Vorpal wrote:A white or native Uruguyan may have exactly the same predisposition to sickle cell that a black person from Congo has; ethnically associated, but not race associated.
I'm trying to understand what you're saying here. That a very unusual white person or native Uruguayan (why introduce two different groups where one would suffice?) may
have a predisposition to something far more commonly associated with another racial group? I suppose so, lots of things are possible, but it is highly unlikely, on average.
Vorpal wrote: At the same time, the black Congolese is more likely to have sickle cell trait than a black Tunisian.
...and both are rather more likely to have sickle cell than a white person of any nationality.
Vorpal wrote:The idea that people of certain races are more susceptible comes from medical research done in the early 20th century. Scientists have since demonstrated that it is not associated with race; that from a genetic perspective, there is, in fact, no such thing as race.
That is not what the excerpt says though.
In the biological and social sciences, the consensus is clear: race is a social construct, not a biological attribute. Today, scientists prefer to use the term “ancestry” to describe human diversity (Figure 3).]
So the consensus, whatever that is when it comes to science (I note it did not say "the facts") is that race is a social construct, yet ancestry, however that differs from race one can but guess, does exist. I don't see how ancestry is anything more than an updated, politically correct (consensus correct?) word for race.
“Ancestry” reflects the fact that human variations do have a connection to the geographical origins of our ancestors—with enough information about a person’s DNA, scientists can make a reasonable guess about their ancestry.
So race, excuse me, ancestry is real then and not just a social construct.
However, unlike the term “race,” it focuses on understanding how a person’s history unfolded, not how they fit into one category and not another.
How a person's history unfolded....what on earth does that mean? Hardly sounds scientific, does it.
In a clinical setting, for instance, scientists would say that diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis are common in those of “sub-Saharan African” or “Northern European” descent, respectively, rather than in those who are “black” or “white”.
In a clinical setting, that is a setting where denying race, excuse me, ancestry can get people killed, then they relent and say that yes “sub-Saharan African” people (black people) have a predisposition to certain diseases and people of “Northern European” descent (white people) have a predisposition to other diseases.
Of course, groups within races, excuse me, ancestries will have more or less of a predisposition to a certain disease, but the paper you've cited reinforces my point that groups sharing ancestry based on geographic location (races) have more or less of a likelihood of contracting x or y disease, because of genetic factors.
So race (or ancestry) is genetic reality and the point I made seems to be backed up by your link (even if they'd prefer different language).