I have no idea what processualism is.

---

::returns from Wikipedia::

I quite like the processualists. But I can see the weak points in their view.

::dives back for the definition of postmodern::

---

I quite like the processualists.

Yeah, I think it's an interesting idea.

---

I like percussionists.

---

ba-dump bump

---

I like pertussis toxin.

---

But races do have a biological reality.

No. Race tends to be defined arbitrarily by culture based on more or less arbitrary characteristics. Sometimes that arbitrary definition coincides with actual genetic subgrops, which is why it is useful for medical purposes. But not always. For example take the racial grouping Asian - which includes Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, people from the Indian subcontinent (Indians and Pakistanis), and miscellaneious others as well. And by some definitions Arabs as well. Even if you don't include Arabs, does that give you medically useful commonalities? OK Black or people of African descent does give some useful stuff medically. Not just sickle cell, but bone density and a lot biological stuff that genetics plays a larger role in. But Jews have Say Tachs disease and number of other medical commonalities. Yet we are not considered a race. As I say "race" is an arbitrary social creation. It sometimes coincides with genetic subgroups which there are real medical reasons to pay attention to. But you can find plenty of genetic subgroups with as many medical reasons to pay attention to their comonalities (and their differences from other genetic subgroups) which are not defined as races.

---

Oops, yeah, I think processualist and postprocessualist are just archaeology words that gets thrown around so much you assume everyone knows what it is. I assume every field has them. Anyone, Bueller?

---

But Jews have Say Tachs disease and number of other medical commonalities. Yet we are not considered a race.

Er. By who, and when and where? Yes, race is just an arbitrary designation. Which means that virtually every random group of people has been described as a race by another random group of people. Including Jews.

Scientists refer to race because it's a familiar way to identify a set of genetic characteristics, even if, of course, not every individual has every characteristic in that set. When we identify someone as a member of a particular race, we are describing real things about them. I'd assumed that's all that P-C was saying, but perhaps I misunderstood him.

I'm a little confused by this:

For example take the racial grouping Asian - which includes Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, people from the Indian subcontinent (Indians and Pakistanis), and miscellaneious others as well. And by some definitions Arabs as well. Even if you don't include Arabs, does that give you medically useful commonalities?

Your phrasing reads as if the answer here is obviously no, and if that is what you mean, I'd disagree. Although "medically useful" is kind of vague; it's hard to know if looking at data in a particular way will be useful until you've tried it.

---

Scientists refer to race because it's a familiar way to identify a set of genetic characteristics, even if, of course, not every individual has every characteristic in that set. When we identify someone as a member of a particular race, we are describing real things about them. I'd assumed that's all that P-C was saying, but perhaps I misunderstood him.

No, that's what I was saying.

---