What's the difference between race and ethnicity?

Joe

Feb 8, 2020
0
1
5
This article is rather disturbing in that it attempts to mix science with Political Correctness.

The article implies that our concepts of Race and Racial differences is strictly social and the genetic variations are "just not there."

Well, if You use this "scientific mindset," then there is no differences between species or even Fauna and Flora. Because after all, GENETICALLY, the variations are SO SMALL as to be INCONSEQUENTIAL

The fact is that if we can DISCERN Phenotypical differences, that means that we can discriminate between one flower from another, one animal species from another and even discern male and female of various species. THAT IS SCIENCE.

The attempts to indoctrinate via Pseudo Science is not. Whomever wrote this article needs to be censured.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris
Feb 8, 2020
0
1
0
If someone asked you to describe your identity to them, where would you begin? Would it come down to your skin color or your nationality? What about the language you speak, your religion, your cultural traditions or your family's ancestry?

What's the difference between race and ethnicity? : Read more
My reply to this question is I am of the Human Race (i do not consider that there is more than one race within humanity) Ethnicity has two answers the DNA which is of course not subject to change and the "Ethnic" group in which I was raised and/or am habituated to. There is no reason to continue to see it as any more complicated than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael D. Rogers
Feb 8, 2020
0
1
0
Why in heavens' name is human kind considered more than one Race. This is stupidity not Science. Humanity is but one Race. If some Neandertals had survived there would be two.
 

TRM

Feb 8, 2020
0
0
0
That's the point of the article, we are all the same species.

Kingdom: Animalia; Phylum: Chordata; Class: Mammalia; Order: Primates; Suborder: Haplorhini; Infraorder: Simiiformes; Family: Hominidae; Subfamily: Homininae; Tribe: Hominini; Genus; Homo; Species: H. sapiens.

Based on pure biology and Linnaeus' zoological taxonomy, there are very little differences between all humans other than how we react to the external environments in which we have evolved (hair and skin color, height, facial features, muscle development, etc.). Other categories beyond this are purely human-constructed; which, is not always a "bad" thing. Only when we classify these categories as more superior or inferior do they become a source of contention. Unfortunately, that became the norm since the dawn of modern civilization.
 
Feb 8, 2020
0
0
0
This article is rather disturbing in that it attempts to mix science with Political Correctness.

The article implies that our concepts of Race and Racial differences is strictly social and the genetic variations are "just not there."

Well, if You use this "scientific mindset," then there is no differences between species or even Fauna and Flora. Because after all, GENETICALLY, the variations are SO SMALL as to be INCONSEQUENTIAL

The fact is that if we can DISCERN Phenotypical differences, that means that we can discriminate between one flower from another, one animal species from another and even discern male and female of various species. THAT IS SCIENCE.

The attempts to indoctrinate via Pseudo Science is not. Whomever wrote this article needs to be censured.
I think the article does lean towards political correctness; but I think the author needs not to be censured but introduced to some statistical concepts. The physical differences we notice among the peoples native to sub-saharan Africa, Europe, eastern Asia etc. are biological in origin. These are phenotypical differences which result from genetic variations. I believe it is true that the variability within any "racial" group can be quite substantial, but not so much that an observer could wrongly perceive a person's race. There is enough enough overlap in the distribution of the skin tones of Europeans and Africans to mistake a European with dark skin for an African with light skin; but then the other the other phenotypical traits would have to bear more resemblance to the African prototype than the European prototype as well. So it might be possible but highly improbable that we could find a European with very dark skin, tightly curled hair, and thick lips that suggest the African prototype rather than the European prototype. Sometimes we will encounter a person who will be classified as black, but have a light skin tone and straight hair etc., but such people are probably the issue of parents with mixed racial origins, for example, Princess Meghan.
 
Feb 8, 2020
0
0
0
.... it is true that the variability within any "racial" group can be quite substantial, but not so much that an observer could wrongly perceive a person's race.
that definitely not true, as i’ve had american indian relatives mistaken for asian more than once


...resemblance to the African prototype than the European prototype as well. So it might be possible but highly improbable that we could find a European with very dark skin, tightly curled hair...
ever been to southern italy?
or north africa?
 
Jan 6, 2020
160
59
180
Universality resides in the economic thesis of Karl Marx that he wrote around the early 1900,s. Use morality to blame one group or another for the ills of the world. As long as you stir the pot nothing is gained you divide people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: menndy
Feb 11, 2020
1
2
10
This article is rather disturbing in that it attempts to mix science with Political Correctness.
Define "Political Correctness" and point to the examples of it in the text. You made this claim, so the burden is on you to back it up. I do not accept the term "Political Correctness" as anything but a subjective, emotion-laden evaluation.

The article implies that our concepts of Race and Racial differences is strictly social and the genetic variations are "just not there."

Well, if You use this "scientific mindset," then there is no differences between species or even Fauna and Flora. Because after all, GENETICALLY, the variations are SO SMALL as to be INCONSEQUENTIAL
Like myself at first, you misread the meaning of the statement. "There are more similarities than differences" meaning, once you take out the genes that are common across all of homo sapiens sapiens, there is no scientific way to discern "race", because the visible traits we use to determine belonging to certain races appear so often across the species that it is impossible to define in a meaningful way.

People do frequently "wrongly" identify the race of others -- at least, according to the people who say they have been misidentified. My husband, for example, is Sicilian. If he grows a beard, he looks like, and has been mistaken for, an Arab. But his DNA does not show Semitic origin as a primary contributor. He also has North African and Italian/Greek DNA, and he can become quite dark in the sun. What is his race? In the USA, up until the 1950s he'd be considered "Black." Is he Black? He does not identify as Black. He checks the White/Caucasian box.

