ethnicity

[Beany]

Ethnicity & skin color are two different things that are often perceived as being the same.

[redhen]

All living things have common ancestry.

Agreed. However, here's a claim of yours I challenged for which I am still waiting an answer to.

The current view is that the human race is one species and that the biological classification of subspecies in other animals cannot be applied to humans.

And my questioning; "And why not? Zoologists do it for every other species, and are remarkably accurate in their assessments. Are we not naked apes? Or are humans somehow outside of nature?"

This is a Philosophy forum. If you have no support for your claim above then it is an unwarranted claim, or a simple uniformed opinion.

Or are you claiming a priori knowledge?

Anyways, my counter-question still stands.

[redhen]

Exactly.Now read that quote in contect with the one that comes before it. Here is the whole passage:

"Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species."

Correct. However there are still sub-groups, breeds or races if you will. By this I mean population groups that have consistent, identifiable physical traits, just like many other species for which there seems to be no problems with classifying sub-groups. Heck even within "humankind" which your quote mentions there are sub-species, i.e. homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens neanderthalis. These kinds of claims are not scientific, they are philosophical or political arguments. Why are humans exempt from this kind of trivial classification system? If you were a theist and laid claim to special creation I could understand, but we're supposed to be rational here on this philosophy forum.

You're not seriously going to pull that creationist claptrap, are you? All living organism on Earth (that we know about) share a common ancestor. We're talking about genetic variation between homo sapiens, not how similar our DNA is to that of other organisms.

Yes that was a rhetorical argument. But the point is not how little we all vary genetically, but rather how little change is needed to see a noticeable affect.

They may be to you, but academically and in practice, they are very different things.

I see all kinds of euphemisms for race used by academics to be politically correct; heritage, ancestry, ethnicity, "peoples", etc.

Those are traits of ancestry, not race. You can have a skull from a european that has similar traits to the skull from an african american, etc.

From wiki; "In modern craniofacial anthropometry, Negroid describes features that typify skulls of Black people. These include a broad and round nasal cavity; no dam or nasal sill; Quonset hut-shaped nasal bones; notable facial projection in the jaw and mouth area (prognathism); a rectangular-shaped palate; a square or rectangular eye orbit shape;^[22] and large, megadontic teeth"

Sure there are exceptions, but there are standard features which in wiki's phraseology "typify skulls of Black people.".

Did you search for "racial skeletal characteristics" in Google (Scholarly articles) like I suggested? What do you make of all those articles? Are all these scientists wasting their time on a delusion? I think you agree that this is valid science, you just disagree on the nomenclature. You really despise the word race, so you choose to use ancestry instead. That's fine, call it what you will, it refers to the same thing; population sub-groups that have discernible, consistent traits that have specific geographical markers.

And what about genetic haplogroups, how do you explain these markers and their usefulness in determining ancestry?

[me-wonders]

I suppose everything can be reduced to a philosophical question, but your original question was how to determine race, which is a scientific question.

Context is everything. If it's to determine a demographic poll, simple self-identification is sufficient. If it's to prove the ancestry of skeletal remains, a forensic anthropologist can do the job.

Quite so. I think maybe I distilled your OP into just one question, which is my habit. I apologize.

I have supplied a reliable source that states that the majority of physical anthropologists believe in race. Look, I am not a racist, I am pro science. I seek the truth without bias, wherever it leads. The idea that race is a social construct is part of Cultural Marxism. The idea that gender is also a social construct is part of the same agenda. Cultural Marxism is also known as political correctness.

I took a few physical anthropology semesters at college and from day one the prof hammered home this same Cultural Marxist propaganda, there's no such thing as race. They showed us a video one day in which they sampled dna from a high school class. They made much of the fact that one apparently white kid was more closely related to a specific black kid in the class, "see, we're all the same" . But what the unstated assumption was that there were specific genetic markers that enabled them to compare these differences. These genetic markers are called Haplogroups.The wiki entry will explain the different markers and their ancestral geographic locations. These are the same tools that popular ancestry companies use for commercial purposes.

If you still deny race, would you also say that the myriad breeds of dogs don't really exist? They are merely a social construct and there is only one race of dog, the dog race. Sounds preposterous doesn't it?

And no, I am not being hostile. I'm just frustrated at having to constantly defend science from Cultural Marxist academics and their stranglehold on education.

Thank you for noticing this subject can be explored from many different points of view. This is far, far different from what someone else is doing in another thread, whom I have chosen to ignore. I think education for technology has programmed people to do exactly what you first did, because that is the way science works. Liberal education was more about how people work, and I am glad could make that shift.

When we determine what race a person is, this is not as simple as a person deciding for him or her self, because it involves how others identify the person as well. Yesterday a friend took me to an east Indian place for lunch, and I learned some east Indians do not consider themselves to be White. I feel quite amazed by this. Perhaps this is a good thing, because they clearly are not Mexican or Black. They have a different ethnicity, although their skin color may be as the color of someone we call Black, who isn't that Black. Perhaps as we expand our understanding of persons of color, to mean of African decent, Mexican, east Indian, and some native Americans, it will decrease the craziness of racism.

