What is race?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
For the last time, please be specific about what differences you intend.

The differences that I am referring to our housed in the dictionary's
definition of the word 'race'. That being the physical differences between
geographical isolated groups. That's why I chose the word 'race' and
clarified it in a biological context.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
The differences that I am referring to our housed in the dictionary's
definition of the word 'race'. That being the physical differences between
geographical isolated groups. That's why I chose the word 'race' and
clarified it in a biological context.

So, you're interested in why people developed white skin (vitamin D), why people of some communities keep their epicanthic folds (not sure) -- that sort of thing? I fail to see the connection between that line and your concern with Barack Obama, which is a cultural matter.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
That's nonsense, we're being taught to ignore the differences, how is
that using our brains?

Other truths are foreign policy, education, integration and racism. They've
all got very loud knocks.

Someone with a brain will, I hope, see through the tactics control uses. Difference, at best, is cause for celebration, not denial.

You'll have to sketch out the connections between race, as you define it, and the other factors you mention, as it's not clear to me.

I'm sure you could express yourself much more clearly if you just said what you wanted to say.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Someone with a brain will, I hope, see through the tactics control uses. Difference, at best, is cause for celebration, not denial.

You'll have to sketch out the connections between race, as you define it, and the other factors you mention, as it's not clear to me.

I'm sure you could express yourself much more clearly if you just said what you wanted to say.

I really don't know how to make myself any clearer.

I believe there is a biological basis for race, albeit moreso in phenotype than genotype.

I believe that Obama is more representative of the mixing of races than he is of any one race.

I would like to know how his standing represents the preservation of the pride one has in his/her own race.

I would also like to know if there is an alternative to hiding from the differnces that race presents us with

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
I really don't know how to make myself any clearer.

I believe there is a biological basis for race, albeit moreso in phenotype than genotype.

I believe that Obama is more representative of the mixing of races than he is of any one race.

I would like to know how his standing represents the preservation of the pride one has in his/her own race.

I ...[text shortened]... ike to know if there is an alternative to hiding from the differnces that race presents us with

Race is a purely superficial phenomenon. So, it makes no sense to have pride in your race. Tribe, community, city, country, culture, yes. Of course, you're free to feel proud of being white if you want to. But it would make more sense to be proud of being English, assuming you can define what Englishness consists in.

Did Obama grow up in a black community? If so, that should answer the question; if not, then I don't see how he represents a specifically black community. But politics is all about inventing yourself for the voters. How has Obama gone about wooing black voters?

I'd recommend trying to make friends with people from different communities so that you can understand them better. Easier said than done, but will makes way.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
I really don't know how to make myself any clearer.

I believe there is a biological basis for race, albeit moreso in phenotype than genotype.

I believe that Obama is more representative of the mixing of races than he is of any one race.

I would like to know how his standing represents the preservation of the pride one has in his/her own race.

I ...[text shortened]... ike to know if there is an alternative to hiding from the differnces that race presents us with

We're all "mixed" race. For example, what we usually call skin colour, is a continuous trait across our species, so there is no line to be drawn that isn't arbitrary. This means that what we call "race" is mere convention on where to draw the line.

Like I said, I use the concept in my everyday language, but I recognize that this convention to be mostly a social one, and not really founded on solid biological grounds.

It's not hiding from the differences, it's realizing that the differences are merely shades of gray.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Race is a purely superficial phenomenon. So, it makes no sense to have pride in your race. Tribe, community, city, country, culture, yes. Of course, you're free to feel proud of being white if you want to. But it would make more sense to be proud of being English, assuming you can define what Englishness consists in.

Did Obama grow up in a black com ommunities so that you can understand them better. Easier said than done, but will makes way.

So what are you telling me? That once we explain to racists that the genetics
of difference are inconsequencial they'll care?
"It's alright lads, it's only a single nucleotide change, show's over, let's go home"

No Obama does not represen the black community or the white community
but he does represent the mixed race community. That's my point, all these
people saying 'won't it be great to have a black president ?' couldn't be more
wrong. Obama doesn't represent black blood, he represents its dilution and
I can't help but think that's kind of sad.

Originally posted by Palynka
We're all "mixed" race. For example, what we usually call skin colour, is a continuous trait across our species, so there is no line to be drawn that isn't arbitrary. This means that what we call "race" is mere convention on where to draw the line.

Like I said, I use the concept in my everyday language, but I recognize that this convention to be mostly a ing from the differences, it's realizing that the differences are merely shades of gray.

But you recognise that a line in the sand does have to be drawn right?
We're all shades of grey from humans through chimps to fish and bacteria
but we have to draw lines.
My argument is that using a generic, genetic comparism for race is deeply
flawed until we have a thorough understanding of the mechanisms that
those genes represent. Until such a time the phenotypes of a group should
be the main characterising factor.

I've provided a dictionary and a wikipedia reference to substantiate that
the dissembling of race as a biological construct in humans is still a theory.
Can you provide me with one reference that shows it is a fact?

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Obama doesn't represent black blood, he represents its dilution and
I can't help but think that's kind of sad.

I'm nonplussed. No, that's not Newspeak ...

Anyhow, here's some views for you to compare yours with:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/04/obama_and_mixed_race_in_americ.html

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
But you recognise that a line in the sand does have to be drawn right?
We're all shades of grey from humans through chimps to fish and bacteria
but we have to draw lines.
My argument is that using a generic, genetic comparism for race is deeply
flawed until we have a thorough understanding of the mechanisms that
those genes represent. Until such a time t in humans is still a theory.
Can you provide me with one reference that shows it is a fact?

No, we're not just shades of gray from humans to fish. You cannot reproduce with an orangutan, for example, which leads to the creation of discrete and significant gaps between the phenotypes (i.e. the "gradients"😉 because there is no more dilution. These gaps provide a reasonably clear line for biologists. Clearly, in the case of species, there is more than shades of gray.

I cannot show you a fact for the inexistence of something. What I've been saying is that there are no facts that provide a clear definition of race within the human species.

In order for it to make taxonomic sense, you'd need to analyze a human being and irrevocably be able to identify him as belonging within that sub-category or race. The thing is that you can't because what you call "mixed" is not a category that makes sense as it is defined as opposed to "pure". But what is pure race? Our genetic imprint is a complete mish-mash...

Originally posted by Palynka
No, we're not just shades of gray from humans to fish. You cannot reproduce with an orangutan, for example, which leads to the creation of discrete and significant gaps between the phenotypes (i.e. the "gradients"😉 because there is no more dilution. These gaps provide a reasonably clear line for biologists. Clearly, in the case of species, there is more than posed to "pure". But what is pure race? Our genetic imprint is a complete mish-mash...

As you say, race doesn't have any discreet boundaries so why does it make
sense to introduce a system of classification based on a mechanism that is
not understood?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'm nonplussed. No, that's not Newspeak ...

Anyhow, here's some views for you to compare yours with:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/04/obama_and_mixed_race_in_americ.html

I think MLK would have had some passion for the subject, he wanted
blacks and whites to hold hands, not a nation of 'grey's'.

TFTL, too peyed to read now but will later.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
The word is "race". If you're confused, look at some pictures of Norwegians, then look at some Nigerians. See the difference? That's race.

OK... I see tall people - generally muscular and wiry - with long bone structure and a skin that gets darker depending the time they spend in the sun.

Now I'm even more confused.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
As you say, race doesn't have any discreet boundaries so why does it make
sense to introduce a system of classification based on a mechanism that is
not understood?

😕

What mechanism are you talking about? I'm arguing against the taxonomy of "races" so why should I argue that it makes sense to have it?

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
I really don't know how to make myself any clearer.

I believe there is a biological basis for race, albeit moreso in phenotype than genotype.

I believe that Obama is more representative of the mixing of races than he is of any one race.

I would like to know how his standing represents the preservation of the pride one has in his/her own race.

I ...[text shortened]... ike to know if there is an alternative to hiding from the differnces that race presents us with

Why would people have pride in their own race (let's for the argument suppose such a phenomenon exists)? It's just something you're born with, no great achievement. Also why would you hide from the differences? They make me curious if anything.

You say that Obama does not represent "black" blood. It is significant that people of mixed race usually seem to identify with their darkest skin ancestry while people on the outside tend to see their light skin ancestors. When I saw Obama's picture for the first time I was suprprised because I had expected to see a black man, and he is very white. But I kow that he may think of himself as blacker than we see him.