Hi Holm,

Science has already proved that the concept or racism is a sociological, not a biological issue. So there aren't human races like there were a long time ago when we had homo sapiens, homo erectus, etc. The conception of race was building during the century XVIII when "scientists" tried to explain the differences between white, black, yellow people. This act happend to justify the colonization of that people as a form to take along the civilization to them. That kind of pseudo-science influentieted States and several sites of the society, that's why we have episodes of racism all around the world. For more information about this question you can read, if you read Portuguese: "SILVEIRA, Renato. Os selvagens e a massa. Papel do racismo cintífico na montagem da hegemonia ocidental. Afro-Asia (UFBA) , Salvador, v. 1, n.23, p. 87-144, 2000." http://www.egov.ufsc.br/portal/sites/default/files/anexos/26173-26175-1-PB.pdf

Best regards,

Rafael

Hi Rafael,

this position: races are not existent and racism is only a sociological, not also a biological issue, is exactly, what I don’t understand.

Let me explain this to you: The classical race scandal of the 19th and 20th century was the following: White woman, married with a white husband, gets a colored baby. The newly available knowledge about genetics told the people: this wife had been unfaithful and had sex with a colored man. And this without any doubt … What a scandal not only because of the personal fraud, but because of the false racial choise ...

Now, in the 21th cent., we feel about racism as something mean and disgusting. But what about the biological markers, the respective genes? – Is there no black or white skin? No blond-straight or black-curly hair? – Have a look to: https://theidleman.com/blogs/grooming/race-differences-hair-types

Animal breeders and biologists speak about “races” or - more modern and nicer to hear - sub-species. Are they totally wrong? - Was there not any specialization of human groups to the intensity of the sun: blacks to a too much of it and whites to a too less of it? The blood mixture since the antiquity reduced the differences, but in many countries, they are still visible and political influential.

Best regards,

Holm

Holm, from a biological perspective there isn't enough variation in humans to talk about independent races. Within the area of biological taxonomy, race is a rank within taxonomic hierarchies under subspecies. In this definition, race involves genetic differentiation among populations of the same species, but isolation between the "races" is not sufficient to separate the groups into species. From this perspective, it doesn't make much sense to talk about races among humans. There isn't enough variation in different groups. However, as a cultural category, race is an important--and real-thing. It forms a significant component of the ways in which humans form ideologies and create concepts of self and other identities. Therefore, while it may not be particularly meaningful from a biological perspective, the concept is important from an analytical perspective when thinking about human behavior. Race is a biological issue in the sense that humans typically use biological features associated with particular groups--such as skin color--to identify races; but the practice of doing that is actually a culturally shaped and motivated interpretation of phenotypic variation. In other words, biology can become a cultural construct, and it does so in the context of the ways in which people tend to use the concept of race.

Hallo John,

I know, the topic is highly controversial and morally charged. But nevertheless, I assume that in science an analytical discussion can be made.

I am sorry, I can not agree with your arguments. “Not enough variation in humans to talk about […] races.”? – Really?

Let ‘s start with the original coining of “races”, which comes from practical biology. - Take the dog, cat or horse races: Necessary are specific traits by which they could be distinguished – and the human perception and assessment is enough and crucial for this. What else? - Take the Belgian and German shepherd dogs. Genetically close together, but clearly distinguishable. - Take the Siamese cat and the European house cat: the same. – Take black people and white people – easy to distinguish. Even children, who never saw a person of the other color, recognize the differences spontaneously. So this is not arbitrary or learned. For this reaction, no prejudices or “cultural shapings” are causal and responsible.

Against the above view, the adversaries of the concept of “race” might argue with some genetical statistics. We all know: with an abstract and arbitrary statistics you can try to prove anything or everything. “Race” is from its origin not a statistically defined category, but underlies a bundle of qualitative criteria: the properties of a good riding horse, a good dairy cow or a good hunting dog.

I learned, races were the older word for subspecies. In this perspective, we have the Indian and African lion or elephant. Both can mate with each other, but their descendants are not as viable as within the subspecies. So wild lions and elephant are just in the process to be separated into distinct species like in past times horses, donkeys and zebras. – With the human races it is different and just the other way around. The mixed babies are said to be more vital and beautiful. So, for the humans, the genetic race separation has not been going so far to create distinct species (this might have happened under a much longer isolation).

Of course, perceptions and insights always take place in a cultural context. But to say that there are no biological human races at all, and that "races" can only be understood culturally, claims the existence of a culturally conditioned illusion, a delusion.

Well, the recent attitude: to deny races, but nevertheless to engage against racism is to my opinion not justified and illogical. Strictly seen, it is to be “anti” of nothing … In contrary, antiracism should by principle admit to the existence of races to be able to fight against racism (as a form of social discrimination) on a sound factual basis.

This is old, but might be useful: Article House Sparrows: Rapid Evolution of Races in North America

I will stand by my position. From a biological perspective, I think most physical anthropologists would argue that race is not a particularly meaningful way to categorize human groups. We also do not have subspecies. However, from a cultural or sociological perspective race is both meaningful and real. Cultural or sociological categories are real, even if they are basically ideological categories. The concept of race is used by humans to categorize groups based on the idea that biological differences are meaningful; but from the perspective of biological sciences those differences are not significant enough to see them as meaningful from a biological perspective. So, in short, "race" is a category that exists as a way to categorize humans from a cultural perspective, even if it isn't generally seen as particularly useful from a scientific perspective.

