This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Miradre (talk | contribs) at 11:01, 10 March 2011 (→Changes in lead). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:01, 10 March 2011 by Miradre (talk | contribs) (→Changes in lead)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
 | Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence
The article Race (human categorization), along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Race (human categorization) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | Race (human categorization) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 26, 2004. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Former featured article | |||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Race (human categorization) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Race (human categorization). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Race (human categorization) at the Reference desk. |
Guessmyrace.com
I found this
and i think it would be interesting to add this link to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.12.171.102 (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
"Race: the current consensus"
Here is a n interesting discussion from 2007: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/01/race-current-consensus.php#. --Maklinovich (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not really. Just a blog entry from someone trying to prove the "biological reality" of races. Carries no authority, and absolutely shouldn't be interpreted as representing any sort of consensus.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is the posting that the blog refers to: http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/01/metric-on-space-of-genomes-and.html# --Maklinovich (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Don't post the blogs here--they're not suitable references for the article, and this isn't a forum to share or discuss them. Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I would advise adding information on non-western views of the validity of race as a biological category. Refer to: Lieberman L, Kaszycka KA, Martinez Fuentes AJ, Yablonsky L, Kirk RC, Strkalj G, Wang Q, Sun L., 2004. The race concept in six regions: variation without consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.235.88 (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I found, "The race concept in six regions: variation without consensus." It states:
- "Race, once the central concept in physical anthropology worldwide, now varies in the degree of support it receives in different regions. We present the currently available information on the status of the concept in the United States, the Spanish language areas, Poland, Europe, Russia, and China. Rejection of race ranges from high to low with the highest rejection occurring among anthropologists in the United States (and Canada). Rejection of race is moderate in Europe, sizeable in Poland and Cuba, and lowest in Russia and China. A discussion on the scientific and contextual reasons influencing these variations is presented. The tension between scientific evidence and social influences varies from region to region. The methods used in the studies reported here included questionnaires and content analysis. Response rates to questionnaires were often around 50 percent (with exception of the Polish studies). We discuss reasons for the low rates. Although a uniform method of data gathering is desirable, it may not suit scientists working in different traditions of theory and research. We conclude that it is once again timely to discuss the race concept in international meetings where all scientific and political changes occurring throughout the world in recent past decades are taken into account."
- There is a recommendation above to add non-Western views on the validity of race. The Race article appears to be written from the point of view of American/Canadian anthropologists. --Maklinovich (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
English etmyology and Chinese concept of race
This article is about the concept of race, not the English word. I think including the (doubtful) etymology of the English word is as inappropriate as it would be to include the etymology of 族. See also , where specific etymologies are considered to create a geographic bias, which I believe is especially inappropriate to this article.
I've been doing some reading on the Chinese concept, especially Dikotter 1992. It seems that Dikotter believes the old character 族 can sometimes be translated as race, in the multi-ethnic and essentialist sense, in addition to the more modern 种族. The statement in the article "The word "race", along with many of the ideas now associated with the term, were products of European imperialism and colonization during the age of exploration." is therefore contradicted. Presumably the source of that line is not an expert in Chinese history? I believe some attribution and balance is required here. "A set of folk beliefs took hold that linked inherited physical differences between groups to inherited intellectual, behavioral, and moral qualities" is also a well known feature of Chinese folk belief, but here it sees to be a European phenomenon.