This was not discussed in the article, but "race" as a term has changed in meaning ever since it was invented. Not even American surveys can agree on what races there are. The term itself, whenever surveys ask this question, mixes together terms that are used to denote observable features as well as language families and continents. Black, White/Caucasian (not Hispanic), Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American. This clearly makes no sense at all. Hispanic means "Spanish-speaking." What does one's language have to do with one's appearance, particularly since many "Hispanics" are actually of Indigenous South or Central American origin, whereas others are of more European origin. So "race" as a method of identifying people scientifically is not even something everyone agrees on, mixes together totally unrelated categories, and has never had a stable meaning.

Secondly many regions are completely ignored as separate even though there are clear differences in how they look. Why is "Asian" one race, when Chinese, Japanese and Koreans look VERY different from Central and South Asians, and Russians are primarily also in Asia. What race are they? Many South Asians share traits with people of African Descent, such as very dark skin and wiry hair. What race are people from India? What if they don't have dark skin and wiry hair? What race are people from the Middle East? What race are the Kurds, who are literally Caucasians, but also from the Middle East, and share some features with Semitic peoples, however some are blond with blue eyes?

Even today, there is no generally agreed-upon definitions of these races, let alone one based on measurable characteristics, so how can one measure the degree of belonging to a race? If you can't measure it, it's not a science-based categorization.

The fact is that if we can DISCERN Phenotypical differences, that means that we can discriminate between one flower from another, one animal species from another and even discern male and female of various species. THAT IS SCIENCE.
You are in error. Human "discernment" of "Phenotypical" features is notoriously unreliable as a basis for scientific discrimination. One need only to look at the original categorizations of species by the early biologists. When we discovered DNA, we began to realize that categorization by feature was a bad way to determine how species were related. The correct, and only method of scientifically determining relationship, including belonging to a species or a variety, is through DNA typing. This is for exactly the reason that the author mentions: because many, many traits develop independently, in almost completely unrelated organisms, under similar environmental conditions. This has led many, many species to be recategorized, moved sometimes into a completely different genus, or eliminated as a separate species entirely.

I have demonstrated how race is in fact a completely unscientific method for categorizing people:

1. it mixes unrelated categories
2. it relies upon visual distinction by humans, which is cannot reliably determine relationship
3. There is no agreed-upon definition of measurable characteristics.
4. It ignores DNA
5. It lumps together groups of people that are clearly visually distinct from each other, and leaves others out entirely

Clearly race is an unreliable, inconsistent, self-contradictory, qualitative and totally subjective categorization of humans. There is no other logical conclusion but that it is unscientific.
 
Last edited:
Feb 12, 2020
2
0
10
Ugh? Whether or not this is PC, not PC, genotypical or phenotypical it is LAUGHABLE that a myopic view of what constitutes a, "minority" is AVOIDED when one thinks about the 6 or 7 billion people on earth... So whom is really a, "minority?" Ugh. LOL. Not Asians, not Africans, not every other, "minority" you can phenotypically describe... No, in the overall pizza pie slice diagram of EITHER race or ethnicity, CAUCASIANS are a MINORITY in global population. Duh. So why pretend? If a person with more consants than vowels in their name (who was apparently angelicly brought to and raised in the USA) can lash out, instead of being subjected to FGM, ethnic cleansing, slavery, or whatever OTHER atrocious behaviors STILL are PERPETRATED by people of either the same, "race or ethnicity" has apparently forgotten that slaves were for sale on the beaches of Africa, often traded for the harder alloy of bronze. The people who traded their next door neighbors were FLUSH with gold and slaves. They needed more bronze shackles from the (Latino) Portuguese.
The hand that feeds you is the easiest to bite.
Don't forget the WORLDWIDE pie diagram when you think of what constitutes a "minority, or race, or ethnicity" of people's. Please correct me if statistics, history, or inconvenient truths embarrass myopic views... Duh.
 
Feb 12, 2020
2
0
10
Oops. I accidentally uttered the inconvenient truth that Caucasians are a minority when you consider the bulk of Asia, the subcontinent of India, the overcrowded islands of Indonesia, and the burgeoning slums outside the, "5 eyes" countries. IMHO we are are all equal. Period. Just don't lecture me on birth control into already impoverished scenarios, or the accompanying stupidity that follows. It is overlooked by this article that SOME THINGS ARE EASY TO SEE. whether phenotypical or genotypical, "you can not fix stupid." And as Forrest Gump said, "stupid is, as stupid does." Which explains perfectly the population rise in impoverished majorities. Who in the, "first world" dares to call them out on their profligacy? Their ineptitude at managing their scarce (oops, their fault again) resources. The simple FACT that the Paris climate accord " front loaded" and gave both India and China 50 more years to.pollute and build coal plants... Meanwhile, I can't get a plastic straw in the USA, because 80% of the pollution in the world's oceans comes from 8 (magic) rivers in Asia.... Duh.
I don't care about the color of your skin, but as every one forgets Martin Luther King Jr.'s SECOND HALF of that sentence, "but rather that they be judged by the CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER." DUH. Please forgive the surprise that I have sprung on the uninformed, the denying fools, or the ignorant that comprise 74% of the, "bell curve." You are what you eat, and you will reap what you sow... So lay off the, Bush meat" and the bat soup... Because Y'all infected yourselves with the crowning achievement of the 2020 Darwin Award, LOL (corona virus) just like the Bush meat eaters in Africa could not resist the plagues that haunt them, too.