Dear John, with your recommended article you gave a great example of how normal race development is in the everyday life of species. And humans are a species, right? ... I don’t believe so much in god or in constructivist ideologies to exempt mankind from of nature. So, also humans are most likely to have subspecies. And no day will end without processes of genetic adaptations … like with the sparrows …

Nevertheless, I oppose any racism in the sense of social arrogance and discrimination. We should stand to our subspecies, which since modern times are melting together more and more

Hi Holm

I am a "coloured" person, that you are more interested in :).

Although genetics and anthropology is not my specialisation, I have been teaching the concept of "race" to undergraduates.

I am attaching a useful chapter from biology here which explains some of the variations that you have discussed in your post. Needless to say, the concept has been abused over centuries. And guess what, we have a finer version of it in form of caste structure in our society, where based on similar "physical" or 'non-physical" " characteristics" people are classified into sub-groups. It serves political and social purposes and not biological, I believe. So I agree with John and Raefel. Not much "racial" differentiation in views here I see. :)

Dear Sharma, I apologize for not answering for so long ... but I was deeply baffled by your contribution.

You were a teacher on human subspecies, an expert ... and you did not deny the facts. The book text you attached was completely on my argumentation line, thank you, I agree with all. – But then you advocated that there are no "races" (in other diction: no subspecies) because "the concept has been abused for centuries". – For long, I had no idea how this conclusion was possible ...

My hypothesis now is: You have taken a leap in reasoning that is not justified by sound logic. And violated the reasonable boundaries between science and moral politics. – Moral and ideology should not affect science. This would damage the valuable heritage of enlightenment and emancipation. Totalitarian movements did just that: they distorted science with their commands and prejudices. Have a look at the 'sciences' of National Socialism, communism, religious teachings like that of Scientology Church. All of these edifices of ideas are affected by breaks in logic, incomplete considerations, framings, etc.

Apparently, we two are not very far apart on the facts and practical morals side. I would also not use "race" to refer to fellow humans. There are rules of politeness and peace that we should follow. It is just the radicalism of anti-racists to simply deny disturbing facts. As if the different phenotypes in appearance (black, white, yellow …) do not exist and have only been constructed. A situation like in the fairy tale about the emperor without clothes. In our version, the little boy recognized “colors” among the guests of the royal party, while everyone else, the entire royal court, was determined to ignore them.

In terms of the cast system, I see some inclination of yours to use ‘racism’ as a wished stronger word for ‘serious discrimination’. I would ask again not to confuse but to remain precise. In the end, even simple class conflicts will be called "racism" ... an inflationary use of "racism", which then turns into a mere combat term with a broad and imprecise derogatory and accusatory meaning.

To make our discussion more grounded, lively and up to date, I would like recommend some recent contributions on the race-racism-problem:

1. Jessica Lynn Graham (Shifting the Meaning of Democracy. Race, Politics, and Culture in the United States and Brazil. Oakland, CA: University of California Press 2019) described national settings, wherein the race concept is almost uncontested. I think, South Africa can be added to the list. – In those countries, also a reverse racism appears, such as "black pride". For Graham, the Brazilian have an „inclusive racism“ – is it possible that „racism“ in the end can do anything good? - Thus: there is not much chance to deny „race“ in these countries as most Western moralists endeavor.

2. Jeraldine Heng (The Invention of Race in the European Middle Ages, Cambridge 2018) and Jan Sternberg (Warum es keine Rassen gibt – aber Rassismus real ist [Why there are no races, but racism is real]) deny the race concept. Heng supports the assessment of race as an „empty vacuum“ with no firm sense. Sternberg argues almost the same.

3. Jan Fleischhauer (Schuldig durch Geburt: Wer weiß ist, kann nur Rassist sein [Guilty by birth – who is white, can only be a racist]). Fleischauer complains about the consequences of the heated racism debate. The anti-colonialist view has led to a reverse racism – against the whites.

Of particular interest to me are the contributions of item 2. Both show how partisans of anti-racism present relevant analyses that are not in compliance with the traditional rules of science. Heng as well as Sternberg decoupled their argumentation from biology and genetic. This was prudent only if risks of contradictions should be avoided. Both authors pointed out that the racism concept had its origin in the Middle Ages or in the early phase of colonialism. By this, they filled „race“ with the meaning of a planned suppression. Now the authors pretend that „race“ had no other origin. (And this should be wrong: As if the Romans had no animal races. As if the Mediterranean whites had not recognized the black phenotype from Africa.) Sternberg admits that racism without races is a „paradox“, i.e. an irrational element. I can‘t help: this reminds me of the Nazi social science which stated: „The nature of the National-Socialist movement cannot be understood by pure mind, but essentially by emotion.“ In general, science should not accept blind spots of irrationality. Or these protagonists are not really scientists.

Dear Holm

It seems you have answered your own question.

Also, I believe in the reads mentioned here by everyone, including the chapter I attached, explains very scientifically that why there are variations in the human population. Nobody is ignoring the different "colours". Just that we know these are biological or genetic variations in the human population and not something to do with superiority/inferiority, something that the concept of race implies.

Regarding caste-race comparison, attaching some interesting reads.

I believe both types of discrimination are "serious" and historic. Also, one of the objectives of drawing comparisons between the two types is to help a group of people understand something they have not experienced or seen in their culture/society. It is not to dilute its seriousness but to do just the opposite and stand in unity.

https://www.livemint.com/Politics/wEkZH1prIxXFm5gypAyJPO/Drawing-parallels-between-Dalit-and-AfricanAmerican-rights.html

https://shodhgangotri.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/7696/1/thombare,%20mansing%20vitthal.pdf

https://theconversation.com/racial-and-caste-oppression-have-many-similarities-37710

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674979727

Chapter The Dalit Panthers: Race, Caste, and Black Power in India

Dear Shubhra

Just to answer the last statement of your contribution quickly:

In general, I appreciate your attempt to make the Indian setting understandable for foreign readers. - But I think going over "racism" is unnecessary (and - as I said - dangerous due to misunderstandings). - Unnecessary, why? - Other regions of the world also had castes. Not in the Indian extremes ... You in your country were undoubtedly the masters ... Nevertheless, in Europe, there were the established groups of the nobles against the unfree peasants and the early urban bourgeoisie. And to legitimize these actual class differences, a difference in the quality of the "blood" was assumed. Maybe a form of pre-racism, but a concept of its own.

For our question about race/racism, I looked at the critical commentary on Hitler's Mein Kampf (2016). There you may find very interesting analyzes and comments under "Race / Jews". I would like to share one of them in English translation:

"Modern biological research largely distances itself from the division of mankind into 'races', especially since it has been shown that the genetic differences between individuals in a population can often be greater than the differences between different populations."

This statement reminded me of the early response on our question from John Traphagan, who also argued along the same lines. Against the background of the facts and statements of the Hitler-Mein Kampf commentary, I can now try a late answer to John:

"Modern biological research largely distances itself ..." – Obviously this rejection is not complete. What about the rest of the concept or the facts about “race”?

I would like to argue that there is a gap in the concept of race/subspecies on the relevant biologists' side. Have they ever come to a conclusion, what is still valid about “race”?

In addition, I have the impression that these scholars understood "race" only in its overloaded version, just as racists would do it. I would claim a methodological error for this attitude.

The milder version of "race" imaginable is similar to that of many animal breeders who focus on the external traits of their creatures. Race = heritable external characteristics. Then, according to this slim definition of race, the knock-out argument of the higher “genetic differences between individuals” within a population should be irrelevant.

I understand that an exaggerated view on race, which comes to findings such as mental inferiority or reduced intelligence, is offensive and should be wrong. However, there is no sufficient reason to understand race/subspecies only as the Nazis did. Were slim definitions of “race” not even tried?

Now I conclude with my standard argument that morals should be separated from science. Any combination creates bias, misunderstandings, and unnecessary arguments - as with race/racism. Here it is an unthinking anti-racism, which has led to a one-sided word usage.

An interesting example for our race/racism discussion might be the horse races. There are about 400 around the world. Their adaptation has followed the double selection by human usage and natural environment. So, the Siberian pony is very cold-resistant, as it can reduce its body temperature. The Arab horses have particularly broad hoofs to get hold in the sand. And the heavy horses are huge and muscular to pull plows and brewery wagons.

None of these races are superior or inferior in general. They are superior in their specific usage and environment, inferior in all others. Thus, the horse races are an example that ‘race’ can be used in a functional way without any negative connotations. Racism is just the misuse of the race concept. ‘Race’ is not racist by itself, but by bad people.

As a sociologist, I believe that society and culture makes you who you are more than the genes. And that is why when we say someone is racist that person is probably attaching a "stigma" (Goffman's book on Stigma is essential here) to a certain nationality. If this attitude repeats itself subtly or openly many times, it becomes a perfect pattern for racism. So basically, settled prejudices, beliefs, stigmas attached to migrants for instance, or a group of migrants, create certain mental schemes in which people accept things without any truth behind any kind of assumption. People live on assumptions, they feed on assumptions, they do not read psychology or sociology books for sure. Unfortunately, today in our societies racism exist and we need to address it and we also need to be aware of the discrimination that is undergoing (obvious or non obvious) to non-Europeans especially. However, for this, not only societies or media can be blamed, laws and institutions are well behind preventing discrimination cause laws exclude and discriminate at first sight: therefore, laws, society, institutions and beliefs create a big mechanism within which race and racism are well hidden, yet there, felt by those who have been stigmatised and inflicting upon their daily lives sometimes by ignoring, neglecting, leaving, mocking, mobbing, excluding. There are many ways to exclude as well as to include. So your question should include some cultural and sociological implications, and if it does, the question is more complex. Racism exists even though races dont exist. Cause racism feeds on something else than race: a voluntary hate for the unknown which does not approve or conform to "the rules" of the "well-known".

To talk about a current example:

Is the designation of Kamala Harris (democratic candidate for US vice president) as ‚black‘ truly or almost racist? –The problem: just simple: she is not black. - Why this feigning?

To all race doubter I would recommend the visit of a pedigree cat or dog show. In conversation with the breeders, even die-hard opponents of "race" could understand the meaning of the subspecies concept for differentiating genetically determined types of appearance. These subspecies (old-fashioned: races) can arise through natural or artificial selection. Both among domestic animals and wild animals, there are race mixes (proverbial: promenade mixes of dogs, very topical: polar bear to brown bear bastards).

Do you know that biologists are very concerned about wild animal mixtures like grizzly and ice bear? The same for wolf and dog … Are these biologists in the end racists, because they want purebred populations?

For me the question is answered. When I asked it two years ago I was unsure of the concept of race and its implications. Thanks to all contributors for helping me keep thinking about the problem and studying it. The same goes for all of you, the by now almost 1,400 readers.

