it happens everywhere i think, but not nearly as militant as in the us. most of my friends with italian names refer to themsleves as italian... i just call them "concrete workers" or "bricklayers" but to each his own. i consider myself french canadian or quebecois which is quite common in quebec, you would never find someone in ontario call themselves ontarian....

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I have 3 hobbies: gaming, DJing & correcting maladjusted fools on the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Yeah, I’d like to know what horrible, scarring incident in your childhood turned you into such an ignorant, intellectual-hating philistine?

quote:

Originally posted by prolikewhoa there is no biological backing for the "race" categories. the only "race" we should be worried about is that HUMAN RACE, because that's really the only thing we can biologically CALL "race."

This is untrue. A "race" is just a very extended family with some level of inbreeding, which has led to clustering of certain genetic traits. The analogue from the animal kingdom would be "breed."

A genetic / cladistic concept of race can be useful in determining risks for certain diseases and medical conditions.

And the old canard about "total percentage of shared genetic code" is not relevant. There is indeed more genetic variation within extended families ("races") than between them, but the concept of "race" is based on recently shared ancestry and clusters of certain genes that result from this ancestry, and is still meaningful.

That's what happens when people believe races exist: non-sense.

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

Whether races exist depends on whether we give the term "race" a meaningful and coherent definition.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles And the old canard about "total percentage of shared genetic code" is not relevant. There is indeed more genetic variation within extended families ("races") than between them, but the concept of "race" is based on recently shared ancestry and clusters of certain genes that result from this ancestry, and is still meaningful.

Well, just so you know, the people actually doing the research disagree.

quote:

Our evidence for clustering should not be taken as evidence of our support of any particular concept of “biological race.” In general, representations of human genetic diversity are evaluated based on their ability to facilitate further research into such topics as human evolutionary history and the identification of medically important genotypes that vary in frequency across populations. Both clines and clusters are among the constructs that meet this standard of usefulness: for example, clines of allele frequency variation have proven important for inference about the genetic history of Europe, and clusters have been shown to be valuable for avoidance of the false positive associations that result from population structure in genetic association studies.

Rosenberg, N. A., Mahajan, S., Ramachandran, S., Zhao, C., Pritchard, J. K., Feldman, M. W. (2005) Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure. PLoS Genet 1(6): e70 (emphasis mine)

Although clines and clusters are certainly interesting genetic topics with significant implications in medicine and evolutionary biology, they don't lend themselves to use in any kind of taxonomic classification, in large part because there are simply too many of them, and probably many more that we have yet to discover. It would certainly be unscientific to define our taxonomy based upon those clines and clusters which happen to be relevant to a particular, seperate, field of inquiry, such as medicine, while ignoring all others. But any taxonomic classification of race based upon these genetic markers is going to be just as arbitrary - except perhaps splitting at all or none of these points. But neither of those methods will result in a meaningful taxonomy of human biological race: according to one, we are all the same race, and according to the other, the races multiply exponentially. And certainly, in none of these cases will our hypothetical taxonomy correlate strongly with any of the many different lay interpretations of race, or self-identification.

The utility of classifying people according to certain genotypes and phenotypes for specific purposes in medicine or other fields of inquiry is unquestionable. However, taking these classifications outside of the scope which they are expressly created for and attempting to use them as a definition for "race" lacks both utility and integrity.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter But any taxonomic classification of race based upon these genetic markers is going to be just as arbitrary...

Of course it will be arbitrary. "Species" works in much the same way; we come up with different boundaries depending what we use as a criterion for separation. This does not mean that all discussion of "species" is meaningless.

quote:

The utility of classifying people according to certain genotypes and phenotypes for specific purposes in medicine or other fields of inquiry is unquestionable. However, taking these classifications outside of the scope which they are expressly created for and attempting to use them as a definition for "race" lacks both utility and integrity.

I agree; the definition should vary according to its utility in the field in question. I would not propose giving just one definition to "race" and then using it in all fields.

To take a non-medical example, it is a fact that people with a certain trait, that of having mostly Ashkenazi Jews as ancestors within a certain stretch of time, score significantly higher on IQ tests than a group with the opposite trait, that of mostly lacking Ashkenazi Jews in their ancestry during the same time period. Why is this so? I do not know, but it is an interesting question that will not be elucidated by saying that there really is no meaningful difference at all between the two groups.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles To take a non-medical example, it is a fact that people with a certain trait, that of having mostly Ashkenazi Jews as ancestors within a certain stretch of time, score significantly higher on IQ tests than a group with the opposite trait, that of mostly lacking Ashkenazi Jews in their ancestry during the same time period. Why is this so? I do not know, but it is an interesting question that will not be elucidated by saying that there really is no meaningful difference at all between the two groups.

This is a very complex question. You would have to trace where the trait bifurcates and then qualify how those people reproduced and with whom. You would also have to factor in their SES and other environmental circumstances. After you have all that then you would have to compare both groups. You would also need to control for cultural bias in the IQ test. In a nutshell, this question would not be answered just by genetics. Everyone has a development curve, and environmental factors affect if you develop to your full potential or not. I would bet that the people with this particular gene you talk about either had a higher less sensitive curve when it comes to environmental influences or they simply had access to better environments.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Whether races exist depends on whether we give the term "race" a meaningful and coherent definition.

It can only exist as a social construct, not as a biological pattern.

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

It can only exist as a social construct, not as a biological pattern.

Patterns of biological ancestry exist regardless of our social constructs; and patterns of ancestry are all I mean when I speak of "race."

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Patterns of biological ancestry exist regardless of our social constructs; and patterns of ancestry are all I mean when I speak of "race."

Even in the case that there are patterns of biological existence the real issue is how relevant is race for social interactions. It is certainly useful for drug metabolization differences and the like as Arbiter said, but in a social context is it really useful?

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome