Well Agrippina (and THWOTH), you had to change the scenario to make your point. You would be surprised how many people don't have tour guides. So have another try Aggie. You find yourself alone.... etc.

Really, some of your replies border on plain sad.

Biowatch wrote:@[color=#CC0000][b] Agrippina,[/b][/color]

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.

I'm not thinking so much of China and Japan. I'm thinking of the people who migrated, sometimes forcibly from the places that were colonised by the Europeans. They were taken to sub-Saharan Africa to do the work that the settlers couldn't convince the native people to do. The Zulus, Xhosas, San and Khoi people who the settlers encountered, were, like the Aborgines, nomadic people. They didn't settle the land or mark it out for ownership. They moved their herds through the land following the grazing, if they were agrarians and following the wildlife herds if they were hunter/gatherers. The settlers put up fences and farms and needed workers to do the physical labour, so bringing in slaves from the colonies who were only too happy to have work and the benefits of steady employment, which included a place to live and training for the children and even some education, seemed to be the solution.

The result of this forced migration was interbreeding, with both the settlers and the native inhabitants. The only "pure races" that emerged over the three-hundred years of this form of labour provision were the settlers who had brought their families with them and who kept to their own cultural groups and the native people who saw the settlers and the migrants as inferior.

After 500 years, the genetic mix in sub-Saharan Africa is so integrated that it's not possible to identify as a pure anything, unless your entire history shows that your ancestors didn't mix. This can only be done by genetic testing, definitely not as pinkharrier would have it "you know it when you see it." I showed pics of Pieter Dirk Uys, a South African comedian who took the trouble to have his genetic history explored, believing with his blond hair and blue eyes that he would be found to be "purely Netherlands" in his makeup. It emerged that he had Khoi markers, indicating that at least one of his ancestors was a member of the indigenous people in the western Cape, who the Dutch settlers found here.

I know this doesn't apply to China and Japan. They remained isolated until fairly recently because they were accessible to the people west of them only by sea, the Himalayas being a barrier that simply couldn't be crossed until fairly recently in human history.

I don't know what you're talking about "tour guides" pinkharrier. When all else fails always call your opponent "sad." I don't know what that means because I'm actually quite a happy old duck.

pinkharrier wrote:Well Agrippina (and THWOTH), you had to change the scenario to make your point. You would be surprised how many people don't have tour guides. So have another try Aggie. You find yourself alone.... etc.

Really, some of your replies border on plain sad.

Language is a cultural artefact not a biological delineater, and seeking to identify and explicate race-notions in terms of language places the subsequent categorising of groups squarely in the cultural arena. In effect, this is to confuse some noticeable cultural difference with significant and essential biological differences, but if 'race' were merely a matter of noticeable differences we'd all belong to a race-group of one - our own.

Your idea that race-distinctions become apparent, and consequently important, when one is in peril has been raised before (white woman's car breaks down in a black neighbourhood etc), and dealt with accordingly - your most recent scenario is but a novel rehashing of the idea. However, I think it is interesting that you keep raising the spectre of peril and the fear of peril as if it is an adequate justifier of race-typing. What you are communicating is that one should be, and indeed is, rationally justified in being fearful of 'the different' and 'the other' and that race-typing is therefore a reasonable way to quantify and qualify danger and fearfulness. This, it seems, supposedly renders race-grouping a rational justification for treating people according to an arbitrary definition of their type.

Oh OK, I get the "tour guides" thing. So if I'm travelling in a strange country and I can't speak the language and don't have a tour guide with me, and my kid gets ill, I should run in terror because the people who don't speak my language will kill me rather than help. Well big whoop de doo. What sort of idiot travels to a place where they don't speak the language without some sort of knowledge of basic requests: where is the hospital/police station/railway station/help? Or a language converter on their iPad?

Agrippina wrote:Oh OK, I get the "tour guides" thing. So if I'm travelling in a strange country and I can't speak the language and don't have a tour guide with me, and my kid gets ill, I should run in terror because the people who don't speak my language will kill me rather than help. Well big whoop de doo. What sort of idiot travels to a place where they don't speak the language without some sort of knowledge of basic requests: where is the hospital/police station/railway station/help? Or a language converter on their iPad?

If you found yourself in that position - as outlined - you would do some racial profiling. I know that. And you know that. And THWOTH knows that - and he would as well.

You certainly wouldn't have the time to talk around the subject like you (will) continue to do. LOL.

THWOTH wrote "Language is a cultural artefact not a biological delineater, and seeking to identify and explicate race-notions in terms of language places the subsequent categorising of groups squarely in the cultural arena. In effect, this is to confuse some noticeable cultural difference with significant and essential biological differences, but if 'race' were merely a matter of noticeable differences we'd all belong to a race-group of one - our own."

