Genes and Race

[ElectricFetus]

Saying that black, white, and asian are social constructs is like saying that male and female are social constructs

I think you should take that up with all the gays, transsexuals and intersexed (hermaphrodites) out there. And even with those excepts and grey areas of gender, races is nowhere near as cut and dry and as well defined as gender.

which is patently absurd. He is saying that racial categories are made up out of whole cloth, a figment of man's imagination. This is what the term social construct means. To expect someone to believe that defies intelligent thought.

Race is a social construct, genetic races are not the same as the races as classically defined, for example there are africans negroids who are genetically less related to each other then they are to a caucasian or a mongoloid. Our assigning race based on skin color, shape of the skin around the eye, etc is not very genetically accurate.

 

[Idle Mind]

Saying that black, white, and asian are social constructs is like saying that male and female are social constructs, which is patently absurd. He is saying that racial categories are made up out of whole cloth, a figment of man's imagination. This is what the term social construct means. To expect someone to believe that defies intelligent thought.

I'll let iceaura defend his position; it's not my argument. But certainly the inflammatory tone can be left out, and the discussion can remain civil, no?

 

[Salamander7]

I am certainly not trying to incite the kind of response from above, that is not my intention. I am trying to understand the position of someone who is telling me that I should believe something that I find patently false, namely that the concept of race is bogus. What evidence does anyone have to support the statement that some black people are more genetically similar to white people than to some blacks? Are you talking about people who are labeled black even though they have parents of mixed ancestry? So called mulattos? If so, this does not disprove the concept of race based on the fact that the two groups have a different genetic makeup. When I say black I am referring to people for whom the majority of their ancestors are from Africa, and when I say white I am referring to people whose ancestors are from Europe, and when I say Asian I refer to those of Asian descent. Given that these three groups underwent separate evolutionary paths, and inherited a distinct genome, I think it is fair to say that the concept of race is a valid one and that it has its roots in the genes that these groups possess. Again, if you have some evidence that the genes of these groups are indistinguishable I would be glad to see it.

 

[Idle Mind]

One of the main problems with the classical race classifications is that they were created to describe groups of people before we had any knowledge of genetics. Genome mapping is very new, so it's only now that we are having to take another look at how we've classified things in the past.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I am certainly not trying to incite the kind of response from above, that is not my intention. I am trying to understand the position of someone who is telling me that I should believe something that I find patently false, namely that the concept of race is bogus. What evidence does anyone have to support the statement that some black people are more genetically similar to white people than to some blacks? Are you talking about people who are labeled black even though they have parents of mixed ancestry? So called mulattos? If so, this does not disprove the concept of race based on the fact that the two groups have a different genetic makeup. When I say black I am referring to people for whom the majority of their ancestors are from Africa, and when I say white I am referring to people whose ancestors are from Europe, and when I say Asian I refer to those of Asian descent. Given that these three groups underwent separate evolutionary paths, and inherited a distinct genome, I think it is fair to say that the concept of race is a valid one and that it has its roots in the genes that these groups possess. Again, if you have some evidence that the genes of these groups are indistinguishable I would be glad to see it.

http://scienceblogs.com/geneticfuture/2009/04/massive_study_of_african_genet.php

Your characterization of the races is retardedly simplistic: and African Black man from Algeria is more distantly related to African black man from ethiopia then to a white man in Europe. So in actually there was not Three groups that underwent separate evolution, there are dozens, even hundreds, but your still hung up on the labeling them by skin color then by gene markers.

More on the subject:
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

 

[Salamander7]

It is much harder for me to see someones gene markers than the color of their skin. If your argument is that the races dont exist then you have done a weak job of supporting your position. You gave the links to a couple of articles, instead of quoting from the article any passages that support your contention. One of the articles provides a map of the genetic distance between Sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasians, and Asians. Number one, the fact that the article breaks down humans into these categories is tacit support for racial classification, and number two the genetic difference shown on the map between the races provides evidence that the races do differ in their genetic makeup in a way that is scientifically quantifiable. The fact that different races exist is not a bad thing, I dont know what you are getting so upset about. All I object to is someone telling me that the concept of race is invalid when my own eyes and intelligence tell me the opposite.

 

[Dub_]

I'm not aware that anyone here has argued that "races don't exist." Granted, I do see how one could interpret iceaura's statement in that way ("...there is no genetic basis for the sociological races"), but I believe the point he was making is that biological/genetic races exist (defined as geographically isolated populations of a single species that differ in one or more genetic traits -- known in more formal biological terms as subspecies), and that sociological "races" exist (defined as the groups that society commonly partitions humanity into, based primarily on physical appearance and broad geographic origin), but that the correlation between these two is imprecise and imperfect. And this is true. While I do think that iceaura may have intentionally exaggerated a bit in saying that there is "no" correlation between the genetics and the social labels, the less extreme point about the correlation being modest is accurate.

