"Is Race Real?"

Let me offer this. Race, as a concept, has little meaning within the realm of biology when referring to humans. This is because, as Spookz, WellCookedFetus, paulsamuel and others have pointed out, there are no traits that are exclusive to any of the so-called races.

In fact, there is much disagreement over what constitutes a "race" within other circles, such as governments, cultures, social groups, etc.

The problem, I think, is that Ghassan Kanafani can see that there are obvious differences between major groups of people, but cannot understand why science refuses to acknowledge the idea of race. Part of the issue is certainly a reluctance to continue using an arbitrary means of classification that perpetuates hostility, hatred, violence, exclusion, etc. A common sense motive.

The other part is finding clear boundaries between the so-called races. Scientists don't like things to be too vague when making definitions. If they're vague as a system of classification, throw that system out and use another.

There's no disputing that there are physical traits that exist among groups of people in the world that are predominant within one group and rare in another. Extremely curly and dark black hair isn't as common among Scots as it is among Nigerians. Having said that, there are problems with making these exclusive traits. Take Navajo and Japanese people for instance. I've met people in each of these nationalities that could have been indistinguishable from each other (while in the US Army stationed at FT Hood... both were in my unit).

Anthropologically, there is merit only in what people consider their race to be, not in what an ethnographer considers to be the race of a people. The American Anthropological Association's position on race is here: http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm. Contrary to what C. Sodomy stated, it was not a "study," but rather a position. He obviously didn't read it, but undboubtedly will claim he did.

I would also suggest reading this article, which I have in a text book, Applying Anthropology: An introductory Reader, 6th edition, Podolefsky & Brown, Mayfield Publishing: http://www.greeninformation.com/Race Without Color.htm

This is one of the closing passages from the article

Another interesting source of information is this article, http://www.nature.com/nsu/nsu_pf/001207/001207-8.html, which describes how man is decended from a single ancestoral group in Africa that existed about 170,000 years ago. This was done through Mitochondrial DNA analysis and clearly indicates that C. Sodomy's comment in the first page or two about the AAA's position on race was pointless.

We are all of mixed race. Over and over. The physical traits that you see are the result of many, many generations of inter- and intra-breeding and environmental influances.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The source for this fun little web game (nothing more, I'm afraid) is from Carlton S. Coon, an Anthropologist who died in 1981. In the 1960's, he hypothesized that Caucasians are most "advanced," Mongoloids slightly less so, and Negroids least of
all. This, he based on an idea that there were originally five basic races that evolved separately, in widely differing times and places, from our Homo erectus forebears, Caucasians (predictably) being the first.

Some of the early problems for this hypothesis included the question of why races can interbreed, since this type of "separate evolution" indicates more of a species issue than a race issue, particularly with the differences in intellect suggested.

However, by looking at the link I provided in my previous post regarding mitochondrial dna, you'll see that his hypothesis could not hold true based on current evidence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Molecular anthropology also reveals our intimate commonality. We already know that the Afrocentrist image of one "African" culture is false. From Cairo to Casablanca to Cape Town, Africa is a kaleidoscope of thousands of cultures. It turns out that Africa is also a rich genetic mosaic. For 50 millennia, the breakaway band's descendants around the globe have continued to split into sub-clans and sub-sub-clans, but always carrying the DNA markers of the original small brave band that paddled from Djibouti to Yemen. Meanwhile, the twenty clans that remained in Africa (including the stay-at-home members of the breakaway clan) also continued splitting into sub-clans over the centuries. Consequently, there is far more genetic diversity (twenty clans) within Africa than around the entire rest of the globe (one clan). In other words, an Australian Aborigine, an Amazonian Indian, and a Frenchman are far more closely related, as blood kin, than are typical members of adjacent Nigerian villages. And this explains the transplant rejection problem mentioned earlier. It is not that an Afro-American's MHC is likely to reject a Euro-American transplant. The problem is that MHC from any spot in Africa is so unique that it tends to reject a transplant from any other spot on earth, even from a nearby African village, unless it is from a close relative.

