5 ms·

> Race is explicitly about using visible differences to mark a group of people as a “lower” class A. That is not the usage by definition. That may be your inte

> Race is explicitly about using visible differences to mark a group of people as a “lower” class A. That is not the usage by definition. That may be your interpretation, but that's not the common usage. B. That is not the common way to determine race (visible differences). Genetic markers are generally the indicator (eg Ancestry.com). C. That is not the sole reason (mark people as lower class). There are medical reasons to know the genetic ancestry of your forefathers. The is easily described as "race" and is only useful in a very general practical sense insofar as it narrows the possibilities for investigation into genetic consequences. If anyone can point out a good reason in using it for more, that isn't looking to justify other or past behavior, I'd be interested in hearing about it. I might have missed something because I really don't think about race too much.

rovolo 5y ago
Race is correlated with and impacted by ancestry/genetics, but it is not how race is defined. For example, there is far more genetic diversity within Africa than outside of Africa. All of that diversity is mostly collapsed into "Black" in US racial classification though. So, questions for you, assuming you're in the US: how do you know whether people are Black? I am sure you at least know of some individuals who are Black, so how do you know that they are Black?
- jhgb 5y ago
  > For example, there is far more genetic diversity within Africa than outside of Africa. All of that diversity is mostly collapsed into "Black" in US racial classification though. That's actually a very nice example of how genetics does matter for race because it shows the bottleneck of the small population that made it out of Africa.
  - rovolo 5y ago
    It shows how ancestry and race are somewhat related, but it doesn't show that genetics determine race. You can pick groups within "Black" who are more closely related to a random "White" person than they are to a random person from some other "Black" group. You can also pick "White" groups who are more closely related to a "Black" group than they are to other "White" groups. You can group people based on genetic similarity, but the racial classification of these genetic clumps is socially defined.
    - jhgb 5y ago
      > You can pick groups within "Black" who are more closely related to a random "White" person than they are to a random person from some other "Black" group. Sure, for an arbitrarily restricted definition of "subgroup", you can do that. Worst case of cherrypicking, you pick some two specific individuals who would satisfy your scenario (since a one-person group is also a group). Likewise you could claim that West Berlin was more similar to East Berlin because Frankfurt was much further away from both than they were to each other. Not quite sure how cherrypicking matters, though.
      - rovolo 5y ago
        For East/West Berlin, that shows that geographic closeness doesn't determine national boundaries. The national boundary can be defined in terms of geography, but geography doesn't determine national boundaries. National boundaries are defined by people. Similarly, racial boundaries are not natural genetic boundaries. Racial boundaries are defined by people. They weren't defined in terms of genetics originally, they were social and legal definitions. You could try to define race in terms of genetics, but it wouldn't exactly match historical categorizations and it won't conform to any natural genetic differences.
        jhgb 5y ago
        > racial boundaries are not natural genetic boundaries. Perhaps, but one is a function of the other. > They weren't defined in terms of genetics originally, they were social and legal definitions As far as I'm aware, they were originally actually craniometric definitions (courtesy of Blumenbach) -- unsurprisingly, because contemporary physical anthropology didn't have a lot to work with. > but it wouldn't exactly match historical categorizations Even some of your "social and legal definitions" don't match the historical craniometric categorizations. For example the peculiar historical US notion according to which the "white people" group doesn't include the Irish doesn't match Blumenbach's craniometric categorization. So I'm not sure how the arbitrarily defined US-style castes (which is what they really seem to be, cf. the "one drop rule" and such) are useful here when even older categorizations match the prehistoric reality better.
