2 ms·

It says that science has concluded that race is a social construct, but to my knowledge african people have no neanderthal DNA, and some people in africa have "

by HK-NC 1y ago

It says that science has concluded that race is a social construct, but to my knowledge african people have no neanderthal DNA, and some people in africa have "ghost DNA" of an unknown hominid, if I remember an old new scientist article correctly. How is this purely social?

ben_w 1y ago
To oversimplify somewhat, the reason geneticists describe "race" as a social construct is that classifying everyone into a handful of buckets created by Victorians and based on people's dermal melanin density, fails to cut reality at its joints. For a more detailed response: https://bioanth.org/about/aaba-statement-on-race-racism/ https://bioanth.org/about/aaba-statement-on-race-racism/ If you take various different African populations, you'll find they're genetically diverse, not one single group, and the differences within the racial categories are large compared to the differences between the racial categories. To put it another way: dividing people up by skin colour being "black" or "white" is about as useful as doing so by their hair colour being "blonde" or "ginger" — it's not that this isn't part of the world, it is, it's just that the categorisation is functionally useless.
- HK-NC 1y ago
  I didn't mention skin tone.
  - ben_w 1y ago
    Am I to understand that you are unaware that "race" is "skin tone" in much of the Anglosphere? This specific mapping, and the uselessness of the categories, is the core of why "race" is seen as a social construct. The categorical divisions that translate as "race" are different in other parts of the world, and that they are so varied demonstrates the same point: it's a socially defined categorisation system. These other divisions too are necessarily superficial, though with a language barrier as well as a cultural barrier I cannot compare their usage to the racial categories I grew up with.
    - HK-NC 1y ago
      I actually find it interesting that skin tone seems to not matter. Being "black" comes in many shades, some lighter than a "white" person, but we know who is black. Being a dark Bangladeshi wont get you confused for an African person, or a pale Japanese person will not be seen as "white". I feel lioe what you've just proposed is a load of huff to avoid having the conversation, not you personally, just the scientific community in general if your first response is genuinely all our best minds have to say on this subject.

by HK-NC 1y ago

ben_w 1y ago

To oversimplify somewhat, the reason geneticists describe "race" as a social construct is that classifying everyone into a handful of buckets created by Victorians and based on people's dermal melanin density, fails to cut reality at its joints. For a more detailed response: https://bioanth.org/about/aaba-statement-on-race-racism/ https://bioanth.org/about/aaba-statement-on-race-racism/ If you take various different African populations, you'll find they're genetically diverse, not one single group, and the differences within the racial categories are large compared to the differences between the racial categories. To put it another way: dividing people up by skin colour being "black" or "white" is about as useful as doing so by their hair colour being "blonde" or "ginger" — it's not that this isn't part of the world, it is, it's just that the categorisation is functionally useless.

HK-NC 1y ago
I didn't mention skin tone.
- ben_w 1y ago
  Am I to understand that you are unaware that "race" is "skin tone" in much of the Anglosphere? This specific mapping, and the uselessness of the categories, is the core of why "race" is seen as a social construct. The categorical divisions that translate as "race" are different in other parts of the world, and that they are so varied demonstrates the same point: it's a socially defined categorisation system. These other divisions too are necessarily superficial, though with a language barrier as well as a cultural barrier I cannot compare their usage to the racial categories I grew up with.
  - HK-NC 1y ago
    I actually find it interesting that skin tone seems to not matter. Being "black" comes in many shades, some lighter than a "white" person, but we know who is black. Being a dark Bangladeshi wont get you confused for an African person, or a pale Japanese person will not be seen as "white". I feel lioe what you've just proposed is a load of huff to avoid having the conversation, not you personally, just the scientific community in general if your first response is genuinely all our best minds have to say on this subject.