Hello There, Guest!  
 Previous 1 24 25 26 27 28 40 Next   

[OBG] Nature of Race Full

(2015-Jul-09, 22:08:22)Krom Wrote: Not sure how that helps, the population genetics view on race is post-typology when race was re-defined.


You need to do some more reading because you have a poor grasp of the topic. But first, do you agree that "natural division", in the sense I noted, has currency in biology? Now, you claim that the concept of race -- not to be confused with that of species -- has changed fundamentally. I don't see this and I will be happy to explain why, but I would like for you to answer the above question, so that we can make some progress in this discussion.

That said, when you say that race was thought about in a "typological" manner, I have no sense of what you mean. I see the term thrown around, but never well defined. One finds a similar situation with "essentialistic". So, you are going to have to explain your specific meaning.

I do recall reading a critique of "typological" thinking penned by Dobzhansky in the 50s. He criticized Kant's view, in particular, but then by 1970, after he became more acquainted with Kant's writing, he had nothing but praise. By typological thinking, Dobzhansky meant thinking of groups as homogeneous in nature and not recognized polymorphisms and intrapopulational variants. As I explained in my paper, though, race in the sense of divisions of a species was, in fact, not though this way, since races were contrasted with, on the one hand, species and on the other (inconstant) varieties. But perhaps you mean something else.

You say:

Quote:The traditional race concept was discredited, but instead of abandoning it, some scientists tried to salvage the word "race" and apply it to a new theory of race.

Well, in a sense the traditional race concept was "discredited", since races were defined in contrast to species and since the traditional species concept -- which actually was typological and intrinsic essentialistic -- was. In this same sense it could be said that quite a few biological concepts were "discredited" -- specifically everything the was defined in relation to species, such as individual variation (varieties) and higher order categories. One might just say that biology in the sense of natural history was discredited -- which it was, in a sense, with the acceptance of evolutionary theory. But I don't imagine that this is what you mean.

You say:

Quote:It never did. This is a modern redefinition. Show where Linnaeus for example defined a village as a "race" as you are now doing...

Again you need to do some more reading. Linnaeus did not think in terms of race, but rather species and varieties. His geographical groups were understood to be environmental induced degeneration (varieties) of the species type.

Quote:François Bernier (1625–1688) is believed to have developed the first comprehensive classification of humans into distinct races which was published in a French journal article in 1684, Nouvelle division de la terre par les différentes espèces ou races l'habitant, New division of Earth by the different species or races which inhabit it.

Bernier initially referred to his groups as species; in a subsequent edition he changed this to "species or race"; the term "race" only shows up a few times in his article; he never explained what he meant, so we don't know how he conceptualized groups. Unlike Buffon, he wasn't a naturalist and he didn't develop a race concept; and his article had little influence on subsequent writers. Doron (2011) has a fair discussion on Bernier. Try that. Generally, you seem to be confusing terms with concepts here, and variety concepts with race concepts above. But you say:

"None of these 17th-19th century scientists I could find proposed there were millions of races, only about 3 - 20 (i.e. large groupings)."

The "races" of Louis Agassiz would have been "species". Your inability to distinguish between concepts and terms is annoying, especially given that I went out of my way to draw these distinction. As for numbers, typically authors added qualifiers such as "major", "primary", "base", etc. when talking about a few large ones.

As I discussed in my paper, yes, micro groups would generally not have been thought of as being intraspecific races, since they were not seen as being distinguishable. But they can now be distinguished using molecular markers, so it is only logical to extend the concept. I don't say that one must define race this way, of course. I distinguish between a general concept and narrow concepts. The general concept would include such groups and narrow concept would specific subsets e.g., races in the sense of "major races" or "phenotypically identifiable ones".

Quote:Dobzhansky rarely touched upon "Negroids", "Caucasoids" etc. He also gave a very negative book review for Coon's The Origin of Races and criticised him for his crude racial terminology and racism etc.

The first sentence is hogwash. The second is irrelevant to your claim. But I don't feel like counting the number of papers and books in which he "touched upon "Negroids", "Caucasoids" etc", presently. Nonetheless, if you wish to pursue the claim you will have to quantify it -- for example: "In his discussion of race, he only discussed major continental races in 10% of the papers". Make an empirical claim that I can falsify.

Quote:A deme or breeding population is not a formal classification, but a unit of study. This is what you overlooked. So for example we can say a Swede on average is genetically distinct to an Eskimo, but only in regards to the Eskimo.

I very clearly distinguished between taxonomic categories and non-taxa classifications and units of analysis. I noted that "races" were not originally thought of as taxa and, after the creation of the subspecies category, they were not always though of so -- rather only formally recognized races were. This is hardly a new distinction -- it goes back to the 1700s. To put this another way, race, was often used as a unit of analysis. But you say:

Quote:According to Garn (1971) there are hundreds of thousands to millions of "microraces" [= demes in Garn's terminology]. It is not possible to draw this sort of classification, nor would it be needed because we are not dealing with a taxonomy.

Garn (1971) says, for example, "Races, moreover, are natural units and not artificial assemblages...Members of such a breeding population shared a common history...They have been exposed to common dangers, and they are the product of a common environment. For this reasons, and especially with advancing time, members of a race have a common genetic heritage".

While Garn's races may be be demes, it is clear that not all demes are Garn's races, as the members share a common genetic heritage (ancestry) and are not just defined in terms of the probability of descent sharing. If you want you could examine Garn's work in detail. It's difficult to simply defined race, so people who discuss the topic will defined it so and so and then offer qualifications. This was the case with Dobzhansky who didn't always clearly distinguish between races and Mendelian populations.

