Another Race Question

[purnell]

[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that what we call "white" and "black" and "asian", etc, are merely superficial and arbitrary distinctions. What is generally called "race" has no meaning in a scientific context. That's why race is a social construct, instead of an objectively observable fact.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that what we call "white" and "black" and "asian", etc, are merely superficial and arbitrary distinctions. What is generally called "race" has no meaning in a scientific context. That's why race is a social construct, instead of an objectively observable fact.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am struggling to understand why it cant be both (struggling, not being obtuse [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]).

[purnell]

That's the best I can do at the moment. We need a biologist here. Rduke?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I am struggling to understand why it cant be both (struggling, not being obtuse [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]).

[/ QUOTE ]

It could be both if there were any real determining factors that made someone white or black or whatever. It can't be both because there is no way to measure blackness or whiteness. That is what I was trying to get at in this post. You can't set out physical criteria that dilineate what it means to belong to a specific race.

[Mr_J]

Go to wikipedia and search for race. It has a decent read about it all, describing the problems with 'race'.

[Rduke55]

Yeah, the problems with race as a scientific concept are 1) that race is a continuum, 2) the variability within ethnic groups within a race are enormous and 3) (kind of related to #2 - hell, all three are kind of the same point) the similarities between the "races" are substantial.

Another thing people are having difficulty on in these threads is they seem to be ignoring the phrase purnell and others are using: "as a scientific concept"
Remember we're talking on the genetic level here. Allele frequencies and such. Not what neighborhood you live in, not what music you listen to, not what kind of food your momma made for you when you were a child, not what you checked on your college applications.

People also seem to be misunderstanding the difference between race and other groupings in the light some of the other medical information they have. Is information on family and ethnic lineage useful? Sure. It's useful to know that Ashkenazi jews have a high incidence of Tay-Sachs? It's useful to know that people from this family or small community from the mountains of East Bumfuckistan have an unusual variant of protein X and therefore drug Dumpisol has potential life-threatening side effects.
Unfortunately, it's an easy mental jump to erroneously extrapolate these findings to race as a whole.

[Taraz]

Why hasn't anybody who disagrees with me responded yet? [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

I wanted to argue a little bit . . .

[12AX7]

Well, as far as what's been published, there seems to be no race gene. And like most human traits, it appears to be on a continuum.

Take for example "insanity". In it's extreme cases, it's unmistakable. But where is the line between "insane" and merely "eccentric". This is something the law has debated in much detail. Actually much legal thinking is about how to split such hairs.

So taking that as a model, "Extreme White", "Extreme Yellow", "Extreme Black", "Extreme Red" are fairly easy to characterize. However, what of a mullato, octaroon, quadroon, etc.?

So, even though race may be a social construction, what difference does it make if that construction is a good predictor?

Can anyone doubt the crime rate, out of wedlock birth rates, and AIDS rates are higher among people subjectively identified as black? (Fill in your own examples for other races here.)

However, one thing none of us here likely know is, "What scientifically valid indicators have been withheld to prevent widespread race based actions like the Nazis attempted?"

In other words, who here really knows anything but what they've been *told* in the media?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
So, even though race may be a social construction, what difference does it make if that construction is a good predictor?

Can anyone doubt the crime rate, out of wedlock birth rates, and AIDS rates are higher among people subjectively identified as black? (Fill in your own examples for other races here.)

[/ QUOTE ]

But we're not talking about that. We're talking about intrinsic traits. Your example has a lot of other variables that influence it (socioeconomics is the monstous one that comes to mind)

[ QUOTE ]
However, one thing none of us here likely know is, "What scientifically valid indicators have been withheld to prevent widespread race based actions like the Nazis attempted?"

In other words, who here really knows anything but what they've been *told* in the media?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'd say I know. And anyone else with training and access to journals. We don't all get our science form watching a couple minutes of CNN you know.

My problem with your statements is the question of who suppresses the information.

[joel2006]

You need to specify in what country as these definitions change according to the country. Most people who are 'black' in the US would legally be 'colored' South Africa