Reply #53: Thanks for taking the time to explain. [View All]

[kristopher]

But I did understand you. However I see where there is a crook in the discussion that we can clear up. The OP is discussing "race", not lineages. As I wrote in my first response, "race and ethnicity are social constructs that are totally arbitrary, having no relationship to actual physical categories.

Reread this and think about what your point was: "It's not that there are no such things as races in genetics, so much as there are no clear boundaries between them, no line in the Sahara where "white" ends and "black" begins. We can tell where African lineages mostly are, and we can tell where European lineages mostly are, but we can't find the actual border between the two. Basically while geneticists can see "African genes" and "European genes", there is no place that is "all African" or "all European" (or, wherever else you want to look)."

You are making the very clear statement that in "genetics" there ARE races. What is odd is that you are then quoting the very evidence that DISPROVES the "race" concept behind RACISM to support this (still) false claim. My remarks were prompted by this paragraph.

As demonstrated by your numerous, good examples, there are a number of legitimate ways of defining groups by physical characteristics, however the social construct that is considered "race" isn't one of them nor is it valid to use it as if an "almost fit" means that it is.

You make clear that we are in complete agreement so I'm now just giving feedback on the way you are wording this. You acknowledge that "race" is a distinct concept from those represented by concepts like "lineage". However I'd point out that the line of argument you pursue tends to blur this very important distinction. For example, when you write "While the social divisions of race are essentially meaningless, there are distinct genetic lineages of humans", that *can* be seen as coming to the "race is biological" conclusion through the backdoor.

I think the strength of the OP is that although the conclusion that "physical races do not exist" has been a conclusion from physical antho for many, many years; recent work in genetics has been conclusive. I don't see it as saying "We are all the same" in any sense beyond the factual one that we ARE 99.6% the same. To stress the differences as strongly as you did in your first post, to me, says that you wish to perpetuate the focus on distinctions that really don't matter. My real point is that the "complicated and thorny" nature of the subject requires us to be extra vigilant as to how our words can be read.


PS My undergrad work was cultural anthro.