In May 2009, the American Journal of Physical Anthropology published a very important issue titled “Race Reconciled” with cutting-edge work by biological anthropologists. These researchers have read the critique of Lewontin, and some have been in the forefront of re-examining Lewontin’s work (see section Race revival). These researchers do not agree on everything, and they have pointed debates. They are from the number-crunching and bone-measuring side of anthropology. Some of the articles are dense and difficult reading, with enough numbers, statistical tables, and computer simulations to make it hardly like reading at all.
Still, it is important to plow through the findings, because it is what our best bone measurers and number crunchers can accomplish. They very clearly recognize human biological variation. They see variation and measure it every day, examining things people cannot even visibly discern, like tiny bone markers and genetic material. And with all the disagreements, number-crunching, and consideration of how much humans vary, they agree “Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation” (Edgar and Hunley 2009:2)
Why?
Race is a categorization at the sub-species level. Everyone has long agreed that human beings are a single inter-breeding species, and have been for thousands, perhaps hundreds-of-thousands, of years. To sort a species into sub-species, it is necessary to have biological variation AND a way to group that variation. We have biological variation. The problem comes in establishing the ways variation clumps, groups, or sorts into subsets. We can try this in terms of skin color or skull characteristics, bone measurements, and genetic variation.
Skin Color and Skulls
Most people in the U.S. think they use skin color to classify races. U.S. categories relate to skin color, but not exactly. If it was actually about skin color, racial classifications would look more like Brazil, with lots of different terms and gradations. If it were about skin color, then people might change race classification over the years, or children from the same parents could be classified as different races.
In contrast, the traditional U.S. system is known anthropologically as hypo-descent: children get the racial classification of the parent with the least socially desirable classification. Barack Obama, Halle Berry, and some of Thomas Jefferson’s descendants are considered black. The most extreme example is the “one drop rule,” that any black ancestry meant being classified as black. There have been recent shifts in these attitudes, and there have been regional and historical variations, but this system remains dominant.
Any racial terminology related to skin color, even in Brazil, must have some categories, or ways of marking off groups. However, what do these categories look like when compared to skin tones around the world? In a discussion of “Race and global patterns of phenotypic variation,” John Relethford plots human skin color variation:
The result is a continuous straight line ranging from the darkest extremes to the lightest extremes in skin color. There are no identifiable clusters. . . . Researchers are of course free to subdivide this continuum into different groups, but such clustering would be arbitrary and subjective in terms of the number of groups and the cutoff points used to distinguish them. The lack of apparent clusters is a reflection of the fact that skin color shows a classic pattern of clinal variation. (2009:17)
There are no clusters or clumps of black, white, yellow, or red skin colors. Like many traits used to measure race, skin color exhibits clinal variation, along a cline or smooth gradient between the extremes. A walk from the African tropics to northern Europe reveals this gradual variation in skin color. Some people postulate one reason for extreme racial classifications is because Europeans were traveling by sea, and so would meet an extreme example at each stop. The simple categories used in the U.S. may in part be a result of a small initial sample, drawn from the extremes of skin variation.
Unlike some textbooks and pronouncements which use this information to declare all physical variation is clinal, Relethford proceeds to consider craniometric or skull variation. Here the picture is different, as Relethford finds that crania are “geographically structured” (2009:18). The differences cluster according to geographic region and reflect genetic relationships: “Global patterns of craniometric variation reflect largely underlying patterns of genetic relationship, which in turn reflect geographic structure” (2009:19). However, even though there are recognizable clusters, “there are no abrupt breaks in the relationship between phenotypic and geographic distance . . . indicating that decisions for subdivision into clusters (or races) are going to be subjective” (2009:19). Relethford explains that although it is possible to discern geographic ancestry by continent, the number of groups which could be classified and the geographic cutoffs would be “subjective decisions” (2009:20).
Relethford considers racial labels as “a culturally constructed label that crudely and imprecisely describes real variation” (2009:20). Variation is real, exists, and has been structured by geography and migration, but the labels we use are a “crude first-order approximation” (2009:21) Relethford uses the example of how we see height as short, medium, and tall: “We tend to use crude labels in everyday life with the realization that they are fuzzy and subjective. I doubt anyone thinks that terms such as ‘short,’ ‘medium,’ and ‘tall’ refer to discrete groups, or that humanity only comes in three values of height!” (2009:21).
Current scientific consensus is that craniometrics yields clustered geographic groupings, but those groupings are subjective and arbitrary. However, this could be changing, as research published in 2010 calls into question the relationship between craniometrics and genetics, particularly these clustered groups:
Classificatory analyses achieve high levels of success because they depend on the a priori definition of group centroids. As a consequence, when a large number of variables is considered, the probability that this kind of analysis will find a dimension in the original data that differentiates among the a priori defined groups is high. Yet the precise biological significance of this kind of difference is hard to establish, especially when the high values of dissimilarity fractions reported here are considered. High rates of correct discrimination of groups can thus be misleading in understanding the structure of human biological diversity. . . .
Our results also have implications for the discussion about the existence of races in the human species from the phenotypic point of view because they support the notion of an absence of discrete biological groups. . . . The results presented here demonstrate that roughly one-third of the pairs of individuals within a population are more different than pairs of individuals between populations. This indicates that cranial morphology is less able to identify nonclinal variations among populations (which would be in accordance with the existence of biological races in the human species) than molecular data . . . (Strauss and Hubbe 2010:326) I quote at length to highlight the challenge to scientific consensus. The idea that craniometrics exhibits geographic and genetic clustering could be due for revision, further undermining what has sometimes been used as evidence for racial groupings.
