Political Roundtable Part XV

[montestewart]

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.

E550wahoo just got here, don't chase him away! It takes a minute to get used to PIF surgical precision.

In fairness to him, I took his "subspecies" references (as much questions as statements) as rhetorical devices to try and move beyond divisions based on "race," especially where he says, "there's an infinite variation of skin color, so does that make each variation a separate sub-species?"

[nate33]

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!

Fair enough. "Sub-species" is indeed the incorrect term for the phenomenon I'm describing. I was using the terms initially used by E550wahoo. But my point still stands within a species there are subdivisions, whether we call them "races", or "breeds", or some other term, and these subdivisions have utility.

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.

You just totally undermined your own argument. Racial subdivisions are worthless and unimportant, except when they happen to be useful and important. If two ethnic groups who evolved in relative geographic isolation have different statistical likelihoods of contracting illnesses, what other behavioral, medical or intellectual differences may be statistically evident? How can that help in our understanding of the two groups? How can that help in the way we treat then in medicine, psychology, sociology, education?

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

German and Polish histories are so interwoven, that they were probably a bad example. I should have said Slav and Germanic. There are measurable genetic differences between the groups because of relative geographic isolation until recent 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?"

Yes, those are also important questions. Some people, like doctors, for instance, will consider the distinction to be relevant. To others, it won't be relevant.

It was certainly useful during the 3d Reich. To Germany. For knowing whom to kill & whom not to kill.

You are setting a record for the application of Godwin's Law. It comes up in nearly every one of our conversations.

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.

No I was specifically referring to the colors on the color spectrum. When does "red" become "orange"? Who decides? Why? The fact that we don't have a commonly agreed upon boundary line doesn't mean that we can't have a concept of "red" that is different from the concept of "orange". By the same token, the fact that there is no exact, indisputable boundary line between what we generally classify as white (European descent) and black (sub-Saharan African descent) doesn't mean that there is no utility in categorizing them as such.

[Zonkerbl]

I guess the question is, which understanding of the word "race" is going to help us get rid of racism better? I think Popper was making a point that people have a mistaken understanding of just how different people are. We are not as different as we think. Does it help to say that "there is no such thing as race"? It does sound a little bit like "all lives matter." Which imo is racist. Does denying race exists help people justify demonizing the BLM movement?

[nate33]

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.

There are probably some statues that should be removed, or at least relocated. The statue of Roger Brooke Taney, for example, doesn't seem to serve any purpose but to glorify the pro-slavery tradition. He is a significant historical figure specifically because of his ruling on Dred Scott. But I don't think that applies to all Confederate era statues. Robert E. Lee isn't glorified because of his ability to handle a whip. He is glorified for his tactical brilliance in fighting a war against a superior opponent. A war that tens of millions of Americans considered to be a just war for state sovereignty. He was admired for his courage, honor and leadership.

It's a very slippery slope. Ripping down the Robert E Lee statues solely because he fought on the side of the South opens up the option of eliminating any statue of anybody just because they have some tangential relationship to slavery or black oppression. As I said before, if Robert E. Lee goes, then surely Jefferson will be next. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, the founding document of our nation. It's possible to praise historical figures for the stuff they did well, without condoning the things they did that no longer are acceptable under current moral standards.

At the very least, I think we need more public discussions and voter referendums before we start ripping down statues at the behest of unruly mobs.

[Zonkerbl]

Yeah, but a monument to Robert E. Lee is obviously a monument glorifying the Confederacy. A monument to Jefferson is obviously meant to glorify the Constitution of the United States of America. I think it's laughable to compare what Jefferson STANDS FOR and what Robert E. Lee STANDS FOR and find them at all comparable. If we are not smart enough to tell the difference between those two things then we don't deserve any of the rights set out for us by the founding fathers. We might as well let the Nazis take over.