Furthermore the line "Although similar ideas can be found in other cultures, they appear not to have had as much influence upon their social structures as was found in Europe and the parts of the world colonized by Europeans." is dubious. I notice it is sourced to an American genetics journal. The subjective judgement over whether the Chinese or European concept of race had "more influence" on social structures seems a bit odd, especially coming from American bio-scientists. Several wars occurred because of the Chinese national spirit (I give no opinion on whether they were justified). I recommend removing this line. QuintupleTwist (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- The history of the concept of Race is obviously linked to the etymology of the word in English and related European languages, and there is a strong precedence to describe etymologies in articles about concepts. I don't think we can remove the notion that the European concept of race is tied closely to colonialism, this viewpoint is simply too well backed by sources to be deleted because a single source on the Chinese concept suggests that a similar concept also evolved in China. There is no evidence that the Chinese concept had any influence on the development of the European concept of race. I also 't see why it is a problem to mention that other cultures have developed their own similar (but not identical) ideas about race. I think we can find better sources for both claims though.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like the solution is simply to add the adjective "Western" when discussing the race concept here. You are right that se whould not claim that this applies to China, or anywhere else, where there is a scholarly consensus that they have a word that is best translated as race. But there are many languages which do not have a word or race. It is just as big a mistake if we were to suggest that every society has its own notion of race, as to suggest that all societies shared one notion of race. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that adding the adjective "Western" where appropriate would be an improvement. Maybe also attributing the view to "Western scholars". In addition I think adding a sentence about the Chinese concept would be nice. Maunus, you should accept that this article is not just about the European/Western concept. Also I find it a little absurd to draw the source base from Western scholars with little expertise outside the West, and then claiming that because so many of the sources find the concept developing in the West, that it must be an entirely Western concept, despite being shown evidence to the contrary. This is bias. QuintupleTwist (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know why I should accept that. It is quite definitely the most common usage of the word race. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC it is quite evident that this article is about the western concept of race and not anyother concepts in other languages or cultures that might or not be translated in to the English word "race".·Maunus·ƛ· 12:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd still want evidence that there is a Chinese concept of "race." I have no doubt that many Western scholars have translated a certain Chinese word as "race," but often times when they do this it is because they assume race (meaning, their concept of race, meaning, the Western concept of race) is universal. One reason we have this long article is because there is a discourse on race, meaning, lots of Westerners have argued over whether race exists and what the word means. In Chinese scholarship is there such a discourse on the meaning of a particular Chinese word and how to use it? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Did you read Dikotter 1992? It should answer your questions. QuintupleTwist (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am looking at dikotter 1992 - in the foreword he says that "In China a discourse on race appeared at the end of the 19th century. The use of racial categories of thinking influenced many chinese thinkiers in the 20th century". In other words he clearly states that China introduced the concept of race later than Europe, and he is not saying that the race is a particularly old concept in china (he says that it built on earlier attitudes about skin color and phenotype, just like the European concept did). I think you have been thikning that we were arguing that only Europeans used race as an oppresive ideology, that is obviously not correct, and possibly it is a good idea to show as Dikotter does that racial ideologies have also been used by non-western colonial powers.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, the discourse on race appeared at the end of the 19th century, but the concept is much older. In fact the reason a "discourse" did not exist before then is because all Chinese accepted without question the notion that they were a superior race. This article is about the concept. QuintupleTwist (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not, the chinese concept no.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Of course not just the Chinese concept. The concept as found throughout history. This article is West-centric, to the point of being factually wrong. QuintupleTwist (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not, the chinese concept no.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, the discourse on race appeared at the end of the 19th century, but the concept is much older. In fact the reason a "discourse" did not exist before then is because all Chinese accepted without question the notion that they were a superior race. This article is about the concept. QuintupleTwist (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am looking at dikotter 1992 - in the foreword he says that "In China a discourse on race appeared at the end of the 19th century. The use of racial categories of thinking influenced many chinese thinkiers in the 20th century". In other words he clearly states that China introduced the concept of race later than Europe, and he is not saying that the race is a particularly old concept in china (he says that it built on earlier attitudes about skin color and phenotype, just like the European concept did). I think you have been thikning that we were arguing that only Europeans used race as an oppresive ideology, that is obviously not correct, and possibly it is a good idea to show as Dikotter does that racial ideologies have also been used by non-western colonial powers.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Did you read Dikotter 1992? It should answer your questions. QuintupleTwist (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like the solution is simply to add the adjective "Western" when discussing the race concept here. You are right that se whould not claim that this applies to China, or anywhere else, where there is a scholarly consensus that they have a word that is best translated as race. But there are many languages which do not have a word or race. It is just as big a mistake if we were to suggest that every society has its own notion of race, as to suggest that all societies shared one notion of race. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is a good idea to introduce a section about how different cultures have constructed race differently, to make it clear what it means to say that race is socially, and historically, constructed. But this does not mean that the article shouldn't be focused on the particular western ideology, which is the one that is currently being discussed by western academics.
