I'm suggesting that the way we look is based on our genetic make-up andexpression, which were inherited from our descendants who were generally organized by natural selection..and how the classification of Races are supported by the concentration of one or more phenotypes 'relative' or essential for Homeostasis in the major geographic regions of the world. Furthermore, the social construct of Race is interdependent on migration and adaptation patterns of society. Also, I never claimed that China was a race. I am saying that the inhabitants of China would be considered part of the Asian community. Race is now slowly accounting for Nationalistic orientation.
I don't claim to know a lot about this stuff, but I'm smart enough to ask basic questions that many people would want to ask. How much of our knowledge of skin color do we actually KNOW? IMO, beyond our knowledge of recorded human history, eveything that we assume is based on speculation. In all honesty, we don't KNOW the orgins of skin color. We can't even be positive that years ago, there weren't skin tones around that are no longer in existance. Just as appearance. We study known patterns, an make our descisions and analysis off of THAT pattern. How do we know that these patterns always existed? Beyond what we know, we fill in gaps with things that make sence to us according to our ability to reason. How do we know that "primitave" man was any different than modern man? Are we sure that there weren't variations in appearance within the ranks of primitive man? We can find one skeleton and assume that he represents the "norm" for his time in existance, not taking into account current variations and a possibility of past variations. We don't KNOW where skin variations come from, but we can use our limited knowledge and make assumptions of it's orgins. NOW we know certine things and we can make our evals off of that, but it's no deffinate. We're not positive that years ago there weren't people that carried ALL genetic traits that we see today, and over a period of time certine regions were established. This could be a reason why "primative" man looks so unlike man today. Because we can't reason for the variations in appearance, we create conclusions that fit what we want to believe. While some people argue for what we KNOW , I like to argue for what we DON'T know. I think our discussions should move from deffinates to current assumptions based on the little that we know.
Actually, we know quite a bit. We know what genes create skin color and, through the fossil record, we know how and to what degree they were present in earlier human populations. Because of this, for example, we have found "white" and "black" populations in the Americas where everyone previously had presumed that only "red" skin existed.
As for norms, again, it's hard to say. Science can't prove negatives, only positives. So we can only make theories based on what evidence EXISTS, not on what evidence might exist which we may (or may not) find some day. Obviously, we'd love to have millions of skeletons to analyze, but that's not the case.
However, the law of averages indicates that what skeletons we DO find are more likely to be closer to the norm than, say, the stone-age version of the Elephant Man.
Quote:
I'm suggesting that the way we look is based on our genetic make-up and expression, which were inherited from our descendants who were generally organized by natural selection...
OK, I'm with you there, as are most modern biologists and physical anthropologists. Of this, there can be no reasonable doubt. Biology does determine who we look and evolution determines our biology.
Quote:
...and how the classification of Races are supported by the concentration of one or more phenotypes 'relative' or essential for Homeostasis in the major geographic regions of the world.
Hold.
You believe that because you don't understand what the intellectual history of the race concept is. It is not a relative or more-or-less kind of thing: it is absolute.
Furthermore, when you talk about "the major areas of the world", you are simply, provably, wrong. As I said above, if we apply the biological concept of race or subspecies in the same way as it is applied to EVERY OTHER SPECIES ON THE PLANET, we do not get 5 (or 7... or 3... or 256) naturally occuring human subspecies.
What you are attempting to do, friend, is use the language of race to describe what scientists now understand to be intertwining clinactic genetic distributions. In terms of science, that's like trying to use the language of Sir Isaac Newton to describe chaos physics: it simply just doesn't work.
And why bother? Clinactic theory describes human bio-patterning quite adequately. Why do we have to force this theory, which is quite good, back into the strait-jacket of race theory, which is provably false?
That's what I don't understand.
Quote:
Also, I never claimed that China was a race. I am saying that the inhabitants of China would be considered part of the Asian community.
Race, nation, continent and community are four ENTIRELY different concepts which you are using here as if they were more or less synonymous. Asia HAS no "community". "Community" is a term used to describe groups which are in daily communion and Asia is most certainly not that. Neither is China.
Quote:
Race is now slowly accounting for Nationalistic orientation.
Not at all. By your definition of race (i.e. 5 large groups), hutus and tutsis are all part of the same race, as are the irish and english, french and germans, vietnamese and chinese and all of these groups HATE each other. So how can race account for nationlistic feeling? If you were correct, England, France, Germany and Ireland would all be part of one big nation, as would Vietnam and China. Instead, these groups have spent the last milenia trying to rip each other's throats out.
So I'm sorry, you're simply talking foolishness here. _________________ Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!
Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:00 pm Post subject: where did you get your phd?
I live in the U.S. and when I fill out a census, job, etc. application the major "Racial/Ethnic" categories are caucasian (non-hispanic), african american (non-hispanic), Asian (including pacific islander), hispanic, middle eastern, and native american indian. So it appears to me that a person's racial identity is directly connected to their ethnicity. Our biologist seems to think that I and the designers of the census bureau have no way of legitimately supporting the existence of these categories under the 'racial' subtitle..In conclusion, I repeat my 'total' gene package can be closer to a person on the other side of the world that doesn't look like me at all if you look at our dna purely statistically, but the physical expressions of this genetic blueprint are limited to nature's ultimate geographic and climatic requirements or efficiency. For a person with advanced degrees it's amazing how they can't distinguish between the socio-physical and biological differences between the sciences. I do not need every single gene of another african-american to display similar expressions but I do need a few (?) Mac makes it seem like it's voodoo or something! continent=land mass of collective group of people or nations
race=descendents with shared lineages or traits
I live in the U.S. and when I fill out a census, job, etc. application the major "Racial/Ethnic" categories are caucasian (non-hispanic), african american (non-hispanic), Asian (including pacific islander), hispanic, middle eastern, and native american indian. So it appears to me that a person's racial identity is directly connected to their ethnicity.
Yes, I know that's how it APPEARS to you, but you need to think a bit more. In the first place, the census is in the business of enumerating what people claim they are, not in establishing scientific categories for the same. The census could also ask you your astrological sign: that doesn't mean that the stars rule your destiny. The census DOES ask you your religion: that doesn't mean that God exists or not.
Secondly, you think hispanic is a race? Please... We have black, white, red and yellow Brazilians, none of us speak Spanish, and we're all included in the "hispanic" category on the U.S. census.
Quote:
Our biologist seems to think that I and the designers of the census bureau have no way of legitimately supporting the existence of these categories under the 'racial' subtitle.
Actually, I've worked with the census in the past and they are very clear on what they DO and DO NOT DO these days. They DO NOT attempt to "objectively" adjudge people's race based on biological or physical anthropological data. They DO attempt to report faithfully what people SAY they are. You could say you were a Martian and the Census would report it because THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. Race/ethnicity/color is now self-described in the Census: it is not imputed by the Census worker. So say you're from Mars. The Census cares not. They jot it straight down. That doesn't mean, however, that you are actually, objectively a Martian. All it means is that you think you are.
Quote:
For a person with advanced degrees it's amazing how they can't distinguish between the socio-physical and biological differences between the sciences. I do not need every single gene of another african-american to display similar expressions but I do need a few (?) Mac makes it seem like it's voodoo or something! continent=land mass of collective group of people or nations
Dude, you keep on tossing around "continent", "nations", "communities" and "people" as if they were all the same thing, but it doesn't take an advanced degree to CLEARLY see that they aren't. Your continent doesn't determine how you look, act, think or what nation or community you belong to and that's quite easily confirmable. Just walk around with your eyes open.
So it's not "voodoo" I'm against: it's simple ignorance. _________________ Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!
Of course they don't because they view the social aspect of it! Most rational people will answer it according to their physical attributes and social acceptance among the designated categories or mark 'other'
Well you should know that the term hispanic in the racial sense has nothing to do with language!
