Given the above phenotypical reconstructions based on averages is there a basis for racial classification based on phenotypical taxonomy?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For most of the averages national averages were used. In the case of Africa--except in the case of Ethiopia and South Africa--only regions were used. There are even averages for West Africa and African-America. And what do phenotypical averages tell us?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pictures of hundreds of women were used to create an average Images of women from 41 different ethnicities were laid over one another before a computer programme deduced the common look Study by experimental psychologists at the University of Glasgow
Given ES's readership the "average" African American female face is also part of the study.
Question: how were the photos selected? They all show relatively young women. Or are they all averages in terms of age?
Question: For South Africa did they include only photos of ethnic Africans and none of Europeans, Indians,and so-called "coloureds"?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some switching going on? Just noted the white South African above but in the first post SA is represented, it seems, by the average Central African.
One question though: in countries where the "phenotypical range" is extensive does an average give a distorted picture[no pun]? Cases in point: Brazil, North Africa, India, U.S.A.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: One question though: in countries where the "phenotypical range" is extensive does an average give a distorted picture[no pun]? Cases in point: Brazil, North Africa, India, U.S.A. [/QB]
No an average is an average. It's a mixture of everything in proportion
___________________
Different issues
Above photos from your two links
The photos with black type indicating the country are from a Daily Mail article in 2011
The photos with white type indicating country are from a recent rehash of the article in the same paper, Daily Mail 2013
They first had a white looking person from South Africa in the 2011 article.
They caught some heat and changed to black in the 2013 article
Brazil is represented by a mixed looking person. That is how it should be in a demographic analysis an average of all the etnicities mixed together and including population amounts. For instance the average Brazilian of today looks 98% foreign and under 1% indigenous.
In looking at these photos it raises some questions.
____________________________________
" He said: 'Sitting on the underground train, I was intrigued by the sheer diversity of the place – Somalis, Indians, Americans, Zimbabweans, Scandinavians and a hundred other nationalities vying for their place in the metropolis.
'I thought: “What is this place, what is a Londoner?”
'I thought if one could merge all the people in a place like London one would be looking at the future of that place – one would have some notion of what a Londoner is or will become.'
_______________________
We are going by country here, ok fine. There a picture labeled "England" I assume that that is an average of all the people of England and the result looks white because they are greater in number.
Now I look for "America" It's not listed. Thye have a picture labled "African Ameican" Now all of the sudden, and unlike the Brazil picture he has decided to separate Americans of African descent as a separte category. Yet there is no such separation in the European countries. This is inconsitent method.
The premise was an average, not to depict all the separate ethnicities of a county. If you stick to that you can have a consistent analysis. If you dont stick to that then
you would wind up with not only African American, East Asian American, Mexican American, Italian American, Scandinavian American, Asian Indian American etc. etc
Also why does the Argentina woman look so close to the White South African? and notice that hair similarity too. This seems to show that they were using some of the same photos in between countries
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
your disrespectful to women remark is useless devoid of content like your pastaferian brian
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did notice the date differences but was unaware of the reasons for the switch from a white South African to an ethnic black South African.
Brazil shows what they call in Brazil a "mulata" but there are millions of black Brazilians in the North East part of the country and many whites in the Southern regions mostly of post-emancipation German and Italian background. Plus the fact that approximately 50-60% of the population looks "mulato". On account of a deliberate "whitening" policy the white settler population of Brazil is about 30%. Phenotypical blacks are about 20-25%.
The truth is that we live in a world of visual images and most of us tend to classify people according to what they look like and the recent history and sociology associated with those particular phenotypes--often through the prism of Eurocentric political, economic, and aesthetic ideologies.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also why does the Argentina woman look so close to the White South African? and notice that hair similarity too. This seems to show that they were using some of the same photos in between countries
Interesting. Note that the white population of Argentina descends mainly from Italian, Spanish, and German settlements in that huge nation. South African whites descend mainly from European settlements from Holland, Britain, and some French. Namibia, on the contrary, was settled mainly by Germans who after almost exterminating the Herero seized most of the best land in that vast but sparsely populated country.
As a side note: European expansion into the 4 corners of the globe--to put in purely objective terms--is rather "impressive". I say this because I just finished looking at FIFA football "Beach Football World Cup" held in Tahiti--way over in the Pacific thousands of kilometres from France--yet Tahiti is part of "France d'Outre Mer"[ "Overseas France"].
I recall seeing some paintings and pictures of Tahitians during French painter Gaugin's time and they are strictly Polynesian in phenotype--i.e. like people from Tonga and Samoa. But the crowd watching the match seemed mainly white, and the Tahiti team looked mainly white(French). And Tahitians are now French by nationality.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Brazil shows what they call in Brazil a "mulata" but there are millions of black Brazilians in the North East part of the country and many whites in the Southern regions mostly of post-emancipation German and Italian background. Plus the fact that approximately 50-60% of the population looks "mulato". On account of a deliberate "whitening" policy the white settler population of Brazil is about 30%. Phenotypical blacks are about 20-25%.
They gave you what you describe. You say Brazilian are 50-60% mulato So these people are roughly 50% black, 50% white
Then you say white settlers 30% and phenotypical blacks 20-25%
This are similar amounts also
So when the whole thing is averaged into one person you get a mulato and that is what the picture shows
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: LOL. But they didn't do that for the U.S. or for South Africa.
yes they have inconsistent methodology. they should have had "American" and mixed it all into an average for America
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: LOL. But they didn't do that for the U.S. or for South Africa.
yes they have inconsistent methodology. they should have had "American" and mixed it all into an average for America
That's crazy talk, it's an British newspaper. England has multiple ethic groups. So they could have used a nice cluster based on the British population .
And no. Racial taxonomy doesn't exist because there are intermediates between the extremes people like to pick.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Taxonomy" means "classification according to pre-selected criteria" It follows that all the taxonmist has to do is set up a classification scheme and select group membership based on that scheme.
And in fact there will no intermediate group per se. All groups are equally would just stand by themselves. In terms of race one could use just 2 or 3 criteria or increase the criteria up to as many as 30. Ad from that 30 you could then have as many as 15 races.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: [QB] "Taxonomy" means "classification according to pre-selected criteria" It follows that all the taxonmist has to do is set up a classification scheme and select group membership based on that scheme.
Example, the terms "black" " white" "yellow"
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Given the above phenotypical reconstructions based on averages is there a basis for racial classification based on phenotypical taxonomy?
The question should be more aptly phrased- is there a BIOLOGICAL basis for racial classification based on phenotypical taxonomy? The answer is no.
