4 ms·

A good explanation of how and why specific combinations of genes get concentrated in relatively isolated populations. What we call “race” historically got based

A good explanation of how and why specific combinations of genes get concentrated in relatively isolated populations. What we call “race” historically got based on superficial features, not analysis of similarities in DNA. It turns out that sometimes those correspond, and sometimes they don’t. Indonesians and Brazilians have similar ranges of skin color (melanin) for the same reason — adaptation to sun exposure — but only distant common ancestors and very different histories.

dotancohen 2y ago
Does anyone consider Indonesians and Brazilians to be a single race? I think that your comment addresses a strawman that nobody stated. If you are discounting the idea that colour is a singular indicator of race, then yes I agree with you. But that does not mean that race, as a whole, does not exist.
- gregjor 2y ago
  I was pointing out that people can end up with similar superficial features without common heritage. I doubt anyone considers Indonesians and Brazilians the same race, but then again I’m pretty sure a large number of Americans would call both “black.” As evidence I offer the fake “race” Americans call Hispanic or LatinX, a definition that includes people with very different genetic and social heritages, and one mostly rejected by members of the supposed Hispanic race. That’s a political construct and convenience, not a real thing in any sense. Race exists as a social construct. Collections of genes concentrated in a population describe something, I called it heritage. Sometimes the social construct and the heritage correspond, sometimes not. “African” only describes a race based on superficial features, not genetic variation. I live in east Asia among people I (white American) always thought of as members of the same race, Asian. But I have learned that the people here have different racial definitions and boundaries, more tuned to their own social constructs and ideas about heritage and history. No doubt people from the African continent have different ideas about race than I got raised with. So in that sense “race” is a social construct, because different societies have different and conflicting definitions. Which do we call correct? My American/western notion of Asian as a race, or the definitions the people of Asia use?
- defrost 2y ago
  I don't think anybody seriously considerd either "Indonesian" nor "Brazillian" to be racial categories or groupings. What is the precise unambiguous definition of "race" in any case? With Brazil you have a country in which a small few were rumoured to be exact clones of Hitler ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boys_from_Brazil_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boys_from_Brazil_(novel) ) a greater majority who are descended from European colonizers and former African slaves and a small number who "pure" descendants from the some 2,000 different tribal groups once totalling some 7 million people prior to the 1500 CE European contact. Indonesia is a similar construct - it's a political boundary about many many distinct ethnologies from some 17,000 islands and over a quarter billion people.
  - gregjor 2y ago
    > I don't think anybody seriously considerd either "Indonesian" nor "Brazillian" to be racial categories or groupings. I hope not. That wasn’t the point I meant to make. The thread I replied in started with trying to explain skin color differences to a child. I had to do that with my own kids, because kids notice that people look different. I stayed away from the concept of “race” and instead tried to explain heritage and adaptation. At first glance a child might very well think Indonesians and Brazilians belong to the same race — it would depend on what features they notice. Sadly too many adults have the same level of discrimination (in both senses).
    - defrost 2y ago
      Sure, I'm further emphasising the point that much of what some regard as "race" is superficial or "familial". Reading older English books many years past I've seen the claim that Scottish families could be distinguished by features, I'd accept that having recognised people as being from one family or another growing, however I doubt anyone would claim the MacThoseOnes are a different race to the McThemOnes. I saw in this post some conflation of "Africans" and "(Australian) Aboriginals", both vey large groups with very many sub groups - it's worth a mention that of all the peoples on the planet these two are perhaps the furtherest apart on the family tree as it took a good while to walk (and boat a little) to Australia and arrive here some 70K+ years past - much of Europe is likely more closely related on the great human tree to modern Africans.

dotancohen 2y ago

Does anyone consider Indonesians and Brazilians to be a single race? I think that your comment addresses a strawman that nobody stated. If you are discounting the idea that colour is a singular indicator of race, then yes I agree with you. But that does not mean that race, as a whole, does not exist.

gregjor 2y ago
I was pointing out that people can end up with similar superficial features without common heritage. I doubt anyone considers Indonesians and Brazilians the same race, but then again I’m pretty sure a large number of Americans would call both “black.” As evidence I offer the fake “race” Americans call Hispanic or LatinX, a definition that includes people with very different genetic and social heritages, and one mostly rejected by members of the supposed Hispanic race. That’s a political construct and convenience, not a real thing in any sense. Race exists as a social construct. Collections of genes concentrated in a population describe something, I called it heritage. Sometimes the social construct and the heritage correspond, sometimes not. “African” only describes a race based on superficial features, not genetic variation. I live in east Asia among people I (white American) always thought of as members of the same race, Asian. But I have learned that the people here have different racial definitions and boundaries, more tuned to their own social constructs and ideas about heritage and history. No doubt people from the African continent have different ideas about race than I got raised with. So in that sense “race” is a social construct, because different societies have different and conflicting definitions. Which do we call correct? My American/western notion of Asian as a race, or the definitions the people of Asia use?
defrost 2y ago
I don't think anybody seriously considerd either "Indonesian" nor "Brazillian" to be racial categories or groupings. What is the precise unambiguous definition of "race" in any case? With Brazil you have a country in which a small few were rumoured to be exact clones of Hitler ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boys_from_Brazil_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boys_from_Brazil_(novel) ) a greater majority who are descended from European colonizers and former African slaves and a small number who "pure" descendants from the some 2,000 different tribal groups once totalling some 7 million people prior to the 1500 CE European contact. Indonesia is a similar construct - it's a political boundary about many many distinct ethnologies from some 17,000 islands and over a quarter billion people.
- gregjor 2y ago
  > I don't think anybody seriously considerd either "Indonesian" nor "Brazillian" to be racial categories or groupings. I hope not. That wasn’t the point I meant to make. The thread I replied in started with trying to explain skin color differences to a child. I had to do that with my own kids, because kids notice that people look different. I stayed away from the concept of “race” and instead tried to explain heritage and adaptation. At first glance a child might very well think Indonesians and Brazilians belong to the same race — it would depend on what features they notice. Sadly too many adults have the same level of discrimination (in both senses).
  - defrost 2y ago
    Sure, I'm further emphasising the point that much of what some regard as "race" is superficial or "familial". Reading older English books many years past I've seen the claim that Scottish families could be distinguished by features, I'd accept that having recognised people as being from one family or another growing, however I doubt anyone would claim the MacThoseOnes are a different race to the McThemOnes. I saw in this post some conflation of "Africans" and "(Australian) Aboriginals", both vey large groups with very many sub groups - it's worth a mention that of all the peoples on the planet these two are perhaps the furtherest apart on the family tree as it took a good while to walk (and boat a little) to Australia and arrive here some 70K+ years past - much of Europe is likely more closely related on the great human tree to modern Africans.