Basically, I now understand the rationale behind the argument for denying human races. Since none of its proponents really defined “race”, it is apparently a question of political engagement, not of scientific standards and conditions. At this point I am concerned about this confusion between morality and science. When scientists make moral statements, it should not to be equalized with qualified science. After all we academic are no half-gods ...

For the actual question I can summarize my personal findings:

1. Of course, “racism” logically needs “race” in order to exist. In formal logic, “racism” is just a function of “race”. If “race” is zero, the same applies to "racism" or it is undefined and senseless.

2. There are several definitions of “race” available. One of these is the "subspecies" recognized and used in biology. The "race" of animal breeders seems to be similar to me. Racists (see: Hitler, Mein Kampf, annotated edition) use an unscientific, absolutely poor concept of race. They claim a profound influence of race not only on external traits but also on mind, intelligence and behavior. Utterances about a priori "inferior races" provide a sure indication of a scientifically refutable concept.

3. Activists who claim that there are no human races should refrain from making scientific claims. The only argument they have is the - indeed disproved - concept of the “race” used by racists and Nazis. Ignoring the science-based concept of "subspecies" is inexcusable. Thus, the argument by activists that human races (subspecies) have definitely been refuted is just a populist lie, false news from the “good side”. In the best case it is an illusion by wishful thinking or a misunderstanding caused by social conformation. I'm sorry to say “lie”, “untruth” or "illusion" so bluntly, but it has to be said to protect scientific standards.

4. The denial of the human races by scientists follows political correctness, which apparently is now in a stage 2. In version 1, “Negroes” or “Red Indians” were ostracized, now it is the basic term “race”. To be polite is a good thing. The contrary is to obstruct the freedom to communicate, to research and to publish.

With nearly 1,900 readers - plus 500 in 6 weeks, thanks for your participation - there seems to be a real need for this question. I originally wanted to stop writing on the subject, but now I think there is continued interest in this controversial yet fascinating topic. Therefore, I will give a report on my latest personally findings.

In the last few weeks I have been concerned with the question "If human races, then how many?" After studying several publications on migration history, anthropology and racial theory, I modified some of my previous opinions. Now, in the face of the facts, the idea of a "negro" race or a "white" race seems absurd and also devious. Such simplifications facilitate racism as it polarizes where manifoldness should be recognized. Examining the diversity of human phenotypes makes two points clear:

1. It is difficult for most humans of today to assign them to individual races because they are mixed. I would estimate that in all open continental and maritime areas about 99% of the populations are mixed with neighboring or more distant peoples. Think of the migration processes initiated and fueled by civilization. This started with the ancient cultures in Asia and Egypt about 5,000 years ago. Think of war, slavery, trafficking in women, labor and trade migration, displacement, colonization, and population surpluses or declines. So we are usually all mixed in terms of races (subspecies), but the mix proportions and recipes are different. Some of us are in a certain intensity “colored”, others appear pure white or black, but are more or less mixed in other ways. - So what are or were the original races?

2. Few, but still some humans of today seem to be purebred due to isolated existence. Look at the pygmies. And even this term is only a summarization and does not correspond to an individual subspecies. Because there are several distinct tribes of these little people living apart, some in Africa and others in Asia. Also, some American tribes in the forests of the Amazon and some Australian Aborigines could be understood as more or less purebred. On the other hand, the legendary Nordic race of blonde and blue-eyed people has almost disappeared in the form of compact settlement areas. So in most of Scandinavia. However, the pure type is still visible and existent. In addition, the alleged "negro" race is just a construct, because this summarization is rather rough, just a general term for blacks. Instead, there is or was a great racial diversity in Africa, for example ranging from pygmies to Bantus to tall Sudanese and Somali. Therefore, it should be more true that we HAD human races than that we still HAVE them. Roughly, I would assume at least a few hundred original human races that were the result of a more or less isolated life in the Stone Age. Of course, to try any exact number would be arbitrary.

Recent anthropology still makes an egg dance around the term ‘race’. Those scholars prefer to be decent and to speak about ‘populations’, ‘variations’ or ‘geographic ancestry’ instead. But – whether ‘race’ ore not - the findings are more or less the same:

• Number of sub-species/races: “Using a select few hundred genetic loci, or perhaps a number of phenotypic traits, it may be possible to assign individuals to a geographic ancestry.” (Rivera 2019 p. 508)

• Today’s mixtures: „We now have a deeper understanding not only of how humans vary but also of how we are biologically a rather homogenous, intermixing world population.“ (Rivera 2019 p. 509)

Obviously, the usage of ‘race’ is just a question of political, not of scientific correctness.

Heading up to 4.000 reads and doubling the reads within five months, this question has gained an unexpected popularity. – This is a miracle for me in regard of its unprogressive message that human races are no fake, but a reality (however, in a world of mostly mixed populations). Due to this interest in the subject, I feel obliged to yield updates about the state of my knowledge and perspective.

In the following, I would like to share some ideas and findings I got through the study of an article that is regularly displayed among the first results of a web research. It is “Human races are not like dog breeds: refuting a racist analogy” by the five young scholars Heather L. Norton, Ellen E. Quillen, Abigail W. Bigham, Laurel N. Pearson and Holly Dunsworth in 2019. The title sounds pretty progressive – and who would not agree that we humans are something better than breed dogs. But, attention: biologically, we are only animals, not god’s special creatures, provided that god does not exist. Thus, the idea of an analogy is not barred. The authors could have stated a major difference between dogs and humans (but they did not) in one point: The genomic selection in dog breed and human reproduction is different, but not completely different: The former is artificial and arbitrary, the latter is complex and not exhaustively researched. Both, dogs and humans have escaped the purely natural selection.

The chain of reasoning and the facts given by the five authors are sound. Again it is the framing of the theme, wherein flaws can be identified. In particular, the definition of what is to be understood as ‘race’ can be rejected. The scholars took the easy way and focused on very traditional definitions of race: the one of the US-American census with five races. This concept is surely outdated, because it stems from the 19th century.

Thus, our five progressive academics compared the modern genetics of dog breeds with an antiquated US-American concept one and a half century ago. It could not be otherwise: Our five lady writers gained a great victory and stated with pleasure: “racist analogy refuted”. The inexcusable mistakes they did were their ethnocentricity (in regard of America) and their unhistorical perspective (in regard of possible modern race concepts).

It would have been sufficient for our young progressivists to take notice of the European race studies and race notions of the 1920s. Therein a lot more than only five human races were identified. Furthermore, the race concept had been equated with or integrated in the more general view of the “sub-species”. Due to this, the research question of the article is completely misleading and absurd. To be proud of having refuted a petrified race definition of long deceased jurists is somewhere between embarrassing and ridiculous. The authors of the article should start all over again and now to try to refute the existence of human sub-species (alias “races”). Doing so, they should take into account that most of the present human populations are mixed ones, except some Aborigines, Pygmies and Amazonians. And, they should realize that some hundreds of historic or even still existing human races (sub-species) should be considered.

Being near to 5,000 reads by gaining 1,000 reads in the last 9 weeks, this question has kept some popularity and attention. – For the interested readers, I want to report about my interim readings and considerations. For me, the recent scandal around Meghan Markle, the wife of Britain's Prince Harry and at the same time young mother, was very impressive and informative. As you all will know, some members of the royal court's staff were so blunt to express concerns about the possible (black?) color of her coming babies. And Meghan complained about this bitterly in an interview with the American show master Oprah Winfrey. So, for people, who are open for the existence of races, the question arises about Meghan’s real race status.

First, I would like to appreciate Meghan’s appearance as an absolutely attractive and positive person. Therefore, what is the problem of the British royal court's officers realizing some black influx into the royal genome? At least she is healthy and has good genes, wherefrom the formerly inbreeding Royals could profit. - If these court officials follow the idea of a noble blood or premium white blood, which is superior but nevertheless vulnerable, this would be the typical racism of former times. Such utterances you can find in the pamphlets about races of the early 20th cent., not only, but most impressive of the Nazi time. The only reasonable statement on this, seems to me, is that Meghan is a racially mixed individual and there is nothing to complain about this. British royal court, shame on you!

But what is the position of the black and colored community on this? Do they support Meghan in her fight for the acceptance of her children as fully adequate members of the royal family? Do they reassure the human ‘mixed breeds’ that their particular genetic status is alright, harmless and maybe even superior to others, supposedly pure-breeds?

I was surprised to find there a robust position of an opposite racism. [See: African Americans know Meghan Markle is black. Yet many whites want to call her something else. By DAHLEEN GLANTON, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, JAN 16, 2020]. Look here, the relevant activists say, we are proudly black or colored, and every person who has only on drop of our black or colored blood is belonging to us. This 'one drop rule' is of white origin – this is true: from the USA – but now tightly grasped by a colored movement. What might be the goals and strategy of these colored activists? – I guess: political influence, funds, job quotas, rising pays for the functionaries. – Is this criticism maybe a subtle form of white racism? – I think people who insist in their racial status so much, who take it as an armor in the political dispute, who want to maximize the number or masses of their ‘race’ – such people strive for recognition, amends, privileges, even for social and political power. In Europe, if you have some color, descent and medial talent, you can make a living from this: Write a book, hold lectures, complain in interviews and talk-shows about your dire fate among these aggressive white racists – you will find a devoted audience. Thus, not only the white racism (e.g. from Buckingham Palace – shame on them), but also all other kinds of pro-racial movements are detrimental and to criticize.

In the last answer, I commented on an article of four young academics, who – as they claimed - refuted the race concept. Of course they did this with the best intents to fight against discrimination and injustice. – These poor ladies – they are on a mission impossible. The colored activists have other plans: to emphasis their racial status, to hold the issue vibrant instead of dropping it as old-fashioned. The wanted settlement of the issue is made impossible by just its beneficiaries. The victims want more, and the dropping of the race concept is not in favor of, but against their interests. Thus, they want to keep society divided. What a painful paradox!

So, is antiracism only white? And does it generate in trend a colored pro-racism exploiting the guilty conscience? – For the first: No … about this we have the informative statement among our answers by Shubhra Sharma: there are Indian antiracists, and probably also some in others Asian countries, albeit they are not very known. A still weak movement, weaker than in the US and Europe. So, antiracism is independent of a particular color constellation. – For the second: The opposites ‘colored’ and ‘white’ are only a result of Western ethnocentrism. ‘Colored’ is actually very diverse … But any antiracism stands always in danger to unintendedly provoke a corresponding pro-racism. If there is an exploitable reward system for complaints, exactly this will happen.

I do find this article belong to this research question.

The way that the media reports Black civil-rights protests has contributed to the long delay in reckoning with anti-Black racism, argues media researcher Danielle Kilgo. Kilgo and her colleagues used linguistic analysis to quantify narratives from newspapers, websites and television, mainly in the United States. The results reveal that civil-rights protesters are the least likely to have their concerns and demands presented substantively, compared with protestors focusing on other issues, such as women’s rights or gun control. “Less space is given to protesters’ quotes; more space to official sources,” she writes. “The dominant narrative accentuates trivial, disruptive and combative actions.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01314-2

This is an important finding and very interesting. The US is special because of its embedded racism and centuries of oppression and exploitation of blacks. - In Germany (probably in some countries except the USA) the situation is different, by the way. Although the number of blacks is relatively small, there is an influential scene of activists calling for new rules of social communication, including some exaggerations. They even say that it is racism when a white person asks a colored person about his origin or family. Normal conversation becomes difficult with such hypersensitivities.

A growing body of research has revealed the environmental injustices that have left some city dwellers baking in vast expanses of asphalt while those in other neighbourhoods benefit from green parks, spacious lawns and sprawling trees. Science also suggests solutions to reduce the dangers...

How deadly heat waves expose historic racism

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01948-2

The question has now reached more than 6,100 reads and is approaching 7,000. From this perspective I would like to introduce to you an interesting book. It is “A Brief History of Humanity: How Migration Made Us Who We Are” by Johannes Krause and Thomas Trappe, London: WH Allen, 2021 (German original title: Die Reise unserer Gene). The real author is Krause, a successful young professor-researcher whom Trappe, a popularizing journalist, helped.

The book is about paleogenetics. It tells what can be deduced from ancient bones and their genetic remains. And that is a lot now ... Because ancient human genes are the focus, this book refers to several anthropological questions: on long-term migration, on human races, even on gender relations and recipes for a healthy diet. The only criticism I would make is a pervasive tendency to superficially follow progressive opinions. The facts presented internally actually show a different picture. But let's get on the bright side: the book will open your mind to the broader human genetics and show that the racial complex of external traits is just one of many strands of human genetic development. These forms of adaptation are real, but also trivial (different skin, different hair, sometimes different body proportions). Nevertheless, Krause and Trappe avoid the term “race” and only speak of “human forms” if “human races” had been the traditional formulation. This kind of subject hiding is not very brave ...

But now to the facts: What can we say about the "human races" from Krause's scientific findings? For example, that about 10,000 years ago there were no whites. (What a disappointment for white racism.) All populations were colored at certain times. This was because sun protection was more important than sun exposure for vitamin D. The latter was obtained through animal diet and therefore sunlight was not existential. For thousands of years it has been natural for us to eat some meat, insects or worms. (Disappointment for vegans who are refuted in their one-sided propaganda. Better: "A small steak a day keeps the doctor away.") Another excitement of the book comes from the discovery of a prehistoric massacre and a mass rape. This finding was made possible by a genetic clock through periodic mutations and a genetic asymmetry between men and women: around 5,000 years ago about 80% of European women mated with male migrants from Central Asia. Genetically, only about 20% of the previous European males were left. Mass murder by migrants to rape local women? The intruders came with their horses and cattle, but without sufficient wives of their own. Krause discusses several details on this, but the impression of severe cruelty and violence remains. (A double disappointment for gender theorists and migration activists: first, men and women are not only socially “constructed” but - more importantly - really different, for example what this inherited propensity to rape shows. Second, migration has often been a tragedy for the domestic population). Overall, the book provides building blocks for a realistic worldview, unlike progressive activists usually spread such.

It is now notorious that the Emory Law Journal commissioned and then tried to censor, as “hurtful and unnecessarily divisive,” an article that denied the existence of systemic racism. When the author refused to bowdlerize his piece, the journal rejected it...

https://www.chronicle.com/article/scandalous-suppression-at-a-law-review

More than 50 publishers representing over 15,000 journals globally are preparing to ask scientists about their race or ethnicity and gender. The effort comes amid a push for a wider acknowledgement of racism and structural racism in science and publishing — and the need to gather more information about it. There is ample evidence that minority groups are under-represented in science, particularly at senior levels. But data on how such imbalances are reflected — or intensified — in research journals are scarce...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00426-7

“Facts alone — no matter how well-grounded — have never been able to defeat determined assaults on intellectual freedom at research universities. Instead, made forcefully, broadly and fully, arguments about quality have prevailed.”

Efforts in the United States to ban the teaching of critical race theory mirror a 1920s-era assault on teaching evolution, argues educational historian Adam Laats...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00922-w

Dear Ljubomir,

the Critical Race Theory is of course an important item … But, what is your opinion to the criticism that Critical Race Theory is more a movement and an ideology that a respectable scientific doctrine?

I found the argument that Critical Race Theory is more or less just an opposite racism: the racism of persons of color against the whites. Below I give you a citation from Wikipedia:

“Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch, who is of Nigerian descent, said during a parliamentary debate to mark Black History Month, "We do not want to see teachers teaching their pupils about white privilege and inherited racial guilt.”

Obviously, this kind of movement tries to grant privileges to non-whites. And all righteous anti-racists should unite in rejecting such new injustice ...

There is also some literature about a particular black racism. The Chinese too seem to have a traditional ideology about the barbarians around them. I think, in general, there is a lot of non-white racism among us and around us. We should not support such mean and evil thought ... We should be balanced between all colors and races and not prefer the one or the other.

Geneticists recoil from racist admirers

Genetics researchers are grappling with the fact that white supremacists have expressed an affinity for some of their work...