But you say:

Quote:So my answer is "retrospective genetic populations", "genetic clusters", "bio-geographic ancestry groups", has nothing to do with race and the issue of nested hierarchy aside, I don't see your "biological natural divisions/classification" legitimate because it is a formal classification.

Groups in hierarchical taxonomy represent "biological natural classifications", but, as I noted, "biological natural classifications" -- at least of the genealogical sort -- were from the beginning understood in a more inclusive way. This allows one to speak of non-taxa races as being natural divisions. If you wish I will develop this point more. Just consider that artificial classifications are not apart of hierarchical taxonomy, yet we can still describe non hierarchical taxonomic classifications such as morphs as being these. Since we can describe morphs as artificial, it stands to reason that we can describe non-taxa races as natural. But if you wish, I can provide a more detailed justification.

Quote:Yes, scientists in the 21st century are really pigeon-holing people into "Negroid" or "Caucasoid". That was sarcasm by the way.

Mostly, they use terms like "Oceanian, American, Sub-Saharan African, East Eurasian, and West Eurasian." I was able to find dozens of cluster analysis studies which listed these groups at k=5. So, they certainly are "pigeon-holing people". As for the specific terms, "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid" show up a bit, though Negroid does less so. Quite a bit of research uses regional groups though -- for example admixture mapping research in the Americas -- European, African, and Amerindian are the groups and labels of choice. Since the groups aren't formally recognized -- i.e., given a latin name -- one can not expect people to label them the same.

Quote:I don't see "so much is being done", when the traditional race concept is virtually dead. This covers all the other points...Your main problem is that you don't seem to want to touch the traditional races with a bargepole, probably because you know it is toxic pseudo-science.

Honestly, I don't know what you are talking about. I specifically stated in the abstract: "Early 18th century race concepts are discussed in detail and are shown to be both sensible and not greatly dissimilar to modern concepts." I hardly threw early concepts under the bus. But perhaps you can elaborate on specific critiques of specific authors' "traditional races".

Quote:As Hochman says:

"The problem with weak versions of racial naturalism is that they do not contrast with anti-realism about biological race. When race naturalists weaken their position they end up agreeing with their opponents about human biology, and defending a trivialised definition of race."

Hochman's argument is silly, I wrote a whole section on it. But, let's start here:
what, to your mind, would constitute a non-trivial, historically consistent race concept. Be specific and explain why.
 Reply
1. Race typology argued for homogenous groupings of individuals ("types"), and emphasized the variation between rather than within them. Deviations were explained as the product of mixture, so for example 19th century typologists argued blonde-haired Australian aborigines were the result of interbreeding with Europeans, and narrow-nosed Horner Africans were the result of mixture with "Caucasoids", both claims have been shown to be false.

"When one considers major geographic regions (such as Europe, sub-Saharan African and so forth) as units of analysis, akin to what some would call 'geographic races', there is clearly more genetic variation that exists within these groupings than between them, a finding that consistently applies to genetic variation whether measured by blood group polymorphisms, DNA markers, craniometrics, or dental metrics (e.g., Barbujani et al., 1997; Relethford, 1994; 2002; Hanihara & Ishida, 2005). This pattern runs counter to an idea of typological race that emphasizes among-group variation over within-group variation." (Relethford, 2010)

2. Funny, everyone is wrong according you (Dobzhansky, Relethford, Marks, Hochman, etc.). Do you not realize it is you who is wrong? Races were originally thought to be as Marks says: "Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover [large] clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups." If you cannot show this, you aren't talking about race and it makes no sense to argue races are useful when they capture trivial amounts of variation. This is why demes and clines replaced race as a research tool: "Many physical anthropologists therefore believe that the concept of cline is more useful for research purposes than the race concept" (Barnouw, 1989).

3. The fact 19th century scientists once thought races were species demonstrates what I have been saying: races were seen to be vastly different. This is the opposite what we know today, and what you are arguing for (trivial/low amounts of genetic variation between groups).

4. Dobzhansky's focus was local populations, and not "Caucasoids" and "Mongoloids" etc. You can search for these terms on Google Books to see they rarely appear in his work: "Negroid" only appears 3 times in Mankind Evolving (and one of these is when he is quoting someone else), "Caucasoid" only appears once.

5. Only Garn's "micro races" = demes. He had a hierarchy of populations. The largest were "geographical races" such as continents, but these were not demes (panmictic populations). That is why the hierarchy makes no sense.

6. They aren't pigeon-holing people. Pointing out someone's ancestors came from Oceania, or Sub-Saharan Africa is not a classification, it is just a description. Sauer (1992) covers this in detail, i.e. to identify someone as having ancestry from Northern Europe, does not mean they are a "Nordic race".

7. "what, to your mind, would constitute a non-trivial, historically consistent race concept. Be specific and explain why". This has already been done by Hochman, Marks and so on and what I have posted here already, see the quote above from Marks (2010). Instead you claim it is "silly" and wrong, when the truth is your concept and redefinition of race is what is "silly" (it trivializes race, so what is the point?) and wrong (it is not a defence of the traditional race concept).
 Reply
I think this debate is now over and it is getting repetitive, but to clarify point 6: Brace wrote a paper called "Region does not mean race: reality versus convention in forensic anthropology". (1995) Journal of Forensic Sciences, 40(2):171–175.

So someone can be identified as having regional ancestry: "Oceanian", "American", "Sub-Saharan African", "East Eurasian", and "West Eurasian", but that doesn't make them a race. These geographical labels are just descriptive, they aren't categories.

Brace (who denies race is a useful way to study human biological variation) also makes this clear in the following article:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/d...exist.html

"There is nothing wrong with using geographic labels to designate people."
 Reply
(2015-Jul-10, 22:33:07)Krom Wrote: 1. Race typology argued for homogenous groupings of individuals ("types"), and emphasized the variation between rather than within them. Deviations were explained as the product of mixture, so for example 19th century typologists argued blonde-haired Australian aborigines were the result of interbreeding with Europeans, and narrow-nosed Horner Africans were the result of mixture with "Caucasoids", both claims have been shown to be false... Marks says: "Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover [large] clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups." If you cannot show this, you aren't talking about race...