And too often such classifications are arbitrary and ideologically driven, where it is common to deny, downplay or otherwise minimize the vast phenotypical diversity of Africans- who have the highest such diversity in the world from thin noses, to loose hair, to pale colored skin. Africans have it all as INDIGENOUS, BUILT-IN diversity and do not need, or rely on any so-called "race mix" to explain why.
Since Euronuts continue to flood the zone with several deliberate distortions re a stereotypical "true negro", and how Africans are only are "supposed" to look a certain way, the following recap is given to new readers.
lamin said: For most of the averages national averages were used. In the case of Africa--except in the case of Ethiopia and South Africa--only regions were used. There are even averages for West Africa and African-America. And what do phenotypical averages tell us?
Wonder why they did not use African national averages? Notice how all of "West Africa" is lumped into one category, but the same is not done with "South Asia".. The lump category seemingly downplays African phenotypical diversity in certain places.
Other areas may have more of certain traits by volume such as blond hair but this does not at all mean such traits are absent from Africans. All others are smaller subsets of original African variability. The Eurocentric mindset is to distort, deny or downplay that African diversity, and part of the tactic is to flood the zone with that mindset. It must always be confronted.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is a basis, but that basis is arbitrary.
Just to be provocative: if one stands discreetly at the main gate of some big U.S. State University-like Georgia State or Alabama State, etc,--what percentage of the exiting people could be neatly fitted into one of the taxonomic boxes of "white, yellow, and black". And the left-overs? Indian students from India? Obvious Spanish Native-American phenotypes? And others too.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone can be put into any taxonomic boxes desired if using race as a social construct. Any number of "races" can be created and labeled. Biological race is not the same as ethnicity- which incorporates language culture and many other things. Thus the "Hispanic" ethnicity includes people of all hues and facial features. Look at the many players in baseball that could be both "black" and "hispanic" or something else, or the soccer players of Brazil. Biological race is different, assuming separate, discrete entities like sub-species of say canines. Hence black folk would be a "sub-species". Library shelves and the web groan with research on various aspects. But let the snippet below apply to assorted "biodiversity" or "HBD" race mongers..
RECAP:
SCHOLAR Oubre below exposes flaws in the "STRUCTURE" computer program and debunks associated racialist claims
The Adaptionist Yardstick: Rethinking the Social Implications of Sarich’s and Miele’s Fast-Track Micro-Evolution A REVIEW BY ALONDRA OUBRÉ, Ph.d. Medical Anthropologist In E-Skeptic. #56. February 18, 2005.
IN RACE: THE REALITY OF HUMAN DIFFERENCES, Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele attempt to prove the existence of human biological races in a discourse that challenges the claims made in the PBS documentary, Race: the Power of an Illusion. Drawing on research in paleoanthropology, molecular anthropology, genetics, and to some extent, history, Sarich and Miele endeavor to trace the origin of race as a biological construct. They claim that “human racial differences are both real and significant,” not only in regard to physical traits, but also (and perhaps more importantly), to cognitive and behavioral traits. Sarich and Miele assert that human social behaviors, which they contend differ along racial lines, are functional adaptations that emerged fairly quickly in each “race” as a result of natural selection.
While much of their presentation is based on well-known scientific studies, their work is distinguished by their seminal claim that contemporary biological races of modern humans, Homo sapiens, evolved rapidly within a time span of only 50,000 years. The notion that modern human races are not more than 50,000 years old, and perhaps only 15,000 years old, represents a radical departure from the conventional wisdom that until quite recently has dominated the field of human bioevolution. Sarich and Miele offer noteworthy findings to support a revised, indeed a considerably shorter, timeline for the making of modern human “races” (or, more accurately, geographical mega-populations).
However, it is their interpretation of what a revamped timeline of this sort signals for “racial adaptations”—alleged race-based functional differences—that potentially places Race: The Reality of Human Differences in the controversial realm of racialist writings—the genre of modern scientific racism. Race meets the main criterion that defines a pro-race work. It incisively embraces the perspective that human races are valid biological categories, despite the fact that they remain fuzzy sets, at best, without clearly defined borders....
..
Regardless of any controversy that may surround Sarich and Miele, the pivotal issue at stake here is not whether or not human races per se exist, regardless of what biological criteria are used to define a race. Rather, the crux of their book, I submit, is the assertion that over the past 15,000 to 30,000 years, modern human races evolved different sets of behavioral traits because each race was subjected to differing ecological selection pressures. Many experts agree that natural selection was the predominant Darwinian force that determined which traits were adaptive for a given population, or local geographical race, in a given environment. According to Sarich and Miele, however, natural selection not only shaped the physical traits that distinguish different populations, but it also drove the emergence of certain social behavioral patterns that (allegedly) vary from one “race” to another.
The implications of Sarich and Miele’s contention are staggering. If true, they suggest that what appear to be ethnic behavioral styles are linked more to inborn racial genetic tendencies than to nongenetic causes—that is, environmental and developmental causes. In the tradition of the post-Jensenian contemporary racial scholars, Sarich and Meile imply, rather meekly, that ethnic disparities in educational, economic, vocational, and social achievement are the result of race-based differences in physical and behavioral traits. Furthermore, they maintain that because these traits evolved through natural selection acting on the level of the population (which for them is tantamount to race), social behaviors are generally fixed and unchangeable in any population. The authors make this assertion while ignoring a wide array of environmental constraints as well as the impact of environmental influences known to affect human developmental biology, including the soft-wiring of the brain.
If Sarich and Miele’s goal is to garner praise from their own choir—“hard” and “softer” race-realists alike—for an eclipsed (and thus potentially distorted) canon of the origin of modern human races, they may have succeeded. If, however, their intent is to advance a substantive, data-driven argument for the evolutionary-genetic origins of race-based behavioral traits—traits which they seem to think are “fixed” by natural selection—then they have short-changed their readers (on “both sides” of this fierce debate). The predictive power and scientific valence of their assertions must ultimately be gauged by the strength of the replicable empirical evidence used to buttress their arguments.
In the final analysis, Sarich and Miele may have failed to persuade a significant portion of their readers not because they have taken a (presumably) politically incorrect position. Rather, their treatise falls short because they have opted to pander a “mainstream public” that is (understandably) irritated by growing ethnic gaps in social performance rather than uphold the rigor of the scientific process. Although portions of their presentation may be entertaining (especially to dog lovers), Sarich and Miele ignore a wealth of pertinent research findings that must be considered in any discourse on group differences, particularly differences in such highly valued human traits as intelligence and social behaviors. Regardless of one’s position on the race-genes-and-ability debate, omitting salient counter-findings that go against the grain of one’s own a priori stance can severely compromise the scientific method. It can impede inductive reasoning, a quality critical to hypothesis testing. And it can render ineffective parsimonious interpretations of the available evidence as a whole needed to construct valid scientific models.
