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

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: Noinden

I've already made my position(and lack of credentials) very clear in earlier posts.

If there are differences then there is no reason to hide or try to suppress that fact, if these differences aren't enough to constitute different "races" then that's that. Though I don't see any problem with using the word race, it serves a function even if it isn't technically correct. To me the colloquial meaning of the word is pretty clear.

I think differences in skeleton structure, musculature, skin colour, resistance to various diseases, testosterone level, high-altitude adaptation etcetera is sufficient enough to warrant the use of the word.

It's almost like if we were to suddenly say that an apple is an apple, no matter which of the 7,500+ varieties it was. Although their flavor profiles are drastically different, they are the same basic shape so no more variety names.

Just "Apples", so none of the apples has their feelings hurt.

BLACK and white twins Hayleigh and Lauren Durrant proudly hold their new sisters Leah and Miya — who incredibly are ALSO twins with different coloured skin.
Their mixed-race parents Dean Durrant and Alison Spooner repeated the two-tone miracle after a seven-year gap.

www.thesun.co.uk... f-black-and-white-twins.html

Beautiful black and white twins Kian and Remee turn seven
It can usually be difficult to tell twins apart - but not this pair. These beautiful twins share the same cheeky smile but Kian Hodgson's skin is dark and she has black hair while her sister Remee is blonde with pale skin.

The twins, who were born within a minute of each other, owe their different appearances to a one in a million combination of their parents' genes. Their mum Kylee Hodgson and dad Remi Horder both have white mothers and black fathers.

www.parentdish.co.uk...

Black Parents gave birth to White Baby.

Professor Bryan Sykes, head of Human Genetics at Oxford University and Britain’s leading expert, yesterday called the birth “extraordinary”.

He said: “In mixed race humans, the lighter variant of skin tone may come out in a child – and this can sometimes be startlingly different to the skin of the parents.

“This might be the case where there is a lot of genetic mixing, as in Afro-Caribbean populations. But in Nigeria there is little mixing.”

Prof Sykes said BOTH parents would have needed “some form of white ancestry” for a pale version of their genes to be passed on.

But he added, “The hair is extremely unusual. Even many blonde children don’t have blonde hair like this at birth.”

The expert said some unknown mutation was the most likely explanation. He admitted: “The rules of genetics are complex and we still don’t understand what happens in many cases.”

Read more: straightfromthea.com...

This is an example of how the our genes can reshuffle the above is rare enough but it does happen.
That Race does not really exist is not just P.C it is S.C or Scientifically Correct!

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Yet you will admit not knowing very much about what that all means right? The physiological differences you talk about are more varied inside a "race" as between them. Why? Because the genetics inside a "race" are more varied than between them (citations several posts back). THIS is why the concept of "race" fails. It breaks its own rules. "Black men having higher testosterone" is not accurate across all who would have been labelled black (hell frizzy hair, and dark skin is also not accurate as another poster has already shown).

Here is the rub. There are no genetic traits unique to any one of the old racial groupings which members of another do not hold. Genetics is what determines what we look like. We've moved on from "physical traits to determine how people are" (its why I threw phrenology in several posts back as well, its a debunked pseudo science).

What is the purpose of the term race for you? No seriously. I've talked about my intellectual elitism being against the wrong use of it. I'm not a generally politically correct individual. I'm liberal on social policies, conservative on fiscal, and a bloody barbarian over the safety of my loved ones. So I am not doing this as a "social justice warrior". I am just trying to get honest information out there.

a reply to: Spider879
I clicked the first link hoping to see the parents, but it won't let me read it without signing up. No thanks. The second two pictures are almost positively albinism.

The first girl looks almost indistinguishable, but to me she looks like she is black/hispanic with very light skin. One or both of their parents is likely racially mixed, if I had to guess. The quote says "Their mixed-race parents", but does that mean each is a different race, or that one (or both) are racially mixed themselves?

However all the things I've said are out the window when you start to look at 'mixed' babies. Also, how can the argument of "There are no races" be supported by pages saying things like "mixed-race"? I guess the writers of your proof must also have outdated ideas.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TheLaughingGod (hell frizzy hair, and dark skin is also not accurate as another poster has already shown).

