Transracial?

[Bomb#20]

Indeed, biologists do not be recognize any biological basis for race.

Ernst Mayr did. Surely you do not deny that he was a biologist.

Uh, Mayr's views on race were nothing like yours... Do you even read things before posting them?

Uh, irony meter red-flag. Do you even read things before posting them? Or are you too busy projecting your own flaws onto others? You have zero basis for believing there's any difference between Mayr's views and mine, because you know nothing at all about mine other than that I think we have biological races, because you refused to read mine.

You already established you don't give a rat's ass whether what you say about other people is the truth, in the abstract, or when they're dead public figures. Now we see you don't give a rat's ass whether what you say about other TFT posters is the truth.

I mean, I disagree with Mayr, but he wasn't babbling on about there being four races of man or whatever forgotten nonsense still has currency with the WN crowd.

You already established that you decide what I say by applying your imagination, but at least last time you were up front about it. Now you're simply putting words in my mouth as if it were a fact. If you imagine I was babbling on about there being four races of man, quote me.

 

[Bomb#20]

Indeed, biologists do not be recognize any biological basis for race.

Ernst Mayr did. Surely you do not deny that he was a biologist.

Ernst Mayr was, in fact, critical of the idea of the use of race and subspecies. Humans show a smaller amount of genetic diversity than do other animals, actually. Including close relatives such as chimpanzees.

Sure, but his criticism clearly didn't involve denying we had biological races at all. If you think Mayr said something that conflicts with what I said, can you post it? And how much genetic diversity do you think it takes for there to be races? Just because chimps have more doesn't imply we don't have enough.

 

[skepticalbip]

Ernst Mayr was, in fact, critical of the idea of the use of race and subspecies. Humans show a smaller amount of genetic diversity than do other animals, actually. Including close relatives such as chimpanzees.

Sure, but his criticism clearly didn't involve denying we had biological races at all. If you think Mayr said something that conflicts with what I said, can you post it? And how much genetic diversity do you think it takes for there to be races? Just because chimps have more doesn't imply we don't have enough.

I think that this is the whole point of the argument. Some have a visceral rejection to the term, "race" even though they agree that there are sufficient differences between major groups to be able to identify someone as being a member of a specific broad group that have that difference in common as opposed to other broad groups. And then some are so opposed to labeling different broad groups that they deny that anthropologist are able to and do identify individuals by broad groups. The problem is in the terms used to identify those broad groups that do exist or some get upset that anyone would dare to say that there are common traits that are shared by one group that differ from other groups.

 

[Toni]

Ernst Mayr was, in fact, critical of the idea of the use of race and subspecies. Humans show a smaller amount of genetic diversity than do other animals, actually. Including close relatives such as chimpanzees.

Sure, but his criticism clearly didn't involve denying we had biological races at all. If you think Mayr said something that conflicts with what I said, can you post it? And how much genetic diversity do you think it takes for there to be races? Just because chimps have more doesn't imply we don't have enough.

Sure but you’re not actually interested in an honest discussion. I’m not interested in doing your research for you. How about you get back with actual evidence that he supported the idea of biologically distinct races. It’s probably in the same article where he denied the physical evidence for gravity.

 

[Toni]

Ernst Mayr was, in fact, critical of the idea of the use of race and subspecies. Humans show a smaller amount of genetic diversity than do other animals, actually. Including close relatives such as chimpanzees.

Sure, but his criticism clearly didn't involve denying we had biological races at all. If you think Mayr said something that conflicts with what I said, can you post it? And how much genetic diversity do you think it takes for there to be races? Just because chimps have more doesn't imply we don't have enough.

I think that this is the whole point of the argument. Some have a visceral rejection to the term, "race" even though they agree that there are sufficient differences between major groups to be able to identify someone as being a member of a specific broad group that have that difference in common as opposed to other broad groups. And then some are so opposed to labeling different broad groups that they deny that anthropologist are able to and do identify individuals by broad groups. The problem is in the terms used to identify those broad groups that do exist or some get upset that anyone would dare to say that there are common traits that are shared by one group that differ from other groups.

Scientists do not rely on morphology to distinguish species or subspecies. Or, in the rare cases where it is actually important: dog breed. Instead, they rely on genetic analysis. Science agrees that there is very little variation in DNA between individuals no matter how disparate their physical characteristics or geographical region home to their ancestors. Sometimes, ethnic group can provide clues about susceptiblility or resistance to certain diseases or disorders. This is not the same thing as ‘race.’

 

[Politesse]

Uh, Mayr's views on race were nothing like yours... Do you even read things before posting them?

Uh, irony meter red-flag. Do you even read things before posting them? Or are you too busy projecting your own flaws onto others? You have zero basis for believing there's any difference between Mayr's views and mine, because you know nothing at all about mine other than that I think we have biological races, because you refused to read mine.

You already established you don't give a rat's ass whether what you say about other people is the truth, in the abstract, or when they're dead public figures. Now we see you don't give a rat's ass whether what you say about other TFT posters is the truth.

I mean, I disagree with Mayr, but he wasn't babbling on about there being four races of man or whatever forgotten nonsense still has currency with the WN crowd.

You already established that you decide what I say by applying your imagination, but at least last time you were up front about it. Now you're simply putting words in my mouth as if it were a fact. If you imagine I was babbling on about there being four races of man, quote me.

Err, you are and were defending the notion of the Linnaean categories: mongoloid, caucasoid, etc. If that isn't your view, feel free to explain.

 

[Politesse]

Ernst Mayr was, in fact, critical of the idea of the use of race and subspecies. Humans show a smaller amount of genetic diversity than do other animals, actually. Including close relatives such as chimpanzees.

Sure, but his criticism clearly didn't involve denying we had biological races at all. If you think Mayr said something that conflicts with what I said, can you post it? And how much genetic diversity do you think it takes for there to be races? Just because chimps have more doesn't imply we don't have enough.

I think that this is the whole point of the argument. Some have a visceral rejection to the term, "race" even though they agree that there are sufficient differences between major groups to be able to identify someone as being a member of a specific broad group that have that difference in common as opposed to other broad groups. And then some are so opposed to labeling different broad groups that they deny that anthropologist are able to and do identify individuals by broad groups. The problem is in the terms used to identify those broad groups that do exist or some get upset that anyone would dare to say that there are common traits that are shared by one group that differ from other groups.

Uh, no. The problem is that you are citing imaginary anthropologists and imaginary forensics laboratories as authorities, while ignoring the actual consensus of this field and what actually happens in forensics laboratories. I guarantee you that the scientific deconstruction of the race concept will be the second or third chapter of any textbook on biological anthropology. This discovery was foundational to the field as it now exists. A forensics text will give you a much more elaborated explanation of how ethnic characteristics are sometimes deducible from skeletons and why (which has nothing to do with race, but rather with the real science of inheritance and the tendency of small local communities to accumulate unique phenotypes).

 

[skepticalbip]

I think that this is the whole point of the argument. Some have a visceral rejection to the term, "race" even though they agree that there are sufficient differences between major groups to be able to identify someone as being a member of a specific broad group that have that difference in common as opposed to other broad groups. And then some are so opposed to labeling different broad groups that they deny that anthropologist are able to and do identify individuals by broad groups. The problem is in the terms used to identify those broad groups that do exist or some get upset that anyone would dare to say that there are common traits that are shared by one group that differ from other groups.

Scientists do not rely on morphology to distinguish species or subspecies. Or, in the rare cases where it is actually important: dog breed. Instead, they rely on genetic analysis. Science agrees that there is very little variation in DNA between individuals no matter how disparate their physical characteristics or geographical region home to their ancestors. Sometimes, ethnic group can provide clues about susceptiblility or resistance to certain diseases or disorders. This is not the same thing as ‘race.’

That is pretty much my point. It isn't about species identification but about sub classification. The idea of subclassification of humans like we recognize subclassifications of dogs, horses, cats, orca, squirrels, etc., some people find so distasteful that they deny that it is a useful categorization for fields like anthropology.

It is like irrational religious belief that humans are not like other animals.

