Biologists like to divide life forms into Kingdoms (plants vs animals) then subdivide those Kingdoms into Phylums and then subdivide those Phylums into Classes (reptiles vs mammals) etc. The taxonomic hierarchy (ranked from broadest to most specific)traditionally looked something like this:
Kingdom > Phylum > Class > Order > Family > Genus > Species > Race
What I always found odd was that the only one of these ranks to be clearly defined was species and species is commonly defined as a group of organisms that can produce fertile offspring. However I think that definition is probably too inclusive. After all Neanderthals could interbreed with modern humans yet were not considered part of our species morphologically.
Thus I would use that definition for genus and use a more exclusive definition (a group that can produce fertile offspring regardless of the subgroup of father or sex of offspring). This should exclude Neanderthals from our species yet still keep them in our genus since there’s evidence that male Neanderthal hybrids fathered by Neanderthals were infertile.
This got me thinking: why not use the concept reproductive compatibility to easily define all the taxonomic categories (at least for sexually reproducing life)? Thus the taxonomic hierarchy could go from the most inclusive to most exclusive levels of reproductive compatibility. For example:
Kingdom: A group that does or does not reproduce sexually
Phylum: A group that could use each other as sex dolls
Class: A group that could technically have sex, but would not enjoy it
Order: A group that could enjoy having sex, even though no offspring are possible
Family: A group that can produce any offspring at all, fertile or not
Genus: A group that can produce fertile offspring
Species: A group that can produce fertile offspring regardless of offspring’s sex and what subgroup the father is
Race: A group that can produce fertile offspring of both sexes without increased risk of infant prematurity or low birth weight
Pumpkin Person 
“A group that could use each other as sex dolls”
I see a lot of hee hawing by heartiste on sex dolls…seriosuly? Does anyone even use these things? I can’t imagine people actually buy them.
That is another parasitism case from PP on Lion of the Blogosphere 😉
In this case it’s more mimetism than parasitism.
The sex doll reference was more a case of me paying homage than parasitism 🙂
According to PP I can use anything with a backbone as a sex doll.
so then black can’t be a race:
“Black/black couples had the highest level of risk (OR 2.11, CI 1.77-2.51), followed by black mother/white father couples (OR 2.01, CI 1.16-3.48), and white mother/black father couples (OR 1.84, CI 1.33-2.54).”
Well blacks have higher risk than whites. That’s a given. The interesting question is whether black/white couples have a risk that’s higher than the mere average of the two races’ risk factor. I don’t know the answer
oh please, the real answer is ‘of course black isn’t a race, there are several races within the black race which explains the fact that mixing black often leads to higher risks!’
Interesting theory.
How many races, swank? Keep in mind that a race has patterns of visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry.
When all demographic, social, biological, genetic, congenital, and procedural risk factors except gestational age and birth weight were included, the odds ratios (OR) were all still significant.
So if they did this with black/black couples and we’re using your definition….
I don’t know. Racial groups can be as many and varied as anyone wants, all you have to do is pare down the geographic area.
Swank,
“Racial groups can be as many and varied as anyone wants, all you have to do is pare down the geographic area.”
So 5 races using K = 5, called either Blumenbachian partitions or minimalist races.
I mean you can arbitrarily select that many…which is what that number literally is, an arbitrary number put into STRUCTURE.
Swank, that objection has been addressed:
Constructing genetic clusters using microsatellites constitutes a nonarbitrary way of demarcating the boundaries of continental-level minimalist races. And the fact that it is possible to construct genetic clusters corresponding to continental-level minimalist races in a nonarbitrary way is itself a reason for thinking that minimalist race is biologically real. (Hardimon, 2017: 90)
HMMM MICROSATELLITE GENETIC CLUSTERS
That really doesn’t address the objection. If the objection is that the INPUT number is arbitrary, then saying that the ‘black box sorting process’ is non-arbitrary fails to address the input…we’re right back to square 1 — if the black box process is non-arbitrary, then any number of inputs have a sorting process that is non-arbitrary.
The big question is why ‘sub-species’ fails to appear at all, here. Race would be below that…
In fact, in formal taxonomy, there are no taxa under species.
Swank, your point? The clusters are meaningfully demarcated.
Bruno, the point is yes, K = 5 is an “arbitrary choice” but the five clusters that appear are meaningfully demarcated genetic clusters gleaned from noncoding DNA.
Is there a better definition of race? I’m all ears.
Race is breed, case closed. Whatever dog breeds are, that’s what races are. Dogs are the same species, but the breeds are so-so different.
Whatever. Breeds were artificially selected from very few individuals and breeds are still very regulated.
It’s not “case closed” because it’s way more nuanced than that.
But any other number of K are “meaningfully demarcated” according to the quote’s definition of non-arbitrary demarcation which apparently is just ‘if you put it into STRUCTURE, STRUCTURE’s output will be non-arbitrary..’
So there’s no reason to prefer 5 vs any other number…
Is there a better definition of race? I’m all ears.
Yes, race is a social construct based on the interpretation of visible phenotypes within a specific cultural context. It’s neat, there are no groups that fall outside this definition and no confusion about the classification of mixed race people.
Social construct? Is Labrador and Poodle a social construct too?
Yes, totally. Breeds are literally regulated by organizations.
Swank,
“But any other number of K are “meaningfully demarcated” according to the quote’s definition of non-arbitrary demarcation which apparently is just ‘if you put it into STRUCTURE, STRUCTURE’s output will be non-arbitrary..’”
Right, set to 4, get 4 clusters, set to 10, get 10 clusters. So what? The point is, the clearly demarcated clusters found by Rosenberg et al (2002) showed that the populations represented (the 5) are genetically structured. This clustering was not assured, at K = 5. The graph K = 5 exhibits high clusterdness, which means that the extent that an individual was placed in the specific cluster was high. This clusterdness is not assured by the choice of K but is instead specific to the genetic structure of populations.
Right, set to 4, get 4 clusters, set to 10, get 10 clusters. So what?