Molecular Anthropology and the "Race" Notion

Genetic studies have emphasized the contrast between North African and sub-Saharan populations, but the particular affinities of the North African mtDNA pool to that of Europe, the Near East, and sub-Saharan Africa have not previously been investigated. We have analysed 268 mtDNA control-region sequences from various Northwest African populations including several Senegalese groups and compared these with the mtDNA database. We have identified a few mitochondrial motifs that are geographically specific and likely predate the distribution and diversification of modern language families in North and West Africa. A certain mtDNA motif (16172C, 16219G), previously found in Algerian Berbers at high frequency, is apparently omnipresent in Northwest Africa and may reflect regional continuity of more than 20,000 years. The majority of the maternal ancestors of the Berbers must have come from Europe and the Near East since the Neolithic. The Mauritanians and West-Saharans, in contrast, bear substantial though not dominant mtDNA affinity with sub-Saharans

Mitochondrial DNA analysis of northwest African populations

funny how something so simple (for the most part!) has been turned into rocket science. i will keep on using race cos it is convenient. just cos... Blond hair in children is a fairly common gene among Europeans (and, curiously, Austalian aborigines). " (Ridley 1993: 2894 The Red Queen) doesnt imply it doesnt work for the most part. perhaps if i am writing a frikkin thesis, i'd discard race but until then i sure aint gonna blab on about "mtdna motifs" and "place of ancestral origins"

as for mr paul "hardcore" samuel....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As an anthropology student I found your first link very interesting and educating. In fact, I printed it out. I'll log into Medline later and look at the other.

Particularly to those who are interested in continuing to exclude minority groups. As the first link you posted mentioned, the darker your skin in America, the higher your likelihood of developing hypertension. Not because of genetics, but because of stress.

I didn't mean to imply that every person on the planet had the same ancestoral origin, but the evidence shows an overwhelming majority share a common point of origin (time/place). There are still some wild cards, like Mungo Man, found in Australia. His mtDNA resembles nothing else on the planet.

 

Wow, two days away and this thread has doubled in posts.

Ghassan:
Let me show you where you logical error lies :
If you cannot list those traits, if there is no genetic code for race
You obviously are aware of the illogics , since you consciously did not put in then , but a mere if ..... nice assumption however incorrect .

You contradict yourself in your next statement

Yes I can list you specific racial traits , however as you know very well those traits are not going to represent an identical group as a race is never 100% homo-genetic (on racial relevant genes) however it is created out of little difference between 2 eventually different traits .
Another point is simply that I have no perfect knowledge of those traits to scientifically mention them . That does not mean that they are not there .

And since we are reminding oneanother of things , you have not been able to deny the obvious physical comonness of peoples . If you cannot do that you have to acknoweldge grouping as it is not random traits that are being spread but traits through a logical mixing between peoples over the years , creating the common picture one can have about a peoples .

When did I deny the obvious physical commonness between peoples? The fact is that the current notion of the races: Black, White, etc is astonishingly simplistic, unscientific, etc, etc. What significance is there in grouping a Senegalese, an Ethiopian, a Nigerian and a Congolese in one group: Black? Or for that matter, an Italian, a Belgian, a Greek, and a Russian in one Group: White? The only significant grouping I see and that can be proven is that they live on two ‘continents’ Africa and Europe, respectively.

Ofcourse it does , the prupose is showing their common ancestry as 1 group of peoples . Is that not of anthropological value ? Not as a group of cultural peoples , but peoples sharing blood , a family .

Come on man. Be serious. White race? Black race? You see an anthropological purpose in those classifications because they show a common ancestry? My friend, knowing that an ‘African American’ in Brooklyn is of the Black ‘race’ tells you nothing of how he got to Brooklyn or how his ancestors got to the USA besides what simply History tells you.

I say the values are anthropological and historical as a group reflects where it has been and with who it has mixed , revealing its history . I am sure you have not forgotten our discussion about Kemet , how do you exclude the relevance of race in a discussion like that ?
The first sentence changes your whole argument: we are talking races and not groups. A race is a more ‘defined’ group. About Kemet, the only reason why race is significant is because the whole debate was based on the racial make-up of the inhabitants. And in that argument I also pointed out the fallacies regarding racial classification in the States: the one-drop rule, and how the notion of such a classification essentially refutes the argument of Leftkowitz, et al. Anyway, groups of course serve anthropological and sociological significance: groups are their entire basis. But these groups are cultures tribes, etc and not races.

BTW : hows that reply doing ? Been busy. Reply will come tonight.


In conclusion , I think that denying races as well as valuing races knows its origin in racial friction within ones own reasoning rather than scientific research .

Arrrrrrrghhhhhhhh. Reading your other posts it seems to me that you have changed your argument by adding that there should be better definitions of races. In order words, the classifications are inadequate. If this is so then what is the purpose of this debate? When you shrink a race to cover, say the Yuroba people of Nigeria or the Sioux, then you are no longer dealing with races. When you change the definitions to fit say the Japanese or the Chinese, you have likewise breached the boundaries of the definitions. Simply because the former are already ascribed a classification: tribes, and the later, Nationalities. And you keep bringing up the Somali and Eritreans as if they represent homogenous groups. Surely, I hope you are aware that the horn of Africa has been subject to some of the most widespread racial

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

mixing on the planet. In summary, the current definition of races: Black, White, Asian, Indian is incorrect, as the presumed homogeneity is imaginary. Further/deeper classification of the said groups discards the current notions of race and threads on already defined classifiers such as nationality, tribe, etc. Races hold no sociological importance unless linked with racism or its variants. This is because quantifiers such as income, locality, education-level, etc illustrate cohesive patterns outside racism. The current definitions of the races serve no anthropological purpose simply because such broad classifications inhibit/detract study—as tracing ancestry or origin, etc is better done with smaller are more homogenous groups: tribes, clans. Etc.

 

We were so close to having peace and a conclusion to this thread and then you had to come back thefountainhed and revert us back by 2-3 pages, please read through that would you.

 

LMAO. Did I do that???? *Erkel impersonation*. Now how exactly did I do that? I read through 3 pages of sometimes illuminating, and at times repetitive bullshit. What exactly did I do now?

Maybe molecular anthropology?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

that’s a start, read the last couple above.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

lmao.
What this?:
In conclusion, molecular anthropology is now solving historical puzzles that we once thought were insoluble. If you believe, as I do, that ultimately we are all better off knowing the truth than living with sugar-coated myths, then molecular anthropology should be embraced and encouraged. But we must be vigilant and informed. Too many people's eyes go blank when you mention DNA, so racialists are quick to exploit ignorance among authorities, especially in the justice system. They are now using the jargon of molecular anthropology to revive the "race" notion more strongly than ever

Still don't know how I set this thread back 2-3 pages.

 

Your bring up the subject from 2-3 pages ago, hence your setting us back. We had concluded at race being far more complex then 5-7 races, and that genetic research had thoroughly destroyed the original meanings and concepts of race.

 

Ok. So I guess i repeated similar bullshit. *spanks self* But it is Muhammed, I have to reply to his posts. But anyway, my whole purpose in posting was to respond to the question of significance anthropologically and sociologically. I was sure better informed 'geneticists' or fetuses on this forum would eventually refute and convince--hopefully-- the original conceptions of race.

 

from what I know as a biochemist (being limited) its a archaic concept and I have seen much evidence here supporting that belief.

 

All that remains is Ghassan's reply. But yes, I too believe that there are plenty of well-worked posts on this thread refuting the current notion of race.

 

WorldMigrations map

Mitochondrial DNA Concordance

Maternal Ancestry Signature

Since Thor Heyerdahl asserted that Polynesia was first colonized from the Americas (Heyerdahl 1950), geneticists have sought--but have not found--any evidence to support his theories. Here, Native American Y chromosomes are detected on the Polynesian island of Rapa. However, this, together with other odd features of the island's Y-chromosomal gene pool, is best explained as the genetic impact of a 19th century Peruvian slave trade in Polynesia. These findings underscore the need to account for history before turning to prehistory and the value of archival research to understanding modern genetic diversity. Although the impact of the Atlantic slave trade on the distribution of modern genetic diversity has been well appreciated, this represents the first study investigating the impact of this underappreciated episode on genetic diversity in the Pacific

Native American Y chromosomes in Polynesia: the genetic impact of the Polynesian slave trade

pubmed search

A previous analysis of mtDNA variation in the Caucasus found that Indo-European-speaking Armenians and Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanians were more closely related genetically to other Caucasus populations (who speak Caucasian languages) than to other Indo-European or Turkic groups, respectively. ..... However, whereas the mtDNA results show that Caucasian groups are more closely related genetically to European than to Near Eastern groups, by contrast the Y-chromosome shows a closer genetic relationship with the Near East than with Europe

Testing hypotheses of language replacement in the Caucasus: evidence from the Y-chromosome.

