Talk:Race

Previous entries archived in Talk:Race (Archive 1)

You may wish to look at an interesting new bit of research from Brazil, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences, and reported below as well as elsewhere (Google news search on "Brazil race" at [1] (http://news.google.com/news?q=cluster:straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/techscience/story/0,4386,161451,00)). The basic drift is that saying someone is "of the African race", for example, because they have "Negroid" features, isn't as useful as one might think - physical characteristics such as dark skin, etc., in a society such as Brazil's are not particularly accurate reflections of genetic history or overall makeup. This tends to indicate that a "racial" charcteristization is a quite broad, and not particularly predictive, method of categorizing; it's more like saying "Joe looks Italian" than saying "Joe is Italian". Chas zzz brown 00:30 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)

• e.g., "Race can't be determined from genes: scientists", ABCOnline http://abc.net.au/news/scitech/2002/12/item20021218135658_1.htm

David, your response is very clear and helpful. I think the issue is this: most physical anthropologists and biological scientists simply do not agree with your claim that

A simplification of the clusters of trait characteristics of such a scheme would be very close to the 'intuitive' descriptions of races.

For one thing, there is no "intuitive" description of race. What people claim to be intuitive descriptions of race are in fact culturally constructed and variable. Meaning, people in different countries (US, Brazil, Haiti, etc) have different "intuitive" descriptions of race. What accounts for these "intuitive" descriptions is not some pan-humn intuition, but rather local history and political and economic forces. Second, the notions of race that prevail in most countries, including the US, are quite different from your notion of a statistical cluster. Let me put it another way: it is precisely such evidence as described by the recent SA article you refer to, that scientists consider proof that "race" is not biological. Races, as almost everyone uses the term, are discreet; skin color, as you rightly point out, changes along a continuum. Race, accordning to most popular conceptions (and racial science in the 1950s , 1940s, 1930s, and so on)is a non-Darwinian concept, in that people believed they could find pure races and pure examples of a race. But Darwin's notion of species as statistical constructes renders any notion of purity void. Also, for Darwin, species evolve through natural selection. In otehr words, specis (and indeed, al populations), are constantly changing -- but most people think of "races" as stable. Look, if you put a population of white people at the equator, it is likely 9according to the SA article) that after 20,000 years -- even if they bred only with members of the same initial population -- they will become black; likewise, take a population of Black people and put them in Sweden, and even if they avoid mating with other (white) locals, after 20,00 years they will become white. this is simple evolution, and the article you refer to explains why. But this is not what most people mean by "race." Slrubenstein

Slrubenstein, Thank you for your very interesting comments. I very much agree with what you wrote. I just wish there was some way to redefine 'race' to reflect a statistical/evolutionary/morphological classification scheme below 'species'. Probably some scientist has done it well, but cannot be heard because of all the heated discussions that result from the mixing of the question of scientific classification with the layperson's notion of 'race', which is largely (but not entirely) determined by the culture in which they live. Maybe we just need a different word! In the world of planned heredity (flowers), variety is used to describe flowers of different colors, etc. We need something similar for the case of evolutionary (as opposed to planned) heredity. David 23:24 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC)

The word you seek is "population". But alas, usage by biologists and laypersons is different. --mav

---

This page badly needs better division into paragraphs!

--user:jaknouse

---

I reverted, in order to delete a recent addition that speculated as to paleolithic migrations. It simply does not belong in this article. Someone put exactly the same material in the article on the Evolution of Homo Sapiens, which was inappropriate too. The passage may have some useful content, although it uses terminology that few scientists today use. In any event, it just does not belong here. Slrubenstein

---

Here is the Merriam-Webster Online definition of race:

1 : a breeding stock of animals

2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>

3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type

4 obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition

5 : distinctive flavor, taste, or strength

---

I would start the article like this:

The term race, as applied to human beings, has various meanings. Loosely, it can mean a group of people having similar interests, habits, or characteristics, such as the English race. Specifically, it means "a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type" [2] (http://m-w.com/) This article will be concerned chiefly with two issues: what human traits are transmissible by descent, and are these traits sufficient to divide humanity into distinct human "types"?

I daresay it will be much easier to describe human differences such as skin color, shape of facial features, and so on which are (1) readily apparent and (2) entirely non-controversial. However, the issue of what non-visible qualities inhere to various groups is much more problematic. Claims have been made and rebutted for many decades.

Moreover, many people (myself included) have a distaste for the word "race" or object to the classification of humanity into "races". For one thing, it seems motivated by -- or to fuel -- racism, something most Wikipedians adamantly oppose.

--Uncle Ed

Ed, although I appreciate your intent, I think the current opening is better. I am glad you raise this for discussion and look forward to finding out what other people think, Slrubenstein

---

I seem to recall that "race" is a term widely used in biology to deal with non-human subspecies... or has the term "subspecies" replaced it entirely now? Bio folks? -- April

I don't think race is used a lot now, but when it is, I believe it is superseded by subspecies -- that is, subspecies would be a higher taxonomic level than race. jaknouse 12:33 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

The terms are exact equivalents, April. At least they are so far as they apply to birds and mammals. It is more fashionable to use "subspecies" at present, but I have been unable to find any distinction between them. Tannin 15:43 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

---

Well, I just made a long and cumbersome entry even longer and even more cumbersome. Sooner or later, someone will have to come along and split the thing up, or else take an axe to it and trim it down to manageable proportions. I have no current plans to be that someone! It's a huge job, and a very difficult one. I can't find any particular part of this entry that ought to go, and yet the thing as a whole reads as exactly what it is: a huge patchwork of different textures only just barely hanging together. From an expression point of view, it badly needs some unity, a more coherent structure. It just doesn't flow. And yet, all (or nearly all) the individual parts are good. Maybe someone ought to do a complete, top to bottom rewrite. Or maybe we should just keep on tinkering away, a little change here, a small touch there, and hope that the thing all of a sudden takes on a coherent logical and narrative flow. I dunno. Tannin 15:43 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

---

Is this news item of use to this article? [3] (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030513/sc_afp/us_genetics_prehistory_030513005118) Kingturtle 16:13 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think so. Granted, "cousin" is just a bad metaphor no matter how it is used here. But regardless of what the article says, we are in some sense cousins of Neanderthals in that we have a common ancestor. Of course, we share ancestors with Chimpanzees and Gorillas as well (well, with worms and birds for that matter), but our common ancestor with Neanderthals is relatively recent... Slrubenstein

---

I edited the page several times to replace references to "10 percent of variation" being explained by race. This is, in genetic terms, false and, I would argue, racist (in that it perpetuates the myth of race as having some genetic validity, when in fact it has none at all). The reality is that someone classified in one racial category is more likely to have more genetic traits in common with someone in a different racial category than someone in the same category. The recent PBS series, Race: The Power of an Illusion, was an excellent introductory piece for anyone wanting to learn about current science on "race." One could also contact Professor Alan Goodman at Hampshire College, who is a specialist on this topic. But please stop making this statement about "10 percent of variation" being explained by race. It just isn't true. Neoamicus[?] 07:10 June 21, 2003 (UTC)

I just reverted all your changes. Let me explain why: I do not want to prevent you from making contributions to this page, but you will not get anywhere unless you present them in the proper way.

For the record, I basically agree with you: I believe the concept of "race" has no scientific validity, although I do think that the concept of a genetic "population" is very important. But the issue is not whether I agree with you in principle, or whether you are right or wrong. The issues is Wikipedia's NPOV policy. You should read up on it if you do not understand it, but I will try to explain the basics here.

Some people completely reject the importance of genetic variation among people. Some people believe genetic variation among people is important, and should be described in terms of "populations." Some people use the word "race" but mean the same thing as populations. Other people use the word "race" and mean something more static and clearly bounded than "population." An NPOV article on "Race" cannot represent any one of these views, and dismiss the other three. Instead, an NPOV article on "race" will explain each of these views, and provide the different reasons people give for ascribing to these views.

Believe me, others who have contributed to this article know far more about the issues than what one learns from a PBS documentary. This does not mean that there is no room for improvement. But you should think twice, even three times, before deleting anything.

Here is my suggestion to you. If the article makes a claim that you know many people reject, do not delete the claim. Instead, preface it with the phrase, "Some people claim" or something like that. Then, add the counter-claim, prefaced by "Other people claim," and give the reasons.

In short, do not delete. Instead, frame and add. If this is still unclear to you, read about our NPOV policy. Also, before making any major changes, you can present your ideas here and others will give you constructive feedback. Slrubenstein

---

I just want to second slr's comments. If you, Neoamicus, are 66.31 etc., I guess you are a new user in need of some friendly advice on how things are done here. The three people who have undone your changes are not trying to exclude you-- we just want you to respect the NPOV requirement described above by slr. You are plainly informed about the issues surrounding Race, but you must recognize that the majority view on today's campuses is hotly contested by a sizable minority containing quite a few specialists with impressive credentials. To you, the statement "the concept of Race has no genetic basis" is apparently as undeniable as the statement "the world is round"-- so you might be wondering how the Wikipedia article on Planet Earth can be considered NPOV without giving equal time to Flat Earth arguments. But I'm afraid the two are really not comparable. Those who believe in genetic clines similar to race have some powerful arguments, and the subject itself unfortunately has a large semantic component, unlike flat vs. round. Your sentences were well written and a good representation of the majority view-- you just need to stop putting your view forward as the only view. JDG