Is race biologically based?

I am starting this thread at the suggestion of lwd. It is a continuation of a discussion we began on another forum, that arose out of another topic entirely. Another poster in that thread asserted that "race is biologic". I was somewhat surprised by that statement as my understanding is very different and has been for over 30 years. I challenged that statement and the discussion began, completely off topic. We're moving it here, off another WWII history board and I think The Stump seems most appropriate.

The first thing I wish to point out is that my interest in this is purely from a scientifiic standpoint, if there is such a thing. I have no hidden agenda and am not even out to convince anybody that my understanding is the correct one. Given the highly emotional and political nature of race discussions, I thought The Stump was probably where it would end up anyway. I hope this can be a fruitful, dispassionate discussion, befitting of The Rogues. If this degenerates into something else, I hope the Mods close and strike the thread. Who knows, maybe nobody else even cares? LOL

The basic question is, is there a biological basis for the concept of race? Please contrast with any other concept of race such as social, cultural, legal, etc. My understanding of the bulk of scientific information available is that there is not. As in most of science, debate always continues and our best understanding is based on the most widely accepted theory, until it is disproved by a better one. It's nice to have facts, but in reality we continue to deal with a lot of truths in many scientific disciplines.

An offshoot question came up about human sub-species. I maintain that at present there is only one living human sub-species, Homo sapiens sapiens, to which we all belong. That is the generally accepted taxonomy and while there may be respected opinions to the contrary, I think it is safe to say they are in the minority.

I fully acknowledge the existence of races is a much more controversial topic and a difficult one to discuss as many other issues start to introduce themselves rather quickly. The biggest problem I see is that our senses tell us there is something there to this race thing and it is hard to see beyond that. There is no denying that people from different places look different and have different attributes. For the most part this is adequately accounted for by population clines or aggregates. I would glady stand corrected if credible information to the contrary is available but as of today, there are no identified, reliable genetic markers of race. Population/evolutionary genetics concluded this mathematically over 30 years ago and I am unaware of any evidence to the contrary since mapping the human genome.

I think I should present my background to this and what could represent bias. I make no claim on expertise. I obtained a B.S. in Anthropology/Zoology from the University of Michigan in 1980. There was really no question about this issue in the Anthro Dept. there and though I heard the proponents' view of a biologic basis of race, the majority opinion and their rebuttals were to the contrary. I did have a series of lectures from C. Loring Brace on this very topic (I think the course title was "The Problem With Race"), in which he presented/discussed his concepts. Brace was writing about this in the 1960s JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie "On the Race Concept" by C. L. Brace. He is certainly a well-known, well-respected anthropologist and has been a Prof at U-M forever. He remains a vocal antagonist of the biologic basis for race and has written numerous articles and texts on this but mostly concerned with biological and physical anthropology. I am certain all of this has influenced my thinking on the matter.

As a physician, I think medical opinion is somewhat mixed on this issue. Race remains a useful construct and you can pick up a host of material on "Hypertension in African-Americans", "Inceased incidence of gastric carcinoma in Asians", etc. I would say that most of this fits into the cline theory, as we just don't have any biological markers fitting a race concept for these kinds of things. Heck, we still don't have any clue what causes essential hypertension and you'd be hard-pressed to find a more common medical condition. As an aside, when I was learning to perform history and physical exams, we routinely noted "68 y/o White or Caucasion male", "23 y/o Hispanic female", 44 y/o Native American, Black or African-American or African, etc. An editorial in JAMA a few years back questioned this and I've mostly abandoned the ethnic or racial denoter. Can't say either is right or wrong.

I would say that politics and social issues make this a difficult topic. Both extremes of the argument potentially have other agendas to forward based on this question. When I suggested to lwd that he Google the topic, he mentioned there seemed to be a lot of PC material associated with the no biologic basis camp. I've done a little more searching myself and have to agree, somewhat sadly, that I see that too. I don't think that invalidates it in the least though, as I also found a lot of wacky material based on proponents of biologically based race theories.