Measuring Bones
Skin color, like many other racial measures, is continuously variable. Crania may be structured geographically, but classifications based on geographic clusters would be arbitrary. But what about measuring all the bones? Television shows feature forensic anthropologists easily identifying race from skeletal remains. Does that mean race is real?
Forensic anthropologist Norman Sauer answered this question in a classic article titled “Forensic Anthropology and the Concept of Race: If races don’t exist, why are forensic anthropologists so good at identifying them?” (1992). Sauer explains “the successful assignment of race to a skeletal specimen is not a vindication of the race concept, but rather a prediction that an individual, while alive was assigned to a particular socially constructed ‘racial’ category” (1992:107). Forensic anthropologists have samples of bones from many geographic areas, and can classify bones according to what race society has assigned to people with ancestry in those geographic areas. However, examining the bones provides a probability estimate of likely race assignment: “In ascribing a race name to a set of skeletonized remains, the anthropologist is actually translating information about biological traits to a culturally constructed labeling system that was likely to have been applied to a missing person” (1992:109).
Despite the provocative title, Sauer pleads for forensic anthropologists to better explain what it means to make racial classifications from skeletal remains. He begs forensic anthropologists not to “sail on” without making an effort to expose people “to the notion that perceived races are not reflections of biological reality” (1992:110). We should “not fall into the trap of accepting races as valid biologically discrete categories because we use them so often” (1992:110). Ah, Sauer writing in 1992 seems so quaint. Since then, popular media has trumpeted the notion that forensic anthropologists perform identification miracles. Sauer’s plea does not seem to have resulted in an institutionalized move by forensic anthropologists to expose people to the difference between perceived race and biology.
A different question is whether Sauer’s stance remains valid, given the increased sophistication of measurement and quantification in forensic anthropology. Here two articles in the “Race Reconciled” volume are especially insightful–the increasing sophistication of measurement and quantification only further reinforces Sauer’s claim that forensic anthropology does not confirm traditional race classifications, even when race-identification probabilities are reported from skeletal remains.
The first article, “Understanding race and human variation: Why forensic anthropologists are good at identifying race,” obviously takes its title in reference to Sauer. The authors specifically tackle physical differences between U.S. blacks and whites, noting that there have been historically low rates of interracial marriage, given legal restrictions persisting in some states until the 1960s, and that “unofficial social penalties for interracial relationships and marriage included violence and murder” (Ousley et al. 2009:69). Different continental ancestry combined with institutional racism makes it possible to discern a “clear craniometric separation of American blacks and whites” (Ousley et al. 2009:72).
However, the authors support Sauer’s contention that craniometric separation does not confirm traditional racial categories. “Sauer’s additional suggestion that differences in American blacks and whites did not validate the traditional biological race concept is likewise supported by our results” (Ousley et al. 2009:73).
Why? The authors highlight just how many social differences could be discerned by forensic anthropologists. Given an original sample of bones classified into social groups, a forensic anthropologist can with high probability predict to which group another case of bones belong. They can separate Japanese from Chinese from Vietnamese, or northern Japanese from southern Japanese. Or, and perhaps most incredibly, “white males born between 1840 and 1890 can be separated from white males born 1930 to 1980 very well, and they are distinguished by time, and would appear to qualify as different races” (1992:74). Group bones by birth-year, run the statistics, and then introduce a new sample: the sample can be accurately classified, and a new race born every fifty years!
Forensic anthropologists sort real physical variation into categories we have made socially relevant. “There are so many possible distinctive biological races that the concept is virtually meaningless. We can only concur with Howells’ modification of Livingstone’s 1962 quote: ‘There are no races, only populations’” (Ousley et al. 2009:74).
The second article, “Estimation and evidence in forensic anthropology: Sex and race” does not have a provocative title, but is perhaps an even more incredible piece. The authors begin with sex identification, showing how sex is reliably estimated from a few craniometric variables, and how a prior identification of a roughly 1:1 sex ratio is unimportant for making the call. Things change when it comes to racial identification. Here, they take a set of bones from “Mr. Johnson” and compare them to a world database: “The results from these analyses fairly unambiguously estimate Mr. Johnson’s origin as an Easter Islander” (Konigsberg et al. 2009:81). However, since Mr. Johnson’s bones were found in Iowa, plugging in the Iowa probabilities allows Mr. Johnson to be reliably predicted as white. Forensic anthropologists base their estimates on the known prior composition of the population. If the same bones from Mr. Johnson had been found in Hawaii, they would have estimated “Easter Islander” or if found in Gary, Indiana, they would have estimated “American Black”:
Using the Iowa priors, the highest posterior probability is for ‘‘American White’’ at 0.6976. The identification of ‘‘Easter Islander,’’ which had the highest posterior when we used an uninformative prior, now has a relatively low posterior probability (0.0449). In contrast, using the Hawaii priors the posterior probability that ‘‘Mr. Johnson’’ was an ‘‘Easter Islander’’ is 0.9068, whereas the posterior probability that he was an ‘‘American White’’ was 0.0188. Using the Gary, Indiana prior the highest posterior probability (0.5342) was for ‘‘American Black’’ with ‘‘American White’’ having the second highest posterior probability (0.2728). (Konigsberg et al. 2009:82)
Wow. Forensic anthropologists do not determine race from bones.