There are several lines of counter-evidence that cast doubt on, if not patently refute, the validity of Sarich and Miele’s hypothesis that human “races” are genetically predisposed to varying levels of cognitive ability and pro-social (or anti-social) behaviors. This review focuses on the validity and parsimony of the authors’ hypothesis that human races vary in their innate predispositions toward certain social behaviors. It addresses their idea that alleged behavioral tendencies in ethnic groups are rooted in racially-linked adaptations to varying ecological environments.
More importantly, this critique challenges Sarich and Miele’s assertion that presumed race-based behavioral adaptations that occurred during the course of human micro-evolution are necessarily a direct outcome of natural selection and, therefore, are generally fixed in most members of a racial group. It should be noted, however, that Sarich and Miele do allow for individual exceptions to what they call race-based behavioral proclivities. For this reason, they endorse a meritocracy in the United States that rewards individuals on the basis of individual achievement, regardless of the individual’s “racial” heritage.
The Sarich-Miele Proposition: Fast-Track Human Evolution As Evidence of Race-Based Behavioral Adaptations
In order to evaluate the validity of the Sarich-Miele hypothesis, we must consider not only the supporting evidence presented by the authors, but also salient counter-findings that the authors have ignored. This critique considers four crucial issues within bio-evolution that bear directly on the validity, or lack thereof, of Sarich and Miele’s hypothesis about inborn, race-based behavioral traits.
1. Population-based (or race-based) differentials in the selection-driven functionality of physical, behavioral, and cognitive traits
Sarich and Miele propose that natural selection explains the origins of alleged behavioral differences along racial lines, yet, they never answer the question (in fact, they never even raise it): How do we know for certain whether a trait evolved through natural selection or instead, through a neutral evolutionary mechanism of genetic drift? This question (as well as any answers we may offer) is fundamental to understanding the adaptive significance, if any, of population-based (or race-based) differences in functional traits.
Many experts maintain that although natural selection plays a critical role in the evolutionary origin of many traits, it is not the driving force behind all biological phenomena. In fact, according to some evolutionary biologists who conduct empirical field research, genetic drift is typically assumed by default to account for most traits. Proving that natural selection is involved in the origin of a particular trait is a complicated process. Given the complexity of natural selection, it is not surprising that biologists cannot ascertain if there are long term differences in traits that have evolved through natural selection versus those that emerged through neutral selection. 3
There are other enigmas that must be sorted out as well if we are to identify the features that distinguish natural selection from neutral selection. For instance, genetic drift tends to be more influential in small populations while natural selection is more powerful in large populations. The microevolution of human races that occurred over the past 15,000 to 30,000 years affected smaller human populations. At the same time, however, natural selection had a momentous impact on the evolution of certain anatomical and physiological traits in larger geographical populations. Both genetic drift and selection could have operated in tandem to initiate the emergence of different traits in the same populations, or in clusters of geographical populations.
Positive natural selection increases fitness, which is measured in terms of survival and reproduction. However, natural selection may act on different levels of biological organization, even simultaneously at times. Classic bioevolutionary studies emphasize the influence of natural selection on individual organisms, populations, and even species. Yet, selection can also act at the level of the genome, chromosomes, and genes (DNA sequences). 4
Sarich and Miele’s treatise may have been more scientifically credible if they had clarified, even briefly, the limitation of our current scientific understanding of natural selection as the ultimate determinant of racial adaptations. To call for this clarification is neither to deny or espouse the existence of human races. Rather, it is a plea for scientific accountability: presentation of balanced pro and con evidence on the presumed functionality of race-based traits, particularly behavioral traits which the authors speculate differ along racial lines.
2. Population-based (or race-based) differentials in life history traits
Sarich and Miele do not examine the multifactorial causes—and the delicate interplay between biology and environment—that best explain population differentials in life history traits, such as rate of sexual maturation, fertility and birth rate, average number of births, and longevity. On the other hand, had they thoroughly examined the literature, they would have uncovered numerous inconsistencies in studies which show one of two things: either natural selection is not pivotally involved in the evolution of all life-history traits in human races; or life-history traits vary within the geographical mega-groups that Sarich and Meile insist on calling human races.
Consider, for instance, the rate of sexual maturation in African American girls, which is considerably faster than in girls in raised in various African populations living in Africa. 5 The mixed-race ancestry of African Americans does not account for this phenomenon. Instead, the differences in these rates appear to be linked to developmental biology. In a similar vein, Sarich and Miele cite published studies on “race and brain size” without ever mentioning the well-known limitations of these studies. According to Michael Peters of the University of Guelph in Canada, and his colleagues, researchers who indiscriminately use only one formula for measuring human skulls of different shapes are more likely to make systematic errors in measuring brain size. 6 For example, the German Formula gives a smaller average brain size for male Blacks who have dolichocephalic, or long-headed, skulls. There is a wide amount of variation in skull shapes among people of African descent—even within a single African ethnic group, or local population. Peters and his co-investigators note that the solution for producing accurate calculations for cranial size in Blacks, in particular, is to use multiple cranial size formulas. For instance, the Ainu formula places more weight on the length rather than the breadth of the skull. In one study, the cranial size of Black skulls was 1359 cm3 when using the German formula. By contrast, the same skulls of Blacks averaged 1418 cm3 when the researchers used the Ainu formula (which gives more weight to the length of the skull) . As Leonard Lieberman points out, human populations that evolved in cold climates have a more spherical brain case to prevent loss of body heat during cold weather. 7
In addition, Sarich and Miele do not consider the nature of gene expression in the genes that guide the development of neural patterning. Nor do they address the complex phenomenon of gene-environment interactions, which can result in varying manifestations of genetic proclivities. They support Spearman’s hypothesis: the claim that Blacks typically score lower on the more difficult “g-loaded” IQ test questions that are reportedly associated with abstract reasoning. However, they ignore the fact that there is no consensus among experts on precisely what g signals. In fact, leading scholars cannot even agree on which IQ test questions are more “g-loaded.” 8
3. The role of developmental biology versus population genetics in determining human cognitive and behavioral traits
In their discussion of purported inborn, race-based behavioral patterns, Sarich and Miele omit findings from several relevant fields of study that reveal the powerful role of developmental genetics in shaping human cognition and behavior. These authors fail to clarify both the evolutionary constraints and environmental influences (including psychosocial and biotic factors) that are known to affect developmental biology. Experts have shown that long term developmental biology can mimic genetic transmission in producing some traits in certain populations. Slight population differences in life-history traits such as growth and maturation, fertility, and reproductive rate in some populations may appear to be a result of population genetics—“racial genetics”—when in fact, in certain situations the ethnic differences mainly reflect varying environmental exposures.
