Is race real?

[Norbert]

When you do the research it seems that the general consensus nowadays is that race does not exist. That race is a "social construct". This is confusing because in the medical fields and in forensic anthropology, among others, race is very real. It is also very real when you step outside and observe the striking difference between, say, a German-American and a Mexican-American. Is this political correctness or is race really nothing more than a social construct? Here are my questions:

 

1. People who deny the existence of race always reduce it to skin-color. I think skin-color is the least accurate way to determine a person's race. A Japanese person and a German person might share a similar skin-color but their facial-bone structure and body proportions are completely different, hence they belong to two different races. A northern Indian and a Pole might not have the same skin-color but they share similar facial-bone morphology and have similar body proportions. They are both Caucasoids. The way I understand it is that race is more than skin-deep. Race is determined by bone structure and skeletal proportions. The facial-bone structures of African black people, Mongoloid Asians and that of Caucasoid Europeans and Middle-Easterners are very different, even if there is significant overlap in skin-color. These skeletal differences are obvious. Are these differences not genetic?

 

2. People who deny race often say that the genetic difference between two people of the same race is often greater than the genetic difference between two people of different racial backgrounds. What does this mean exactly? It's very general and could mean anything. Can two Japanese people who look practically identical be more different genetically than a Japanese person and a Ghanan, for example? Can two family members who belong to the same race be more different than two unrelated people from different races?

 

3. Are two people who share the same height but are of different racial background really more genetically similar to each other than two people from the same race who are not of the same height?

 

Is genetic similarity then not a valid way to measure relatedness?

Edited February 21, 2012 by Norbert

[iNow]

There are often trends in a given population, and traits shared within that population, but the concept of "race" is far too ambiguous and misused really to be of much help. It's better to speak of populations or people from a given geography or lineage than to talk of "race."

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28classification_of_humans%29

 

Racial groupings may correspond with patterns of social stratification, helping social scientists to understand the underlying disparities among racially defined groups of people.[4] Additionally, law enforcement utilizes race to create profiles of wanted suspects in an expeditious manner.

 

While scientists use the concept of race to make practical distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, the scientific community feels that the idea of race is often used by the general public[5] in a naïve[6] or simplistic way, erroneously designating wholly discrete types of individuals. Among humans, race has no cladistic significance—all people belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[7][8] Regardless of the extent to which race exists, the word "race" is problematic and may carry negative connotations.[9] Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies[10][11][12] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived sets of traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[13] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[6][14]

 

As people define and disseminate different conceptions of race, they actively create contrasting social realities through which racial categorization is achieved in varied ways.[15] In this sense, races are said to be social constructs.[16][17] These constructs can develop within various legal,[15][18] economic,[18] and sociopolitical[19][20] contexts, and at times may be the effect, rather than the cause, of major social situations.[19]

 

<...>

 

In biology the term "race" is used with caution because it can be ambiguous, "'Race' is not being defined or used consistently; its referents are varied and shift depending on context. The term is often used colloquially to refer to a range of human groupings. Religious, cultural, social, national, ethnic, linguistic, genetic, geographical and anatomical groups have been and sometimes still are called 'races'".[7] Generally when it is used it is synonymous with subspecies.[41] One main obstacle to identifying subspecies is that, while it is a recognised taxonomic term, it has no precise definition.[42]

 

<...>

 

Most modern anthropologists and biologists came to view race as an invalid genetic or biological designation.[53]

 

The first to challenge the concept of race on empirical grounds were anthropologists Franz Boas, who demonstrated phenotypic plasticity due to environmental factors,[54] and Ashley Montagu who relied on evidence from genetics.[55] E. O. Wilson then challenged the concept from the perspective of general animal systematics, and further rejected the claim that "races" were equivalent to "subspecies".[56]

 

<...>

 

One result of debates over the meaning and validity of the concept of race is that the current literature across different disciplines regarding human variation lacks consensus, though within some fields, such as biology, there is strong consensus.

 

Race is far too simplistic to be taken seriously by anyone even remedially informed on this issue.

[doG]

IMO the fact that numerous genetic disorders consistently place certain ethnic groups at a higher risk for those disorders than others suggests that race is real. Sickle cell anemia and Tay-Sachs disease are 2 that come to mind.

[ewmon]

...striking difference...

...completely different...

...similar...

