Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Psychohistorian (talk | contribs) at 17:07, 6 November 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

older discussions may be found here Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, , Archive 5

Talking About Race is Necessary

If we are going to talk about white people, asking what is white? is a perfectly natural and relevant question. In order to answer, we need some background info about race, so I suggest:

2 arguments against race: AAA statement and maybe dna squencing guy's opinion Explanation, what does AA statement mean? Briefly...

2 arguments for race: Leroi and a part of Edwards Brief explanation.

Conclusion, by quoting the conclusion of comprehensive nature article.

The article, currently is too empty... Thulean 19:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Currently the article is biased:

ex 1: "Whether any individual considers any other individual as white often comes down to whether the person looks white; however this is a very subjective judgement." This is not cited and how do you know every individual's opinion? Maybe some individuals have genetic considerations. Thulean 19:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Honestly I prefer to defer that discussion to the Race article.

On your "example 1", there's no real definition of white. For me it's a synonim Caucasoid, what is quite historical and coincident whith what I learned in school in the 70s: five races: white (Caucasoid), black (Negroid), yellow (Mongoloid), red (Amerindian) and olive (Australoid). This symbology is also present in the Olympic Flag, though white has been replaced by blue and olive by simple green. Of course this is just a classical Eurocentric perception of race and, as the relevant article notices, the racial symblism of the flag was clearly promoted by Nazi Germany.

Some people instead argue that "true whites" are only Europeans and some that even not all Europeans are real whites. For many surely South Asians or North Africans are not whites, but for other they are, regardless of skin shade because they are (at least mostly) Caucasoid. Some even have argued that Ethiopians are at least partly white.

There's no real consensus, much less a scientific definition. And this is not the place for such Byzantine discussions anyhow. --Sugaar 06:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thulean your comment Maybe some individuals have genetic considerations. makes no sense. Are you suggesting that some people ask for a genetic test from others before they decide if they are white or not? Obviously people decide if someone is white by the way they look. A person cannot be genetically white and so it makes no sense to say that some people might take genetic considerations into account. Alun 06:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Genetically white"... that's funny.

Still, may be was useful also to add a clear link to the article Human skin color.

You people never heard of DNA tests which tells you ancestry? If someone's ancestry is not totally European, those people might not be considered white. People will usually go for looks but the quote is definately an unsupported blanket statement, not true for *everyone*. Thulean 12:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

First DNA tests don't tell a person their ancestry, how can it tell a person the names of their ancestors? Secondly do you really know anyone who takes a DNA test before declairing themselves white, or demands one from someone else before considering them white? Thirdly how does someone determine what white is from a DNA test? I've got a degree in genetics, but I know of no DNA test that can tell a person if they will be considered white by the society they live in. Fourthly there is a Near Eastern component to the European gene pool that is thought to have spread during the neolithic, so nearly all European populations have a Near Eastern as well as an European origin, none of us is totally european except in the sense that we consider ourselves European, and where does it say that only Europeans can be white anyway? I really don't think your arguments are very well thought out. Alun 13:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1) By ancestry, I meant continent, or region. 2) Do you know anyone who takes a DNA test to declare themselves male or female? No. Does that mean there is *no* genetic consideration in gender? 3) That's why genetics is only *part* of the equation. A part that has been completely ignored in this article. 4) Totally European is a wrong word then. However europeans have been isolated by genetic similarity: 5) Most people will consider Europeans or people of European ancestry as white. Thulean 13:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Do you know anyone who takes a DNA test to declare themselves male or female? No.

Haven't you just made my point for me? We don't do genetic tests to determine if someone is male or female, just as we don't do them to determine if someon is white. If we make assumptions at all we do it by observation.

• genetics is only *part* of the equation.

Genetics has nothing to do with the equation. Whiteness has nothing to do with what continent one's ancestors came from, all our ancestors come from Africa after all, it is arbitrary to emphasise one period of our ancestry over another. Whiteness is a social and cultural identity, not a biological one, it also seems to be oddly exclusive.

• However europeans have been isolated by genetic similarity:

This citation doesn't claim isolation as far as I can see, indeed it claims that

The groups easiest to resolve were those that were widely separated from one another geographically. Such samples maximize the genetic variation among groups. When Bamshad and his co-workers used their 100 Alu polymorphisms to try to classify a sample of individuals from southern India into a separate group, the Indians instead had more in common with either Europeans or Asians. In other words, because India has been subject to many genetic influences from Europe and Asia, people on the subcontinent did not group into a unique cluster.

So what we are looking at is a cline, like in all genetic models. We rarely see clean genetic distinctions between populations, rather they merge into one another. This is a similar result to the one in the paper I provided.

• Most people will consider Europeans or people of European ancestry as white.

I can think of lots of British people, of British European ancesty, that would not be considered white. Colin Jackson and Kelly Holmes spring to mind. Alun 13:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thulean said: You people never heard of DNA tests which tells you ancestry? If someone's ancestry is not totally European, those people might not be considered white.

I say: You people (and I mean: you Thulean and whoever may think like you) should learn some genetics before you start ranting. Ancestry tests can only tell you the Haplogroup of some ancestors: your purely paternal line (father, father's father, etc.) and your purely maternal line (mother, mother's mother, etc.). No DNA test (at least not the usual ones) will be able to say anything about your father's mother or your mother's father. Start bulding your genealogical tree up to some 50 generations (aprox. 1000 years) and you'll see how tiny is the fraction of the ancestry that those tests are informing you about.

I am a good example, while I don't know my exact DNA haplogroups, I'm pretty sure that my father's paternal lineage and my mother's maternal lineage are deeply rooted in the Basque Country. Hence I'm very likely to be R1b and H (or some other less common Basque haplogroups maybe). But a good deal of all other ancestors are not Basque but Spaniards or Italians. That would never be noticeable in any standard DNA test, and if these were Yoruba or Vietnamese, it would be exactly the same.

By this reasoning of you, it's likely that many Black Americans (Afro-Americans or whatever the PC term) would have to be classified as whites. Not that I care but really that's not the perception in US society.

By this reasoning of you also, in Europe we have at least several races, looking only at the Y-DNA haplogroups: Western Euros (R1b), their distant relative Indo-Europeans (R1a) (that also include a good deal of Indian and specially Pakistani, Afghan, Tajik and Kirgiz people), Balcano-Swedes (I), their relative Eastern Mediterranean (J), the Sibero-Uralics (N) and the Afro-Mediterraneans (E3b). Maybe I'm missing something... ah!: there are Germans with such rare haplogroups (among Europeans) as C (frequent among NE Asians and Austronesians, arguably a Hun legacy). How would you tell the difference between a Briton with E3b and a Sudanese with exactly the same haplogroup? How would you tell the difference between a Swede with R1a and a native of Uttar Pradesh with the same lineage?

You people (and I mean you: Thulean from anywhere but Thule, that is Iceland) must learn first what you are talking about and then, only then, make the rest waste our time. --Sugaar 14:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That was really silly, Sugaar. There is no such *reasoning* that looks *only* at Y-DNA haplogroups. Autosomal DNA, mtDNA and all of their correlations is also considered. Also, Your personal attacks (nazi nick, "should learn some genetics before you start ranting") are becoming increasingly polluting. Thulean 15:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1) No I havent. I was just pointing out that despite we base our observations about gender on looks, we also know that it has a genetic basis. So it doesnt *just* come down to looks.

Yes you have made my point for me. You are now just trying to change the question. Originally you said that people might take genetics into consideration when determining if someone is white. I said this is not true, because we do not ask someone for genetic proof of their whiteness (and anyway no such thing exists, you just made it up as far as I can tell). Likewise we do not ask people for genetic proof of their gender. We make these observations on a social and cultural level, not on a biological one. You appear to now to be saying that whenever you meet a woman you insist on genetic proof that she is a woman before you accept this. I do not believe you. Alun 16:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be not understanding what I say. I'm simply saying *looks* isnt the only consideration. Thulean 18:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I never said that looks was the only consideration. There are social and cultural considerations. What I am saying is that genetics/DNA are completelly irrelevant. This is because we do not identify ourselves or others as white based on genetics, we do it in social and cultural contexts. As I said before, no one asks for a DNA test to be done before they consider someone white. The way someone looks is part of it, but also cultural and social considerations are involved. What is true is that it is not biological. Alun 06:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

2)Ancestry is subjective. You may need not to mention Africa as well since we all evolved from single cell organisms in oceans. Or you can say our "ancestors" are the singularity state at the Big Bang. Since we are talking about white race/"race"/population/whatever, the ancestry of whole species is irrelevant.