Twisting science towards racist ends is not new, but the rise of sociogenomics — analysing big genetic data sets to tease out the relationship between genes and social behaviour — is adding fresh fuel to the fire, say scientists. The question is what to do about it. Some research — including Benjamin’s — is girded with statements and FAQ documents that explicitly reject racial supremacy. Some scientists argue that we need more education to inoculate young minds against unsound genetic arguments. And some argue that access to large genomic databases should be reserved for certain types of research.,,

https://www.statnews.com/2022/05/23/buffalo-shooting-ignites-debate-genetics-researchers-in-white-supremacist-ideology/

Focusing on the fundamental flaw of racist thought

One should not engage in detailed interpretations of genetic statistics with white supremacists. This is ultimately sophistry on their part, only of short-term importance in the media. Instead, one should point out the fundamental internal contradiction of racist arguments: there are superior races, but at the same time they are in need of protection. Why this? Intrinsically stronger, but really weaker is not possible in nature. Stronger races or genetically fitter individuals prevail through higher survivability. That's called selection. Only white whiners complain about this. Their racism and their aim of breeding the human species is in vain and pointless.

Most people in the United States think poverty is why pollution disproportionately affects Black people, despite evidence that racism is the major cause. Respondents to a survey by sociologist Dylan Bugden were more than twice as likely to blame pollution exposure on poverty as they were to blame it on racism. Furthermore, many people suggested that a lack of hard work and poor personal choices were responsible for increased exposure to pollution. Researchers say the lack of understanding undermines efforts to fix the disparity. “People have this myth in their brains that poverty is the biggest driver of the differential burden of hazards when it isn’t,” says environmental health scientist Sacoby Wilson. “It's race and racism.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01283-0

Racism drives environmental inequality... but what's the common formula? - Up to now people thought of poverty through racial discrimination ... Racism then led to discrimination, to poverty, to impairments due to a bad environment. - Are there actually examples of ecological impairments in the black middle class? Through pure racism...?

Dear Holm, Like many of the best things in my life, I have just discovered this magnificent thread purely by chance.

Your wisdom, common sense and patience in dealing with all the incoming from confused people is a breath of fresh air and surely will prove productive for science and society. As an octogenarian biologist I have long been dismayed by how much of the confusion over "race" has been created by politicized fellow biologists and other fellow academics. Stephen Jay Gould, though now deceased, is one modern classic example.

,When I got my doctoral degree at Cornell long ago, my dissertation committee consisted of Lamont Cole (a population ecologist), Bruce Wallace (population geneticist, and Robert Clausen (plant taxonomist), and was the teaching assistant for Physical Anthropology one year. So all these concepts relating to taxonomic classifications, within-species geographic variations, the silly "Are races real?" debates, etc. are familiar to me. Marrying a woman of a different race, and participating in the "California Civil Rights Initiative" "(1996) and "Racial Privacy Initiative" (2002) campaigns have provided me with the equivalent of a Ph.D. in "race studies," or so I claim.

Will have more substantive and vinegary comments later. Keep up the good work!

Dear Stuart, thank you very much for your praise. This is like balm in hard times.

Next, I want to welcome you strongly at Researchgate. In relation to race/racism it might be hard for younger people not to follow the progressive hymns that races are not existent. We older ones are obviously necessary to secure a minimum of reason in scientific thought.

Keep up too, Stuart.

That the language of race does not translate easily to metropolitan French does not mean that racism does not exist in France (though the nation resolutely refuses to collect census data on race, only “origins”). Rather, the terms of the debate on racism are different...

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/femo-imperialism-and-la-mission-civilisatrice-on-francoise-vergess-a-feminist-theory-of-violence/

For centuries, science has built a legacy of excluding people of colour and those from other historically marginalized groups from the scientific enterprise. Institutions and scientists have used research to underpin discriminatory thinking, and have prioritized research outputs that ignore and further disadvantage marginalized people.

Nature has played a part in creating this racist legacy. After the killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in 2020, Nature committed to becoming an agent of change, and helping to end discriminatory practices and systemic racism...

https://www.nature.com/immersive/d42859-022-00031-8/index.html

Race equality ranking planned to shake up sector’s slow progress

University leader compiles data to ‘point the finger’ at institutions still lagging behind equality commitments...

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/race-equality-ranking-planned-shake-sectors-slow-progress?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial-daily&spMailingID=23107893&spUserID=MTAxNzcwNzE4MTk2NAS2&spJobID=2131205046&spReportId=MjEzMTIwNTA0NgS2

Confronting racism in Black maternal health care in the United States

Maternal-health researcher and obstetrician Kecia Gaither outlines the research needed to save more Black mothers’ lives...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04409-6

Where the racism comes in is oftentimes not the fact that you’re identifying a potential suspect by their race, but by how the law enforcement authorities act on that information. There are histories of doing things like this based on DNA, like “racial dragnets”...

https://race.undark.org/articles/interview-jonathan-kahn-on-a-new-potential-frontier-in-racial-profiling

Medical racism didn’t begin or end with the syphilis study at Tuskegee

The study is often blamed for distrust of the U.S. health care system. It’s not that simple...

“This whole theory of Black bodies being fundamentally different was a foundation not only of the syphilis study, but also the foundation of medical practice.”

The idea persists today. Race is a social concept, but using race as though it designates biological differences informs treatment decisions about the kidneys, the lungs, pregnancy and more...