What do you mean “so what?” Unless there’s an objective way of knowing how many clusters there are, you have no idea whether you’re sorting people into races or the taxonomic level below race or the taxonomic level below that level. For example if we had all life on earth and we said K=3, we might get your three domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya but if you said K = 8.7 million, you might get all the species on Earth. So changing K completely changes the taxonomic unit.
Suppose Neanderthals were still alive and they were included along side modern humans. If we said K = 2, it might divide us into species (Neanderthals vs modern humans) but if we said K = 3, it would create three groups out of 2 species. How does that make sense? The problem with this method is it simply divides biological variation into equal units but it completely ignores the hierarchal nature of taxonomy.
Yes, “so what?”
Blumenbachian partitions denote a proper name for population groups. Minimalist races denote different kinds. They both use K = 5, while the logic behind choosing K = 5 is sound. It captures genetic clustering at the continental level.
Your examples are bad.
The K choice tells structure how many clusters to delineate. That is, however, irrelevant to the genetic structure that arises from structure and K = 5.
They both use K = 5, while the logic behind choosing K = 5 is sound. It captures genetic clustering at the continental level.
And maybe K=195 captures clustering at the country level. What’s your point? You have no way of knowing whether your clusters are macro-races or micro-races within races or little tribes or villages within microraces, and if Neanderthals, Erectus & Denisovans were still alive, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between races and species.
Your examples are bad.
If the five populations corresponding to the major areas are continental-level minimalist races, then the clusters represent continental-level minimalist races. So with this assumption, structure had the capability to partition individuals into one of 5 clusters, which are strongly demarcated clusters.
Either way I don’t need genes to delineate race. Phenotype is sufficient, phenotype varies by geographic ancestry. This satisfies the conditions for minimalist races. Therefore minimalist races exist.
I didn’t bring up K = 5 once.
Afro,
“Yes, race is a social construct based on the interpretation of visible phenotypes within a specific cultural context. It’s neat, there are no groups that fall outside this definition and no confusion about the classification of mixed race people.”
Right, so it’s both a social construct and a biological reality since these differing patterns of physical features are biological in nature.
PP are you against biological racial realism? What philosophical position do you hold here? What is your definition of race? Do you think the argument for minimalist race is good?
My philosophical position is that race is just a taxonomic unit more precise than species, and within race there are even more precise taxonomic units (sub-race). The minimalist race concept is not that informative to me because it doesn’t differentiate between races and sub-races within them, and tribes or ethnic groups within those.
So how do you define race? What is race? The minimalist concept of race is race at its barebones. Only denoting physical features. The minimalist concept of race is vague, but it only establishes that race exists. Combined with Rosenberg et al 2002 and K = 5, we can pick see which groups are which minimalist races.
What is a subrace? What’s the argument?
I would define races as the largest groups of people who share overall phenotype by common genetic descent that distinguishes them from other people. I would define subraces as the largest such groups within said races.
So we largely agree when it comes to a definition of race, then? You pretty much said Hardimon’s definition.
“It captures genetic clustering at the continental level.”
Is that how we differentiate breeds or dog or species on earth? The continental level?
The point is, the clearly demarcated clusters found by Rosenberg et al (2002) showed that the populations represented (the 5) are genetically structured.
As would be any arbitrarily created population….
…the ‘genetic differences,’ while real likely reflect geographic clines and sampling artifacts.
When the populations selected all have far greater genetic variance within them than variance between them, I’m not sure how you can say the grouping is capturing meaningful information rather than something innocuous like genetic drift.
Swank, 4.3 percent of human genetic variation being between continents is enough genetic variation to signal that K = 5 partitions populations.
It does capture meaningful genetic structure. That much is obvious.
Fenoopy, what do you propose, then, if you’re going for a similarity between races and dog breeds?
And fenoopy, human races aren’t different species or subspecies.
What’s the difference between a race & a subspecies, RR?
A subspecies is a group which can successfully breed with other subspecies, but this doesn’t happen due to geographic isolation. This could fit Hardimon’s populationist concept. Though “Race” is a better term to use than “subspecies” in context.
I’ve explained the definition of race, not doing it again.
I’ll say I spoke too soon. (I’m r-selected, can’t help it.) Subspecies and race are pretty much indistinguishable, it’s semantics and the semantics that works here is race > subspecies (most philosophy is “semantics” anyway).
Okay, but once again K = any-number would do the same. No one is arguing that biological variation is NOT captured by K = 5, nor is anyone arguing that biological differences between races do not exist.
However, they exist as the likely result of sampling any population and the variation can be explained better by factors other than anything unique about the population itself.
In that sense race is a social construct corresponding to visible phenotypes that are likely not the result of any special biological feature of the populations represented by ‘race,’ though the phenotypes indeed are biological.
So, I agree with you that race is a biological reality — sure — but not a meaningful one.
Either way PP, no matter what holds here re subspecies or race, my arguments are still sound. Calling a tomato a tomatoe doesn’t change the argument.
Maybe we have different definitions of ‘meaningful.’
What is ‘meaningful’ genetic structure, to you?
Human races are biological kinds (Hardimon 2017), not subspecies or a proper name for population groups (Spencer 2014).
Despite the centrality of the idea of “breeds” to animal husbandry and agriculture, no single, scientifically accepted definition of the term exists. A breed is therefore not an objective or biologically verifiable classification but is instead a term of art amongst groups of breeders who share a consensus around what qualities make some members of a given species members of a nameable subset.
The term ‘race’ should apply to all organisms in the same way ‘breed’ should apply to all organisms including humans. Dividing by continent is a completely arbitrary choice that you made that doesn’t apply to breeds of dogs so it’s a shit decision and if you’re going to make the distinction between breeds be they human or animal it shouldn’t be by continent.
How many breeds of dog are there RR? 10 or over a million?
“Dividing by continent is a completely arbitrary choice that you made that doesn’t apply to breeds of dogs so it’s a shit decision”
Says fenoopy who claims that human races and dog breeds are similar, except there’s a huge difference here: we pretty much created the dog breeds. Human races are a result of climatic adaptations to climate.
And it’s not an arbitrary choice to choose continental ancestry. If not continental ancestry, then how do we denote race? Like dog breeds? What do you propose?
Swank,
“What is ‘meaningful’ genetic structure, to you?”
