Jump to content

Talk:Race (human categorization)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Patrick0Moran (talk | contribs) at 02:39, 31 May 2004 (spelling). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.

Previous Discussions

Previous entries archived in Talk:Race (Archive 1), Talk:Race (Archive 2), Talk:Race (Archive 3) Talk:Race (Archive 4) Talk:Race (Archive 5), Talk:Race (Archive 6), Talk:Race (Archive 7), Talk:Race (Archive 8) Talk:Race (Archive 9)

Self-identification (archived)

(Moved to archive 4.

Part 2 (archived)

(Moved to archive 4.

Part 3 (archived)

(Moved to archive 4.

NPOV dispute on article about "Race"

(Moved to Archive 4.)

Part 4 (archived)

(Moved to Archive 5)

Genus>Species>Sub-species or race

(Moved t Archive 8)


Regarding the Intro Paragraph

Whether race is an exact synonym for subspecies. ( archived)

Tannin's POV

( Archived) with the previous section.

New Introduction

( Archived)

Outside Reading

( Archived)

Should the article be divided?

I was not fully aware of all the problems involved when I first dared to edit this article. Reading through the article once again, also the later changes, I think the best way of clarifying the understanding of the term ?race? is to define "race" into the different context where it is used. One obvious way is to differ between the biological context and the sociological (social construct) context. Also former use of the term has to be covered or even different use of the term in different part of the world (e.g. USA and Europe).

I my view the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia has a rather precise definition, including both former and current use of the term:

"Race. Term once commonly used in physical anthropology to denote a division of humankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type (e.g., Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid).

Today the term has little scientific standing, as older methods of differentiation, including hair form and body measurement, have given way to the comparative analysis of DNA and gene frequencies relating to such factors as blood typing, the excretion of amino acids, and inherited enzyme deficiencies. Because all human populations today are extremely similar genetically, most researchers have abandoned the concept of race for the concept of the cline, a graded series of differences occurring along a line of environmental or geographical transition. This reflects the recognition that human populations have always been in a state of flux, with genes constantly flowing from one gene pool to another, impeded only by physical or ecological boundaries. While relative isolation does preserve genetic differences and allow populations to maximally adapt to climatic and disease factors over long periods of time, all groups currently existing are thoroughly "mixed" genetically, and such differences as still exist do not lend themselves to simple typologizing. "Race" is today primarily a sociological designation, identifying a class sharing some outward physical characteristics and some commonalities of culture and history. See also climatic adaptation, ethnic group, racism."

Probably the term is more present in the U.S. of A. than in Europe, - in particular because of the special census tradition. I think large parts of the article have to be understood on this background. E.g. ?Race and intelligence? and recent addition by ElBenevolente ("In 2003, DNA analysis was used to correctly determine the race of a Louisiana serial rapist?..") use Race in the meaning as a social construct I hope. If not it is inconsistent with the biological consensus of one human race. I am not sure how, but this needs to be sorted out in one way or another. Arnejohs 08:00, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

While the "social construct" versus "subspecies" distinction of race may seem useful, I think it is misleading and difficult. It seems to me that even if human "races" were true subspecies, it would have little relevance to the major questions/problems surrounding the topic. Just as it is unhelpful to strictly define race as subspecies and thus eliminate the common sense notion of the word as it applies to humans. Likewise, defining race as a social construct has a pejoritive connotation. This definition would seem to support that point of view that "race" has absolutely no biological basis. Also, the distinction seems to falsely exclude the middle point of view that race is both social and biological. It strikes me that there is less of a precdedent to divide race into social and biological components than (for example) sex/gender.--Rikurzhen 06:45, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
Human races, even considered biologically, are not subspecies -- but I didn't think the article claimed this. Have I missed something here? Slrubenstein

