5 ms·
>this argument applies to ethnic/language/religious groups in general, not just races OK, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it applies to races. >
by jimmyk 10y ago
>this argument applies to ethnic/language/religious groups in general, not just races
OK, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it applies to races.
>Sort of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_histori.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_histori.... shows that in 1850 South Carolina had 668k people of whom 385k were enslaved (hence not choosing where they lived, exactly). I didn't look up the number of free blacks, but I expect it was quite small given the laws about re-enslavement at the time. Anyway, more like the white people were living in a black area there. ;)
Haha fair enough, but in this case we'd expect interracial breeding rates in certain areas to be extremely high (approaching 50%) but we see nothing even close to that.
>But the real point is that for a while there various parts of the country did _not_ have appreciable black populations because slaves had not been brought there while your typical plantation had a much larger black population than white population. Voila, _involuntary_ geographic inhomogeneity.
If the rates of interbreeding are diminished because one race purposefully holds the other race in small confined geographical areas, that's still an example of interbreeding being limited despite close proximity (i.e. less than a few miles).
>Sure. I don't think anyone reasonable is arguing there was no preference on the matter.
Someone was arguing that there is a preference for interbreeding. That's what this discussion started over -- a claim that humans 'enthusiastically' interbreed.
>And yet very few people nowadays will argue that, say, the French and the Germans are separate sub-species, or were separate sub-species 100 years ago.
You're missing the crucial first criteria for subspecies, which is that they must be "separate groups that are clearly distinct from one another". Frenchmen are not clearly distinct from Germans. White republicans are not clearly distinct from white democrats. White catholics are not clearly distinct from white protestants. White people are clearly distinct from black people.
- bzbarsky 10y ago> Frenchmen are not clearly distinct from Germans Really? You think that walking up and trying to talk to one won't make it obvious which is which within about 30 seconds? If you really prefer, replace French and Germans with Swedes and Italians. Even the visual appearance there is not that far off from the visual appearance difference between "white" and "black" as the terms were defined in the US in the 19th century. In both cases you can find some people that can "pass" as the other group, but the typical members look quite different.
- jimmyk 10y ago>Really? You think that walking up and trying to talk to one won't make it obvious which is which within about 30 seconds? I'm clearly talking about ethnic Frenchmen and ethnic Germans. I would not be able to tell an ethnic German raised in France from an ethnic Frenchman raised in France. >replace French and Germans with Swedes and Italians. Northern Italians I think you'd have trouble telling from Swedes. Southern Italians can trace a lot of their ancestry back to non-Europeans and so look different.
- bzbarsky 10y agoActually, I have a historical example I'd like your opinion on. 18th century Warsaw, Jews and Poles. Clearly distinct groups, near-zero interbreeding. Separate sub-species?
- jimmyk 10y agoIn what way were they clearly distinct? Was it their culture, i.e. how they spoke and how they dressed, or was it their genetics, i.e. how they looked?
- bzbarsky 10y agoYes to both. It was also their culture, i.e. how they looked: some of them were circumcised and some were not. Members of the two groups would have had no trouble telling each other apart.
- jimmyk 10y agoCould you describe to me how they looked different? I'm not looking for cultural body modifications, but descriptions like skin color, skull shape, and cranial capacity.
- bzbarsky 10y agoTypically somewhat different shape of facial features. E.g. the long nose stereotype is there for a reason. The fact that you think cranial capacity is a "looks different" that would affect people's choice of sexual partners is ... odd. It's not something you can tell from the outside, typically.
- jimmyk 10y ago> E.g. the long nose stereotype is there for a reason. Is there actually any science behind that? I'm under the impression that it's not actually possible to identify any ethnic groups based on the stereotypical jew nose. >The fact that you think cranial capacity is a "looks different" that would affect people's choice of sexual partners is ... odd. I don't think that. You're asking me if Jews and Poles were different sub-species. Different sub-species must have different patterns of attributes. It doesn't have to be an attribute that people sexually select for, or that can be observed from the outside. I'm asking whether scientists could find such different patterns of attributes. My guess is that the answer is that there wouldn't be anywhere near sufficient differences to warrant considering them a sub-species, but I don't have near enough information to say.