If by "race" is meant all the diversity of homo sapien sapien, African, Caucasians etc we are the same species. But if it's meant as an American Anglo Saxon, as to an Eskimo, or a Chinaman of course it's different. An Italian would have different genes to an Eskimo or a Siberian. The differences are the results of adaption to different conditions on earth. Sand and snow storms are what caused the slanty eyes in Asian and Eskimos over countless generations.

Right...

angelo wrote:If by "race" is meant all the diversity of homo sapien sapien, African, Caucasians etc we are the same species. But if it's meant as an American Anglo Saxon, as to an Eskimo, or a Chinaman of course it's different. An Italian would have different genes to an Eskimo or a Siberian. The differences are the results of adaption to different conditions on earth. Sand and snow storms are what caused the slanty eyes in Asian and Eskimos over countless generations.

*facepalm*

hongi wrote:Right...

Well that's what some say anyway.

@ Angelo,

Races refer to populations within the species homo sapien. No one is suggesting human populations form separate species.

But that's what I've been trying to explain not very successfully it appears.

Biowatch wrote:@Angelo,

Races refer to populations within the species homo sapien. No one is suggesting human populations form separate species.

'Race' is the term some use to apply to some human populations. What distinguishes one so-called race from another varies depending on cultural perspective and historical context.

THWOTH wrote:

Biowatch wrote:@Angelo,

Races refer to populations within the species homo sapien. No one is suggesting human populations form separate species.

'Race' is the term some use to apply to some human populations. What distinguishes one so-called race from another varies depending on cultural perspective and historical context.

Exactly!

There is more intra-species diversity in Africa than there is in the rest of the world. That is, all non-African populations are a subset of the African populations set. Ergo, there are races [demes within the human population at large] which can share traits that are of particular medical value [Immunological traits, high BP, and so on]. But racism in the sense of "white" folks being better [or worse] than "black" folks is just insane. Thus one can get an absurd situation in which a neo_Nazi might consider a brother blood and aryan next door to be his closest kin, when it might actually be an [indigenous] african across the street.
Besides, modern travel is thoughly mixing most of the human race, and despite some tendancy to marry within a culture, this will probably disappear as religious and cultural taboos of "mixed marraiges" fade back into the ethical cesspool from which they came.

Which would be a very good thing.

I thought this joke would be appropriate!

Racism! Everyone seems to be in such a hurry to scream 'racism' these days! A customer asked, "In what aisle could I find the Guinness?"

The shop assistant asks, "Are you Irish?"The guy, clearly offended, says, "Yes I am.

But let me ask you something, If I had asked for Italian sausage,

would you ask me if I was Italian? Or if I had asked for German Bratwurst, would you ask me if I was German?

0r if I asked for a kosher hot dog would you ask me if I was Jewish? Or if I had asked for a Taco, would you ask if I was Mexican?

Or if I asked for Polish sausage, would you ask if I was Polish?"

The shop assistant says, "No, I probably wouldn't."The guy says,

"Well then, because I asked for Guinness, why did you ask me if I'm Irish? The clerk replied, "Because you're in Bunnings'." [For outsiders,it's a super hardware store]

THWOTH said "'Race' is the term some use to apply to some human populations. What distinguishes one so-called race from another varies depending on cultural perspective and historical context."

Not in practise. If you find yourself in a place such as a remote town in Sumatra and your child needs medicine urgently, you would almost certainly use racial profiling to find people who can speak english and point you in the right direction. You wouldn't have the time to muck around. Cultural perspective and historical context would be as useful as tits on a bull. Anyone here do it differently (without changing the scenario)?

Cultural and historical context has nothing at all to do with race though. You could for example use a donor heart or other body part from an African tribesman and theoretically use them on an American providing they're a good match.

pinkharrier wrote:

THWOTH said "'Race' is the term some use to apply to some human populations. What distinguishes one so-called race from another varies depending on cultural perspective and historical context."

Not in practise. If you find yourself in a place such as a remote town in Sumatra and your child needs medicine urgently, you would almost certainly use racial profiling to find people who can speak english and point you in the right direction. You wouldn't have the time to muck around. Cultural perspective and historical context would be as useful as tits on a bull. Anyone here do it differently (without changing the scenario)?

If I found myself in a remote town in Sumatra, I would assume that there would be a reason for me to be there. Race wouldn't enter into the question. If I were a tourist, I would imagine the tour guide would be able to direct me to a hospital. If I were working there, I would imagine that my employers would be able to direct me to a hospital. If I'd been washed up on the beach as a result of a tsunami, I would imagine that the people who were doing the rescue would be able to help with whatever emergencies I needed. This is not an example of "race" it is merely a problem of making the person to be understood. It could apply in the middle of a city in China or South America as well. Race has nothing to do with a person's ability to make themselves understood among people who don't speak English in your example.