Brother. This belongs in Pseuds Corner. http://www.compulink.co.uk/~stevemann/pseuds.htm And you know it.

pinkharrier wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Oh OK, I get the "tour guides" thing. So if I'm travelling in a strange country and I can't speak the language and don't have a tour guide with me, and my kid gets ill, I should run in terror because the people who don't speak my language will kill me rather than help. Well big whoop de doo. What sort of idiot travels to a place where they don't speak the language without some sort of knowledge of basic requests: where is the hospital/police station/railway station/help? Or a language converter on their iPad?

If you found yourself in that position - as outlined - you would do some racial profiling. I know that. And you know that. And THWOTH knows that - and he would as well.

You certainly wouldn't have the time to talk around the subject like you (will) continue to do. LOL.

THWOTH wrote "Language is a cultural artefact not a biological delineater, and seeking to identify and explicate race-notions in terms of language places the subsequent categorising of groups squarely in the cultural arena. In effect, this is to confuse some noticeable cultural difference with significant and essential biological differences, but if 'race' were merely a matter of noticeable differences we'd all belong to a race-group of one - our own."

Brother. This belongs in Pseuds Corner. http://www.compulink.co.uk/~stevemann/pseuds.htm And you know it.

It's not racial profiling pinkharrier. I'm just not stupid enough to travel into places where I'd not be able to get help if I needed it. I wouldn't even do that here, and I'm not talking about "black" areas. I would no more wander into a rock concert in the middle of an upmarket suburb and expect people to be prepared to help me if I fell down, than I would wander into a village in the middle of out-of-the-way China. It's not a matter of "race" being the problem, or even people not being able to understand my questions, it's a matter of the sort of adventure that doesn't appeal to me. I am not the "Dian Fossey" type.

It's very unfortunate that a minority make it worse for a majority. It's a fact that if a person is on his/her own walking down a footpath and spots a group of Australian Aboriginals ahead, he/she will cross over the other side to avoid them. It's not been racist, it's because some of these people are trouble. There have been cases of a group hassling someone for a cigarette, or a light and been set upon by them when refused.

But that would apply to groups of thugs everywhere Angelo. I would do the same thing if I was walking down a city street and I spotted a gang of youths approaching me and, assessing from their dress and body language, I would probably avoid them. Not that I'm saying that a particular style of dress defines people any more than a particular ethnicity is likely to be more violent than others. I'm speaking from experience. Groups of male teenagers behave sometimes in irrational ways, even insurance companies recognise this, which is why they pay higher premiums than their female counterparts do. I prefer to avoid confrontation if I can possibly help it. Hell, I'd move away from a group of geriatrics with zimmer frames also because I'd rather not piss off an old person wielding a zimmer frame.

True Aggie, I would avoid trouble at any cost white black or brimble. Just saying that sometimes race is used as an excuse. The groups I'm speaking of have leaders who complain and call it whites been racist when all we are doing is avoiding a confrontation.

Well lucky you Aggie. I have traveled to places quite remote from all the mod cons and by myself without a guide. Fortunately I have, so far and touch wood (yeah I know I'm a rat skep), been lucky. But if your adventurous spirit wants to take you somewhere, there's no guarantee that a quide will be available to go where and when you want. Being adventurous AND having a tour guide seems like an oxymoron to me.

If you do take the plunge and you do get in trouble and you do need to communicate in a hurry, you could find yourself racial profiling as if you had been doing it all your life. Which, let's face it, you have.

pinkharrier wrote:Well lucky you Aggie. I have traveled to places quite remote from all the mod cons and by myself without a guide. Fortunately I have, so far and touch wood (yeah I know I'm a rat skep), been lucky. But if your adventurous spirit wants to take you somewhere, there's no guarantee that a quide will be available to go where and when you want. Being adventurous AND having a tour guide seems like an oxymoron to me.

If you do take the plunge and you do get in trouble and you do need to communicate in a hurry, you could find yourself racial profiling as if you had been doing it all your life. Which, let's face it, you have.

Whatever you say pinkharrier. You don't know me personally so you don't know what I've been doing all my life.

Travelling abroad is not an option for me anymore, I can barely do long car trips now without health problems resulting so no more long flights. I'll live vicariously through my children now.

Well, and seriously, that's a pity you can't travel too much or for too long. Long flights don't do it for me much either. I've just spent 5 months in SE Asia and the best bit was slowboat travel on the Mekong and its tributaries.

Agrippina wrote:

pinkharrier wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Oh OK, I get the "tour guides" thing. So if I'm travelling in a strange country and I can't speak the language and don't have a tour guide with me, and my kid gets ill, I should run in terror because the people who don't speak my language will kill me rather than help. Well big whoop de doo. What sort of idiot travels to a place where they don't speak the language without some sort of knowledge of basic requests: where is the hospital/police station/railway station/help? Or a language converter on their iPad?

