4 ms·

BTW, as someone who is Black — I didn’t find a single thing in your post racist. It talked about race, but not in a way to oppress or demean any group. At lea

BTW, as someone who is Black — I didn’t find a single thing in your post racist. It talked about race, but not in a way to oppress or demean any group. At least that was my take.

brmgb 6y ago
That's because you are American. As a foreigner, I find the idea that you can label a group as "black" and imagine it to be both descriptive and homegenous enough to see meaningful genetic variations relative to another group labeled as "white" somewhat funny and verging on racism (but then again I have been conditioned from childhood to see the word race applied to humans as something deeply racist whereas it is seen as completely innocuous in an American cultural context).
- microcolonel 6y ago
  > I find the idea that you can label a group as "black" and imagine it to be both descriptive and homegenous enough... No, the whole distinction of black is dark skin colour, which is a proxy for skin melanin, which is (far as I'm aware) the primary factor determining vitamin D production from sun exposure (which is not directly useful in the body, but is the form that is often measured). Also, because of the effect on vitamin D production from sun exposure, there is some evidence that other aspects of how vitamin D is handled by the body are different for people with darker skin, maybe because their ancestors got more than enough of it. This isn't even about social categories “Black” and “White”, it is literally about the direct correlates of skin colour.
  - singemonkey 6y ago
    I mean, black and dark skin colour are overlapping sets, but the word black doesn't define everyone with dark(er) skin. If you mean darker skin (darker than what???) then use that term. Accuracy is important.
  - kipchak 6y ago
    >This isn't even about social categories “Black” and “White”, it is literally about the direct correlates of skin colour. To expand upon this according to an ONS study "Blacks" in England and whales had a 1.9 times higher rate of dying compared to "Whites" after socioeconomic controls, while Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic groups were 1.6 times more likely.[1] This makes sense if you figure lighter skin was a evolved trait for those in latitudes that got less sun. [2] [1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/coronavirusrelateddeathsbyethnicgroupenglandandwales/2march2020to10april2020 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde... [2]https://www.pnas.org/content/107/Supplement_2/8962 https://www.pnas.org/content/107/Supplement_2/8962
    - secondcoming 6y ago
      Whales?
      - Bud 6y ago
        Let's assume that was just a particularly hilarious typo for "Wales".
        kipchak 6y ago
        Indeed, though thinking about it people living in "whales" would probably have low vitamin D levels as well.
        umanwizard 6y ago
        I spent about 3 seconds wondering why in the world you were talking about whale vitamin-D levels, and thinking it was vaguely offensive that you were comparing ethnic/racial groups of humans to marine mammals. Then I remembered that Wales exists :)
letstryagain2 6y ago
I mean, what could be racist about it? That he calls Americans with higher skin pigmentation black and not African-American? Reminds me of the story when a naturalized white South African in the US got a scholarship for African-Americans and people got mad.
asveikau 6y ago
I'm a white dude, so obviously I can't speak for black people and it's not typically appropriate for me to get super offended about this on your behalf, but personally there's something so jarring to me when people use "blacks" as a plural noun. I think by prior experience, when I hear it put that way it subconsciously primes me to expect the person speaking is angry and racist. I've just heard so many people say it that way in agitated tones. Then again, I've also definitely heard older people talk that way and they don't seem to mean harm or be angry.
crispyporkbites 6y ago
It’s not a racist post obviously- but it is false to group people into the American race definitions in a scientific discussion, because it doesn’t hold true and has been debunked a long time ago as a genetic definition. It can apply from a socio economic angle, but that applies only in America or a country that uses American racial profiles for systemic racism. Edit: Aware this is a controversial viewpoint in non-scientific communities, so here's some interesting comments from Wikipedia on the subject: > Modern scholarship regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society.[2] While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.[1][3][4] > Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time, often involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits.[5] Today, scientists consider such biological essentialism obsolete,[6] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[7][8][9][10][11] > Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable,[12][13][14][15][16][17] scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways.[18] While some researchers continue to use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behavior, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is inherently naive[7] or simplistic.[19] Still others argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance because all living humans belong to the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[20][21]
- umanwizard 6y ago
  I’ve gotten blood tests done where the normal range for various parameters was listed as being different for different racial groups. If there is no correlation between genes and “American race definitions”, how is this possible?
  - crispyporkbites 6y ago
    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-gen... https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-07... https://theconversation.com/racism-is-real-race-is-not-a-philosophers-perspective-82504 https://theconversation.com/racism-is-real-race-is-not-a-phi... To add a bit more weight it’s worth reading the intro to race on Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

BTW, as someone who is Black — I didn’t find a single thing in your post racist. It talked about race, but not in a way to oppress or demean any group. At least that was my take.

brmgb 6y ago

That's because you are American. As a foreigner, I find the idea that you can label a group as "black" and imagine it to be both descriptive and homegenous enough to see meaningful genetic variations relative to another group labeled as "white" somewhat funny and verging on racism (but then again I have been conditioned from childhood to see the word race applied to humans as something deeply racist whereas it is seen as completely innocuous in an American cultural context).

microcolonel 6y ago
> I find the idea that you can label a group as "black" and imagine it to be both descriptive and homegenous enough... No, the whole distinction of black is dark skin colour, which is a proxy for skin melanin, which is (far as I'm aware) the primary factor determining vitamin D production from sun exposure (which is not directly useful in the body, but is the form that is often measured). Also, because of the effect on vitamin D production from sun exposure, there is some evidence that other aspects of how vitamin D is handled by the body are different for people with darker skin, maybe because their ancestors got more than enough of it. This isn't even about social categories “Black” and “White”, it is literally about the direct correlates of skin colour.
- singemonkey 6y ago
  I mean, black and dark skin colour are overlapping sets, but the word black doesn't define everyone with dark(er) skin. If you mean darker skin (darker than what???) then use that term. Accuracy is important.
- kipchak 6y ago
  >This isn't even about social categories “Black” and “White”, it is literally about the direct correlates of skin colour. To expand upon this according to an ONS study "Blacks" in England and whales had a 1.9 times higher rate of dying compared to "Whites" after socioeconomic controls, while Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic groups were 1.6 times more likely.[1] This makes sense if you figure lighter skin was a evolved trait for those in latitudes that got less sun. [2] [1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/coronavirusrelateddeathsbyethnicgroupenglandandwales/2march2020to10april2020 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde... [2]https://www.pnas.org/content/107/Supplement_2/8962 https://www.pnas.org/content/107/Supplement_2/8962
  - secondcoming 6y ago
    Whales?
    - Bud 6y ago
      Let's assume that was just a particularly hilarious typo for "Wales".
      - kipchak 6y ago
        Indeed, though thinking about it people living in "whales" would probably have low vitamin D levels as well.
        umanwizard 6y ago
        I spent about 3 seconds wondering why in the world you were talking about whale vitamin-D levels, and thinking it was vaguely offensive that you were comparing ethnic/racial groups of humans to marine mammals. Then I remembered that Wales exists :)

letstryagain2 6y ago

I mean, what could be racist about it? That he calls Americans with higher skin pigmentation black and not African-American? Reminds me of the story when a naturalized white South African in the US got a scholarship for African-Americans and people got mad.

asveikau 6y ago

I'm a white dude, so obviously I can't speak for black people and it's not typically appropriate for me to get super offended about this on your behalf, but personally there's something so jarring to me when people use "blacks" as a plural noun. I think by prior experience, when I hear it put that way it subconsciously primes me to expect the person speaking is angry and racist. I've just heard so many people say it that way in agitated tones. Then again, I've also definitely heard older people talk that way and they don't seem to mean harm or be angry.

crispyporkbites 6y ago

It’s not a racist post obviously- but it is false to group people into the American race definitions in a scientific discussion, because it doesn’t hold true and has been debunked a long time ago as a genetic definition. It can apply from a socio economic angle, but that applies only in America or a country that uses American racial profiles for systemic racism. Edit: Aware this is a controversial viewpoint in non-scientific communities, so here's some interesting comments from Wikipedia on the subject: > Modern scholarship regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society.[2] While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.[1][3][4] > Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time, often involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits.[5] Today, scientists consider such biological essentialism obsolete,[6] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[7][8][9][10][11] > Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable,[12][13][14][15][16][17] scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways.[18] While some researchers continue to use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behavior, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is inherently naive[7] or simplistic.[19] Still others argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance because all living humans belong to the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[20][21]

umanwizard 6y ago
I’ve gotten blood tests done where the normal range for various parameters was listed as being different for different racial groups. If there is no correlation between genes and “American race definitions”, how is this possible?
- crispyporkbites 6y ago
  https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-gen... https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-07... https://theconversation.com/racism-is-real-race-is-not-a-philosophers-perspective-82504 https://theconversation.com/racism-is-real-race-is-not-a-phi... To add a bit more weight it’s worth reading the intro to race on Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)