I mentioned Africa because you mentioned that the continent of origin was important in determining whiteness. I'm just saying that the continent of origin of all humans is Africa, so your argument makes no sense. Now you seem to be saying that there was life at the big bang, which is patently absurd. Alun 16:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish you'd ask me to clarify what "I seem to be saying" because your cluelesness is ridiculous. Singularity is the beginning of everything, living or unliving, therefore I used ancestors in quotes. When we were talking about the origin of a race or population, you switched to a higher designation, which is species, so I switched to higher designations as well, to highlight your irrelevancy of pointing to Africa. Thulean 18:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• • because your cluelesness is ridiculous.

Please refrain from personal attacks, it reflects more on you than anyone else. If I fail to fully understand what you are saying then maybe it reflects an inability on your part to express yourself clearly. You do not seem to be able to stick to a specific point. Alun 06:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Singularity is the beginning of everything, living or unliving,

No it's not, no one claims that living things began at the singularity. Matter was created then, surely, not life. Alun 06:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• • When we were talking about the origin of a race or population, you switched to a higher designation, which is species,

No I didn't, there is no biologically recognised designation of race, we are a single species, our species arose in Africa, it's where we're all from. This is the point, from a biological perspective there is no order lower than species. You were talking about the continental origins of people, I merely pointed out that the continental origin of all of us is Africa. It's not rocket science you know. Your comments about singularities were not comprable to mine about Africa, my comments were relevant, yours were petulent. Alun 06:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

3)Noones denying the ambiguities. However they do not invalidate anything. To quote:

The identification of racial origins is not a search for purity. The human species is irredeemably promiscuous. We have always seduced or coerced our neighbors even when they have a foreign look about them and we don't understand a word. If Hispanics, for example, are composed of a recent and evolving blend of European, American Indian and African genes, then the Uighurs of Central Asia can be seen as a 3,000-year-old mix of West European and East Asian genes. Even homogenous groups like native Swedes bear the genetic imprint of successive nameless migrations.

Some critics believe that these ambiguities render the very notion of race worthless. I disagree. The physical topography of our world cannot be accurately described in words. To navigate it, you need a map with elevations, contour lines and reference grids. But it is hard to talk in numbers, and so we give the world's more prominent features—the mountain ranges and plateaus and plains—names. We do so despite the inherent ambiguity of words. The Pennines of northern England are about one-tenth as high and long as the Himalayas, yet both are intelligibly described as mountain ranges.

So, too, it is with the genetic topography of our species. The billion or so of the world's people of largely European descent have a set of genetic variants in common that are collectively rare in everyone else; they are a race. At a smaller scale, three million Basques do as well; so they are a race as well. Race is merely a shorthand that enables us to speak sensibly, though with no great precision, about genetic rather than cultural or political differences.

And the citation from the earlier source also claims:

Other studies have produced comparable results. Noah A. Rosenberg and Jonathan K. Pritchard, geneticists formerly in the laboratory of Marcus W. Feldman of Stanford University, assayed approximately 375 polymorphisms called short tandem repeats in more than 1,000 people from 52 ethnic groups in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity.

I don't understand what these quotes are supposed to prove. Race is a meaningless concept in biology. It is difficult enough to come up with a universally accepted concept of species, let alone an accepted concept at the sub-species level. No one disputes that there are physical differences between peoples from different parts of the world. Most people who believe in race seem to think that races are discreet entities that are very different to each other. Biology shows us the opposite. So you found a biologist who thinks that race is a real biological phenomenon, there are probably more who disagree. Indeed the idea of race is really little more than genetic polymorphism. But the human population is so genetically homogeneous compared to other species that there is little doubt that we are all derived from a bottlneck event that happened very recently. Differences between human populations are tiny and the extent of polymorphism is very small in humans. Race is a social and cultural phenomenon, you cannot claim it is exclusively a biological one in contradiction to all biological evidence. Alun 16:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether what I or you claim is irrelevant. The point is that this issue is controversial. That's the point of quotes. However this article reflects that race and whiteness is a social concept and that's the consenssus. But there is no consenssus and thats why this article is biased. Thulean 18:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a consensus that whitness is social. You are conflating race, which is itself a disputed concept (most biologists do not accept it), with skin colour. Whitness is not synonymous with an European race, and this is whay you are saying. Your quotes about race above are about just that, the dispute as to whether race exists as a biological concept, but this article is not about race as a biological phenomenon, it's about light skin colour. I cannot help but feel that you are very confused. Maybe you are not and have a lucid understanding of this, but you are not explaining yourself well enough for me. Alun 06:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