Stupid is as stupid does.
Peace out.
 
Last edited:
May 2, 2020
1
0
10
This article is rather disturbing in that it attempts to mix science with Political Correctness.

The article implies that our concepts of Race and Racial differences is strictly social and the genetic variations are "just not there."

Well, if You use this "scientific mindset," then there is no differences between species or even Fauna and Flora. Because after all, GENETICALLY, the variations are SO SMALL as to be INCONSEQUENTIAL

The fact is that if we can DISCERN Phenotypical differences, that means that we can discriminate between one flower from another, one animal species from another and even discern male and female of various species. THAT IS SCIENCE.

The attempts to indoctrinate via Pseudo Science is not. Whomever wrote this article needs to be censured.
This comment is rather disturbing in that it attempts to mix science with opinion.


The comment implies that our concepts of race and racial differences has a substantial basis grounded in the scientific method.

Well, if you use this "scientific mindset," then there are distinct differences between species, and especially between fauna and flora. Because after all, GENETICALLY, although the variations within a species presents diversity which supports survival of various circumstances, the distinction between species is based on the degree of divergence in genetic characters, not simply traits observable by the naked eye.

The fact is that if we can DISCERN certain phenotypical differences within a species using plain sight, that means that we can discriminate between one obvious expression of genetic variation, however determining one animal species from another using modern science is based on many more factors, often not visible to the naked eye. THAT IS SCIENCE.

The attempts to indoctrinate via opinion is not. Whomever wrote this comment does not need to be censured, however. This person should have the freedom to express their opinion, however biased it may be.
 
Jun 11, 2020
5
2
35
Anyone will agree that a mastiff, a poodle or kelpie are ALL dogs, There ARE other similar animals: Coyotes, Wolves, Dingoes etc. that can interbreed with dogs and each other. These AREN'T considered the same as dogs. These animals do have Genes that I think are unique to them. I don't think that what we call different races DO have that distinction, am I wrong? As stated in the article, some groups tend to have certain characteristics: slanted eyes, curly hair, very dark skin but NONE as great as the difference among dogs. In addition to their differing appearance, dog's have different traits: Herders intrinsically know things about herding, Dobies easily become aggressive attack dogs, used in the military and police, why shouldn't some human's have intrinsic tendencies? If so, further study cold determine if some humans from an identifiable group tend to have certain characteristics. Anyone that has had much to do with human infants will affirm that they ARE different from one another: some are inconsolable, others always happy etc. All this difference is BEFORE their behavior has been in any way manipulated bu their caretakers.
 
Apr 8, 2020
7
1
35
My reply to this question is I am of the Human Race (i do not consider that there is more than one race within humanity) Ethnicity has two answers the DNA which is of course not subject to change and the "Ethnic" group in which I was raised and/or am habituated to. There is no reason to continue to see it as any more complicated than that.
Would you then consider the animal kingdom the same way? If so, and if not, why not, then as far as you are concerned a leopard and a chipmunk have no difference.
Have a nice walk in the woods.
 
Nov 17, 2020
1
0
10
The continued use of race for everything from "racism" and "racist" really makes people look dim. They do not stop to think and instead go with the popular sounding terms regardless of reality.

Ethnicity describes, skin color, physical build, food, religious ideology, speech, music, environmental attributes, clothing and so much more. Race describes one thing, belonging to the Human species or the Human race as a whole.

I get a good chuckle when I see Humans fighting among themselves calling each other racists or claiming racism, the entire time these Humans forget over 10 million years of Human evolution and only seem concerned with the very recent of history and timelines, altogether forgetting what they once looked like or did to others throughout time.
 
Nov 24, 2020
2
0
10
If someone asked you to describe your identity to them, where would you begin? Would it come down to your skin color or your nationality? What about the language you speak, your religion, your cultural traditions or your family's ancestry?

What's the difference between race and ethnicity? : Read more
I see myself first and formost as "complex" with complex abilities and flaws and complex needs. This is the way I choose to define myself and the way I choose to define every other person I meet. Non of us have the privilege of controlling how others define us. we only have the privilege to have a say in how we define ourselves. How we define ourselves leads directly into how we ourselves define others. If you define yourself by the pigment of your skin then that is how you will define everyone else you come into contact with. If you see your self first as your gender or your age or culture ...that how you will judge all others you meet. We are all complex lifeforms on this planet ...each of us is a walking talking NY times bestseller and we each have an amazing story to tell of our individual lives ... thats our one and single commonality.
 
Nov 8, 2021
2
0
10
This article is rather disturbing in that it attempts to mix science with Political Correctness.

The article implies that our concepts of Race and Racial differences is strictly social and the genetic variations are "just not there."

Well, if You use this "scientific mindset," then there is no differences between species or even Fauna and Flora. Because after all, GENETICALLY, the variations are SO SMALL as to be INCONSEQUENTIAL

The fact is that if we can DISCERN Phenotypical differences, that means that we can discriminate between one flower from another, one animal species from another and even discern male and female of various species. THAT IS SCIENCE.

The attempts to indoctrinate via Pseudo Science is not. Whomever wrote this article needs to be censured.

NOTHING in the article is indicative of political correctness and neither does it mplies what you posted: The article implies that our concepts of Race and Racial differences is strictly social and the genetic variations are "just not there."

Articles published on the Human Genome Project's website supports this article.

I have no idea how you arrived at the following:

"Well, if You use this "scientific mindset," then there is no differences between species or even Fauna and Flora. Because after all, GENETICALLY, the variations are SO SMALL as to be INCONSEQUENTIAL."

