Race a social construct ? - Page 12 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14626625
EU rope wrote:Race only acknowledges there are different kind of people, nothing more. A classification if you will. What's wrong with that? Like there is a classification in dog breeds. You wouldn't call a German shepherd a fox-terrier, would you?

Dogs of the same race all have certain common genes that characterize this race, and their specificities have been artificially strengthened. This is a perfect correlation. There is no such thing in mankind, there is no specific genetic characteristic of black people that 100% of black people have.


Mankind is a very specific case because recently (< 100k years) our global population was down to less than a hundred of people. As a result our gene pool has been greatly narrowed and humans are very similar to each other. Few genetic specificities have appeared since then. As I explained earlier, most of statical biases from one population to the other are related to the fact that initial settlers deprived their descendants of some genes as they only carried a subset of the total genetic pool. Which was then attenuated by the global movements that resulted of conquests, trade, colonization, migrations, etc.
User avatar
By kobe
#14626632
To all those that say that there are races, please point them out discretely like we do dog breeds. Just so we know we're not going off the old race theory, which was Caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid. Are the Irish their own race, btw?
#14626642
Race as a genetic phenotype certainly exists in terms of physiological characteristics therefore it is not entirely a social construct.
User avatar
By kobe
#14626646
So the most genetically diverse part of the world is considered a race, but areas of the world with relative homogeneity in their phenotypes are not in fact distinct races but part of this other category that you derived?

Interesting. I don't think many other racialists would agree with you, but I'm not the one that thinks that race is a useful biological concept.

Further issues with this hypothesis is the African American populations which have relatively high admixture with white populations due in no small part to the rape of African American women by white slavers. I suppose once a sub-Saharan, always a sub-Saharan in your mind? Just need one drop, right?

Red Skull wrote:Race as a genetic phenotype certainly exists in terms of physiological characteristics therefore it is not entirely a social construct.

If you cannot define the races discretely, it is an altogether useless biological concept. Thus it is only useful if you have some sort of heuristic use for it (stereotyping). This latter distinction allows race to be continued to be used in the forensic field despite its uselessness as a taxonomical grouping or distinct population grouping. Clines are much more useful in that regard, because the concept does not require discrete groupings but rather can be as specific or general as need be depending on the context. In fact it's more likely that when people refer to race in a medical setting they actually refer to cline, because different geographical population groupings will deal with different common ailments.

The issue you're having here is that you think you know what you mean by race, but you have no concrete vision of what that might be. You know what you mean by race, but that doesn't mean that I have the same cultural understanding as you do. What did the British mean when they called the Irish a separate race? Was that just them being unscientific?
#14626650
Alright differing races deal with clines.

Yes, I would say the British were being unscientific in their approach of the Irish given complex historical interactions between both groups. Moreover, the British and Irish have more in common than actual differences.
#14626651
So the most genetically diverse part of the world is considered a race, but areas of the world with relative homogeneity in their phenotypes are not in fact distinct races but part of this other category that you derived?


Sorry I was being facetious. I thought this was a new theory though. Those that left africa and mixed with other homo types became superior?

Like neadathals give Europeans some kind of super-smart genes maybe?

....

The black africans being lazy and not migrating was quite witty for 8am I thought but oh well ...
User avatar
By kobe
#14626657
Yeah, but you haven't explained what that means, or why it's any more significant than blood type or eye color; which by that I mean it is a trait or lackthereof that can be written over by interbreeding. What do the shared genes represent, and does that constitute enough of a distinction to consider these populations different races? I got to be honest with you, skin color is more convincing to me than the Neanderthal DNA argument, which is really just a misrepresentation of what that shared DNA represents (not much).

The point is that whether a normal white man reproduces with a normal black womanor a normal black man reproduces with a normal white woman, the results would not be that interesting; another human that needs to be taught the ways of the world. There would be no lack of purity of the races, there would be no personality difference because the child is black, and I refuse to believe that the child is suddenly its own race because the two races got together.

Red wrote:Yes, I would say the British were being unscientific in their approach of the Irish given complex historical interactions between both groups. Moreover, the British and Irish have more in common than actual differences.

Exactly.
#14626658
What do the shared genes represent, and does that constitute enough of a distinction to consider these populations different races? I got to be honest with you, skin color is more convincing to me than the Neanderthal DNA argument, which is really just a misrepresentation of what that shared DNA represents (not much).


The truth actually is we dont know. It probably makes barely any difference ...

Of course small variations in genes could make a big difference but there is no evidence of that .. Not yet ...

