o_O.Q said:
1) "largely indicate that the variation between more local groups can often be larger than the variation between groups separated by continents. " so you're telling me and i'm supposed to take you seriously when you claim that there's greater genetic variation with regards to physical characteristics between caucasians from europe than there is between europeans and africans?
2) "but generally, I would probably just say "dark-skinned"." dark as in tanned? or naturally dark? because its possible to confuse the two
3) "My argument is that race is not a biological reality" our appearance stems from biological factors and despite your claims anyone can clearly tell the difference in the vast majority of cases between someone native to africa and someone native to europe
4) "not that people don't socially use race as a descriptor. That is kind of self-evident and shouldn't even need to be mentioned. " people use the the physical characteristics arising from biological factors as descriptors for race... that's a far better way of putting that which is why i asked you about how you would describe someone... because appearance is what is critical here... i mean its not like we identify asians because we give them name tags or something, its because we can look at them and differentiate them from their physical characteristics
5) " However, it plays into the idea that race is a social construct, not a biological one." so uh black people get their curly hair and darker skin from tanning and curling irons or something? asian people have their narrow set eyes from squinting at lights or something? am i really having this conversation right now? |
1) You are misrepresenting what I said. I am clearly speaking about genetic variation, not variation in physical characteristics. I am not aware of any research which specifically speaks to the genetic variation behind specifically physical characteristics, but that is a strange stipulation to make which has no impact on my argument.
2) And the confusion between the two is one of the inherent weaknesses of racial classification based on skin color.
3) I am not sure why you are insisting upon this point, when I have repeatedly stated that genetics are key to the biological reality of race, not skin color.
4) The fact that people use flawed methods for determining biological race is sort of the crux of the problem here. Physical variation is not the determinant of race. To use it as such is to perform a flawed categorization. Further, the fact that we can tell the difference between physical characteristics does not suddenly make such physical characteristics broadly applicable as a means of grouping. Skin color in most contexts holds little more importance than hair color or eye color, and further, when it is applicable, it is typically applicable as evidence of itself, not as evidence of race (for example, being light skinned is important in regards to sunburns due to skin pigmentation, not due to the "race" that this skin color attributes you to). To compare it to another physical characteristic, the fact that people have different colored hair isn't enough to demonstrate that there is a true biological divide (meaning a statistically significant genetic distinction between sub-populations) between brunettes and blondes.
5) No, you seem to be having this conversation because you refuse to understand that the biological concept of race is not determined by physical characteristics. You are applying characteristics to the social divisions of race, instead of applying race to the biological divisions of genetics (and then observing what trends those genetics brings with them). You are starting from a point where race has already been established as a real biological division, however, that is a key point of contention within this entire discussion.
First, the biological basis of race must be proven. Second, the broad relevance of this distinction must be proven. You seem to have skipped the first two steps in this debate and replaced them with your own personal worldview.
