Political Roundtable Part XV

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[verbal8]

I agree there's only the one human race, based on the following genetic fact:

How much genetic variation is there among humans?

Perhaps the most widely cited statistic about human genetic diversity is that any two humans differ, on average, at about 1 in 1,000 DNA base pairs (0.1%). Human genetic diversity is substantially lower than that of many other species, including our nearest evolutionary relative, the chimpanzee.

Genetic Variation and Human Evolution - The American Society of ...
https://www.ashg.org/education/pdf/geneticvariation.pdf

So if the human race is a single species based on a 0.1% genetic variance, then it would probably be more accurate to classify the different skin colors as different sub-species, right? Whites are a sub-species, blacks are a sub-species, etc. Of course there's an infinite variation of skin color, so does that make each variation a separate sub-species? Who knows? In the end, we're all children of God (IMO), one (human) race, or species, with an infinitely variegated sub-species.

The paper seems to support the argument of one human species. With the species having a low overall diversity, but not much of a boundary with other(at least racial/geographic) sub-populations I think would be pretty hard pressed to construct sub-species based on genetic evidence.

[popper]

On the one hand, I want to argue with Popper. Because we were dumb enough to believe in different races before, people with certain physical attributes - skin color - were discriminated against.

On the other hand, the Republicans have used the whole idea of affirmative action and used it to put all democratic voters in overwhelmingly democratic districts, weakening the democratic vote to the point that it is expected that Dems will win 54% of the house *vote* and yet win only 47% of the seats in the 2018 house elections.

Maybe we'd all be better off if we were like "oh yeah, racism doesn't exist because it's scientifically proven there's no races, we win! Stop trying to end racism! It's over!" because when we try to do something about racism it ends up biting us in the butt.

I don't have much of a formal education, and so I'm asking those better equipped to address the issue;

Shouldn't our elected leaders and educators inform the public that;

1. There is only one race, the human race.
2. Therefore racism is an inaccurate description of something different
3. What in the past we labeled racism is actually discrimination, or a general attitude of superiority, based on a difference in physical appearance.

Of course discrimination applies to other things besides physical appearance (cultural, religious, etc.) but racism is the subject at hand.

Once the language is cleaned up, and the science widely disseminated to the masses, perhaps there will be another more effective way of addressing discrimination based on physical appearance.

Well, it would be nice if discovering something to be untrue immediately made the problem disappear, but it doesn't.

I understand what you're saying - at one point, it was a widely accepted practice to use leeches to suck bad spirits out of people. Then science discovered that this was all a bunch of hooey, and when the evidence was shared amongst medical practitioners they were all convinced by it and corrected their behavior.

I think we have a qualitatively different problem here. "Leechism" was taught to grown up medical students in college. Once the medical teachers in the college were convinced by the evidence to change the curriculum, making the change in practices in the profession was pretty straightforward. "Racism" is taught from childhood by friends and parents and schools and television/mass media. These are not professional teachers whose behavior is easily changed by presenting scientific evidence.

Also, racism is built deeply into our institutional structure. The whole criminal justice system consists of citizens who report crimes, police who catch criminals, juries who decide the fate of criminals, judges who decide the sentences of convicted criminals, parole boards who decide who is safe to return to society, businesses who choose whether to hire convicted felons, etc. etc. etc. It's not just a small subset of people who are holding mistaken beliefs that need to be retrained - it's *everybody*, including white liberal people like me who think they are the good guys.

I mean, I get it. I went and spent some time in Ohio recently, I grew up there, these people believe they are good people. Red blooded Americans who love their country. The good guys. "How dare you call me racist?" You know? "I'm not one of those people lynching and beating and tattooing swastikas on myself and whatnot. I'm not a racist - maybe I'm part of a system that systematically *discriminates* against people, but I'm not a *racist.*" And there's a movement to try to make a distinction between evil racists and good people who unknowingly aid and abet an institutionally racist system.

And if you were to show your scientific evidence to the people I grew up with in Ohio, I'm sure you'd find no resistance to it whatsoever. "Oh of course, we already knew all that stuff."

The reason why institutional racism exists is because individually, we are all just a tiny bit racist. If you agree with statement "oh, I don't beat up black people, on the contrary - I'm scared of black people! That's why I own a handgun!" you're a little bit racist. Admit it - you do. If you're white, you do. And it's just enough racism to perpetuate the system that is directly responsible for keeping African Americans and other minorities from "catching up" in terms of income with the rest of the country. Being afraid of black people has nothing to do with scientific evidence, it has to do with everything we've learned from what people have told us all our lives. And hey - I live in Anacostia now. It's not like high levels of crime in certain traditionally African American neighborhoods doesn't exist. But we have a very biased view of it - we take a small, statistically significant difference in crime rates and have turned it into a huge industrial complex that manufactures systematic oppression of black people. The punishment doesn't fit the crime.

Thoughtful post Zonk. You mention African Americans that suffer inordinately from institutional discrimination. You probably mean only those AA that have a darker skin tone than let's say a cantaloupe. I know for instance several AA (often referred to as White South Afrikaners) that do quite well here and as far as I know have never been the victim of US based institutional discrimination. I don't think it's necessarily just the continent one descends from but perhaps has more to do with skin tone. These distinctions are important IMO if we hope to reverse the institutional skin tone discrimination that you mention. Although I love the study of history I'm not as well read as many so I ask the question; are there examples in the historical record where a society reversed institutional skin-tone discrimination? I hope someone here can enlighten us. If not, I'm sure PIF will know .

[cammac]

Will be interesting on how Republican Congressmen and Senators will vote on giving aid to Texas since they were firmly against giving aid to NJ & NY after Sandy? It is funny that they felt since it wasn't in there back yard that they could be callus will be amusing to see them with cap in hand now. Fortunately people of other states except for the far right will be willing to help.

Also the lumber companies in Canada who Trump put on a tariff is going to provide free lumber to help Texas rebuild see if USA lumber industry especially Georgia Pacific ( Koch Brothers ) does the same?

[Zonkerbl]

I don't have much of a formal education, and so I'm asking those better equipped to address the issue;

Shouldn't our elected leaders and educators inform the public that;

1. There is only one race, the human race.
2. Therefore racism is an inaccurate description of something different
3. What in the past we labeled racism is actually discrimination, or a general attitude of superiority, based on a difference in physical appearance.

Of course discrimination applies to other things besides physical appearance (cultural, religious, etc.) but racism is the subject at hand.

Once the language is cleaned up, and the science widely disseminated to the masses, perhaps there will be another more effective way of addressing discrimination based on physical appearance.

Well, it would be nice if discovering something to be untrue immediately made the problem disappear, but it doesn't.

I understand what you're saying - at one point, it was a widely accepted practice to use leeches to suck bad spirits out of people. Then science discovered that this was all a bunch of hooey, and when the evidence was shared amongst medical practitioners they were all convinced by it and corrected their behavior.

I think we have a qualitatively different problem here. "Leechism" was taught to grown up medical students in college. Once the medical teachers in the college were convinced by the evidence to change the curriculum, making the change in practices in the profession was pretty straightforward. "Racism" is taught from childhood by friends and parents and schools and television/mass media. These are not professional teachers whose behavior is easily changed by presenting scientific evidence.

Also, racism is built deeply into our institutional structure. The whole criminal justice system consists of citizens who report crimes, police who catch criminals, juries who decide the fate of criminals, judges who decide the sentences of convicted criminals, parole boards who decide who is safe to return to society, businesses who choose whether to hire convicted felons, etc. etc. etc. It's not just a small subset of people who are holding mistaken beliefs that need to be retrained - it's *everybody*, including white liberal people like me who think they are the good guys.

I mean, I get it. I went and spent some time in Ohio recently, I grew up there, these people believe they are good people. Red blooded Americans who love their country. The good guys. "How dare you call me racist?" You know? "I'm not one of those people lynching and beating and tattooing swastikas on myself and whatnot. I'm not a racist - maybe I'm part of a system that systematically *discriminates* against people, but I'm not a *racist.*" And there's a movement to try to make a distinction between evil racists and good people who unknowingly aid and abet an institutionally racist system.

And if you were to show your scientific evidence to the people I grew up with in Ohio, I'm sure you'd find no resistance to it whatsoever. "Oh of course, we already knew all that stuff."

The reason why institutional racism exists is because individually, we are all just a tiny bit racist. If you agree with statement "oh, I don't beat up black people, on the contrary - I'm scared of black people! That's why I own a handgun!" you're a little bit racist. Admit it - you do. If you're white, you do. And it's just enough racism to perpetuate the system that is directly responsible for keeping African Americans and other minorities from "catching up" in terms of income with the rest of the country. Being afraid of black people has nothing to do with scientific evidence, it has to do with everything we've learned from what people have told us all our lives. And hey - I live in Anacostia now. It's not like high levels of crime in certain traditionally African American neighborhoods doesn't exist. But we have a very biased view of it - we take a small, statistically significant difference in crime rates and have turned it into a huge industrial complex that manufactures systematic oppression of black people. The punishment doesn't fit the crime.

