Talk:Race (social): Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Nat Krause
(→‎Title: correlation)
imported>John Stephenson
m (John Stephenson moved page Talk:Race to Talk:Race (social): can of worms...)
 
(99 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{checklist
{{subpages}}
|                abc = Race
|                cat1 = History
|                cat2 = Anthropology
|                cat3 = Sociology
|          cat_check = Y
|              status = 3
|        underlinked = Y
|            cleanup = Y
|                  by = [[User:Frank W Sweet|Frank W Sweet]] 11:03, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
}}
 


=== Plan for this article===
=== Plan for this article===
Line 31: Line 20:


I am not sure about the exact structure: these are just preliminary thoughts. Suggestions are welcome. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 09:01, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
I am not sure about the exact structure: these are just preliminary thoughts. Suggestions are welcome. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 09:01, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
'''Biological discussions of race should be placed on the Talk page of [[Race (biology)]] which is under construction.'''--[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 21:37, 4 June 2007 (CDT)


:Martin, an excellent plan.  I agree on all points.  You should be aware as well that, in coordination with Nancy, I'm working on an entry on [[Eugenics]] which connects with her [[Eugenics and sterilization]]; the two may very probably end up merged.  This entry should, I hope, serve a function oppostite from, but connected iwth [[Race (biology)]], in that it will give a clear, historical account of the many false notions of race and inheritance, many of them not entirely abandoned in popular consciousness.  So, with this entry for the pseudoscience, and the Biology entry for solid science, the Social Sciences should be able to keep an even keel, buoyed as it will be on either side -- a sort of controversy catamaran! [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 09:56, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
:Martin, an excellent plan.  I agree on all points.  You should be aware as well that, in coordination with Nancy, I'm working on an entry on [[Eugenics]] which connects with her [[Eugenics and sterilization]]; the two may very probably end up merged.  This entry should, I hope, serve a function oppostite from, but connected iwth [[Race (biology)]], in that it will give a clear, historical account of the many false notions of race and inheritance, many of them not entirely abandoned in popular consciousness.  So, with this entry for the pseudoscience, and the Biology entry for solid science, the Social Sciences should be able to keep an even keel, buoyed as it will be on either side -- a sort of controversy catamaran! [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 09:56, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
Line 37: Line 28:


::Larry, the conclusions of an encyclopedia article should summarize and evaluate the various positions in different sources of knowledge. The different sides of a debate may not have equal force, and it is a mistake to pretend otherwise out of "political correctness". To some extent this hinges on what one means by "significant disagreement", and, I repeat, this is where CZ should show its superiority over wikipedia. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 10:59, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
::Larry, the conclusions of an encyclopedia article should summarize and evaluate the various positions in different sources of knowledge. The different sides of a debate may not have equal force, and it is a mistake to pretend otherwise out of "political correctness". To some extent this hinges on what one means by "significant disagreement", and, I repeat, this is where CZ should show its superiority over wikipedia. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 10:59, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
----
<!-- DO NOT ARCHIVE ABOVE THIS LINE -->
== Sports ==


____
What about "race" in sports as running races, such as "100m race"? [[User:Yi Zhe Wu|Yi Zhe Wu]] 23:03, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
 
== [[CZ:Neutrality Policy]] ==
 
This article takes a position and is thus problematic in its current form on neutrality grounds.  It does throughout and builds to, "The race concept remains fruitful for the study of historical events." It is lacking discussion that the concept of "race" itself is a serious contention among biological and other anthropologists; that "race" is widely held as a mere social construct and that historically the concept of "race" developed alongside ''racism''. And so forth. ---[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 13:09, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
 
:The article shows bias, but it also just doesn't read like an article about race ''per se'', but an essay on the interaction of race, class, and ethnicity in regard to United States government policy. --[[User:Eric Winesett|Eric Winesett]] 13:22, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
 
::The article really does read like an essay, but that's not apparently the sin here that it is on Wikipedia. It's obvious that racial differences have driven historical events (try to explain the history of slavery in the U.S. without reference to race), but the article does almost nothing to explain how, or why, which would be necessary if the article is to be meaningful.
 
::"Race" is a difficult topic to address, because it has been misused by pseudoscientists and their followers, but there is a scientific basis for the belief that there are, among humans, genetically distinct population clusters which do correspond to geographic ancestry and to popular conceptions of race. See, for example:
::*http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1196372
::*http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1196372
::*http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070
::Slightly less technical explanation at http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/01/metric-on-space-of-genomes-and.html
 
::An article on race should explain that the history of racism has made many people uncomfortable with examining race in a scientific manner, and that some political bodies of social scientists have made the (unsupported) assertion that "race is a purely social construct", but it should also explain that genetic science is showing that there are distinct (and distinguishable) population groups within the human species, and that these groups show patterns of variation in a variety of genetic measures, though not necessarily along the lines most racists have stereotyped. [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 18:13, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
 
To Anthony Argyriou, Stephen Ewen, and Eric Winesett: I apologize, because the first two sentences on the page are apparently unclear.
 
The first sentence says, "Race in social science.... etc." This is because the intent of the page is to explain how "race" is used the social sciences. That is, to explain how term is used in the fields of history, sociology, political science, and the like. Nothing more. I plan to expand the stub, but only in that direction.
 
The second sentence says, "For an explanation of ''race'' in biology see [[subspecies | bio-race]]." This is because my intent is that readers follow the link for an explanation of the term's usage in biology. In other words, the definition and methodological criteria for identifying the biologically synonymous concepts: "race", "breed", "variety", and "subspecies" should be located on a page under the purview of the biology workgroup. I encourage all of you to post your opinions and arguments regarding the usefulness (or not) of identifying biological races, breeds, variety, and subspecies of ''H. sapiens'' on that [[subspecies]] page or its talk page.
 
Alternatively, if anyone would like to use this present article page (or this talk page) to describe arguments for and against identifying biological races, breeds, variety, and subspecies of the human species (again, under the purview of the biology workgroup), I would be glad to withdraw my text and start a new page to explain how "race" is used the social sciences--that is, how term is used in the fields of history, sociology, political science, and the like. [[User:Frank W Sweet|Frank W Sweet]] 08:01, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
 
:It would help if the article began with a definition of race. Also useful would be (1) the social uses, i.e., classification of people by race into "good" and "inferior" (after [[Bacon's Rebellion]]?) and (2) principled objections to this classification - including scholary attempts to eliminate the concept altogether.
 
:I hope I'm not being too pedantic in my language. I'm not really an intellectual. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:50, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
 
::Regarding begining with a definition, the first sentence already is: "Race in social science, from the Latin for root, means a group delineated by society as sharing a common biological ancestry, clan, or lineage." This was taken, nearly verbatim, from Whitehall, ''Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language'' (Cleveland, 1959) p. 1197. Other definitions that I have found relate to biology, and I intend that the word's many changing and controversial biological usages be on a separate page. I would be grateful if you could suggest a better or more comprehensive definition '''that does not assume an accepted biological taxonomy'''.


::Regarding the mistreatment or perceived inferiority of people because of their "race," this is "racism." Although I plan to introduce the concept of "racism" in this article, it will get its own article in order give it a fuller explanation. Yes, in that article, I do plan to mention the late 17th century historical origins of U.S. "racism" with focus on the world's first statute against Afro-Euro intermarriage (VA 1691) as well as that law's motive force (Bacon's Rebellion 1676). Bear in mind however, that the roots of Iberian and Hindu "racism" trace to different origins. Another reason that I want to give "racism" its own page is to compare/contrast it with colorism, ethnocentrism, and the like. [[User:Frank W Sweet|Frank W Sweet]] 11:21, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
:That would be a matter for another entry entirely, something like <nowiki>[[Race (sport)]]</nowiki>. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 23:22, 2 June 2007 (CDT)


:Defining race: I really like the definition which Steve Sailer uses: "A racial group is merely an extremely extended family that inbreeds to some extent." (He expands on it at http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/presentation.htm ) He claims that he can't find a precedent for that definition in the literature, though it seems to be useful enough that someone should have used it by now. [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 11:37, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
::Actually, I found an interesting journal article on racism in sports: we can include that:-)--[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 02:30, 3 June 2007 (CDT)


::That is why I used a dictionary definition that did not require a biological assumption. The suggestion that a racial group is merely an extremely extended family that inbreeds to some extent is valuable and well worth discussing in the proposed bio-race page. Unfortunately, it fails as a definition for socio-historical usage. It is too inclusive and it is also too exclusive. Here is why it is too inclusive. Following that very definition, the greatest craniofacial anthropometrist of the 20th century, Carelton S. Coon demonstrated the presence of over twenty races in Europe alone. Indeed, every Swiss valley was a separate race. And yet, no one would consider those inbred extended families or populations to be “races” in the socio-historical sense (in the sense of racism, slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, civil rights, affirmative action, etc.)  And here is why it is too exclusive. Some of the most famous African-Americans in U.S. history were genetically European. Walter White feared being lynched in the south if it were discovered that he was a blonde, blue-eyed, utterly Nordic-looking man who was “really Black.” Among the most dedicated African-American activists today who fight for the Black community are Gregory Williams, Adrienne Piper, and David Matthews, who have no visible African ancestry at all. No serious socio-historical account would exclude such people and thousands like them from the social definition of the “African-American race.” Indeed, based on random sampling, about  five percent of the Black community have no detectable subsaharan genetic admixture and about one-third of White Americans do. There is no question, of course, that Americans rationalize their racialism as grounded in biological difference. The problem is that reality does not match rhetoric. The mismatch between counterfactual rhetoric and demonstrable reality is important and will be explained in the article, but we cannot start with a definition that falsely assumes that the counterfactual rhetoric is accurate. [[User:Frank W Sweet|Frank W Sweet]] 19:25, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
== This should be a disambiguation page ==


:"Race", in the context of humans, definitely does not normally mean exactly the same thing as "race" when it is applied by biologists to other organisms; i.e., it is not a synonym for subspecies. However, this does not prove that "race" is purely social concept.
This page should be, and should remain, a disambiguation page. There are two drastically different common meanings of the word "race" in English (my Concise Oxford Dictionary gives a third: a ginger root), and each of those has related subsidiary meanings. There is the meaning used in the phrase "races of man", which should probably have a biology article and an anthropology article, and perhaps a history article as well. There is also the meaning of "a contest of speed", which would at least link to pages about various kind of racing, and possibly also discuss the computer-science meaning of "race condition".  


:The problem with beginning the article with a definition of race is ... which definition? I don't know of a widely accepted consensus definition.&mdash;[[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]] 18:27, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
Deciding that this page will end up, eventually, as ''the'' CZ article on the anthropological and biological meanings of the word would be doing as much a disservice to our readers as to leave only articles which discussed contests of speed. [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 12:49, 31 July 2007 (CDT)


::Whether “race” and “subspecies” are synonymous in biology should be discussed on the bio-race page, not here. Also, I have no intention of “proving” or “disproving” whether race is a "purely social concept.” Indeed, I would not know how to start defining the terms (proof, purely). Again, if such proving is desirable, it should be addressed on the bio-race page. This page is for “race” as a social phenomenon. No one doubts that the perception of “race” is a social phenomenon. Specifically, no one doubts that historical events can be illuminated by considering how people aligned themselves within different perceived “races.” And explaining race as a social phenomenon is my sole goal for this page.[[User:Frank W Sweet|Frank W Sweet]] 19:25, 10 May 2007 (CDT)


:::Well, what is your justification for deciding that this page should be for “race” as a social phenomenon?
== This is not a disambiguation page ==


:::I did not intend to discuss whether or not the terms "race" and "subspecies" are used as synonyms by biologists; I thought they were, but it doesn't matter. My point is that this instance of jargon is irrelevant to normal use of the term "race" when discussing human variation. It's a different sense of the same word. I've never heard the expression "bio-race" before, so I can't comment on what it means; Citizendium does not have an article with this title, though&mdash;instead, this article links to [[subspecies]].&mdash;[[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]] 20:07, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
I am not aware that you are an Editor on CZ, Mr Argyriou. The page was blanked temporarily, and it will shortly be unblanked. You may state your opinions/objections on this Talk page. My opinion is that the word "race" in the sense of motor cars etc. is so uninteresting that it is doubtful that it should even be on CZ. Race as an idea about humans, on the other hand, is highly contentious and should be of great interest to our readers. Thus far, we have only an incomplete Race (biology) article, so this article needs to be created. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 13:42, 31 July 2007 (CDT)


::::My justification for deciding that this page should be for “race” as a social phenomenon and not as a biological phenomenon is that I choose to write an article on the social-phenomenon aspects of the “race” notion and I choose not to write an article on the biological aspects. I would be happy explain in more detail why I choose to write about my professional specialty, rather than about something else, if you wish. There is no point in discussing this however, until the constable’s threat to delete the entire page is resolved. [[User:Frank W Sweet|Frank W Sweet]] 01:26, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
:I am not aware that your status as an editor empowers you to be rude to mere authors. [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 16:14, 31 July 2007 (CDT)


== Threatened Deletion ==
I do not see any rudeness in the above, merely a hint of exasperation in the management of these issues. Please just leave this page alone and a discussion of disambiguation and/or moving of pages can be done at a later date.--[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 16:38, 31 July 2007 (CDT)


The article ''is still'' an ''essay'' and as such it is ''not'' allowable on Citizendium. Any constable at any time may delete it per [[CZ:What_Citizendium_articles_are_not]]. I hope this turns into an article very soon. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 21:12, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
:I was not the person who placed the {{tl|diambig}} tag on the page; I found that the article had that tag, and re-arranged the page to better conform to the norms of a disambiguation page. Even without the disambiguation tag, and after your other edits, the page still is, in fact, a disambiguation page, as all it does is point to other articles describing the various senses of the word "race", whether those articles exist or not.