§ I don't believe that anybody believes "that 'race' has absolutely no biological basis." At least nobody that I know of would state that many of the characteristics that people use as racial markers have no biological basis. White people are white for clearly biological reasons. The epicanthic folds of many Chinese people are heritable characteristics. The thick pads over the arch of the foot that characterize many people of African descent are heritable characteristics. Nobody that I know of imagines that most Chinese people have straight black hair simply because they were born in a certain geographical region or under a certain tradition of government. The question is, rather, what genetic characteristics are permanently linked with what genetic characteristics. The answer is that no allele of any gene is permanently included in or or excluded from any group of people. Genes show up wherever they flourish. It may take a while, but they will flourish in environments where they are favorable. [P0M]

§ If we had one word for one concept it would be much easier to write articles on the many concepts that now get called "race." It would also be easier to write an article on race if there were not so many points of view that are fervently held. The article on human race is correct when it asserts that there is only one subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens, that is now extant. It is also correct that there is some statistical utility for the medical profession in knowing whether somebody has come from a population that was naturalized to, e.g., a malaria-infested area. It might help if it were clearly established for readers, perhaps in another article, what the meaningful statistical differences are among various groups. Much of the problem centering around the issue of race seems to be that some people believe that they can make assertions about socially relevant characteristics on the basis of certain "marker characteristics." It would probably be relevant and helpful for many readers, for instance, to know that a common characteristic of many Chinese people is the presence of shovel-shaped incisors, but that not all Chinese people show this trait. Another fairly common trait of the Chinese population is something called "agenisis," i.e., the inherited trait of not growing wisdom teeth. But non-Chinese people can also be naturally free of the problems occasioned by wisdom teeth. It is my understanding that those two characteristics are among the four or five main characteristics that are common enough among Chinese to be interesting. But, unless you are a dentist interested in how much and what kind of dental surgury you may perform if you move to China, I can't imagine these "prominent characteristics" being of material relevance to anybody. What people often react to, and may find problematical, are not actually genetic differences but are cultural differences. If people were clearer on what signals were actually "pushing their buttons", then we might be able to have a more peaceful world. P0M 02:53, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

P0M, you and I seem to be on the same wavelength, but there are public commentators on race who would disagree with us. Consider this quotation from Jacqueline Stevens, a visiting Assistant Professor at Pomona College, from an essay titled "Symbolic Matter: Deconstructing/Reconstructing DNA and Race"
"Conventional wisdom holds that race is socially constructed and not based on genetic differences. Cutting-edge genetic research threatens this view and hence also endangers the pursuit of racial equality and useful public health research."
This is an example why I'm particular sensitive about the suggestion of limiting the view points presented on defining race to only "social construct" versus "subspecies". I think that many people hold more nuanced views. --Rikurzhen 05:37, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

§ That's an interesting statement, but I'm not sure that it makes sense. Why would it matter that "cutting-edge genetic research" threatens the belief that "race is socially constructed"? Does she believe that the idea of socially constructed race is a fabrication and nothing more? Does she believe that socially constructed race is not constructed on at least some elements of objective information with a genetic basis? If she believes that, then she might well believe that "cutting-edge genetic research" would threaten such a view since genetics tells us what we already knew anyway, e.g., that Australian aborigines are generally more closely related to each other than to Europeans. But for Australian aborigines to be statistically more likely than Europeans to have brown eyes doesn't tell the passport agent what color my eyes are, any more than does the color of my eyes tell anybody for sure what color of eyes my uncle has. Far less does such information tell us which people are intelligent or stupid, nasty or nice. How could the same "cutting-edge genetic research" endanger useful public health research? Or, to turn the question around, how could the idea that race is socially constructed bolster the usefulness of public health research? The usefulness of valid public health research (which shows, e.g., that people with ancestors from malaria-prone areas are more likely to have sickle-cell anemia) is not attacked by good research. Its usefulness can be impaired by faulty reasoning, such as accepting the socially constructed belief that anyone with dark skin has the average genetic makeup of an individual with all-African ancestry for the last N generations. [P0M]