It would be really interesting to make an article about the chinese concept though, I suggest Race in China or History of racial ideologies in China. Also it doesn't really make sense to say that the concept existed before the discourse, and this is not what he is arguing. About the meaning of what you call the concept, he says that there were many different words about differences some of which stress biological rather than sociocultural differences - these words zu, zhong, zulei, minzu, zhongzu, renzhong he all translates as "race". What Dikotter is saying is that these concept were interpreted to align the western racial discourse - they only came to be used as equivalents to race when the racial discourse appeared. Nowhere does he say that the Chinese concept of race is ancient he says that "attitudes about skin color and physical chaacteristics are of great antiquity"(p. 1) If he meant to say that the concept of race was of great antiquity, surely he would have done so. I think you are misconstruing his conclusions. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Also it doesn't really make sense to say that the concept existed before the discourse"
- Frankly I'm baffled by this. Did the concept of "tree" exist before the "discourse" on trees? There appears to be a failure in basic common sense logic here. You seem to be concentrating on some concept/discourse dichotomy which is entirely of your own device. It's also astounding that you would say "I think you are misconstruing his conclusions."
- "Nowhere does he say that the Chinese concept of race is ancient"
- If you turn to page 2 you'll find "For our purposes, it will suffice to point out that a racial conciousness existed in an embryonic form well before the arrival of Europeans in the nineteenth century."
- Page 3 "If he is not of our race he is sure to have a different mind" (4 century BC), Dikotter here translates as race, your opinion on whether that is justified is irrelevant.
- Page 34 "The development of a racial conciousness during the 19th century, however, was due largely to internal developments."
- Page 35 "Until the 1890's the Chinese discourse of race can be best understood as a process of defensive stereotyping, comparable to European racial thought of the first half of the nineteenth century."
- Dikotter is clear that the concept developed independently, and not "interpreted to align the western racial discourse", except possibly in the West. I think the problem here, as I've tried to point out, is that you think the Western concept of race is the standard by which all other concepts of race should be judged to "exist". The Chinese concept does not get "aligned" to the Western concept. They developed independently and then merged. It's ludicrous to argue that Chinese did not have a "true" concept of race because it wasn't the same as the Western form, and sheer bias. Note also from page 3 "The dichotomy between culture and race, which has proven to be a viable conceptual tool in analyzing modern attitudes towards outsiders, should be abandoned in our case. It introduces an opposition so far not suppported by historical evidence, and tends to project a modern perception into a remote phase of history", but you argue "About the meaning of what you call the concept, he says that there were many different words about differences some of which stress biological rather than sociocultural differences" I am slightly concerned that your interpretation of the meaning of page 1 is directly frowned upon on page 3.
- You state "But this does not mean that the article shouldn't be focused on the particular western ideology, which is the one that is currently being discussed by western academics." I could not disagree more. This seems to be bald assertion that you are going to be biased, and ignore anything which could contradict an invented history. QuintupleTwist (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- For what it is worth, I am not sure it has been demonstrated that "tree" as it is used by biologists is a universal concept. And if you mean the word "tree" as it is used by regular people, your comparison of tree and race doesn't hold up - people use the word "tree" to refer to objects that are not capable of communicating to us how they view themselves. People use "race" to refer to other people, who may or may not share that way of viewing themselves, or whose views of themselves may or may not be influenced by the views of others - and we can indeed access how those people identify themselves. That is one reason why the "discourse" of race is an important object of study.
- Question: "defensive stereotyping" - can you tell me, defense against what/whom? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Still a load of..
"Among humans, race has no cladistic significance—all people belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens"
No shit?
"For example, birds, dinosaurs, crocodiles, and all descendants (living or extinct) of their most recent common ancestor form a clade. In the terms of biological systematics, a clade is a single "branch" on the "tree of life", a monophyletic group." http://en.wikipedia.org/Clade http://en.wikipedia.org/Monophyly
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Making_necessary_assumptions
"Regardless of the extent to which race exists, the word "race" is problematic and may carry negative connotations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone
"As people define and put about different conceptions of race, they actively create contrasting social realities through which racial categorization is achieved in varied ways. In this sense, races are said to be social constructs"
"People", "they", "said to be".. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WTA#Unsupported_attributions http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements
And is this FACT (can it be proven/disproven?) or mere OPINION? Does it even belong for that matter?
"Even as the idea of race was becoming a powerful organizing principle in many societies, some observers criticized the concept"
What observers? See above.
"Modern debate The lay concept of race does not correspond to the variation that exists in nature. —Joseph L. Graves, Jr."
That's the whole and entire "modern debate" then? Summarized in one quote by one man?
