Another Race Question

[Taraz]

For those of you who think that race isn't socially constructed and that it is easy to classify people into these categories . . . Please list all the physical characteristics required to be considered a) black b) white c) latino d) east asian.

[madnak]

a) "you know what they say about black guys" b) can't jump c) kleptomania d) squinty eyes

[Mr_J]

[ QUOTE ]
The validity of human races is a subject of much debate. The American Anthropological Association, drawing on biological research, states that "The concept of race is a social and cultural construction. . . . Race simply cannot be tested or proven scientifically," and that, "It is clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. The concept of 'race' has no validity . . . in the human species."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
85 percent of human variation occurs within populations, and not between populations

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
This distribution of skin color and its geographic patterning—with people whose ancestors lived predominantly near the equator having darker skin than those with ancestors who lived predominantly in higher latitudes—indicate that this attribute has been under strong selective pressure. Darker skin appears to be strongly selected for in equatorial regions to prevent sunburn, skin cancer, the photolysis of folate, and damage to sweat glands

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
many parts of the United States, categories such as Hispanic or Latino are viewed to constitute a race, though others see Hispanic as a linguistic and cultural grouping coming from a variety of backgrounds. In Europe, such a distinction, suggesting that South Europeans are not European or white, would seem odd at least or possibly even insulting.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem arises of distinguishing black Africans as a racial group; it doesn't work because it is a paraphyletic classification. In other words, under a phylogenetic classification, considering black Africans as a single racial group would require one to include every living person on Earth within that single African "race", because the genetic variation of the rest of the world represents essentially a single subtree within that of Africa

[/ QUOTE ]

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
For those of you who think that race isn't socially constructed and that it is easy to classify people into these categories . . . Please list all the physical characteristics required to be considered a) black b) white c) latino d) east asian.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this a problem to the argument if you just include a category "mixed"? It seems to me that, although it is hard to provide the list you are talking about, there are people who are indisputably black, latino, east asian, whatever category you choose to name. Given it is indisputable doesnt it suggest there is something objective about it?
(For example - Nancy Reagan is white - is anyone going to disagree with this characterization?)

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
(For example - Nancy Reagan is white - is anyone going to disagree with this characterization?)


[/ QUOTE ]

I would. The only way to be sure would be the have her genealogical tree. I could presume that at least in part she would have europeans antecedents. I that is so, then I think that 95% or more of the european population has semite blood somewhere along the line. Again, it is the concept of race that is not valid, not what she looks like.

[Taraz]

First of all, I agree with everything Mr J quoted.

Bunny, I am not saying that you can't look at some people and say, "oh he is clearly [insert race here]." After reading some responses in the other thread, some were claiming that "black" people are genetically inferior intellectually than other groups. This assumes that we can separate people into black, white, asian, etc and if we measure the intelligence of each group there will be differences based solely upon which category they are from. If it is in fact genetic, perhaps they would like to explain how we parse out who belongs to which race.

[MathEconomist]

[ QUOTE ]
Given it is indisputable doesnt it suggest there is something objective about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. I can look at how someone dresses and describe them as "frat boy", "goth", "sorority girl" or whatever and in some cases it would be indisputable, but that doesn't mean the concept is anything more than a social construct. We might all agree that Dave Chappelle is black, but if there's no way to pin down exactly what genetic or physical traits make him black then the concept isn't really meaningful other than as a social construct.

I'm fairly sure that "black" actually encompasses a lot of distinct ethnic groups with quite different physical characteristics, and the same is true of "white".

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(For example - Nancy Reagan is white - is anyone going to disagree with this characterization?)


[/ QUOTE ]

I would. The only way to be sure would be the have her genealogical tree. I could presume that at least in part she would have europeans antecedents. I that is so, then I think that 95% or more of the european population has semite blood somewhere along the line. Again, it is the concept of race that is not valid, not what she looks like.

[/ QUOTE ]
First let me point out that I'm just speculating, I've never really thought about it before (and certainly never read anything). Would you really dispute her being white though? Or just say it's impossible to be sure? If you are disputing based on going back down her family tree, then it seems like everyone is the same race - whatever race mitochondrial eve was (cue Sharkey's entrance [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]). I'll have to think more about it.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Given it is indisputable doesnt it suggest there is something objective about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. I can look at how someone dresses and describe them as "frat boy", "goth", "sorority girl" or whatever and in some cases it would be indisputable, but that doesn't mean the concept is anything more than a social construct. We might all agree that Dave Chappelle is black, but if there's no way to pin down exactly what genetic or physical traits make him black then the concept isn't really meaningful other than as a social construct.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have convinced me.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, I agree with everything Mr J quoted.

Bunny, I am not saying that you can't look at some people and say, "oh he is clearly [insert race here]." After reading some responses in the other thread, some were claiming that "black" people are genetically inferior intellectually than other groups. This assumes that we can separate people into black, white, asian, etc and if we measure the intelligence of each group there will be differences based solely upon which category they are from. If it is in fact genetic, perhaps they would like to explain how we parse out who belongs to which race.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would be against this of course - one of my favorite books is the mismeasure of man by Stephen J Gould. He challenges the ability to even measure intelligence in the first place. I was merely speculating on whether the inability to enunciate clear criteria actually implies that there is no objective measure.