Are some races inherently superior to others?

[Tahar Joblis]

The "race" category fails at being a phenotypical or genotypical descriptor.

It describes a phenotype, or rather class of phenotypes; and that phenotype is associated, both directly and indirectly, with some particular genetic markers.

The wording choices of the US Census fail at being normative for anthropology.

Yet it is the primary classes used by the US Census which that particular study uses...

The "race" pseudotaxon the US census use isn't scientifically sound and mostly a politically-determined characterization

... the subdivisions they use correspond to clusters of ancestry. The particular choice of categories is political; but the divisions can be easily be made genetically, and the study does just that.

When they look very closely, they can also see two distinct East Asian subclusters, Japanese and Chinese, but they couldn't see clusters within "white non-Hispanic," "Hispanic," and "African American."

Anyway, if you want to claim administrative statements are normative for anthropology, here:

"The European Union rejects theories which attempt to determine the existence of separate human races."

That's very much pure politics.

Speaking about the method itself, considering how self-identification is mostly a result of non-self-identification by phenotypical groups, and how phenotypes are influenced by genotypes, no major surprise.

Yes. No major surprise.

This is not indicative of anything more than our ability to use SNPs to study population genetics and determine ancestry.

So?

All race is, ultimately, is a categorization within the human species.

Wrong. As I said, the races are paraphyletic groupings. Worse, some are even polyphyletic. The races themselves are not clusters, but themselves contain dozens of different clines that spread across the entire human population. The races are nothing more than attempts on our part to draw lines in the sand where no such lines actually exist.

Lines which, nevertheless, many people are reluctant to marry across; and lines which are visible in the genetic clusters.

So. People observe, and react to, the clusters of phenotypical differences. We can just as easily use a computer analysis to sort people into their appropriate categories. What more is needed for the line to exist, than the fact that it is visible to a machine told to look for genetic clustering into populations, visible to humans interacting with each other, and pretty damn well has a real effect on how people treat you?

Is it that hard to say "I think it's only a cosmetic difference," that you have to say "WE CAN'T DRAW THIS LINE EVEN THOUGH WE DO DRAW THE LINE AND A SMART COMPUTER DOING GENETIC ANALYSIS WOULD ALSO DRAW THAT LINE AND MAYBE A COUPLE MORE DEPENDING ON HOW SENSITIVE WE TELL IT TO BE?"

Because I'd rather just say "Hey, the differences between races are pretty small and insignificant, wow look at how much other species vary," and therefore not look like an ostrich.

[DrakoBlaria]

Well, the Lizardmen race are our overlords, so yeah

[Ainin]

And summertime kicks off...

[SaintB]

For the OP's question to be able to get an answer that is intelligible there would have to be different species that dominate the planet, I only know of one.

[Immoren]

And summertime kicks off...

And living is easy.

[Lordieth]

There's no "superior" race, but to ignore or argue that there aren't racial genetic differences that provide unique advantages would be ridiculous, and is akin to anti-racism; a fear that admitting there are racial differences is somehow "racist". No, it's scientific fact. Racism is about hatred and superiority. Science is about facts.

We're not talking about huge differences by any means, but there are differences.

People of a darker skin colour have more melanin in their skin, which protects against Skin Cancer. That's a clear benefit. I think it's no coincidence either, that athletes of West-African ancestry appear to have an advantage in running, and I'm sure there are plenty of statistics to back that up, so I won't bother listing endless sources.

Sickle-cell disease, according to wikipedia;

Sickle-cell disease occurs more commonly among people whose ancestors lived in tropical and sub-tropical sub-saharan regions where malaria is or was common. Where malaria is common

So while considered a disease today, would have been a significant evolutionary advantage once.

I think where the topic gets controversial is when differences in intelligence are discussed, which then leads into statements of "superiority". I don't think evidence in this field is entirely clear, and even if it were, I don't think the differences would be any greater than the difference in IQ from person to person across the globe.