§ There is a place for an objective account of the clinal differences that characterize groups of people who have adapted to various world environments. But calling these categories "races" inevitably confuses and contaminates them with the ideas about race that are associated with racism. To do so risks dragging down the value of the research in the minds of people who reject racism, and also risks creating the false impression that "cutting-edge science" supports the traditional ideas of race that tag individuals with value-laden ideas on intelligence, morality, etc. P0M 09:35, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

POM, with all due respect I am not sure what you mean by "doesn't make sense" and I am concerned. If you mean that the account of what anthropologists and biologists (and in this case, more specifically, Jaqueline Stevens) is not clear, that we must improve the writing, that is legitimate and constructive. --Slrubenstein
§ I certainly think that it is not clear. It is so unclear that I do not feel confident to guess whether there is a cogent argument behind what she says. Therefore I do not think that one should take guidance from what was quoted. [P0M]
I thought you meant that what Jaqueline Stevens wrote was unclear. I just mean we have to distinguish between the article being unclear versus a quote being unclear. If a quote is unclear, our job is to figure it out; if the article is unclear, we have to change it. I personally do not agree with Stevens -- but I know that her view is common among many biologists (not, I think, physical anthropologists) and must be presented in the article. Slrubenstein

But if you mean that you disagree with these positions, that is unconstructive and not legitimate -- because Wikipedia is not meant to express the views of its authors. We are writing an encyclopedia that provides accounts of what other people are saying. In the case of race, the views of biologists, anthropologists, sociologists, and historians are paramount (as well, of course, as the views of civic and political leaders and activists). Whether you think their views make sense or not is simply not relevant. If they do not make sense to you, read a book or take a university course and when it does make sense to you you can return to this project and help us write an article that provides clear accounts of these views. If I am misunderstanding you -- if you understand their views and merely want to express them clearly, I apologize.--Slrubenstein

§ People, as individuals, are free to take guidance from whatever sources of information they choose. I think that I am free to point out when something someone else suggests as a dictum to be attended to is incoherent or self-contradictory or has some other flaw that makes it unhelpful.
I do not fully agree. If the professor quoted is providing not just her personal point of view but the point of view dominant among many biologists, we need to present that POV and explain it. If someone else in the life or human sciences (e.g. most physical anthropologists and I suspect many other biologists) holds another (critical) position, we must present that also. But it is not for us to editorialize and declare a major position incoherant or self-contradictory -- this is our personal view and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. This is what I mean that Wikipedia is not for original research or personal essays. It is not for us to judge whether scientists' positions are helpful or unhelpful. Not at all. Our job is to present these positions in their context and clearly. Slrubenstein

The fact remains that biologists have largely (if not almost entirely) abandoned the concept of subspecies. Moreover, virtually all biological scientists (including anthropologists) would say that your observations that "White people are white for clearly biological reasons. The epicanthic folds of many Chinese people are heritable characteristics. The thick pads over the arch of the foot that characterize many people of African descent are heritable characteristics" are not about "race" and in no way disprove the claim that there is no biological basis for race. --Slrubenstein

§ As I said above, "There is a place for an objective account of the clinal differences that characterize groups of people who have adapted to various world environments. But calling these categories "races" inevitably confuses and contaminates them with the ideas about race that are associated with racism." In the segment you quote immediately above I list several heritable characteristics. I did not say that they substantiate claims that there really are races of human beings. [P0M]
Okay, thank you for the clarification (actually, this is what I originally thought you think) Slrubenstein

Personally, I do not care whether this makes sense to you or not, except I do not see how you can help with the article -- of course I mean just these parts of the article -- if you don't understand their views. Be that as it may, our task is to provide a clear account of current research and debates on race and NOT to provide our own ideas, or editorial comments of what we personally think about what biologists are saying. This is not a place for personal essays or original research. By the way, if you do not understand why "white" skin and epicanthic folds are not about "race," I suggest you read the article which explains that biological scientists use the term population to describe differences (over time and space) in gene frequencies. Slrubenstein

