New findings cast doubt on "race isn't real" claim

[Eric Stevens]

For years, mainstream scientists have said there are no real racial
differences among people. Race is purely a "social construct" -- in other
words, it's imaginary, some have argued.
But two new studies raise doubts about a key calculation on which this
argument rests.This calculation, often cited publicly by world-renowned
geneticists, is that all humans are more than 99.9 percent genetically
identical.
http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/040908_racefrm

It doesn't matter whether we are 99.9% the same and only 0.1%
different, or 99.8% the same with a wopping 0.2% difference.

The point is that the human eye and brain can separate the human
population into groups which we recognise as different races. The
question is not whether or not there are different groups but how we
can define the boundaries.

The denial of different racial groups is a relatively recent
phenomenon and stems from the the reluctance to make comparisons
between the groups.



Eric Stevens

[Jacques Guy]

Post by Eric Stevens

This calculation, often cited publicly by world-renowned
geneticists, is that all humans are more than 99.9 percent genetically
identical.
http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/040908_racefrm

It doesn't matter whether we are 99.9% the same and only 0.1%
different, or 99.8% the same with a wopping 0.2% difference.

Let me add that the same argument can be reheated and served
with languages instead. Comparing them, one will find that
human languages are 99.9% identical: they all use sounds
in a very narrow frequency range, and so on, so that compared
to how bees communicate, (or birds, or whales, or...take
your pick), yes, for all practical purpose, human languages
are all identical. Why, linguists themselves cannot tell
when a dialect ends and a language starts!

[Erik Max Francis]

Post by Eric Stevens
It doesn't matter whether we are 99.9% the same and only 0.1%
different, or 99.8% the same with a wopping 0.2% difference.
The point is that the human eye and brain can separate the human
population into groups which we recognise as different races. The
question is not whether or not there are different groups but how we
can define the boundaries.

My impression is that this is a politically correct motive running over
a real scientific result, converting it to their own agenda and then
presenting something to the public that doesn't even pass the laugh
test.

The underlying scientific fact of all this is that the genetic
differences between two individuals of different races are, on average,
no greater than the genetic differences between two random individuals.
This is an important result, and it tells us that race genetically is
not very meaningful in determining how different people truly are; that
is, race is genetically not very important.

This result is important, because it means But it doesn't mean that
there aren't physical differences manifested between people of different
races (examples being so obvious I won't insult anyone's intelligence by
giving them). Going from "people of different races are no more
genetically dissimilar than two random people" to "race is purely a
social construct" is something of a leap. That the differences aren't
genetically significant in the big picture doesn't mean that there
aren't differences!

I actually had a discussion with someone on this subject who insisted
that in the South Bay Area (one of the most racially diverse part of the
United States), it was impossible -- _impossible_ -- to identify the
country or region of origin of people simply by looking at their
appearance. Race has no genetic basis, she said, so therefore race is
totally unusable for identifying origins. Right data, wrong
simplification, wrong conclusion. It's this kind of blatant denial of
reality that makes people really, really despise political correctness.

It's like saying that tallness or shortness isn't a good genetic
indicator for how different those people are, therefore there is no such
thing as tallness or shortness.

[Eric Stevens]

Post by Erik Max Francis

Post by Eric Stevens
It doesn't matter whether we are 99.9% the same and only 0.1%
different, or 99.8% the same with a wopping 0.2% difference.
The point is that the human eye and brain can separate the human
population into groups which we recognise as different races. The
question is not whether or not there are different groups but how we
can define the boundaries.

My impression is that this is a politically correct motive running over
a real scientific result, converting it to their own agenda and then
presenting something to the public that doesn't even pass the laugh
test.
The underlying scientific fact of all this is that the genetic
differences between two individuals of different races are, on average,
no greater than the genetic differences between two random individuals.
This is an important result, and it tells us that race genetically is
not very meaningful in determining how different people truly are; that
is, race is genetically not very important.

I don't accept that argument. Its a bit like like saying that because
we cannot build a sense organ that will meaningfully discriminate
between scents we should disregard the messages from our nose.

Post by Erik Max Francis
This result is important, because it means But it doesn't mean that
there aren't physical differences manifested between people of different
races (examples being so obvious I won't insult anyone's intelligence by
giving them). Going from "people of different races are no more
genetically dissimilar than two random people" to "race is purely a
social construct" is something of a leap. That the differences aren't
genetically significant in the big picture doesn't mean that there
aren't differences!

And it doesn't mean that the the differences cannot be correlated with
what our eyes and brains tell us. Its just that we haven't done it
yet. One reason why we haven't done it yet is that genes might not
tell the whole story. The role of proteins is becoming seen to be
increasingly important and now prions are entering the scene. I think
we have a long way to go.

Post by Erik Max Francis
I actually had a discussion with someone on this subject who insisted
that in the South Bay Area (one of the most racially diverse part of the
United States), it was impossible -- _impossible_ -- to identify the
country or region of origin of people simply by looking at their
appearance. Race has no genetic basis, she said, so therefore race is
totally unusable for identifying origins. Right data, wrong
simplification, wrong conclusion. It's this kind of blatant denial of
reality that makes people really, really despise political correctness.
It's like saying that tallness or shortness isn't a good genetic
indicator for how different those people are, therefore there is no such
thing as tallness or shortness.

Yep.



Eric Stevens

[Mike Van Pelt]

But it doesn't mean that there aren't physical differences
manifested between people of different races (examples being so
obvious I won't insult anyone's intelligence by giving them).
Going from "people of different races are no more genetically
dissimilar than two random people" to "race is purely a social
construct" is something of a leap. That the differences aren't
genetically significant in the big picture doesn't mean that
there aren't differences!