 

[Xylene]

Check this out;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Human_mtDNA_haplogroups

 

[ElectricFetus]

It is much harder for me to see someones gene markers than the color of their skin. If your argument is that the races dont exist then you have done a weak job of supporting your position. You gave the links to a couple of articles, instead of quoting from the article any passages that support your contention. One of the articles provides a map of the genetic distance between Sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasians, and Asians. Number one, the fact that the article breaks down humans into these categories is tacit support for racial classification, and number two the genetic difference shown on the map between the races provides evidence that the races do differ in their genetic makeup in a way that is scientifically quantifiable. The fact that different races exist is not a bad thing, I dont know what you are getting so upset about. All I object to is someone telling me that the concept of race is invalid when my own eyes and intelligence tell me the opposite.

No, the article was speaking of that classification and comparing it to genetic markers, comparing something does not mean you support it. I'm not upset about anything. What your eye see is not necessarily fact, an aboriginal and a black man both have darks skin but are very distantly related, like wise the black man from the east coast of african and another the west coast of African are for less related then any white man is to each other or even to say the west coast African. So what is this race thing you see and can define intelligently? Because it standards for classification are weak, antiquated and even grossly biased by centuries of hate and fascist thinking.

 

[Salamander7]

This is a much more palatable point of view, one I can certainly agree with, after all, humans are much more alike than dissimilar.

 

[Salamander7]

So we are back to square one then when it comes to the definition of race. You would have the world believe that the concept of race does not exist because you say there is no genetic evidence to support it, despite the fact that every human being in the world knows the difference between an Asian, a Caucasian, and a Black person. The fact that East Africans and West Africans are genetically different does not invalidate calling people by their racial category, it simply points out that Africa is a very large continent and that groups of people isolated by great distances will evolve along seperate evolutionary paths, be they of the same race or not. If you want to subdivide blacks into seperate racial sub-categories then feel free, I will know what you are talking about. If, as you say, blacks in Africa can evolve identifiably different genomes, think about how different the genomes are between Africa and Asia, whose populatoins had no intermixing of their genes for tens of thousands of years. Unlike you, Barack Obama is not ignorant about racial categories, as he identifies himself as an African American, and does so even though his mother is white. Why cant you simply accept the fact that everyone understands what is meant by black, white, and asian, and stop trying to say that there is no such thing as race.

 

[ElectricFetus]

So we are back to square one then when it comes to the definition of race. You would have the world believe that the concept of race does not exist because you say there is no genetic evidence to support it, despite the fact that every human being in the world knows the difference between an Asian, a Caucasian, and a Black person.

Really, you can go to to a bushman in africa and a doubt he even knows such people exist. And nice appeal to popularity there, and 500 years ago everyone knew the world was flat.

The fact that East Africans and West Africans are genetically different does not invalidate calling people by their racial category, it simply points out that Africa is a very large continent and that groups of people isolated by great distances will evolve along seperate evolutionary paths, be they of the same race or not.

what race? what is race if it can't even be correlated with genes!

If you want to subdivide blacks into seperate racial sub-categories then feel free, I will know what you are talking about. If, as you say, blacks in Africa can evolve identifiably different genomes, think about how different the genomes are between Africa and Asia, whose populatoins had no intermixing of their genes for tens of thousands of years.

You did not read those reports did you? the difference between those races is less then the variation inside of races. Also the a black man may be more closely related to white people and asians then another black man, because asian and white separated from one of them at an early date then the other.

Unlike you, Barack Obama is not ignorant about racial categories, as he identifies himself as an African American, and does so even though his mother is white. Why cant you simply accept the fact that everyone understands what is meant by black, white, and asian, and stop trying to say that there is no such thing as race.

Racial categories are social construct not a genetic constructs, that does not mean that it is not "real", the centuries of suffering and death caused by racial categorizing was very real, which is why Obama would choose to talk about it and work with it. As a social construct it has no real relevance to biology, maybe to human ethic and social dynamics, but not biology, which is were this thread was posted.

 

[Michael]

I suppose when I wrote my post I was thinking in terms of populations.
1) Height, I went to wiki and it surely looks like the Nordic countries have an average higher height. No?
Austria 179.6 cm (5' 10.7")
Denmark 180.6 cm (5' 11.1")
Finland 178.2 cm (5' 10.2")
Estonia 179.1 cm (5' 10.5")
Germany 181.0 cm (5' 11.2")
Norway 179.7 cm (5' 10.7")
Dinaric Alps 185.6 cm (6' 1.0")

With the Dutch being God damn tall!

