Race: Social construct or biological

Post Reply New Topic

Just as differentiating between types of apples doesn't insinuate one is superior or inferior, likewise it is the same for humans. Some may prefer Macintosh apples and others may prefer Granny Smith; other people may prefer Gala apples but this doesn't mean one apple is better than the other.

I think you're confusing what you think classification should mean in practice with what it really does.

But how should we be expected to ignore the biological differences amongst humans when scientists and doctors need to differentiate in order to treat those with diseases? For example. people should have compatible organ donors.

As I've pointed out earlier, the practicality of the distinctions which have been formerly known as "race" does not imply the existence of races.

Certainly, but does this not indicate the likely result of confused and non-coherent classifications (specifically does it not predict that confused and non-coherent classifications will confuse meaningful communication and render it less coherent)?

It cannot be.
People who share common descent, are very likely to share genetic material. Inheriting genetic material from one's ancestors is very real, trying to correlate the results onto an outdated socially constructed schemata, is simply a refinement of a social construct.

Because there is some overlap between race and "descent from common ancestors".

You are less likely to reject transplants, the more closely they resemble your own tissue, ergo the more genetically similar you are. Genetic similarity increases with decreased generational distance between last commonly shared ancestor, and there is some overlap between what is referred to as race and the very real condition of shared ancestry.

We can ignore and find significant to our heart's content. That is why to most people, most Japanese people are racially of a kind, but to the Japanese there is a much larger group of "races" present in the population others consider to be one "race" (Japanese).

The same is true of many other things. You might think blue and green and very different in ways that cannot be ignored, but there are whole cultures that do ignore such difference, "seeing" light and dark as the only meaningful colour classification.

Positively. We are all mutts.

That being said, one must note that there are real differences between cultures and value systems.

Mankind are not brothers, we are all distant cousins.

I have a conjecture. Take any two humans on the planet. If it were possible to do a thorough check of their ancestry (it isn't) one would find a common relative less than 200 generations back. Look upon another and see yourself. All of our wars are family squabbles.

ruveyn

There is an anthropologist (something Olsen I think) who I saw give a talk once who proposed (through a bit of mathematical trickery) precisely that; I believe the time frame he used was about 3500-4000 years ago.

Edit: no, wait. I think he claimed that if you went that far back practically everyone was on anyone still alive's family tree at at least some point...

So, are we what we most resemble?

I resemble a typical caucasian although I am not just caucasian but also a few others.... Another mutt.


I have an ancestor (Pierre Tremblay-fr/Trombley-en) that came from France in 1646 and settled in Montreal Quebec... I share this common ancestor with approximately ~30,000 other americans and ~50,000 canadians.

There is no question that skin color and bone structure etc. can be inherited. But is that important? Do all the varieties classified as race serve to classify humans in capability? It seems not.

I'd like to ask the OP what definition of race did you set out for this poll? -.-

In the purely biologic term, we are all alike, homo sapiens (subspecie sapiens sapiens).

On the other hand, you have the mostly social definition, which leads to the term "racist" as denigration of a visible minority.

I checked "bit of both" because of the lack of said precision in the OP's post.

race is genetic. Ethnicity is acquired and learned.

ruveyn

Race is commonly designated by skin color and physiology developed by the previously sequestered sections of humanity. Theoretically, since these standards have relatively little to do with capability, race could just as easily be based on nose size or foot size or whether or not males have hairy chests. Skin color is easy to spot but it has little to support the prejudices proposed by intolerant beliefs.

If race is biological than can you provide a formal definition of race that is consistent with the known principles of biology?

Race is just an environmental adaptation. People of different races may look different but I doubt it has much impact on intelligence, if any.

race is defined in terms of genetically inherited characteristics such as hair color, skin color, shape of eye, head shape and such like. These are really very superficial and have nothing to do with important stuff like character and intelligence.

ruveyn

Actually, that must've been a nice coincidence, because in today's class of "introduction to biologic variation" (last class too, yay) we discussed about the history of what's a "race" and where does mankind supposedly comes from. Mitonchondrial DNA analysis pointed to Africa (which is now well-known in today's world <.<), now people argue wether modern humans (sapiens) came out of Africa and eliminated the previous erectus and neandertals (in one fell swoop) or if there was such a thing as genetic flow (which is basicly, sapiens genes being introduced into the existing specie and spreading).

However, the teach mentionned that apparently (and i might need to check it out again...) that there is very little genetic difference between humans in general (basicly said that with a tribe of pygmies, you could potentially obtain most of the varieties that make up mankind), so does the term of race when applied to humans of other color / origin still has meaning? If i was to compare with dogs, which have a huge array of races and diversity between them, well... I dunno. I have to note that our tendancy to hierarchize said "races" might have to do as to why the term is usually shunned upon when applied to humans (about blacks being "lesser" than white people... for x,y reasons).

My 2 cents. <.<