Talk:Race (human categorization)

Race is population genetics term, and its human usage is NOT the main one. I'm changing article to reflect this.

This isn't quite right. Race is indeed a population genetics term (or a term in taxonomy), but that certainly does not imply that its use in humans is unimportant. If you search on "race" in Google, or just ask the average Joe, you'll find the "human usage" predominates. But let's not argue about this; there is more than enough room in Wikipedia to give huge amounts of detail to *both* senses, the biological and the anthropological. --LMS

I don't like this statement:

Some biologists, for example, basically deny the existence of races, or they deny the usefulness of the concept of race, maintaining that they are just one way of subdividing humanity in groups, and completely different divisions would be made if other characteristics were used. Because of this, in their opinion, no proposed subdivision is more valid than any other, and none has very much value anyway.

First, it doesn't say whether they deny existence of races in general or of human races, second I never heard about biologists claiming there are no human races in usual population generic meaning of 'race' (some opposed pure-racial meaning, but that's completely different story, having little to do with humans), and third, population genetics characteristics (major jumps in distribution of genes between populations) are very clear and aren't questioned nowadays. So my opinion is to remove this sentence.

Moved from article: There isn't a distinction between races and breeds? Types of dogs are bred, but do the resulting breeds constitute races of dogs?

Those were my questions. If you remove them, then it would be appropriate to move the following remark as well:

Among the most famous races are the various dog breeds.

--Larry Sanger

Can someone explain what this means?

A race, in biology, is one of many groups of organisms that together belong to single species, but genetically differ between each other.

Isn't it true that, excepting identical twins, every individual of a sexually-reproducing species differs genetically from every other?

That's a great question. I'm just going to delete the sentence, if someone hasn't already done so; it seems pretty obvious it's going to have to be completely rewritten, and we can't assume anyone is going to happen long anytime soon who will be able to rewrite it properly. --LMS

I think the entry as it's been rewritten is mainly a (probably controversial) presentation of one view of the genealogy of the concept of race. There is much more to be said (or just summarized) about the notion of race in anthropology. I also think that the notion of race in biology is given short shrift. I mean, it does exist in biology and medicine. Moreover, the equation of race with nation-state nationalities (French, German, etc.) is at present an ancillary notion of what race is, at best.

Have a look at [1] and [2]. --LMS

I'm pretty sure what I wrote is not just one view of the geneology of the concept of race, but the generally accepted one. See The History of the Race Idea by Eric Voegelin.

You're right that I'm overweighting its connection with nationalism a bit; I learned about the history of race in a class on the history of nationalism. However, the connection is very close. See Johann Gottfried von Herder and the concept of the Volk. I figure that it's better to contribute partial understanding than to delete it.

Race theory, according to the work above, began with Carl Gustav Carus.

I would differ strongly that "the equation of race with nationality is at present an ancillary notion of what race is, at best" (and what's with that "at best" comment? What would the worst-case scenario be? Less than ancillary?). However, I believe you're right that even historically racial theorists emphasized the widest distinctions (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid races).

The concept of race is inherently political, even (or more so) today--see the whole UN Race conference. The average American has an understanding of race which is ancillary to its full implications, which is one of the reasons it causes so many problems.

I tried to sketch out some of the nuances, but I felt it was important to start with the definition that gets at the root of the concept of race, not to start with a description of most people's vague understanding of it.

There's definitely a lot more work to be done. Thanks for not simply deleting my work but adding info back to the page and commenting in Talk. It's miles more helpful. Gah. This is a horrid mess. (I just noticed the field of "Critical race theory", whatever that is, while searching on Google.) I hate the social sciences.--TheCunctator

The tie between race and nationalism is there, but I think that you can't omit the biological (sometimes used by nationalists...) and anthropological facts. When i first took an Intro to Anthropology, I learned that physical anthropologists claimed there were three main racial groups, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasoid. I'm also pretty certain that there have been developments in the field in the last 20 or so years. Still, it's important to make sure to present this side, because it is a neutrtal approach to race. JHK

I added a whole bunch more of specific information, which I hope helps. I think a big problem with most Wikipedians is that they try to write nice general encyclopedia entries, but don't have a clear understanding of the specifics underlying the generalities. It's much better to put down all the specifics, then distill a general entry.

I really hate the word "neutral" as it's used here in Wikipedia. WTF does "it is a neutral approach to race" mean? (This is a Socratic question.) --TheCunctator

Much better now --it's starting to really look good! ...and my opinion of neutral is including more than one side of the story, scholarly debates, different contexts, etc...JHK

Two different articles have essentially the same description of "The Bell Curve" so why not give that book its own page? --Ed Poor

Added statement that IQ differences are found in genetically identically social minorities. Also changed the statement that the summary of mainstream views defended the Bell Curve. It didn't seem that the statement was a defense of the Bell Curve at all. -- Chenyu

Much of Gould's opinion as presented in this article is clearly against opinion of "mainstream intelligence scientists", as published in http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html. This needs some notice. --Taw

I wrote the summary of Gould's 1981 book. The inclusion of the websight of/by "mainstream intelligence scientists" is useful, but I'd like to share four critical points:

First, I give little weight to the notion of "mainstream opinion" in general. Scientific arguments should be judged by their evidence and by the reasoning behind the interpretation of the evidence. It doesn't matter what "authority" or reputation the scientist has. Even the most brilliant scientists have made mistakes. (this indeed is one of the main points of Gould's book -- scientists wh were clearly "mainstream," even "authoritative" in the 19th century made claims that are clearly racist AND wrong by any scientific standard today. Since this happened in the past, there is no reason not to think it might not happen in the present.) Anyway, I think the last thing an good scientist would want is for their word to be taken at face value.

Second, I think in the issue of "intelligence science" it is especially difficult to identify a "mainstream." The issue is so politicized I personally cannot imagine scientists reaching any consensus (and thus constituting a mainstream) about race and IQ in the same way that scientists can reach a consensus about, say, gravity and acceleration, or the behavior of gases. Gould is certainly a credible, respected scientist. But, as I try to make clear in my following point, that is not why I find his point worth discussing at length.

Third, and more specifically, I think it is especially important in summaries of contentious issues to distinguish between one's conclusions and the reasons behind one's conclusions. In my summary of Gould, I tried not to simply assert Gould's "opinion" (the argument that race determines IQ is BS), rather, I tried to list a few of his reasons. These reasons may be compelling or non-compelling or even wrong, but one must explain why they would reject these points or what the counter-argument is. I gave the websight an only cursury glance, but it seemed to me to be more a set of asertions of facts -- facts that have been questioned -- rather than evidence for the facts or the logic between how certain conclusions have been drawn from facts.

Fourth, the websight is signed by one person that Gould has argued against (in a carefully reasoned way), namely, Jensen, and another person, Rushton, who has argued forcefully for the relationship between race and IQ. No one I know accepts their work, Rushton is an unabashed racist. But don't take my word for it -- read their work, and the various critiques. -- SR

Added more of Gould's points. I removed some of the equivocation in the statement that marginalized minorities do worse in standardized tests since I don't think that anyone really disputes this (the controversy is whether those tests are meaningful, why those differences exist, and what to do about it). Also, I added the term "in the United States" since that was important for the statement. If I remember correctly Africans do really well in IQ tests in the UK and east Asians do badly.

Also, removed the statement that not much of the research is published since there is a huge amount of literature about group differences in academic performance. Strongly objected on NPOV grounds to the statement that the lack of publication was due to ideological reasons. Most people in the field don't think to think so, and would argue that the studies aren't published because they aren't interesting or are methodologically suspect.

 -- Chenyu

Chenyu, you're wrong. The reason that these studies are not published is definately affected in large part due to ideological reasons. People who otherwise are dispassionate scientists often revert to emotional histrionics, and cry and "Racists" at people who have written reports in this field. No-one can pretend that this is an issue solely of science. Further, your deletions removed the context and explanation of the remaining material. What is left is of little worthless without this small amount of (currently deleted) explanatory material. (Other articles and entries on this topic in print books see no reason to avoid this kind of discussion, and they do so in even more depth than we do here.) You are not enlightening readers with your changes to this article - you simply are deleting facts that don't fit your personal ideology. This is inappropriate, and the deleted material will be restored. RK

Pseudo-scientific theories about race

This should eventually develop into an imporant part of this entry, with links to pseudoscience, and the appropriate articles debunking pseudo-scientific and racists theories about humanity.

Ed, what is your reason for deleting this from the article? You have to give reasons to justify your actions. You just can't delete an entire sub-topic. What's the rationale? RK

Ed: I hope you don't mind my edits of the beginning. I feel it's better form to say "X is Y" rather than "X is used for Y", or if usage is a defining feature, which is the case for concepts, then "X is a Y used as/for Z". For example: "A chair is a piece of furniture used for sitting" is better than "A chair is used for sitting". And just because the current taxonomy entry is bad doesn't mean one shouldn't link to it; it just means the entry should be improved. --TheCunctator

TheCunctator: I basically agree with your point about how to introduce articles. But I have problems with your change. let me explain:

When one clicks on the link, this is what we find for "taxonomy."

Methods and theories of scientific naming, classification and descriptions.

There are two big problems with this: first, the entry for "taxonomy" is misleading. There are scientific taxonomies, meaning they are used by scientists, and claim to reflect a dispassionate and objective stance although in fact they may not (and perhaps you can come up with other distinguishing crietia). But there are many other kinds of taxonomies, including folk taxonomies that may have functions quite different from scientific taxonomies.

Second, this is an espeicially important point with specific regard to race, because the most commonly cited racial taxonomies (e.g. negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid) are folk taxonomies (although when they were originally formulated people claimed they were scientific). Some -- many, in my opinion -- scientists believe all racial taxonomaies are folk taxonomies. Some scientists do continue to use racial taxonomies. I -- and many physical scientists -- would contend that many such scientists are racists and really using a folk taxonomy. I do think most physical scientists would agree that some scientists using racial taxonomies are not racists and are using their categories in scientific ways, but would observe that such scientists do not define race or use the term the way racist scientists of usesrs of the folk-taxa do. These scientists, although using the word race, are using it the same way other scientists use the word population. (Strictly speaking, the notion of population in biological sciences is not really a taxa, though).

Anyone who comes up with an idea that upsets the current orthodoxy is a bozo (or dead meat on a stick), until and unless he can prove that his idea is right. Galileo wasn't vindicated for centuries. The first doctor to advocate that physicians wash their hands between seeing obstetrics patients was black-balled and practically run out of town. Hmm, sounds like good material for a history of science article. -- Ed Poor

Either I am too tired, or Ed's comment is too oblique, but I just can't figure it out. I personally may consider those scientists who are racists to be bozos, but like it or not there is room within contemporary academia for these people -- many do have secure academic/research positions and are hardly dead meat. It is just that the vast majority of their colleagues do not respect or rely on a good deal of their work. On the other hand, outside of academia I think there are an awful lot of people (who are not biological scientists) who nevertheless believe that races are scientific taxa -- and scientists periodically try to explain to the general public and college students why this isn't the case. Anyway, all of the politics involved here are relatively mild compared to Galileo!

I was being oblique, which is definitely not a wikipedia virtue. But the debate over race has life and death implications, especially for the debatees! (Galileo got house arrest; compare lynching, genocide etc.) Ed Poor

Ed also seems to be missing the obvious point that for every scientist who was ridiculed as a bozo and later vindicated, there were 100 who were ridiculed as bozos because they really were bozos, and who never contributed anything useful to science. The reason we remember heroic stories like Galileo's is precisely because they are so rare and exceptional. 99% of the people whom scientists ridicule as crackpots really are just crackpots with truly stupid ideas that will never amount to anything. The moral of the story is that it doesn't matter: the nature of science is that the truth will win eventually anyway, no matter how many people try to get in its way. --Lee Daniel Crocker

In short, the first sentence of this article must be modified in order to acknoledge or allow for this. The easiet way would simply be to add the word "folk" before "taxonomic" but I am sure there are other ways to handle it. What do you think? SR

I think you should put that knowledge to use! That's a marvelous clarification. I'd fix up the taxonomy entry, and make a folk taxonomy entry, then change the "race is a taxonomic concept" to race is a folk taxonomic concept"--if you feel that is most accurate. If you know of a better way of characterizing what kind of concept "race" is, go ahead.

You know a lot more about this than I do. :) TheCunctator

I think I know less than you think! But I made some changes -- there is still room for a lot of improvement, SR

I know I think less than you know! Taxonomy looks good as real starting point now.

Thanks!

I just made a major revision to the first paragraph. I made two kinds of changes. First was editorial -- I cut some details not because I thought they were wrong or irrelevant but because they were too specific and are better developed in the body of the article. Second, I revised the claims about "race" and "science." I simply disagree with the claim that anthropologists use the term race as a scientific category. Perhaps some did in the 19th century, which is really before anthropology existed in any institutional sense. But from the early 20th century on anthropologists have systematically argued, in scholarly work and in statements issued by professional organizations, that race is not a scientific category. Given what the article already states about "anthropological theories of race," the statement that was in the first paragraph "According to some scientists Race is a folk taxonomic concept, while others take propose it quite seriously, such as anthropologists." just makes no sense at all -- which is why I deleted it.

It is TRUE that scientists have, and some scientists still do, claim that race is a scientific category. But I believe that most scientists do not agree. So I revised the opening to communicate this more effectively.

I believe that the body of the article is the appropriatre place to explore how the way people have understood and used race has changed over the past two hundred years, and also to explore current scientific debate over the term.

I certainly believe it is uncontroversial to observe that almost all social scientists and anthropologists consier "race" a social category, not a scientific one. I also think it is uncontroversial to observe that almost all biological scientists (including anthropologists) have rejected race as a scientific category and rely today on the notion of population. Even when some scientists call populations "races," what they mean has a lot in common with what other scientists mean by "population" and almost nothing to do with what non-scientists or 19th century scientists mean(t) by "race." -- SR

TheCunctator -- sumpathetic as I am to your point of view, I honestly don't think your most recent revision is an improvement over what I attempted.

You wrote: "However, it does not have a clear scientific meaning, and may be considered a [folk taxonomy]?."

Personally, I agree with this statement completely. Nevertheless, I know that there are people with PhD.s in biology, even full professors at accredited Universities, who do not agree. I think they are wrong, and I think most scientists would agree that they are wrong. But I think the article has to acknowledge and explore the debate, and the first paragraphs of the article have to introduce the whole article, not just one (even a major) argument within it. What was wrong with what I wrote --

Some consider it a scientific concept and have proposed scientific racial taxonomies. Most biological scientists have rejected the notion of race as scientific; some have argued that race is always a folk taxonomy.

? SR

I wrote some other stuff, but then I went and analyzed what you wrote word by word, asking myself the questions "what information is missing?" and came up with this, which still leaves a question unanswered:

Racial theory was initially considered a valid biological taxonomy. Most biological scientists, since the development of genetic theory, have rejected that notion. It is still an important concept in anthropology [why?].

I totally agree that the beginnings of articles should encompass the scope of the article; articles should follow the inverted pyramid style. --TheCunctator

Removed 2002-Jan-10 by Ed Poor:

The following is the old version of this article, which was replaced with the above. This needs to be more carefully included in the above.

A race, in biology, ... biologically accurate definition needed

Because members of different races, by definition, can interbreed, there very often exist individuals that don't clearly belong to any one race. This in no way means that, as some anti-racists claim, races don't exist. On the other hand, term 'racially pure' is difficult to assign a clear biological meaning.

Usually morphological characteristics (like skin colour, facial characteristics and amount and type of hair) is used to divide populations into races, but that's mostly because they're very easy to apply, not because morphology is more important than other characteristics.

One person hopes that the experts on human races--anthropologists, cultural historians--will weigh in on the subject, trying to maintain a neutral point of view, of course.

I deleted the following "This is not true- cultural anthropologists realize that there is no biological basis at all for the concept of race, and historically race has only been used as a weapon to oppress certain "racial" groups. Many anthropolgist only acknowledge race as a concept because it has been an important part of the history of culture- not because it is a worthy and accurate description of a person, their heritage or their culture."

Anyone who claims that there is NO biological basis for race is either blind, or an idiot. Of course there are biological differences between the various races. Anyone with even 20-40 vision can spot the most obvious ones: skin color differences, hair color differences, facial cartilige distributions, eyelid design, etc. And these are just the external differences; other non-external differences must exist as well. "The Bell Curve" also shows that there is some scientific basis for other differences. (see the new links in that entry; the book may have its flaws, but its not racist pseudoscience.) Of course, we now know that race isn't anywhere near as important as we thought it used to be. The genetic and physiological differences between races are small compared to the average genetic diversity of homo sapiens in general. But some differences certainly do exist. Who cares? I don't think society is well served by people with low-self-esteem rewriting scientific facts because they see racism around every corner. Look, I recognize that I am not in the same race as some other people in my town; I thus recognize that race exists. Does this make me a racist? Sheesh. Some people need to really get over themselves... RK

No one disputes the existence of biological variation between individual humans. It is the existence of "races" that is in doubt. The question is whether it is useful (or even possible) to assign individuals to "racial" categories in any biologically meaningful way. To many biologists the answer appears to be no. - HWR

Have these politically correct, all-Caucasian biologists ever actually seen a genuine black person, a negro? Or an Asian? The genetic differences between races are small compared to the average genetic differences between any two humans, that is true. The concept of races has been over-used, misused, and misunderstood. But racial groups do exist, and they are repeatable through generations. RK

As I understand it, the claim is not there are no biological underpinnings to the concept of "race" but that those biological underpinnings are 'totally arbitrary. Why doesn't having red hair, or blue eyes define a separate race? I think the prevailing view is that race -- as it is commonly understood in describing human populations -- is a theoretically insignificant term, because we could easily characterize hundreds of different possible racial groupings, based on other arbitrary criteria. MRC

I have restored a paragraph. Do not delete it -- it is relevant, and provides an important link

Link to race and intelligence is already placed in Related Concepts. This paragraph (with "link number 2") clearly belongs to article race and intelligerce, not race. --Taw

I edited this paragraph -- cutting it down by about half -- and moved the link to the Race and Intelligence article. Personally, I believe that some of it should be left in this article for two reasons: first, it provides a further illustration of the anthropological consensus, second, it touches on a basic topic. In other words, I believe the "race" article must have more than a link to the 'race and intelligence" article; it must say something substantive, if brief, about the debate. Readers who want to know something about race should be informed in the same article that there is a contentious argument about race and intelligence -- that's all.

If anyone else, or Taw still, feels that what is left of this particular paragraph should be cut, I won't object -- I merely ask that instead of just cutting it you move it into the other article. SR