4) So you are saying European ancestry is entirely irrelevant when one discusses white? Thulean 14:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that there are many people of european ancestry that would not be considered white. This is the thing about the idea of whiteness it is oddly (and possibly uniquely) exclusive. I may have seven out of eight white European great-grandparents, but if I have a single Black great-grandparent and my skin colour is not seen as white then I am excluded from this category. Conversely I may have more non European ancestors than European, but if my skin colour is sufficiently light I may pass as white. So yes, in many respects where one's ancestors come from may be irrelevant. Alun 16:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

However, majority and in some definitions, all of whites have a majority European ancestry. Those "pass as white" cases seem to be a exceptions. Thulean 18:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you know? This is little more than your opinion. If you take a look at the paper I posted earlier Estimating the Impact of Prehistoric Admixture on the Genome of Europeans, you will observe that in eastern Europe the majority of ancestry seems actually to be of Near Eastern origin (80% of genes), indeed even in France and Germany there seems to be a 50:50 split between genes of Near Eastern and European origin and in the British Isles we see about a 20% Near Eastern contribution. So again it depends when you draw your arbitrary deffinition of origin (and it is arbitrary). The European population's origin is African from 70,000 years ago, European population's origin is both Near Eastern and European 10,000 years ago, European population's origin is only European after about 4,000 years ago, and even then there is no exclusivity, where does Europe stop, Europeans do not form a discrete population that is reproductively excluded from others. Indeed your argument for European origins may have applied to the small paleolithic population that lived in the Iberian peninsula some 10,000 years ago, but this isolation did not last very long after the end of the glaciation, and the modern population seems to be a hybrid of this and all other populations to have expanded into Europe after the end of the glaciation. Europeans are a hybrid population with numerous origins and has arisen recently. Alun 06:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thulean said: 3) That's why genetics is only *part* of the equation. A part that has been completely ignored in this article.

I say: The genetics of skin color is still poorly understood and involves several genes that can inhibit the expression of each other. Recently was a case in Spain of twins of totally different colors: one white and the other black. Being twins, obviously both have the same parents. It's extremely rare but it can happen. Also many of the genes involved in skin color exist among Blacks as among Whites. I think I said before but you don't seem to listen. The difference may be in other genes inhibiting or not their expression.

Thulean said: 4) Totally European is a wrong word then. However europeans have been isolated by genetic similarity: and 5) Most people will consider Europeans or people of European ancestry as white.

I say: Notice that the article says "Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas" (that is what classical antropometry called Caucasoids), when mentioning the clearly defined groups, not "Europeans". It's not always possible to determine that adscription clearly (and really, who cares?). In any case, Europeans have not been isolated, even pure Basque or Irish samples show some "alien elements". --Sugaar 15:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That was on the previous comment. On the last one, my apologies but sometimes I am rude with people who seem to have a hidden agenda. "Ranting" was maybe inappropiate but my suspicions (conviction) about your political agenda remain untouched.

Read what you quote anyhow: "Race is merely a shorthand that enables us to speak sensibly, though with no great precision, about genetic rather than cultural or political differences". It clearly says that any genetic use of the term race is very imprecise.

This quote (unsourced) is rather false: "The billion or so of the world's people of largely European descent have a set of genetic variants in common that are collectively rare in everyone else". In fact there's nothing as genetically close to an European as a West Asian (and vice versa). For a mored detailed (though not totally uncontroversial) clustering of human populations (as per Cavalli Sforza, 1996) see my colored version of his tree. --Sugaar 15:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Save your sentiment, I do not care either way. However, I see that you continue with your ad-hominems, speculating about my "agenda". I'm new to Misplaced Pages, but I'm sure there are mechanisms here to report such polluting behaviour. Thulean 15:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1) What you are saying is irrelevant. Many scientists think DNA/genetics is part of the equation and their views must be represented. Besides, social and cultural considerations dont happen in vacuum. They are correlated with genetics.

Nevertheless, recent research indicates that self-described race is a near-perfect indicator of an individual's genetic profile, at least in the United States. Using 326 genetic markers, Tang et al. (2005) identified 4 genetic clusters among 3,636 individuals sampled from 15 locations in the United States, and were able to correctly assign individuals to groups that correspond with their self-described race (white, African American, East Asian, or Hispanic) for all but 5 individuals (an error rate of 0.14%). They conclude that ancient ancestry, which correlates tightly with self-described race and not current residence, is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.

I'm done with this discussion. I have found enough resources that contradict your views and whether you agree with them or not, their views should be represented.

2) I think saying that you are clueless about what I'm saying is less of a personal insult than "If I fail to fully understand what you are saying then maybe it reflects an inability on your part to express yourself clearly."

3) From what life was created of? Matter of course. And matter was created out of singularity. Hence life was created out of singularity, very simple logic. I do not understand why it was so hard for you to understand. As I said, ask me to clarify my points before you speculate what I'm saying. You may have written a paper about genetics, but I believe your understanding of singularity is limited.

4) Many scientists think race is valid. Besides we were talking about a population even if you disagree with the concept of race. The origin of Germanic population is northern Europe, despite Germanic might not mean much biologically. In this context, switching to Africa makes as much sense as switching to singularity. If we are all human, we are also all composed of matter afterall.

5)Whitness is not just skin colour neither. Albino blacks arent white. The genetic part is clearly proven in the previous quote and must be mentioned.

6) Which near Eastern is this? Near Eastern in historic context or modern context?

"In agreement with essentially all published literature, we took the genes in current Basque and Near Eastern populations as the best available approximation to the genes of the people inhabiting, respectively, Europe and the Near East before the Neolithic dispersals."

So Near East in the article is the Near East 4,000 years ago. I'm sure in those 4,000 year, Near East took their own immigrants. That means todays Europeans arent related with todays Near Easterns in given percentages in the research. So going too far seems impractical. Thulean 16:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This is just great. I go through the trouble of digging up cites from several researchers including Cavali-Sforza and I put them in the article and they are immediately removed. Now there's a guy in the discussion page making an unsourced claim that "Many scientists think race is valid". This is insane.

How about we all agree to follow Misplaced Pages policy and use the discussion page for discussing the article, not discussing the subject?-Psychohistorian 16:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Currently there are 3 references in the article to the social and cultural only theory of the white people:

Whether any individual considers any other individual as white comes down to whether the person looks white; however this is a very subjective judgement.

David R. Roediger argues that the construction of the white race in the United States was in direct effort to mentally distance slaveowners from slaves.

The 2000 United States Census, speaking of race categories, states, "They generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country. They do not conform to any biological, anthropological or genetic criteria."

Therefore, the article currently ignores the genetic part which many scientists and research support. Hence the article should include this:

Nevertheless, recent research indicates that self-described race is a near-perfect indicator of an individual's genetic profile, at least in the United States. Using 326 genetic markers, Tang et al. (2005) identified 4 genetic clusters among 3,636 individuals sampled from 15 locations in the United States, and were able to correctly assign individuals to groups that correspond with their self-described race (white, African American, East Asian, or Hispanic) for all but 5 individuals (an error rate of 0.14%). They conclude that ancient ancestry, which correlates tightly with self-described race and not current residence, is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.

It's not a race debate, it's about genetic structure. It is correlated with whites. It should be there. Psychohistorian, maybe we should start Wiki meditation methods. Thulean 17:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

NPOV does not require that all sides be presented equally. Minority POV (such as the idea that race is based on genetic categories) should not be cited while, at the same time, cutting out citations from majority POVs. As for mediation methods, I'm fine with that.-Psychohistorian 17:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

1. http://shrn.stanford.edu/workshops/revisitingrace/Risch_confound.pdf

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics