[Taxacom] Race and taxonomy

[Richard Jensen]

Hi Pierre,

The poiont of this question is not to perpetuate "racism".  Recognizing 
the reality of population differences is not the same as claiming that 
some are superior and others are inferior - the latter being what I 
assume you mean by "racism".  Is it racist to acknowledge that there are 
such biological differences and that these differences reflect the 
evolutionary history of our species?

Cheers,

Dick J

Richard Jensen, Professor
Department of Biology
Saint Mary’s College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Tel: 574-284-4674



Pierre Deleporte wrote:
> This topic is a classic in discussions about 'race' and racism
>
> 1) biological race is almost anything you like to define, more or less  
> like "species" or 'subspecies" but with even more fuzziness; the  
> example of races of domestic animals shows that slight differences in  
> color pattern or skeleton shape can serve as a basis for defining a  
> more or less 'pure' lineage as a 'race'; and nobody objects to this -
> natural 'races' are animal or plant populations you can distinguish on  
> the basis of some biological characters, and I know of no universal  
> rule for this...
>
> 2) the assertion that "there is just one human race" is simply  
> confusing "species" and "race"; why not say "there is just one human  
> species"?... (the interfecondability criterion being amply sufficient  
> in this case)
>
> 3) my personal ethical analysis: the obvious existence of "races" =  
> populational biological differences is in no way a reason in itself  
> for supporting 'racism';  biological statements have no ethical  
> dimension... the tentative charge against racism based on negating  
> populational differences is counter-productive (too easy to  
> ridiculize...)
> in my view, non-racist people are supposed to be non-racist despite  
> the existence of 'races' (of any kinds); they are "specifist", not  
> racist, simply... (e.g. better save any human life than any animal one)
>
> IMHO... and I wouldn't like to discuss beyond the topics of this list,  
> I'm trying to stick to the biologial aspects of the question...
>
> best,
> Pierre
>
>
>
>
> Quoting Richard Jensen <rjensen at saintmarys.edu>:
>
>   
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have become involved in an interesting discussion on my campus.  One
>> of our faculty proposed a new course that included, in its statement of
>> intent, the following clause:  "...race has no biological basis."  I
>> took exception to this on the grounds that race is a legitimate rank in
>> the taxonomic hierarchy and can prove useful when dealing with
>> variability within species, regardless of whether the species are
>> plants, fungi, animals, or humans.
>>
>> I have always followed Ernst Mayr's lead when discussing the concept of
>> race from a taxonomic perspective: "The typological concept of race is
>> thoroughly odious; the statistically defined race of the botanist and
>> zoologist is a fact of nature."
>>
>> So, my question to you is, Does race have any value as a taxonomic
>> concept?  Or, should we, because of the abuse of the idea by people of
>> all, dare I say, races, dispense with it altogether?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Dick J
>>
>> Richard Jensen, Professor
>> Department of Biology
>> Saint Mary’s College
>> Notre Dame, IN 46556
>> Tel: 574-284-4674
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom mailing list
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>