Race variation?

[humanist]

There is no doubt that are going to be some differences between different populations. Howver, it is worth noting that social 'races' do not correspond very well with genetic populations, generally speaking.

That said, there is no consistent indication that heredity is a big factor in the varying achievements of members of different races. Even if there are some negligable difference in intelligence and abilities between races, it is but a question of probability, and would probably have no real impact on an individual basis.

Finally, the overwhelming majority of differences between races probably are caused by social upbringing more than anything else. For instance, I think it is most probable that African-American culture, which is a reaction to denied opportunies, racism and hundreds of years of oppression, is not terribly conducive to the enthusiasm for work and self-esteem necessary to rise to higher social standing. The poverty of Blacks in the US, largely caused by old oppression, must also be a big factor in explaining their academic failures, not to mention racism of course.

Also, see the thread of mine entitled 'Pan-Humanism' in the philosophy forum, where I refute all of Meth's and others racialist beliefs.

[jcs]

I'm a little confused about the race issue. I think people should all be equal, and all are more-or-less equal, but then this problem comes up. We should bond together behind the concept of 'human,' because we're all first and foremost human, but then racial differences and the arguments of racists come up and confuse me. If you would be so kind, could you refute this (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3198)?

[leondegrance]

Finally, the overwhelming majority of differences between races probably are caused by social upbringing more than anything else. For instance, I think it is most probable that African-American culture, which is a reaction to denied opportunies, racism and hundreds of years of oppression, is not terribly conducive to the enthusiasm for work and self-esteem necessary to rise to higher social standing. The poverty of Blacks in the US, largely caused by old oppression, must also be a big factor in explaining their academic failures, not to mention racism of course.

Silly. Blacks in Africa do not suffer from "white racism", but are capable of little more than a very primitive culture.

[Starr]

Finally, the overwhelming majority of differences between races probably are caused by social upbringing more than anything else. For instance, I think it is most probable that African-American culture, which is a reaction to denied opportunies, racism and hundreds of years of oppression, is not terribly conducive to the enthusiasm for work and self-esteem necessary to rise to higher social standing. The poverty of Blacks in the US, largely caused by old oppression, must also be a big factor in explaining their academic failures, not to mention racism of course.


Oppression, itz! isn't it about time to come up with another excuse? why is it that Africans have always had few if any accomplishments worth mentioning? Even if you want to blame "oppression" and cry about how the poor niggers have been so oppressed, doesn't the "fact" that they have dealt with so much oppression and have been unable to get past it, suggest something in itself? If a people are continueously "oppressed" and victimized(as some like to whine about) what does that say about their capabilities or "greatness(or in this case lack thereof)

Explain also why blacks face the same exact type of issues no matter where they are.

Blacks in the U.S have been given every opportunity imaginable, all kinds of handouts and preferences and they still act in similar ways to their wild savage African "brothas" The small amount of blacks who have accomplished anything positive in their lives are so unlike the average nigger that they get heckled and referred to as uncle toms, and sellouts,etc. by their own people.

One thing I have never been able to understand is just why it is so important to people like you to believe "we are all the same":confused: Even on the most simple level you can hang around different races of people and see obvious differences in the way they act on so many different levels.

For some of the most insane among you it almost seems similar to people who want so desperately to believe there is an afterlife or a higher power or something similar. The difference is that I can understand the need for those beliefs.

[Fade the Butcher]

There is no doubt that are going to be some differences between different populations.

That would make sense.

Howver, it is worth noting that social 'races' do not correspond very well with genetic populations, generally speaking.

This is false.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/10/rushton_revisit.php

"Neil Risch, widely regarded as one of the world’s leading geneticists, has been a key figure in the still emotion-charged debate. Mr. Risch has argued that small genetic differences have evolved between races because of the geographic isolation of generations of sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasians, Asians, Pacific Islanders and Native Americans.

Mr. Risch has shown that researchers, by analyzing DNA, can correctly match an individual’s self-described race in 99.9 per cent of cases. There was a greater chance, he said, that researchers would incorrectly guess an individual’s self-described gender.

“There is great validity in racial/ethnic self-categorizations, both from research and public policy points of view,” Mr. Risch, now director of the Center for Human Genetics at the University of California, concluded in a 2002 paper in Nature Genetics."

That said, there is no consistent indication that heredity is a big factor in the varying achievements of members of different races.

This is false.

Even if there are some negligable difference in intelligence and abilities between races, it is but a question of probability, and would probably have no real impact on an individual basis.

This doesn't follow.

Finally, the overwhelming majority of differences between races probably are caused by social upbringing more than anything else.

As someone who grew up in a multiracial area, I am sick of hearing you throw this crap around. I want you to tell precisely what these social factors are that have such a strong racial correlation that give rise to such observarable differences.

For instance, I think it is most probable that African-American culture, which is a reaction to denied opportunies, racism and hundreds of years of oppression, is not terribly conducive to the enthusiasm for work and self-esteem necessary to rise to higher social standing.

Define 'African-American' culture. Explain this myth to me. I have never understood it. I was under the impression that black and white Americans: 1.) spoke the same language 2.) shared the same religion 3.) shared the same political ideology 4.) listened to the same music 5.) eat the same foods 6.) attend the same schools 6.) watch the same television programs and so on.

The poverty of Blacks in the US, largely caused by old oppression, must also be a big factor in explaining their academic failures, not to mention racism of course.

This is absurd. I have already pointed out in the history forum how Eastern Europeans who are far poorer in blacks score far higher on international comparisons of science and mathematic scores.

