Race is Not Just Skin Deep
By • 7/3/08A standard canard of race deniers is to cast scorn on the idea that biological races can be defined genetically. You will often hear the chattering class assert that racial differences are only skin deep and that commonsensical racial classifications, such as black, white, Asian, and so forth, do not designate meaningful genetic groups. As Kenan Malik said in a recent article in the Times (London):
Race has no scientific meaning because there is no such thing as a “natural” human population. Migration, intermarriage, war and conquest, forced assimilation, voluntary embrace of new or multiple identities (whether religious, cultural, national, ethnic or racial), social rules for defining populations such as the “one-drop rule” in America—these and many social other factors ensure that there are no such things as fixed natural populations.
Malik’s statement, however, is politically correct disinformation that has been refuted by geneticists. A substantial body of research has demonstrated that human beings are divided into genetically different population groups that correspond to commonsensical racial classifications.
 |
| Neil Risch’s chart of genetic clusters derived from population genetics studies. |
In a 2002 article, Stanford genetics professor Neil Risch and his colleagues provided dozens of examples of population genetics studies that have affirmed the validity of commonsensical racial classifications. Risch concludes that the racial taxonomy in the chart to the right, which is taken from the article, best describes the overall clustering of human genetic differences: “Effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry—namely African, Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native American.”
Risch acknowledges Malik’s point that in places races are mixed and difficult to categorize. However, this fact should not blind us to the fact that the overwhelming majority of humans can be classified straightforwardly as one racial group or another. The mere fact that categories have fuzzy boundaries does not invalidate them.
Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply. For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians. The existence of such intermediate groups should not, however, overshadow the fact that the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level.
Risch also responds to the point that racial differences are only skin deep. He points out that none of the population genetic studies he cites as evidence for racial differences examined genes related to skin pigment. However one dices and slices the genome, no matter what criteria one chooses, the same racial differences always emerge:
none of the population genetic studies cited above…used skin pigment of the study subjects, or genetic loci related to skin pigment, as predictive variables. Yet the various racial groups were easily distinguishable on the basis of even a modest number of random genetic markers; furthermore, categorization is extremely resistant to variation according to the type of markers used (for example, RFLPs, microsatellites or SNPs).
Risch concludes that the “race-neutral” approach to medicine recommended by many pious academics would hinder our efforts to fight disease as racial classifications are an effective label of medically relevant genetic differences. Contra Malik then, race is essential to scientific research, not an irrelevant distraction.
Three years later, Risch provided a powerful demonstration of his thesis—a summary of the research is here; the journal article is here. Risch and his colleagues collected DNA samples as well as self-reported racial designations from 3,600 subjects in the US and Taiwan, who were white, black, Asian, and Hispanic. Without having looked at the racial designations, the researchers collected information about 326 DNA regions that vary among people and fed it to a computer program designed to come up with DNA groupings. The computer came up with four major groups, which, in all but five cases, corresponded to the subjects’ racial designations: there was one computer grouping for whites, another for Asians, and others for blacks and Hispanics. As Risch concluded, “This shows that people’s self-identified race/ethnicity is a nearly perfect indicator of their genetic background.”
Bottom line: race is real, despite the disinformation put about by newspaper charlatans. Deal with it!
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
Click here to join the White America mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever White America publishes new entries.
Race realists always get their rhetoric wrong when confronted by the “race has no scientific meaning” gambit, and Mr. Jobling’s response here is no exception. Of course race is biologically real, but that’s not the main issue at all. When someone says that “race is just skin deep” and “not biologically meaningful”, he’s denying that races differ genetically in important traits—that is, traits such as intelligence, temperament, etc. which are socially important. The point which race realists seem to miss here is that Malik’s empirical claims apply to socially defined races just as much as they apply to biological races. They might be true or false for socially constructed races, even if he were correct that there’s no such thing as biological race.
An outline of a reply goes something like this. OK, fine, let’s assume that race is just a social construct, not biologically real. We both agree that these socially constructed races differ in certain genetically based traits: skin color, bone structure, responsiveness to BiDil, etc. And traits like the latter are certainly more than skin deep. The empirical question is, given that these socially defined races differ genetically in some traits, do they differ genetically in other, more controversial traits as well, such as intelligence, temperament, etc.? Here’s my empirical evidence that they do. What empirical evidence do you have that they don’t?
The existence of different macro racial groups (Caucasoids, mongoloid, and Negroid, Australoid) is beyond a doubt. The real debate is how to classify variation within the same race.
The old anthropologists (coon, etc) were definitely right in their classifications for large racial categories. Even people who despise Coon admit on biodiversity forums that the old-school racial classifications are essentially correct. They just dispute how to divide Caucasoids. This has been re-evaluated and confirmed by even people who genuinely dislike the anthropological figures of the past.