True. But "race", the way it is used socially, as an
"either/or" thing, does not exist. Almost everyone has
a mixture of racial heritage.

One of my favorite people is someone I never met, whose name I
don't even recall. His father (African-American) related in an
online discussion on GEnie sometime in the last century, that
this son had applied at some university. In spite of the fact
that he looked pretty much like Denzel Washington, he looked the
registrar straight in the eye and checked the "white" box. He
said "My mother is white, so I have every bit as much right to
check White as Black."

The university was in a tizzy, because if he checked "white",
they couldn't get any all-important Diversity Points from him.
But he refused to back down.

Good for him. I know nothing else about the man, but I like him.

[Erik Max Francis]

Post by Mike Van Pelt

But it doesn't mean that there aren't physical differences
manifested between people of different races (examples being so
obvious I won't insult anyone's intelligence by giving them).
Going from "people of different races are no more genetically
dissimilar than two random people" to "race is purely a social
construct" is something of a leap. That the differences aren't
genetically significant in the big picture doesn't mean that
there aren't differences!

True. But "race", the way it is used socially, as an
"either/or" thing, does not exist. Almost everyone has
a mixture of racial heritage.

That is certainly true, as well. But how many things in the real world
exist strictly as either/or things? Not many; this happens to be no
different. Practically everything you can quantify will fall along a
spectrum (see, even this statement acnkowledges that with "practically
everything" :-), rather than in just a few discrete absolute bunches.
Obviously no one is 100% black or 100% white (or 100% Asian or 100%
hispanic or however else you want to draw the lines), but usually a
person will fall mostly in one category. Sometimes, and of course it's
happening more and more often, you really can't tell. But (relating as
to the anecdote I gave earlier) just because sometimes it's hard or not
possible doesn't mean it's _never_ possible. (The question isn't
whether that's significant or anyone should care, but the content was
that it was truly impossible, a completely absurd claim.)

[Mike Van Pelt]

Post by Erik Max Francis

Post by Mike Van Pelt
But "race", the way it is used socially, as an
"either/or" thing, does not exist. Almost everyone has
a mixture of racial heritage.

That is certainly true, as well. But how many things in the real world
exist strictly as either/or things? Not many; this happens to be no
different.

Yeah, but when I fill out one of those forms, it generally has
a selection of a limited number of checkboxes. Choose only one.

Or, if there is a blank, it's not big enough to hold "English/
Dutch/Creek/French/Scot/Cherokee".

[Robert Hunt]

Post by Erik Max Francis
Obviously no one is 100% black

That's not obvious to me. In fact, it's obvious to me that there ARE
people who are 100% black.

I might agree with you that there are no people who are 100% white, but
that's partly because of the difficulty in defining what "100% white"
actually means!

[Joseph Hertzlinger]

For years, mainstream scientists have said there are no real racial
differences among people. Race is purely a "social construct" -- in
other words, it's imaginary, some have argued.

As a general rule, I've noticed that when the dissenters from some
establishment view make sense the establishment is usually called a
"consensus" whereas when the establishment makes sense it is called
"mainstream."

In any case, each human being is a Proper Class (established by the
standard usenet technique of pulling assertions out of the vulgar body
aperture) and, as such, cannot belong to any kind of collective,
including races.

[John Savard]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 04:15:07 GMT, Joseph Hertzlinger

Post by Joseph Hertzlinger

For years, mainstream scientists have said there are no real racial
differences among people. Race is purely a "social construct" -- in
other words, it's imaginary, some have argued.

As a general rule, I've noticed that when the dissenters from some
establishment view make sense the establishment is usually called a
"consensus" whereas when the establishment makes sense it is called
"mainstream."
In any case, each human being is a Proper Class (established by the
standard usenet technique of pulling assertions out of the vulgar body
aperture) and, as such, cannot belong to any kind of collective,
including races.

Ethnic groups are real.

Groups of related ethnic groups are also real; thus, one can form one
meta-group containing people who are Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, and
another meta-group containing Englishmen, Scots, Frenchmen, Germans, and
Russians, and so on.

Skin color is also real. And we can even group East Indians with
Europeans genetically, not just linguistically.

Thus, the claim that race "isn't real" invites skepticism. Race may not
be particularly important, and it has been given excessive importance
with bad results, but claiming the concept of race doesn't have a
referent in reality seems to be going too far.

But what _is_ supportable is the claim that races aren't really
important basic subdivisions of humanity. Genetic studies indicate, for
example, that if you regard Orientals and North American Indians as one
race, Polynesians as another race, Europeans and East Indians together
as another race, then black Africans are not a "race" like any of them.
Instead, individual African tribes represent as much of a division of
humanity's heritage of genetic diversity as whole "races" of everyone
else.

In *that* sense, race isn't real. If you're going to break humanity down
into genetic subdivisions, the usual racial divisions don't work. The
set of pigeonholes where one pigeonhole is "African" and another
pigeonhole is "European" is artificial, rather than natural, because the
diversity among Africans hasn't been properly recognized for historical
reasons.

In a way, then, I can agree that "race isn't real", but I still think
the phrase is unnecessarily contentious and confusing.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html

[P.Comm]

--
X-No-Archive: Yes

For years, mainstream scientists have said there are no real racial
differences among people. Race is purely a "social construct" -- in other
words, it's imaginary, some have argued.
But two new studies raise doubts about a key calculation on which this
argument rests.This calculation, often cited publicly by world-renowned
geneticists, is that all humans are more than 99.9 percent genetically
identical.
http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/040908_racefrm

Well, "Family" must not be real either - since we are 98.6 different from
Chimps - or a higher number.

Only "order" is real. LOL. NO. PHYLUM is real. NO. Kingdom is real.
Yes.