[Fade the Butcher]

Let's dispel the myth right now that poverty causes black academic underperformance. My post in this history forum:

I would be more than happy to discuss Central and Eastern Europe with you. How are Central and Eastern Europeans comparable to black Africans and black Americans? I will assume you are insinuating here that Eastern Europeans are on the same intellectual level as Africans. Let's start with Russia, as you introduced Russia into this conversation. Take the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study for example. In 2003, the average mathematics score of the typical Russian eighth grade student was 508. The average mathematics score of the typical American eighth grade student was 504. Estonia: 531. Latvia: 508. Lithuania: 502. Slovakia: 508 Hungary: 529

This isn't telling us the whole truth though. Virtually all Russian eighth grade students are white. American students are of all races. The typical racist might assume here than America's nonwhite students are depressing the U.S. average in this respect. Is that an unfounded assumption? No. It's true. We can break the American average down racially: the average mathematics score of white eighth graders was 524 and the average score of black eighth graders was 448.

So tell us: how is that black American eighth grade students in America scored 60 points below the average Russian eighth grade student in mathematics? Is poverty and lack of funding to blame? Russians are far poorer than black Americans but outscore them. American public schools are far better funded than Russian schools too.

What about African countries? You wanted to compare Russia to Africa, right? I pointed out above that the average mathematics score of the typical Russian eighth grade student was 508. Let's put that into context here. Botswana: 366. Ghana: 276. South Africa: 264.

What about other age groups? Let's compare average mathematics scores of fourth graders on an international basis. Latvia: 536. Lithuania: 524. Russia: 532. Hungary 529. America: 518 . What does the American average look like broken down on a racial basis? White American: 542. Black American: 472.

Let's move on to science. Here are the average fourth grade science scores on an international basis. United States: 536. Latvia: 532. Hungary: 530. Russia: 526. Lithuania: 512. White American: 565. Black American: 487. Here are the average eighth grade science scores. Estonia: 552. Hungary: 543. United States: 527. Slovenia: 520. Lithuania: 519. Slovakia: 517. Russia: 514. Latvia: 512. Botswana: 365. Ghana: 255. South Africa: 244. White American: 552. Black American: 462.

[Helios Panoptes]

Howver, it is worth noting that social 'races' do not correspond very well with genetic populations, generally speaking.

We took great pains to provide you with information destroying Lewintin's argument against race being taxonomically valid in the other topic, but you cling to it still. Have you any intellectual integrity at all? Guess not. Your mendacious behavior disgusts me.

[Jonathan]

As someone who grew up in a multiracial area, I am sick of hearing you throw this crap around. I want you to tell precisely what these social factors are that have such a strong racial correlation that give rise to such observarable differences.
As someone who grew up in a racially/ethnically/genetically homogeneous area (country), I can say that there are plenty of observable consistencies and disparities between certain groups and individuals which obviously don't come from racial/genetic difference, and are thus surely the product of various other stimuli including social factors.

[Professor John Frink]

There is no doubt that are going to be some differences between different populations. Howver, it is worth noting that social 'races' do not correspond very well with genetic populations, generally speaking.



This is false. "Races" correspond almost perfectly with genetic populations. A study conducted at Stanford says:

"What makes the current study, published in the February issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, more conclusive is its size. The study is by far the largest, consisting of 3,636 people who all identified themselves as either white, African-American, East Asian or Hispanic. Of these, only five individuals had DNA that matched an ethnic group different than the box they checked at the beginning of the study. That's an error rate of 0.14 percent.

According to Neil Risch, PhD, a UCSF professor who led the study while he was professor of genetics at Stanford, the findings are particularly surprising given that people in both African-American and Hispanic ethnic groups often have a mixed background. "We might expect these individuals to cross several different genetic clusters," Risch said. This is especially true for Hispanics who are often a mix of Native American, white and African-American ancestry. But that's not what the study found. Instead, each self-identified racial/ethnic group clumped into the same genetic cluster."

More: http://mednews.stanford.edu/releases/2005/january/racial-data.htm


X-Q. Liu's study arrived at the same conclusion. There were 10 mis-assigned individuals out of 1,334, 4 of them likely of mixed recent ethnicity. Summary of the study: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1529-8817.2005.00255.x?journalCode=ahg

[Professor John Frink]

On a general note:

A Family Tree in Every Gene

By ARMAND MARIE LEROI
Published: March 14, 2005

London - Shortly after last year's tsunami devastated the lands on the Indian Ocean, The Times of India ran an article with this headline: "Tsunami May Have Rendered Threatened Tribes Extinct." The tribes in question were the Onge, Jarawa, Great Andamanese and Sentinelese - all living on the Andaman Islands - and they numbered some 400 people in all. The article, noting that several of the archipelago's islands were low-lying, in the direct path of the wave, and that casualties were expected to be high, said, "Some beads may have just gone missing from the Emerald Necklace of India."



The metaphor is as colorful as it is well intentioned. But what exactly does it mean? After all, in a catastrophe that cost more than 150,000 lives, why should the survival of a few hundred tribal people have any special claim on our attention? There are several possible answers to this question. The people of the Andamans have a unique way of life. True, their material culture does not extend beyond a few simple tools, and their visual art is confined to a few geometrical motifs, but they are hunter-gatherers and so a rarity in the modern world. Linguists, too, find them interesting since they collectively speak three languages seemingly unrelated to any others. But the Times of India took a slightly different tack. These tribes are special, it said, because they are of "Negrito racial stocks" that are "remnants of the oldest human populations of Asia and Australia."



It's an old-fashioned, even Victorian, sentiment. Who speaks of "racial stocks" anymore? After all, to do so would be to speak of something that many scientists and scholars say does not exist. If modern anthropologists mention the concept of race, it is invariably only to warn against and dismiss it. Likewise many geneticists. "Race is social concept, not a scientific one," according to Dr. Craig Venter - and he should know, since he was first to sequence the human genome. The idea that human races are only social constructs has been the consensus for at least 30 years.



But now, perhaps, that is about to change. Last fall, the prestigious journal Nature Genetics devoted a large supplement to the question of whether human races exist and, if so, what they mean. The journal did this in part because various American health agencies are making race an important part of their policies to best protect the public - often over the protests of scientists. In the supplement, some two dozen geneticists offered their views. Beneath the jargon, cautious phrases and academic courtesies, one thing was clear: the consensus about social constructs was unraveling. Some even argued that, looked at the right way, genetic data show that races clearly do exist.



