Re: Old news, new show: Billy Graham on Jews

In <46df43b6$0$14074$742ec2ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Michelle Geary" <mgeary@xxxxxxxxx> writes:


I'm going to be naughty and top-post -- thanks for the detailed reply. I
hear what you're saying - basically, you're saying biologists use the word
"race," but that they mean something different by that than lay people do.
I'll accept that. Big potential for confusion, though.

To be more specific, I think we agree that there's no such thing as a
"white race" or "black race," or probably even an "Asian race."

Clearly there are groups of humans who, statistically speaking, have more
in common with each other genetically than they do with other humans. We
call some of these groups "families." When the family groups get large, we
use other names - tribe, clan, ethnic group, etc. I think you're saying
that some biologists use the word "race" to describe some of these groups.

I think everyone agrees, though, that "Africans," "descendants of
Africans," "African-Americans," "Blacks," etc. - none of these terms
describes such a group. "Masai" might. "Han" might, or might not, etc.

When you get to sub-species - my understanding is that the whole concept
of "species" is somewhat arbitrary anyway, it seems to be primarily a
classification tool imposed by Victorians who loved to classify things,
and might not be as useful as once thought. So sub-species, all the less
so.

Thanks for the clarification - I leave your response for reference.
--s

I'm not even going to bother going point-to-point with you on this -- you
say you're a biologist?

Last I checked :).

Fine, then provide some citations for the use of
"race" in humans by biologists. Reputable biologists, that is.

Here's part of a paragraph from Daniel Hartl's _A Primer of Population
Genetics_ (2nd ed), which is one of the standard texts in population
biology. (There's a bigger version around here somewhere, but I can't find
it.) The topic at hand in the paragraph is quantifying genetic divergence
between different human subpopulations: "Table 2 provokes a brief
discussion of the sensitive term race because the term is prone to
misunderstanding and misuse. In population genetics, a _race_ is a group of
individuals in a species who are genetically more similar to each other than
they are to the members of other such groups. Populations that have
undergone some degree of genetic divergence as measured by, for example, F
sub ST <a technical calculation of genetic differentiation>, therefore
qualify as races. Using this definition, the human population contains many
races."

Here's part of a definition from one of the standard (Oxford) biology
dictionaries: "(in biology) a category used in the classification of
organisms that consists of a group of individuals within a species that are
geographically, ecologically, physiologically or chromosomally distinct from
other members of the species. The term is frequently used in the same sense
as subspecies."

You can identify yourself as white if you wish, but perhaps a Klansmen
would disagree. Chinese and Indian aren't races, they're nationalities.

These sets may overlap :).

"Race" by definition overlaps multiple ethnic groups. That's why it's not
useful.

Race as used by ordinary people perhaps. But from a technical standpoint, I
think (note, that I have this impression but I'm not putting money down
yet!) that _your_ "ethnic groups" would correspond fairly closely to the
biologist's concept of race.

I would say that biologists by and large do accept the concept, but a
biologist's delineation of the human races would be in some ways (perhaps
many ways) quite different from that of the "person in the street".
Especially if someone has dark, so-called black, skin, their ancestors
may
have come from one of many quite distinct genetic groups.

You would say that biologists by and large do accept the concept of race?
That's interesting - can you prove it? Because Q provided evidence that
they do not, which corresponds with everything I've ever heard on the
subject. Please feel free to bring citations from biologists supporting
the concept of human races.

I think you are still thinking of this in terms of the traditional concept
of race. Yet, I am not (thinking of race in those terms). I went back
through the thread and (out of practice as I am with manuevering about
newsgroups) I couldn't find her cite. One of the common and kinda cool
quotes out there these days is Jared Diamond's, with ref to Cavalli-Sforza's
work demolishing the concept of race, and that may be what Q cited. But
note: here's a bit from the Amazon editorial review (which is, granted, not
nearly as on top of things as Jared Diamond is) of the same work: "Because
of his (Cavalli-Sforza's) work, geneticists no longer think that the human
species is divided into color-coded races." Note that - it's not that there
are not these genetic groups (in fact, Cavalli-Sforza's work has focused on
tracing the migrations of these genetic groups) but that they don't
correspond to the *traditional* concepts of race.

As you say, since dark skin can indicate ancestry in different genetic
groups, then what does it mean to lump those together as a "race"?

It would mean (I would say) that one was making an error if one did so. The
!Kung San may be one genetic race, but a population in East Africa is almost
certainly not the same race at all. And you might learn some very
interesting things by studying the differences between (and within) these
groups, as well as studying their current distributions for example.

Race includes culture. I think people have been saying this all along.

Nonsense. It most assuredly does NOT. Culture might include race, or
perception of race, but race does NOT include culture.

No, I wouldn't say that it necessarily does either.

Thanks.

I don't mean to jump on you, it's nice to hear a new voice in the forum,
it's just we've spent a lot of time beating this issue over and over again
so I'm a bit short-tempered about it at this point.

No problem. I just wanted to clarify that there are biologists who use the
concept of race everyday, tho' they may be using it in a sense that is
rather alien to what non-biologists think it means. And as far as
usefulness goes, I'd rather use the term "race" for these genetically
different human groups than "subspecies" - talk about politically charged!

Michelle


--

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: When did human races split from one another?
    ... its practical usefulness based on the fact that the boundaries ... for race was not my idea. ... This makes then the same species. ... Have have a very keen knowledge of biology and genetics. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Are we close to genetically engineered humans?
    ... like intelligence or athletic ability. ... At least the genetics is likely passed down from some grandparents ... I don't think that it will be a race, ... Maybe more like a species, ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: OT : Lets Play Liberal Scientists
    ... of biologists disagree with my position. ... calling people racists just because they disagree with you on this issue. ... The "racial" classifications are different depending on which culture you ... questions and points I made in my first reply to you on the subject of race. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: A Reworking of German Language Classification
    ... actual linguists about why the field doesn't work the way you think ... It's the same reason biologists don't bother coming up ... with a biological definition of race among humans anymore: ... there very well could be a correlation between ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: "Racial" medicine
    ... of many biologists, anthropologists, and social scientists to say ... that claims in the headline "Race Influences ... groups and ethnicity. ... differences between subpopulations of the human species that influence ...
    (talk.origins)