::Any constable at any time may delete it? Really?
:Wikipedia has an article at "race", and a disambiguation page at "race (disambiguation)". Looking at the content of both those pages, I think they've got it wrong - that given the various senses of the word "race", the article [[race]] should be the disambiguation page, and articles on the various senses of the word race should be at [[race (subject area)]]. [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 10:06, 1 August 2007 (CDT)


::It was NOT copied from Wikipedia or some other online source (where it can now be read) over one week ago, and no one has made any substantive revisions to it then or since then, regardless of whether it was marked "CZ Live" or not;  
I am not going to weigh in here except to say that [[race (sports)]] or [[racing]] sounds like a perfectly appropriate topic for an encyclopedia article.  And come to think of it, [[race (sports)]] might need to be disambiguated: there's the topic of racing, and then there's the topic of racial issues in sports.  ;-)  --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 00:39, 1 August 2007 (CDT)


::It was NOT drafted solely by a contributor and then blanked by that contributor;  
::I *am* going to weigh in here, as I have weighed in on other, less controversial topics, regarding the subject of "disambiguation".  I am completely against the idea of disambiguating everything in favour of every usage that can possibly be imagined.  Sometimes, there is a clear primary meaning, sometimes one meaning has a slight edge, sometimes there's ambiguity (I mean really and truly) so that it's so difficult to decide which meaning would be thought of first, or most, by most people, would be difficult, so the PRIMARY page must of necessisity and common sense, be a "disambiguation" page.
::I do not believe that the latter applies to the word "race", any more than "baker" should be a disambiguation page.  "Baker" is someone who makes yummy things out of flour and sugar.  "Ball" is a round spherical thing.  The fact that Sir Samuel Baker is an explorer and Howard Baker was a politicial and there may be I don't know how many hamlets called "Baker"; and that "ball" also means fun and to people like me it means a dance and Lucille Ball, God rest her soul, was one of the 20th Centuries great character comediennes is completely beside the point.
::Yes, there are other meanings to the word "race".  Yes, I agree with Larry, running races and bike races are fit subjects for encyclopaedias (though I confess I have not the least interest in car races--boring madness, if you ask me--but I digress--the point is that *some* people obviously like them....) The question is, would people looking for those types of races type in "race" alone?  Doubtful.  Very doubtful, if we're being honest rather than combative. They might look up 'racing' or 'athletics' or 'track and field', or a specific race "indy 500" or "tour de france" or some such.  If they *did* type in "race" only, it would probably be a lazy and/or hopeful gesture; I don't see how anyone would be terribly surprised or offended to be taken by default to an article on human classification, with one of our notices at the top about where the disambiguation was to be found.
::I know this was longwinded, but, really, let's try to be sensible.  I'm not in the least bit interested in casting blame about who typed what tag first.  Getting this (article) right is going to be hard enough without going off the rails sweating the small stuff.
::[[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 05:32, 4 August 2007 (CDT)


::It DOES NOT consists of two sentences or less, or 50 words or less, which have been left on the wiki for more than two hours;
== Revised plan and some text ==


::It IS NOT obvious and uncontroversial to virtually all constables that the article is merely an instance of self-promotion.
I have restarted the page, with some changes to the previous suggested structure. Feel free to make minor changes to the text, but please discuss here any significant changes which you feel are needed. THe topic has been far too controversial to allow laissez-faire contribution, but comments and suggestions are always welcome. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 20:23, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
:Really good start, Martin.  I don't think I have any significant changes, but I do have some comments and questions, like:
:*Can the text contain some references to the way the ancients looked at race?  Do we have such information?  My understanding is that the Romans, e.g. really only looked at people in terms of ''citizens'', or not--i.e. Romans vs. everyone else.  But they had come into contact with many different ethnic groups--how did they describe them?  What about before that?  How did the Egyptians, Nubians, Chinese and Arabs view people who were different?
:*I'm pretty sure the Europeans knew of blacks, arabs, asians, before the end of the 15th Century.  Does no documentation remain that tells of how they were described?  Or is that the answer...that is, were they simply ''described'' without being ''catagorized''?
:*'''What do social scientists mean when they say that “race is socially constructed”?'''  Good question.  Some thoughts: they mean that where ''race'' has been institutionalized (South Africa, United States) there is always some ambiguity at bottom, a lack of objectivity.  So there are always people who are put in one category or another based on subjective analysis.  Also, I saw a documentary recently in which it was said that there are no biological markers for any one group of "races" that are not found in at least one other human group.  I probably didn't say that really well.  It would be good if someone else knew of the reference.  In addition, people who espouse eugenics do not do so consistently and objectively.  Describing a person as "all XXX" because of "polluted blood" is only applied negatively, that is, to persons who are considered undesirable for some reason.  The gifted are not called "all XXX" but are described as "part white" or as having skills/talent/genius/whatever because of "white" ancestry.  It's not even logical.
:[[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 20:58, 1 August 2007 (CDT)


::It NOT is primarily (and thus presumably could be entirely) the result of a copyright violation.
Thanks, Aleta. I am not knowledgeable on older history, and maybe someone will come along here who will know better. The main reference is Wieviorka, who talks about race as a socio-political issue from that date [although racism comes much later]. I suppose the answer is likely to be about inclusion version exclusion, rather than the structured discrimination that is the history of race.


::The only possible legitimate grounds that you could have for deleting it are (1) that it is for some reason evidently worthless, as in the case of vandalism or (2) that it would be obvious and uncontroversial to virtually all constables that it is not an encyclopedia article. If you honestly believe that one of these reasons are the case, despite its merely being a starting stub, and its not having even been examined by an editor yet, please do so immediately and save us both wasted time. Otherwise, your threat makes no sense. It certainly does not encourage me to put any more work into it or to participate in CZ. [[User:Frank W Sweet|Frank W Sweet]] 22:19, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
I will write the next section later today. This is fairly standard social science, but I ran out of energy. I am also putting in here a new section, which will take account of recent genetic research. This will argue that we can identify a lot of subspecies -- so many, in fact, that we don't know what to do with them! The research also shows that the visible genetic markers [like skin colour] are a very poor indicator of actual genetic origin. In other words, our social ideas of "race" are completely up the wall, and based on poor indicators and human prejudice. This is also the implication in our unfinished Race (biology) article. However, the characteristics of genetically similar groups are very important for medical purposes -- and these are quite distinct from social categories of race. I have most of the major scientific literature on this, to complete the text.  


Frank, please don't take my prodding too hard.  It is just that an ''essay'' that advocates positions (e.g., the conclusion, "the race concept remains fruitful for the study of historical events") is ''not'' an encyclopedia article--''yet''. I have just been saying it needs to get moving along to not being an essay. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 02:42, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
There will also have to be a section on Racism. Racial Discrimination, etc and their importance in economy, society and law. That section should have some debates emanating fronm it! --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 21:19, 1 August 2007 (CDT)


::No. What you said was, "Any constable at any time may delete it per [[CZ:What_Citizendium_articles_are_not]]." Was that an accurate statement of how CZ works? Is it true that "Any constable at any time may delete it per [[CZ:What_Citizendium_articles_are_not]]"? Mr. Ewen, please do not take my concern personally. Try to understand that it would be senseless to work on something that any one of a fourteen individuals could legitimately destroy at any time without even consulting with the workgroups. If what you wrote is true, I want no part of CZ. If it is not true, I would like to hear it from Ruth Ifcher or someone else on the Executive Committee. [[User:Frank W Sweet|Frank W Sweet]] 08:19, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
== Dispute watch removed ==


:::Frank, let me be real clear. I have been saying that the article ''in its current form'' appears to me as within a certain class--''an essay that advances a position''--that makes it deletable by constables.  It seems you are taking my words to mean that constables can run around a delete whatever they want! Nothing could be further from the truth. There are only ''certain items'' on Citizendium that constables are empowered to delete on their own recognizance, per [[CZ:Article Deletion Policy]]. You can ask whoever you want whether that page exist. You might look at that list and ask yourself what it might be like at CZ if it were not so.  [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 12:53, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
See my comments on your Talk page, Larry. This is not acceptable to me, because it is not a dispute about the content. The sceicne content belongs mainly under Race (biolog). I also object to my reply having been removed, and the complaint left. That is a disgrace. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 11:47, 3 August 2007 (CDT)


== proposed revised introduction ==
I've removed the dispute watch at your request. As to your characterization of your co-contributor, let's talk in e-mail. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:01, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
:This introduction is offered an outline of relatively non-contentious factual material about the subject of race. Almost every sentence could be expanded to multiple paragraphs. Alternatively, each paragraph could be expanded into a separate sub-article, and a two-paragraph summary left behind in this article.
:-- [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 22:41, 10 May 2007 (CDT)


A '''race''' is a subdivision of humans who are related to each other in a way which they are not related to other humans. The nature of the relationship is dependent on the use of the term; in popular use in the United States, the relationship is mostly about skin color and some other visible features, while geneticists use the term to refer to clusters of populations which have similar population distributions of specific genes.
== Section heading ==
The heading "Science and Race: a long and shameful history" is biased and so should be removed. [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 11:52, 3 August 2007 (CDT)


It has often been claimed that "race is a social construct". Given the widely divergent definitions of "race" which have been in common and specialist use, it is true that there is some amount of arbitrariness in the definitions. The question of whether the socially-defined category of race corresponds to a biological reality is hotly disputed.  
The section is not yet written, so the justification is of course not visible. There is, therefore, nothing to discuss. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 11:55, 3 August 2007 (CDT)


Categorizing people into different races flows naturally from the human urge to categorize and the realization that there are "people like us" and "people not like us". Historically, differences condisered to be "racial" have patterned with differences in skin color and facial features.  
I have to disagree.  What Anthony is objecting to is the section heading itself.  The question is merely whether experts would all agree with the pejorative description "long and shameful history" when applied to the relationship of science and race. Well--I have to doubt it but I don't know.  Surely the ''entire'' history of the scientific treatment of race isn't universally regarded as shameful... --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:58, 3 August 2007 (CDT)


Broadly, the races among humans which have been recognized include the sub-Saharan African (also called Black, from their skin color), European/Caucasian (also called white), East Asian (sometimes called "yellow"), and Native American. Some racial classifications have separated southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders as a "Malay" race distinct from the East Asian group, while others have included Native Americans as a subset of East Asians. People of South Asian origin have typically been seen as "European" or "Caucasian", but often not considered "white", especially as immigrant communities in England, due to their significantly darker coloring.
:Maybe ''the ''entire'' history of the scientific treatment of race isn't universally regarded as shameful'', but I'll bet there's a lot that, given our present knowledge, is just plain embarrassing. My impression in just reading the title, since there's nothing there yet, is that the premise is that racism's having been defended by science at various points in time, that is, that the limited extent of the majority culture's scientific knowledge in times past allowed the justification of racism based on science, is now considered shameful.  (Am I even close, Martin?) Anthony seems to be saying that it is not objective to make such statements.
:So, would it make sense to simply call the section "Science and Race" with no editorial?
:I really hope that no one is going to argue that the justification of racism based on science is just fine. Really, I could do without the headache.
:[[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 05:51, 4 August 2007 (CDT)


Folk classifications have evolved over time, and have not always matched scientific or pseudoscientific classifications. In the mid to late 19th century in the United States, immigrants from southern and eastern Europe were not considered "white", though the distinction between europeans on the one hand and blacks on the other, and economic advancement and intermarriage between various European groups eventually led to the acceptance of most or all Europeans as "white", even if some discrimination against "Latins" persisted.
As I keep saying, the validity of the section heading should be judged by its content. If there is a strong feeling that the title is not justified, it will be shelved. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 10:30, 4 August 2007 (CDT)


Anthropologists of the 19th century performed a great deal of research into racial classification, but absent a knowledge of genetics, many of their conclusions have not held up. However, the broad divisions into four races have been confirmed by modern genetic research.
:It is not possible for the section heading as it stands to be justified under [[CZ:Neutrality Policy]]. It is clearly an expression of an opinion, and its use in a section heading is case of stating an opinion as a fact.  
 
Racial distinctions have often been a source of conflict where distinctive racial groups have settled in the same area, even when religious and linguistic differences have been minimized. In support of these conflicts, many anthropologists and pseudoscientists made claims about racial differences which have been proven untrue, or which confused the results of cultural and economic conditions with hereditary characteristics. Quite often, such claims included claims of racial "superiority", usually for the superiority of White/European people over people of other races; these claims often included claims of moral justification for racial segregation and racial discrimination.
 
Through the 1920s and 1930s, many countries maintained policies which aimed at "improving the race", usually referring to the politically dominant race in the country. Such policies usually forbade marriage or sexual relations between people of different races, and also often included [[eugenics|eugenic]] policies to discourage persons considered "unfit" from having children. Eugenic policies reached a climax in [[Nazi Germany]], where "pure" Germans were encouraged to have many children, people with various handicaps were forcibly sterilized or killed, and members of "lower races" were murdered by the millions.  
 
After the defeat of the Nazis, movements to guarantee equal legal rights for members of all races gained significant ground, and led to laws and social attitudes turning against racial discrimination, and accepting of racial mixing. Explicit eugenic concerns became [[taboo]], and most laws discouraging certain people from having children were repealed.
----


::That is an excellent outline, and I would be happy to work with it, once we correct the factual errors in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, and 6. There is no point in even discussing it however, until the constable’s threat to delete the entire page is resolved. [[User:Frank W Sweet|Frank W Sweet]] 01:29, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
:A better title would be '''History of science and race''', or, if the following section is made a subsection, just '''Science and Race''', with subsections discussing various periods in the history of science of race. I would hazard a guess that the history would break down as 1750s-1900ish, 1900ish to 1945, 1945-1960s, and contemporary, but other classifications, including non-historical ones, might be more appropriate. [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 20:21, 9 August 2007 (CDT)


:::The ''topic'' is not at issue but the content ''as a biased essay'' has been. The above revision is clearly an article, not a biased essay. No constable would ''even so much as think'' to delete something like it. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 01:48, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
::The CZ Neutrality Policy requires opposing opinions to exist, in order that a particular analysis not be adopted in CZ. I did not find a single academic paper or book which tried to defend the historical position of science with regard to Race. Let us be clear what the "shame" is here: it is that scientists for centuries failed to observe what is called "scientific method" and consistently supported the political status quo. Originally defending the existence of slavery [justified by the idea that black people were either inferior humans or possibly not even human], leading in the 19th C to the eugenics movement and related atrocities, and culminating in the use of science [in both moralistic and technical senses] in the Hitler regime. It is difficult to imagine a sustained set of conditions which could be more shameful!


:::Frank, I'd be interested to know what you consider the factual errors in the outline I presented.
::If you can provide references to academic papers defending the historical position of science wrt race, I will change the section heading. I will not change it because of a claim that popular opinion is not in accord with the analysis, though. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 03:49, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
::::Stephen, I think you have come down on Frank a little too hard. The article he wrote is not so much a biased essay as a essay-like article on one aspect of the subject. If it had been put up under the title [[Race in historical analysis]] (or something similar), it would be considerd a good start, if possessing some evident flaws.
:::[[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 12:24, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
::::Perhaps. In that case I would ask Frank for understanding that we are ''all'' learning around here. For ''everyone's'' benefit, I have asked ''all constables'' to look at this article to see if they do or do not view it as within a certain narrow class of articles, ''essays'' (and one that advances a position), which are deletable to constables on their own recognizance. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 12:33, 11 May 2007 (CDT)


Hi all, Steve is right in that one of the constable's jobs is to clean out the unacceptable articles.  Having said that, I don't necessarily see that this should one of them. I would say that since this article is being attended by learned authors (that should probably apply for editorships) and it is only two days old, it needs some time to develop.  This doesn't have to be a contentious article if we keep it professional and be sure to work toward neutrality.  Frank seems to know what he is talking about and so do others.  I personally like the narrative format so I won't comment there.  It might be misnamed, but that is also not my choice.  Ultimately, I am looking forward to seeing what you come up with as a final product. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 14:15, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
:::You have not responded to my point, and you mis-state the letter and intent of the Neutrality Policy. [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 12:10, 10 August 2007 (CDT)


== Definitions in scholarly research ==
::::I have responded precisely on your point. I am not interested in your general opinion on what is the Neutrality Policy. I have stated my understanding of it, and if anyone disagrees on specific points those can be discussed. You make no specific points wrt the Policy. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 13:00, 10 August 2007 (CDT)


Perhaps it would be wise to start with some clear definitions drawing upon academic sources. How have leading thinkers sought to define race? How have these definitions been defined and contested over time? Otherwise, it comes across as one's own reflections (aka original research) and not at a university level. I would think would be the last topic we'd want to touch if we aren't familiar with and using the current academic literature. (So maybe before definitions, perhaps just start with the resources/bibliography list.) [[User:David Hoffman|David Hoffman]] 13:57, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
I propose that we table this issue and make it one of the first for a future Judicial Board/Committee to hear. I've stated my own views above and it won't help for me to reiterate them here. Until then, let's defer to our editor here and consider this little tempest in a teapot over, shall we? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 07:15, 13 August 2007 (CDT)


::That seems like a good idea. I am withdrawing from CZ for obvious reasons, but I have posted a short annotated bibliography below, in case anyone is interested in serious peer-reviewed sources on the subject. [[User:Frank W Sweet|Frank W Sweet]] 12:40, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
:Thanks, Larry. I should say, that if enough people weigh in here and give the opinion that the section heading is not sustained by the content, I will also remove it. The point of the heading is to emphasise the content, and nothing more. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 07:23, 13 August 2007 (CDT)


:Much more important is how people in general have seen race, as that's what causes racial conflict, which has been a pretty important part of history. Scientific and pseudo-scientific theories of race are less important (especially the pseudo-scientific ones) except as they affected popular attitudes and historical racial conflicts. [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 15:36, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
== Science and race ==


== The article before blanking ==
The statement '''Given the inability of biologists, and most recently geneticists, to provide any support for the biological concept of race,''' is biased, and should be amended to reflect the existence of a dispute among geneticists and biologists.
Further, there is no evidence given that the conclusion of that sentence actually follows from the initial statement; social scientists may have reached that conclusion on their own without reference to genetics.


'''Race''' in social science, from the Latin for ''root'', means a group delineated by society as sharing a common biological ancestry, clan, or lineage. (For an explanation of ''race'' in biology see [[subspecies | bio-race]].)
:There is no dispute, as such, in the scientific jo0urnals. The dispute is only about genetic variation, not races. The relationship bnetween science and social science has been critical in the formulation of ideasa about race, and there is no controversy at all over that.--[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 12:12, 3 August 2007 (CDT)


The "race" concept is one of three fruitful ways of interpreting historical causes. Past events can become clearer when seen as the result of conflict and cooperation among competing social groups. ''Race'' is one way of dividing a society into groups for this purpose; the other two ways are by [[ethnic group|ethnicity]] and by [[social class|class]].
For details supporting the existence of a dispute, please refer to [[Talk:Race/Archive 1#Biological reality]]. Note that I do not believe that this article should state the opposite of what it does now - it is very clear that some large number of experts in the field believe that there is no support for the biological existence of race. However, some number of experts in the field do believe that there is a biological/genetic basis to support some sort of racial classification system. It is fine to leave discussion of the details for [[Race (biology)]], it is not fine to make a biased and false statement in this article. [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 12:03, 3 August 2007 (CDT)


In contrast to ''class'' divisions, which are usually delineated by differences in power (meaning income or wealth, in capitalist societies), ''race'' is most often seen as independent of socio-economic status. In the United States for example, an African-American millionaire is seen as being of the same ''race'' as an African-American pauper, but not of the same ''class''.
:I think the major problem here is that the article is not complete. My intention is to talk next about the older history of science and race, linking with the Eugenics article. There will then be a separate section on modern genetics and medical knoweldge where I will talk about population types, how these are different from Race, and why the word should be avoided at all costs. It is possible that you will agree with it.  


In contrast to ''ethnic'' differences, which are usually seen as voluntary, ''race'' is often considered involuntary. In the United States for example, a person of half-Irish and half-Italian ''ethnicity'' can usually choose to self-identity as Italian, Irish, both, or neither, as desired on any given day. But a U.S. resident whose ancestry is half Black and half non-Black is usually not given such a choice, but assigned to the Black ''race'' like it or not.
:I insist that detailed discussions of biology and race belong on the other page. I am not professionally qualified to deal with them.--[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 12:12, 3 August 2007 (CDT)


Although the difference between ''race'' and ''class'' is seldom debated (the exception being in disputes over ''race''-based U.S. federal entitlements that are rhetorically justified as aimed at reducing ''class'' inequality), the difference between ''ethnicity'' and ''race'' is less sharp.
Martin, for now at the very least I'd back you up on this. This was more or less decided earlier. Maybe we can revisit the decision, but let's get [[race]] written first. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:19, 3 August 2007 (CDT)


There are three reasons for the blurring between ''race'' and ''ethnicity''. First, some minorities that today are seen as voluntary ''ethnic'' groups, such as Irish-Americans and Jews, were seen as involuntary hereditary ''races'' a century ago.
:I'm not clear on why biology is segregated into a [[race (biology)]] article, but the consensus of social science is the official version of the [[race]] article. I'm also not clear on how it could possibly be a good idea for the article to argue that "the word [Race] should be avoided at all costs". I'm curious to see what the compelling argument for this will be, but it hardly seems like encyclopaedic writing regardless of whether we agree with it.&mdash;[[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]] 22:52, 3 August 2007 (CDT)


Second, U.S. usage treats the African-American or Black community as either ''ethnicity'' or ''race'', depending on context. When discussing differences between African Americans and Jamaicans, Barbadians, Trinidadians, or recent immigrants from Africa, the term denotes a voluntary ''ethnicity''. But when discussing the U.S. endogamous Black/non-Black color line, any English-speaking U.S. resident of distinctly visible sub-Saharan ancestry is usually considered involuntarily "Black."
::Well, to begin with, "race" as it is understood in the social sciences is very different from what biologists mean when they use that same word. Unfortunately, these two different concepts are often confused in general discourse. The best possible way to deal with the problems that arise from this is to split them apart and discuss them separately, as they deserve (though of course there will need to be many bridges built between the two articles).


Finally, conflicting voter understanding as to how many ''races'' exist produce conflicting definitions in government regulations. For example, U.S. Census Bureau regulations do not consider Hispanics to be a ''race'', demand that Hispanics filling out census choose a ''race'' among Black, White, Native American, or several categories of Asian, and forbid them from checking off "other" and writing in "Hispanic." On the other hand, EEOC regulations consider Hispanics to be a distinct "race" and forbid employers from reporting Hispanics as White, Black, or Native American.
::I'm not sure where you discovered the quote that says "the word race should be avoided at all costs." I don't see that sentiment being conveyed either explicitly or implicitly. Are you referring to something specific?


Nevertheless, despite the slight overlap between ''race'' and ''class'', and the increasingly blurred distinction between ''race'' and ''ethnicity'', the ''race'' concept remains fruitful for the study of historical events.
::It might be worth debating whether this article should be moved to [[race (social science)]] but let's leave that debate until we get the article developed.  I fully expect that Martin's efforts will result in a comprehensive article that includes prominent links to other articles which will fill out the many faces of this thing we call race. [[User:Joe Quick|--Joe Quick]]  ([[User talk:Joe Quick|Talk]]) 23:49, 3 August 2007 (CDT)


<!--
::::Joe,  "the word should be avoided at all costs" is a quote from Martin's comments above. See above and below.&mdash;[[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]] 23:00, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
[[Category:Anthropology Workgroup]]
[[Category:Sociology Workgroup]]
[[Category:History Workgroup]]
[[Category:CZ Live]]
-->


== Editor-in-chief action ==
:::Nat: if you read the [incomplete] article Race (biology) you will see that science historically followed uneducated popular discourse concerning racial ideas, recently accepting that there is only one human race, and since the Human Genome project using the word [foolishly, and misleadingly] with regard to clades or geographical "breeding groups" which have remained genetically isolated. All of this is ra5ther different from the popular use of the word, now. This is why, in my comments above, I emphasise that the word should be avoided. When we have a new concept, we need a new word -- not a value-laden word with a terrible history, like Race. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 01:55, 4 August 2007 (CDT)


I know it will be difficult for those involved to avoid getting emotional on this topic and about any article about it, but it is ''extremely'' important that whatever article we have on this topic be unbiased. So I would like to assure you, if I can, that I mean absolutely no disrespect toward anyone involved in the above discussion, or to the author of the article.
::::I see. And the social sciences discussion of race accepts the common man's definition of race, which it then proceeds to debunk? Nevertheless, I'm not sure if this approach would be accepted in other similar instances (if there are any similar instances). The average person fails to understand a lot of complicated subjects, and consequently misdefines the relevant terms. The fact uneducated people consistently define X in an incoherent way doesn't necessarily mean that X does not exist, except in a purely semantic sense.&mdash;[[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]] 23:00, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


The article ''as it stands at present'' clearly advances just one view, omitting others, about race.  Whether or not the article ''can'' be worked into something better, it should not be included in the ''Citizendium'' main article space until it is consistent with our [[CZ:Neutrality Policy|Neutrality Policy]].  Much of the above discussion focused on whether the article is an "essay" or not.  I think this is a red herring.  The point is that it presents one contentious interpretation of its topic, and we are committed to neutrality.
{{civil}}


Just to be clear, I want to emphasize that the point of view articulated in the article is obviously important, common among scholars, and needs to be stated well in the final article.


The article as started by Anthony Argyriou might be a better initial framework in which to proceed, ''simply'' because it is more neutral.
== Do not remove text from article ==
Any proposed deletions or substantive changes must be discussed and AGREED on this page. Otherwise, we will be forced into setting up a protected page for an article under construction.--[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 00:10, 13 August 2007 (CDT)


--[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 08:39, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
== A couple of comments ==
*The first couple of transitions between sections feel a little abrupt.  I'm not sure what you have planned for the section titled 'Contemporary scientific thinking on race,' Martin, but I think the logical flow might be improved somewhat by moving 'What do social scientists mean when they say that “race is socially constructed”?' below that section.


:I also like Anthony's version. I've spent a lot of time at Wikipedia over the years on [[Race]] and also on [[Race and intelligence]]. Clear definitions of terminology are essential, but sorely missed.
*Having said in the lead that the biological sciences maintain that biological races don't exist, I think it is important that we point out that race can sometimes be useful to physicians.  Of course, we know that much of this has to do with situations that are created by race (unequal access to health care, etc.) and not by races themselves, but I feel it's still important to mention.
[[User:Joe Quick|--Joe Quick]] ([[User talk:Joe Quick|Talk]]) 20:19, 13 August 2007 (CDT)


:If there are competing definitions of what a "race" is, then perhaps we should list them all (at least the major ones). Surely there is more than the one which is most familiar to me: skin color. There is also nationality or ethnicity. "The French race", Hutus & Tutsi (one race in two tribes? or two races?).
Thanks, Joe: glad that somebody is reading this! Yes, the sections could be moved or the transitions rewritten: this is just a basic start. On the second point, I have collected a large literature which deals with the idea of "race" in medicine: there are not only socio-economic causes of disease, but also genetic factors. These have to be included. This section is the hardest for me to write, as I am not trained in biology or medicine, but I will do my best. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 07:55, 14 August 2007 (CDT)


:There are also those who object to any '''use''' discussion or mention of "race", on various grounds: (1) It's unfair to classify people by race, because it supports prejudice and discrimination (see [[racism]] - currently a red link). (2) It's a "social construct", so we should banish it as a meaningless term (reminds me of how [[Newspeak]] would delete words from its vocabulary - see also [[politically correct]] speech - oops, another red link).
And I take it that, as this is a collaborative endeavor and this is not your personal article, you're open to contributions from people trained in biology or medicine?  ;-)


:Let's not "take a stand" on either the concept (good or bad) or the term (meaningful or meaningless). Rather, let us apply "neutrality policy" and '''describe''' what various major scholars have said. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:18, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
Just checking! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 08:35, 14 August 2007 (CDT)


==Recommended further reading (annotated)==
:Sometimes, the intelligent ones with no vested interest or knowledge are the best choice.  I'm sure there's a corollary to that somewhere though. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 08:46, 14 August 2007 (CDT)


What follows is a short list of the most useful sources on the "race" notion in the United States and Latin America. Each has a short annotation to help the reader choose items within his/her own interests. [[User:Frank W Sweet|Frank W Sweet]] 12:40, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
Ha! Expertise in those areas is desperately needed: please join the fun! As far as non-experts are concerned, you are welcome but it is essential to know that this is a very tough area to grasp. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 09:47, 14 August 2007 (CDT)


: [[Talk:Race/Readings]]  (Moved since it ended up quadrupling the size of this talk page)
{|cellpadding=10 align=center style="width:95%; border: solid 1px #4682b4; background:lightblue"
|Okay, then I'm going to move "what do social scientists mean..."  We can massage the transition from the unwritten section once it begins to materialize.  Additionally, the "different or confused concepts" section strikes me as the type of thing that you would normally see in an inset or sidebar.  I'd like to set it off by placing it in a box like this one. [[User:Joe Quick|--Joe Quick]]  ([[User talk:Joe Quick|Talk]]) 14:50, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
|}
::Yes, I like the box idea. Do it!--[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 16:03, 14 August 2007 (CDT)