According to the Human Genome Project and several other scientific sources....all humans have 99.20% DNA in common....sooooo....where is there room for not only one other race but 3 or 4 other races?!

The pervasive racist pseudo-science crap is what's driving your comment.
 
Nov 8, 2021
2
0
10
Anyone will agree that a mastiff, a poodle or kelpie are ALL dogs, There ARE other similar animals: Coyotes, Wolves, Dingoes etc. that can interbreed with dogs and each other. These AREN'T considered the same as dogs. These animals do have Genes that I think are unique to them. I don't think that what we call different races DO have that distinction, am I wrong? As stated in the article, some groups tend to have certain characteristics: slanted eyes, curly hair, very dark skin but NONE as great as the difference among dogs. In addition to their differing appearance, dog's have different traits: Herders intrinsically know things about herding, Dobies easily become aggressive attack dogs, used in the military and police, why shouldn't some human's have intrinsic tendencies? If so, further study cold determine if some humans from an identifiable group tend to have certain characteristics. Anyone that has had much to do with human infants will affirm that they ARE different from one another: some are inconsolable, others always happy etc. All this difference is BEFORE their behavior has been in any way manipulated bu their caretakers.

I generally agree with what you posted....except for:

"why shouldn't some human's have intrinsic tendencies?"

If all humans came from Africans, as the science tells us....and differences in skin colors arose via migrating Africans' bodies adapting to varying climates (less sunlight equals Vitamin D deficiency which resulted in lighter and lighter skin as they settled here and there on their journey northward)....how could these adaptations result in "differences intrinsic tendencies?!

Their skin color changed....not their brains.
Up until 8,000 years ago....ALL....ALL Europeans had dark skin.
Of course, Europe was not the continent's name at the time.

Most people have a tendency to think "all people on every continent looked the same as they do today....and they did not.
The first humans were African....and all other groups arose from them due to adaptations to different climates.
 
Mar 4, 2020
659
86
1,980
Interesting thread. Let's simplify the argument, with a thought experiment. Let's imagine, that we are all living 200 years after the Great Flood. We all have the same race, language, units of measure, and we were are raised in the same neighborhood. And, we can all be traced back to Noah. Same ancestors. We are all pure.

Everyone is common. Or are we? Are we all the same sex? The same strength? Can we all run the same length? Lift the same weight? Have the same patience? The same determination? The same bravery? Do we all have the same will? Do we all get the same choices? Does all live to the same age?

Would we still want what others have? Lie and cheat to get it? Murder?

Race and ethnicity are irrelevant. Just a petty rational for our selfish self deceiving mentality.

And it's obvious for all to discern but never admitted..........that we all contribute to this condition called humanity.

Here's a little truth for you. Physicality, is the ONLY thing people have in common. And it treats all in the same manner. The ONLY thing. And physicality, doesn't care one iota what you think. Or how you feel. Nature does not think and it does not feel. It does NOT care. It just does.

This is a condition of living existence. This condition doesn't care about you. And you instinctively know this. This is why, you are the most important thing in your existence. One has to give importance to one's self. Nature will not recognize you even exist. It enslaves all, without care.

Nature will pay you no homage. It will NOT respect you. A fair shake is meaningless to nature.

Now add race and ethnicity back into this mix.

Flame, blame and shame all you want, nature will not change and does not care.

Human concepts, like math concepts, have nothing to do with nature. And man, will never understand his own nature.
 
Jan 17, 2022
3
0
10
Define "Political Correctness" and point to the examples of it in the text. You made this claim, so the burden is on you to back it up. I do not accept the term "Political Correctness" as anything but a subjective, emotion-laden evaluation.

Like myself at first, you misread the meaning of the statement. "There are more similarities than differences" meaning, once you take out the genes that are common across all of homo sapiens sapiens, there is no scientific way to discern "race", because the visible traits we use to determine belonging to certain races appear so often across the species that it is impossible to define in a meaningful way.

People do frequently "wrongly" identify the race of others -- at least, according to the people who say they have been misidentified. My husband, for example, is Sicilian. If he grows a beard, he looks like, and has been mistaken for, an Arab.

This was not discussed in the article, but "race" as a term has changed in meaning ever since it was invented. Not even American surveys can agree on what races there are.

Secondly many regions are completely ignored as separate even though there are clear differences in how they look. Why is "Asian" one race, when Chinese, Japanese and Koreans look VERY different from Central and South Asians, and Russians are primarily also in Asia. What race are they? Many South Asians share traits with people of African Descent, such as very dark skin and wiry hair. What race are people from India? What if they don't have dark skin and wiry hair? What race are people from the Middle East? What race are the Kurds, who are literally Caucasians, but also from the Middle East, and share some features with Semitic peoples, however some are blond with blue eyes?

Even today, there is no generally agreed-upon definitions of these races, let alone one based on measurable characteristics, so how can one measure the degree of belonging to a race? If you can't measure it, it's not a science-based categorization.


You are in error. Human "discernment" of "Phenotypical" features is notoriously unreliable as a basis for scientific discrimination. One need only to look at the original categorizations of species by the early biologists.

I have demonstrated how race is in fact a completely unscientific method for categorizing people:

1. it mixes unrelated categories
2. it relies upon visual distinction by humans, which is cannot reliably determine relationship
3. There is no agreed-upon definition of measurable characteristics.
4. It ignores DNA
5. It lumps together groups of people that are clearly visually distinct from each other, and leaves others out entirely

Clearly race is an unreliable, inconsistent, self-contradictory, qualitative and totally subjective categorization of humans. There is no other logical conclusion but that it is unscientific.


