Shouldn't the term "race" be replaced with "subspecies" when dealing with Humans?

Question

sub species can still reproduce with each other, which humans can... And I have heard race used in the expression "the human race", so it doesn't seem right to use the same term to define the whole and its parts?

Answer 1

Please don't use race. Ever. It is an ugly word designed to categorize people.

I would love to talk about this, but everyone has said what i was going to...

The day the world sub categorizes people will be the the day racism wins.

I don't know if that was a scientific explanation at all. Consider it a social one. Oh well, anything to help get an answer out of this question.

Answer 2

You're not really even suppose to acknowledge race anymore-- really think they'll let you talk about "subspecies"?

Forget Digital H.-- "...subspecies is the rank immediately subordinate to a species. It is equivalent to "race" in the biological sense."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies

Answer 3

Subspecies would be incorrect as we're all genetically identical (give or take natural variance of genes and such).  A subspecies is usually genetically different from it's parent species in some distinguishable way, that's how they know it's a subspecies.

Answer 4

A "sub species" is broadly defined as populations within a species that have a distinct phenetic appearance. A phenetic appearance being a distinct genetic differance between groups of the same species. The problem with humans, however, is that in a genetic sense, there is more genetic contrast within each "sub species" then there is between them and, as of such, this term is not appropriate for differentiating humans. Any first year biology, or cultural anthropology class will clearly expel the mistaken concepts of "race" and "sub species" as they are commonly applied to the human species, and instead will use the more precise term, ethnographic group, to classify any group of people that fit a morphological or cultural sub-classification within the human species. That said, the term "racist" is actually a term bred of ignorance. A person that shows preference towards one ethnic group over another should actually be called an ethnocentric, but the culture of the American mass media is far more influential then academia so the confussion between all of these terms is unfortunately quite common and I do not believe that a proper classification is going to be adopted anytime soon.

Answer 5

Scientific correctness or incorrectness aside, using the term "sub species" would only increase peoples feelings of inferiority.  (Latin sub = beneath, before).  It would only make people feel their sub species is, well,  sub par.

Answer 6

Well, you're right of course.  But since the "science" of anthropology is subject to political persuasions, it will never happen.  The multicultural trend in anthropology has forced the belief that "races" do not exist onto the discipline.  The very idea that people belong to different races wll open you up to virulent attacks.  Orwellian doublepeak, I know, but it's the current trend.

Answer 7

I believe your question and what's implied in it has merit.

There's been enough intermingling between races to cause the race concept to become ambiguous, and the names applied to the races are frequently used as political, and rhetorical tools to further various ethnic goals involving greater racial consciousness, rather than less.

If sub-species, or some other term replaced the word race in the language, it couldn't hurt.  Probably wouldn't help much, but it might.

Answer 8

Dude, you think too much. You need to get out more, meet some people and get a girl friend...seriously!

Answer 9

In actuality we zoologists are trying to get away from the subspecies concept for all animals. E. O. Wilson first espoused this in the 70's, I believe.

Answer 10

Because there is only one species of human being and that is Homo Sapien.

All three main races (black, white, yellow) are still members of a single species.  There is no subspecies of Homo Sapien.