5 ms·

As far as I can tell, race has no taxonomic significance when applied to modern humans, because all modern humans are the same species. The system for grouping

As far as I can tell, race has no taxonomic significance when applied to modern humans, because all modern humans are the same species. The system for grouping people together by facial features seems to be a social construct most of the time. I can think of a partial exception to this rule: facial features which can be linked to diseases and injuries (for example, the tell-tale evidence of stroke make it possible to know stroke-victimness by face). I call that a partial exception, because there are groups of face-affecting conditions which look similar. What do we mean when we talk about human races anyway? I've been thinking about this for a few minutes now and I am stumped.

cies 8y ago
I feel that the new "PC" word for race is ethnicity. As I understand it serves pretty much the same purpose.
- watwut 8y ago
  Ethnicity is defined primary through shared history and social grouping. Race is defined through genetics. They share some of the same, but are not the same.
  - cies 8y ago
    > Ethnicity is defined primary through shared history and social grouping. Agreed. But I feel ethnicity is "used" in a way like "race". > Race is defined through genetics. Sure? I thought genetically race had a very weak basis, and that it was basically some aspects of bodily looks and location of genetical/blood origination? The main reason we needed ethnicity as a term, because race was "simply not there in the genes" and thus "mostly about looks" which gave it very little use in proper science.
    - watwut 8y ago
      I don't think I agree with second. Germans have clearly different culture, language, habits, preferences, values and humor then Czechs. Wo ha different all above from French. A lot of it remains when group emirates but keeps being close knit. That is ethicity.
asianthrowaway 8y ago
All dog breeds are part of the same species, and dog breeds are fundamentally a social construct. Does this mean that we need to stop categorizing dogs into breeds? I find it hard to understand how some people still cling to 1960s "there is no such thing as race" arguments while in the real world you can send a swab of spit to 23andme or similar services and get a precise breakdown of your ethnic background down to the percentage.
- aluren 8y ago
  "Race" is just how you look to other people and how that ties to your status. Its categorization is very much country dependent - Hispanic people are often not considered white in America, while no one would be making that distinction in Europe. On the contrary, Europeans often don't consider Arabs white, even though they often look white. The US and Europe have things like 'white', 'black', 'asian' but Latin Americans are much more nuanced. There are people that would be considered 'white' in Brazil and 'black' in the US. There are also things like passing [1] and so forth. All I'm saying is, this has nothing to do with the results of a 23andme sequencing run, which would provide details about your ancestry. Race (in the US sense) correlates pretty weakly with ancestry, e.g. all the early humans for most of human history were black. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_(racial_identity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_(racial_identity)
  - asianthrowaway 8y ago
    > Its categorization is very much country dependent - Hispanic people are often not considered white in America Hispanic is not a race. Latin american history is complex and a lot of mixing happened. You do have hispanics who are predominantly european and are considered white in the USA, and they're appropriately called "white hispanics". > while no one would be making that distinction in Europe. Where do you get that from? I'm pretty sure a guy looking like Hugo Chavez would stand out in Sweden. > On the contrary, Europeans often don't consider Arabs white, even though they often look white. Same thing, what's an arab? The term arab is applied to people as distinct as yemenites, moroccans and syrian alawites. It's not a racial category. It's true that levantines can look white (Bashar al Assad for instance). > The US and Europe have things like 'white', 'black', 'asian' but Latin Americans are much more nuanced. There are people that would be considered 'white' in Brazil and 'black' in the US. There are also things like passing [1] and so forth. You're cherry picking. It's true that mixed race individuals (like a lot of Brazilians) are hard to classify, because they're precisely mixed! Same thing with other "border populations" like Turks. I'd like to see a full blooded Nigerian attempt to "pass" as Japanese in Japan. You know very well that is a ridiculous idea. > All I'm saying is, this has nothing to do with the results of a 23andme sequencing run, which would provide details about your ancestry. Ancestry and race are the exact same thing, since racial characteristics are passed down genetically. You're just playing semantics. > Race (in the US sense) correlates pretty weakly with ancestry It actually correlates really well. For instance, having all of your ancestors moving from Europe a hundred years ago correlates pretty well with you ending up white (and not a pygmy or australian aboriginal). > Race (in the US sense) correlates pretty weakly with ancestry, e.g. all the early humans for most of human history were black. I don't even know what to say to that. I guess we're all unicellular organisms too, if you go even further back...

cies 8y ago

I feel that the new "PC" word for race is ethnicity. As I understand it serves pretty much the same purpose.

watwut 8y ago
Ethnicity is defined primary through shared history and social grouping. Race is defined through genetics. They share some of the same, but are not the same.
- cies 8y ago
  > Ethnicity is defined primary through shared history and social grouping. Agreed. But I feel ethnicity is "used" in a way like "race". > Race is defined through genetics. Sure? I thought genetically race had a very weak basis, and that it was basically some aspects of bodily looks and location of genetical/blood origination? The main reason we needed ethnicity as a term, because race was "simply not there in the genes" and thus "mostly about looks" which gave it very little use in proper science.
  - watwut 8y ago
    I don't think I agree with second. Germans have clearly different culture, language, habits, preferences, values and humor then Czechs. Wo ha different all above from French. A lot of it remains when group emirates but keeps being close knit. That is ethicity.

asianthrowaway 8y ago

All dog breeds are part of the same species, and dog breeds are fundamentally a social construct. Does this mean that we need to stop categorizing dogs into breeds? I find it hard to understand how some people still cling to 1960s "there is no such thing as race" arguments while in the real world you can send a swab of spit to 23andme or similar services and get a precise breakdown of your ethnic background down to the percentage.

aluren 8y ago
"Race" is just how you look to other people and how that ties to your status. Its categorization is very much country dependent - Hispanic people are often not considered white in America, while no one would be making that distinction in Europe. On the contrary, Europeans often don't consider Arabs white, even though they often look white. The US and Europe have things like 'white', 'black', 'asian' but Latin Americans are much more nuanced. There are people that would be considered 'white' in Brazil and 'black' in the US. There are also things like passing [1] and so forth. All I'm saying is, this has nothing to do with the results of a 23andme sequencing run, which would provide details about your ancestry. Race (in the US sense) correlates pretty weakly with ancestry, e.g. all the early humans for most of human history were black. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_(racial_identity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_(racial_identity)
- asianthrowaway 8y ago
  > Its categorization is very much country dependent - Hispanic people are often not considered white in America Hispanic is not a race. Latin american history is complex and a lot of mixing happened. You do have hispanics who are predominantly european and are considered white in the USA, and they're appropriately called "white hispanics". > while no one would be making that distinction in Europe. Where do you get that from? I'm pretty sure a guy looking like Hugo Chavez would stand out in Sweden. > On the contrary, Europeans often don't consider Arabs white, even though they often look white. Same thing, what's an arab? The term arab is applied to people as distinct as yemenites, moroccans and syrian alawites. It's not a racial category. It's true that levantines can look white (Bashar al Assad for instance). > The US and Europe have things like 'white', 'black', 'asian' but Latin Americans are much more nuanced. There are people that would be considered 'white' in Brazil and 'black' in the US. There are also things like passing [1] and so forth. You're cherry picking. It's true that mixed race individuals (like a lot of Brazilians) are hard to classify, because they're precisely mixed! Same thing with other "border populations" like Turks. I'd like to see a full blooded Nigerian attempt to "pass" as Japanese in Japan. You know very well that is a ridiculous idea. > All I'm saying is, this has nothing to do with the results of a 23andme sequencing run, which would provide details about your ancestry. Ancestry and race are the exact same thing, since racial characteristics are passed down genetically. You're just playing semantics. > Race (in the US sense) correlates pretty weakly with ancestry It actually correlates really well. For instance, having all of your ancestors moving from Europe a hundred years ago correlates pretty well with you ending up white (and not a pygmy or australian aboriginal). > Race (in the US sense) correlates pretty weakly with ancestry, e.g. all the early humans for most of human history were black. I don't even know what to say to that. I guess we're all unicellular organisms too, if you go even further back...