Hello There, Guest!  
 Previous 1 28 29 30 31 32 40 Next   

[OBG] Nature of Race Full

(2015-Jul-27, 23:14:46)Peter Frost Wrote: for example Larnach and Macintosh (1974) found 17.7% of aboriginal crania from the Cairns Rain Forest and 9.6% from Queensland to be non-dolichocephalic (mesocephalic).

Krom,

Three points:

1. By the same line of reasoning, one could show that species don't exist. Our own species varies considerably in dental and cranial traits, and this variation overlaps not only with what we see in Neandertals but also with what we see in some nonhuman primates. The same with blood groups. The same with a lot of other traits.

2. I don't want to question your intellectual honesty, but please take a minute to read what you write before you publish. You quote several authors to show that the race concept implies "clear-cut" and "sharp discontinuities" between human races. In fact, the actual quotes refer to "clear-cut" differences in trait frequencies and "sharper discontinuities" (which is admittedly an oxymoron). In both cases, the authors defined human races as fuzzy sets. If human races were indeed sharply defined entities, they would not be races. They would be species. Indeed, even species are not as sharply defined as we like to think.

3. Quoting Montagu to defend your position on race is like quoting Margaret Thatcher to defend strike breaking. As a general rule, it's disreputable to defend one's opinion by simply quoting another person's opinion. This is the fallacy of "appeal to authority." It's even more disreputable if the other person is neither a neutral observer nor an eminence grise. Ashley Montagu was neither.


Can you show or name a biologist that argues species are not useful? Whether species "exist" is a different debate, philosophy, not science. As far as I am aware no biologist denies "human" (Homo sapiens) is a useful category, however most biologists deny human races are convenient classificatory tools. The reason is that putative races like "Caucasoid", "Mongoloid", or "Black" and "White", etc., capture very little biological variation and not in an accurate way. This is why clines replaced race from the 1960s:

"Promoted by Livingstone (1962), the study of clines, the distribution of individual morphological and genetic traits, came to replace race as a focus of analysis for many workers." - Caspari, Rachel. 2010. "Deconstructing Race: Racial Thinking, Geographic Variation, and Implications for Biological Anthropology" In: A Companion to Biological Anthropology Clark Spencer Larsen (ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
 Reply
Many edits. Failed multitasking.

(2015-Jul-28, 22:01:51)Krom Wrote: Most, if not all, your sources are saying gradients ("intermediate" populations) are the product of race mixture/migration, not in situ. This means these 18th-19th century scientists thought there are/were homogenous races, and the continuum was the product of these sharply discontinuous races. You can't have it any other way.


As several of your recent comments are redundant, I will simply reply to this.

(1) Firstly, I asked for primary references. I have demonstrated in my paper -- and in this thread discussion -- that the historiography of the race concept is generally poor. Moreover, I have shown that numerous philosophers and historians of race have made gross errors in their treatment of the subject. One can not then rely on these narrative accounts, especially when the writers find their concept of study to be morally offensive. Also, it is bad scholarly practice to rely on secondary accounts.

(2) Regarding the excerpts in my most recent reply, I selected them to refute your nonsensical claim that intraspecific races were traditionally definitionally thought of as divisions between which there are deep discontinuities. I can show through textual references that the same authors (and many more) did not think of races -- again understood as divisions of a species -- as being originally homogenous groups; I believe that I have already provided ample evidence in this regards; but I will happily provide more.

(3) As for your statement above, you are incorrect again. Authors like Darwin could and did both agree that intermediate populations resulted from admixture and that races contained "in situ" inter-individual variation. Evolutionists, had to concur with this position, since they realized that selection acted on individual variation and they viewed races as way-stations to new species. Pre-evolution monogenists also had to agree because they contrasted races as constant varieties with inconstant individual varieties on the one hand and species on the other. This leaves as the third major possibility the heretical minority polygenists, who argued that "races" were "species", and thus dealt with a different concept.