The difference between our races in the US and Mexicans and the east Indian race, is the age of these civilizations. Science says we all come out of Africa, and somehow diverge into different races. But people also moved around and around and mixed, and this mixing continues. Some people with dark skin are 78% White. It can not be scientific to label them as Black and ignore the 78% White. So this is not just about science, but about being human and how we use science. Should we DNA test babies when they are born, and list their mix of races on their birth certificates, to be scientifically correct and not prejudice? Why would do this? It might perhaps make us aware of how silly our present racism is.

Also, exactly what does it mean to be of this race or that race? Why do we care? Racism is full of myths that are not true, and if we want to be scientific we need to clarify why race matters. May I suggest, it isn't race that matters but culture? Black people from Africa, Brazil, Hatti, the southern states of the US, Atlanta, Georgia and L.A., California are not all the same. Each is the product of economic and social status within different cultures. However, if you are Irish we know you get drunk and get into fights, because that is what the Irish do, and this is why we best discriminate against them. The difference between being Irish, or Chinese, or African is one to two generations in the US. This would be the science of human behavior and sociology, right?

My goodness no it doesn't sound preposterous to say all dogs come from one dog race because they do. The great variety of dogs we have today, are the result of selective breeding. This could make for a very interesting discussion, because it was discovered if breeders selected for one characteristic, say brown hair, they got a dog with changed specific personality traits as well. The book "The Brave New World' explains growing babies in tubes and preparing them for the job they will do as adults. Perhaps we will be able to breed humans with the precession of breeding dogs, but is this desirable? Do different races of humans have different character traits. Was Hitler right in his goal for a superior race? I have an old eugenics book that speculates in the future we can prevent the birth of humans with undesirable traits, and for sure science is taking us in this direction. Is this a good thing? It is sad, but often pure bred dogs have health problems, and it is the mutt that is the most healthy. Nature seems to want us to interbreed.

Your belief that you are defending science from Marxist is most interesting. Are you perhaps Fascist? Your political concern seems to go outside the purely scientific realm, but I don't think a fascist would be aware of this, because of the education that created a blindness and instilled a sense of superiority.

[me-wonders]

Here is a theory, just for fun. All dark skinned people are humans. White people, however, are humans mixed with aliens, and this is why they are better suited to rule the earth. You know, as in Chariots of the Gods. The people of Mu and Atlantis had to be White, and civilizations are the result of these aliens attempting to evolve humans. This is clearly why African Egypt had White pharaohs. Pat Robertson, the TV evangelist, thinks it possible the limited the number of people to go to heaven are the number of people who fit in the space craft that will return. You know, the space craft that the heads on Easter Island are looking for. The evidence is there. It is all a matter of how it is interpreted.

Am I saying this politically correctly? I mean humans are the sub species right, and those with the purest alien blood, are superior. For this reason, in Egypt it was okay for a sister to marry a brother, to keep the blood pure. Historically, the importance of a pure blood line has been known, although mixing with humans caused weakness, and therefore failure. Gods, chosen people the Hebrews, did a pretty job of keeping their race pure, so they remained a minority and didn't get assimilated into other cultures. Hum, are these Semitic people as White as they should be?

This might be helpful in understanding race and character traits. http://www.stowiki.org/Trait

Our understanding of race is not just science, and I used the word ethnic because of being interested in the social issues. However, as the thread progresses it is like when I was a kid and stuck 10 pieces of bubble gum in my mouth at the same time. The more I chewed the bigger the wad of bubble gun got.

http://en.wikipedia....classification)

Edited December 9, 2012 by me-wonders

[redhen]

Do different races of humans have different character traits. Was Hitler right in his goal for a superior race?

People with different ancestry (race) exhibit different physical and genetic traits, not character traits. Differences in character, intelligence, Hitler, eugenics these are all ideological concepts. They have nothing to do with science.

Your belief that you are defending science from Marxist is most interesting. Are you perhaps Fascist? Your political concern seems to go outside the purely scientific realm, but I don't think a fascist would be aware of this, because of the education that created a blindness and instilled a sense of superiority.

I don't label myself, I define myself as a large mammal, specifically an ape. Political correctness has slowed the progress of science. A prime example is Kennewick man. This 9,000 year old North American skeleton with Caucasoid features is unavailable for research because the local Indian tribe refuses to permit it, and wants it buried back in the ground asap.

[me-wonders]

People with different ancestry (race) exhibit different physical and genetic traits, not character traits. Differences in character, intelligence, Hitler, eugenics these are all ideological concepts. They have nothing to do with science.