== Uploaded Anthony's article ==
:::Done. But now we need a lead image to offset the color of the box.  Can anyone think of something that won't be offensive?  I might be able to get permission to use [http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.thelensmagazine.com/fetchimage.php%3Fid%3D1&imgrefurl=http://www.thelensmagazine.com/page/subscribe&h=196&w=150&sz=9&hl=en&start=21&sig2=_gWt6UQTzCqfs55CtadTNw&um=1&tbnid=j-Q06b-8CnYNxM:&tbnh=104&tbnw=80&ei=KWTCRtroOJaMeIu00NsI&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsite:thelensmagazine.com%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26rls%3DGGGL,GGGL:2006-25,GGGL:en%26sa%3DG this one], which is from a student magazine that I've written for.  Otherwise, we could make something similar for ourselves. [[User:Joe Quick|--Joe Quick]]  ([[User talk:Joe Quick|Talk]]) 21:31, 14 August 2007 (CDT)


I have gone ahead and uploaded Anthony's article, since Frank appears to have left us; if anyone has an objection to my doing so, feel free to re-blank and we can discuss some more. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:33, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
I don't understand the point of the box, or of "sidebar" boxes that others have added to articles.  I frankly don't really like them.  I'd prefer if we removed them until someone can clearly articulate how the extra complexity pays its way. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 10:16, 23 August 2007 (CDT)


== Biological reality ==
:Pretty simple: with regards to their use in [[Butler]], it prevents the disruption of narrative cohesion and flow that comes by placing a sidenote anywhere else but as a sidenote. This is a standard and excellent tool in curiculum design.  Not surprising, EB and Encarta both have their versions of them. They pay their way by allowing infothat would otherwise need to be edited out, or a stub created, e.g., it is a stretch to create a whole ''article'' titled [[Butlers in art]]. &nbsp;&mdash;[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 15:20, 23 August 2007 (CDT)


"The question of whether the socially-defined category of race corresponds to a biological reality is hotly disputed."  -- this sentence is erroneous.  There is, so far as I know, no biological meaning whatsoever of "race" -- it's a human construct, a collocation of phenotypes, and does not even necessarily correlate with region or origin. If this claim of "hotly disputed" cannot be referenced in legitimate biological literature, it should be deleted.[[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 21:34, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
::Boxes and sidebars etc are now standard and frequent features of all professional publications that I use. OECD is heavily dependent on them for its economic publications, and even credits a specific author with a box, for example. It is partly about not disrupting the narrative, and also sometimes to draw attention to specific things which are even more important than the narrative. Another use is for case-studies, illustrating a point in the narrative.--[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 15:32, 23 August 2007 (CDT)


:Well, Merriam-Webster defines "race" as "a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock", and it defines "stock" as "the descendants of one individual : family, lineage <of European stock>". Now, certainly, just because the dictionary says something, doesn't make it true, but it seems hard to credit the assertion that there is not, at least, a controversy on the subject.&mdash;[[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]] 22:10, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
== Anthropology ==


::The dictionary -- Mirriam Webster's or any other -- is not an authority on biology.  What would be needed here would be to show that there is a controversy between '''biologists''' about whether race is or is not a "biological reality".  The term "stock", for instance, is certainly dated -- what edition of Mirriam-Webster's is this?  I would suspect one published before 1970.  
I'm not wanting to upset any balance already going on here, but this topic should really be placed first under anthropology, since it by nature deals solidly with both the biological and social aspects of "race", which are the principal discussion aspects of this topic. &nbsp;&mdash;[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 02:37, 23 August 2007 (CDT)


::One authoritative body in this area is the American Anthropological Association, which makes it quite clear that "Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances." See their complete statement [http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm here]. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 23:12, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
:I don't really see why. Race is an issue in sociology. It is historically Physical Anthropology, but most if not all of the people in the Anthropology workgroup are social anthropologists. They don't seem interested to turn up here, anyway. It should also be in history and politics, but I didn;t think it useful to add those.


:::There is currently an traveling museum exhibit by the American Anthropological Association that reaffirms the above statement. [http://www.understandingrace.org/home.html The website for that exhibit] might be a good resource on this issue.  [http://www.understandingrace.org/humvar/race_humvar.html This page] in particular should help. [[User:Joe Quick|--Joe Quick]]  ([[User talk:Joe Quick|Talk]]) 01:48, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
:The big gap at the moment is coverage of genetic science debates on race. That would be Biology :-)--[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 02:45, 23 August 2007 (CDT)


::::I absolutely agree with what Russell and Joe are stating above. "Race" is a social construct, constructed on the heels of emerging Darwinism during colonial times, to help justify the whole system.  Best evidence suggests "race" is a biologically meaningless category. People of what appear as different "races" more often share ''more'' in common genetically than those with ''differing'' external "racial" appearance. This view needs serious incorporation here. The view that, although that may be true, race is a ''useful'' category also incorporation.  As well, the view of the minority that disagrees that it is biologically meaningless needs incorporation. ''The Mismeasure of Man'' by Gould and ''The Bell Curve'' by Herrnstein would be two opposing works. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 03:02, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
::Well, it is difficult.  I am always conflicted about Workgroup assignments with these inherently interdisciplinary topics.  We do have an active physical anthropologist on board, BTW, [[User:Lee R. Berger]].  At the least we should invite his collaboration. &nbsp;&mdash;[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 02:59, 23 August 2007 (CDT)
:::::I'll find references later - I'll be pretty busy over the next few days, but genetics research is showing that there are large-scale human populations which share important genetic similarities (which are not externally visible), and that these population groups correspond fairly well to the races described in pre-1960s anthropology. The view that there is no biological basis for race is a shibboleth of late-20th-century pieties, and the view that "race" was constructed after Darwin to justify colonialism is particularly ahistorical.  [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 11:19, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
::::::This is absolutely false and incorrect.  Once again, scientific expertise and published research need to be our sources here; I will quote again from the official webpage of the American Anthropological Association: "Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them."  I am certain that any Editor in the Biology workgroup would confirm this; it is well-documented in genetics journals and research studies. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 12:06, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
:::::::Everyone, please just bear in mind that we are committed to [[CZ:Neutrality Policy|Neutrality Policy]].  If it ''is'' the view of the American Anthro. Assoc. that there are no genetic concomitants to the ordinary notions of race, but other researchers disagree, then it is incumbent upon us not to take a position on the question, but to report the different views.  And in that case, it would be inappropriate to ''argue'' which view is correct here on the talk page, but to make sure that the views are fully and fairly represented. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:08, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
:::::::Also, I hate to say it, but look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race Wikipedia article,] and that should bring home the fact that there is ultimately no ''simple'' question and no ''simple'' answer to the question, "Are the human races biological realities?" --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:19, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
::::::Larry, that's incorrect.  I'm a bit bemused to see you cite WP as evidence of -- well, evidence of ''anything''.  There is a process going on here (as in other articles) whereby partisans set up a seemingly serious straw-man argument, then use the crowbar of CZs neutrality polciy to insist that for CZ to report the facts is for it to be partisan.  We must be cautious enough not to assume that every matter about which people get worked up necessarily has two sides within the experts in the field.  I'm going to post the rest of my thoughts on this to the Forums, to avoid extending an already-over-extended Talk page. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 14:39, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
:::::::Anyone who is interested, I have started a form posting [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,990.msg7502.html#msg7502 here] [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 17:04, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
(outdent)It's all very nice what the anthropological association says, but biologists and geneticists say otherwise:
*[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1196372 Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies] Am J Hum Genet. 2005 February; 76(2): 268–275. "Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population."
*[http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/348/12/1170 The Importance of Race and Ethnic Background in Biomedical Research and Clinical Practice]
*[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12493913 Genetic structure of human populations.] "Nevertheless, without using prior information about the origins of individuals, we identified six main genetic clusters, five of which correspond to major geographic regions, and subclusters that often correspond to individual populations."
*[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16243969 Support from the relationship of genetic and geographic distance in human populations for a serial founder effect originating in Africa.] "Equilibrium models of isolation by distance predict an increase in genetic differentiation with geographic distance. Here we find a linear relationship between genetic and geographic distance in a worldwide sample of human populations, with major deviations from the fitted line explicable by admixture or extreme isolation.  ...  simulation shows that the geographic pattern of heterozygosities in this data set is consistent with a model of a serial founder effect starting at a single origin."
*[http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.0010070 Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure] "Examination of the relationship between genetic and geographic distance supports a view in which the clusters arise not as an artifact of the sampling scheme, but from small discontinuous jumps in genetic distance for most population pairs on opposite sides of geographic barriers, in comparison with genetic distance for pairs on the same side. Thus, analysis of the 993-locus dataset corroborates our earlier results: if enough markers are used with a sufficiently large worldwide sample, individuals can be partitioned into genetic clusters that match major geographic subdivisions of the globe, with some individuals from intermediate geographic locations having mixed membership in the clusters that correspond to neighboring regions."
*[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=9106543 Ethnic-affiliation estimation by use of population-specific DNA markers.] "Through a search of the literature and of unpublished data on allele frequencies we have identified a panel of population-specific genetic markers that enable robust ethnic-affiliation estimation for major U.S. resident populations."
*[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=00055DC8-3BAA-1FA8-BBAA83414B7F0000&pageNumber=1&catID=2 Does Race Exist?"] "Other studies have produced comparable results. Noah A. Rosenberg and Jonathan K. Pritchard, geneticists formerly in the laboratory of Marcus W. Feldman of Stanford University, assayed approximately 375 polymorphisms called short tandem repeats in more than 1,000 people from 52 ethnic groups in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity."
*[http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-83679914.html The biology of race and the concept of equality.] by Ernst Mayr. " There is a widespread feeling that the word "race" indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races."    Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology."
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/13211/page1/ Genes, Medicine, and the New Race Debate] MIT Technology Review June 2003.
[[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 13:39, 1 June 2007 (CDT)


::Well, these appear to be legitimate -- but how are we to say?  The literature in this area is large; we need an expert in the field to help us sort it out. These studies may represent a vocal minority, a growing consensus, or an uncertain fringe -- only experts who are well-read in the literature of this area are really equipped to say.  If indeed the gist of the entries is as you say, then it's contrary to everything I have read in recent books on the subject, articles in ''Scientific American'', and other general sources. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 14:29, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
:::I emailed him a few weeks ago with this request, but his page says he is incommunicado for this month.--[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 03:43, 23 August 2007 (CDT)


:::Just having read one article you cited above -- from ''Scientific American'' as it happens -- I again see the nearly the identical facts expressed by the Anthrolpological Association.  To quote the SA article:
As a general rule, article placement in workgroups should not depend on who is there ''now'' but whether the scholars in a discipline study the subject (whether they are represented here, yet, or not).
::::"Over the past few years, scientists have collected data about the genetic constitution of populations around the world in an effort to probe the link between ancestry and patterns of disease. These data are now providing answers to several highly emotional and contentious questions: Can genetic information be used to distinguish human groups having a common heritage and to assign individuals to particular ones? Do such groups correspond well to predefined descriptions now widely used to specify race? And, more practically, does dividing people by familiar racial definitions or by genetic similarities say anything useful about how members of those groups experience disease or respond to drug treatment?


::::In general, we would answer the first question yes, the second no, and offer a qualified yes to the third. Our answers rest on several generalizations about race and genetics. Some groups do differ genetically from others, but how groups are divided depends on which genes are examined; simplistically put, you might fit into one group based on your skin-color genes but another based on a different characteristic. Many studies have demonstrated that roughly 90 percent of human genetic variation occurs within a population living on a given continent, whereas about 10 percent of the variation distinguishes continental populations. In other words, individuals from different populations are, on average, just slightly more different from one another than are individuals from the same population. Human populations are very similar, but they often can be distinguished."
The order, however--sociology then anthro or vice-versa--is completely irrelevant to anything. We haven't yet established any hierarchy of workgroups. Order of listing is meaningless. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 08:59, 3 November 2007 (CDT)


None of that seems to support the idea that commonly-used historical categories of human "races," based on phenotype, have any solid basis in biology. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 14:35, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
== Removed a recent edit ==


== Title ==
I removed the recent edit by [[User:Supten Sarbadhikari]] which stated, in full:
<blockquote>Earlier Dr. [[William Shockley]], the discoverer of [[transistor]], and recently Dr. [[James Watson]], co-discoverer of the [[DNA]] structure and the lead for the [[Human genome project]], have been in trouble for voicing opinions related to racial differences.</blockquote>
My reasons for removing this edit (of 37 words) are manifold:
#This article has been supposedly under construction by the Editors responsible, and additional content should supposedly be discussed in the talk page, and be cleared by them.
#The edit makes a somewhat controversial statement, but tries to weasel out of the controversy. Shockley and Watson have "been in trouble" (which really ought to be specified) for publicly making statements about the intelligence differences between blacks and whites. Saying that they are "in trouble" for "voicing opinions related to racial differences" tells us nothing about who has made the trouble, what sort of consequences these two men have faced, nor how these men have violated the orthodoxy of those people who have made the trouble.
#There are more than just Shockley and Watson who have made such statements and received various public opprobrium, and ocasionally career consequences.
#The edit makes unflattering and possibly reputation-damaging statements about living people, with no citations to either the statements nor the reaction to the statements.
If I was wrong to remove this edit unilaterally, please let me know. But also please think about it before restoring the edit. [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 12:11, 5 November 2007 (CST)


This article's title is problematic, since "race" means something different in biology (or so I thought). Can someone boldly solve this problem? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:08, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
I have yet to write the section on genetics, so it would belong there. There is an article in the current New Scientist which explcitily mentions these two guys, so we can cite that and link to it. Interestingly, that article also cites only those two... We do need some discussion of the genetics research, and I apologise for not having got round to it. It is a lot of work to try to summarise the complexity of it: I hope to do so before Xmas! --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 12:46, 5 November 2007 (CST)


:Larry, how about "Variations in Human Biology", or even "Differences in Genetic Makeup within Humanity" or "Variances in Humanity"--[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 13:32, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
I thought discussion of genetics was going to be in [[race (biology)]]--but I could be misremembering. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:03, 5 November 2007 (CST)
::Ah, well, we had more or less decided that we can merge the two articles. Besides, the biology article doesnt have much on genetics, so someone has to write it. If there is great demand to leave them as two articles that is fine by me, because then I won't  have to write the rather tough genetics summary:-)  Whichever route we follow, I would like some more editorial input from science editors. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 13:09, 5 November 2007 (CST)
:::A useful link, '''DNA reunited''', The Times. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2753556.ece  --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 14:54, 6 November 2007 (CST)


No, the article is about human "races"--with all the unfortunate baggage the word "race" contains. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:35, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
== Reading list ==


:The problem is that biologists and geneticists try hard to avoid using the word "race" for several reasons. One is that they prefer to discuss "populations", because sometimes they are discussing very small groups, and sometimes they are discussing very large groups, and the word "populations" fits both, while "race" does not. Another is that "race" is (mostly) only used for humans; other animals have "sub-species" or "varieties". The third is that racists have pretty thoroughly tarnished the idea of studying "race". See, for example, [http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000873.html this discussion]:
I just happened to stumble across [[Talk:Race/Readings]]; the entire page should probably be moved to [[Race/Bibliography]], no (since we have no such page yet)? [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 23:26, 17 April 2008 (CDT)
<blockquote>When I see threads like this [0], I'm snapped back to the realization that the term "race" means something very different to certain groups of people than it does to me. First, a digression.


#When I think of "race", I think of clusters in genome space that correlate with geographic ancestry. I think of Cavalli Sforza and population genetics. This definition is predicated on the fuzzy, statistical nature of racial classifications, but also accomodates the reality of sharp (but not entirely impenetrable) genetic "walls" like the Sahara Desert and the Himalayas.  
Yep. That was an old page! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:01, 18 April 2008 (CDT)
#When some leftists think of "race", they think of the boxes that you check on a government application. Such boxes group together non-Spanish Europeans and Middle Easterners as "white", Spanish speakers as "Hispanic", and all of Asia east of Iran as "Asian". They think of people on the fuzzy edge of racial boundaries. They think of people in Hawaii, Brazil, Macau, and Nepal. Despite this internal semi-consensus that racial classifications are "arbitrary", race is still central to the political worldview of the far left.
#When some far right-wingers think of "race", they think of essential, canonical types. Yet this provokes endless discussions on "who is white", as well as a lot of pseudoscientific Carleton-Coon-ology on racial "subtypes" like Alpines, Nordics, Meditteranids, etcetera. [1] Such arguments are frequent at neo-Nazi sites like Stormfront. As Razib observed, Godwin's law is inverted here, for obvious reasons.


Intriguingly, both the "canonical type" right and the "race-does-not-exist" left exhibit features of dogmatic essentialism when it comes to the topic of ancestry. In their view, you are part of your group , and thoughts of what is best for the group should never be far from your consciousness.</blockquote>
== One year on, I'm still annoyed. ==
:[[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 13:40, 1 June 2007 (CDT)


Pre-Hitler many biologists talked about race, and argued there were biological differences. Now it is unclear, altogether. I can hedge.  have not read this article- only the bottom of the talk page. I can speak about race in medicine, and from the perspective of a person familiar with biology that reads a lot, and has had professional interactions with individuals who have been considered experts on race in medicine- but from a cultural standpoint, meaning caring for patients. It is true that there are no racial markers genetically that are now known. I don't know what that means, for example,- and forgive me my comparisons to animals, I mean no direspect to people when comparing them to animals (or- Samuel Clemmens might have added, to the animals in comparing them to people) -for example, there do not seem to be any known genetic differences so far between breeds of dogs- but not only that- also between all dogs, wolves, and coyotes. The DNA is said to be the same. In fact - all breeds of dogs can mate and have fertile offspring, but so can dogs and wolves, coyotes and wolves, etc. Yet, despite that, there ''are'' useful generalizations that can be made about the appearance and behavior of dogs as opposed to wolves as opposed to coyotes. So, what I'm trying to say is that Russel is right - at far as it goes, the DNA is the same, it's not as though there are distinct differences according to race, as there are according to Gender. On the other hand, even without those differences there are physical characteristics that are inherited- that typify subgroups.That gets you back to how ''do'' you define subgroups when it comes to race?  For example, a good plastic surgeon knows the ethnicity -race- whatever you want to call it- of his or her patients, because -with individual variation, of course, skin thickness, scarring, these things can be generalized in a useful way according to race/ethnic group. On the other hand, the individual variations ''in'' the group, as Russell says, are still so important that strict generalizations are not useful without qualification. In other words, there is caucasian and negro, as old-fashioned races, and generally caucasian skin is thinner - but really the comparisons are more useful with smaller subtypes- like, say a Norwegian blonde v a Congo black, and even more useful down to families. meaning that -again with individual variation, a family history in medicine is important the same way an ethnic or racial history can be -as a general guide of what to expect. Yet, within that guide, even within families, absolute predictions can rarely be made. So, in summary-I'm saying there are -depending on how race is defined- some biological differences on average and in general that can be attributed to races - depending on exactly how "race" is defined and - even if it is defined narrowly, like members of the pygmy tribe from central Africa- there are still characteristics that vary a lot between individuals. When it comes to the classic 3 or 4 races, then it's down to whether the hair is straight or curly  or wavy - that kind of thing that can be said is one way for Asians by and large, and abnopther way for African sub-saharan negroes- by and large. But those features are really superficial. Remember too, that some people define races more like ethnic groups or tribes- the European and American literature before WW II divides people into lots of races, I'd have to dig out my old books but...slavic, teutonic on and on. Now - no matter about the biology, the social definition of race is very real, especiall when people are treated according to which race they are perceived as being members of, and are then either held extra accountable or given extra slack, or separated into a different culture. So in summary, I'd say that thereare certain physical differences that are more common in one race v. another- no mystery there -hair texture, color, body type etc. But these vary a lot and are most alike when people are closely related and don't intermarry out of the tribe or region. When people are defined socially by race according to say- skin color- like in the USA, where the ancestors were likely from all over the place -West Africa-Northern Europe etc, then who knows what it means? It certainly means something social, your experience in 1920 in Alabama would be very different depending on whether you were considered white or black, but you might have not only almost all the same genes, you could even have had a lot of the same relatives, both ways. I better stop now, because I could ramble on for pages. I should have just said- I don't know. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 13:48, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
I just happened into this because seeing Noel's note in recent changes brought it to by attention.


:Good thoughts.  Perhaps a better title might be "History of Race" or "Race and Raciology"?  There is no reason why this entry couldn't reasonably discuss the history of racialized thought in biology, anthropology, and sociology; Stephen Jay Gould and others would be great sources.  Buffon, one of the earliest internationally recognized authorities in anrthopology, freely blended rumor, conjecture, and his own notions of racial superiority to produce claims such as this:
I've just read the opening.  Heavy sigh.


::"The women of Greenland are very short; but their bodies are well proportioned. Their hair is blacker, and their skin softer than those of the Samoiede females. Their breasts are so long and pliable, that they can suckle their children over their shoulders. Their nipples are black as jet, and their skin is of a very deep olive colour. Some travellers alledge that these women have no hair but upon their heads, and they are not subject to the menstrual evacuation. Their visage is large; their eyes small, but black and lively; and their feet and hands are short. In every other respect, they resemble the Samoiede females. The savages north of the Esquimaux, and even in the northern parts of the island of Newfoundland, have a great resemblance to the Greenlanders. Like them, their stature is small, their faces broad, and their noses flat; but their eyes are larger than those of the Laplander. These people not only resemble each other in deformity, in smallness of stature, and in the colour of their eyes and hair, but also in the dispositions and manners: They are all equally gross, superstitious, and stupid."
Here's what I read:


:Seeing -- fully, clearly, and without flinching -- the extraordinary lengths to which supposed scientists once went to bend science to support prejudice, makes an excellent cautionary tale.  The same could be said of the supposed science of "Eugenics," which was quite widely embraced here in the United States, so much so that the German defense lawyer in 1961's ''Judgment at Nuremburg'' makes some powerful inroads defending the Nazis racialist and eugenicist view by quoting similar claims from US medical and legal sources from the 1930's, with the argument that these ideas were widely embraced in America, not just in Nazi Germany.
:''White people are the norm.  We're all white here.  There are other people on earth, of course, particularly black people.  Here's how we see them.


:Let anyone who thinks race is ''not'' a social construct look at some of these same sources.  Groups which we today do not think of as "races" at all -- the Irish Race, the Anglo-Saxon Race, the Nordic Race, the Poles -- are talked about as though they were the most commonsense categories of the human species, all ranked hierarchically on a scale that happily put the "Northern European Races" at its pinnacle.
:''Starting with our first white civilisations, Greece and Rome, we looked at black men like this.  blah blah blah.''


:We should also explain some basic terms here: the difference between phenotype and genotype, with the former being in fact an extraordinarily poor correlative to human population history; we should look at human population studies (I especially reccommend ''The Great Human Diasporas: The History of Diversity and Evolutio''n (Helix Books) by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza and Francesco Cavalli-Sforza , which demonstrate how mixed, how interconnected, the history of the human genome is, and how especially foolish, quaint if they were not still clung to my the misinformed, are the 19th- and early 20th-century notions of "race." I wish we had someone here at CZ who was a geneticist, or an evolutionary biologist, or someone in this area.  We should not dodge this controversy, but take it as a challenge to write a clear, neutral, factual account of exactly why these notions of race are as exploded as the belief in phlogiston or aether.  [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 14:23, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
Look, folks, human society didn't begin with ancient Greece and Rome.  How did people in other times and places look at people who were different?


We do have those people, but their expertise in genetics and evolutionary biology is not in ''human'', or even vertebrate genetics and evolutionary biology- so there you go. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 14:36, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
Actually, the second paragraph is a much better start in my opinion, to wit:  


I hereby stipulate, as editor-in-chief of CZ, that it is ''not'' the official position of CZ that "race is merely a social construct."  It is required by [[CZ:Neutrality Policy|Neutrality Policy]], more generally, that CZ not take official positions on controversial questions.
:''“Race” as a distinction between different types of humans entered the European vocabulary towards the end of the 15th century''


Can we, please, use this page actually to work on the article, rather than trying to persuade other people of your views on a subject?  I'd like everyone to focus the discussion by addressing ''relatively'' clear, practical questions: does "race" now mean (in ''any'' informed person's mouth) anything other than human race?  Or will we want to have an article about the biological concept of race?  (Is there such a concept anymore?)  If "race" means mainly "human races," then we should have a message at the top of the article: "''See [[race (biology)]] for the biological concept of races (of any species).  The following article concerns the notion of human races.''" --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:44, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
Unfortunately, it still presumes race--well, everything, actually, but we're talking about "race"--from a European point of view.


:Well, the debate has been educational here -- I'm posting some thoughts to the Foums -- I'm going to take a breather and go work on other things, but to my mind, the best way to uphold the original vision on Citizendium would be to not have '''any''' entry on a controversial topic ''unless'' a qualified expert in the specific field is on hand to guide the work.  Otherwise, the list of articles that will bog us down as has this one will be very long indeed.  And Larry,  while I sympathize with the urge to cut the gordian knot in the manner of Alexander, I do not think that you, or the Editorial Board, or anyone should state -- or should ''need to'' state -- that something is not an official position.  We're committed to CZ not having any official positions on any subject, of cours,e we all signed on to that at the start, but then who determines, in a given field, which positions are settled and which controversial?  To have "no position" on something that is settled science, to my mind, is as bad as to take a position on something that isn't settled science; either one distorts any notion of neutrality. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 14:56, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
The nicest way I can put this is that it is unfortunate that at the beginning of 21st Century an expert-guided knowledge base can't come up with a more balanced, less biased way of discussing how people view other people who are different from themselves.


Maybe we should write [[History of race]] first.  We'll avoid taking a position in the current debate by writing about what others have said in the past, and then we can come back to this article after we've had a chance to recruit an editor who can oversee the development of this article. [[User:Joe Quick|--Joe Quick]]  ([[User talk:Joe Quick|Talk]]) 15:14, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
Now the sad thing is that I've come to "know" some of the folks who have worked on this thus far, and I now that none of this is intentional.  This is unfinished, everyone's got a lot to do, and it's gone by the wayside.


:Joe, I think that's a great idea -- I second the motion. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 15:23, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
Still, I look at the only image illustrating this draft; it's not captioned or explained, and I want to start throwing things.  Heavy things.  At people.


I think that's a great idea too.--As to the "no official position" question, Russell, surely you aren't suggesting, that no one disagrees with you on whether race is ''merely'' a social construct?  I would be amazed if you took that view. If that were the case, then why would you insist on it so strongly? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 15:46, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
Please, I know people are busy, but this is important.


:It's not a matter of my view, Larry.  Before I became an English major, I was a Biology major -- and in all my studies, at Case Western Reserve University, Syracuse University, and Brown University, including lectures by eminent biologists such as Anne Fausto-Sterling and cultural historians such as Terry Eagleton, I have always understood that it is the universal consensus among educated persons that "race" is a human construct, and that the matter was settled science, settled history, and settled sociological teaching.  Now, perhaps new data, or new ways of studying the known data, have emerged -- this would be for biologists in this field to inform us -- I'm emphatically '''not''' an expert in this field.  But I would not be one to set up my personl view with such energies, unless it was based on extensive reading of the histories and researches of people who have studied the matter, over thirty years (I grew up in a house where Scientific American and Stephen Jay Gould's books were on the coffee table). I am open to learn more, from those who are qualified -- but that's not what I see happening here. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 16:04, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
Put a priority on it, or delete it.  Leave it on the back burner if it's too hard and nobody has time.


I'm no expert either, of course.  But it beggars belief that you really think that "it is the universal consensus among educated persons that 'race' is a human construct."  It's certainly a very common view, but there's a huge difference between "a very common view" and "the universal consensus."  I think Martin can give us more insight on this.  For my part, I would point to doctors, who sometimes appear to use the concept of race as a biological concept--basing medical decisions (in some cases) on racial information and presumably not on information about a human construct. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 01:02, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
But let's do better than this.  Please?


:It's a common view, in this particular case, because it is accurate.  I heartily agree with Martin here, when he states below that "secondly, there is no room for people's opinions in this article: the social science literature is almost unanimous in its conclusion that race is socially constructed. This does not mean that the role of genetic differences is zero, and this point needs to be explained clearly."  I don't want to split hairs between "almost unanimous' and "universal consensus" -- he notes, and I agree, that there are biological factors in certain areas which indeed do need to be explained in more detail -- but if the social sciences are to have their say here, there the matter is clear.  For a physician to 'take into account' a racial factor -- such as sickle-cell trait -- is far different from what has been erroneously claimed on this page, that somehow modern biology vindicates some broader notion of "race" as anything other than an all-too-human social construction. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 01:13, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
[[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 20:15, 19 April 2008 (CDT)


:Larry, the point here is that there is no such thing as a concept of what constitutes "race" for humans. Yes, doctors use the self-perceived race of their patient for decisions, because it ''often'' correlates with certain markers. But if we take "race", for example, to mean "subspecies" or something akin to "breed", then "often" is not enough. These markers are more a factor of recent ancestral origin, frequency of intermarriage and a bunch of other factors. What's worse, depending on what type of analysis you perform, you could well conclude of it that all humans are part of subgroups of the african "race" -not surprisingly, since that is the common geographic origin. For the type of concept most commonly attributed to "race" in the general population, having a bunch of genetic markers in common is NOT enough -especially not if it achieves an accurate prediction on "race" only 9 times out of 10 (or something similar). If consistent races existed, then the markers would have to be consistent, too -and they would exhibit consistent differences towards other such groups. There is a huge difference between stating "If I look at this set of markers, I can see some kind of correlation" and stating "we have distinct subpopulations here". But again, there is no concept of "race" that these markers could prove -merely some ''statistical'' commonality between groups of similar recent geographic origin. But this all too often gives more questions than answers. For example, australian aborigines have some traits in common both with east coast Africans as well as some Indian groups. However, this simply puts them into the same migration arc as a lot of other groups throughout far eastern Russia, Japan and even North America. Is it sensible to throw those together because they share common genetic traits??? These markers in my eyes are useful for a)reconstructing the migration of a people and b)predicting propensity for some diseases and effectivity of some drugs. No more, no less. Both the homogeneity within a group and the consistent distinction vs. other groups simply isn't there. We cannot just use the configuration of a bunch of markers since that would suggest that someone who just happens to have those markers always belongs to a certain "race" -even if he neither perceives himself as such nor has any outward physiognomy suggesting that. We're talking about statistical issues here, not clear-cut borders. They're useful looking at populations, but rather meaningless when looking at an individual. At least that's what I gather, and I ''have'' been dealing with the differences in disease propensity in different ethnic groups when I did prostate cancer research. --[[User:Oliver Hauss|Oliver Hauss]] 06:56, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
: You seem to have a sense of what ought to be in the article. Maybe you should do it? [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 21:16, 19 April 2008 (CDT)


You gentlemen are arguing a point that I neither know enough to argue about, nor intended to argue.  My point was simple.  Russell made the claim that it is universally acknowledged that "race is a social construct," full stop.  Well, of course it is not universally acknowledged, as Russell himself says.  I've looked at [http://www.goodrumj.com/RaceFaq.html some essays from some prominent biologists,] and--it seems quite clear to me that they disagree that it is a social construct.  Consequently, I reiterate--and this is all I want to say--that CZ will not take the position that race is a social construct, because to do so would be to violate [[CZ:Neutrality Policy]].  Note that I could say ''all'' of what I've just said ''and agree with you'' about the question whether race is a social construct.  The ''only'' issue that I am concerned with here is whether we will force our views upon those who disagree with them. The official CZ position on ''that'' question is No. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:33, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
::Two answers, Noel.  First and foremost, this article was closed to outside editing, i.e. identified experts only.  I don't have a problem with that, actually, because I think this topic is right on top of our ''list--of--things--that--must--be--handled--with--sensitivity-and-expertise''.  Second, I'm loathe to write on this when all I have to go on is general knowledge, the same sort of life experience and what I've read or what I've heard as everyone else, but no academic expertise in the field of race.  If I open a can of worms, I can't argue with the authority of one well-versed in the subject.
:: [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 21:31, 19 April 2008 (CDT)


:I'd like to just reiterate that we are still talking about two different concepts as though they are one. Social scientists ''do'' generally agree that race is a social construct only because they are talking about socially and culturally constructed categories of people that change over time. Membership in those groups can change simply based on the region where one lives or the language one speaks.  Many individuals actually change races in the course of one lifetime.  These races have no biological reality.
::: Ah. Didn't realize it was closed. Didn't even realize we had that classification/status, actually... [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 21:37, 19 April 2008 (CDT)
THis article is not closed, although we had problems with it a long time ago. Most of the stuff here is written by me, so I should attend to the criticisms from Aleta.


:Biologists, on the other hand, talk about race in terms of populations that share genetic markers. These are real but they do not correlate with socially constructed races.  If a biologist says that races really do exist, then s/he is either promoting a personal belief or referring to biological races, not to social races.  Let's be careful to keep these separate and it will save everyone a lot of stress. [[User:Joe Quick|--Joe Quick]]  ([[User talk:Joe Quick|Talk]]) 11:57, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
My first reaction is that we don't have a history of race other than from the normal "white" perspective. But I am not sure that it is white, because as I have tried to explain, in ancient times, skin colour was not a big deal. It was like having blond or red hair.  Therefore, the intro has to try to explain when (and maybe how) the social construction of race began.


::You know, I wonder about that. The SciAm article mentions that a procedure which  finds genetic markers shows that only 70% of Americans who describe themselves as "white" have more than 90% European ancestry&mdash;which means that, for more than two thirds of "white" Americans, perceived race and genetics correlate pretty well. Incidentally, I wonder what proportion the balance are Latinos with 10 to 30% (or more) American Indian ancestry.&mdash;[[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]] 22:53, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
Second issue: a European point of view. Well, this is where racism began and it seems the right way to explain why humans now see race as something separating each other. Of course, there is racism across the world [including discrimination against all skin colours by people of other skin colours] but this article is about race rather than racism.


==Phenotype versus genotype==
Second: I will see what can be done about the image. I had not realised it was anything other than clearly explained.(Postscript: the image was placed before any conventions had been drawn up on image attribution and labelling. This should be addressed, of course.)
I see that "[[Race (biology)]]" has just been created. I think this is a good move.


Russell hit on something very important above, which is that there is an important distinction between phenotypes and genotypes.  The term "race" has been used to refer to both.  The discussion above has not clearly separated the two concepts with the result that we've been talking past each other to some extent.  Instead, we've conflated the two and tried to settle the issue on both fronts at once. Oddly enough, it is the conflation of phenotypes and genotypes as "races" that social scientists are really talking about when they say that race doesn't exist.
Fourth issue: you are most welcome to argue about these things, Aleta (and anyone else).  
[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 09:37, 20 April 2008 (CDT)


Let's leave genotypes for "[[Race (biology)]]," and perhaps create "[[Race (anthropology)]]" or something similar to discuss phenotypes.  "[[History of race]]" will cover the historic conflation of the two.  "[[Race]]" can be for horses, cars and people who strain for the finish line. [[User:Joe Quick|--Joe Quick]]  ([[User talk:Joe Quick|
:But I don't *want* to argue, Martin, (hard to believe, I know).  In fact, I agree completely. I just want to see the introduction written exactly as you have explained it above.   
Talk]]) 17:46, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
:I don't think that what you've just said comes across to a 14 year old reading the article for the first time.  I could be wrong, but as we all know, I'm very rarely wrong about anything.
:[[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 17:06, 20 April 2008 (CDT)


:Joe, exellent points.  I think we can have a [[History of race]] article that will deal with these issues far more clearly!  I don't have time to whip up such a major entry yet, but have started the ball rolling with a newly-written and illustrated entry for [[Eugenics]].  This could be part of, or cross-referenced with, [[History of Race]].  [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 17:57, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
::OK. Give me a few days to finish something, and I will try to reword/rephrase things. If you feel like it, you are welcome to change things in the article, Aleta. I appreciate your comments about what a 14-year old might understand, and I am not expert in explaining anything to children! [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 18:47, 20 April 2008 (CDT)


:::Re: ''I am not expert in explaining anything to children!'' Yeah, well, no names, but there are a few children around who would probably say the same thing about me! [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 18:52, 20 April 2008 (CDT)


== Let's delete this version, please ==
:: ''as we all know, I'm very rarely wrong about anything.'' Umm, sure you're not wrong about that? :-) [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 21:38, 20 April 2008 (CDT)
Well, I have not seen this article before. It is a mess. I cannot claim to be an international authority on race, but I think my level of expertise is sufficient to handle these issues. First, the biological evidence about "race" is dealt with in the article [[Race (biology)]]and this scientific position should be a central part of the analysis. Secondly, there is no room for people's opinions in this article: the social science literature is almost unanimous in its conclusion that race is socially constructed. This does not mean that the role of genetic differences is zero, and this point needs to be explained clearly. Thirdly, thst there are dissenters [flat earthers, if you like]: by all means let's reference them, but don't pretend that anyone takes these people very seriously. Finally, the whole history of race and racism has to be put into historical, national and regional contexts. The current version of the article -- in para. 3 for example -- gives analysis which I have never read and which is unreferenced. This is clearly unnacceptable.
:::{{civil}}


Overall, the article is stating as "facts" things which are apparently someone's personal opinion. We have to delete it entirely and start with a clear structure within which common positions, standard analyses and minority positions can be located. It should also be linked with other articles on ethnicity, racism, etc to make a coherent approach. The most central point out of all of this is the complete lack of scholarship in the current version. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 18:03, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
==This article is now open to general editing==
I am hereby removing the earlier ban on general contribution to this article.  That has been in place for far too long.  The very idea of restricting articles has always struck me as being problematic at best--and indeed contrary to our [[CZ:Fundamentals|fundamental policies]]. We now have a better method of dispute resolution for incendiary topics: we call in Gareth Leng to act as a moderator. If necessary, that is what we will do in this case. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 18:56, 23 April 2008 (CDT)


:Martin, I am glad to see your calm and clear reflections here.  Having had a look at your credentials on your home page, I believe that your background would be ideal to oversee this entry, the more so as [[Race (biology)]] is now underway, and can provide clarity and support for a fresh start while enabling a more socially, historically, informed version of this issue. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 20:49, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
== First sentence and paragraph ==
I'm sure that the current first paragraphs represent a rough draft, but at present, they dive right into some history without any sort of context that we have in every other CZ article.  I mean, of course, a definition and/or discussion of the concept.  While it would be silly to ask that the article begin with ''a'' definition of "race," I do ask that we begin by discussing (in some general, but still hopefully helpful, way) the very concept(s) of race.  We might say this: the concept is one of the greatest sources of controversy about the topic--and that, therefore, there is no generally accepted definition. This is something that college students (our audience) might indeed need to know, and they might not be fully apprised of it.


:Reply to Martin:
If we want to begin our substantive discussion with the history of the concept, we can then ''justify'' that approach by saying that it is perhaps the fairest way to proceed, in view of the terrific amounts of controversy surrounding the topic. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 19:07, 23 April 2008 (CDT)
:#The article [[Race (biology)]] is still mostly a stub, and has just started to scratch the surface of the issue.
:#The social science literature is meaningless in the face of evidence from genetic research that race actually exists. Social science can tell us how people have socially constructed the concept of race, but cannot show that there is no biological reality underlying those social conceptions; only the biological sciences can. To claim otherwise is to fall prey to the worst excesses of postmodernism. No amount of transformative hermeneutics will make the genetic research go away; only other genetic research can.
:#Calling people who cite scientific research "flat-earthers" is rather closed-minded.
:#By all means, there's a huge history to how people have perceived, and used, race. If you think that paragraph three is wrong, please write a sourced alternative to it, and replace it.
:[[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 18:21, 1 June 2007 (CDT)


Anthony: let me correct some misunderstandings. First, I do not propose to modify a defective structure: it should be demolished. Secondly, the social science literature tells us how we think human beings behave. It also tells us what people think the word "race" means, which biologists do not do. Thirdly, I already explained that there is some role of genetic difference, and this has to be taken into account. Genetic research is covered in the Race (biology) article and I suggest that you take it up with the Editor there. I have no intention of disputing the content of that article, which will form the scientific component of this article. Finally, I presume that you are one of the authors of this article. Might I ask you to show some respect for a social scientist who has been working in this field for 20 years? --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 18:37, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
== Where are we now? ==
I see the last time anything much was done on this page was in 2008, yet the article remains profoundly unsatisfactory. For instance, there is nothing about genetics. I was once informed by a lecturer in genetics at Leeds Uinversity that in the present day there is less difference between a black and a white American than between a white American and a white European. I should like to see something on this sort of topic, not to mention a general straightening out of the article. --[[User:Martin Wyatt|Martin Wyatt]] 19:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:47, 20 November 2020

This article is developing and not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  A categorization of people according to specific physical attributes: most commonly, these are skin colour, facial characteristics and sometimes hair type. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories:  Sociology, Anthropology and History [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive:  1  English language variant:  British English

Plan for this article

(moved to top as per LS suggestion)

What is clear to me from reading the Talk page above, and also looking at the Wikipedia article on this topic, is that there exists a fundamental philosophical problem of "knowledge" with this topic. That is to say, there is an interplay between "commonsense" knowledge of individuals, the incomplete scientific knowledge on the matter, and the predominant [but not unanimous] social science view of "race" as a social construction. These interact to leave a space where people's opinions and different life-experiences emerge and conflict.