 

[Bomb#20]

You already established that you decide what I say by applying your imagination, but at least last time you were up front about it. Now you're simply putting words in my mouth as if it were a fact. If you imagine I was babbling on about there being four races of man, quote me.

Err, you are and were defending the notion of the Linnaean categories: mongoloid, caucasoid, etc. If that isn't your view, feel free to explain.

Err, exactly which part of "quote me" do you not understand? It was skepticalbip who said humans are grouped into four major distinctive groups, not I. Stop putting words in my mouth. If you can't be bothered to check whether what you say about other posters is true before you say it, stop making claims about other posters at all.

(Oh, and the Linnaean categories are Americanus, Asiaticus, Africanus, and Europeanus. Mongoloid and caucasoid are more recent concepts.)

 

[Bomb#20]

Ernst Mayr was, in fact, critical of the idea of the use of race and subspecies. Humans show a smaller amount of genetic diversity than do other animals, actually. Including close relatives such as chimpanzees.

Sure, but his criticism clearly didn't involve denying we had biological races at all. If you think Mayr said something that conflicts with what I said, can you post it? And how much genetic diversity do you think it takes for there to be races? Just because chimps have more doesn't imply we don't have enough.

Sure but you’re not actually interested in an honest discussion.

Have I insulted you in some way? If so, I apologize.

I’m not interested in doing your research for you.

But I didn't ask you to do any research for me. I have already researched this topic quite thoroughly. (I think I can say with some confidence that I'm the only one here who downloaded SNP frequency data from the Yale medical school's public online database and ran statistical software on it to make sure my claims were backed up by fact.) All I asked you to do was self-report. You offered chimps' greater genetic diversity as an argument; I'd like to know why you think it's a good argument.

How about you get back with actual evidence that he supported the idea of biologically distinct races. It’s probably in the same article where he denied the physical evidence for gravity.

Are you suggesting I made up the quote?

'There is a widespread feeling that the word race indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races." Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology.'​

Did you not notice that Politesse was already familiar with the quote and even named the publication where it appeared?

You can read the article here.

While we're on the subject of famous biologists supporting the idea of biologically distinct races, since apparently none of my accusers can be bothered to click on AM's links, here's another guy who I guess must have probably denied the physical evidence for gravity:

"We can happily agree that human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. That is one reason why I object to ticking boxes in forms and why I object to positive discrimination in job selection. But that doesn't mean that race is of `virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance'. This is Edward's* point, and he reasons as follows. However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."

Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale​

 

[Politesse]

You still haven't described your own position. I apologize if you feel mis-characterized, but unless you ssy otherwise, my assumption was that you agreed with the position you seemed to be vigorously defending.

I have no idea why you think adding yet another big name, commenting on something outside their expertise, is going to help your case, whatever that is. Dawkins isn't even a scientist by profession, as far as I am aware, let alone an anthropologist. And I note that he and Mayr severely disagreed over how inheritance occurs; Mayr was outspoken about taking down the concept of the so-called selfish gene. So seeing them quoted together about inheritance is kind of funny.

Mind you, I actually agree with everything in the above passage. But there is sn important "if" at the end of it, and a question that biolgists resolved fairly definitively when the human genome was fully sequenced at the beginning of this century.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

First Rachel Dolezal claimed to be black to advance herself, now Elizabeth Warren is said to have. I am not well informed on Warren's case. Is it true that she claimed to be native american at Harvard? I know that Trump accused her of doing so, and that she recently took a DNA test that shows she isn't. If she did claim it, then do you think she did so for her own personal gain? What if it isn't for personal gain, but just what the person decides that they are or wants to be, like Ja Du?

Within the framework of identity politics, affirmative action, etc, SHOULD we be allowed to change our race?

Human beings are 99.9% identical. Claiming "race" based upon skin tone and facial features is equivalent to claiming that one of two identical Ford F150 pickup trucks, one black, one white, is superior to the other. The difference are superficial as geneticists well know. The major difference between people is cultural, something that is not innate, not genetic and can be learned or unlearned.