"Following the horrific consequences of the Nazi eugenics program to achieve and ensure "race purity", racial essentialism lost scientific credibility."
http://en.wikipedia.org/Association_fallacy
Further, "scientific credibility" is not a point of view. It cannot be lost nor gained due to any horrific eugenics program or lack thereof. See also: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as "widespread views", etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."" http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
And the list just goes on and on an on.. This is really pathetic. This should be a really short article seeing as it's about a classification and not "social implications of the usage of classification of race", or whatever this classification is based in fact or not. Guess alot of people just can't stop themselves from soapboxing.
"2.Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Misplaced Pages is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Misplaced Pages's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles." http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox
90.227.176.140 (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is there such discrepancy in length in Race (biology) and Race (classification of humans) ?
As I understand we are just another species on this planet that undergoes laws of evolution and speciation. So first what we need to develop is a common definition of race, whatever specimen it concerns and then just apply it to all living things. No matter if they like it or not. This is science and there shouldn't be place for sentiments. I see the controversy with races in humans in much the same light as controversy if we are evolved from apes and if we are an ape still or if we are something very special and lofty that set us very distinct from rest of the world so boundaries that we drawn on the world are not applicable to us. I think the same indignation and disgust people felt when it was proven that vitalism is wrong so we are build by the same matter as even not alive but every other lifeless things outside us, or when Copernicus proved that we are not in center of the universe. What I see is that scientists tend to mark as races or even subspecies populations that are less different that humans are. Or even designate a different species where there is extensive mixing between them. Consider example of Pelophylax esculentus that is a fertile hybrid of Pelophylax lessonae and Pelophylax ridibundus. Again fertile -> so why there is division to three species ? Why there is no three subspecies of one specimen or three races ? Maybe we should ask the frogs if they feel offended by separating them into species ? I know that is a stupid question, but why then do not ask people if they feel offended by fact that Universe expansion is accelerating and everything is going to be "destroyed" in the heat death of the Universe ? This is a very depressing fact for some, so should we ban that multi-billion dollar research and put the money onto healthcare? And I do not pretend that the situation where we have races is not depressing and degrading for people's feelings especially in societies with long and tragic history of slavery and discrimination. It certainly is very depressing and people wish from their very hearts that this not be true. But this is science not teletubbies, and we should not be indisposed by such things. Science (in the sense of grasping reality around) is not for making people feeling good. pwjbbb (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
NPOV tag
See this edit: The article is thus no longer neutral due to the absence of sourced views. Please explain the deletion of sourced material and views.Miradre (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I call on administrators to invoke the active arbitration remedies that apply to this article and to other articles where this editor (Miradre) is active. ArbCom has already given you back-up in your use of the mop; feel free to clean up the mess. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- See below. The sources used are completely inadequate and cannot be used here to convey equal weight to their claims to the mainstream. The "some say" minimized the mainstream view, and granting equal weight to the views of Woodley and Rushton violates WP:NPOV. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Again, you ignore Edwards, as well as the view of fields such as anatomy in the US, or non-US anthropologists. This is not NPOV.Miradre (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- See below ab out Edwards. For the rest, I'm not "ignoring" anything except the inadequate content that I removed. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- See my sources below.Miradre (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- See below ab out Edwards. For the rest, I'm not "ignoring" anything except the inadequate content that I removed. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Again, you ignore Edwards, as well as the view of fields such as anatomy in the US, or non-US anthropologists. This is not NPOV.Miradre (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Changes in lead
The new edits exaggerated the divergence of opinion on this, and only one of the new references cited is noteworthy at all here. Woodley's paper has received no scientific citations that I could find, and even that paper acknowledges he's arguing against the mainstream view. (Is he a PhD?) Jensen and Rushton--be serious. They are not reliable sources on the subject of race classification. And the Štrkalj makes the opposite argument and decries that archaic textbooks are still in use spouting outdated notions race a la Coon et al. These are cherry picked because of what they say (or can be misleadingly represented to say), and not because these are noteworthy or influential in the field of biological classification. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Professor Marginalia's analysis.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- You did not mention Edwards. Štrkalj may disagree himself but this does not change that every anatomy textbook he looked at accepted races. The lead should not state only mainstream views but also others. Not that only the view of US anthropologists determine mainstream. Also the views of those in other nations are important.Miradre (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please refer to the reliable sources on the subject before assuming what the scientific consensus is. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I do not assume. I cite sources for my claims. Excluding many views, such as that of the whole field of anatomy or non-US anthropologists is not NPOV.Miradre (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)Edwards is one paper that may be relevant here where the measuring genetic differences are discussed but even his influence has been very limited indeed. We don't write articles this way-we don't gather our claims first and then go searching for the idiosyncratic citations to dress them up with. So if the views of "other nations" are significant, then you need sources or other supporting evidence to show they're significant. Finding examples of "other views" from here and there isn't sufficient. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please refer to the reliable sources on the subject before assuming what the scientific consensus is. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to make clear. This position is mainly limited to US anthropologists:
Liberman et al. (1992) examined 77 college textbooks in biology and 69 in physical anthropology published between 1932 and 1989. Physical anthropology texts argued that biological races exist until the 1970s, when they began to argue that races do not exist. In contrast, biology textbooks never underwent such a reversal but instead dropped their discussion of race altogether. Morning (2008) looked at high school biology textbooks during the 1952-2002 period and initially found a similar pattern with only 35% directly discussing race in the 1983–92 period from initially 92% doing so. However, this has increased somewhat after this to 43%. More indirect and brief discussions of race in the context of medical disorders have increased from none to 93% of textbooks. In general, the material on race has moved from surface traits to genetics and evolutionary history. The study argues that the textbooks’ fundamental message about the existence of races has changed little.
