4 ms·

> so you're saying the definition changes through time No, I was saying you could have a static definition that accepted the obvious fact that the White race w

> so you're saying the definition changes through time No, I was saying you could have a static definition that accepted the obvious fact that the White race would evolve over thousands of generations. I will also say now that there are many definitions of the White race and that to whatever extent there is one "the definition" of the White race, it changes over time, too. And you have at the end made a logical error. Just because there are a range of possible definitions of the White race does not mean that all possible definitions of the White race are acceptable. Just because there are components of and aspects of the definition of the White race that my change, does not mean that there are not components and aspects which may not change. And, while there may be edge cases, in general, one needs to have White parents to be White. That's because one's race is determined by one's ancestry.

tomlockwood 3y ago
> the obvious fact that the White race would evolve over thousands of generations. Ok so there was a long period of time when "white" people didn't have white fathers. But earlier you said that's not possible. Another way of saying there's edge cases for a rule is that the rule isn't a rule at all. > That's because one's race is determined by one's ancestry. Not true! You and I both agree that some people that were previously referred to as non-white are now commonly referred to as white. Ancestry is one part of the muddled definition that racists try to worm their way around into being objective. The truth is there's no objective basis for race, it is all made up, and it changes pretty constantly. I'd consider myself white but I have Polish (Slavic) and Scottish (previously non-white) ancestry. But, at some point, it became fine for me and people like me to call ourselves white. The English would have disagreed, as recently as the 1850s.
- calderknight 3y ago
  > Ok so there was a long period of time when "white" people didn't have white fathers. But earlier you said that's not possible. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that, for example, the 100th generation of White people would be different from the 10,000th generation of white people. White females can't come into being without White fathers. They could during the formation of the White race. But they can't now. > You and I both agree that some people that were previously referred to as non-white are now commonly referred to as white not a contradiction > Ancestry is one part of the muddled definition that racists try to worm their way around into being objective Biological race is just ancestry. > The truth is there's no objective basis for race, it is all made up, and it changes pretty constantly What about ancestry. > d consider myself white but I have Polish (Slavic) and Scottish (previously non-white) ancestry. But, at some point, it became fine for me and people like me to call ourselves white. The English would have disagreed, as recently as the 1850s. I'm not sure whether they would have. Doesn't matter either way. Racialist beliefs could have a totally illogical origin and yet be entirely correct. Beware the fallacy fallacy.
  - tomlockwood 3y ago
    > White females can't come into being without White fathers. They could during the formation of the White race. But they can't now. The white race is continually being formed, which is evidenced by the changing attitudes towards whether Italians, Greeks, Irish, Scottish and Polish people are white - amongst others. You'll find a tonne of people that disagree over whether Polish people, and others, are white. There's no central authority that definitively decides. > Biological race is just ancestry. What's the scientific definition of race? Feel free to use biology papers for this discussion.
    - calderknight 3y ago
      There's no "the" scientific definition of race. There are various definitions of race that could be called scientific, although I'm not totally sure what it means for a definition to be scientific. The only thing that could be called "the" scientific definition of race is the very unscientific definition that generally emerges like this: > Genetic variation is greater within groups than between them :^) There is no biological justification for racial groupings :^) Race is purely a social construct :^) Which admittedly isn't much of a definition but does make it clear (incorrectly) that there is no valid biological justification for racialism. I define a race just like dictionaries did before the race-doesn't-exist-except-as-a-social-construct movement was established did: >a group of people having common ancestors
      - tomlockwood 3y ago
        Don't all humans have common ancestors?
        calderknight 3y ago
        Yes, as far as I know all living things have common ancestors. A definition I wrote myself is this: > A race: a people who have been largely or totally isolated (in terms of procreation) from other peoples for a very great number of generations. Which is still very far from perfect. Definitions are difficult.

tomlockwood 3y ago

> the obvious fact that the White race would evolve over thousands of generations. Ok so there was a long period of time when "white" people didn't have white fathers. But earlier you said that's not possible. Another way of saying there's edge cases for a rule is that the rule isn't a rule at all. > That's because one's race is determined by one's ancestry. Not true! You and I both agree that some people that were previously referred to as non-white are now commonly referred to as white. Ancestry is one part of the muddled definition that racists try to worm their way around into being objective. The truth is there's no objective basis for race, it is all made up, and it changes pretty constantly. I'd consider myself white but I have Polish (Slavic) and Scottish (previously non-white) ancestry. But, at some point, it became fine for me and people like me to call ourselves white. The English would have disagreed, as recently as the 1850s.

calderknight 3y ago
> Ok so there was a long period of time when "white" people didn't have white fathers. But earlier you said that's not possible. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that, for example, the 100th generation of White people would be different from the 10,000th generation of white people. White females can't come into being without White fathers. They could during the formation of the White race. But they can't now. > You and I both agree that some people that were previously referred to as non-white are now commonly referred to as white not a contradiction > Ancestry is one part of the muddled definition that racists try to worm their way around into being objective Biological race is just ancestry. > The truth is there's no objective basis for race, it is all made up, and it changes pretty constantly What about ancestry. > d consider myself white but I have Polish (Slavic) and Scottish (previously non-white) ancestry. But, at some point, it became fine for me and people like me to call ourselves white. The English would have disagreed, as recently as the 1850s. I'm not sure whether they would have. Doesn't matter either way. Racialist beliefs could have a totally illogical origin and yet be entirely correct. Beware the fallacy fallacy.
- tomlockwood 3y ago
  > White females can't come into being without White fathers. They could during the formation of the White race. But they can't now. The white race is continually being formed, which is evidenced by the changing attitudes towards whether Italians, Greeks, Irish, Scottish and Polish people are white - amongst others. You'll find a tonne of people that disagree over whether Polish people, and others, are white. There's no central authority that definitively decides. > Biological race is just ancestry. What's the scientific definition of race? Feel free to use biology papers for this discussion.
  - calderknight 3y ago
    There's no "the" scientific definition of race. There are various definitions of race that could be called scientific, although I'm not totally sure what it means for a definition to be scientific. The only thing that could be called "the" scientific definition of race is the very unscientific definition that generally emerges like this: > Genetic variation is greater within groups than between them :^) There is no biological justification for racial groupings :^) Race is purely a social construct :^) Which admittedly isn't much of a definition but does make it clear (incorrectly) that there is no valid biological justification for racialism. I define a race just like dictionaries did before the race-doesn't-exist-except-as-a-social-construct movement was established did: >a group of people having common ancestors
    - tomlockwood 3y ago
      Don't all humans have common ancestors?
      - calderknight 3y ago
        Yes, as far as I know all living things have common ancestors. A definition I wrote myself is this: > A race: a people who have been largely or totally isolated (in terms of procreation) from other peoples for a very great number of generations. Which is still very far from perfect. Definitions are difficult.