In the United States the age of menarche in African American girls is earlier than that of European American girls. 9 However, as noted previously, a similar “precocious” onset of menstruation (“precocious” only if a White female standard is used) has not been reported in various Black African girls born and reared in West and Central African societies 10 or in East African nations. 11 Yet, some racial scientists are erroneously convinced that the earlier average age of sexual maturation seen in African American girls reflects a genetic predisposition. 12 The evidence does not support their view. Cross-cultural surveys clearly show that the age of onset of menarche varies rather widely across geographical populations and ethnic groups.
Ethnic differences in developmental patterns appear to be associated with environmental influences. Candidate environmental factors include a wide range of nutritional deficiencies; exposure to lead, fluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride used tofluoridate water; and possibly estrogenic compounds found in both soy-based infant formula and placenta-containing hair cosmetic products. 13 Preliminary findings from various studies suggest that African American infants, toddlers, and girls may be over-exposed to estrogen-like compounds, including PCB’s, from environmental toxins found in certain ethnic, placenta-containing hair products and in phytoestrogens (natural plant estrogens) found in soy-based infant formula. Compared to non-Black newborns in the United States, a higher proportion of African American babies are fed soy-based infant formula. (It should be noted, however, that even though these particular environmental factors are correlated with aberrant neurological and behavioral conditions, unequivocal cause-and-effect relationships have not been established.) While findings linking environmental toxins such as lead, silicoflourides, manganese and estrogen-like compounds to psychosexual development are inconclusive, certain environmental factors have been shown to influence testosterone and serotonin levels. Research strongly suggests that “racial” differences—especially Black/White/Asian differences in testosterone levels in men—is associated with diet and social factors such as dominance and social status. Several studies contradict the claim that variations in this male sex hormone are tied to racial genetics. 14 Similarly, population differences in the levels of key neurotransmitters—brain chemicals such as serotonin and dopamine—may be linked to environmental influences rather than race-based genetics. 15
Sarich and Miele suggest that brain size and certain other neurological traits are associated with intelligence, or cognitive performance. They draw on data that seemingly supports their claim that Black African populations and their Diasporas have smaller cranial volumes. For these authors, “race-based” differences in brain size are the result of different adaptations to different geographical climates. Nonetheless, emerging evidence increasingly counters the long-held scientific claim, if not folk belief, that Blacks are genetically wired for a smaller cranial capacity.
According to several neuroscientists, the differences reported in the brain size of populations, especially in comparative studies on White, Northeast Asian, and Black African populations, reflect developmental differences rather than inborn race-based differences. The developmental biology of the human brain is influenced by myriad environmental and epigenetic factors—complex interactions between genes and environment. These factors include not only a gamut of nutritional factors, but also environmental toxins. As noted previously, the problems of objectively measuring brain size have distorted at least some of the reported population (“race-based”) differences in brain volume.
Sarich and Miele also fail to explain critical anomalies regarding g—the “thing” that IQ tests supposedly measure—in relation to Black/White differences in IQ tests scores. First, as noted, is the fact that there is a lack of consensus among experts on which IQ test questions are more abstract—that is, allegedly more difficult to answer. 16 Second, even pro-nature researchers, including some behavioral geneticists, cannot agree among themselves on either the neurophysiological or genetic substrates of g. And third, the relatively lower heritabilities for IQ in black twins suggests that environmental forces may play a relatively greater role in influencing the average IQ scores in African Americans compared to Whites. 17
In fact, a host of counter findings strongly suggests that the wide range of IQ scores reported in African populations depends on prior academic learning, including experience with taking tests. While racialists continually point to the “African IQ of 70,” the evidence clearly indicates that African populations as a whole do not have single average IQ. There is considerable variation in average IQ scores among Black Africans, even within the same population. Ugandans living in Uganda, for example, earned an average score of 80 on the Terman Vocabulary and Kohs Blocks Test, and a score of 88 points on Raven’s Progressive Matrices. In another study, Tanzanians in Tanzania also averaged 88 points on Raven’s Progressive Matrices. 18 Note that these latter scores, while low, are slightly higher then the typically reported IQ norm for African Americans. 19
If Sarich and Miele’s hypothesis carries any weight, then it must be allow researchers to differentiate traits shaped by developmental biology from traits that are primarily under genetic control. This concern immediately raises several questions. How strong of an influence do multiple environmental forces have on the genes and haplotypes that guide developmental biology? Do genes linked to developmental biology have a higher heritability? In other words, are they less subject to natural selection and therefore more easily influenced by environmental fluctuations—both internal and external environmental forces? Can environmental change affect the gene expression of functional traits that evolved through natural selection?
Detailed answers to these questions are beyond the scope of this review. In general, however, it appears that environment can change gene expression because developmental biology is itself subject to ongoing environmental influences that act through continuous—at times competing and at times cooperating—environmental forces. Supporting evidence for this claim may explain some of the inconsistencies in research on “race-based” genes linked to testosterone and serotonin. To ignore, let alone discount, the impact of the environment on any life-history trait in humans is not simply incomplete science, but also disingenuous science. The mere act of dismissing crucial evidence in regard to scientific topics such as ethnicity and IQ—topics that have far-reaching social ramifications—borders on questionable science at best and, at its worse, fraudulent science.
4. The Role of neutral selection versus natural selection in population-based (or race-based) molecular traits associated with behavior
In the late 1960s, Motoo Kimura, a Japanese biologist, challenged the canons of evolutionary science when he stated that natural selection, particularly on the molecular level, was not necessarily a potent force in evolution. Extending the theory of genetic drift first proposed in the 1930s, Kimura argued that molecular variation was selectively neutral. Kimura focused on the randomness, or selective neutrality, of variation in proteins and DNA. The gist of his neutral theory of molecular evolution, usually called “neutral drift,” is that the vast amount of evolutionary change observed on the molecular level—the level of DNA and proteins—is driven by genetic drift rather than natural selection. This position contrasts with the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary perspective in which molecular evolution is thought to be the result of natural selection. 20 Although Kimura’s anti-selectionist position challenged the neo-Darwinian synthetic theory of evolution, his arguments were so compelling that his neutral theory was eventually incorporated into the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology. In other words, although Kimura is considered an anti-Darwinist, his theory is compatible with the tenets of neo-Darwinism. During the 1970s, leading neo-Darwinists such as Ernst Mayr critiqued the limitations of the neutral theory which, in Mayr’s initial view, did not address traits that have become fixed in a species or population. Nonetheless, Mayr’s perspective could not explain a possible relationship between random molecular variation and fitness, including cumulative DNA changes that could ultimately lead to fitness.