Fossil Hominids: mitochondrial DNA

Puerto Rico

FOREIGN ADMIXTURE IN EUROPEANS

racial_myths

 

a "one drop" europe

It is sometimes argued that the Greeks absorbed large numbers of Negro slaves or immigrants. There is no evidence of such an event in Greek mtDNA. If it ever took place, it was so limited in scope that not a single sequence in a total of 125 could be found.

The number of non-European sequences in the rest of Europe is also small, while in the Near East it is about 5%, only slightly larger. One can easily verify that Sub-Saharan African admixture (L sequences) has been detected in Scandinavia (Sweden, Norway and Iceland - 0.6%), Southeastern Europe (Bulgaria/Romania - 0.5%), Central Mediterranean (Italy and Sardinia - 1.7%; mostly in Sardinia), the Mediterranean West (Spain and Portugal - 3.7%), North Central Europe (Poles, Czechs, Germans, Danes - 0.9%), North Western Europe (Britain, Ireland and France - 0.4%). In another recent study [3] on Norwegians, an L2 Sub-Saharan African sequence was found in the sample of 74 Norwegians (1.4% Sub-Saharan admixture). Finally [4] showed 0.5% to 1.2% introgression of Sub-Saharan African genes into the European American gene pool.

The main conclusion to be drawn from these studies, is that Caucasoids of European descent have negligible traces of non-Caucasoid maternal admixture. Sub-Saharan African traces of such ancestry are found at levels of about 1% in many populations. But not in Greeks(a).

he then goes on to point out...

(a) This author does not believe that there is anything wrong in principio with either African or other non-Caucasoid influences in any European population, including the Greeks

http://www.geocities.com/dienekesp/greekmtdna.html]Greek mtDNA

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

its hard to keep a good rascist down

 

Fetus :
And what is this suppose to be? Is it proven accurate and are there exceptions?

No just an interesting site on various ways to calculate racial relevance .
The r some issues showing that genetic caluclations proved inaccurate .


Skinwalker :
there are no traits that are exclusive to any of the so-called races.

However there ARE exclusive combinations that can determine race , and no pure race does not exist .

Ghassan Kanafani can see that there are obvious differences between major groups of people, but cannot understand why science refuses to acknowledge the idea of race.

* Also I see anthropological/historical relevance with this labeling .
* I do understand why its not scientific , that deals with the fact that there is not found a scientific reason that can determine weither something should be considered a racial trait or not .

Part of the issue is certainly a reluctance to continue using an arbitrary means of classification that perpetuates hostility, hatred, violence, exclusion, etc. A common sense motive.

This is the motive that science is not willing to research the phenomena and does away with it so easily un biological grounds . I think common sense motives are just as scientific as saying "its race because I can see" .

Scientists don't like things to be too vague when making definitions. If they're vague as a system of classification, throw that system out and use another.

Yes very true , but scientists let themselves be influenced by the possibility of insecurity somuch that they rather lable something inexisting than consider it possible based on insecure & vague grounds .

They restrict their own options this way . Its like religion but then the other way around , lol .

fountain :
You contradict yourself in your next statement

No i do not , I simply distinguish between a theoritic race and practical mixing of it , the reason for non-exclusive traits .

The fact is that the current notion of the races: Black, White, etc is astonishingly simplistic, unscientific, etc, etc.

I agree , and I do not applaud this distinguishment as its done here . However that such groups are simplistic does not mean that there are no possible complexer groups to be constructed theoreitically (at least) .

What significance is there in grouping a Senegalese, an Ethiopian, a Nigerian and a Congolese in one group: Black?

Well for one it is significant to the region they inhabit , but Im not saying you should group them as such , in such simplistic manners . However there are possible ways to group them .

for that matter, an Italian, a Belgian, a Greek, and a Russian in one Group: White?

No , but together they have (could have) their common Caucasian origin , rather than grouping a Belgian and a Chinese .

The only significant grouping I see and that can be proven is that they live on two ‘continents’ Africa and Europe, respectively.

But thats the whole point of it , if you group them through history their migration patterns show , you form new groups out of 2 old ones and see how they migrated and established throughout europe .

Come on man. Be serious. White race? Black race? You see an anthropological purpose in those classifications because they show a common ancestry?

Again not such simplistic approaches , but as they evolve/migrate/mix as peoples they form new groups . eventually if you go back 15.000 years there is much stricter seperation , and into that you can group them . Black/White is of little relevance to this age .

My friend, knowing that an ‘African American’ in Brooklyn is of the Black ‘race’ tells you nothing of how he got to Brooklyn or how his ancestors got to the USA besides what simply History tells you.

Well DUH thats Brooklyn they got deported there nobody has a clue wherefrom , that was not natural in any way .

However you can beautifully study mestizo in peru , why dont you mention that ?

The first sentence changes your whole argument: we are talking races and not groups. A race is a more ‘defined’ group.

If we are speaking on practical research , again , large groups as have been labeled as races over the years are totally irellevant .

About Kemet, the only reason why race is significant is because the whole debate was based on the racial make-up of the inhabitants.

How about their relation to certain peoples in Iritrea & Ethiopia today ? And that is what Im talking about , there might be a relation but we would never be allowed to consider it as there is no biological relevance other than subjective racial mak-over that isnt considered scientific .

Reading your other posts it seems to me that you have changed your argument by adding that there should be better definitions of races

Changed ? Ofcourse not . I NEVER went along any crazy defintions given today or yesterday , I rather say we HAVE no real defintions since we dont know how the races exactly are , but we do have a starting point becuase of our ethno-linguistic knowledge .

In order words, the classifications are inadequate. If this is so then what is the purpose of this debate?

That we should find other classifications rather than dismiss race as non-existant .

When you shrink a race to cover, say the Yuroba people of Nigeria or the Sioux, then you are no longer dealing with races.

You are dealing with a sub-group ...of something .

When you change the definitions to fit say the Japanese or the Chinese, you have likewise breached the boundaries of the definitions. Simply because the former are already ascribed a classification: tribes, and the later, Nationalities.

No this error isnt present in my reasoning , I understand very well the difference between whats supposed to be race and nationality . However there is a racial difference between most of the peoples of Chineze nationality and most peoples of Japanese nationality .

And you keep bringing up the Somali and Eritreans as if they represent homogenous groups. Surely, I hope you are aware that the horn of Africa has been subject to some of the most widespread racial mixing on the planet

Iritreans are surely a VERY mixed group , I was merely pointing out the tribes or groups that reflected the kemtian makeover . For the Somali this is the same , there are tribes/groups within these peoples that are very homogenous when it comes to racial traits .

summary, the current definition of races: Black, White, Asian, Indian is incorrect

Agreed

is better done with smaller are more homogenous groups: tribes, clans

I totally agree , so it seems that our entire disagreement had basis in a semantical issue . But for study over a longer period I think it is relevant to find a logical way to group all tribes , as tribes change over time through migration/mixing .

All that remains is Ghassan's reply

And there you have it . In anyways I think its all cleared up , we at least can all agree on 1 thing ......... todays notions of race , be it pracitcal or theoretical , are complete bullshit .

Spooks : great links

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

They restrict their own options this way . Its like religion but then the other way around , lol . (allah)

fabulous! frikkin unimaginative dogmatic fearful scientist pigs

we at least can all agree on 1 thing ......... todays notions of race , be it pracitcal or theoretical , are complete bullshit .)(allah)

not so fast. i believe race will be replaced with a more accurate classification. perhaps one that is based on mtdna haplogroups.

Haplogroups are a classification tied to deep ancestry (think 10,000 or 10's of 1000's of years) and its only purpose is to tell the researches about migratory patterns

A Genetic Reunion

A Nomenclature System for the Tree of Human Y-Chromosomal Binary Haplogroups

only purpose? why? what if they settled down and remained there for thousands of years? couldnt we then stick a label on them? (back to square one)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

for instance see rando's take on labels...

Previously we established that NW Africans are mainly indigenous with about 8% recent paternal Sub-Saharan African admixture. To complete the picture, lets look at the picture from mtDNA. Again, it is clear that maternal ancestry is not shared between Negroids and North Africans to a major extent. The Moroccan Berbers are 96% Caucasoid and 4% Negroid. The Senegalese are 96% Negroid and 4% Caucasoid maternally.

If you don't like the labels 'Caucasoid' 'Negroid' etc., use any labels you want. That doesn't alter the fact that a group of lineages found in the Middle East and Europe occurs at very high frequencies in North Africa while a group of lineages found in Sub-Saharan Africa occur at very low ones. (Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Northwest African populations - J. C. RANDO - Annals of Human Genetic Volume 62 - Issue 06 - November 1998)

the fact that he can still say "caucasoid" or "negroid" is because there are certain genetic markers (mtdna motifs?) that are unique or prevalant to that particular grouping (as opposed to others)

however it is kinda complicated.....

Slavs are distinguished by having a specific Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a, or HG3, or Eu19. This reaches frequencies of higher than 50% in Poles and decreases significantly in non-Slavic populations. The "Macedonians" of FYROM, the Slavic population immediately to the north of Greece have frequencies of R1a of 35%.

We must warn that R1a itself is not a Slavic marker. This means that any particular R1a sequence could, or could not be of Slavic origin. But, a population that has mixed with Slavs is likely to show this in relatively high levels of R1a.

Ornella Semino published a study in Science 290: 1155 in which the levels of R1a (which she calls Eu19 are given in various populations. Greeks have 11.8%, that is about 1/6 that of the Hungarians, who top the list at 60%. The Hungarians are not Slavs, but from the genetic standpoint they could very well be of Slavic origin, converted linguistically by the Asiatic Magyars. The Poles at 56.4% are the highest Slavic population.

We must note that ancient Slavic groups at the time of the Slavic dispersals probably had even higher levels of R1a. After all, Poles and Hungarians are themselves only partly Slavic in origin, and the result of admixture of a predominantly Slavic element with indigenous pre-Slavic ones. As a result, it is likely that at the time of their migrations, the Slavs had even higher frequencies of R1a.

R1a did not originate with the Slavs (that is why it is not a Slavic marker). Its origins in a Eastern European refugium after the Last Glacial Maximum means that it has had plenty of time to spread across the continent even to places where Slavs were never present. For example, its frequency in Syrians at a frequency of 10%, close to that of Greece, in the Saami of Scandinavia at 10%, Turks at 6.6% and in Albanians in 9.8%. It is even found in the Dutch, at a frequency of 3.7%, a population that has been largely unaffected by any Slavonic incursion. Given that Greece is closer to the area where R1a probably originated, it is very likely that R1a lineages would have been part of early population elements of the Balkans.......(Dienekes)

anthro blog

 

in case a racist pig peruses this thread

this one is just for you.......

But there are other "limitations". Virchow had made much of the doctrine dear to the heart of all Blondists from Gobineau to Madison Grant, that the aristocracy of Europe was everywhere of the tall fair-haired type. Chamberlain finds this doctrine out of harmony with the facts. He accused Virchow of being blinded by political prejudice in failing to note "the prevalence of dark color among the members of the most genuine old Germanic nobility. In England this is quite striking. Tall, spare-built figures, long skulls, long countenances ... genealogies which go back to the Norman period, in short, genuine Teutons in physique and history - but black hair." He notes the same in Germany among the old nobility. He finds the poets frequently speak of dark hair as a characteristic of the nobility even in the north of Germany. Indeed, the inhabitants of the German Tyrol, who have been declared to "represent the true type of the primeval Teuton," have dark or black hair. In short, "the most genuine sons of this (Teutonic) race may be black-haired." (Dienekes)

haha..ha...hahaha
the master race=french, stunted nappyheads=germans
hehe...he...hehehe

 

Race: A genetic melting-pot

Nature 424, 374 (24 July 2003); doi:10.1038/424374a


Race: A genetic melting-pot

MARCUS W. FELDMAN1, RICHARD C. LEWONTIN2 & MARY-CLAIRE KING3

1 Marcus W. Feldman is in the Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, California 94305, USA.
2 Richard C. Lewontin is at the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA.
3 Mary-Claire King is in the Departments of Genome Science and Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA.

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v424/n6947/full/424374a_fs.html

interesting Nature article

 

I didn't read these all, so I'm not sure if this has been brought up. The way I see it race is just another name for breeds, like a dog. Of course there are different tendancies of different breeds of dogs. Like some are smarter than others, some are better with people. I'm not saying that that is what is actually the case for humans, but its all in the genes I guess. There is no dumb race.