I don't label myself, I define myself as a large mammal, specifically an ape. Political correctness has slowed the progress of science. A prime example is Kennewick man. This 9,000 year old North American skeleton with Caucasoid features is unavailable for research because the local Indian tribe refuses to permit it, and wants it buried back in the ground asap.

I share with you a desire to use science to know more of Kennewick man.

I am not sure that we do not inherit our characteristics. When I met my father at age 18, I was surprised by how much like him I was. And my daughter is like my mother, although they spent very little time together. I am quite sure that like dogs, humans do inherit characteristics, however, if this is determined by race or not is questionable.

We know you are distinctly different from an ape because apes do not participate in these discussions. Humans have a social difference that comes in their genes, and this difference seems to have lead to language and I would say language created the huge gap between humans and animals. I do not think the gap between humans and animals is the same for all humans. I would say the size of the gap is dependent on language and education. I would say humans with limited language are closer to animals, because they do not have the evolved culture we have. Culture making a difference. However, I would add to this, we can be well educated in technology and still close to the animals, because education for technology lacks some of the education for being human. Humans who act on what the feel, being closer to animals, than humans who live by learned principles.

I am thinking of the European line of Australians dislike of the aborigine. Is the difference between these people determined by genes or culture? How much can one be made like the other? What would it take to make one like the other?

Edited December 9, 2012 by me-wonders

[redhen]

I am not sure that we do not inherit our characteristics.

That's most probable. I just wanted to make clear that I don't believe there are any differences in cognitive abilities based on ancestry. We all have the same potential, except of course for those unfortunates with congenital disorders, head trauma, etc.

We know you are distinctly different from an ape because apes do not participate in these discussions.

Distinctly? How so? Humans are slotted in the category hominidae which consists of chimps, gorillas, orangutans and humans.I submit that we are not different in kind, only by degrees.

I do not think the gap between humans and animals is the same for all humans. I would say the size of the gap is dependent on language and education.

Sure, there are always exceptions; the prime one being the sad cases of feral children. Nurture, or lack thereof, seems more consequential than nature.

[me-wonders]

That's most probable. I just wanted to make clear that I don't believe there are any differences in cognitive abilities based on ancestry. We all have the same potential, except of course for those unfortunates with congenital disorders, head trauma, etc.

Distinctly? How so? Humans are slotted in the category hominidae which consists of chimps, gorillas, orangutans and humans.I submit that we are not different in kind, only by degrees.

Sure, there are always exceptions; the prime one being the sad cases of feral children. Nurture, or lack thereof, seems more consequential than nature.

The newer research is leaning towards the idea that although apes care about each other, and we have all heard, "monkey see monkey do" humans take an interest in each other a step further, and this is likely what lead to humans developing language. Language has made humans greatly different from other animals.

Yes, other animals can understand sounds and some even repeat the sounds we make, like birds. Chimps and bonobo seem to take language even further and demonstrate some skill in abstract thinking. Such as they think it odd to see a bird used as hammer. This means a degree of conceptual thinking. Especially the tragedy of chimps who were taught language and humanized, and then were released in the wild, should make us contemplate the morality of what we are doing. The problem is, unlike a human child, these chimps do not learn so well our concepts of good behavior, and their bad behavior is what results in people wanting to get rid them. Three year olds in adult bodies are a problem, especially after hormones set in. We learn more than the animals, and our ability to learn is accumulative over our life times. No one will teach a 3 year old high school math, because their brains are not developed enough. Having intellectual discussions with teenagers can be interesting, but also frustrating because their brains still are ready for the thinking we do later in life. Perhaps I should say, it is what happens to the human brain over many years, that makes us different from animals. Our brains develop rapidly and do not stop developing. However, our brains slow down and go through many different phrases of development.

The case of feral children is excellent when comparing with the most intelligent apes and the extreme immorality of playing with them and then releasing them in the wild. We have two things going here. One is the development of the brain, and windows of learning. Somethings can not be learned by animals, birds, humans, once the window for learning has passed. For this reason feral children can be taught technological skills like speaking and wearing clothes, but they do not become as children who always lived with humans. There is something in our humanness that must be early in life, or we do get a well adjusted human. How far chimps go in learning this is the big question? It might be as wrong to humanize them and turn them back into the wild, as it would do to this to a human child.

Which leads to the second part, learning is cumulative. If we humanized whole troops of bonobo and taught them language and gave the technological objects that support the language, say spoons and plates, clothing, etc. would they pass this on to the next generation, and would each generation add to this pool of knowledge as humans do? That is, if we worked with them enough, would we put the hairy apes on the same evolutionary path that naked ape travel?

[me-wonders]

Here is a serious study that claims sex and race do matter on IQ scores.

http://www.thebirdma...eAndAsianIQ.htm

Here is another research explaining racial differences in IQ.

http://www.sq.4mg.com/LynnIQdiff.htm

And this attacks Lynn's work. As expected his work is ethnically biased, and bad science.

http://abagond.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/the-average-african-iq-is-70/

Edited December 10, 2012 by me-wonders