www.slate.com/.../
In a nutshell
"Anthropometric measurements of large populations show that systematic differences exist among blacks, whites and Asians. The published evidence is massive: blacks have longer limbs than whites, and because blacks have longer legs and smaller circumferences (e.g. calves and arms), their center of mass is higher than that in other individuals of the same height. Asians and whites have longer torsos, therefore their centers of mass are lower.
These structural differences, they argue, generate differences in performance. Using equations about the physics of locomotion, they analyze racing as a process of falling forward. Based on this analysis, they conclude that having a higher center of body mass in a standing position is advantageous in running but disadvantageous in swimming."
Former Member
as for the charge that race is not scientific, there are about 150,000 scientific studies involving race in the readily searchable medical literature. Any attempt in making your point, even though It's just semantic will meet some resistance and trigger controversy.
In biology the term "race" is used with caution because it can be ambiguous, "'Race' is not being defined or used consistently; its referents are varied and shift depending on context. The term is often used colloquially to refer to a range of human groupings. Religious, cultural, social, national, ethnic, linguistic, genetic, geographical and anatomical groups have been and sometimes still are called 'races'". Generally when it is used it is synonymous with subspecies. (Keita et al. 2004); (empleton, 1998); (Long and Kittles, 2003).
Now don't get me wrong. It's not a sin to speak like that. It is just blurred and is severely lacking accuracy.
as this sensitive topic shows, the subject generates much heat and finger pointing by some Which is just normal. That is why UNESCO proposed in the 50s, to stop using this term. Not only because it could lead people to discriminate, but rather because it generally leads nowhere. Again, for the avg white folk, Black is a race. However, the differences between genetic backgrounds showed by Blacks belonging to various ethnic groups is such that , you'd have to split the Black race into multiple races.
What about those blacks from Cuba, Brazil, Ethiopia, etc.... How many races would you define for these?
Find me a solid human races classification, and I'll agree to talk about human ethnic background differences in term of race. The the truth is that such a list does not exist. If there are no race classification list, then why bother continuing talking about races? That is the idea behind UNESCO's proposal. Why bother talking about something that is pure classification, when no classification can be made.
almost every clinical trial and medical topic includes consideration of race. ignoring race in human studies and medical care would be anti-scientific and offer less than optimum health care delivery. hundreds of thousands of scientists and health care providers are not racists for considering race. Of course, you now know what I (as well as several others) think about this statement...
It case it wasn't clear enough, science has to rely on scientifically accepted means. If they can't even validate their 'race' (as you call it) classification against a scientifically accepted list. Find this list, and your comment will makesense.
Obviously certain genes and disease processes are more prevalent within different ethic groups, and clinical trials must reflect this. The point is that the concept of race as we know it is not a scientifically sound way to categorize humans and has been abused throughout our history (eg the Aryan race).
Obviously certain genes and certain diseases are more prevalent among different ethic groups, and clinical trials must reflect this. +1. In total agreement.
And to a very large extent, certain ethnic groups suit certains sport discipline better. The short Kenyan Masai are built for longer distance running. They would fail miserably at the 100m. Just a simple and obvious example.
But Masai is an ethnic group, not a race.
according to UNESCO...
"A race, from the biological standpoint, may therefore be defined as one of the group of populations constituting the species Homo sapiens which populations are capable of interbreeding with one another, but which by virtue of the isolating barriers which in the past more or less kept them separated, exhibit certain physical differences as a result of their somewhat biological histories.
In short, the term "race" designates some concentrations, relative as to frequency and distribution, of genes or physical characters, which appear, fluctuate, and often disappear in the course of time by reason of geographic and/or cultural isolation.
These are the scientific facts. Unfortunately, however, when most people use the term "race" they do not do so in the sense above described.
The only characteristics which anthropologists can effectively use as a basis for the classification of human groups are physical and physiological characteristics.
Such differences as exist between members of different ethnic groups have no relevance to problems of sociological and and political organization, moral life, and communication between human beings."
Agreed. I am not using the xenophobic or 'most people' meaning of race.
Differences between ethnic groups can have relevance to research interpretation and health care.
I would also say that what UNESCO considers 'scientific facts' can fairly be considered scientific.
according to UNESCO...... en.wikipedia.org/.../The_Race_Question
That, to the best of my knowledge, is the most up-to-date position adopted by Unesco.
The Race Question is a UNESCO statement issued on 18 July 1950 following World War II. The statement included both a scientific debunking of race theories and a moral condemnation of racism. It suggested in particular to "drop the term 'race' altogether and speak of "ethnic groups."
So again, find a scientifically recognized list, and your persistence in trying to make your semantic point will makesense. As simple as that.
Again, the basis on which we argue with you makesense isn't even a discrimination one. I coudn't care less about this, although some might though.
The basis on which Gull, I and several scientists are arguing with the concept of human race is that it tries to oversimplify something that is far more complex than skin color, or curly hair etc... In Rwanda alone (my girlfriend is Rwandaise), there are two very distinct ethnic groups probably displaying scientifically significant genetic differences (my girl is by far the shortest of her family, at 5'9. My mother in law is 6', sis in law is 6'2, brother in law 6'3. The avg Tutsi being probably little over 6feet tall).
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler (A. Einstein). What this great scientist meant in issuing this quote, is that it's fun and practical to simplify stuff into categories, but if you try to simplify it past a certain point, you're loosing some meaning, some precision, some accuracy, some usefulness....
One of the things I studied during grad school was the development of "hard sciences" as a set of disciplines as subject to the social norms of their time and as malleable as any other discipline--regardless of the presumption that it's based on "facts." Facts are created by people. Check out the book Making Sex, by Thomas Lacquer (and it doesn't relate to anyone's sperm count), talking about the studies of women's reproductive biology which echos some of these same "race-based" studies.
Brazilian is a nationality, not an ethnic group.
Webster's dictionary;
Ethnic; 2 a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background "hey, let's go to an ethnic restaurant tonight", they might be talking about Thai, no?
Race is a broader term that loosely defines certain physical characteristics. I agree... very loosely.
Webster's dictionary;
Ethnic; 2 a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background 'll leave to science the task of defining them. Cause I may be mistaking, but I think science stresses on comparing genetic background to help defining these ethnic groups.
One thing is sure taruky, races are there to stay. And if you find it handier to categorize human being in races, it's really up to you. I see nothing wrong with this. I think that makesense mentioned about scientific literature even referring to this concept.
All we're saying is that it ain't a matter of opinion. This concept evolved into something more accurate. Not simpler. Course it will always be simpler to define people as either black, asian, white, hispanic, jews etc... But black is a color, asia is a whole continent including russia, hispanic is a culture, jew is a religion...... But it's fine. If it's what you want.