1) there is CONTINUOUS VARIATION in skin colour in the human race
2) geographical isolation has led to distinct populations
3) selective pressures at the extremes (stabilising selection) within each geographically distinct population will reduce the standard deviation from the mean, but variation will show more or less a normal distribution
4)further mutations will occur that if given time and geographical isolation might well turn the races into different species by preventing interbreeding(thousands of years?) but if that occurred natural selective pressures could potentially wipe out e.g. the black species or the white species or both (e.g. global warming,skin cancers,natural geographical disaster)so i think interbreeding is a good idea because it maintains the genetic diversity we need for the human race to survive
5)pigmentation biologically linked to temperament - possibility
6)pigmentation biologically linked to intelligence - highly unlikely
7)genetic differences in intelligence between the races - unlikely, cause of perceived difference probably due to temperament or environmental factors or selective breeding (e.g. ashkenazi jews selecting for intelligence - only a theory not a fact)
8)CONTINUOUS VARIATION in intelligence and temperament means there is a HUGE overlap.
CONTINUOUS VARIATION is the argument against race, mutations and geographical separation causes this phenomenon we call race, geographical separation causes populations with similar genetic characteristics because they tend to interbreed more. WHY IS THIS SUCH A BIG DEAL?
9) Racism is a selective pressure ??? Interesting. Technology means there is no longer any geographical isolation so something else has to keep the populations distinct
10) if we all eventually become different species (speciation) will all the species survive and which species is most likely to die out? should we maintain genetic diversity and hope racism
IS only skin deep, or should we all promote isolation, take our chances and see which is the last race standing?
TGR (Geneticist) wrote:
“there is CONTINUOUS VARIATION in skin colour in the human race (…) 5)pigmentation biologically linked to temperament - possibility 6)pigmentation biologically linked to intelligence - highly unlikely”
There is indeed no evidence that any gene concerned in the control of skin pigmentation has any effect on cognitive capacity in human beings. It might nevertheless happen that selective influences would result in the production of a certain skin colour in a population, and that selective influences of another kind would independently result in the acquisition by this population of other traits, e.g. a higher cognitive capacity. An example to this coexistence of two or more characters controlled by two independent sets of genes would be brachycephaly and platyrrhiny found among members of the Alpinid subrace.
It should also be noted that scientists do not classify humans by skin colour, but by differences in gross morphology and or gene frequencies.
“2) geographical isolation has led to distinct populations”
Correct. Whether you call these populations ‘races’, ‘clusters’, or ‘geographic population groups’ is a semantic, not a scientific, question.
“further mutations will occur that if given time and geographical isolation might well turn the races into different species by preventing interbreeding”
Correct. Races are insipient species.
“interbreeding is a good idea because it maintains the genetic diversity we need for the human race to survive”
Incorrect. Natural selection operates most successfully when possessors of beneficial traits unite with similarly endowed individuals to produce offspring who will then have a better chance of survival than the offspring not endowed with those traits.
In endogamous breeding groups, whose members are already endowed with advantageous genes, beneficial mutations can quickly take hold in the common gene pool. In bigger and more heterogenous societies, beneficial mutations have greater difficulty in surviving. They have to penetrate a much more extensive and diffuse genetic matrix. In such cases, beneficial mutations are more likely to be swamped out before they establish themselves in the common gene pool.
Equalitarianism tends to discourage selection, whether natural or artificial, because any form of human variation is contrary to the plan of reducing everyone to a common racial and social denominator.
“genetic differences in intelligence between the races - unlikely, cause of perceived difference probably due to temperament or environmental factors”
Provide evidence that human races are innately equal in average cognitive ability. Refute the accumulating mass of evidence to the contrary.
“CONTINUOUS VARIATION in intelligence and temperament means there is a HUGE overlap.”
That depends on which races you are comparing. Yes, there is plenty of overlap between Europeans and East Asians in average cognitive ability. But what is the percentage of overlap between Australian aboriginals and Ashkenazi Jews? More importantly, what is the percentage of overlap between high-IQ blacks and high-IQ whites? Since the black race in America has an IQ of 85, only 0.4 percent of that race is above 130 - the minimum IQ required for creative achievement in cognitively demanding disciplines - compared with 5 percent of whites. Or consider the range above 115. An IQ of 115 is regarded as the minimum IQ required for success in college. Sixteen percent of whites have an IQ exceeding 115, but only 2.5 percent of the black race is above 115. And the blacks not distributed in the 115-plus range in the same manner as the white race, but are all bunched near the bottom of it. Also, the amount of white ancestry among blacks in the 115+ IQ range is unclear, although it has been remarked that a great many prominent black intellectuals are conspicuously ‘white’ in their general physiognomy (take, for instance, W.E.B. DuBois).
I think the big controversy exists only because the difference between race and racism is ignored. Sure there are races, just as there are colors - you can’t say that there is no difference between red or green!!! But whether racism is based on truth or not - whether red is better than green???? THAT is purely circumstantial, personal preference based and biased by experience.
Benu writes: “But whether racism is based on truth or not - whether red is better than green???? THAT is purely circumstantial, personal preference based and biased by experience.”