I found a couple of links, which at least present this discussion on their scientific merits. In fairness, I'm linking both views.
　
Does Race Exist?
An antagonist's perspective
by C. Loring Brace
NOVA Online | Mystery of the First Americans | An antagonist's perspective
　
Does Race Exist?
A proponent's perspective
by George W. Gill
NOVA Online | Mystery of the First Americans | A proponent's perspective
　
Here is also a link to the American Anthropological Association's site, RACE - Are We So Different? :: A Project of the American Anthroplogical Association


I am not a member of this AAA, though I might have been as a student in the 70s; don't recall. I have to admit that it is kind of PC in its tone. There is some good info there though, especially the sections on History and Human Variation. While it does not represent every anthropoligst's view in the US, it is AAA's consensus view. I'm very suspect of the role PC thinking plays in our universities today, but I don't think that automatically dismisses the opinions of all scholars who may hold views supported by the PC crowd.

That ended up being a lot longer than I thought. I'm curious what views others hold.

----------------

edit: the links are wonky. If you click on the JSTOR link, backpage after it mis-directs you and you see the article. Use the NOVA links not the title link for the two PBS articles.

 

I lean towards race being a form of terminology that reflects the area in which one's ancestors lived the longest and therefore where certain characteristics arose because of climatic and geographic survival. Caucasian, Oriental, Black, Aboriginal (as used in Canada to reflect those of "Native American" ancestry), are labels in the same way that hair colour is used as sub-set labels (brunette, blonde, and redhead ) to reflect the most significant visual difference. In the final analysis, we are each human beings and certain combinations of DNA and other markers lead us to have certain attributes, and in some cases certain illnesses. In my case, there is a probability that a combination of virus, my own geographical location, and the roots of my ancestors - northwest Europe and their genetic makeup contributed to an illness that is still not understood well - MS.

An interesting website The Migration History of Humans: DNA Study Traces Human Origins Across the Continents: Scientific American

 

Thanks for the link. A good summary of current understanding of the genetic data.

No question we are all a combination of polygenic inheritance and multiple factors we encounter from the womb on. I certainly wish you the best, Michelle.

 

I agree with Slipdigit . For a start I don't see the point to get this sensitive discussion here, as we are all born equal , but I will allow it , just to see what what arguments you come up with and, as long as the PropagandaStaffel and Gobineau's thesis' do not interfere..... I shall not tolerate any trollism or Lebensborn so called justification, so those who might cross the border better keep away from this thread.

 

Thates why i have not posted on this threde yet,it;s very hard to talk abouot this subject withe out hurting a race!
I shalle not say any of my opinions,it;s not my fav subjects.

 

Good to see you can be wise Heidi

 

My bad eyesight is certainly common among East Asians. In fact, most individuals in my family have severe myopia. Other than that, I'm lucky to be in good health and rarely get ill- people in my family tend to be robust and live long.

I am not, however, especially athletic. My legs, for my height, are shorter compared to those of a Caucasian or African. I am also aware that we have more porous bones.

I also have a mild degree of lactose intolerance, which is typical.

 

I think Macrusk is probably about right, the term 'race' is simply another bracket just like hair colour, height and so on. If you go to the far east you see many people you would consider to be part of an 'oriental' race, i.e. they share common features of appearance and other physiological stuff. This is due to certain traits of their DNA which are particularly common in certain areas.

Incidentally legally in the UK 'race' can refer to religious groups too, according to Mandla v Dowell-Lee:

Mandla v Dowell-Lee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I appreciate your comments, Skipper. It was with hesitation and some trepidation that I started this thread, hence my tedious introduction. Frankly I try to avoid most discussions on politics and religion on messsage boards, though I find myself breaking that rule on this board as I've become more comfortable here. It's really not the discussions that bother me, just the problem with communicating effectively in this medium.

As I tried to state above, I really have no interest in any political discussion about race on this or any other forum other than to say that discrimination of any kind is wrong. Again I acknowledge that any time race comes up, it's hard to avoid its other implications. My motivation is to correct what I perceive as a persisting misperception in apparently a good portion of the world that some biologic basis for the concept of race exists. Let me re-emphasize that I have no plans to proselytize on the subject, rather to put credible information out there and let each be his or her own judge in the matter. I would be happy to discuss and yes, civilly debate points in the scientific literature should they arise.

