3 ms·

While “rave” is a misnomer, being applied almost exclusively based on skin color, haplogroups are a well defined aspect of genetic study and are very well defin

While “rave” is a misnomer, being applied almost exclusively based on skin color, haplogroups are a well defined aspect of genetic study and are very well defined geographically. It’s why the Germans look so distinct to Australians and so on, because different genetics found their footing in different areas. Claiming they are based solely on “socio-economic” factors is wildly incorrect and wildly racist. To what authority does someone’s social and economic standing define their genetics?

hirvi74 2y ago
> haplogroups are a well defined aspect of genetic study and are very well defined geographically Nobody is claiming there are no genetic differences between populations of people. People are reiterating that race is an entirely socially-constructed concept. Human racial categories are not based on genetics. > It’s why the Germans look so distinct to Australians and so on As a white person, they both look like average white people with Northwestern European heritage to me. If you had a room with 100 random white people, I guarantee you I couldn't pinpoint to the Aussies or Germans by looks alone. Race is not defined by genetics. Genetics were used to justify race. Race is also extremely nebulous. According to the US Census, an average Norwegian, Sicilian, Mexican, and Arab are all considered to be white. Again according to the US Census, on average, if you are from southwest Pakistan, you are Asian. If you are from southeast Iran, you are... caucasian? See how stupid this classification is? I would bet good money that the genetic difference between someone from Iran (White) vs. Pakistan (Asian) is substantially less than someone from Pakistan (Asian) vs. South Korea (Asian).
- tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  > As a white person, they both look like average white people with Northwestern European heritage to me. If you had a room with 100 random white people, I guarantee you I couldn't pinpoint to the Aussies or Germans by looks alone. That sounds pretty racist to me. Would you say the same about people from Uganda as opposed to the Caribbean, or Japan from China? That they all look the same?
  - defrost 2y ago
    There's a loaded grenade of a question. Here's the thing though, a "white person" from Australia is a blandly generic European, they look like they could of come from Scotland, or Germany .. then of course you can start looking at European Australians and picking out people with deep ancestral roots to Spain, Italy, Serbia | Croatia, etc. Modern Germany is a greater melting pot of origin stories than it once was - although to be frankly honest much of the population of Neukölln in Berlin look as though they might be from Melbourne, Australia - and they don't look at all like the 'Aryan Race' archetypes certain Germans of the 1920s were so fond of. Forget "race" - it's a question of whether any family traits and features that started out strongly eveident are still present or not. The greater truth is that outside of any obvious strong features, Australians come from all over; 25% of the current population was born outside of Australia, and with the exception of indigenous Australians and first settler, early convicts, soldiers that stayed on for land, servant families of the rich, very early gold rush adventurers, etc very few people in Australia are descended from anybody here prior to 1850. Following 1850 the Australian population quadrupled rapidly from under half a million outsiders as prospecters poured in. Conversely, the population of Japan largely looks Japanese in origin and it's generally not hard to pick those who don't have several generations there behind them.
tsimionescu 2y ago
The important thing I'm pointing to is that there is no correlation between those haplogroups, which definitely do exist, and what anyone calls race. So when you say that you want to study race VS intelligence, that just doesn't make any sense. If you want to study the heritability of IQ, or variation in IQ between diverse human populations, that's a different matter. Race is not genetics; genetics are objective reality, race is not. Race is a series of socio-economic labels applied to people based on purely external factors, and highly un correlated with any genetic variation.
- tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  I agree with what you’re saying, ultimately I dislike the label. I don’t see where the “economic” part of “socio-economic label” comes in. Race as a social label makes perfect sense to me, because race is used in social contexts mostly as a way to discuss individuals in our daily life. “That [race] man” is expected vernacular, as our social groups tend to be made up of those that are like us, and “race” is a typical exclusion from that. However, it as an “economic” label is far too cultural to for me to accept as a general statement. In certain cultures, say 18th century USA, races such as “Irish” or “African” were seen generally as low-rung groups. However, that’s different nowadays, and was different across cultural borders, so while I would posit everyone understands the social aspects of race, the economic predispositions aren’t something we should be focusing on, as ultimately they are just another social aspect and thus redundant.

hirvi74 2y ago

> haplogroups are a well defined aspect of genetic study and are very well defined geographically Nobody is claiming there are no genetic differences between populations of people. People are reiterating that race is an entirely socially-constructed concept. Human racial categories are not based on genetics. > It’s why the Germans look so distinct to Australians and so on As a white person, they both look like average white people with Northwestern European heritage to me. If you had a room with 100 random white people, I guarantee you I couldn't pinpoint to the Aussies or Germans by looks alone. Race is not defined by genetics. Genetics were used to justify race. Race is also extremely nebulous. According to the US Census, an average Norwegian, Sicilian, Mexican, and Arab are all considered to be white. Again according to the US Census, on average, if you are from southwest Pakistan, you are Asian. If you are from southeast Iran, you are... caucasian? See how stupid this classification is? I would bet good money that the genetic difference between someone from Iran (White) vs. Pakistan (Asian) is substantially less than someone from Pakistan (Asian) vs. South Korea (Asian).

tourmalinetaco 2y ago
> As a white person, they both look like average white people with Northwestern European heritage to me. If you had a room with 100 random white people, I guarantee you I couldn't pinpoint to the Aussies or Germans by looks alone. That sounds pretty racist to me. Would you say the same about people from Uganda as opposed to the Caribbean, or Japan from China? That they all look the same?
- defrost 2y ago
  There's a loaded grenade of a question. Here's the thing though, a "white person" from Australia is a blandly generic European, they look like they could of come from Scotland, or Germany .. then of course you can start looking at European Australians and picking out people with deep ancestral roots to Spain, Italy, Serbia | Croatia, etc. Modern Germany is a greater melting pot of origin stories than it once was - although to be frankly honest much of the population of Neukölln in Berlin look as though they might be from Melbourne, Australia - and they don't look at all like the 'Aryan Race' archetypes certain Germans of the 1920s were so fond of. Forget "race" - it's a question of whether any family traits and features that started out strongly eveident are still present or not. The greater truth is that outside of any obvious strong features, Australians come from all over; 25% of the current population was born outside of Australia, and with the exception of indigenous Australians and first settler, early convicts, soldiers that stayed on for land, servant families of the rich, very early gold rush adventurers, etc very few people in Australia are descended from anybody here prior to 1850. Following 1850 the Australian population quadrupled rapidly from under half a million outsiders as prospecters poured in. Conversely, the population of Japan largely looks Japanese in origin and it's generally not hard to pick those who don't have several generations there behind them.

tsimionescu 2y ago

The important thing I'm pointing to is that there is no correlation between those haplogroups, which definitely do exist, and what anyone calls race. So when you say that you want to study race VS intelligence, that just doesn't make any sense. If you want to study the heritability of IQ, or variation in IQ between diverse human populations, that's a different matter. Race is not genetics; genetics are objective reality, race is not. Race is a series of socio-economic labels applied to people based on purely external factors, and highly un correlated with any genetic variation.

tourmalinetaco 2y ago
I agree with what you’re saying, ultimately I dislike the label. I don’t see where the “economic” part of “socio-economic label” comes in. Race as a social label makes perfect sense to me, because race is used in social contexts mostly as a way to discuss individuals in our daily life. “That [race] man” is expected vernacular, as our social groups tend to be made up of those that are like us, and “race” is a typical exclusion from that. However, it as an “economic” label is far too cultural to for me to accept as a general statement. In certain cultures, say 18th century USA, races such as “Irish” or “African” were seen generally as low-rung groups. However, that’s different nowadays, and was different across cultural borders, so while I would posit everyone understands the social aspects of race, the economic predispositions aren’t something we should be focusing on, as ultimately they are just another social aspect and thus redundant.