The myth of race: Why are we divided by race when there is no such thing?

If you do some historical research, you'll find that up until just a couple of hundred years ago, a person's 'race' was determined by the language they spoke, and the God(s) they worshipped. Skin color wasn't even a factor.

a reply to: ColeYounger


Ding ding ding we have a winner Ethnicities exist (though are gross generalisations), "race" is not really a factor since we've made sure we are the only naked apes wandering around

For the earlier poster who was talking about "progressive nut jobs (or was it wack jobs". I'm not a progressive (I'm not on your political spectrum bub). I'm a scientist. My brackground is Pharmaceuticals and genomics. WHen people say "race exists in science" they are talking about genetic clustering, which is not a great way of defining anything (perhaps if we looked at the genome of every single human today it might be, but given that it takes at best a couple of days to get a genome .... not going to happen...yet).

Similarly people talk about "matriarchal" and "patriarchal" clans. Which really means that (for example) every European is "decended from one of 7 women" (but not really). Or at least that's how it seems to the layperson. Ignoring the real story of the "7 women" what they are measuring is non coding (ie does not express as a physical difference (ie proteins)) single nucleotide mutation, in the mitochondrial DNA of a human. So it does not code for a physical difference, and its the DNA of the mitochondria (the cells power house, and is unique to them, and not part of the human chromosomes). You could be at work with a guy or a gal who for all intents and purposes looks like your sibling, and they would be from a different "matriarchal lineage" to you. So that's not the basis for race either.

When we start using words correctly, the problems will reduce. So to reiterate: we can't define "race" (as people understand it) scientifically. Science is a better tool than "they look like that" or "daddy told me"

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: RedParrotHead

My opinion: since race comes down purely to skin color, why not just use descriptive terms if we need to.

"White male in a red hoodie"
"Black female in a blue Chevy Sedan"
"Pink hermaphrodite riding a unicorn pig"

Race (or what we call race) comes down to purely skin color? I disagree. If that's the case a "black" set of parents could give birth to a "white" child if that child has albinism.

a reply to: RedParrotHead

Well they could.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Agreeed. Saying it is not race is just playing semantics, there are obvious differences, even some of the people on this thread averse to the idea have used terminology that could just as easily have been used in defence of race.

People evolved differently but they are not different races? People are biologically different but they're not different races?

Ok, let's call them breeds then.. What am I missing?

a reply to: MX61000

If you could speak clearly instead of insinuating stuff that'd be fine, are you a 5%'er by any chance?

All it takes is a look in the mirror to know we are not all the same. Traits are more then skin deep races do have differences.

originally posted by: MX61000
I'm not being racist this is the truth. The Caucasian people are only to be referred to as a race because when they where scientifically made around 6000 years ago, the maker only gave them 6000 years to rule, so they were moving in haste and they were successful as We see today. But there was a self destruction mechanism built in them.

I love it when someone comes along to show everyone what "the truth" really is.

Where did you get this information anyhow??? Who's "the Maker" that scientifically created Caucasians 6000 years ago with the self destruct thing built in???

Seriously, you can't just come in here and drop all that "truth" on us without explaining where it came from. So please explain in detail what the hell you're talking about.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How can science tell us race doesn't exist if it isn't even on the taxonomic scale?

What exactly is it that doesn't exist then?

First we have to define race, and I'd say that the definition of race is the common interpretation of race, known all around the world. There are biological differences, that's race then.

It only becomes a problem if you make it a problem, it only becomes a problem when you start assigning positive or negative qualities to determine superiority or inferiority.

Truth shouldn't be thrown under the bus because of political correctness.

Race is apt, especially since it isn't even on the taxonomic scale and breed sounds stupid.

Since we as humans seem to have a need for a descriptive term for these biological differences I'd posit that race should continue to serve that function, especially since that's the way the word has been used for the longest. If it ain't broke, why fix it? To simply replace it with a new word would be utterly pointless.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

I mean I don't really care one way or the other. I'm just trying to point out that the differences that people get all bent out of shape about aren't even that significant scientifically.

I know that breed sounds ridiculous, but it IS the closest scientific definition that we can use to describe what races are. Though, we could always run with my idea and say that race really doesn't exist (just geographic origin differences) and I'd be willing to bet that race problems would evaporate.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

The problem here is the old definition of "race" (since "every one knows it" or something) is that it fails in its own definitions. Within any of those "racial" groups they have more variances than between the defined "other races". Someone has already shown that inside what was once called the "negroid" group there is a hell of a lot of variation.

So if you are going to use physical traits, its going to fail. Perhaps you would use "genes which code for these traits", except then that will cover a large number of genes and various mutations etc etc. Genetics is far more reliable than "he looks black" or "frizzy hair" to define something. You either have BRAC1 and/or BRAC2 mutations which predispose you to breast cancer or you do not.

Race is a meaningless term, because its a flawed concept. Which has been abused for countless generations. If people are going to use the "breed equates to race" anaology with dogs. Well then, you could say skin colour is the same as coat color, which is with in the breed specification (as are several other things people will bring up). Your Black lab and your yellow lab are still labs (breed). Your bigger difference is going to be your wolves, coyotes, and domestic dogs. So say your Sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovians, oh wait we lost two of them.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's the point, what we define as "racial traits" are usually very small percentage differences between groups. SKin color, hair texture etc are usually a single gene mutation difference (its how we picked it up to begin with, if it was more complex we would not have adapted very fast). These differences are vanishingly small. So they should really be treated as such.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Little proof of geographical locations CAUSING these differences, it sounds nice and all, but it is definitely unproven.

In my own ETHNIC group incredible variations are found as well, and my DNA is profoundly different in its orders than even my own brother.

This is incredibly lacking in scope, determining that the HUMANS are a result of evolution and geography alone.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Ok, let me clarify here. I'm going to go into a bit of evolutionary theory here to straighten this out. No, geographic locations don't cause the genetic differences that we call "race", BUT they do emphasize certain mutations that make the people in those areas more predisposed to surviving longer in those areas. That is called filling an evolutionary niche and humans are subjected to it just as much as any other living organism on the planet.

Of course the mutations won't be consistent across a population, because mutations are random. And unless your ancestors happened to have mutated the mutation, you won't have it. Also, it is possible that multiple beneficial mutations will evolve in a population simultaneously, meaning that part of the population may have trait 1, and another part may have trait 2, while a third may not have either of them (which will shrink over time), also a 4th part may have BOTH traits.

This explains why there is no clear definition of race. Evolution is too haphazard to nail down specific characteristics that we can define as "race". We could come up with broad ideas, but even those ideas don't hold true for the whole population. This is why I say that race is non-existent.

Even the term breed really doesn't do it justice. Because we intelligently guide evolution to create and refine breeds. This allows us to clearly define what is and isn't contained in a certain breed of animal.

Ok lets turn this around. What purpose does racial classification really serve?

Wow, this article brings the idea of political correctness to a whole new level.

If there are no races, then what is the word to describe the blatant differences between Asians, Africans, Caucasians, etc? Does that word also address the fact that if two humans from the same race reproduce they end up with a baby of the same race (or insert your politically correct word for race here, to avoid anyone's silk thong bunching up)?

I'm all for the idea that every race is similar in their potential for intellect and other non-physical traits, however the idea that there are no observable (sometimes visually, sometimes scientifically) differences between races is absurd. You can apply any word you want, but that word will still mean the same thing as 'race' in the context of scientific human description.

a reply to: ChaosComplex

This has nothing to do with political correctness. "Race" is about as useful as phrenology for describing anything meaningful.

originally posted by: Tusks
Races of a species are simply groups which can be identified by observable physical characteristics.

To deny that races exist is ridiculous.

Every child can tell the difference between Scandanavian Whites and Australian Aborigines, or between Tutsis and Japanese, or between Apaches and African pygmies.

What utter garbage and multi-cultural agenda-cism--- to deny what is obvious to anyone's eyes.

And their cultural differences are frequently even greater than their physical differences.

What a refreshing change from the constant one upmanship

We are all human and breed is probably a more accurate discription, if race does not exhist, can I have a Bengal tiger and pass it off as a domestic cat ?

Im done with this thread

a reply to: Noinden

I'd say that the differences in skeleton structure would be enough to qualify, but that's me, I'm no PhD.

As for the silly idea that everything would be fine if we'd all just become goobacks, really?

If there wasn't skin color, you don't think we could find other reasons to hate and kill each other?

We've got gangs that put on different colours and decide to kill each other over that, I'm sure Republicans and Democrats would be out on the streets killing each other if it wasn't for law enforcement. Don't even get me started on religion.

Trust me, humanity in this state of civilisational decay will have no problem finding new reasons for killing each other. Personally I find the diversity interesting and colourful. I think it's pretty ironic that so many adherents of multiculturalism would want us to all become the same, despite their mantra of choice being diversity. Cognitive dissonance if I ever saw it.

If races ever disappeared because of mixing all the haters would simply find other reasons.

originally posted by: Noinden
Ok lets turn this around. What purpose does racial classification really serve?

I think it does nothing more than serve to put us all into categories and boxes. People are much, much more than their outer appearance, their religion, or their 'culture'.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Well see these "differences" are important why? The genes which code for skin colour, hair texture, and nose shape are neither specific to any of the old "racial" groups, nor are they particularly significant in % of a genome. They don't influence any other genes either. So its not a meaningful difference.

SO I return to why is race a significant thing to talk about?