The Wikipedia article solves this by claiming that there is no consensus and providing massive detail without guidance, such that anyone [including me] is completely intimidated by the mass and complexity of information and unable to agree or disagree! On CZ, this article can potentially show the difference between Wikipedia and CZ, and great care should be taken that we come out looking better. My proposal is the following:

(1) we should wait for a reasonably definitive survey of the biology literature by Nancy in Race (biology), which will exclude the substantive debates in science from this article

(2) this article will then focus on three aspects of race: (a) understandings of the word in common discourse (b) historical aspects of race, globally and with some nation-specific coverage [e,g, USA] (c) social science analysis of the issue, including some minor dissenters; including an explanation of what social scientists mean when they say that race is "socially constructed"

(3) we include the scientific knoweldge, as determined by Race (biology)

(4) some conclusions concerning the validity of the concept

I am not sure about the exact structure: these are just preliminary thoughts. Suggestions are welcome. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 09:01, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Biological discussions of race should be placed on the Talk page of Race (biology) which is under construction.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 21:37, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

Martin, an excellent plan. I agree on all points. You should be aware as well that, in coordination with Nancy, I'm working on an entry on Eugenics which connects with her Eugenics and sterilization; the two may very probably end up merged. This entry should, I hope, serve a function oppostite from, but connected iwth Race (biology), in that it will give a clear, historical account of the many false notions of race and inheritance, many of them not entirely abandoned in popular consciousness. So, with this entry for the pseudoscience, and the Biology entry for solid science, the Social Sciences should be able to keep an even keel, buoyed as it will be on either side -- a sort of controversy catamaran! Russell Potter 09:56, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, sounds like a good plan. Please move it to the top of the page so that it will not be archived. I am nervous, however, about (4). The guidance that CZ:Neutrality Policy provides is simple: if there is significant disagreement about some conclusion, then CZ officially has no stance on it, but instead fairly and sympathetically represents the different sides of the debate, allowing readers to make up their own minds. That's our policy. Anyway, before saying any more, I propose to wait until you've actually produced the conclusions.  :-) --Larry Sanger 10:16, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Larry, the conclusions of an encyclopedia article should summarize and evaluate the various positions in different sources of knowledge. The different sides of a debate may not have equal force, and it is a mistake to pretend otherwise out of "political correctness". To some extent this hinges on what one means by "significant disagreement", and, I repeat, this is where CZ should show its superiority over wikipedia. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 10:59, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Sports

What about "race" in sports as running races, such as "100m race"? Yi Zhe Wu 23:03, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

That would be a matter for another entry entirely, something like [[Race (sport)]]. Russell Potter 23:22, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
Actually, I found an interesting journal article on racism in sports: we can include that:-)--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:30, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

This should be a disambiguation page

This page should be, and should remain, a disambiguation page. There are two drastically different common meanings of the word "race" in English (my Concise Oxford Dictionary gives a third: a ginger root), and each of those has related subsidiary meanings. There is the meaning used in the phrase "races of man", which should probably have a biology article and an anthropology article, and perhaps a history article as well. There is also the meaning of "a contest of speed", which would at least link to pages about various kind of racing, and possibly also discuss the computer-science meaning of "race condition".

Deciding that this page will end up, eventually, as the CZ article on the anthropological and biological meanings of the word would be doing as much a disservice to our readers as to leave only articles which discussed contests of speed. Anthony Argyriou 12:49, 31 July 2007 (CDT)


This is not a disambiguation page

I am not aware that you are an Editor on CZ, Mr Argyriou. The page was blanked temporarily, and it will shortly be unblanked. You may state your opinions/objections on this Talk page. My opinion is that the word "race" in the sense of motor cars etc. is so uninteresting that it is doubtful that it should even be on CZ. Race as an idea about humans, on the other hand, is highly contentious and should be of great interest to our readers. Thus far, we have only an incomplete Race (biology) article, so this article needs to be created. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 13:42, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

I am not aware that your status as an editor empowers you to be rude to mere authors. Anthony Argyriou 16:14, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

I do not see any rudeness in the above, merely a hint of exasperation in the management of these issues. Please just leave this page alone and a discussion of disambiguation and/or moving of pages can be done at a later date.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:38, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

I was not the person who placed the {{diambig}} tag on the page; I found that the article had that tag, and re-arranged the page to better conform to the norms of a disambiguation page. Even without the disambiguation tag, and after your other edits, the page still is, in fact, a disambiguation page, as all it does is point to other articles describing the various senses of the word "race", whether those articles exist or not.
Wikipedia has an article at "race", and a disambiguation page at "race (disambiguation)". Looking at the content of both those pages, I think they've got it wrong - that given the various senses of the word "race", the article race should be the disambiguation page, and articles on the various senses of the word race should be at race (subject area). Anthony Argyriou 10:06, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

I am not going to weigh in here except to say that race (sports) or racing sounds like a perfectly appropriate topic for an encyclopedia article. And come to think of it, race (sports) might need to be disambiguated: there's the topic of racing, and then there's the topic of racial issues in sports.  ;-) --Larry Sanger 00:39, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

I *am* going to weigh in here, as I have weighed in on other, less controversial topics, regarding the subject of "disambiguation". I am completely against the idea of disambiguating everything in favour of every usage that can possibly be imagined. Sometimes, there is a clear primary meaning, sometimes one meaning has a slight edge, sometimes there's ambiguity (I mean really and truly) so that it's so difficult to decide which meaning would be thought of first, or most, by most people, would be difficult, so the PRIMARY page must of necessisity and common sense, be a "disambiguation" page.
I do not believe that the latter applies to the word "race", any more than "baker" should be a disambiguation page. "Baker" is someone who makes yummy things out of flour and sugar. "Ball" is a round spherical thing. The fact that Sir Samuel Baker is an explorer and Howard Baker was a politicial and there may be I don't know how many hamlets called "Baker"; and that "ball" also means fun and to people like me it means a dance and Lucille Ball, God rest her soul, was one of the 20th Centuries great character comediennes is completely beside the point.
Yes, there are other meanings to the word "race". Yes, I agree with Larry, running races and bike races are fit subjects for encyclopaedias (though I confess I have not the least interest in car races--boring madness, if you ask me--but I digress--the point is that *some* people obviously like them....) The question is, would people looking for those types of races type in "race" alone? Doubtful. Very doubtful, if we're being honest rather than combative. They might look up 'racing' or 'athletics' or 'track and field', or a specific race "indy 500" or "tour de france" or some such. If they *did* type in "race" only, it would probably be a lazy and/or hopeful gesture; I don't see how anyone would be terribly surprised or offended to be taken by default to an article on human classification, with one of our notices at the top about where the disambiguation was to be found.
I know this was longwinded, but, really, let's try to be sensible. I'm not in the least bit interested in casting blame about who typed what tag first. Getting this (article) right is going to be hard enough without going off the rails sweating the small stuff.
Aleta Curry 05:32, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

Revised plan and some text

I have restarted the page, with some changes to the previous suggested structure. Feel free to make minor changes to the text, but please discuss here any significant changes which you feel are needed. THe topic has been far too controversial to allow laissez-faire contribution, but comments and suggestions are always welcome. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 20:23, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Really good start, Martin. I don't think I have any significant changes, but I do have some comments and questions, like:
  • Can the text contain some references to the way the ancients looked at race? Do we have such information? My understanding is that the Romans, e.g. really only looked at people in terms of citizens, or not--i.e. Romans vs. everyone else. But they had come into contact with many different ethnic groups--how did they describe them? What about before that? How did the Egyptians, Nubians, Chinese and Arabs view people who were different?
  • I'm pretty sure the Europeans knew of blacks, arabs, asians, before the end of the 15th Century. Does no documentation remain that tells of how they were described? Or is that the answer...that is, were they simply described without being catagorized?
  • What do social scientists mean when they say that “race is socially constructed”? Good question. Some thoughts: they mean that where race has been institutionalized (South Africa, United States) there is always some ambiguity at bottom, a lack of objectivity. So there are always people who are put in one category or another based on subjective analysis. Also, I saw a documentary recently in which it was said that there are no biological markers for any one group of "races" that are not found in at least one other human group. I probably didn't say that really well. It would be good if someone else knew of the reference. In addition, people who espouse eugenics do not do so consistently and objectively. Describing a person as "all XXX" because of "polluted blood" is only applied negatively, that is, to persons who are considered undesirable for some reason. The gifted are not called "all XXX" but are described as "part white" or as having skills/talent/genius/whatever because of "white" ancestry. It's not even logical.
Aleta Curry 20:58, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, Aleta. I am not knowledgeable on older history, and maybe someone will come along here who will know better. The main reference is Wieviorka, who talks about race as a socio-political issue from that date [although racism comes much later]. I suppose the answer is likely to be about inclusion version exclusion, rather than the structured discrimination that is the history of race.

I will write the next section later today. This is fairly standard social science, but I ran out of energy. I am also putting in here a new section, which will take account of recent genetic research. This will argue that we can identify a lot of subspecies -- so many, in fact, that we don't know what to do with them! The research also shows that the visible genetic markers [like skin colour] are a very poor indicator of actual genetic origin. In other words, our social ideas of "race" are completely up the wall, and based on poor indicators and human prejudice. This is also the implication in our unfinished Race (biology) article. However, the characteristics of genetically similar groups are very important for medical purposes -- and these are quite distinct from social categories of race. I have most of the major scientific literature on this, to complete the text.

There will also have to be a section on Racism. Racial Discrimination, etc and their importance in economy, society and law. That section should have some debates emanating fronm it! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 21:19, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Dispute watch removed

See my comments on your Talk page, Larry. This is not acceptable to me, because it is not a dispute about the content. The sceicne content belongs mainly under Race (biolog). I also object to my reply having been removed, and the complaint left. That is a disgrace. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:47, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

I've removed the dispute watch at your request. As to your characterization of your co-contributor, let's talk in e-mail. --Larry Sanger 12:01, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

Section heading

The heading "Science and Race: a long and shameful history" is biased and so should be removed. Anthony Argyriou 11:52, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

The section is not yet written, so the justification is of course not visible. There is, therefore, nothing to discuss. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:55, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

I have to disagree. What Anthony is objecting to is the section heading itself. The question is merely whether experts would all agree with the pejorative description "long and shameful history" when applied to the relationship of science and race. Well--I have to doubt it but I don't know. Surely the entire history of the scientific treatment of race isn't universally regarded as shameful... --Larry Sanger 11:58, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

Maybe the entire history of the scientific treatment of race isn't universally regarded as shameful, but I'll bet there's a lot that, given our present knowledge, is just plain embarrassing. My impression in just reading the title, since there's nothing there yet, is that the premise is that racism's having been defended by science at various points in time, that is, that the limited extent of the majority culture's scientific knowledge in times past allowed the justification of racism based on science, is now considered shameful. (Am I even close, Martin?) Anthony seems to be saying that it is not objective to make such statements.
So, would it make sense to simply call the section "Science and Race" with no editorial?
I really hope that no one is going to argue that the justification of racism based on science is just fine. Really, I could do without the headache.
Aleta Curry 05:51, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

As I keep saying, the validity of the section heading should be judged by its content. If there is a strong feeling that the title is not justified, it will be shelved. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 10:30, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

It is not possible for the section heading as it stands to be justified under CZ:Neutrality Policy. It is clearly an expression of an opinion, and its use in a section heading is case of stating an opinion as a fact.
A better title would be History of science and race, or, if the following section is made a subsection, just Science and Race, with subsections discussing various periods in the history of science of race. I would hazard a guess that the history would break down as 1750s-1900ish, 1900ish to 1945, 1945-1960s, and contemporary, but other classifications, including non-historical ones, might be more appropriate. Anthony Argyriou 20:21, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
The CZ Neutrality Policy requires opposing opinions to exist, in order that a particular analysis not be adopted in CZ. I did not find a single academic paper or book which tried to defend the historical position of science with regard to Race. Let us be clear what the "shame" is here: it is that scientists for centuries failed to observe what is called "scientific method" and consistently supported the political status quo. Originally defending the existence of slavery [justified by the idea that black people were either inferior humans or possibly not even human], leading in the 19th C to the eugenics movement and related atrocities, and culminating in the use of science [in both moralistic and technical senses] in the Hitler regime. It is difficult to imagine a sustained set of conditions which could be more shameful!
If you can provide references to academic papers defending the historical position of science wrt race, I will change the section heading. I will not change it because of a claim that popular opinion is not in accord with the analysis, though. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 03:49, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
You have not responded to my point, and you mis-state the letter and intent of the Neutrality Policy. Anthony Argyriou 12:10, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
I have responded precisely on your point. I am not interested in your general opinion on what is the Neutrality Policy. I have stated my understanding of it, and if anyone disagrees on specific points those can be discussed. You make no specific points wrt the Policy. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 13:00, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

I propose that we table this issue and make it one of the first for a future Judicial Board/Committee to hear. I've stated my own views above and it won't help for me to reiterate them here. Until then, let's defer to our editor here and consider this little tempest in a teapot over, shall we? --Larry Sanger 07:15, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, Larry. I should say, that if enough people weigh in here and give the opinion that the section heading is not sustained by the content, I will also remove it. The point of the heading is to emphasise the content, and nothing more. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 07:23, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

Science and race

The statement Given the inability of biologists, and most recently geneticists, to provide any support for the biological concept of race, is biased, and should be amended to reflect the existence of a dispute among geneticists and biologists. Further, there is no evidence given that the conclusion of that sentence actually follows from the initial statement; social scientists may have reached that conclusion on their own without reference to genetics.

