[redbaron]

race would be better served if we talked about it as ethnicity I think, yes it's semantic, but regardless of someones ethnic background they're still homo sapiens.

The fact that genetically speaking, a caucasian can be far darker than someone of African descent, etc means that there's a lot more to it than just "caucasian = white, african = black, etc"

The fact that different ethnic groups have varying predisposition to certain medical conditions makes things an issue as well. I listened to a doctor recently talking about one of the big challenges in American Medicine is that other countries have somewhat simpler problems because as they have more homogeneous societies the typical problems are less varied. In places like the US where the population is so varied we end up seeing a lot more things that are predominantly from one ethnic group, but due to so many groups we see a lot more variety.

I found it quite interesting.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by scarlet.starlet

Guys, I didn't say skin color and facial features weren't genetic; I said race wasn't real. Race is not a purely physical construct. I'm half Filipino-Chinese, but I look white and I act white and everyone sees me as white and therefore, they treat me that way. I don't think of myself as biracial because culturally, I'm not.

Scarelt you are correct- there is only one race- the human race. Within that race you have varied colorations and structure based on need.

Black because they trend from equatorial regions- brown less need, red and caucasian also. You have the mongol who need the thicker hair and heavy cheek structure because of need to survive in the arctic regions. From these we blended all around the world, and produced the collage that is called man today.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

I think race is real, physically.

I was only discovered to have a gluten intolerance because of race. Because I am of nearly pure Irish descent, I was something like 100xs more likely to have celiacs or intolerance than the general populace. In that sense, race IS important.

[Rainer.]

Race is real as a social construct, too.

As someone who is very much a first generation child of Vietnamese immigrants, both Vietnamese and American "race", ethnicity, tradition and culture are tied very closely to my personal identity and daily life.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

I was only discovered to have a gluten intolerance because of race. Because I am of nearly pure Irish descent, I was something like 100xs more likely to have celiacs or intolerance than the general populace. In that sense, race IS important.

So "Irish" is a race? I thought "caucasian" was the race.

You somewhat prove the point. Everyone has a relationship to everyone else in the world. Closer to some and farther from others in what is often a very tangled web. So certainly, if a group of people in a town in the desert interbreed for a dozen generations so that some mutation one of them had spreads around, you could suddenly call them a "race".

There are real traits. There are real relationships. But there's no line that makes "race".

Are there groups within Ireland that don't have high instances of gluten intolerance? Are they a different race? Do the Scotts have groups that do have it? Then aren't they "Irish"?

If a black population on an island has no members with the sickle-cell gene, are they not "black" any more? Wasn't that a trait of the race?

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So "Irish" is a race? I thought "caucasian" was the race.

You somewhat prove the point. Everyone has a relationship to everyone else in the world. Closer to some and farther from others in what is often a very tangled web. So certainly, if a group of people in a town in the desert interbreed for a dozen generations so that some mutation one of them had spreads around, you could suddenly call them a "race".

Or is it celt? I am not sure, but there are a particular set of subfeatures amongst those of various ancestries and tribes that is very real. IIRC from a geneticist I spoke to, the genetic differences amongst so called caucasians are wider than the differences from some forms of african to celtic descent. (IIRC the largest divergence in the tested group was nordic and celt, which is rather curious.) However, there are very real subfeatures of groups that we view as race.

There are real traits. There are real relationships. But there's no line that makes "race".

I think your last statement contradicts the other two here. I think it is because race is seen as racist by acknowledging it.

Are there groups within Ireland that don't have high instances of gluten intolerance? Are they a different race? Do the Scotts have groups that do have it? Then aren't they "Irish"?

Scots and the Irish are very closely related. I think they would most likely have the same issues. Both are celts and tend to have very similar other characteristics. However, I don't know for certain.

If a black population on an island has no members with the sickle-cell gene, are they not "black" any more? Wasn't that a trait of the race?

No, it is as you know a more common genetic anomaly amongst people of certain races. But if you look at a south pacific islander, whose skin is black, he is very clearly radically different looking than an african. I mean this as no disrespect, but merely an effect of isolation of populations. If we were to apply natural selection to this... you would expect variances based on environment.