Stuck In The Circle
- Nov 28, 2011
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
lolIf you two would pull your heads out of the echo chamber for a moment you might come to realize this is not complex:
View attachment 67339347
There is a scientific context for the term "race" that is base on scientifically verifiable evidence, like ancestry. If you want to pretend this definition does not exist and that race is only a social construct, be my guest. But neither your insistence on such nonsense nor your personal attacks against me make for a convincing argument. Quite the opposite.
The first definition does not establish that the definition of race is biological. In fact, the part you didn't circle points out how "race" is often used to indicate ethnicity or cultural groupings, not biological groupings.
"Shared ancestry" is also rather vague -- which is why you can have people talking about the "Irish race" and "Scottish race," even though genetically they're pretty similar (and, obviously, both have white skin...).
As to the second you circled? Humans don't have any subspecies. (Scientists have also generally stopped using the term "race," and most agree that race is a social construct.)
I mean, really. What biological traits do you think all Asians share?
It's not skin color; Indians, Afghanis, Chinese, South Koreans, Indonesians et al don't have the same skin color.
It's not eye shape.
It's not lactose tolerance.
It's not height.
It's not the ratio of fast-twitch to slow-twitch muscle fibers.
There are dozens of distinct population groups with various compositions of over a dozen haplogroups in Southeast Asia alone.
What race is Archie Mountbatten-Windsor? His grandmother is African-American; his mother is often classified as African-American; the rest of his grandparents are European.
You really shouldn't claim that you're following "the science," when in fact the science shows that you're wrong.