Angelo is right.
If you needed a heart transplant, you could find yourself being matched with a donor who didn't have the same skin colour as you. A person who would refuse a transplant because it came from someone whose ancestry wasn't the same as their own, doesn't deserve to be given the donor organ. The world is a better place without people who think that other "races" are inferior to their own.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:There is more intra-species diversity in Africa than there is in the rest of the world. That is, all non-African populations are a subset of the African populations set. Ergo, there are races [demes within the human population at large] which can share traits that are of particular medical value [Immunological traits, high BP, and so on]. But racism in the sense of "white" folks being better [or worse] than "black" folks is just insane. Thus one can get an absurd situation in which a neo_Nazi might consider a brother blood and aryan next door to be his closest kin, when it might actually be an [indigenous] african across the street.
Besides, modern travel is thoughly mixing most of the human race, and despite some tendancy to marry within a culture, this will probably disappear as religious and cultural taboos of "mixed marraiges" fade back into the ethical cesspool from which they came.

Yes, but note:

1. Two people from the same race are more genetically similar to each other than to someone from another race. http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007

2. There isn't that much modern travel to Asian countries, or to sub-saharan africa that the races are going to disapear for centuries if at all. I'm not sure why that is such a problem though - people can be nice to each other regardless of race or religion can't they?

Probably the vast majority can and do, but the extremists in all walks of life are the ones spoiling it for the rest.

Biowatch wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:There is more intra-species diversity in Africa than there is in the rest of the world. That is, all non-African populations are a subset of the African populations set. Ergo, there are races [demes within the human population at large] which can share traits that are of particular medical value [Immunological traits, high BP, and so on]. But racism in the sense of "white" folks being better [or worse] than "black" folks is just insane. Thus one can get an absurd situation in which a neo_Nazi might consider a brother blood and aryan next door to be his closest kin, when it might actually be an [indigenous] african across the street.
Besides, modern travel is thoughly mixing most of the human race, and despite some tendancy to marry within a culture, this will probably disappear as religious and cultural taboos of "mixed marraiges" fade back into the ethical cesspool from which they came.

Yes, but note:

1. Two people from the same race are more genetically similar to each other than to someone from another race. http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007

2. There isn't that much modern travel to Asian countries, or to sub-saharan africa that the races are going to disapear for centuries if at all. I'm not sure why that is such a problem though - people can be nice to each other regardless of race or religion can't they?

On the contrary, to sub-saharan Africa, there is as much travel as there is to Europe and Asia.

If you're talking about pre-20th century travel, you'd be even more wrong, because of the importation of people from everywhere in the world after the first settlers arrived here, especially the ones who arrived without women and who bred with the local women. How is my grandson's ancestry which is Russian, French, German, English, Scottish and three-hundred years of mixed southern African, any different from that of a child whose ancestry is Malaysian, African, English, and Netherlands, except that my grandson has a pale skin and blond hair because of his more European ancestry and the other child's a darker skin because of his ancestry being more predominantly from places where skins are darker. Other than that, they are both of mixed "race" or ethnicity. Should their skin colour dictate their place in the world or the way they are perceived by the world? I think not. They should be judged as people, not by the colour of their skin but by the way they behave. Of course there will be people who will say that "race" is not based on skin colour, if not, then what is it based on. How else is a Russian or a French person, or Netherlander different from a Malaysian or an Indian or an African, if not because the skin, eye and hair colour is different. This is why identifying people based on their outward appearance is just stupid. In sub-Saharan Africa, only the most ethnically isolated people are able to be identified by the way they look, or the language they speak. In Portuguese or Greek communities, children are raised to speak Portuguese or Greek alongside the formal languages of our countries (all of those of sub-Saharan Africa), but they are still "African" in the sense that they live here and participate in the life of the continent. If they marry outside of their ethnicity, they are no longer strictly-speaking able to identify with their genetic ethnicity, and their children can't call themselves "Portuguese" or "Greek" or anything else that their parents may identify with.

@ Agrippina,

Well Japan is 98% Japanese for starters, so they aren't going to change significantly in the next hundred years at least. Travel is one thing, but you would need significant rates of mixing from different populations. Again, I don't see that leading to the main races changing that much. You also have to factor in changes in reproductive technology and genetic engineering.

Agrippina wrote:

pinkharrier wrote:

THWOTH said "'Race' is the term some use to apply to some human populations. What distinguishes one so-called race from another varies depending on cultural perspective and historical context."

Not in practise. If you find yourself in a place such as a remote town in Sumatra and your child needs medicine urgently, you would almost certainly use racial profiling to find people who can speak english and point you in the right direction. You wouldn't have the time to muck around. Cultural perspective and historical context would be as useful as tits on a bull. Anyone here do it differently (without changing the scenario)?

If I found myself in a remote town in Sumatra, I would assume that there would be a reason for me to be there. Race wouldn't enter into the question. If I were a tourist, I would imagine the tour guide would be able to direct me to a hospital. If I were working there, I would imagine that my employers would be able to direct me to a hospital. If I'd been washed up on the beach as a result of a tsunami, I would imagine that the people who were doing the rescue would be able to help with whatever emergencies I needed. This is not an example of "race" it is merely a problem of making the person to be understood. It could apply in the middle of a city in China or South America as well. Race has nothing to do with a person's ability to make themselves understood among people who don't speak English in your example.

And besides, language is a cultural artefact and not a distinguisher of the claimed-for biological grouping.