So, in short, some races are inherently superior in specific key aspects, but no race is inherently superior as a whole, because most of these evolutionary advantages, on average, make little difference in every day life, and only provide specific advantages in particular areas. Each race has its own genetic advantages and disadvantages, and I think it's a shame that they can't be discussed openly and freely.

Medicine, science, technology and modern life have made these racial differences mostly irrelevant, and modern life makes it unlikely that Homo sapiens will diverge out for one to become the dominant species, as happened with us and the fall of Neanderthals of the genus Homo, of which we belong.

Besides, thanks to migration we're becoming much more genetically mixed. As the generations continue onward, genetic differences are likely going to decrease. So it'll just become less of a relevant topic with time. Until embyronic selection becomes the norm, of course, and we end up with genetically superior super-babies.

[Ovisterra]

Unless I have my own race, no.

[Genivaria]

No because race doesn't exist as an actual thing.

[Lordieth]

No because race doesn't exist as an actual thing.

Neither do concepts of "mine" and "yours", but they're clearly concepts that exist, and they're only ignored when it seems morally convenient. Race is just a label, but that label does describe ancestry, which does exist, and has roots in what we describe as the racial differences.

[Indira]

No

[SaorAlba]

NO!!!

Is NS a hotbed of far right extremists???

Why do we have to keep getting threads like this???

All humans are equal! we are one species, to simplify it we all bleed red!!

All to often that blood has been spilled, because some arshole, decides they don't like another humans skin tone or because they worship the same sky fairy differently.

there is no master race only the human race!

[Phocidaea]

The Asian thing is mostly cultural, what with parents pushing their kids really hard to the point where I've heard "Asian" used metonymously to refer to strict parents regardless of nationality or ethnicity.

Regarding physical features It is true that some people are genetically predisposed toward certain superior physical features (Usain Bolt!), and that such genetic similarities can be shared among many members of a "race", but that doesn't make the whole race necessarily superior.

[Napkiraly]

No because race doesn't exist as an actual thing.

Neither do concepts of "mine" and "yours", but they're clearly concepts that exist, and they're only ignored when it seems morally convenient. Race is just a label, but that label does describe ancestry, which does exist, and has roots in what we describe as the racial differences.

No literally, race does not exist in biological reality.

[Lordieth]

Neither do concepts of "mine" and "yours", but they're clearly concepts that exist, and they're only ignored when it seems morally convenient. Race is just a label, but that label does describe ancestry, which does exist, and has roots in what we describe as the racial differences.

No literally, race does not exist in biological reality.

I could agree that the concept is considerably vague in some aspects, but I'm not sure it can be entirely dismissed outright as a use for classification of differences between different sub-groups of Homo sapiens. I was defending it as a concept. I'm unsure as to its basis in biological reality.

[Napkiraly]

No literally, race does not exist in biological reality.

I could agree that the concept is considerably vague in some aspects, but I'm not sure it can be entirely dismissed outright as a use for classification of differences between different sub-groups of Homo sapiens. I was defending it as a concept. I'm unsure as to its basis in biological reality.

Here are the results of the HGP and its findings on race.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml

[Des-Bal]

INHERENT. Geography and history are not INHERENT to any race. There are no INHERENT differences between any race.

[Arcturus Novus]

There does seem to be some specialisation among cerain races t perfrom tasks suited to their ancient environment, but no one is inherently "better" than someone else.

[Quintium]

I can't think of anything for dem white folk.

How about versatility, perseverance and dominance? If white people put their minds to it, they can make a desert grow crops even if the original inhabitants of that desert have been unable to for fifty thousand years prior. White people live nearly everywhere - from the North Pole to the South Pole and anywhere in between - and usually form the academic and economic, and sometimes also political elite of the areas they inhabit.