...very different...

...practically identical...

...more different...

...same...

It all sounds like a matter of degree, and consistently so.

 

As with dog breeds, I think races can be defined as constellations of genetic traits. However, what I think has happened over the years is that prejudices have broken down and people have married "outside of their races", resulting in a blurring of the previously clear lines. There was a name for this (miscegenation), that people hardly use anymore, if at all, thank goodness. In fact, not so long ago in America, there was some amount of prejudice within the Caucasian race itself about marrying within your own nationality.

 

As for physical traits, I can mentally picture stereotypical subcategories within races. Consider the so-called Caucasians just within Europe. You've got the short, dark-haired/skinned/eyed Mediterraneans, the ruddy/freckly Irish, the tall, lightly-complexed, Scandanavians, the round-faced, blue-eyed Baltics, the burly, fuzzy-browed Slavs, etc. Have you not heard the expression that "he has the map of Ireland on his face"? Can you imagine Conan O'Brien trying to pass as an Italian or a Slav?

 

Even a trait such as stature (height) is difficult to use as a single trait. Some people are tall/short due to the length of their limbs, others due to the length of their torso. This alone was not without its prejudice and insults. I can remember the review of an Italian sports car (Ferrari, I think) in a car magazine from the 1960s, in which the writer complained that it was the typical awkward Italian design on the inside: the pedals were too close and the wheel too far away, implying that Italians were stereotypically short-legged and long-armed (does a gorilla come to mind?).

 

In fact, if you compare the short, darkly-complexed southern Europeans with the tall, lightly-complexed northern Europeans, you're also getting into what's called "ecogeographical rules", such as Gloger's Rule (on skin pigmentation), Bermann's rule (on body mass), and Allen's Rule (on appendage size).

 

Tay Sachs is a genetic disorder (of varying types) that is more prevalent in some groups of people who, for a variety of reasons, tended to be isolated from their region's mainstream population -- and thus, the disorder appears "inbred" to some extent.

 

Sickle cell anemia seems to be a beneficial mutation with regards to malaria. So, any people living long enough in malaria-prone regions could develop sickle cell anemia.

Edited February 21, 2012 by ewmon

[JohnStu]

Races are real, everything are real, aren't they?

 

The real questions is should we take it seriously?

 

When judging a person it is careless to judge by person's race, as within race there is different nationalities, different ethnic gruops, different langauge origins, different social status and so on.

[Delta1212]

That depends on what you mean by race. Are there biological differences between people that you can group them by? Yes, obviously. But which traits you select are going to be fairly arbitrary. There aren't inherent divisions in nature that define race the way most people without a strong foundation in biology tend to assume. Hell, the entire concept of "species" becomes blurry in nature; trying to accurately pin down categories that aren't even differentiated enough to qualify as sub-species is something of a joke.

 

Do you base it on skin tone? Skull shape? Height? Hair color? Hair texture? Eye color? Eye shape? Finger length? Lip size? Ear shape? Nose shape? Eyebrow bushiness? Quality of facial hair?

 

There are literally dozen of characteristics that you could use to group people into genetic categories. Some of them get used to define races, some do not. Some get used differently by different groups to make racial distinctions that different cultures can't or don't distinguish between.

 

The point is that it's no more accurate to say that one specific trait is the primary delineator of race than any other. It's an arbitrary selection. You can pile on more traits for a more narrow definition with more races, but at some point you wind up being so specific that every person is a member of a different race except identical twins.

 

So can you use biological distinctions to group people? Absolutely, but the grouping doesn't provide any more information than that the members share the traits used to define that group. A person with dark skin has dark skin. A person with blond hair has blond hair. A person with a Caucasoid skull has a Caucasoid skull. A person with blue eyes and attached earlobes has blue eyes and attached earlobes.

 

The characteristics that people use to define races are real, but their usage in doing so is cultural and doesn't reflect any deeper biological categorization on a fundamental level.

[Sartanis]

Genatically I would say absolutely races are real, to a point. How that matters is another issue entirely. Obviously our genetic markers differ between races. That is why we "appear" different.

 

This website has some useful informtaion on the topic.

 

http://www.racesci.org/racescinow/controversiesoverrace/2.html

 

I think for the most part race is a perception, the differances from one group of people to another are close enough that in the end the simply comes down to the fact we are all humans. We all share the same capacity to live, learn, love and hate. We share failings and triumphs.... the only race that should matter in the end is the human one...