(4) But I like to settle one point at a time. When you concede that races per se were not typically thought of as deeply discontinuous and were often recognized to be continuous I will revisit the question of original -- "in situ" -- homogeneity.

(5) Personally, I don't care for your rhetorical style, since it leads nowhere. When I demonstrate that you are wrong on a point, instead of conceding the point, asking for more time to investigate, or continuing to debate it, you suddenly switch topics. Did you ever, for example, agree that a "natural division", in biology, generally refers to what I said it does?

(6) But you cite Grover Krantz, who opposed the concept of race -- as opposed to an actual proponent of the concept. Who did he specifically refer to? And what does the statement, "races are natural units that tend to maintain their identity" and "the implied permanence of each race", mean given that by "races" we mean groups which diverged from a common stock. Different races, so understood, necessarily could not have maintained their identity across time. Perhaps he is thinking of polygenists, who used the term "race" to refer to Linnaean species. More poor historiography. But please try to locate the primary sources which he refers to. Here let me try: "No-racers claim that there is no geographical hereditary variation in a species. But we now know that this is not true. Which is why biologists agree that races exist." There! (Note: my statement is no less accurate than Grover Krantz'.)

(7) As for clines, we have gone over this innumerable times. A cline, properly understood, refers to a character gradient. Races have come to refers to populations, groups, divisions, or types of organisms. The two are not comparable concepts. If your authors mean "isolates" and "population continua" -- both of which refer to distributions of organisms -- they should use those terms. If all there was were clines, '"population" geneticists would be out of a field of study, since they focus on groups of organisms, not gradients of characters.
 Reply
(2015-Jul-28, 23:26:34)Krom Wrote: "The philosophical concept of race did not actually emerge in its present form until the 1684 publication of “A New Division of the Earth” by Francois Bernier (1625–1688) (Bernasconi and Lott 2000, viii; Hannaford 1996, 191, 203). Based on his travels through Egypt, India, and Persia, this essay presented a division of humanity into “four or five species or races of men in particular whose difference is so remarkable that it may be properly made use of as the foundation for a new division of the earth” (Bernasconi and Lott 2000, 1–2)."


I already referred you to Doron's excellent discussion of Bernier: Doron (2011) "Races et dégénérescence. L'émergence des savoirs sur l'homme anormal" (page 760 on). Quote:

Quote:Mais le problème doit se poser autrement: y a-t-il tout simplement un concept de "race" chez Bernier? Y a-t-il un niveau bien particulier et défini, un niveau positif, qui serait celui de la race et qui mériterait un traitement propre? La réponse, aussi paradoxale qu'ell eparaisse, est négative. Jamais Bernier n'utilise le terme de "race": il utilise le syntagme "espèces ou races" deux fois [note], et l'abandonne aussitôt – ce qui montre combien la notion de "race" est pour lui indifférente – pour celui d'espèce. [note: en outre, dans cette première version du texte le terme même de "race" n'apparaît pas, cédant cette fois totalement la place à "espèce".]...En outre, que signifie "race" pour Bernier? Le syntagme, puis la disparition du terme au profit de celui d'espèce, le montre nettement: la race est un strict synonyme d'"espèce" et "espèce" ici doit s'entendre, comme le mot "race" lui-même, en un sens purement logique...Blumenbach est sans aucun doute, plus de cent ans après le texte de Bernier, celui qui est à l'origine du contresens qui institue Bernier comme l'auteur de la première classification raciale de l'espèce humaine. Il n'est pas vrai, avons-nous dit, que Bernier divise l'espèce humaine ou le genre humain en quoi que ce soit: ce sont là des problèmes typiques des classifications d'histoire naturelle, que Blumenbach pouvait bien se poser mais que Bernier ne se pose absolument pas. Son référent n'est pas l'espèce humaine, prise dans un ensemble taxinomique hiérarchisé où il faudrait lui assigner un rang ainsi qu'à ses variétés; encore moins, contrairement à ce que certains prétendent2468, l'homme pensé en continuité avec l'ensemble des animaux et des végétaux dans un système classificatoire...