§ I hope you will reconsider what I have said and the tone of your own remarks. [P0M]
I am sorry if my tone put you off. However, I stand by the content -- applied not just to you but to all of us. Slrubenstein
So to summarize. I continue to think that "subspecies" vs "social construct" is not the appropriate contrast in which to explain this article. -- Rikurzhen
§ I don't get your point. There seem to be several contending understandings of the word "race." Tannin wanted to limit us to "subspecies." Others would like to limit us to "social construct." Slrubenstein has mentioned "folk taxonomies." Others have put forth the view that there are "extended family" differentiations that do not rise to the level of sub-species differentiations but do rise to the level of utility for medicine and public health. [P0M]

I think that the "subspecies" definition of human races must be a very minority opinion. -- Rikurzhen

§ I agree. But Tannin was pretty positive in the way he expressed his opinion, so I have trouble forgetting about it. It does need to be mentioned.

Likewise, I think that the "social construct" definition is generally interpreted as strongly as Slrubenstein has stated it. -- Rikurzhen

§ It is a very useful position because, if properly understood, it shows the connection between intersubjective knowledge (Yes, we all see the same squiggles on this oscilliscope.) and the subjective processes by which we construct meaning on top of the data. (That proves... No! It proves...) It makes us more self-aware, more willing to realize that we have an acceptable account of something -- an acceptable account that may fall apart when we get some more data. But I agree with what you say next: [P0M]

This is why some/many geneticsts reject the "social construction" definition. From my reading, social constructionists employ three kinds of arguments to reject a meaningful biological basis for race: (1) there couldn't be a biological basis, (2) there could but isn't a biological basis, and (3) there may be but we should not study the biological basis. The argument Dr. Stevens is presented seems to be of type (3). A popular type (1) argument is that there hasn't been enough time for biolgically significant human races to evolve. A popular type (2) argument is that there happens to not have been enough genetic differentiation between people for races to have evolved. There are many published scientists who would respond "No," "No," and "No." Capturing this disagreement seems important to describing the current debate on the meaning and importance of race, but I'm not sure what central distinction would help describe these conflicting points of view. Rikurzhen

§ I think we are saying the same thing, and I think that Peak and others will raise a caution that I tried to raise above -- something that evidently got misunderstood. The fact is that many people insist on dividing human beings into races. They are not crazy, i.e., they are not seeing things that do not exist. But there are many interpretations that can be constructed on the data. The word "subspecies" has a definition, and most people who know the definition on a professional basis say that human groups do not fit the definition. The Race article itself has a clear account. There are other people who maintain that "race is a myth" or that "race is a social construct." Their point is that there is a certain amount of objective evidence (heritable differences, "extended family" groups of inherited characteristics) and a certain amount of construction that goes on top of the data and leads to problematical conclusions and social disorders. And there are also people who maintain that -- whatever we should call it -- there are useful conclusions that doctors and public health officials can draw from the fact that an individual comes with a certain genetic heritage. That position becomes problematical for social reasons when the genetic heritage is called "race," and that position becomes problematical whenever people lose sight of the fact that information about populations (information about an individual's genetic heritage, at least as well as anybody knows it) can be statistically relevant but cannot let us draw dependable conclusions about individuals. How much useful probabalistic information one can gain by knowing that somebody's parents came from, e.g., an isolated group of Australian aborigines, I do not know. I suspect that an objective accounting of what is there would clarify the thinking of many of us. P0M 02:03, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, to clarify my position: first and foremost my position is, we should represent other's positions accurately. Now, my sense of the dominant position among anthropologists -- one shared by many biologists but I can't say all, and one consistant with that of sociologists and historians but I can't say all (many of them don't know much about evolution) -- is that the word "race" uses biological language to make fundamentally political claims and is not a useful scientific term but an important object of critical study (culturally and historically). -- Slrubenstein
§ Strange to say, I think the above reflects strongly your own point of view. Are you asking that the article on race should reflect your view that "race" is a term that "uses biological language to make fundamentally political claims"? I would be inclined to agree, but many people who have argued with both of us would not share this belief. And I still think that it is useful to do as you yourself insist on doing, which is to represent accurately what other people have said. [P0M]
POM, you seem to be willfully misconstruing my point. No, I do not think the article on race should reflect my view of race; I do not think the article on race should reflect any one view. But I do htink the article on race must be clear about the dominant view among physical anthropologists and biologists, as well as historians and cultural anthropologists, who study both race and genetic variation among and within populations -- and I believe what I provide above is a reasonable summary of that dominant view. Slrubenstein
There is striking and important biological variation among humans (and among all species) but words like "race" and "subspecies" that reflect a taxonomic logic are not useful and not even meaningful within the Modern Synthesis. -- Slrubenstein
§ Again, that is your point of view. I agree that the word "race" is not useful in discussing the biological differences (but the fact is that even medical doctors writing formal articles use the word). I would say that "subspecies" is just wrong, based on the definition of the word, but enough people are confused about it that the issue needs to be discussed. [P0M]
I believe this is the dominant point of view among the vast majority of physical anthropologists and most biologists.

