jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (31 posts)

The Presidents "Race" and Anthropolgy class.

  1. profile image0
    jaynap01posted 7 years ago

    The question/statement: "There is biological and genetic difference between "races", thus making whichever "race" more "evolved" than the rest." The question/statement was made by a student during a conversation in my Anthrupology class, it was addressed to the Professor....It was some time ago.
    Her response, including the text book and video we watched stated something along the lines of the following: "Race" cannot be defined by biological and genetic factors, i.e. How does one define what a "race" is? The Professor went on to state that "race" was a cultural "thing" and according to science "race" doesnt really exist.


    If that is true, what "race" would our President be?.... Im confused on all of this, what am I missing?

    1. Doug Hughes profile image61
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Human Race.

    2. DevLin profile image60
      DevLinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      If it's not biological, have themm explain, and maybe even cure, sickle cell. Only in blacks. There's a Jewish disease too, but only gentile whites get it as sandhoff's disease. If they call them genetic diseases of a particular race, how are they all genetically the same?

    3. CaribeM profile image84
      CaribeMposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The concept of race is a cultural construct, is not a biological category because there is no substantial difference among humans. Historically, the concept have also changed over time. For instance, previous the swedish botanist Linnaeus, "race" meant culture. in the 18 century, Linnaeus established the classification system still in use for various forms of life (taxonomy), applied mainly to animal and plants. But he also listed four categories that he labeled as "varieties" of the human species. To each he attributed inherited biological as well as learned cultural characteristics. This idea took hold in the late 19th century and during the 20th century. That is what we know as the "modern notion of "race". That notion also took hold in the social sciences (with BTW, were developed in the late 19th century). Today, social scientists criticize the use of the concept as a biological determinant, but use it critically as a label for identity politics. No serious scientist, from the "hard sciences", use the concept as a biological category, because it doesn't have any explanatory power.

      I hope this clarify the issue for you. But I'll be glad and if I can help you further. I think many people here might also help you.

    4. alexandriaruthk profile image54
      alexandriaruthkposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      if you belong to the white race and you are living in a community of Asian race  --  you will have the same behavioir to the people you share your world with like community etc.

      that is why race is a poor determinant of behavior, I dont know for predisposition for diseases -- some race have more porpensity for some diseases,

      Race is for me determined by DNA and ethnicity -- culture is determined by shared values

  2. TMMason profile image63
    TMMasonposted 7 years ago

    Bait...

    Chummin for chumps?...

  3. profile image0
    jaynap01posted 7 years ago

    Yea, I agree with human race.


    Im not saying i have an "answer", I was hoping somebody on here would have one.

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago

      I find your question/statement somewhat interesting, so I figured I would take a shot at answering- I am however ignorant in some areas of knowledge, as in genetics, but will try.

      First off, there is only ONE race on the planet- it is the human race. Science, has defined the human race as a species, so to classify the difference between individual people. However, some people have taken that step of science to bring forth racism, based on an ideology that there must be a superior form of race/species. Intertwining the two words as to have the same meaning. And, yes there are specific diseases that attack only specific species within the human race.

      As far as DNA is concerned, we are ALL connected and structured from only a number of pools(until further discovery changes that).

      Hope I helped.

      1. DevLin profile image60
        DevLinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Human race, I concur. It's when genetics gets involved and the disease thing, I tend to wonder about, I guess, classifications. Not superiority. No one is superior. There's always someone better. But for certain diseases to attack just certain subjects, I don't know how to classify it. Niece died from Sandhoff's. And a friend from sicle cell. That's why I know about them.

      2. Doug Hughes profile image61
        Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Cagsil & I are in agreement.

        Stand by for Trumpets.  The Second Coming may be imminent. smile

    2. profile image0
      jaynap01posted 7 years ago

      Were does all the "insert race/nationality/cultural"-American types come from?

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Nowadays, it is paraded in public and it is bred into children. Sad, but true.

    3. TMMason profile image63
      TMMasonposted 7 years ago

      The PC left.

      1. DevLin profile image60
        DevLinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        But true

    4. Shadesbreath profile image87
      Shadesbreathposted 7 years ago

      The problem is that "race" is a single word and the complexities of human evolution and the resulting phenotypes and cultures do not fit well into something so singular.  I think people expect "race" to be the same thing as "species."

      Recent studies have determined that there are, in fact, roughly 4% of the populace (estimated) that carry Neanderthal genes, which really begins to complicate the arguments.  That gonna be a race thing or a species thing? 

      If I have some neandertha genetic material in me, will racists hate me more than Obama, or will dark skin still be preferable to target since nobody will know what "neanderthal" looks like?

      Mitochondrial DNA suggests that there is more "racial diversity" on the African continent than there is amongst all the rest of the "races" that live every where else combined. 

      So, "race" really becomes a political tool that groups use to separate themselves from others.  To do this requires that almost all existing information is ignored in favor of focusing on some tiny sub-set of the information.  Which is fine, I'm not saying that is good or bad.  But to call that sub-category "race" and not acknowledge that what's really happening is a classification based on something that is not SPECIES is important.  In my experience, "race" really means political agenda, or social agenda, or cultural agenda, or even just the "Ew, that guy don't look like me" agenda.  But it is totally subjective, arbitrary and meaningless on any permanent scale, at least as I see it.  Lines in the shifting sands of time.

      1. DevLin profile image60
        DevLinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I agree with all this, but still have the question over genetic diseases. That just confuses me. I myself, could care about race, I'm trying to just survive. Just like everybody else. Genetics confuses me. and you throw the damn neandrathal in the mix. Thanks!

        1. Shadesbreath profile image87
          Shadesbreathposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Genetic diseases are often pretty simple to fathom, at least in basic principles.  The most generic example is Sickle Cell Anemia.  Black people suffer from far higher rates of this than do Whites (lol as if black and white is a race) and Asians etc.

          The reason is very simple in evolutionary terms.  If you want to read a really succinct summary of how it works, check out this site, scroll down to where it says "Selection Against Both Homozygotes" and read after the box-graph.  Sickle">http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_4.htm]Sickle Cell

          Genetic diseases are just that, genetic. Anyone can breed into this trait.  Do they lose their current racial status by introducing this particular genetic trait into their offspring's make up?  Their offspring lose identity somehow?

          Culture will decide that.  "Race" is just a word.  The rest is about "belonging" or not.

          1. DevLin profile image60
            DevLinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks, dude. Checking it out now.

    5. Doug Hughes profile image61
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago

      Shadesbreath said -

      "Recent studies have determined that there are, in fact, roughly 4% of the populace (estimated) that carry Neanderthal genes, which really begins to complicate the arguments."

      Might this explain the Tea Party Patriots?

      1. Shadesbreath profile image87
        Shadesbreathposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        See, you're already trying to do it.  Trying to stick the poor Neanderthals into a box before their genes even get to finally stretch, yawn and blink into the light of still being relevant.

        1. Sab Oh profile image57
          Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Got a link to these "recent studies"?

        2. Sab Oh profile image57
          Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Waiting for that link. Sounds interesting.

          1. Shadesbreath profile image87
            Shadesbreathposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Here's just one of many.  Had you spent one second to Google it, you could have found several sources yourself hours ago rather than tapping your toes feigning interest.  Although, it's more about the attitude than genuine exchange with you, I reckon?

            http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ … 95639.aspx

            1. Sab Oh profile image57
              Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              You brought it up.

    6. mikelong profile image74
      mikelongposted 7 years ago

      "Recent studies" Sab?

      You're not as "current" as you lead on.

      Fox News has even reported on this.

    7. habee profile image91
      habeeposted 7 years ago

      I think if man survives long enough, we'll all be the same color.

    8. mikelong profile image74
      mikelongposted 7 years ago

      I like the change of connotation....hilarious.

    9. TMMason profile image63
      TMMasonposted 7 years ago

      I am not a believer yet.

      More needs to be looked at and examined.

      I have seen the way the left and science promotes anything that deligitamizes Man as a seperate being from the amimals.

      Scientists have lied before and to trust them will-nilly is a retarded move.

      I was not even aware we had a fully intact sample of neanderthal DNA. And I was also of the opinion that we do not even know more that 3% of the genetic code so far.

      So how do we take all the pieces, and say we have found a whole?

      1. Shadesbreath profile image87
        Shadesbreathposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I don't think science promotes de-legitimizing anything.  Science is about DISproving hypotheses, really.  Someone has an idea that seems possible and do some tests that seem to verify it, then the scientific community goes to work trying to find the flaws in it. The religious portion of the right (I'm not willing to lump everyone that has a conservative view on monetary and government matters with the religion) imposes intent on science out of paranoia that someone is attacking their beliefs.  Frankly, it only exposes their own insecurities.  Science promotes no religious agenda at all, pro or anti.  You are free to credit god with the processes they are examining or chance equally. 

        That article I linked has a link to some of the original data.  Go have a look.  I think it will put your mind at ease.  Nobody is trying to disprove God.  Just doing some anthropological research with actual stuff they have, comparing dna sequences with other sequences, using mapping and modeling technologies. No hard and fast claims of absolute certainties or anything even remotely like that at all.

        1. Sab Oh profile image57
          Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Interesting though

        2. TMMason profile image63
          TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I will be the first one to admit the existence of God or not. Is not the job nor the intent of true science.

          But Ideology always seems to play a part.

          Global Warming, Eugenics, just a couple of exaples of ideology trumping scientific integrity.

          I will read the links... but I think we have a long way to go in the area of genetics before we speak about any truisms in the field of DNA and assimilation of Neaderthal into modern man.

          So we do agree.

     
    working