Homo sapiens sapiens

I don't spend any time thinking of it. I'm proud of where I'm from and would be wherever that was.

I haven't thought about it before but I think I'd say that Race is immutable. I don't understand the idea of Self Identified Race (Nationality: yes, Race: no).

Race used to promote a social hierarchy has undeniably been the case Historically and, still is the case for some people.

I'm white by race, British by nationality, Scottish by subdivision of nationality, and proud of all three - but not negative to any other combinations.

I don't understand how race can be fluid, and I think it more important to work towards mutual acceptance of equality.

It's fluid because the scientific definition of race isn't the same as the political and social construct, which has how the word is now commonly used.

Scientifically, there is only one race ie homo sapiens sapiens.

There is no other single definition of race. It's a complex issue involving self-identification.

How "white" does a person's skin have to be?

'White isn't a 'race', it's a colour.

I'm 'white' but I have slave ancestry not so far back and goodness knows what else.

I'd agree with Vence L. Bonham Jr., J.D. Race is a social construct.

MaizieD

'White isn't a 'race', it's a colour.

I'm 'white' but I have slave ancestry not so far back and goodness knows what else.

I'd agree with Vence L. Bonham Jr., J.D. Race is a social construct.

In the Equality Act 2010, the protected characteristic of 'race' is defined as including colour, ethnic or national origin, or nationality

'Race' started by categorising people according to their colour.

What Bonham Jr omits to say is (I've inserted the pertinent words in bold)

Race has been used historically by white people to establish a social hierarchy with white people at the top whereby individuals are treated differently resulting in racism

Yes race which identifies a person by its skin type, is a social/cultural construct.

It can’t be anything else.

It is certainly a fluid construct, and attitudes etc change over time.

In science there will presumably be a number of human races.

Neanderthal I suppose could be another - although isn’t that under question now? The is another human species I’ve read about but can’t remember the name.

Yes, there was another human species - that's why the "sapiens" is doubled. Homo sapiens sapiens is a subspecies. There were some others too, but they've completely died out.

Today, there is only one living human species. We all came out of Africa. There weren't any Neanderthals in Africa, so anybody with purely African ancestry has no Neanderthal DNA. Once humans left Africa, humans encountered Neanderthals and some of them interbred. Neanderthals died out, but left some of their DNA in non-African humans.

Stop kidding yourselves, ladies. Homo sapiens sapiens is a species, and that species has variations which we define as race. There are distinct differences between the races, both mental and physical.

MaizieD

'White isn't a 'race', it's a colour.

I'm 'white' but I have slave ancestry not so far back and goodness knows what else.

I'd agree with Vence L. Bonham Jr., J.D. Race is a social construct.

Before about the 17th century, nobody really talked about race. If anything, people were defined by their religion.

The heyday of racial theory was in the nineteenth century, when it coincided with nationalism and social Darwinism (not to be confused with Darwinism).

I agree with you OldFrill. It was an attempt by Europeans to prove they were superior. Eventually, of course, it wasn't just people with white skin who were seen as superior, but those with "Aryan" appearance.

Curtaintwitcher

Stop kidding yourselves, ladies. Homo sapiens sapiens is a species, and that species has variations which we define as race. There are distinct differences between the races, both mental and physical.

Oh dear!

I'm not kidding anyone. I suggest you do some homework.

Well I am at a lower risk of lupus surely than my friend for example. So there are those medical differences.

Curtaintwitcher

Stop kidding yourselves, ladies. Homo sapiens sapiens is a species, and that species has variations which we define as race. There are distinct differences between the races, both mental and physical.

Is your name Donald? You sound like someone I used to know.

Galaxy

Well I am at a lower risk of lupus surely than my friend for example. So there are those medical differences.

I don't really understand what you mean. There are certainly genetic causes for medical risks, but they're a tiny part of our DNA and there aren't clear cut dividing lines.

One cause of lupus is a mutation in the TLR7 gene. There are clumps of people with the mutation in all continents.

What about the "royal family" they have blue blood what sort of race are they? One is our HoS though, they don't do much as been found, cut ribbons, wave, Some people curtsey and bow to them. But polling shows they are not so popular. Could they become extinct

For once I share something with Curtaintwitcher. I agree that there are genetic differences between races.

My grandson suffers from anaemia and the doctors can not find a cause. One possibility they considered was sickle cell anaemia, which is limited in the ethnic groups who suffer from it and . Sickle cell disease is most commonly seen in people of African and Caribbean backgrounds. (quote from NHS site) and his parents were asked if they were absolutely sure that there was no one of Afro-Carribean origin in their family trees.

Other ethnic groups share certain genes that are less common in other groups.

Europeans (white people) are not the only or first ones to define people's position in society by colour. In the Indian caste system, among Middle Eastern people there is a hierarchy based on colour, also in other areas of Asia.

The attractions of women in almost any culture or race have always been defined by colour, the women who are 'fair' are considered of greater beauty than women who are dark. Dark haired, darker skinned women, usually meaning those with a rosier complexion or tanned are connected with all that that is evil.

The wicked stepmother is always shown as dark haired, and dark coloured, likewise Morgan-le-fey. The Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus Christ, is always seen as fair, except in a few more mdern interpretations, even though, as a native of Palestine she would, in fact, have been Middle Eastern in colouring with dark hair, dark eyes and a darker complexion than most European people.

African American women are three times as likely to get lupus than white women, their symptoms tend to be more severe. That's what I mean.

But MOnica I have a genetic mutation means that I was at risk of developing the breast cancer I did. It means that some generations ago (no idea how many) an ancestor developed the mutation and I inherited it. My great-grandmother probably had it. If she'd have had five daughters, who had had five daughters and they'd all lived in an isolated area, they would all have been at high risk, but it wouldn't have changed the "race" they belonged to. That's why the Amish and other isolated groups have a high incidence of some mutations. It doesn't mean they're a different "race".

People pass gene mutations on to any of their offspring. It doesn't matter about interbreeding. It just so happens that some world populations tend to move around more than others, so sometimes the mutations tend to be associated with certain populations and at other times, they become more widespread. That has absolutely no influence on any other characteristics such as skin and eye colour or other physical or mental characteristics.

Galaxy

African American women are three times as likely to get lupus than white women, their symptoms tend to be more severe. That's what I mean.

But that's not a result of their "race". It's because African populations tend to breed with other Africans and the faulty gene is passed on to their offspring. A single person developed the gene mutation hundreds (thousands?) of years ago and has passed it on.

If an African with the mutation bred with a European, the chances are that the gene would be passed on, regardless of "race".

Incidentally, it's not uncommon for Palestinians to have fair hair and blue or green eyes.

For example ...

Ahed Tamimi, a prominent Palestinian activist. She was born in Palestine to Palestinian parents.

M0nica

For once I share something with Curtaintwitcher. I agree that there are genetic differences between races.

My grandson suffers from anaemia and the doctors can not find a cause. One possibility they considered was sickle cell anaemia, which is limited in the ethnic groups who suffer from it and . Sickle cell disease is most commonly seen in people of African and Caribbean backgrounds. (quote from NHS site) and his parents were asked if they were absolutely sure that there was no one of Afro-Carribean origin in their family trees.

Other ethnic groups share certain genes that are less common in other groups.

Europeans (white people) are not the only or first ones to define people's position in society by colour. In the Indian caste system, among Middle Eastern people there is a hierarchy based on colour, also in other areas of Asia.

The attractions of women in almost any culture or race have always been defined by colour, the women who are 'fair' are considered of greater beauty than women who are dark. Dark haired, darker skinned women, usually meaning those with a rosier complexion or tanned are connected with all that that is evil.

The wicked stepmother is always shown as dark haired, and dark coloured, likewise Morgan-le-fey. The Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus Christ, is always seen as fair, except in a few more mdern interpretations, even though, as a native of Palestine she would, in fact, have been Middle Eastern in colouring with dark hair, dark eyes and a darker complexion than most European people.

Did you grandson have a DNA test? Surely that's the obvious and only way to confirm his ethnicity. No-one could be absolutely sure of their ancestry.

'Hierarchy' is key to race having been defined by colour, and it's not the lower castes instigating the method.

I am not sure that matters in a sense growstuff in terms of impact that it may have on particular communities. I suppose my reservation is linked to my experience with regard to HIV/Aids in the nineties, where acknowledging that this was impacting specific communities in the UK was ignored in messaging for quite a while. It led to some quite nonsensical campaigns/training etc and also lack of acknowledgement of what had happened to a particular community. I dont think this is a direct comparison but it makes me wary.