Sure I did.  Not my problem if it isn't the stereotypical one you wanted. 

I don't believe you really were looking forward to an answer to such a trivial question though.

Race as a social construct and populationism

Since the 1960s, some anthropologists and teachers of anthropology[who?] have re-conceived "race" as a cultural category or social construct, in other words, as a particular way that some people have of talking about themselves and others. As such it cannot be a useful analytical concept; rather, the use of the term "race" itself must be analyzed. Others[who?] have argued that the concept of race as a social construct is itself a social construct that has little validity outside of contemporary humanities.

Some Historians, anthropologists and social scientists[who?] sometimes describe human races as a social construct, preferring instead the term population, which can be given a clear operational definition. Even those who reject the formal concept of race, however, still use the word race in day-to-day speech. This may either be a matter of semantics, or an effect of an underlying cultural significance of race in racist societies. Regardless of the name, a working concept of sub-species grouping can be useful, because in the absence of cheap and widespread genetic tests, various race-linked gene mutations (see Cystic fibrosis, Lactose intolerance, Tay-Sachs Disease and Sickle cell anemia) are difficult to address without recourse to a category between "individual" and "species". As genetic tests for such conditions become cheaper, and as detailed haplotype maps and SNP databases become available, identifiers of race should diminish. Also, increasing interracial marriage is reducing the predictive power of race. For example, most babies born with Tay-Sachs Disease in North America at present are not from Jewish families, despite stereotypes to contrary.

In everyday speech, race often describes populations better defined as ethnic groups, often leading to discrepancies between scientific views on race and popular usage of the term. For instance in many parts of the United States, categories such as Hispanic or Latino are viewed[by whom?] to constitute a race, though others[who?] see Hispanic as a linguistic and cultural grouping with European, African, and Amerindian ancestries. Historically in the United States, when the one-drop rule was in existence, the term Black subsumed people with a broad range of ancestries under one label.

Some[who?] argue it is preferable when considering biological relations to think in terms of populations, and when considering cultural relations to think in terms of ethnicity, rather than of race.

These developments had important consequences. For example, some scientists[who?] developed the notion of "population" to take the place of race. It is argued that this substitution is not simply a matter of exchanging one word for another.

This view does not deny that there are physical differences among peoples; it simply claims that the historical conceptions of "race" are not particularly useful in accounting for these differences scientifically. In particular, it is claimed[by whom?] that:

1. knowing someone's "race" does not provide comprehensive predictive information about biological characteristics, and only absolutely predicts those traits that have been selected to define the racial categories, e.g. knowing a person's skin color, which is generally acknowledged to be one of the markers of race (or taken as a defining characteristic of race), does not allow good predictions of a person's blood type to be made.
2. in general, the worldwide distribution of human phenotypes exhibits gradual trends of difference across geographic zones, not the categorical differences of race; in particular, there are many peoples (like the San of S. W. Africa, or the people of northern India) who have phenotypes that do not neatly fit into the standard race categories.
3. focusing on race has historically led not only to seemingly insoluble disputes about classification (e.g. are the Japanese a distinct race, a mixture of races, or part of the East Asian race? and what about the Ainu?) but has also exposed disagreement about the criteria for making decisions— the selection of phenotypic traits seemed arbitrary...

Sparky wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 6:05pm:



Is "Asian" a race?

Since the 1960s, some anthropologists and teachers of anthropology[who?] have re-conceived "race" as a cultural category or social construct, in other words, as a particular way that some people have of talking about themselves and others. As such it cannot be a useful analytical concept; rather, the use of the term "race" itself must be analyzed. Others[who?] have argued that the concept of race as a social construct is itself a social construct that has little validity outside of contemporary humanities.

On my last visit to my doctor he told me he had made a rare visit to Sydney's Central Railway Station area and was totally shocked by how the whole place has been taken over by Asians.

If he had moved further away from Central Station he would have seen that the streets are packed with Asians in every direction.

... wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 11:00am:


You're a despicable grub.