3 ms·
I must say I don't understand your position. You adopt a definition of "race" so extremely narrow that it doesn't describe anything in the real world. Then you
by yummyfajitas 11y ago
I must say I don't understand your position. You adopt a definition of "race" so extremely narrow that it doesn't describe anything in the real world. Then you use the term "cluster" to describe the same exact concept that most people use the term "race" to describe. Finally, you call people racist if they don't s/race/cluster/g.
Why go through all this wordplay just to define most folks as racist? Why not simply adopt the common usage of the word "race"?
And with this definition of racist (uses one set of jargon rather than another), why should we care if someone is racist?
(I say your definition is uncommon because most people use "race" to refer to what you call "cluster". For example, the US Census asks for "race" rather than "cluster".)
- ewofwkweoifd 11y agoI guess in my experience people use the word race to mean any one of subspecies, cluster, or culture. Generally speaking, the biologists and the pro-genocide / pro-segregation people mean subspecies, the non-biologist geeks mean cluster, and the social scientists mean culture ("race is a social construct"). A lot of lay people don't really know what they mean. This just comes from asking people I talk to what they mean by race when they say race / racism / racist. So I just prefer to take the definition of race that we use for all other species, for the sake of accuracy. I can believe if in your experience everyone thinks race means cluster. And probably I could have gone on less of a polemic about it, so thanks for listening. Interestingly, someone told me once that the anthropologists say that the best way to classify humans is on the basis of the food they eat. I don't have a source for that but it just seems like such an effective way to partition people.