Human Race Only Exists in Human Minds (1 Viewer)

[LAhotsauce]

The idea of humans being divided into "races" is quite similar to religion. Someone tells you it exists. You spend your whole life believing this to be true. Yet, those that spend their lives objectively studying the subject say there is no biological evidence to support such a thing. Basically, modern humans are like tigers. ONE type of tiger. Ones that all come in the usual orange and white with black stripes. Just because there are some that have white or albino fur, or some gradient of the usual orange/white/black, this does not signify some different collective "race" or sub-species.

Scientifically, the idea of race has been done away with since the 1950s. This was determined by a panel at UNESCO:

There Is No Such Thing as Race

In 1950, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) issued a statement asserting that all humans belong to the same species and that “race” is not a biological reality but a myth. This was a summary of the findings of an international panel of anthropologists, geneticists, sociologists, and psychologists."

Further explanation of this fact on a different article here:

RACE - The Power of an Illusion | Ten Things Everyone Should Know

In particular points 4 and 5 of that piece:

4. Skin color really is only skin deep. Most traits are inherited independently from one another. The genes influencing skin color have nothing to do with the genes influencing hair form, eye shape, blood type, musical talent, athletic ability or forms of intelligence. Knowing someone’s skin color doesn’t necessarily tell you anything else about him or her.

5. Most variation is within, not between, "races." Of the small amount of total human variation, 85% exists within any local population, be they Italians, Kurds, Koreans or Cherokees. About 94% can be found within any continent. That means two random Koreans may be as genetically different as a Korean and an Italian.

As an example to these points, I'd imagine that if the trans-atlantic slave trade had, for some reason, involved East Africans instead of West, a sport like football might still be dominated by white males. Generally, East Africans are known to have ethnic groups that are tall and thin. Thus, what "races" are capable of certain things changes over time. Jews were once thought to be genetically gifted to dominate basketball.

Nobody Does It Better

It is pretty obvious that certain racial and ethnic groups are naturally gifted at playing certain sports. Take basketball. That's a Jewish sport. So, at any rate, people thought in the 1930's. After all, the star captain of the original New York Celtics, Nat Holman, was Jewish, as were four of the starters among St. John's famed ''wonder five,'' who ruled college basketball in the late 20's. Jews were believed to have a genetic edge, being endowed by nature with superior balance, greater speed and sharper eyes -- not to mention, in the words of one sportswriter, a ''scheming mind'' and ''flashy trickiness.''

Honestly, most people need to learn about what makes skin color to begin with. As an organ, our skin has a very specific functions for the human body. Once that's known, then the ridiculousness of trying to attach certain traits and behavior to people with said skin color becomes very apparent. Why this isn't taught in at least high school biology is beyond me.

Here is to smarter humans in 2017.

 

[saintmdterps]

The wealth and power addicts who rule this country and others have a very vested interest in keeping us divided among any lines they can. Race and gender being the 2 most obvious, but religion and ethnicity aren't far behind.

If we are focused on that which "separates" us, it is more difficult to unite and throw off the yoke.

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

The idea of humans being divided into "races" is quite similar to religion. Someone tells you it exists. You spend your whole life believing this to be true. Yet, those that spend their lives objectively studying the subject say there is no biological evidence to support such a thing. Basically, modern humans are like tigers. ONE type of tiger. Ones that all come in the usual orange and white with black stripes. Just because there are some that have white or albino fur, or some gradient of the usual orange/white/black, this does not signify some different collective "race" or sub-species.

Scientifically, the idea of race has been done away with since the 1950s. This was determined by a panel at UNESCO:

There Is No Such Thing as Race



Further explanation of this fact on a different article here:

RACE - The Power of an Illusion | Ten Things Everyone Should Know

In particular points 4 and 5 of that piece:



As an example to these points, I'd imagine that if the trans-atlantic slave trade had, for some reason, involved East Africans instead of West, a sport like football might still be dominated by white males. Generally, East Africans are known to have ethnic groups that are tall and thin. Thus, what "races" are capable of certain things changes over time. Jews were once thought to be genetically gifted to dominate basketball.

Nobody Does It Better



Honestly, most people need to learn about what makes skin color to begin with. As an organ, our skin has a very specific functions for the human body. Once that's known, then the ridiculousness of trying to attach certain traits and behavior to people with said skin color becomes very apparent. Why this isn't taught in at least high school biology is beyond me.

Here is to smarter humans in 2017.

Segregation of races throughout human history has resulted in genetic differences that can be corrrlated with skin color. This segregation has also resulted in cultural differences.

The cause is irrelevant.

To deny these differences is unproductive. In many cases these differences are gifts.

It's when these differences are used to subjugate one group to another that we have a problem.

 

[onthurdays]

The wealth and power addicts who rule this country and others have a very vested interest in keeping us divided among any lines they can. Race and gender being the 2 most obvious, but religion and ethnicity aren't far behind.

If we are focused on that which "separates" us, it is more difficult to unite and throw off the yoke.

Tin foil much?

 

[SaintsJunkie]

Not only a difference in race. But in many cases culture. Maybe we should have equal numbers of all races in football Would that be ok because like you say they are all the same?

 

[Zack Lee]

and yet so much of the distinction is clearly done at a subconscious level.

there was a really interesting interview on On Being a few months ago about that.

DR. BANAJI: An old Freudian concept. I, of course, had long given up any belief in Freud’s ideas as having been proven. I knew that the fact of an unconscious appealed to me. I read studies, experiments done, where you can have people record words into a tape recorder. And then you can have them hear those words played back to them through headphones like I’m wearing now, except that they are also words — the same words said by others. And you’re asked to identify the words that you’re hearing that were said by you in your voice versus words that were said by others. And it turns out we’re not very good at doing that. We can’t tell our own voices apart from the voices of others.

MS. TIPPETT: Really?

DR. BANAJI: We’re almost a chance at being able to do that. However, the investigators also hooked people up to a machine that, in those old days, measured physiology in sort of the crudest possible way: skin conductance. How much sweat do your fingers excrete when you hear your own voice versus the voice of others? And the data showed that you actually must be recognizing your own voice at some implicit or unconscious level because the skin conductance measure was much higher when you heard your own voice versus the voice of others.

MS. TIPPETT: Wow.

DR. BANAJI: Even though cognitively you couldn’t tell the two apart. I was completely fascinated by this.

MS. TIPPETT: So, your body knows something, recognizes something that your mind does not know.

DR. BANAJI: Somewhere, some system in you. Yes. Not your conscious mind. And so this just — I was just bowled over by this

...

DR. BANAJI: I agree with you. That is a part of it. I don’t want people to not learn from guilt and not learn from shame. I think those are powerful motives. They have made us, in large part, the more civilized people we are. But I do believe that, in our culture and in many cultures, we are at a point where our conscious minds are so ahead of where our less conscious minds are. Our conscious minds deeply believe in egalitarianism, in selecting people based on things called merit, on talent, and not based on the color of people’s skin, or their height, or whether they have hair on their head. And yet, we are doing that.

And so I like what you just said which is “implicit” just allows us to shed that whole sort of moral encasing in which so much of our values about — "Am I a discriminator or not?" — comes. That I am especially interested in, letting people let go of that sort of sense — "I’m a bad human being." The title of the book, therefore, has been Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People. And the “good people” is extremely important to me. I do believe that we have changed over the course of our evolutionary history into becoming better and better people who have higher and higher standards for how we treat others. And so we are good. And we must recognize that, and yet, ask people the question, “Are you the good person you yourself want to be?” And the answer to that is no, you’re not. And that’s just a fact. And we need to deal with that if we want to be on the path of self-improvement.

Transcript: Mahzarin Banaji

podcast of the interview

I want to read this book

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Not only a difference in race. But in many cases culture. Maybe we should have equal numbers of all races in football Would that be ok because like you say they are all the same?

I don't think you understand what was written.

 

[LAhotsauce]

Segregation of races throughout human history has resulted in genetic differences that can be corrrlated with skin color. This segregation has also resulted in cultural differences.

The cause is irrelevant.

To deny these differences is unproductive. In many cases these differences are gifts.

It's when these differences are used to subjugate one group to another that we have a problem.

What are the genetic and "cultural differences" that are correlated with skin color? I gave links and direct examples to back up what I say. Here you come with the obvious generalizations.

If you want your opinion to be treated as fact and therefore, productive, then you'll have to be more specific.

 

[tenordas]

I think this an exercise in semantics.

Surely, no one is denying genetic mutation from generation to generation? At the same time, surely no one is suggesting we are different species because of skin colour?

I'm a typical American mutt, but I have a lot of Cherokee blood in me. Because of that, I have very little facial hair, and almost none on my chest, while having a head full of thick hair when most men my age have thin to no hair. Also, my skin darkens easily in the sun and rarely burns. Those traits can be attributed to my ancestral "race" of the red man. I am proud of my heritage, and you can call it whatever you want.

Indo-Europeans look different than native Americans, who look different than Africans, who look different than Asians. And why should we deny that? Each of those general genetic differences is wonderful. What we want to call it, "race" or whatever, is a question of semantics and nothing else IMHO.

At heart, we are all human beings, and internally there is no difference in any of us that could be used as an argument to say we are different species, but at the same time, I see no reason not to acknowledge our differences. As someone else posted, those differences are positives, and should be celebrated. Certainly, they have been - and continue to be - exploited by insecure people who feel the only way to make themselves important is by devaluing others, but our reaction shouldn't be devaluing ourselves by denying our differences. We should celebrate them all the more to counter such foolish attitudes.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I look at racial divisions in a similar at that I view Freud's id/ego/superego theory -
It allows for a practical narrative discussion and generalized social/cultural discussion
The problem for both is, as theories, the get stagnant or even dangerous if used scientifically

There is value in using terms that aren't exactly right because without that you spend the entirety of a discussion defining/arguing terms
(Ok yes, technically time does not exist as a physical property, but for the sake if conversation can we talk about "time" as we historically understand it?)

But yes OP, we should be centuries past try to use race as any sort of predictive distinction

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I think this an exercise in semantics.

Surely, no one is denying genetic mutation from generation to generation? At the same time, surely no one is suggesting we are different species because of skin colour?
.

Not so sure about that last part
We are not that far removed from "mongrelization" of the races, and if there are people still talking about the "purity" of races, then clearly they're talking about different biologies mixing - maybe no one comes out and uses that specific language, but it would be hard to convince me that plenty of folk don't still think it

 

[LAhotsauce]

I think this an exercise in semantics.

Surely, no one is denying genetic mutation from generation to generation? At the same time, surely no one is suggesting we are different species because of skin colour?

I'm a typical American mutt, but I have a lot of Cherokee blood in me. Because of that, I have very little facial hair, and almost none on my chest, while having a head full of thick hair when most men my age have thin to no hair. Also, my skin darkens easily in the sun and rarely burns. Those traits can be attributed to my ancestral "race" of the red man. I am proud of my heritage, and you can call it whatever you want.

Indo-Europeans look different than native Americans, who look different than Africans, who look different than Asians. And why should we deny that? Each of those general genetic differences is wonderful. What we want to call it, "race" or whatever, is a question of semantics and nothing else IMHO.

At heart, we are all human beings, and internally there is no difference in any of us that could be used as an argument to say we are different species, but at the same time, I see no reason not to acknowledge our differences. As someone else posted, those differences are positives, and should be celebrated. Certainly, they have been - and continue to be - exploited by insecure people who feel the only way to make themselves important is by devaluing others, but our reaction shouldn't be devaluing ourselves by denying our differences. We should celebrate them all the more to counter such foolish attitudes.

Here is the problem. There is no denying that there are phenotypical differences among different groups of people. The problem comes when we try to attach phenotypical traits to other behaviors, abilities, and culture based on huge swaths of people based on what we can see: skin color, eye color, eye shape, hair texture.

Science has proven this cannot be done. You can't attach all of these things based on someone being "white". You will surely find populations of whites that do not subscribe to what you think to be true based on our idea of "race". The "blacks" of Africa must have about a million different "cultures", body types, skin colors, nose shapes, hair textures, and so on. Japanese look very different than Thai. Yet race lumps them all in as "mongoloids" or whatever ever term is used at the time along with whatever characteristics said race is supposed to have.

Prime example, you say "Asians" look different than Africans. Which Asians? Which Africans? If you see a Khoi-San in southern Africa and a Cambodian you see what I mean.

Again, simply learning about skin color (melanin, pheomelanin, eumelanin, melanocytes) will set you down the eventual path to understand what these scientist mean.

This is not semantics. Race has a scientific definition and modern humans fail to fit it.

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

What are the genetic and "cultural differences" that are correlated with skin color? I gave links and direct examples to back up what I say. Here you come with the obvious generalizations.

If you want your opinion to be treated as fact and therefore, productive, then you'll have to be more specific.

In the United States a black baby is 20x more likely to be born with sickle cell disease.

I'm not suggesting that the tone if the skin causes the disease, just there is a correlation.

 

[mt15]

Has nothing to do with a baby's skin color, I believe, and everything to do with a separate inherited recessive gene. The only reason there is a correlation is due to mating patterns among populations.

I didn't research this, but my belief is there is zero correlation between the genes for skin pigmentation and sickle cell disease.

 

[Heathen Saint]

Segregation of races throughout human history has resulted in genetic differences that can be corrrlated with skin color. This segregation has also resulted in cultural differences.

The cause is irrelevant.

To deny these differences is unproductive. In many cases these differences are gifts.

It's when these differences are used to subjugate one group to another that we have a problem.

Again, races are a human construct. Also, again and again it has been shown that there really is no difference in human cognitive or physical ability with regards to skin color. Not saying that is what you were inferring, but for some reason that always comes up at some point.

It is one thing to agree that there are many people of many different skin colors and cultures. It is another to divide people of the same species up by said skin color as if they are subsets within each group. They aren't.

Do Races Differ? Not Really, Genes Show - The New York Times

Some people won't like it, to say the least, but the fact remains that the data we have to date suggest that our species originated from Africa. Which would entail that we all (our species, Homo sapiens)originally had much darker skin before venturing out into different sections of the world ~100/200k years ago. From there we proceeded to divide ourselves and fight against those who looked different or came from a different tribe. Ironically we do the exact same today, albeit for an expanded list of reasons.