If populations can be partitioned on the basis of continental-level ancestry by biological traits then the genetic structure of the continental-level minimalist races are meaningful.
. However, unless G1 exhibits physical features which distinguish it from another group, say G2, G1 is not a race.
You think the people in a Texas village won’t exhibit phenotypic differences than those in a Norwegian village?
vs.
Look different to me…
What’s your definition of the phrase?
It seems like your definition pares down to any phenotypic difference that is due to a genetic difference. My definition (and one that appears to be in use scientifically) would be a genetic difference that speaks to something about a group, rather than an artifact of sampling.
Random Texas person and Anders Brevik look different. Therefore Texans and Norwegians are different races? It doesn’t follow because C1 is based on patterns of physical features, then we have C2, linked by common geographic ancestry; so, when Hardimon says “common geographic ancestry” he means in terms of geographic ancestry, as in ancestral, not current location.
These differences do speak to groups.
I think it’s relevant to say something on the historical meaning of race which would apply to any population with distinctive cultural habits, there were different French, German, Italian, races. Why isn’t this ancient concept not valid anymore?
Random Texas person and Anders Brevik look different. Therefore Texans and Norwegians are different races? It doesn’t follow because C1 is based on patterns of physical features, then we have C2, linked by common geographic ancestry; so, when Hardimon says “common geographic ancestry” he means in terms of geographic ancestry, as in ancestral, not current location.
These differences do speak to groups.
Confuse… We won’t read on the same page this time. Why are Jews and Swedes different races but not Texans and Swedes. There is absolutely no objective criterion.
So according to the minimal race concept, what makes races is just the fact that we can tell where someone’s ancestors lived based on their physical apparence. That’s really trivial.
And it really depends on someones’s ability to distinguish phenotypes. PP always say Papuans, Australians and Melanesians are undistinguishable from Africans. I can tell the difference quite easily, and Australians are markedly different.
This isn’t an African face.
It’s andaman islanders in particular that i consider indisguishable from Africans
Australoids look different but considering how much phenotypic variation there is in sub-Sahara, I’m not sure they would standout much more than bushmen who RR considers part of the African race. In other words they look more like Negroids than like Caucadoids or Mongoloids so there’s the temptation to lump them
There’s no temptation to lump caucasoids & mongoloids
Indistinguishable from which Africans? I never saw a picture of an Australoid or even an East African and thought this one could be my cousin.
You don’t think that patterns would emerge in the Texas village and the Norway village?
Why wouldn’t the local geographic area unique to each location function as common geographic ancestry?
“That’s really trivial.”
That’s really the point. The minimalist concept takes what the racialist concept purports to show and bases raciation on those and only those traits.
And genetically, Abos and Pacific Islanders share ancestry. I’ll leave the citation later.
As the argument is stated, the Texas village and Norway village are different races. You’re adding additional qualifications, i.e. they are phenotypically different but not phenotypically different enough, they and their ancestors did share common geography, but not far back enough in time, etc.
The argument doesn’t provide for what would count as ‘enough.’
And thus far, it seems like ‘enough’ is just some arbitrary line…
“You don’t think that patterns would emerge in the Texas village and the Norway village?”
The other conditions are not satisfied.
“The argument doesn’t provide for what would count as ‘enough.’
And thus far, it seems like ‘enough’ is just some arbitrary line…”
If the Texas town is 30 percent African, then what? They have ancestry to Africa. No one that you’re discussing has actual ancestry to the Americas. Their ancestry is where there ancestors came from.
You’re equivocating on “ancestry.”
The other conditions are not satisfied.
yes they are:
‘(C2) whose members are linked be a common ancestry peculiar to members of that group, and’
common ancestry peculiar to ancestors in the Texas village. towns/villages exist over multiple generations.
‘(C3) that originates from a distinctive geographic location’
villages occupy a unique and distinctive geographic location.
“common ancestry peculiar to ancestors in the Texas village. towns/villages exist over multiple generations.”
I already said that you’re equivocating on “ancestry.”
“villages occupy a unique and distinctive geographic location.”
You’re misunderstanding.
I’m not misunderstanding. You’re adding elements to the argument that are not explicit.
If the Texas town is 30 percent African, then what? They have ancestry to Africa.
Only if you go back far enough in time.
Their ancestry is where there ancestors came from.
At what point in the familial line can we call someone an “ancestor?”
I’m not equivocating, you’re just moving the goalposts to where you believe they should be. And that’s the entire problem with the argument — the placement is arbitrary.
You’re misunderstanding.
Nah, he’s only being a lawyer. But what he says isn’t mere semantics, it’s objectively relevant.
If the Texas town is 30 percent African, then what? They have ancestry to Africa.
Only if you go back far enough in time.
Exactly. The fact that 30% of the village has African ancestry is only relevant because race is a social construct that forced people of different geographic ancestry to mate separately. In Brazil, Egypt or the Dominican republic, that would be unimportant, because these social barriers would not exist, or only to a lesser degree, and the village would be a biologically relevant geographical space for taxonomic classification.
A race is a group of humans C1: that, as a group, is distinguished from other human groups on the basis of visible physical features; C2: whose members are linked by common ancestry peculiar to the group; and C3: that originates from a distinct geographic location.
It’s a group-level concept, so you choosing Texas town and Norway village doesn’t make sense. C1 doesn’t demand that races be distinguished by each of their physical features, the physical features of the races do not need to be identical.
Texas town and Norway village do not share those three conditions, therefore Texas Town and Norway village inhabitants are not races when compared to each other.
“Only if you go back far enough in time.”
Me: “members are linked by a common ancestry peculiar to members of that group; originate from a distinct geographic location; distinguished by patterns of visible physical features”
You: [equivocations]
You’re just equivocating on “geographic ancestry” and “distinct geographic location”.
“the village would be a biologically relevant geographical space for taxonomic classification.”
No it wouldn’t.
The subspecies point needs further elaboration.
The populationist race concept (PRC) can be seen as a “scientization of the minimalist race concept” (Hardimon, 2017: 98). This concept is based on May’rs biological species concept (BSC).
The BSC states that species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations, which are reproductively isolated from other groups of the same kind.
The PRC states that “A race is a subdivision of Homo sapiens—a group of populations that exhibits a distinctive pattern of genetically transmitted phenotypic characters that corresponds to the group’s geographical ancestry and belongs to a biological line of descent initiated by a geographically separated and reproductively isolated founding population” (Hardimon, 2017: 99)
Human races do not represent subspecies, nor is there a need for human races to be subspecies for race to exist.
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.04.003
Races need to exist and be biologically real.
The conditions set (C1-C3) along with the argument for the existence of minimalist race establishes that race exists and is a biological reality—however vague, though it is objective.
Minimalist race=populationist race; populationist race inherits minimalists race’s biological reality, therefore if minimalist race=populationist race, then populationist race is biologically real.
Populationist races populationist races are biologically real. Populationist races are Caucasians, Africans, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Americans, the populations picked out by structure. So, just like minimalist races, populationist races are a biological reality as shown by Rosenberg et al 2002; it shows support that populationist races speak of meaningful partitions in the human species—however small, and, again, the clusters are meaningfully demarcated and genetically structured.
Therefore race exists and is biologically real.
It’s a group-level concept, so you choosing Texas town and Norway village doesn’t make sense
A village of people is a group…
…you take issue with it because you have an arbitrary cut-off for what can constitute a group under the argument, but the argument does not explicitly state what this cut-off is, you’re just adding it.
You’re just equivocating on “geographic ancestry” and “distinct geographic location”
I’m not equivocating at all. A village in Texas and a village in Norway literally conform to the definitions of “distinct geographic location” and the multi-generational history of a village literally conforms to the definition of “geographic ancestry.”
The reason you are seeing an equivocation is because you have a specific idea of what those terms mean that is not present in the argument so-stated. And you are treating your specific ideas of what can constitute those terms as necessarily applying in the argument so-stated, but the argument on its face does not require your specific ideas of those terms, nor does it justify utilizing them.
Please explain exactly why a village in Texas is not in a distinct geographic location. Explain exactly why the people in a village in Texas are not a ‘group.’ And explain why several generations of that village do not constitute ‘ancestry?’
“The populationist race concept cannot, in any case, be classified purely as morphological, since it invokes such nonmorphological ideas as biological lines of descent and reproductive isolation. Two phenotypically identical (or similar) subpopulations of a species that belong to different biological lines of descent count as distinct races. Thus, for example, sub-Saharan Africans and Negritos, who have separate geographical origins, do not constitute a single race despite their physical similarity. Nor would they count as a single race if the physical similarity between them were greater. Geographical origin, reproductive isolation, and biological line of descent trunk morphology as race-determining factors in the populationist concept of race.” (Hardimon, 2017: 102-103)
For a population to be a race, they must satisfy all three conditions. All three conditions are not satisfied therefore Texas town and Norway village inhabitants are not different races.
It’s explicitly stated that “A race is a group of human beings: [C1-C3].”
C1 does not require that racial groups are distinguished by each of their visible physical features; it does not demand that visible physical features of each race be identical; it allows skin pigmentation to vary within-race as well as between-race; it allows a good deal of variation in regard to hair type, skull type, and skin.
As we think about which populations satisfy C1, we don’t think of Texas town and Norway village, we think about true population groups.
C1 is essential to race.
C2 explicitly states that visible physical features are not the only criteria for denoting racehood. Race is also defined in terms of ancestry. Thus it is essential to race. They are morphologically marked ancestral groups. Thus, racial classification is the partitioning of differences in phenotype which correspond to differences in ancestry.
For support for C2 we only need to look at the OMB, UNESCO, Linneaus’ and Blumenbach’s partitions. Thus the fit between C2 and these examples is support for the claim that C2 is essential to to the concept of race.
Finally C3. C3 speaks to the ancestry described in C2. C3 explicitly states that the differences in patterns of visible physical features which figure into the determination of race are differences which are associated with geographic ancestry, this race is morphologically marked geographic ancestry.
Lastly, a quote from Hardimon (2017: 51):
“In recent years the concept of the continent has come under fire for not being well defined. It is of interest that the formation of the concepts CONTINENT and RACE are roughly coeval. One wonders if the geneses of the two ideas are mutually entwined. Could it be that our idea of a continent derives in part from the idea of the habitat of a racial group? Could it be that the idea of a racial group gets part of its content from the idea of a forum who’s aboriginal home is a distinctive continent? Perhaps the concepts should be thought of as having been formed in tandem, each helping to fix the other’s reference.”
By what criteria do Texas town and Norway village fit C1? C2? C3?
You’re saying “Texas town inhabitants have been living in Texas town for X number of generations, Norway village inhabitants have been living in Norway village for X number of generations. Texas town and Norway village can be demarcated on the basis of visible physical features which then correspond to geographic ancestry. This Texas town and Norway village are different races.”
You just saying “Texas town” doesn’t help in identifying geographic ancestry because Texas town is not the ancestral home of Texas town inhabitants.
Norway villagers are, explicitly stayed, Norwegian. What about Texas town?
That’s why you’re equivocating on “ancestry.”
Further, Texas town inhabitants are, I assume, white, which means they’re Caucasian as are Norway villagers therefore your counter is nonsensical.
Though, again, the concept is vague. But it’s not as vague as you’re making it out to be with Texas town and Norway village.
See further the populationist concept of race (PCR) which is the “science behind” minimalist races.
I’ve already been through the steps showing that populationist race=minimalist race.
As we think about which populations satisfy C1, we don’t think of Texas town and Norway village, we think about true population groups.
The people within Texas town and Norway village are “true population groups” according to the definition of the word ‘population.’
Texas town is not the ancestral home of Texas town inhabitants.
Why not? Are parents, grand-parents, and great grand parents not ancestors who form an ancestral line within the Texas town?
Further, Texas town inhabitants are, I assume, white, which means they’re Caucasian as are Norway villagers therefore your counter is nonsensical.
Norway villagers are, explicitly stayed, Norwegian.
You’re assuming your argument. Suspend your assumptions about whiteness and caucasian and Norwegian (your argument only defines the conditions under which we consider a race, it does not assume what you’re assuming).
That’s why you’re equivocating on “ancestry.”
Yes, because you have assumed several propositions that the argument does not require us to assume or give any special preference to. That’s the point.
“The people within Texas town and Norway village are “true population groups” according to the definition of the word ‘population.’”
Where is their *ancestry* from other than Texas town? You’re saying C1 applies to Texas town because they’re an interbreeding population group, but you’re stretching what C1 allows. Equivocation.
“Why not? Are parents, grand-parents, and great grand parents not ancestors who form an ancestral line within the Texas town?”
Sure Texas towners have a biological line of descent within Texas town.
You’re saying Texas town and Norway village are distinguished by visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry. Which features? You’re saying the Texas town and Norway villagers are real groups, that is, they really exist. You’re saying that C1-C3 captures Texas town and Norway village. Thus we must accept that Texas town and Norway village are different races.
The G1/G2 argument takes care of this. You’re stretching the conditions to fit a random population in Texas and that Norwegians are different races because X Y and Z. This is false. The conditions are not satisfied. You’re equivocating.
How is Texas town and Norway village morphologically different? Physically?
You claim the minimalist concept of race gits Texas town and Norway village. If the minimalist concept of race applies to Texas town and Norway village then so does the populationist concept of race since they’re equals, since the populationist concept of race is the “scientization” of the minimalist concept of race.
“You’re assuming your argument. Suspend your assumptions about whiteness and caucasian and Norwegian (your argument only defines the conditions under which we consider a race, it does not assume what you’re assuming).”
Except the minimalist concept chooses population groups like Caucasian. Not Texas towners and Norway villagers.
“Yes, because you have assumed several propositions that the argument does not require us to assume or give any special preference to. That’s the point”
You’re stretching the conditions to make it fit.
Are social classes different races? Are the Amish a different race from other Caucasians? Is each country a different race? Each ethnicity?
Your interpretation of C1-C3 marries you to the idea that those groups mentioned above are races.
They are not races. Texas towners and Norway villagers are not different races.
Social class can be thought of as a taxonomic level more precise than race.
How?
By the way I’m sending you an article tonight on the populationist race concept.
Okay sounds good
And that doesn’t answer my question PP: are social classes races?
I personally wouldn’t call them races because they’re too precise a category, but they’re arguabley a taxonomic unit that is analogous to race. I think the following hierarchy might make sense:
Species (i.e. anatomically modern humans)
Sub-species (i.e. Caucasoids)
Race (i.e. whites)
Sub-race (i.e. Nordics)
Ethnic group (i.e. Sweedish)
Sub-ethnic group (Northern Sweedish)
Social Class (i.e. Sweedish Prole)
Sub-social class (i.e. Sweedish high prole)
I disagree. It’s really stretching it.
When it comes to the populationist concept of race, there are populations that exhibit the right sorts of patterns to qualify as populationist races. Populations do exhibit patterns of visible physical features which correspond to the population’s geographic ancestry. They are Caucasians, East Asians, Africans, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders. They’re minimalist races. The visible patterns of physical features that distinguish these populations from others are genetically transmitted through the generations. So minimalist races satisfy the first condition of the populationist race concept. The populationist race concept is a candidate scientific concept.
Hardimon discusses the populationist concept saying that “concept C has the “form” of a scientific concept in biology if
(I) it is formulated in a “biological vocabulary”,
(ii)jt is framed in terms of an accepted biological outlook,
(iii) jf is suitable for deployment in an accepted branch of biological inquiry, and
(iv) it presents the scientific ground of the phenomenon it represents.” (Hardimon, 2017: 112)
The concept satisfies 1 through 4
Populationist race concept is sound; it gives “scientific validity” to the minimalist concept. Thus, your proposal is nonsensical. Populationist races are minimalist races; the populationist concept=the minimalist concept. Therefore the populationist concept shows that minimalist races are “scientifically real.”
In case you forgot what populationist races are:
“A race is a subdivision of Homo sapiens—a group of populations that exhibits a distinctive pattern of genetically transmitted phenotypic characters that corresponds to the group’s geographical ancestry and belongs to a biological line of descent initiated by a geographically separated and reproductively isolated founding population” (Hardimon, 2017: 99)
but you’re stretching what C1 allows
Based on what, certainly not anything explicit in the argument….
Which features?
Whichever features differ on average between the groups, probably typified by the pictures I showed.
Except the minimalist concept chooses population groups like Caucasian. Not Texas towners and Norway villagers.
Lol, you can’t first assume the groups you want to demonstrate to make an argument for choosing those groups…
You’re stretching the conditions to make it fit.
Where in the argument does it specify what exactly can count as a distinct geographic location, an ancestral line, or what precise degree of morphological difference is required before we can consider it significant enough to call it that? Nowhere. So it’s impossible for me to stretch the conditions when the conditions aren’t specified…
…which is the exact weakness of the argument. The specifications you’re thinking of aren’t justified with anything beyond whimsy.
Are social classes different races? Are the Amish a different race from other Caucasians? Is each country a different race? Each ethnicity?
Your interpretation of C1-C3 marries you to the idea that those groups mentioned above are races.
YES EXACTLY. By its own terms, the argument is that vague.
“YES EXACTLY. By its own terms, the argument is that vague.”
I grant that it’s vague. Though Texas town (how do you know the picture toy showed is representative?) and Norway villagers (is Anders Brevik the average phenotype?) are not minimalist races.
“Morphological differences” is implied with “differences in patterns of visible physical features.” I’ve further explicated on the each condition and what they allow.
The point on G1 and G2 further buttresses my point, for if you say the Amish are a race in and of themselves, you’re wrong.
Though Texas town (how do you know the picture toy showed is representative?) and Norway villagers (is Anders Brevik the average phenotype?) are not minimalist races.
Whether they are minimalist races is irrelevant because the argument only specifies conditions under which a group can be considered a race.
And it really doesn’t matter whether the pics are in fact representative, the general point is that pretty much any population of human beings will differ from another population of human beings on average on some suite of phenotypical traits.
I’ve further explicated on the each condition and what they allow.
That’s great. Those ‘further explications’ aren’t in the C1-C3 original argument. You keep filling in blanks that the argument does not require one to fill in.
