6 ms·

So, what's the argument here exactly? Many of those countries were created by colonial powers without regard for culture or any other variation among the people

So, what's the argument here exactly? Many of those countries were created by colonial powers without regard for culture or any other variation among the people. Perhaps I wasn't lucky enough to benefit from the enlightenment that the British Empire has bestowed upon you. On the other hand, is your idea of "different" just another way to dismiss or categorize people? I don't know. What I do know is that, while certain variations in physical characteristics exist (and the predominance of those may vary geographically), I am able to tell the difference between a person from Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, and North Africa. China and Europe and India. I do get the underlying idea, though. I just think it's naive.

cycomanic 5y ago
What is race? The problem with the term race is that implies genetic differences where there are none. Regarding being able to tell apart races by looking at them, I highly doubt you could I mean are a black US American and a Nigerian the same race? How about a Namibian? In the US the Nigerian would be classified as African American which says a lot about the ridiculousness.
- ILMostro7 5y ago
  Classified as black/African-American. Classification is weird, true enough.
skissane 5y ago
> So, what's the argument here exactly? Many Americans take US-specific cultural concepts about topics such as race, and try to apply them globally, without realising that those concepts fall apart when you try to apply them outside of the specific historical/cultural context in which they evolved. And even in their country of origin, their existence is sustained (in part) by ignoring the existence of people who don't fit into them – so long as those people remain a small enough minority, they can be ignored. If they start to get too numerous and loud, political pressure will result in changes to the scheme to try to accomodate them, through the addition of yet further categories – but failing to address the fundamental problem that trying to reduce the immense biological and cultural diversity of humanity to a small number of coarse categories is a fool's errand. > I am able to tell the difference between a person from Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, and North Africa. If you look at the transition zone between the two – places like southern Egypt and northern Sudan – you will find many people whose physical appearance is somewhere in-between the two. You seem to be ignoring the existence of those people. > China and Europe and India. Europeans and northern Indians are historically related peoples – they both speak Indo-European languages, Hindi and English are distant relatives of each other. They are both cultural/linguistic descendants of the ancient Aryans, and also have some common biological/genetic ancestry. So what makes them "different races"? Some Pakistanis look rather European – seen most strongly in groups such as the Kalash and Nurstanis – are they a "different race" from Europeans? Why? The majority of Indians are by ancestry a mixture of Aryan and Dravidian, with greater Aryan ancestry in the north and greater Dravidian ancestry in the south. Does that mean Indians are actually two different races? But the reality is the majority of Indians have ancestry from both–few Indians are purely descended from one or the other–so the idea of classifying Indian people into separate Aryan and Dravidian "races" doesn't work. And don't forget North East India – the majority of people from there have more linguistically and genetically in common with the peoples of China and Tibet and Southeast Asia than with people in the rest of India. What race are they? > I do get the underlying idea, though. I just think it's naive. I think your ideas on this topic are naïve.
- ILMostro7 5y ago
  We are having at least 2 different discussions here. From a biological perspective, again, we are human beings. I can easily agree with you here, and with any of your arguments in fact. But in real life, skin pigmentation and other differences that have been attributed to the term "race" have an impact on a person's perception, whether or not they admit/realize it. My argument may be misguided or even wrong in any sense of that term, but I do not think it is naive. Whereas your views may be right, but I still think they are naive.
  - skissane 5y ago
    > But in real life, skin pigmentation and other differences that have been attributed to the term "race" have an impact on a person's perception, whether or not they admit/realize it. I think, in the US, skin pigmentation has historically acted as a metonym for the social divide between European-Americans and African-Americans. But, it would be a mistake to take the metonym too literally – and people who are neither have always been somewhat out-of-place, and as the US becomes more diverse the number of people who don't belong to either side continues to grow. Some Indians have darker skin than some African-Americans do – would you expect therefore, that when those Indians immigrate to the US, they'll encounter worse treatment than lighter-skinned African-Americans? I don't think anyone believes that is what actually happens. That's not to say that they don't sometimes experience discrimination to a degree which lighter-skinned Indians do not (whether in India or in the US), but it is an overly simplistic model of how US society actually works to suggest that there is such a simple correlation between one's skin tone and one's societal privilege. Also, "white" people aren't all one skin tone. My wife and I are both of predominantly northern/western European descent, yet my skin tone is somewhat more "olive", hers is quite pale. In many Irish families with slightly darker skin, the darker skin tone is explained through the legend of Spanish ancestry (ship-wrecked sailors from the Spanish Armada) – I've heard that legend with respect to both my parents' families. Am I, as a slightly-more-olive person of European descent, discriminated against compared to paler-skinned people of European descent? Not as far as I am aware. But, that once again shows that there is no simple and historically universal correlation between skin tone and privilege. > My argument may be misguided or even wrong in any sense of that term, but I do not think it is naive. You are American? You seem to keep on making the assumption that ideas derived from American culture are universally applicable, even when more than one non-American tells you that they are not. How is that not naïve?

cycomanic 5y ago

What is race? The problem with the term race is that implies genetic differences where there are none. Regarding being able to tell apart races by looking at them, I highly doubt you could I mean are a black US American and a Nigerian the same race? How about a Namibian? In the US the Nigerian would be classified as African American which says a lot about the ridiculousness.

