| Revision as of 13:43, 18 November 2024 view sourceChopinAficionado (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,208 edits Undid revision 1258155090 by Bonadea (talk)Tag: Reverted← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:20, 18 November 2024 view source Generalrelative (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,193 edits Per Doug and BonadeaTag: Manual revert |
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 99: |
Line 99: |
|
|
|
|
|
:This seems very much to be a ] post as it doesn't discuss sources, etc. ] ] 14:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:This seems very much to be a ] post as it doesn't discuss sources, etc. ] ] 14:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Do races even exist? Sources == |
|
|
{{hat|Hatting "forum type posts by blocked user" instead of full deletion}} |
|
|
Doug Weller asks for sources above. |
|
|
|
|
|
===2016 survery of American anthropologists=== |
|
|
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5299519/ |
|
|
"The human population may be subdivided into biological races. Strongly disagree or disagree (86%)" |
|
|
|
|
|
Among chemists phlogiston, and geologists flat earth, would be 100%. Those are fringe views. Futher the survey was largely among among anthropolgists without biological specialization, only 10% were Physical/Biological Anthropologists. And they were Americans. As we will see both matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
Archaeological Anthropologist 17.83 Cultural Anthropologist 53.81 |
|
|
Linguistic Anthropologist 5.63 |
|
|
Medical Anthropologist 12.25 |
|
|
Physical/Biological Anthropologist 10.48 |
|
|
|
|
|
===Goran Štrkalj 2007 review of surveys=== |
|
|
"In some places the concept of race seems to be falling out of favour (e.g., the USA and Western Europe), while in others it is generally accepted (e.g., China and Eastern Europe). The reasons for these differences are many and complex. They are of a scientific, ideological and professional nature. It would appear that two conclusions strongly emerge from research on the status of the race concept in biological anthropology: there is still no consensus on the race concept and there are significant national/regional differences in anthropologists’ attitudes towards ‘race’." |
|
|
|
|
|
===Ann Morning 2007 survey=== |
|
|
"‘Everyone Knows It’s a Social Construct’: Contemporary Science and the Nature of Race" |
|
|
*Race is biological |
|
|
Anthropologists 32% Biologists 45% |
|
|
*Race is not biological |
|
|
Anthropologists 21% Biologists 32% |
|
|
*Race is social |
|
|
Anthropologists 42% Biologists 5% |
|
|
*Race is social and not biological |
|
|
Anthropologists 5% Biologists 18% |
|
|
|
|
|
"Constructionist definitions of race were offered almost exclusively by the sociocultural specialists in anthropology departments; two-thirds of them took this approach, compared to only 14% of the physical anthropologists (and 23% of biologists; subfield results not shown). Whereas 57% of the physical anthropologists and 45% of the biologists defined race as a biological characteristic, only 17% of the sociocultural anthropologists did so. In other ways, my research upholds the findings of Lieberman's survey of academics taken 20 years ago. Since then, advances in genetic knowledge seem to have done little to dismiss scientists' belief in racial biology, or to bring academics to a consensus regarding the nature of race. At best, one can conclude that biologists and anthropologists now appear equally divided in their beliefs about the nature of race. Given the tenacity of essentialist ideology, sociologists cannot remain complacent in their certainty of the supremacy of racial constructivism. The idea that "everyone knows race is a social construct"—a refrain I have heard from more than one scholar convinced there is little variation in academic concepts of race to study—represents a blind faith in constructivism that ignores the signs of a resurgence in biology-based race science. Without serious recognition of and engagement with the new, genetic essentialism, sociology is left ill-equipped to analyze and address it." |
|
|
|
|
|
===Richard Dawkins=== |
|
|
"However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance." |
|
|
|
|
|
""Social construct"? Forget it. Race is biologically real." |
|
|
|
|
|
===Jerry Coyne=== |
|
|
Expert on speciation. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Race and ethnicity are social constructs, without scientific or biological meaning." Nope, and we’ve known that statement is wrong for nearly 20 years." |
|
|
|
|
|
"he statement “Race and ethnicity are social constructs, without scientific or biological meaning” is simply wrong. Even the old-fashioned concept of race shows that it is not just a social construct. A large sample of Americans who self-identified as African American, White, East Asian or Hispanic was subject to blind analysis of their DNA. The subjects fell into four genetic clusters, revealing a 99.8 percent match between self-identification and DNA classification. Clearly, even old views of race involve meaningful genetic differences reflecting the evolutionary history of our species. If the concept of “race” (or “ethnicity”, as I prefer to say) were purely an agreement of people within society having nothing to do with objective reality, you wouldn’t see the correspondence between how one identifies themselves and the code in their DNA. I hasten to add that these biological identifiers of races say nothing about hierarchies, but they are biologically and evolutionarily meaningful. This again shows both an ideological motivation and a misleading conclusion. Even the classical biological races (and even more so worldwide populations) are NOT social constructs, but are associated with genetic, morphological, and adaptive differences...Now Guevara may be correct that the “social construct” view is the one taught, erroneously, in high school and college. But she’s wrong in thinking that Lewontin’s paper supports that “social construct” view. In fact, the social construct view is largely wrong, with some exceptions centered on the outmoded view of “classical races”, but it appears to dominate anthropology and the social sciences. Anybody holding that view for either populations or groups of geographically contiguous populations needs to read the Coyne and Maroja paper. I guess what bothers me the most about this article, besides the ignoring of genetic factors in favor of socioeconomic ones, is the claim that there is no biological significance of “race” or “ethnicity”. Depending on how you define these terms, that’s misleading. And if you use a “common ancestry” definition of either word, it’s just wrong." |
|
|
|
|
|
===Ernst Mayr=== |
|
|
"Let me begin with race. 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. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals. You can read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species. The terms “subspecies” and “geographic race” are used interchangeably in this taxonomic literature." |
|
|
|
|
|
It's clear from these sources that the claim "race is a social construct" is a consensus view and the converse is fringe is simply a lie, based on a highly selective view of the literature. That is it is a violation of NPOV. ] (]) 07:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Reversion== |
|
|
As Forum, OR and cherry picking? Surveys, quotes from taxonomic experts? How can you be so dishonest? The only cherry picking is from the mob that skew the page to their POV here. ] (]) 09:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
{{hab}} |
In the newest revision of this page (5 July 2024) someone changed "categorization..." to "pseudoscientific categorization..." in the beginning of the article, without changing the rest of the definition or adding references. In my opinion, that is a big claim and should at least be cited, if not removed completely, especially because it's the first thing users see after opening the article. Without proper expansion of that claim, I think it does not belong to this article Wojtek703 (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2022 and 3 June 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WordlyWaleed (article contribs).