Return to Question

This is not a question about genetics or biology. I am interested in understanding the meaning of race from a sociological perspective. Please focus your answer on the case I give for ancestry and race being the same. I do bring up genetic variation below, but only to dispel the argument around it so that answers don't focus on it. In fact, the reason I posted this question is because I can't find an article on the subject that doesn't focus on genetics. Here is the question:

It seems to me they are the same, but it has come to my attention that the official position in academia is that they are distinct. In fact a quick internet search of the question brings up articles (citing research) on how they are distinct.

These articles argue that there is more genetic variability within each race than between them (or more precisely, within/between each geograpical area that would correspond to each race e.g. Africa, Europe, Asia etc.) and therefore race can't be based on genetic heritage. But this is a total non sequitur. It may mean race is not a very useful classification, but it doesn't prove that race can't be based on geographical heritage nor does it prove that geographical heritage can't be determined by genetics, as it is well known that certain genetic markers can predict geographical heritage.

My reason for thinking they are equivalent, and a more precise reformulation of my question, is drawn from common intuition about two individual races, white and black:

Isn't having African (genetic) heritage necessary and sufficient to be considered black? And isn't the same true for Western European heritage and being white? If inclusion in each race is determined 100% by genetic heritage, how can the two be distinct?

This is not a question about genetics or biology. I am interested in understanding the meaning of race from a sociological perspective. Please focus your answer on the case I give for ancestry and race being the same. I do bring up genetic variation below, but only to dispel the argument around it so that answers don't focus on it. In fact, the reason I posted this question is because I can't find an article on the subject that doesn't focus on genetics. Here is the question:

It seems to me they are the same, but it has come to my attention that the official position in academia is that they are distinct. In fact a quick internet search of the question brings up articles (citing research) on how they are distinct.

These articles argue that there is more genetic variability within each race than between them (or more precisely, within/between each geograpical area that would correspond to each race e.g. Africa, Europe, Asia etc.) and therefore race can't be based on heritage. But this is a total non sequitur. It may mean race is not a very useful classification, but it doesn't prove that race can't be based on heritage (nor does it prove that heritage can't be determined by genetics, as it is well known that certain genetic markers can predict heritage).

My reason for thinking they are equivalent, and a more precise reformulation of my question, is drawn from common intuition about two individual races, white and black:

Isn't having African heritage necessary and sufficient to be considered black? And isn't the same true for Western European heritage and being white? If inclusion in each race is determined 100% by biological heritage, how can the two be distinct?

It seems to me they are the same, but it has come to my attention that the official position in academia is that they are distinct. In fact a quick internet search of the question brings up articles (citing research) on how they are distinct.

These articles argue that there is more genetic variability within each race than between them (or more precisely, within/between each geograpical area that would correspond to each race e.g. Africa, Europe, Asia etc.) and therefore race can't be based on genetic heritage. But this is a total non sequitur. It may mean race is not a very useful classification, but it doesn't prove that race can't be based on geographical heritage nor does it prove that geographical heritage can't be determined by genetics, as it is well known that certain genetic markers can predict geographical heritage.

My reason for thinking they are equivalent, and a more precise reformulation of my question, is drawn from common intuition about two individual races, white and black:

Isn't having African (genetic) heritage necessary and sufficient to be considered black? And isn't the same true for Western European heritage and being white? If inclusion in each race is determined 100% by genetic heritage, how can the two be distinct?

This is not a question about genetics or biology. I am interested in understanding the meaning of race from a sociological perspective. Please focus your answer on the case I give for ancestry and race being the same. I do bring up genetic variation below, but only to dispel the argument around it so that answers don't focus on it. In fact, the reason I posted this question is because I can't find an article on the subject that doesn't focus on genetics. Here is the question:

It seems to me they are the same, but it has come to my attention that the official position in academia is that they are distinct. In fact a quick internet search of the question brings up articles (citing research) on how they are distinct.

These articles argue that there is more genetic variability within each race than between them (or more precisely, within/between each geograpical area that would correspond to each race e.g. Africa, Europe, Asia etc.) and therefore race can't be based on genetic heritage. But this is a total non sequitur. It may mean race is not a very useful classification, but it doesn't prove that race can't be based on geographical heritage nor does it prove that geographical heritage can't be determined by genetics, as it is well known that certain genetic markers can predict geographical heritage.

My reason for thinking they are equivalent, and a more precise reformulation of my question, is drawn from common intuition about two individual races, white and black:

Isn't having African (genetic) heritage necessary and sufficient to be considered black? And isn't the same true for Western European heritage and being white? If inclusion in each race is determined 100% by genetic heritage, how can the two be distinct?

It seems to me they are the same, but it has come to my attention that the official position in academia is that they are distinct. In fact a quick internet search of the question brings up articles (citing research) on how they are distinct.

These articles argue that there is more genetic variability within each race than between them (or more precisely, within/between each geograpical area that would correspond to each race e.g. Africa, Europe, Asia etc.) and therefore race can't be based on genetic heritage. But this seems like a total non sequitur to me. It may mean race is not a very useful classification, but it doesn't prove that race can't be based on geographical heritage nor does it prove that geographical heritage can't be determined by genetics, as it is well known that certain genetic markers can predict geographical heritage.

My reason for thinking they are equivalent, and a more precise reformulation of my question, is drawn from common intuition about two individual races, white and black:

Isn't having African (genetic) heritage necessary and sufficient to be considered black? And isn't the same true for Western European heritage and being white? If inclusion in each race is determined 100% by genetic heritage, how can the two be distinct?

It seems to me they are the same, but it has come to my attention that the official position in academia is that they are distinct. In fact a quick internet search of the question brings up articles (citing research) on how they are distinct.

These articles argue that there is more genetic variability within each race than between them (or more precisely, within/between each geograpical area that would correspond to each race e.g. Africa, Europe, Asia etc.) and therefore race can't be based on genetic heritage. But this is a total non sequitur. It may mean race is not a very useful classification, but it doesn't prove that race can't be based on geographical heritage nor does it prove that geographical heritage can't be determined by genetics, as it is well known that certain genetic markers can predict geographical heritage.

My reason for thinking they are equivalent, and a more precise reformulation of my question, is drawn from common intuition about two individual races, white and black:

Isn't having African (genetic) heritage necessary and sufficient to be considered black? And isn't the same true for Western European heritage and being white? If inclusion in each race is determined 100% by genetic heritage, how can the two be distinct?