- Supermancho 5y ago
  > how do you know whether people are Black? I can't know without a genetic test. I can only assume. I assumed based on what I see, often. If a person is dark skinned, it's a convenience to call them black or "looks black" because it's a defining characteristic (associated with the sense of sight, hence - looks) that is no different from saying someone looks white. This is highly efficient as part of our shared survival mechanism across the animal kingdom (eg Mullerian mimicry). I don't find classifying people as being of a specific race, in absence of information, to be demeaning. How you use that information (known or assumed) to justify other actions, is what's demeaning. My best friend looks Chinese. He's half black half Chinese. How do I know? We know the genetics of his parents (and him). Is he black? I'm majority German mixed with English+Tennessee Chicksaw American Indian. Am I American Indian? The distinctions are rather silly and will eventually fall out of concern as time marches on, imo.
  - rovolo 5y ago
    > I can't know without a genetic test. How did people know someone was Black prior to genetic testing? It sounds like you'd answer that you'd trace their ancestry, but how would you know if their parents are Black? The answer is that people from Europe decided that people who looked like they were from sub-Saharan Africa were Black. Being Black in the US is not just your genetics or ancestry, there are also social and legal definitions. People would go to court to challenge their legal race because race wasn't defined based on a genetic test. Also, Chinese and German are not races, they are ethnicities. If your family moves from Italy to Germany, your family is probably ethnically Italian but will likely become German over time.
    - Supermancho 5y ago
      > The answer is that people from Europe decided that people who looked like they were from sub-Saharan Africa were Black. > People would go to court to challenge their legal race because race wasn't defined based on a genetic test. I'm not overly concerned with how people used to do things, especially when the methodology was flawed. I understand that some of these flawed methodologies are still used to my chagrin. Doesn't change what I think are the facts. I know there are dark skinned people from all over the earth. Black doesn't mean sub-Saharan African specifically, but it does include that area. Black is the common term used to identify the look of a very dark skinned person. You can look black and be Cuban or have ancestry from China. > Also, Chinese and German are not races, they are ethnicities. Now you're splitting hairs that I don't see. There are genetically identifiable pools. They are distinct races as far as I'm concerned. I don't care what the US Census puts on their list of "race you identify as" or whatever. > If your family moves from Italy to Germany, your family is probably ethnically Italian but will likely become German over time. Depends on the breeding pattern. You might still eat Italian "ethnic" food but, genetically your family will drift into more German.
wayoutthere 5y ago
This is some eugenics shit; I expected better from HN. How can you tell who is black from who isn’t? There are light skinned people who pass for white, and dark skinned people who don’t. Sometimes this is even within the same family with the same parents. What percentage of “black” DNA counts as “black”? Is it 25%? 10%? How can you actually measure that (the “ancestry maps” you get from sites like ancestry.com are pure fantasy with a loooooot of questionable assumptions baked in if you look into the actual science behind them). You can have African ancestry without being considered black. You can have dark skin and have a majority of European ancestry as well (which is true of many dark-skinned people in the US given the propensity of slave owners to “make their own” new slaves). Which is more important — the African ancestry or the European ancestry? Are genes associated with dark skin more powerful or something?

rovolo 5y ago

Race is correlated with and impacted by ancestry/genetics, but it is not how race is defined. For example, there is far more genetic diversity within Africa than outside of Africa. All of that diversity is mostly collapsed into "Black" in US racial classification though. So, questions for you, assuming you're in the US: how do you know whether people are Black? I am sure you at least know of some individuals who are Black, so how do you know that they are Black?

jhgb 5y ago
> For example, there is far more genetic diversity within Africa than outside of Africa. All of that diversity is mostly collapsed into "Black" in US racial classification though. That's actually a very nice example of how genetics does matter for race because it shows the bottleneck of the small population that made it out of Africa.
- rovolo 5y ago
  It shows how ancestry and race are somewhat related, but it doesn't show that genetics determine race. You can pick groups within "Black" who are more closely related to a random "White" person than they are to a random person from some other "Black" group. You can also pick "White" groups who are more closely related to a "Black" group than they are to other "White" groups. You can group people based on genetic similarity, but the racial classification of these genetic clumps is socially defined.
  - jhgb 5y ago
    > You can pick groups within "Black" who are more closely related to a random "White" person than they are to a random person from some other "Black" group. Sure, for an arbitrarily restricted definition of "subgroup", you can do that. Worst case of cherrypicking, you pick some two specific individuals who would satisfy your scenario (since a one-person group is also a group). Likewise you could claim that West Berlin was more similar to East Berlin because Frankfurt was much further away from both than they were to each other. Not quite sure how cherrypicking matters, though.
    - rovolo 5y ago
      For East/West Berlin, that shows that geographic closeness doesn't determine national boundaries. The national boundary can be defined in terms of geography, but geography doesn't determine national boundaries. National boundaries are defined by people. Similarly, racial boundaries are not natural genetic boundaries. Racial boundaries are defined by people. They weren't defined in terms of genetics originally, they were social and legal definitions. You could try to define race in terms of genetics, but it wouldn't exactly match historical categorizations and it won't conform to any natural genetic differences.
      - jhgb 5y ago
        > racial boundaries are not natural genetic boundaries. Perhaps, but one is a function of the other. > They weren't defined in terms of genetics originally, they were social and legal definitions As far as I'm aware, they were originally actually craniometric definitions (courtesy of Blumenbach) -- unsurprisingly, because contemporary physical anthropology didn't have a lot to work with. > but it wouldn't exactly match historical categorizations Even some of your "social and legal definitions" don't match the historical craniometric categorizations. For example the peculiar historical US notion according to which the "white people" group doesn't include the Irish doesn't match Blumenbach's craniometric categorization. So I'm not sure how the arbitrarily defined US-style castes (which is what they really seem to be, cf. the "one drop rule" and such) are useful here when even older categorizations match the prehistoric reality better.
Supermancho 5y ago
> how do you know whether people are Black? I can't know without a genetic test. I can only assume. I assumed based on what I see, often. If a person is dark skinned, it's a convenience to call them black or "looks black" because it's a defining characteristic (associated with the sense of sight, hence - looks) that is no different from saying someone looks white. This is highly efficient as part of our shared survival mechanism across the animal kingdom (eg Mullerian mimicry). I don't find classifying people as being of a specific race, in absence of information, to be demeaning. How you use that information (known or assumed) to justify other actions, is what's demeaning. My best friend looks Chinese. He's half black half Chinese. How do I know? We know the genetics of his parents (and him). Is he black? I'm majority German mixed with English+Tennessee Chicksaw American Indian. Am I American Indian? The distinctions are rather silly and will eventually fall out of concern as time marches on, imo.
- rovolo 5y ago
  > I can't know without a genetic test. How did people know someone was Black prior to genetic testing? It sounds like you'd answer that you'd trace their ancestry, but how would you know if their parents are Black? The answer is that people from Europe decided that people who looked like they were from sub-Saharan Africa were Black. Being Black in the US is not just your genetics or ancestry, there are also social and legal definitions. People would go to court to challenge their legal race because race wasn't defined based on a genetic test. Also, Chinese and German are not races, they are ethnicities. If your family moves from Italy to Germany, your family is probably ethnically Italian but will likely become German over time.
  - Supermancho 5y ago
    > The answer is that people from Europe decided that people who looked like they were from sub-Saharan Africa were Black. > People would go to court to challenge their legal race because race wasn't defined based on a genetic test. I'm not overly concerned with how people used to do things, especially when the methodology was flawed. I understand that some of these flawed methodologies are still used to my chagrin. Doesn't change what I think are the facts. I know there are dark skinned people from all over the earth. Black doesn't mean sub-Saharan African specifically, but it does include that area. Black is the common term used to identify the look of a very dark skinned person. You can look black and be Cuban or have ancestry from China. > Also, Chinese and German are not races, they are ethnicities. Now you're splitting hairs that I don't see. There are genetically identifiable pools. They are distinct races as far as I'm concerned. I don't care what the US Census puts on their list of "race you identify as" or whatever. > If your family moves from Italy to Germany, your family is probably ethnically Italian but will likely become German over time. Depends on the breeding pattern. You might still eat Italian "ethnic" food but, genetically your family will drift into more German.

wayoutthere 5y ago

This is some eugenics shit; I expected better from HN. How can you tell who is black from who isn’t? There are light skinned people who pass for white, and dark skinned people who don’t. Sometimes this is even within the same family with the same parents. What percentage of “black” DNA counts as “black”? Is it 25%? 10%? How can you actually measure that (the “ancestry maps” you get from sites like ancestry.com are pure fantasy with a loooooot of questionable assumptions baked in if you look into the actual science behind them). You can have African ancestry without being considered black. You can have dark skin and have a majority of European ancestry as well (which is true of many dark-skinned people in the US given the propensity of slave owners to “make their own” new slaves). Which is more important — the African ancestry or the European ancestry? Are genes associated with dark skin more powerful or something?