What actually happens is forensic anthropologists match bones probabilistically against known existing assortments. Those assortments can be anything socially relevant. Changing the context of bone discovery could lead to different predictive classification–of the same bones: “The use of different priors also shows the importance of prior information, as ‘Mr. Johnson’ would have been classified as a Pacific Islander had his remains been found on Hawaii and as an ‘American Black’ had his remains been found in Gary, Indiana” (Konigsberg et al. 2009:83).
Forensic anthropologists “often do bring prior information to their cases, though this information is typically implicit, unstated, and not quantified” (Konigsberg et al. 2009:84). Estimates are always probabilities, and probabilities rely on pre-existing information, such as a self-reporting census. Rather incredibly, the authors conclude that “forensic anthropologists are not particularly adept at identifying races when they must deal with a very heterogeneous population at large, and this is the one setting in which a definitive racial identification would be useful” (Konigsberg et al. 2009:86). Guessing Mr. Johnson’s bones, when found in Iowa, were “probably white” is a guess anyone could make based on the Iowa census. Genetic Variation
Even after proving the continuous variation of skin tones, and even after showing how bones and skulls do not confirm traditional race classifications, there is still the sense that genetics offers real proof of race. Genetic testing companies amplify this misconception in a rush to market ancestry, while pharmaceutical companies sell race-targeted medications.
The article “Human DNA sequences: More variation and less race,” is difficult reading but extremely helpful. The authors use sophisticated techniques to show how human genetic variation occurs in sets and subsets. Sub-Saharan Africa has the greatest genetic diversity. This is not a surprise, since Sub-Saharan Africa is where almost all human evolution occurred. For most of human history, it was also the region with the largest human population. What may be more surprising is “that the diversity in non-Sub-Saharan African populations is essentially a subset of the diversity found in Sub-Saharan African populations” (Long et al. 2009:23).
Genetic classifications of races outside of Sub-Saharan Africa are simply sub-parts of Sub-Saharan African diversity. Moreover, and perhaps most strangely, “a classification that takes into account evolutionary relationships and the nested pattern of diversity would require that Sub-Saharan Africans are not a race because the most exclusive group that includes all Sub-Saharan African populations also includes every non-Sub-Saharan African population” (Long et al. 2009:32). In the end, the authors “agree entirely with Lewontin that classical race taxonomy is a poor reflection of human diversity” (Long et al. 2009:32). They disagree with Lewontin over whether this is intrinsic to human genetics–rather, it is a product of evolutionary history and migration.
This evolutionary history is explained in the article “The global pattern of gene identity variation reveals a history of long-range migrations, bottlenecks, and local mate exchange.” Once again, sophisticated techniques reveal a “nested pattern of genetic structure that is inconsistent with the existence of independently evolving biological races” (Hunley et al. 2009:35). The authors confirm greater genetic variation within Sub-Saharan Africa, and all other humans are a sub-set of this variation. Taxonomic classifications of race cannot account for observed genetic diversity. The authors take this further, challenging medical research that uses visible race-markers as a proxy for genetic structure:
Our findings confirm that broad ethnic categories employed in medical genetic research might not adequately take into account the complex geographic pattern of genetic structure in the species, but for the same reason, neither may continental ancestry. This is because our results also indicate that substantial, potentially medically important genetic differences may exist between populations within regions. (Hunley et al. 2009:45)
Drug companies desiring to find treatments targeted at black patients probably underestimate the true degree of genetic diversity present within Africa and for people of African descent living in the U.S.
This is a superb collection of articles, deserving of thorough reading and reflection. Race is simply much more biologically complicated than classifiers imagine. These are all researchers who have taken the critique of Lewontin seriously, know how to crunch their numbers and measure bones. They re-debunk race.
Still, the authors could do better on three fronts:
a) They need bigger megaphones At the end of their introduction to the “Race Reconciled” volume, Edgar and Hunley write that the best way to communicate with the public is in the classroom: “Biological anthropologists teach thousands of students every year and have a real opportunity to influence public views of human variation” (2009:2-3). Their final sentence is about communicating “to our students” (2009:3). But as important as classrooms are, how many students actually take a course devoted to biological anthropology? Will these articles get used in biological anthropology textbooks? If this applies to biological anthropology courses, the prospects are worse for Anthropology 101. The authors need to be on TV, on YouTube, in the newspapers. With 10 million undergraduate students in the United States, teaching thousands is not enough. The need for greater public exposure became painfully obvious in December 2010, when The New York Times reporter Nicholas Wade covered a so-called debate within anthropology. Wade wrote that people in physical anthropology, studying things like skulls, were “evidence-based researchers” and separated from “more interpretive subjects, like research on race and sex” (2010). Ridiculous! But this is very convenient for Wade, who has long been claiming that genetic research validates traditional race-thinking. By classifying anthropologists who study race as “interpretive,” he gets to ignore the evidence-based researchers who have invalidated race as an accurate way to describe human variation. Maybe if the “Race Reconciled” scientists had already been on TV, Wade would not be able to get away with it. b) They need to understand politics.