All the different color brazilians might think differently about their acceptance?? especially from what I've read in this forum
This might mean of or relating to the latin american countries
Once again this is not 'developmental biology 302'
more like 'history of minorities in the U.S. 301'
and that's why they use it because it reflects each individual's feelings about themselves!
Most rational people will answer it according to their physical attributes and social acceptance among the designated categories
What, pray tell, are the "physical attributes" of "hispanic"? What "race" is this? Last I looked at the census, they went out of their way to describe "Hispanic" as a CULTURAL category and not a racial one.
What census are you looking at that claims "hispanic" is a biological category? It certainly isn't the U.S. one!
Quote:
Once again this is not 'developmental biology 302'
more like 'history of minorities in the U.S. 301'
No, actually it's an internet discussion between a guy who's studied a question and who has actually WORKED for the census on this topic and a dude who's a layman and whose reading on this topic doesn't go beyond pop science magazines.
As for race reflecting individuals' feelings about themselves, agreed. But if it's the INDIVIDUAL who decides for HIMSELF what he is, then race is most CERTAINLY not an objective, biologically determined trait.
That's an extremely simple thing to see. _________________ Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!
We seem to be talking about two different things here and we seem to be doing it because you apparently have forgotten how the discussion started.
You are apparently claiming that race exists because people believe it does. That's true, but the only way that it is true is if race is SOCIALLY determined. Here's an analogy: people know their astrological signs and if the census were to ask about them, most people would tell you, unhesitatingly, what their sign is. In that sense, these signs DO INDEED EXIST. But the fact that people can do this does not prove, in any way, shape, or form, that the stars indeed rule your destiny or that some star x bazillion light years away exerts an influence on your life, does it? People's BELIEF that something exists does not somehow make it EXIST in real, palpable, objective form. And the fact that astronomers can confirm that these stars that people point to DO exist likewise does not mean that astrological SIGNS exist, really, truly, outside of people's heads.
So with race. This doesn't mean that race isn't important. It means that WE CREATE IT, not mother nature. We take certain patterns in human biology and simplify them and call them races in the same way that astrologists take patterns which they perceive in the night sky, simplify those, and claim they are astrological signs.
Both systems are based on belief, not on physical reality. Dark skin DOES NOT mean that one has other physcial characteristics - and certainly not behaviorial characterisitics - in common with all (or even the majority) of dark-skinned people. That's a simple, provable fact. And for you to say that "everyone in Asia is basically the same" is simple ignorance. It is as ignorant as an astrologist claiming that astronomers know nothing about the moon because man never went there: it was all a hoax.
Now, if you want to close your eyes to observable, provable reality and say it makes no difference to you, that's your perogative. Hell, you want to believe you live on a flat world, you can: all you need to do is convince yourself that any evidence to the contrary is made up or "too intellectual".
But this conversation began because you made a claim that scientists have "proven" that biological race exists among human beings. Well, I'm a scientist and I guarantee you that my credentials in this field are as impressive or even more so than anyone writing for Popular Health Magazine. And I can tell you that what you said is simply not true.
So your problem, Ray, isn't that you think we "scientists" or "biologists" should shut up because we're too eggheady or whatever. You were perfectly happy to point to science when you thought it proved your layman's prejudices about race. Your problem is that the science of human biology DOES NOT, in fact, support your assertions that race exists in objective, biological form. That's the ONLY reason you have your nose out of joint about "Biology 101" now, brother.
So please, man, don't play the "I'm just a common man and these damned scientists don't know shit about real life" card when you started this discussion out by appealing to science yourself. _________________ Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!
I entered this discussion because of the inability of the members here (not all) to understand however random (?) our genetic make began that humankind has generally been predicated on 'kind unto kind' whether physically, spiritually, nationally or socioeconomically..this is an unavoidable part of our nature my friend..and I believe that social polarization is a still an ongoing force in this world slowing the multi-culturalistic appearance of our species-and our own weakness or need for acceptance will cause us to act more on our outward make-up than our feelings for equality, social experiments have been run where assimilation patterns by unknown people tend to follow physical likeness first and then educational/class lines automatically..I've been to seminars with speakers like Margaret Anderson, Patrica Hill-Collins who have done outstanding research in Social-Psychology and Human Behavioral Analysis. Maybe to you Race is unimportant, or Psychology but I live for these social sciences, I find them very fascinating! Even our surnames (family names) are rooted in territorial speciation
hispanic?? euro-but brown probably
'ever seen a polar bear in trinidad?'-just kidding
I entered this discussion because of the inability of the members here (not all) to understand however random (?) our genetic make began that humankind has generally been predicated on 'kind unto kind' whether physically, spiritually, nationally or socioeconomically.
True. But NOBODY has ever challenged this. At least not here. Not as far as I know of. And that's properly called "ethnicity", friend: not race. WE determine what "kind" is, not mother nature or god.
Quote:
social experiments have been run where assimilation patterns by unknown people tend to follow physical likeness first and then educational/class lines automatically
Yeah, but when they do those same experiments cross-culturally, they don't work as well. This means that appearance is as socially recognized as anything else and not the pan-human trait you seem to think it is. Amazonian Indians do not classify people by appearance in the same ways that you or I do, and that is a fact, man.
Quote:
I've been to seminars with speakers like Margaret Anderson, Patrica Hill-Collins who have done outstanding research in Social-Psychology and Human Behavioral Analysis.
I DELIVER seminars on race and human sociology, friend. I've been on panels with people like Anderson (albeit as a junior scholar).
Quote:
Maybe to you Race is unimportant, or Psychology but I live for these social sciences, I find them very fascinating!
Uhm.... How many times do I have to type "of COURSE race is important" before those words finally sink in, Ray?
Arguing that race is a SOCIAL and HISTORICAL trait is not the same as saying it's not important. Now I can repeat that until I'm blue in the face but if you don't bother to listen to what I'm saying, we're just going to go around in circles.
But then the question becomes "Who are you arguing against?" Because no one here has said race is unimportant or it doesn't exist.
Quote:
Even our surnames (family names) are rooted in territorial speciation
What the hell is "territorial speciation" as it applies to humans? Are you claiming that the French, say, are a seperate species of humanity? Because that's what your argument seems to imply here.
Quote:
but I live for these social sciences, I find them very fascinating!
Then you need to read a bit more. Let me suggest Gould's "The Mismeausure of Man" and Kuper's "The Chosen Primate" as good texts. _________________ Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!
Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject: what's in a name?
well when it comes to our names, they tend to be a reflection of our language which can be grouped into categories like celtic, slavic, germanic, indo-european, semitic, etc. "an example of a name element is bert which appears in several Germanic names like Albert, Robert, and Bertram and means "bright"
Germanic names usually follow the sound alphabet of the Germanic tribes of ancient Europe. So, their prevalence would be founded in the major settlements of this group. It's a basic concept in linguistic anthropology.
Last edited by raybones on Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:54 am; edited 2 times in total
Seriously Macu, I've not had the honor to read you as the voice of reason.
D@mn --
The explanation of the word race you've constantly provided throughout this thread concerning human ancestry is in a word, pristine.
Kudos. I bow to the master...
May I?
During the last 2 decades or so, I've spent a great deal of time breeding and training GSDs (German Shepard Dogs). One thing that has continually surprised me during training is that certification meant to be specific to GSDs has, much of the time, wound up being denominated by another breed of dog.
But when one thinks about it they are all still dogs. A german shepard dog can mate with a toy poodle and produce fully functional offspring. And why not? It's not like they're from different races.
Consider donkeys and horses, who are close enough genetically to produce offspring but always produce offspring who are sterile.
Well, one of the reasons it works that way with dogs is that we make it so.
I mean, if we let dogs mate they way they'd like to, there'd be no "breeds" of dog. _________________ Brazil is the country of the future and always will be!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
will respond after the holidays..