What Race Are You?

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by J pold

personally I think race is something we create, there is no difference between someone who is white, black, Hispanic, Asian, and so forth expect some very minor physical features, yet we use race as a means to put people into categories, and often stereotypical beliefs are attach to those categories, i.e. "Asian kids are good at math", Black people are better athletes"

Ethnicity is something very different, different cultures have different beliefs and values. Which often pertain to the cultural community

Race is created, but ethnicity is not??

Race is a biological category and can be identified genetically. It's concrete, and although those categories may carry some illegitimate baggage, that baggage is itself the product of different ethnicities (if you're lumping values and beliefs under ethnicity). It's the differences in values and beliefs that are transient more so than the biological division of races.

Of course this is probably a difference in semantics, as I suppose you're talking about the term 'race' in its more colloquial usage, which does seem to include all those bits of baggage that are particular to relative values and beliefs.

Anyways, I am also a cracker.

[jonesy]

well done JohnnyB

[Hakan]

Race is a biological category and can be identified genetically. It's concrete, and although those categories may carry some illegitimate baggage, that baggage is itself the product of different ethnicities (if you're lumping values and beliefs under ethnicity). It's the differences in values and beliefs that are transient more so than the biological division of races.

Uhh Nazi Germany is on the line, it wants its pseudo-scientific beliefs back.

[KevanGuy]

Long grain.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Uhh Nazi Germany is on the line, it wants its pseudo-scientific beliefs back.

Ouch!

There's nothing Naziish in what I'm saying here. Just ask a primatologist who has studied humans and you ought to find agreement that there are biologically defined differences between races.

Cultural misuse of those categories (many of which are not biological, but fit more into that colloquial usage of 'race') is not a problem with the biology, it's a problem with the culture.

[Hakan]

Sorry I thought you were making some kind of eugenics argument that chinese people were a different biological race than 'white' people. Because there's more of a genetic difference between two white guys than a white guy and a black guy.

[Kybosh]

From an anthropological standpoint there is currently only one human race. . . everyone is a homo sapien. . . .

[Rifleman]

As to the original question, I am Mr. Whitebread. And I don't really see what's wrong with asking the question. We are Canada, shouldn't we be celebrating diversity?

My collection of Miko Lee videos are a testament to me doing my part.

[gottabekd]

White. I also don't see what's wrong with asking the question? Being ignorant of race...is being ignorant.

[NSFL]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

I'll believe it when I see counter evidence

I'm asian and I just about failed high school math. That enough counter evidence for you?

[Coolsurfer79]

Originally Posted by gottabekd

White. I also don't see what's wrong with asking the question? Being ignorant of race...is being ignorant.

Why is it ignorant. At one time the Irish weren't considered white.

[Winsor_Pilates]

There is no such thing a biological race. Where do you guys come up with this junk?
Race is only real in that people like some in this thread treat it as real and the consequences of that become real.
If race is biologicaly definable catagories, What race is Tiger Woods? how many races are there? and what race are most South Americans?

[Mightyfire89]

Viking.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

There is no such thing a biological race. Where do you guys come up with this junk?
Race is only real in that people like some in this thread treat it as real and the consequences of that become real.
If race is biologicaly definable catagories, What race is Tiger Woods? how many races are there? and what race are most South Americans?

Race is not only real because people treat it that way. That is like saying that flowers are only scented differently because people treat them that way. Or that tabbies and persians are only different because people treat them that way.

There are many 'racial' categories bandied around that are formed on the basis of cultural, national or religious backgrounds and which have little to do with any sort of properly racial categorization. It's also not so simple as dividing folk up into whites, blacks, asians, etc. Africa has something like 6 distinct black indigenous races, one of which is the pygmies.

Granted these categories are functional catgories useful for genealogical purposes, and there is crossover between races (which I'm sure would be increasing in modern days of travel). Nonetheless, the differences do not exist because we observe them. The differences are there for us to observe. The distinctions may strike you as arbitrary, but they are justifiable.

I don't know why this is such an issue. Would you not expect people who have lived on separate parts of the planet for many many thousands of years to have developed differences?

[Smilt]

Originally Posted by KevanGuy

Long grain.

Guess I'd be basmati then

[snappyk]

I'm a whitey.

[Staypuft]

Daytona 500 IMO

[Coolsurfer79]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Race is not only real because people treat it that way. That is like saying that flowers are only scented differently because people treat them that way. Or that tabbies and persians are only different because people treat them that way.

There are many 'racial' categories bandied around that are formed on the basis of cultural, national or religious backgrounds and which have little to do with any sort of properly racial categorization. It's also not so simple as dividing folk up into whites, blacks, asians, etc. Africa has something like 6 distinct black indigenous races, one of which is the pygmies.

Granted these categories are functional catgories useful for genealogical purposes, and there is crossover between races (which I'm sure would be increasing in modern days of travel). Nonetheless, the differences do not exist because we observe them. The differences are there for us to observe. The distinctions may strike you as arbitrary, but they are justifiable.

I don't know why this is such an issue. Would you not expect people who have lived on separate parts of the planet for many many thousands of years to have developed differences?

Why aren't their multiple races in Europe, why is everyone "white" I can pretty much spot certain Eastern Europeans from a mile away, but they are being lumped in with quite distinct groups. Are Italians and Greeks also "white", because it seems a lot of them are pretty dark. Same with Spaniards and Portugese. Also why have certain groups moved into certain races. The term "White" was not created on any biological or physical differences. It was used as a heirarchy. Here is a good wikipedia article on the term White http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whites. By the way I've noticed differences between my father and my uncles, does that mean they are of a different race. And if you have a skin color chart I would like to know where I fit in, or some sort on chart where I can calculate my race based on my ancestors.

[jolinar of malkshor]

You are taking things a little to serious. It was a simple question of what race you belong to. Dont turn it in to something it isnt.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

There are many 'racial' categories bandied around that are formed on the basis of cultural, national or religious backgrounds and which have little to do with any sort of properly racial categorization. It's also not so simple as dividing folk up into whites, blacks, asians, etc. Africa has something like 6 distinct black indigenous races, one of which is the pygmies.

Granted these categories are functional catgories useful for genealogical purposes, and there is crossover between races (which I'm sure would be increasing in modern days of travel). Nonetheless, the differences do not exist because we observe them. The differences are there for us to observe. The distinctions may strike you as arbitrary, but they are justifiable.

I don't know why this is such an issue. Would you not expect people who have lived on separate parts of the planet for many many thousands of years to have developed differences?

Of course there are differences in people. There are differences between people within a "race" too. The lines in which we seperate those differences are arbitrary and formed as you say above. They are social constructs; not concrete or genetic as you stated earlier.
Concrete would imply that they can not change and are bound by there properties and the genetic differences between humans are not significant enough to be catagorized seperately.

There is infinite genetic interchangeability between "races" which leads to an unlimited number of new "races". It is possible to have as many races as there are people. If race is genetic, there could be billions of genetic races. Would race still be concrete or even a useful method of catagorization?

Your Africa example also shows counter evidence to race being a genetic fact. If the definition of race changes from place to place, culture to culture, how is it anything more then a social construct?

Brazil is another example that has dozens of racial catagories that have more to do with wealth then anything physical. "White" in Brazil mean you have money; even a dark skinned person can become white there. Race is hardly conrete in Brazil.

So if race is genetic, how many pure races are there? Are there any pure race people left on earth? are we all just mixbreeds at this point?