By the 1980s, Mayr shifted his own position, noting that an increasing number of sites in the largest molecules were found to have specific functions. For Mayr, it was only a matter of time before the function of “functionless sites” of large molecules (conceivably both nucleotide sequences and amino acids) would be discovered. As Mayr pointed out, “neutral” base-pair replacements are widespread. More importantly, however, he acknowledged that numerous alleles once thought to be neutral had “selective significance.” In so doing, Mayr gave Kimura’s neutral theory a boost of credibility within the scientific community.
At the same time, Kimura admitted that the neutral theory is inadequate in explaining Darwinian evolutionary change at the phenotypic level—the level on which a trait manifests. Instead, Kimura argued, the value of the neutral theory lies in its prediction that the most variation occurs in the functionally less critical parts of a gene. 21 According to the neutral selection theory, the functionally significant components of a molecule will change more slowly than the functionally insignificant components. This view contrasts with the Darwinian position, which predicts that evolution will be most rapid in the functionally important parts of molecules—the area where selection is strongest.
In the neutral theory, genetic drift plays a comparatively larger role than natural selection in evolutionary processes. Evolutionary change is assumed to result from genetic drift acting on neutral alleles. In neutral selection, gene variants that become more prevalent in a population may decline or even disappear through random events. On rare occasion, a neutral substitution to one of these gene variants may become “fixed” and give rise to a widespread trait. If enough new substitutions accumulate on the gene variant, the genome will evolve. However, the evolution that occurs in such a rare case results from the additive effects of neutral substitutions to the gene variant. It does not emerge through natural selection. Ironically, Sarich and Meile never mention the neutral selection theory in relation to the micro-evolution of human behavioral phenotypes. There are at least two reasons why they could have mentioned this theory in relation to their hypothesis about race-based differences in behavior. First, the early techniques used to determine the molecular clock—techniques that Sarich helped to develop—are based on the neutral theory. And second, if as Sarich and Miele claim, purported “race-base” behavioral differences reflect each “race’s” unique genetic-evolutionary history, then the molecular source—the genetics—of those differences should have been closely examined.
Consider new findings in molecular psychiatry—the study of the role of genetics in behavioral traits, or what scientists call behavioral phenotypes. Human geneticists working at the interface between molecular biology and the behavioral sciences have identified a small number of population-based (the term preferred by most mainstream researchers) polymorphisms, or differences in the genes that regulate brain chemicals involved in mood and certain social behaviors. For example, some populations differ slightly in their frequency of dopamine and serotonin gene variants linked to behavioral traits such as alcoholism, drug addiction, novelty seeking, and anxiety. 22
This line of research is highly controversial because of its potential use, or misuse, to support the existence of inborn race-based hierarchies in law-abiding behaviors, emotional stability, and even the capacity for (Western) cultural achievement. On a cautionary note, experts have yet to draw any definitive conclusions about cause-and-effect relationships between most of the neurochemical gene variants studied so far and social behaviors across a wide gamut of populations. Only a few associations have been established for individuals, and even fewer for populations. The research conducted to date typically has focused on smaller regional populations instead of huge, ill-defined social groupings that correspond to popular notions of human races. Yet, this is one of the most important arenas in which pro-race advocates such as Sarich and Miele should search if they are seeking irrefutable cause-and-effect evidence linking racial genetics and perceived ethnic behavioral patterns.
What happens when we examine the evidence produced thus far in this field? Alas, in a few cases we discover gene variants that do differ along population lines. In most cases, however, even race-based gene variants that reportedly predict certain behaviors in individuals are not consistently predictive at the group level. Whether or not an individual who carries one or more gene variants linked with socially deviant and unproductive behaviors actually manifests aberrant behaviors depends on myriad other influences, including an array of environmental factors. Moreover, there is no evidence for robust associations between specific gene variants and behaviors at the mega-population (racial) level. For the sake of argument, let us assume that Sarich and Miele are correct in their thesis about relatively rapid evolution resulting in modern human races (as some findings suggest may be the case). If so, then certain gene variants that are linked to social behaviors and that may also differ slightly along population lines become likely biological (in this case, molecular and genetic) substrates for race-based behavioral differences. If Sarich and Meile are right, this variation is the product of natural selection. Yet, the differences seen in variant genes regulating serotonin, dopamine, and testosterone, as well as other genes involved in brain chemical and hormonal production, may reflect molecular variation. From the vantage of Kimura’s neutral theory, the molecular differences in these gene variants are a prime example of neutral evolutionary change. Granted, preliminary findings from a recent study suggest that selection may operate at the molecular level. 23 (see Yaris, 2002.) However, in many (though certainly not all) cases, evolutionary changes appear to have resulted from molecular genetic drift rather than selection, whether natural selection or sexual selection. 24
Conclusion
Although an in-depth analysis of the “neutralist-selectionist” debate is outside the purview of this critique, this debate is relevant to the assertions made in Sarich and Miele’s Race: The Reality of Human Differences. The central question is not whether or not natural selection accounts for certain traits in human populations since it clearly does. Instead, the paramount concern is over the relative proportion of neutral and selected, or non-neutral, alleles that determine traits. If a trait emerged through selection, the trait can be assumed to have fitness and functionality. However, if it arose through genetic drift, then it is neutral in terms of fitness. By definition it could not have evolved as an adaptation. Moreover, because neutral traits are not normally fixed, they can decrease in frequency or even vanish in a given population over time. Are neutral genetic traits linked to mood and behavior more influenced by the environment than selected traits? This would appear to be the case—after all selected traits are fixed. This idea is consistent with the neutral theory, which states that evolution at the molecular level is non-adaptive. In fact, research in molecular psychiatry suggests that this may well be the case. This also may explain numerous inconsistencies in the relationship between, on the one hand, serotonin- and dopamine-related genes and, on the other hand, certain mood and behavioral states across ethnic populations. 25
This does not mean that population differences found at the molecular level, including gene variants implicated in human psychosocial behaviors, are irrelevant. They are. However, population variance at the molecular level is more likely the outcome of random evolutionary processes. The point here is that within the context of molecular micro-evolution, human population differences—“racial differences”—in gene variants linked with mood and behavior may not be unchangeable or fixed as in the case of a physical traits shaped by natural selection. A growing body of research suggests that a wide array of environmental factors can significantly affect the manner in which a particular gene, or gene variant, is expressed.