From an evolutionary point of view, it makes much more sense to analyze such biological variation in terms of changes in gene frequencies that constitute populations, which are as much statistical as actual biological "things." -- Slrubenstein

§ How could I disagree? [P0M]
Personally, I am gratified that you agree with this position. But it doesn't matter whether you or I agree with this position. As contributors to an encyclopedia article, all that matters is that we agree that this is a dominant view among biological scientists.

It is most definitely legitimate and vital for scientists to study variation in gene frequencies within and between populations. But it is neither accurate nor precise to think of populations as if they were subspecies or races. Slrubenstein

§ Again, I basically agree -- I think. However, you are using the word "race" as though it means something other than population, a meaning that you and I and other people agree about. I would just say that I prefer to use "population" where many people would use "race" because the first term has a clear meaning that does not drag in unfortunate connotations. But, as you continually point out, we cannot exclude a point of view concerning race simply because it is not your or my point of view. Some researchers seem to want to use "race" where you or I would use "population" because they think it communicates more economically. I seem to recall someone saying something like, "You don't have to refer to someone as an individual whose parents were once members of the population found in Sardinia. You just call him somebody whose race is Sardinian." P0M 02:31, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Most biological scientists and virtually all physical anthropologists (by the way I am neither) would agree and that is the point. Also, most would say that population should be used in the scientific study of genetic differences, rather than race. Yes, there are people who use race: a small number of biological scientists who either claim that race=population or that race is different than population but equally or more real, and a large number of non-scientists who use the word race (and it was in this context that I made the remark you recall). Why many people use "race," and what they mean by it, is a matter of study for sociologists, anthropologists, and historians (and some important people in comp. lit.). Many scholars who study how people in the west use race say that they use the language of biology to talk about political or economic differences. This is a point made by many scholars and whould be represented as such in the article. Slrubenstein

Division of the section about division of the article

I have been away some days I find that a number of comments have arrived after I posted my question April 18. However, I find few commenting on the actual question of splitting the article into the different uses of the word race in different contexts. I think Slrubenstein makes important contributions in order to clarify the term, but I still don’t know his opinion on how to proceed with the article development.

It is still my view that the article not I fully consistent with other articles dealing with related issues. The article itself is also unclear.
  • The first paragraph talks about a "disagreements over such issues as whether humans can be meaningfully divided into multiple races", while the third paragraph states that there "is in fact insufficient categorical variation to justify the classification of humans into multiple races in a strictly biological sense."
  • The Overview part talks a lot about dividing humans into races, starts using the term "races" when races may be too precise (?). The biological classification is questioned, contradicting paragraph 3. By using strange constructions (in a encyclopaedia at least) like: "Those who continue to believe in .... point out that in determining" odd reasoning involving negroids and pygmies are presented. Still by using "" signs to soften the words used (or what the purpose must be).
  • The History of the term ends in 1935, without mention the race issue related to WW2, and the UN and UNESCO papers trying to define the term.
  • Later follows a new historical review (Anthropological and genetic studies of race), this time including WW2, but only partly.

