3 ms·

>Asian I am not a race or genetics expert, but I think "Asian" is not a race. Asia includes the Indian subcontinent, including India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

>Asian I am not a race or genetics expert, but I think "Asian" is not a race. Asia includes the Indian subcontinent, including India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Natives of the subcontinent are different from Orientals, such as Chinese, Japanese and Korean, for example, but both are Asian.

ganeshkrishnan 2y ago
Neither is "White". An Australian is completely 180 opposite of Canadian in almost everything and there is almost nothing common except monarchy and English language. Are Amish white? People from Turkey? Sicilians? Argentinians? I find the whole concept of "race" perplexing and catering to the lowest common denominator.
- liontwist 2y ago
  If two people were asked to identify the white or Asian people in a room, how likely do you think their answers would differ?
  - ganeshkrishnan 2y ago
    You are missing my point: Asians - vietnamese, chinese, japanese, naga indians, have very little in common from educational/ecnonomical/social point of view. Same with "whites" (whatever the definition is and for the life of me I just dont understand). An Australian moving to Canada has a culture shock that is inversely similar to a Japanese going to Paris. Americans are weirdly still clinging on to the race concept
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - liontwist 2y ago
      All that’s true, but you can still identify them trivially. There are common physical traits that form a family resemblance. > Americans are clinging Yeah, I’m not buying that race is a uniquely American construction. It’s probably the place where discussing race has the least social tolerance.
      - ganeshkrishnan 2y ago
        >It’s probably the place where discussing race has the least social tolerance. No. the rest of the world doesnt discuss it because it makes the least sense. I gave you examples above. It doesnt make sense to put an Aussie and Canuck in same bracket, neither does it make sense to put a Thai and Japanese in same bracket for whatever data point you want. Even within India a sikh has nothing in common with naga has nothing in common with Tamils. Race is an absurd abstract. Why not hair color? or eye color? or eye shape?
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        fuzztester 2y ago
        Yes, indeed. Why not phrenology next, that absurd Victorian pseudo-science. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
        fuzztester 2y ago
        From the above Wikipedia page: Phrenology is a pseudoscience that involves the measurement of bumps on the skull to predict mental traits.[1][2]
        liontwist 2y ago
        Notice that a charged label on a Wikipedia page is enough for you, a skeptical person, to make an absolute conclusion. And that’s true for most people which is why editors fight so hard to control it. If it’s so obviously false, can you share the landmark study or experiment that disproved it?
        fuzztester 2y ago
        Why the heck should I, when you are not bothering to provide any evidence for your own statements, like this one I linked below? >https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42384308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42384308 And I quote two of your words from that comment: "trivially" and "probably" to show what I mean. See those words in the context of the sentences in which they occur, and it can be seen that you are not giving any evidence for your claims either. Do your own research, if my comment is so important to you. Also this is HN, a forum, not a court of law. Tons of other users on here, regularly and casually make comments which may seem false to others, without giving evidence for their statements.
  - gretch 2y ago
    If you had some people that were from India, some from Japan, some Siberian Russia, then actually I could see the answers being significantly different
  - Aunche 2y ago
    You may be surprised to learn that "white" encompasses everyone from Persians to North Africans.
    - cooper_ganglia 2y ago
      You may be surprised to learn that it absolutely does not!
- xyzzyz 2y ago
  You could make the same point about the actual color “white”. You can point to various items of different colors and ask “is this thing actually white?”. You’ll have some people agreeing on most of these things, and disagree on some of these things. Would it make the whole concept of “color” meaningless and useless? Hardly.
  - wruza 2y ago
    You couldn’t, there’s no such contrast in any corner of colorspace to fit gp’s comment into.
- mutatio 2y ago
  There's probably high genetic kinship (Britain) for Canada and Australia amongst 'white' people, the US too has a large body of genetic kinship with Britain, it's definitely not your 180.0.
6thvoicein 2y ago
[dead]

ganeshkrishnan 2y ago

Neither is "White". An Australian is completely 180 opposite of Canadian in almost everything and there is almost nothing common except monarchy and English language. Are Amish white? People from Turkey? Sicilians? Argentinians? I find the whole concept of "race" perplexing and catering to the lowest common denominator.

liontwist 2y ago
If two people were asked to identify the white or Asian people in a room, how likely do you think their answers would differ?
- ganeshkrishnan 2y ago
  You are missing my point: Asians - vietnamese, chinese, japanese, naga indians, have very little in common from educational/ecnonomical/social point of view. Same with "whites" (whatever the definition is and for the life of me I just dont understand). An Australian moving to Canada has a culture shock that is inversely similar to a Japanese going to Paris. Americans are weirdly still clinging on to the race concept
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - liontwist 2y ago
    All that’s true, but you can still identify them trivially. There are common physical traits that form a family resemblance. > Americans are clinging Yeah, I’m not buying that race is a uniquely American construction. It’s probably the place where discussing race has the least social tolerance.
    - ganeshkrishnan 2y ago
      >It’s probably the place where discussing race has the least social tolerance. No. the rest of the world doesnt discuss it because it makes the least sense. I gave you examples above. It doesnt make sense to put an Aussie and Canuck in same bracket, neither does it make sense to put a Thai and Japanese in same bracket for whatever data point you want. Even within India a sikh has nothing in common with naga has nothing in common with Tamils. Race is an absurd abstract. Why not hair color? or eye color? or eye shape?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - fuzztester 2y ago
        Yes, indeed. Why not phrenology next, that absurd Victorian pseudo-science. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
        fuzztester 2y ago
        From the above Wikipedia page: Phrenology is a pseudoscience that involves the measurement of bumps on the skull to predict mental traits.[1][2]
        liontwist 2y ago
        Notice that a charged label on a Wikipedia page is enough for you, a skeptical person, to make an absolute conclusion. And that’s true for most people which is why editors fight so hard to control it. If it’s so obviously false, can you share the landmark study or experiment that disproved it?
        fuzztester 2y ago
        Why the heck should I, when you are not bothering to provide any evidence for your own statements, like this one I linked below? >https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42384308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42384308 And I quote two of your words from that comment: "trivially" and "probably" to show what I mean. See those words in the context of the sentences in which they occur, and it can be seen that you are not giving any evidence for your claims either. Do your own research, if my comment is so important to you. Also this is HN, a forum, not a court of law. Tons of other users on here, regularly and casually make comments which may seem false to others, without giving evidence for their statements.
- gretch 2y ago
  If you had some people that were from India, some from Japan, some Siberian Russia, then actually I could see the answers being significantly different
- Aunche 2y ago
  You may be surprised to learn that "white" encompasses everyone from Persians to North Africans.
  - cooper_ganglia 2y ago
    You may be surprised to learn that it absolutely does not!
xyzzyz 2y ago
You could make the same point about the actual color “white”. You can point to various items of different colors and ask “is this thing actually white?”. You’ll have some people agreeing on most of these things, and disagree on some of these things. Would it make the whole concept of “color” meaningless and useless? Hardly.
- wruza 2y ago
  You couldn’t, there’s no such contrast in any corner of colorspace to fit gp’s comment into.
mutatio 2y ago
There's probably high genetic kinship (Britain) for Canada and Australia amongst 'white' people, the US too has a large body of genetic kinship with Britain, it's definitely not your 180.0.

6thvoicein 2y ago

[dead]