So until there is its just speculation, with or without political motives.
User avatar
By kobe
#14626661
I don't disagree. But we already have methods to analyze geographical and genetic clusters in terms of geographic location even down to loose estimations of when these groupings occurred.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_h ... ndrial_DNA

For instance eight women are responsible for every genetic cluster "native" to the British Isles. In terms of trying to understand the genetic origins of a people, it is more useful to attempt to understand it from the viewpoint of Mitochondrial DNA rather than relying upon undefined cultural concepts like race that muddy the water and make objectivity difficult.
#14626663
DNA rather than relying upon undefined cultural concepts like race that muddy the water and make objectivity difficult.


Yes from material view.

Of course people have now got race identities and the idea of "colour blindness" - a concept a thought to be a good idea - is not considered racist by many people. In the UK we generally now follow the American model of encouraging the identity and prevent mixed race adoptions now. We didnt used to do this.

So we have a weird connect between the social construct of racial identity and genetic group variations which we barely understand. We cannot ditch the social constructs because people want to hang on to concepts like "black culture". Often for understandable reasons.

So we have the old sudo science, the made up identities that are partially a response to that then the actual science which is young and uncertain.

No wonder there is confusion ...
#14626680
Red Skull wrote:Race as a genetic phenotype certainly exists in terms of physiological characteristics therefore it is not entirely a social construct.

You can also partition countries based on the first letter of their names. But is it significant?

You can always partition whatever you want, however you want it, this is not the question.

layman wrote:At least that is probably where the biggest difference exists. The ones who could be bothered migrating and the lazy ones who stayed behind?

Or the ones who lost the war and had to run.
Or the ones who could not manage to farm their land.
Or the ones who settled on a chunk of land that was soon going to drift away versus the ones that went South.
#14626872
Image

The Irish people are mostly descendants of R1b cattle herders as R1b is the most common Y-DNA haplogroup among Irish men (81.5%). The African haplogroup E1b1b is only found at a frequency of 2% or less in both Ireland and England and the British Isles were mostly unaffected by ancient African migrations to Europe. A study on British surnames showed that 87% of the Attenboroughs were E1b1b1 (King and Jobling 2009) and the Attenboroughs are likely to have descended from recent African migrants. The Anglo-Saxon and Viking settlers further introduced the Nordic haplogroup I to the British Isles, along with the Asian haplogroup Q1b, which is found predominantly in Central Siberia, Central Asia and among Native Americans. This can be interpreted as further evidence of the interbreeding between the Vikings and native Siberian tribes such as the Saami who migrated to Scandinavia. Another theory is that Haplogroup Q1b was introduced by the Huns to Götaland and Gotland in southern Sweden, the presumed homeland of the ancient Goths, which have the highest frequency of Haplogroup Q in Europe (5%).

Image

A lot has been written about the Anglo-Saxon conquest and historians have long debated the real genetic impact that the Anglo-Saxon had on the British population. Were the Romans and ancient Britons completely wiped out by the invaders or forced to retreat by to Wales, Cornwall and Scotland ? Did the most of the native population intermingle with Anglo-Saxons creating a new hybrid ethnic group ? What happened actually lies in between. Germanic people brought a whole new set of paternal lineages with them, namely I1, I2a2a, R1a (L664 and Z284), R1b-U106, and to a lower extent Q1a. Those haplogroups now make up over half of all male lineages in England and Lowland Scotland. One could expect to find an east-west gradient within England for Y-chromosomal haplogroups, since invaders came from the east and progressively advanced westward while intermingling with the indigenous population. Yet, overall England appears to be fairly homogeneous in terms of Germanic ancestry, except for Cornwall, which is slightly more Celtic. The only clear rift in Germanic ancestry is observed between England and Wales, and even actually within Wales, with western counties like Pembrokshire and Gwynedd having more Brythonic haplogroups (R1b-L21) and less Germanic ones. But it would be wrong to think of England as overwhelmingly more Germanic than Wales. Lineages seem to have evened out pretty well after 1,500 years. Nowadays, most English counties have between 55% and 65% of Germanic Y-DNA haplogroups, while Cornwall has 45% and Wales has much as 25%. The gap is not huge, but it clearly exists. Nevertheless, an east-west gradient does exist between Gaulish Celtic or Roman lineages (both R1b-U152) in the east and Insular Celtic (R1b-L21) in the west. Cornwall and Wales have hardly any U152 at all, but boast respectively 40% and 65% of R1b-L21. If we exclude Germanic lineages, Ireland is almost purely Insular Celtic, L21 superseding U152 by a ratio to 50 to 1. The highest frequencies of Gaulish and Roman U152 are observed, unsurprisingly, closest to the continent, in southeast England and East Anglia. Haplogroup Q represents a minor but distinctive Scandinavian lineage. It is found especially in the Danelaw, Orkney and Shetland, but also around Scotland, Lancashire, southern England, and, tellingly, Normandy. The Q1a2b1 (L527) subclade in particular is found almost exclusively in Scandinavia and in places settled by the Vikings. Q1a2a1a2 (L804) is also found in West Germanic countries and may have been brought by the Anglo-Saxons. Note that Q1b1a (L245) has also be found at trace frequencies in the British Isles, but may not be of Germanic origin. L245 is thought to have spread to Europe from the Middle East via the Phoenicians and the Jews, among others.
http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/britain ... _dna.shtml
#14628996
While the cat's away, the mice just repeat their Refuted nonsense.
So Solly.
I'm back. (see pages 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)

Harmattan wrote:Dogs of the same race all have certain common genes that characterize this race, and their specificities have been artificially strengthened.
This is a perfect correlation. There is no such thing in mankind, there is no specific genetic characteristic of black people that 100% of black people have.

There are NO "Races" of dogs.
Dogs have "breeds".
Dogs are One of the 37 RACES/Subspecies of Gray Wolves.
Your post is Mindblowing.
Many/Most Gray wolves subspecies are genetically Closer than the so-called one-Race H Sapiens.
YET..
NO one corrected this post that is Unspeakably bad.

Not much to do here but Laugh.


mikema63 wrote:No, we cannot interbreed with chimps.
Thats what makes things different species.

What biological classification would you say Race corelated to?

What he meant, or should have, was that there aren't "Just Chimps" or "Just Gorillas"
... either.
BOTH have not only different Races/subspecies, But Species within ...
(in answer to your other question)
So/um... Race=Subspecies Obviously. (and many times throughout)
Chimps, ie, have 4 subspecies/Races.
Subspecies/races Can interbreed.
Just like the 37 Subspecies of Gray Wolves, which include dogs.
There are probably 15 Subspecies/RACES of wolves in Canada/Alaska alone. (Vancouver, Manitoba, etc, etc).
Perhaps 2 a province who are genetically CLOSER than our ostensible One-race.
The problem with ALL of you is you have NO frame of reference with other species to be able to see how easily we qualify for subspecies/Race.

I have explained subspecies/Race numerous times previous, but the Disingenuity and blind politics of many prevent then from absorbing.
This, including Kobe et al, numbers Trick ("If we can't say how many it means there aren't any") answers many Posters who could NOT debate me.

Again, perhaps the world's Foremost expert on Evo and Genetcis, Coyne (credentials/full article previous posted on page 8 half way down.
Alas, posts and posts numbers are virtually nonexistent here, and hard to link to.

""One of the touchiest subjects in human evolutionary biology—or human biology in general—is the question of whether there are human races. Back in the bad old days, it was taken for granted that the answer was not only “yes,” but that there was a ranking of races (invariably done by white biologists), with Caucasians on top, Asians a bit lower, and blacks invariably on the bottom. The sad history of biologically based racism has been documented in many places, including Steve Gould’s book The Mismeasure of Man (yes, I know it’s flawed).

But from that sordid scientific past has come a backlash: the subject of human races, or even the idea that they exist, has become taboo. And this despite the Palpable morphological Differences between human groups—differences that must be based on Genetic differences and WOULD, if seen in Other species, lead to their classification as either races or subspecies
(the terms are pretty interchangeable in biology).
Racial delimitation could, critics say, lead to a resurgence of racism, racial profiling, or even eugenics.

What are races?
In my own field of evolutionary biology, races of animals (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated). There is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race.
Races of mice, for example, are described solely on the basis of difference in coat color, which could involve only one or two genes.

Under that criterion, are there human races?
YES.
As we all know, there are morphologically different groups of people who live in different areas, though those differences are blurring due to recent innovations in transportation that have led to more admixture between human groups.

How many human races are there?

That’s pretty much unanswerable, because human variation is nested in groups, for their ancestry, which is based on evolutionary differences, is nested in groups. So, for example, one could delimit “Caucasians” as a race, but within that group there are genetically different and morphologically different subgroups, including Finns, southern Europeans, Bedouins, and the like.
The number of human races delimited by biologists has ranged from three to over thirty.
[....]



EDIT to below
Note mikema's Total Whiff in 'reply' to this DETAILED Post, which includes an excerpt from perhaps the world's Foremost Evo/Species expert, demonstrating there IS Race/subspecies.


EDIT2:
and Note Kobe's Nonsense BELOW I already REFUTED on the lower half of Page 8.
Note also:. He Rejects perhaps the world's foremost Expert on the topic as an "appeal to Authority" fallacy!
But Disngenuously uses Alot of it.. ASIDE from the MOST Poignant Part: There ARE human Races if taxonomy is applied as it is in the rest of the animal and plant Kingdoms.

`
Last edited by abu afak on 06 Dec 2015 20:10, edited 21 times in total.
#14628998
DUH! ... Race=Supspecies Obviously.


