Changes for page The Existence of Race

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@
109	109
110	110	Some critics argue that human groups haven’t been isolated long enough to speciate or form true subspecies. It’s true humans only began dispersing out of Africa \70k years ago, which is recent in evolutionary terms. But even in that time, significant differentiation has occurred. In fact, researchers have pointed out that *numerous other mammal species* have subspecies that diverged around the same time frame as human races did.{{footnote}} https://someofmybestfriendsarewhite.tumblr.com/post/80846397928/race-is-biologically-non-existent-im-not-making#:~:text=Another%20false%20argument%20is%20that,gov%2Fpmc%2Farticles%2FPMC1689361{{/footnote}} For example, certain baboon species or leopard subspecies separated from each other only tens of thousands of years ago and are recognized as distinct. The relatively short timeline does not preclude meaningful evolutionary change, especially under strong selective pressures (like climate, disease, diet). Human evolution didn’t “stop” in the Paleolithic; it continued in varying directions on each continent. As a result, the concept of human races remains biologically valid in describing that differentiation.
111	111
112		-It’s also worth noting that biological race ≠ racist ideology. Acknowledging biological races does *not* imply any rank or inherent superiority/inferiority; it simply recognizes human adaptive diversity. Many scholars prefer the term “population” or “ancestry group” to avoid the political baggage of “race,” but the underlying idea is the same. Philosopher Neven Sesardić has argued that the biological concept of race (as used by scientists like Dobzhansky mid-20th century) is still sound and has been unfairly misrepresented by social constructionists./foo Sesardić showed that the oft-cited conceptual criticisms (e.g. “races aren’t discrete,” “no trait is unique to a race”) do not actually invalidate the biological race concept properly understood. In fact, when one looks at what current genetic research says, it vindicates the notion that self-identified race corresponds to real patterns of genetic ancestry and variation, even though race has social dimensions too.
	112	+It’s also worth noting that biological race ≠ racist ideology. Acknowledging biological races does *not* imply any rank or inherent superiority/inferiority; it simply recognizes human adaptive diversity. Many scholars prefer the term “population” or “ancestry group” to avoid the political baggage of “race,” but the underlying idea is the same. Philosopher Neven Sesardić has argued that the biological concept of race (as used by scientists like Dobzhansky mid-20th century) is still sound and has been unfairly misrepresented by social constructionists.{{footnote}} {{/footnote}} Sesardić showed that the oft-cited conceptual criticisms (e.g. “races aren’t discrete,” “no trait is unique to a race”) do not actually invalidate the biological race concept properly understood. In fact, when one looks at what current genetic research says, it vindicates the notion that self-identified race corresponds to real patterns of genetic ancestry and variation, even though race has social dimensions too.
113	113
114	114	## Conclusion##
115	115