There is no dispute, as such, in the scientific jo0urnals. The dispute is only about genetic variation, not races. The relationship bnetween science and social science has been critical in the formulation of ideasa about race, and there is no controversy at all over that.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:12, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

For details supporting the existence of a dispute, please refer to Talk:Race/Archive 1#Biological reality. Note that I do not believe that this article should state the opposite of what it does now - it is very clear that some large number of experts in the field believe that there is no support for the biological existence of race. However, some number of experts in the field do believe that there is a biological/genetic basis to support some sort of racial classification system. It is fine to leave discussion of the details for Race (biology), it is not fine to make a biased and false statement in this article. Anthony Argyriou 12:03, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

I think the major problem here is that the article is not complete. My intention is to talk next about the older history of science and race, linking with the Eugenics article. There will then be a separate section on modern genetics and medical knoweldge where I will talk about population types, how these are different from Race, and why the word should be avoided at all costs. It is possible that you will agree with it.
I insist that detailed discussions of biology and race belong on the other page. I am not professionally qualified to deal with them.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:12, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

Martin, for now at the very least I'd back you up on this. This was more or less decided earlier. Maybe we can revisit the decision, but let's get race written first. --Larry Sanger 12:19, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm not clear on why biology is segregated into a race (biology) article, but the consensus of social science is the official version of the race article. I'm also not clear on how it could possibly be a good idea for the article to argue that "the word [Race] should be avoided at all costs". I'm curious to see what the compelling argument for this will be, but it hardly seems like encyclopaedic writing regardless of whether we agree with it.—Nat Krause 22:52, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
Well, to begin with, "race" as it is understood in the social sciences is very different from what biologists mean when they use that same word. Unfortunately, these two different concepts are often confused in general discourse. The best possible way to deal with the problems that arise from this is to split them apart and discuss them separately, as they deserve (though of course there will need to be many bridges built between the two articles).
I'm not sure where you discovered the quote that says "the word race should be avoided at all costs." I don't see that sentiment being conveyed either explicitly or implicitly. Are you referring to something specific?
It might be worth debating whether this article should be moved to race (social science) but let's leave that debate until we get the article developed. I fully expect that Martin's efforts will result in a comprehensive article that includes prominent links to other articles which will fill out the many faces of this thing we call race. --Joe Quick (Talk) 23:49, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
Joe, "the word should be avoided at all costs" is a quote from Martin's comments above. See above and below.—Nat Krause 23:00, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
Nat: if you read the [incomplete] article Race (biology) you will see that science historically followed uneducated popular discourse concerning racial ideas, recently accepting that there is only one human race, and since the Human Genome project using the word [foolishly, and misleadingly] with regard to clades or geographical "breeding groups" which have remained genetically isolated. All of this is ra5ther different from the popular use of the word, now. This is why, in my comments above, I emphasise that the word should be avoided. When we have a new concept, we need a new word -- not a value-laden word with a terrible history, like Race. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 01:55, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
I see. And the social sciences discussion of race accepts the common man's definition of race, which it then proceeds to debunk? Nevertheless, I'm not sure if this approach would be accepted in other similar instances (if there are any similar instances). The average person fails to understand a lot of complicated subjects, and consequently misdefines the relevant terms. The fact uneducated people consistently define X in an incoherent way doesn't necessarily mean that X does not exist, except in a purely semantic sense.—Nat Krause 23:00, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)


Do not remove text from article

Any proposed deletions or substantive changes must be discussed and AGREED on this page. Otherwise, we will be forced into setting up a protected page for an article under construction.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:10, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

A couple of comments

  • The first couple of transitions between sections feel a little abrupt. I'm not sure what you have planned for the section titled 'Contemporary scientific thinking on race,' Martin, but I think the logical flow might be improved somewhat by moving 'What do social scientists mean when they say that “race is socially constructed”?' below that section.
  • Having said in the lead that the biological sciences maintain that biological races don't exist, I think it is important that we point out that race can sometimes be useful to physicians. Of course, we know that much of this has to do with situations that are created by race (unequal access to health care, etc.) and not by races themselves, but I feel it's still important to mention.

--Joe Quick (Talk) 20:19, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, Joe: glad that somebody is reading this! Yes, the sections could be moved or the transitions rewritten: this is just a basic start. On the second point, I have collected a large literature which deals with the idea of "race" in medicine: there are not only socio-economic causes of disease, but also genetic factors. These have to be included. This section is the hardest for me to write, as I am not trained in biology or medicine, but I will do my best. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 07:55, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

And I take it that, as this is a collaborative endeavor and this is not your personal article, you're open to contributions from people trained in biology or medicine?  ;-)

Just checking! --Larry Sanger 08:35, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Sometimes, the intelligent ones with no vested interest or knowledge are the best choice. I'm sure there's a corollary to that somewhere though. --Robert W King 08:46, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Ha! Expertise in those areas is desperately needed: please join the fun! As far as non-experts are concerned, you are welcome but it is essential to know that this is a very tough area to grasp. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 09:47, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Okay, then I'm going to move "what do social scientists mean..." We can massage the transition from the unwritten section once it begins to materialize. Additionally, the "different or confused concepts" section strikes me as the type of thing that you would normally see in an inset or sidebar. I'd like to set it off by placing it in a box like this one. --Joe Quick (Talk) 14:50, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
Yes, I like the box idea. Do it!--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:03, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
Done. But now we need a lead image to offset the color of the box. Can anyone think of something that won't be offensive? I might be able to get permission to use this one, which is from a student magazine that I've written for. Otherwise, we could make something similar for ourselves. --Joe Quick (Talk) 21:31, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't understand the point of the box, or of "sidebar" boxes that others have added to articles. I frankly don't really like them. I'd prefer if we removed them until someone can clearly articulate how the extra complexity pays its way. --Larry Sanger 10:16, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Pretty simple: with regards to their use in Butler, it prevents the disruption of narrative cohesion and flow that comes by placing a sidenote anywhere else but as a sidenote. This is a standard and excellent tool in curiculum design. Not surprising, EB and Encarta both have their versions of them. They pay their way by allowing infothat would otherwise need to be edited out, or a stub created, e.g., it is a stretch to create a whole article titled Butlers in art.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 15:20, 23 August 2007 (CDT)
Boxes and sidebars etc are now standard and frequent features of all professional publications that I use. OECD is heavily dependent on them for its economic publications, and even credits a specific author with a box, for example. It is partly about not disrupting the narrative, and also sometimes to draw attention to specific things which are even more important than the narrative. Another use is for case-studies, illustrating a point in the narrative.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:32, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Anthropology

I'm not wanting to upset any balance already going on here, but this topic should really be placed first under anthropology, since it by nature deals solidly with both the biological and social aspects of "race", which are the principal discussion aspects of this topic.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:37, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't really see why. Race is an issue in sociology. It is historically Physical Anthropology, but most if not all of the people in the Anthropology workgroup are social anthropologists. They don't seem interested to turn up here, anyway. It should also be in history and politics, but I didn;t think it useful to add those.
The big gap at the moment is coverage of genetic science debates on race. That would be Biology :-)--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:45, 23 August 2007 (CDT)
Well, it is difficult. I am always conflicted about Workgroup assignments with these inherently interdisciplinary topics. We do have an active physical anthropologist on board, BTW, User:Lee R. Berger. At the least we should invite his collaboration.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:59, 23 August 2007 (CDT)
I emailed him a few weeks ago with this request, but his page says he is incommunicado for this month.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 03:43, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

As a general rule, article placement in workgroups should not depend on who is there now but whether the scholars in a discipline study the subject (whether they are represented here, yet, or not).

The order, however--sociology then anthro or vice-versa--is completely irrelevant to anything. We haven't yet established any hierarchy of workgroups. Order of listing is meaningless. --Larry Sanger 08:59, 3 November 2007 (CDT)

Removed a recent edit

I removed the recent edit by User:Supten Sarbadhikari which stated, in full:

Earlier Dr. William Shockley, the discoverer of transistor, and recently Dr. James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA structure and the lead for the Human genome project, have been in trouble for voicing opinions related to racial differences.

My reasons for removing this edit (of 37 words) are manifold:

  1. This article has been supposedly under construction by the Editors responsible, and additional content should supposedly be discussed in the talk page, and be cleared by them.
  2. The edit makes a somewhat controversial statement, but tries to weasel out of the controversy. Shockley and Watson have "been in trouble" (which really ought to be specified) for publicly making statements about the intelligence differences between blacks and whites. Saying that they are "in trouble" for "voicing opinions related to racial differences" tells us nothing about who has made the trouble, what sort of consequences these two men have faced, nor how these men have violated the orthodoxy of those people who have made the trouble.
  3. There are more than just Shockley and Watson who have made such statements and received various public opprobrium, and ocasionally career consequences.
  4. The edit makes unflattering and possibly reputation-damaging statements about living people, with no citations to either the statements nor the reaction to the statements.

If I was wrong to remove this edit unilaterally, please let me know. But also please think about it before restoring the edit. Anthony Argyriou 12:11, 5 November 2007 (CST)

I have yet to write the section on genetics, so it would belong there. There is an article in the current New Scientist which explcitily mentions these two guys, so we can cite that and link to it. Interestingly, that article also cites only those two... We do need some discussion of the genetics research, and I apologise for not having got round to it. It is a lot of work to try to summarise the complexity of it: I hope to do so before Xmas! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:46, 5 November 2007 (CST)

I thought discussion of genetics was going to be in race (biology)--but I could be misremembering. --Larry Sanger 13:03, 5 November 2007 (CST)

Ah, well, we had more or less decided that we can merge the two articles. Besides, the biology article doesnt have much on genetics, so someone has to write it. If there is great demand to leave them as two articles that is fine by me, because then I won't have to write the rather tough genetics summary:-) Whichever route we follow, I would like some more editorial input from science editors. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 13:09, 5 November 2007 (CST)
A useful link, DNA reunited, The Times. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2753556.ece --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 14:54, 6 November 2007 (CST)

Reading list

I just happened to stumble across Talk:Race/Readings; the entire page should probably be moved to Race/Bibliography, no (since we have no such page yet)? J. Noel Chiappa 23:26, 17 April 2008 (CDT)

Yep. That was an old page! --Larry Sanger 13:01, 18 April 2008 (CDT)

One year on, I'm still annoyed.

I just happened into this because seeing Noel's note in recent changes brought it to by attention.

I've just read the opening. Heavy sigh.

Here's what I read:

White people are the norm. We're all white here. There are other people on earth, of course, particularly black people. Here's how we see them.
Starting with our first white civilisations, Greece and Rome, we looked at black men like this. blah blah blah.

Look, folks, human society didn't begin with ancient Greece and Rome. How did people in other times and places look at people who were different?

Actually, the second paragraph is a much better start in my opinion, to wit:

“Race” as a distinction between different types of humans entered the European vocabulary towards the end of the 15th century

Unfortunately, it still presumes race--well, everything, actually, but we're talking about "race"--from a European point of view.

The nicest way I can put this is that it is unfortunate that at the beginning of 21st Century an expert-guided knowledge base can't come up with a more balanced, less biased way of discussing how people view other people who are different from themselves.

Now the sad thing is that I've come to "know" some of the folks who have worked on this thus far, and I now that none of this is intentional. This is unfinished, everyone's got a lot to do, and it's gone by the wayside.

Still, I look at the only image illustrating this draft; it's not captioned or explained, and I want to start throwing things. Heavy things. At people.

Please, I know people are busy, but this is important.

Put a priority on it, or delete it. Leave it on the back burner if it's too hard and nobody has time.

But let's do better than this. Please?

Aleta Curry 20:15, 19 April 2008 (CDT)

You seem to have a sense of what ought to be in the article. Maybe you should do it? J. Noel Chiappa 21:16, 19 April 2008 (CDT)
Two answers, Noel. First and foremost, this article was closed to outside editing, i.e. identified experts only. I don't have a problem with that, actually, because I think this topic is right on top of our list--of--things--that--must--be--handled--with--sensitivity-and-expertise. Second, I'm loathe to write on this when all I have to go on is general knowledge, the same sort of life experience and what I've read or what I've heard as everyone else, but no academic expertise in the field of race. If I open a can of worms, I can't argue with the authority of one well-versed in the subject.
Aleta Curry 21:31, 19 April 2008 (CDT)
Ah. Didn't realize it was closed. Didn't even realize we had that classification/status, actually... J. Noel Chiappa 21:37, 19 April 2008 (CDT)

THis article is not closed, although we had problems with it a long time ago. Most of the stuff here is written by me, so I should attend to the criticisms from Aleta.

My first reaction is that we don't have a history of race other than from the normal "white" perspective. But I am not sure that it is white, because as I have tried to explain, in ancient times, skin colour was not a big deal. It was like having blond or red hair. Therefore, the intro has to try to explain when (and maybe how) the social construction of race began.

Second issue: a European point of view. Well, this is where racism began and it seems the right way to explain why humans now see race as something separating each other. Of course, there is racism across the world [including discrimination against all skin colours by people of other skin colours] but this article is about race rather than racism.

Second: I will see what can be done about the image. I had not realised it was anything other than clearly explained.(Postscript: the image was placed before any conventions had been drawn up on image attribution and labelling. This should be addressed, of course.)

Fourth issue: you are most welcome to argue about these things, Aleta (and anyone else). Martin Baldwin-Edwards 09:37, 20 April 2008 (CDT)

But I don't *want* to argue, Martin, (hard to believe, I know). In fact, I agree completely. I just want to see the introduction written exactly as you have explained it above.
I don't think that what you've just said comes across to a 14 year old reading the article for the first time. I could be wrong, but as we all know, I'm very rarely wrong about anything.
Aleta Curry 17:06, 20 April 2008 (CDT)
OK. Give me a few days to finish something, and I will try to reword/rephrase things. If you feel like it, you are welcome to change things in the article, Aleta. I appreciate your comments about what a 14-year old might understand, and I am not expert in explaining anything to children! Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:47, 20 April 2008 (CDT)
Re: I am not expert in explaining anything to children! Yeah, well, no names, but there are a few children around who would probably say the same thing about me! Aleta Curry 18:52, 20 April 2008 (CDT)
as we all know, I'm very rarely wrong about anything. Umm, sure you're not wrong about that? :-) J. Noel Chiappa 21:38, 20 April 2008 (CDT)

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

This article is now open to general editing

I am hereby removing the earlier ban on general contribution to this article. That has been in place for far too long. The very idea of restricting articles has always struck me as being problematic at best--and indeed contrary to our fundamental policies. We now have a better method of dispute resolution for incendiary topics: we call in Gareth Leng to act as a moderator. If necessary, that is what we will do in this case. --Larry Sanger 18:56, 23 April 2008 (CDT)

First sentence and paragraph

I'm sure that the current first paragraphs represent a rough draft, but at present, they dive right into some history without any sort of context that we have in every other CZ article. I mean, of course, a definition and/or discussion of the concept. While it would be silly to ask that the article begin with a definition of "race," I do ask that we begin by discussing (in some general, but still hopefully helpful, way) the very concept(s) of race. We might say this: the concept is one of the greatest sources of controversy about the topic--and that, therefore, there is no generally accepted definition. This is something that college students (our audience) might indeed need to know, and they might not be fully apprised of it.

If we want to begin our substantive discussion with the history of the concept, we can then justify that approach by saying that it is perhaps the fairest way to proceed, in view of the terrific amounts of controversy surrounding the topic. --Larry Sanger 19:07, 23 April 2008 (CDT)

Where are we now?

I see the last time anything much was done on this page was in 2008, yet the article remains profoundly unsatisfactory. For instance, there is nothing about genetics. I was once informed by a lecturer in genetics at Leeds Uinversity that in the present day there is less difference between a black and a white American than between a white American and a white European. I should like to see something on this sort of topic, not to mention a general straightening out of the article. --Martin Wyatt 19:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Race_(social)&oldid=26735"