The more I read through it, the more confused and frustrated I feel. Is it a special US reading of the term which substantially differ from the rest of the world? Calvin Bruce Ostrum did feel so in 1995 [1] and he may be right. But isn’t this US-view already covered by the census thing?

Finally: When we are having this problems. How could this be a featured article?Arnejohs 00:04, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)


[Peak:] The following remarks are primarily responses to points made by Arnejohs above:

1) On splitting the article: The article was, until very recently, explicit that it was actually about "human races". The idea of adding an article on the concept of "Race" itself, or on "Race (biology)" has been mentioned from time-to-time, but all such ideas have foundered - and probably for good reason -- as the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia puts it, "the term has little scientific standing." (My impression is that its use in zoology is confined to some communities of specialists in certain parts of the English-speaking world.) If you believe that a "split" is desirable, I would suggest you create the appropriate articles in your private workspace (e.g. User:Arnejohs/Race_(anthropology) etc). That we, we will be able to evaluate the proposal more concretely.

2) Inconsistencies within the article. No doubt there are many, but the inconsistency you attempt to identify in your first bullet item does not exist. Perhaps the problem here is partly your knowledge of English, but if you reread the two sentences carefully, you should be able to see several reasons why there is no inconsistency. (E.g., the third para is talking about biologists, and it is only talking about "categorical" differences.)

In your second bullet item, you also write about an inconsistency which I fail to see.

3) "History of the term ends in 1935". This is certainly true of the section called "History of the term" but the article discusses the evolution of ideas since then, so I don't see any real issue here. In fact, the article makes clear that the "modern era" begins sometime around 1935, and that the section on "History of the term" is accordingly confined to the "pre-modern era". Of course, one may take a different point of view (as I personally do), but it would probably be difficult to get consensus about significantly different alternatives.

4) "Confused and frustrated". I suspect that most people feel the same way. I certainly agree that the article needs significant changes. My suggestion would be to remember that "race" is just a word that has been endowed with an unusually wide variety of meanings by different communities around the world at various times. For example, since some communities of biologists evidently do use "race" as an exact synonym for "subspecies", we should try to identify precisely which communities do so, while also mentioning the fact that the ICZN explicitly states that this usage is incorrect in zoology, since the ICZN states that race is an infrasubspecific grouping.

Peak 04:13, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Peak for taking time to discuss my points
  1. I think it would be a good idea to do what has been suggested from time to time, put de content into different fractions, Race_(Human), Race_(biology), Race_(US_Census), Race_(Former_use), Race_(...), and keep a complete reference in the Race article. I think that would clarify a lot. Actually it is already a good article on Race_(Human).
  2. You may be right that I am loosing fine distinctions because of poor knowledge and understanding of English. But what is the reason to excessive use of the "-symbols? To me it seems like the writers are using this to make the term less precise or when they feel that the use is not fully consistent with a common interpretation of the term in the specific context. Is it may be common to use "s as a way of representing uncertainty in the English language.
  3. Did the term reach it’s current definitions in 1935?
  4. This is not about my frustration. The problem is that this disagreement will continue as long as we are not able to find a form covering all the views in a more transparent way. So far the discussion has not made it any clearer to me how this should be organised and worked out.
Arnejohs 05:29, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

