I just feel like it’s (in the grand scheme of things) such a small thing to talk about.
Not all of us live in the grand abstract generality of Life, The Universe, and Everything, all of the time. Some of us are concerned with the relatively microcosmic questions that are primarily relevant just to all humans on earth.
As far as the term “race” goes, sure, some of us on this forum buy into the idea that there is no such thing as “race”. But by and large, I would guess that most people think differently. I mean we should try to get the word out, but I doubt that the word or what it means to most people is going to go away anytime soon.
So we are all identical looking? There are no visible, genetically determined differences that can be used to identify our genetic history?Race obviously exists, regardless of whether or not the word is twisted by the most ignorant and/or cruel of us to justify saying and doing horrible things.
In my mind pretty much yes. However, the features you are talking about are genetics and regional differences that occurred through the process of evolution. It’s no different than different breeds of cats and dogs and like they can mate with anyone of their own species, we can mate with any human, we just cannot mate outside our species, which is human. However, if you want to say there is a race, there is only one race- the human race, which is a species. Other than that, there isn’t really various races, just different ethnic groups. To say one married outside their race is a misnomer, given that all humans can marry and reproduce with other humans. A European can mate with someone from Zimbabwe and reproduce another human, but they cannot mate with a gorilla and reproduce. That would be outside one’s species.
Is it wrong to be able to identify an Inuit by their physical appearance?
You really can’t. I say this because you can have biracial people- say one who is black and white- and they can look as though they are white when they are only 1/2. The same holds true for someone who is part Native American too. Physical appearance is just appearance. It really doesn’t say much beyond that. At the same time, one who appears white can get Sickle Cell Anemia (it has happened), because they are not all white. They only look white. My sons are biracial (actually multiracial- Native American, white, black, and Greek, closest ancestry looks black (father, who’s part Greek and Black) and white (mother, who’s European and Native American)), but they have been mistaken to be Latino, which they are not. They don’t even have Hispanic in them, as far as we know. Looks mean nothing.
I see some hair splitting going on here. I’ll try this for a definition along some guidelines; There are traits that are associated with genes that can be traced back to geographic regions. These traits might be typical, but they are not consistent, so there is always some danger in attempting to use them to identify the geographic origins of someone’s ancestry using only our 5 senses as a detector. Even with tools like a DNA test, it is even more dangerous to identify cultural traits based on genetic markers. For example, a group of people could have migrated together and continued to pair with each other, maintaining the geographic DNA but adapting completely different cultures. Or a culture, or just an individual, could have mixed with the person’s ancestors and altered their culture from that of the surrounding geographic area.
There was a book recently by a geneticist named David Reich that covered the most current research on “race”: https://www.amazon.com/Who-Are-How-Got-Here/dp/110187032X
Basically it describes how the normal definition race is correct and that evolution in different environments causes genetic differences in personality traits and cognitive ability which mostly correspond with our current racial stereotypes.
It’s been a little controversial to say the least.
Lausten said, I see some hair splitting going on here. I’ll try this for a definition along some guidelines; There are traits that are associated with genes that can be traced back to geographic regions. These traits might be typical, but they are not consistent, so there is always some danger in attempting to use them to identify the geographic origins of someone’s ancestry using only our 5 senses as a detector. Even with tools like a DNA test, it is even more dangerous to identify cultural traits based on genetic markers. For example, a group of people could have migrated together and continued to pair with each other, maintaining the geographic DNA but adapting completely different cultures. Or a culture, or just an individual, could have mixed with the person’s ancestors and altered their culture from that of the surrounding geographic area.
This I agree with. One can’t tell a person’s origins just by looking at them.
This I agree with. One can’t tell a person’s origins just by looking at them.Some people can. The more time spent around people different looking from oneself the easier it is to put a face to a place.
“There was a book recently by a geneticist named David Reich that covered the most current research on “race”…”
Would that be David Reich, the Third? (just kidding, get it? the Third Reich?)
But seriously, there is a small % of DNA in some of our species that is from Neanderthals and Denisovians that is completely absent in other of us humans. What might that mean re: differences between some groups of humans?
Mriana: " However, the features you are talking about are genetics and regional differences that occurred through the process of evolution. It’s no different than different breeds of cats and dogs and like they can mate with anyone of their own species, we can mate with any human, we just cannot mate outside our species, which is human. However, if you want to say there is a race, there is only one race- the human race, which is a species. Other than that, there isn’t really various races, just different ethnic groups."Read the definitions of 'race' and 'ethnicity' here: https://www.livescience.com/33903-difference-race-ethnicity.html . The first text on the page is,"Race is associated with biology, whereas ethnicity is associated with culture." Are the people at livescience evil racists, or are they simply acknowledging that the word 'race' has a definition? I assume the former is true, as it is the choice that also describes me.
I am not a moral monster in my ability to understand the actual definition of the word ‘race’. I simply accept that biological differences exist, most people’s ancestry is physically identifiable, and there is a word in English that describes our ability so see those differences. Pretending it doesn’t exist is odd.
Yet again, I will state that I do not use the word because it is sometimes (apparently WAY more often that I was aware) felt to have a negative meaning. The word ‘ancestry’ is what I would use if it ever came up in conversation… which it never does.
Furthermore, the DNA of two humans chosen at random generally varies by less than 0.1 percent. This is less genetic variation than other types of hominids (such as chimpanzees and orangutans), leading some scientists to describe all humans as belong to the same race — the human race.This is a quote from the link you provided 3point. It agrees perfectly with what Mriana says. I'm feeling a little "narcissism of small differences" going on here. Except oneguy, he's off the map.
