Does political correctness prevent any scientific progress on define what race is?

Question

what about genetic map of Szorza? he showed race correspond to genetics?

Answer 1

You are suggesting that more open racism would promote scientific progress towards understanding race?

I disagree.

Answer 2

The answer of willing thinker is pure rant, while sacreddionosaur gives a measured response that is well thought out and in accordance with the know science on the subject. Though I may disagree with some of the suggestions, empirically, I can say that we are one species, though we have local populations, that are subject to variance. Check genetic drift and the founder effect; City of Quebec.

Answer 3

Much of the confusion about the relationship between race and science is because there are two distinct usages of the term race.

Taxonomists use the term "race" to denote a population of organisms that do not interbreed much with other populations of the same species and are a preliminary stage in the process of speciation. In this sense of the term, human beings do not have "races." What are called human racial groups are neither biologically discrete nor evolving independently from other racial groups.

The public, however, uses the term race in a different way. Races, as they are understood by the public - e.g., "white," "hispanic," "Asian," or whatever - are not consistent across geography and history. In 21st century North America someone could think that there are "white," "black," "Asian," "native," "hispanic," "Middle Eastern," and "Indian" races; in the 19th century an American might have thought that there were, "white," "*****," "half-breed," "octagoon," "Mediterranean," "Irish," "Oriental," and "Mexican" races, among others; yet in 21st century Mexico, where most people in the U.S.think "hispanics" live, people might understand themselves to be "blancos," "******," "mestizos," "chicanos," "mulatos," "indio," Asian, or Spanish.

So, clearly, the categories that matter in the everyday lives of people - the categories that matter the most - are not consistent with human biology. They are contingent on time, place, history, politics, culture, as well as science.

There is simply no way to draw an empirical correlation between a person's genetic patterns and these imaginary, but very very powerful, racial categories. This is not to say that race is not real. Race is very real and makes every bit of difference in the lives of real people.

Racism, by definition, makes universal statements about people based on their race. Since race is not universal, however, these statements, which are often inflammatory, violent, or paranoid, are totally incorrect and do not constitute a reasonable, moral ground for action. Unfortunately many genetic scientists and physical anthropologists insist on interpreting coincidences of genetic pattern and "racial group" to this day as being indicative of the physical reality of race. They are wrong scientifically, and in some cases, perhaps, ethically.

Answer 4

^..and though an opinion (plus one that gives you my respect) you'd be right (to disagree)!

BE WARNED OF THE FOLLOWING: This is an intelligent post. (at least well-informed)

There is more genetic variation IN certain so-called races that in-between them.

Therefore race is not a reliable concept; it DOESN'T EXIST biologically or genetically.

It's merely a social-concept based on PHENOTYPES.

One example is the Australian Aboriginies. They look like black african, but are actually closer related to asians. More-over the current east-asian phenotype (you know, like the slanted eyes) is not the default type. At one piont they looked more european.

Wait I said, there is no such thing as RACE or SUBSPECIES.

This is wrong. Sub-species do exist.

What I should have said, was: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RACE OR SUBSPECIES ~ IN HUMANS ~ .

As an entire species, we vary less than a SMALL group OF APES.

The above should be a tell-tale sign FOR THE BRIGHT.

One more thing. If anything is politically correct now days, it IS RACE.

It is easy to see when Out-dated books like  The Bell Curve  still get citedm, despite it's being RETARDEDLY ILL METHODOLOGICALLY, and racist to boot. Also, I find it very perculiar that people who are against this sizeable phenominon are labeled as politically correct. (book: The Mismeasure of Man)