Thoughtful post Zonk. You mention African Americans that suffer inordinately from institutional discrimination. You probably mean only those AA that have a darker skin tone than let's say a cantaloupe. I know for instance several AA (often referred to as White South Afrikaners) that do quite well here and as far as I know have never been the victim of US based institutional discrimination. I don't think it's necessarily just the continent one descends from but perhaps has more to do with skin tone. These distinctions are important IMO if we hope to reverse the institutional skin tone discrimination that you mention. Although I love the study of history I'm not as well read as many so I ask the question; are there examples in the historical record where a society reversed institutional skin-tone discrimination? I hope someone here can enlighten us. If not, I'm sure PIF will know .

Right? So the next question is, if this is a deeper problem than just presenting people with scientific evidence to persuade them to change their beliefs, what do we actually do? I think the conservative intuition that affirmative action is the wrong way to go about it is somewhat correct. It doesn't hurt, but it is something like a subsidy, and any economist will tell you that all subsidies are permanent. At what point do we declare victory and undo affirmative action? Never. So I agree with the *sentiment,* and I think it might help the problem a *little bit,* but it will certainly have unintended consequences. But more importantly, it's just treating the symptom and not the disease.

Honestly, I think the easiest and most effective step we should be taking right now is to decriminalize all drugs as much as we can stand it. Not because drugs are good, but the war on drug is really just a war on "skin pigment" (like popper says). We can take steps to restrict consumption of drugs using civil law and regulation, like we do for prescription drugs and tobacco and alcohol. We can allow the medical use of heroin to help people kick the habit slowly, instead of just giving them another addictive drug (I don't think that works very well). We can fully fund Obamacare, which has a whole raft of treatment options for people addicted to opioids. There's no reason for marijuana to be treated any differently than tobacco and alcohol. We can stop putting people in jail for non-violent offenses in general. Right now that's the part of our society doing the most damage, and it is very easy to fix - and it would save money. Jails are expensive, and throwing someone in jail is just about the dumbest way to treat drug addiction possible.

[dckingsfan]

This - I would add a few things (naturally). Expunge any drug only related offense so those inmates would have an easier time getting employment.

And I don't think that Obamacare is sustainable - so there is that.

[nate33]

I agree there's only the one human race, based on the following genetic fact:

How much genetic variation is there among humans?

Perhaps the most widely cited statistic about human genetic diversity is that any two humans differ, on average, at about 1 in 1,000 DNA base pairs (0.1%). Human genetic diversity is substantially lower than that of many other species, including our nearest evolutionary relative, the chimpanzee.

Genetic Variation and Human Evolution - The American Society of ...
https://www.ashg.org/education/pdf/geneticvariation.pdf

So if the human race is a single species based on a 0.1% genetic variance, then it would probably be more accurate to classify the different skin colors as different sub-species, right? Whites are a sub-species, blacks are a sub-species, etc. Of course there's an infinite variation of skin color, so does that make each variation a separate sub-species? Who knows? In the end, we're all children of God (IMO), one (human) race, or species, with an infinitely variegated sub-species.

The paper seems to support the argument of one human species. With the species having a low overall diversity, but not much of a boundary with other(at least racial/geographic) sub-populations I think would be pretty hard pressed to construct sub-species based on genetic evidence.

"Species" has a fairly rigid scientific definition: those within the same species can interbreed successfully to produce fertile offspring.

Any delineation below that of species is much more subjective. That's not to say that those delineations are irrelevant or unhelpful, but there will not be universal agreement on where to draw the lines.

And it isn't difficult to use genetic evidence to identify racial sub-species. It's what 23andMe does in their DNA testing. The question, again, is where are the boundaries and why? Is it useful to delineate between Polish and German origins? Between East Asian and Austronesian? These decisions are subjective. It's why the mantra "race is a social construct" exists. Race is a social construct, but so is nearly everything else that we categorize. "Red" and "orange" are social constructs. "Bushes", "shrubs" and "trees" are social constructs. "Shooting guard" and "power forward" are social constructs. Just because they're social constructs doesn't mean that they aren't useful and informative.

