Re: What are race promoters promoting?

gkeyes6988@aol.com
25 Nov 1996 14:55:01 GMT

(Susan 1)
Susan S. Chin wrote:
: >My understanding is that races are geographical variants of a species.
: >The morphological differences between populations become greater the
: >farther apart these populations are.

(Greg 1)
gkeyes6988@aol.com wrote:
: This understanding runs into a lot of problems. Ituri pygmies, Bantu,
: !Kung Bushmen and so on all share geographic proximity and are all
: considered part of the "Black" race in the "3 race" typology you put
: forth, but they are divided by profound phenotypic differences. What
they
: have in common is a dark skin pigment and residence on the continent of
: Africa.

(Susan 2)
*Precisely. The 3 African groups you mention, all share dark skin pigment
*as a result of their origin and evolution in the African continent. They
*differ phenotypically likely due to local adaptations to various
*environmental differences in their original habitat(s). I'm not familiar
*with exactly what these habitats were, but it would surprise me if the 3
*phenotypically differing groups share identical evolutionary histories
*and habitats. They may be in geographic proximity today, but were they
*always this way?

(Greg 2)

Phenotypic variation is based upon present environment, not past
environment.
What you mean is that past environments caused a change in gene frequency
(higher frequency of short stature in the Ituri) or, in other words, a
change
in genotype. If the Ituri and the Bantu had similar genotypes, they would
have similar phenotypes because they share a similar developmental
environment.

Assuming that your argument that these three groups originated in
different
local environments that shaped the frequencies of genes in their
respective
populations disparately is true, then in what sense are they all "Negroid"
(
you say, remember, that there are three basic types, and I assume that
this
is
the one all three of these fall into)? This was my original point; that
variation within the so-called "races" is very high once you use any
criteria
other than skin color.

Once again, I agree that there is variation from one human population to
the
next -- it just isn't a bounded variation.

(Susan 1)
: >The similarities between populations
: >are due to similar adaptations to environmental demands.

(Greg 1)
: Since humans use culture to do the bulk of their adapting, actual
: adaptational differences are few (like the sickle cell trait). Most
other
: so-called adaptations to climate are the result of phenotypic plasticity
: or non-adaptive factors like gene drift and the founder affect.

(Susan 2)
*If humans used culture to do the bulk of their adapting, at
*what point did this begin? When we became anatomically modern Homo
*sapiens, we stopped evolving biologically? Obviously the human lineage
*has evolved biologically through time, why would you expect this to stop
*at Homo sapiens? Or at the level of "races"?

(Greg 2)

Note first that I did not say biological adaptation was absent -- on the
contrary, I even gave an example of it (the sickle cell trait is an
adaptation to malaria). What I said is that most adaptations are made
culturally. Amazon basin groups did not adapt physically to eat the
poisonous Manioc root, they developed a technology (cooking) to
make the root edible to their already existing systems. Fire and possibly
clothing -- not a change in metabolism and body temp. -- made it possible
for
H. erectus and later species to leave the tropics (we are all still
physically adapted to an ambient temperature of 81 degrees F., even, the
Inuit
in Greenland). Other variations -- kinky or non-kinky hair, flat or
aquiline
noses, epicanthic folds, the "blue spot", "long" or "round" skulls etc.
may
be the result of "sexual selection" or merely gene drift, but are not
likely
adaptations to a specific environment. Most observable human variation
is
of this sort. Melanesians and Australian aborigines also have dark skin

--

and you are probably right, this is due to a history in the tropics -- but

that doesn't make them evolutionarily very close to either Bantus or

pygmies.

The race concept implies similar characteristics are based on close

genetic

affiliation.





Other 'adaptations' -- such as larger lung cavities in high altitude

populations -- are developmental -- a result of phenotypic plasticity, not

of

a change in gene frequency (evolutionary adaptation).



(though there are some real and interesting -- if minor -- genotypical

adaptations in a few high altitude environments)



(Susan 1)

: >This racial 

: >differentiation occurred once early hominids spread beyond Africa and

the

: >Old World.



(Greg 1)

: This is certainly one view of human origins -- that Homo erectus evolved

: separately into H. sapiens in different places.  This theory has a

number

: of problems.  One is that DNA comparison suggests a much closer

: relationship than that.  Another is that this scenario (various H.

erectus

: species evolving in isolation) would more likely lead to actual

: speciation.  If this had happened, the "races" would not be able to

: interbreed at all.  Finally, the assumption that H. erectus was somehow

: "driven" to involve into H. sapiens wherever they were implies a sort of

: directional evolution which few biologists credit these days. 



(Susan 2)

*I made a very general statement in saying "early hominids spread beyond 

*Africa and the Old World." Are you disputing the idea that the human 

*lineage began in Africa, and spread from there? Early hominids does not 

*imply Homo sapiens!



(Greg 2)

Look at what I said -- I spoke of H. erectus, not sapiens.  The only

pre-sapiens hominid we know left the tropicswas H. erectus -- no habilis

or

Australopithecines in Europe.  So, no I'm not disputing that.  What I

thought

YOU were implying (and perhaps I was wrong)

was a multiregional origin for H. sapiens -- each original "race" evolving

from erectus along separate trajectories due to isolation and then later

mixing so as to blur the original distinction and confuse racial

typologists

.  While acknowledging that this is a hypothesis with some currency (see

M.H.

Wolproff. "Multiregional Evolution: The Fossil Alternative to Eden: in THE

HUMAN EVOLUTION SOURCEBOOK, for instance) I was arguing against it -- at

least at the level of separate origins for H. erectus.  The "Eve" theory,

based on DNA analysis, holds that all humanity shares a common ancestor at

a

time depth of 200,000 years -- in Africa.





(Susan 1)

: > Limited interbreeding between populations lead to these 

: >phenotypic differences which we can easily recognize as a "racial

type," 



(Greg 1)

: First of all, I think you must mean genotypic, for if all differences

are

: phenotypic, there would certainly be no races.  There is unquestionably

: genotypic variation within and between human groups -- it just doesn't

: break sort into easily identifiable  "racial" groups unless skin color

is

: your single criterion.



(Susan 2)

*No, I meant phenotypic. The definition of phenotype used here is "the 

*observable expression of the genotype." Phenotypes are *based* on 

*genotypes, how else would these observable characteristics come about?

*Culture is definitely not the answer. Phenotypes are the expression of

the 

*interactions between the environment and an individual's underlying 

*genotype. What produces phenotypical differences is the different 

*way the environment affects the expression of the underlying genes (thru 

*evolutionary time). This is commonly known as adaptations.



(Greg 2)



Yes, but phenotypic adaptations are not heritable.  A Norwegian can tan

all

he or she wants, but their child will not be born tan.  Only if there is a

change in gene frequency (genotype) will that happen.  In suggesting that

people evolve to meet the needs of particular environments -- and then

carry

these traits with them to new environments (i.e the pygmies being in some

environment that selected for shortness -- whatever environment that would

be

-- and then carrying it with them to their present homeland where they are

surrounded by much taller groups) you suggest a change in genotype, not

phenotype.  And of course, genotypes do vary from group to group, but not

in

a simplistic "racial" way -- unless you want to admit to hundreds or even

thousands of "races" which still grade into one another.



(Greg 1)

: Another view (from the one you propose above) is that there has been

: considerable gene flow throughout human history, and that humanity

: represents a continuum of physical variation which we arbitrarily divide

: into artificially discreet races.



(Susan 2)

*Races don't exist because not everyone fits into a discrete category, it 

*therefore is arbitrary? If that's the case, then colors don't exist

either 

*because they're in a continuum as well (and here I mean colors in 

*general, not skin color). Racial groups exist. Individual races, that's a



*much messier proposition. 





(Greg 2)



Colors ARE arbitrary distinctions from a continuum, and different cultures

distinguish them differently.  Navajos make no distinctions within the

range

of frequencies that English speakers subdivide into "blue" and "green",

for

instance.  Other groups distinguish only between "dark" and "light", or

"dark", "light" and "red".  There is an entire literature on this,

pioneered

in part (and still continued -- I saw him lecture on it a few weeks ago)

by

Brent Berlin (see Berlin and Kay 1969 BASIC COLOR TERMS).  The structures

of

our eyes and brain probably produce what little "universality" there is in

color terminology (in that there seem to be limited number of

classificatory

schemes) but the arbitrary division of the spectrum according to our

perceptions, needs, and cultural constraints is

well known.  Color is subjective, not objective.



Human variation exists.  Racial typologies are messy because they are

artificial.  They conceal the real sources and extent of variation.



(Susan 1)

: >physical anthropologists recognize 3 major groups.



(Greg 1)

: The vast majority of Physical Anthropologists do not recognize this and

: have not for many decades.



(Susan 2)

*A current citation please.



(Greg 2)



These came right off of my shelves, and thus may not be as "current" as

you

would like.  If you want even more current ones, I can get them easily

enough.  I'm surprised, actually, that you even ask for this.    If you

want

more sources, I'll get them, but please don't accuse me of using older

sources because newer ones don't back me up: that would be a pain for me

and

ultimately embarrassing for you.  Heck, do your own literature search and

find out for yourself -- I could always skew my

sources toward those that seem to say what I want.



For the sake of clarity, I'll repeat: the consensus of physical

anthropologists today -- whether you agree with them or not -- is that

race

typologies are neither demonstrable nor useful as research tools.



These first two are textbooks, and I assure you, quite typical ones.  But

again, don't trust me: browse through some textbooks at a university

bookstore.



(speaking of the history of 'racial' typology)

"The fact is, generalized references to human types such as "Asiatic" or

"Mongoloid" "European" or "Caucasoid," and "African" or "Negroid"  were at

best mere statistical abstractions about populations in which certain

physical features appeared in higher frequencies than in other

populations;

no example of "pure" racial types could be found.  These categories turned

out to be neither definitive nor particularly helpful ( William A.

Haviland

ANTHROPOLOGY 1994, pg. 280)





"We have briefly reviewed the history of the approaches scholars have

taken

toward human diversity.  Although we question the value of race as a

concept,

it may be instructive to list definitions of race, which may delineate the

reasons why anthropologists are dissatisfied with the concept. (Nelson and

Jurmain, PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 1982, pg 199)



"The validity and utility of race, as a concept, is still debated by

anthropologists.  Typological divisions of humankind, however, which once

occupied so much anthropological effort, appear to be a phenomenon of the

past ( Nelson and Jurmain 1982) pp  201)



And to show a bit of the decades long history of this break with "race" in

anthropology, I cite from one of the seminal multivariate studies (an

oldie

but a goodie).



"Human racial classification is of no social value and is positively

destructive of social and human relations.  Since such racial

classification

is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance

either,

no justification can be offered for its continuance (R. Lewontin in

EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY 1972, volume 6 pg 397)"





For a more comprehensive work:

Molnar, Stephen.  HUMAN VARIATION: RACES, TYPES, AND ETHNIC GROUPS.





(Susan 1)

: > Subsequent migrations 

: >have obviously blurred the lines of what criteria should be used or can



: >be used to differentiate the "races." But if looked at from the point

of 

: >view of geographic origins, most humans today can trace their heritage 

: >back to one or more likely, several geographically distinct areas. 



(Greg 1)

: Again, this is an assertion which has never been demonstrated and which

: much data (like skeletal analysis and DNA analysis) suggests is untrue. 



(Susan 2)

*Again, a current citation please.





"There is a basic assumption in Typological classification that races

existed

in a pure state at some time in the past, before migrations of recent

times

produced the mixtures of today. Mongrelization is the term often used by

racists.  But migration has always existed; with culture, humans are

capable

of taking a goodly portion of their environment with them, and as Hooten

has

succinctly aphorized, "when groups meet they may or may not bleed, but

they

always breed".  Pure races, it would appear, are pure nonsense (Nelson and

Jurmain, PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 1982 pp 198-99)."



I don't have any of the more recent DNA stuff in front of me, but if you

aren't aware of it, I wonder where you've been for the last ten years.