An introductory level treatise such as Race: The Reality of Human Differences cannot be expected to be comprehensive, but surely it is not prudent to overlook salient data, including important counter-data. To ignore the profound implications of developmental biology when talking about race-based differences in behavior is to offer bold, if not ludicrous, claims that often have no basis in reality. This misguided process renders scientific inquiry a frivolous pursuit of “perilous notions.” By relying on assertions more than arguments throughout much of their text, Sarich and Miele unwittingly do scientific inquiry an injustice. While some of their material may be new to some readers, the misleading information, if not unfounded contentions, that plagues much of their text is disappointing. Despite their best intentions to present an objective, scientifically informed discussion of human race, Race: The Reality of Human Differences ironically may only further the “scientific dumbing down of America.
References & Notes 1. Wilson, A.C. and Sarich, V.M. 1969. “A molecular time scale for human evolution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2. Sarich, Vincent. 1995. “Race.” Paper presented at the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society (HBES). Northwestern University. Evanston, IL. 3. > Wayne, M. L., and K. L. Simonsen. 1998. “Statistical tests of neutrality in the age of weak selection.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13:236-240. 4. Hartl, D. L., and A. G. Clark. 1997. Principles of population genetics. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland , Massachusetts . 5. Thomas F, Renaud F, Benefice E, de Meeus T, Guegan JF. 2001. “International variability of ages at menarche and menopause: patterns and main determinants.” Apr;73(2):271-90. 6. Peters M, Jancke L, Staiger J, Schlaug G, Huang Y and Steinmetzi H. Unsolved Problems in Comparing Brain Sizes in Homo Sapiens. Brain and Cognition.1998. 37: 254-285 7. Lieberman, 2001. 8. Ceci SJ. On Intelligence: A Bio-Ecological Treatise. 1996. Harvard University Press; see also Dolan Conor, Roorda Willemijn and Wicherts Jelte M. Two failures of Spearman’s hypothesis: The GATB in Holland and the JAT in South Africa. 2004. Intelligence. 32: 155-173. 9. Shumei S. Sun, PhD, Christine M. Schubert, MS, William Cameron Chumlea, PhD, Alex F. Roche, MD, PhD, DSc, Howard E. Kulin, PhD , Peter A. Lee, PhD , John H. Himes, PhD. National Estimates of the Timing of Sexual Maturation and Racial Differences Among US Children, Pediatrics November 2002. 110(5): 911-919 10. See Thomas, et al., 2001, op cit. 11. Rogo KO, Oniang’o RK, Muruli LA. Menarche in African girls in some post-secondary institutions in Kenya. East Afr Med J. 1984(11):745-50. 12. Rushton, J. Philippe. Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective. 1995. Somerset, NJ: Transaction. 13. Crinella FM. Does soy-based infant formula cause ADHD? Expert Rev Neurotherapeutics. 3(2):145-148.2003; Masters, R,, Hone, B, and Doshi, A. Environmental Pollution, Neurotoxicity, and Criminal Violence,” in J. Rose, ed., Environmental Toxicology: Current Developments. London: Gordon and Breach. 1998, pp. 13-48; Tiwary CM. A survey of use of hormone/placenta-containing hair preparations by parents and/or children attending pediatric clinics. Mil Med. 1997;162:252-256; Tiwary CM. Premature sexual development in children following the use of estrogen- or placenta-containing hair products. Clin Pediatr. 1998;37:733-739; Zimmerman PA, Francis GL. Hormone-containing cosmetics may cause signs of early sexual development. Mil Med. 1995;160:628-630. 14. Winters SJ; Brufsky A; Weissfeld J; Trump DL; Dyky MA; Hadeed V. Testosterone, sex hormone-binding globulin, and body composition in young adult African American and Caucasian men. Metabolism 2001 Oct;50(10):1242-7; Kubricht WS; Williams BJ; Whatley T; Pinckard P; Eastham JA. Serum testosterone levels in African-American and white men undergoing prostate biopsy. Urology 1999 Dec;54(6):1035-8; Mazur, Allan & Booth, Alan. Testosterone and Dominance in Men. Behavioural and Brain Sciences. 1998. 21:353-397; Asbell SO; Raimane KC; Montesano AT; Zeitzer KL; Asbell MD; Vijayakumar S. Prostate-specific antigen and androgens in African-American and white normal subjects and prostate cancer patients. J Natl Med Assoc 2000. 92(9):445. 15. Breggin Ginger and Breggin Peter. 1997. The War Against Children of Color: Psychiatry Targets Inner City Youth. Courage Press; Gelernter J., Kranzler H., Coccaro E., Siever L., New, A., Mulgrew C.L. 1997. “D4 dopamine-receptor (DRD4) alleles and novelty seeking in substance-dependent, personality-disorder, and control subjects.” Am J Hum Genet, Nov;61(5):1144-52; Gelernter J; Kranzler H; Coccaro EF; Siever LJ. 1998. “New AS. Serotonin transporter protein gene polymorphism and personality measures in African American and European American subjects.” Am J Psychiatry, Oct;155(10):1332-8. 16. Ceci, 1996, op cit. 17. Scarr, Sandra. 1994. “Review of: The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life.” Issues in Science and Technology, Winter, 11(2):82-4. 18. Lynn, Richard. 1990. “The Evolution of Racial Differences in Intelligence.” Mankind Quarterly, 32,99-121; Lynn, Richard and Vanhanen, Tatu. 2002. IQ and the Wealth of Nations. International variability of ages at menarche and menopause: patterns and main determinants. Westport, CT: Praeger. 19. Herrnstein and Murray, 1994, op cit. 20. Kimura, Motoo. 1983. Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. Cambridge University Press; Kimura, Motoo. 1994. Population Genetics, Molecular Evolution, and the Neutral Theory: Selected Papers. 21. Kimura, 1994, op cit. 22. Hamer, D.H. and Copeland P. 1998. Living With Our Genes. New York: Doubleday. 23. Yarris, Lynn. 2002. “Survival of the Fittest Molecules.” Berkeley Lab Currents. March 8. www.lbl.gov/Publications/Currents/Archive/Mar-08-2002.html 24. Wayne and Simonsen, 1998, op cit. 25. Gelernter, et al, 1998; Gelernter, et al, 1997, op cit.
The racial achievement gap in IQ, scholastics, and economic success is one of the most controversial topics concerning race in America. Today in the United States, the social distance between whites and nonblack ethnic minorities is decreasing. And yet, more than 400 years after enslaved blacks first set foot in North America, African Americans overall remain underachievers in education, wages, and higher status professional positions.
Why do these gaps persist? Are they due mostly to environmental influences? Or could they also be tied to race-based genetics—the partially unique biological histories of the world’s major human races? Despite widespread public outcry against racial superiority and racial inferiority, racialists attribute ethnic disparities, particularly the black/white divide, to inborn race-based differences. Racial scientists claim that there is significant race-based variation in brain function, hormones such as testosterone, and certain other biological traits that reportedly are linked with cognitive performance, personality traits, and social behaviors.
What happens when we pick apart the scientific findings that racialists use in their ongoing attempt to support their ideas about the intellectual and social inferiority of certain nonwhite populations? Are environmental explanations for ethnic disparities strong enough to rattle the foundations of twenty-first century racial science and totally falsify racialist claims? These questions frame the nature-nature debate over the ethnic achievement gap, both within and outside the United States. They provide a starting point for Race, Genes and Ability.
This two-volume work is a broad dissection of contemporary racial science. It is a rebuttal to vitriolic claims that some nonwhite groups, especially people of African black descent, are intellectually, socially, and morally inferior not only to whites, but to virtually every other ethnic population on the planet. The author, Dr. Alondra Oubré, incisively addresses topics that most of us wish would just go away, even though most of us have thought about these issues at one time or another. In an age of genomics and advanced neurocience, can the new biology shed light on the source of the ethnic achievement gap? Can science determine if the causes of this divide are environmental, as pro-nurture advocates proclaim, or genetic? And here we are speaking not simply about individual genetic variation, but instead, about alleged race-based differences in biological traits that may be linked with intelligence, personality types, and social behaviors.
Science offers insights, but experts do not agree on what the findings of various studies mean. Researchers have yet to reach a consensus about the existence of human races. Is the human species a single race, as anti-racists tell us? Or, as racial scientists contend, is it composed of separate racial groups that are said to vary so much that they do not all share the same innate capacity for intelligence and civilization? To objectively answer these questions, readers must have access to key scientific evidence used by pro-nature and pro-nurture advocates. The public deserves to be informed about relevant scientific data, even if some findings are potentially disturbing, that ultimately can help uncover the root of the ethnic achievement gap.
Until recently, scientific studies of racial differences were rarely mentioned outside of academic and research institutions. Today, knowledge about racial, or population, variation is rapidly spreading among the masses. How accurate is this information? In the midst of conflicting data, how do we know what to accept and what to reject as scientific truth? There is no easy answer. In matters as delicate as race, the task of sorting fact from fiction has grown ever more daunting. By presenting a wide array of data used by both genetic determinists and anti-racist scientists, Dr. Oubré invites us to examine both sides of the debate. The information distilled in this two-volume set is based on nearly 1,800 references, including hundreds of published scientific research studies. Race, Genes, and Ability allows us to weigh the evidence for ourselves. It gives us practical intellectual tools to help draw our own conclusions about the multiple factors that contribute to racial disparities in average IQ score, scholastic achievement, health, income, family stability, overall social productivity, and even sports success.
We will be a lot closer to solving the nature-nurture conundrum when we understand that cognitive skills and social behaviors are each shaped by complex interactions between genes and environment. The source of the ethnic achievement divide becomes much clearer once we realize that not all types of biological variation, including race-based differences, are genetic. In other words, not all biological traits are inborn and fixed. In Race, Genes, and Ability, the author shows us the importance of differentiating between biological traits that are determined solely by genes and biological traits that arise through developmental biology. There is growing evidence that early childhood exposures and even experiences in the womb have a powerful influence on a person’s achievement later in life. Myriad studies in developmental biology, including research on neuroplasticity (the plasticity of the human brain), suggest that ethnic differences in social patterns ultimately result from a host of interacting environmental forces.
The research on developmental biology discussed in Race, Genes, and Ability holds major implications that go well beyond race. The practical ramifications of many studies highlighted in this book apply to people of all ethnic backgrounds. This information has the potential to help individuals navigate more effectively through a high tech world where success requires a well-nurtured brain with an optimal capacity for neuroplasticity: the ability to rapidly adapt to novel and changing circumstances.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
It's odd formulating an argument that race doesn't exist but then saying it does exist as a social construct without indicating that each time the word "race" is used.
Given a book title like this coming from a premise genes and ability are valid concepts and can be analyzed with hard science, in the title of the book these words are listed with race as if that is also a valid concept. No indication that one of the terms is myth
In other words the title of the book is not
The Myth of Race and on Genes and Ability
or
The Social Construction of Race and on Genes and Ability
> It's Race, Genes and Ability
instant validation of the term "race", followed by a very scientific hard data word "Genes"
Similarly many people will say race is a social construct yet freely use the words "black" and "white" in biological discussions and these words have all racial connotations as opposed to using "dark skinned","brown skinned" or "light skinned" If you say to the average American person on the street "what are the races?" many will say "black, white and Asians" ( Brazilians might also say "amarillo" (yellow) for Asians) and these words have an implication that is color based but not color alone People will dismiss the word "race" but not dismiss words to describe particular "races" However Asians in America did do away with color based words "yellow" to describe themselves. They don't call themselves that they call themselves Asian
The idea of being proud of your color is deeply ingrained in America and the connotation in those color words, includes color and goes beyond color. In America it's a special privilege to be a color. Asians don't get the "privilege". Being "Black" is a privilege to Americans. You're supposed to be proud of it and dismiss anything but positive attributes to associate with it. You are expected to be proud of your color. So if somebody says black is bad, it is considered standing up for yourself to say black is good, I'm proud to be this color.
You can't say one word is a racist problem but then say examples of the concept in words associated with the concept applied to particulars are valid socially. Because then using the word "race" is valid socially. So then you have this schizophrenia the word is a myth to be debunked yet well and good but valid socially.
There would be no hope in getting rid of a concept which you believe to be invalid biologically yet use the word socially. Using the word socially inevitable works its way back into biological discussions.
