Talk:Race (social): Difference between revisions
imported>Frank W Sweet |
imported>Ed Poor (definition, consequences, protests) |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
Alternatively, if anyone would like to use this present article page (or this talk page) to describe arguments for and against identifying biological races, breeds, variety, and subspecies of the human species (again, under the purview of the biology workgroup), I would be glad to withdraw my text and start a new page to explain how "race" is used the social sciences--that is, how term is used in the fields of history, sociology, political science, and the like. [[User:Frank W Sweet|Frank W Sweet]] 08:01, 10 May 2007 (CDT) | Alternatively, if anyone would like to use this present article page (or this talk page) to describe arguments for and against identifying biological races, breeds, variety, and subspecies of the human species (again, under the purview of the biology workgroup), I would be glad to withdraw my text and start a new page to explain how "race" is used the social sciences--that is, how term is used in the fields of history, sociology, political science, and the like. [[User:Frank W Sweet|Frank W Sweet]] 08:01, 10 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
:It would help if the article began with a definition of race. Also useful would be (1) the social uses, i.e., classification of people by race into "good" and "inferior" (after [[Bacon's Rebellion]]?) and (2) principled objections to this classification - including scholary attempts to eliminate the concept altogether. | |||
:I hope I'm not being too pedantic in my language. I'm not really an intellectual. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:50, 10 May 2007 (CDT) |
Revision as of 07:50, 10 May 2007
Workgroup category or categories | History Workgroup, Anthropology Workgroup, Sociology Workgroup [Editors asked to check categories] |
Article status | Stub: no more than a few sentences |
Underlinked article? | Yes |
Basic cleanup done? | Yes |
Checklist last edited by | Frank W Sweet 11:03, 9 May 2007 (CDT) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
CZ:Neutrality Policy
This article takes a position and is thus problematic in its current form on neutrality grounds. It does throughout and builds to, "The race concept remains fruitful for the study of historical events." It is lacking discussion that the concept of "race" itself is a serious contention among biological and other anthropologists; that "race" is widely held as a mere social construct and that historically the concept of "race" developed alongside racism. And so forth. ---Stephen Ewen 13:09, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
- The article shows bias, but it also just doesn't read like an article about race per se, but an essay on the interaction of race, class, and ethnicity in regard to United States government policy. --Eric Winesett 13:22, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
- The article really does read like an essay, but that's not apparently the sin here that it is on Wikipedia. It's obvious that racial differences have driven historical events (try to explain the history of slavery in the U.S. without reference to race), but the article does almost nothing to explain how, or why, which would be necessary if the article is to be meaningful.
- "Race" is a difficult topic to address, because it has been misused by pseudoscientists and their followers, but there is a scientific basis for the belief that there are, among humans, genetically distinct population clusters which do correspond to geographic ancestry and to popular conceptions of race. See, for example:
- Slightly less technical explanation at http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/01/metric-on-space-of-genomes-and.html
- An article on race should explain that the history of racism has made many people uncomfortable with examining race in a scientific manner, and that some political bodies of social scientists have made the (unsupported) assertion that "race is a purely social construct", but it should also explain that genetic science is showing that there are distinct (and distinguishable) population groups within the human species, and that these groups show patterns of variation in a variety of genetic measures, though not necessarily along the lines most racists have stereotyped. Anthony Argyriou 18:13, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
To Anthony Argyriou, Stephen Ewen, and Eric Winesett: I apologize, because the first two sentences on the page are apparently unclear.
The first sentence says, "Race in social science.... etc." This is because the intent of the page is to explain how "race" is used the social sciences. That is, to explain how term is used in the fields of history, sociology, political science, and the like. Nothing more. I plan to expand the stub, but only in that direction.
The second sentence says, "For an explanation of race in biology see bio-race." This is because my intent is that readers follow the link for an explanation of the term's usage in biology. In other words, the definition and methodological criteria for identifying the biologically synonymous concepts: "race", "breed", "variety", and "subspecies" should be located on a page under the purview of the biology workgroup. I encourage all of you to post your opinions and arguments regarding the usefulness (or not) of identifying biological races, breeds, variety, and subspecies of H. sapiens on that subspecies page or its talk page.
Alternatively, if anyone would like to use this present article page (or this talk page) to describe arguments for and against identifying biological races, breeds, variety, and subspecies of the human species (again, under the purview of the biology workgroup), I would be glad to withdraw my text and start a new page to explain how "race" is used the social sciences--that is, how term is used in the fields of history, sociology, political science, and the like. Frank W Sweet 08:01, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
- It would help if the article began with a definition of race. Also useful would be (1) the social uses, i.e., classification of people by race into "good" and "inferior" (after Bacon's Rebellion?) and (2) principled objections to this classification - including scholary attempts to eliminate the concept altogether.
- I hope I'm not being too pedantic in my language. I'm not really an intellectual. ;-) --Ed Poor 08:50, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
- History Category Check
- General Category Check
- Anthropology Category Check
- Sociology Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- History Advanced Articles
- History Nonstub Articles
- History Internal Articles
- Anthropology Advanced Articles
- Anthropology Nonstub Articles
- Anthropology Internal Articles
- Sociology Advanced Articles
- Sociology Nonstub Articles
- Sociology Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- History Developed Articles
- Anthropology Developed Articles
- Sociology Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- History Developing Articles
- Anthropology Developing Articles
- Sociology Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- History Stub Articles
- Anthropology Stub Articles
- Sociology Stub Articles
- External Articles
- History External Articles
- Anthropology External Articles
- Sociology External Articles
- History Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Anthropology Underlinked Articles
- Sociology Underlinked Articles
- History Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Anthropology Cleanup
- Sociology Cleanup