4 ms·

you say “obviously” there is no genetic criterion for being Latino... there’s nothing obvious about that at all. you say here yourself they aren’t a random samp

you say “obviously” there is no genetic criterion for being Latino... there’s nothing obvious about that at all. you say here yourself they aren’t a random sample of the population - then what are they? and whatever it is that ties these individuals together, I’d wager there’s a genetic history overlapping in those tying elements. Or else you’d find much more ancestral diversity within “Latinos” (or “Asians”, or “Blacks” or “Italians”. there’s a reason these partially-cultural-mostly-ancestral groups _tend_ to have similar ancestry. tend.) just one example of the genetic angle of Latino-ness: https://blog.23andme.com/ancestry/latino-ancestry/ https://blog.23andme.com/ancestry/latino-ancestry/ if you go far enough back, we’re all african, and if you go far enough forward, we’re all exactly X% everything after enough gene-mingling. but we’re not at that X% mix and we’re also not all african. we’re in an in-between stage where the cultural groups that are typically called “races” in this in-between moment on average tend to share ancestry and as a result, on average tend to be genetically similar. why are you making this sound like it’s a wild claim? I think of it as similar to taxonomy of species - there’s no line during evolution where something stops being one species and starts being another. just like there’s no hard line between races. but a sparrow is clearly not a giraffe. that’s a useful comment about their genetic differences that may or may not give you information related to the correlations of those differences. > “Naturally there are rough correlations between genes and ‘race’ in some instances” you don’t seem comfortable letting this fact lie without caveating the hell out of it, which makes your position seem ideologically motivated - which makes me question how much truth you’re willing to accept without obfuscating.

foldr 7y ago
A Latino could have entirely white European ancestry or entirely indigenous ancestry (and those are far from the only possibilities). I think you just don't know what a Latino is (?) The blog post you link to might help you out here: "Latinos — people who trace their ancestry to the ethnically diverse regions of Latin America." "So for example, on average, people of Mexico have about 4 percent African ancestry, while for the average Puerto Rican the percentage is much higher." Comparing racial differences in humans to species differences is wildly inaccurate biologically, and a racist trope. I think it's clear who has the agenda here.
- vcavallo 7y ago
  i think you’re misunderstanding the important parts of the analogy (and as a result calling me a racist, which is ridiculous). i’m saying all people are on a continuum of genetic difference and that some groups are clumped together along the spectrum relative to some phenotypes and other groups are clumped together elsewhere on the spectrum relative to the same phenotypes - and that it’s easier to see differences between those groups relative to these phenotypes (an easier line to draw. say, average hair color between Pygmies and Swedes) and harder to see differences within those groups relative to the same phenotypes (harder line to draw. say, average hair color distribution within Pygmies). tell me what is racist about that observation. at no point did i claim that certain of these clumps of phenotypic groupings are correlated with being stupid or inferior or better or worse (nor would I make that claim).
  - foldr 7y ago
    Obviously you can group people according to generic similarity. That could only be false if there were no generic variation. The point is that there is no independently motivated means of grouping people according to their genes that will make, e.g., the racial classifications of current US society fall out as a result. You will get clumps, but you won't get one clump corresponding to African Americans, one group corresponding to Latinos, one group corresponding to Asian Americans, etc. etc. People who are obsessed with linking these non-genetically-defined classifications to genes are, almost invariably, racists. What other motivation could there be?
    - vcavallo 7y ago
      off the top of my head i can think of a few non-racist, potentially useful motivations. here’s a random one: say you’re an EMT responding to a medical emergency and you have limited time to check for the top few health emergencies likely in the presented situation. you know that, based on the “perceived race” of the patient, condition X is more likely given this ancestry than condition Y. this is the only visible information that would influence your decision. your time is limited - it’s only rational and responsible to check for the statistically more likely condition X before you check for condition Y. does that make this EMT a racist? or “obsessed with linking [...]”? in the same way biological sexes might have medical correlations (color blindness, for instance), the things we’re loosing calling races may also. why not use this potentially useful information in order to save resources and improve lives? i can’t help feel like you’re descending into ad hominem - you’re mostly agreeing with the facts of what i’m saying, yet claiming that looking at these facts at all makes one a racist. that’s a non-starter. the facts are the facts and what you choose to do with them is what potentially makes you a racist; not merely their acknowledgement.

foldr 7y ago

A Latino could have entirely white European ancestry or entirely indigenous ancestry (and those are far from the only possibilities). I think you just don't know what a Latino is (?) The blog post you link to might help you out here: "Latinos — people who trace their ancestry to the ethnically diverse regions of Latin America." "So for example, on average, people of Mexico have about 4 percent African ancestry, while for the average Puerto Rican the percentage is much higher." Comparing racial differences in humans to species differences is wildly inaccurate biologically, and a racist trope. I think it's clear who has the agenda here.

vcavallo 7y ago
i think you’re misunderstanding the important parts of the analogy (and as a result calling me a racist, which is ridiculous). i’m saying all people are on a continuum of genetic difference and that some groups are clumped together along the spectrum relative to some phenotypes and other groups are clumped together elsewhere on the spectrum relative to the same phenotypes - and that it’s easier to see differences between those groups relative to these phenotypes (an easier line to draw. say, average hair color between Pygmies and Swedes) and harder to see differences within those groups relative to the same phenotypes (harder line to draw. say, average hair color distribution within Pygmies). tell me what is racist about that observation. at no point did i claim that certain of these clumps of phenotypic groupings are correlated with being stupid or inferior or better or worse (nor would I make that claim).
- foldr 7y ago
  Obviously you can group people according to generic similarity. That could only be false if there were no generic variation. The point is that there is no independently motivated means of grouping people according to their genes that will make, e.g., the racial classifications of current US society fall out as a result. You will get clumps, but you won't get one clump corresponding to African Americans, one group corresponding to Latinos, one group corresponding to Asian Americans, etc. etc. People who are obsessed with linking these non-genetically-defined classifications to genes are, almost invariably, racists. What other motivation could there be?
  - vcavallo 7y ago
    off the top of my head i can think of a few non-racist, potentially useful motivations. here’s a random one: say you’re an EMT responding to a medical emergency and you have limited time to check for the top few health emergencies likely in the presented situation. you know that, based on the “perceived race” of the patient, condition X is more likely given this ancestry than condition Y. this is the only visible information that would influence your decision. your time is limited - it’s only rational and responsible to check for the statistically more likely condition X before you check for condition Y. does that make this EMT a racist? or “obsessed with linking [...]”? in the same way biological sexes might have medical correlations (color blindness, for instance), the things we’re loosing calling races may also. why not use this potentially useful information in order to save resources and improve lives? i can’t help feel like you’re descending into ad hominem - you’re mostly agreeing with the facts of what i’m saying, yet claiming that looking at these facts at all makes one a racist. that’s a non-starter. the facts are the facts and what you choose to do with them is what potentially makes you a racist; not merely their acknowledgement.