The point on G1 and G2 further buttresses my point, for if you say the Amish are a race in and of themselves, you’re wrong.
Not by the language of C1-C3 I’m not.
You can’t keep filling in all of these blanks that aren’t in the main argument. Your personal choice of what goes in those blanks is arbitrary.
We’re not getting anywhere. We agree the argument as stated is vague. I say it’s too vague to meaningfully justify minimalist races or whatever and you disagree.
This additional argument is also vague:
(I) it is formulated in a “biological vocabulary”,
(ii)jt is framed in terms of an accepted biological outlook,
(iii) jf is suitable for deployment in an accepted branch of biological inquiry, and
(iv) it presents the scientific ground of the phenomenon it represents.”
(ii)-(iv) have trouble because in biology, populations differing by random sampling/genetic drift aren’t populations that are intrinsically different and therefore aren’t really worthy of formal taxonomic classification.
Yes, we agree that it’s vague. Yes, we agree that “race is a biological reality — sure”. We disagree on whether or not “race” is meaningful in a biological sense even though “race is a biological reality”.
The G1 argument takes care of the Amish being a distinct race in comparison to other Caucasians; it also holds in regard to Texas Town and Norway village.
Save the stuff on populationist races for the article I’m currently writing for PP’s blog.
We will continue there.
The G1/G2 argument takes care of this. You’re stretching the conditions to fit a random population in Texas and that Norwegians are different races because X Y and Z. This is false. The conditions are not satisfied. You’re equivocating.
It’s not equivocating. Your G1/G2 argument is derived from your personal opinions (or some other person’s) on what constitute morphological differences based on geographical ancestry.
It’s only equivocation in the fallacious sense when the argument is clear by its own terms. This extensive lexicon you’re having to create beyond the argument itself proves my point. There shouldn’t have to be these specific G1/G2 arguments and assumptions and etc. that accompany the original argument. They certainly don’t flow from anything in C1-C3.
Swank,
he’s not going to get it, no matter how many times you explain.
Except blacks are a race. You don’t need genes to delineate race.
I was using pumpkin’s definition. I don’t agree with it, but you know…when in Rome.
PP what’s your definition of race?
I define race as the taxonomic unit below species. So species is a category and race is the subcategory within species, so whatever criteria we use to sort by species would be one level more precise when sorting by race. I have not perfectly worked out the details though.
That doesn’t help me. These conditions help define race. A race is:
(C1) that, as a group, is distinguished from other groups of human beings by patterns of visible physical features,
(C2) whose members are linked be a common ancestry peculiar to members of that group, and
(C3) that originates from a distinctive geographic location” (Hardimon, 2017b: 31).
P1) There are differences in patterns of visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry
P2) These patterns are exhibited between real groups, existing groups (i.e., individuals who share common ancestry)
P3) These real, existing groups that exhibit these physical patterns by geographic ancestry satisfy conditions of minimalist race (see C1-C3)
C) Therefore race exists and is a biological reality
Your definition needs to be along these lines.
I was using PP’s OP definition, then.
The big question is why ‘sub-species’ fails to appear at all, here. Race would be below that…
RR, this definition is absolutely not different from saying race is a social construct. Africans make no difference between Arabs, Swedes and Italians, they’re all toubab/oyinbo/musungu… On the contrary, someone from the Gulf of Guinean can tell that someone is from the Sahel by appearance alone, so coastal and Sahelian are different races from an African perspective but Arab, Swede and Italian are absoltely the same race.
Afro, the visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry are heritable biological traits. Combined with the microsatellite genetic clustering, minimalist race is a biological reality.
Swank, because it doesn’t make sense.
Afro, the visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry are heritable biological traits.
Yes, the features are biological, but their relevance is cultural.
So what?
So you can only objectively classify races by considering each single feature on an individual. That is, an African who has thin lips couldn’t be the same race as an African with thick lips, blond an redhead can’t be the same race. I have slanted eyes so I belong to the slanted race.
Afro stop lying. Blacks all look the same to me. This person in this picture looks the same to Afro to me. The only time I can tell a difference is when they are fat or thin.
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Fs–RfQ_NeGi–%2Fc_scale%2Cfl_progressive%2Cq_80%2Cw_800%2Fl4fer3v4b701o5ilbwuw.jpg&f=1
I define race as whatever I see. Though latinos are a tricky one. You have the native meso indians who look a bit different to the spanish/portuguese descendants and then the mestizos mixed race.
Most of the portugal team could play for mexico and I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.
Cristiano Ronaldo is not a white person to me. Messi is white though. Even though hes from latin america and ronaldo isnt.
That’s all because you’re profoundly retarded. People in Africa see regional variation very easily.
“So you can only objectively classify races by considering each single feature on an individual. That is, an African who has thin lips couldn’t be the same race as an African with thick lips, blond an redhead can’t be the same race. I have slanted eyes so I belong to the slanted race.”
Minimalist racehood is not defined on the characters of a particular individual, it is defined by group characteristics.
“Hispanics” can be a social race, but cannot a biological race. Those native meso Indians would be in the American partition.
Minimalist racehood is not defined on the characters of a particular individual, it is defined by group characteristics.
Only individuals are materially real. Any grouping that ignores individual characteristics is vulnerable to subjective interpretation and has limited scientific relevance as a result.
There’s nothing subjective about visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry. We’re looking to describe different groups and features of those groups, not individuals.
How is the group valid if its individuals don’t all share said features?
The individuals don’t need to share all of the features of the race they belong to because it’s about group characters not individual ones.
Well, if the individuals don’t need to share all the features, then the groups are merely theoretical.
Nah, the groups are real, they exist.
Nah they don’t. Your concept just states: a standard white/black/Indian/Chinese etc. has these features. That’s just theoretical. Concretely, many people lack at least one feature that pretendedly defines their race. Hence, most people can be objectively classified in a race, so most identification is cultural.
And if many people lack one feature their race has, this doesn’t refute the concept because racial features are group features.
But a group has no concrete existence, it’s an abstraction, except if it’s based on features shared by all individuals. Do you get my point?