*********************

Mona Lisa, I am going to address a bunch of your assertions and deliberate obfuscations and other disingenous statements:

1 - Political correctness is to ignore facts or reality, in order to avoid causing anger or outrage.

2 - Race does exist. Race means a group of people with a shared geographical origin and shared physical traits that are discernable and sets them apart from other groups. Yes, race is a continuum, and the closer together people are geographically the more overlap there will be, but on average the groups will look different. Please don't tell me you can't tell that Serena Williams is African and that Maria Sharapova is European. Do you really expect people to look at the actress Amy Adams and the actress Lupitya Nyongo and not notice the obvious regional differences? One has a narrow, high bridged leptarrhine European nose, the other has a wide and flat African nose. The one has slender lips, the other has big lips. The one has a European orthognathic facial bone structure, the other has an African prognathous facial bone structure. The one has smooth red European hair, the other has extremely tightly coiled black hair, also known as "Afro-textured" hair. The one has blue eyes, the other one has black eyes. The one has big, low European calf muscles, the other one has small and high sitting African calf muscles due to her curved African femurs. The one has a long torso and shorter limbs, the other has the typical African short torso and longer limbs. Look at all those differences... and I didn't even mention skin colour!

"because the visible traits we use to determine belonging to certain races appear so often across the species that it is impossible to define in a meaningful way."

This is nonsense. There is not a single European alive that has a nose as wide and flat as George Floyd, or lips as large as George Floyd. There is not a single European alive that has hair as tightly coiled as African hair. It's only in your imagination where people's races are constantly incorrectly discerned. I'm sorry, but I've never walked around anywhere in Europe and saw ethnic Europeans looking similar to Africans or Asians. Everywhere I look in Europe can tell that the Europeans are visually distinct from other groups. I don't walk around and see a European with pot scrubber coiled African hair, or a massive wide flat nose, or facial prognathism, or enormous lips. I really don't. I don't see Europeans with Asian facial bone structure and slanted eyes with epicanthic fold. Even the Sami don't have eyes nearly to the extent of East Asian eyes. I somehow doubt if I walk around in Asia that I will see random European traits everyone, such as an Asian with round eyes, long narrow high-bridged nose, European facial bone structure and long wavy blonde hair.
Mixed race people don't count.


3 - As for your husband looking Arab... I can't take your word for it because you are pushing an agenda and are biased. You want to believe your husband can look Arab as that would support your assertions. I will have to be the judge. You will have to show a picture of your husband because your word simply isn't good enough.
And no, Sicilians do not look like Arabs. They really don't. They might have a similar appearance to some north Africans, but North Africans are not all Arabs. The Mediterranean peoples share some similar features, but on average Mediterranean Europeans are still distinguishable from North Africans. Sicilians and other southern Italians definitely do not look like sub-Saharan Africans or East Asians.

4 - "People do frequently "wrongly" identify the race of others"


No, they don't. Especially not races that are substantially geographically separated. No one is going to confuse a European for a sub-Saharan African. Again, mixed race people don't count.
People can easily identify who is of their race and who isn't. Perhaps when looking at other races than their own they are not as tuned in on the subtle and nuanced differences. For example, a European might not be so easily able to tell the differences between Turkic people and those of the Levant or Arabs, but people of those races will be able to identify the differences very easily. Actually one can consider those people to be of the same race - West Asian. Of course every race has variation within it, so Turks, Arabs, Berbers, Maghreb have subtle differences in their appearance, like how Slavic, Germanic, Iberian, Helenic and Scandinavian people subtle differences in their appearances. Even if you personally think that Turks and Italians look more alike than Italians and Scandinavians, that doesn't invalidate the concept of race. Italians and Norwegians have the same facial features and facial bone structures and hair textures, with Italians having more people on the curly hair end of the spectrum and Norwegians having more people on the straight hair end of the spectrum.

5 - "This was not discussed in the article, but "race" as a term has changed in meaning ever since it was invented. Not even American surveys can agree on what races there are."

I agree that the American legal racial categories need updating. They are indeed silly. Updating them would be very simple and easy. These are the racial categories that should be used: European, West Asian, South Asian, East Asian, Sub-Saharan African, Amerindian, Oceanic, Polynesian, Hispanic Mestizo, Other Mixed race.

6 - "Why is "Asian" one race, when Chinese, Japanese and Koreans look VERY different from Central and South Asians,"

What are you talking about? We do make distinctions between the different Asiatic races when distinguishing between them is relevant or necessary. When they are lumped together it is usually because the white European race and its relationship to the other races is the focus of the topic and thus using the umbrella term "Asian" to group all Asian racial groups together is sufficient. For example, if we are talking about how ethnic racial Europeans could become a minority in their own European homelands if they allow too much Asian immigration, specifying the exact Asian racial group isn't pertinent or consequential. The point is that Europeans will become a minority... whatever group might replace them, whether it's west, south or east Asians, doesn't matter, because it's all equally bad.

7 - "and Russians are primarily also in Asia. What race are they"

Are you joking? You can't be serious. Russia is transcontinental and includes people of the European race and people of the three Asian races. Western Russia is in Europe. "Russians" can be split into two groups: People who are ethnic Russian and those who are citizens of Russia but are not ethnic Russians. Ethnic Russians are European Slavic people. The other racial groups in Russia typically have strong regional identities. The Tatars, for example, will consider themselves Tatars first, and citizens of Russia second. Same applies to the Chechen people.