Netherlands 182.9 cm (6' 0.0")
Netherlands 180.8 cm (5' 11.2")


Compare with Japan
Japan 171.5 cm (5' 7.5")

Wow Indians were the smallest! Tiny people
India 161.2 cm (5' 3.5")



2) About Democracy. OK, I have read that historically many roots of democracy in Europe were reignited by Irish women. Which sounds funny but apparently they have always been feisty/fiercly strong willed and independent. It reflected in the society for 1000s of years. (or so I read). Eventually this bubbled up into Scotish declarations of rights and modern democracy.

Now, if you have ever know a red-haired girl of Irish/Scottish descent (and I don't care if she was raised in Ireland or not) you damn well know this woman is going to be bossy and uncontrollable! It's true. It's absolutely true. There is something in them genes. I know it!

So that's what I was thinking about in terms of the ME, very religious, their mind enters a comfort zone when they are under the control of an alpha male which they perceive as a just ruler (which may also be which they are so monotheisticallt religious with an Man God). This is all genetic - if you can connect the dots? IMO anyway.

 

[Salamander7]

Really, you can go to to a bushman in africa and a doubt he even knows such people exist. And nice appeal to popularity there, and 500 years ago everyone knew the world was flat.

I am sure if he met one he would know that a White man is not a Bushman.

what race? what is race if it can't even be correlated with genes!

I guess I would have to refer you back to the articles you provided links for. In the first (scienceblogs.com/geneticfutur...ican_genet) this article identifies subsets of Africans based upon genetic differences. Depending on your definition of race, each of these could theoretically I guess be labeled a race, in the same way that you could call Polish, Italian, Russian each a race, though no one does anymore, they are all grouped into Caucasian.

In the second article you referenced, .nature.com/ng/journal/v36...ll/ng1435.html a diagram showed the genetic distance between the major human subgroups. The distance between the groups is based upon differnces in their genetic makeup, which satisfies your criteria for recognizing the concept of race. Using genetic analysis, seperate races can be identified.

You did not read those reports did you? the difference between those races is less then the variation inside of races. Also the a black man may be more closely related to white people and asians then another black man, because asian and white separated from one of them at an early date then the other.

I am not sure how the fact that variation between races ( and here you admit that there is variation between the races, in contradiction to your previous statement) is less than in group variation supports your contention that there is no biological basis for race. Within group variation just says that everyone, including brothers and sisters, are different because their genes are a unique assortment of alleles that only they possess which causes them to look and behave differently than anyone else in their group. Between group variation says that, in addition to the person to person variation that exists, there is an added amount of variation because one group has evolved allele variations that do not exist in another group. The perfect example is an allele for black skin that is absent from the Caucasian genome.

You may be right that some blacks are closer to Asians than other African blacks, due to seperate evolutionary paths, but blacks and asians are still racially distinguishable.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I am sure if he met one he would know that a White man is not a Bushman.

I am sure that if he met another black person from another region of Africa he would also know that he is not a Bushman.

Using genetic analysis, seperate races can be identified.

Yes, but genetic races do not always correlate with 'social' races.

You may be right that some blacks are closer to Asians than other African blacks, due to seperate evolutionary paths, but blacks and asians are still racially distinguishable.

They are racially distinguishable in terms of social races, but not necessarily in terms of genetic races. You admitted as much in the above quotation. This has been described to you numerous times now. If you are incapable of understanding this then there’s not much point in letting this continue.

 

[Salamander7]

They are racially distinguishable in terms of social races, but not necessarily in terms of genetic races. You admitted as much in the above quotation. This has been described to you numerous times now. If you are incapable of understanding this then there’s not much point in letting this continue.

Read my previous post carefully, I said there have been studies done proving the races are distinguishable genetically. Scientists can analyze the genes of an individual and on that basis alone determine whether they are Black, White, or Asian. This satisfies electric fetus criteria for establishing that races do exist.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I am sure if he met one he would know that a White man is not a Bushman.

Sure but could he tell the difference between an Asian and a white? Note not all Asian-mongoloids have epicanthic folds.

I guess I would have to refer you back to the articles you provided links for. In the first (scienceblogs.com/geneticfutur...ican_genet) this article identifies subsets of Africans based upon genetic differences. Depending on your definition of race, each of these could theoretically I guess be labeled a race, in the same way that you could call Polish, Italian, Russian each a race, though no one does anymore, they are all grouped into Caucasian.