Yes races are abstractions: prototypes. Few blacks will have all black traits but most will have enough to be recognized as black.
That wouldn’t be the case in every society. Which is why race is a social construct instead of an universally identifiable concrete fact of biology. Which is why I think the minimalist race concept is not viable, it’s just recalling that race is a social construct that isn’t merely based on pure imagination, it indeed overlaps with some aspect of biological variation, but it doesn’t perfectly, objectively and universally follows said variation.
If we asked a bunch of bushmen to categorize the people of the world into broad groups based on how they looked, i suspect they would categorize them in ways that resemble western concepts of race
I was thinking about the same experiment, though I wondered, what justifies prioritizing external features. And that leaves the conundrum of complexly admixed populations unresolved.
Traits are recognized as black traits because people who have one black trait tend to have other black traits, even if no single black has all the black traits or even most of them. Blackness is the essence we abstract from seeing many blacks
My point still stands though, minimalist races are no different from saying race is a social construct. It truly adds nothing to the definition.
What do you mean when you say “race is a social construct”?
(C2) whose members are linked be a common ancestry peculiar to members of that group, and
has a huge problem. Afaik no race diverged from a single common ancestor at all…
“Common ancestry” refers to common geographic ancestry.
“Common ancestry” refers to common geographic ancestry.
The problem here is that human populations for the most part have intermingled and have not been isolated in particular geographic areas, i.e. extensive reticulation….
…but the larger problem is that using those premises, a village in Texas and a village in Norway could each be said to be distinct human races. All 3 of the attributes would be met.
but the larger problem is that using those premises, a village in Texas and a village in Norway could each be said to be distinct human races. All 3 of the attributes would be met.
Exactly! Which is why my definition of races for now is the LARGEST groups of humans who can be distinguished from other groups by overall phenotype by shared genetic descent
I am aware “that human populations for the most part have intermingled and gave not been isolated in particular geographic areas”, however, regarding Hardimon’s populationist concept, it discusses geographically isolated breeding populations. I’ll go in depth on that later, maybe write an article for PP’s blog this weekend on it.
And the minimalist race concept is compatible with within-race diversity being large and between-race diversity being small. (The 4.3 percent seen in Rosenberg et al 2002.)
If minimalist races exist, race is real, and if it can be shown that minimalist race is real, then race is real. It has been shown that minimalist races exist and are real. Therefore race is real.
And your point on villages is false.
…which just invites arbitrariness around what “shared genetic descent” even means.
A cline in and of itself does not indicate any kind of genetic structure unique to a group beyond the way in which the group is defined.
‘Race’ may be a socially useful way to categorize people, but attempting to place it in formal taxonomy seems pointless.
For example africans & andaman islanders look alike, despite being separated for over 50,000 year. If they look alike because they both preserved the phenotype of a common ancestor they’re both part of a single black race, but if their tropical phenotypes evolved independently, they’re not.
They can look at DNA and tell in msny cases if two populations inherited the same trait from the same ancestors or not. For example whites & northeast Asians evolved white skin independently
If race may be a socially useful way to categorize people, and if our social constructs reflect underlying biological realities, then “Race” is both a biological and social construct.
No ‘race’ has a single common ancestor so that is a DOA proposition.
Why assume anything ‘evolved’ at all when the variation within each population is far greater than any variation between them?
“DOA”?
It’s not assuming that “anything ‘evolved'”. That genetic variation is greater within races than between them doesn’t mean that the genetic clusters found by Rosenberg et al 2002 don’t mean anything. It clearly means something. The argument attests to it.
But people in races look alike because they genetically preserved phenotypes from common ancestors. For example mongoloids look alike partly because of a mutation that occurred in china 30 kya
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/02/genetic-origin-of-east-asian-thicker.html?m=1
PP,
“Which is why my definition of races for now is the LARGEST groups of humans who can be distinguished from other groups by overall phenotype by shared genetic descent”
Haha do you realize you’ve just implicitly accepted Hardimon’s minimalist race concept?
Hardimon’s definition is incomplete cause it says nothing about them being the largest such groups.
What do you mean?
So people in a village in texas versus norway aren’t (C1) distinguished from other groups of human beings by patterns of visible physical features, (C2) linked by a common ancestry peculiar to members of that group, (C3) that originates from a distinctive geographic location?
The ‘DOA’ argument and whatnot was for pumpkin.
regarding Hardimon’s populationist concept, it discusses geographically isolated breeding populations. I’ll go in depth on that later, maybe write an article for PP’s blog this weekend on it.
You don’t have to.
The issue with the argument is that it fails to make a case as to why we should accept it SPECIFICALLY versus ANY OTHER arbitrary grouping of people. Everything you argue for in support of it applies EQUALLY to any other grouping one can put into STRUCTURE.
The variation within versus without MAY mean something. However the argument FAILS to make a case for why we should accept it to mean anything beyond sampling artifacts or the result of genetic drift.
What do you mean by “common ancestry”? The same as Hardimon regarding his conditions? If so, your counter is nonsensical.
I’ve already explained away the “arbitrariness” argument.
Between-race genetic variation, while a whole magnitude smaller than within-race, is still biologically meaningful.
if a single trait made a race, you might have a point. but they don’t.
that’s like saying that the first white guy to have a hook nose through mutation gave rise to a different race.
This doesn’t make any sense because “single traits” don’t make races; aggregate averages make races and these differences in phenotype arose due to climate.
Blackness is the essence we abstract from seeing many blacks
Social construct.
Which reflect biological realities.
Understanding race as a social construct does not exclude this. That’s why the minimalist race concept isn’t adding anything to the social one.
You’re conflating two concepts though.
Well, not really. Race as a social construct doesn’t imply that classification criteria popped up out of the blue without being tractable to biological factors. It’s really not what it implies.
But race, when it comes to how people self-identify and how people around them perceive an individual, is definitely a social construct.
The biology is secondary, and there could be many other more objective ways to group people based on individual features.
rr what is your definition of “biologically meaningful?”
Blackness is the essence we abstract from seeing many blacks
so it’s a social construction….
if you admit that the ‘essence’ fails to apply to every or even most of the members (which is what firmly takes it out of any formal taxonomy), then it just isn’t a useful category biologically even though it may have social utility.
