Do you know what an actual scientific attempt to define races would look like?
Let’s say you wanted to scientifically define races. Instead of using subjective things like facial structure, you look at actual DNA and the groupings among populations. Let’s say we want to group humanity into a half dozen races, and to avoid bias, we do it based on some statistical analysis of DNA patterns.
You know what you would end up with? The computer would spit out that there are five racial groups represented the population of Subsaharan Africa…and one racial group representing everyone else.
The vast majority of human genetic diversity lies within Subsaharan Africa. If you tried to rationally define a list of ‘races,’ you would end up with a bunch of African racial groups and then one group for literally everyone else.
This is what people mean when they say race isn’t real. Our culturally-defined racial groups are completely unrelated to the actual diversity and distribution of human DNA patterns.
Allero@lemmy.today 23 hours ago
Slavs are not a race, but ethnic group.
Two Koreans have a baby, the baby is Korean. Indian and Japanese have a baby, and you got something wildly different from either.
Sure, a Black person looks different from White, but within both there is so much variation that it doesn’t make much sense to group them so roughly.
BombOmOm@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Just as I would not generally group people by eye color, the fact remains eye color is real.
This is the shit I was responding too. And rhetoric like this is painfully contrary to even elementary biology.
Allero@lemmy.today 13 hours ago
Where do you put children of parents of different races, then?
And the offspring of such children?
Many if not most people on Earth have a combined descent.