If you found yourself in that position - as outlined - you would do some racial profiling. I know that. And you know that. And THWOTH knows that - and he would as well.

You certainly wouldn't have the time to talk around the subject like you (will) continue to do. LOL.

THWOTH wrote "Language is a cultural artefact not a biological delineater, and seeking to identify and explicate race-notions in terms of language places the subsequent categorising of groups squarely in the cultural arena. In effect, this is to confuse some noticeable cultural difference with significant and essential biological differences, but if 'race' were merely a matter of noticeable differences we'd all belong to a race-group of one - our own."

Brother. This belongs in Pseuds Corner. http://www.compulink.co.uk/~stevemann/pseuds.htm And you know it.

It's not racial profiling pinkharrier. I'm just not stupid enough to travel into places where I'd not be able to get help if I needed it. I wouldn't even do that here, and I'm not talking about "black" areas. I would no more wander into a rock concert in the middle of an upmarket suburb and expect people to be prepared to help me if I fell down, than I would wander into a village in the middle of out-of-the-way China. It's not a matter of "race" being the problem, or even people not being able to understand my questions, it's a matter of the sort of adventure that doesn't appeal to me. I am not the "Dian Fossey" type.

Yup. And besides, finding someone to help you in a foreign land does not involve "racial profiling" unless one attributes a language as a racial trait (in which case what race-group do we place the multilingual in?). PH might try and back-track and wash that idea away with vaguely personal disparagements, but the implication of his scenario remains; 'the other' is something of which to be rightfully fearful and therefore must be categorised as such, by type (by language, geography, or skin-colour etc): accordingly the only trustworthy agent is the one which can be identified as belonging to one's own self-ascribed group (by language, geography, or skin-colour etc). This is what passes for "racial profiling" for the racially obsessed, and it is a common observation that such people will invariably elevate their own group to the status of 'best of all possible groups' precisely because all 'others' are deemed natural vehicles for fear, dread and potential peril.

Succinctly put.

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)?

I am keen to throw myself fully into the scenario, exactly as described.

I have run up and down the street, but not seen another "white face", or anyone who looks remotely likely to speak english (sic).
I have widened my search, and combed the entire area, for 4 hours, without success.
You didn't tell me what to do next....

Hurry man, FFS., my child is dying........

(not about the dying child, sorry about that, but the image of you running around going OMG OMG they're all dark here and they'll kill me if I scream "help!")

Well Jovan, you would have a problem. At least you did the most sensible thing. Mind you, if you don't "see" race, you wouldn't be able to see 'em anyway. Oh, and Aggie, don't put words into my mouth so to speak. I have never felt threatened as you imply. And, for the record, I married a Sikh but I am loath to use the fact as bone fides. Marrying "in" obviously wasn't for me.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:There is more intra-species diversity in Africa than there is in the rest of the world.

Likely true.

That is, all non-African populations are a subset of the African populations set.

False. Just because one set is smaller than another set does not mean that the smaller set is necessarily a subset of the larger set. In this case, the greater - perhaps exclusive - relationship between nonafrican populations and neanderthals proves that nonafrican populations have genes that are not present in the African population, despite Africa's larger overall diversity.

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.

This assumes there are no racial features that are genuinely adaptive.

The assumption is likely mistaken. There's strong evidence, for example, that lighter skin is adaptive to more arctic areas and darker skin to more equatorial areas. We can thus expect a skin tone cline to remain despite the mixing.

Of course the skin tone will remain with the adaption of the climes. Nothing will change that except climate change.

Warren Dew wrote:In this case, the greater - perhaps exclusive - relationship between nonafrican populations and neanderthals proves that nonafrican populations have genes that are not present in the African population, despite Africa's larger overall diversity.

Not so fast!

Eriksson, Anders, & Manica, Andrea. (2012). Effect of ancient population structure on the degree of polymorphism shared between modern human populations and ancient hominins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1200567109

Recent comparisons between anatomically modern humans and ancient genomes of other hominins have raised the tantalizing, and hotly debated, possibility of hybridization. Although several tests of hybridization have been devised, they all rely on the degree to which different modern populations share genetic polymorphisms with the ancient genomes of other hominins. However, spatial population structure is expected to generate genetic patterns similar to those that might be attributed to hybridization. To investigate this problem, we take Neanderthals as a case study, and build a spatially explicit model of the shared history of anatomically modern humans and this hominin. We show that the excess polymorphism shared between Eurasians and Neanderthals is compatible with scenarios in which no hybridization occurred, and is strongly linked to the strength of population structure in ancient populations. Thus, we recommend caution in inferring admixture from geographic patterns of shared polymorphisms, and argue that future attempts to investigate ancient hybridization between humans and other hominins should explicitly account for population structure.