The dominance of the social construct theory can be traced to a 1972 article by Dr. Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist, who wrote that most human genetic variation can be found within any given "race." If one looked at genes rather than faces, he claimed, the difference between an African and a European would be scarcely greater than the difference between any two Europeans. A few years later he wrote that the continued popularity of race as an idea was an "indication of the power of socioeconomically based ideology over the supposed objectivity of knowledge." Most scientists are thoughtful, liberal-minded and socially aware people. It was just what they wanted to hear.



Three decades later, it seems that Dr. Lewontin's facts were correct, and have been abundantly confirmed by ever better techniques of detecting genetic variety. His reasoning, however, was wrong. His error was an elementary one, but such was the appeal of his argument that it was only a couple of years ago that a Cambridge University statistician, A. W. F. Edwards, put his finger on it.



The error is easily illustrated. If one were asked to judge the ancestry of 100 New Yorkers, one could look at the color of their skin. That would do much to single out the Europeans, but little to distinguish the Senegalese from the Solomon Islanders. The same is true for any other feature of our bodies. The shapes of our eyes, noses and skulls; the color of our eyes and our hair; the heaviness, height and hairiness of our bodies are all, individually, poor guides to ancestry.



But this is not true when the features are taken together. Certain skin colors tend to go with certain kinds of eyes, noses, skulls and bodies. When we glance at a stranger's face we use those associations to infer what continent, or even what country, he or his ancestors came from - and we usually get it right. To put it more abstractly, human physical variation is correlated; and correlations contain information.



Genetic variants that aren't written on our faces, but that can be detected only in the genome, show similar correlations. It is these correlations that Dr. Lewontin seems to have ignored. In essence, he looked at one gene at a time and failed to see races. But if many - a few hundred - variable genes are considered simultaneously, then it is very easy to do so. Indeed, a 2002 study by scientists at the University of Southern California and Stanford showed that if a sample of people from around the world are sorted by computer into five groups on the basis of genetic similarity, the groups that emerge are native to Europe, East Asia, Africa, America and Australasia - more or less the major races of traditional anthropology.



One of the minor pleasures of this discovery is a new kind of genealogy. Today it is easy to find out where your ancestors came from - or even when they came, as with so many of us, from several different places. If you want to know what fraction of your genes are African, European or East Asian, all it takes is a mouth swab, a postage stamp and $400 - though prices will certainly fall.



Yet there is nothing very fundamental about the concept of the major continental races; they're just the easiest way to divide things up. Study enough genes in enough people and one could sort the world's population into 10, 100, perhaps 1,000 groups, each located somewhere on the map. This has not yet been done with any precision, but it will be. Soon it may be possible to identify your ancestors not merely as African or European, but Ibo or Yoruba, perhaps even Celt or Castilian, or all of the above.



The identification of racial origins is not a search for purity. The human species is irredeemably promiscuous. We have always seduced or coerced our neighbors even when they have a foreign look about them and we don't understand a word. If Hispanics, for example, are composed of a recent and evolving blend of European, American Indian and African genes, then the Uighurs of Central Asia can be seen as a 3,000-year-old mix of West European and East Asian genes. Even homogenous groups like native Swedes bear the genetic imprint of successive nameless migrations.



Some critics believe that these ambiguities render the very notion of race worthless. I disagree. The physical topography of our world cannot be accurately described in words. To navigate it, you need a map with elevations, contour lines and reference grids. But it is hard to talk in numbers, and so we give the world's more prominent features - the mountain ranges and plateaus and plains - names. We do so despite the inherent ambiguity of words. The Pennines of northern England are about one-tenth as high and long as the Himalayas, yet both are intelligibly described as mountain ranges.



So, too, it is with the genetic topography of our species. The billion or so of the world's people of largely European descent have a set of genetic variants in common that are collectively rare in everyone else; they are a race. At a smaller scale, three million Basques do as well; so they are a race as well. Race is merely a shorthand that enables us to speak sensibly, though with no great precision, about genetic rather than cultural or political differences.



But it is a shorthand that seems to be needed. One of the more painful spectacles of modern science is that of human geneticists piously disavowing the existence of races even as they investigate the genetic relationships between "ethnic groups." Given the problematic, even vicious, history of the word "race," the use of euphemisms is understandable. But it hardly aids understanding, for the term "ethnic group" conflates all the possible ways in which people differ from each other.



Indeed, the recognition that races are real should have several benefits. To begin with, it would remove the disjunction in which the government and public alike defiantly embrace categories that many, perhaps most, scholars and scientists say do not exist.



Second, the recognition of race may improve medical care. Different races are prone to different diseases. The risk that an African-American man will be afflicted with hypertensive heart disease or prostate cancer is nearly three times greater than that for a European-American man. On the other hand, the former's risk of multiple sclerosis is only half as great. Such differences could be due to socioeconomic factors. Even so, geneticists have started searching for racial differences in the frequencies of genetic variants that cause diseases. They seem to be finding them.



Race can also affect treatment. African-Americans respond poorly to some of the main drugs used to treat heart conditions - notably beta blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Pharmaceutical corporations are paying attention. Many new drugs now come labeled with warnings that they may not work in some ethnic or racial groups. Here, as so often, the mere prospect of litigation has concentrated minds.



Such differences are, of course, just differences in average. Everyone agrees that race is a crude way of predicting who gets some disease or responds to some treatment. Ideally, we would all have our genomes sequenced before swallowing so much as an aspirin. Yet until that is technically feasible, we can expect racial classifications to play an increasing part in health care.



The argument for the importance of race, however, does not rest purely on utilitarian grounds. There is also an aesthetic factor. We are a physically variable species. Yet for all the triumphs of modern genetics, we know next to nothing about what makes us so. We do not know why some people have prominent rather than flat noses, round rather than pointed skulls, wide rather than narrow faces, straight rather than curly hair. We do not know what makes blue eyes blue.



One way to find out would be to study people of mixed race ancestry. In part, this is because racial differences in looks are the most striking that we see. But there is also a more subtle technical reason. When geneticists map genes, they rely on the fact that they can follow our ancestors' chromosomes as they get passed from one generation to the next, dividing and mixing in unpredictable combinations. That, it turns out, is much easier to do in people whose ancestors came from very different places.



The technique is called admixture mapping. Developed to find the genes responsible for racial differences in inherited disease, it is only just moving from theory to application. But through it, we may be able to write the genetic recipe for the fair hair of a Norwegian, the black-verging-on-purple skin of a Solomon Islander, the flat face of an Inuit, and the curved eyelid of a Han Chinese. We shall no longer gawp ignorantly at the gallery; we shall be able to name the painters.



There is a final reason race matters. It gives us reason - if there were not reason enough already - to value and protect some of the world's most obscure and marginalized people. When the Times of India article referred to the Andaman Islanders as being of ancient Negrito racial stock, the terminology was correct. Negrito is the name given by anthropologists to a people who once lived throughout Southeast Asia. They are very small, very dark, and have peppercorn hair. They look like African pygmies who have wandered away from Congo's jungles to take up life on a tropical isle. But they are not.



The latest genetic data suggest that the Negritos are descended from the first modern humans to have invaded Asia, some 100,000 years ago. In time they were overrun or absorbed by waves of Neolithic agriculturalists, and later nearly wiped out by British, Spanish and Indian colonialists. Now they are confined to the Malay Peninsula, a few islands in the Philippines and the Andamans.



Happily, most of the Andamans' Negritos seem to have survived December's tsunami. The fate of one tribe, the Sentinelese, remains uncertain, but an Indian coast guard helicopter sent to check up on them came under bow and arrow attack, which is heartening. Even so, Negrito populations, wherever they are, are so small, isolated and impoverished that it seems certain that they will eventually disappear.



Yet even after they have gone, the genetic variants that defined the Negritos will remain, albeit scattered, in the people who inhabit the littoral of the Bay of Bengal and the South China Sea. They will remain visible in the unusually dark skin of some Indonesians, the unusually curly hair of some Sri Lankans, the unusually slight frames of some Filipinos. But the unique combination of genes that makes the Negritos so distinctive, and that took tens of thousands of years to evolve, will have disappeared. A human race will have gone extinct, and the human species will be the poorer for it.



Armand Marie Leroi, an evolutionary developmental biologist at Imperial College in London, is the author of "Mutants: On Genetic Variety and the Human Body.

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/opinion/14leroi.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26pagewantedQ3D1&OP=1ac5ecd7Q2Fl_cWlZQ20KRHQ20Q20TPlPDD3lDhlvIlQ20Q24Q3BQ51Q3BQ20Q51lvIQ5BcHQ20Q3BgQ22TaQ5B

alternative link: http://courses.biology.utah.edu/jorgensen/2030/opinion/Races%20OpEd.htm

[Ahknaton]

As someone who grew up in a racially/ethnically/genetically homogeneous area (country), I can say that there are plenty of observable consistencies and disparities between certain groups and individuals which obviously don't come from racial/genetic difference, and are thus surely the product of various other stimuli including social factors.
This is true, but it really goes without saying doesn't it? Not even the most hardline biological determinists suggest that all human variation is attributable to racial or genetic differences. The bone of contention is whether or not meaningful racial differences exist at all, not whether they account for all consistencies and disparities between groups.

[Jonathan]

This is true, but it really goes without saying doesn't it?
You'd think that wouldn't you. But there's no harm in saying it every now and again.:)

[humanist]

I want references, and specifically I want dates. The GI IQ tests from the inter-war period are often cited, despite being utterly discredited.

I am sorry but you people have a mountain to climb, because not only do you have to assert that science is wrong, but you also have to then assert a global conspiracy keeping these "facts" hidden.

And let us make no mistake, thats what this argument is, a conspiracy theory. For example, regarding the documentation that you people have used in regard to brain size... female brains are consistently smaller than male brains. Famously, however, girls perform substantially better than boys in school for academic subjects!! This appears to invalidate your "data" immediately - clealry, there is no real basis for expecting sheer size to be a strict determinant. Is size even relevant? I understand the current thinking is that it is the complexity in folding, that is surface area, not mass, which is more significant.

These sorts of subtleties get lost when an argument is being CONSTRUCTED with the intent of demonstrating a racist thesis.

[Gleb]

Let's dispel the myth right now that poverty causes black academic underperformance. My post in this history forum:

Could you please post a source for those numbers? I find them hard to believe, there is no way white Americans score that much higher than their E. European counterparts. I would expect it to be the opposite to tell the truth.
What kind of schools are being compared, is it private American vs public Russian or? If it is public vs public, there is no way it is possible. What kind of test, what are the age groups etc? 8th grader in America is older than the Russian 8th grader as far as I know.

Russian 8th grader is 13 years old.

[Jonathan]

I am sorry but you people have a mountain to climb
Who are you talking to specifically?

[jcs]

Who are you talking to specifically?
The politically correct consensus in the scientific community is against 'we people,' those who think that race exists and is a meaningful concept, hence we must prove basic genetics. So we have to demonstrate that a direct implication of the science every biologist draws upon is correct... That's one big mountain :rolleyes:

[Fade the Butcher]

No problem.

http://nces.ed.gov/timss/

[humanist]

In refutation of FadeTheButcher and Trig:"What makes the current study, published in the February issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, more conclusive is its size. The study is by far the largest, consisting of 3,636 people who all identified themselves as either white, African-American, East Asian or Hispanic. Of these, only five individuals had DNA that matched an ethnic group different than the box they checked at the beginning of the study. That's an error rate of 0.14 percent.

Maybe we should indicate some of the variation in social definitions of race, who contradict each other, and therefore how they cannot correspond all that well to any objective definition of race! Let's see:
- America: Whites are "pure", Blacks includes those with very considerable white ancestry, up to (approximately, as with all social definitions) 3/4
- Brazil: somewhat graduated racial divisions, being closely linked to status and appearance (respectability, hair straightening, etc) to the extent that individuals of the same parents can be considered different races
- South Africa: a "hard" division into White, mixed-race (coloured) and Black.

This is just the more Western social definitions of race, and leaves out similarly arbitrary definitions in Malaysia, Singapore, the Phillipines or the Sudan (to name a few with yet more different racial definitions). If the social definitions contradict each other, then they are clearly not objective. (Without getting into the details of how besides that, all social definitions--rather than legal--are phenotypic while any objective biological definition of race would be genotypic.)

This doesn't follow.
Why? Even supposing in the unlikely event that there are biological mental differences between races, it is a question of percentiles with extremely limited impact on an individual basis.

Define 'African-American' culture. Explain this myth to me. I have never understood it. I was under the impression that black and white Americans: 1.) spoke the same language 2.) shared the same religion 3.) shared the same political ideology 4.) listened to the same music 5.) eat the same foods 6.) attend the same schools 6.) watch the same television programs and so on.
When I say "culture", I would be more accurate in saying "sub-culture", that is attitudes and norms acquired from the fact that peoples of socially constructed races form their own little sub-communities whose cultures differ from mainstream (or White) society.

Living in these subcommunities, for many Blacks but it's very difficult to generalize, entail a few things:
- rejection of authority (crime)
- Poverty, and the normalization of it, indeed, something to be proud of
- feelings of, and actual, discrimination: no incentive to work
- Self-destructive attitudes towards one another
- Self-hate, lack of self-esteem and feelings of no potential

I say these things from personal experience with British Blacks, and I strongly suspect these aspects are in fact far stronger in African Americans.

To deny subcultures, especially racial ones, is counter-productive. They do exist. I also want stress that "African-American" subculture has virtually nothing to do with Africa. (except, perhaps, Jazz and insofar as African-Americans have unrealistic and romantic back-to-Africa aspirations)

Also, with regards to schools, it's worth noting that most American schools are funded by property taxes, and, it goes without saying, that American Blacks have a lot less property to tax than Whites. (nevermind private and religious schools) The statistic for African nations, furthermore, seem indicative that socio-economic factors are at work, as, you would allege, that American Blacks are genetically equivalent to African Blacks, and yet there's a 100 point difference. Also, hard economics can't always translate into quality of education, especially internationally. (the Soviet Union had a very good education system after all, and though I'm quite ignorant of Russian education, I imagine they still have considerable expertise in the matter)

On a societal level, it seems equally implausible that race is a large factor. The history of Europe is meaningless racially, unless somehow around 1492 the Europeans get a lot Whiter. Similarly, it doesn't account for flourishing Arab and Turkish medieval and early modern culture, nor indeed for the dramatic differences in economic performance between Asian countries. I think we can establish that on a societal level, the impact of race is negligeable.

[Fade the Butcher]

Why? Even supposing in the unlikely event that there are biological mental differences between races, it is a question of percentiles with extremely limited impact on an individual basis.

*sigh*

This is becoming tiresome. What you are saying amounts to this: in the event that racial populations differ substantially in general mental ability, then this is unlikely to have much of an effect on an individual basis (e.g., people with really low IQs have no problem succeeding in life). Lack of intelligence tracks with all sorts of from social ills from poverty to violent crime.

When I say "culture", I would be more accurate in saying "sub-culture", that is attitudes and norms acquired from the fact that peoples of socially constructed races form their own little sub-communities whose cultures differ from mainstream (or White) society.

I see you are already backtracking. The gallery should take note of that. In reality, black and white Americans share essentially the same culture, as I have shown. But let us discuss the "subculture" that you are now positing (which just happens to coincide with racial divisions, I might add). I would love to see these social characteristics that blacks possess that whites apparently do not.

Living in these subcommunities, for many Blacks but it's very difficult to generalize, entail a few things

It is very difficult to generalize because you are relying upon a bogus construct to explain black/white differences.

rejection of authority (crime)

Most blacks are not criminals. The expressionist rejection of authority is a common cultural theme in America that is hardly specific to blacks.

Poverty, and the normalization of it, indeed, something to be proud of

There are far more poor whites in America than poor blacks. In any case, most blacks are not poor. Poverty can't explain black underperformance.

feelings of, and actual, discrimination: no incentive to work

This is a stereotype. Most American blacks are employed.

Self-destructive attitudes towards one another

What do you mean by this?

Self-hate, lack of self-esteem and feelings of no potential

Where is your evidence that blacks hate themselves or lack self-esteem?

I say these things from personal experience with British Blacks, and I strongly suspect these aspects are in fact far stronger in African Americans.

The culture myth once again falls apart under scrutiny.

To deny subcultures, especially racial ones, is counter-productive.

If such subcultures exist, then the blacks who are immersed in these subcultures would have to share a typology of characteristics that are not shared by whites. Furthermore, you would have to establish a causal link between such subcultures and black underperformance, that is, you would have to demonstrate that such characteristics are causes as opposed to effects.

They do exist.

This is a myth. The most prominent example that comes to mind when most people think of a black subculture is undoubtedly rap and hip hop music. Yet even in this case millions of whites purchase such CDs.

I also want stress that "African-American" subculture has virtually nothing to do with Africa. (except, perhaps, Jazz and insofar as African-Americans have unrealistic and romantic back-to-Africa aspirations)

How many "African-Americans" listen to jazz?

Also, with regards to schools, it's worth noting that most American schools are funded by property taxes, and, it goes without saying, that American Blacks have a lot less property to tax than Whites. (nevermind private and religious schools)

Let's dispel the myth that black academic underperformance can be attributed to lack of funding. The predominantly black primary schools of the federal district of Washington, D.C. are funded by Congress. They grossly underperform relative to predominantly white schools in states like Iowa and Minnesota that receive substantially less funding. In fact, there is no real evidence that funding is even the predominant factor in academic performance in America, as the states with the best public schools are not those that spend the most money per student on education.

The statistic for African nations, furthermore, seem indicative that socio-economic factors are at work, as, you would allege, that American Blacks are genetically equivalent to African Blacks, and yet there's a 100 point difference.

This is a straw man. American blacks are typically about a quarter European in their ancestry.

Also, hard economics can't always translate into quality of education, especially internationally.

Are you suggesting here that Russian per pupil spending is higher than per pupil spending on black students in America?

the Soviet Union had a very good education system after all, and though I'm quite ignorant of Russian education, I imagine they still have considerable expertise in the matter.

This is an irrelevancy, as the data cited above comes from Russian 4th and 8th graders. These children were not even alive before the collapse of the USSR.

On a societal level, it seems equally implausible that race is a large factor.

The drastic discrepencies in test scores would seem to indicate otherwise. Most blacks attend in America attend integrated schools. The white students who attend these same schools, who are taught the same cirriculum, and who are instructed by the same teachers significantly outperform them.

The history of Europe is meaningless racially, unless somehow around 1492 the Europeans get a lot Whiter.

I am not sure what you are getting at here.

Similarly, it doesn't account for flourishing Arab and Turkish medieval and early modern culture, nor indeed for the dramatic differences in economic performance between Asian countries.

Science was arrested in the Islamic world from the 13th century on.

I think we can establish that on a societal level, the impact of race is negligeable.

This has not been established.

[Gleb]

No problem.

http://nces.ed.gov/timss/

Very interesting, thanks. How old is an American 8th grader?

[Fade the Butcher]

Very interesting, thanks. How old is an American 8th grader?Around thirteen or fourteen if I recall.

[Dan Dare]

American children generally start elementary school at six, compared to five in Europe.

They tend to stay in school longer though, until they are 18, compared to 16 in many European countries.

[Gleb]

American children generally start elementary school at six, compared to five in Europe.


Russian children start school at six as well, but for some reason there is no such thing as 4th grade, after 3rd grade everyone goes to 5th, so 8th grade in reality is 7th year of education. It hasn't always been like that, I think it was introduced in the 80's. And they stay in school until they are 16 in 11th grade.

[Professor John Frink]

In refutation of FadeTheButcher and Trig:

Maybe we should indicate some of the variation in social definitions of race, who contradict each other, and therefore how they cannot correspond all that well to any objective definition of race! Let's see:
- America: Whites are "pure", Blacks includes those with very considerable white ancestry, up to (approximately, as with all social definitions) 3/4
- Brazil: somewhat graduated racial divisions, being closely linked to status and appearance (respectability, hair straightening, etc) to the extent that individuals of the same parents can be considered different races
- South Africa: a "hard" division into White, mixed-race (coloured) and Black.

This is just the more Western social definitions of race, and leaves out similarly arbitrary definitions in Malaysia, Singapore, the Phillipines or the Sudan (to name a few with yet more different racial definitions). If the social definitions contradict each other, then they are clearly not objective. (Without getting into the details of how besides that, all social definitions--rather than legal--are phenotypic while any objective biological definition of race would be genotypic.)



Obviously, I was talking about the major racial types in traditional physical anthropology. How different societies treat or classify mixed-race individuals is up to them.

[humanist]

First of all, I am disappointed that no one has addressed the part of my post in which I prove that race is a social construct. I guess they are tacitly admitting that I'm right.

In refutation of FadeTheButcher:What you are saying amounts to this: in the event that racial populations differ substantially in general mental ability, then this is unlikely to have much of an effect on an individual basis (e.g., people with really low IQs have no problem succeeding in life).

Rather, I was saying that if there is, say, a biologically caused (by no means proven) 1% difference in IQ on average, it would be impossible to notice any difference on an individual basis.

That is, if you want to discriminate against people based on something, say, IQ, it would not make sense to do so on the racial level, but on the person's actual IQ. Even the most racist bell curve theories admit there is considerable overlap in the intelligence of the populations of different races.

But let's discuss the "subculture" that you are now positing (which just happens to coincide with racial divisions, I might add). I would love to see these social characteristics that blacks possess that whites apparently do not.
Obviously they coincide with the social definitions of race. Obviously. Racial subcultures are created by racially defined communities.

Does that have any relation with biology? Maybe, maybe not, it is worth point out that a 3/4 white, 1/4 black man is likely to think of himself as part of black subculture.

Where is your evidence that blacks hate themselves or lack self-esteem?
Have you any experience with Western Blacks? That is, have you ever heard the way they cuss each other the way they do? They are snappy and a bit vicious, only half-serious when they do it, but I suspect it is a way of destroying each other so they boost their own self-esteem. (in fact, one Black British I knew told me how, having being raised in a White-majority school, she had a lot of trouble (at first) dealing with psychological impact of changing to a Black/ethnic majority school, in which snappy jokes and cussing are far more common)

Or have you read any literature on the topic? There is a wealth of passionate Black literature describing themes like how many (Western) Blacks want to be White (the Bluest Eye, also, the film Manderlay) because they have been taught (by both Blacks and Whites) that being Black is a nasty thing associated with stupidity, sexual bestiality, laziness and ugliness. It is also seen in how some Black girls go through a phase in which they reject Black boys, because Black youth is seen as associated with crime, violence and generally being badness. (I do not need to point to hiphop culture or one of my friends who described his racial problems as he is Black but went to a white school and having to deal with his Black friends who saw this as a "surrender".) None of which has a single relation to reality. It is also seen in that those Blacks who want to help their race rise up and become succesful have to resort to mottos who fairly explicitly attack the notion that Blackness and is hopeless or negative, including "Black is Beautiful" or a magazine aimed at Blacks called "Talent".

I take this problem of self-esteem to be self-evident.