No, subspecies are only classified as such if they can interbreed but do not for whatever reason. Human beings interbreed regardless of race.
User avatar
By kobe
#14629101
abu afak wrote:Many/Most Gray wolves subspecies are genetically Closer than the so-called one-Race H Sapiens.

There's no gene flow between the populations due to geographical separation. The chances of the population groups coming together are close to nothing. On the other hand, there has been plenty of gene flow between the so-called races.

I have explained subspecies/Race numerous times previous, but the Disingenuity and blind politics of many prevent then from absorbing.
This, including Kobe et al, numbers Trick ("If we can't say how many it means there aren't any") answers many Posters who could NOT debate me.

Notice how you didn't try to identify the amount of races and instead waved off the question as preposterous. Part of taxonomy is enumeration and justification for the placement of this enumeration. Taxonomy is a consensual act of classification, not one that is objective but rather based on objective criteria. My criticism is the permeability of so-called races based on gene flow and the cultural basis for classification by race.

Again, perhaps the world's Foremost expert on Evo and Genetcis, Coyne (credentials/full article previous posted on page 8 half way down.

Appeal to expertise is a logical fallacy.

Coyne wrote:In my own field of evolutionary biology, races of animals (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated). There is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race. Races of mice, for example, are described solely on the basis of difference in coat color, which could involve only one or two genes.

Under that criterion, are there human races?
YES. As we all know, there are morphologically different groups of people who live in different areas, though those differences are blurring due to recent innovations in transportation that have led to more admixture between human groups.

Under the same criterion, there are no human races because "there is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race". He even says himself that "those differences are blurring due to recent innovations in transportation that have led to more admixture".

How many human races are there?
That’s pretty much unanswerable, because human variation is nested in groups, for their ancestry, which is based on evolutionary differences, is nested in groups. So, for example, one could delimit “Caucasians” as a race, but within that group there are genetically different and morphologically different subgroups, including Finns, southern Europeans, Bedouins, and the like.
The number of human races delimited by biologists has ranged from three to over thirty.

I rest my case, your honor. Abu afak, if you were trying to win an argument, you shouldn't present materials that support your opponent's side. I would say the same to Coyne.
#14629415
mbig wrote:Again, perhaps the world's Foremost Expert on Evo and Genetcis, Coyne (credentials/full article previous posted on page 8 half way down.
Kobe wrote:Appeal to Expertise is a Logical Fallacy.

No it Isn't.
ROTFLMAO.
It's like you heard some college words but are trying it from the 5th Grade. :^)


There IS a Logical Fallacy called "Appeal to Authority", NOT "Appeal to Expertise."

The Fallacy would be if I appealed to an "authority" withOUT "expertise", NOT with it!
IOW, If I said "Frank Sinatra or Kobe Bryant says there are Human Races", that WOULD BE the "Appeal to Authority" FALLACY.
But Citing "Experts" ON the topic at hand is NOT a logical Fallacy, it is sound practice, Of Course, and used regularly in debate and Book Footnotes.

How can one debate such Goofy posting/such Basic Misunderstanding?
This is Hysterical!

Some links:
1. http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/appealauthterm.htm
appeal to authority (fallacy)
Examples and Observations:
"Not every appeal to authority commits this fallacy, but every appeal to an authority with respect to matters Outside his special province commits the fallacy...
Obviously Races are withIN Coynes province/expertise.

2.http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/inde ... -authority
APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
argumentum ad verecundiam
(also known as: argument from authority, appeal to false authority, argument from false authority, ipse dixit, testimonials [form of])
Definition: Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made.
[....]
Exception: Appealing to authority is Valid when the authority is actually a legitimate..authority on the Facts Of the argument.
Again: Obviously Coyne IS an authority on the Facts at hand.

Citing an Expert ON the topic would never be a Fallacy, it would Logical.
That's COMMON SENSE.
and Not your first time with this unintentionally Off the wall 'stuff'.
-
Last edited by abu afak on 07 Dec 2015 02:54, edited 12 times in total.
User avatar
By kobe
#14629424
You didn't even bother to address my arguments. Furthermore authority vs. expertise is not even a mixup, they are synonyms. It would be like me "rotflmao" because you said "appeal to" instead of "argument from".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.[2] The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:[3]

-A is an authority on a particular topic
-A says something about that topic
-A is probably correct

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[4][5][6] as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.[7][8]


In other words, "he's right because he's an expert" is not a good argument, particularly when he does not hold a consensus view.

Excellent attempt at making me look stupid though. You only succeeded in highlighting your own ignorance.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13

Muscovite’s Slaughter of Indigenous People in Alas[…]

You Zionists just can't stop lying can you. It wa[…]

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's prom[…]

No, it doesn't. The US also wants to see Hamas top[…]