These aren't subset races not the some of those groups also share common markers with Caucasians while others less so, thus their is not genetic negroid race but rather genetically a spectrum and genetically it become arbitrary at where you say negroid ends and Caucasian begins.

In the second article you referenced, .nature.com/ng/journal/v36...ll/ng1435.html a diagram showed the genetic distance between the major human subgroups. The distance between the groups is based upon differences in their genetic makeup, which satisfies your criteria for recognizing the concept of race. Using genetic analysis, seperate races can be identified.

Yes but they are not the classic 3 races.

I am not sure how the fact that variation between races ( and here you admit that there is variation between the races, in contradiction to your previous statement) is less than in group variation supports your contention that there is no biological basis for race. Within group variation just says that everyone, including brothers and sisters, are different because their genes are a unique assortment of alleles that only they possess which causes them to look and behave differently than anyone else in their group. Between group variation says that, in addition to the person to person variation that exists, there is an added amount of variation because one group has evolved allele variations that do not exist in another group. The perfect example is an allele for black skin that is absent from the Caucasian genome.

I was arguing against the standards definition of race, the Caucasian-mongoloid-negroid definition, not against genetic races, which for example Icelanders satisfy (do to inbreed) as one. If you want to label everyone with dark skin alleles black I wonder if the aborigines count?

You may be right that some blacks are closer to Asians than other African blacks, due to separate evolutionary paths, but blacks and Asians are still racially distinguishable.

based on what, skin color and eyes lid fold shape? the use of race as such is archaic and even offensive to many people, genetics ans proven the classics races and an inaccurate and obsolete concept, if you want to define people by physiological differences and disease probability your going to have far greater success using genetics, the only thing the class race definitions are useful for is causing strife and tension in societies.

 

[Alien Cockroach]

What roles do our genes determine in our racial identity?
Is merely a different form of nature versus nurture ?
Do people with the gene for darker skin, adopt different cultures/racial customs/tendencies ?
Does a second generation migrant have the same racial characteristics as someone of the same age back home ? Is it even "home" to them?

Or is it our environment ?

No. Some elements of black culture in the US are deliberately centered around "spiritually going back to Africa." Frankly, I think this is kind of stupid because most African CULTURES are really fucked-up and backwards places that I don't believe should be emulated. Countries like Senegal or Botswana would be better examples for them; after numerous self-initiated reforms, these countries have become the lions of Africa. They are becoming leaders on the continent. It is to Botswana's credit that they have been taking part in containing the situation in Somalia. The thing is, countries like Senegal and Botswana have become very modernized, and this doesn't bring to mind the "bucolic" scenes that most people associate with the Dark Continent. Honestly, I don't see what's wrong with Africa just becoming another flourishing, modern culture, but there are a lot of people who would unload a lot of piss on me for that viewpoint. "Oh, you bitch, you're such a racist, you think the West should invade everywhere and make people fat on Hamburgers and CAPITALISM, you evil BASTARD!" Whoever you are, go ahead and open your fat mouth.

Black people who altogether reject this "back to Africa" philosophy (that is, get a laptop, spend most of their time on the Internet, become atheists, etc.) tend to be be almost indistinguishable from a pasty-faced white boy. They can be just as geeky; I go to college with some of them, and it takes you a while to realize that some of them are blacker than blueberries. Furthermore, black people who come from the parts of Africa that are not as widely emulated by American black people tend to be almost completely different animals. Their behavior and their thought processes are just DIFFERENT.

I earnestly believe that culture is a lot more important the part of the world that your genes come from. Before Western Europe was intellectually invaded by first the Jews, then the Greeks during the Enlightenment, my ancestors up there in Scandinavia were practicing human sacrifice. My other ancestors, the Celts, were dancing naked around fires and worshipping fucking trees. The Franks (my other other ancestors) were riding around Continental Europe on horses and looting Rome because they were illiterate THUGS. There is not a single fucked-up thing the Africans have ever done that my ancestors didn't do some rough equivalent of. It's culture and education that make the difference, not race or soil. There is no such thing as race. Individual differences are the only differences that matter.

 

[Salamander7]

So if I am applying for a job with the federal government, and the application asks whether I am white, black or asian, I can check any box since we're all one race? Its okay to check the box for black, to increase my chances of getting hired?

 

[ElectricFetus]

So if I am applying for a job with the federal government, and the application asks whether I am white, black or asian, I can check any box since we're all one race? Its okay to check the box for black, to increase my chances of getting hired?

you don't get the concept here: this is biology forum, not law or social science, race is a social construct, talk about it over there.