If such subcultures exist, then the blacks who are immersed in these subcultures would have to share a typology of characteristics that are not shared by whites. Furthermore, you would have to establish a causal link between such subcultures and black underperformance, that is, you would have to demonstrate that such characteristics are causes as opposed to effects.
Given that the sources of their subculture are a reaction to racism and oppression, and the elements I have been able to identify (catharsis/learning to deal with pain, i.e. soul and blues), a sense of an oppressive society and life with opportunity (legitimates violence, crime and laziness) and lack of self-esteem.

This is obviously not terribly scientific, little social history is, but the point is that, generally speaking, culture has a far bigger impact on societies than biology and I am inclined to believe that culture, self-perception and perception of Blacks has a huge impact on their performance.

How many "African-Americans" listen to jazz?
What does that have to do with anything? Jazz music was invented by Black people -- this was my point, and some claim it has origins in West African music.

Are you suggesting here that Russian per pupil spending is higher than per pupil spending on black students in America?

Or maybe I was suggesting the exact opposite.

I am not sure what you are getting at here.

My point is that in terms of the history of societies, culture and institutions (structure) have been far more important than biology, which suggests that the same thing holds true today.

[Fade the Butcher]

First of all, I am disappointed that no one has addressed the part of my post in which I prove that race is a social construct. I guess they are tacitly admitting that I'm right.

I have addressed this claim in the other thread. Race is not a "social construct." Race is an objective biological fact. The race of an individual can be determined with 99.9% accuracy with a mere sample of his/her blood. That is utterly impossible if race was a mere construct of arbitrary characteristics.

Rather, I was saying that if there is, say, a biologically caused (by no means proven) 1% difference in IQ on average, it would be impossible to notice any difference on an individual basis.

I still have no idea where you acquired this notion of yours that there is a 1% difference in distribution of intelligence between racial populations. I am still waiting for a source of that claim. This is easily observable on an individual basis too. It shows up on g-loaded tests of reaction time.

That is, if you want to discriminate against people based on something, say, IQ, it would not make sense to do so on the racial level, but on the person's actual IQ.

No. It would not make sense to discriminate on an individual basis with respect to IQ. It wouldn't solve the problem, as couples with high IQs would just have children with lower IQs.

Even the most racist bell curve theories admit there is considerable overlap in the intelligence of the populations of different races.

This is true. It is also true that this is rendered irrelevant by regression to the mean. That is why group averages are so much more important from the standpoint of public policy than individuals whose lifespans are limited in any case.

Obviously they coincide with the social definitions of race.

The existence of such a distinct subculture specific to blacks has not been demonstrated, nor has its relevance to racial inequality.

Obviously. Racial subcultures are created by racially defined communities.

Where are these racially defined communities in America?

Does that have any relation with biology?

I still haven't seen any evidence of this distinct subculture, still less any proof of its hypothesized salience.

Maybe, maybe not, it is worth point out that a 3/4 white, 1/4 black man is likely to think of himself as part of black subculture.

This black subculture is a myth.

Have you any experience with Western Blacks?

I grew up in an area that was roughly 50% black.

That is, have you ever heard the way they cuss each other the way they do?

What the hell does cussing have to do with a culture peculiar to blacks?

They are snappy and a bit vicious, only half-serious when they do it, but I suspect it is a way of destroying each other so they boost their own self-esteem.

This sounds like a racist stereotype to me.

(in fact, one Black British I knew told me how, having being raised in a White-majority school, she had a lot of trouble (at first) dealing with psychological impact of changing to a Black/ethnic majority school, in which snappy jokes and cussing are far more common)

I am not interested in your personal anecdotes. I want to see evidence that such a black subculture exists and that contemporary racial inequities can be attributed to it. You can fairly point out that I am asking too much of you, as it is impossible for you to demonstrate something that doesn't exist in the first place.

Or have you read any literature on the topic?

I want a definition of this "black subculture." I want to see proof that this typology of characteristics is exclusive to blacks and is responsible for their underperformance relative to whites.

There is a wealth of passionate Black literature describing themes like how many (Western) Blacks want to be White (the Bluest Eye, also, the film Manderlay) because they have been taught (by both Blacks and Whites) that being Black is a nasty thing associated with stupidity, sexual bestiality, laziness and ugliness.

See above.

It is also seen in how some Black girls go through a phase in which they reject Black boys, because Black youth is seen as associated with crime, violence and generally being badness.

Blacks are associated with violence and crime.

(I do not need to point to hiphop culture or one of my friends who described his racial problems as he is Black but went to a white school and having to deal with his Black friends who saw this as a "surrender".)

What did I say about personal anecdotes?

None of which has a single relation to reality. It is also seen in that those Blacks who want to help their race rise up and become succesful have to resort to mottos who fairly explicitly attack the notion that Blackness and is hopeless or negative, including "Black is Beautiful" or a magazine aimed at Blacks called "Talent".

LOL

I take this problem of self-esteem to be self-evident.

There is nothing self evident about this argument of yours that blacks lack self esteem. Cite psychological studies to buttress your argument or have it dismissed as arbitrary.

Given that the sources of their subculture are a reaction to racism and oppression

Whatever. Blacks are not a part of any distinct culture in the United States.

and the elements I have been able to identify (catharsis/learning to deal with pain, i.e. soul and blues), a sense of an oppressive society and life with opportunity (legitimates violence, crime and laziness) and lack of self-esteem.

You are spinning a racial stereotype here that has no basis in fact whatsoever.

This is obviously not terribly scientific

It is not even remotely scientific.

little social history is, but the point is that, generally speaking, culture has a far bigger impact on societies than biology and I am inclined to believe that culture, self-perception and perception of Blacks has a huge impact on their performance.

I have already pointed out that blacks and whites share the same culture in America. They speak the same language, follow the same religion, eat the same foods, worship the same God, have the same political beliefs, attend the same schools, are taught the same things, partake in the same customs, celebrate the same holidays and so on. You also failed to mention the fact that Asian Americans are far more self critical and more likely to suffer from depression than blacks.

What does that have to do with anything? Jazz music was invented by Black people -- this was my point, and some claim it has origins in West African music.

I don't care about the origins of jazz. The vast majority of blacks don't listen to either blues or jazz.

Or maybe I was suggesting the exact opposite.

Is it fair to say that America spends far and away more money on each individual black student than impoverished Eastern European countries do on their students?

My point is that in terms of the history of societies, culture and institutions (structure) have been far more important than biology, which suggests that the same thing holds true today.

No. This does not make sense at all and it is not reflected empirically either. If that were the case, then white American students would track far closer to black American students than to racially similar populations in Europe who do not share the same culture.

[Professor John Frink]

First of all, I am disappointed that no one has addressed the part of my post in which I prove that race is a social construct. I guess they are tacitly admitting that I'm right.


Here, I'll repost it just for you: http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=33755


The dominance of the social construct theory can be traced to a 1972 article by Dr. Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist, who wrote that most human genetic variation can be found within any given "race." If one looked at genes rather than faces, he claimed, the difference between an African and a European would be scarcely greater than the difference between any two Europeans. A few years later he wrote that the continued popularity of race as an idea was an "indication of the power of socioeconomically based ideology over the supposed objectivity of knowledge." Most scientists are thoughtful, liberal-minded and socially aware people. It was just what they wanted to hear.

Three decades later, it seems that Dr. Lewontin's facts were correct, and have been abundantly confirmed by ever better techniques of detecting genetic variety. His reasoning, however, was wrong. His error was an elementary one, but such was the appeal of his argument that it was only a couple of years ago that a Cambridge University statistician, A. W. F. Edwards, put his finger on it.

[Charles_Rigaud]

Silly. Blacks in Africa do not suffer from "white racism", but are capable of little more than a very primitive culture.

The most intelligent poster in the history of Phora is back. Now getting back on topic, what proof do you have for this?

[Charles_Rigaud]

"Blacks are associated with violence and crime."

And whites are not? I think you need to check the DOJ statistics before making a generalized erroneous statements about blacks as a whole.


"I don't care about the origins of jazz. The vast majority of blacks don't listen to either blues or jazz."

Then what do the majority blacks listento and do you stats official stats to back anything that you have said? I am black and we do still listen to jazz and the blues alot. You are in no position to speak about what the majority of blacks listen to and don't listen to. Jazz and blues is still popular amongst us, maybe not as popular in the old days, but nonetheless still popular.

[Helios Panoptes]

"Blacks are associated with violence and crime."

And whites are not? I think you need to check the DOJ statistics before making a generalized erroneous statements about blacks as a whole.

No, you need to check the statistics if you do not think that blacks are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of crime.

[Charles_Rigaud]

No, you need to check the statistics if you do not think that blacks are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of crime.

The statement made was that blacks are associated with crime as if to imply other races aren't. Check the stats and you will see that whites of all races are very much associated with crime and violence.

[Helios Panoptes]

The statement made was that blacks are associated with crime as if to imply other races aren't. Check the stats and you will see that whites of all races are very much associated with crime and violence.

The statement was that blacks are associated with crime because they commit a disproportionate amount of it. Only a truly feeble mind would think the implication was that whites don't ever commit crimes.

[Charles_Rigaud]

The statement was that blacks are associated with crime because they commit a disproportionate amount of it. Only a truly feeble mind would think the implication was that whites don't ever commit crimes.

Incorrect, go to the DOJ files. Whites and blacks have similar rates of violence crime, that is 27% of crimes committed by whites and blacks are violent crimes. A one or two percent difference is statistically insignificant. And no, blacks arent associated with crime, to make this statement is to imply that other races are not.

[Helios Panoptes]

Incorrect, go to the DOJ files. Whites and blacks have similar rates of violence crime, that is 27% of crimes committed by whites and blacks are violent crimes. A one or two percent difference is statistically insignificant.

Can you provide me with a link, please?

And no, blacks arent associated with crime, to make this statement is to imply that other races are not.

I already burnt that strawman down. I'm done with it.

[Fade the Butcher]

And whites are not? I think you need to check the DOJ statistics before making a generalized erroneous statements about blacks as a whole.

Whites are underrepresented amongst classes of violent criminals. Blacks are radically overrepresented.

Then what do the majority blacks listento and do you stats official stats to back anything that you have said?

Mostly rap, hip hop, and r & b. We discussed this issue in my "African-American politics class" two years ago.

I am black and we do still listen to jazz and the blues alot.

I am sure this is reflected in record sales.

You are in no position to speak about what the majority of blacks listen to and don't listen to. Jazz and blues is still popular amongst us, maybe not as popular in the old days, but nonetheless still popular.

Do the majority of blacks listen to blues and jazz? Yes or no.

[Charles_Rigaud]

Whites are underrepresented amongst classes of violent criminals. Blacks are radically overrepresented.



Mostly rap, hip hop, and r & b. We discussed this issue in my "African-American politics class" two years ago.

Nonsense, maybe alot of younger black Americans listen to hiphop and R&B but all and not nearly enough for you to make a generalization, just stick to evaluating what white peole listen to.



I am sure this is reflected in record sales.

Well post the relevant stats and quit this crazy guessing game.



Do the majority of blacks listen to blues and jazz? Yes or no.

I told you not all listen to blues and jazz but you can go to most black homes and find jazz CDs more so than blues. Just because the blues isn't listened to as much as it was in the past doesn't change nor diminish the fact that it was blacks who created, thats just non-sequitir on your part.

[Helios Panoptes]

I will show you something: In 2004, most (84.4 percent) arrestees for the commission of a violent crime were adults. By sex, males comprised 82.2 percent of arrestees for violent crime. By race, 60.5 percent of arrestees for violent crime were white and 37.2 percent were black. The remainder were of other races. (See Tables 38, 42, and 43.)

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/

Blacks account for 12.8% of the population, yet 37% of the violent crime arrestees.