The editors of the “Race Reconciled” volume did step out of the arena of academic peer-reviewed journals to record a podcast about their research. This is definitely a welcome step toward TV. However, they here seem to misunderstand the politics of their research:
It seems to me like people expect a single answer: “Yes, there’s race,” “No, there’s not,” “Yes it means something important,” “No it doesn’t.” This is a complex issue that involves all of human history and all of human variation and I think it’s not possible to provide a single answer like that and I also don’t think it’s necessary. I think that we can develop a teaching perspective that will allow us to explain: “Well some people think this; some people think that; here are some ideas that they share; here are some parts that aren’t quite worked out yet.” And students are able to take that in. We teach them that about all kinds of scientific debates. We teach them about the debate about whether or not Neandertals are part of our human ancestry and we expect them to understand that there are multiple viewpoints on that. Why don’t we expect them to do the same thing when it comes to contemporary human races? (Does Race Exist?, my transcription) It is not the same thing. See section on Racism and biological anthropology. Race remains a highly charged issue, with political and economic consequences. Although the way we represent Neandertals or classify species can and does interact with this contemporary politics, it certainly does not have the same political potential. It is important to make sure everyone understands the headline message: “race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation” (Edgar and Hunley 2009:2). Then we can work on the details of why it is not accurate or productive. After that, outline the areas of scientific debate. The model is the same as teaching evolution. Evolution is the scientifically correct and factual account. There are debates within the community as to particular evolutionary processes, but that does not change the overall message. Similarly, Relethford’s analogy to how people make crude classifications of short-medium-tall potentially misrepresents the politics and history of racial classification in the U.S. People may make crude guesses based on skin color, but hypodescent has been dominant. It would be similar to a situation in which there really was no “medium” category. Anyone born to one short parent and one tall parent would be considered short. Barack Obama, Halle Berry, Colin Powell. Relethford obviously knows that people categorized as black have a “highly variable” level of African ancestry (2009:21). Still, he could be clearer on how these classifications are politically, economically, and socially enforced, making the short-medium-tall comparison potentially misleading.
c) They need to protect their turf.
After I assigned the “Race Reconciled” articles in my anthropological theory course, one student wanted to do further research on race and forensic anthropology. The problem, I suggested, is whenever a forensic anthropologist uses the term race–in any context–people assume this must mean race exists. It goes back to Sauer’s article: Forensic anthropologists need to explicitly state they are estimating ancestry probabilities to best-guess what racial group a person would have been socially assigned.
As I researched relevant articles, I was shocked and disgusted to discover that the materials from forensic anthropologists were not only suffering popular misinterpretation, but were also being misused in peer-reviewed academic journals. One of the only 2010 articles citing the forensic anthropology pieces from “Race Reconciled” is a diatribe by philosopher Neven Sesardic titled “Race: A social destruction of a biological concept.” Sesardic claims fuzzy-headed social scientists and philosophers have misunderstood the proper biological underpinnings of the race concept. Sesardic then uses the forensic anthropology articles to make his case. Sesardic calls Sauer a “bewildered and exasperated scientist” (2010:156) and goes on to approvingly quote Sauer’s 1992 article as supporting the idea of racial assignment. He similarly cherry-picks quotes from the 2009 articles to portray forensic anthropology as confirming traditional biological races.
I contacted the authors of these articles, alerting them to this misuse of their research. I received two replies, eventually leading to a productive e-mail exchange. However, no one felt it was worth writing a rebuttal. A journal titled Biology and Philosophy was not part of their academic engagement. They questioned the journal’s standards and peer-review process, since it published an article with such a blatant misuse of data. Still, it would seem that if it is impossible to track and respond to what is published in academic journals, there is limited chance of wider public intervention.
I remain hopeful for the TV series: “Race Reconciled: How Biological Anthropologists View Human Variation.”
Related: 1) Mismeasuring Gould in "The Mismeasure of Science" 2) News: Fighting genetic racism Previous: 1.5 Race revival Next: 1.7 Race becomes biology Several authors expressed interested in a rebuttal to Sesardic, but legitimately wondered if a rebuttal would only draw more attention to the article. After it became clear that a rebuttal would not be published, I sent a message to the editors of the Biology and Philosophy journal:
I write to alert you to an instance of intellectual misrepresentation which has recently been published in your journal. . . . Sesardic cites three articles from forensic anthropology. He has mischaracterized the point of each of these articles by reversing their clearly-stated conclusions. . . The mischaracterizations of the Sesardic article in the service of an outdated, evolutionarily invalid concept are reminiscent of the intellectual misuses and abuses of genetic research in the early 20th century, and, left uncorrected, are potentially equally dangerous.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good info, but the author does not really describe the specific ways in which forensic scientists who subscribe to race- as a biological subspecies concept- fail. He also expresses astonishment at the confusion and mischaracterization going on. BUt it is not surprising. SOme whites want the area to remain fuzzy and confusing because that helps mask and conceal their racial agendas. Laying down multiple smokescreens is a good strategy.
To admit for example that there are no biological races is a blow to white supremacist thinking and its racial hierarchies. It also exposes decades of previous deception and distortion that many have built careers on. Disappearance of race also undermines the supremacist project of appropriating non-European cultures and accomplishments- ancient Egypt being a prime case in point. Thankfully some white scientists have been courageous enough to point out the facts, letting the chips fall where they may, but some in the academy are reluctant to shed light on prior deception and distortion not only in the past, but at the current time as well. Simply put, they do not want their dirty laundry exposed. "Keeping quiet" is one good strategy to do so.
