7 ms·

For East/West Berlin, that shows that geographic closeness doesn't determine national boundaries. The national boundary can be defined in terms of geography, bu

by 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.
- rovolo 5y ago
  > Blumenbach's craniometric categorization ... match the prehistoric reality better Blumenbach essentially tried to split people into: Europeans, Asians, Africans, Polynesians, and Americans. You can then choose features and make measurements to split people into groups which match these 5 basic geographical areas. The questions are: What do these classifications tell you? How are they useful? Are they the best ways to classify people? How are you choosing the different races? The idea that "race isn't real" stems from the idea that there isn't a single genetic metric you can use to categorize people. You can find multiple valid ways to classify people, but they won't all agree on the categorizations. > arbitrarily defined US-style castes What word should we use to describe the US social and legal definitions of Black and White?
  - jhgb 5y ago
    > What do these classifications tell you? How are they useful? Are they the best ways to classify people? How are you choosing the different races? The very same questions apply to human paleontology -- and the same answers. You have to solve basically the same problems if you want to unravel the dawn of humanity. > The idea that "race isn't real" stems from the idea that there isn't a single genetic metric you can use to categorize people. That sounds like a very flawed approach to me. Even imperfect concepts and approaches have their utility. Just because the universe isn't black-and-white on concepts doesn't mean that no patterns emerge. > What word should we use to describe the US social and legal definitions of Black and White? I thought you already had "Anglo-Saxons" and "African Americans" for these.
    - rovolo 5y ago
      > I thought you already had "Anglo-Saxons" and "African Americans" for these. Those are not the same things. For one, "Anglo-Saxon" is English ancestry. It doesn't include all White people. Second, I'm asking about what you should call the specific classification system the US use(d/s) to label people as Black and White. The US classified people on "race", which isn't exactly the same as Blumenbach's categories but did evolve out of them. > Even imperfect concepts and approaches have their utility. What is the utility of the idea of an "Ethopian" race? Are racial categories a useful tool in Anthropology and Biology (beyond the historical consequences of the idea of race)? For each any such examples, are there better tools?
      - jhgb 5y ago
        > For one, "Anglo-Saxon" is English ancestry. It doesn't include all White people. From what I can tell, the US notion of "white people" at one point did basically coincide with "Anglo-Saxon"/"Nordic" ancestry - in the broader sense, since OF COURSE there's even several meanings of the former term; for example in the abbreviation "WASP", the "AS" most certainly does not refer solely to English ancestry. So in this case think of "Anglo-Saxon" as of the "AS" in "WASP". > Second, I'm asking about what you should call the specific classification system the US use(d/s) to label people as Black and White. It sounds a lot to me like a caste system, as I already said. > Are racial categories a useful tool in Anthropology and Biology Absolutely, how else would you for example conceptualize large-scale population movements once you start to analyze population genetics in both current populations and archeological remains? Those groups are racial categories.

by rovolo 5y ago

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.

rovolo 5y ago
> Blumenbach's craniometric categorization ... match the prehistoric reality better Blumenbach essentially tried to split people into: Europeans, Asians, Africans, Polynesians, and Americans. You can then choose features and make measurements to split people into groups which match these 5 basic geographical areas. The questions are: What do these classifications tell you? How are they useful? Are they the best ways to classify people? How are you choosing the different races? The idea that "race isn't real" stems from the idea that there isn't a single genetic metric you can use to categorize people. You can find multiple valid ways to classify people, but they won't all agree on the categorizations. > arbitrarily defined US-style castes What word should we use to describe the US social and legal definitions of Black and White?
- jhgb 5y ago
  > What do these classifications tell you? How are they useful? Are they the best ways to classify people? How are you choosing the different races? The very same questions apply to human paleontology -- and the same answers. You have to solve basically the same problems if you want to unravel the dawn of humanity. > The idea that "race isn't real" stems from the idea that there isn't a single genetic metric you can use to categorize people. That sounds like a very flawed approach to me. Even imperfect concepts and approaches have their utility. Just because the universe isn't black-and-white on concepts doesn't mean that no patterns emerge. > What word should we use to describe the US social and legal definitions of Black and White? I thought you already had "Anglo-Saxons" and "African Americans" for these.
  - rovolo 5y ago
    > I thought you already had "Anglo-Saxons" and "African Americans" for these. Those are not the same things. For one, "Anglo-Saxon" is English ancestry. It doesn't include all White people. Second, I'm asking about what you should call the specific classification system the US use(d/s) to label people as Black and White. The US classified people on "race", which isn't exactly the same as Blumenbach's categories but did evolve out of them. > Even imperfect concepts and approaches have their utility. What is the utility of the idea of an "Ethopian" race? Are racial categories a useful tool in Anthropology and Biology (beyond the historical consequences of the idea of race)? For each any such examples, are there better tools?
    - jhgb 5y ago
      > For one, "Anglo-Saxon" is English ancestry. It doesn't include all White people. From what I can tell, the US notion of "white people" at one point did basically coincide with "Anglo-Saxon"/"Nordic" ancestry - in the broader sense, since OF COURSE there's even several meanings of the former term; for example in the abbreviation "WASP", the "AS" most certainly does not refer solely to English ancestry. So in this case think of "Anglo-Saxon" as of the "AS" in "WASP". > Second, I'm asking about what you should call the specific classification system the US use(d/s) to label people as Black and White. It sounds a lot to me like a caste system, as I already said. > Are racial categories a useful tool in Anthropology and Biology Absolutely, how else would you for example conceptualize large-scale population movements once you start to analyze population genetics in both current populations and archeological remains? Those groups are racial categories.