"Race" is only of interest to two groups of people: Racists and doctors. The former to divide people for their own purposes and the latter for genetic/geographical medical history. I've been selecting "other" whenever it's been offered on forms for over 20 years now.

 

[Trausti]

First Rachel Dolezal claimed to be black to advance herself, now Elizabeth Warren is said to have. I am not well informed on Warren's case. Is it true that she claimed to be native american at Harvard? I know that Trump accused her of doing so, and that she recently took a DNA test that shows she isn't. If she did claim it, then do you think she did so for her own personal gain? What if it isn't for personal gain, but just what the person decides that they are or wants to be, like Ja Du?

Within the framework of identity politics, affirmative action, etc, SHOULD we be allowed to change our race?

Human beings are 99.9% identical. Claiming "race" based upon skin tone and facial features is equivalent to claiming that one of two identical Ford F150 pickup trucks, one black, one white, is superior to the other. The difference are superficial as geneticists well know. The major difference between people is cultural, something that is not innate, not genetic and can be learned or unlearned.

"Race" is only of interest to two groups of people: Racists and doctors. The former to divide people for their own purposes and the latter for genetic/geographical medical history. I've been selecting "other" whenever it's been offered on forms for over 20 years now.

"Race" is more than skin color - people from NE Asia can be whiter than an Englishman. "Race" is your population group; who your relatives / ancestors are. That is very real. It affects organ donation, medical treatment, susceptibility to certain diseases, lactose intolerance, behavior, etc. Humans have been separated from our last common tribe for what, a couple hundred thousand years? To deny that group differences have not developed over time and geographic/reproductive distance is to say that Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection is false.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

First Rachel Dolezal claimed to be black to advance herself, now Elizabeth Warren is said to have. I am not well informed on Warren's case. Is it true that she claimed to be native american at Harvard? I know that Trump accused her of doing so, and that she recently took a DNA test that shows she isn't. If she did claim it, then do you think she did so for her own personal gain? What if it isn't for personal gain, but just what the person decides that they are or wants to be, like Ja Du?

Within the framework of identity politics, affirmative action, etc, SHOULD we be allowed to change our race?

Human beings are 99.9% identical. Claiming "race" based upon skin tone and facial features is equivalent to claiming that one of two identical Ford F150 pickup trucks, one black, one white, is superior to the other. The difference are superficial as geneticists well know. The major difference between people is cultural, something that is not innate, not genetic and can be learned or unlearned.

"Race" is only of interest to two groups of people: Racists and doctors. The former to divide people for their own purposes and the latter for genetic/geographical medical history. I've been selecting "other" whenever it's been offered on forms for over 20 years now.

"Race" is more than skin color - people from NE Asia can be whiter than an Englishman. "Race" is your population group; who your relatives / ancestors are. That is very real. It affects organ donation, medical treatment, susceptibility to certain diseases, lactose intolerance, behavior, etc. Humans have been separated from our last common tribe for what, a couple hundred thousand years? To deny that group differences have not developed over time and geographic/reproductive distance is to say that Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection is false.

I recall a BBC article from last year where a young white American boy was receiving a kidney from a black African man due to an nearly identical match. The main difference between people is cultural, not skin tone. We see this repeated daily in the American melting pot.

That point aside, yes, there are differences such as "lactose intolerant". Those who are tolerant of lactose spent generations in regions which used milk as a food supplement.

 

[Trausti]

"Race" is more than skin color - people from NE Asia can be whiter than an Englishman. "Race" is your population group; who your relatives / ancestors are. That is very real. It affects organ donation, medical treatment, susceptibility to certain diseases, lactose intolerance, behavior, etc. Humans have been separated from our last common tribe for what, a couple hundred thousand years? To deny that group differences have not developed over time and geographic/reproductive distance is to say that Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection is false.

I recall a BBC article from last year where a young white American boy was receiving a kidney from a black African man due to an nearly identical match. The main difference between people is cultural, not skin tone. We see this repeated daily in the American melting pot.