Some whites I think would have no problem seeing race as a social construct if the scientific and political manipulators actually laid out and spent enough time publicizing the facts. All do not subscribe to the race hierarchy model. Others with power and resources however, do. The current much ballyhooed "Human Geonome Project" with its distorted "Eurasian" and "sub-Saharan" categories continues the same hierarchial agenda under a newer, shiny label. Confusion and obfuscation are excellent methods to screen and mask the continuing agenda. Items of failed forensics:
1) The press will only show more the successes but not so much failures of tools used by forensics. The failures of the broadly used FORDISC program which grouped Nubians with distant Japanese, or Easter Islanders is only one of a glaring number of foul-ups. But these are buried in the academic literature and seldom make it to the mainstream press, or some general textbooks.
2) All forensics identify really is geographical clines. GEographical clines however are not biological "race" subspecies. We know for example that tropical clines produce certain skeletal characteristics. Thus the ancient Egyptians group with tropical Africans not EUropeans or Middle Easterners. However Egyptians, Europeans, tropical Africans or Palestinians are not separate sub-species of human.
3) Forensics also like to manipulate categories to conjure "race" classifications. They will for example, draw so called "Caucasoid" categories as broadly as possible, while being careful to draw their "negroid" category as narrowly as possibly even though, Africans have the greatest phenotypic diversity in the world US. Narrow noses are native to Africa, partially based on high altitudes or hot dry desert air, or other climatic factors. But forensic "Experts" will take a narrow nose and arbitrarily assign it to their desired "Caucasoid" construct. The hypocrisy and inconsistency of forensics, conveniently is not mentioned by Sesardic above. WHat guys like him do is talk about "political correctness" to cover and mask the failures described herein, failures based not on mere "politics" but hardcore data and research.
4) Another way forensics fail is in identifying closely related populations. It is relatively easy to spot geographic variation in places like the US. Most of the black population for example is from West Africa, and most of the white from northern Europe, supplemented by southern and eastern europeans. Most hispanics will be from Mexico, and Asians from East Asia on the average. These geographic extremes are fairly easy to identify. But when the population is closely related, as between Nubians and Egyptians, so called forensic expertise fails to establish biological subspecies "race."
6) A final reason forensics fail is in their use of slanted or biased reference samples, such as the "worldwide" CRANID database used by many forensic researchers.
Egyptologist Barry Kemp on the worldwide CRANID database that used northern samples near the Mediterranean as "representative" of the ancient Egyptians, and classifying them in a "European" direction, while excluding key historic sites further south.. The CRANID database uses LATE PERIOD SAMPLES, the 26th thru the 30th Dynasties, drawn from the far north of Egypt near Giza. Such late period samples beginning with the 27th Dynasty involved the Persian conquest and influx into Egypt, and they would reflect such Persian/foreign influence. QUOTE:
"..collected by Petrie in 1907 from a cemetery on a desert ridge to the south of Giza and dating from the 26th to the 30th Dynasties.. If, on the other hand, CRANID had used one of the Elephantine populations of the same period, the geographic association would be much more with the African groups to the south. It is dangerous to take one set of skeletons and use them to characterize the population of the whole of Egypt." --(Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation, Routledge: 2005, p. 55)
Here is some DNA data debunking "Race"..
1-
2
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] Good info, but the author does not really describe the specific ways in which forensic scientists who subscribe to race- as a biological subspecies concept- fail. He also expresses astonishment at the confusion and mischaracterization going on. BUt it is not surprising. SOme whites want the area to remain fuzzy and confusing because that helps mask and conceal their racial agendas. Laying down multiple smokescreens is a good strategy.
To admit for example that there are no biological races is a blow to white supremacist thinking and its racial hierarchies. It also exposes decades of previous deception and distortion that many have built careers on. Disappearance of race also undermines the supremacist project of appropriating non-European cultures and accomplishments- ancient Egypt being a prime case in point. Thankfully some white scientists have been courageous enough to point out the facts, letting the chips fall where they may, but some in the academy are reluctant to shed light on prior deception and distortion not only in the past, but at the current time as well. Simply put, they do not want their dirty laundry exposed. "Keeping quiet" is one good strategy to do so.
^^^ This sounds really odd.
You say in effect that science has proven race to be fake and post a lot of evidence.
Yet you use the term "white".
What's the use in disproving something only to preserve the terminology used to describe something fake?
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] Good info, but the author does not really describe the specific ways in which forensic scientists who subscribe to race- as a biological subspecies concept- fail. He also expresses astonishment at the confusion and mischaracterization going on. BUt it is not surprising. SOme whites want the area to remain fuzzy and confusing because that helps mask and conceal their racial agendas. Laying down multiple smokescreens is a good strategy.
To admit for example that there are no biological races is a blow to white supremacist thinking and its racial hierarchies. It also exposes decades of previous deception and distortion that many have built careers on. Disappearance of race also undermines the supremacist project of appropriating non-European cultures and accomplishments- ancient Egypt being a prime case in point. Thankfully some white scientists have been courageous enough to point out the facts, letting the chips fall where they may, but some in the academy are reluctant to shed light on prior deception and distortion not only in the past, but at the current time as well. Simply put, they do not want their dirty laundry exposed. "Keeping quiet" is one good strategy to do so.
^^^ This sounds really odd.
You say in effect that science has proven race to be fake and post a lot of evidence.
Yet you use the term "white".
What's the use in disproving something only to preserve the terminology used to describe something fake?
posted
You say in effect that science has proven race to be fake and post a lot of evidence.
Yet you use the term "white".
What's the use in disproving something only to preserve the terminology used to describe something fake?
^^You STILL cannot grasp the difference between 'race' as a subspecies biological entity and race' as a social construction, despite the information staring you in the face, posted in multiple threads. Go back and actually read the information.
