race, undefined term

Allen Smith allens at yang.earlham.edu
Tue Apr 28 20:34:07 EST 1992

In article <1992Apr17.735.2288 at channel1>, eliot.gelwan at channel1.com (eliot gelwa
   n) writes:
> On 04-17-92 REBEL wrote:
> RNot to be picky or anything....but I do believe that genes code for what
> Rcolor your skin is and therefore do indirectly determine the "race" of
> Rthe people. I think what you are trying to say is that the labelling and
> Rsegregation of people into certain "racial" categories based on some
> Rsubjective opinion of skin color is purely cultural. I agree with
> Rthis...two people of different "races" as judged by society do not differ
> Rbiologically accept for skin color, making the taboo against interracial
> Rsex silly.
> I don't think the writer to whom REBEL responds was ignorant of
> the fact that genes code for skin color. Indeed, skin color is
> *not* the only genetically-coded difference between members of
> different "races." People we call "Asian" or "African" or
> "Caucasian" or "Native American" tend to have different
> genetically-determined aspects of facial physiognomy and a number
> of enzymatic metabolic differences. HLA-types occur at different
> frequencies in the various "races." I think what the writer was
> saying is that there is a continuum of variation across these
> characteristics, but we arbitrarily set a cut-off in designating
> a certain part of the range as defining a given "race" -- or as
> you say, we do it on "purely cultural" terms. Seems to me to be
> very akin to the American Kennel Assn's definition of purebreeds
> of dogs. Me, I like the hybrids better.
        There's also the problem that human races aren't nearly as far
apart, genetically or (despite various claims by racist "scientists")
otherwise, as normally definable subspecies.

More information about the Mol-evol mailing list