They take ideas and resources from all over the world and refine them. They took agriculture from the Middle East and were usually the first in further agricultural development. They took Christianity from the Middle East and made it into a common cause that kept them from greater harm and eventually enabled them to have a formal cause to conquer the world. They built most of the greatest monuments in the world, and spread their cultures, religions and languages all over the planet. They took the ideas of gunpowder from Asia, and made them into practical tools and weapons with which they could further establish their global dominance. They took spices from Asia, gold and precious metals from Africa and the Americas, and fish from the sea, and made products the world had never seen before. They were the intellectual driving force behind the Industrial Revolution.

No other tribe, up to the Asians in the twentieth century, did anything remotely similar. White people have only two major disadvantages: they have had, throughout history, as much infighting as the rest, only with much more advanced weaponry, and since the mid-twentieth century a type of fatalism has come across them. They believe that they shouldn't press to be better than others, and that they should consider themselves either equal to or below others. Many of them now believe they should betray that which made them great - a certain sense of superiority and a desire to expand that now prospers in East Asia - in order to consider themselves morally good. They have somehow gained the idea that they should feel sorry for being more succesful than anyone else. Ultimately, the only thing that could destroy white people is white people, and that makes them unique.

I personally believe that is because of historical and geographical factors. Geography forces people to live certain lifestyles that might affect their cultural values, and in turn their success in life. It also alters their physical traits through natural selection.

Correct; I believe the reason white people - like East Asians - are so inventive, resilient and dominant is because only the inventive, resilient and dominant lived. As they moved north into and across Eurasia, those human populations that later became white people and Asians as well as native Americans were faced with conditions that were nothing like those of Africa or southern Asia. The lands they found were cold for half of the year, and geographically hostile. They had to plan ahead - in Africa, tribes could get through winter doing what they always did, especially near the equator, because the climate allowed for similar conditions all year long, with the same animals hopping about and the same plants growing. In Europe and the northern half of Asia, they had to work together, settle down, and gather food at a very strong pace in order to get their entire group through winter without too much harm. In winter, the birds moved, the mammals retreated to caves and holes in the ground, and a bitter cold never failed to take hold of the lands they lived in. They were basically forced to develop tools, to craft clothing and weaponry much more advanced than their African or South Asian counterparts, to find ways to store and preserve food and to take over agriculture and domestication of animals relatively quickly.

It's why the Europeans who first explored Africa were amazed to find tribes that still hadn't developed agriculture or domestication of animals - which in itself is not strange if you consider that they had plants and animals in relative abundance all year round.

[Genivaria]

I could agree that the concept is considerably vague in some aspects, but I'm not sure it can be entirely dismissed outright as a use for classification of differences between different sub-groups of Homo sapiens. I was defending it as a concept. I'm unsure as to its basis in biological reality.

Here are the results of the HGP and its findings on race.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml

I find this intriguing.

[Greater Murrika]

Yes. Bow before the Azerbaijani master race.

You clearly don't know the difference between a race and a nationality...

[Napkiraly]

Here are the results of the HGP and its findings on race.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml

I find this intriguing.

It is quite intellectually stimulating, good sire.

[Immoren]

Mer are always Superior to men.

[Chinese Regions]

Yes. The Tau are superior to the Humans. For the Greater Good!

the Gamilusans are superior you copy off blue skinned barstards! we had the blue skin first! and we owned half the galaxy...

[Napkiraly]

Mer are always Superior to men.

Thalmor scum! Skyrim belongs to the Nords!

[Risottia]

I could agree that the concept is considerably vague in some aspects, but I'm not sure it can be entirely dismissed outright as a use for classification of differences between different sub-groups of Homo sapiens. I was defending it as a concept. I'm unsure as to its basis in biological reality.

Here are the results of the HGP and its findings on race.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml

Uh, look...

DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans.

Surprise surprise.

Who's playing ostrich now?

Because I'd rather just say "Hey, the differences between races are pretty small and insignificant, wow look at how much other species vary," and therefore not look like an ostrich.