Race

[Pearlgem]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

Biologically, "race" is the correct term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(c...f_human_beings)

Anthropologically, there is debate as to whether "race" is the correct term, especially given amount of genetic mixture between races in modern cultures, but that debate is primarily driven by political correctness and not real science. Race is simply a subset of genetic traits that tend to breed true.

The "only one race" line makes a nice bumper sticker, but it isn't scientifically accurate. Humanity is a species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species), as marked by humanity's ability to reproduce with fertile offspring.

Redefining terms for purposes of political correctness is a slippery-slope fraught with unforeseen peril. To use a racial example, since it's the topic of this thread, I was once taken to task for using the term "black" instead of African-American -- which might have made sense if the audience hadn't been multi-national. Go call a Frenchman who happens to be black an African-American and let me know how that works out for you ...

Race - A classificatory term, broadly equivalent to subspecies...Though the concept is a very commonly used one, it has been largely scientifically discredited. The consensus among social scientists today is that race is a social construction, rather than a genuine biological category...Human populations constitute a genetic continuum where racial distinctions are relative, not absolute...
With the advent of mental testing as a means of attempting to measure intelligence, the concept of race became more controversial, with some researchers claiming that, because some groups of black children have performed badly on tests, they are genetically inferior to whites. Critics of this notion point out that intelligence and other 'mental' tests are designed from a white, middle class perspective that is skewed towards one group and will inevitably lead to poor performance by the other.
(Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, 1999)

All I'm saying is, if you think 'race' is a useful classification to describe differences between us then sometimes that's not neutral. It can also be used to ascribe superiority and inferiority between groups, which is all the more fixed and intractable because, after all, it leads to ideas like...

your type haven't the intelligence of 'my race',
your race is not as civilised as 'my kind',
I can tell just by looking at you that your inferiority to me is racial/ biological.

[Thorne]

[I]...it leads to ideas like...
your type haven't the intelligence of 'my race',
your race is not as civilised as 'my kind',
I can tell just by looking at you that your inferiority to me is racial/ biological.

You can be just as cruel and 'racist' by replacing the term 'race' in those statements with the term 'ethnic group'.

Sure, social scientists downplay the term. They are SOCIAL scientists, more interested in social interactions than in biological development. And in social situations the term 'race' can be construed as derogatory or demeaning, if you think of it that way. Try thinking of it in scientific terms, biological, genetic, what-have-you, rather than in social or psychological terms. Biologically the term is quite well defined and bears no connotations of inferiority.

[Pearlgem]

You can be just as cruel and 'racist' by replacing the term 'race' in those statements with the term 'ethnic group'.

Sure, social scientists downplay the term. They are SOCIAL scientists, more interested in social interactions than in biological development. And in social situations the term 'race' can be construed as derogatory or demeaning, if you think of it that way. Try thinking of it in scientific terms, biological, genetic, what-have-you, rather than in social or psychological terms. Biologically the term is quite well defined and bears no connotations of inferiority

It's really not and that's the problem. There are simply no scientifically credible races of human. There are types, characteristics, genetic strains, but not races. And none of this would matter - I don't care about the terms scientists wish to use per se - but when we in the general population use the term 'race' so casually to mean differences, we are wrongly and dangerously, in my opinion, ascribing cultural differences to biological ones. Cultural - you can do something about, if you have the will. Biological - fixed, it's just the way 'they' are.

[Ragoczy]

It's really not and that's the problem. There are simply no scientifically credible races of human. There are types, characteristics, genetic strains, but not races. And none of this would matter - I don't care about the terms scientists wish to use per se - but when we in the general population use the term 'race' so casually to mean differences, we are wrongly and dangerously, in my opinion, ascribing cultural differences to biological ones. Cultural - you can do something about, if you have the will. Biological - fixed, it's just the way 'they' are.

Please read the actual definition of race -- it's simply a subset of a species with a set of identifiable, inheritable genetic traits.

Again, misuse of the term by "scientists" who's studies are demonstrably garbage and follow a flawed methodology aren't relevant to the definition of a word. By concentrating on the definition, rather than the real problem of bigotry and racism, the real problem is ignored and allowed to grow.

It's like repainting the ceiling to cover a water stain but never fixing the roof.

[Ragoczy]

Race - A classificatory term, broadly equivalent to subspecies...Though the concept is a very commonly used one, it has been largely scientifically discredited. The consensus among social scientists today is that race is a social construction, rather than a genuine biological category...Human populations constitute a genetic continuum where racial distinctions are relative, not absolute...
With the advent of mental testing as a means of attempting to measure intelligence, the concept of race became more controversial, with some researchers claiming that, because some groups of black children have performed badly on tests, they are genetically inferior to whites. Critics of this notion point out that intelligence and other 'mental' tests are designed from a white, middle class perspective that is skewed towards one group and will inevitably lead to poor performance by the other.
(Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, 1999)

All I'm saying is, if you think 'race' is a useful classification to describe differences between us then sometimes that's not neutral. It can also be used to ascribe superiority and inferiority between groups, which is all the more fixed and intractable because, after all, it leads to ideas like...

your type haven't the intelligence of 'my race',
your race is not as civilised as 'my kind',
I can tell just by looking at you that your inferiority to me is racial/ biological.

There is nothing in the legitimate definition of race to indicate superiority or inferiority. It refers to a set of inheritable characteristics, some good and some bad in each group.

Misuse of the term and bad science done in testing do not justify redefining scientific terms.