Wikipedia: Race/Talk

Showing revision 16

Race is population genetics term, and its human usage is NOT the main one. I'm changing article to reflect this.

This isn't quite right. Race is indeed a population genetics term (or a term in taxonomy), but that certainly does not imply that its use in humans is unimportant. If you search on "race" in Google, or just ask the average Joe, you'll find the "human usage" predominates. But let's not argue about this; there is more than enough room in Wikipedia to give huge amounts of detail to *both* senses, the biological and the anthropological. --LMS

I don't like this statement:

 Some biologists, for example, basically deny the existence of races, or they deny the usefulness of the concept of race, maintaining that they are just one way of subdividing humanity in groups, and completely different divisions would be made if other characteristics were used. Because of this, in their opinion, no proposed subdivision is more valid than any other, and none has very much value anyway.

First, it doesn't say whether they deny existence of races in general or of human races, second I never heard about biologists claiming there are no human races in usual population generic meaning of 'race' (some opposed pure-racial meaning, but that's completely different story, having little to do with humans), and third, population genetics characteristics (major jumps in distribution of genes between populations) are very clear and aren't questioned nowadays. So my opinion is to remove this sentence.

Moved from article: There isn't a distinction between races and breeds? Types of dogs are bred, but do the resulting breeds constitute races of dogs?

Those were my questions. If you remove them, then it would be appropriate to move the following remark as well:

: Among the most famous races are the various dog breeds.

--Larry Sanger

Can someone explain what this means?

: A race, in biology, is one of many groups of organisms that together belong to single species, but genetically differ between each other.

Isn't it true that, excepting identical twins, every individual of a sexually-reproducing species differs genetically from every other?

That's a great question. I'm just going to delete the sentence, if someone hasn't already done so; it seems pretty obvious it's going to have to be completely rewritten, and we can't assume anyone is going to happen long anytime soon who will be able to rewrite it properly. --LMS

I think the entry as it's been rewritten is mainly a (probably controversial) presentation of one view of the genealogy of the concept of race. There is much more to be said (or just summarized) about the notion of race in anthropology. I also think that the notion of race in biology is given short shrift. I mean, it does exist in biology and medicine. Moreover, the equation of race with nation-state nationalities (French, German, etc.) is at present an ancillary notion of what race is, at best.

Have a look at [1] and [2]. --LMS

I'm pretty sure what I wrote is not just one view of the geneology of the concept of race, but the generally accepted one. See [The History of the Race Idea] by [Eric Voegelin]?.

You're right that I'm overweighting its connection with nationalism a bit; I learned about the history of race in a class on the history of nationalism. However, the connection is very close. See Johann Gottfried von Herder and the concept of the Volk?. I figure that it's better to contribute partial understanding than to delete it.

Race theory, according to the work above, began with [Carl Gustav Carus]?.

I would differ strongly that "the equation of race with nationality is at present an ancillary notion of what race is, at best" (and what's with that "at best" comment? What would the worst-case scenario be? Less than ancillary?). However, I believe you're right that even historically racial theorists emphasized the widest distinctions (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid races).

The concept of race is inherently political, even (or more so) today--see the whole UN Race conference. The average American has an understanding of race which is ancillary to its full implications, which is one of the reasons it causes so many problems.

I tried to sketch out some of the nuances, but I felt it was important to start with the definition that gets at the root of the concept of race, not to start with a description of most people's vague understanding of it.

There's definitely a lot more work to be done. Thanks for not simply deleting my work but adding info back to the page and commenting in Talk. It's miles more helpful. Gah. This is a horrid mess. (I just noticed the field of "Critical race theory", whatever that is, while searching on Google.) I hate the social sciences.--TheCunctator

The tie between race and nationalism is there, but I think that you can't omit the biological (sometimes used by nationalists...) and anthropological facts. When i first took an Intro to Anthropology, I learned that physical anthropologists claimed there were three main racial groups, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasoid. I'm also pretty certain that there have been developments in the field in the last 20 or so years. Still, it's important to make sure to present this side, because it is a neutrtal approach to race. JHK

I added a whole bunch more of specific information, which I hope helps. I think a big problem with most Wikipedians is that they try to write nice general encyclopedia entries, but don't have a clear understanding of the specifics underlying the generalities. It's much better to put down all the specifics, then distill a general entry.

I really hate the word "neutral" as it's used here in Wikipedia. WTF does "it is a neutral approach to race" mean? (This is a Socratic question.) --TheCunctator

Much better now --it's starting to really look good! ...and my opinion of neutral is including more than one side of the story, scholarly debates, different contexts, etc...JHK