Bone Marrow Transplants: When Race Is an Issue

Devan would need a marrow transplant. The prospect of going through chemotherapy for a second time and needing a transplant is daunting to anyone, but it's especially harrowing if — like Devan — you're of mixed race. Multiracial patients often have an incredibly hard time finding life-saving marrow matches. When Devan, whose father is Caucasian and mother is part Indian, was first diagnosed with leukemia, his family did a search of the international marrow registry that contains over 14 million donors and came up empty. "We knew there was nothing out there for him," Tatlow says.

Compared to organ transplants, bone marrow donations need to be even more genetically similar to their recipients. Though there are exceptions, the vast majority of successful matches take place between donors and patients of the same ethnic background. Since all the immune system's cells come from bone marrow, a transplant essentially introduces a new immune system to a person. Without genetic similarity between the donor and the patient, the new white blood cells will attack the host body. In an organ transplant, the body can reject the organ, but with marrow, the new immune system can reject the whole body.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I've always had the same solution to this: Mix "races" until "race" is no longer a concept. How many of you have inter-racial couplings? Those who do are just by that and that alone doing more for race-relations than any race group barking at another ever could.

 

[Trausti]

I've always had the same solution to this: Mix "races" until "race" is no longer a concept. How many of you have inter-racial couplings? Those who do are just by that and that alone doing more for race-relations than any race group barking at another ever could.

If it's got two legs and is arguably female, I'll do it!

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Bone Marrow Transplants: When Race Is an Issue

Devan would need a marrow transplant. The prospect of going through chemotherapy for a second time and needing a transplant is daunting to anyone, but it's especially harrowing if — like Devan — you're of mixed race. Multiracial patients often have an incredibly hard time finding life-saving marrow matches. When Devan, whose father is Caucasian and mother is part Indian, was first diagnosed with leukemia, his family did a search of the international marrow registry that contains over 14 million donors and came up empty. "We knew there was nothing out there for him," Tatlow says.

Compared to organ transplants, bone marrow donations need to be even more genetically similar to their recipients. Though there are exceptions, the vast majority of successful matches take place between donors and patients of the same ethnic background. Since all the immune system's cells come from bone marrow, a transplant essentially introduces a new immune system to a person. Without genetic similarity between the donor and the patient, the new white blood cells will attack the host body. In an organ transplant, the body can reject the organ, but with marrow, the new immune system can reject the whole body.

Thanks for supporting my comment in post #212: ""Race" is only of interest to two groups of people: Racists and doctors. The former to divide people for their own purposes and the latter for genetic/geographical medical history."

- - - Updated - - -

I've always had the same solution to this: Mix "races" until "race" is no longer a concept. How many of you have inter-racial couplings? Those who do are just by that and that alone doing more for race-relations than any race group barking at another ever could.

I have been happy to support that idea in my global travels.

 

[Trausti]

Bone Marrow Transplants: When Race Is an Issue

Devan would need a marrow transplant. The prospect of going through chemotherapy for a second time and needing a transplant is daunting to anyone, but it's especially harrowing if — like Devan — you're of mixed race. Multiracial patients often have an incredibly hard time finding life-saving marrow matches. When Devan, whose father is Caucasian and mother is part Indian, was first diagnosed with leukemia, his family did a search of the international marrow registry that contains over 14 million donors and came up empty. "We knew there was nothing out there for him," Tatlow says.

Compared to organ transplants, bone marrow donations need to be even more genetically similar to their recipients. Though there are exceptions, the vast majority of successful matches take place between donors and patients of the same ethnic background. Since all the immune system's cells come from bone marrow, a transplant essentially introduces a new immune system to a person. Without genetic similarity between the donor and the patient, the new white blood cells will attack the host body. In an organ transplant, the body can reject the organ, but with marrow, the new immune system can reject the whole body.

Thanks for supporting my comment in post #212: ""Race" is only of interest to two groups of people: Racists and doctors. The former to divide people for their own purposes and the latter for genetic/geographical medical history."

Um, so then you're not denying the existence of races?

 

[Politesse]

I've always had the same solution to this: Mix "races" until "race" is no longer a concept. How many of you have inter-racial couplings? Those who do are just by that and that alone doing more for race-relations than any race group barking at another ever could.

And mixed race pairings are not a new phenomenon; they are older than the race concept itself.