The Myth of Racial Types/Typology - Modern Human Variation

[jarlSigvald]

Here are a some websites that tackle the issue of human races and dispel the common misconceptions and myths... particularly the myth of types and typology:


ANT 275
Pseudo-science and Race
RACE - Are We So Different? :: A Project of the American Anthroplogical Association
Modern Human Variation: Topic Menu
Human Variation
Conceptualizing human variation - Nature Genetics
Modern human variation and race
Two Questions About Race
Gene Expression: Geography predicts human genetic diversity

I particularly advise you to get acquainted with this paper as it thoroughly explains why typology was abandoned, why type are not real and why Coon (yes! Coon!), a typologist, lead to this change.
AnthroSource | American Anthropologist - 105(1):65 - Abstract
I also strongly recommend these ones. They again explain why typology is wrong and types do not exist. Even races in the old meaning of the term do not.
The Biological Reification of Race -- Gannett 55 (2): 323 -- The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
The Genetic Reinscription of Race - Annual Review of Anthropology, 36(1):283 - Abstract
The Genetic Reinscription of Race - Annual Review of Anthropology, 36(1):283 - Abstract
AnthroSource | American Anthropologist - 105(1):116 - Abstract
http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/amp60146.pdf
RACE - The Power of an Illusion . Background Readings | PBS
More on why typology was wrong and is no longer of any use:
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Anth...otes_03_18.pdf
Typology (anthropology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
http://www.anthropology.hawaii.edu/c.../lecture06.pdf
Molecular Anthropology and Race -- DISOTELL 925 (1): 9 -- Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
http://165.230.98.36/acatalog/__Race...nce__2228.html
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=001...3E2.0.CO%3B2-1
Boas, Bones, and Race
http://www.appstate.edu/~Robbinsgm/lecture5.pdf
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/malhi/www/...TH241lec11.pdf
http://www.eubios.info/EJ142/ej142h.htm
And a bit more on the outdated typology and modern population genetics that superseded it:
Project MUSE
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies
Racism - Search View - MSN Encarta
Genetic variation, classification and \'race\' - Nature Genetics
AnthroSource | Transforming Anthropology - 9(2):19 - Abstract
differences -- Sign In Page
http://raceproject.aaanet.org/resour...ality/long.pdf
SpringerLink - Journal Article
Some of it are articles accessible only if you register/pay. In any case it's still worth reading the abstract. And here a few more to keep you going and on the right track:
Ernst Mayr on Race
RACE - Resources -Glossary (look at "typological model")
NOVA | Transcripts | Neanderthals on Trial | PBS
Another Look at Ethnicity as a Biological Concept: Moving Anthropology Beyond the Race Concept -- Billinger 27 (1): 5 -- Critique of Anthropology
hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak_download&id_clanak_jezik=8770
http://sdcc3.ucsd.edu/~jmessina/Race.pdf
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/malhi/www/...1/Long2006.pdf
I.U.A.E.S. - statement on RACE
Here's a fairly good one on typology vs modern human variation:
http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=...nak_jezik=8770.
From Stanford Uni:
http://shrn.stanford.edu/workshops/r...ooding2004.pdf
Read it and use it! For now it should suffice...

The issue of "human races" is something different and not entirely resolved. I do not side here with anybody, I do not politicise the issue. I posted this extensive list of sources for the members of the forum, so that everyone can access them easily and form his/her own opinion on the subject. This list is more than enough for that purpose. I rather posted it so that everyone here can be aware of the plain fact that typology is history.

That is it. It's just a list of most important papers/websites/resources available on the web and obtained from a simple google search. Written by established authorities, geneticists and scientific bodies not by anonymous amateurs.... There is no conspiracy here, just a set of different opinions.