(Don't take this the wrong way:  when I taught my first 102 class a few

years

ago, I discovered that primate taxonomy had changed radically from what I

learned as an undergrad in the early 80's, mostly due to DNA analysis.  I

had

missed it because my focus is belief systems, and the rest of anthropology

was passing me by.  I now try to stay current).





(Greg 1)

: It is one paradigm of many, and to survive it must be supported by

better

: evidence than alternative paradigms.



(Susan 2)

*What are the alternate paradigms?



(Greg 2)  .I've touched on them.  Basically, trying to understand human

population genetics -- within and between population.  Typology was not

merely imprecise, it had no utility. It didn't explain anything, and was

entirely dependent on the variable you chose to delineate "race".   For

instance, skin gets progressively darker as one moves from Europe south

toward

Africa, but frequency of Blood type B increases as you move from east to

west

in Europe.  If you break races by skin color, you get one set of races;

blood

groupings, another.   Nose shape, another.  If you use multiple factors,

race

really starts to break up, but POPULATIONS become damn interesting.

"Populations" are often arbitrary, too, but they are admittedly so and

exist

as

a tool to understanding evolution, adaptation, and cultural/biological

interfaces that affect geno- and phenotype.



And if you think that population is just a new word for race, look at some

of

the literature.  If it is, then we have hundreds and hundreds of "races".

I



(Susan 1)

: >Recognizing that races exist as a phenotypic category, 



(Greg 1)

: Again, you certainly mean genotypic here.



(Susan 2)

*No, I meant phenotype.



(Greg 2)



If you mean heritable characteristics which distinguish distinct "races"

you

mean genotype.  Sure, you can't see a genotype, only a phenotype, but if

you

aren't arguing that "races" have distinct heritable characteristics, I

can't

imagine

what you are arguing.  Why haven't the people of East Indian descent born

in

Singapore developed epicanthic folds -- or those of Chinese descent lost

theirs?  They both live in the same environment now.  It's because their

expressed phenotypes derive from differing genotypes. 



(Susan 1)

: >one that doesn't 

: >always place individual humans neatly into clear categories either 

: >phenotypically or genetically, doesn't negate the fact that the 

: >differences we observe between people today are due to the geographic 

: >origins of their ancestors.



(Greg 1)

: Again, this is one of many views and must be supported.  Archaeological

: and Paleoanthropological data bear out that there were once other

SPECIES

: of humanity,   but there is no clear evidence that human variation used

to

: be greater than it is now, as you suggest.  Again, analysis of DNA

: suggests a closer genetic unity the farther back you go -- though I

: readily admit that DNA analysis has some problems.



(Susan 2)

*Just looking around at modern human populations will tell you geographic 

*racial groups do exist, if only on a phenotypic level since it has 

*been problematic finding "genetic" criteria to group modern human

variation.



(Greg 2)



Well, this is the unsystematic way we got stuck with racial typologies in

the

first place.  People in Africa all "look" more like each other than they

"look" like Europeans.  This "common sense" notion has failed under close

scrutiny, as do many "common sense" notions.  Sure the world LOOKS flat .

. .

.



I think there must be something about your "phenotype" argument I'm not

grasping.  Are you claiming that there is no real genetic variation -- or

that phenotype is the proper criterion for recognizing races?  If the

latter:

1. With DNA analysis available now, I see no reason to use phenotypic

variation as a way of understanding evolutionary relationships.  Studies

of

plasticity, yes, but even those studies are inevitably enhanced by a

better

understanding of the genetic envelope within which phenotypic variation

occurs.

2.  If a "genetic" basis of race has been a problem how much more so the

plastic phenotype, which is peculiar to individual history and influenced

by

such factors as nutrition, disease, altitude, and a host of other factors.





(Susan 1)

: > Differences aside, we are more alike than we 

: >are different. We're all members of one race, that of the human

variety.



(Greg 1)

: I agree.



(Susan 2)

Glad we found something to agree on :)



(Greg 2)

Me too.  It's nice to debate with someone on this ng who has some sense

and

can frame a cogent argument.  Check out a few other threads and see what I

mean.



--Greg Keyes