The solution is simple, don't use the words "black" and "white" socially That is being consistent
nevertheless I have not been able to stop using the words "white" and "black" to describe people. That is why while I see some validity in the there is no race argument I don't stress it too much because it feel hypocritical to keep using the words "white" and "black" and argue there is no such thing as race at the same time.
There is a very strong social pressure to use the words "black" and "white" There are two options, use alternate terms that don't have historical baggage or avoid these type of divisions altogether. If race doesn't exist neither does racism.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's odd formulating an argument that race doesn't exist but then saying it does exist as a social construct without indicating that each time the word "race" is used.
Given a book title like this coming from a premise genes and ability are valid concepts and can be analyzed with hard science, in the title of the book these words are listed with race as if that is also a valid concept. No indication that one of the terms is myth
Not really. Those who read the book will immediately get the point the author is making.
Sure, "race" is a social construct in much the way that ethnic names, religious affiliation, even "political affiliation", etc. are parsed. Black, White, Yellow, Brown, etc. are often used as designator of large groups of people--especially in the cases of Black and White.
Hausa, Malinke, Jew, Wolof, Amharic, Pular, Catholic, Muslim, Shia, etc. are just assumedly predictive designators in terms of what may be called "ostensive definition". No one is "born" any of the above. Rather, one is designated as such--meaning that one is socially recognised as belonging to some particular group marked off as fulfilling certain criteria--linguistic, cultural, etc.
The same with membership in the "races". To be a designated member of a particular "race" one has to fulfill sets of phenotypical criteria--which are not reducible to just "colour". "Geographic populations" would be a more accurate designator than just "colour".
The issue with "race" over the last centuries is whether "racial" phenotypical traits signal character, personality, dispositions, and intellectual abilities. The issue of "intellectual abilities" has been compounded by the fact that such is seen by European anthropologists as also a marker of "evolutionary status". Humans designate themselves as "chief primates"--which implies that there are non-chief primates all based on biological notions concerning the evolution of the primate brain. Old-fashioned Euro-anthropology texts are all consumed with exploring this idea. The advent of IQ/psychometric testing added to the complexity of the issue.
Thus in the case of these social constructions of "race" based on selected phenotypical markers such as pigmentation, hair form, nasal form, etc. humans have been conditioned to evaluate each other inferentially on that basis. General rule: the "outer" predicts the "inner"[intelligence, dispositions, character, etc]. The result of this evaluation is then used for "ranking". This then leads to the apportionment of social ranking.
On account of certain empirical observations "race" as a social construct becomes reified. Take the case of athletics: individuals of African population phenotype--in general--dominate distances that require short bursts of speed, and distances that require endurance over long distances. In the U.S. for example, individuals of African phenotype dominate the popular sports of U.S. "football" and basketball. And other associations of this type are frequently made. So what then is the relationship between "outer phenotype" and "inner dispositions"--intermediated by "culture"?
But nature is tricky. Clearly, prominent British physicist, Stephen Hawking has much more common in terms of inner disposition with African-American "string theory" physicist, Sylvester Gates, than the former will have with the Cockney-speaking man who sells newspapers on a street near Hawking's house. And the latter(Gates) will have equally have much less in common with some AA bus driver who passes near his house daily.
Or is it that phenotype should be correlated with culture and not with DNA?
Were Mike Tyson raised as the King of England? Can one imagine that? If yes, one is a culturist, if not, then one is a racist?
In sum, how do we parse the concept of "race" as a social construct in terms of its designated colour codings?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many people really enjoy the competative nature of the race concept. They just don't want to pin down the meanings because that stops the motion of the game
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: [QB] "Taxonomy" means "classification according to pre-selected criteria" It follows that all the taxonmist has to do is set up a classification scheme and select group membership based on that scheme.
Example, the terms "black" " white" "yellow"
The complexity is, there is a lot of intermediate/ overlapping types.
It's not just the one or the other. As you tend to show.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Many people really enjoy the competative nature of the race concept. They just don't want to pin down the meanings because that stops the motion of the game
Yeah, but it doesn't support the biological entity of mankind.
What is does support is arbitrary, as was mentioned before.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Given the above phenotypical reconstructions based on averages is there a basis for racial classification based on phenotypical taxonomy?
White supremacy much? Almost every single image has a pale complexion. Even the Africans and Indians are depicted on the lighter end of the spectrum. LOL! South India of all places depicted as light brown when it supposedly the darkest part of the continent, even though most of the continent is dark. So now light skinned people are the "average" mean population in the world?
Seriously nothing but white supremacy B.S. But this is exactly the kind of "diversity" that white people want. Look at the "average" features around the world 1000 years ago and it would be much darker and still is but this is just B.S.
On a related note, look at the following article from National Geographic:
quote:What is it about the faces on these pages that we find so intriguing? Is it simply that their features disrupt our expectations, that we're not used to seeing those eyes with that hair, that nose above those lips? Our responses can range from the armchair anthropologist's benign desire to unravel ancestries and find common ground to active revulsion at group boundaries being violated or, in the language of racist days past, "watered down."
Out in the world, the more curious (or less polite) among us might approach, asking, "Where are you from?" or "What are you?" We look and wonder because what we see—and our curiosity—speaks volumes about our country's past, its present, and the promise and peril of its future.
The funny part about all of this is that these mixed folks can readily check the box black even if they are mixed with very little outward black features, yet somehow they can almost never check the box "white". Isn't that convenient?
quote: Imani Cornelius, 13, Shakopee, Minnesota. Self-ID: black and white | Census box checked: black | Imani, who is African American and German
The point here is that it benefits white supremacy to have folks who are of mixed identity because the odds are they are not going to stand up for "black" people as "blacks". And this is precisely what they want.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The funny part about all of this is that these mixed folks can readily check the box black even if they are mixed with very little outward black features, yet somehow they can almost never check the box "white". Isn't that convenient?
quote: Imani Cornelius, 13, Shakopee, Minnesota. Self-ID: black and white | Census box checked: black | Imani, who is African American and German
The point here is that it benefits white supremacy to have folks who are of mixed identity because the odds are they are not going to stand up for "black" people as "blacks". And this is precisely what they want. [/QB]
This girl self identified as black and white on new census forms which alllow people to pick multiple categories.
If you look at each of Doug's remarks and try to put them all together to make a consistent thought you can't because they don't make sense together
Doug
1) mixed folks can readily check the box black even if they are mixed with very little outward black features,
2) it benefits white supremacy to have folks who are of mixed identity because the odds are they are not going to stand up for "black" people as "blacks".
3) yet somehow they can almost never check the box "white"
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic