from class.

 

[Doctor Heartbreak]

it's not so much that race doesn't exist (although as we are seeing this is arguable), it's just a lot more helpful and sensible to pretend it doesn't, at least when dealing with individuals. if the black guy standing in front of you weighs 300 pounds and has an IQ of 150, what the fuck does it matter that black people are "generally dumber/more athletic"

 

[gorm]

the IQ difference between the average Jew (120) and the average North American black (85)

sources etc?

 

[foibles]

At risk of being flamed, I would say that IQ is not really a valid way to measure human intelligence.

 

[jjfun]

It's kind of nonsensical to say races don't exist. Race is merely a term we use to identify a polymorphism in skin coloration among human species. Morphological difference among species are quite common and that's really all we are categorizing with the term "race". It's a "social construct" in that every categorical system is a construct, but the classification isn't arbitrary.

That said, the classification that differentiates certain qualities among us shouldn't be used as any sort of justification for racism or bigotry. The application of how we use and interpret the categories of race is the heart of the issue of racism; not the actual categorization itself.

It's not nonsensical. I'm merely saying that I don't believe that the difference between people who live in different geographical regions is that different and that there are many differences within these groups. Defining a group of people as a race is simply a stereotype, an expectation and unfair.

Of course it shouldn't be used as any justification for racism or bigotry but it always is.

What are you trying to say? I really can't see that you're saying anything that is controversial, or indeed, is not accepted as fact.

Apparently the existence of races is accepted as a fact by Caelum, Mormoopid and Dabossman.

...- no more do we see lynchings, and in almost all countries that are not under control of dictatorships/1-party states there is no more legislation that is racist (I really hope I don't have to be corrected here...) However, the situation is still problematic - Black-skinned people living in america earning less than white-skinned ones on average, for example. Incidentally, britain, not england,is the nation (>welsh<), and you're right, living in a melting pot of cultures is great - there's so much variety.

Hurrr, Palestine V Israel (and I mean the Israelis actions here), Rwandan Genocide, Yugoslavia, blahdeblah. Racism is very much alive in many parts of the world.

I can understand why black people earn less, it's because they were kept down for so long and very slowly rights were given back to them. For many generations they had been receiving inferior education, pay and treatment. The effects of this are still present and while they are slowly becoming minimized it will take a long time.

Fuck yeah, my first girlfriend could speak welsh. It was quite erotic, I think she was saying stuff like Hi, How are you? though.

Some people don't believe in evolution, just to show you how that opening statement holds no grounds whatsoever.

What? This shows nothing. They're too very different things. Cool logical fallacy there bro!

Tell that to the prevalence of sickle cell anemia in blacks, or their hoards of olympic running records.

Blacks are the only ones with Olympic running records and sickle cell anemia? I think not. The former seems to be a result of natural selection and the latter because of their culture. Does darker skin and a higher prevalence of a disease warrant a different classification?

A way to seperate people based on characters such as melanistic skin, a slighty more prognathic jaw, taller and thinner stature...I could go on but I've singled out blacks enough already. Funny that the Bushmen in Africa are the genetically most basal, but I guess them as a race isn't something you should believe in?(I can just imagine his smug face with those sharp rectangular teeth and his unkempt hair)

Have you ever been to europe? The differences between european people is a joke, the same with Africa. These people have many variations in their gene pools and because of mass transportation, interbreeding and historical mixing. It is surprising that you should bring up the Bushmen as the most basal, on another forum someone was saying that the Australian aboriginals were.

But what are you trying to say by basal? Do you mean that they've stayed the same for much longer than other groups of people? If that's what you mean then sure, I agree. They've stayed the same because they have stayed in the same area doing the same things for so long.

Just how much do you believe that the people who emigrated to other parts of the world have changed? Sure, cosmetically they've changed. They've gotten taller/shorter and thinner/fatter. But how much is this? To me, it seems like not very much. It seems like classifying people as races is more basal than the bushmen you bring up. Culture and environmental factors have more influence on people than the minor genetic physiological differences do.

Imaginary differences? Okay, find me a pure native american that looks exactly like a person from Norway and I'll concede the point.

Looks are everything.

Yeah, it's called looking out for your own. It's not surprising in the least. To build on this a little, I find that being Pro-white, which I am, is like cheering for the hometeam- I don't exactly cheer against any other races, I just happen to think highly of my own. I don't see any fault in loving what you are.

Reading this made me miserable. Why not be pro human? Your home team is humanity, you should love yourself for being a human being not a caucasian. Pm mormoopid if you want to be included in the Aryan Brotherhood.

