Is There A Sound Basis For Racial Profiling?

[rainbow]

I don't think ...

Quite accurate.

[rainbow]

So Rainbow and NB are you saying that there are no varieties of humans in the sense that Darwin used that term?

No. My children and my neighbour's children are genetically different, and look different.
If is not sufficient to classify them as different subspecies.

This is really a very simple concept to grasp.
Why do you battle to understand it?

Could it be genetic?

[JimC]

I don't think there is really much scientific doubt that humans are divided into subspecies, one aspect of which is called "race."

The real question is whether or not there are genetically-based behaviors inherent in particular human subspecies that would justify "racial profiling," the general definition of which is assigning behavioral patterns to individuals based on their genetic group characteristics.

I doubt that the biological term "subspecies" legitimately applies to human races, but it is an arguable proposition.

I agree with the way you have stated your second sentence. Personally, I think the answer to the question is "no"...

However, even if there are consistent behavioural patterns (in a statistical sense) associated with race, it should not in the slightest affect how people of varying races are treated by governments or society in general.

[pinkharrier]

Rainbow said "No. My children and my neighbour's children are genetically different, and look different.
If is not sufficient to classify them as different subspecies."

Which begs the question as to why you categorize them as children? Surely your children (unless they're teenagers) are 99%+ the same. Or is age, like race, a social construct? If you think so, then I might just concur that race is a social construct. If not, I won't.

As for racial profiling, I would be in favour of it if it saved your childrens' (and your neighbours' children) lives. And yours as well.

[charlou]

XSAXAXSA

Or in this case, GATTACA

[charlou]

There is no genetic reproductive barrier. If there was we'd have separate species instead of subspecies. Why do I have to keep saying this?
@Nineberry That's nice, but hardly qualifies as significant on the scale of the populations.

Please post a comprehensive list of current human subspecies. TIA.

Here's a fairly comprehensive one:
http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity.html
Outline of Human Racial/Subspecies Classification:
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA GROUP
I. Capoid or Khoisanid Subspecies of southern Africa
A. Khoid (Hottentot) race
B. Sanid (Bushmen) race
II. Congoid Subspecies of sub-Saharan Africa
A. Central Congoid race (Geographic center and origin in the Congo river basin)
1. Palaecongoid subrace (the Congo river basin: Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Congo, Angola)
2. Sudanid subrace (western Africa: Niger, Mali, Senegal, Guinea)
3. Nilotid subrace (southern Sudan; the ancient Nubians were of this subrace)
4. Kafrid or Bantid subrace (east and south Africa: Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Natal)
B. Bambutid race (African Pygmies)
C. Aethiopid race (Ethiopia, Somalia; hybridized with Caucasoids)

"OUT-OF-AFRICA" GROUP
I. Australoid Subspecies
A. Veddoid race (remnant Australoid population in central and southern India)
B. Negritos (remnants in Malaysia and the Philippines)
C. Melanesian race (New Guinea, Papua, Solomon Islands)
D. Australian-Tasmanian race (Australian Aborigines)
II. Mongoloid Subspecies
A. Northern Mongoloid racial group
1. Northeast Asian race (various subraces in northern China, Manchuria, Korea and Japan)
2. Ainuid race (remnants of aboriginal population in northern Japan)
3. Tungid race (Mongolia and Siberia, Eskimos)
4. Amerindian race (American Indians; various subraces)
B. Southern Mongoloid racial group
1. Southeast Asian race (various subraces in southern China, Indochina, Thailand, Myanmar [Burma], Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, the last four
partly hybridized with Australoids)
2. Micronesian-Polynesian race (predominantly Southern Mongoloid partly hybridized with Australoids)
III. Caucasoid or Europid Subspecies
A. Dravidic race (India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka [Ceylon]; ancient stabilized Indic-Veddoid [Australoid] blend)
B. Turanid race (partially hybridized with Mongoloids; predominant element in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan; common in Hungary and Turkey)
C. Indic or Nordindid race (Pakistan and northern India)
D. Irano-Afghan race (predominant in Iran and Afghanistan, primary element in Iraq, common [25%] in Turkey)
E. Armenid race (predominant element in Armenia and Azerbaijan, common in Syria, Lebanon and northern Iraq, primary element among the Ashkenazic
Jews)
F. Mediterranid racial group
1. Orientalid or Arabid subrace (predominant in Arabia, major element from Egypt to Syria, primary in northern Sudan, important in Iraq, predominant
element among the Oriental Jews)
2. South Mediterranean or Saharid subrace (predominant in Algeria and Libya, important in Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt, primary element among the
Sephardic Jews, common element [circa 20-25%] in Spain, Sicily and southern Italy, minor element [circa 5%] in Greece)
3. East Mediterranean or Pontid subrace (Black Sea coast of Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria; Aegean coasts of Greece and Turkey)
4. Dinaricized Mediterraneans (Residual mixed types resulting from the blending of Mediterranids with Dinarics, Alpines or Armenids; not a unified type,
has much regional variation; predominant element [over 60%] in Sicily and southern Italy, principal element in Turkey [35%], important element in
western Syria, Lebanon and central Italy, common in northern Italy. The ancient Cappadocian Mediterranean subrace of Anatolia was dinaricized
perhaps as early as the Neolitihic and is a major contributor to this type in modern Turkey.)
5. West Mediterranean or Iberid subrace (Spain, Portugal, Corsica, Sardinia, and coastal areas of Morocco and Tunisia; the Atlanto-Mediterranean peoples
who expanded over much of the Atlantic coastal regions of Europe during the Mesolithic period were a branch of this subrace)
G. Ladogan race (named after Lake Ladoga; indigenous to Russia; includes Lappish subrace of arctic Europe)
H. Dinaric race (predominant in western Balkans [Dinaric Mountains] and northern Italy, important in the Czech Republic, eastern and southern Switzerland,
western Austria and eastern Ukraine. Its distribution in Europe, and that of its derived Dinaricized Mediterranean type, may be associated with the
expansion of the Neolithic Anatolian farmers beginning circa 6,500 B.C.)
I. Alpine race (predominant element in Luxembourg, primary in Bavaria and the Czech Republic [Bohemia], important in France, Hungary, eastern and
southern Switzerland)
J. Nordish or Northern European racial group (various subraces in the British Isles, Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Belgium; predominant element in
Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Finland and the Baltic States; majority in Austria and Russia; important in France, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and
Hungary; outlined in detail in The Nordish Race)

Dominant or predominant = over 60% majority
Majority or major = 50-60% majority
Principal or primary = 25-49% plurality; less than a majority, but most numerous racial type
Important = 25-49% minority; not most numerous racial type
Common = 6-25% minority
Minor = 5% or less minority
-----------
Here's the genetic distance between them. Both following tables from Masatoshi Nei and Arun K. Roychoudhury from Evolutionary Relationships of Human Populations on a Global Scale (1993):


Here's a more concise & easier to read genetic distance table:

That's a pretty awesome list .. thanks for posting.

What if we took a single progeny of each one of those listed groups, sent them on a randomly matched holiday where they hooked up with someone from one of the other listed groups and produced a child ... How would you categorise each child from those matches?

And if we were to take those children and do the same, what categories would you list their offspring as?

And are we still defining these generations as subspecies? Is there a point over such mixed generations where we discontinue doing so? If not, why not?

[Robert_S]

Are the Kennedys a race? I mean, I can kinda see e resemblance among them.

[charlou]

I live in Australia, born of mixed immigrant parentage .. Likewise the man who is the father of our children, though a different mix .. What subspecies is he, and what am I .. what subspecies are our children?

Each one of the children may go on to have children with partners of differing ancestry .. More subspeciation?

Where the fark does it end?

[pinkharrier]

It doesn,t end. Not for humans, dogs, barnacles. Full stop.

[Jason]

Warble Warble Warble.

There are many good questions raised by those opposed to the idea of human subspecies. Questions I cannot personally answer because there has been little to no unbiased research done. Taxonomy applied to humans would assert there are, but along what lines? Cultural? Economical? Morphological? I suspect the answer is a composite of many aspects - which is what I meant, Charlou, when I said you were looking at it in terms of 'black and white' (along traditional racial divides).

What I'm advocating is an unshackling of science. Let it lead us where it may.*


*To preempt the argument that 'science has determined there are no subspecies of homo sapiens sapiens [you see we are a subspecies of homo sapiens], PC science has issued that statement. Since that decree further study into the matter has been mired in racism as the real scientists are caught up in the racist vs. egalitarian debate. It's absurd.

And that's all I have to say about that for now.

[Seth]

So Rainbow and NB are you saying that there are no varieties of humans in the sense that Darwin used that term?

No. My children and my neighbour's children are genetically different, and look different.
If is not sufficient to classify them as different subspecies.

This is really a very simple concept to grasp.
Why do you battle to understand it?

Could it be genetic?

WHY isn't it "sufficient"? What, exactly is the genetic metric for subspeciation?

I mean really, different beak lengths on birds was good enough for Darwin.

[Seth]

I don't think there is really much scientific doubt that humans are divided into subspecies, one aspect of which is called "race."

The real question is whether or not there are genetically-based behaviors inherent in particular human subspecies that would justify "racial profiling," the general definition of which is assigning behavioral patterns to individuals based on their genetic group characteristics.

I doubt that the biological term "subspecies" legitimately applies to human races, but it is an arguable proposition.

I agree with the way you have stated your second sentence. Personally, I think the answer to the question is "no"...

However, even if there are consistent behavioural patterns (in a statistical sense) associated with race, it should not in the slightest affect how people of varying races are treated by governments or society in general.

Well, that would depend on the behavior pattern wouldn't it? Cannibalism might be cultural or genetic or both, and I'd think government would be remiss in not treating those with a desire to eat other humans somewhat differently from others by, for example, forbidding them from doing so...

[Seth]

Warble Warble Warble.

There are many good questions raised by those opposed to the idea of human subspecies. Questions I cannot personally answer because there has been little to no unbiased research done. Taxonomy applied to humans would assert there are, but along what lines? Cultural? Economical? Morphological? I suspect the answer is a composite of many aspects - which is what I meant, Charlou, when I said you were looking at it in terms of 'black and white' (along traditional racial divides).

What I'm advocating is an unshackling of science. Let it lead us where it may.*


*To preempt the argument that 'science has determined there are no subspecies of homo sapiens sapiens [you see we are a subspecies of homo sapiens], PC science has issued that statement. Since that decree further study into the matter has been mired in racism as the real scientists are caught up in the racist vs. egalitarian debate. It's absurd.

And that's all I have to say about that for now.

Most of the objection I see to the notion of human subspeciation has to do with moral, ethical and social boundaries, not science.

[Jason]

Most of the objection I see to the notion of human subspeciation has to do with moral, ethical and social boundaries, not science.

That's the entirety of the objection. I've been saying that for.. a while. However, it is a devisive objection nevertheless. Which is why I opted for the diplomatic retreat in my last post - which encapsulates my views on the subject well enough.

[rainbow]

Rainbow said "No. My children and my neighbour's children are genetically different, and look different.
If is not sufficient to classify them as different subspecies."

Which begs the question as to why you categorize them as children? Surely your children (unless they're teenagers) are 99%+ the same. Or is age, like race, a social construct? If you think so, then I might just concur that race is a social construct. If not, I won't.

As for racial profiling, I would be in favour of it if it saved your childrens' (and your neighbours' children) lives. And yours as well.

My children have a Unique feature (they are the only people in the world that are my progeny), and they also have a Universal property (they are all my progeny).
I didn't bring in any 99% argument. YOU argue it if you think it has merit.

Now show me a 'race' that has Unique and Universal properties, and list what these features are.