3 ms·

> 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

by 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

by rovolo 5y ago

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