I hate to be the racist bigot of the thread,

Too late.

...claiming that there are no inherent relative strengths and weaknesses in a respective race is naive (and shot down purely on the basis that it is "racist" and "unsympathetic", even though there is empirical evidence suggesting the contrary)

It's racist and illogical. Where is this empirical evidence?

Jews are generally smarter than most and blacks are generally not as smart, but more athletic. Of course, I am not suggesting that every black is a dumb basketball playing nig(what the fuck?!), it is just that, on average, a white will be smarter, but less athletic, than a black. And an asian will be, on average, smarter than a white, but shorter, too.

Cultural and environmental factors contribute to these perceptions, there are white basketball players who are very succesful and there are blacks with PHD's and there are people of mixed black and white race who are good at basketball and are a president of the united states who were raised in Asia. You're extremely general.

Seriously, we are not all born equal and there are inequalities of aptitude amongst race (especially since we tend to breed within our race, only perpetuating these general trends). I mean, if we acknowledge that a certain race is generally taller than another, why the fuck do we have such a difficult time acknowledging that a certain race is generally smarter than another? Because we are all a bunch of goddamn hippies, that's why.

Yeah, it's the liberals fault. Fuck those liberals. Social progress is for pansies. Height is definitely as important as intelligence! I disagree with you here(and pretty much all of your post). Genes can only do so much, I believe that environment and culture can create superior intelligence.

Of course, every individual person should be given the opportunity to prove they are, for instance, smart and it is unfair to assume a black to be comparably less intelligent than yourself on the basis of ethnic averages. And even then judging someone on the basis of intelligence is as unfair as judging them on the basis of attractiveness; it is a quality inherited from birth. Of course, we all do it anyways (and I can't say that I personally feel guilty doing so).

Basically you're for the extremely general stereotypes but against the stereotypes being used for judgement. Wtf?

EDIT: I'd like the source on Miens chart, seems like bullshit to me.

edit2: Can someone tell Dabossman that "jewish" isn't a race, it's a religion.

 

[foibles]

It's not nonsensical. I'm merely saying that I don't believe that the difference between people who live in different geographical regions is that different and that there are many differences within these groups. Defining a group of people as a race is simply a stereotype, an expectation and unfair.

Lets take a trip to west africa. Most of the people there are able to run a LOT faster then any the "average" white person. This is because they have more fast twitch muscle fiber in their bodies, and thus are biologically different from say, a northern european. We are not different enough to be considered different species, but we certainly are different, and that is what we call race.

 

[Luduan]

edit2: Can someone tell Dabossman that "jewish" isn't a race, it's a religion.

It depends on what you mean by "race"; using the definition of "any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc." then it is valid, to the extent that traditional religious/historical texts have united Jews throughout the diaspora. This is why people are accused of racism when they make sweeping statements about religious communities perceived to be homogeneous, e.g., "Muslims are terrorists"; these same people tend to associate being Muslim with being Arab, and vice versa. Does it particularly matter one way or the other if you only believe (as I do) that race is a social construct? Jews can represent both an ethnic group -- a more accurate and meaningful term than race -- or a religion. There are irreligious Jews (see: Karl Marx) and converts to Judaism. I don't see why Jew should be any less of an ethnic group than Cherokee or German or Manchu or Han or...

 

[jrrrrrrr]

There are pretty clear differences between "races" of people, the only question is how much difference between two people qualifies a distinction between races.

This article sums it up really well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html

When scientists first decoded the human genome in 2000, they were quick to portray it as proof of humankind’s remarkable similarity. The DNA of any two people, they emphasized, is at least 99 percent identical.

But new research is exploring the remaining fraction to explain differences between people of different continental origins.

Scientists, for instance, have recently identified small changes in DNA that account for the pale skin of Europeans, the tendency of Asians to sweat less and West Africans’ resistance to certain diseases.

People of different races have different genetic traits. They can also interbreed, which is most of the reason why they are still considered the same species. The only people who have difficulty understanding the concept of race are silly anthropologists, from what I've gathered. Things like intelligence have more to do with culture than race, but denying that race is a genetic non-factor in terms of physical attributes is extremely naive.

People are *mostly* the same, but they do have slight differences. There is no question about that. What is this argument even about?

I mean, if we acknowledge that a certain race is generally taller than another, why the fuck do we have such a difficult time acknowledging that a certain race is generally smarter than another? Because we are all a bunch of goddamn hippies, that's why.

Actually, we have a hard time acknowledging that because it is patently false. There has never been a proven link between race and intelligence.

This is controversial [2][3][4] because theories and hypotheses on racial differences in intelligence are based on correlations in test score and socio-economic achievement differences and not on genetic or neural evidence, [5] and correlation does not prove causation. Genome projects and other biological studies have found no genetic differences which cause differences in intelligence capacity or differences in neural wiring between humans based on race.[6]

Intelligence is a classic case of nature being confused with nurture. Intelligence is largely based on culture and privilege, not on genetics.

 

[Heysup]

I would just like to clarify that Judaism is a religion. It is not a race.

Thats like saying all people whos favorite color is red are smarter than people whos favorite color is blue. Its irrelevant.


EDIT: And i'll agree with Jrrrr as I can relate to the "Jewish Culture / privaledges". Basically, its the stereotypical "Rich" Jew thing often, and not that thats a bad thing, but the fact that the average Jew is brought up with money (for education, keeping out of trouble, learning basic "common sense regarding money" stuff) and basically would have a higher "intelligence" level based on the culture, not the fact that we "believe" (not that I do completely) in something that others don't.

 

[Morm]

I wanna clarify a few things, Luduan.

Firstly, I am not speaking from a cultural sense because frankly, culture is something I am completely uninterested in and therefore know nothing about it, so I am certainly not commenting about it. I don't know if you were intentionally trying to be arguementative for the sake of it or if you actually thought that, but I can assure you that I do not make judgement calls of race existing based on anything cultural.

Secondly, I am coming from a purely biological sense on this. By that I mean that, in biology, we observe differences between animals to classify them. That is the basis for comparative anatomy and palaeontology, my specialties. So, for me to say that a black person is melanistic is completely BS; when I give you other traits such as a higher prevalence for sickle cell (even out of Africa, btw) and a slightly more prognathic jaw, that is legitimately saying there is an observable and demonstratable difference between the morphologies, minor as they are. As an aside, in the reptile trade animals of such minute differences are recognized as different 'morphs'. This can be anything from skin texture, pattern or crest size and is directly correlateable to imposed, artificial and individual selection pressures, which is a DIRECT analog for regionality, the cause for races in the first place.

Thirdly, by saying I'm backing up my race I'm not saying, in any way, that my race is superior. I am saying that my race is great and I love being a part of it. I have no point of reference for the other races, since I am not a member of them, so I really have no place to be commenting. All I know is that I like being white.

 

[Chill Murray]

To "stupid" anthropologists, race is only a social construct. As others in this thread have said, an overwhelmingly majority of the differences we see in humans today (skin color, height, body build, etc.) are environmental in nature. The only real valid means for separating humans genetically is by blood type. As are genetically different than Os, and in some cases there will be problems if two people with differing blood types try to mate (As and Bs are incompatible; if an A fetus forms inside a B mother, the mother's immune system will attack the baby and almost always cause a miscarriage).

Talk all you want about race as a social construct, but from a biological point of view there is little evidence to support the idea of races (especially in the American sense of white/black/hispanic/etc.).

 

[Luduan]

There are pretty clear differences between "races" of people, the only question is how much difference between two people qualifies a distinction between races.

And this is exactly what makes race a problematic taxonomy.

This article sums it up really well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html
People of different races have different genetic traits. They can also interbreed, which is most of the reason why they are still considered the same species. The only people who have difficulty understanding the concept of race are silly anthropologists, from what I've gathered.

Hmm, so anthropologists know nothing about their subject matter? That's an interesting idea you have there. It is important to note that physical anthropologists are just biologists who study human beings. Ignoring their opinion on the matter is like a global warming denier ignoring all opinions from climatologists as being "silly". So let's see what physical anthropologists and biologists and health professionals working in fields outside of anthropology have to say on the topic:

http://www.physanth.org/positions/race.html
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1438.html
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1439.html
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1455.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man
http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/ae comment.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/301/5632/466
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1275602
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html#B5
http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Graves/index.html

So, no, urging caution about demarcating "races" is not confined to "silly anthropologists". To pretend that this is not a contentious issue is to ignore the scientific literature.

Things like intelligence have more to do with culture than race, but denying that race is a genetic non-factor in terms of physical attributes is extremely naive.

People are *mostly* the same, but they do have slight differences. There is no question about that. What is this argument even about?

In how human populations are distributed, and in the role of race in a variety of biological, psychological, and social issues. The concept of "blacks" or "whites" as discrete races, for instance, is an entirely unscientific notion. Yes, people have small differences, but "small differences" is not what people generally have in mind when developing essentialist, totalizing theories of race.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)#Population_genetics:_population_and_cline