I am relocating, so my replies might be delayed a bit.

When it comes to race, the historiography is generally pretty awful. It's improving, though, so if you are relying on secondary sources try more recent ones, for example:

Doron, C. O. (2011). Races et dégénérescence. L'émergence des savoirs sur l'homme anormal.

Doron, C. O. (2012). Race and Genealogy: Buffon and the Formation of the Concept of „Race‟.

Generally, it's better to look at the primary sources, which is what I did.

But yes, Dobzhansky, Relethford, Marks, and Hochman have all made easily demonstrable mistakes. (On request, I will enumerate them.) Regarding Dobzhansky, for example, he initially characterized Kant as something of a typologist; he changed his position by 1970:

Quote:To make this diversity manageable, pioneer anthropologists assumed that at some time in the past there existed several homogeneous, or "pure," races, each with a certain complex of morphological, and perhaps also psychological, traits. The modern diversity of humans is then ascribed to mixing of these basic racial types in various combinations and proportions. For example, Kant (1775) assumed four primary races: white, negro, Hunnic (Mongolian), and Hindu, and stated that it is "possible to derive from these four races all other hereditary ethnic characters, either as mixed or as incipient races . . . " (quoted from Count, 1950) (HUMAN DIVERSITY AND ADAPTATION, 1950).

Quote:Immanuel Kant, who was a naturalist before he became the prince of philosophy, wrote in 1775 the following remarkably perceptive lines.
[Quote]
It appears that Kant had a clearer idea about the distinction between individual variability ad the variability of population than many authors writing today. (Genetics of the Evolutionary Process, 1970)

Quote:3. The fact 19th century scientists once thought races were species demonstrates what I have been saying: races were seen to be vastly different. This is the opposite what we know today, and what you are arguing for (trivial/low amounts of genetic variation between groups).

I actually discussed this issue quite a bit. Since you seem to be uninterested in reading what I wrote, I will just quote a section:

Quote:By this narrative, once-upon-a-time races were thought to represent "real natural kinds," but it turned out that there were no such kinds and so mainstream scientists later rejected the concept. In actuality, close to the opposite occurred, at least insofar as we are referring to intraspecific divisions.

Let us clarify this latter point, first. As noted in section II, in context to natural history, the term “race” was used both exclusively to refer to a sort of intraspecific division and inclusively to refer to this in addition to species. The latter usage allowed for the question: “Are the races of man species?” Insofar as race was used to describe intraspecific variation it referred to “constant varieties,” genealogically understood. In the 20th century, the indiscriminate concept of varieties was retired and terms such as “polymorph” and “race” were employed to describe different sorts of intraspecific variation. “Race” gained an exclusively intraspecific denotation – though, outside of the natural sciences it was and is still often used in the inclusive sense, for example, when people refer to the “human race” and mean the “human species” or when fantasy fiction novels speak of different separately created races such as the elves and dwarves of Middle Earth. Since the term “race” had this dual meaning there is a sense in which some scholars believed that the races of man were natural kinds in the species realist sense – after all, some believed that races were species and that species were separate creations. Thus one has to interrogate the specific meaning of the claims. Smith (2013) makes it clear that he is speaking about races as “subdivision of the human species,” so we will frame our discussion in terms of this understanding.

For a more lengthy discussion try my section II-B "Semantic Complexities and the Evolution of the Race Concept".

Generally, Buffon, Blumenbach, Kant, and Duchesne developed a concept which they called "race" which described "constant varieties" understood genealogically. Polygenists, though, argued that the term "race" should be more generally applied. Thus, in reply to Kant, Georg Forster noted:

Quote:We have borrowed <the term> [race] from the French; it seems very closely related to <the words> racine and radix and signifies descent in general, though in an indeterminate way. For one talks in French of the race of Caesar <in> the same <way> as of the races of horses and dogs, irrespective of the first origin, but, nevertheless, as it seems, always with tacit subordination under the concept of a species... <The word> should mean nothing more than a mass of men whose common formation is distinctive and sufficiently at variance with their neighbors <such that they> could not be immediately derived from them. <They are> a lineage whose derivation is unknown, and consequently, one which we cannot easily count under one of the commonly accepted human varieties because we lack knowledge of the intermediary link.

Race, the term, then ended up referring to two concepts: (a) (exclusive) genealogically understood contant varieties and (b) (inclusive) genealogically understood contant varieties plus genealogically understood species. Only by the latter concept would some "races" -- the ones which were thought of as being species -- have been thought of in a typological manner (as you mean it). Since (b) includes (a), though, even if you wanted to equivocally argue that "races" were thought typologically (adopting concept b), you would have to admit that they also were not. As a result, even equivocation can not rhetorically save the argument. Do you disagree on this point?

Quote:4.[/b] Dobzhansky's focus was local populations, and not "Caucasoids" and "Mongoloids" etc. You can search for these terms on Google Books to see they rarely appear in his work: "Negroid" only appears 3 times in Mankind Evolving (and one of these is when he is quoting someone else), "Caucasoid" only appears once.

