It is a basic misunderstanding of genetics and generally inaccurate to use racial labels for DNA lineages that cut across supposed racial groups. DNA identifies us by lineage and not by race—a very distinct difference. The default mistake that most of us make, is assume that common racial characteristics will link us closer in the DNA lineage. That’s just the society we’ve grown up to “think racially”. But DNA has the best reputation in racial thinking.
Using mitochondrial DNA (tracing the mothers, mothers, mothers) “we find in every classroom that some of the students’closest maternal relatives belong to a different race than they do. These lineages do not follow common racial categories—but in fact our mitochondrial lineage tells a different story that race is not a biological reality”—Thomas Murphy, PhD. Anthropology, Bioanthropolgy, Edmonds College
Our racial concepts are biased. They are based on our politics—our ways of excluding and discriminating against each other are ways that are not supported by biology. Yet we take superficial appearances and then dump people into categories based upon those when our biology is much more complex than that.
Race is a social construct, not supported by a close look at human biology. Our physical features such as skin color, facial structure, or hair texture, typically associated with race, are inherited independently and cut across populations just like DNA lineage.
When we actually look at the biology of skin color, it has nothing to do with arguments on morality, goodness, or evil. Us and them are ridiculous in a world of DNA. Skin color evolves in response to the environment and to assume skin color is even a separate race is a social construct. Biology is clear—we are all one race. We are all one people. The habit of breaking things into categories is as destructive as it is useful.
TheCommonAtheist 
Yep. Thank you, Jim. BTW, my name is Frank, a uniquely burdened and blessed male primate who otherwise refuses to be labelled.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Umm…. you say, “Race is a social construct, not supported by a close look at human biology.”
I understand why you say this and fully agree that race offers us nothing to do with morality and so on. But it does offer us some insight biologically about genetic inheritance. And this is what is considered ‘racial’ as it relates to genetic inheritance. So that’s what’s being described as racial inheritance and it is quite real and not, as so many people claim, ‘just’ a social construct.
Given a sample of DNA, it is highly predictive to establish the ‘race’ being represented. Another way to think of this term ‘race’ is ‘subspecies’ but I wouldn’t expect very many people would be willing to go along with that more accurate term because of the social connotations! The human race is one big happy genetically inclusive family, after all! So ‘race’ is used for practical reasons. And this category actually matters if we’re dealing with certain diseases related to certain genetic clusters, for example. (Think, I don’t know, sickle cell anemia diagnosis, perhaps lactose intolerance, and so on.) This term of ‘race’ is not is not a social construct but an explanatory biological description about inheritance.
It is based on clustering. Evolutionary biologist Coyne explains it this way, that “when you take all genes together, there are sufficient average frequency differences that one can discern statistical clusters that, in turn, allow you to use lots of genes to pretty much diagnose where somebody’s from and who their ancestors were. These “statistical clusters” are real, not social constructs.”
That diagnostic approach works in reality and it’s describing something that is purely biological. That’s what we call ‘race’. It is real. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t have such a high degree working backwards of accurately describing a person’s racial inheritance strictly by a DNA sample!
LikeLiked by 2 people
If you sit in a room of 30 people, you may guess correctly who your closest maternal, genetic relative is, but you will also be surprised it might actually be someone that isn’t colored or structured like you.
Differences are a way of categorizing and noting appearance strictly for convenience sake. We all share a common ancestor. The only difference is the lat and long° of the environment your tribe lived for millennia.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s why I say it’s far more than – as you say, convenience – at the DNA level. But I also agree that it is a meaningless category at the social level where, as you point out, differences in appearances can occur. But to claim there we’re being fooled by appearances of racial differences between human subspecies is like claiming elephants and whales have no meaningful differences because they share the same common ancestor. There are biological differences. These different clusters of genes really do produce an accurate descriptor of enough genetic inheritance that really do have a biological influence to the extent that even appearances in many ways are quite different. Like you, however, I don’t think there’s anything particularly meaningful in these other than a few specific medical vulnerabilities. In comparison, there are far, far more meaningful differences between males and females of the same subspecies at the genetic level.
LikeLiked by 2 people
We are fooled by our racial biases like it or not. Even our US immigration history was delineated by color—leaving some European immigrants to “prove” they were white to get in a different line with favorable benefits. Mediterranean immigrants who fell in between caused assignment problems. I do think the differences are more highlighted as we age and societize—as we see young children do not notice these differences until it is pointed out to them—hence the social construct of race.
I do agree on the gender side. At some point what is happening here on that front has to stop while we still have a country. Racism was nothing compared to that movement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I live in a mixed county, 30 per cent white, 20 per cent Mexican/latino snd 50 per cent black. Those terms str only used here as a means to identify people. Much like redhead, blond or brunette when referring to an individual. I say “Would you sdk my waitress to come by with the check?” They say “Is she the short black woman?” I say “Yes.”. That us about it as far as racial terms being used.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Coyne is very interesting in regard to this topic – but I think often for the wrong reasons. I recall him at one point highlighting the fact that a large proportion of Nobel prize winners were Ashkenazi Jews. The implication being there was some sort of genetic link. I think that’s a very big jump.
LikeLike
This is good, Jim.
I don’t know if I agree with tildeb that the statistical clusters of where someone comes from tells us about their race. I know that for example, sickle cell disease is an adaptation to prevalence of malaria parasites.
But it is good to have the discussion about race, what is it? What does it matter? And how can we tell one race from another if such a thing exists.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I liked Arnold’s comment. Racial grouping is a social construct as we see with children they see no difference
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree racial grouping is of no meaning outside of, as I said, specific markers for particular medical issues related to that DNA clusters. Adding meaning to race is at its core EXACTLY what racism is, be it added by a white supremacist, a university affirmative action admission policy, a black essentialist, an indigenous tribalist, or a progressive ideologue who supports anti-racism indoctrination of our youth (taught as, “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” Kendi) It’s all racism because it elevates race (meaning biological inheritance) to be of primary consideration. This belief that race IS meaningful is diametrically opposed at the most fundamental level to MLK Jr.’s message about the long moral arc towards justice must be based on the quality of character, and that character needs to trump this race-based approach to reach the promised land of real and lasting equality.
LikeLiked by 2 people
While children are not aware to the structural differences of race, their word can’t be taken for it. That would be an argument from ignorance and that’s not what we are trying to do here.
LikeLike
From what I understand, Kenyans race better than most other people!
LikeLiked by 2 people
You understand correctly my friend. Race is what we do, in fact, some of us, it is not what we do, it is what we are.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Biology is clear—we are all one race.
I’ll go you one better, all living species are related. We all come from the same primordial soup, and our DNA will pretty much tell us we all come from one ancestor, the first single-celled being that managed to reproduce itself before it died.
As for race, we unfortunately see what we want to see. And white people love to see colour because they believe they are superior to anyone with more pigment in their skin. There is no proof of that, scientifically speaking, and yet ask any white racist what sets them apart from anyone with more pigment in their skin is intelligence. Given the intelligence of most racists, that’s the biggest piece of bullshit anyone ever uttered.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“White people love to see color because they believe they are superior to anyone with more pigment? Only white racists?
I heard a black woman just the other day state that she wanted to marry a black man to keep the blood pure and the host said nothing to her. Imagine if a white person said that?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just an opinion, but I bet she learned that line from white racists. Blood is blood, it is red no matter who we are. Having red-blooded children is mandatory, until we are so full of chemicals it turns green on its own.
LikeLike
Biology says all humans are of one species. Homo sapiens. Species and race are not the same thing. Same species means we can all reproduce with each other. Race refers to a division among the same species. Conye and people like him separate jews as a different group. He is not saying they are a different race or species, just that that bear similar DNA clusters, enough difference that they identified as a different group within the same species. Peoples separated from each other over time do this. Other primates do the same thing, they subset into different groups based on DNA clusters. Poodles and bulldogs are the same species, but their DNA is different, not different enough do they cannot reproduce with each other, but different enough to be identified by sight. Same with homo sapiens. The term race should no longer be used because it has to much baggage, but to deny that their are different groups based on DNA clusters that can be identified on sight is to deny reality.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Nicely said!
LikeLiked by 1 person
True enough, and a worthy cause. But what do we do about racism if we don’t talk about race. Groupism is meaningless. Racism speaks to centuries of systematic hatred, and feelings of superiority.
In a perfect world, or even a “healthy” world, I would agree to stop using the word “race”! But u til racism is meaningless, I for one intend to keep on misusing it. Iam not willing to Live in a world as whitewashed as DeSantis wants Florida to be. Mistakes have been made, are still being made, and will continue to be made if we don’t look it right in the face RIGHT NOW!
I am not talking about only the racism so visible in America, but racism all over the world.
I look White, but when I tell people I am half Red, some change their attitudes to me. They can pretend they are not racists, but their faces tell a different story! This is not acceptable.
LikeLike
I have found those who make such identities to be important, in the sense of how someone presents him- or herself, to be rather hypocritical to then say he or she wants the identity to be of no consequence! Obviously it is… to that person… because it is supposedly descriptive not of one’s character so to speak but of one’s race (or gender or religion or politics). That is what keeps these beliefs alive and playing a part of emphasizing differences, not the people who want to treat individuals as individuals rather than a representative of some collective! It seems to me one is unreasonable to expect to want it both ways.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When introducing ourselves to another person when we are not face-to-face (telephone, social media, etc.), how do we describe ourselves? Do we say things like — I’m a white, middle-aged, professional woman -or- I’m a black, 24-year old, gay male -or- I’m a Asian Christian female … etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Usually by name. Perhaps nationality or ethnicity if heavily accented. So my question is for what purpose is the rest of the identity potpourri proffered if not to emphasize the importance we give to them? My point is then one the one hand announcing the importance we give these identity labels while on the other pretending they shouldn’t matter to the person we’ve just unloaded them on. To me, this is hardly reasonable if the goal is honestly and earnestly to reduce their importance socially!
LikeLiked by 1 person
In business situations, I agree. Name is generally all that’s necessary. But there are occasions when more is, if not required, at least socially expected.
I understand and appreciate your distaste for “labeling” (for lack of a better word), but I do think there are occasions when it’s appropriate to share more than one’s name.
LikeLike
I agree, Nan; sometimes more is required, especially for social niceties (like the kind of work one does, previous places lived, some ancestry usually associated with names, that kind of stuff… or clarity if one happens to be a Doyle from either Newfoundland or Nova Scotia!).
There’s an insidious aspect as well when it comes to playing the ‘Recognize my Tribe’ word game… like ‘offering’ one’s pronouns, as if this is reasonable and nice when it’s nothing more than a symbol that 1) one accepts gender ideology, and 2) one is willing to impose it on others to compel compliance or be seen as rude/unkind for failing to play the game. Next time that happens to you, just stay silent and watch the squirming begin when your ideological positioning remains unknown to the compeller.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I will confess to not understanding what you are saying, as your pronouns are ambiguous. Nouns are much more communicative. Who or what is/are the who, the he, the she, the someone? While you understand who these pronouns are referring to, because the nouns do not occur in your communication the reader is left to wonder exactly what it is you are intending to communicate. Sorry, but I personally am lost in Wonderland
LikeLike
Well, there are only two sexes so the two pronouns I listed in English covers everyone. I had to use the singular to emphasize the individuality of each individual ion order to then treat the person based on the quality of the character he or she has rather than the colour of the skin (or whatever other identities may be imposed by the person supposedly wanting such colour to have no bearing)!
LikeLike
That doesn’t help, sorry. Guess I’ll just move on..
LikeLike
See OG’s short but accurate explanation.
LikeLike
I think Tildeb”s point was that no one would know your race unless you told them.
And why would your tell them your race unless you wanted to be treated differently.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I tell some people my race because they make derogatory statements about indigenous people
in front of me expecting me to understand why they are saying these things. I am trying to wake them up to the fact they are being racist even though to them it isn’t racist. This is what we call systemic racism. It is so ingrained some people think it is inconsequential, when it is not.
LikeLike
They know they are being racist, and are embarrassed to be called out for it. And they will treat you differently because you called them out, more than because of your split ancestry.
LikeLike
No, often they do not know they are being racist. They believe themselves to be well-adjusted people. Yes they are embarrassed, but not necessarily because they are being called out, but just by the fact they are being called out when they think they are being “totally natural.” As for “split ancestry,” for many “not pure white” is not white at all. And to be honest, when race comes up, I do not give loyalty to my white ancestors. I am Mètis, and proud of it.
LikeLike
So you are racist against whites?
LikeLike
If you are half white, look white, and act white, then you are not Metis, whether you want to be or not. That is why I don’t like labels, or use of the term race when speaking of individuals.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mètis having one parent or grandparent of North
LikeLike
Sorry. One parent or gandparent of North American Indigenous ancestry, and one parent of French ancestry (originally, but now just European ancestry).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did not know what Metis meant. But that can be confusing after a few generations. What will your children or grandchildren be?
LikeLike
Second generation cutoff rule
“After two consecutive generations of parents who do not have Indian status (non-Indians), the third generation is no longer entitled to registration.”
LikeLike
But ‘Indian status’ is a colonial designation, and we all know how evil that must be by fiat. I know 8th generation people who claim this status because they don’t ‘recognize’ the authority of the colonial writers of the Indian Act and so do not accept someone else’s impersonal designation.
Of interest perhaps only to me, it’s amazing how many women in particular have recently discovered their supposed indigenous heritage. Golly gee whiz…. they must crave to be the victimized objects of systemic racism, I guess, and so they must be worthy by birth of those ‘equity’ rules for high paying employment.
Wasn’t there a presidential candidate (I can’t remember her name on the Democratic side) claiming some level of, what, Apache heritage as if this was a good thing (but certainly not racist !)?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is an accurate statement. If anything to be native or black (outside of the inner city) is near celebrity status in the states.
The cities (as you know) have been crushed by liberal policy as well as the payouts post-civil rights-movement. The number one marker for teen pregnancy and crime is to have no father in the home. The US government paid women to have children, only if there was no man in the house. Before 1960 black income and marriage was neck and neck with whites. This is typical liberal policy at work—ruining just about everything it tries to help. Now 75% of black children have no father present. How in the hell do we reverse that?
LikeLike
Elizabeth Warren.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I, too, asked this question in a newspaper about specific blood percentage levels that could be independently measured necessary to ‘belong’ as some group member (with publicly funded privileges, of course) after genetic mixing and received not only death threats but physical attacks against my family for my temerity. So it’s not a trivial question you raise but one that refuses to be answered honestly by those who benefit in some way from the designation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No children. Never will be. But my neices and nephews are eligible for Mètis status. Some took it; some didn’t. It’s a personal choice.
LikeLike
It’s interesting (and deeply amusing to me) that so many people who like to publicly wear inherited ‘minority’ identities BECAUSE doing so seems to me to offer some measure of social status are almost always the ones who are the most willing and able to call out anyone ELSE who refers to that person’s highlighted identity feature as evidence for being RACIST… because they mention it! Calling out such ‘racists’ usually comes with some passing racist comment about whiteness… as if racism were a white person’s identity inheritance!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Two likes on this comment
LikeLike
Racism is hatred. There are some people I like, some I do not. I try not to hate anyone, but if I were to, it would not be based on skin colour, but inhumanity.
LikeLike
Does calling people out make them stop being a racist?
LikeLike
Of course it doesn’t, but hopefully it makes them aware they are not as unbiased as they think they are. It might not do much good, but I try.
LikeLike
…which is why I pointed out that by introducing race as if a meaningful identity elevates rather than diminishes racial consideration. If the goal is to diminish race to the point of irrelevancy, then surely that has to start with those who think it IS meaningful and important!
(racist: having the belief that some races of people are better than others (EDIT: for this, one has to honestly believe in inherited hierarchy) or having general beliefs about other people based only on their race (EDIT: discrimination – different treatment – based on an immutable characteristic)
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are indigenous people who hate white men, but I doubt it is based on skin colour. They hated being mistreated, taken advantage of, insulted. No one wants to live with those things.
LikeLike
If they don’t know they are racist, I don’t think they are racist. They may not be, or measure up to your level of political correctness, but very few people are actually racist based on race
LikeLike
Political correctness, Jim? This has to do with humanity, not political correctness.
LikeLike
Well here in the states racism is more about minorities stomping out the evil white man vs elevating their own status which is wide open for the taking.
LikeLike
Nobody wants to stomp out thevevil white man, as far as I know. Look at what happened in South Africa after the end of apartheid. The whites expectec the blacks to retaliate, to get revenge. That never happened in the large picture. No reason to anything other here. Just bet everyone on an equal footing, and move on.
LikeLike
My DNA can be traced to Adam.
As he was made from clay ( dirt and water mixed together) my racial profile / history is naturally a bit muddied.
LikeLiked by 7 people
Looks good on paper yet how does it play out in our actual lives? I’ve noticed young children oblivious to difference whether color, language, autism etc; in a classroom setting they are one. At recess too.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That is a good point Arnold. I’ve noticed this as well with children.
LikeLike
Thanks Jim.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bottom line, we are all brothers, no matter where we live, or what color our skin.
I think the biggest thing that separates us, is our politics.
…and religion throwing a wrench into the entire system does not help. In fact religion deepens the divide. Religion is the greatest source of where “hate the one not like you,” emanates. And, should mention, religion is also an influence on ones politics.
I’m starting to see a pattern?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve always found races tiresome!
LikeLiked by 1 person
After that comment I’m going to have to hang that light again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t you dare!!!
LikeLike
After all that’s wrong in the world, I doubt anyone will notice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wrong, religion says all living entities including animals, plants are children of God. Humans must be divided in to 4 classes according to quality and work for smooth functioning of the society.
LikeLike
And for you he assigned the jackass. Both of you, children of gaw hee hawgod
LikeLike
That’s not interesting.
LikeLike
You must have too much time on your hands to even dribble through this rag. Not every post is a masterpiece. At least it’s not so bad I have to remain anonymous
LikeLiked by 1 person
SPOT-ON, Jim!!
LikeLiked by 1 person