Talk:Race (human categorization)/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

→

Cleanup!

This article is HUGE. It probably needs to be reorganized and seperated into various subarticles. The referencing is also horrible and has to be fixed.

Fixing all of these would take a lot of effort and time - but I'm affraid it's necessary. This article is likely to be explanded even more, but the way it is organized, there's no systematic way of expanding it other than adding new sections. This was probably the original problem and has led to the expansion of the article to this level.

Anyone willing to help? Any ideas about how the article should be divided out? Aucaman^Talk 04:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is really really HUGE but it's extremely comprehensive and involves huge research effort. Why does article wiki have to be short? What about an exception for this masterpiece of wiki page? --Yau 18:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The "race" notion is simply a mental scheme for classifying people. Whether it is useful depends upon the user. An enforcer of EEOC regulations will find this classification method more useful than will a molecular anthropologist. The problem with this article, or any article or a college course on the topic, is that those who find the "race" notion useful often justify it by confabulating appeals to authority: "science says," or "the bible says," or "the law says," or "history says." And so the article tries to teach what science (or the law or whatever authority) really says. It thus takes on the impossible job of teaching all human knowledge regarding all past and present human classification schemes to an uninformed reader. This, of course, is a hopeless task. Those who find the "race" notion useful want to persuade those who scoff at it, and those to whom it is useless want the others to abandon it. To avoid POV accusations, every conceivable argument for every conceivable variant of every mutually contradictory classification scheme that uses the term "race" gets text space. My advice? The article should be little more than a series of links:

How "race" is used in biology.
How "race" is used in genetics.
How "race" is used in medicine.
How "race" is used in cultural anthropology.
How "race" is used in physical anthropology.
How "race" is used in phylogeography.
How "race" is used in the EEOC.
How "race" is used in the census.
How "race" is used in U.S. forensic anthropology.
How "race" is used in U.S. history.
How "race" is used around the world today.
How "race" is used by criminal law enforcement.
How "race" is used in politics.
How "race" is used in education.
How "race" is used in the military.
Etc., etc. etc.

Semantically speaking, the term has so many different referents that debate over which is the "correct" refferent is bound to be both contentious and sterile. -- Frank W Sweet 16:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of this, but it's a little too late to rewrite the whole article. I'm going to capture some of the independent sections into subarticles. Someone would have to go in there and summarize some of these back into this article. Aucaman^Talk 00:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Update

I'm going to be moving Human genetic variation to the article Human genetic variation. Also moving Social interpretation of physical variation, Case studies in the social construction of race, and Practical use of "race" to Social interpretations of race. Someone would have to go in and summarize some of these back into these articles. Aucaman^Talk 00:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Bravo! I have added links to Human genetic variation and Social interpretations of race in Negroid, Caucasoid, and Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, so that readers interested in one or the other aspect of the "race" notion can go directly to the information. I also left links to the main Race article for those who want an overview. -- Frank W Sweet 10:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to creating linked articles, but without the material the Race article violates NPOV. Therefore, I urge Aucaman (or Frank Sweet) to work on the summaries before moving the content. Let's not leave the article full of holes, especially when you are taking out content fundamental to understanding what race is and is not. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree to this. The only part that needs summarizing is Human genetic variation. It's not going to be easy. I'm going to bring back the whole thing until it can be summarized. Aucaman^Talk 18:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As for me, I am just an applauding, admiring audience. I have no intention of contributing until after the dust settles, and even then only after discussing any proposed tweaks with everybody. This is a (deservedly) featured article into which went a lot of work. -- Frank W Sweet 18:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. We all understand there is a general limit to the size of Wikipedia articles based on the capacity of servers. That said, I beg you to bear in mind one thing as you do this valuable work: despite the links, many readers will read only this article, and assess their understanding of race against only what is in this article. Given that many people are dogmatic in theihr belief that races are natural, biological things, and there are also people who have no idea how scientists view genotypic and phenotypic variation among humans, and, finally, that beliefs about race and biological difference have often times been a matter of life or death for huge numbers of humans, and continues to be a contested policy issue in many countries, well, you can see why it is so important to maintain stringent NPOV, and to communicate substantive information. This doesn't mean we cannot cut and create linked articles, only that we really need to be careful about what remains in this one. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm all aware of that. Valid concerns. I tried restoring the section, but some BOT removed it! I've contacted the owner of the BOT and the section would be restored pretty soon. Aucaman^Talk 19:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Through the 19th century, race was a unifying concept across several scientific disciplines, including language, anthropology, biology. Standard scientific theory presupposed racist explanations for culture and language politics and economy. As a student of biology in the 60s and graduate student of anthropology and linguiustics in the 60s/70s, racism as a theoretical construct was still part of the curricula, avowedly not a significant part by then, but a part. I don't think that race as a scientific idea was rejected in the 40s. Boaz was rejected by the scientific community for attacking racist science in the earlier decade of the century. However biological racism was still part of anthropological study when I was a student so I think the dates at which racism was scientifically disavowed should be changed and modified. Certainly not 1940s.