Dobzhansky made it quite clear that his concept scaled up. See the attached. Below are more example:

"The human species is compounded of numerous subordinate Mendelian populations, which form an intricate hierarchy, beginning with clans, tribes, and various economic and cultural isolates, and culminating in "major" races, and finally the species... Now, not only the major but also the minor populations differ in gene frequencies. They are "races" by definition...One must, however, be on guard not to invent a "population" by hand-picking a "group" of individuals who do not belong to a common gene pool. For example, people with O blood group, or long-haired people, or criminals are not Mendelian populations and can not reasonably be called races....The characteristic Mongoloid facial structure may be an example of "climatic engineering" which gives the greatest protection to cold and windy climates." (Race and Humanity)

"The five "races" of Blumenbach were:
...
This was a biological classification which obviously described existing differences between large populations inhibiting different parts of the world." (Heredity, Race and Society)

"Discrepancies between the "genetic" and the "taxonomic" species are to be expected mainly in those relatively rare cases where different groups do not interbreed despite the scarcity or absence of morphological differences between them (a good example of this sort are the "races"o f Trichogrammam inutum described by Harland and Atteck), or where geographically isolated races, without losing the ability to interbreed, have diverged so widely in their morphological characters that taxonomists feel compelled to consider them separate species (for instance, some "species" of pheasants." (A Critique of the Species Concept in Biology)

"The fossil Grimaldi people in southern France were like some Negroids now living in Africa..." (Evolving Mankind)

"Thus, the gene Rho is rare among whites but con~-non among Negroes, while Rhl is relatively rare among Negroes and common among whites and especially among Mongoloids." (HUMAN DIVERSITY AND ADAPTATION)

"Only one thing is certain -- the populations of Europe and Africa were not identical with those of Java and China. The human species was then, as it is now, differentiated into geographic races....All the branches but one withered and became extinct; the sole surviving branch is the present Homo sapiens. This branch has, in turn, split into diverging twigs -- the present human races." (ON SPECIES AND RACES OF LIVING AND FOSSIL MAN)
................

Interestingly, in "Heredity, Race and Society", Dobzhansky also states:

"One of the greatest absurdities of the so called race problem in the United states is that anyone who admits having some African ancestry is classed as a Negro regardless of his or her appearance. A "Negro" is then a member of a social and economic group rather than of a purely biological one[/b]. Some of the children born of such "Negroes" are indistinguishable from, and, "pass" among the whites in order to avoid anti-Negro discrimination."

"African Americans" surely represent a "breeding population which differs on average from "European Americans". If your and Gannet's interpretation is correct, why does Dobzhansky feel that it's absurd to consider "Negroes" to be a biological group? He does say that his races are "biological units", so why aren't Negroes one of these? However, if I am correct, why are "economic and cultural isolates" races? Is an "isolate" different from a "group"?

Anyways, you said:

Quote:5. Only Garn's "micro races" = demes. He had a hierarchy of populations. The largest were "geographical races" such as continents, but these were not demes (panmictic populations). That is why the hierarchy makes no sense
.

I don't think that Garn equated races with demes -- but I will have to read more of his articles to be sure. That is, I imagine that his races were like Dobzhansky's where while all races are "Mendelian populations", not all Mendelian populations -- specifically demes which were not genetically "distinct" -- are races. Thus, he notes that his races share a fraction of genes in common. Strictly speaking demes do not need to. Would not you agree?

Quote:They aren't pigeon-holing people. Pointing out someone's ancestors came from Oceania, or Sub-Saharan Africa is not a classification, it is just a description. Sauer (1992) covers this in detail, i.e. to identify someone as having ancestry from Northern Europe, does not mean they are a "Nordic race".

When you assign someone to a biogeographical group based on their ancestry, you are "pigeon-holing" (i.e., classifying) them no different than when you assign them to a "race" the same way. But I agree that one need not classify (group); one could just describe ancestry components -- and some researchers do this. If you want specific examples in which individuals are arranged into divisions I can give them. But you say:

Quote:Instead you claim it is "silly" and wrong, when the truth is your concept and redefinition of race is what is "silly" (it trivializes race, so what is the point?) and wrong (it is not a defence of the traditional race concept).

I discussed this above. Please refer me to the said people who in a typological manner divided the human species into races. Provide specific references so that I can read the papers.

Now, on that note, a clarification is necessary. Contrary to what you have implied, I do not adopt a "population" understanding of race -- indeed, I criticize these because I find them vague and ill-defined. The more I read Dobzhansky the more compelling I find my critique. Instead of a population understanding, I adopt a cluster class one, one which is perfectly consistent with Darwin's and mostly consistent with Blumenbach's and Buffon's. (It differs from Kant's class understanding in that it is a cluster ones, not a character essential class concept.) I do note, though, that "genetic population" and cluster concepts such as Hartl and Clark's are no different. Whether Dobzhansky's is depends on what exactly he meant by "genetically distinct" Mendelian populations.

So, your criticism of Dobzhansky's "re-definition" does not constitute a criticism of the concept I presented.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
 Reply
(2015-Jul-11, 03:30:25)Krom Wrote: I think this debate is now over and it is getting repetitive, but to clarify point 6


We aren't making progress because you refuse to concede points, for example about biological "natural divisions".

On a positive note, you did force me to re-examine Dobzhansky-esque "Mendelian population" definitions. Though, you have not helped clarify his concept.

Quote:So someone can be identified as having regional ancestry: "Oceanian", "American", "Sub-Saharan African", "East Eurasian", and "West Eurasian", but that doesn't make them a race. These geographical labels are just descriptive, they aren't categories.