Bernier did not develop a "concept of race", rather he used the term "race" and provided no definition; he ambiguously referred to major groups as "species or races" ("Especes ou Race") and used "race" only three times -- including in the title -- in the later edition (of his several page article) in contrast to species, which was used 13 times; in the original, groups were not even once referred to as races, just as species -- that is, he added "or races" a couple of times, probably to keep out of trouble; this hardly constitutes "a concept of race". Again, poor historiography.

That said, we should look at what he actually said. Regarding magnitudes of differences and individual variation there are, as far as I can tell, five relevant passages. Note that there is a typo in the attached translation "of" instead of "or" in one of the lines:

1. "For although men are almost all distinct from one another as far as the external form of their bodies is concerned, especially their faces, according to the different areas of the world they live in, and while they differ so clearly that people who have travelled widely can thus often distinguish unerringly one nation from another, nevertheless I have observed that there are in all four or five species or race among men whose distinctive traits are so obvious that they can justifiably serve as the basis of a new division of the Earth."

Here he does not actually say that there are only four or five "species or race", but just that there are only four or five that are different enough to justify "a new division of the Earth" in the cartographic sense. The phrase, "among men whose distinctive traits are so obvious" suggests "among men whose distinctive traits ARE NOT SO OBVIOUS". And "so obvious" doesn't suggest any deeper differences than are OBVIOUS and than he discussed.

2. "It is true that most of the Indians are somewhat different from us in the shape of their faces and in a colouring that inclines them to the yellowish; but those traits do not seem to me enough to warrant classifying them as a separate species: or rather, if they were thus classified, you would have to create another special species for the Spaniards, and another for the Germans, and so on for all the peoples of Europe"

Here he gives a sense of the size of differences that he considers worthy for a new cartographic division or the Earth. The "or rather, if they were thus classified, you would have to" tells us that he recognizes, essentially, the lumper-splitter issue -- that is, he recognizes that one could make divisions between less differentiated peoples.

3. "As far as the Americans are concerned, they are really mostly olive skinned and their faces have a rather different shape from ours. Nevertheless I do not consider that that difference is so large as to warrant making them a special species distinct from our own."

Here he expresses the idea that the magnitude of differences between Americans and Europeans is not worth making a "special" species division for his map of the earth. However, his previous discussion of "four or five" "species or race" -- this being the fifth -- indicates that he is uncertain on this point.

4. "Among the second species, I place the whole of Africa, except for the
Coastal areas [North Africa] just mentioned...Furthermore, as in our Europe, there are usually many differences between individuals as to height, the look of their faces, their colouring and their hair, just as occurs, so we said above, in the other parts of the World. For instance, the Blacks of the Cape of Good Hope seem to constitute a different species from those of the rest of Africa"

Here, he notes that "Blacks of the Cape" "seem to constitute a different species", thus indicating that his four or five "species or race" are not the only ones, just the only ones worth making a "division of the earth" on the basis of.

He doesn't discuss deep discontinuities anywhere, just groups which have distinct enough traits so to "justify" a map of the earth based on differences between peoples. It is notable that again we see qualifications when it comes to descriptions of differences, "but they usually have", " they are really mostly", etc.

5. " What I have observed as regards the beauty of women is no less differentiated... Among the Blacks of Africa... beautiful women in the Indies...[the beauty] does not result, therefore, only from water, food, land and air, but also from the nature of semen which must vary with specific races and types... women who are natives of Persia..."

Here he uses " races and species" in discussion of both continental and national differences (in the beauty of women), instead of his previous "races or species" (employed once, aside from the title), when not just "species" (employed around a dozen times) used in discussion of his cartographic divisions. He apparently did have in mind a distinction between "race" (as "breed") and "species", meaning that the "or" in his cartographic "races or species" signal indecision in regards to what they were, or more likely, given the previous versions, his not wanting to exclusively characterize groups as species (a heretical act at the time).. Thus we can't infer from his discussion of his ""races or species", his notion of race (in a non-species sense). And his "which must vary with specific races and types" situated in the discussion of national and continental differences as it is suggests a much broader notion -- but surely not well defined concept -- of race.