Some educators in Medical science and medical anthropology were teaching biological racism as science well into the 80s.

[isafakir: C Isa Kocher] 10june2006

There was a core agreement across many sciences throughout the 19th and 20th century so listing the differences as seperate entries without defining some of the core agreements would be a disservice of describing the role of racism in science history [isafakir C Isa Kocher 10june2006]

References

I have to add that the referencing of this article is pretty horrible. Although bibliography-style referencing is used widely in academia, using it here would probably be against WP:V. I personally recommend using footnotes, but other alternatives are fine as long as it's clear where each specific information is coming from. Aucaman^Talk 19:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I could go either way on this. Since Rikurzhen has really contributed an awful lot to this article, I would like to know what he thinks about this ... Slrubenstein | Talk 19:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My anthro and soc profs wanted parenthetical in-line citations (like the article has now) and my history profs wanted footnotes, so I am pretty good at converting back and forth. If y'all decide to switch, I would be willing to volunteer to go through the article and change the existing citations. -- Frank W Sweet 19:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

m:Cite.php works pretty well, as long as I don't have to do the conversion. This should be done to the spin-off articles as well. --Rikurzhen 19:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I argued strenuously (and got my way) to have in-line citations whenever practicable. The trouble with footnotes is that the conscientious reader (me) feels compelled to look down at the bottom of the page and read each footnote as it comes along. It's a drag to discover that an in-line "ibid" would have taken care of the whole thing. When it on-line, the time delay can be considerable. Real footnotes should be reserved for when you have something to say that won't fit into the main article's flow, but that people are going to kill you for if you don't mention it. (E.g., "Many authors, semi-conversant with ancient Chinese philosophy(ftn.99), instruct their followers that yin-yang theory was developed by and remains firmly associated with Daoism when in actually the facts are quite otherwise (ftn. 100).) If you are trying to talk about how 4th century Buddhists tried to deal with the Chinese penchant for thinking in yin-yang terms, it may not be the place to go back into the history of a thousand or so years before. But summarizing the researches of Fung Yu-lan in a footnote may save readers lots of cognitive dissonance down the road. Don't give the Wiki reader yo-yo eyes. Give him in-line citations first, links second, and in the rare event that you have to say more than book nickname and page number, give the reader a footnote. Skipping over something like {Smith, 235) hardly even erupts into conscious awareness after a while, and your readers will thank you for your being so considerate. P0M 06:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

BIAS

Coon already solved the issue of race, the article gives the imperssion he is not valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.126.136.204 (talk • contribs)

Because he is not valid! Coon was a racist pseudoscientist. And he is wrong wrong wrong wrong! Wrong wrong wrong wrong! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.234.16.2 (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Small change to Tang research

"near-perfect indicator of an individual's genetic profile" has been changed to "near-perfect indicator of an individual's inclusion within a genetic cluster "

I think it is going too far (even if you don't dispute Tang) to say that his results give a "near-perfect indicator of an individual's genetic profile". Macgruder 06:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

deleted allegory

I deleted a hypothetical for three reaons. First, the term " a mistaken social construction" is silly. Social constructions are not mistakes, they are social constructions; their "truthfulness" is evaluated by completely different criteria than other claims. Second, the hypothesis is poorly chosen. Population distributions between Paris and Peking do not clearly illustrtate clines because they have been shaped by political and economic forces. Finally, the whole thing smacks of original research. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

