4 ms·

> The idea of classifying people like that doesn't work genetically. [...] Basically, "race" is a cultural distinction. No, it's not, and classifying people "l

> The idea of classifying people like that doesn't work genetically. [...] Basically, "race" is a cultural distinction. No, it's not, and classifying people "like that" makes sense. > In one of the most extensive of these studies to date, considering 1,056 individuals from 52 human populations, with each individual genotyped for 377 autosomal microsatellite markers, we found that individuals could be partitioned into six main genetic clusters, five of which corresponded to Africa, Europe and the part of Asia south and west of the Himalayas, East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070 http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal... These guys http://genome.cshlp.org/content/19/5/815.long http://genome.cshlp.org/content/19/5/815.long even have a picture http://genome.cshlp.org/content/19/5/815/F2.large.jpg http://genome.cshlp.org/content/19/5/815/F2.large.jpg

ajross 14y ago
I think you're aggressively agreeing with me. Please find me the "races" on that chart. I don't see any. This is a chart of "genetic clusters". Which one does, say, Barack Obama (most famous mestizo I could think of, but frankly you could put almost all of the non-white population of the US into similar buckets) belong to? He doesn't fit. Most people don't fit. (Editted to point out: it's specifically a study of a small number of individuals of "pure" background.) Yet, and this is important, he does have a "race". Everyone, including himself, agrees that he's "black". So where does "black" go on that chart? It doesn't. So "race" is non-scientific.
- spindritf 14y ago
  > So where does "black" go on that chart? In the cluster on the left.
  - ajross 14y ago
    Yikes... Did you actually read what I wrote? Or the study? You're completely misinterpreting it. It's not saying that "everyone belongs to a genetically determined race", it's simply saying (duh) that these genetic clusters can be measured, and it shows some relationships between them that might be indicators for recent shared ancestry, etc... This is specifically a chart of individuals with "pure" ancestry. People with mixed ancestry (i.e. almost all of us) have no spot on it. It doesn't tell us anything about our "race". To get back to the example. If "blacks" belong on the bottom left than Obama (with his northern european mother) isn't black. So either he has a "race" or he doesn't. Which is it? Stop thinking about "race" as a measurable thing, it isn't.
    - spindritf 14y ago
      There are clear, genetic clusters corresponding with what we generally call races. The fact that some people, mostly from the former European colonies, won't perfectly fit doesn't change that. The fact that this distinction is blurred, emphasized, or altered for political reasons doesn't change that. The fact that outward features, which are often used as proxy for the underlying genetics, can sometimes be misleading doesn't change that. Also, I don't think "almost all of us" or even most of us wouldn't fit into those clusters. Do you have a source? I understand that Obama is not exactly technically black; that legal, political or self-identified race may not align with those clusters or even known ancestry but it doesn't invalidate the concept. Just like there are people who are legally blind, and a subgroup who really can't see anything.

ajross 14y ago

I think you're aggressively agreeing with me. Please find me the "races" on that chart. I don't see any. This is a chart of "genetic clusters". Which one does, say, Barack Obama (most famous mestizo I could think of, but frankly you could put almost all of the non-white population of the US into similar buckets) belong to? He doesn't fit. Most people don't fit. (Editted to point out: it's specifically a study of a small number of individuals of "pure" background.) Yet, and this is important, he does have a "race". Everyone, including himself, agrees that he's "black". So where does "black" go on that chart? It doesn't. So "race" is non-scientific.

spindritf 14y ago
> So where does "black" go on that chart? In the cluster on the left.
- ajross 14y ago
  Yikes... Did you actually read what I wrote? Or the study? You're completely misinterpreting it. It's not saying that "everyone belongs to a genetically determined race", it's simply saying (duh) that these genetic clusters can be measured, and it shows some relationships between them that might be indicators for recent shared ancestry, etc... This is specifically a chart of individuals with "pure" ancestry. People with mixed ancestry (i.e. almost all of us) have no spot on it. It doesn't tell us anything about our "race". To get back to the example. If "blacks" belong on the bottom left than Obama (with his northern european mother) isn't black. So either he has a "race" or he doesn't. Which is it? Stop thinking about "race" as a measurable thing, it isn't.
  - spindritf 14y ago
    There are clear, genetic clusters corresponding with what we generally call races. The fact that some people, mostly from the former European colonies, won't perfectly fit doesn't change that. The fact that this distinction is blurred, emphasized, or altered for political reasons doesn't change that. The fact that outward features, which are often used as proxy for the underlying genetics, can sometimes be misleading doesn't change that. Also, I don't think "almost all of us" or even most of us wouldn't fit into those clusters. Do you have a source? I understand that Obama is not exactly technically black; that legal, political or self-identified race may not align with those clusters or even known ancestry but it doesn't invalidate the concept. Just like there are people who are legally blind, and a subgroup who really can't see anything.