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.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The concept of 'race' Reich's view
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by AFH View PostThere is no mention of adaptation to climate? Beneficial mutations etc or anything along those line?Last edited by josh w.; 26 March 2018, 06:47 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by josh w. View PostReich 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.
Comment
-
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
-
Originally posted by dna View PostWhen 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
-
Originally posted by josh w. View PostAre you saying that sub-Saharan Africans were divided into different races
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
-
Originally posted by dna View PostExactly!
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.Last edited by josh w.; 27 March 2018, 06:55 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by josh w. View PostThen 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
Comment
-
Originally posted by josh w. View PostThen 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
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
-
Originally posted by dna View PostI 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 look forward to Reich's book on this topic.Last edited by josh w.; 28 March 2018, 08:26 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by josh w. View PostI 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
-
Originally posted by ewd76 View PostWhat do they say about it?Last edited by josh w.; 22 April 2018, 06:17 PM.
Comment
Comment