Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am in agreement with 11 of your points, solely on the points in and of itself. Of the other two points, one of which I am debunking, and the other I have no knowledge of. However, I am more skeptical of the basis for "misconception" for half of them, but that's of little importance to me right now.
Transitioning back, it is paramount to your understanding of the topic that you look it up yourself, instead of using dismissive attempts to refer me back to the drawing board.
It is correct that Edwards did critique Lewontin's conclusion (the argument was not with the data, but the meaning of the data). However, the findings (Rosenberg et al, 2002) cited by Edwards does not show evidence for biological race, rather evidence of race as a social construct. In fact, in (Rosenberg et al, 2005), they conclude the following:
Quote:
Our evidence for clustering should not be taken as evidence of our support of any particular concept of “biological race.
It is important to note that Lewontin's findings has been universally upheld by genetic studies, and his conclusion upheld for the most part. But what does a critique of Edwards (and similar studies) reveal:
Quote:
"Geographic correlations are far weaker hypotheses than genetically discrete races, and they obviously exist in the human species…What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century - the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. 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. Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards' critique does not contradict that interpretation."
And as stated and cited earlier, clustering reveals what we already know about human populations. It does not invalidate anything. Instead, it continually fails to classify genetically distinct human populations.
Quote:
A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further.
Quote:
The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.
I am in agreement with 11 of your points, solely on the points in and of itself. Of the other two points, one of which I am debunking, and the other I have no knowledge of. However, I am more skeptical of the basis for "misconception" for half of them, but that's of little importance to me right now.
Transitioning back, it is paramount to your understanding of the topic that you look it up yourself, instead of using dismissive attempts to refer me back to the drawing board.
It is correct that Edwards did critique Lewontin's conclusion (the argument was not the data, but the meaning of the data). However, the findings (Rosenberg et al, 2002) cited by Edwards does not show evidence for biological race, rather evidence of race as a social construct. In fact, in (Rosenberg et al, 2005), they conclude the following:
It is important to note that Lewontin's findings and conclusion has been upheld by countless genetic studies. Edwards (and similar studies) has since been critiqued:
And as stated and cited earlier, clustering reveals what we already know about human populations. It does not invalidate anything. Instead, it continually fails to classify genetically distinct human populations.
The view you're revealing is astoundingly narrow if your response to "The concept of 'race' was created to be about much more than skin color" is merely to include the shape of facial features.
The concept of race--as I've already mentioned in this thread--included non-physical characteristics such as morality, emotional stability, intelligence, courage, and aesthetic sensitivity. To many people, it still does. The connection of non-physical characteristics to visible physical variations is what "race" is, and that is a social construct.
That's just YOUR definition of race.
If you had said that you were defining "racism" -- which is the unwarranted causal association of certain moral, intellectual and other such characteristics (besides physical characteristics) with members of a racial group -- then yes, I would agree that that is a social construct.
Last edited by dechatelet; 12-10-2015 at 12:09 AM..
I already explained it on page 4. There is no genetic basis that corresponds with any particular racial group, and characteristics associated with genetics aren't exclusive. There's more genetic variation within groups than between them. How might you place two distant related groups (genetically speaking, not geographic) into one race, and call them black, when both of those groups are more genetically similar to whites, than they are to each other?
I wasn't talking about genetic characteristics.
I was talking about the fact that some people have black skin and other people have white skin.
That difference in skin color is NOT socially constructed.
The laws regarding gun control, passed by various states and the federal government, require certain actions be taken when purchasing a firearm. Given that buying at gun shows creates a way around these laws, it is a loophole that absolutely exists, regardless of if you agree with the laws or not. It's fine to disagree with the, but laws should be applied evenly. Advocate for either the end of the loophole or the end of the law; to proclaim the current methods are sufficient is an unbalanced viewpoint.
There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. Go to one and buy one; you will find out.
I was talking about the fact that some people have black skin and other people have white skin.
That difference in skin color is NOT socially constructed.
That was my whole point.
Well the difference in skin color is attributed to some social phenomenon - voluntary and involuntary migration, mating patterns and regulations, geographical preference and distribution, etc,
Using color terminology to label slight population differences (i.e. skin color) is arbitrary, especially when considering such labels came with associations and social consequences. Likewise, using color terminology to establish a racial classification for genetically diverse populations is surely, arbitrary. This is the social construction of race.
Last edited by Stephen1110; 12-10-2015 at 01:34 AM..
Well the difference in skin color is attributed to some social phenomenon - voluntary and involuntary migration, mating patterns and regulations, geographical preference and distribution, etc,
Using color terminology to label slight population differences (i.e. skin color) is arbitrary, especially when considering such labels came with associations and social consequences. Likewise, using color terminology to establish a racial classification for genetically diverse populations is surely, arbitrary. This is the social construction of race.
You're really stre-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-tching things here.
The fact is, some people are white, and some black.
Some people have round eyes, others not round eyes.
Different races have been concentrated in different parts of the planet.
There is no good reason for me to believe that those differences are socially constructed.
Yes, there is race mixing -- which is what you seem to be talking about ("migration...mating patterns.")
That is due to social factors -- but the races that are mixed are not socially constructed.
Here we see yet another example of science being corrupted by liberal politics.
But hey:
When liberals stop insisting that the government and businesses classify people by race, and give preferences to races other than the white race, then maybe I'll take you seriously.
Last edited by dechatelet; 12-10-2015 at 03:35 AM..
I'M not a big fan of Scandinavian taxes but disposable income is just income minus taxes. If you figure in the excellent education continuing through university, the healthcare, and the comprehensive social services, things start to look differently. Not to mention that they are always on the lists of "happiest" countries.
Hmmmm... their suicide rates are higher than the US. Doesn't seem so happy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