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/tuskegee-syphilis-study-medical-racism?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=latest-newsletter-v2&utm_source=Latest_Headlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest_Headlines

Thank you, dear Ljubomir Jacić, for your tireless information work. I want to respond to it and continue it. First, the topic of medical racism. In the USA there are bad conditions in this regard. In other respects too little attention is paid to racial-biological differences. Just as medicine is male oriented and disadvantages women, it is also white oriented and colored people are disadvantaged.

Now to the issue of racial profiling. In Germany we had the New Year's Eve riots in the migrant districts of Berlin. Groups of young man shot at the police, at firefighters and ambulances with firecrackers. Several officers were beaten and seriously injured. The public still does not know how many of the perpetrators were migrants. It is assumed: all or almost all, despite an occasional German passport. It is said that integration in these neighborhoods into German society has failed. The neighborhoods are often ruled by criminal ethnic clans. At the same time, the police have to keep the ethnic origins of the perpetrators of the New Year's Eve riots secret due to political correctness: no racism should be fueled. There were now protests from the police, without ethnic distinctions they could not do their job. The fight against racism or xenophobia is overdone and leads to the fact that criminals cannot be convicted or asylum policies cannot be checked. Important democratic rights to information are violated because of exaggerated perceptions of the vulnerability of immigrants. German society is deeply divided on the question of how to proceed with foreigner policy.

Now to the subject of race equality. In the above article which Ljubomir cited, the demand for an exactly proportional allocation of posts was raised. The suitability and performance for the job was not discussed in the paper. The raised demand would mean that black academics would get their jobs even if they did less well, and that Far Eastern academics would have a harder time getting their jobs and would have to do better than the average. In Germany we have no experience with such race quotas, but with gender quotas. The experiences are negative. We now had the third female Secretary of Defense to fail. The last one was very embarrassing, one scandal followed the other. Now a man has been taken to the post who knows the military from experience. Of course, this violated gender equality in the cabinet, how bad! In the USA there is a similar picture, if you look at the vice president. It should be a woman of color (who is doubly discriminated) and the result is not convincing. In a quota system, unsuitable candidates are inevitably chosen again and again. Excessive anti-discrimination means a loss of performance and reputation for our political and social system. Racism or gender discrimination should be addressed through a lower disproportionate entry rate that leaves room for rewarding performance and aptitude.

Journals dismiss claims that Harvard researcher’s work on race is ‘pseudoscience’

Two journals have dismissed allegations of research misconduct leveled against a  political scientist at Harvard in an anonymous memo that labeled his work “pseudoscience.”

https://retractionwatch.com/2023/03/06/journals-dismiss-claims-that-harvard-researcher-work-on-race-is-pseudoscience/

Today I would like to introduce you to a "highly selective approach to the past that sees everything through the prism of race", i.e. hyper-anti-racism. It is worth noting that their proponents do not deny the existence of race as some do, but see racism everywhere. Please follow this link:

https://unherd.com/2023/03/the-death-of-historical-truth/

Now, I would like to draw the attention of the readers of this blog to the incorrect use of the term racism in German politics.

https://www.integrationsbeauftragte.de/resource/blob/1864320/2157012/77c8d1dddeea760bc13dbd87ee9a415f/lagebericht-rassismus-komplett-data.pdf?download=1

The German Commissioner for Foreigners, Ms. Reem Alabali-Radovan (SPD), recently denounced widespread racism in Germany. But what is noticeable - in addition to real racism - is above all a cultural conflict with the Islamic milieu. Here, the German majority society complains about several things: the phobic separation of the sexes with veils and contact bans, the machismo of knife-carrying men, anti-Semitism, the insistence on their own methods of slaughter, generally the unwillingness to accept the domestic language and rules .... This is a serious integration conflict and has little to do with having a different skin colour. The use of the term racism in this context, if accepted, makes criticism of the foreign milieu out of the question. Therefore, it is unfortunate when high-ranking politicians and officials abuse the concept of racism in this way for unbalanced political and professional goals.

Should public policy be “race conscious” or “colour blind”? Should it target the specific inequalities faced by minority groups or treat all citizens equally without any reference to individuals’ racial and cultural backgrounds?

The contrast between these two approaches has often been seen as that between Anglo-Saxon multiculturalism and French assimilationism, the one “based on the right of ethnic minorities, of communities”, the other “based on individual rights”, as Marceau Long, then the president of France’s Haut Conseil à L’Intégration, put it in 1991, adding that the Anglo-Saxon approach, unlike that of the French, was that of “another way of imprisoning people within ghettos”...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/09/france-laissez-faire-race-us-proactive-race-class-relations

I would like to recommend literature on the topic. From this it follows that not only cultural studies, but also parts of the natural sciences have moved away from scientific solidity. This describes well:

Pluckrose, Helen: Cynical theories: how activist scholarship made everything about race, gender, and identity - and why this harms everyone: [London] : Swift, 2021

Pluckrose, Helen; Lindsay, J & Boghossian, P 2018 'Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship' Areomagazine 02 October. Available from: https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ [09 October 2018].

In addition, I would like to draw attention to another Researchgate question that discussed similar topics: "Science and history serving political and ideological totalitarianism?" . Unfortunately, the discussion has so far been disconnected.

The word “race” will remain in the German constitution! - What happened? - After the progressive parties in Germany (Greens, Lefts and Social Democrats) organized a campaign against the term, German Jews spoke out (very late): No, race should remain in the constitution because it is reminiscent of the Third Reich's persecution of Jews. And the German politics followed. - So with a concept that, according to woke progressives or anti-racists, should not exist because false. - It's good that there is competition between the identity or victim groups. So reason still has a chance.