I think Lausten stated it well. Live Science isn’t a perfect source of info, but even they said the differences are small. One can have European features and the only thing showing they have African (black) origins (say 1/16) is maybe the texture of their hair, even though it is blonde. How would you even know just by looking at them that their great great grandmother was black? You wouldn’t if the texture of their hair was the only thing that gave it away. I’m 1/8 Native American and very few people realize this just by looking at me.
So my definition is wrong because we should pretend the visible differences between many groups of people don’t exist? Sorry, but that’s not possible for me to do. ‘Race’ isn’t a perfect word, but is really really does have a definition. It’s in dictionaries and is defined as I have defined it on many websites in addition to the one I linked to.
Yes, we’re quibbling over a very minor point, but it is just weird that I get any grief at all. The word is literally defined in dictionaries!
I’m pretty sure we all agree that racism is terrible. We merely differ on whether or not a person’s ancestry is expressed as visible traits, which is called ‘race’ in the English language.
I didn’t say anyone was quibbling. We are talking about a word that is not well defined. It’s so poorly defined that the community that created it (scientists from the 16th century) now want to distance themselves from it (scientists today). So your definition can’t be wrong if there is no correct definition. The best we’ve come up is that it TENDS to be associated with biology, not culture. We also know that there are a lot of people who tend to claim to know what someone’s culture must be, based on their biology.
The meaning of words is formed by culture, so if the scientists don’t want to help with this one, I’d just as soon stay away from it. It’s a word with a variety of meanings.
Would that be David Reich, the Third? (just kidding, get it? the Third Reich?)But seriously, there is a small % of DNA in some of our species that is from Neanderthals and Denisovians that is completely absent in other of us humans. What might that mean re: differences between some groups of humans?
Haha good one.
As far as I know the amount of dna from the others is too small to have had much effect, though I remember hearing something about red hair genes possibly coming from Neanderthals.
The girls in the topic photo (man! they are so cute) would commonly be referred to as biracial, if one knew their parents, since they are all sisters and are 2 sets of fraternal twins and their parents appear to be of 2 different “races”. So how do we talk about them without using the familiar terms like “race” and “biracial”?
Re: Small Differences between races
This is a common misconception about “race” and dna and it is summed up well by Lewinton’s Fallacy:
Edwards argued that while Lewontin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different alleles (variants of a particular gene) at an individual locus (the location of a particular gene) between individuals, it is nonetheless possible to classify individuals into different racial groups with an accuracy that approaches 100 percent when one takes into account the frequency of the alleles at several loci at the same time. This happens because differences in the frequency of alleles at different loci are correlated across populations—the alleles that are more frequent in a population at two or more loci are correlated when we consider the two populations simultaneously. Or in other words, the frequency of the alleles tends to cluster differently for different populations.[9] In Edwards's words, "most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data." These relationships can be extracted using commonly used ordination and cluster analysis techniques. Edwards argued that, even if the probability of misclassifying an individual based on the frequency of alleles at a single locus is as high as 30 percent (as Lewontin reported in 1972), the misclassification probability becomes close to zero if enough loci are studied.[10] Edwards's paper stated that the underlying logic was discussed in the early years of the 20th century. Edwards wrote that he and Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza had presented a contrasting analysis to Lewontin's, using very similar data, already at the 1963 International Congress of Genetics. Lewontin participated in the conference but did not refer to this in his later paper. Edwards argued that Lewontin used his analysis to attack human classification in science for social reasons.[10]
It’s so poorly defined that the community that created it (scientists from the 16th century) now want to distance themselves from it (scientists today).
Outdated maybe a good description.
That said,3point14rat, let’s say you have two people who are both 1/2 black and 1/2 white marry and have kids. The gene pool could produce a child who looks white, one who looks black and at least 2 who look mixed. The white child who has all recessive genes, can you label him/her as being racial white just by looking at them and not their parents too? If you said, they are white, you’d be wrong because that isn’t all their heritage. This happens often and back in the days of slavery and for decades there after, they called it “passing”. The same with the child who received all the dominant genes and looks black. You really cannot do it on looks alone. Genetics are a funny thing, but when you talk about genetically inherited physical features and call that a means of identifying a person’s race, it’s very outdated, especially in a vast melting pot, that involves a multitude of combinations of recessive and dominant genes.
Think of a child with four grandparents, one is Asian, one subSaharan African, one white Northern European, and one is, let’s say for the sake of simplicity, an indigenous person of the Americas.
That child will look something like what everyone in the world will look like eventually—completely racially undistinguishable.
There is nothing in our DNA that identifies race. Some will try to find similarities in DNA that show the probable ethnic background of a person, but that’s a statistical assessment. The DNA itself does not show race. Race is a completely visual phenomenon.
Lois
Exactly, LoisL. You understand what I’m trying to say and even know what I’m trying to say. You are also right that the idea of race is a visual phenomenon- one that has to be wanted or if not wanted it’s not the first thing that comes to mind when looking at a person.
One would think that, in a population that is not just descended from a particular location, but which is a population of 2 fraternal twin sisters, that they would easily share several loci of alleles. So what does that tell us about the sisters in the topic photo? One of these would commonly be referred to by observers as black and the other as white. So what do the correlated loci of alleles tell us about each of their race? What is the value of such a rough but complex attempt at classification?