Generally, Bernier offers a nice example of the poor historiography on this subject. His discussion is squeezed into a narrative which it doesn't readily support. He doesn't say that there are only four or five "races or species", and he points to species within "races or species". He doesn't claim that there are large discontinuities, but only large enough differences to justify a map of the earth base on them. He grants variation between nations with his cartographic "races or species" and notes that one could subdivide further.

But you say:

"This, combined with patterns of migration, geographic isolation, and in-breeding, led to the differentiation of four distinct, pure races.. Once these discrete racial groups were developed over many generations, further climatic changes will not alter racial phenotypes...Such inter-racial mixtures accounted for the existence of liminal individuals, whose physical traits seem to lie between the discrete boundaries of one of the four races[/b]; peoples who do not fit neatly into one or another race are explained away as groups whose seeds have not been fully triggered by the appropriate environmental stimuli."

So Kant discussed his four "base races", then his half or mixed races and also his incipient races. For example, he noted that American Indians were a Mongol race which hadn't acclimated long enough to count as a base race. e..g, " I believe <we> can derive all of the remaining, heritable characters of peoples from these four races either as mixed or incipient or degenerating races..." He is rather clear on how races arise and how hereditary individual variation is abundant. The major flaw with his definition is that he adopts "character essentialism". I discussed the point and his concept extensively in my paper. Refer to section II and III.


Attached Files
.pdf   A New Division of the Earth.pdf (Size: 501.86 KB / Downloads: 5,957)
 Reply
What you do is leave out stuff that contradicts what you are saying, I already showed this with Blumenbach. Now here is Darwin (1871):

"The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said."

^ A clear statement, according to Darwin there is more variation between races in intelligence than within them.

"There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other- as in the texture of hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body, the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even the
convolutions of the brain. But it would be an endless task to
specify the numerous points of difference. The races differ also
in constitution, in acclimatization and in liability to certain
diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct;
chiefly as it would appear in their emotions, but partly in their
intellectual faculties."

^ Races "differ much from each other", and mental characteristics between races are "very distinct".

"[Man] has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, sub-species. Some of these, such as the Negro and the European, are so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered as good and true species."

^ Darwin thought the variation between "Negro" and "European" is immense, and even that they might be confused as different species.

All these quotes (and many more) you leave out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

This is why your book could only get "peer-reviewed" from an open access pseudo-journal. A legitimate journal would not publish your work (nor probably even accept your manuscript for peer-review) because it is heavily biased toward confirming a view you already hold.
 Reply
Grover Krantz was a proponent of race. Unlike you he wasn't trying to redefine the concept.

I also suggest you read the following paper which covers everything, especially read the section "IS RACIAL CLASSIFICATION USEFUL" and "WHAT IS A RACE":

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Guid...72d75f.pdf

"However, no classification is useful if the classification units are vague or controversial, and no consensus was ever reached on the number and definition of the human races. The available studies show that there is geographic structure in human genome diversity, and that it is possible to infer with reasonable accuracy the continent of origin from an individual’s multilocus genotype. However, clear-cut genetic boundaries between human groups, which would be necessary to recognise these groups as relatively isolated
mating units which zoologists would call races, have not been identified so far.
On the contrary, allele frequencies and
synthetic descriptors of genetic variation appear distributed in gradients over much of the planet."

"Similarly, in classical human genetic or physical anthropology textbooks races are envisaged as large populations of individuals who evolved together, share a significant fraction of their genes, and hence can be distinguished from other races by their common gene pool [12] or by different alleles fixed in each[13]. Under both definitions, races are necessarily separated by borders of increased biological variation."
 Reply
(2015-Jul-29, 17:27:43)Krom Wrote: Grover Krantz was a proponent of race. Unlike you he wasn't trying to redefine the concept.


I was unable to locate any papers which he wrote on the topic. If you have a copy of his book send it along. A google search of the book mentioned turned up the following on page 18: "For special studies, as in comparing one gene pool with another in a limited area, such microgeographical populations may be a useful concept. They may be called micro-races."

How possibly are his "micro-races" qua micro geographical populations more authentic than my natural division ones? I can not comment more on his position since I do not have access to his book. None of this, of course, changes the fact that races, as divisions of a species, were not thought of as being permanent -- of course differences between them were thought of as being permanent in the sense of hereditary (hence "constant variety", but that's another matter.

As for Barbujani I discussed many of his arguments in my paper. He makes some annoying mistakes such as claiming that 85% of human genetic variance is between individuals, when actually almost half of it is within individuals. His claims are not infrequently sophistic, when not confused:

Quote:However, no classification is useful if the classification units are vague or controversial, and no consensus was ever reached on the number and definition of the human races.

Proponents of the race concept have largely reached a consensus -- did they ever typically think otherwise? -- that there can be no "true" number of races, just as there can be no true number of spatial populations and demes. Moreover, they do not claim to "define" races -- unless this means to describe or to delineate them. Also, why would a controversial classification be unitile? It is still controversial -- among e.g., certain sociologists -- to classify individuals by levels of mental ability, yet doing so is surely utile. This confuses scientific epistemology with sociopolitical desirability.

Quote:[However, clear-cut genetic boundaries between human groups, which would be necessary to recognise these groups as relatively isolated mating units which zoologists would call races, have not been identified so far.[/b] On the contrary, allele frequencies and synthetic descriptors of genetic variation appear distributed in gradients over much of the planet.

This sounds like weasley wording. No doubt zoologists would call relatively isolated interfertile mating units with clear cut boundaries races (if not phylogenetic diagnostic species), but this doesn't entail that they would not call units without such boundaries races. Indeed, as discussed in my paper, zoologists at times formally recognize races cut from a continuum (one which entails a lack of clear cut boundaries). As Albrecht et al (2003) note:

"Population structure refers to the geographic arrangement of local populations across the species' range. Population structure can be described in terms of three phenomena: the population continuum, geographic isolates, and zones of secondary intergradation (hybrid zones) (e.g., Mayr and Ashlock, 1991). The population continuum is that part of the species' range where there is continuity of contact among local populations, some of which may be recognized as subspecies if sufficiently differentiated."

Colin Groves, a well respected primatologist, has made a similar point: "[With subspecies] their interrelationships are genetically reticulate... they are simply the point along the continuum of population differentiation… at which it becomes worthwhile to give them a scientific name" (Groves, 2004)

Now, it is possible that Barbujani was unaware of this, but I suspect that he was being less than perfectly honest. As for this:

Quote:[i]n classical human genetic or physical anthropology textbooks races are envisaged as large populations of individuals who evolved together, share a significant fraction of their genes, and hence can be distinguished from other races by their common gene pool [12] or by different alleles fixed in each [13]. Under both definitions, races are necessarily separated by borders of increased biological variation.

Incredibly, He cites for [12], Vogel, F. and Motulsky, A.G. Human Genetics: Problems and Approaches, 2nd edn, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986, 534

And for [13], Boyd, WC. Genetics and the Races of Man: An Introduction to
Modern Physical Anthropology. Little Brown, Boston, 1950,

As for Boyd refer back to my excerpt based summary of the book -- or to the actual one available on internet archives. Some relevant parts again:

Quote:Populations at two ends of such a gradient may be profoundly different in genetic constitution, but they may be connected by all grades of genetic variation between the two. In such a case, whether or not the systematist decides to break up the population into two or more sections and designate them as races is quite arbitrary. This decision will be based on considerations of expediency and nothing else. In favor of defining two or more races there will be the advantage of having unique simple reference names which apply to the various populations...Therefore, it is not all uncommon to find within a single species that two certain races may be easily separated from each other, while two other races show only a slight discontinuity where there populations meet or overlap....We may define a human race as a population which differs significantly from other human populations in regards to the frequency of one or more of the genes it possesses...Since every human individual has to belong to one or another of the four blood groups, the only racial difference we find, or can expect to find, will be differences in frequencies of the four groups among various populations.

I must have missed the parts, in Boyd's work, about having fixed allelic differences and being necessarily "separated by borders of increased variation". Could you point them out to me?

As for Vogel (1997), it is true that races share a "significant" fraction of genes in common" where significant means "enough to allow individuals of one race to be distinguished from ones of another". On the other hand, groups like "all the descendants of genghis khan" do not. So I fail to see the point or how if follows that the groups would need to be "separated by borders of increased biological variation." If we simply cut races out from two ends of a population continuum, individuals in each would share a "significant" enough fraction of genes in common. I suppose you would argue that Vogel meant something else by "significant", something which is now known to be inherently implausible, but wasn't in 1997. You can just look at his discussion of human variation to see, if this is what you are thinking, why you are wrong.

Generally, one of the problems seems to be that you are projecting your own interpretation on to ambiguous terms. Another is that you continue to rely on unreliable secondary sources.

How many of these secondary source claims have I debunked so far?
 Reply
(2015-Jul-29, 12:58:37)Krom Wrote: What you do is leave out stuff that contradicts what you are saying, I already showed this with Blumenbach. Now here is Darwin (1871)


As I noted above, I like to deal with one issue at a time. We have intermittently been discussing two:

(1) Were traditional races qua intraspecific races see as originally -- or "in situ" -- lacking of intra-individual variation?
(2) Where races seen as necessarily deeply discontinuous?

Now, without resolving either, you wish to broach another:

(3) Were the differences between races seen as larger than the differences within?

This is actually a complex question which requires a good deal of clarification and which has a complex answer -- as such I have been holding off on addressing it in detail. Generally, if we can not come to an agreement on (1) and (2), then there is no point to moving onto (3), which is a more specific version of (1) and which is conceptually related to (2).I mean if we can not agree that prominent race theorists like Darwin acknowledged inter-individual variation, then what is the point of arguing over whether they grossly overestimated the amount of differences between races relative to that between individuals within races?
 Reply
Can you show or name a biologist that argues species are not useful? Whether species "exist" is a different debate, philosophy, not science.

This is something that biologists argue about all the time. There are many animal and plants whose status has repeatedly swung back and forth from species to subspecies and back again. In many cases, this kind of dispute cannot be resolved because the species concept is itself difficult to pin down. Yes, many biologists will say this openly.

But you're right in the sense that biologists will not argue as passionately about this topic as Ashley Montagu did about human races. There are historical reasons. Montagu denounced the race concept during the postwar era when memories of the Holocaust were still fresh. He himself had been subjected to anti-Semitic taunting as a young boy:

"Montagu began life as Israel Ehrenberg, having been born on June 28, 1905, in London, England. According to an interview in 1995 by Leonard Lieberman, Andrew Lyons, and Harriet Lyons, in the publication Current Anthropology, the young Ehrenberg grew up in London's East End. He remembered often being subjected to antisemitic abuse when he ventured out of his own Jewish neighborhood."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Montagu

People approach the present and the future on the basis of past events. All too often, we end up fighting yesterday's battles. Antiracism is a good example of this human tendency.

As far as I am aware no biologist denies "human" (Homo sapiens) is a useful category,

Then you must lead a very sheltered life in academia (assuming you are an academic). The definition of Homo sapiens has expanded and contracted several times to include or exclude the Neandertals. With the recent discovery of the Denisovans and other archaic hominins, many anthropologists have questioned the usefulness of terms like "human", "modern human", hominins, hominids, etc. All of these are attempts to push and pull fuzzy sets into neat categories.

however most biologists deny human races are convenient classificatory tools.

Biologists? No. The surveys I've seen show neither group in the majority ("Races don't exist" versus "Races do exist"). You may be thinking of surveys among anthropologists.

The reason is that putative races like "Caucasoid", "Mongoloid", or "Black" and "White", etc., capture very little biological variation and not in an accurate way. This is why clines replaced race from the 1960s:

"Species" often captures very little biological variation. If we look at genes, we usually see considerable genetic overlap between young sibling species. Yet anatomically and behaviorally we see little if any overlap.

All the antiracists have shown is that Homo sapiens is a very young species that has branched out into many different natural and cultural environments over a short time frame. If we look at genes of little or no selective value - the vast majority of genes - we see relatively little differentiation among human populations, just as we see relatively little between sibling species. This is because the differentiation is overwhelmingly confined to genes of high selective value -- which are a minority of all genes.

By the way, in anthropology departments clines did not begin to replace race until the 1980s. Cavalli-Sforza's textbook on human races was still being widely used until the late 1980s. Yes, he talked about clines in that textbook, but he saw the two concepts as complementary.
 Reply
There are philosophers that claim species don't exist -- no biologist though claims species are not useful (as a category).

It is debated if Neanderthals should be classified as Homo sapiens, or not. Some also argue that Australopithecines, and Erectines should be sunk into Homo sapiens. None of these scientists though claim species, or rather these divisions/categories are not useful. For example, even if these are put into another category, they still are recognised as their own, evolutionary grade, subspecies, or whatever. Those scentists that claim Neanderthal = Homo sapiens, then have Neanderthal as a subspecies, H. s. neanderthalensis.

The "species problem" is ontological. You are confusing this with utility. When it comes to the "race problem", there is not only the issue of ontology: "are races real?" but the fact most biologists do not regard categories like "Caucasoid", or "Negroid" to be useful.

"All the antiracists have shown is that Homo sapiens is a very young species"

Who has shown this? Leading anti-racialist scientists I know argue the human species is old. Frank Livingstone was a proponent of the single species hypothesis. He thought there's only been one continuous species and lineage since the chimpanzee-human split. C. Loring Brace also puts gracile australipithecines > homo erectus > Neandertaloid > modern human as grades of one species and lineage. Milford Wolpoff argues Homo sapiens are 2 million years old.
 Reply
(2015-Jul-29, 23:19:42)Chuck Wrote:
(2015-Jul-29, 12:58:37)Krom Wrote: What you do is leave out stuff that contradicts what you are saying, I already showed this with Blumenbach. Now here is Darwin (1871)


As I noted above, I like to deal with one issue at a time. We have intermittently been discussing two:

(1) Were traditional races qua intraspecific races see as originally -- or "in situ" -- lacking of intra-individual variation?
(2) Where races seen as necessarily deeply discontinuous?

Now, without resolving either, you wish to broach another:

(3) Were the differences between races seen as larger than the differences within?

This is actually a complex question which requires a good deal of clarification and which has a complex answer -- as such I have been holding off on addressing it in detail. Generally, if we can not come to an agreement on (1) and (2), then there is no point to moving onto (3), which is a more specific version of (1) and which is conceptually related to (2).I mean if we can not agree that prominent race theorists like Darwin acknowledged inter-individual variation, then what is the point of arguing over whether they grossly overestimated the amount of differences between races relative to that between individuals within races?


They either must be 1, 2, 3 to be useful, not necessarily altogether. 1 and 2 are similar: there is a lack of variation in the race so it is homogenous, meaning differences between races seen as larger than the differences within, although a race can still be recognised as useful if there is a small amount of variation between races, but homogeneity in certain traits where virtually all of one race has a single trait (read the quote from Montagu, 1997). I don't know why you would dispute this, because if you don't argue for 1, 2, 3 you don't end up with a useful classification, but something that is vague, controversial, arbitrary etc., which is Barbujani's (2005) and Hochman's (2013, 2014) criticism.
 Reply
 Previous 1 28 29 30 31 32 40 Next   
 
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)