Skeptic Project

Is it wrong to believe that there is a biological basis for race?

Does that make me a RACIST?

What do you think????

I believe that race is a valid means of classifying people as much as dog breeds are a valid means of classifying dogs. I find it baffling that groups of people isolated from one another for tens of thousands of years would not develop biological differences better suited for their respective environments.

Racism is like pornography. I know it when I see it.

Yes, speaking of medical questionaires, it's a fact that different racial groups have different suceptibilities to diseases.

I just don't buy the whole SOCIAL CONSTRUCT garbage that they seem to teach at universities, because "racism's MEAN."

In my sixteen seasons in Track & Field and Cross Country, Blacks seemed to dominate the short distance and field events. Caucasians seemed to dominate the long distance events.

Is this just a coincidence?

Let's say a physiologist kept records of those athletes I referred to and concluded that more Blacks won the short distance and field events, while the Caucasians won more of the long distance events.

Would they still be anecdotal?

Surprised no one here brought up Richard Lewontin's argument which is the most frequent objection to the use of race of a means of classification (i.e. there exists more variety between members of the same race than between members of different races).

This only works, though, when you compare individual traits rather than clusters of them.

Why wouldn't he acknowledge that

@ cranberrysauce: I had a feeling that has now subsided.

@ Matt: Sounds good to me.

@ cranberrysauce: What do you think? Is someone racist for thinking there is a biological basis for race?

The modern use of the word "race" is from the late 1800s, and has heavy ties to the eugenics community. The difference between different "races" of human beings is so small, it's far smaller than the difference between dog breeds. There really aren't any races of humans, there are ethnicities, however -- Han, Hutu, Bavarian, Mayan, etc.. I'm okay with the term "race" to broadly classify people, for whatever reason, such as European, African, Latin American, or whatever.

That's just what I think about the whole situation.

@Matt Hey, I like pornography, but I hate racism.

@ Dr Benedict Zaroff - it suggests that an empirical study should be done to confirm the "evidence."

1. "I just don't buy the whole SOCIAL CONSTRUCT garbage that they seem to teach at universities, because "racism's MEAN.""
I really wanted to address this as someone who actually sees the legitimacy of race as social construct. First, this view does not completely disregard genetic basis. There are phenotypes that are used in the categorization process, of this there is very little contention. However, sex too has very specific phenotypic qualities, and yet gender becomes the social construct. There are roles, qualities, and relationships implicit in this division. The same holds for the historical notion of “race.” Indeed, society is divide beyond the phenotypic qualities of individuals, those divided individuals are then related to differently and seen within different categories. Consider the very notion of African-American communities. The group is set apart on the basis of phenotypes, however the group carries with it a more nuanced existence. It reflects various historical and socio-economic qualities. This then works in the reverse; when a black person is interacted with, there is the implicit understanding that they belong to this abstract, socially constructed group. Again, while there is a physical demarcation of the individual, meaning is applied to this demarcation only socially. Otherwise, the darkness of skin will mean nothing outside of darkness of skin. But, this whole thought belongs to an even broader social philosophy, and that is that there is tremendous difficulty in finding meaning outside of any social body.

Perhaps this example will better clarify this concept. Consider that within Indian society there are physical attributes that identify individuals to an extent- namely their skin shades. Now, there is genetically very little difference between members of these groups. Studies have even indicated that a member of one race is more likely to share genetic coding with a member of a different race than with a member of his own race. But that point aside, Indian people still recognize a phenotypic difference. However, the caste system is what gives these differences any meaning. Darker skinned Indians are linked with lower castes- those who work outside while lighter skinned Indians are equated with caste members who work inside. We see here that intrinsically there is no difference in these people; it is the social structure that gives these differences meaning.

Now, I’d like to touch on the Track and Field example. First, the distance events (3k steeplechase-marathon) are actually dominated by East Africans and Sprint events are dominated by Caribbeans and Americans. There are no genetic differences that have proven that these performance dominations are linked to race. In fact, there is more evidence to suggest that it is a cultural difference in the way these sports are viewed and embraced by individuals that make the difference. We cannot rule out that cultural pressures, say, push more African American youths to sprint rather than run distance, because distance running is seen as a ‘white-boys sport’ in the United States. Its really more a question of statistical data rather than the quality of participants from each race. Essentially, I believe that sports examples are ultimately moot, as they don’t account for these broader trends.

For anyone interested, The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould does a wonderful job of explaining how the modern perception of race emerged in the 19th century. I recommend it to anyone interested.

If my understanding is correct, you also state that racial classification result in social stratification that may not accurately represent the actual biology individuals, and that is true. However, I do not see how that undermines the reality of inherent differences between racial groups, which is the point I am trying to make here (though it admittedly does distort the ascertainability of such differences to a degree).