3 ms·

>Most people aren’t of any single race. I disagree. In fact, I'd say that people (at least all the ones we know) are entirely one race: Human.

Retric 5y ago
Even then we are early modern humans (Homo Sapiens) mixed with some Neanderthal.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >Even then we are early modern humans (Homo Sapiens) mixed with some Neanderthal. That's both reductive and misleading. There is only one living sentient primate species on this planet. Homo Sapiens. What's more, it's entirely possible that all humans are descended from a subset of 3-10k individuals who lived ~75,000 years ago[1]. Even more, there is often more genetic diversity within human groupings than between them[0]. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
aiisjustanif 5y ago
Tell that to history, current social issues, vitamin D levels, sickle cell and the cops.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  "Racism" is an outdated concept and should be relegated to the dustbin of history. What it is we're discussing is bigotry. And it should be called out for what it is: hateful prejudice for no real reason at all other than the anger and hatred of those who practice it.
  - Retric 5y ago
    You’re assuming people universally have strong negative feelings about race, but that’s on you. Being Irish for example used to have a lot of baggage in the US, but that went away even though people still identify as being of Irish descent.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >You’re assuming people universally have strong negative feelings about race, but that’s on you. I'm not assuming that at all. Rather, I asserted that "race" as a social construct is outdated given our understanding of genetics and the extreme genetic similarity of all humans. Whether anyone else agrees with me or has any particular feelings about "race" one way or another is irrelevant to anything I wrote.
      - Retric 5y ago
        Race isn’t outdated, they do represent district groups who shared genetic information significantly more frequently internally than with each other. For example Native Americans likely had fairly regular contact via Eskimos to Asia and thus everyone else, but it was a tenuous link. Clearly these groups can be further subdivided or even combined, but they do actually represent something “real” even if the details are more complex than people used to be aware of. As transportation has improved they’re becoming less relevant. In say 1,000 years things might become so blurred as to render them irrelevant, but for now it still meaningful. The social concept of race is more iffy. As I pointed out if we treat 3/4 white 1/4th black as black then of course it doesn’t represent the underlying reality well.
        nobody9999 5y ago
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
rovolo 5y ago
You're saying a true thing (there is no genetic basis for human race), but you're using that to say no-one should talk about race (a social classification). As an exercise, should the Civil Rights movement of the 60s have avoided mentioning race? Should Asian Americans not discuss how anti-china sentiment during covid is effectively anti-asian sentiment? There are good conversations to be had about when race should be discussed, but it sounds like you're advocating for a blanket ban.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >but you're using that to say no-one should talk about race (a social classification) Where did I even imply that? My point is that the stuff that people consider defining characteristics of "race" are minor genetic differences and should be irrelevant. That some folks feel otherwise is a teaching opportunity. What's more, the social construct of "race" is just arbitrary and capricious. As such, while we certainly should address the ideas and behaviors around bigotry (because that's what it is, as "racism" isn't an actual thing unless you're referring to a species other than homo sapiens.), and we should call it that, otherwise we're perpetuating the ignorance and hatred of such bigoted beliefs. So let's not fiddle around with imprecise (and flat wrong) ideas about "race" and instead discuss the issues of bigotry. One is a bunch of bullshit made up by bigoted scumbags, and the other is the actual issue/situation. >There are good conversations to be had about when race should be discussed, but it sounds like you're advocating for a blanket ban. Let's rephrase the above: "There are good conversations to be had about when bigotry should be discussed. As for what I'm advocating, either I'm an extremely poor communicator, or you read what you wanted to read into my statement. I'll leave the decision about which it is to the readers.
  - rovolo 5y ago
    > Where did I even imply that? Granted, I did extrapolate from your first response. I said so because race (like class) is a social reality in the US, and being mixed race does mean that you experience the US differently. You replied to > America is used to 3/4 white 1/4 black being considered black by saying there are no races, which is literally true. However, you're also implying that people should not identify themselves as Black or White or a mix. Some of that is perfectly valid since the blood quantum system was oppressive. But you're also saying that people should only identify themselves as human, and doing otherwise is bigotry. Sometimes you need to identify yourself as a minority group to find a community of people who share experience with you. Should people not identify as Black, or avoid celebrating Black success because there isn't a genetic basis to calling themselves or others Black? Maybe you'd benefit from thinking about the similarities (and differences) between race and ethnicity. Being White/Black in the U.S. is both a racial and ethnic deal. People can identify as Black while recognizing that there is no concrete test which can identify them as Black.

Retric 5y ago

Even then we are early modern humans (Homo Sapiens) mixed with some Neanderthal.

nobody9999 5y ago
>Even then we are early modern humans (Homo Sapiens) mixed with some Neanderthal. That's both reductive and misleading. There is only one living sentient primate species on this planet. Homo Sapiens. What's more, it's entirely possible that all humans are descended from a subset of 3-10k individuals who lived ~75,000 years ago[1]. Even more, there is often more genetic diversity within human groupings than between them[0]. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

aiisjustanif 5y ago

Tell that to history, current social issues, vitamin D levels, sickle cell and the cops.

nobody9999 5y ago
"Racism" is an outdated concept and should be relegated to the dustbin of history. What it is we're discussing is bigotry. And it should be called out for what it is: hateful prejudice for no real reason at all other than the anger and hatred of those who practice it.
- Retric 5y ago
  You’re assuming people universally have strong negative feelings about race, but that’s on you. Being Irish for example used to have a lot of baggage in the US, but that went away even though people still identify as being of Irish descent.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >You’re assuming people universally have strong negative feelings about race, but that’s on you. I'm not assuming that at all. Rather, I asserted that "race" as a social construct is outdated given our understanding of genetics and the extreme genetic similarity of all humans. Whether anyone else agrees with me or has any particular feelings about "race" one way or another is irrelevant to anything I wrote.
    - Retric 5y ago
      Race isn’t outdated, they do represent district groups who shared genetic information significantly more frequently internally than with each other. For example Native Americans likely had fairly regular contact via Eskimos to Asia and thus everyone else, but it was a tenuous link. Clearly these groups can be further subdivided or even combined, but they do actually represent something “real” even if the details are more complex than people used to be aware of. As transportation has improved they’re becoming less relevant. In say 1,000 years things might become so blurred as to render them irrelevant, but for now it still meaningful. The social concept of race is more iffy. As I pointed out if we treat 3/4 white 1/4th black as black then of course it doesn’t represent the underlying reality well.
      - nobody9999 5y ago
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

rovolo 5y ago

You're saying a true thing (there is no genetic basis for human race), but you're using that to say no-one should talk about race (a social classification). As an exercise, should the Civil Rights movement of the 60s have avoided mentioning race? Should Asian Americans not discuss how anti-china sentiment during covid is effectively anti-asian sentiment? There are good conversations to be had about when race should be discussed, but it sounds like you're advocating for a blanket ban.

nobody9999 5y ago
>but you're using that to say no-one should talk about race (a social classification) Where did I even imply that? My point is that the stuff that people consider defining characteristics of "race" are minor genetic differences and should be irrelevant. That some folks feel otherwise is a teaching opportunity. What's more, the social construct of "race" is just arbitrary and capricious. As such, while we certainly should address the ideas and behaviors around bigotry (because that's what it is, as "racism" isn't an actual thing unless you're referring to a species other than homo sapiens.), and we should call it that, otherwise we're perpetuating the ignorance and hatred of such bigoted beliefs. So let's not fiddle around with imprecise (and flat wrong) ideas about "race" and instead discuss the issues of bigotry. One is a bunch of bullshit made up by bigoted scumbags, and the other is the actual issue/situation. >There are good conversations to be had about when race should be discussed, but it sounds like you're advocating for a blanket ban. Let's rephrase the above: "There are good conversations to be had about when bigotry should be discussed. As for what I'm advocating, either I'm an extremely poor communicator, or you read what you wanted to read into my statement. I'll leave the decision about which it is to the readers.
- rovolo 5y ago
  > Where did I even imply that? Granted, I did extrapolate from your first response. I said so because race (like class) is a social reality in the US, and being mixed race does mean that you experience the US differently. You replied to > America is used to 3/4 white 1/4 black being considered black by saying there are no races, which is literally true. However, you're also implying that people should not identify themselves as Black or White or a mix. Some of that is perfectly valid since the blood quantum system was oppressive. But you're also saying that people should only identify themselves as human, and doing otherwise is bigotry. Sometimes you need to identify yourself as a minority group to find a community of people who share experience with you. Should people not identify as Black, or avoid celebrating Black success because there isn't a genetic basis to calling themselves or others Black? Maybe you'd benefit from thinking about the similarities (and differences) between race and ethnicity. Being White/Black in the U.S. is both a racial and ethnic deal. People can identify as Black while recognizing that there is no concrete test which can identify them as Black.