Sure. If you’d prefer to live with people with a much lower average IQ, who are more likely to commit crime, and less likely to work, but have greater music ability, and run faster, you should move to a majority West African country.
Race realism doesn’t imply any particular preference for one race over another. You may like pit bulls better than border collies even though border collies are (on average) smarter and less prone to aggression.
Still, many of us value intelligence, planning for the future, self control, and the like, more than sports. And we don’t feel like being discriminated against just because the outcomes will always show that some races do better than others in some fields. Not enough Black mathematicians. Racism! That’s nonsense. With much lower IQs, a Black guy has to be several standard deviations above the average Black to be a competent physicist, mathematician, or engineer. Not that there aren’t any, they are just very rare. If it is racism, then Nature, or God if you prefer, is the racist.
In some sense, race realists are pragmatically less racist than the supposed “anti racists”. Many of us want an end to all race based discrimination in hiring and college admission. Is that so horrible? I guess it is if your race is not generally suited for the job/school you think you deserve. If you’re Black, and have the high IQ and good grades, more power to you, I say. But if you’re black and less qualified than a white, that’s too bad for you.
The end result of this anti White discrimination is that I always favor Whites, and to a lesser extent East Asians, over other races, since I know from experience that on average Blacks and Mexicans get an easier pass in colleges and life.
I gave it a lot of thought before responding to this comment. The facts you state are true, but the light in which you see them is colored.
First, as you say yourself, that from your experience, Blacks and Mexicans get easier pass in colleges and life - that would obviously make a white person bitter. But that is your experience. You’re entitled to react, harbor opinions etc, but not impose them. As a non christian, in a christian community, it was always challenging for me to just get my passes, when I deserved distinctions. For many years, I was bitter. But I have grown up, and I realize, favoritism is default and commonplace in all communities, races, even families. We do it unknowingly even as we are hurt by the same.
Second, If the whites feel that their country is maligned by the blacks, they must remember why blacks are here in the first place. They were brought here in chains, albeit in generations past. In life, sometimes we reap the harvest of the past, good or bad.
“First, as you say yourself, that from your experience, Blacks and Mexicans get easier pass in colleges and life - that would obviously make a white person bitter. But that is your experience.”
It’s not someone’s “experience;” it is a fact. Blacks and mestizos are given perquisites in every venue. Every standard has been lowered for them, and they are subsidized and promoted on a purely racial basis in more ways than can adequately be summarized. They are treated preferentially in universities and job admissions, and they survive on a vast subsidy levied from whites. Personal feelings have nothing to do with it.
“Second, If the whites feel that their country is maligned by the blacks, they must remember why blacks are here in the first place. They were brought here in chains, albeit in generations past.”
This explains why blacks’ ancestors were brought here. It does not explain why modern blacks remain here. If their endless grievances were based in fact, their refusal to return to their ancestral homeland would be very odd indeed. That they choose to stay is more than ample proof that what this article asserts is true.
Benu writes: “First, as you say yourself, that from your experience, Blacks and Mexicans get easier pass in colleges and life - that would obviously make a white person bitter. But that is your experience.”
It’s not just my experience. Race based affirmative action is backed up by law.
“You’re entitled to react, harbor opinions etc, but not impose them.”
I’m entitled to vote, and if enough people agree with me pass laws which impose my opinion.
“As a non christian, in a christian community, it was always challenging for me to just get my passes, when I deserved distinctions.”
I’m sorry for you. I’m not a Christian either, and sometimes that worked out to my detriment. But I wasn’t bitter then, and I’m not now. I’ve met very many exceptionally good Christians, as well as some not so good non Christians. I haven’t found acceptance of Christianity to have much bearing one way or the other in terms of goodness. That is my experience, as they say, YMMV.
“But I have grown up, and I realize, favoritism is default and commonplace in all communities, races, even families. We do it unknowingly even as we are hurt by the same.”
We’re also helped by favoritism. It’s not one or the other.
“Second, If the whites feel that their country is maligned by the blacks, they must remember why blacks are here in the first place. They were brought here in chains, albeit in generations past. In life, sometimes we reap the harvest of the past, good or bad.”
Slavery was ended by White people. I’d like to reap that harvest, too.
Look, I don’t hate Blacks or Mexicans, or bear them any ill will whatsoever. However, like you, I am not a Christian, and don’t wish to turn the other cheek when my race is accused of being unfair simply because other races are lacking in certain abilities. The reason Blacks and Mexicans fill the jails is not White racism, but Black/Mexican average behavior. The reason Blacks and Mexicans aren’t represented in colleges is not White racism, but lower average Black/Mexican IQ. A high IQ Black or Mexican can write their own ticket.
Denial of the reality of race is a tactic used by people to derail white ethnic advocacy. Rarely, if ever, is it used to discourage or debunk non-white ethnic advocacy. These people automatically equate race realism and European-American advocacy with National Socialism, fascism, violence, and bigotry. The denial of racial truth shows just how far people will go to de-legitimize white advocacy. The truth will always prevail, however.