A 1994 examination of 32 English sport/exercise science textbooks found that 7 (21.9%) claimed that there are biophysical differences due to race that might explain differences in sports performance, 24 (75%) did not mention nor refute the concept, and 1 (3.12%) expressed caution with the idea.
33 health services researchers from differing geographic regions were interviewed in a 2008 study. The researchers recognized the problems with racial and ethnic variables but the majority still believed these variables were necessary and useful.
A 2010 examination of 18 widely used English anatomy textbooks found that every one relied on the race concept. The study gives examples of how the textbooks claim that anatomical features vary between races.
In Poland the race concept was rejected by only 25 percent of anthropologists in 2001, although: "Unlike the U.S. anthropologists, Polish anthropologists tend to regard race as a term without taxonomic value, often as a substitute for population."
Liberman et al. in a 2004 study claimed to "present the currently available information on the status of the concept in the United States, the Spanish language areas, Poland, Europe, Russia, and China. Rejection of race ranges from high to low with the highest rejection occurring among anthropologists in the United States (and Canada). Rejection of race is moderate in Europe, sizeable in Poland and Cuba, and lowest in Russia and China." Methods used in the studies reported included questionnaires and content analysis.
Kaszycka et al. (2009) in 2002-2003 surveyed European anthropologists' opinions toward the biological race concept. Three factors, country of academic education, discipline, and age, were found to be significant in differentiating the replies. Those educated in Western Europe, physical anthropologists, and middle-aged persons rejected race more frequently than those educated in Eastern Europe, people in other branches of science, and those from both younger and older generations."The survey shows that the views of anthropologists on race are sociopolitically (ideologically) influenced and highly dependent on education."
- Lieberman, Leonard, Raymond E. Hampton, Alice Littlefield, and Glen Hallead. 1992. "Race in Biology and Anthropology: A Study of College Texts and Professors." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29 (3): 301–21.
- Reconstructing Race in Science and Society:Biology Textbooks, 1952–2002, Ann Morning, American Journal of Sociology. 2008;114 Suppl:S106-37.
- The presentation of human biological diversity in sport and exercise science textbooks: the example of "race.", Christopher J. Hallinan, Journal of Sport Behavior, March, 1994
- The conceptualization and operationalization of race and ethnicity by health services researchers, Susan Moscou, Nursing Inquiry, Volume 15, Issue 2, pages 94–105, June 2008
- Human Biological Variation in Anatomy Textbooks: The Role of Ancestry, Goran Štrkalj and Veli Solyali, Studies on Ethno-Medicine, 4(3): 157-161 (2010)
- Kaszycka, Katarzyna A.; Strziko, Jan (2003). "'Race' Still an Issue for Physical Anthropology? Results of Polish Studies Seen in the Light of the U.S. Findings". American Anthropologist. 105: 116–24. doi:10.1525/aa.2003.105.1.116.
- The race concept in six regions: variation without consensus, Lieberman L, Kaszycka KA, Martinez Fuentes AJ, Yablonsky L, Kirk RC, Strkalj G, Wang Q, Sun L., Coll Antropol. 2004 Dec;28(2):907-21, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15666627
- Current Views of European Anthropologists on Race: Influence of Educational and Ideological Background, Katarzyna A. Kaszycka, Goran Štrkalj, Jan Strzałko, American Anthropologist Volume 111, Issue 1, pages 43–56, March 2009, DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1433.2009.01076.x
- Incorrect. This position has been supported by the UNESCO since 1950. It is not just a fad among American anthropologists.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- An old decree is not evidence of current scientific consensus. It also stated that immigrants should return home and help build up their countries.Miradre (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Are you being wilfully obstructive here? UNESCO does not issue "decrees" it issues policies and ethical guidelines that are supported by all of the members of the UNESCO council and in this case by an international anthropological workgroup. The view that immigrants should build up their home countries is irrelevant to the view on race and it does not invalidate the statement or as you seem to suggest show that it is outdated. The statement continues to represent the UNESCO consensus untill it is replaced. You don't get to willy nilly reject sources that are so excedingly authoritative just because they don't agree with your pov.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- An old decree is not evidence of current scientific consensus. It also stated that immigrants should return home and help build up their countries.Miradre (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Incorrect. This position has been supported by the UNESCO since 1950. It is not just a fad among American anthropologists.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Štrkalj paper maintains that the anatomy textbooks are woefully outdated and thus students of anatomy are being inadequately trained and misinformed, yet you're using it to argue anatomists are reliable sources for this? Professor marginalia (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- That is his view. The view of anatomists is obviously different since every textbook accept race as important.Miradre (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- "It may be concluded that human biological variation due to ancestry is either not mentioned or is only superficially accounted for in the analysed anatomy textbooks." This doesn't sound "important" to me. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Race is not necessarily defined using ancestry. Neither does the textbooks state that they reject race due to ancestry. Regardless, every textbook accept race as important in anatomy.Miradre (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Are you the editor who originally cited that article here? If so, where does it say that race is a significant classification system in the field of anatomy? I see a few laughable quotes taken from a few, like "Africans and Scandinavians tend to be tall, as a result of long legs," that lead me to believe they'd be laughed by professors and students alike in a serious anatomy class.Professor marginalia (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Furthermore, all of them rely on the race concept." Are you an anatomy expert? Miradre (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- The claim is the textbooks rely on "race concept" instead of a "ancestral human variation concept". It doesn't claim that this is because anatomists think it's "important". I'm not an anatomy expert but even I know that to treat all Africans as a group, you will find yourself with both the world's shortest and some of its tallest people well represented there. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- So what is your point, anatomists do not accept AAA's decree regarding race. Unless you are an anatomy expert you are hardly qualified to judge the accuracy of an anatomy textbook. Especially from a quote taken from context. Most likely, if you could read the context, Africans is taken in a US context. A US anatomy textbook likely mostly uses studies done on US subject of various ancestral origins.Miradre (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Furthermore, please explain why Rushton and Jensen would not be acceptable for the last part of this statement: "Some discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits, while others argue that racial explanations are important." They certainly argue that.Miradre (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Incidentally the UNESCO statement on race is foundational for the UN declaration of human rights. The human rights convention is about as mainstream as anything it starts by saying "all humans are created equal".·Maunus·ƛ· 01:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- The 1978 UNESCO statement is also the backbone of UNESCO's current strategy against racism and xenophobia found here and UNESCo's position regarding the recent developments in genetics can be read here Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights. This is as mainstream as it gets. Arguing that UNESCO is not mainstream is simply amazing.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- So is the part of the UNESCO statement stating that immigrants should return home and build up their countries also mainstream?Miradre (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think I can be expected to dignify such a comment with a response. You are merely misrepresenting the statement.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not at all. From the 1978 update: ""Population groups of foreign origin, particularly migrant workers and their families who contribute to the development of the host country, should benefit from appropriate measures designed to afford them security and respect for their dignity and cultural values and to facilitate their adaptation to the host environment and their professional advancement with a view to their subsequent reintegration in their country of origin and their contribution to its development; steps should be taken to make it possible for their children to be taught their mother tongue."Miradre (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think I can be expected to dignify such a comment with a response. You are merely misrepresenting the statement.