“Racial essences” is a refuted concept. No philosopher I know of takes to essences.
You know it’s like saying a man with male sexual organs could be a woman by virtue of otherwise having physical and behavioral attributes that our cultures deem feminine. That’s exactly how you turn sex, an actual and indisputable biological reality, into gender, a fluid social construct.
Swank,
“Biologically meaningful”, re biological significance, is seen by reflecting on racial traits such as skin color. Thus, biological raciation—the process by through which minimalist races are formed—consists of the visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry.
Minimalist races, as has been argued, can be delineated at the level of the gene, too, as seen by Rosenberg et al 2002.
What’s your definition of the phrase?
Afro,
“Well, not really. Race as a social construct doesn’t imply that classification criteria popped up out of the blue without being tractable to biological factors. It’s really not what it implies.
But race, when it comes to how people self-identify and how people around them perceive an individual, is definitely a social construct.
The biology is secondary, and there could be many other more objective ways to group people based on individual features.”
Both the racialist and minimalist race concepts are socially constructed in the benign sense, according to Hardimon. Though unlike the racialist concept which is socially construct in a pernicious sense (if it fails to recognize” facts of the matter”and “legitimize domination”, is ideological, according to Hardimon). Thus, the minimalist race concept is not socially constructed in the pernicious sense like the racialist concept since it only looks at visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry.
Swank your argument on different townspeople as different races is nonsensical.
For a trait to count as “racial”, the character in question must be real. For example, one may imagine G1 and G2 as different races based on imagined differences. However, unless G1 exhibits physical features which distinguish it from another group, say G2, G1 is not a race. So if there are no visible physical features which distinguish the two towns in your argument then they’re not distinct minimalist races.
Races are not defined by one trait alone, but the aggregate of traits and are characteristically distinguished from another. Skin color, eye shape, hair type gross morphology, etc all denote different races, on the aggregate of group differences. The minimalist concept of race is vague, I admit. But it does have biological significance.
Would Ashkenazi Jews be considered a race under the minimalist race concept?
No. They’d be considered Caucasian.
But you can tell based on physical appearance that someone is Ashkenazi Jewish in many cases so by what criterion does the minimalist race concept not recognize them as a race?
Due to conditions 2 and 3.
RR can you elaborate? Ashkenazi Jews have a geographic origin that influenced their phenotypes
Their geographic origin is the Caucasus. They look similar to southern Europeans.
So on the basis of C1, they aren’t phenotypically distinct from other groups; on the basis of C2, they are linked by a common ancestry; and on the basis of C3, they do not originate from a distinct geographic location (re continent).
Thus they are not a minimalist race. They’re in the Caucasian race.
Uh? Jews are most definitely a social construct, in spite of their peculiar genetic profile, which is precisely a consequence of socially enforced mating patterns.
I didn’t know my wife was Jewish before she told me, and she kept it for herself for quite a while, she thought I’d see her differently than when I though she was just Moroccan.
The hierarchy is:
The cellular level, which includes: atoms, molecules, macromolecules, and organelles; the organismal level which include: tissue, organs, the organ system, and the organism; the populational level which includes: the population, species, and the community; and finally the highest level, the ecosystem level which includes the ecosystem and the biosphere.
The hierarchy is as follows: 1. Species; 2. Genus; 3. Family; 4. Order; 5. Class; 6. Phylum; 7. Kingdom; and 8. Domain. Domains can then be split into Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya. Race would be within species and be under sub-species as Fenoopy said.
There are of course limitations to the hierarchy:
1) Many “higher” taxonomic ranks are not monophyletic and so do not represent real groups (like Reptilia). For something to be a “natural group”, a common ancestor and its descendants must all derive from descent from a common ancestor, so any other type of taxonomic ranks are created by taxonomists, such as paraphyletic and polyphyletic.
2) Linnean ranks are not equivalent. Two families may not represent clades that arose at the same time, because one family may have diverged millions of years before the other family and so the two families had differing amounts of time to diverge and acquire new traits. So comparisons in the Linnean sense may be misleading and we should then use hypotheses of phylogenetic relationships.
There are a wide range of species concepts.
The phenetic species which appeal to the intrinsic similarities of organisms. The biological species concept which appeals to reproductive isolation (one version of the biological species concept is the recognition concept, which defines species as a system of mating recognition. The cohesion species concept which generalizes the biological species concept and it recognizes that gene flow isn’t the only factor that holds a population together and makes it different from other populations. The ecological species concept which defines species by appealing to the fact that members of a species are in competition with one another because of the need the same resources. And the phylogenetic and evolutionary species concept which define species as segments on the tree of life (the phylogenetic species concept, for instance, holds the term ‘species’ should be reserved for groups of populations that have been evolving independently of other populations).
Racehood is simple: A race is a group of humans that: Condition 1; is distinguished from other groups of humans by patterns of visible physical features; Condition 2: is linked by common geographic ancestry which is peculiar to members of this group; and Condition 3: originates from a distinctive geographic location.
So now all we need to do is go through four steps: 1) recognize that there are patterns of visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry; 2) observe that these patterns of visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry are exhibited between real, existing groups; 3) note that these real existing groups that exhibit these patterns by geographic ancestry satisfy C1-C3; and 4) infer that race exists.
I had to take the time to go more in-depth here:
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/06/19/the-hierarchical-nature-of-living-systems-species-and-race/
Biology can loosely define geographic morphological and genetic clusters. However, if you maintain that what only matters is what’s visible on the surface, then you just need to say that race is a social construct. Whereas biological races would be much more complex and unperfectly in line with contemporary Anglo-Saxon classification.
I heard someone say that there’s a little known fair skinned Aryan race in North Africa. Can the minimalist race concept validate the reality of this master race or will it remain the most ridiculous social construct one has ever heard of?
Yes I do maintain that only physical features matter for race but it does not follow that race is a social construct and only a social construct in that case. Race is a social construct of a biological reality.
Which race are you speaking of from North Africa?
Man, haven’t you heard of the formidable fair skinned Berber race?
I’ll reply on minimalist races later on.