Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:

ColdFire wrote:I merely said developed because if an organism did not have a characteristic before but now it does, it developed it.

Fair enough.

As for the other quote, perhaps my wording is off, characteristics would have probably been a batter word because our physical characteristics do define us.

Sure, but what I'm saying is that there's no actual group of physical characteristics that collectively define one race against another. It's a weird mix of characteristics that get grouped up to define different races, with no actual genetic underpinning.

I mean, what's Greek guy? White, black, or what? He's typically got darker skin than many people we'd call black.

I see your point, I think Greeks are classified as White although i think I have heard the term Medditeranean used
Its strange though, i can usually recognise someone as Greek by looking at them, they do have a distinct look about them.
Though thats not right because people from Malta, Italy and other regions in that area have similar appearances, any way I think were on a similar page.

ColdFire wrote:I see your point, I think Greeks are classified as White although i think I have heard the term Medditeranean used

Yeah, I think you'll find most people consider them white these days. Which is largely a product of a greater European identity forming, so all the ethnicities that used to be identified in Europe have come to be seen now as white.

It's only a couple of generations ago that Irish was considered a different thing to white.

Though thats not right because people from Malta, Italy and other regions in that area have similar appearances, any way I think were on a similar page.

Yeah, definitely, we're on the same page.

Irish is still listed as a separate ethnicity to British on the UK census form. Modern people don't think of them as being non-white, though. Back in the 1950s there was overt discrimination.

Similarly, the concept of "Mediterranean" people being darker skinned -- a different (inferior) race -- is old-fashioned.

I think the European experience is also informed by our historical perception that Rome and Greece were centres of the highest, most admirable culture in ancient times.

I've never really understood the US distinction of "Latino" as a race. I just assume that the USA has more racial tensions than Europe.

sebster wrote:

ColdFire wrote:I merely said developed because if an organism did not have a characteristic before but now it does, it developed it.

Fair enough.

As for the other quote, perhaps my wording is off, characteristics would have probably been a batter word because our physical characteristics do define us.

Sure, but what I'm saying is that there's no actual group of physical characteristics that collectively define one race against another. It's a weird mix of characteristics that get grouped up to define different races, with no actual genetic underpinning.

I mean, what's Greek guy? White, black, or what? He's typically got darker skin than many people we'd call black.

Not entirely true, the production level of melanin is coded for in DNA at birth. However, damage caused by UVB radiation to DNA can cause increased levels of melanin production producing a tan or darker skin tone. Over time that damaged DNA is passed down through generation creating the skin tones of various regions.

Kilkrazy wrote:Irish is still listed as a separate ethnicity to British on the UK census form. Modern people don't think of them as being non-white, though. Back in the 1950s there was overt discrimination.

Similarly, the concept of "Mediterranean" people being darker skinned -- a different (inferior) race -- is old-fashioned.

I think the European experience is also informed by our historical perception that Rome and Greece were centres of the highest, most admirable culture in ancient times.

I've never really understood the US distinction of "Latino" as a race. I just assume that the USA has more racial tensions than Europe.

Exactly, nothing changed in the genetics of Irish people to make them come to be considered as part of the white "race". What changed was the social place of Irish people.

Racial theory then quietly adapted to have them put in with white people, because ultimately racial theory is looking more at economics and social position than at genetics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:Not entirely true, the production level of melanin is coded for in DNA at birth.

Well, yeah.

I don't think I've done a very good job of explaining myself here. I'm not claiming there are no genetic differences from person to person - there are. Lots of differences. But the point is there's no identifiable, complete set of genetic markers that make one group black, and another group asian, another group black and so on.

The traits of each group are extremely hazy, vary greaty from place to place, and ultimately tend to be rooted more in social status than in genetics.

sebster wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Irish is still listed as a separate ethnicity to British on the UK census form. Modern people don't think of them as being non-white, though. Back in the 1950s there was overt discrimination.

Similarly, the concept of "Mediterranean" people being darker skinned -- a different (inferior) race -- is old-fashioned.

I think the European experience is also informed by our historical perception that Rome and Greece were centres of the highest, most admirable culture in ancient times.

I've never really understood the US distinction of "Latino" as a race. I just assume that the USA has more racial tensions than Europe.

Exactly, nothing changed in the genetics of Irish people to make them come to be considered as part of the white "race". What changed was the social place of Irish people.

Racial theory then quietly adapted to have them put in with white people, because ultimately racial theory is looking more at economics and social position than at genetics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:Not entirely true, the production level of melanin is coded for in DNA at birth.

Well, yeah.

I don't think I've done a very good job of explaining myself here. I'm not claiming there are no genetic differences from person to person - there are. Lots of differences. But the point is there's no identifiable, complete set of genetic markers that make one group black, and another group asian, another group black and so on.

The traits of each group are extremely hazy, vary greaty from place to place, and ultimately tend to be rooted more in social status than in genetics.

True

Skin color-genetics
traits associated with skin color= historical and social influences


The best comparison is to breeds of dogs, the actual appearance of the breed is determined by genetics while the behaviors is determined through thousands of years of training, domestication, and the different uses for breeds.

youbedead wrote:True

Skin color-genetics
traits associated with skin color= historical and social influences


The best comparison is to breeds of dogs, the actual appearance of the breed is determined by genetics while the behaviors is determined through thousands of years of training, domestication, and the different uses for breeds.

Yeah. Except that we've bred dogs to have specific characteristics so that each breed will exhibit the features of that breed, with humans there isn't any clarity in what each race is supposed to have. We kind of default to skin colour, but there's a lot of black people with much lighter skin tones than you'll find among the 'white' people of Spain, Italy or Greece. So we say it's skin colour, but it's also facial characteristics, muscle development, or whatever else. Ignoring that those characteristics might be common in one group of black people, but not common in many others.

In the end it becomes clear there's no such actual thing, scientifically, as races in humanity. It's a social construct, and are efforts to distinguish one group from another are based as much in economics and social groupings as they are in actual genetic variation.

quite true. Separation of the races is a purely social construct