Post APfRJEopLleFd3brPs by duncan_lithgow@mastodon.social
(DIR) More posts by duncan_lithgow@mastodon.social
(DIR) Post #APfRJEopLleFd3brPs by duncan_lithgow@mastodon.social
2022-11-16T16:51:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Vivernu I'm not implying that truth doesn't matter. I'm saying it is true that 'race' is a misrepresentation of the biological reality. That is true *and* it supports an anti-racism agenda. Do you think there is a large enough genetic difference between population clusters to apply a term like 'race'. The difference would have to be significantly more than the in-cluster variation. @thor
(DIR) Post #APfRJFOzBKZVRCWjmC by vivernu@springbo.cc
2022-11-16T16:54:27.979Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@duncan_lithgow@mastodon.social @Vivernu@springbo.cc @thor@berserker.town You're right it's a big semantic can of worms. "Oh race is a bad term use population cluster." That's the issue.But various human population clusters/ancestries typically are more related within than without. There's this misconception called "Lewontin's Fallacy" that people throw around that's total bullshit.
(DIR) Post #APfpgohoUHdKUT6Zns by duncan_lithgow@mastodon.social
2022-11-16T17:05:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Vivernu that gives me something interesting to read. thanks.
(DIR) Post #APfpgpBahZS7yp2MDY by duncan_lithgow@mastodon.social
2022-11-16T21:06:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Vivernu well, that was a vaguely interesting synopsis from Wikipedia. I don't think I'll wade into the disagreements outlined. I would however still assert that anyone claiming that some superficial notion of race is somehow a proxy for behaviour/ability is almost certainly wrong. But I'm pretty sure we agree there. Thanks for pointing me to that discussion about the science. I think I would need to be trained in statistics to truly understand it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy
(DIR) Post #APfpgpbT9M9XH591YO by vivernu@springbo.cc
2022-11-16T21:27:38.452Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@duncan_lithgow@mastodon.social @Vivernu@springbo.cc Well like I said, it's all semantics. They want to stigmatize using "race" to mean real biological population clusters. They, for example, may just define it as "skin color" in a vacuum and then say it's a wrong way to categorize people (it is, because people with similar skin colors aren't necessarily related all over the world. It can just be convergent evolution for sunny environments). Just keep in mind semantics tends to define reality for people. It's important not to think in words if you're intelligent.As for the rest I'll not talk about it unless you want to talk about it. It's kinda iffy.
(DIR) Post #APfpoqZtPVCUc7EHb6 by vivernu@springbo.cc
2022-11-16T21:29:06.190Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@duncan_lithgow@mastodon.social @Vivernu@springbo.cc Well like I said, it's all semantics. They want to stigmatize using "race" to mean real biological population clusters. They, for example, may just define it as "skin color" in a vacuum and then say it's a wrong way to categorize people (it is, because people with similar skin colors aren't necessarily related all over the world. It can just be convergent evolution for sunny environments). Just keep in mind semantics tends to define reality for people. It's important not to think in words if you're intelligent.As for the rest, it's up in the air. The main issue with taxonomic classification is we define the categories, so at bare minimum we should be consistent with them.
(DIR) Post #APfqjZOTyMoTpBwKau by vivernu@springbo.cc
2022-11-16T21:39:21.241Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@duncan_lithgow@mastodon.social @Vivernu@springbo.cc I probably should elaborate on a much earlier point.In the 1800's, when anthropologists classified by "race", they did NOT go by skin color. The "caucasian" category also included middle-easterners—not just Europeans.They also recognized that Australian aborigines/Melanesians/native Papuans were not related to black people (Subsaharan Africans), yet some "anti-racist" figures try to say things like "race doesn't exist because you may think blacks are related to Melanesians but they're not!". Do you see what I mean? It's a bunch of semantics and double-talk.Now those old racial categories tended to be qualified by skulls. The assumption is if they have the same skull, we can infer relative common ancestry. That is how taxonomy works after all. Now, these old categories were ditched and are considered "pseudoscientific". Skulls notwithstanding, they've accidentally "rediscovered" most of these categories but just use different names and obviously do not use the term race.⮞ Caucasoid = West Eurasian (Europeans, MENA, Central Asians², South Asians)⮞ Mongoloid = East Eurasian (East/Southeast Asians, Central Asians², Amerindians³)⮞ Negroid/Congoid = Subsaharan ("Africans"/Blacks)⮞ Australoid = Oceanian (Aboriginal Australians, Melanesians, Dravidians, percentages of Southeast Asian ancestry(?)⮞ Capoid = ??? (Khoisan)I don't really know about the SKULL aspect, that's obviously taboo, but they seem to agree that you can divide humans this way (sorta). It's just that subsaharans are apparently a paraphyletic group.But yeah, the old racial classifications didn't really follow a "social construct of whiteness" pattern or have anything to do with what anti-racists target, it's just totally ignored or claimed to be "pseudoscience" when it is brought up. Make of that what you will.
(DIR) Post #APfrQGg3R6fcEDWEym by vivernu@springbo.cc
2022-11-16T21:47:03.990Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@duncan_lithgow@mastodon.social @Vivernu@springbo.cc If you go look up on, say, wikipedia one of those old categories, they'll give doubletalk arguments as to why they're "pseudoscientific". Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MongoloidRegarding the snippet in the image, the fact that you can subdivide does not disqualify the initial category. Example in the European context the West Eurasian subdivisions are Neolithic Farmer, Western European Hunter-Gatherer, Ancestral North Eurasian, and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer for the most part. That doesn't disqualify "West Eurasian" as a category.Furthermore, the fact that humans are usually mixed and fuzzy doesn't disqualify the root groups even if they exist.