I conceptualize races as being divisions of a species into which individuals are arranged by IBD genomic similarity ~ propinquity of descent. I agree that arranging people by "regional ancestry" and identifying them as members of regional ancestry groups doesn't necessarily group them into races. I noted this:

Quote:Malik feels that race must mean something in addition to geographic ancestry and that there is no justification for calling mere “continental groups” races. Given our concept of biological race, a reply to Malik is ready on hand: “geographic ancestry,” let alone “continentally delineated group” is not, in fact, synonymous with biological race. Only when individuals from roughly the same geographic region descend from the same natural division do they belong to the same race; hence, the geographically defined sociological race of “Asians” in the US does not correspond to any biological one... The discord between geographically defined populations and races has been pointed out by others. For example, criticizing Neil Risch‟s continental racial classification, Condit (2007) notes: “Indeed, none of the groups claimed to be delineated as "continental‟ groupings are actually very closely coterminous with a continent as the term is otherwise understood” (HoSang, 2014). Of course, what Risch and others refer to are not continentally defined populations but intraspecific natural divisions – races – on the continental-level of genetic analysis.

Ok, but the studies of which I am speaking actually group individual into races -- or describe their racial ancestry (i.e., ancestry with respect to historic natural divisions).

I can't comment more because I don't have access to the Brace article. The abstract reads:

"Norman Sauer has posed the rhetorical question: if races do not exist, how come forensic anthropologists are so good at identifying them? The simple answer is that, as members of the society that poses the question, they are inculcated into the social conventions that determine the expected answer. They should also be aware of the biological inaccuracies contained in that "politically correct" answer. Skeletal analysis provides no direct assessment of skin color, but it does allow an accurate estimate of original geographical origins. African, eastern Asian, and European ancestry can be specified with a high degree of accuracy. Africa of course entails "black," but "black" does not entail African. The significant identifying features of a given region then are stochastically determined and are not the products of natural selection. If they are valuable for purposes of identification, they have no coherent adaptive, that is, biological, significance. Neither individual traits nor a configuration of them associated with a given region have any adaptive significance and thus have no comparative worth. Traits of adaptive value however are not constrained by region and cannot be used to identify "race.""

Yes, my races are "stochastically determined" in the sense that they are defined by descent and patterns of filatiion and not by specific phenotypes varied due to natural selection (such as skin reflectance). But this is what makes them "races" in the sense of both breeds and lineages -- and not morphs or some form of non-genealogical ecotype. Do they then not have meaning? Well, these races do differ on average in traits which were under selective pressure; they just are not delineated that way. (Brace is making a non sequitur here.) Also, since they index kinship they surely matter to those concerned about inclusive fitness (e.g., Salter, 2005). But maybe Brace has a better argument hidden in his paper -- could you attach a copy? -- regardless, he seems to grant that these groups defined in terms of "original geographical origins" correspond with ones defined in terms of propinquity of descent. (I presume that this is what he means by "stochastically determined".)
 Reply
(2015-Jul-10, 22:33:07)Krom Wrote: 1. Race typology argued for homogenous groupings of individuals ("types"), and emphasized the variation between rather than within them. Deviations were explained as the product of mixture, so for example 19th century typologists argued blonde-haired Australian aborigines were the result of interbreeding with Europeans, and narrow-nosed Horner Africans were the result of mixture with "Caucasoids", both claims have been shown to be false.


Since we disagree, we ought to take a look at some of our "typologists". Below is what Hooton had to say in "Methods of racial Analysis"

Quote:In the existing confusion as to the connotation of race, it is clear that the term requires exact definition, if any progress is to be made in studies which relate to race analysis or racial problems. I offer the following definition, not with the hope of expectation that it will be generally accepted, but merely in order to elucidate my own position.

A race is a great division of mankind, the members of which, though individually varying, are characterized as a group by a certain combination of morphological and metrical features, principally non-adaptive, which have been derived from their common descent.

A Primary race is one which has been modified only by the operation of evolutionary factors, including the selection of its own intrinsic variation and of the modification, adaptive or non-adaptive, possibly caused by environmental stimuli.

A secondary or composite race is one in which a characteristic and stabilized combination of morphological and metrical features has been effected by a long continued intermixture of two or more primary races within and areas of relative isolation.

Assuming, for the moment, the validity of the foregoing definitions, it is apparent that the present populations of the world consists for the most part of secondary races and that the primary races are represented by inbred peoples within areas where little race contact is known to have taken place. Of such inbred peoples only a small fraction represent primary racial types either because they are absolutely unmixed or because pure racial types have been segregated out in relatively few individuals. For man has been a migratory animal from proto human times down to the present and the contact of races has always resulted in racial admixture

And below is what he had to say in "Plain statements about race."

Quote:I therefore intend to assert bluntly and simply what I believe to be the best consensus of scientific anthropological opinion upon what races are and what they connote.

(1) A "race" is a physical division of mankind, the members of which are distinguished by the possession of similar combinations of anatomical features due to their common heredity.
(2) There exists no single physical criterion for distinguishing race; races are delimited by the association in human groups of multiple variations of bodily form and structure-such as amount of pigment in hair, skin and eyes, form of the hair, shape of the nose, range of stature, relation of head length to head breadth, et cetera. These criteria are of mainly hereditary origin, but none of them is wholly impervious to environmental influences, such as the effects of climate, diet, exercise and altitude. It follows that race is essentially a zoological device whereby indefinitely large groups of similar physical appearance and hereditary background are classified together for the sake of convenience...

(7)A "pure" race is little more than an anthropological abstraction; no pure race can be found in any civilized country. Racial purity is restricted, at best, to remnants of savage groups in isolated wildernesses. The present races of man have intermingled and interbred for many thousands of years, so that their genealogical lines have become inextricably confused. Physical classifications of race merely attempt to delimit groups of approximate physical uniformity, with a restricted assumption of similar heredity.

(8) The composite origin of most of the existing races of man is demonstrable. Thus the Polynesian represents a stabilized blend of White, Negroid and Mongoloid elements. The so-called Nordic race is probably a hybrid derivative of several strains present in Europe during the glacial period, to which have been added in historic times Alpine, Mongoloid and other racial elements (carried by Lapps, Finns, Slavs and other peoples who have mixed with the inhabitants of the "Nordic" area).