8 - "Many South Asians share traits with people of African Descent, such as very dark skin and wiry hair."

No. They do not. Indians do not look like Africans. Even if many of them have very dark skin. Their facial features, nose shapes, lips sizes, facial bone structure and body proportions are not African. Their hair is also significantly different to African hair. Seriously, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN AFRICAN HAIR? It's completely unique. No other race has REMOTELY similar hair to African hair. Even the curliest European hair looks completely different to Afro-textured hair. South Asians have the same hair textures as Europeans and West Asians - hair that ranges from straight to wavy to curly. They do not have coiled African hair. You are being very disingenuous in your arguments.


9 - "so how can one measure the degree of belonging to a race? If you can't measure it, it's not a science-based categorization."

It can be measured. Our DNA profiles can point out our geographical origins. You can also measure accurately by sight. 99% of the time you will be able to discern race accurately by looking at someone. In certain cases, such as Southern Europeans and people from the Levant or some Turkic people, some confusion is forgivable as there will be fringe cases where they look very similar due to geographical proximity and Mediterranean people's having mixed around a lot.


10 - "You are in error. Human "discernment" of "Phenotypical" features is notoriously unreliable as a basis for scientific discrimination. One need only to look at the original categorizations of species by the early biologists."

Race doesn't HAVE to be so perfectly scientifically delineated. "Race" is simply a term we use to describe obvious and discernable groups of humans, based on geographical origin and physical traits. That's it. If we were to stop using the word race for this purpose because progressives don't like it and are beating us over the head incessantly, then we will simply find a different term that has the same purpose. We will replace race with "appearance group" or "Ancestral population" or whatever. It will fulfill the same function, so we might as well just stick with race.

The main reason why progressives insist we are all the same race and we should pretend taht there are no differences between humans is because they are pushing a race mixing agenda. They want all humans to merge together until we all look exactly the same and European beauty is annihilated. They are trying to brainwash us to believe that there are no differences and nothing worthy of preservation. What better way to manipulate the white race to surrender itself to its own conquest and extinction than by brainwashing white people to believe that they don't really exist?


11 -

"1. it mixes unrelated categories
2. it relies upon visual distinction by humans, which is cannot reliably determine relationship
3. There is no agreed-upon definition of measurable characteristics.
4. It ignores DNA
5. It lumps together groups of people that are clearly visually distinct from each other, and leaves others out entirely"


Visual distinction by humans is accurate 99.9999% of the time. The fact that there is no agreed-upon definition of measurable characteristics doesn't change the fact that people from different geographical regions look different and have different genetic traits, history and ancestry. It does not ignore DNA. Your DNA shows you are 99% European, then you are of the European race. Simple. It does not lump people together who are visually distinct. South, west and east Asians are not lumped together as the same race. They are only lumped together when the differences between them isn't relevant. Same applies to Africans and East Africans. When they need to be distinguished they are distinguished from one another. It all depends on the relevance those distinctions carry in a particular topic of discussion.

 
Jan 17, 2022
3
0
10
Why in heavens' name is human kind considered more than one Race. This is stupidity not Science. Humanity is but one Race. If some Neandertals had survived there would be two.
You are confusing race with species. An elementary mistake.

Race is a subcategory within a species. A race of humans is a group of humans with shared geographical origin and physical traits.

The races are broadly: European, West Asian, East Asian, South Asian, Oceanic, Polynesian, Amerindian, Sub-Saharan African and then various mixed race categories, like Hispanic, for example.

Maria Sharapova and Serena Williams can easily be identified as being of the European race and sub-Saharan African race respectively.
 
Jan 17, 2022
3
0
10
that definitely not true, as i’ve had american indian relatives mistaken for asian more than once




ever been to southern italy?
or north africa?

What? You are not seriously asserting that southern Italians look like black, sub-Saharan Africans, are you? Because they most certainly do not. The darkest Southern Italian is lighter than 99.999999999% of all Africans. And skin tone isn't the only feature that makes them look distinct. Southern Italians will have mediterranean European facial features, noses, lips, facial bone structure and hair textures. They do not have African wide flat noses, facial prognathism, larger lips, tightly coiled Afro-textured hair, etc. Their body proportions are also different.

As for the hair... seriously, there is a MASSIVE difference between European curly hair and African coiled hair.

You must have seen very few Africans in your life...
 
Feb 2, 2022
1
0
10
*********************

Mona Lisa, I am going to address a bunch of your assertions and deliberate obfuscations and other disingenous statements:

1 - Political correctness is to ignore facts or reality, in order to avoid causing anger or outrage.

2 - Race does exist. Race means a group of people with a shared geographical origin and shared physical traits that are discernable and sets them apart from other groups. Yes, race is a continuum, and the closer together people are geographically the more overlap there will be, but on average the groups will look different. Please don't tell me you can't tell that Serena Williams is African and that Maria Sharapova is European. Do you really expect people to look at the actress Amy Adams and the actress Lupitya Nyongo and not notice the obvious regional differences? One has a narrow, high bridged leptarrhine European nose, the other has a wide and flat African nose. The one has slender lips, the other has big lips. The one has a European orthognathic facial bone structure, the other has an African prognathous facial bone structure. The one has smooth red European hair, the other has extremely tightly coiled black hair, also known as "Afro-textured" hair. The one has blue eyes, the other one has black eyes. The one has big, low European calf muscles, the other one has small and high sitting African calf muscles due to her curved African femurs. The one has a long torso and shorter limbs, the other has the typical African short torso and longer limbs. Look at all those differences... and I didn't even mention skin colour!