Sorry but ask any hairdresser to describe the difference between black people's hair and white people's hair. Frizzy might be on the long list of descriptors, but you've got a long way to go before you can simplify it to one word.

originally posted by: ChaosComplex
a reply to: Spider879
I clicked the first link hoping to see the parents, but it won't let me read it without signing up. No thanks. The second two pictures are almost positively albinism.

The first girl looks almost indistinguishable, but to me she looks like she is black/hispanic with very light skin. One or both of their parents is likely racially mixed, if I had to guess. The quote says "Their mixed-race parents", but does that mean each is a different race, or that one (or both) are racially mixed themselves?

However all the things I've said are out the window when you start to look at 'mixed' babies. Also, how can the argument of "There are no races" be supported by pages saying things like "mixed-race"? I guess the writers of your proof must also have outdated ideas.

No in fact non of the kids are albinos and all or one of the parents are "socially black"

This pic is of the Kien family of the first set of twins at a younger age
cabinet-of-curiosities.blogspot.jp...

a reply to: Noinden

Yes that would be correct.

Are you saying that these differences does not exist, or are you saying that they exist despite more variance between the genetics of different races?

It's simple to me, if there are general differences in the manifested physiology of the genes they should be acknowledged, if not, then that's that, I'm not particularly invested in any outcome.

And yes, I have heard of this before, but I've also heard conflicting views on this subject, and without much of an understanding of the science involved I wouldn't really know who's right.

www.psmag.com...

Ok, I did a little bit reading and if I understand that article right I'd still say I subscribe to the belief in races, even if reality technically falls short of the literal definition.

Sure, many people have mixed ancestry that crosses racial boundaries, but there are undeniable physical differences between people native to different parts of the world. Many of those physical differences reflect genetic differences, and over the past two decades, researchers have used those genetic differences to pinpoint the geographical origins of people’s ancestry with ever-increasing precision.

And there are clear examples of recently evolved adaptations in different human populations, such as the high-altitude physiology in Tibetans and Andeans.

One natural definition of race is a group whose members are genetically much more similar to each other than they are to other groups. Putting a number on what counts as “much more” is a somewhat arbitrary exercise

Arbitrary, damn.. I was gonna use that word earlier.

That's enough for me..

I'll continue believing in races, because: arbitrary. And because: regional adaptations. And because: enough significant differences(to me).

Thanks for levelling with me and not being an ass though, I appreciate you bringing knowledge and facts to the thread.

originally posted by: Spider879
No in fact non of the kids are albinos and all or one of the parents are "socially black"

Socially black??? WTF does that even mean?
If you mean this, from the link you provided:

According to the Daily Mail, the twins were born to a British couple of mixed ancestry: Both parents had white mothers and black fathers.

Then you are just proving that this is a P.C. issue and nothing more. An issue of titles.

This pic is of the Kien family of the first set of twins at a younger age
cabinet-of-curiosities.blogspot.jp...

I think you mean the second set, the first set of twins are named "Hayleigh and Lauren Durrant", according to your quote. The twins mentioned in the above link are named "Kian and Remee".

originally posted by: ChaosComplex

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TheLaughingGod (hell frizzy hair, and dark skin is also not accurate as another poster has already shown).

Sorry but ask any hairdresser to describe the difference between black people's hair and white people's hair. Frizzy might be on the long list of descriptors, but you've got a long way to go before you can simplify it to one word.

Actually woolly hair maybe a relatively recent development as humans were living in the open Savannah when we moved into the forest canopy we that's were we most likely developed woolly hair but dark skin was always with us as a means of optimum survival in high U.V areas that advantage became disadvantage in the areas of low U.V

a reply to: ChaosComplex

Socially black??? WTF does that even mean?
If you mean this, from the link you provided:

It means that those people in the pic regardless of their shade and actual ancestry are Black by law and tradition both of which are social as they would have to put Black on their official papers or census forms.

I think you mean the second set, the first set of twins are named "Hayleigh and Lauren Durrant", according to your quote. The twins mentioned in the above link are named "Kian and Remee".