[Zonkerbl]

Alright, so what do we do with all these statues? Do we take them down, do we replace them with something else, leave them there with a plaque saying "this statue is dedicated to the memory of dead U.S. citizens cut down in the prime of life and is not meant to glorify slavery or racism"? Or what?

Should we just have a conversation about each monument in question and let the local stakeholders hash it out? Or are we not capable of having intelligent conversation anymore?

[nate33]

Alright, so what do we do with all these statues? Do we take them down, do we replace them with something else, leave them there with a plaque saying "this statue is dedicated to the memory of dead U.S. citizens cut down in the prime of life and is not meant to glorify slavery or racism"? Or what?

Should we just have a conversation about each monument in question and let the local stakeholders hash it out? Or are we not capable of having intelligent conversation anymore?

The latter. We are not capable of having intelligent conversations anymore. More accurately, we are not permitted to have intelligent conversations anymore. All Confederate statues will be removed. We will then move onto Thomas Jefferson because he was a slaveholder. Eventually, we'll get rid of George Washington. Any resistance is racist. If you protest in public, leftist mayors will tell the cops to stand down and you will get beat up by Antifa.

[Zonkerbl]

Alright, so what do we do with all these statues? Do we take them down, do we replace them with something else, leave them there with a plaque saying "this statue is dedicated to the memory of dead U.S. citizens cut down in the prime of life and is not meant to glorify slavery or racism"? Or what?

Should we just have a conversation about each monument in question and let the local stakeholders hash it out? Or are we not capable of having intelligent conversation anymore?

The latter. We are not capable of having intelligent conversations anymore. More accurately, we are not permitted to have intelligent conversations anymore. All Confederate statues will be removed. We will then move onto Thomas Jefferson because he was a slaveholder. Eventually, we'll get rid of George Washington. Any resistance is racist. If you protest in public, leftist mayors will tell the cops to stand down and you will get beat up by Antifa.

There's two statues that people want to get rid of in DC, one is of Albert Pike, a Mason who was wildly racist and fought for the Confederacy, but the *statue is not a monument to his time in the Confederacy*
http://wtop.com/dc/2017/08/disputed-dc-statue-raises-questions-about-public-symbols/slide/1/

And then there's the statue to the "father of gynecology" who allegedly CONDUCTED EXPERIMENTAL SURGERY ON SLAVE WOMEN WITHOUT ANESTHESIA OH MY GOD but if you look at it a little bit more carefully, at the time anesthesia had JUST BEEN INVENTED. When the dude started his gynecology hospital a decade or so later he used anesthesia. So I don't know what's going on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/08/29/a-surgeon-experimented-on-slave-women-without-anesthesia-now-his-statues-are-under-attack/?hpid=hp_rhp-moretopstories2_retro-surgeon-845am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.7ef8b86bdc07

I mean, white people always get what they want, so most of the statues will probably stay up. I suppose I should be satisfied we're even having this conversation now.

[payitforward]

"Species" has a fairly rigid scientific definition: those within the same species can interbreed successfully to produce fertile offspring.

Any delineation below that of species is much more subjective. That's not to say that those delineations are irrelevant or unhelpful, but there will not be universal agreement on where to draw the line.

And it isn't difficult to use genetic evidence to identify racial sub-species. It's what 23andMe does in their DNA testing. The question, again, is where are the boundaries and why? Is it useful to delineate between Polish and German origins? Between East Asian and Austronesian? These decisions are subjective. It's why the mantra "race is a social construct" exists. Race IS a social construct, but so is nearly everything else that we categorize. "Red" and "orange" are social constructs. "Bushes", "shrubs" and "trees" are social constructs. "Shooting guard" and "power forward" are social constructs. Just because they're social constructs doesn't mean that they aren't useful and informative.

Genetic evidence tells us that people come from different historical populations. That has nothing to do with the idea of "racial sub-species."

For one thing, they aren't "racial," b/c there are no races. For another, they aren't "sub-species".

In fact, there are no human subspecies. Or, to put the same thing a bit differently, all current humans are now classified as a single subspecies: "homo sapiens sapiens." This is to differentiate us from "homo sapiens idaltu" & "homo sapiens neanderthalis. The latter is how current science views what used to be called "homo neanderthalis," the change reflecting the fact that DNA evidence now shows w/o a doubt that Neanderthal & "Idaltu" interbred, rather than the former simply having been killed off by the latter -- though of course there was also plenty of killing!

Scientific classifications aren't "social constructs," sorry. Nor are "red" & "orange" social constructs -- they are names we give to entities whose difference consists entirely in the range of light wavelengths they comprise.

Of course there's ambiguity at the border between red & orange, b/c the words name ranges. In the same way, for example, there's ambiguity between "near" and "far." That's how words work.

[montestewart]

Has anyone yet suggested the removal of the Samuel Hahnemann statue? Until they come after the Father of Homeopathy, I'm staying right here.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Thoughtful post Zonk. You mention African Americans that suffer inordinately from institutional discrimination. You probably mean only those AA that have a darker skin tone than let's say a cantaloupe. I know for instance several AA (often referred to as White South Afrikaners) that do quite well here and as far as I know have never been the victim of US based institutional discrimination. I don't think it's necessarily just the continent one descends from but perhaps has more to do with skin tone. These distinctions are important IMO if we hope to reverse the institutional skin tone discrimination that you mention. Although I love the study of history I'm not as well read as many so I ask the question; are there examples in the historical record where a society reversed institutional skin-tone discrimination? I hope someone here can enlighten us. If not, I'm sure PIF will know .

I agree with you entirely on this point. Skin tone is the major factor. Voice/accent and other identifiers also matter, but skin tone is the biggest one. There are other forms of discrimination, too, even background, where someone from a poorer household is simply going to grow up acting slightly differently and have a much tougher time fitting in with people who come from wealthier backgrounds, but in the end, skin tone is just so dominant - people see it first and it creates their first impressions, and those aren't things that are easily changed, if they ever are, no matter how open minded people might claim to be.

As for examples, I might be forgetting a few periods/places in history, but honestly, the modern industrialized world might actually be the best example, sadly. In terms of getting the issue out in the open a bit and working on improving the situation, I can't actually think of any period of history that has done a better job. I do see recent issues cropping up where modern information technology is making it harder to control the message which means it's much easier for like to find like where opinions are concerned, on topics such as racism, vaccinations and any other number of contentious issues.

[I_Like_Dirt]

The latter. We are not capable of having intelligent conversations anymore. More accurately, we are not permitted to have intelligent conversations anymore. All Confederate statues will be removed. We will then move onto Thomas Jefferson because he was a slaveholder. Eventually, we'll get rid of George Washington. Any resistance is racist. If you protest in public, leftist mayors will tell the cops to stand down and you will get beat up by Antifa.

Ignoring your bit about cops standing down and beat up by Antifa snark, would it really be so horrible if all those statues wind up being taken down? I mean, different people are going to draw different lines in different places, but why hasn't the discussion moved on to replacing them with something else? I mean, nobody here is talking about rewriting the history books or anything, just establishing an environment for discussion that doesn't involve something that can legitimately be perceived as glorifying slavery or some variation thereof. What's wrong with admitting that historical heroes did some great things and some horrible things and trying to learn from history? To be honest, humanity around the world and throughout history tends to have that same problem of refusing to truly accept their flaws and the flaws of those that came before - only making empty platitudes to admitting those faults - and then repeating their mistakes.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[payitforward]

Ooops, a few more inaccuracies to note:

"Species" has a fairly rigid scientific definition: those within the same species can interbreed successfully to produce fertile offspring.

Any delineation below that of species is much more subjective. That's not to say that those delineations are irrelevant or unhelpful, but there will not be universal agreement on where to draw the line.

Sorry, not the case. A subspecies is a "trinomen" -- i.e. a 3-word phrase, as in panthera tigris tigris, the Bengal tiger & panthera tigris sondaica, the Sumatran tiger.

Is there any "subjectivity" in the difference between these two? No. Any question of "where to draw the line"? No.

Now, if a tiger is running at me, I may not be able to tell immediately which it is; I'm likely to have other things on my mind!

And it isn't difficult to use genetic evidence to identify racial sub-species.... The question, again, is where are the boundaries and why? Is it useful to delineate between Polish and German origins?

I've already addressed the mythological (ideological too) phrase "racial sub-species." Here are 3 other bits of content that also cry out to be debunked:

1. "The question... is where are the boundaries and why?" This is completely misleading. There aren't "boundaries" of any kind. That's not how genomes work. We can find some things out about past contact (i.e. interbreeding) with other populations, & there may be some differentiation in that between "German" & "Polish" populations, or not, but there is nothing more we learn -- except that the presence or absence of something may indicate greater or lesser statistical likelihood of contracting one or another illness (or the equivalent). But we don't find two different subspecies with boundaries between them. We may find the same kinds of variations between German populations from Bavaria & German populations from around lets say Rostock or Luebeck.

In fact, the "boundary" between "German" & "Polish" exists on a different plane altogether. A plane called "history." & it has changed many many times.

2. "The question, again, is ...Is it useful to delineate between Polish and German origins?"
Actually, the question is "useful for what?" & "useful to whom?" It was certainly useful during the 3d Reich. To Germany. For knowing whom to kill & whom not to kill.

Nor did they need (or rely on) genetic evidence to "delineate between Polish and German origins." "Polish" & "German" are not terms identifying genetic groups but rather national or geographic groups.

It's why the mantra "race is a social construct" exists. Race IS a social construct, but so is nearly everything else that we categorize. "Red" and "orange" are social constructs.

I realized, rereading this, that red & orange stand in here for skin colors. For which reason I feel forced to note that while "race" is certainly a social construct (it doesn't exist in the world), different skin colors do exist.

This takes us back to those questions of "useful to whom" & "useful for what."

The choice of the terms "black" and "white," which inscribe absolute & complete opposites, illustrates nicely the way "racism" works: it is an ideological system of thinking socially constructed to shape views of the world & ultimately determine how the world is structured in respect of power & control. After all, no one's skin is actually "white," is it? & no one's skin is actually "black," either.

But, what makes it all the more obvious is that these ideologically loaded terms "black" & "white", these opposites, aside from being inaccurate, aren't even used primarily as adjectives that modify "skin."

They are used in the phrases "black people" & "white people" -- i.e. they are employed to say that these are two different kinds of people. Two different & opposite "races."

In the name of this ugly ideology, this awful set of lies, horrors have been perpetrated that should shame anyone. There must be an end to racism.

Whose job is that? It's our job -- it's nate's job & mine, & it's your job too. We won't get it done in this generation, but we have to try anyway.

[payitforward]

Alright, so what do we do with all these statues? Do we take them down, do we replace them with something else, leave them there with a plaque saying "this statue is dedicated to the memory of dead U.S. citizens cut down in the prime of life and is not meant to glorify slavery or racism"? Or what?

Should we just have a conversation about each monument in question and let the local stakeholders hash it out? Or are we not capable of having intelligent conversation anymore?

The latter. We are not capable of having intelligent conversations anymore. More accurately, we are not permitted to have intelligent conversations anymore. All Confederate statues will be removed. We will then move onto Thomas Jefferson because he was a slaveholder. Eventually, we'll get rid of George Washington. Any resistance is racist. If you protest in public, leftist mayors will tell the cops to stand down and you will get beat up by Antifa.

Oh nate....

We sure won't have intelligent conversation based on your fantasy sequence! If I were to lay out some sequence of so-called inevitabilities in the other direction -- oh, lets say Trumpism leading to Fascism leading to a "whitening" of America leading to... whatever, claiming that this was inevitable, exactly what was going to happen, etc....

...would you regard that as laying the foundation for intelligent conversation? I doubt it. & you'd be right if you didn't.

For that matter, should civil rights have been stopped in its tracks in the mid-50s? When Southern segregationists wrote exactly those kinds of fantasy sequences: "If we let them use the same bathroom as us, if we let them sit anywhere on the bus, if we let them in our schools, they will "move on" to... I won't bother to write out the list of dire consequences then invoked. I'm sure you know it.

Should we have let Governor Faubus keep Arkansas schools segregated? Should we have let Alabama & Mississippi keep blacks out of state universities? Should the lunch counters be segregated even now? Should black citizens be denied the vote as they were back then?

There are open issues in this country -- as in every country. There's plenty to discuss, because there's plenty that needs changing -- or better to say that we all think there are things that need changing. We may differ about what they are & how they should be changed, but we get nowhere taking subjects off the table.

So why not try intelligent conversation? Why not try it here? I've come to appreciate this thread after my desire some months ago to shut it down. See. I can change my mind. I can change. Maybe if you tell me why you think statues of Confederate generals & other Confederate heroes should stay in place, you can change my mind about that too. Not that I have some overwhelming feeling that they need to come down, for that matter. I'd be more interested in putting up other statues that spoke to the other side of what they stand for.

[nuposse04]

I'm not sure I understand your comment. How does looking in a mirror affect our reaction to a scientific finding (that there is only one race, not multiple races)? I may be missing your point though so please explain.

Also, when a citizen fills out govt. or university questionnaires asking for race classification the only accurate answer in my mind would be "other". Wouldn't it be dishonest to answer in any other way assuming one understands the science?

Not sure what you want me to explain. It's a figure of speech. I'm agreeing with you but I don't think the concept of race will ever be expunged.

I agree there's only the one human race, based on the following genetic fact:

How much genetic variation is there among humans?

Perhaps the most widely cited statistic about human genetic diversity is that any two humans differ, on average, at about 1 in 1,000 DNA base pairs (0.1%). Human genetic diversity is substantially lower than that of many other species, including our nearest evolutionary relative, the chimpanzee.

Genetic Variation and Human Evolution - The American Society of ...
https://www.ashg.org/education/pdf/geneticvariation.pdf

So if the human race is a single species based on a 0.1% genetic variance, then it would probably be more accurate to classify the different skin colors as different sub-species, right? Whites are a sub-species, blacks are a sub-species, etc. Of course there's an infinite variation of skin color, so does that make each variation a separate sub-species? Who knows? In the end, we're all children of God (IMO), one (human) race, or species, with an infinitely variegated sub-species.

I think a better term then sub species would be phenotype. Any species can exhibit various degrees of phenotypes due to a given gene pool. Healthy people are able to breed fertile offspring together so that ought to be enough for us to consider ourselves one species.. I'd extend that to generally infertile too, usually that is simply due to some disease process or a chromosmal defect like downs syndrome.

As far being the children of god... sure got a lot of **** up diseases from em'!

[payitforward]

I agree there's only the one human race, based on the following genetic fact:

How much genetic variation is there among humans?

Perhaps the most widely cited statistic about human genetic diversity is that any two humans differ, on average, at about 1 in 1,000 DNA base pairs (0.1%). Human genetic diversity is substantially lower than that of many other species, including our nearest evolutionary relative, the chimpanzee.

Genetic Variation and Human Evolution - The American Society of ...
https://www.ashg.org/education/pdf/geneticvariation.pdf

So if the human race is a single species based on a 0.1% genetic variance, then it would probably be more accurate to classify the different skin colors as different sub-species, right? Whites are a sub-species, blacks are a sub-species, etc. Of course there's an infinite variation of skin color, so does that make each variation a separate sub-species? Who knows? In the end, we're all children of God (IMO), one (human) race, or species, with an infinitely variegated sub-species.

I think a better term then sub species would be phenotype. Any species can exhibit various degrees of phenotypes due to a given gene pool. Healthy people are able to breed fertile offspring together so that ought to be enough for us to consider ourselves one species.. I'd extend that to generally infertile too, usually that is simply due to some disease process or a chromosmal defect like downs syndrome.

As far being the children of god... sure got a lot of **** up diseases from em'!

Good God!

I don't know who you are, E550wahoo (but an E550 is a nice car). But please don't make up scientific terms b/c they make sense to you. Here are a few corrections:

The term "race" is an invention. There are no races -- where "no" means 0, that is ZERO -- not 1. So, no, there's not one human race. There are zero human races. "Humans" are not "a race."

"Race" does not = "species."

Moreover, no, humans are not "a single species." We are a subspecies (see my post above). All of us are a single subspecies.

Finally, no, different skin colors are not "different sub-species." Different hair colors are also not different subspecies. Different eye colors are also not. Tall people are not a different subspecies from short people. Etc. etc. etc.

No, there is no such thing as "an infinitely variegated sub-species."

Now you, nuposse -- no, "phenotype" doesn't improve things. A phenotype is a single individual, or rather it is the bundle of characteristics of that individual based on its genotype & its interaction w/ the environment. Period. Nothing else.

I don't mean to sound exasperated, but it is important to get the word "race" completely out of circulation. It's also important not to invent category differences among different populations. All you do is give people a word to substitute for race. Next thing you know you have people with the idea that "Polish" & "German" are somehow 2 different genetic categories, etc.

[dckingsfan]

Big difference between Washington and Jefferson and the confederate generals & other heroes of the confederate side.

Monuments to them should go... there is no reason to have a monument to a purpose such as keeping slavery in place.

And why shouldn't lesser monuments go over time?