I do think this discussion has a lot of relevance to WWII. After all it was the misguided notions of race, backed by the bulk of bad anthopological science of the time that paved the way for many of the untold horrors that befell the world then. Anthropology has a lot of culpability in that mistaken biological notion, as well as the jingoistic ethnographies by leading cultural anthropologists of the time. I won't attempt to defend any of that, but think we must remember that is the nature of science. Hopefully we're making progress.

Below is a link to an excellent article from Italy in case anyone should question international support of this concept, "The Scientific Fallacy of The Human Biological Concept of Race", by Biondi and Rickards, 2002. Very well annotated with an extensive bibliography.

http://www.ces.uc.pt/formacao/materiais_racismo_pos_racismo/fallacy_of_race.pdf

 

Part of the problem with terms like race and sub species and even species is that people think they are better defined than they are. It used to be taught that two populations were seperate species if they couldn't interbreed. The modern defintion is that they are seperate species if they don't interbreed. By this definition several hundred years ago there were a number of different human species but this is no longer the case. What then is race? While one defintion includes the classic 3 race paradigm scientifically that has been shown to have signifcant problems. However there are still obvious sub groupings or populations of humanity. Can these be considered seperate races? My position is it is all on how you define race and there are acceptable defintions that allow for it.

It is intersting how different comunities gravitate to significantly different defintions in regards to the above. As an example that shouldn't be politically sensative, at least in this group, lets look at ichthyology. Specifically two different specialties. First the Kilifish affectionados. When kili fish are collected they are usually identified by location and species the latter of which are considered to cover very large geopraphical areas and have not been able to interbreed in some cases for extensive periods of time. Second lets look at the chiclid affectionados. In particular look at the chiclids of Lake Victoria. Now it is claimed that there are hundreds of species of chiclids in Lake Victoria however it appears that most if not all can interbreed and will do so quite willingly in an aquarium. Furthermore it appears that much of the morphological differences are diet related. So there is actually far less support for lableing them seperate species than there is for the kilifish.

I answer to the original questio or thought for this thread. I believe that there is a biological basis for grouping humans and that race is an acceptable word for it. However there is admittedly a lot of baggage with that term and acknowledging that there is a difference does not mean that one race is superior to another except with in very narrow defintion of "better" and the impact of collinear variables must be very closely addressed in those cases. Furthermore there is so much variability within human populations compared to the variability between populations that even more care must be taken when using such factors to evaluate individuals.

 

"The Devil is in the details". I think you're correct, and defining what we're talking about is always the first step. I think anthroplogy has a pretty clear idea about this taxonomy and the general population probably doesn't. Look at what the court case Stefan cited had to say! It's fine to define anything anyway we want if we understand what is being talked about. However, this is a perfect example of how that clouds a relevant scientific discussion.

I would hope we could all agree on this point regardless of how we define race.

And it is this variability that makes it a difficult concept to validate, despite our "horse sense" about race. I do appreciate your thoughts!

 

I think attempting to use scientific logic in such an emotional issue is a loosing proposition, we are not going to make many fanatics change their mind with scientific arguments.
While it's nice to have confirmation that some "group superiority theories", are bad science, "bad science" is definetly not the worst thing to say about them.

 

Is that true? The last I heard, two similar organisms could be said to be of different species if they couldn't have fertile offspring.

It is true though, people seem convinced that these things have clear definitions but they simply don't.

 

Stefan asks a fair question. I thought lwd would respond and perhaps he will in time. I have some thoughts about that question.

It is correct that even the definition of species is difficult, especially when we are looking for a definition that is going to cover every living thing from complex multi-cellular organisms to sub-cellular organisms such as viruses. Here are several recent definitions of species,

so I don't think we need to begin postulating that there were several species of humans a couple of hundred years ago. Sure, we could pick a definition that suggested that, but I'm not sure why we would. It is undeniable that any modern human can successfully breed with any other modern human of the opposite sex, barring individual infertility issues. As further DNA research proceeds, we will likely have an answer whether or not Homo sapiens sapiens did in fact breed successfully with Homo sapiens neandertalensis, a "recent" recognized human sub-species (or so believed). No, all humans today are the same species and I would like to see any source available backing the existence of any modern human sub-species.

What definition(s) are you using and could you provide a source(s)? Sure, we can look at any particular cluster and call that a population group and then by definition call that a race. What are you calling a race? I can find sources that delineate a couple of dozen (or more) populations, groups or clines and call them races. What does that accomplish? How is that some useful biological definiton? I guess you would need to give us this definition that you see allows for it. Certainly the 3 race paradigm must be abandoned, as you've already noted to have "significant problems".

None of this negates the accepted fact that people from historically different regions of the world carry similar genotypes and hence, similar phenotypic expressions. The link Michelle posted shows what is generally accepted genomic evidence of human biological history. Humans originated in Africa and spread out from there. Random mutations occured and environmental pressures began to select for the most successful adaptations to the particular niches involved. Gradations of change occured and that is what the genotypic and phenotypic record shows, not a few distinct groups. If you're defining race as people who "mostly came from Africa, mostly came from Asia and mostly came from Europe with indistinct genetic differentiation, after all originating in Africa" then I guess I don't have a problem with the concept of race, except this is geographic and not biologic and that was the not the question.

I have begun to think that I probably should not have started this thread, though lwd's and my preceding discussion needed to continue somewhere. It is now clear to me from some of the other posts that this is probably too hot of a topic to try to approach, even trying to avoid its many implications and discuss on a relatively narrow view of biology. I do appreciate the lack of negatives I dreaded might appear from some passing troll. If I have made anybody uncomfortable, I apologize. While I fully accept using inter-species examples to discuss basic Mendelian genetic principles, I think we should all recognize that any further comparisons to human population studies quickly fall short and are not accepted in any discussion of human population studies.

You fairly asked me for a source for my proposition. After I had a little time, I have cited a peer-reviewed journal article and a peer-reviewed journal editorial in support of my premise. I have also provided links to views not only backing my premise but an accepted scientific counter-point from a well-respected public broadcasting science series. I as much as promised in my inital post not to be confrontational, so hopefully this is not perceived to be confrontational. However, I will now ask you for your stated biological basis and definition and a source for these. I fully respect your opinion and your right to have whatever opinion you hold. I am asking though, as you asked me for a credible source for that opinion.

 

Doc, I don't think we need to worry about this getting acrimoneous etc, people are remaining very respectful and sensible IMHO.

That said I think you are missing the point LWD is trying to make which is fairly similar to mine. Of course in nature there is no real basis for race because nature doesn't define things, 'race' is a purely human concept, something we made up just like good, evil and income tax. However, the term 'race' is used to catagorise people according to certain characteristics including appearance and genetic heritage and therefore undeniably has some biological basis, we are using biological factors to catagorise people.

Having said that it is important to remember that it is simply a human habit, we like to put things into catagories, it makes it easier for us to understand them and is part of the way we interpret the world, it is arguably why we are capable of abstract thought (to a cat every chair in the world is a new and different object, to us it is simply a catagory and not only can we see a variety of objects and know which ones fit in the chair catagory and which fit in the table catagory, we can also create in our minds totally new chairs that have never existed before, the fundamental basis of all human invention and endevour). In just the same way we catagorise people by race, hence if you were to present me with a group of people of various different ethnic backgrounds not only would I be able to tell you which one was Oriental or of African decent but also if you were to tell me to look out for a specific person and said 'he is Oriental' I would have a reasonable idea who I was looking for and could already discount a lot of people from the search. As such race is a useful concept to us.

I also think that the term 'race' is evolving, as I mentioned earlier legally over here the term has been expanded to encompass ethnic roots, culture and religion. Whereas a few decades ago it was rare to find couples who were of two different races, now it is quite common and I think this has led to a loosening of the definition. Taking the example of Barrack Obama, some might argue that racially he is African (whatever technical term you wish to use) but he is just as much Caucasian as he is African. To be honest, much as I oppose language becoming sloppy, I don't think this is a bad thing. If somone asked me to define my racial bakground I would say White-British or something similar, possibly with a reference to my northern European heritage, I have been told before that I am 'caucasian' but that is such a broad brush term that it is effectively meaningless.

Anyhow, the point remains that 'race' is simply a way of catagorising people according to various factors, originally biological though increasingly we are using cultural markers instead. There is nothing wrong with this, it is a useful system, the risk is when you start suggesting that there are implications of superiority amongst the classifications which is just as rediculous as suggesting blondes are fundamentally superior to brunettes.

 

Sorry. My ability to connect to the board has been spotty of late and I wanted to fully digest some of the reference material.

Taxonomists are often divided into "lumpers" and "splitters" the chiclid types tend to be splitters and by analogy applying their criteria (admittedly of the more extreme variety) that's a logical position. It's main use IMO is to show the rediculousness of over emphasising the importance of "species" and for that matter "race".

That definition was in vogue in the early 70's so not all that recent. There were those however who thought that Neadertals were a seperate species. Indeed there are good arguments both ways depending on your criteria for the word speceis.

 

Is race biologically based?

Ask your creator that question, God for short.

 

I tried but I was put through to a professor Dawkins who said he couldn't help but I should get on with enjoying life...

 

I speak with God frequently and I believe he answers all of our questions. I'm just not sure sometimes I'm smart enough to recognize it. I'm sure that species, race and all of these human constructs would have no relevance to God, at least as I understand it. My take is that God has gifted us with an intelligence to explore our universe, ask questions and attempt to answer them, which often gets us into trouble and sometimes makes the world a better place. I don't pretend to understand how that fits into the grand scheme of things. I would not debate anybody who held a different view. I find no conflict between belief in a Creator and science, despite belonging to a major world religion that holds opinions contrary to some current scientific understandings. All of that is just my opinion, feel free to disagree.

Excellent points and I had meant to include these exact points previously. These are constructs which we seem to have an incessant need as humans to egage in. No living thing or inanimate object for that matter comes with a laundry tag that states any of this. These can be useful ways of thinking of things and so it is probably more than just an academic exercise in helping us to pursue scientific understanding of our world.

You have me a little confused on this point. You maintained earlier that there was a biologic basis for modern human sub-species and races. Are you now agreeing that there is no biologic basis for either of these in modern humans? And again, none of this has anything to do with any other concept of race.

Stefan, you have outlined an excellent overview of this race thing. Anybody here would take one look at me and conclude I was White. Similary I like most others could identify others who's majority of ancestry came from Africa or Asia. I have really not missed any of these points. The point is that the bulk of scientific data fails to find any biologic delineating factor to break human humans up into discreet groups. This is not about lumping or splitting but rather, recognizing a continuum of changes. If we accept evolutionary theory, given enough time and true separation of gene pools, I fully appreciate that sub-species could and likely would develop.

Current thinking based on DNA is supporting the sub-species concept of Neandertals. One of my other profs in the '70s, Wolpoff was a big proponent of them not being a separate species or sub-species, just a phenotypic variant. Good science demands re-thinking everything when new data presents itself.

Source for this please, as it applies to modern humans. Or is that your construct for humans?

I would ask you to please clarify this. Are you saying my position is the minority one? Minority of what? Perhaps this board, perhaps of the world population, however, of the scientific community? The vast majority of cultural and physical anthropologists in the US agree with my opinion, or I should say I agree with theirs. I believe that the majority of anthropologists in the world share this opinion, though I would need to substantiate that further.

I would like to re-state what started this discussion. A statement was made that "race is biologic". Race is a concept that can be very useful or very problematic, depending. I make no claim whether it is good or bad. I don't deny that almost any definition of race is going to group together people who "kinda" look alike. We are biology, no question. However, the majority of the anthropology community cannot find appropriate correlation based on biological factors to split people up into races. If we want to do this with correlations that do exist, then we have dozens of populations not a few major groups. How would that support any biologic theory of race or sub-species in humans?

lwd, you obviously have a good command of biology, perhaps better than mine. I think you have properly brought into question definitions. You previously made this statement

I am simply asking what branch of science maintains this as a majority opinion?

I am not asking anyone to agree with me. At the end of the day we can all walk away with our own opinion. Not infrequently the lone wolf opinion in any science debate can ultimately become the accepted one. You appropriately questioned my statement as it did not gel with your understanding of the issue. I have clearly demonstrated this is not something I have made up and that the scholars who study the science of man hold this as their majority opinion.
---------------------------------

edit: After I typed that last statement I realized I had not previously included this survey info. Sorry!