"Racism"

[Bengalzona]

(03-22-2018, 04:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The only people being "willfully ignorant" in this thread are the ones claiming that scientists don't divide people into groups called "race" when there are lots of studies out there by scientists who divide people into groups called "race".

Since you are the expert on how scientists define race why would i have to provide you a link to a study?  I have already posted one in this very thread.

There are lots of studies of race among scientists that concern examination of differences between groups with the goal of understanding human evolutionary history, and the relationship between our genes and our health.

I'm playing catch-up in this thread, so I haven't seen the study you posted earlier. Here is a link that cites several different genetic racial studies:

https://listverse.com/2015/08/02/10-contentious-explanations-for-racial-differences/

It interesting reading. For instance, did you know that white skin is a genetic rarity, a mutation that developed over time:

Quote:The pale skin associated with Europeans is something of a genetic rarity. The skin color gene SLC24A5 comes in two varieties: dark (D) and light (L). Everyone inherits one version of the gene from each of his parents. Those with the DD variety tend to be very dark-skinned, those with LL are usually very pale, and those with DL fall somewhere in between. This explains why children can be darker or lighter than their parents as well as why one of the Aylmer twins has dark skin and dark hair while the other has pale skin and red hair.

Scientists once believed that ancient European populations developed pale skin after leaving Africa 40,000 years ago as an adaptation to help them absorb more vitamin D at northern latitudes where there’s less UV light than in the tropics. The theory goes that the first dark-skinned Europeans began getting sick from vitamin D deficiency, which can weaken the bones, and those with lighter skin had an evolutionary advantage in that environment. But things are not so simple in the world of genetics.
Although humans first migrated into Europe about 30,000 to 40,000 years ago, more recent studies have suggested that Europeans were dark-skinned until around 8,000 years ago, possibly even later. Genetic tests on 8,000-year-old skeletons in Spain discovered that one of the individuals had the genetic markers for blue eyes but not for light skin and was more closely related genetically to modern northern Europeans than modern southern Europeans.
The new theory is that Neolithic farmers developed light skin to get more vitamin D from the Sun but only after developing agriculture and adopting a cereal-rich diet deficient in the vitamin. Early European hunter-gatherers would likely have been tall, dark-skinned, and occasionally blue-eyed, in stark contrast to the short, pale-skinned farmers who would later take over the continent.

But dark skin was also a genetic racial mutation:

Quote:It appears that ancient humans generally had dark skin, and light skin was an evolutionary adaptation to the environment in Europe (and East Asia). However, dark skin may also have originated as an evolutionary advantage to protect against skin cancer when the very early hominids began to lose their body hair.

A study on albinism in Africa has shown that albinos in sub–Saharan Africa almost invariably die of skin cancer at an early age. Charles Darwin and other theorists had dismissed skin cancer as an evolutionary force because it usually strikes people after childbearing age in modern times. But this may not have been true two million years ago on the African savanna.
When the earliest human ancestors began to hunt and gather on the open plains, they lost most of their body hair, most likely to keep cool in their strenuous lifestyle. Beneath their hair, they most likely had pale skin, much like modern chimpanzees. However, between 1.2 million and 1.8 million years ago, ***** sapiens developed dark skin to protect against harsh UV rays.
According to researchers, humans may have developed dark skin to avoid painful sunburns, improve vision (low pigments are linked with vision problems), protect sweat glands from the Sun, and preserve the body’s folic acid supply, which is crucial for neural development and potentially damaged by UV rays. Dark skin may also protect against fungal infections in humid climates.
Darwin and evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond believed that selection for dark skin was based on sexual selection pressures. But the research on albinos suggests the situation for the pale protohumans running around hunting animals may have been more dire, and the skin cancer explanation for the development of dark skin is once again being seriously considered.

Apparently, human beings have been changing colors over time to adapt to where they are living. Not at will, of course, but through evolution.

Perhaps more interesting to the recent discussion in here is this bit about Ashkenazi Jews:

Quote:It has long been noted that Ashkenazi Jews tend to perform better on standardized IQ tests, generally scoring 12–15 percent higher than the mean value of 100. In 2005, Henry Harpending, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Utah, and Gregory Cochran, a controversial independent scholar, published a paper in The Journal of Biosocial Science contending that the advantage of the Ashkenazim had a genetic basis.

