With Caucasus in the news lately, I decided to read about the etymology of "Caucasian." Why does the AHD say it isn't in scientific use? Is it a matter of political correctness? Or is it a scientific reason? What is the scientific word, if there is one, for Caucasian people then?

Caucasian is one of those pseudo-scientific words to designate a race. Race, in some biological sense, simply doesn't exist, though it may be unpopular to suggest this (especially to folks belonging to former ruling classes or nationalities). The concept of race was always a mixture of physiognomy (genetic) and nationality, religion, and other cultural accidents of birth. The scientific word for white, black, and other colors of people is Homo sapiens sapiens.

Quote: "The concept of race was always a mixture of physiognomy (genetic) and nationality, religion, and other cultural accidents of birth. The scientific word for white, black, and other colors of people is Homo sapiens sapiens. "

One could equally say, "The concept of strength was always a mixture of physiognomy (genetic) factors plus cultural accidents of birth. The scientific word for strong, weak and other types of people is Homo sapiens sapiens." Saying that does not deny that a concept of 'strength' exists, so I'd not think it invalidates the concept of 'race'.

"Race, in some biological sense, simply doesn't exist." As I understand that statement (and no doubt I'm misunderstanding what you intended), I'd think it's clearly mistaken. Granted that we are all the same species, and granted that in some cases it is difficult to identify the 'race' of a particular individual. Yet surely there are differences between the races, each taken as a group.

As I understand that statement (and no doubt I'm misunderstanding what you intended), I'd think it's clearly mistaken.

I was talking about race as a scientific concept. Most modern biologists I have read and spoken to do not find the term race meaningful in their studies. It does not exist scientifically. Race exists for laymen in the same sense that unicorns exist and the sun rises and sets. Races exist also in the sense that racism exists, but the various characteristics that we laymen associate with race (e.g., length of skull, skin pigmentation, shape of nose, intellectual powers or deficits) are not associated with some biological category of race.

Race might exist if the world consisted of white people in Scandinavia, black people in Congo, and yellow people in the Far East, each group having numerous other biological features correlated with skin colour.

Race can't exist in a world full of Turks, Mongols, Egyptians, Indians, Berbers, Dakota, Mayans, Greeks, Micronesians, Pathans, Basques, Arabs, and Thais, all having intermediate or mixed features compared to the crude race picture, and in whom any one genetic feature (such as lactose tolerance or eye colour or nose shape or Rh blood) doesn't co-vary with any other feature. All genes occur in gradients.

If there were populations isolated enough to develop their own gene pools out of contact with others, these could become races in the biological sense. But where this situation actually existed, as with the Australians, Tasmanians, and Andamanese, they don't seem noticeably more distinct than the blends on the African/Eurasian mainland.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jheem:


Most modern biologists I have read and spoken to do not find the term race meaningful in their studies. It does not exist scientifically. Race exists for laymen in the same sense that unicorns exist and the sun rises and sets. Races exist also in the sense that racism exists, but the various characteristics that we laymen associate with race...

---

Now jheem, of course "races" exist. The term "race" is a word and all words have a function. Yes, precise scientific classification has dropped the term in recent years, partly because of new understandings of genetic process, but also because of a naive attempt to right the moral wrongs of the past by banning the offensive word "race" itself. How foolish.

Thankfully, the scientific community is not the givers of words. Words might be said to be final bastion of the people.

When cro-magnon man met his next door neighbor the neanderthal,it wasn't words of hate that caused him to throw his rock; it was a keen awareness that he had to kill his cousin before he himself was ate.
Reality ain't fun but it sure is real.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amemeba:
Now jheem, of course "races" exist. The term "race" is a word and all words have a function. Yes, precise scientific classification has dropped the term in recent years, partly because of new understandings of genetic process, but also because of a naive attempt to right the moral wrongs of the past by banning the offensive word "race" itself. How foolish.

---

There are two problems here. The first is an error of reification: the fact that a word exists and has a definition and is used in the language doesn't imply that the thing itself actually exists. 'Shangri-la' has a definition and a function but the thing itself can't be said to exist except as a mental construct. In fact, your point is a tautology: all words have definitions and functions. No conclusions can be drawn from the fact that a word has a definition and function.

The second problem is pragmatic rather than ontological. The classification of people into races is not useful. There exist white dogs, and there exist black dogs. Nevertheless, any dog fancier would consider a discussion of the relative differences between white dogs and black dogs ludicrous. Similarly, the idea of classifying humanity into one of a handful of races turns out, empirically, to be rather useless. George Bush and Condoleeza Rice are more similar by any measure -- cultural, religious, linguistic, genetic -- than a member of the Ebo tribe and member of the neighboring Hausa tribe in Nigeria. One can talk of African-American culture and European-American culture and their differences, and one might use 'race' as a shorthand, but that's different.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neveu:
There are two problems here. The first is an error of reification: the fact that a word exists and has a definition and is used in the language doesn't imply that the thing itself actually exists. 'Shangri-la' has a definition and a function but the thing itself can't be said to exist except as a mental construct. In fact, your point is a tautology: all words have definitions and functions. No conclusions can be drawn from the fact that a word has a definition and function.

The second problem is pragmatic rather than ontological. The classification of people into races is not useful. There exist white dogs, and there exist black dogs. Nevertheless, any dog fancier would consider a discussion of the relative differences between white dogs and black dogs ludicrous. Similarly, the idea of classifying humanity into one of a handful of races turns out, empirically, to be rather useless. George Bush and Condoleeza Rice are more similar by any measure -- cultural, religious, linguistic, genetic -- than a member of the Ebo tribe and member of the neighboring Hausa tribe in Nigeria. One can talk of African-American culture and European-American culture and their differences, and one might use 'race' as a shorthand, but that's different.

---

Ah, nu eve, you operate on the mistaken assumption that there is a firm distinction between the material and the abstract. Semantically speaking there is not. In any logical sequence the material world blends quite smoothly into the abstract. And really nueve, you shouldn't speak of tautologies as if the term had a measure of exacting meaning; the term is a contrived word, a device largely used by a few lazy educators to prevent clear thoughts.

Follow this exercise...

All words have functions.
"Race" is a word.
The function of the word "race"
is a unique function.
Therefore semantical extrapolation
is logically permitted
to explore it's function.

See?

Most modern biologists I have read and spoken to do not find the term race meaningful in their studies. It does not exist scientifically

Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by biologists. Do you mean all scientists? You seem to extend "most modern biologists" to "it doesn't exist scientifically."

Though not biologists, nursing, medicine, pharmacology are all scientific professions. Surely, all our studies must consider race because there often are differences based on races. Because race has become a politically incorrect word, I suppose, often we instead talk about it as ethnicity. However, all our studies ask about race and run statistics to see if there are differences. In pharmacology, for example, there are pharmacodynamic differences. An example is the minimal response of African-Americans to monotherapy with some drugs, such as ACE (angiotensin converting enzyme) inhibitors. African-Americans produce low levels of renin, a key component in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system where the ACE inhibitors work. This low level of renin makes this system untouchable by the ACE inhibitor, negating its effect. Similarly, native Americans have an altered hepatic enzyme system that causes differences in drug and alcohol metabolism.

Our studies would be unreliable and invalid if we didn't ask about race or ethnicities, as well as age and gender.

So, I can hardly say that race is not a word in my work, though I am willing to call it ethnicity.

BTW, Welcome to our forum, Amemeba! So glad to see our first Alabaman here...especially from the ritzy part!

Quote: "to explore it's function."

Language police, be gentle!

Thankfully, the scientific community is not the givers of words. Words might be said to be final bastion of the people.

Yeah, and yer god made the world in a gross of hours. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

When cro-magnon man met his next door neighbor the neanderthal,it wasn't words of hate that caused him to throw his rock; it was a keen awareness that he had to kill his cousin before he himself was ate.

I'm glad you got the prehistory of man figured out. Pray tell what was the race of the neanderthal who wanted to eat the cro-magnon?

Ah, nu eve, you operate on the mistaken assumption that there is a firm distinction between the material and the abstract. Semantically speaking there is not.

Why you make the funny with neveu's name? Hostility? Here's an experiment for you. If thought precedes language, why is language necessary?

All words have functions.
"Race" is a word.
The function of the word "race"
is a unique function.
Therefore semantical extrapolation
is logically permitted
to explore it's function.

All words have functions? Not quite sure what this means. Are these functions in the mathematical sense? Why the scare quotes on "race"? Do you mean race in some special extra-linguistic sense? Why must the "function" of ""race"" be unique? Very unique? If most words have more than one meaning (polysemy) why would their unspecified function be unique? Why not multifunctional words? BTW, what is the "unqiue function" of the definite article the? What does the out-of-context it's in your conclusion mean? Or better yet how does it "function"? Better yet, what is its antecedent? "See?" No, "saw".

Race.

No comment.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jheem,

Quoting neveu: The classification of people into races is not useful. There exist white dogs, and there exist black dogs. Nevertheless, any dog fancier would consider a discussion of the relative differences between white dogs and black dogs ludicrous. Similarly, the idea of classifying humanity into one of a handful of races turns out, empirically, to be rather useless.

Doesn't that conclusion depend on the circumstances? For example:

The police find the decomposed remains of a murder victim, whose identity is unknown. A forensic technician is asked to construct a picture of the victim-in-life, based on the evidence available, the picture to be circulated the public in the hope that someone, seeing it, will come forward and identify the victim. With that known, the police will have a place to begin investigation into the crime.

Wouldn't that picture be darned near useless if it incorrectly showed the victim's "race"?

The example is not farfetched; it is from a non-fiction book I recently broused (and will try to find again, to add detail). As I recall, there are four traits which a foresic pathologist is expected to identify in every single case: age, gender, height/weight, and race.

I'd think classification by race is in some cases very useful. But I'd emphatically agree that it is often used where it is inappropriate, indeed pernicious.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz,

Hmmm, tough crowd!

I wonder...oh well...I guess I'll just dismiss the mild rudeness here as simply a natural proprietary attack mechanism against outsiders of a different race, and then forgive them for their temporary lack of disipline to focus upon the point under discussion.

But neveu, I apoligize for misswriting your electronic name. My misspelling was intended as a subtle compliment because I thought that your construction was very clever.

But we don't classify humanity into a tall race and a short race (except in The Goodies' apartheight episode), an equally useful distinction. Skin colour is instantly visible at a distance so acts as a first approximation. So that gives the names that people put on crude differences. The genetic reality is that those differences are basically nothing but skin colour genes, and aren't much related to other differences between people.

About 5% of genetic differences between people are because of their continent-sized region of origin, about 10% from their country-sized region, and the rest are personal, neighbour from neighbour. A gene may be prevalent in malaria-affected regions and therefore be common in Africans and Europeans in those regions. Among Black Americans there is no convenient way of labelling detailed origins within Africa, even if it's known for this or that individual, so you just have to group all Black Americans together into one African group and say that on average they have such-and-such a genetic propensity; whereas with the Europeans you can fine-tune it more and say that Italians, Jews, or what have you have the propensity.

In a lot of U.S. Government statistics Race is categorized as Black, White, Hispanic ...

And there is usually an asterisk beside Hispanic, leading to a footnote that says Hispanic can be either Black or White.

Hispanic seems to be based not on the individual's skin color but his first language.

A neighbor of mine has ancestors who are Black (Seychelles) and Dutch and German (Caucasian?). His wife is pure Japanese. The grandchildren produced by their daughter and her Italian (Caucasian?) husband are racially classified as "Other."

Kalleh, would you expect those grandchildren to exhibit certain identifiable racial medical characteristics? If so, is there a category for them?

Just wondering?

~~~ jerry

PS: Someone asked, "If a person with one drop of Negro blood is a Negro, then what is a nation with 20% Black population?"

I guess I'll just dismiss the mild rudeness here as simply a natural proprietary attack mechanism against outsiders of a different race, and then forgive them for their temporary lack of disipline to focus upon the point under discussion.

I thought you were attacking neveu and me. As for being strangers, we seem to know each other on another board, though you seem slightly different here. So, if I came across less than playful and a bit rude, I'm sorry and I apologize to you for that. Welcome aboard, and I look forward to your postings.

Hmmm, tough crowd! I wonder...oh well...I guess I'll just dismiss the mild rudeness here as simply a natural proprietary attack mechanism against outsiders of a different race, and then forgive them for their temporary lack of disipline to focus upon the point under discussion.


The fact is, Amemeba, we really are a very friendly board. To be honest, this is the first time I have seen any criticism on our "rudeness" from a newby, and I have been here since the start of this board. In fact, we have often been lauded by our newbies for our friendliness. Go figure. At any rate, we do apologize if we have offended you. Perhaps this is a "tough" subject.

I really hadn't intended to get into a racial discussion with this question, and I surely don't consider myself racist in any way. But...I do say, aput and Jerry and others, that, yes, race or ethnicity, or whatever you want to call it, does make a difference in the medical fields. Like it or not, there are physiological differences, such as the two I described. There are countless others, such that there is a field in pharmacology called pharmacogenetics, which is concerned with genetically related variability to drugs. Genetic characteristics can alter any of a number of proteins (cell membranes, drug receptor sites, drug metabolizing enzymes, etc.), and these proteins can alter pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics (where is our in-house pharmacist when we need him?!).

So, I do think that in the medical fields we need to know the genetics (is that better?) of people in order to more effectively manage and treat them.

Jerry, as to your examples, yes, you are right. We probably wouldn't be able to discern the pharmacogenetics in those grandchildren. Yet, does that mean that we should never consider the genetics of anyone?

One more comment on racism, then I'll shut up.

A general feeling of guilt seems to pervade the population whenever Race or Racism is mentioned.

A working definition helps to clarify. Here's one that works for me: Racism is behavior based on the belief that members of one Race are superior to other Races in one or more ways and that superiority gives them the right to dominate members of the other Races.

Discrimination in skin color, eye color, hair texture, native language, or whatever for any legitimate purposes including pharmacogenetics is not a sin as long as the idea of dominance is lackiing.

Originally posted by shufitz:
The police find the decomposed remains of a murder victim, whose identity is unknown[...]Wouldn't that picture be darned near useless if it incorrectly showed the victim's "race"?

Sure, but here race is a shorthand for a fuzzy combination of skin color, epicanthic folds and national origin. The current general categories are white, black, Hispanic, Asian and Native American, which are reflective of historic American immigration patterns and little else. I would guess the British, Japanese, and Chinese have a similar slot for the 'race' of a crime victim and I would guess that they are different from the American ones.

RE: "I thought you were attacking neveu and me. As for being strangers, we seem to know each other on another board, though you seem slightly different here."

Perhaps this perception of "Amemeba" as being "slightly different here" and you being "less playful and a little rude" is revealing within the context of this discussion of "race", jheem.

Perhaps some of what we attribute to "race" in another person is actually attributable to "culture".

Even as Amemeba's on-screen persona may undergo a shift, perhaps unconsciously, as she moves from one Board, or "culture", to a new Board, without understanding the "culture" of the new Board and what it takes to "fit in", so you, having acclimatized yourself to the "culture" of the new Board may seem different to Amemeba.

Yet when you both find yourself back on the old Board at the same time, you are both perfectly familiar to one another.

What I am getting at here, of course, is perhaps some of the qualities, habits, values or whatever we associate with "race" are really attributes of "culture" which dissolve when one becomes stranded, so to speak, in a new "culture" without any regular connection with the old "culture".

There is a name for this phenomenon which escapes me for the moment. Woody Allen exaggerated the phenomenon by inventing a lead character in one of his movies who changed his values, chameleon-like, every time he changed his environment. The comedic high point comes when Woody Allen's character, a conscientous Jew, ends up shouting anti-semitic slogans enthusiastically in the company of Nazi officers.

I think we can all agree that there is a difference between "cultures" even if we can't agree that there is a difference between "races" (other than for the purpose of medical research where it is well documented, as a previous poster has said, that certain ethnic groups have particular vulnerabilities to certain diseases).

This message has been edited. Last edited by: straightarrow,

Perhaps this perception of "Amemeba" as being "slightly different here" and you being "less playful and a little rude" is revealing within the context of this discussion of "race", jheem.

Except, I'm not even sure which gender Amemeba is, let alone which "race" s/he identifies with. A great thing on the internet: online nobody knows who or what you are. In fact, is the person behind the name Amemeba I know here (by his/her three or so posts), the same person behind the name on the other board where an amemeba posts? I do not know. All I had to go by was somebody I don't know seemingly attacking me for all I know based on the fact that my name here is "jheem" and her/his imagined gender and race assigned to me. And you, straightarrow, are you "somebody" I know?

Perhaps some of what we attribute to "race" is another person is actually attributable to "culture".

Finally, something I can agree to. Most of what is called race in this country is in fact class and culture with a little pigmentation thrown in for old-timey, sentimental feelings.

I think we can all agree that there is a difference between "cultures" even if we can't agree that there is a difference between "races" (other than for the purpose of medical research where it is well documented, as a previous poster has said, that certain ethnic groups have particular vulnerabilities to certain diseases).

That's because I'd say that cultures exist. There's something there to measure. I don't mind if you wish to call race a cultural construct, similar to gender as opposed to biological sex.

We shouldn't think of some set of genetic markers as being the same as the old-time notion of race. Yes, there are genetic differences between all people. It's the lose grouping of some visible genetic traits so that they map with some notion of race that I was objecting to.

quote:

---

All I had to go by was somebody I don't know seemingly attacking me for all I know based on the fact that my name here is "jheem".

---

To begin with, jheem, you have me at a disadvantage because I don't know how to operate the feature keys in this forum to allow me

This message has been edited. Last edited by: straightarrow,

Perhaps you have some tips for me as a "Junior Member" with only a single post under his belt.

I'm not sure what could be wrong. I know that other members have complained about features not working owing to the operating system they're using. I don't use any of the little icons along the top of the Post a Reply window. I just type the formating codes in by hand, but that's because I'm used to typing and marking up the text as I go because I've done a lot of HTML by hand at work.

You might try writing your responses in a text editor and copying and pasting into the window at the last moment.

Anybody else have some suggestions for straightarrow? And welcome to the board.

quote:

---

Originally posted by straightarrow:
Perhaps this perception of "Amemeba" as being "slightly different here" and you being "less playful and a little rude" is revealing within the context of this discussion of "race", jheem.
Perhaps some of what we attribute to "race" in another person is actually attributable to "culture".

---

Maybeso, straightarrow, but why don't you let me, the amemeba, speak for myself?

Of course the in-group is leery of the out-group, otherwise the cohesive bonds of their own culture wouldn't hold. A defiant posture towards strangers insures against the nonce adoptation of outside customs that might conflict with the social mechanisms that are in place to aid and abet their own culture's survival.

I should have spoken with more tact and less enthusiasm.

And stop calling me a girl, I'm a man.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Amemeba,

Of course the in-group is leery of the out-group, otherwise the cohesive bonds of their own culture wouldn't hold.

Oh, I don't know; I think it's just good manners. Also, cultures hold up under all kinds of adverse situations. I look at it this way. I've always seen myself as an anthropologist rather than a tourist. I go to another country, I don't start telling them how they're doing everything wrong, even if I think they are. This is like arguing environmentalism in a third world country or gun control in Israel. I'm not going to convince anybody, and in the end I'll probably just piss them off, and I could get hurt. For example, I lived in Germany for a year, and it took me a long time to start questioning some aspects of their culture. I'd only expect the same from them in my country. If I attacked them / their culture before they got to know me, they would've shut me out (rightly so, they are after all only human) and not listened. Rather than storming into somebody's shop and telling them how to sell items, get to know them. It takes a while, but the rewards are worth it.

Well, I feel as though I have opened a hornet's nest with my question, and I regret it. I really didn't mean anything racist about my post. I was merely confused when I read in the AHD that "Caucasian" isn't a scientific term when I see it used all the time in medical research for the reasons I have already posted about. Surely, I wasn't meaning that we should put people into racial categories so that we can say who is the best. I merely was saying that for some research the knowledge of racial (genetic) background is helpful. Period. Call it Caucasian...or call it something else, but the designation can be helpful.

Welcome to wordcraft, Amemeba and straightarrow.

It sounds as though you both, along with jheem, post on another board, and I believe I know a little about that board. Let me say that we are a different kind of board. It would of course be presumptuous of me to say our board is better, but I do think we are a friendlier board. Different strokes of different folks, of course. For example, we have a large British contingency here that really adds a wonderful dimension, I think. We have quite a creative group, and every so often we post limericks, poetry and double dactyls. We have quite an active wordplay section, especially with our Bluffing game, 6-letters game, and Jumblaya game. One of our posters started a limerick project here, which I like to call a limerictionary (a dictionary that defines words with limericks), and the project has grown so big that he has taken it to another site (oedilf.com). We are closely connected to his board, though, and many of us post on both boards. Some of our discussion of etymology and other languages (Latin, Greek, German) has been outstanding, I think. We also get sidetracked at times and have been known to talk about beer, for example. We've had an ongoing discussion of the words "epicaricacy" and "Schadenfreude," the former word being a favorite of mine. We have talked about inventions a lot here, too, and have especially debated about who really invented the lightbulb. There are pronunciation and grammar discussions, and we really like to debate that apostrophe (thanks to our Brits!) Of course, we wouldn't be here if we weren't readers, so often books and literature attract our attention. Wordcrafter posts a word-a-day, based on a weekly theme. Some of those themes have been quite creative, such as "Terms of Illogic" or "Unambiguous Ambiguities." On the second and fourth Saturdays of the month, we have a wordcraft chat, and reminders of those (and instructions) are always posted on the previous Friday. I just wanted to give you a flavor of our board (our 'culture,' so to speak!).

Yet, all our discussions remain cordial and respectful. We pride ourselves in being friendly, and we really hope to keep it that way.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

Welcome, Amemeba and straightarrow. I hope that as you wander about the rest of our board, you'll find topics of interest there as well.

As I have been away for a while I didn't get into this discussion from the begining. However, I would like to comment on the race versus dogs analogy since it does add a different dimension.

Firstly, can a I take as a given that we (dogs and humans) are all part of the animal kingdom (we are not cauliflowers or bricks) and we therefore share that relationship.

Within the animal kingdom there are species and the distinction between species is one of chromosome compatibility. Incompatibality means that animals of different species cannot breed or, if they can breed, their offspring are sterile. Thus donkeys and horses are different species.

Within any one species there are many breeds and dogs are a superb example. The smallest Chichuaua recognises immediately the largest Great Dane as a member of the great dog family and, given the opportunity (and maybe a stepladder!) the two breeds could mate and reproduce, creating another breed variation.

Humans are unique in that there is now only the one species and there are no other primates near enough for them to breed with (unlike the horse and donkey situation).

So the differences are differences of breed (though we call it race) and all humans can breed with other humans and the resultant offspring will create a slightly different breed.

One undeniable fact is that there are differences between different races and it is sad that we do tend to make assumptions about "good" and "bad".

Contrary to what has been suggested ealier, dog enthusiasts do make the same sorts of judgements about different dog races (or breeds) - and rightly so. Different dogs (and even different colours of dog) have been bred for different jobs and you would choose a Pekinese to hunt any more than you would choose a greyhound to dig.

Human races have evolved over the years and primarily by natural selection. The few attempts at eugenics have quickly failed or been forced to be discontinued.

However, it is a fact that different human races have different characteristics and we should be aware of this fact. Some characteristics, as Kalleh has pointed out, can be detected medically. Others have been found out empirically.

Sadly, it is common to make assumptions about "superiority" by just taking a very few characteristics and judging races on those. To suggest that one race tends to be taller or more muscular than another creates no dispute (and we can tell easily enough which races exhibit such characteristics).

However, to try to suggest that one race is more intelligent than another and all hell will break loose with accusations ranging from racisism to the suggestion that intelligence is impossible to measure.

Hans Eysenck was pilloried for his work on intelligence and race to the extent that some establishments refused to teach his studies.

So, to summarise, whatever names we care to give to races we must accept that races are the same as breeds. There will be overall similarities within similar human races, as there will be overall similarites between different breeds of dog. However, these will usually be overwhelmed by the individual differences between each representative animal.

It is convenient to give names to racial types as it is convenient to give names to different dog breeds. We should not become emotive about the names chosen.

Originally posted by Richard English:
So, to summarise, whatever names we care to give to races we must accept that races are the same as breeds. There will be overall similarities within similar human races, as there will be overall similarites between different breeds of dog. However, these will usually be overwhelmed by the individual differences between each representative animal.

Is race really the same as breed? There are indeed measurable differences between Chihuahuas and Great Danes; nevertheless, dog breed is a perfect example a subjective, human invention, like race. Dog breeds are created by the American Kennel Club. A bunch of people sit around a table and raise their hands and decide if a breed exists or not, and how it is defined. Like any other human endeavor, politics plays a part.

A breed is defined so that members of the breed can be judged against one another and a Best-of-Breed chosen. If race is the same as breed then there must be ways of judging members of the race against one another and determining the ideal White, the ideal Black, the ideal Hispanic, etc.

Most dogs don't belong to breeds. Most dogs in the world are mongrels. Dogs, as RE points out, are selectively bred, so we would expect that differences among dogs would be greater than humans. We would expect that only a small percentage of people would belong to any race. However, race is commonly thought of as a zero-sum game: I'm 100% white, or half black and half white, etc. Many dogs are breedless, but nobody is considered raceless.

It is convenient to give names to racial types as it is convenient to give names to different dog breeds. We should not become emotive about the names chosen.

I couldn't agree more. And, being a pragmatist, I'm all for the use of race in a forensic sense. So I have a modest proposal: I suggest we add a new race to the list: Redneck. The Redneck race includes those people of Scotch-Irish descent as well as those from eastern England. They have a certain set of recognizable physical characteristics, like lack of pigmentation -- I can spot one a mile away. They have Anglo-Saxon surnames, e.g. Clinton, Harding, Carlin, Swift. It is at least as homogeneous genetically, culturally, linguistically, religiously and politically and at least as descriptive as 'hispanic'. Indeed, a great many people describe themselves as Rednecks. I would like to hear news reporters say "the perpetrator was described as a 5' 10" male Redneck". That way I know not to look out for, say, an Italian, or a Jew. And as this is purely a descriptive thing and not judgemental in any way, I'm sure nobody would object to their race being recorded as Redneck on their passport, visa or driver's license.


Here are my points:

Race is like breed in that they are both subjective and political.
Race is not like breed in that dogs can be breedless, but nobody is considered raceless.
Breed is inherently judgemental. If race is breed, then race is inherently judgemental.

Back to words: this concept of race got jettisoned by scientists for exactly these reasons, and others. We currently use race as a fuzzy combination skin color, epicanthic fold and suspected national origin, but the metaphorical connection to breeds leads to all kinds of problems.

I say, let's just be honest and use skin color, epicanthic fold and suspected national origin if it is so important. We can say 'the suspect was a 5'10" nut-brown almond-eye, possibly Mexican', or 'the perpetrator was described as a 5'4" pasty female round-eye, probably Irish'.

Just a couple of points.

It is matter of common observation that the differences between different dog breeds is greater than that between different human breeds, even though they have only been bred selectively for a relatively short period of time. I understand that this is because of a genetic difference - dogs have more genes than humans and thus more scope for variety.

Breeding and breed selection is a arbitrary human device, I agree, and I agree, too, that there are many dog breeds that we have no name for and that we tend to refer to as mongrels.

There are just as many human "breeds" as there are dog breeds. although the differences are less apparent for the reason given above. For convenience we try to give names to all different human breeds or races and, whereas we consider nobody raceless, that is a convenience and a courtesy - not a genuine distinction.