[CharonY]

As mentioned in the article, race is a delimited based on perception and a limited number of traits. As mentioned already (and also in the linked article) it is not valid as a genetic concept. To be precise, if we used the whole genome, we would not be able to draw meaningful boundaries.

[Anders Hoveland]

Different groups of humans have been separately evolving for tens of thousands of years. There has been plenty of genetic divergence over this long period of time. Could it be possible that each of these separate groups of people have achieved, through natural selection, a fine-tuned balance of hormones and subtle gene expression, which could become upset by sudden change?

 

Herbert Spencer and the Harvard geneticist Edward East, a pioneer in hybrid corn research, proposed that genetic crossing would disrupt the smooth operation of the physical and mental qualities which have been established in each race over hundreds of generations by natural selection.

 

Carleton Coon, former professor at Harvard and president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, wrote:

"Genes that form part of a cell nucleus possess an internal equilibrium as a group, just as do the members of social institutions. Genes in a population are in equilibrium if the population is living a healthy life as a corporate entity. Racial intermixture can upset the genetic as well as the social equilibrium of a group."

Could there be an evolutionary disadvantage to interracial mixing?

 

One interesting finding in this regard is that mixed race offspring earn less money:

An analysis of more than 3 million respondents revealed the average pay was $15.74 per hour for people of mixed race, $17.39 for black people and $22.04 for white people. This was despite the fact that 18 per cent of mixed-race people had college degrees, compared with 11 per cent of black people and 28 per cent of white people.

Labour Economics, Volume 16, Issue 4 (2009)

Robert Fairlie, University of California, Santa Cruz

 

A study by J. Richard Udry's National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which sampled a random, nationally representative school-based sample of U.S. adolescents in grades 7 through 12, during 1994-1995, showed an increase in behavioral problems amongst mixed-race children, as well as significantly higher rates of asthma, and generally poorer health. Another interesting finding was that mixed children that had a black parent were significantly more likely (63% more) to have skin problems.

http://ajph.aphapubl...AJPH.93.11.1865

 

In early March, 2003, investigators turned to Tony Frudakis, a molecular biologist who said he could determine the killer's race by analyzing his DNA. They were unsure about the science, so, before giving him the go-ahead, the task force sent Frudakis DNA swabs taken from 20 people whose race they knew and asked him to determine their races through blind testing. He nailed every single one.

http://www.wired.com...currentPage=all

 

"DNA study reveals racial differences"

So far, the differences in DNA variations among the race found by the investigators tend to be shorter in DNA from Africans than from elsewhere, which "is strong support for the out-of-Africa hypothesis" for the origins of all humans, said Ellen Clayton, director of the Genetics and Health Policy Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. "It suggests that populations that exist in Africa are more ancient, so there's been more opportunity for DNA recombination than relatively more recent populations, namely those everywhere else," Clayton said.

http://www.upi.com/S...21601022177100/

Edited April 14, 2012 by Anders Hoveland

[Moontanman]

Different groups of humans have been separately evolving for tens of thousands of years. There has been plenty of genetic divergence over this long period of time. Could it be possible that each of these separate groups of people have achieved, through natural selection, a fine-tuned balance of hormones and subtle gene expression, which could become upset by sudden change?

 

No, human populations have not been isolated for tens of thousands of years, race is not what you seem to think it is, please see these videos for an explanation of this lack of isolation...

 

 

 

[Anders Hoveland]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16CZl-MN_zE

[Moontanman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16CZl-MN_zE

 

 

This guys basic premise is false, the races were not isolated for hundreds of thousands of years... As the videos i posted show gene flow around the world has been continuous for most if not all the existence of humanity to suggest that humans have been genetically isolated from each other for hundreds of thousands of years ignores gene flow and population dynamics. Even blonde blue eyed Scandinavians can count black brown eyed Africans in their historically recent ancestors.

 

Comparing dog breeds to human races is insulting and shows how racist this guy is, dog breeds are completely artificial, left to their own devices dog breeds do not breed true. Race is determined by gene flow, genes for dark skin do best near the equator, genes for light skin do best well above the equator. Gene flow is continuous around the world and has been from the beginning of humans march out of Africa.... there is no genetic isolation....