The paper contended that genetic lysosomal storage diseases like Tay-Sachs, Gaucher’s disease, Niemann-Pick disease, and Mucolipidosis type IV, found disproportionately in the Jewish population, might paradoxically cause increased overall intelligence. If two copies of the genes for those diseases are inherited, they’ll manifest as disorders that can weaken or kill. However, if only one copy of a gene for one of these diseases is present, it is said to promote neuron growth, accelerate interconnection of brain cells, and possibly stimulate neuron proliferation in the DNA repair genes.
Needless to say, that thesis was controversial. Harpending and Cochran’s paper was referenced but lacked footnotes, and some say it also lacked scientific rigor. Some people may have been afraid of the findings because rumors of Jewish “cunning” have always played a role in the history of European anti-Semitism. But Cochran argues that history is largely to blame for what happened. The forced isolation of Jews in ghettos and specified industries in the Middle Ages brought unusually strict evolutionary pressures that caused the rise of an adaptation with mixed results. The process could be seen as a kind of unwilling and unconscious eugenics program.
Many social scientists remain unconvinced. Some believe in a genetic answer that’s more prosaic: Jews were forced into intellectually rigorous careers in trade and finance, so those with low IQs tended to drift away from the religion and culture through conversion. Others say the history of persecution served as a kind of survival-of-the-fittest mechanism. When a pogrom or massacre struck, the wealthiest and most intellectually capable Ashkenazim were best positioned to flee for survival.
Others prefer cultural explanations. The religious edict to study the Torah is said to have boosted male literacy rates of Ashkenazi Jews to the highest in the world. Cultural traditions of bilingualism, chess, music, and high expectations may have also played a role. For many people, such arguments are especially compelling because they avoid the smell of anti-Semitism and are potentially accessible behaviors to improve intelligence across all human populations.

The difference in intellect can be measured, to some degree, and does appear to exist. The reasons why are contentious and still being debated. We may never know. Sound familiar? This reminds me a lot of the discussion here about black people in sports in the U.S. It is contentious. And for various reasons, few of which have to do with hard science, people want to believe certain things. But we may never have all of the answers.

Myself, I rather like the "Karma Concept" of one group of people enslaving and/or putting down another group of people, and in the process strengthening and enhancing future offspring of the group they are trying to put down.

[Belsnickel]

Just some reading on the idea of race:

Why Genes Don't Count (for Racial Differences in Health)

by Alan Goodman, PhD.
Published November 2000 in American Journal of Public Health

Mixed Blood: An analytical look at methods of classifying race

by Jefferson Fish, PhD
Published November 1995 in Psychology Today

These are representative of how race is viewed in today's scientific community. You can see from the publication dates that this isn't new. In fact, one mentions this being the prevailing thought in anthropology (the field that first defined race) in 1973. I really do highly recommend reading these articles, whether you agree with what I have said in this thread or not. It can help you understand this subject a little better (and these folks are able to articulate the argument better than I can).

[BmorePat87]

(03-23-2018, 10:07 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I'm playing catch-up in this thread, so I haven't seen the study you posted earlier. Here is a link that cites several different genetic racial studies:

https://listverse.com/2015/08/02/10-contentious-explanations-for-racial-differences/

It interesting reading. For instance, did you know that white skin is a genetic rarity, a mutation that developed over time:



But dark skin was also a genetic racial mutation:



Apparently, human beings have been changing colors over time to adapt to where they are living. Not at will, of course, but through evolution.

Perhaps more interesting to the recent discussion in here is this bit about Ashkenazi Jews:



The difference in intellect can be measured, to some degree, and does appear to exist. The reasons why are contentious and still being debated. We may never know. Sound familiar? This reminds me a lot of the discussion here about black people in sports in the U.S. It is contentious. And for various reasons, few of which have to do with hard science, people want to believe certain things. But we may never have all of the answers.

Myself, I rather like the "Karma Concept" of one group of people enslaving and/or putting down another group of people, and in the process strengthening and enhancing future offspring of the group they are trying to put down.

Arguing that race is a social construct does not mean people argue that we are not genetically diverse. A lot of the characteristics on this list are characteristics found in ethnicities, which are specific region based, not necessarily races. Blue eyes, for example, are linked to populations near the Black Sea. Eastern/Northern Europeans, Western Asians, and North Africans too. 

When we talk about Black American athletes, we're discussing a group of people from that a population that is 95% from a very limited region of Africa. Likewise, if we discussed White Americans, we're primarily discussing German, Irish, or British populations. So if I make a declaration about a race based on this limited population and I only test my declaration on this limited population, I am going to confirm my claim. 

[Bengalzona]

(03-23-2018, 10:33 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Just some reading on the idea of race:

Why Genes Don't Count (for Racial Differences in Health)

by Alan Goodman, PhD.
Published November 2000 in American Journal of Public Health

Mixed Blood: An analytical look at methods of classifying race

by Jefferson Fish, PhD
Published November 1995 in Psychology Today

These are representative of how race is viewed in today's scientific community. You can see from the publication dates that this isn't new. In fact, one mentions this being the prevailing thought in anthropology (the field that first defined race) in 1973. I really do highly recommend reading these articles, whether you agree with what I have said in this thread or not. It can help you understand this subject a little better (and these folks are able to articulate the argument better than I can).

Interesting reads.


Both articles hone in on and condemn "race as a biological basis for behavior". I do agree with that.

I disagree with Dr. Goodman's assertion that "biological differences are not located within the genes". He throws this in with behavior: biology and behavior.

I find it interesting that the second article is from a psychology magazine.

(03-23-2018, 10:38 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Arguing that race is a social construct does not mean people argue that we are not genetically diverse. A lot of the characteristics on this list are characteristics found in ethnicities, which are specific region based, not necessarily races. Blue eyes, for example, are linked to populations near the Black Sea. Eastern/Northern Europeans, Western Asians, and North Africans too. 

When we talk about Black American athletes, we're discussing a group of people from that a population that is 95% from a very limited region of Africa. Likewise, if we discussed White Americans, we're primarily discussing German, Irish, or British populations. So if I make a declaration about a race based on this limited population and I only test my declaration on this limited population, I am going to confirm my claim. 

I think we all agree that there are physical variations between people and that those variations are sometimes concentrated geographically for various reasons. But I don't think it is a sin to categorize and label those differences under a title like "race". Unless I'm mistaken, categorizing and labeling them is an initial part of the scientific method to develop and test hypothesis. The title you place that under is just the terminology.

If you say that part of this categorizing and labeling has been misused by people for centuries for nefarious purposes, I think you know that I agree with you. Particularly with regards to using "race as a basis for behavior" as I mentioned above.

[Belsnickel]

(03-23-2018, 11:27 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Interesting reads.

Both articles hone in on and condemn "race as a biological basis for behavior". I do agree with that.

I disagree with Dr. Goodman's assertion that "biological differences are not located within the genes". He throws this in with behavior: biology and behavior.

I find it interesting that the second article is from a psychology magazine.

Disagreement is fine. I will just have to disagree with you.

As for the psych magazine, Dr. Fish is a psychologist, so it helps to understand that. Psychology Today is probably the only mainstream, scientifically rigorous, publication of the social sciences. You aren't going to be seeing others on the newsstand alongside it, so I'm guessing that had something to do with the choice of publication.

(03-23-2018, 11:27 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I think we all agree that there are physical variations between people and that those variations are sometimes concentrated geographically for various reasons. But I don't think it is a sin to categorize and label those differences under a title like "race". Unless I'm mistaken, categorizing and labeling them is an initial part of the scientific method to develop and test hypothesis. The title you place that under is just the terminology.

If you say that part of this categorizing and labeling has been misused by people for centuries for nefarious purposes, I think you know that I agree with you. Particularly with regards to using "race as a basis for behavior" as I mentioned above.

Classifying people into races is not "sinful." It's something that happens on a regular basis and there is no shame in it. We just need to recognize that how race is defined is not how we tend to think of it. Racial definitions vary contextually with with time, location, and culture. A person's race is going to be classified differently here than it would be in some other countries. There also is no true genetic or biological way to classify people into different races, especially because of this variability in classification systems.

[Bengalzona]

(03-23-2018, 11:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Classifying people into races is not "sinful." It's something that happens on a regular basis and there is no shame in it. We just need to recognize that how race is defined is not how we tend to think of it. Racial definitions vary contextually with with time, location, and culture. A person's race is going to be classified differently here than it would be in some other countries. There also is no true genetic or biological way to classify people into different races, especially because of this variability in classification systems.

 I do agree with you on the variance of racial definitions. And they will probably vary more in the future. But, I think you can group most people based upon some shared genetic traces. Maybe you just need more classifications.

As for other countries.... well, we can't help it if they aren't as sophisticated as us.

[BmorePat87]

(03-23-2018, 11:27 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I think we all agree that there are physical variations between people and that those variations are sometimes concentrated geographically for various reasons. But I don't think it is a sin to categorize and label those differences under a title like "race". Unless I'm mistaken, categorizing and labeling them is an initial part of the scientific method to develop and test hypothesis. The title you place that under is just the terminology.

If you say that part of this categorizing and labeling has been misused by people for centuries for nefarious purposes, I think you know that I agree with you. Particularly with regards to using "race as a basis for behavior" as I mentioned above.

It's not a sin as long as we understand why we're categorizing them that way. There can be just as much diversity between someone from Western Africa and Southern Africa as there is from someone in Western Europe.

As Matt pointed out, a lot of the categorization is relevant because of social factors. We know social conditions are scientifically relevant, so if we're comparing treatment and patterns in society, it's a relevant categorization. But if I am discussing something like sickle cell, it would make no sense to discuss race as it's region based. You're predisposed based on the region of origin of your ancestors, not your skin color. 

[BmorePat87]

(03-23-2018, 12:04 PM)Bengalzona Wrote:  I do agree with you on the variance of racial definitions. And they will probably vary more in the future. But, I think you can group most people based upon some shared genetic traces. Maybe you just need more classifications.

As for other countries.... well, we can't help it if they aren't as sophisticated as us.

That's what we've been advocating for in this thread. Using ethnicity

[Bengalzona]

(03-23-2018, 02:02 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That's what we've been advocating for in this thread. Using ethnicity

So.

Don't you like to argue anyway?

[Dill]

(03-23-2018, 10:33 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Just some reading on the idea of race:

Why Genes Don't Count (for Racial Differences in Health)

by Alan Goodman, PhD.
Published November 2000 in American Journal of Public Health

Mixed Blood: An analytical look at methods of classifying race

Yes. 

In terms of Americans' way of thinking about race, lanky people and rounded people are simply two kinds of whites or blacks. But it is equally reasonable to view light-skinned people and dark-skinned people as two kinds of"lankys" or "roundeds." In other words, our categories for the racial classification of people arbitrarily include certain dimensions (light versus dark skin) and exclude others (rounded versus elongated bodies).

There is no biological basis for classifying race according to skin color instead of body form-or according to any other variable, for that matter. All that exists is variability in what people look like -- and the arbitrary and culturally specific ways different societies classify that variability. There is nothing left over that can be called race. This is why race is a myth.

Some of my points above could be footnotes to this--like the classification of Asian GIs as "white" in WWII segregated Mississippi.
When we talk about/study race, we are studying a system of social/cultural classification based largely on skin color, sure, but not on any sound biological/scientific principles.

I had a friend from Okinawa who told that when she got her student visa to come to the US, she was asked to check a box marked "yellow" as a racial identifier.  She was totally surprised, as she had lived for 30 years without knowing that Japanese were "yellow."  And her skin was paler than my Northern European hide.  

[*bfine32*]

Doesn't forensic science use race (cultural construct) as a marker?

Personally call it what you want but I can look at two people and find them to be biologically different and it doesn't matter one bit. But somewhere along the way this became ignorant and racist.

BmorePat87 Wrote:That's what we've been advocating for in this thread. Using ethnicity

I really don't see the difference as some folks are still going to discriminate against those unlike them. So why does it matter if that person is a racist or an ethnictist?

[Dill]

(03-23-2018, 10:07 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I'm playing catch-up in this thread, so I haven't seen the study you posted earlier. Here is a link that cites several different genetic racial studies:

https://listverse.com/2015/08/02/10-contentious-explanations-for-racial-differences/

It interesting reading. For instance, did you know that white skin is a genetic rarity, a mutation that developed over time:

But dark skin was also a genetic racial mutation:

Apparently, human beings have been changing colors over time to adapt to where they are living. Not at will, of course, but through evolution.

Perhaps more interesting to the recent discussion in here is this bit about Ashkenazi Jews:

The difference in intellect can be measured, to some degree, and does appear to exist. The reasons why are contentious and still being debated. We may never know. Sound familiar? This reminds me a lot of the discussion here about black people in sports in the U.S. It is contentious. And for various reasons, few of which have to do with hard science, people want to believe certain things. But we may never have all of the answers.

Myself, I rather like the "Karma Concept" of one group of people enslaving and/or putting down another group of people, and in the process strengthening and enhancing future offspring of the group they are trying to put down.

LOL B-zona gets us back on track.

As far as difference in intellect--there is still the matter of how we measure it. It is hard to imagine doing that in some culture/free way, just as it is hard to imagine a wholly neutral social classification of race. (The Bell Jar debate is illuminating regarding this.) It is sort of like defining what athletic ability is based upon a finite set of sports--gymnastics and wrestling, or basketball and ping pong, or curling, and distance running? I think I.Q. can be a useful measurement to predict certain types of job performance in advanced industrial societies.  But I really hesitate to jump from that to general pronouncements about which human groups are "smarter" than others in some evolutionary/universal sense.

[Dill]

(03-23-2018, 04:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I really don't see the difference as some folks are still going to discriminate against those unlike them. So why does it matter if that person is a racist or an ethnictist?

The inclination of some folks to discriminate isn't naturally, proportionally distributed among populations, like genes for detached ear lobes.

That inclination is pretty much a matter of social environment/indoctrination. It is learned behavior.

What we now call "racism" clearly correlates mental and athletic ability to skin color and presumed heritage--to "natural" qualities which cannot be changed.  In the US, some people would like to see social policy informed by this "knowledge" so that we stop spending money on social welfare supposed to have no effect on some populations, due to their racial nature and limitations. So at the level of policy, it certainly matters how we view the biological foundations of human classification.

The authority of science once played a large role in spreading and legitimating racism as a basis of social classification, also a classification of opportunities and rights.

In shifting to "ethnicity," science not only goes for sounder biological footing, but also de-legitimizes the previous racism it helped create.  An "ethnicist" would have no ground for the racist discrimination we here all deplore. If he ran around saying blacks are better athletes and whites are smarter, he would really just be a racist.

[*bfine32*]

(03-23-2018, 04:52 PM)Dill Wrote: The inclination of some folks to discriminate isn't naturally, proportionally distributed among populations, like genes for detached ear lobes.

That inclination is pretty much a matter of social environment/indoctrination. It is learned behavior.

What we now call "racism" clearly correlates mental and athletic ability to skin color and presumed heritage--to "natural" qualities which cannot be changed.  In the US, some people would like to see social policy informed by this "knowledge" so that we stop spending money on social welfare supposed to have no effect on some populations, due to their racial nature and limitations. So at the level of policy, it certainly matters how we view the biological foundations of human classification.

The authority of science once played a large role in spreading and legitimating racism as a basis of social classification, also a classification of opportunities and rights.

In shifting to "ethnicity," science not only goes for sounder biological footing, but also de-legitimizes the previous racism it helped create.  An "ethnicist" would have no ground for the racist discrimination we here all deplore. If he ran around saying blacks are better athletes and whites are smarter, he would really just be a racist.

Fair explanation, but it seems we are just wanting to change the rules because some find it offensive. Merriam defines race as: "a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits" while ethnicity is: "a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like" 

So if we identify by ethnicity, that doesn't mean that race ceases to exist as there are still going to be folks with: "distinctive physical traits"

[Belsnickel]

(03-23-2018, 05:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Fair explanation, but it seems we are just wanting to change the rules because some find it offensive. Merriam defines race as: "a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits" while ethnicity is: "a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like" 

So if we identify by ethnicity, that doesn't mean that race ceases to exist as there are still going to be folks with: "distinctive physical traits"

I'm not quite certain where you saw that definition for ethnicity on the Merriam-Webster site. Ethnic was a bit more descriptive, but still doesn't jive with what you said. You correctly quoted one of the multiple definitions of race, but ignored the one that said "a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics," which would be a long way of saying a shared culture.

Looking at these definitions really doesn't help clear anything up on this topic.

[Dill]

(03-23-2018, 05:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Fair explanation, but it seems we are just wanting to change the rules because some find it offensive. Merriam defines race as: "a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits" while ethnicity is: "a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like" 

So if we identify by ethnicity, that doesn't mean that race ceases to exist as there are still going to be folks with: "distinctive physical traits"

"Race" is not simply "distinctive physical traits."  It is a set of visible markers like skin color and hair type collected together for social, not biological purposes.

What scientists find offensive are categories which have only social, not biological foundation, masquerading as biology.  And by their standards, ground a social valuation/classification in skin color by saying that black skin is "biological" is non-scientific.


Just remembered a good story about RACE. 

When I lived in Germany, the people across the hall from our apt. were Eritrean, very African and dark brown, but by their standards, not black.  One day we had dinner with them and they had an Eritrean friend who had been living in East Germany (this was right after the wall fell). This woman was, by our stands, BLACK. Born and raised in a community with no whites and no white ancestry.

Anyway, this woman told us all a crazy story.  She used to work in a pharmacy in an East German city, where, of course, there were very few blacks.  One day a really black guy came into the pharmacy. Not brown or dark brown, but coal black skin (maybe from Angola?)  This Eritrean woman says she refused to serve him and ran to the back of the pharmacy and told a co-worker "There is a N*****r out there!"  To her astonishment, the co-worker chastised her and explained that, in any case, to many East Germans she was a N*****r too. "No!" she said. "Oh yes!" was the answer.  My wife and I were speechless.

From this I can only guess that, where she grew up, differences in shades of dark skin that, for purposes of classification, would be meaningless to us were of great account to her. From her perspective, she was racially more like a German than a black African. That really black guy was a different race, because of his "distinctive physical traits."   Her classification system was not qualitatively inferior to or different from that of the East Germans who would have classified her as being of the same race as the man she refused to serve. Same method, just applied from a different angle. And to say this is not denying there are distinctive physical traits which differentiate most Germans from most Eritreans.

[Bengalzona]

(03-23-2018, 05:39 PM)Dill Wrote: "Race" is not simply "distinctive physical traits."  It is a set of visible markers like skin color and hair type collected together for social, not biological purposes.

What scientists find offensive are categories which have only social, not biological foundation, masquerading as biology.  And by their standards, ground a social valuation/classification in skin color by saying that black skin is "biological" is non-scientific.


Just remembered a good story about RACE. 

When I lived in Germany, the people across the hall from our apt. were Eritrean, very African and dark brown, but by their standards, not black.  One day we had dinner with them and they had an Eritrean friend who had been living in East Germany (this was right after the wall fell). This woman was, by our stands, BLACK. Born and raised in a community with no whites and no white ancestry.

Anyway, this woman told us all a crazy story.  She used to work in a pharmacy in an East German city, where, of course, there were very few blacks.  One day a really black guy came into the pharmacy. Not brown or dark brown, but coal black skin (maybe from Angola?)  This Eritrean woman says she refused to serve him and ran to the back of the pharmacy and told a co-worker "There is a N*****r out there!"  To her astonishment, the co-worker chastised her and explained that, in any case, to many East Germans she was a N*****r too. "No!" she said. "Oh yes!" was the answer.  My wife and I were speechless.

From this I can only guess that, where she grew up, differences in shades of dark skin that, for purposes of classification, would be meaningless to us were of great account to her. From her perspective, she was racially more like a German than a black African. That really black guy was a different race, because of his "distinctive physical traits."   Her classification system was not qualitatively inferior to or different from that of the East Germans who would have classified her as being of the same race as the man she refused to serve. Same method, just applied from a different angle. And to say this is not denying there are distinctive physical traits which differentiate most Germans from most Eritreans.

Some places in South and Latin America and in the Caribbean are notorious for their racial classification systems based upon skin color. 'Muricans have a much simpler system: Black or White (New Orleans and Puerto Rico exempted, of course)

[Bengalzona]

(03-23-2018, 04:39 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL B-zona gets us back on track.

As far as difference in intellect--there is still the matter of how we measure it. It is hard to imagine doing that in some culture/free way, just as it is hard to imagine a wholly neutral social classification of race. (The Bell Jar debate is illuminating regarding this.) It is sort of like defining what athletic ability is based upon a finite set of sports--gymnastics and wrestling, or basketball and ping pong, or curling, and distance running? I think I.Q. can be a useful measurement to predict certain types of job performance in advanced industrial societies.  But I really hesitate to jump from that to general pronouncements about which human groups are "smarter" than others in some evolutionary/universal sense.

That is precisely why I added that identifier, "to some degree".  Glad you caught that. We have yet to create an intelligence test without some form of cultural bias (and probably never will).

[BmorePat87]

(03-23-2018, 05:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Fair explanation, but it seems we are just wanting to change the rules because some find it offensive. Merriam defines race as: "a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits" while ethnicity is: "a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like" 

So if we identify by ethnicity, that doesn't mean that race ceases to exist as there are still going to be folks with: "distinctive physical traits"

A common misconception seems to be that those who acknowledge the fact that race is a social construct want to abolish race as some sort of system of categorization. 

It is still a very relevant concept just as many other social constructs are, we just shouldn't suggest that it's biologically relevant simply because some people 200 years ago thought skin color was the major genetic indicator in humans.