....

Hooton equated his "primary races" with "pure races". He specifically stated that these are formed, in part, from the "selection of its own intrinsic variation" -- thus, they necessarily were not homogenous groups!

The strange thing is that in biology it's common to talk about "pure" strains or "pure" types without implying groups with little or no inter-individual variation. For example, in context to discussions of mendelian genetics here.

Who else should we check? How about Deinker? Being a good typologist, in "The races of man" he noted:

Quote:It is to these units that we give the name “races,” using the word in a very broad sense, different from that given to it in zoology and zootechnics. It is a sum-total of somatological characteristics once met with in a real union of individuals, now scattered in fragments of varying proportions among several “ethnic groups,” from which it can no longer be differentiated except by a process of delicate analysis.

But were his racial "types" supposed to be homogenous somatic units? To determine, we can just look at his discussion of species:

Quote:The data relating to the formation of varieties, species, and races can therefore be applied to the morphological study of man only with certain reservations. “The idea of “species” must rest on the knowledge of two orders of facts, the morphological resemblances of beings and the lineal transmission of their distinctive characters. Here, in fact, the formula of Cuvier is still in force to-day in science. “The species is the union of individuals descending one from the other or from common parents, and of those who resemble them as much as they resemble each other.”[3] (I have italicised the passage relating to descent.) [b]It is necessary then that beings, in order to form a species, should be like each other, but it is obvious that this resemblance cannot be absolute, for there are not two plants or two animals in nature which do not differ from each other by some detail of structure; the likeness or unlikeness is then purely relative; it is bound to vary within certain limits.

Neither Deinker's species nor his races were homogenous in the claimed way -- which is as we would expect since he along with this contemporaries were working from a Darwinian perspective, one in which inter-individual heritable variance was a prerequisite for evolution. To get the types of claimed "racial types" you have to go back to the Linnean view and concern yourself with species.

Now, on that note, you might be interested in this paper: Weiss, K. M., & Lambert, B. W. (2011). When the time seems ripe: Eugenics, the Annals, and the subtle persistence of typological thinking. The authors state:

Quote:The idea of type specimens had long been applied to races as types of humans. In 1926, a year after the Annals was launched, Hooton wrote that humans could be divided by morphological characteristics into pure races and individuals admixed among them (Hooton, 1926a). The world's leading human genetics text in the time of the Annals founding, Human Heredity (Baur et al., 1921), expressed a similar view. However, instead of vague morphological measures, its authors insisted that the defining traits should be traits that are clearly Mendelian, and hence genetic, real, reliable, and inherent. Using such traits they, too, sorted humankind into pure races and individuals admixed among them.

This is classic typological thinking, yet Pearson, Fisher et al. were far from naïve. They may have focused on a few visible or imagined behavioural stereotypes, but they knew that there was variation even within racial types: not all Europeans (not even all Jews!) are morphologically or genetically identical. So what kind of “type” were they thinking about?

The idea is a somewhat elusive one that can be related to our simulation exercise. A race can be characterised as a variable type in the following statistical way. In genetic terms, a “race” R would be defined by a vector of allele frequencies at a set of defining loci, say R = (p1, p2, p3, …) for a selected allele at locus 1, 2, 3 …Each individual in a “pure” race is a random draw from this vector of allele frequencies. A race is thus a population in multilocus Hardy–Weinberg genotype proportions based on its defining allele frequency type vector...

One might fancy that typological days are safely locked away in the cobwebs of history, but the same typological thinking is still here, all around us (Weiss & Long, 2009). In one of its more rigorous forms it is called “structure” analysis, after the first of several programs that perform it (Pritchard et al., 2000).

Structure programs divide sampled individuals into statistically homogeneous types (in the above Hardy–Weinberg sense of sampling from a type vector) and other individuals who are admixed among them. [Noted: by "statistically homogeneous types" the authors mean "discrete sets"]. The analysis is a sophisticated statistical genetic partitioning, based on specific assumptions about the nature of human evolutionary history. It has become a routinely used approach by scientists who would not dream of using words like “race” and have no discriminatory or eugenic intent, but who may not be aware of the history of such concepts.

Ironically, as is well known, even with low intrapopulation genotypic identity, if many loci are genotyped it is easy to place individuals in their respective populations (Witherspoon et al., 2007; Nievergelt et al., 2008; Weiss & Long, 2009; Weiss and Lambert, 2010). This is simply a reflection of the distance between the population type vectors. The low level of intrapopulation identity is a surprise only if one thinks as classical typologists seem to have done, in terms that only include a few stereotypical traits.

I highlighted the last sentence because it's another example of poor historiography. The "classical typologists" mentioned e.g., Hooton, Pearson, Fisher et al. did not intend to use "a few stereotypical traits" -- rather they used "multiple variations of bodily form and structure-such as amount of pigment in hair, skin and eyes, form of the hair, shape of the nose, range of stature, relation of head length to head breadth, et cetera." -- and they generally attempted to use as many as possible. Thus Hooton (1926) tells us: "The criteria by which race classifications are established are admittedly physical. Furthermore, they are necessarily multiple. No single bodily character exhibits a sufficient range of variation to enable us to assign to each of the great human groups which require racial classification a distinct and exclusive development of the feature. There are no enough variation of any one feature to go around, unless we confine ourselves to two or three primary and well-nigh hypothetical races...If follows that racial classification must be made upon the basis of a sum total of significant morphological and metrical features according to the measured and observed combinations of distinct variations of such features in large human groups."

The "classical racial typologists" differ from the "contemporaneous population typologists" in that the former used inherited morphological traits while the latter use molecular character. Weiss and Lambert are typical of more sophisticated and thoughtful race opponents. Instead of making up fantastic easily falsifiable once-upon-a-time-stories about what race was once said to have been they give a sensible account and then show that something like this understanding still has currency. They then argue that this modern race-like thinking is problematic because, just like the old type, it's "at beast inaccurate" not for the typically said reasons but given such and such standards and expectations that are rarely applied in other comparable instances.
 Reply
If race was originally the "weak form" of race naturalism (contra Hochman, Marks) and not a new concept or re-definition, then you need to explain -- why? You've already admitted racial differences are minor. So what is the point in a trivial classification? Furthermore clines capture these rather unimportant differences a lot more accurately: we can simply recognise the variation of a single trait across geographical space without arbitrarily having to impose a line of demarcation. Clinal maps for skin and eye colour, and a few other phenotypic traits have been produced since the 1960s.
 Reply
Biology Today: An Issues Approach
By Eli C. Minkoff, Pamela J. Baker p. 195:

[Image: pic.png]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_To...s_Approach
 Reply
Edited 2:47 07/19/2015

(2015-Jul-19, 19:00:56)Chuck Wrote:
(2015-Jul-19, 16:25:25)Krom Wrote: If race was originally the "weak form" of race naturalism (contra Hochman, Marks) and not a new concept or re-definition, then you need to explain -- why? You've already admitted racial differences are minor. So what is the point in a trivial classification?Furthermore clines capture these rather unimportant differences a lot more accurately: we can simply recognise the variation of a single trait across geographical space without arbitrarily having to impose a line of demarcation. Clinal maps for skin and eye colour, and a few other phenotypic traits have been produced since the 1960s.


Let me address the second point first since it is more easily addressable. Clines are character gradients; races, as I define them, are divisions of organisms. Clines describe singular traits; races, describe groups or organisms delineated in terms of ancestry which as a result differ in complexes of traits. Clines are interesting, but they are not races. Now, I could discuss ancestral relatedness without using discrete categories -- divisions -- but it's easier for me to think discretely, to talk about groups instead of degrees of ancestral affinity. In the same way, I often think about social classes instead of specific characteristics like education -- the former captures correlated variation too -- and when I think of social classes I tend to think categorically -- upper, middle, and lower. You can do otherwise; I am not saying that you should not. I am just asking you to recognize the validity of my way of thinking, since you undoubtedly recognize the validity of similar ways in other instances e.g., thinking about "ethnocultural groups" instead of memetic and somatic character gradients.

Moving back, Hochman and Marks, I believe, formulate their "strong form" differently. Could you please specify what so-said strong sense of race you had in mind? But you say: "You've already admitted racial differences are minor. So what is the point in a trivial classification?"

I never "admitted [that] racial differences" were "minor", rather I noted that they could be minor as is typically the case between minor races. As for major human races, they are moderate (see the quantification in section IV-K of my NofR paper), and between the formally recognized races of other species they are often major. Now, that said, the race concept, per my understanding is useful. This is why this concept is commonly employed in human related research, though under euphemisms. Consider the attached paper below. Let me quote from it:

Quote:In our group’s previous study, we found that area measures of cortical surface and total brain volumes of individuals of European descent in the United States correlate significantly with their ancestral geographic locations in Europe [9]. Here, we demonstrate that the three-dimensional geometry of cortical surface is highly predictive of individuals’ genetic ancestry in West Africa, Europe, East Asia, and America, even though their genetic background has been shaped by multiple waves of migratory and admixture events... Besides explaining more ancestry variance than other brain imaging measurements, the 3D geometry of the cortical surface further characterizes distinct regional patterns in the folding and gyrification of the human brain associated with each ancestral lineage. Results...The proportions of genetic ancestry were estimated using principal component (PC) analysis with whole-genome SNP reference panels for ancestry [12–14]. Four continental populations were used as ancestral references: West Africa (YRI, Yoruba in Ibadan), Europe (CEU, Utah residents with Northern and Western European ancestry), East Asia (EA), and America (NA, Native American). The metrics for summarizing genetic ancestry in each ancestral component were standardized as proportions ranging from 0% to 100%. These proportions represent how genetically similar an individual is to the reference population...An implication of our ancestry-related 3D models is that, unless properly controlled for, hidden population structures could present a challenge in brain imaging studies of admixed populations. The regional differences between ancestral groups include changing sulcus depths and folding angles. This issue becomes particularly relevant in large, multisite United States and international brain imaging studies [29].

Now, if you agree that the authors' "ancestral lineages", "ancestry groups", "continental populations", and "population structure" correspond with the race concept I am discussing -- division of a species, the members of which share more ancestry with each other than with members of other divisions, which differ in the frequency of hereditary traits -- then you should at least agree that some researchers consider the concept -- whether expressed statistically or otherwise -- to have utility and to be important in context to human, let along non-human related research. Marks and Hochmann are not morons. They are well aware of the ongoing research that employs the concept -- if defined statistically -- I am speaking of. As such, they have but two choices, they could acknowledge that the research employs a common race concept -- if not referred to as race -- and then try to assault the research a la:

Quote:“It appears that many scientists do not even believe this distinction makes a difference; they have concocted a thinly disguised euphemism for race they hope will not stir up as much controversy. Geographic ancestry has not replaced race — it has modernized it.” (Roberts, 2011)

“Thus, though the “population” concept is touted as an advancement in freeing genomics from racial bias, it is merely a terminological mask for “race” in genomics… The language employed to talk about “race” without talking about it overtly then takes the form of racial euphemisms like “population.” (Williams, 2015)

Or they can try to argue that the concept being employed is radically different from what was originally called race. They reasonably choose the latter option. Now a considerable portion of my NofR paper attempts to show that these population genetic concepts -- whether as employed in zoology or in medical genetic research -- are descendents of the early (intraspecific) race one(s) and, moreover, that they are ones which have undergone so little modification that referring to them as "race" -- or recognizing them as "race" concepts -- is well justified. Now, as for the general utility, I discussed this:

Quote:What is race? The term means many related things and is thus a polyseme. Here, we are not interested in “race” as either a term or a general notion but as a specific concept which picks out a type of biological variation not well captured by other concepts in the domain of biology. We might dispense with the term “race” were it not to appropriately describe the concept of interest and to help facilitate thinking about it. But what is this concept? To ask this question is to request examples of the sort of biological variation that we are trying to describe. Consider the following types of variation: New Yorkers and Parisians, blonds and brunets, East Asians and Europeans in New York, and humans and horses. From the perspective of biology, we would properly refer to the first as "(spatial) populations," the second as "morphs," and the fourth as "species." But what of the third? These are strangely sounding groups. After all, how is someone an ‘East Asian’ and yet also a ‘New Yorker’? Perhaps what is meant is someone who once lived in East Asia – who migrated from the East Asian (spatial) population –and who now lives in New York? Yet what if both our East Asians and Europeans were second or third generation immigrants, ones born in New York? In what way would such groupings be biological? Perhaps, in fact, there is nothing biological to speak of beyond the types of divisions which we have already named. Perhaps our East Asians and Europeans, as such, are nothing at all, biologically speaking.

I would like to think about: divisions of a species which differ in the frequency of hereditary traits because the members share more ancestry with members of the same divisions than with members of other ones. I don't feel that I owe you a justification for why. Perhaps I am interested in understanding evolutionary processes; perhaps I wish to be a biological racist and discriminate on the grounds of inclusive fitness; perhaps I just like categorizing people; perhaps it's easier for me to think of ancestral variation -- and so continuous correlated variation -- discretely; perhaps I wish to research the relationship between outcome differences and genomically defined racial ancestry in mixed populations; perhaps all of the above; perhaps none.

Now, (1) do you grant that my concept is coherent? (2) Do you grant that human races, so defined, really exist in the commonsense sense in which forests do? (3) Do you grant that the "folk classifications" which I discuss (not e.g., "Asian Americans, but e.g., East Asians) are consistent with this concept? (4) Do you grant that populations genetic concepts called e.g., ancestry groups -- which delineate groups using innumerous ancestrally informative molecular markers, cut out comparable classes? (5) Do you grant that there is a striking conceptual resemblance between my concept and these population genetic ones? (6) Do you grant that many researchers find the latter to be utile? If yes, what possibly then do we disagree about? It can only be on whether the concept I am discussing matches with some older concept called race. Well, I have showed, I think, that it descends from this concept. It's easy to trace the concept's lineage. The only issue then is whether there was so much modification along the way that the concept temporally speciated and thus "should" not be recognized as representing one concept. I explain why I think that the concept was cross temporally stable enough to be recognized as one and the same basic concept (cf, atoms, elements, and species) and I show that many common objections, e.g., that race was commonly thought to be...[inset outlandish entity], are absurd. We both agree that there have been modifications -- and I accept that the issue is a matter of judgement and that you may come to a different conclusion. Though, I would like to hear a sound case.

Now, regarding Dobzhansky try "Mankind Evolving" (1963): http://www.unz.org/Pub/DobzhanskyTheodosius-1962

Here, again, he calls the major human races "subspecies". Interestingly, he has a section called "races, classes, and castes as mendelian populations" in which he is careful to not equate classes and castes with races, though he does not explain why. He does note again that race classifications should be based on all variable traits. (This is the third piece in which he says this.) And he argues that it would be absurd to class siblings or parents-offspring dyads into separate races. (This is the second book in which he says this.) This is all rather puzzling. If social classes are mendelian population (which obviously differ on average) why are they not races? Yet if they are races, why could not sibs be of different races -- surely some of my sibs are in very different social classes than I. And if we delineated groups by all variable genes, there is no way that social classes would form races in multiethnic countries since the genetic variance between social classes -- defined by a few traits -- is much less than that between groups defined by propinquity of descent. I have to say that either I am utterly confused or that Dobzhansky's concept is somewhat so and that Gannet missed this.



Attached Files
.pdf   Modeling the 3D Geometry of the Cortical Surface with Genetic Ancestry.pdf (Size: 2.09 MB / Downloads: 281)
 Reply
(2015-Jul-19, 16:45:01)Krom Wrote: Biology Today: An Issues Approach
By Eli C. Minkoff, Pamela J. Baker p. 195:

[Image: pic.png]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_To...s_Approach


Again, I asked for primary references because the historiography is so poor. Here were some other (demonstrably false) claims:

Quote:We argue that the recent research in genetics demonstrates that certain racial, and also ethnic, categories have a biological basis in statistically discernible clusters of alleles rather than in the traditional notions of human races as arising from categorically distinct ancestries or as possessing categorically unique essences (Marks 2006; Spickard 1992).

Quote:Both Linnaeus and Blumenbach were 18th century figures cited by Hrdlicka (1918a) for placing man within the natural history tradition ... The races defined by the western race concept were codified by Linnaeus and by the definitive 10th edition of Systemae Naturae (Linnaeus, 1758); he described five subspecies of humans listing both morphological and behavioral characteristics of each type that were considered a part of the essence of the category and were implicitly (and explicitly) understood to be part of the intrinsic biology of the race... The essence of the categories, believed to be stable and unchanging, was defined by science.

Quote:In the spirit of Aristotle, subspecies were first defined as types – as natural kinds defined in terms of an essential property possessed by all and only the members of the same subspecies.

Quote:Blumenbach stressed the unchanging and immutable nature of the races, apparently assuming that intermarriage never occurred.
 Reply
 Previous 1 24 25 26 27 28 40 Next   
 
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)