4 ms·

> Yes, of course. He's a mixed race. I don't know why people call him the first black president - he's exactly half and half, with equal claim to either race.

> Yes, of course. He's a mixed race. I don't know why people call him the first black president - he's exactly half and half, with equal claim to either race. You have just shown that social construction of race is not the same as your biological base. If most of the population agrees "he is black and not white" and biology says otherwise, then the social construct is unmoored from biology. I don't think one has to go as far as a one drop rule, though that was a construction that has existed in some parts of the country at some times (as have other tests, like the brown paper bag test). Things are more nuanced today and it would be more accurate to say he is black because: 1. He claims to be black, and 2. Society recognizes his claim as legitimate. Since these are organic social constructs, they don't need hard, strict, articulable rules any more than English grammar does (I suppose someone, probably me (note the case shift contrary to formal grammars), will have to point the reader to actual articles by linguists on this topic).

omonra 13y ago
I decided to respond to this part of the thread to keep discussion in one place. --- So your point is that since 2.9% of US population are not single-race (estimate of mixed race in the US [1]) the other 97% aren't either? By the same token you could also say that there are no heterosexuals in the world since roughly 3% of people are gay. I remember some Hispanic comedian who said in the 90s - "In the future everybody will look Filipino". He had a point - if humans spend a few thousand years mixing it up, the end result will look Brazilian of Filipino. But for now the majority of Earth population is of a specific definable race (which have many differences deeper than skin tone). [1] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/mixed-race-america/?pagewanted=all http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/mixed-race-amer...
- einhverfr 13y ago
  > So your point is that since 2.9% of US population are not single-race (estimate of mixed race in the US [1]) the other 97% aren't either? From a biological perspective, I am not sure you can biologically define "single race" vs "mixed race" to the point where such a categorization makes sense. I think what you can do is specify identifiable populations which share some identifiable genetic markers (say, Chinese vs Mongolians, or Scandinavians vs Mediterraneans). So what I am saying is that 2.9% of Americans are socially of "mixed race" but population groups are much more porous than that, and that does not match the biological realities. This doesn't mean one cannot come up with a biological definition of race, but I don't think it will match our social definitions very closely.
  - omonra 13y ago
    "I think what you can do is specify identifiable populations which share some identifiable genetic markers (say, Chinese vs Mongolians, or Scandinavians vs Mediterraneans)." Yes, and likewise you can further extend it - grouping Mongolians & Chinese into one group and various sub-Sararan tribes into another. And voilà - you've got yourself nice Asian and African races. Because they will still share these distinct identifiable genetic markers. "This doesn't mean one cannot come up with a biological definition of race, but I don't think it will match our social definitions very closely." Our social definitions are pretty spot on, if you don't try to come up with exceptions (ie Barack Obama et al). Jay Z is black and Seinfeld is white - how complicated is that?

omonra 13y ago

I decided to respond to this part of the thread to keep discussion in one place. --- So your point is that since 2.9% of US population are not single-race (estimate of mixed race in the US [1]) the other 97% aren't either? By the same token you could also say that there are no heterosexuals in the world since roughly 3% of people are gay. I remember some Hispanic comedian who said in the 90s - "In the future everybody will look Filipino". He had a point - if humans spend a few thousand years mixing it up, the end result will look Brazilian of Filipino. But for now the majority of Earth population is of a specific definable race (which have many differences deeper than skin tone). [1] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/mixed-race-america/?pagewanted=all http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/mixed-race-amer...

einhverfr 13y ago
> So your point is that since 2.9% of US population are not single-race (estimate of mixed race in the US [1]) the other 97% aren't either? From a biological perspective, I am not sure you can biologically define "single race" vs "mixed race" to the point where such a categorization makes sense. I think what you can do is specify identifiable populations which share some identifiable genetic markers (say, Chinese vs Mongolians, or Scandinavians vs Mediterraneans). So what I am saying is that 2.9% of Americans are socially of "mixed race" but population groups are much more porous than that, and that does not match the biological realities. This doesn't mean one cannot come up with a biological definition of race, but I don't think it will match our social definitions very closely.
- omonra 13y ago
  "I think what you can do is specify identifiable populations which share some identifiable genetic markers (say, Chinese vs Mongolians, or Scandinavians vs Mediterraneans)." Yes, and likewise you can further extend it - grouping Mongolians & Chinese into one group and various sub-Sararan tribes into another. And voilà - you've got yourself nice Asian and African races. Because they will still share these distinct identifiable genetic markers. "This doesn't mean one cannot come up with a biological definition of race, but I don't think it will match our social definitions very closely." Our social definitions are pretty spot on, if you don't try to come up with exceptions (ie Barack Obama et al). Jay Z is black and Seinfeld is white - how complicated is that?