3 ms·

> Colloquially they are pretty much interchangeable as rarely anybody uses "race" in the proper modern anthropological context. Seems like a straw man to be ho

by ttt0 6y ago

> Colloquially they are pretty much interchangeable as rarely anybody uses "race" in the proper modern anthropological context. Seems like a straw man to be honest, but I don't know, maybe it's true. Not sure what the "modern" context is either, since some people were trying to convince me that "according to the science" biology basically doesn't exist or that you're born as a blank slate, but oh well. > Some cultural groups in Europe and Africa can have more in common than comparing European with European/African with African groups due to the wide diversity among cultural groups even inside the same geographical region. Any example? > But in actuality neither Europe nor Africa are culturally homogeneous. That's right, but there is much more overlap within Europe and Africa respectively in terms of basically everything you can think of than between them. > A reality that's too often lost in the discourse when cultures are compared like they are monolithic blocks, particularly when these blocks are defined by color of skin. Again, the same thing can be said about ethnic groups. Ethnic groups are not a monolith either. Plus, a skin color is one of the features of an ethnic group. There are no asian Nigerians, there are no black Ukrainians, etc. Sure, you might become a citizen or marry a person of some ethnic group, but that doesn't necessarily make you a part of it.

tinyhouse 6y ago
It's true skin color is a feature of an ethnic group. But it's not a unique feature. Most of the middle east is white (a bit darker than the average white American but still white). In the US they are classified as white even though they have very little in common with the majority group of white Americans. Basically what I really want to say is that environment is the main thing that defines people, not skin color. The environment someone is raised in is far more important than skin color. African Americans for example makes much more sense to me as a classification than blacks.
- ttt0 6y ago
  > The environment someone is raised in is far more important than skin color. African Americans for example makes much more sense to me as a classification than blacks. So you want to essentially just exclude from blacks, like what, Sub-Saharan Africans? I don't know American demographics in detail, but I imagine that African Americans have to make up an overwhelming majority of the black population, so would that really make any difference? Or is it just another rebranding? Breaking things down to specific ethnic groups is surely useful in some cases, but is it really for everything? And I'm not sure what the point of that even is or what problem is it supposed to fix. It's still skin color, just a little bit more specific. I mean, you can be a white kid raised in the exact same environment as African Americans and that doesn't make you an African American in any stretch of imagination. I wouldn't mind being more specific about it, but I just don't get why replacing race with ethnic groups would change anything. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but my impression is that you want to reject race just for historical reasons, but at the same time you want to keep ethnicities around, because you're still not crazy enough to take it to its full logical conclusion, go full Lysenkoism and deny genetics all together. Probably going to change in near future and this seemingly progressive idea will be considered as a serious thought crime, but hey, what do I know.

by ttt0 6y ago

tinyhouse 6y ago

It's true skin color is a feature of an ethnic group. But it's not a unique feature. Most of the middle east is white (a bit darker than the average white American but still white). In the US they are classified as white even though they have very little in common with the majority group of white Americans. Basically what I really want to say is that environment is the main thing that defines people, not skin color. The environment someone is raised in is far more important than skin color. African Americans for example makes much more sense to me as a classification than blacks.

ttt0 6y ago
> The environment someone is raised in is far more important than skin color. African Americans for example makes much more sense to me as a classification than blacks. So you want to essentially just exclude from blacks, like what, Sub-Saharan Africans? I don't know American demographics in detail, but I imagine that African Americans have to make up an overwhelming majority of the black population, so would that really make any difference? Or is it just another rebranding? Breaking things down to specific ethnic groups is surely useful in some cases, but is it really for everything? And I'm not sure what the point of that even is or what problem is it supposed to fix. It's still skin color, just a little bit more specific. I mean, you can be a white kid raised in the exact same environment as African Americans and that doesn't make you an African American in any stretch of imagination. I wouldn't mind being more specific about it, but I just don't get why replacing race with ethnic groups would change anything. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but my impression is that you want to reject race just for historical reasons, but at the same time you want to keep ethnicities around, because you're still not crazy enough to take it to its full logical conclusion, go full Lysenkoism and deny genetics all together. Probably going to change in near future and this seemingly progressive idea will be considered as a serious thought crime, but hey, what do I know.