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

a reply to: ColeYounger

Pretty much my opinion too. Mind you having lived in the US as an alien (green card holder), for close to a decade (then escaping) I've noticed that there is a clannishness in cultures. In New Zealand we've got it too, but my skin colour certainly did not make me your typical "White American" that I might have looked like. My genes don't denote my language and dialect, my spiritual beliefs, my level of education, my voting preferences (not that I could vote in the US) etc But my perceived "Race" was how I was initially judged.

As a very well educated person, I can rightly be called an intellectual elitist. I don't like wrong ideas perpetuated. I am not talking morally wrong here, I am talking factually wrong.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ChaosComplex

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

*Googles phrenology*

Well race and this phrenology are not comparable, even beyond apples and oranges in my opinion. If you'd like to address the rest of my post, have at it.

And this is 100% about political correctness, why else would anyone want to remove the idea of different races? Does anyone really think that if we stopped mentioning that people are actually different, that this would somehow stop the hateful racist assholes of the world? I highly doubt it.

Call it what you will, races exist.

a reply to: ChaosComplex

Why oppose it? Because it is scientifically wrong as currently defined. Or perhaps the science has gone a little beyond what you want to contemplate?

I'll re state it. Race as people use it, is not scientifically significant. The number of genes involved in defining "races" are low, and the differences minor. They do not influence anything else. Thus its like classifying a person based on their ear wax type (and yeah there are differences, and they are genetic)

Phrenology is as useful in defining a persons characteristics as race is and vica versa. Only loons uses phrenology these days.

Perpetuating wrong ideas, is ignorance.

a reply to: ChaosComplex

The hope is that the world will eventually be illuminated and step out of the ignorance of divisiveness.

There has been ample science provided to any discerning mind. The rest will continue to reside in the shadows of knowledge.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ChaosComplex
Why oppose it? Because it is scientifically wrong as currently defined. Or perhaps the science has gone a little beyond what you want to contemplate?

Sir/Ma'am, science hasn't began to approach 'what I want to contemplate' as it relates to human biology or any other field of study. Current science mostly deals in the 'what' of reality. I'm much more interested in the 'why' aspect.

I'll re state it. Race as people use it, is not scientifically significant. The number of genes involved in defining "races" are low, and the differences minor. They do not influence anything else.

I don't care about 'how people use it', this is about whether or not it exists. Lots of scientific principles get misused, but that doesn't mean that those principles are untrue. The above line tells me that you even acknowledge that there are obvious, scientifically describable differences between what we refer to as races. Meaning that race (whether a result of environment + time or other unseen factors) exists.

Thus its like classifying a person based on their ear wax type (and yeah there are differences, and they are genetic)

Wet-type here. I've had a few ear problems in my day so I know a thing or two about them. Still not anywhere near grouping people racially.

Phrenology is as useful in defining a persons characteristics as race is and vica versa

Untrue. Phrenology is useless as a whole. Race isn't supposed to be used to define anything about a person, that is culture. Which is generally closely associated with race.

Whether you like it or not, the differences are there. I'm not talking about cultural differences and how they are approached by people from differing backgrounds, I'm talking about simple, observable things. Like bone structure and skin color. Or the fact that two pasty white people will never create a black baby or vicE versa.

a reply to: ChaosComplex

Ok well its Sir

How a word is used is highly important. Words hold power. Lawyers make a living from that very fact, and spend hours arguing over the meaning of them. Because they are paid by the hour after all

You are trying to define what I say in a way YOU want me to say it. Stop that. Stop that right now! If you could be bothered you would have understood what I said was that the genes (the code for all our proteins ie the bits of us that code the physical us) involved in what has been defined as "racial characteristics" account for a vanishingly small percentage of the genetic make up of a population.

Let me spell it out for you (source: Confusions About Human Race by R.C Lewontin (2006) raceandgenomics.ssrc.org...)

(1) Individual humans are 99.9% identical. Thus all differences are in that 0.1% difference. With that individuals vary the most when you go looking for "differences"
(2) The largest amount of variation (about 85%) is inside national or linguistic populations.
(3) Of what was traditionally labelled "race" the differences are 6 to 10% thus that is 6 to 10% of 0.1% which is 0.006%
(4) If you (say) Zero in on skin colour as a thing to use as classification and use the old "Whites, Blacks, yellows, Reds and Browns" classical scale (viz Race) you don't get clear cut boundaries between the "races" and its a spectrum. Which basically means that Homo sapiens is homogeneous. Any sub categorisation is artificial and subjective, not objective. The only group which is easily identified as different are the Australian Aborigines, and they get this by having been isolated for about 60 000 years. That difference is again in that 6 to 10% difference in the 0.1% difference between humans.
(5) When we do apply statistics to the genetic information we have the "clusters" that appear do not correspond to the traditional races. The DNA used to gain these clusters are what is known as "non functional DNA" ie it codes for nothing, so it does not provide a physical difference between them, just some markers we can spot.

Lets move on to that final statement. Its a rather emotive one and untrue. Mutation. The driver of evolution, means there is a possibility of a pair of parents who have light skin, producing a darker skinned child. OR as you say vice versa.

You are clinging to a paradigm which is honestly flawed. What purpose does "Race" hold? No honestly what does it honestly describe? Its a social construct.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ChaosComplex
You are clinging to a paradigm which is honestly flawed. What purpose does "Race" hold? No honestly what does it honestly describe? Its a social construct.

I'm not clinging to anything, race literally plays zero role in my life outside of being a subject of my endless observations.

Well, unless you count using race to predict what might be for dinner at a friends house. Interestingly enough the majority of my friends are into cooking, and two in particular come from very 'traditional' ethnic families. Any time either of their families invite me to eat with them I can hardly keep myself from doing the Truffle Shuffle...but that is more a result of culture than race.

But in all seriousness race doesn't need to hold a purpose, it only holds a purpose for someone with a serious lack of critical thinking capabilities. It doesn't matter if DNA analysis can prove a difference or not.

a reply to: ChaosComplex

HA that would be ethnicity because a Scotsman and a Frenchman are likely to serve something wildly different and behave differently at the table (one will have lots of wine, and the other will whine a lot (to quote my Scots granny))

The problem here is you and I see the world differently. Race as defined is pretty much biologically meaningless, so to me its time to forget about it. For you its there and you don't seem interested in the parameters. Thus we're just not going to have a meaningful discourse.

The grays want us divided, they promote division wherever they can, in race, religion, gender, nationality, age, politics, class..........it is kind of obvious. That way it will be easier for their hybrids to take over. I know it sounds crazy, I wish I was joking.

I have read some interesting articles over the years about dna and what it proves regarding race and how the perceived different races often seem to have a lot of mixed dna in their makeup.

What seems to me to indicate the well played 'racial card' in fact isn't race at all its attitude. Its how one thinks and sees other people. A simple example of this is the food people like to cook and eat often gives their culture away because cooking is such a natural - done without thinking about it as its part of my cooking repertoire, that for me its an immediate indication of cultural background. Friends from different races and religions have never ceased to amaze me with their attitudes, some of which have literally knocked me off my perch. One friend from Africa jokes he is more English than I am. In truth he is incredibly knowledgeable and enthusiastic about things British and knows british history far better than I and to add a happy insult to my lack of knowledge knows his own country's history far better than I. So I can't help thinking its the attitude with which we engage with other cultures as well as our own that make us who we are, not just the basics such as white skin/ black skin, black/blond hair an d eye colour. One thing I do know we all seem to want what we don't have in that his daughter would love blond straight hair and our girl would love curly thick hair.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ChaosComplex
The problem here is you and I see the world differently.

While true, I don't see this as a problem. Isn't that what discussion is all about? Two or more people with differing views, working to find equilibrium through exchange of thoughts and ideas?

From your previous post:

Mutation. The driver of evolution, means there is a possibility of a pair of parents who have light skin, producing a darker skinned child.

Dark skin does not equate to a 'black' baby.

If you need me to be more specific - skin color, bone structure, hair type. The three easiest to identify differences between two of the most visually different human races.

If you need me to sound like an ignorant douche - two white people will never have a baby, mutations or not, that would grow into an adult that someone like me would identify as a 'black' person.

HA that would be ethnicity

Right. Ethnic or cultural factors, not race, would be at play in my scenario. Which is why I stated that it would be more a result of culture than race. However because of geographical isolation of the various races until the last few hundred years, culture and race are very closely linked as I said in a previous post.

a reply to: ChaosComplex


Sigh, back to the outdated ideas on race .... every "characteristic" you listed is not one unique to any race. That's the fecking problem

a reply to: Noinden

I can't find one good reason, though I don't think I ever said that it's important, I'm just of the opinion that right should be right. Truth is truth.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ChaosComplex


Sigh, back to the outdated ideas on race .... every "characteristic" you listed is not one unique to any race. That's the fecking problem

So are there separate races or not?

Each "characteristic" I listed is certainly a visually distinguishing feature between 'black' and 'white' people, which are the two races I chose to use to illustrate my example. Please show me examples to show that these are 'outdated ideas on race'. Examples do not include albinism or any other pigment disorder.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

What is this truth then? What does it say?

a reply to: ChaosComplex

No there are no separate races. Why? Because there are not enough differences to warrant it. WE simply are that similar a species.

Oh and those ideas of race are outdated as none of those characaristics are UNIQUE to any of those "races"

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ChaosComplex

No there are no separate races. Why? Because there are not enough differences to warrant it. WE simply are that similar a species.

Oh and those ideas of race are outdated as none of those characaristics are UNIQUE to any of those "races"

I'm sure you won't be providing any examples to support your claim that my 'ideas of race' are outdated, but that is to be expected.

Don't worry, acknowledging that there are indeed predictable and observable physical differences between the various races doesn't make you a racist. It just makes you observant.

a reply to: ChaosComplex

And there we have you trying to say what I am saying again. Don't. You already have ignored the evidence I have provided. I even cited a journal. So I'm not going to put any real effort into it with you any more. You are walking the path of logical fallacy to try and argue and sorry but I don't play that game.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ChaosComplex

And there we have you trying to say what I am saying again. Don't. You already have ignored the evidence I have provided. I even cited a journal. So I'm not going to put any real effort into it with you any more. You are walking the path of logical fallacy to try and argue and sorry but I don't play that game.

I'm walking the path of prove what you're saying. I'm not interested in genetics, DNA, or any other high tier science at this point. I'm simply asking you to disprove my outdated ideas that skin, hair, and bone structure (specifically facial) are visually distinguishing features between 'white' and 'black' people.

And I don't get why you have repeated that I am trying to say what you're saying...you're avoiding what I'm asking of you and whining about my approach. Cry me a river, then build a bridge and get over it. When you're done, show me why my ideas (and the ideas of most of the population of the world) concerning race are outdated.

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.