Show them a government form?

Generally, I think the subjectmatter of race, as interpreted more specifically as race relations, is more important than the scientific semantics of the word. What people understand about race is a literal issue of life and death for many people.

If by "Race" you mean Skin Color, it is nothing but an evolutionary adaptation to varying levels of sunlight, and nothing more. Note that all darker colors gravitate towards the equator, the part of the Earth that gets the most sunlight. This is the crap we fight over. It's stupid, and it's time for it to end.

I think you said it in the first two words. "well meaning". Would it be better for everyone if we forgot race existed? Absolutely. Otherwise if you really want an answer to this you have to define the word "race" concisely and apply it.

Try not to take them too seriously. I usually agree with liberals but there is a tendency for them to be just as reactionary as rightwingers are. The tiniest little thing offends them and it's annoying.

Whenever asked to tick a box wanting to know my race, I write in Viking. Yes, I know, it's not a race, but damn it all. Get over it already. Wheni It'sused for the fair distribution of resources, I am ok with it, but any other purpose is nonsense.

I havent thought about it that much until I have seen comments on this site saying it is a CHristian construct. It is not an important distinction to me so I have not investigated that position

no, a different race could be a caucasian settlement or town just down the road/ it has nothing to do with colour as such especially in today's world. the Germans were very racist against other German Caucasians who had different beliefs. to a small degree, everyone is racist because its self-preservation.

That is one of the words that have a large emotional/social/political charge on them. In one sense there is only the "human race", as we are all the same species no matter the minor variations, & there are so many gradations between the races that it all just blends into one. On the other hand, there are some definite minor differences between groups of people that show up genetically & otherwise (i.e.: sickle-cell, Tay-Sachs, etc.). I believe we are blending more than ever, tho, with wars invasions, droughts, famines, migrations, we have always done so, tho it will be some time before we are one homogenized people, if ever. I don't believe anyone is "pure" one race or the other, & on top of all that we all have common ancestors, which sort of makes the separation of people somewhat ludicrous. This subject, like many "real" subjects, is a complicated one & has answers on many levels.

Lot of good comments on here and they are right. If you claim you have 'scientific evidence' that race exists please cite your sources. Modern researchers don't even use the term race. The term used is 'cline' : "A continuum with an infinite number of gradations from one extreme to another. " instead of our social construct 'race' . As I have said there is the reality of 'race' in society, culture, etc. but it is based on a misinterpretation. Skin color is an adaptation to climate and diet and there has never been any clear demarcation between the 'different' hues. Also caucasian is nonsensical. If you get a chance check out pictures of different folks from the Caucasus region. Most definitely do not look like Europeans. If you're willing to have your perspective truly challenged read: 'The History of White People' by Painter.

The word "race" is defined by the dictionary. It is a "word in common usage", not a scientific term. Subspecies is likely a more appropriate scientific (Zoology) term. For instance, there are about five species of Caribou in North America with differences only apparent to a zoologist/biologist. Likewise, there are several "species or subspecies" of human on earth. Consider the Pygmies and Eskimos, Central Africans, South American Indians, and the Aborigines of Austraila, etc. All somewhat physically different from one another, but all human. Those who adamantly (emotionally) insist that there is no such thing as "race" are focused on being politically correct and not likely to want to hear an argument that is basically scientific in nature...they are too emotionally invested to give a damn about the scientific differences between species of humans.

Yeah, I wouldn't say you're a racist for saying that. I'd argue that you're incorrect, but that is far different from being racist. One can believe in the concept of race without being racist. In fact, I know some liberals who will call you a racist if you DON'T accept the concept of race! They'll accuse you of being color blind (which I'm not, I obviously see color), and say that if there is no race, then black Americans are being robbed of their identity (apparantly these liberals think that skin color is the only thing important to African Americans...seems a little prejudiced to me...)

But anyway, on to why I think you're incorrect. As far as I know, the most recent and scientific studies show that there can be more genetic similarities between a white man and a black man than between two white men or two black men. If there's such a thing as race in humans, then you'd expect the opposite to be the case.

The term "race" was around long before DNA was discovered, it has been used to differentiate between nationality, language, religion as well as physical variations. We refer to a breed of animal basically because the animal has been "bred" for certain characteristics. I have a "Groodle" at my feet at the moment she has characteristics of both a poodle and a golden retriever, next to her is a great dane / german shepherd cross which has charismatics of neither. The Groodle would not be a Groodle without her characteristics she would simply be a Golden retriver/poodle cross. We can describe racial characteristics, someone can have these with no ancestry of that race. So where does race exist? I have Australian aboriginal ancestry yet was born with very pale skin, red hair and a huge angular nose. I have a very mixed ancestry and do not resemble people from any of those backgrounds. Is there a race of which I would be part of? or are some of us born without race?

I'm with you. Race exists just as variations and sub species of flowers and birds or what have you exists.Since we are not separate species we can intermingle and the differences are being blurred. Socially and ethically, it is our job to treat all equally under the law. Races exist just as breeds of dogs exist. I have owned a pure breed Collie, Shepherd and 2 Poodles. I have also owned a Pit/Lab mix, a Beagle/Visla mix, a Shepherd/Husky mix and a anybodies guess and loved them all.

I'm with you. Race exists just as variations and sub species of flowers and birds or what have you exists.Since we are not separate species we can intermingle and the differences are being blurred. Socially and ethically, it is our job to treat all equally under the law

I agree, there is no such thing as race.

Any scientific references you cite that state there is such a thing as race are more than likely outdated. Any science that refers to races was usually bad pseudo-science designed to justify racism. Scientists have long given up on the idea of races. There is Homo Sapiens Sapiens and that's it.

("Well meaning", "liberal", "friends" - Hahahah! Were all those meant to be sarcastic and ironic?)

Anyway, I think, it all comes down to semantics. I can accept that the word, "race", has meaning in an argument/discussion for/of ethnicity. But I can't accept it when used in judgemental and hateful language that is used to debase people.

But scientifically speaking...I don't know. What do scientists think of "no such thing as race"? Scientists like to categorise everything. If they don't use "race" as a category (because categorising race has ACTUAL meaning in regards to the context of our human history), I bet they use other terms (ethnicity, definitely is one term) to classify different groups of people.

I've said it before, context gives words meaning. And for some, the scope of that context can be limited to simply what is stated right then and there. While for others, context (especially for words/phrases that have actual weight) can be scope as all of human history.

EDIT: After watching videos posted by evidentialist, it sounds to me that our DNA markers are too mixed to be used as a definitive classification of race. But I suppose they can be used as a guide to determine ethnicities.

@Wafflestomp -- Your first response is not going to make you happy. There is no such thing as race and there is literally no rational way to defend the notion that there is.

[newsweek.com]race-283123

True.
Even if you send your DNA in to be analyzed for genetic origins, they don't name "races," only the origins of particular DNA markers. For example; telling people they are "11% Iberian."