1-
2 Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Masonic Rebel: Only as an social construct sir^
When you say "only as an social construct" that is not an argument.
This is like talking about the easter bunny as it was real and if someone questions you about it you say "I was talking about it only as a social construct" .
The social constuct in this case = a fake thing many people believe in.
But you can't claim that you are using a word as a social construct unless you were talking about it in a context that shows you you don't believe it but many people do.
If you say "people believed that witches had the ability to fly through the air on broomsticks" This context shows that what you are referring to the idea that they could fly was a "social construct"
However if you say "witches had the ability to fly through the air on broomsticks" without saying "people believed" then what you are saying does not indicate that it is a construct made by society. You are indicating that what is a constuct is a reality.
So you can't claim that when you said it you meant it as a social construct.
If you say "Santa Claus lives in the North Pole" you are not using the statement in the context that it is a constucted statement which does not represent reality.
You were using a social construct but not AS a social construct. You were using a social construct statement as if it was real.
That is what doesn't make sense.
"Construct" here means "belief"
If you say "Santa Claus was believed to live in the North Pole" or "Legend says that this house was haunted by ghost" then you are using it AS a social constuct.
There is a big differnce between using the social constuct AS if it were reality and using a social constuct AS a social constuct.
What is going on is a fake concept is being put forth as if it were real and the person, only if questioned after the fact, says "but I meant it as a social construct"
This doesn't make sense. You have to show that from the beginning.
And even then people will do something like putting the word in quotes or only mentioning once that it was a social contruct. They then proceed to use the word over and over again in the exact same way as people who think it's a valid real concept.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: You say in effect that science has proven race to be fake and post a lot of evidence.
Yet you use the term "white".
What's the use in disproving something only to preserve the terminology used to describe something fake?
^^You STILL cannot grasp the difference between 'race' as a subspecies biological entity and race' as a social construction, despite the information staring you in the face, posted in multiple threads.
hehehe
i hope you are not surprised at lioness productions.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Good info, but the author does not really describe the specific ways in which forensic scientists who subscribe to race- as a biological subspecies concept- fail. He also expresses astonishment at the confusion and mischaracterization going on. BUt it is not surprising. SOme whites want the area to remain fuzzy and confusing because that helps mask and conceal their racial agendas. Laying down multiple smokescreens is a good strategy.
To admit for example that there are no biological races is a blow to white supremacist thinking and its racial hierarchies. It also exposes decades of previous deception and distortion that many have built careers on. Disappearance of race also undermines the supremacist project of appropriating non-European cultures and accomplishments- ancient Egypt being a prime case in point. Thankfully some white scientists have been courageous enough to point out the facts, letting the chips fall where they may, but some in the academy are reluctant to shed light on prior deception and distortion not only in the past, but at the current time as well. Simply put, they do not want their dirty laundry exposed. "Keeping quiet" is one good strategy to do so.
^^^ This sounds really odd.
You say in effect that science has proven race to be fake and post a lot of evidence.
Yet you use the term "white".
What's the use in disproving something only to preserve the terminology used to describe something fake?
.
.
That why race(s) exist.
.
While Clyde comes to a conclusion that "race/s exist" he has understood my very simple point that people who say "there is no such thing as race" are hypocrites to talk about "blacks this" and "whites" that.
The excuse is that the are using these words as" social constructs".
That's a fancy term for "lies that society believes in"
So using words that are "lies that society believes in" does not justify using those words.
You can come up with any false statement and if someone calls you out on it you can claim "I was using it as a social construct"
I'm not fooled by the ambigous academic doublespeak.
Social concepts can be based on truth. But if you are claiming race does not exist than "black" and "white" are false constuctions. They are those social concepst that are not true, the wrong ones,
So the excuse "but I was using it as a social constuct" doesn't hold. You were using a falsehood believed by society. Euphemistically calling it a "social constuct" doesn't change the fact that you prepetuate the falsehood. You used a lie. You can call the lie a "social constuct" but it's still a lie.
-but maybe you really think it's true, that races within modern human beings do exist biologically, they just need defined properly. Fine then don't go around BSing saying "race does not exist"
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: You say in effect that science has proven race to be fake and post a lot of evidence.
Yet you use the term "white".
What's the use in disproving something only to preserve the terminology used to describe something fake?
^^You STILL cannot grasp the difference between 'race' as a subspecies biological entity and race' as a social construction, despite the information staring you in the face, posted in multiple threads.
hehehe
i hope you are not surprised at lioness productions.
lol... yeah.. this is the same guy who keeps talking 'bout "mulatto" Egypt and other Africans and who is constantly starting "race" threads, while complaining about "too much race". You have already taken the bogus "Black Queen" to the woodshed on this.
quote:
--------------------------------------------- Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on 10 April, 2011 03:59 PM: quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: He's entitled to his opinion. It isn't like "Black" describes anything biologically tangible anyways. How do you only pick that up out of an entire 3 minute rant? You seem to be obsessed with skin color.
Look for example at Ausar Imhoteps recent posts, very few replies. Then look at posts with a racial angle everybody jumps on it, like four pages average. -this includes you
What does that tell you ???????
lioness, the Black Queen ------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by the lioness on 20 July, 2010: dana what was your opinion of this photo Leo put up as being called "Yemeni woman"
I would say good for her. I could put up Yemenis with red hair much lighter than her as well as modern Sudanese just as light in complexion. Frankly, she is a lot darker than some people in my nuclear family and that still wouldn't make the "blacker than ink" Sabaean descended Azd, black skinned Quraysh and Himyarites (Kushi) and Hamdan Sabeans (Hamdan of Dishan or Canaanites see Genesis32-33) any less blacker than the Iranians and Syrians and Europeans said they were 1800 and 1000 years ago.
Almost all people have been intermixing for ages and they should be proud of wherever their ancestors came from. The African related culture that was in the Yemen 2,000 years ago was hardly related to the many of the cultures there today, and there are obvious reasons for that. [Wink] ----------------------------------
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on 20 July, 2010 12:52 AM:
....woman why do you insist on trying to find evidence of "mulatto" civilization everywhere? are you going to use that picture as characteristic of yemenis? should we single out blacks in greece as evidence that greece was a black civilization?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on 20 July, 2010 05:49 PM:
^ It's even worse than that. 'Lioness' a.k.a. 1Arm is an Arabized northern Sudanese who believes that nothing good can come from 'pure' black Africans. They have to be mixed in order for them to be intelligent enough to create civilization or for them to be beautiful. This is the same pyschotic mentality of those committing genocide in Darfur. It's a shame really.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on 20 July, 2010 08:19 PM:
^ Because she (he) posted here before under the moniker Amr1 and explained his identity and who he was. He tried to propagate that nonsense of a mixed (Arab/Mid-Eastern) race Egypt and even northeast Africa as a whole from ancient times as an explanation for advanced cultures and 'beautiful' features. Ausar even chewed him out several times or so. One of his pet-peeves was that Ramses mural that featured a Kmtwy just as dark in complexion as the Nhsw. He tried to say it was fake. I knew 'Lion' was him, when he brought the topic of that mural back up in several different threads as he'd done before. Now apparently he has a sex change as 'lioness' as if that has somehow helped his 'cause'. [Embarrassed]
-------------------------------------------
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on 20 July, 2010 08:30 PM:
OK ----------
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^^ yes, Mr. Ad Hom, but you don't hear me going around saying that "there is no such thing as race". I have mixed feelings on that issue, that's why I don't say that.
I am pointing out the hypocrisy of people who do say that yet go around using the terms "blacks" and "whites"
Using such terms cancels out the extensive copy & pastes of "there are no races" theory, so there is no point to post these things and then ignore what they are saying, mixing freely biological information with common lingo "blacks this " , "whites that"
Most of these recent research papers don't use these terms anyway .The terms are too broad, generalized and ambigous to be useful.
So can't a person maintain that there are no races and also speak of "black" the social construct" ?
No, the hypocricy IS using the social construct.
People have the impression that "social constuct" means "legitimate".
it doesn't, It means something that is not legitimate it is an illusion, something artificial, myth, a construct in people's minds. like the tooth fairy
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, you can have constructs that derive from concepts that have no basis in reality: tooth fairy, Santa Claus, etc.
But you can also have constructs that derive from concepts that are reality based: atoms, electrons, etc.
Then there are constructs that are derived from concepts that are artificially constructed, such as ethnicity, religion, nationality, teenager, etc.
"Race" as a construct would seem to belong to a different category in that membership for a particular group is based on empirical reality but arbitrarily selected--for seemingly rational reasons. Eg: It would not be wrong to assume that an individual with East Asian phenotype has ancestors hailing from that part of the world.
The question is what significance should be attached to such for purposes of social interaction?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: No, you can have constructs that derive from concepts that have no basis in reality: tooth fairy, Santa Claus, etc.
But you can also have constructs that derive from concepts that are reality based: atoms, electrons, etc.
Then there are constructs that are derived from concepts that are artificially constructed, such as ethnicity, religion, nationality, teenager, etc.
"Race" as a construct would seem to belong to a different category in that membership for a particular group is based on empirical reality but arbitrarily selected--for seemingly rational reasons. Eg: It would not be wrong to assume that an individual with East Asian phenotype has ancestors hailing from that part of the world.
The question is what significance should be attached to such for purposes of social interaction?
Your argument here is that there is such thing as race. That's different from saying "there is no such thing as race" and then proceed to talks about "blacks" and "whites"
Your statement:
""Race" as a construct would seem to belong to a different category in that membership for a particular group is based on empirical reality but arbitrarily selected--for seemingly rational reasons. "
does not make sense, something selected arbitrarily, in this case, is not a rational reason.
An attempt is made to take a wide range of phenotypes and tyring to consolidate them into three to five big categories, "black", "white" and "Asian", sometimes "Austrailoid" added.
The people who argue there is no such thing as race argue that a few categories is insuficient and useless to to do and futher that phenotypical traits overlap. Therefore simplistic attempts at stereotyping phenotypes into larger categories does not make sense.
Yet some of those same people use the same terms that they debunked when it's convenient .
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, those who say that there is no such thing as race mean so in the scientific sense--but they obviously accept it in the social sense as when they use terns such as "black", "white", "yellow", etc. It just depends on the social context.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps the best way to overcome the problematic of race--which is often based on arbitrarily selected classifications--is to classify according to the geographical region of origin. In fact, it's done already except in the cases of "blacks" and "whites".
It is much more intellectually palatable to refer to someone as East Asian, South Asian, West Asian, European, Eurasian[places like Kazakstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, etc.], West African[ extended to the appropriate populations in the Americas], Southern Africans, East Africans, North Africans, etc.
Note that people of European descent living in Africa would still be described as European, as would those of South Asian descent[Indians, Pakistanis, etc.]be described as "South Asian".
Individuals whose parents are African and European would just be known "Euroafrican"[match it with the commonly used Eurasian].
The results are much more taxonomically manageable than the problematic "black" and "white"--originally concocted by Europeans to highlight and emphasise the supposed huge racial gap between Europeans and Africans. This was the basis for European biological racism against Africans.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^What race scientists are doing is trying to conflate biological subspecies race to geographical origin, but at the same time they are not consistent, because the keep trying to slice and dice Africans from nearby geographic areas into different sub-species i.e. "races". They are careful to define "black" as biohistorial diversity as narrowly as possible, while ensuring a much broader definition of favored "Caucasoids" - usually disguised under different labels "Mediterranean", "Eurasian", "Middle Eastern" etc etc.
Note Keita's criticism of the "Eurasian" label below for ancient tribes and peoples who may be African migrants roaming a wide area adjacent to the continent. They become "Asian" when it suits certain race models.
"The historical linguistic data reported earlier would apply in the case of maternal lineages as well.. it is not likely that the "northern" genetic profile is simply due to "Eurasians" having colonized supra-Saharan regions from external African sources. It might be likely that the greater percentage of haplotypes called "Eurasian" are predominantly, although not solely, of indigenous African origin. As a term "Eurasian" is likely misleading, since it suggests a single locale of geographical origins. This is because it can be postulated that differentiation of the L3* haplogroup began before the emigration out of Africa, and that there would be indigenous supra- Saharan/Saharan or Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes. More work and careful analysis of mtDNA and the archeological data and likely probabilities is needed. Early hunting and gathering paleolithic populations can be modeled as having roamed between northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving an asymmetrical distribution of various derivative variants over a wide region, giving the appearance of Eurasian incursion." --Keita, A, Boyce, A. (2005) Genetics, Egypt, and History... History in Africa, 32, 221-246
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: ^^What race scientists are doing is trying to conflate biological subspecies race to geographical origin, but at the same time they are not consistent, because the keep trying to slice and dice Africans from nearby geographic areas into different sub-species i.e. "races". They are careful to define "black" as biohistorial diversity as narrowly as possible, while ensuring a much broader definition of favored "Caucasoids" - usually disguised under different labels "Mediterranean", "Eurasian", "Middle Eastern" etc etc.
You, Enrique, accept the terms just weight them differently.
Who are these scientists defining "black" today? Who is using that word in scientfic papers? You accept the term "race" and "sub species" You are a racial scientist in this sense just trying to balance the definitions and particulars in a way you think is more proper
You worry about consistency but can you be consistent? When we get into depth there is a lot of variation and it obliterates the attempt fit all these variations into three categories "black" , "white" , "Asian" . Similarly "African" ," European" , "Asian" to describe people as a biological type rather used for geography alone.
Modern humans" are defined as the Homo sapiens species, of which the only extant subspecies is known as Homo sapiens sapiens.
Either the concept of race is accepted or the concept is dismissed across the board.
Nobody here has taken the later postion and divorsed themselves from race terminology across the board and in whatever new disguises it takes.
Positions taken are purely reactionary and defensive.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^^^^ yes, Mr. Ad Hom, but you don't hear me going around saying that "there is no such thing as race". I have mixed feelings on that issue, that's why I don't say that.
I am pointing out the hypocrisy of people who do say that yet go around using the terms "blacks" and "whites"
Using such terms cancels out the extensive copy & pastes of "there are no races" theory, so there is no point to post these things and then ignore what they are saying, mixing freely biological information with common lingo "blacks this " , "whites that"
Most of these recent research papers don't use these terms anyway .The terms are too broad, generalized and ambigous to be useful.
So can't a person maintain that there are no races and also speak of "black" the social construct" ?
No, the hypocricy IS using the social construct.
People have the impression that "social constuct" means "legitimate".
it doesn't, It means something that is not legitimate it is an illusion, something artificial, myth, a construct in people's minds. like the tooth fairy
it is not this forum you need to be addressing its your Eurocentric scientists who made up the racial categories and keep it alive.
Encyclopedia of the peoples of Africa and the Middle East 2009
author Jamie Stokes
“ Along with the San people, the Khoikhoi were the first known inhabitants of southern Africa. The Khoisan are not black Africans, but make up a unique racial category of their own. The Khoikhoi were San peoples who adopted pastoralism… ” p. 368
Pretty soon they'll be know black African category left. Then you'll really be happy.lol!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: dana you said:
"Pretty soon they'll be know black African category left. "
yet you complain about racial categorizations.
you just used one:
"black"
here's another
"white"
and you worry that these terms might stop being used?
.
No that's your opinion Swedeheart. I never said anything about black and white being a race. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: it is not this forum you need to be addressing its your Eurocentric scientists who made up the racial categories and keep it alive.
Encyclopedia of the peoples of Africa and the Middle East 2009
author Jamie Stokes
“ Along with the San people, the Khoikhoi were the first known inhabitants of southern Africa. The Khoisan are not black Africans, but make up a unique racial category of their own. The Khoikhoi were San peoples who adopted pastoralism… ” p. 368
Pretty soon they'll be know black African category left. Then you'll really be happy.lol!
LOL That is already happening with Rwandans like Tutsi being claimed as 'Hamitic' caucasoids (Again). I have even heard talk of some Congolese labeled the same due to certain features. Lyinass just has not taken this step yet.
Posts: 26237 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Pretty soon they'll be know black African category left. Then you'll really be happy.lol!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic