and the Pakistani person? Where do they fit into the American racial classification? Since you already decide that almost half of the land mass of Asia is not Asian already... I await with interest.

Geographically speaking, yes. Racially speaking, no.

Geographically speaking, yes. I'd have to learn more about the background of Pakistanis before I could attempt to accurately classify them racially.

Keep in mind that not all people fit neatly into racial categories. Nationality doesn't necessarily translate into race or ethnicity.

Telluride, it's not "distant." It's mom and dad. So please, "easily identify me," will you? Yes, that's right, mom from Thailand, dad from Iceland. I'm not asking about natonality here. Please tell me what my race so obviously is:_______________.

And you'd better get it right, goddamit. I had ancestral DNA testing done by the professionals in the field (the ones who had an article in National Geographic about this)--yes, the ones in my department getting National Science Foundation grant money in the millions (your tax dollars!) to research this shit--and I'm quite sure they are not going to fuck around with a bunch of internet strangers arguing about the validity of their goddamn DNA tests.

Guess what--NO ONE fits neatly into racial categories, because race doesn't exist!! woo-hoo!

I don't even know why I bother.

Wasn't it almost up until the mid 20th century that there was such a thing as racial anthropology, and professionals telling people race does exist? While I'm no expert in biology or what have you, I think taxonomy is a very important scientific tool. The systematic categorization of animals can greatly help in their study. However, while this taxonomy is probably still done (just an educated guess on my part) it's no longer under the umbrella of studying race. Which I suppose is fine by me. The word and the very idea has gotten so intertwined with a lot of negative aspects of our history that it makes sense not to use it. So yes I’d agree race doesn't exist. But, I think saying that while still in some way continuing this process of taxonomy is almost double speak. So races don't exist, but black people are more prone to colon cancer, races don't exist but white people are more prone to skin cancer, races don't exist but Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ. I think the process from which the idea of race developed still exists. I think the measuring and categorizing of the differences between groups of humans still exists, it's just not called the study of race.

Race, as a general descriptor sure as hell exists.

Next time you confuse an Asian from a African, from a European, let me know, and I'll get you a new set of glasses.

Give me a single front tooth and I've got a good chance of determining if it comes from a mongoloid or not.

Think of that a single front tooth and I could identify the owner as either Asian or American Indian 75% of the time.

Now I couldn't do that always, there are cross over in genes, but a race contains a grouping of genes that work well together, drifted together, or were part of a bottle neck, at some point and are now shared by a large group of people.

So its correct to say that MOST human variation in found in all races, meaning that most of the genes found in whites are also found in the black population, even without racial mixing. This leads people to say there are no racial differences. Whats different is the grouping and frequency.

Really if anything there are more races than the typical superficial ones, with less obvious subgroupings. There are real differences in Eskimos and Asians but they are considered the same race. Even groups that self select over the years like Jews and Gypsies could be considered races, though with more mixing than the 'major' races.

The differences might be minor genetically compared to species that didn't suffer our bottleneck but still very real.

I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying...

Every time I've ever heard someone give the "if we all fuck until we're one color, the few left pockets of single-race people will become more vehemently opposed to the major un-race with a violent-uprising-style opposition to losing their uniqueness" gambit, they've ended up proving themselves to be bigots on at least some level.

Because really... after heavy, lengthy discussion and breaking down of point after point, this topic always, always, always comes back to one point, without exception: they don't like their women/men mating with people of other races.

But hey, maybe this time is the exception to the rule. I mean... it has the same appearance of concern for the future, the same worried tone, and the same "talking without saying much of anything, just to start a conversation about it" quality... but I guess it's possible that this time is different.

Race mixing is nobody's business. It's the same with everything else.

I'm 22 years older than my wife. I don't think about it. My wife doesnt' think about it. Our children don't think about it. Do people stare at us when we're hand in hand? Probably, but I don't even notice it any longer. It's nobody's business. We've got more love in our family than any other family I know and it's foolish to think that racially mixed marriages haven't got at least as much of a chance at happiness as we do - or anyone else.

Having an outside opinion is OK but in the end it's the result of the pudding that tells the true story.

Actually, it was closer to the turn of the century when Franz Boas came along and debunked the whole idea of race, basically turning the classical study of "anthropology" on its head and putting it on a very different track for the 20th century. (The Nazis turned back to old-school anthropology for justification of their extermination of "undesirables.")

Albania, you are right in that people are no longer studying race as "race." Sociologists study it as a socio-economic term, and that is why the question still exists on the US Census: what race are you? Anthropologists do not use the term at all. Biological anthropologists study ancestral DNA, clines, and genotypic/phenotypic differences, but they do not study race.

Now Ustwo, you didn't answer my question about what race I am, which I would still like to know. You are correct that race, as a "general descriptor" (in a social sense) exists, which is unfortunate... it will be a long time before humans are ready to let go of that particular taxonomy. But what you are talking about here:... is correct, but it is not "race." It is clinal variation (which I've said for the 4th time on TFP). Experts in the field do not talk about these variations using the word "race," period. I'd expect the same from other educated people, though that may be hoping for too much.

You asked me what race you were? I missed that, you are multiracial, if you were a canine you would be a mutt. I'm not sure why thats so important to the discussion, no one has said races can't intermix, if we were then the discussion would be species not races.

I'd add that experts in the field DO talk about races, perhaps not the ones you know, but as it is they are just being PC.

Using 'clinical variation' to describe race is like using 'differently abled' to describe handicapped, or 'learning disability' to describe being retarded. Race is a descriptor only and one that has a lot of information in it. If someone thinks it has too much negative historical baggage to use, thats fine, but it means the same thing.

If you want to say 'The individual contained several genetic groups which gave rise to phenotypic traits consistent with those who's ancestry is from the European continent', I'll say 'He was a white guy.'

Edit:And I'll add that calling it clinical variation is sort of silly on other levels. Clinical variation is normally used to describe differences we don't see. Mitochondrial mutations, important as they are in this discussion, are 'clinical variations'. Skin color not so much as its both obvious and leads to real functional differences.

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9546/mdnaoh8.jpg

Thats based on mtDNA and I think is a bit more accurate.

I never said that everybody fits neatly into a single racial category. Sombody who is biracial is one of those people who doesn't neatly fit.

Actually, a hell of a lot of people fit neatly into racial categories.

Are you trying to convince yourself? This is obviously a ridiculous stance, framed in your head and meeting some undisclosed set of 'existence' criteria you haven't shared with us. As far as I can see, you've done nothing to back up or clarify your claims except for re-emphasize your assertations. Race obviously exists, or we wouldn't be having this discussion, and to claim otherwise without caveat makes me want to discount everything else you have to say on the subject.

If race doesn't exist, why did my Native American wife get better scholarship than my European Mutt self? Why do I have to check 'Caucasian' when I apply for a job, or go to school?

Every human is born with a wide range of genetic traits. Many geographically isolated populations have codeveloped for so long that they have developed a large set of similar traits. Race is an easy short hand to use as a description of people that society and the world at large uses to identify people from those large groups. How are you going to claim that doesn't exist?

Cars are all made out of metal, plastic, and rubber. Fundamentally, there is little difference between a Taurus and a Civic. Therefore, is there no such thing as imports and domestics? Is there no such thing as Honda and Ford? I completely fail to see where you're coming from claiming that race doesn't exist.

It's "clinal," not clinical. I don't know if that's what you meant throughout your post, but the meanings are totally different.

My point is that everyone is a mutt, at the genetic level. Get a test done and see how much variation there is in your ancestral DNA, that's all I'm saying. I have never seen anyone (in our lab) with 100% pure DNA from one region of the world. The only time in human history that this could have been possible was in Olduvai Gorge... from then on out, it was all mixing, with periods of isolation... followed by more mixing. No one is "pure" anything.

As for this: I have said this elsewhere, but I should have reiterated it again in this thread: race exists SOCIALLY, and that is why I mentioned sociologists still using it (demographers as well) when collecting census data... because, as you mention, it still gets used as a proxy for class/socio-economic status, etc, in order to decide how to allocate resources to different groups of people (not that I support that, either--I always mark "OTHER" on those stupid-ass racial forms).

But race does not exist genetically, not in the way that people would like to believe (that there is some 100% "pure" sample of each race, somewhere in the world). Clinal variation exists, as local populations adapted to their local conditions, and then spread out geographically (thus mixing their DNA), but race in itself, as arbitrarily-determined categories that humans make up to sort each other, exists only in people's minds. That is what I am trying to say... that it does not exist as a hard scientific fact, but only as a social one based very loosely on perceived geographic isolation leading to genetic isolation. For example, in Brazil, there are TONS more "races" (socially) than exist in the US... simply because they have a much more diverse range of skin tons to label, and they don't just settle for the old white/black/asian labels. Race labeling is relative to where you are in the world... but your DNA does not change.
Yes, it's an easy shorthand, but that does not make it accurate or helpful to the evolution of human society. We are ALL mixed, whether people like to admit that or not. Personally, I'm quite glad my father got off this inbred island (Iceland) and mixed his genes up with someone from Thailand... and I'm doing my damned best to mix it up even further, with a husband from Lebanon. What race are you going to call our kids, huh? :) Hopefully human, and leave it at that. :P

Hi, Abaya;

I just wanted to mention that the comment you quoted in your previous post, "If race doesn't exist, why did my Native American wife get better scholarship than my European Mutt self? Why do I have to check 'Caucasian' when I apply for a job, or go to school?", was actually made by twistedmosaic, not me.

Thanks.

My apologies, it happens sometimes when I am quoting manually. It's fixed now.

Thanks.

Woo-hoo! I'm African!

...Wait. I already knew that...

:D

Me too!

About 40,000 years ago or so.

I hope no one left the iron on.

Those cracka ass honkeys better stay away from my baby.

As opposed to baby hybrids?
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3.../PriusBaby.jpg