The issue of "human races" is something different and not entirely resolved. I do not side here with anybody, I do not politicise the issue. I posted this extensive list of sources for the members of the forum, so that everyone can access them easily and form his/her own opinion on the subject. This list is more than enough for that purpose. I rather posted it so that everyone here can be aware of the plain fact that typology is history.That is it. It's just a list of most important papers/websites/resources available on the web and obtained from a simple google search. Written by established authorities, geneticists and scientific bodies not by anonymous amateurs.... There is no conspiracy here, just a set of different opinions.Types indeed do exist as a phenotypic manifestation of population's gene pool, of its natural variation, of different allele combinations within that gene pool. "Borrebies", "Falids", "Nordids" and all the so called "mixes" are spectra within the same Northern populations with common gene pools. Assigning them in an arbitrary way a set of strict characteristics and traits and calling some "pure" ones and other "mixed" ones is simply wrong. There is no genetic basis for this. The more we try to define these types the more obvious it becomes. Extrapolating this system - every individual would constitute a separate, unique racial type. But this is not what we are looking for in genetics. Human populations are continous. It is already hard enough to divide them into separate races, but searching for some discrete "types" WITHIN a population is just science-fiction. Particularly that there are no obstacles to gene flow between these types and often one type can breed another - "in to-to" as Coon described it. Again I repeat! This is not about types but races - "Mongoloids", "Caucasians" etc. And this is still a simplification as there are populations which cannot be classified as typical "Caucasians" or "Asians". But for the purpose of medicine this has been simplified and the spectrum has been cut up and divided into discrete "races".Name me a single medical handbook that metiones Nordids, Strandids, Tavastids, Brunns, Borrebies, Gorids, Fenno-Nordids, Dalo-Falids, Anglo-Saxons, Fritertypes, Rhine types or Dinarids. Or even the famous Cro-magnids versus Aurignacids. Or a single journal/research that gives any evidence, apart from purely morphological, for such classifications.Types indeed do exist as a phenotypic manifestation of population's gene pool, of its natural variation, of different allele combinations within that gene pool. "Borrebies", "Falids", "Nordids" and all the so called "mixes" are spectra within the same Northern populations with common gene pools. Assigning them in an arbitrary way a set of strict characteristics and traits and calling some "pure" ones and other "mixed" ones is simply wrong. There is no genetic basis for this. The more we try to define these types the more obvious it becomes. Extrapolating this system - every individual would constitute a separate, unique racial type.But this is not what we are looking for in genetics. Human populations are continous. It is already hard enough to divide them into separate races, but searching for some discrete "types" WITHIN a population is just science-fiction. Particularly that there are no obstacles to gene flow between these types and often one type can breed another - "in to-to" as Coon described it.Again I repeat! This is not about types but races - "Mongoloids", "Caucasians" etc. And this is still a simplification as there are populations which cannot be classified as typical "Caucasians" or "Asians". But for the purpose of medicine this has been simplified and the spectrum has been cut up and divided into discrete "races".Name me a single medical handbook that metiones Nordids, Strandids, Tavastids, Brunns, Borrebies, Gorids, Fenno-Nordids, Dalo-Falids, Anglo-Saxons, Fritertypes, Rhine types or Dinarids. Or even the famous Cro-magnids versus Aurignacids. Or a single journal/research that gives any evidence, apart from purely morphological, for such classifications.Types indeed do exist as a phenotypic manifestation of population's gene pool, of its natural variation, of different allele combinations within that gene pool. "Borrebies", "Falids", "Nordids" and all the so called "mixes" are spectra within the same Northern populations with common gene pools. Assigning them in an arbitrary way a set of strict characteristics and traits and calling some "pure" ones and other "mixed" ones is simply wrong. There is no genetic basis for this. The more we try to define these types the more obvious it becomes. Extrapolating this system - every individual would constitute a separate, unique racial type.But this is not what we are looking for in genetics. Human populations are continous. It is already hard enough to divide them into separate races, but searching for some discrete "types" WITHIN a population is just science-fiction. Particularly that there are no obstacles to gene flow between these types and often one type can breed another - "in to-to" as Coon described it.

(...)

Simple, "raw" metrics with artificially set bouduaries is probably one of the least objective methods in determining of the degree of relation between humans. Morpholog, which takes into account these secondary traits, is much better. Morphology of human face is dependent on the structure of the many tissues. A wide range of genes is responsible for this directly. But genes interact with each other on all levels - molecular (genome) and biochemical (proteome). The whole human biochemistry is a set of integrated, interlinked pathways and cycles. In this way there are many more genes which are indirectly responsible for facial features too. All these genes usually exist in several various forms (alleles) which differ slightly in efficiency of expression, their product. Now there are frequent alleles and rare ones, but above all there are many various alleles in a human population (especially a big one, like a nation). Now they are all shared by one and the same population and different combinations of these alleles give rise to different phenotypes. Some are more frequent (like the alleles that induce them), some are rare. Few might be extremely rare. But they are all genetically the same, based on a gene pool common to all individuals of the population. They simply arose from rare combinations, but this is still due to chance. Noone would think that albinos are a different race! Even though they are so distinct, they are genetically like most other memebers of their population, but simply a result of a very rare allele combination.


