Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The concept of 'race' Reich's view

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The concept of 'race' Reich's view

    In his new book, David Reich offers a lukewarm defense of the concept of 'race' ---in last Sunday's NY Times.. He notes racial differences in genetic lines. I think his view is over-simplified. There are regional differences in genetic lines both within and between continents. For example, not all African Americans are predisposed to sickle cell anemia.
    Last edited by josh w.; 26th March 2018, 11:30 AM.

  • #2
    There is no mention of adaptation to climate? Beneficial mutations etc or anything along those line?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by AFH View Post
      There is no mention of adaptation to climate? Beneficial mutations etc or anything along those line?
      Reich gives much room to the environment but also room to Darwinian genetic adaptations to the environment. I have no problem with this approach but don't think race is a necessary factor. Let me go back to African sickle cell anemia. It is often thought of as a race related disease. However, it is region related not race related. It was a genetic adaptation to malaria. The disease is not prominent in all parts of sub-Saharan Africa. It is only prominent in West-Central Africa where there are high rates of malaria. Skin color itself is region based not race based. 10,000 years ago old time residents of England had dark rather than white skin. Skin color changed as people moved to a new region from Africa.
      Last edited by josh w.; 26th March 2018, 06:47 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by josh w. View Post
        Reich gives much room to the environment but also room to Darwinian genetic adaptations to the environment. I have no problem with this approach but don't think race is a necessary factor. Let me go back to African sickle cell anemia. It is often thought of as a race related disease. However, it is region related not race related. It was a genetic adaptation to malaria. The disease is not prominent in all parts of sub-Saharan Africa. It is only prominent in West-Central Africa where there are high rates of malaria. Skin color itself is region based not race based. 10,000 years ago old time residents of England had dark rather than white skin. Skin color changed as people moved to a new region from Africa.
        The skin color example is a good illustration of why the notion of race is outmoded. The ancient English were not simply transplanted Africans. They had begun to adapt to a northern region even before their skin pigment changed. They had dark skin but blue eyes. This would be difficult to explain from a 'racial' perspective.

        Comment


        • #5
          When dividing the world into races, the sub-Saharan Africa gets dived the most (or the fastest).

          Africa is the least uniform. Most uniformity was in pre-1492 Americas (as the founding populations of Australia are estimated to be larger than those of Americas, and possible later admixtures were identified in Australia).

          Mr. W.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by dna View Post
            When dividing the world into races, the sub-Saharan Africa gets dived the most (or the fastest).

            Africa is the least uniform. Most uniformity was in pre-1492 Americas (as the founding populations of Australia are estimated to be larger than those of Americas, and possible later admixtures were identified in Australia).

            Mr. W.
            Are you saying that sub-Saharan Africans were divided into different races

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by josh w. View Post
              Are you saying that sub-Saharan Africans were divided into different races
              Exactly!

              I cannot take any credit for that though, as that had been noticed long time ago. A fairly recent classification would be The Origin of Races by Carleton Coon, published in 1962 (refers to times before 1492):
              • Australoid
              • Capoid
              • Caucasoid
              • Congoid
              • Mongoloid


              From Wikipedia at File:Carleton Coon races after Pleistocene.PNG.

              Mr. W.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by dna View Post
                Exactly!

                I cannot take any credit for that though, as that had been noticed long time ago. A fairly recent classification would be The Origin of Races by Carleton Coon, published in 1962 (refers to times before 1492):
                • Australoid
                • Capoid
                • Caucasoid
                • Congoid
                • Mongoloid


                From Wikipedia at File:Carleton Coon races after Pleistocene.PNG.

                Mr. W.
                Then you reject the notion of a sub-Saharan African race. I have nothing against regional groups. My point is that is more accurate to speak of regional groups than a continental or subcontinental race. I don't wish to focus on it but Coon's map seems way off
                Last edited by josh w.; 27th March 2018, 06:55 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by josh w. View Post
                  Then you reject the notion of a sub-Saharan African race. I have nothing against regional groups. My point is that is more accurate to speak of regional groups than a continental or subcontinental race. I don't wish to focus on it but Coon's map seems way off
                  I had never heard of him, but his work was apparently very controversial.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by josh w. View Post
                    Then you reject the notion of a sub-Saharan African race. I have nothing against regional groups. My point is that is more accurate to speak of regional groups than a continental or subcontinental race. I don't wish to focus on it but Coon's map seems way off
                    I am fresh after arguments exchanged in the Recreation Room

                    It was not a discussion, so no consensus, but the minimum is three.