changes, May 25

I just made three big changes. First, I put the survey information on shanging use by scientists of the word race up front. I do not mind if others agree it belongs at the end of the article, but since the introduction points out that scientists disagree over how to use the word, it belongs up front. Moreover, I removed from this section argumentative material - the articel that follows goes into tall the issues at length. Second, I removed sections on ethnicity versus ancestry as ways of identifying people for two reasons: first, it is argumentative (and this topic is controversial enough without our going out of our way to feed the fire). The article goes over many different scientific discoveries that has led scientists to a more nuanced view of race, and that have led scientists to a variety of approaches - all of this is sophisticated in the best tradition of science, and our article does a good job explaining it. to then try ...once again ... to reduce research on race to two views (social versus biological) and then to try to sum up reasons for one and then reasons for the other is in my opinion the wrong direction and sets the article back four years. Second, it was superficial - the arguments on ancestry oversimplified much of the valuable content above to the point of silliness, and the section on ethnicity just ignores what drives most social-science use of ethnicity; together the two article mixed a lot of apples and oranges. Third, I reintroduced the sections on how race is used in law enforcement, in medicine, etc. I do this for two reasons: first, it is good science, as it shows how "race" can be operationalized and used meaningfully in the pursuit of different but clear ends. Second, it is good social science, because it shows how the valididty of race depends on the context in which it is used. The result is not a black and white argument (race is real, race is not real, or even sillier, race is social or race is biological) but rather a more sophisticated account of how different people in different fields use race in different ways for different reasons. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

help with some reorganization - attn: Rikurzhen, Frank Sweet

Could Rikurzhen or Frank Sweet help here? I think some of this material should be re-integrated into the article, but in either section 4.1.3, or 4.2, or 4.3. Could you do what you think is best?

My main objection to the following is that it is a little polemical. Putting it in the section on cladistics is a way of reframing it as information rathe than as argument. I do have two objections to the contents as written. First, it should not be presented as opposed toor an alternative to "ethniciy," which mixes apples and orranges. I think there is no need even to mention ethnicity in this context.

Second, I think to be consistent with the article as it is, we should avoid the use of "ancestry" as much as possible and use "lineage" as appropriate. Thanks, Steve

An alternative to the use of racial or ethnic categories is to categorize individuals in terms of ancestry. Ancestry may be defined geographically (e.g., Asian, sub-Saharan African, or northern European), geopolitically (e.g., Vietnamese, Zambian, or Norwegian), or culturally (e.g., Brahmin, Lemba, or Apache). The definition of ancestry may recognize a single predominant source or multiple sources. Ancestry can be ascribed to an individual by an observer, as was the case with the U.S. census prior to 1960; it can be identified by an individual from a list of possibilities or with use of terms drawn from that person's experience; or it can be calculated from genetic data by use of loci with allele frequencies that differ geographically, as described above. At least among those individuals who participate in biomedical research, genetic estimates of biogeographical ancestry generally agree with self-assessed ancestry (Tang et al. 2005), but in an unknown percentage of cases, they do not (Brodwin 2002; Kaplan 2003).

Genetic data can be used to infer population structure and assign individuals to groups that often correspond with their self-identified geographical ancestry. The inference of population structure from multilocus genotyping depends on the selection of a large number of informative genetic markers. These studies usually find that groups of humans living on the same continent are more similar to one another than to groups living on different continents. Many such studies are criticized for assigning group identity a priori. However, even if group identity is stripped and group identity assigned a posteriori using only genetic data, population structure can still be inferred. For example, using 993 markers, Rosenberg et al. (2005) were able to assign 1,048 individuals from 52 populations around the globe to one of six genetic clusters, which correspond to major geographic regions.

However, in analyses that assign individuals to group it becomes less apparent that self-described racial groups are reliable indicators of ancestry. One cause of the reduced power of the assignment of individuals to groups is admixture. Some racial or ethnic groups, especially Hispanic groups, do not have homogenous ancestry. For example, self-described African Americans tend to have a mix of West African and European ancestry. Shriver et al. (2003) found that on average African Americans have ~80% African ancestry. Likewise, many white Americans have mixed European and African ancestry, where ~30% of whites have less than 90% European ancestry. In this context, it is becoming more commonplace to describe "race" as fractional ancestry. Without the use of genotyping, this has been approximated by the self-described ancestry of an individual's grand-parents.

Nevertheless, recent research indicates that self-described race is a near-perfect indicator of an individual's genetic profile, at least in the United States. Using 326 genetic markers, Tang et al. (2005) identified 4 genetic clusters among 3,636 individuals sampled from 15 locations in the United States, and were able to correctly assign individuals to groups that correspond with their self-described race (white, African American, East Asian, or Hispanic) for all but 5 individuals (an error rate of 0.14%). They conclude that ancient ancestry, which correlates tightly with self-described race and not current residence, is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.

