What emotion you hear is one of tiredness. Everything I write has been written up in more depth elsewhere. I provided links to some. I don't particular want to

What emotion you hear is one of tiredness. Everything I write has been written up in more depth elsewhere. I provided links to some. I don't particular want to follow up on a discussion about the lack of a genetic basis for race when the Wikipedia link I gave covers it in detail, but I persevere. As you read from the Wikipedia link: > There is a wide consensus that the racial categories that are common in everyday usage are socially constructed, and that racial groups cannot be biologically defined That quote is followed by several references. The only one which isn't to a book is http://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583 http://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?It... : > "Race" thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into "racial" categories. The myths fused behavior and physical features together in the public mind, impeding our comprehension of both biological variations and cultural behavior, implying that both are genetically determined. Racial myths bear no relationship to the reality of human capabilities or behavior. Scientists today find that reliance on such folk beliefs about human differences in research has led to countless errors. Yes, I believe you are making an error by assuming that "race" is meaningful in this discussion. (We are not talking about forensic anthropology, which is one of the few contexts where it has some meaning.) Most emphatically, "black" is not a meaningful racial category. Black skin is only one of many phenotypes that could be used to split up people into groups. Why not blood type (which is a discrimination issue in Japan)? Ear shape? Lactase persistence? What you call 'breeds' for dogs would correspond more to the ethnic Icelanders or the Ashkenazi Jews, who are often studied because of their relatively isolated genetic heritage. It does not correspond to race. At this this point it's up to you to demonstrate - with reference to recent peer-reviewed literature and not imagery from decades old text books or pop culture magazines - that there is a useful genetic definition behind race. I've provided plenty of evidence to back my position. It seems to me that all you have is your belief that you are right. Quoting now from you: > I never had the need to explain myself That is not strong counter-evidence. A nun, wearing a habit, does not need to explain to people that she is a member of a religious order. A beggar on the street doesn't have to explain the role of a beggar. If you fit into your cultural role, and especially if it is a culturally acceptable role, then there's little need to explain yourself. Do note that I wrote "well known, large, and easily recognized subculture". You somehow interpreted that to exclude minority groups. It does not. A minority group, like blacks in the US, can still meet my qualifiers. An example of a minority group which does not is the Hmong population in the US. > proud to be black I do not believe that you have read the links I gave, which explain why it is incorrect to interpret this as 'I am proud to have black skin'; though the links were about LGBT and not black skin, the principle is the same. I shall quote from the second of those links: > LGBT pride does not mean being proud of having been born lesbian, gay, bisexual, or trans. > It means being proud of having survived. > It means being proud of living in a homophobic, biphobic, transphobic society — a society that commonly treats us with contempt at best and violent hatred at worst — and still getting on with our lives. It means being proud of flourishing, in a society that commonly thinks we’re broken. Again, the emotion you hear from me is the tired frustration of tracking down and linking to relevant resources, only to conclude that it's going to waste. You write: > pretentious" to mean "trying to impress by pretending", which is pretty much the dictionary definition that has nothing to do with identity Here are some examples to show that they are more often coupled than I would expect if "pretentious" had nothing to do with identity: "Self and Pretence: Playing with Identity" - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2008.00443.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2008.... "A person who assumes a false identity makes a false pretence to which this section applies ..." - http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/clca1935262/s144b.html http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/clca1935262... "The story humorously illustrates the differences between Mrs. Johnson and her shy younger daughter Maggie, who both still adhere to traditional black culture in the rural South, and her educated, successful daughter Dee, or "Wangero" as she prefers to be called, who scorns her immediate roots in favor of a pretentious "native African" identity." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyday_Use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyday_Use "This is because saying ‘pretentious’ is a way of sharpening the borders of your identity, and most people can recognise this instantly. Calling someone pretentious is most commonly code for “this person cares more about appearances and trends than I do”. Because the other person is never really the true focus of the comment, though, it’s more important message is “I care about appearances and trends the correct amount”. ... People who say 'pretentious’ a lot, though, have fallen for a trick: they think that the best way to shore up your own identity is by bringing down people who identify differently. " - http://becausegoodbye.tumblr.com/post/42707760044/on-the-word-pretentious http://becausegoodbye.tumblr.com/post/42707760044/on-the-wor... You'll notice the last one is making my exact point, and much better than I did. You should read that link. A dictionary defines words, but only rarely gives usage hints. For example, consider the words 'graveyard' and 'cemetery'. Both mean the same thing. But in the mid-1900s England, the former was more likely to be used by someone in the upper class. This was part of the "U and non-U" discussion on social dialects, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_and_non-U_English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_and_non-U_English . General purpose dictionaries are not going to record that distinction, just like a general purpose dictionary won't go into the deeper conceptual nuances of how 'pretentious' is used. That's not the point of most dictionaries. You therefore cannot use a lack of a specific dictionary definition as negative evidence for a connection.