                    Concept of regional variations does not carry the bias of previous centuries. As long as we agree that there are differences, we can use any words.

                    Sub-Saharan Africa is large, with a huge variety of DNA, and thousands of years of localized endogamy due to slow migration patterns. There must be very many regions that significantly differ from each other after thousands of years being on the other side of some body of water, jungle or a mountain range.

                    DNA testing has revealed that if populations differ in terms of their genetics, it might imply that different medical treatments have greater chances of success, and might imply necessity of different interpretation of medical tests (standard blood etc.). Rates of various diseases might be substantially different etc.

                    Modern medicine only now fully understands that XX and XY patients might need different treatments (although I am not sure whether everybody gets it). Beyond the defining differences, most people would probably only know that males on average have thicker skin...

                    If there is a digital divide now, there might be soon a global divide in availability of medical treatments. Some populations are so small, that there is no possibility to fully test on them everything the modern medicine has to offer.


                    Mr. W.

                    P.S.
                    My wife and me had fellow international students from different places in Africa. We never had a problem recognizing whether someone was from Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, or South Africa (real students, real countries, really small unscientific sample). Then I understand that an African Pygmy would look yet different.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dna View Post
                      I am fresh after arguments exchanged in the Recreation Room

                      It was not a discussion, so no consensus, but the minimum is three.

                      Concept of regional variations does not carry the bias of previous centuries. As long as we agree that there are differences, we can use any words.

                      Sub-Saharan Africa is large, with a huge variety of DNA, and thousands of years of localized endogamy due to slow migration patterns. There must be very many regions that significantly differ from each other after thousands of years being on the other side of some body of water, jungle or a mountain range.

                      DNA testing has revealed that if populations differ in terms of their genetics, it might imply that different medical treatments have greater chances of success, and might imply necessity of different interpretation of medical tests (standard blood etc.). Rates of various diseases might be substantially different etc.

                      Modern medicine only now fully understands that XX and XY patients might need different treatments (although I am not sure whether everybody gets it). Beyond the defining differences, most people would probably only know that males on average have thicker skin...

                      If there is a digital divide now, there might be soon a global divide in availability of medical treatments. Some populations are so small, that there is no possibility to fully test on them everything the modern medicine has to offer.


                      Mr. W.

                      P.S.
                      My wife and me had fellow international students from different places in Africa. We never had a problem recognizing whether someone was from Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, or South Africa (real students, real countries, really small unscientific sample). Then I understand that an African Pygmy would look yet different.
                      I think we agree. I support medicine based on genetic differences. I am opposed to medicine based on the outmoded concept of race. Big Pharma looks at race rather than region.

                      I look forward to Reich's book on this topic.
                      Last edited by josh w.; 28th March 2018, 08:26 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by josh w. View Post
                        I think we agree. I support medicine based on genetic differences. I am opposed to medicine based on the outmoded concept of race. Big Pharma looks at race rather than region.

                        I look forward to Reich's book on this topic.

                        Reich's book was positively reviewed by Jared Diamond in today's NY Times

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by josh w. View Post
                          Reich's book was positively reviewed by Jared Diamond in today's NY Times
                          What do they say about it?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I know that probably I should not...

                            Jared Diamond books are a good read, but if he has good knowledge of evolution and genetics that does not show in his books, yet.


                            Mr. W.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ewd76 View Post
                              What do they say about it?
                              That he shares Reichs accounts of regional phylogenetic development. Diamond noted that the most recent research challenges older views of that history. The current picture is not meant to be permanent, but will be revised with future research. Diamond did not comment on the race issue, except to note that Reich's views were controversial. Yes, Diamond is not a biologist,
                              Last edited by josh w.; 22nd April 2018, 06:17 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X