If an Australian Aboriginal breeds with a Canadian Eskimo, that would be an unusual combination and one for which there is probably no name. And it is a different breed - call it what you will.

There is no reason at all why the offspring of such a union (leaving aside the difficulties made by culture) shouldn't be perfectly fit, sound and able people.

The problem is one of classification and that problem is one that has not yet been adequately solved.

British government forms including those used by the police and by colleges always have a question about ethnicity.
The choices are

Asian or Asian British
Bangladeshi ( ) Indian ( ) Pakistani ( ) Other Asian Background ( )

Black or Black British
African ( ) Caribbean ( ) Other Black Background ( )

Chinese
Chinese ( )

Mixed
White and Asian ( ) White and Black African ( ) White and Black Caribbean ( ) Other mixed background ( )

White
British ( ) Irish ( ) Other White Background ( )

Other Ethnic Group ( )
Prefer not to say ( )
---------

IS it just me or does everyone else think this shows a remarkable degree of confusion about the difference betweeen ethnicity and nationality and about what information exactly they are trying to collect.

I did some work for a borough council on their ethnic monitoring, and their forms had two further boxes, Greek/Greek Cypriot and Turkish/Turkish Cypriot. They didn't have any Mixed boxes.

The main problem with the forms was that lots of Afro-Caribbeans naturally ticked Black African and Black Caribbean because they were, and lots of Irish ticked Irish and White because they were. We could only accept one box. Luckily the answer is obvious in these cases, but I don't know what the really mixed did.

The council spent lots of money getting the fields added to the databases because they were obliged to have this information, and commissioning monthly reports sorted in various ways. After about a year no further changes were asked for on the reports, which almost certainly meant they were throwing them in the bin as they arrived, not being legally allowed to discontinue them altogether, but I'm guessing at that. Presumably the information was completely useless.

Bob, that form is crazy. I haven't seen one like it here. I do remember a Caucasian (dare I say it? ) family from South Africa who said that their daughter marked "African-American" in the box for college applications, and she was automatically given minority status.

I still say that, when used right, the knowledge of ethnicity can be useful, in medicine and pharmacology, for example. I assume there are other fields as well.

I just found this in the San Francisco Bay View of September 8. Is the etymology it gives accurate?

quote:

---

Also, etymology reveals some interesting details in regard to the evolutionary process of words and where they were derived. It places the true meaning of the term "human race" in its correct context.

For example, in most dictionaries, there are two definitions of the word race. The first, "A contest of speed," came into the English language about 700 years ago, deriving from the Icelandic word "ras," meaning "a running or strong current." Then there's the second definition of the word race, "A division of all human beings," which came into the English language about 450 years ago, originating from the Italian word "razza."

It seems to me that the first definition of the word "race" evolved into the second definition. That would clarify the term "human race" as a competition of conquest initiated by the Europeans for which ethnic group would rule and dominate the world, without the consent of the rest of humanity.

And by the 19th century, over half the world was ruled by eight small European nations. The British, French, Italians, Germans, Dutch, Spanish, Belgians and Portuguese, had spent the previous 50 years competing with each other to colonize any part of the world unclaimed by whites. By 1900 they had imposed their laws, their methods of government, their economic systems and, in may places, their religious beliefs and myths on more than half the planet’s population.

---

Is the etymology it gives accurate?

The author of Guns, Germs, and Steel has a different take on how Europeans took over large sections of the "world".

The two words, one from the Icelandic and the other from Italian, are not related etymologically. I guess what the writer is doing here is being metaphorical. Or perhaps s/he is confused. Other ethnic groups have behaved similarly over the ages: e.g., Akkadians, Hittites, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Chinese, Iranians, Indians, Turks, Japanese). Agtain, I see this as the human condition, not the prerogative of some "race".

The ethnic 'race' is a word very generally meaning stock, breed, descent, progeny, kind. You can talk about the English race and the Jewish race, the race of Augustus or of Byerly Turk or of your grandfather, the race of fishes...

Can, or could. The subsense 'one of the major divisions of humankind', first used in the late eighteenth century, has rather overshadowed all the others. But in origin it was only one specific application of the general meaning.