I note that no one has been able to answer my question about how many "races" there are. Coincidentally Nicholas Wade's book was reviewed in The Times yesterday. Fortunately reviewers on this side of the Atlantic have been able to see through Wade's dangerous outdated, prejudiced and unscientific hogwash. It seems that Wade's classification of races is a purely arbitrary arrangement: "Wade insists that a race is a "continental population"... But what is it about continental groups that distinguishes them as races? And why should continental groups, as opposed to other population groups, be defined as races? Wade never tells us; nor even how many races there are. On page 4, Wade claims "three principal races": Africans, East Asians and Caucasians. Sixty pages on, the three have become five with the addition of native Americans and "the peoples of Australia and Papua New Guinea". On page 100, Wade suggests that "it might be reasonable to elevate the Indian and Middle Eastern groups to the level of major races, making seven in all". But, "then many more subpopulations could be declared races, so to keep things simple, the five-race, continent-based scheme seems the most practical". We could, in other words, define as many races as we wish to, but for "practical" reasons Wade will arbitrarily limit it to five. Not, it has to be said, a particularly scientific approach." The reviewer goes on to say: "As with much of this book, it is a fairytale presented as science." I'm not sure if you will be able to read the whole review without a subscription http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/books/non-fiction/article4129896.ece Debbie

I think the review by the NY Times was somewhat more charitable. There seems to be no question, though, that Wade's book has hit a raw nerve in some circles of his fellow Brits. On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Debbie Kennett <debbiekennett@gmail.com> wrote: > I note that no one has been able to answer my question about how many > "races" there are. Coincidentally Nicholas Wade's book was reviewed in The > Times yesterday. Fortunately reviewers on this side of the Atlantic have > been able to see through Wade's dangerous outdated, prejudiced and > unscientific hogwash. It seems that Wade's classification of races is a > purely arbitrary arrangement: > > "Wade insists that a race is a "continental population"... But what is it > about continental groups that distinguishes them as races? And why should > continental groups, as opposed to other population groups, be defined as > races? Wade never tells us; nor even how many races there are. On page 4, > Wade claims "three principal races": Africans, East Asians and Caucasians. > Sixty pages on, the three have become five with the addition of native > Americans and "the peoples of Australia and Papua New Guinea". On page 100, > Wade suggests that "it might be reasonable to elevate the Indian and Middle > Eastern groups to the level of major races, making seven in all". But, > "then > many more subpopulations could be declared races, so to keep things simple, > the five-race, continent-based scheme seems the most practical". We could, > in other words, define as many races as we wish to, but for "practical" > reasons Wade will arbitrarily limit it to five. Not, it has to be said, a > particularly scientific approach." > > The reviewer goes on to say: "As with much of this book, it is a fairytale > presented as science." > > I'm not sure if you will be able to read the whole review without a > subscription > > http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/books/non-fiction/article4129896.ece > > Debbie > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

In Nicholas Wade's feeble attempt to rebut his critics he says "I don't care what the science may say because I'll never change my position". I think just about says it all. If he wishes to ignore the scientific evidence to advance his own personal beliefs then that's entirely his choice. I hadn't realised he was British. It's perhaps not surprising that he's ended up in America. He would find much less tolerance of his views over here. There's a very good article here by Kenan Malik on why both sides of the debate are wrong: https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/why-both-sides-are-wrong-in-the- race-debate/ Debbie -----Original Message----- From: y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Obed W Odom Sent: 29 June 2014 14:35 To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book I think the review by the NY Times was somewhat more charitable. There seems to be no question, though, that Wade's book has hit a raw nerve in some circles of his fellow Brits.