Yes thanks for the correction.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Ok so what I am saying is these "differences" are more pronounced inside what we term "races" than between them. I am also saying that the genetic coding for the physically prominent differences (skin colour, hair etc) are single gene mutations. We have 20000 to 30000 genes (the number keeps being revised so I'm putting a broad range here). So if humans are 99.9% similar, all those differences are coming out of 0.1%, and if those are small (and they are) then they are a tiny % of the human genome. Why would this matter? No seriously why would we be all about thousandths of a % making someone different? I'll repeat that of that 0.1% difference in humans most differences (85%) are inside the old racial groups. Two Caucasians are likely to be more different from each other than one Caucasian and a Black person.

So these are vanishingly small things to judge someone on. I've also said previously in this thread but I will also repeat here, the differences lie on a spectrum and there are no clear boundaries between the "Races" on that spectrum. Basically there are no traits unique to any one "race", so you can't use them as ways to define the race.

While the misuse of the facts irks me, I could give a fat rodents rear if someone believes it. I'll also thank you for not being a troll and trying to reword what I said to suit your own agenda

Slan agat

Gareth

originally posted by: Spider879
It means that those people in the pic regardless of their shade and actual ancestry are Black by law and tradition both of which are social as they would have to put Black on their official papers or census forms.

So that means that in a discussion relying heavily on genetics and their effect on human physiology, we can just ignore that 50% of each parent's genetic material is 'black' and 50% is 'white'?

Any more straws you care to grasp at before I stumble dumbfoundedly from this thread?

What's funny is racism is against ethnic backgrounds which just so happen to be the oldest races around. So superiority would be ethnic backgrounds not the other way around. But many people act out what the feel the see.



a reply to: tothetenthpower

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Ok so what I am saying is these "differences" are more pronounced inside what we term "races" than between them. I am also saying that the genetic coding for the physically prominent differences (skin colour, hair etc) are single gene mutations. We have 20000 to 30000 genes (the number keeps being revised so I'm putting a broad range here). So if humans are 99.9% similar, all those differences are coming out of 0.1%, and if those are small (and they are) then they are a tiny % of the human genome. Why would this matter? No seriously why would we be all about thousandths of a % making someone different? I'll repeat that of that 0.1% difference in humans most differences (85%) are inside the old racial groups. Two Caucasians are likely to be more different from each other than one Caucasian and a Black person.

So these are vanishingly small things to judge someone on. I've also said previously in this thread but I will also repeat here, the differences lie on a spectrum and there are no clear boundaries between the "Races" on that spectrum. Basically there are no traits unique to any one "race", so you can't use them as ways to define the race.

While the misuse of the facts irks me, I could give a fat rodents rear if someone believes it. I'll also thank you for not being a troll and trying to reword what I said to suit your own agenda

Slan agat

Gareth

What you're saying is that even though these perceived differences are contained within only .1% of the human genome, they are significant enough to create these glaringly obvious differences. Also, since the genetic stuff that catalyzes these differences is such an insignificant portion of the whole genome, the differences should be ignored. Even though they exist. Right.

Oh, and for the bolded part....
.1% is a tenth of one percent, not thousandth.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

I've said for years three is only one race of people on the planet. The the differences are just geographical evolution

I can tell for the most part by looking at someone what part of the world they are from. Eastern Europeans have a very distinct look that differs from western Europeans same with other parts of Europe. The same goes for Asia Chinese Japanese Korean Thai Philippines India Pakistan. While some look similar some almost identical. I can tell what region most people come from. In America I can also see a lot of black people have white traits and a lot of white people have black traits. Native Africans have distinct features that I can see in both black and white. It's been kind of a hobby of mine over the years to ask people where they are from. When I watch tv or movies I always try to match faces to geography of where they are from. I don't have it down to an exact science but I like to match the faces with the region.

America is kinda one big cesspool a lot of interracial dating and such. But in other parts of the world many people don't date outside of their geographical region so a lot of them share a likeness.

I think is bs that in America it's considered taboo if you don't like people based on race. I'm judging people based on how they look from the second I lay eyes on them. I'm not saying it's right to hate but that doesn't mean I have to like every race.

originally posted by: ChaosComplex

originally posted by: Spider879
It means that those people in the pic regardless of their shade and actual ancestry are Black by law and tradition both of which are social as they would have to put Black on their official papers or census forms.

