4 ms·

> 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 ances

• 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.
  • rovolo 5y ago
    > Black is the common term used to identify the look of a very dark skinned person. This defines Black without using genetics. I think that you're saying that other people are defining Black as a race wrongly because they aren't defining Black in terms of ancestry/genetics. I would suggest that maybe that means you shouldn't try to define Black as a genetic group because you're reusing a racial categorization which does not map to genetic categorizations.
    • Supermancho 5y ago
      > I think that you're saying that other people are defining Black as a race wrongly because they aren't defining Black in terms of ancestry/genetics. Correct. > I would suggest that maybe that means you shouldn't try to define Black I don't use it as a definition, which I've clarified multiple times. Black can be a colloquialism for recognition of a characteristic. It's useful, so I will continue to use it. This has nothing to do with whether or not I think they are <arbitrary race>
      • rovolo 5y ago
        > > I think that you're saying that other people are defining Black as a race wrongly because they aren't defining Black in terms of ancestry/genetics. > Correct. I don't think you're matching the "common usage" of "race" when you define it as synonymous with ancestry. You can use genetics to track your ancestry, but you're using ethnic categories when you trace your ancestry to "German mixed with English+Tennessee Chicksaw American Indian". "German" isn't a genetic category, it is an ethnic identity which you can trace your ancestry to. Maybe the better question is, how are you defining different races? If you're using ethnic categories, then you aren't splitting people based on genetics (though you can use genetics to guess at your ancestry). If you're use genetic similarity, then you will clump people across ethnic categories. Try to divide the Germans from the other nations on the genetic similarity chart linked below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Europe