Changing Races , Changing Religions?

[Curious George]

Yes, I said race, not species. You're the one who brought up us all being Homo sapiens sapiens, which is irrelevent. We do know that there's physiological differences between different populations and that results in some general differences in ability and perhaps even behavior. We know that physiology does have an impact on ability and behavior (such as that Kenyan tribe, the Kalenjin, that dominates much of the world's long distance running competitions). The only real question that remains is how much of an impact it actually has and how much of it is determined by other things.

But racial differences are politically incorrect to admit to existing, especially if you're a scientist. For example:

"The Role Of Genetics

Scientists and sports gurus have proposed all sorts of explanations over the years forKalenjin prowess on the track: from their high-starch diet, to the altitude, to socioeconomics.

All those factors are important, but none of them explain why this particular tribe is so dominant. That left Epstein when he was writing his book exploring a more controversial line of inquiry: Is there something genetically different about the Kalenjin that makes them superior runners?

i
Kenya's Wilson Kipsang set a world marathon record when he won the Berlin Marathon on Sept. 29 in 2 hours, 3 minutes and 23 seconds. He is Kalenjin, a group that has produced many of the world's best distance runners.

John MacDougall/AFP/Getty Images
Asking that question almost convinced Epstein to back out of his book contract. He realized he'd have to address sensitive questions of ethnic and racial differences. Academics told him they had evidence of genetic advantage but wouldn't share their research with him for fear they'd lose their jobs. "And these were professors with tenure," he says.

But some scientists did talk to him; and they explained one aspect of innate biology that clearly helps Kalenjin: the shape of their bodies.

Kalenjin have particularly thin ankles and calves, a body build common to Nilotic tribes who grow up near the equator. Epstein says this is particularly important in running because your leg is like a pendulum. The more weight you have farther away from your center of gravity, the more difficult it is to swing.

If you take a runner and put 8 pounds of weight around his waist, he can still run reasonably well. But if you put those same 8 pounds in the form of two 4-pound weights around his ankles, that will take much more energy and slow him down considerably.

Epstein says body type confers its greatest advantage among elite athletes, where other differences — in training, in aerobic capacity — are minimal. In fact, he says if you were to go to the Olympic starting line and measure everyone's ankles and calves before the race, you could predict, statistically, who's likely to win."

I mean, seriously. That "blank slate" crap has been disproved decades ago. But certain political ideologies are founded upon it, so they must keep living in la-la land to keep their failed ideology going. It's gotten so stupid that professors feel that they can't talk about a Kenyan tribe having thinner ankles and calves? Wtf?

While I am sure we can find a whole host of physical attributes that vary by region, the selective categorization of certain attributes into racial categorization is done arbitrarily. Moreover, any categorization deals with statistical differences, not actual ones. So pinpointing any hard and fast racial differences is all but impossible. The closest to any system that you could achieve would need to be based on regional ethnicities. But this would have massive complications with our categorization because we would have to have more categories than most could keep track and we would no longer be able to point at someone an say black, white, red, yellow, or other (Brown). This is problematic for our apparent need to label.

But, if you insist that race is rooted in biology and not socially constructed, please pick a race and let us define it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

While I am sure we can find a whole host of physical attributes that vary by region, the selective categorization of certain attributes into racial categorization is done arbitrarily. Moreover, any categorization deals with statistical differences, not actual ones. So pinpointing any hard and fast racial differences is all but impossible. The closest to any system that you could achieve would need to be based on regional ethnicities. But this would have massive complications with our categorization because we would have to have more categories than most could keep track and we would no longer be able to point at someone an say black, white, red, yellow, or other (Brown). This is problematic for our apparent need to label.

But, if you insist that race is rooted in biology and not socially constructed, please pick a race and let us define it.

I already said that a category such as Polynesians would be closest to what a race is. "White", "black", etc. are mostly social constructs, although they are based on large generalizations that do exist.

 

[Curious George]

The question is whether race is biological or purely a social construction. If it's just a social construction, then the odd woman in the OP can call herself whatever she wants. But if it's biological, then we have good reason to denounce her charade as delusional.

Now, my point is that physical differences result in differences of ability and behavior, such as with the Kenyan runners. And that's just one phyiological difference. All I'm saying is that race, or whatever word you prefer, exists. We're not all the same. There are differences between populations.

I disagree, read my posts comparing changing one's race. I think even acknowledging race is a social construction we should find offense in her actions.

 

[Curious George]

I already said that a category such as Polynesians would be closest to what a race is. "White", "black", etc. are mostly social constructs, although they are based on large generalizations that do exist.

And what does it mean to be Polynesian?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And what does it mean to be Polynesian?

That's a philosophical question, not a biological one.

 

[Curious George]

That's a philosophical question, not a biological one.

Lol, okay (though I think you know what I meant)...

What biological traits are required to qualify one as "Polynesian?"

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Shadow, reread and try again...then perhaps you will admit that there is no "problem" with my statement.

The problem is your approach towards chromosomes and sex and gender, when there are examples that prove being male or female is far more than just having XX or XY chromosomes. In fact, some women, who were born as female, have XY chromosomes but this isn't called into question and for all intents-and-purposes all they or anyone else knows them as if female.

Now, my point is that physical differences result in differences of ability and behavior, such as with the Kenyan runners. And that's just one phyiological difference. All I'm saying is that race, or whatever word you prefer, exists. We're not all the same. There are differences between populations.

My point was there are a ton of differences, but we don't consider them or even think about them. People are different. But the differences we tend to focus on are socially arbitrary.

I continue to disagree. There a significant differences in health issues related to race. That is not cultural by any means.

And even among white people there can be a genetic predispositions towards diabetes, schizophrenia, cancer, or heart disease, but we don't make any meaningful discernment amongst such people. White people are typically more depressed, but we haven't really made that as a distinction of white folk.
It's not cultural, but it is a phenotype. As I said, everything outside of these differences in phenotypes is cultural. We create "race" based on the differences that we focus on (of which skin color is a major one).
Sort of like the differences between men and women. Of course their are physical differences, and these physical differences come with an increase of certain diseases and can make certain things easier, but other than that (excluding child bearing), what is the difference? We have gender, men acting like men and women acting like women, but there has to be a society to define that which is masculine and that which is feminine.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Lol, okay (though I think you know what I meant)...

What biological traits are required to qualify one as "Polynesian?"

I would have to look those up.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

My point was there are a ton of differences, but we don't consider them or even think about them. People are different. But the differences we tend to focus on are socially arbitrary.

Depends on what specifically you're talking about. Obviously the athleticism of certain groups does get a lot of attention such as "blacks tend to be good at sports".

 

[Curious George]

The problem is your approach towards chromosomes and sex and gender, when there are examples that prove being male or female is far more than just having XX or XY chromosomes. In fact, some women, who were born as female, have XY chromosomes but this isn't called into question and for all intents-and-purposes all they or anyone else knows them as if female.

Again this problem you are seeing holds absolutely no problem for the point I was making nor does it have any bearing on whether or not chromosomes are altered in a "sex-change." While I find it encouraging that you are trying to defend the notion that sex is not genetically defined absolutely, my posts had qualifiers. Nor did once say sex was absolutely defined by genetics...your, albeit well meaning, attempt to find problem in my statement is misguided at best. Reread and then you should see how there is no "problem."

Lest you persist in saying, my "approach" does not consider complications in defining sex, I will again remind you that such complications were not relevant to the point.

 

[Curious George]

I would have to look those up.

Please do, I would be interested in finding out who in the world is Polynesian. However, I could save you the time by suggesting that any traits by which you try to define Polynesian are going to be found in other "races" and therefore not indicative whether someone is Polynesian or not. Moreover, most traits will also have exceptions where "Polynesian" people lack these traits. The most you will get to is genetic markers (not likely to affect phenotypic expression) that are found common among a group, and then qualify Polynesian as a group having a substantial amount of these markers. Basically, you will be describing regional ethnicity. Not race.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Please do, I would be interested in finding out who in the world is Polynesian. However, I could save you the time by suggesting that any traits by which you try to define Polynesian are going to be found in other "races" and therefore not indicative whether someone is Polynesian or not. Moreover, most traits will also have exceptions where "Polynesian" people lack these traits. The most you will get to is genetic markers (not likely to affect phenotypic expression) that are found common among a group, and then qualify Polynesian as a group having a substantial amount of these markers. Basically, you will be describing regional ethnicity. Not race.

First off, you have to define what you mean by "race"? What is it, in your opinion?

Of course some genes will be found in other groups, the point is that what groupings have the most genes in common.

 

[gsa]

That's the social construct aspect of it. There's biological race and you cannot change that. The woman in the OP is either mentally ill or a con artist. She is not black and never will be.

By the way, "black", "white", etc. are social constructs and don't exist biologically, although they have basic common sense correalations (i.e. "black people" are people of Sub-Saharan African ancestry and "white people" are people of European ancestry).. A West African is not the same race as an East African, despite them having the same skin tone. Race is more refined than that. What we think of as ethnicities are closer to what races are. Polynesians are closer to being a race, for example.

Hmmm. So let's say that some black guy from Rwanda moves to Italy, learns Italian, takes on Italian citizenship and marries an Italian wife. Let's say he starts learning about Italian culture and immersing himself in it pretty early. Now, I do not speak Italian, I am not an Italian citizen and I am not partnered with anyone who speaks Italian, has Italian citizenship or is familiar with Italian culture and has immersed themselves in it, nor partnered with anyone who has Italian ancestry. But because I have Italian ancestry, going by descent, I am ethnically Italian, and he is not. But in virtually every meaningful way, he is Italian and I am not Italian.

Even with American racial classifications, I have to wonder about the wisdom of this. Let's say that there's a black guy raised with a white family, who attends predominantly white schools in predominantly white neighborhoods through the university level, marries a white wife and has children who by all outward appearances are white. He can pass for white, looking like Cash Warren maybe. He attends a predominantly white conservative Christian church (Dutch Reformed variant we'll say), votes Republican, and by his 30s identifies as white. Is he really mentally ill or a con artist? By some measures, he has way more in common with most white people than I do.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hmmm. So let's say that some black guy from Rwanda moves to Italy, learns Italian, takes on Italian citizenship and marries an Italian wife. Let's say he starts learning about Italian culture and immersing himself in it pretty early. Now, I do not speak Italian, I am not an Italian citizen and I am not partnered with anyone who speaks Italian, has Italian citizenship or is familiar with Italian culture and has immersed themselves in it, nor partnered with anyone who has Italian ancestry. But because I have Italian ancestry, going by descent, I am ethnically Italian, and he is not. But in virtually every meaningful way, he is Italian and I am not Italian.

Even with American racial classifications, I have to wonder about the wisdom of this. Let's say that there's a black guy raised with a white family, who attends predominantly white schools in predominantly white neighborhoods through the university level, marries a white wife and has children who by all outward appearances are white. He can pass for white, looking like Cash Warren maybe. He attends a predominantly white conservative Christian church (Dutch Reformed variant we'll say), votes Republican, and by his 30s identifies as white. Is he really mentally ill or a con artist? By some measures, he has way more in common with most white people than I do.

Well, it's simple. The guy in your first example is ethnically Rwandan (more specifically, whichever tribal group he hails from) and culturally Italian. The person in your second example is ethnically "black" but culturally Anglo-American, I guess.

 

[SomeRandom]

Anyone can change cloths and bleach and or tan their skin, but it doesn't change who they are really. They have surgeries than can change their sex, but they aren't well done. It's still easy to spot a transgender despite advancements in technology. It's more than just changing skin color too for races. You have to consider the shape of their eyes, their lips, their nose and so forth. But nevertheless it's all rather pointless for one to change themselves like that. Tehre's a reason why people say "Be Yourself" Because that's all you can be anyway. You can try to be something else, but it never works in the long run, and the person deep inside will always feel sad, knowing they are living a lie though. It's not worth it.

Ehhh, I contend that. Ever see ladyboys?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There's a big difference between having a sex change and trying to change your race/ethnicity. Transsexualism is a medical order and there's scientific evidence that it's a case of the brain structure being more cross-sexed, as compared to the rest of the body. It's a sex differentiation disorder or a disorder of sexual development. It's somewhat like intersex disorders but not quite. No, you cannot change your chromosomes at this time but chromosomes are somewhat irrelevant and they don't even control most of the genes that guide sexual development. Basically, we're a sexually dimorphic species and sex is determined by other things besides genes, especially hormones, and sex development is a complex process that's easily botched in utero. So that explains transsexualism and intersex conditions.

As for changing race/ethnicity, that's basically impossible since you would have to change your DNA and pretty much your entire body in order to do it.

 

[JoStories]

And even among white people there can be a genetic predispositions towards diabetes, schizophrenia, cancer, or heart disease, but we don't make any meaningful discernment amongst such people. White people are typically more depressed, but we haven't really made that as a distinction of white folk.
It's not cultural, but it is a phenotype. As I said, everything outside of these differences in phenotypes is cultural. We create "race" based on the differences that we focus on (of which skin color is a major one).
Sort of like the differences between men and women. Of course their are physical differences, and these physical differences come with an increase of certain diseases and can make certain things easier, but other than that (excluding child bearing), what is the difference? We have gender, men acting like men and women acting like women, but there has to be a society to define that which is masculine and that which is feminine.

I agee with what you say here, however, I would point out that certain races have some diseases that are only seen in that race. Tay Sachs, Sickle Cell disease, Kuru (that is now extinct, and was also known as The Laughing Sickness), Glucose 6 phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, and before AIDS, Kaposi Sarcoma, and more. Also, of interest, freckles are not seen in Asian people.

 

[JoStories]

There's a big difference between having a sex change and trying to change your race/ethnicity. Transsexualism is a medical order and there's scientific evidence that it's a case of the brain structure being more cross-sexed, as compared to the rest of the body. It's a sex differentiation disorder or a disorder of sexual development. It's somewhat like intersex disorders but not quite. No, you cannot change your chromosomes at this time but chromosomes are somewhat irrelevant and they don't even control most of the genes that guide sexual development. Basically, we're a sexually dimorphic species and sex is determined by other things besides genes, especially hormones, and sex development is a complex process that's easily botched in utero. So that explains transsexualism and intersex conditions.

As for changing race/ethnicity, that's basically impossible since you would have to change your DNA and pretty much your entire body in order to do it.

Exactly, with regard to what I bolded and underlined. This is what I have been trying to impart.

 

[illykitty]

I agee with what you say here, however, I would point out that certain races have some diseases that are only seen in that race. Tay Sachs, Sickle Cell disease, Kuru (that is now extinct, and was also known as The Laughing Sickness), Glucose 6 phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, and before AIDS, Kaposi Sarcoma, and more. Also, of interest, freckles are not seen in Asian people.

I looked up the bolded out of curiosity, since I never heard of it. According to Wiki: Ashkenazi Jews have a high incidence of Tay–Sachs and other lipid storage diseases. In the United States, about 1 in 27 to 1 in 30 Ashkenazi Jewsare a recessive carrier. The disease incidence is about 1 in every 3,500 newborn among Ashkenazi Jews.[31]French Canadians and the Cajun community of Louisiana have an occurrence similar to the Ashkenazi Jews. Irish Americans have a 1 in 50 chance of being a carrier.[citation needed] In the general population, the incidence of carriers as heterozygotes is about 1 in 300.[3] The incidence is approximately 1 in 320,000 newborns in the general population in United States.[32]

Not just Jews then. The underlined is false, going by a quick Google search. Lucy Liu, for example, has freckles.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Some people say Judaism is a race!

Is this true? I personally cannot see it is and no matter how much explanation I heard about it, it did not confirm it.

I'm really confused.