"because the visible traits we use to determine belonging to certain races appear so often across the species that it is impossible to define in a meaningful way."

This is nonsense. There is not a single European alive that has a nose as wide and flat as George Floyd, or lips as large as George Floyd. There is not a single European alive that has hair as tightly coiled as African hair. It's only in your imagination where people's races are constantly incorrectly discerned. I'm sorry, but I've never walked around anywhere in Europe and saw ethnic Europeans looking similar to Africans or Asians. Everywhere I look in Europe can tell that the Europeans are visually distinct from other groups. I don't walk around and see a European with pot scrubber coiled African hair, or a massive wide flat nose, or facial prognathism, or enormous lips. I really don't. I don't see Europeans with Asian facial bone structure and slanted eyes with epicanthic fold. Even the Sami don't have eyes nearly to the extent of East Asian eyes. I somehow doubt if I walk around in Asia that I will see random European traits everyone, such as an Asian with round eyes, long narrow high-bridged nose, European facial bone structure and long wavy blonde hair.
Mixed race people don't count.


3 - As for your husband looking Arab... I can't take your word for it because you are pushing an agenda and are biased. You want to believe your husband can look Arab as that would support your assertions. I will have to be the judge. You will have to show a picture of your husband because your word simply isn't good enough.
And no, Sicilians do not look like Arabs. They really don't. They might have a similar appearance to some north Africans, but North Africans are not all Arabs. The Mediterranean peoples share some similar features, but on average Mediterranean Europeans are still distinguishable from North Africans. Sicilians and other southern Italians definitely do not look like sub-Saharan Africans or East Asians.

4 - "People do frequently "wrongly" identify the race of others"

No, they don't. Especially not races that are substantially geographically separated. No one is going to confuse a European for a sub-Saharan African. Again, mixed race people don't count.
People can easily identify who is of their race and who isn't. Perhaps when looking at other races than their own they are not as tuned in on the subtle and nuanced differences. For example, a European might not be so easily able to tell the differences between Turkic people and those of the Levant or Arabs, but people of those races will be able to identify the differences very easily. Actually one can consider those people to be of the same race - West Asian. Of course every race has variation within it, so Turks, Arabs, Berbers, Maghreb have subtle differences in their appearance, like how Slavic, Germanic, Iberian, Helenic and Scandinavian people subtle differences in their appearances. Even if you personally think that Turks and Italians look more alike than Italians and Scandinavians, that doesn't invalidate the concept of race. Italians and Norwegians have the same facial features and facial bone structures and hair textures, with Italians having more people on the curly hair end of the spectrum and Norwegians having more people on the straight hair end of the spectrum.

5 - "This was not discussed in the article, but "race" as a term has changed in meaning ever since it was invented. Not even American surveys can agree on what races there are."

I agree that the American legal racial categories need updating. They are indeed silly. Updating them would be very simple and easy. These are the racial categories that should be used: European, West Asian, South Asian, East Asian, Sub-Saharan African, Amerindian, Oceanic, Polynesian, Hispanic Mestizo, Other Mixed race.

6 - "Why is "Asian" one race, when Chinese, Japanese and Koreans look VERY different from Central and South Asians,"

What are you talking about? We do make distinctions between the different Asiatic races when distinguishing between them is relevant or necessary. When they are lumped together it is usually because the white European race and its relationship to the other races is the focus of the topic and thus using the umbrella term "Asian" to group all Asian racial groups together is sufficient. For example, if we are talking about how ethnic racial Europeans could become a minority in their own European homelands if they allow too much Asian immigration, specifying the exact Asian racial group isn't pertinent or consequential. The point is that Europeans will become a minority... whatever group might replace them, whether it's west, south or east Asians, doesn't matter, because it's all equally bad.

7 - "and Russians are primarily also in Asia. What race are they"

Are you joking? You can't be serious. Russia is transcontinental and includes people of the European race and people of the three Asian races. Western Russia is in Europe. "Russians" can be split into two groups: People who are ethnic Russian and those who are citizens of Russia but are not ethnic Russians. Ethnic Russians are European Slavic people. The other racial groups in Russia typically have strong regional identities. The Tatars, for example, will consider themselves Tatars first, and citizens of Russia second. Same applies to the Chechen people.


8 - "Many South Asians share traits with people of African Descent, such as very dark skin and wiry hair."

No. They do not. Indians do not look like Africans. Even if many of them have very dark skin. Their facial features, nose shapes, lips sizes, facial bone structure and body proportions are not African. Their hair is also significantly different to African hair. Seriously, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN AFRICAN HAIR? It's completely unique. No other race has REMOTELY similar hair to African hair. Even the curliest European hair looks completely different to Afro-textured hair. South Asians have the same hair textures as Europeans and West Asians - hair that ranges from straight to wavy to curly. They do not have coiled African hair. You are being very disingenuous in your arguments.


9 - "so how can one measure the degree of belonging to a race? If you can't measure it, it's not a science-based categorization."

It can be measured. Our DNA profiles can point out our geographical origins. You can also measure accurately by sight. 99% of the time you will be able to discern race accurately by looking at someone. In certain cases, such as Southern Europeans and people from the Levant or some Turkic people, some confusion is forgivable as there will be fringe cases where they look very similar due to geographical proximity and Mediterranean people's having mixed around a lot.


10 - "You are in error. Human "discernment" of "Phenotypical" features is notoriously unreliable as a basis for scientific discrimination. One need only to look at the original categorizations of species by the early biologists."

