3 ms·

> 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 p

> 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?