Simple, "raw" metrics with artificially set bouduaries is probably one of the least objective methods in determining of the degree of relation between humans. Morpholog, which takes into account these secondary traits, is much better.Morphology of human face is dependent on the structure of the many tissues. A wide range of genes is responsible for this directly. But genes interact with each other on all levels - molecular (genome) and biochemical (proteome). The whole human biochemistry is a set of integrated, interlinked pathways and cycles. In this way there are many more genes which are indirectly responsible for facial features too. All these genes usually exist in several various forms (alleles) which differ slightly in efficiency of expression, their product.Now there are frequent alleles and rare ones, but above all there are many various alleles in a human population (especially a big one, like a nation). Now they are all shared by one and the same population and different combinations of these alleles give rise to different phenotypes. Some are more frequent (like the alleles that induce them), some are rare. Few might be extremely rare. But they are all genetically the same, based on a gene pool common to all individuals of the population. They simply arose from rare combinations, but this is still due to chance. [b]Noone would think that albinos are a different race! Even though they are so distinct, they are genetically like most other memebers of their population, but simply a result of a very rare allele combination.



Simple, "raw" metrics with artificially set bouduaries is probably one of the least objective methods in determining of the degree of relation between humans. Morpholog, which takes into account these secondary traits, is much better.Morphology of human face is dependent on the structure of the many tissues. A wide range of genes is responsible for this directly. But genes interact with each other on all levels - molecular (genome) and biochemical (proteome). The whole human biochemistry is a set of integrated, interlinked pathways and cycles. In this way there are many more genes which are indirectly responsible for facial features too. All these genes usually exist in several various forms (alleles) which differ slightly in efficiency of expression, their product.Now there are frequent alleles and rare ones, but above all there are many various alleles in a human population (especially a big one, like a nation). Now they are all shared by one and the same population and different combinations of these alleles give rise to different phenotypes. Some are more frequent (like the alleles that induce them), some are rare. Few might be extremely rare. But they are all genetically the same, based on a gene pool common to all individuals of the population. They simply arose from rare combinations, but this is still due to chance. Noone would think that albinos are a different race! Even though they are so distinct, they are genetically like most other memebers of their population, but simply a result of a very rare allele combination.The issue of "human races" is something different and not entirely resolved. I do not side here with anybody, I do not politicise the issue. I posted this extensive list of sources for the members of the forum, so that everyone can access them easily and form his/her own opinion on the subject. This list is more than enough for that purpose. I rather posted it so that everyone here can be aware of the plain fact that typology is history.That is it. It's just a list of most important papers/websites/resources available on the web and obtained from a simple google search. Written by established authorities, geneticists and scientific bodies not by anonymous amateurs.... There is no conspiracy here, just a set of different opinions.
Switch to full edit form

[Kernunnos]

Maybe you don't politicize the issue but official science does.

Genetic is in its infancy and its tenets change day by day.

Recent researches are showing that races do exist, so much that on the NYT, in an article extensively quoted and deeply commented on this scientific blog , leftist activists have suggested to stop genetic research on the matter to avoid a resurrection of racism, simply for the fact that now it is clear that drugs have different effects on different races, and certain genes associated, as of now, to intelligence are not present in africans.

See also this blog from an indian geneticist

As I have said before her, genetics is a science in its infancy and the issues it touches are mostly sensitive from a political or from an economical point of view.

That's why we cannot take it for granted, while we bet on other proofs coming from an infallible experiment: the historical achievements of different races.

Mozart versus african music, Michelangelo versus africa sculpture, Von braun versus african archery.

No match so far, meaning that Michael Levin the epistemologue is right: it is not us that have to prove that african are unequal, it is them that have to prove yet to be.

[Martín Zalacaín]

Originally Posted by Breha

That's why we cannot take it for granted, while we bet on other proofs coming from an infallible experiment: the historical achievements of different races.

Mozart versus african music, Michelangelo versus africa sculpture, Von braun versus african archery.

No match so far, meaning that Michael Levin the epistemologue is right: it is not us that have to prove that african are unequal, it is them that have to prove yet to be.

That's the main argument I use to critizice the "no-races" theory.

[jarlSigvald]

Let me quote myself:

This is not about types but races - "Mongoloids", "Caucasians" etc. And this is still a simplification as there are populations which cannot be classified as typical "Caucasians" or "Asians". But for the purpose of medicine this has been simplified and the spectrum has been cut up and divided into discrete "races".