Race doesn't HAVE to be so perfectly scientifically delineated. "Race" is simply a term we use to describe obvious and discernable groups of humans, based on geographical origin and physical traits. That's it. If we were to stop using the word race for this purpose because progressives don't like it and are beating us over the head incessantly, then we will simply find a different term that has the same purpose. We will replace race with "appearance group" or "Ancestral population" or whatever. It will fulfill the same function, so we might as well just stick with race.

The main reason why progressives insist we are all the same race and we should pretend taht there are no differences between humans is because they are pushing a race mixing agenda. They want all humans to merge together until we all look exactly the same and European beauty is annihilated. They are trying to brainwash us to believe that there are no differences and nothing worthy of preservation. What better way to manipulate the white race to surrender itself to its own conquest and extinction than by brainwashing white people to believe that they don't really exist?


11 -

"1. it mixes unrelated categories
2. it relies upon visual distinction by humans, which is cannot reliably determine relationship
3. There is no agreed-upon definition of measurable characteristics.
4. It ignores DNA
5. It lumps together groups of people that are clearly visually distinct from each other, and leaves others out entirely"


Visual distinction by humans is accurate 99.9999% of the time. The fact that there is no agreed-upon definition of measurable characteristics doesn't change the fact that people from different geographical regions look different and have different genetic traits, history and ancestry. It does not ignore DNA. Your DNA shows you are 99% European, then you are of the European race. Simple. It does not lump people together who are visually distinct. South, west and east Asians are not lumped together as the same race. They are only lumped together when the differences between them isn't relevant. Same applies to Africans and East Africans. When they need to be distinguished they are distinguished from one another. It all depends on the relevance those distinctions carry in a particular topic of discussion.
I had to create an account just to reply to this...

This was a lot of words adding up to a poor attempt to refute the idea that "Race" is a social construct devoid of Scientific backing. Ultimately, the fact that phenotypical similarities can exist and cross between "races," is the reason why Biologists don't create further classification past Species.

Furthermore, the very idea of race can't even pass a basic, minimal, logical test. If "Race" is a biological "fact", the way that all other classifications from Kingdom to Species are, then each individual must, without exception, be of some distinct Race, and so, then consider the following scenario:
Suppose you have two people, one who is 100% "pure Indian" and one who is 100% "pure Arab," and they have a child together. What is the distinct race that the child belongs to? Are they Arab or Indian? They most certainly cannot be both if "race" is a Scientific fact. And they most certainly can't be either since each parent will contribute 50% of the child's DNA, which means the child will be perfectly 50% of each. Therefore, "Race" can't scientifically exist.

Moreover, "race" serves no meaningful, useful, purpose, other than to justify segregation and discrimination when you consider that outcomes, be they social, health, economical, or virtually any other, has considerably more correlation to the zip code where you grow up, than to the "race" you belong to, e.g., raise a child in a rich neighborhood, and the child will on average experience very similar outcomes to those being experienced by the other kids being raised in their neighborhood, regardless of the child's race, and considerably different outcomes compared to other children being raised in a poor neighborhood. In fact, the very reason for the tendency in the disparity of outcomes that appears to have a racial correlation is the intentional, disingenuous, historic misuse of "race" as a means of segregation and discrimination. I'm not going to go into a whole History lesson here, but just consider as an example the fact that during the New Deal in the United States, the Federal Government provided nearly interest free loans for people to develop Suburbs throughout the country, with the caveat, that you could not get these loans if you were of the "Black" race. That law, alone, led to a collective wealth growth in the Suburbs that black people were legally barred from taking part in. Fast forward to today, past decades of redlining laws, and you can still see the sociological results, and the disparity of outcomes caused by this law. Suburbs tend to be more "white," have lower population density with more wealth per capita, which leads to better education and health outcomes for the people living in them since Education and Health funding tend to be directly linked to property value in the corresponding areas, whereas large cities, tend to have more black people, more densely packed, with lower property value, and worse health and educational outcomes. And of course, because overall social outcomes tend to be directly correlated to Education and Health outcomes, you will see that when you compare social markers for black people and white people in the United States, be it crime rates. incidence of poor health outcomes, etc., black people tend to do overall worse than white people, but whenever you look at specific cases, you see that black people living in "white" zip codes, will do just as well as the white people living there, while white people living in "black" zip codes will do just as badly as the black people living there.

Ultimately, virtually all, if not actually all, the "useful" statistical differences that can be gathered from separating people by race are actually a result of having done so throughout History, and should we stop misusing "race" as a means of impacting people's outcomes, these statistical differences would simply ease into an average and cease to be useful at all, which is the very reason why the use of "Race" is entirely pointless and unproductive, except for people who are racist and want "race" to be a thing.

So, I take it back, "race" does serve a useful purpose after all, i.e., to identify racist people who, by definition, aren't very bright, and who therefore, you might want to consider keeping at arm's length.
 
Feb 27, 2022
42
1
50
A horse and a zebra had this discussion once. The zebra asked, Why can't I be a horse ? The horse said, That lion knows you're a horse and so do I, but if we start calling you a horse, Do you remember what happened to the dog?
The zebra then said, you do know I'm black with white stripes ? The horse said, that's a people thing. Sometimes they act like an ass but are not a horse.
 
Last edited:
Apr 10, 2022
1
0
10
Much like religion, ethnicity once ran aling racial/geographic lines before we began traveling globally. A Chinese person was Chinese in nationality, race, and every other aspect. Same for all distinct groups. Categorizing by common features and appearance is a perfectly natural behavior of our species. Not "racism".
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY