Steve King wants to know what "sub groups" contributed as much as Whites have

[BmorePat87]

(07-23-2016, 06:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually the last time I can remember referring to the 3 base races was during a Forensics (is this the junk science you keep referring to?) section in Anthropology in College. Apparently they can use certain markers to determine if a victim was one of the 3 races (black, white, yellow). I think they could also use it to determine the race of a suspect; given I cannot recall exactly. I don't they had anything they could use to determine their social construct.    

What forensic scientists do is determine a subject's likely racial designation by society. As Sauer explains, when we lump ancestries together and decide that they all share a race, it is easy to then use this identification we have created to find the declared race of a subject based on a physical trait that is shared by a majority within this created group. Also, as Sauer points out, while the concept of race not being biological was shunned in the 60's, by the time this report was written, 1992, half of physical anthropologists agreed that it had no basis in biology and 70% of all cultural anthropologists shared this view. 

http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp206-us15/files/2012/05/Sauer-1992-Forensic-Anthropology-Race-Concept-1.pdf

In more basic terms: people with shared ancestries have shared traits because they are much more closely related to each other (as in being relatives). If we then lump a bunch of these of these ancestries into one group (let's call it a "race") and run a test to see if someone's bones match one of those who fall into this "race", then we will affirm our belief that they are that race. 

The problem becomes that physical anthropologists who study things besides bones can tell us that this is a so much variation within these created "races" that there are NO COMMON GENETIC CLUSTERS within them. Single out one ancestral group within a race. Let's say the Irish. An Irishman is likely to have a lot more in common with another Irishman than a Greek. Despite being in the same "race", an Irishman could have a lot more in common with a Kenyan than he does a Greek. The fact that this is true is a blow to the belief that our race is biological. 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html#brace

Here's a good pro and con. Two respected physical anthropologists giving conflicting views on the matter.

tl;dr: if I say ancestries X, Y, and Z are a "race" and I then check if you are related to either ancestries X,Y,Z, of course I am going to then be able to say you fall into that race. Also, genetics cannot find "race".