So that means that in a discussion relying heavily on genetics and their effect on human physiology, we can just ignore that 50% of each parent's genetic material is 'black' and 50% is 'white'?

Any more straws you care to grasp at before I stumble dumbfoundedly from this thread?

Yes we do it all the time that's why it is " SOCIAL" and not based in science because then you have to get into 1/4th 1/3rd 1/8th 1/16th and so on add infinitum earlier I posted this pic

Of a man from Anglo Saxon England if he had kids by the local and their descendants remained in tact to this day in England would they not be socially White despite having a Black ancestor going back to 12th cent England? and would he not still be an ancestor.

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: ChaosComplex

originally posted by: Spider879
It means that those people in the pic regardless of their shade and actual ancestry are Black by law and tradition both of which are social as they would have to put Black on their official papers or census forms.

So that means that in a discussion relying heavily on genetics and their effect on human physiology, we can just ignore that 50% of each parent's genetic material is 'black' and 50% is 'white'?

Any more straws you care to grasp at before I stumble dumbfoundedly from this thread?

Yes we do it all the time that's why it is " SOCIALl " and not based in science because then you have to get into 1/4th 1/3rd 1/8th 1/16th and so on add infinitum earlier I posted this pic

Of a man from Anglo Saxon England if he had kids by the local and their descendants remained in tact to this day in England would they not be socially White despite having a Black ancestor going back to 12th cent England? and would he not still be an ancestor.

Well that's idiotic. Two bi-racial (in this case black/white) individuals have a light skinned, light haired kid and all of a sudden the fact that they are each half white has no bearing on the physical appearance of the child? Because they identify as black the other half of their genetic material doesn't matter. Hilarious.

As for you Anglo example...they would have some of the genetic leftovers so to speak of the distant black relative, so although they would certainly identify as white (as the couple in your other example identified as black) genetically there would be an explanation if one of the deeply recessed, typically race specific traits were to come through in future generations. It would also make for a cool story that no one would believe. "Hey dude, I'm like 1/128th black."

And with that, I withdraw myself from this bull#.

a reply to: ChaosComplex

Well that's idiotic. Two bi-racial (in this case black/white) individuals have a light skinned, light haired kid and all of a sudden the fact that they are each half white has no bearing on the physical appearance of the child? Because they identify as black the other half of their genetic material doesn't matter. Hilarious.

Well before you with draw consider this

The centuries-old “one-drop rule” assigning minority status to mixed-race individuals appears to live on in our modern-day perception and categorization of people like Barack Obama, Tiger Woods, and Halle Berry.

So say Harvard University psychologists, who’ve found that we still tend to see biracials not as equal members of both parent groups, but as belonging more to their minority parent group. The research appears in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

“Many commentators have argued that the election of Barack Obama, and the increasing number of mixed-race people more broadly, will lead to a fundamental change in American race relations,” says lead author Arnold K. Ho, a Ph.D. student in psychology at Harvard. “Our work challenges the interpretation of our first biracial president, and the growing number of mixed-race people in general, as signaling a color-blind America.”

In the United States, the “one-drop rule” — also known as hypodescent — dates to a 1662 Virginia law on the treatment of mixed-race individuals. The legal notion of hypodescent has been upheld as recently as 1985, when a Louisiana court ruled that a woman with a black great-great-great-great-grandmother could not identify herself as “white” on her passport.

news.harvard.edu...
Like I said it's social .

originally posted by: Spider879
Like I said it's social .

The only thing social about it are the names/titles we have assigned to the groups. Whether or not the law considers Billy Bob a minority because 46,000 years ago his distant ancestor Jimbo had a fling with a beautiful black woman is of no consequence to me. Our laws are stupid and unfortunately this one drop thing isn't even close to the stupidest law/regulation we have in the U.S.

None of this changes the science behind it. Assuming that there is no inter-racial breeding (which obviously is an impossibility at this point in time) and ignoring the genetic rarities like albinism, white people will have white babies, black people will have black babies, Asians will have babies who appear Asian, etc.

Again, acknowledging the differences doesn't mean that you are placing one race above/below any other. I think the world is much more interesting with the current extreme diversity amongst people, especially here in the U.S....but I like to observe and learn, so I'm biased.