§ Regarding the use of scare quotes: As soon as an article make a statement such as, "Klingons are characterized by aggressive behavior," the existence of Klingons is tacitly admitted. There is no generally accepted practice in English for marking a word that may or may not have an actual referent. If you write, "An 'angel' was observed in Central Park," then you appear to cast doubt on the veracity of the reported testimony. If you write without the scare quotes then you tacitly assume the veracity of the testimony. I would prefer some convention such as, "A [Klingon] and an [angel] were reported to have engaged in a prolonged conversation in Central Park." Since many people edit the same article it is difficult to ensure consistency. Sometimes the article might use "race", 'race', and race seemingly at random. P0M 05:11, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I agree with Peak and POM's valuable comments about the organization. This article is and should be primarily about the word "race" as applied to humans. I believe that the very nature of "race" (using scare-quotes to indicate that I am talking about a concept, and not specifically about what the concept represents) requires that such an article look at uses of the term by biological scientists, social scientists, and laypeople. Such an article I think would work best if it describes commonalities and conflicts between people of different academic disciplines, and should also explain changes in how "race" and races hve been conceptualized and used over time. Consequently, this article will have to be complicated. nevertheless, I agree that it is poorly organized. One reason is that there has been a long process to accommodate strikingly different points of view. I think at this point we are very close to an NPOV article, but it sure does need reorganizing. I know POM put some serious work into re-thinking the organization. I've made some suggestions myself in the past, that did not appeal to many people. I'll keep thinking aobut it but I admit it is a daunting task. All the more reason to acknowledge and appreciate POM's attempts. Slrubenstein
§ All I did, actually, was to pull all the topic sentences into a block of text and make a few changes in them so they could function as topic sentences are supposed to do. P0M 04:39, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

New Comment Goes Here

§ An unsigned user made the following comment, which I have move from the top of the page;

The idea of race DID NOT originate from the Enlightenment. People were well aware of racial differences before then. I'm sure the Romans considered the Germanic people a different race.

§ To Anon: What was the Latin word for "race" then? People have probably been aware of differences for as long as they have been self-aware. The question is how they conceptualize these differences. To answer that question we need evidence. P0M 19:47, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anon is right -- the Romans had a notion of race. BUT the Roman notion was very very different from the modern notion. Slrubenstein

Interesting. But I don't agree that classifying people as Frenchmen, Britons etc. is more accurate than a broader classification. If anything, I would think that attempting to narrow definitions would ride over more differences, ignoring the changes in societies, the differences within them and the similarities to those who happen to live under a different government.

To the anonymous writer of the above paragraph: (It helps to sign postings. Otherwise it becomes very difficult to maintain a coherent conversation.) [P0M]

I think that assertions to the effect that "group X had a concept of race" can be very misleading. Mere assertions do not prove anything, anyway. Asserting that the ancient Romans had the concept of gens and the concept of natio can be justified by reference to dictionaries and to ancient Latin texts. Asserting that involved in the concepts behind these words were explanations for why this gens or that gens has a certain set of characteristics is quite another matter. In fact, if somebody argued, e.g., that Arabs are different from Jews because their lineages split with the lines of descent from Abraham, then the natural question would be why they are different. And, since they all descend from Adam and Eve, where the differences came from. Prior to the discovery of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs, there would have been no clear answers to such questions. When humans began to understand evolution it became possible to explain how human groups diverge. That being said, hereditary differences and learned differences (especially cultural differences) are frequently difficult to differentiate. The phenomena that spark interest in race are, generally speaking, very obvious differences between the people in one's own environment and the people "over there." But learned behavioral differences can be as striking, or more striking, than biologically inherited differences. So perhaps it is not surprising to see people differentiating people into what they call "races" on the basis of cultural features. P0M

