John Wilkes Booth

the differences are mostly superficial. which is why our tribal instincts latch onto "races" as a way to organize humans. because outward appearance is the first impression we get of someone.

but in terms of genetics there aren't really distinct human races. even in terms of the superficial outward differences there aren't really distinct races but more like a variety of physical characteristics that our pattern-seeking brains tend to try to use to categorize people.

DwnWthVwls

thinking....

__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

Soulflower

Race is a social construct. Its a construct that we as society conceptualize and define according to physical attributes, traits, culture etc. It has nothing to do with genetics or biology which is different.

For example,

"Black" and "White" are racial social constructs.

These are superficial constructs that do not tell the whole story of the biology of the person's ethnicity or culture which is why I said I would personally ask someone what race they identify as versus subjectively giving my own interpretation based on their skin tone or physical appearance.

grindy

Interestingly in Russian the word "Negr" (same root as negro) is the most acceptable term, while being called black, while not necessarily an insult, is less polite.

__________________
A smell of petroleum prevails throughout.

Frownland

The phenotypical differences are great enough to categorize them as different races. This shouldn't be confused as trying to categorize them as different species, think of it more like categorizing it into different dog breeds. Genetically, a chihuahua and a great dane are as similar as a black or white person, but their appearances are strikingly different enough to categorize them differently. Kill two white dudes, two black dudes, and two Asian dudes. Once you've defleshed the skull (don't know how to do this, go ask Carpe), you'll notice that there are differences in the nasal cavities, forehead, and jaw structures among other things. The white skulls, the black skulls, and the Asian skulls will be more similar to the other skull in their own racial categorization than the other four skulls. This kind of **** goes down in forensics all the time, and race isn't a social construct at that point, it's an identifier of a victim of a crime or whatever. Saying that the genetical similarities disprove the concept of race is like saying that a science fiction novel and a biography of Napolean are the same because they both used the same word processor.

I think it's fine to identify race because there are enough consistent characteristic differences between the main three races that you can be right (though interracial breeding has made this a tad more difficult) often. As long as it's not used to belittle or elevate a certain race, I see no problem with it.

#anthropologybanter

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

John Wilkes Booth

yea... these are the types of differences that tend to manifest due to different environments. if you watch the videos i posted it goes over this. my point wasn't that race doesn't exist but that it is dictated primarily by these physical characteristics and not by any distinct genetic groups
wtf lol that's probably the stupidest analogy i've ever heard

i don't care either, people will always have tribal mentalities

The Batlord

I think that's an oversimplification. Sure, there are far more similarities than differences, but were the different races to have developed independently over a few more thousand or millions of years then they may very well have branched off into legitimately different species (thankfully that did not occur). ATM they're still different enough to make scientific distinctions relevant.

My only hope is that the different races co-mingle over time to the extent that racial differences do end up becoming completely scientifically irrelevant. If everyone was more or less "the same" then that would end or at least minimize racism to a certain degree. Diversity is great and all, but when it leads to the kind of racial conflicts we still have to deal with in this day and age I think it's the greater of two goods. Not to mention that mingling all of our genes would probably strengthen the human race's genetics (e.g. white people developing the immunities to malaria, skin cancer, and Sickle-Cell Anemia that black people have, and vice versa with heart disease and diabetes).

So come on Soul Flower. Let's make us a mocha baby in the name of peace and understanding. Our child will start a band combining old school soul and death metal. Teach those goofy, white, nu metal "rappers" how to truly combine racially diverse music.

__________________

John Wilkes Booth

^gene flow between human populations around the world prevents that from happening. same as any other species.

i should clarify when i say social construct i don't mean it's just made up. but basically it's just a categorization of humans we did before we knew anything about genetics and we did it pretty much on the basis of physical attributes. that doesn't mean the differences aren't real but they are as far reaching as many people tend to think they are.

i saw you saying that negroid etc might be a more useful scientific term but pc won't allow it. maybe it is useful as frownland said for anthropological reasons but there isn't any distinct 'negroid' genetic group. basically our environment shapes a number of our more visible attributes in a more direct way and so there's a good deal of variety in the physical attributes humans have as they have to survive in different environments. but these differences are most apparent in measuring superficial attributes and resistance to certain regional diseases.

Soulflower

Negroid is a racial slur. I really hope and pray the Batlord was joking with that....

Mondo Bungle

mot according to the internet and science, both are never wrong

__________________