[JohnStu]

If what you said about dark skin do better near equator is true, then tell me why Mexico presidente is not dark skinned. Neither is Thailand government officials, Malaysia, India, Pakistan?

[Anders Hoveland]

Claiming that all the Scandinavians are descended from Cleopatra is completely ridiculous. There has not been nearly that much gene flow throughout the world in the last few thousand years! If there was, the different races would look much more similar to eachother than they actually do.

 

Racial realities and scientific research dealing with race apparently has some social and political implications.

I would no more trust present-day research (done in the politically/academically "progressive" countries of the USA, UK, or Sweden) that claims to have found that "race does not exist" than I would trust the racial anthropological studies done under the Nazis!

 

 

If what you said about dark skin do better near equator is true, then tell me why Mexico presidente is not dark skinned. Neither is Thailand government officials, Malaysia, India, Pakistan?

 

Actually this has to do with relatively recent migration in human history. The Spanish conquest of Mexico, contribution of Chinese genes into the elite educated class in Malaysia, the Aryan migration to India only several thousand years ago. Not sure about Thailand, however.

 

But generally the ethnic peoples that have lived near the equator for many tens of thousands of years have evolved to have more melanin in their skin.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Anders Hoveland

[Moontanman]

Claiming that all the Scandinavians are descended from Cleopatra is completely ridiculous. There has not been nearly that much gene flow throughout the world in the last few thousand years! If there was, the different races would look much more similar to eachother than they actually do.

 

Either you didn't watch the vids I posted or bother to listen but I watched yours. The guy is a racist asshole, he cherry picked his data and obviously has an ax to grind. Your incredulity is irrelevant, gene flow occurs, the environment determines which genes are most successful. Genes for dark skin do not do well in northern climates and tend to die out but other genes do not. Genes for light skin do not do well in more equatorial climates, you seem to think that skin color is some kind of defining trait of human beings. This is demonstrably not true, very dark skinned people are not necessarily of "negro race" or "black" as racism suggests.

 

Racial realities and scientific research dealing with race apparently has some social and political implications.

I would no more trust present-day research (done in the politically/academically "progressive" countries of the USA, UK, or Sweden) that claims to have found that "race does not exist" than I would trust the racial anthropological studies done under the Nazis!

 

Of course race exists, there are differences among the populations of various peoples determined by overall population dynamics and climate. These differences are not fixed, not definitive of humans in anyway, and cannot be used to show any character or cultural superiority as defined by racists...

 

But generally the ethnic peoples that have lived near the equator for many tens of thousands of years have evolved to have more melanin in their skin.

 

This is true but they are not genetically isolated, genes flow through human populations but as genes are absorbed into "ethnic" populations they are dominated by that gene pool and traits that do not show value are filtered out, skin color is one of these traits..

 

A population of "ethnic" Chinese who have green eyes are probably descended from Roman soldiers who were part of a lost army that went that direction in search of something centuries ago, green eyes survived but the local population is still Chinese...

[ozric]

I think the migration of humans from all over the word, to, all over the world, and their consequential breeding, has effectively blurred the lines of race to almost 'unrecognisable'. Sure, skin colour is seen by many people as a boundary of race, but that's maybe because there are only a small number of skin colours to divide into groups.

 

The continuous migration of humans and their mating eliminated the fine boundaries many moons ago, and I think the already blurred boundaries will carry on blurring.

[Anders Hoveland]

I think it is best to err on the side of caution, and avoid any mass migrations of immigrants directly accross the world. Race is an important human trait, and should not be ignored just because the lines are not always clearly defined.

 

That video failed to substantiate its claim that the "most recent common ancestor" was as recent as it claimed.

Yes, I suppose their could be very slow genetic exchange that could potentially cause genes from one region of the world to drift to distant parts.

But I think the effect of this is much less than the author believes, due to various other more complicated factors (such as avoidance of cross ethnic marriage, and negetive natural selection).

 

Switchgrass (panicum virgatum) is a single plant species, with several very diverse forms. These different forms have stricking differences between them, but can generally be grouped into two main cytotypes, each of which is adapted to a particular type of climate.

 

If you want to ignore race, and think the human racial diversity in the world has little importance, then do not be surprised when people like me do not care about declining biodiversity or endangered species. I care more about protecting the continuation of my ethnicity than I do about the snow leopard.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Anders Hoveland