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- So is the part of the UNESCO statement stating that immigrants should return home and build up their countries also mainstream?Miradre (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- The claim is the textbooks rely on "race concept" instead of a "ancestral human variation concept". It doesn't claim that this is because anatomists think it's "important". I'm not an anatomy expert but even I know that to treat all Africans as a group, you will find yourself with both the world's shortest and some of its tallest people well represented there. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Furthermore, all of them rely on the race concept." Are you an anatomy expert? Miradre (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Are you the editor who originally cited that article here? If so, where does it say that race is a significant classification system in the field of anatomy? I see a few laughable quotes taken from a few, like "Africans and Scandinavians tend to be tall, as a result of long legs," that lead me to believe they'd be laughed by professors and students alike in a serious anatomy class.Professor marginalia (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Race is not necessarily defined using ancestry. Neither does the textbooks state that they reject race due to ancestry. Regardless, every textbook accept race as important in anatomy.Miradre (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- "It may be concluded that human biological variation due to ancestry is either not mentioned or is only superficially accounted for in the analysed anatomy textbooks." This doesn't sound "important" to me. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- That is his view. The view of anatomists is obviously different since every textbook accept race as important.Miradre (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Štrkalj paper maintains that the anatomy textbooks are woefully outdated and thus students of anatomy are being inadequately trained and misinformed, yet you're using it to argue anatomists are reliable sources for this? Professor marginalia (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is ludicrous. You cannot discredit UNESCO and the UN by misinterpreting a quote about something else- that is a quote about how states should treat immigrants in their territory, and it is obviously still valid. If UNESCO is not representative of the mainstream than nothing is. I am going to file an RfC about this issue to get wide community input and I am not going to attempt to collaborate more with you. It is pointless, as you apparently will stoop to any level logical fallacies in order to avoid adressing substantial arguments. I will also be filing an ArbCom Enforcement request.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- The UNESCO statement can be found here: . It is unfortunate if you do not want to discuss anymore since previously you have given concrete criticisms which has improved other articles.Miradre (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- @Miradre-I am not challenging the anatomy textbooks. The source you've cited did. And are you suggesting that this anatomy textbook looks upon African Americans and Scandinavian Americans as having their own separate race classifications? The anatomy text can be found through a google search. In its over 900 pages but a single paragraph refers to anything about "race", and the entirety of it is quoted in the article you cited-where it is ridiculed. We cannot use that source or the original one you cited to make broad claims about what anatomists think about race classifications- to do so is WP:SYNTH which is not allowed on wp. We must stick to what sources say, straightforwardly, and not mine them for any raw materials we might use to construct an alternative narrative. As to the Rushton/Jensen cite, sorry-that's not enough to lend their view equal weight as was done there in the intro. NPOV is not "all sides get equal weight". It's "wikipedia doesn't tip the scales". And there is no way that these outliers, Rushton and Jensen, merit equal weight for their views with the scientific establishment there. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- If you dislike that particular anatomy textbook there are 17 others. According the study every widely used anatomy textbook examined used the "race concept". Not just one of them but all. As noted above this is not the only area that does not accept the American Anthropological Association's decree that races do not exist. See here again: Race (classification of humans)#Current views across disciplines. Even anthropologists in many of non-US nations studied accept that races exist. These are not fringe views. Neither are Rushton and Jensen fringe views. According the only poll ever done on IQ experts they represent the dominant view: The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy (book).Miradre (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- @Miradre-I am not challenging the anatomy textbooks. The source you've cited did. And are you suggesting that this anatomy textbook looks upon African Americans and Scandinavian Americans as having their own separate race classifications? The anatomy text can be found through a google search. In its over 900 pages but a single paragraph refers to anything about "race", and the entirety of it is quoted in the article you cited-where it is ridiculed. We cannot use that source or the original one you cited to make broad claims about what anatomists think about race classifications- to do so is WP:SYNTH which is not allowed on wp. We must stick to what sources say, straightforwardly, and not mine them for any raw materials we might use to construct an alternative narrative. As to the Rushton/Jensen cite, sorry-that's not enough to lend their view equal weight as was done there in the intro. NPOV is not "all sides get equal weight". It's "wikipedia doesn't tip the scales". And there is no way that these outliers, Rushton and Jensen, merit equal weight for their views with the scientific establishment there. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class sociology articles
- Top-importance sociology articles
- B-Class Anthropology articles
- High-importance Anthropology articles
- Unassessed Ethnic groups articles
- Unknown-importance Ethnic groups articles
- WikiProject Ethnic groups articles