As an anthropologist and evolutionary biologist, I find it astonishing and inexcusable that Slate provides a forum for Saletan's bizarre views on race.

In his most recent pile of rubbish, Saletan opines that "Biologically, race is real."

Au contraire. Biologically, "race" is meaningless. The terms "black, white, and Caucasian" have hoary and mystical roots in late eighteenth century German naturalism, not in 21st century science.

Focusing on a single morphological trait that cannot even be precisely measured, let alone categorically delineated, is the scientific equivalent of phrenology. Measuing melanin and pigmentation in skin tells us nothing about genetic diversity or phenotypic variation. In other words, it is competely bogus and unsupported by any empirical data.

There is more genetic diversity -- and phenotypic variation -- among so-called "blacks" in Africa than in the rest of the world combined. This fact alone demolishes the pseudo-scientific category of "black" or "negroid."

Saletan's continued musings on this subject not only are painfully stupid, they also are positively harmful. Since he's already in this arena, why doesn't he start writing about all "evidence" that supports young earth creationism? His writings on "race" are the equivalent.

Right on! I was assured 50 years ago while taking Biology that there is only one "Race", by definition, so that's not going to change. We should just drop the term . A more useful term is "Culture Shock": that's what is powerful about "Race", and is at the bottom of all these worldwide conflicts. Liberals should come to terms with this. "Stereotypes" are powerful, and have some basis in reality, otherwise they would disappear. The idea that they are somehow disgraceful, and can be brainwashed away by social engineering is a fantasy. There were "Germans" 2000 years before there was a "Germany". disigny

Thanks for this post. "Biologically, race is real" is an absurd statement, he needs to read up on what a phenotype is. Slate should have had the sense to pull Saletan off this drivel with his first series.

"Race" simply is not a biological concept. Thus, there is not one "race."

There is a single species -- Homo sapiens sapiens. As is the case with nearly all species, there is considerable variation within the species. This variation is massive.

Focusing on skin pigmentation is akin to focusing on toe shape or finger length, or any other isolated morphological characteristic. Obviously, classifying people by toe shape or finger length would tell us nothing consequential about within species variation. The same holds for the production of melanin and skin colors.

If, however, one were inclined -- for whatever reason -- to focus on skin pigmentation, we would need hundreds (if not thousands) of color-coded categories, not simply black, white and brown. And what would this tell us? Nothing.

Why not use "racist" instead of German? Or how about "American," given the US history with slavery and Native American exterminations? And it's not like the US was clean or is clean when it comes to anti-semitism. Nor are another number of nations. To a large degree, nations have shaped themselves against internal and external "racial" others. So why not give the German people a break? I know several German people very intimately, and they are neither anti-semites nor apologists for it. Myself, I have been massively annoyed in the past that people assumed my Southern drawl meant I was a racist. I expect someone with a German accent would feel the same.

I think that Crisker is simply stating a fact, that our racial classifications emerged from the work of German naturalists. That the classifications are laughable is not an insult to the German people, any more than it would be blaming the French to point out how wrong LaMarck was.

Cracker, it is convenient and useful to generalize. We don't have 3 days to do a genetic rundown on everyone and determine their smarts, their dangerousness, their diligence and a host to other characteristics. For most day-to-day dealings with strange humans, we have limited time and data and so must use visual and aural markers to make quick and efficient decisions. Generalizing is perhaps the most useful human trait we have. See Oliver Sacks' "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat" for an extreme case of a man who cannot generalize.

To Yankees, your southern accent suggests a greater likelihood of racist attitudes. Not proof positive, but a good indicator. As a recipient of that generalizing I am sure it irritates you. And you have to admit, it is pretty hypocritical when Yankee liberals judge white Southerners as "racist" based on their accent, isn't it? Like race is a bad marker for generalizations and accents are good?

But on to a more illustrative example. If you are a man, a woman will hesitate before getting on to an empty elevator with you, or she will cross to the other side of the street at night. Is she an evil sexist? No. Are you a rapist? No. She just knows the greater likelihood that men have of committing rape than women and the particular danger she is in at night, and treats you negatively based on your gender alone. Does this mean that women cannot rape? No. It just means she has the common sense knowledge that rape is more commonly done by men, and therefore the risk is greater from men, generally.

Feminists discriminate against men all the time based on criteria such as these. Are they wrong? No. They are practical. It may hurt individual men's feelings but that's just life.

If this ever happens to you, I suppose you could jump into the elevator with her (or cross the street to confront her) and then harangue her about being sexist, explaining (as the wonderful liberal scientists do in these comments) that there is a wide diversity of men and that only a small minority are rapists, and that women rape too, and that there is no way she can generalize about men being rapists, and that gender is a social construct, and that she is just a sexist, and that she is discriminating against you as an individual.

I wouldn't. I accept her powers of observation and her hesitancy around me as a male, no matter how "unfair" it is to me as an individual. I always let women get on elevators alone if they seem fearful. I also cross to the other side of the street at night if a woman is approaching me or otherwise keep a safe distance from her in order to make her feel safer.

Generalizing and prejudice, whether it be on accent, or gender or race is a valuable human tool and not the rank foolishness that some of the folks on this website suggest. It may not feel nice to the recipient who believes he is wrongly judged (such as yourself for your accent), but the benefits far outweigh the negatives.

'Liberals should come to terms with this. "Stereotypes" are powerful, and have some basis in reality, otherwise they would disappear.'

i rarely pass up the chance to use a good stereotype. they are a great way to make a point.

'So why not give the German people a break?'

head or leg?

'She just knows the greater likelihood that men have of committing rape than women and the particular danger she is in at night, and treats you negatively based on your gender alone.'

racial profiling may save your life.

"There is more genetic diversity -- and phenotypic variation -- among so-called "blacks" in Africa than in the rest of the world combined."

<link>

"Clearly, there are significant genetically-based population differences, although it is certainly true that dividing humans into discrete categories based on geography and visible characteristics reflecting social classifications, while not wholly arbitrary, is crude.

That does not mean, however, that local populations do not show evidence of patterns. The critical factor in genetics is the arrangement of gene allele frequencies, how genes interact with each other and the environment, and what traits they influence. This inalterable but frequently overlooked fact undermines the notion that gene flow and racial mixing on the edges of population sets automatically renders all categories of "race" meaningless. As Frost points out, human characteristics can and do cluster and clump even without reproductive isolation. Many so-called "species" are still linked by some ongoing gene flow. Population genetics can help us realize patterns in such things as the proclivity to diseases and the ability to sprint fast."

Wasn't the whole point of Saletan's article that racial profiling for medical treatment doesn't work very well? Honestly, I swear every time I read forum threads on Saletan it's always some jackass cherry picking statements out of context just so they can crow about how "as a certified scienceologist I find this offensive!" Crisker is either incapable of reading for comprehension, or simply an asshole.

If Saletan's point was "that racial profiling for medical treatment doesn't work very well," that's fine and it almost certainly is correct.

Why? Because race isn't a biological category so any medicine based on "race" is going to be either inefficient or ineffectual.

My main point, which would have been apparent had you bothered to read my post for comprehension, is that Saletan's foregrounded and emphatic claim -- "Biologically, race is real" -- is empirically false (primary problem) and socially pernicious (secondary problem).