Name me a single medical handbook that metiones Nordids, Strandids, Tavastids, Brunns, Borrebies, Gorids, Fenno-Nordids, Dalo-Falids, Anglo-Saxons, Fritertypes, Rhine types or Dinarids. Or even the famous Cro-magnids versus Aurignacids. Or a single journal/research that gives any evidence, apart from purely morphological, for such classifications.


Types indeed do exist as a phenotypic manifestation of population's gene pool, of its natural variation, of different allele combinations within that gene pool. Now, we obviously can subjectively select some traits and link them together into a "type", but human inheritance knows no bounduaries and this would not reflect the reality, the natural variation and the patterns of inheritance. You select some traits as a type, but then there are still individuals who do not fit the definition. You then get "pure types" and "unpure types". But such unpure types still belong to the same populations and share the same genepool. Its like with the Borreby father and his Nordic son from Coon's plates. And obviously there is the whole issue of trait selection. How many traits constitute a type? Why these traits? Which traits are more significant? Why? What is the morphological/metrical frame of a type? Where lies the bounduary between one type and another? Is there any sense of selecting a well defined bounduary of polygenic traits at all? And what is the sense of selecting types within a population with a common genepool?

"Borrebies", "Falids", "Nordids" and all the so called "mixes" are spectra within the same Northern populations with common gene pools. Assigning them in an arbitrary way a set of strict characteristics and traits and calling some "pure" ones and other "mixed" ones is simply wrong. There is no genetic basis for this. The more we try to define these types the more obvious it becomes. Extrapolating this system - every individual would constitute a separate, unique racial type.


But this is not what we are looking for in genetics. Human populations are continous. It is already hard enough to divide them into separate races, but searching for some discrete "types" WITHIN a population is just science-fiction. Particularly that there are no obstacles to gene flow between these types and often one type can breed another - "in to-to" as Coon described it.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Breha

Maybe you don't politicize the issue but official science does.

Genetic is in its infancy and its tenets change day by day.

Recent researches are showing that races do exist, so much that on the NYT, in an article extensively quoted and deeply commented on this scientific blog , leftist activists have suggested to stop genetic research on the matter to avoid a resurrection of racism, simply for the fact that now it is clear that drugs have different effects on different races, and certain genes associated, as of now, to intelligence are not present in africans.

See also this blog from an indian geneticist

As I have said before her, genetics is a science in its infancy and the issues it touches are mostly sensitive from a political or from an economical point of view.

That's why we cannot take it for granted, while we bet on other proofs coming from an infallible experiment: the historical achievements of different races.

Mozart versus african music, Michelangelo versus africa sculpture, Von braun versus african archery.

No match so far, meaning that Michael Levin the epistemologue is right: it is not us that have to prove that african are unequal, it is them that have to prove yet to be.

These differences in achievement, so huge as they are, mean just stating the obvious fact. Stating some fact in itself does not say anything about the cause of that fact. Africans not having Mozart just means...that Africans have no Mozart, the very fact of not having Mozart does not prove that not having Mozart is the result of genetic inferiority.

Sorry, I don't buy into this sort of vulgar materialism.

The state in which Africa is today is more probably result of the millennia of spiritual degradation and deterioration.

Speaking of music: did you notice the prevalence of drums in the African, especially Western African, music? Percussion instruments are those that appeal to the lower part of the body and to the lower, more telluric instincts. Not that I am in any way bashing drums, but it seems to me that the domination of percussion instruments, over other instruments, in the music of certain culture says something about the aspirations of that culture. It may be seen as a sign of cultural decay I just mentioned.

Whilst the traditional European cultures prefer chorded musical instruments.

Note the eminent role of percussion instruments in all modern music...on a way to Africanization?

[Kernunnos]

Originally Posted by Plethon

These differences in achievement, so huge as they are, mean just stating the obvious fact. Stating some fact in itself does not say anything about the cause of that fact. Africans not having Mozart just means...that Africans have no Mozart, the very fact of not having Mozart does not prove that not having Mozart is the result of genetic inferiority.

Sorry, I don't buy into this sort of vulgar materialism.

The state in which Africa is today is more probably result of the millennia of spiritual degradation and deterioration.

Speaking of music: did you notice the prevalence of drums in the African, especially Western African, music? Percussion instruments are those that appeal to the lower part of the body and to the lower, more telluric instincts. Not that I am in any way bashing drums, but it seems to me that the domination of percussion instruments, over other instruments, in the music of certain culture says something about the aspirations of that culture. It may be seen as a sign of cultural decay I just mentioned.

Whilst the traditional European cultures prefer chorded musical instruments.

Note the eminent role of percussion instruments in all modern music...on a way to Africanization?

Definitely, yes