When you erect a monument to Robert E. Lee in your hometown, what is the INTENDED EFFECT on black people who live there? Is it to inspire admiration for someone who was clever in battle? Or is it meant to intimidate black people who have become too uppity? Would erecting a monument to Thomas Jefferson inspire black people to think "oh my god it's an endorsement of slavery"? Don't be ridiculous.

[dckingsfan]

Yeah, but a monument to Robert E. Lee is obviously a monument glorifying the Confederacy. A monument to Jefferson is obviously meant to glorify the Constitution of the United States of America. I think it's laughable to compare what Jefferson STANDS FOR and what Robert E. Lee STANDS FOR and find them at all comparable. If we are not smart enough to tell the difference between those two things then we don't deserve any of the rights set out for us by the founding fathers. We might as well let the Nazis take over.

Violent agreement here - Let's tear down the "heroes" of the Civil war and then deal with the issue of Jefferson.

[popper]

I guess the question is, which understanding of the word "race" is going to help us get rid of racism better? I think Popper was making a point that people have a mistaken understanding of just how different people are. We are not as different as we think. Does it help to say that "there is no such thing as race"? It does sound a little bit like "all lives matter." Which imo is racist. Does denying race exists help people justify demonizing the BLM movement?

I brought the topic back up because I believe an accurate grasp of the issue (prejudice and discrimination based upon physical appearance, be it skin color, eye shape, etc). can assist those living in the dark to understand just how insidious, cruel and illogical the practice is.

For example - I would bet that a large majority of Americans believe that they are a member of one of several groups (races). This belief justifies in their thoughts a separation from the whole of humanity. This concept of separation allows for the notion of superiority within one's group (race) and as it relates to other groups. Perhaps that's part of human nature, to compete group against separate group, as a survival mechanism (not sure about this but it makes sense). Once people understand that there are no separate groups (races) and that we are all members of the same group then the concept of superiority cannot stand (at least as it relates to physical appearance).

[nate33]

Yeah, but a monument to Robert E. Lee is obviously a monument glorifying the Confederacy. A monument to Jefferson is obviously meant to glorify the Constitution of the United States of America. I think it's laughable to compare what Jefferson STANDS FOR and what Robert E. Lee STANDS FOR and find them at all comparable. If we are not smart enough to tell the difference between those two things then we don't deserve any of the rights set out for us by the founding fathers. We might as well let the Nazis take over.

When you erect a monument to Robert E. Lee in your hometown, what is the INTENDED EFFECT on black people who live there? Is it to inspire admiration for someone who was clever in battle? Or is it meant to intimidate black people who have become too uppity? Would erecting a monument to Thomas Jefferson inspire black people to think "oh my god it's an endorsement of slavery"? Don't be ridiculous.

Robert E. Lee was opposed to secession. He only grudgingly agreed to lead the South out of duty to his home state of Virginia (state allegiance was much stronger then than it is now). He was not a political figure, he was a military figure admired for his military prowess.

The South was forcibly brought back into the Union by the North. By the North's own standards, the Southerners are Americans too. The descendants of the Southerners constitute roughly 1/4th of the population of America. They're not unpersons. They get to have heroes too.

Polls continue to show that the majority of Americans want the statues to remain, by a roughly 2:1 margin. If you want them removed, you need to convince another 50 million Americans to change their opinion.

[dckingsfan]

Yeah, but a monument to Robert E. Lee is obviously a monument glorifying the Confederacy. A monument to Jefferson is obviously meant to glorify the Constitution of the United States of America. I think it's laughable to compare what Jefferson STANDS FOR and what Robert E. Lee STANDS FOR and find them at all comparable. If we are not smart enough to tell the difference between those two things then we don't deserve any of the rights set out for us by the founding fathers. We might as well let the Nazis take over.

When you erect a monument to Robert E. Lee in your hometown, what is the INTENDED EFFECT on black people who live there? Is it to inspire admiration for someone who was clever in battle? Or is it meant to intimidate black people who have become too uppity? Would erecting a monument to Thomas Jefferson inspire black people to think "oh my god it's an endorsement of slavery"? Don't be ridiculous.

Robert E. Lee was opposed to secession. He only grudgingly agreed to lead the South out of duty to his home state of Virginia (state allegiance was much stronger then than it is now). He was not a political figure, he was a military figure admired for his military prowess.

The South was forcibly brought back into the Union by the North. By the North's own standards, the Southerners are Americans too. The descendants of the Southerners constitute roughly 1/4th of the population of America. They're not unpersons. They get to have heroes too.

Polls continue to show that the majority of Americans want the statues to remain, by a roughly 2:1 margin. If you want them removed, you need to convince another 50 million Americans to change their opinion.

I think the mayor of Baltimore took care of that - you do it quickly and quietly and get it done.

All good

[I_Like_Dirt]

It's a very slippery slope. Ripping down the Robert E Lee statues solely because he fought on the side of the South opens up the option of eliminating any statue of anybody just because they have some tangential relationship to slavery or black oppression. As I said before, if Robert E. Lee goes, then surely Jefferson will be next. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, the founding document of our nation. It's possible to praise historical figures for the stuff they did well, without condoning the things they did that no longer are acceptable under current moral standards.

At the very least, I think we need more public discussions and voter referendums before we start ripping down statues at the behest of unruly mobs.

I find the term slippery slope often gets thrown out as a shield to deflect a bit, and I feel you're doing that here. Zonk has sort of pointed out the issue here.

You mention that discussion would be helpful, and I actually agree, but the real catch here isn't a discussion on the statue, but what the statue represents. I mean, on one side you have those who see the statue representing the confederacy and/or slavery and/or any other number of things. And on the other side, you see those who say it represents heritage and history. But here's the catch, heritage and history aren't actually specific things. They beget the question/discussion of "heritage and history" of what? If all that gets thrown out there is slavery, then what? People don't like to admit or face up to hard truths like that, which is why we see the kinds of pushback we tend to see, but in reality, it isn't nearly as bad as it gets made out to be - it's just people's pride/egos getting in the way of self-improvement and societal improvement.

Look at how many Germans had to rethink their idea of their history after WWII. Some of them really haven't faced up to it, either, and it doesn't help them in any way. Germany hasn't been hindered at all nor has anyone there really been disadvantaged by having to come to grips with a part of history that doesn't paint them in the best of lights (to put it nicely). America isn't alone in having such issues, but you can see it everywhere. The only real time people tend to point to something as a "black mark" on history or whatever they feel they can blame it on a different "faction" so to speak, and when they really can't, they often make sides and then pretend it was the other "side" that was the problem, as we're seeing with Obama and Katrina.

As for unruly mobs ripping down statues, I actually agree with you. I don't think it should ever come to that. The catch here is that it's been centuries for those kinds of discussions and it's pretty clear where the lines have been drawn at this point. And human history, to say nothing of American history, is pretty clear that negotiation with those seeking to maintain their advantaged position generally isn't all that helpful whereas direct action can sometimes be. Heck, there's a reason why there were so many tiki torches out there rather than a request for a forum of discussion to openly try to understand racism and why it's important to try to overcome even at the cost of swallowing one's own pride.

[Zonkerbl]

Yeah, but a monument to Robert E. Lee is obviously a monument glorifying the Confederacy. A monument to Jefferson is obviously meant to glorify the Constitution of the United States of America. I think it's laughable to compare what Jefferson STANDS FOR and what Robert E. Lee STANDS FOR and find them at all comparable. If we are not smart enough to tell the difference between those two things then we don't deserve any of the rights set out for us by the founding fathers. We might as well let the Nazis take over.

When you erect a monument to Robert E. Lee in your hometown, what is the INTENDED EFFECT on black people who live there? Is it to inspire admiration for someone who was clever in battle? Or is it meant to intimidate black people who have become too uppity? Would erecting a monument to Thomas Jefferson inspire black people to think "oh my god it's an endorsement of slavery"? Don't be ridiculous.

Robert E. Lee was opposed to secession. He only grudgingly agreed to lead the South out of duty to his home state of Virginia (state allegiance was much stronger then than it is now). He was not a political figure, he was a military figure admired for his military prowess.

The South was forcibly brought back into the Union by the North. By the North's own standards, the Southerners are Americans too. The descendants of the Southerners constitute roughly 1/4th of the population of America. They're not unpersons. They get to have heroes too.

Polls continue to show that the majority of Americans want the statues to remain, by a roughly 2:1 margin. If you want them removed, you need to convince another 50 million Americans to change their opinion.

When you erect a monument to Robert E. Lee in your hometown, what is the INTENDED EFFECT on black people who live there? Is it to inspire admiration for someone who was clever in battle? Or is it meant to intimidate black people who have become too uppity? Would erecting a monument to Thomas Jefferson inspire black people to think "oh my god it's an endorsement of slavery"? Don't be ridiculous.

I can do this all day.

[DCZards]

Polls continue to show that the majority of Americans want the statues to remain, by a roughly 2:1 margin. If you want them removed, you need to convince another 50 million Americans to change their opinion.

How many of those Americans who want the statues to remain live in the cities and towns where the statues are? How many of them live near or around the corner from a statue honoring someone who fought to preserve slavery?

Whether or not to remove the statues should be the decision of those who live in those places where the statues actually are...and not the decision of Americans who live where there are probably no statues of confederate leaders, places like Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska.

I say let's put the statues in a museum for those who want to see them and learn about the men and women they honor.

[dckingsfan]

[nate33]

Polls continue to show that the majority of Americans want the statues to remain, by a roughly 2:1 margin. If you want them removed, you need to convince another 50 million Americans to change their opinion.

How many of those Americans who want the statues to remain live in the cities and towns where the statues are? How many of them live near or around the corner from a statue honoring someone who fought to preserve slavery?

Whether or not to remove the statues should be the decision of those who live in those places where the statues actually are...and not the decision of Americans who live where there are probably no statues of confederate leaders, places like Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska.

I think this is a very good point. It should be a local decision. From the cross tabs in the recent Reuters poll on the matter, there didn't seem to be any difference in preference whether one was from the "Southeast" or from anywhere else. The best that I can tell, the national poll averages on this issue are roughly the same as the local polls.

[nate33]

It's a very slippery slope. Ripping down the Robert E Lee statues solely because he fought on the side of the South opens up the option of eliminating any statue of anybody just because they have some tangential relationship to slavery or black oppression. As I said before, if Robert E. Lee goes, then surely Jefferson will be next. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, the founding document of our nation. It's possible to praise historical figures for the stuff they did well, without condoning the things they did that no longer are acceptable under current moral standards.

At the very least, I think we need more public discussions and voter referendums before we start ripping down statues at the behest of unruly mobs.

I find the term slippery slope often gets thrown out as a shield to deflect a bit, and I feel you're doing that here. Zonk has sort of pointed out the issue here.

Zonker has done nothing of the sort. Zonker has merely declared that Confederate symbols can mean one and only one thing: pro-slavery and pro-black oppression. I disagree. And I think most in the former confederate states would disagree. Just because the great Zonker labels them racists, doesn't make it so.

[dckingsfan]

Its a moot issue - the statues are coming down over time - just like racism in our country (the trend in the polls to take down the statues will go the same direction as the figure below). It will slowly dissipate.

It is just a matter of time. If you are an old guy - you have seem what it was like in the 60s to today. We wouldn't have even have had the conversations in the 60s. No way we pull down the statues in Baltimore.

It is headed in the right direction - we will have blips like Trump. But over time, they will be small in our rearview mirror.

[Zonkerbl]

It's a very slippery slope. Ripping down the Robert E Lee statues solely because he fought on the side of the South opens up the option of eliminating any statue of anybody just because they have some tangential relationship to slavery or black oppression. As I said before, if Robert E. Lee goes, then surely Jefferson will be next. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, the founding document of our nation. It's possible to praise historical figures for the stuff they did well, without condoning the things they did that no longer are acceptable under current moral standards.

At the very least, I think we need more public discussions and voter referendums before we start ripping down statues at the behest of unruly mobs.

I find the term slippery slope often gets thrown out as a shield to deflect a bit, and I feel you're doing that here. Zonk has sort of pointed out the issue here.

Zonker has done nothing of the sort. Zonker has merely declared that Confederate symbols can mean one and only one thing: pro-slavery and pro-black oppression. I disagree. And I think most in the former confederate states would disagree. Just because the great Zonker labels them racists, doesn't make it so.

So rather than addressing the valid points I raise you call me names and engage in ad hominem attacks. I win the argument yay!

[CobraCommander]

...Well one thing for sure is Lemon and Cooper both represent the LBGTQ community....

Cobra, could you please explain what you mean by this claim? Thanks.

Lemon was the fist openly gay reporter on major news show and Cooper is fairly recently out...neither were surprising...but they did come "out"

[cammac]

Yeah, but a monument to Robert E. Lee is obviously a monument glorifying the Confederacy. A monument to Jefferson is obviously meant to glorify the Constitution of the United States of America. I think it's laughable to compare what Jefferson STANDS FOR and what Robert E. Lee STANDS FOR and find them at all comparable. If we are not smart enough to tell the difference between those two things then we don't deserve any of the rights set out for us by the founding fathers. We might as well let the Nazis take over.

When you erect a monument to Robert E. Lee in your hometown, what is the INTENDED EFFECT on black people who live there? Is it to inspire admiration for someone who was clever in battle? Or is it meant to intimidate black people who have become too uppity? Would erecting a monument to Thomas Jefferson inspire black people to think "oh my god it's an endorsement of slavery"? Don't be ridiculous.

Robert E. Lee was opposed to secession. He only grudgingly agreed to lead the South out of duty to his home state of Virginia (state allegiance was much stronger then than it is now). He was not a political figure, he was a military figure admired for his military prowess.

[size=150]The South was forcibly brought back into the Union by the North. By the North's own standards, the Southerners are Americans too. [/size] The descendants of the Southerners constitute roughly 1/4th of the population of America. They're not unpersons. They get to have heroes too.

Polls continue to show that the majority of Americans want the statues to remain, by a roughly 2:1 margin. If you want them removed, you need to convince another 50 million Americans to change their opinion.

Yes the African Americans which they enslaved are citizens as well. This is like saying Nazi Germany & Japan was forced to conform to the Allied Forces after WW2.

[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!

Fair enough. "Sub-species" is indeed the incorrect term for the phenomenon I'm describing. I was using the terms initially used by E550wahoo. But my point still stands within a species there are subdivisions, whether we call them "races", or "breeds", or some other term, and these subdivisions have utility.

By "subdivisions," I take you to mean genetically based subdivisions. Obviously, there are a zillion different groupings at the level of culture.

Nate, the answer is no. There is genetic variation (overall only a tiny amount, as has been pointed out by others in this thread). But "variation" itself does not imply "subdivisions." I tried to make this point in my previous post.

Indeed, this is the point of the science. If there were "subdivisions," as you describe them, what difference would there be between calling people of African origin a "subdivision" vs. calling them a "race?" It would be a matter of what word was chosen & no more.

If your position were true, then the darker skin of Africans would be an indicator, a pointer, to some overall category difference (what you might mean by the word "subdivision"), but this is not the case. That is, there is no science behind the idea & therefore geneticists have not created any term for such a category difference & more generally there is no term more specific than "subspecies" for categorization of this kind.

You could argue (though w/o evidence) that this lack in the science reflected some kind of "political correctness," but that doesn't work either, as there is no such categorization applied to any other species either.

As to "utility," not just facts but also fictions have "utility," as we all know. The question is whether there is an existent thing here; my point is that there isn't.