Human races are not a matter of belief. Look at the people around you, look at different cultures and their trends across centuries. You're one of those people who could take a lesson from this article.
"Look at the people around you, look at different cultures": are you talking about races, or cultures?
By the way, when I was younger and there was very little immigration here in Italy, I looked around me and saw people - whole families - with blond hair, with dark hair, with red hair. I saw people (and families) with blue eyes, green eyes, hazel eyes. I saw very tall people, very short people, very smart people, pretty dumb people. And there were people with very pale skin, medium skin, and pretty dark skin. So, how many "races" where there already?
I'm under the impression that, when you talk about race, you really mean something like breed[1]. But there isn't selective breeding in humans - at least, that I'm aware of.
So, the question is not moot. If you have to define "race" scientifically, how do you go about it?
In a discussion about public ignorance of science you are telling somebody the best way to get an answer to something is anecdotal evidence from looking at the people around them? On a topic where we know people have great difficulty objectively comparing things?
If you can't provide a basic list of races, and a repeatable procedure for determining which race(s) a given individual belongs to, then I don't see how you can claim this has anything to do with science.
The Stanford and Berkeley admissions offices have basic lists of races and seem to think that they can determine the race of their applicants well enough that there is some justification for their race-based admissions policy. Are you claiming that what these major scientific research institutions are doing has nothing to do with science, that it's all, say, politics?
Ask any admissions officer at any elite university for the list he uses when defending the need for race-based admissions policy. Ask him what racial categories his major, world-class scientific research institution has chosen to put on their admissions application.
Ask any university humanities department whether their African-American Studies program isn't just as bogus as a Unicorn Studies program since neither group actually exists, and see what they say.
Ask the US federal government what categories they include on the census under "race".
Ask a liberal supporter of minority business set-aside programs for a list of who these so-called "minorities" are. Are they proposing setting aside contracts for businesses run by left-handed people, or do they have a different set of categories in mind? Ask them for their list of who should be given preference over whom.
You're setting me up for a trap with the list thing - if I linked somewhere you'd simply say it was
racist data and question the validity of the sources.
Instead I'll go for the route of scientific analogy. If dogs have races, why wouldn't humans? After all, humans are not biologically above or separate from animals. Why would basic evolution stop applying with humans?
Mind you, the existence of races doesn't have to imply inferiority or superiority between them. People seem to be afraid that would happen, so they throw the baby out with the bathwater by denying the whole concept of race altogether. Much like the article says.
danmaz74|12 years ago
By the way, when I was younger and there was very little immigration here in Italy, I looked around me and saw people - whole families - with blond hair, with dark hair, with red hair. I saw people (and families) with blue eyes, green eyes, hazel eyes. I saw very tall people, very short people, very smart people, pretty dumb people. And there were people with very pale skin, medium skin, and pretty dark skin. So, how many "races" where there already?
I'm under the impression that, when you talk about race, you really mean something like breed[1]. But there isn't selective breeding in humans - at least, that I'm aware of.
So, the question is not moot. If you have to define "race" scientifically, how do you go about it?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed
anon1385|12 years ago
I honestly can't tell if you are joking or not.
abstractbill|12 years ago
SiVal|12 years ago
unknown|12 years ago
[deleted]
mikeash|12 years ago
logjam|12 years ago
Oh. Then please provide the list asked for, and while you're at it, list the genes and loci you use to classify members of a "race".
I mean, if human "races" are not a matter of belief but are a matter of science, that should be really easy for you and the parent commenter.
Right?
SiVal|12 years ago
Ask any university humanities department whether their African-American Studies program isn't just as bogus as a Unicorn Studies program since neither group actually exists, and see what they say.
Ask the US federal government what categories they include on the census under "race".
Ask a liberal supporter of minority business set-aside programs for a list of who these so-called "minorities" are. Are they proposing setting aside contracts for businesses run by left-handed people, or do they have a different set of categories in mind? Ask them for their list of who should be given preference over whom.
unknown|12 years ago
[deleted]
sublimit|12 years ago
Instead I'll go for the route of scientific analogy. If dogs have races, why wouldn't humans? After all, humans are not biologically above or separate from animals. Why would basic evolution stop applying with humans?
Mind you, the existence of races doesn't have to imply inferiority or superiority between them. People seem to be afraid that would happen, so they throw the baby out with the bathwater by denying the whole concept of race altogether. Much like the article says.