Genetic techniques that distinguish ancestry between continents can also be used to describe ancestry within continents. However, the study of intra-continental ancestry may require a greater number of informative markers. Populations from neighboring geographic regions typically share more recent common ancestors. As a result, allele frequencies will be correlated between these groups. This phenomenon is often seen as a cline of allele frequencies. The existence of allelic clines has been offered as evidence that individuals cannot be allocated into genetic clusters (Kittles & Weiss 2003). However, others argue that low levels of differentiation between groups merely make the assignment to groups more difficult, not impossible (Bamshad et al. 2004).

To repeat, I do think this should be rewritten to (1) get rid of any discussion of "ethniciy," which these passages misrepresents and ends up mixing apples and oranges. I think there is no need even to mention ethnicity in this context. (2) to be consistent with the article as it is, we should avoid the use of "ancestry" as much as possible and use "lineage" as appropriate. I think by putting it in the section on cladistics, it will become less polemical and more informative. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that this needs any re-writing, especially on the "ethnicity" and "ancestry" points. Most of the text seems to have come from the public domain NHGRI review paper, which if it has a bias it against the importance of race. Ancestry has a relatively precise definition, whereas "lineage" is a less commonly used term. "Ethnicity" is being used to supplement "race" as a catch-all term for any group related by blood, however delineated. --Rikurzhen 11:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

source needed

Can we have a ciation for this? "As a consequence, inter-racial marriages are more common, and more accepted, among highly-educated Afro-Brazilians than lower-educated ones." I ask because it seems to contradict Goldstein's latest article on the topic. Maybe I am wrong ... so, can we just have a citation? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

About the Survey

A 1985 survey (Lieberman et al. 1992) asked 1,200 scientists how many disagree with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The responses were: [...]

Did they really ask about Homo sapiens, or Homo sapiens sapiens? It's not surprising that the Neanderthal man would be placed in a different subspecies from us... :-) FilipeS 22:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The current majority view is that Neanderthals were a separate species Homo neanderthalensis, rather than a subspecies of H. sapiens. -- 201.78.233.162 21:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Racism

Where should these go in the article?

Bernard Lewis, in “Identifying the Historical Roots of Racism” points to the “purity of blood” doctrine of the 15th century by which it was believed “the purity of the faith and of Christian society could be achieved.” Lewis identifies it as a “historically recognizable source” of “modern ideological racism.” “ In this we may see the beginnings of anti-Semitism, properly so-called; that is to say, a new kind of hostility to Jews” which is based on “racial or ethnic differences.” ^[1] Doright 08:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Robert Michael argues: “Not only did institutionalized racism begin in 15th-century Spain,” but “a Christian racism can be detected as early as the 4th century in Sts. Augustine and John Chrysostom.” “Moreover, is not the belief in inherent and inherited traits what characterizes 19th-century racism as well, the same emphasis on evil vs good blood occurs among the Spanish, and is implied in Luther, as well as 19th-century writers.” ^[2] Doright 08:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best fit under the article racism, or Anti-Semitism. For this article, you could try to put in section 2.1 around the part about the Inquisition. --Archon Wing 00:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

All human groups are "racist", because they pursuade their own interests at the expense of others. That's the Darwinian struggle for survival. 82.100.61.114 05:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Current" disagreement across disciplines (1985 !!!)

The title says "current", and the information is not current at all... You should talk about the more recent resaearch which show that there is no race when we study the genome. 1985 is a very old date when we speak about genetic.

i've updated this, despite disagreeing with the premise of your comment. --Rikurzhen 11:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The most recent research shows that the classical racial division has very old roots and is thus valid. The fact that some "racial groups" (e.g. American Indians, West Africans+Bantus, some mongoloids) are in fact racial mixtures stabilized during the last Ice Age can't change much on it. Centrum99 12:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's currrently accepted by evolution biologist in general that the concept of "human races" no longer holds. Divergence between "ethnic goups" is not larger than individual differences, meaning it is not actually possible to separate (or group) humans into "races" based on DNA sequence analysis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.246.7.22 (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

intro

I did some clearn-up from the intro, deleting a few sentences. The sentences I deleted pretty much just provided more detail about the complexity of using the word race. I think this level of detail is distracting in an introduction and can should and I believe is dealt with in the body of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Brazilian racial terms

I added quick definitions for the Brazilian racial terms moreno claro and mulato claro. I don't think that there's any point in adding long explanations of these terms to this article, but if anyone can improve on my quick glosses, please do so. -- 201.78.233.162 21:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

White (people)

[I'm posting this here because there's no Wikiproject for race.]

The contributors to White (people) have dwindled down to just a few over the past month, and they are locked in an unproductive edit dispute. One issue is whether some fringe views may be getting disproportionate space. The article would benefit from additional input and a broader consensus. I've asked for protection due to a revert war, but it should be brief. -Will Beback 09:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. The White (people) article is fairly ridiculous in terms of its content to begin with, and is a HUGE article given how simple it is to summarize the entire article: "White people is a term used to describe Caucasians. Some people like the term and some do not." That's it. That's ALL you need for that entire article that is well over the normal length.

2 or 3 users have begun to flame one another and constantly undo and/or revert, create an incredibly insipid situation. The entire article should be removed and it can be summarized, if it isn't already addressed, in the Race article.--ThatBajoranGuy 05:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

continent of ancestry

I removed this from the page for further discussion:

The term continent of ancestry is gaining acceptance as a replacement for the word race[1].

I do not think continent of ancestry is yet popular enough to merit mention in the first paragraph. Moreover, the NYT article, while interesting, is not about continent of ancestry. It mentions it once but has no data on its "gaining acceptance." Slrubenstein | Talk 12:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I enjoyed the "race" article, and did not mind its bigness nor its variety of approaches, so be circumspect in undertaking any massive re-editing just for slimness. I consulted this article (as a genetically-uninformed biochemist) because I had heard two things regarding race. The first was the claim that the human genome project has provided data that basically do not allow for the support of the "race" concept. Although the genome project and sequencing in general are mentioned in a number of places, the race article seems a little less grounded in genomic data than I would have expected, giving it a bit of an antiquated feel. Are there reasons for this? Should it be mentioned that the genomic work is not yet definitive or never will be? I do not know the answer, I only raise the question. Second, I had heard (read in Guns Germs and Steel?) that African populations showed large diversity between groups, with these groups not particularly more related to each other than to groups outside Africa - suggesting that the term "african" might not be tenable? One part of the article here differentiates west and northern african, but is this general claim correct?

I believe that your concerns are addressed (and anticipated by) those who argue that "race" should be replaced by discussing populations and clines - a view already well-expressed in the article, and not new. By the way, if you think you may contribute more to Wikipedia, please consider registring and also sign your name. If you are unregistered you should still sign your name with four tildes which will leave a time signature. thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

We should build a list of review papers in the external links section for academics. Maybe a further reading section. --Rikurzhen 20:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Done --Rikurzhen 20:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 10:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I already explained it in this discussion. The racial composition of Sub-Saharan Africa is complex and consists of four distinct racial groups that are not especially related to each other. Centrum99 06:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

race differences in IQ link

I think that whole study is a load of non-sense and if there was that much difference between the intelligence or "cranial capacity" of races, then we would be classified as different species or sub-species. That link is really racist and is basically saying that certain races are stupid compared to others, even if they are speaking about "average differences". The article only outlines their claims/theories they make and arent backed by any referenced data whatsoever. I can tell you right now that those researchers are just plain wrong in much of what they say and their study is basically a load of crap (eg. I've never met a person in my life who could possibly have a brain thats 5 cubic inches smaller than mine, with the possible exception of people who have a certain mental diasbility or handicap). The link should be removed. 69.157.126.241 23:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

APA journals are citable by Wikipedia.--Nectar 02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. The article itself however remains to be nothing more than unfounded and misleading propganda from the researchers radical and biased agenda. There are differences between us, but not on the level they're speaking of and the large differences in IQ testing are by no means wholly or mainly genetic. The IQ test itself is a biased and unreliable measure of ones intelligence (itself hard to define) or cognitive ability/potential. 69.157.126.241 00:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the economic difference between Japan and Haiti is just not big, the economic stats of these two countries are just biased and unreliable, aren't they? Centrum99 13:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
If the IQ test is biased and unreliable, tell please all those blacks living in American ghettos that they should go to universities instead of selling crack and killing each other in the street. They are just perfectly equal to whites and Asians, so the only reason, why they stay there lies probably in their lazines or in the fact that they are so goodhearted that they leave all the places at the universities to other people. The same case is with Haitians or black Africans: They don't want to advance, because they don't want to increase world's pollution, global warming and the gas mileage! How nice! YahooMan, 22.10.2006

Wikipedia is probably not the place to try to spark spontaneous enlightenment, and a discussion on the content of an article on a social construct called "race" is not the place to engage in the elucidation of epigenetic determination of individual characteristics, prenatal nutritional and endocrine factors, early childhood nutrition and social nurture, the general dynamic of fist, stick, knife, gun and its relationship to a dysfunctional society, etc., etc. That being said, let me register my vote for saying to "all those blacks living in American ghettos" what my grandmother said many times in many ways to me, "When you get to college..." P0M 01:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hateful and racist comments have no place in a Wikipedia article. Everyone knows that African Americans score low on intelligence tests. It is not necessary to mention that in the article. Lestrade 13:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Brazil part

In the text is mentioned a research, but it's not mentioned who done it, neither when or were it was published. I think, for an encyclopedia, it need to be removed, if no one REALLY find the research. Lemke --201.35.238.191 20:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

An excellent point. I added the citation for Harris, which covers this objection. However, I do not have access to more recent work - I wish someone else would draw on it to improve this section. Especially, Enrique Desmond Arias´s book, "Blackness Without Ethnicity: Constructing Race in Brazil, and Donna Goldstein´s book, "Laughter Out of Place: Race, Class, Violence, and Sexuality in a Rio Shantytown." Also, Donna Goldstein´s 1999 article in American Anthropologist, "Interracial Sex and Sexual Democracy in Brazil." I do not currently have access to these, but even just incorporating information from this article would be a vast improvement. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Gaps and Missteps: First, Blackness Without Ethnicity was written by Livio Sansone, not Arias. I have written an extensive master's thesis on race in Brazil, and particularly as it has been compared to the U.S. racial model since the time of Freyre (1930s). If someone is in fact interested in this, I'd be happy to add sources, but I'm not sure that my long list of references is really appropriate in this case. For the record, the most relevant and recent works would come from Michael Hanchard, Sansone, Thomas Skidmore, Donna Goldstein, Ed Telles, and Miguel Vale de Almeida, among many others. Further, acting as if Freyre's narrative was an end to the debate over racial democracy (another talking point we should be adding to this section) is ridiculous. Everyone from Thales de Azevedo to E. Franklin Frazier to Carl Degler and on and on have commented on this debate, but perhaps only a shorter summary of the argument is necessary. That being the case, Marvin Harris' work is far from recent or the only viewpoint, and really shouldn't be the only person cited here (ok, along with Freyre), as it seems Slrubenstein recognizes. And forgetting to link socioeconomic class to the discussion is a huge gap here. Please comment back if you'd like to see these kinds of things added to the article as I don't want to burden it with further length if no one cares to see it. -M.H.

MH, could you work on updating this section, drawing on the sources you mention? Be careful not to introduce your own argument, and keep the Marvin Harris stuff - just make clear that it is dated and needs to be supplemented with the recent research/debates. I think as long as add to (including adding anything about the academic or political context in which earlier researchers worked) father than flat out replaced what is there, and scrupilously comply with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV I think no one will object to and on the contrary appreciate your work. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

embryology

would sympathtic editors consider a positive vote here? [2]Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Law Enforcement

I have concerns that many areas in this article don't represent a worldwide view, after looking at the section on law enforcement.100110100 04:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Since every country has its own laws, this particular section cannot synthesize a worldwide view. At best it can provide a sample of views from law enforcement in diverse countries. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

For a good resource on this, it might be worth adding Ian Haney Lopez's work on White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race. -M.H.

Go ahead. You can even summarize it as a case-study. What is important is to do so in a way that leaves room for other points of view (as long as they too come from verifiable sources), and leaves room perhaps for case-studies from other countries. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

^ Lewis, Bernard, "The Historical Roots of Racism, American Scholar 67 (1998) no. 1:17-25.
^ Michael, Robert. ["Racial Antisemitism vs Mala Sangre"]. 21 Apr 1997.

[1] Lewis, Bernard, "The Historical Roots of Racism, American Scholar 67 (1998) no. 1:17-25.

[2] Michael, Robert. ["Racial Antisemitism vs Mala Sangre"]. 21 Apr 1997.

[1]

[2]