POM, if I follow you I think that once again you are veering into the territory of primary research and away from writing an encyclopedia articles. Historians have pointed out that Romans have a concept of race, so this should be in an article. They also point out that this concept did not mean the same thing as the contemporary concept of race -- a very important point, as it shows that the concept of race is at least culturally and historically variable, and thus suggests that it is socially constructed. There is no doubt that the theory of evolution played a role in transforming the meaning of race; so did other historical events such as colonialism. These are things some historians have written on, and if we can find those discussions we need to put an account of them here. Now, the questions you raise -- what was the Roman "theory" of race, how did they account for similarities and differences, is another matter. I do not know if any historians have studied this. If they have, we need to reprot it; if they haven't, we can't. Slrubenstein
§ Mere assertions, even from historians, are not worth very much in my eyes. Which of these historians has produced a coherent account, complete with citations, that shows that the Romans had something that was race and was not, e.g., ethnicity, barbarian group, or some other characterization of otherness? P0M 21:11, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[Anon:]There is one race, the human race. Join it or it will see to you. (moved from the top of this page, P0M)

Sorry POM, NPOV means that we have an obligation to provide views even if we disagree with them (although we can and should contextualize them). Review the NPOV policy. Slrubenstein

Uh, I think you meant to address your comment to "Anon" who tucked the message above in at the top of this talk page. I moved it here, but I don't take responsibility for it. P0M 06:57, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I was addressing this statement: "Mere assertions, even from historians, are not worth very much in my eyes." It doesn't matter whether they are worth much in my eyes or in any contributors eyes, as this is not a place for personal essays and we must stick to NPOV. If an important scholar (or political or civic leader) expresses a view, we must provide an accurate and contextualized account of it here whether we think they are worthy or not. Slrubenstein

§ Well, let's look at what qualified scholars (who, as such, will not make mere assertions) have to say about the matter. [P0M]

§ I have started to put this talk page on a diet. Unfortunately, we sometimes seem to go in circles. And besides that, the material remaining unarchived is still rather long. So I think that what I will do is to start to summarize some of the points that keep coming up over and over again, and linking the summaries to the archived materials. P0M 15:52, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

§ To further my own education and to answer my question addressed to Slrubenstein I did a quick search for "race in Roman" and found some interesting sources of information. The first item on the list below addresses my own concerns and speaks more coherently than I was able to do above:

Within vs Between

With regard to this text: "The data indicate that there is one human species with variations comprising only aproximatly 1.5% percent of the DNA. The difference between any two groups is on average only 1/10th of a percent. (SciAm Feb 2004 Does race exist?)"

Arnejohs, if the text merely stated that within group variation was larger than between group variation, then I would agree. However, the choice to write about percentages of the total DNA sequence that vary is all but certainly an attempt to lead the reader to one conclusion. To all but the most informed reader, 1.5% and 1/10th of 1% seem like incredibly small numbers. Those particular numbers don't seem to be consistent with previously published figures -- they strike me as the lower bound on a range. Moreover, there's no need for statistics or statements that the data unequivocally indicates one thing in the first paragraph. I think I'll put the burden on others to fix the POV, so I'm going to re-revert the text. --Rikurzhen 14:20, May 12, 2004 (UTC)


Maybe its not clear to others why you can't just say that within group differences are smaller than between group differences and then conclude that race does not exist. Here's one reason why: this measurement does not consider the phenotypic importance of the differences. Kimura's neutral model would predict that most DNA variations are neutral, and thus probably do not have a marked phenotypic effect. However, we have some reason to believe that many of the between group differences may have become fixed as a result of selection. Thus, we have reason to believe that more of the between group difference have a phenotypic effect. The unanswered question is whether differences within vs between are equally enriched for phenotypically important variations. Would you expect there to be more variation between groups than within for races that divereged only 50-100k years ago? The answer is most likely no. Yet phenotype is a good marker for distinguishing race. Here's the second one: the smaller but still large between group variation is sufficient to re-construct the genetic divergence of human populations throughout history. Whether you call them races or not is a different matter. Continential populations consistently pop out when you put human DNA sequences into a multiple alignment algorithm. --Rikurzhen 14:39, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Rikurzhen; this data belongs in one of the arguments sections, not the intro, which should summarize views, not give details of them or argue for them. This is in addition to Rikurzhen's other reasons. -- VV 20:39, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_(human_categorization)&oldid=3897017"