next »

[al_wallace]

I'm a bit confused with the statement, that race isn't biologically based. Could someone explain what that means? From my perspective (a biologist's), race is based on a collection of the expression of a few easily viewed traits (e.g. readily distinguishable phenotypes). The number of genes involved are probably ridiculously small, but some (e.g. epicanthic folds, wooly hair etc.) occur with much greater frequency in some populations than others. Thus the distribution and expression of these few (largely arbitrary) set of genes is based in biological reality. In other words, we don't culturally determine whether or not you have an epicanthic fold. That being said, the gradation of some of these polygenic traits overlap substantially among populations. Nonetheless, the distribution of the frequency of these traits (and thus genes that code for them) are distinguishable among different groups. If race is defined as the preponderance of expression of particular sets of genes usually associated with a particular geographic area, then race has a biological basis. Am I off base here?

[prytania3]

Well, I don't think you are. There is, however, a school of thought among some scientists that says race is not biological but rather a social construct--personally I think they are a bunch of dummies.

[al_wallace]

It seems that racism is the social construct, not race. Then again, race (or variants, strains, sub-species or any other such designation of a distinguishable group based on traits) to most biologists is just a means of assessing geographic distribution of particular traits--that's it. Beak width, plumage color, ear length, or genitalia shape have value in tracing lineages of descent. The culturally-determined part is assigning special social relevance to some traits over others.

Humans aren't unique in assigning social relevance to seemingly arbitrary traits. For example, Harris sparrows respect dominance hierarchies based on the amount of dark pigment (more is better).

I'm not trying to reduce the complexities of human racism to other animal communication systems, but to this end, racism itself may have a biological basis...and the rudimentary forms of it likely exist in other animals. I would predict that racism among other animals is also culturally determined (e.g. learned through observation).

Any time I discuss sociobiology I must give the obvious disclaimer that discussing a biological explanation for something is far different than justifying it. Unfortunately since most of the general public, and even many academics, are incapable of making this distinction, we are left to tip-toe around or wholly ignore the fascinating subject of the evolutionary origin of racism. Too bad.

[helpful]

Prytania, you are being absurd. "Chinese" refers to a citizenship of a country. The "Chinese" are Han, they are Manchu, they are Uigur, they are many different groupings. (And the discrimination against the ethnic minorities exists). So what is "Chinese" -- a social construct.

Here is a link to a report on the Brazilian study. If someone can point to a refutation of the study, please share it.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s748264.htm

to say someone is "black" is also absurd. Ask any West Indian. Read C. L. R. James in The Black Jacobins on the 128 gradations of "black". Or read Malcolm Gladwell's excellent article in The Newyorker years ago called "Black like Me".

Lastly, to say Tiger is of mixed heritage is correct. But so are all African Americans in the Western Hemisphere. To switch around the racist formulation of one drop of black blood makes someone "black", "one drop of white blood" renders someone mixed!

[prytania3]

To helpful: Hey, believe whatever you want.

[helpful]

Calling what I am saying "belief" is no way to continue a conversation. I asked for a reference to a scientific study. If you can't find a reference, you too can hold to your beliefs.

[al_wallace]

The Brazilian study was interesting but is predicated on a false assumption: that there are genetic markers for "African" or "Asian" ancestry. How are such DNA sequences chosen? The choice of genetic marker will rig the results. This study seems to indicate that if you examine a population composed of individuals of well mixed ancestry, you will get mixed genes and that includes many physical features. That seems self-evident and doesn't demonstrate much of anything except that genes from different populations become well-mixed after a few generations and the physical expression of those traits are also well-mixed. I would be interested to know where they got their markers and how they decided upon them. That is the crucial question since that is the basis for comparing ancestral lineages.

My point is that there are phenotypic expression of some genes that show up more often in some populations than others. If populations have little genetic mixing (which is hard to come by for a pandemic species like us), then these phenotypic expressions are reliable indicators of population identity. As travel becomes easier, the genetic markers themselves become less reliable. Given the mobility of Mongols in the 1100-1400s, you will find genetic markers for "Asian" in European, Middle Eastern, and East African populations. Indeed such markers are used to track waves of human migration. The last sentence of the Brazilian study report contradicts the title of the article--namely that AVERAGE differences between some populations are greater than WITHIN populations. Biologically speaking, that really is what race is about, average population differences between groups--whether you are talking about hummingbirds or people. If single individuals fail to show a marker for a particular population, that doesn't demonstrate that the marker is worthless for predicting the occurrence of traits within a population, only that it isn't 100% reliable. Racial differences are defined by statistical averages across groups so examining INDIVIDUAL level differences isn't particularly useful when you are measuring a characteristic of populations not individuals (e.g. epicanthic folds on AVERAGE are more common among Asian populations rather than European).

I suspect that the results of the study would have been quite different if they had done it in Japan rather than Brazil.

[francie_]

Maybe this link will help.  The show "African-American Lives," hosted by Henry Louis "Skip" Gates, Jr., aired last February on PBS.  Follow the "Science" links especially.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aalives/index.html

[prytania3]

I love you, Al_Wallace!

[helpful]

So Al Wallace is implying that "Japanese" are a race? They aren't, of course. They are people who live on the collection of islands called "Japan".

And when he talks about the Japanese is he talking about the people of Korean backgrounds living in Japan?

Perhaps Mr. Wallace can state for us what/who are the "races"?

And what, pray tell, are Arabs, and, for that matter, Jews? Surely not a "race"!

And, lastly, Mr. Wallace, can you explain this term "Caucasian" as its origins are linked to referring to those from South Georgia and Armenia. You can't be implying that all "whites" come from those origins?

I appreciate your biological knowledge and apologize for not engaging on the biological terms..

[al_wallace]

Biologists have recently abandoned the term race because of its politically and socially-charged connotations, but not because it doesn't exist in biological terms. It simply means distinguishable populations of some species based on a set of observable traits (morphological, behavioral, or otherwise). Biologists have substituted this word with variant, strain, subspecies, and other less politically-charged terms-but the reality of race as a biological phenomenon, not a social construct, remains. The Florida Panther is a subspecies (or race) of Mountain Lions distinguishable by size, head shape, and color patterns. Noting these differences is incredibly important and useful because it gives insight into regional or local adaptations that exist because of the selective pressures of individuals at that location. In humans, understanding these racial (geographically-based population) differences explain everything from the evolution of sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis inheritance patterns, to variation in uv protection and why individuals at high latitudes have shorter limbs. Understanding races is to understand patterns of human migration. Forgive me for not engaging in the social debate on race, but that is my point-namely that studying race (or whatever word you choose in place of it) is studying an actual biological phenomena (patterns of genes expressed differentially by some groups relative to others). Ironically, it is the social construct of racism that tends to perpetuate the ability to distinguish between populations using a few expressed genes.  Helpful made an interesting point by asking me to list or point out who/what are the races. Races in a biological sense, are defined by measurable phenotypically expressed traits or sets of traits that are of interest. In this sense, non-population biologists might equate the term with "population"--a geographically distinct (historically or currently) group of organisms with a distinguishable trait or set of traits. In this regard, the Irish might be conceived of as a race by the preponderance of fair skin, freckles, and red hair relative to other "white" populations.  It is a general term for a distinguishable population based on something that ISN'T cultural (not language, or religion for example). Political boundaries are irrelevant except where topography has limited gene flow between populations. Thus when I speak of "whites", which are actually a composite of many different races in a biological sense, it is a statement of a set of phenotypic traits usually associated with a specific latitude (at least historically)-frequencies of particular eye colors, hair colors, hair textures, skin tone etc. Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water and deny the existence of population-differences when such differences give incredible insight into human evolution.

Again, I completely understand why the existence of race as a biological phenomenon has been denied for political and social reasons, but the phenomenon that we call race (or whatever) is important to understand.

The use of the term "race" as helpful is using it has little biological meaning.  The islands that compose Japan is a political definition of what Japanese means--nationality. A biological definition might very well include any and all Asian populations that has had significant genetic mixing with humans on the island of Japan within the last couple of thousand years. Do you see the distinction in usage?

[acrimone]

I can't believe I'm getting into this debate again.  Le sigh.

OK, here's the deal -- al_wallace had a point, but he didn't make it explicitly enough:

Race is biological, in so far as we identify biologic characteristics for our sorting criteria.

Race is also contingent in so far as it represents coincidence (in the literal sense of the word) rather than determination.

Race is socially constructed to the degree that the observation and categorization of biological contingencies allows for generalizations that are useful in some way, and which categorizations get passed down from one generation to another.

Thus, it may be a biological fact that "whites" (however you define it) are smarter than "non-whites" (or vice versa) but that doesn't mean that this is a necessary trait of whiteness.  To the extent that the observation is (generally) true, it is true simply because that is the way things turned out, evolutionarily speaking.  It doesn't mean that it will always be that way, or that it couldn't have turned out some other way.

You could say that Mexican-Americans are the best basketball players, but you'd be wrong.  But that won't necessarily be the case in 2000 years, because the genes for identifying a "Mexican American" are not the same genes for identifying good basketball players.  They just happen to not show up together very often in empirical experience.

And, as always, while generalizations are useful (and indeed form the basis of wisdom), they should not be allowed to blind us to specific situations and facts which may inform our decisions.  Maybe whites are smarter, but that doesn't mean you expect any particular white to be smarter than any particular non-white.

I'm now going to sit my non-white ass down in this chair and finish what I was working on before I got distracted by this.

[al_wallace]

Great comment acrimone. Thanks for the clarification. I agree with everything you said except that whites are smarter than other races-but that is another discussion entirely. The concept of race can certainly be socially-constructed. For some species (probably not humans), it can even be innate. That is to say, species show specific levels of gregariousness or aggression toward particular morphotypes of the same species (variants, strains, subspecies, or races) without prior experience (i.e. it isn't learned).

Of course I believe that characteristics associated with a race change over time (I am Al Wallace after all!). Species change over time. Populations change over time. Therefore races change over time.

[supernumerary]

Thus, it may be a biological fact that "whites" (however you define it) are smarter than "non-whites" (or vice versa) but that doesn't mean that this is a necessary trait of whiteness.  To the extent that the observation is (generally) true, it is true simply because that is the way things turned out, evolutionarily speaking.  It doesn't mean that it will always be that way, or that it couldn't have turned out some other way.

Thanks for this comment acrimone. Hadn't heard this theory applied to race before, though I'm familiar with the reasoning (mostly from evolutionary economics). I think what you say is brilliant, given what we know about the process of evolution. Do you have any good references for further reading on this, in the context of race? If not, that's ok, I do realize I should look it up myself :)

[acrimone]

Nope, no reading that I can offer.  This is a home-grown theory *way* outside my normal work and research.  I seem to recall that I heard someone say something like "well just because mexicans are shorter doesn't mean all mexicans are short" when I was 17, and I started thinking about why that might be the case, and what the consequences of that were.

So I spouted off about this theory a couple of times as an undergrad and no one could come up with a good explanation for why I might be wrong, so I've stuck with it. 

If someone could come up with a good explanation, I'd be more than willing to adopt a more accurate theory.

-Acrimone