ILMostro7 5y ago
Classified as black/African-American. Classification is weird, true enough.

skissane 5y ago

> So, what's the argument here exactly? Many Americans take US-specific cultural concepts about topics such as race, and try to apply them globally, without realising that those concepts fall apart when you try to apply them outside of the specific historical/cultural context in which they evolved. And even in their country of origin, their existence is sustained (in part) by ignoring the existence of people who don't fit into them – so long as those people remain a small enough minority, they can be ignored. If they start to get too numerous and loud, political pressure will result in changes to the scheme to try to accomodate them, through the addition of yet further categories – but failing to address the fundamental problem that trying to reduce the immense biological and cultural diversity of humanity to a small number of coarse categories is a fool's errand. > I am able to tell the difference between a person from Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, and North Africa. If you look at the transition zone between the two – places like southern Egypt and northern Sudan – you will find many people whose physical appearance is somewhere in-between the two. You seem to be ignoring the existence of those people. > China and Europe and India. Europeans and northern Indians are historically related peoples – they both speak Indo-European languages, Hindi and English are distant relatives of each other. They are both cultural/linguistic descendants of the ancient Aryans, and also have some common biological/genetic ancestry. So what makes them "different races"? Some Pakistanis look rather European – seen most strongly in groups such as the Kalash and Nurstanis – are they a "different race" from Europeans? Why? The majority of Indians are by ancestry a mixture of Aryan and Dravidian, with greater Aryan ancestry in the north and greater Dravidian ancestry in the south. Does that mean Indians are actually two different races? But the reality is the majority of Indians have ancestry from both–few Indians are purely descended from one or the other–so the idea of classifying Indian people into separate Aryan and Dravidian "races" doesn't work. And don't forget North East India – the majority of people from there have more linguistically and genetically in common with the peoples of China and Tibet and Southeast Asia than with people in the rest of India. What race are they? > I do get the underlying idea, though. I just think it's naive. I think your ideas on this topic are naïve.

ILMostro7 5y ago
We are having at least 2 different discussions here. From a biological perspective, again, we are human beings. I can easily agree with you here, and with any of your arguments in fact. But in real life, skin pigmentation and other differences that have been attributed to the term "race" have an impact on a person's perception, whether or not they admit/realize it. My argument may be misguided or even wrong in any sense of that term, but I do not think it is naive. Whereas your views may be right, but I still think they are naive.
- skissane 5y ago
  > But in real life, skin pigmentation and other differences that have been attributed to the term "race" have an impact on a person's perception, whether or not they admit/realize it. I think, in the US, skin pigmentation has historically acted as a metonym for the social divide between European-Americans and African-Americans. But, it would be a mistake to take the metonym too literally – and people who are neither have always been somewhat out-of-place, and as the US becomes more diverse the number of people who don't belong to either side continues to grow. Some Indians have darker skin than some African-Americans do – would you expect therefore, that when those Indians immigrate to the US, they'll encounter worse treatment than lighter-skinned African-Americans? I don't think anyone believes that is what actually happens. That's not to say that they don't sometimes experience discrimination to a degree which lighter-skinned Indians do not (whether in India or in the US), but it is an overly simplistic model of how US society actually works to suggest that there is such a simple correlation between one's skin tone and one's societal privilege. Also, "white" people aren't all one skin tone. My wife and I are both of predominantly northern/western European descent, yet my skin tone is somewhat more "olive", hers is quite pale. In many Irish families with slightly darker skin, the darker skin tone is explained through the legend of Spanish ancestry (ship-wrecked sailors from the Spanish Armada) – I've heard that legend with respect to both my parents' families. Am I, as a slightly-more-olive person of European descent, discriminated against compared to paler-skinned people of European descent? Not as far as I am aware. But, that once again shows that there is no simple and historically universal correlation between skin tone and privilege. > My argument may be misguided or even wrong in any sense of that term, but I do not think it is naive. You are American? You seem to keep on making the assumption that ideas derived from American culture are universally applicable, even when more than one non-American tells you that they are not. How is that not naïve?