[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by scarlet.starlet

I just think it's so absurd. Scientifically, race doesn't even exist. Our skins have different levels of pigmentation, but there's no actual DNA encoding for race. And besides, everyone is mixed in America. I'm sure the JP was not entirely German or entirely Swedish or entirely Irish. We're a nation of immigrants and we are blended accordingly.

You've got two options for how pigmentation levels differ: DNA and magic.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

You've got two options for how pigmentation levels differ: DNA and magic.

You also have to account for the fact that different races have other genetic differences aside from skin pigmentation, from the obvious ones like facial structure / body size to the less obvious ones like immune deficiencies or hereditary disorders. All of those can really only be explained by DNA or magic, too. Race is real.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Nate

You also have to account for the fact that different races have other genetic differences aside from skin pigmentation, from the obvious ones like facial structure / body size to the less obvious ones like immune deficiencies or hereditary disorders. All of those can really only be explained by DNA or magic, too. Race is real.

So are Germans and Belgans the same race or different ones? What about Irish and Scotts? Different? What about two difference Scottish families? The same or different?

No two people are alike. The idea that these differences are particularly discreet (races) is simply wrong. There's a chaotic but casual blend from one to another.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So are Germans and Belgans the same race or different ones? What about Irish and Scotts? Different? What about two difference Scottish families? The same or different?

No two people are alike. The idea that these differences are particularly discreet (races) is simply wrong. There's a chaotic but casual blend from one to another.

I don't think [I don't think I do] that the fact that it isn't discrete makes the difference any less real.

There are many social / genetic lines that are impossible to draw if we're willing to deconstruct them.

Gender would be another example. What of hermaphrodites? What of homosexuals? What of children?

Leaving genetics, so would religion and culture. Baptists and Catholics: One religion or two? Same or different?

What about two individual men, one gay and one straight? The same gender? Two individual Baptists? Same religion?

I guess if you want to define it, I'd say race is a statistically significant correlation of certain characteristics [say, high melanin and high propensity toward sickle-cell anemia] of a robust enough size / number. I'm not sure where the critical mass is, but it doesn't make the body of correlations any less real [or any less useful, I might also add].

Obviously, using these types of correlations and critical masses to understand / classify people isn't useful in every circumstance even if the correlation is significant. The JP here is probably right [sadly] that interracial children face significantly more difficulty, statistically speaking. and interracial marriages fail significantly more often, statistically speaking, than matched-race marriages. That information doesn't seem to be morally or socially actionable, though, at least not in this context. Discretion is always needed, even when the correlation is blatantly obvious. Not using race to understand gang behavior, bias in immigration debates, genetic diseases, likely murder suspects [in that white-on-white and black-on-black super-violent crime is almost universal in this country] seems the exact opposite: immoral.

If I can narrow the pool of possible rape suspects by more than half simply by guessing that it was a black man that raped a black victim [or white / white, conversely], why wouldn't I? If I can narrow the realm of possible causes for illness by considering the fact that the disease may be tied to the person's racial heritage, why wouldn't I?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Nate

Gender would be another example. What of hermaphrodites? What of homosexuals? What of children?

Gender is typically establishable. There is at least a bright line to test "male, female, other"... and at least that scale goes between two known points.

I guess if you want to define it, I'd say race is a statistically significant correlation of certain characteristics [say, high melanin and high propensity toward sickle-cell anemia] of a robust enough size / number. I'm not sure where the critical mass is, but it doesn't make the body of correlations any less real [or any less useful, I might also add].

So what if I have a sickle-cell gene but only caucasoid melanin genes?

The JP here is probably right [sadly] that interracial children face significantly more difficulty, statistically speaking. and interracial marriages fail significantly more often, statistically speaking, than matched-race marriages.

Baptists are more likely to divorce than Mormons (or even athiests). Perhaps we shouldn't let them marry?

If I can narrow the pool of possible rape suspects by more than half simply by guessing that it was a black man that raped a black victim [or white / white, conversely], why wouldn't I? If I can narrow the realm of possible causes for illness by considering the fact that the disease may be tied to the person's racial heritage, why wouldn't I?

I thinnk it's apples-and-oranges.

I can narrow my rapist pool by height, but "tall" isn't a race.
I can narrow it my weight, but "fat" isn't a race.
I can narrow it by age, but "old" isn't a race.

People have traits. It doesn't take a denial of that to call "race" a man-made model which only vaguely resembles reality.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

You've got two options for how pigmentation levels differ: DNA and magic.

3rd option. Heritage and upbringing.

It largely defines races more than melanin or DNA in a lot of respects.

My wife and I are both of Irish descent. I of 16th century immigrants, (First known grave of my ancestors here is 1597) her 3rd gen. Totally different backgrounds. Oddly, mine was more traditional.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

3rd option. Heritage and upbringing.

It largely defines races more than melanin or DNA in a lot of respects.

Melanin was the issue I was addressing. Heritage and upbringing don't affect that.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So what if I have a sickle-cell gene but only caucasoid melanin genes?

I don't know.

Wikipedia gives general statistics:

1 in 5,000 in the country have the sickle-cell gene

1 in 500 black births, on the other hand, have the sickle-cell gene.

A ten-fold increase in probability is, to me, actionable, even if there are exceptions.

You also wouldn't have any of the other associations of high melanin.

You wouldn't have the subtle difference in muscular structure.

You wouldn't have black, rough, frizzy hair.

You wouldn't have reached critical mass.

Baptists are more likely to divorce than Mormons (or even athiests). Perhaps we shouldn't let them marry?

Obviously I don't agree with the JP's conclusions that they shouldn't be able to marry.

I thinnk it's apples-and-oranges.

I can narrow my rapist pool by height, but "tall" isn't a race.
I can narrow it my weight, but "fat" isn't a race.
I can narrow it by age, but "old" isn't a race.

People have traits. It doesn't take a denial of that to call "race" a man-made model which only vaguely resembles reality.

This is reasonable.

Even height/weight correlate with "race", though.

And "red and yellow, black and white" seem more useful "traits" in many instances.

The media avoids them in all of these instances. In my city, it is common form for a crime report to read:

"Police are seeking information on Brian Fields. Fields is around 5'8", 180 lbs, in his mid to late 30s, wearing a red shirt and blue jeans."

There are two problems with this: It ignores "race" as a general, non-predictive, matter-of-fact human "trait" like you're describing.

It also perpetuates the negative stereotypes associated with races by leaving them implied ("Oh, he's a criminal: must be black") to listeners.

It's like the generalizing of titles, jobs, workplaces, and gender roles: All that is special [meaning unique, not valuable] to a gender is lost.

In its wake, we find negative stereotypes not really getting any less prevalent and distrust of women seeming [to me] to get more common.

There are very real, biological, unique human traits associated with being female as opposed to being male [obvious examples abound].

There seem to be very real, biological, unique human traits associated with being "black" as opposed to being "white," "asian," "latin," etc.

It seems denying any associations is to deny the uniqueness of human genetics and to perpetuate the stupidity of false associations.

[By the way, my rape example was a victim who had been raped sight unseen. She could not identify the age, weight [well...], or height of the rapist.

We could, on the other hand, guess with pretty significant likelihood that her attacker was of the same "race" as her. Why is this not a useful guess?

Obviously, that's not genetic, but race isn't strictly genetic. Neither is it strictly synthetic, though. I think the genetic "guesses" are at least as useful.

There are two parts to the usefulness of race as a genetic category. The first is that pigment, for whatever reason, correlates with a ton of other genes.

The second is that race is immediately apparent, in most cases, to the naked eye. It's hard to test for a person's susceptibility to many diseases / ailments.

It's easy to look at them and say "They're black, this could be sickle-cell." or any other number of genetic guesses. I guess I'm starting to conflate terms.

If we just want to ignore the construct of "race" and use just "color" as a human trait, I still think it's as useful. This is actually what I've mostly been doing.

I still think the construct "race" as the body of associations and correlations that include "color" is a useful category, and not entirely synthesized.]

[Nate]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

3rd option. Heritage and upbringing.

It largely defines races more than melanin or DNA in a lot of respects.

As a complete social category, I would certainly include heritage as part of race.

Neither the nature nor the nurture camp are entirely correct.

All social categories seem to be a mix of the two.

[doulos14]

What if we were to say that race is a set of cultures, and it so happens that different cultures are associated with melanin production in the skin, along with other hereditary traits.

Of course I am not saying that you can define someones culture by their skin culture or "race" or that anyone's race is superior.

Perhaps this guy sees the differing cultures as opposing based on an external color he sees, and he has the authority to reject this marriage based upon his beliefs on this issue?

Just random thoughts, take them as you will

[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.

[mulletman]

How does that in any way prove that 'race isn't real?'

Race =/= culture.

[Skifree0813]

Originally Posted by scarlet.starlet

I said race wasn't real. Race is not a purely physical construct.

I think it's very dangerous to associate those two concepts. A heck of a lot goes out the window if "real" and "purely physical construct" are synonymous.

[thesteve]

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.

A problem arises however in those folks that may be culturally "white" (Anglo-American?) but do not physically appear white., and vice versa.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by thesteve

A problem arises however in those folks that may be culturally "white" (Anglo-American?) but do not physically appear white., and vice versa.

And is anglo an appropriate title for all whites?