[sposicke]

In our minds yes. When we look at multiple populations spread out on some type of genetic plot why do we assume we are looking at "Race". If we are to assume we are looking at "Race" where would the race "Start" and where would it "Stop" and what is the quintessential genetic specimen of that Race?

If find it interesting that because of the cultural history of America many when viewing an MDS chart of Africans "Start" the chart somewhere around the West African Yoruba as if they are the quintessential African Race. This does not make sense from a Genetic standpoint. Where does the "African" race Start?:

MDS1.jpg

If we do the same for Europeans who are "White" or "Caucasoid" where would that race "Start"?

novembreplotao2.jpg

I still think it fails because there would be too many "races" otherwise you may have someone that cluster genetically With "Asians" or "Mongoloids" but fit into a social description of people we call "Black". This social definition will almost always override that of genetics therefore screwing up the entire "race" argument.

This post just about sums up why the Bass believes race doesn't exists, West Africans for example, are a derivative population from East Africans so they could not be the example of what Africans were originally like and the rest is all arbitrary.

[HakSpeame]

Of course it does. It's the value people place on it that's more of an issue.

[sadgpokx]

Of course it does. It's the value people place on it that's more of an issue.

I mean come on, you can keep repeating it all you like but its not going to change anything.

[Bill-Watson]

I mean come on, you can keep repeating it all you like but its not going to change anything.

Me? Er, what'd I say?

[LianneForbess]

Me? Er, what'd I say?

You believe race exists don't you?

[siflversonemunk]

lol

I think "race" is an american/anglo-saxon thing. It's impossible to hear a French asking "what race are you?"/ "tu es de quelle race?".

The differences between humans are superficial (like your american/globalized mind) and essentially based on phenotype. Otherwise, culture also play a role in creating fantasized races.


Neanderthal and Denisovan are good exemples of other races. They were distinct enough genetically and biologically to be considered foreign to us, Homo sapiens.

[Drugsonl]

I still think it fails because there would be too many "races" otherwise you may have someone that cluster genetically With "Asians" or "Mongoloids" but fit into a social description of people we call "Black". This social definition will almost always override that of genetics therefore screwing up the entire "race" argument.

The pictures here are your examples: Melanesians in everyday-modern clothes. These people who are more closer to asian in genetics, and still could carry themselves in a black crowd in America AND NOBODY WOULD KNOW.But yet, they carry No SSA or Caucasoid admixture genes –absolutely none.

[7HlBQS8j]

Race does exist. People who are the same race usually share more genes and cluster with each other much more than they do with people of other races, obviously. Let's imagine for a second that one of us gets in a terrible car accident and our whole bodies are charred up, the only clear remains would be our skulls. The examiners could look at our skull and tell whether we were Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid or Australoid by race just by examining our skull. If races didn't exist, that wouldn't be possible.

It's true that culture separates us a lot more than biology does (an American black person is likely going to be way more similar to other Americans culturally and mentally than they are to people living in Africa) but race does actually exist, it's a biological reality.

[sesWaipunsaws]

Yes, I do believe

[BPitt]

Race does exist. People who are the same race usually share more genes and cluster with each other much more than they do with people of other races, obviously. Let's imagine for a second that one of us gets in a terrible car accident and our whole bodies are charred up, the only clear remains would be our skulls. The examiners could look at our skull and tell whether we were Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid or Australoid by race just by examining our skull. If races didn't exist, that wouldn't be possible.

It's true that culture separates us a lot more than biology does (an American black person is likely going to be way more similar to other Americans culturally and mentally than they are to people living in Africa) but race does actually exist, it's a biological reality.

Forensic anthropology does not always work and its principle purpose is identification not biological and population affinity.

[xochgtlm]

only stupid people would belive that races doesn`t exist and i think poeple should divided by they're races

[Ephejvll]

only stupid people would belive that races doesn`t exist and i think poeple should divided by they're races

FYI, Segregation already was attempted in the US and it ultimately failed. And not for no good reason… ask yourself: does anything run deeper than blood?

If anything can bind races together then it is superior, dominant Culture… anything-else will fragment a society apart from within, causing internal chaos & anarchy.

[Foriaelalse]

Forensic anthropology does not always work and its principle purpose is identification not biological and population affinity.

It works most of the time, and the reason for that is because different races have their own unique characteristics. The unique characteristics different races share with members of their own race are due to biology and genetics. There are obviously clear-cut differences between people of different races genetically, to deny that wouldn't really make sense. Members of one race can be more or less prone to different illnesses than other races are, and obviously there are lots of differences body-shape wise, Mongoloids are usually shorter than people of other races. It's all due to genetic diversity and the path of evolution. Human races do exist biologically, but like I said they're not nearly as relevant as culture and identity is in terms of grouping people into categories.

[Hmwmzian]

FYI, Segregation already was attempted in the US and it ultimately failed. And not for no good reason… ask yourself: does anything run deeper than blood?

If anything can bind races together then it is superior, dominant Culture… anything-else will fragment a society apart from within, causing internal chaos & anarchy.

i know that segregation is already failled beacuse of ultra-liberals who don't know that one day whites are going to lose they're race and identity the minorities living there will become a majority

you people keeping yourself inteligent/smart by tolerating other races and making no difference tell me why in china or in other countries the race is dominant ?

for example the u.s basketboll national team is 100% runed by black players knowing that blacks in america are a minority and how is possible that teams of south africa runing by blacks too

the immigrants or minorites in western countries have to much rights than natives !

[KukkoDrukko]

Yes, race exists. Race is a loaded term, perhaps 'genetic population' is more suitable, since race implies certain cultural leanings in an individual;you can share a culture with someone who you don't share a genetic background with (see America for a big, 300 million strong example of this) and vice versa (see Africans v African Americans for this, though there are other examples of course).

[wasssallx]

Of course races exist. I'm sure a Nordic European is not the same an a native South African. Different features and differences in DNA are prevalent.

[55Beaphable]

lol, if they can tell what you are from your spit then yes, it exists..

Well they can't really tell who you are. But they can see the path you've taken from the first humans to where ever you are now. They can also tell certain variations of a specific haplogroup. If this is the definition of race, there should be may more groups than "mongoloid", "caucasoid", and "negroid". Most people, also belong to various groups, and we all share parts, since we all have the same origin. So we would all be "multiracial", so again what is "race"?

[buIf6yoW]

Race exists PERIOD!

[Stacypettlerr]

Race both exists and does not exist, in my view. It's such a large, complex idea, it's no surprise that it has ended up coming to encompass a number of definitions. FOr me, there is the social, popular definition of race which varies culture to culture (Can a person be a Caucasoid if they have dark skin? The social definition would say no, as per parts of the US). There is the academic definition (race is a grouping of similar physical features typical to certain populations). Then, there is the biological definition (There is an "Indian gene." There is a "Japanese gene." etc).

Personally, I feel that the social definition of race is shot. I've seen first hand people from the Middle East called non-Caucasians due to the social definition. Furthermore, due to the social definition, you see certain groups of white individuals calling themselves Aryan and parading the word around as if it's a synonym for fairness (complexion). This is a very very very silly claim as Aryans are actually an ethnolinguistic group.

Next up is the academic definition of the word. This is the definition I believe in, simply because of the nature of academia: if you can assign an object a quality, you can assign it a category. Race is simply a category based on the physical features of an individual. Yes, this does involve ancestry to a great amount, as one is unlikely to hold certain physical traits without having a parent who caries the genes for those traits. It is also possible, however, to see an individual hold certain traits while his/her parents do not have those traits, simply due to genetic mutation, the complexity of the genetics itself (linked genes, for one...), as well as cultural/environmental effects on the child (body deformation for beauty, malnutrition, etc). Granted, cultural and environmental effects would probably be considered a "false positive," but could the same be said for unexpected racial classifications born out of genetic complexity and/or mutation? Take for example down's syndrome. Due to down's syndrome, a person can take on certain features more typical to Asiatic populations, even if that individual does not have any known Asian ancentry.

Finally, there is the genetic definition, which is... well, interesting. If we look at the genetic definition of race as purely genetic and not based on how a person looks (remember, I'm reserving how a person looks for the academic definition), you'll see that common racial definitions begin to break down. Lines begin to become heavily blurred due to how OLD these genes typically are- they long predate modern sociopolitical boundaries and commonly date back to our nomadic era. Furthermore, you begin to see alleles on a per-allele basis instead of groupings of alleles. Ugh, this is very difficult to describe without trying to sum of an entire course on genetics... Basically, from a genetic point of view, race exists but not as something you can easily categorize people by. You cannot point to any single gene and say, LOOK! THIS GUY IS DEFINITELY BLACK 'CAUSE HE HAS THIS ALLELE/HAPLOTYPE! The person's physical racial traits could still very well not be typical to someone from sub-Saharan Africa! And what if the majority of his alleles are, in fact, typical of Europeans? What would his race be classified as from a genetics definition? It's very very complex...

Of course, all of these definitions do overlap to a certain degree. It's important to recognize when and how they overlap for each individual and to work within those boundries when discussing race. For a person working within a strictly social definition of race, no, race does not exist unless s/he WANTS race to exist (insert sociology ramblings here). For a person with a strictly genetic definition, race is arbitrary. For a scholar, race exists, but as a tool.

Eh, whatever. It's 4 AM and I need sleep. Here's to hoping I didn't make any huge syntax/spelling errors, like I am *SO* prone to doing when it's this late!

[Brainpole]

As far as I know, race correlates with genetic isolation of ancestral groups, and there are differences between races. People shouldn't be treated differently in civil society based on their race, and who doesn't? But they should certainly be treated differently based on their race by their doctors. Race may become less significant in the future if more genetic mixture occurs with globalization. But for now, to say it has biological significance. However, it is true that the social conception of race is very different from any biologically defensible conception. But 'race' is such a socially charged word, perhaps it should be dropped and replaced with another word.