Did slavery really make Britain rich?

[Vorpal]

As a bioarchaeologist—and as a person—I find such statements problematic and shocking.

Perhaps as a supposed scientist, objectively she shouldn't?

As for the other two - an op-ed in a science comic and the bottom half of the internet comments column - well you might take all that as evidence I suppose

I think that she has explained herself quite well.

Science has repeatedly demonstrated that genetic markers tied to disease susceptibility have nothing to do with race. They do sometimes vary regionally, and are less frequently assoicated with particular ethnic groups. BUT, these genetic markers are independent of those associated with skin colour.

It is absolutely a good idea for scientist to explore how genetics differences might influence susceptibility to disease. It is shocking that any scientist would try to explain it as associated with race.

I used those particular articles because they are nice summaries. You seem to be dismissing them because you don't like the sources, but without addressing the science.

[al_yrpal]

Sickle cell anaemia and diabetes are allegedly more prevalent in certain racial groups. Why not Covid 19? No reason socio factors cant be making things worse...

Al

[Vorpal]

Sickle cell anaemia and diabetes are allegedly more prevalent in certain racial groups. Why not Covid 19? No reason socio factors cant be making things worse...

Al

Sickle cell anemia is more prevalent in certain *ethnic* groups. The prevalence is genetic, but not associated with skin colour. Differences in diabetes prevalence is associated with socio-economic differences. Associated genetic differences vary regionally. Again, not associated with skin colour.

[simonineaston]

I think the thing is that most people get confused by most things to do with most issues and (at the same time) like to have somebody else to blame.

[Freddie]

Sickle cell anemia is more prevalent in certain *ethnic* groups. The prevalence is genetic, but not associated with skin colour.

What is an ethnic group but the groups within whichever race. The French, for example, are an ethnic group, but are part of the broader European/white race.

That sickle cell anaemia is more prevalent in certain ethnic groups would make it, de facto, more prevalent among certain races than others.

[Vorpal]

Sickle cell anemia is more prevalent in certain *ethnic* groups. The prevalence is genetic, but not associated with skin colour.

What is an ethnic group but the groups within whichever race. The French, for example, are an ethnic group, but are part of the broader European/white race.

That sickle cell anaemia is more prevalent in certain ethnic groups would make it, de facto, more prevalent among certain races than others.

There are no genetic factors by which any 'race' can be identified.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/ ... t-century/

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. At the same time, the black Congolese is more likely to have sickle cell trait than a black Tunisian.

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.

an excerpt from the link above...

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). “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. 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. 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”.

[al_yrpal]

Sorry Vorpal wrong! Tell that to my Mrs who nursed many sickle cell patients and Asian folk with diabetes at the Royal Berks. Its well known.

Al

[windmiller]

Sickle cell anemia is more prevalent in certain *ethnic* groups. The prevalence is genetic, but not associated with skin colour.

What is an ethnic group but the groups within whichever race. The French, for example, are an ethnic group, but are part of the broader European/white race.

That sickle cell anaemia is more prevalent in certain ethnic groups would make it, de facto, more prevalent among certain races than others.

There are no genetic factors by which any 'race' can be identified.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/ ... t-century/

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. At the same time, the black Congolese is more likely to have sickle cell trait than a black Tunisian.

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.

an excerpt from the link above...

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). “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. 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. 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”.

The problem is the term 'race' now has connotations with the word racism. This is a shame in the 21st century world of celebrating diversity. Just because medical research found it politic to discover that racial types don't actually exist anymore won't make them disappear.

[Carlton green]

I think the thing is that most people get confused by most things to do with most issues and (at the same time) like to have somebody else to blame.

Ain’t that just the truth, some folk do make a song and a dance about things and refuse to take responsibility for their input into their failures in life. In contrast I’ve often seen that those that do what they can to better themselves almost always move forward in life and those that don’t don’t. It’s as simple as that: don’t blame discrimination, do practical things in your own life to change it, move forwards.

A decade or so back the husband of a casual friend taught at a Roman Catholic School; the Chair of Governors let him know that no matter how many more years of service he gave or how excellent a teacher he was he would never get a head of department role there because he was a Protestant (being the wrong form of Christian killed his career). That was very tough, heartbreaking, but he eventually moved on elsewhere and as far as I know he has done fine. He made a mistake in expecting not to be discriminated against, eventually he accepted that life ain’t fair and got on with things ... blaming somebody else don’t make things any better.

[Freddie]

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.

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.

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.

Excerpt:

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).

[Ben@Forest]

I thought it had been proven some time ago that the far higher incidence of sickle cell anaemia in African (and therefore Afro-Caribbean and Afro-American populations) was that sickle cell provides some defence against malaria. Cystic fibrosis has a far higher incidence in the Caucasian population, but l don't think they've found the reason why yet. But there will be one and it will likely confer some evolutionary advantage.

[Vorpal]

I thought it had been proven some time ago that the far higher incidence of sickle cell anaemia in African (and therefore Afro-Caribbean and Afro-American populations) was that sickle cell provides some defence against malaria. Cystic fibrosis has a far higher incidence in the Caucasian population, but l don't think they've found the reason why yet. But there will be one and it will likely confer some evolutionary advantage.

Genes associated with the sickle cell trait are found in all populations, but more extensively in people of African, Middle Eastern, Indian, Mediterranean, and South American descent.

And yes it is associated genetically with another trait that provides defence against malaria. Which, I suppose is why it is more common in people who have equatorial and tropical ancestry.

[Vorpal]

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).

https://books.google.no/books?id=KPaODw ... sm&f=false

[simonineaston]

I think the thing is that most people get confused by most things to do with most issues and (at the same time) like to have somebody else to blame.

I may have sounded slightly flipant in making this comment, however I am quite serious about the core idea. Humans have come a long way very quickly, in developmental terms and we now find ourselves in a postion where a colossal amount of knowledge / facts is available at will. It's tempting to think that's a good thing but from a cognitive point of view I have my doubts. Inspite of all this knowledge being available, we're worse off than we have been before, in terms of understanding and the exercise of power.
Consider the old days: Not long ago, the average person would spend much of their time digging up swedes from a muddy field (or Umbrian / Saharan / Iberian etc.etc. equivalent) and would do what he/she was told by the feudal boss, for example turn out occasionally to fight. In between the parasites, the diseases and the fighting, the chances were that by 50, they'd be worn out or dead. They didn't need to know anything much. It can be seen that life is readily achieved without having to know much at all.
Fast-forward to now, when we live in a Golden Age of relatively pain-free safety, with life quite possible until well past our best-before date... and it's tempting to think that facts, figures, info. history, explanations, how-to's, step-by-step guidance notes yadda yadda on-and-on, is empowering - is going to help us live a fabulous life. Not so. There's so much info. around and in such infinite detail that it's bogging us down. Half the time we don't know if facts A, B or C are even true and have to turn to an expert for confirmation. Said expert may know, but is such a specialist that they can't put their knowledge into context. And having access to knowledge is a far cry from wielding power - you might think you're in possession of all the facts, but is there anything you can do about it? Increasingly, we're finding that facts don't matter - since when have facts ever bothered Trump or Cummings & Johnson??
Knowledge, I think is a red herring. We busily collect it, determined to make it work for us, to provide us with some sort of armour, to help us be happy and safe... Every now & then, I'm sure they can help, when by coincidence you get a group of the right size to cope, but as far as the average individual is concerned... I really don't think our brains are designed to cope with all that decision making that the facts need us to carry out. Dig swede, clean swede eat swede... go to bed, repeat.

[reohn2]

Short 3.38minute film about aknowledgement:- https://youtu.be/Phgwn8J-TvM