3 ms·

So, the root problem here is that species are not defined by crisp barriers, particularly when we're talking about early homonids. So the old elementary school

So, the root problem here is that species are not defined by crisp barriers, particularly when we're talking about early homonids. So the old elementary school definition of species as reproductive compatibility is just one thing considered today in choosing where to put the line. Other considerations are morphology and genetic drift. By both those measures Neanderthals are different enough to justify being a separate species, though there is some debate. Take a look at this diagram from wiki and you can see that the evolution of humans was not some sort of clean branching tree, but a messy web including substantial horizontal gene transfer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_human_evolution#/media/File:Homo_sapiens_lineage.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_human_evolution#/media/... Race is a social construct with a tenuous connection to underlying biology.

tasogare 5y ago
> Race is a social construct with a tenuous connection to underlying biology. Yes, the connection is so tenous that exactly 100% of Japanese people can guess I am a foreigner and ask where I’m from. And this despite clothing in Uniqlo.
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
  What I mean by that statement is that the visual traits used to anchor race are a very small number of relatively trivial genes. But more importantly, an accurate historical reading of racial categorization as practiced particularly in the 19th and 20th century in the US reveals that the definition of race isn't even contingent on visible differences. If you go read the writing of our founding fathers you'll find ample examples of how "white" was only applied to Anglo, Norman, Saxon, and similar ethnic groups. Germans, Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans... All of these groups were initially considered not white in US history, only to later be assimilated as white in proximate rapid reactions to immigration waves and resulting xenophobia, or similar political/social winds. A similar assimilation is currently emerging with latino Americans. The point is, yes, Japanese folk recognize you as other readily, but that other is based on what are superficial and trivial biological variations in appearance. Japan is pretty infamous for its xenophobia so I'm not quite sure why you'd bring that up as rebuttal of what I'm saying fundamentally, which remains that race is a social construct with a tenuous connection to biology.

tasogare 5y ago

> Race is a social construct with a tenuous connection to underlying biology. Yes, the connection is so tenous that exactly 100% of Japanese people can guess I am a foreigner and ask where I’m from. And this despite clothing in Uniqlo.

jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
What I mean by that statement is that the visual traits used to anchor race are a very small number of relatively trivial genes. But more importantly, an accurate historical reading of racial categorization as practiced particularly in the 19th and 20th century in the US reveals that the definition of race isn't even contingent on visible differences. If you go read the writing of our founding fathers you'll find ample examples of how "white" was only applied to Anglo, Norman, Saxon, and similar ethnic groups. Germans, Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans... All of these groups were initially considered not white in US history, only to later be assimilated as white in proximate rapid reactions to immigration waves and resulting xenophobia, or similar political/social winds. A similar assimilation is currently emerging with latino Americans. The point is, yes, Japanese folk recognize you as other readily, but that other is based on what are superficial and trivial biological variations in appearance. Japan is pretty infamous for its xenophobia so I'm not quite sure why you'd bring that up as rebuttal of what I'm saying fundamentally, which remains that race is a social construct with a tenuous connection to biology.