Couldn't really care about this.
In Sweden, both Caucasian and Afro-American get weird. I recently saw in an official document the word "kaukasisk", implying "white", but found that my first thought was actually "from Caucasia". It is not really that far away. Though why we would need specific information about their tolerance for various medical drugs is a bit strange to me.
Afro-American is weird both in that large black populations have no heritage from Africa beyond all our common such, and, interestingly, no connection to America either. And hey, if Afro-American is a term that has no connection to its component words, why is European American a problem?
It would require reclassifying some whites as Asian-Americans. And you can imagine the problems that will cause.
There seems to be disagreement on those points, thejeff.
Why not "Eurasian-Americans?"
You would be classifying East Asians (who all hate each other) with Central Asia and South Asia (more distinct racial groups in that area), the Middle East (imagine how well Israel will take being told they're the same racial group as Palestinians), some Africans (Egypt is that annoying nation that owns part of Asia), and Europeans (of whom all of the previous groups have various reasons to dislike/hate).
You'll probably only tick off China, Russia, a few South Asian nations, a good portion of the Middle East, and several European nations.
That's why no one does it. There's always the question of if this bit of "European Imperialism" will be the final straw for the Chinese, the Russians, and a few other nations in Asia and the Middle East. I mean, it's not like Europeans haven't spent at least two thousand going into Asia and screwing things up...
|
...the Middle East (imagine how well Israel will take being told they're the same racial group as Palestinians)...
They're called Semites - and similar ideas have been put forward before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
~shrugs~ We are all mutts. It is just that some of us tan better than others. ~glares at Freehold DM~ You are one of them! Stop tanning so much!
...the Middle East (imagine how well Israel will take being told they're the same racial group as Palestinians)...They're called Semites - and similar ideas have been put forward before.
And is no longer accepted. "Semitic" today only refers to a language group, not a racial group.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I was taking courses in world culture for my degree, when we got to America there was an entire timeline of when each group became accepted as white.
Once a group became accepted as white their level of oppression decreased drastically. Irish, Eastern European, Turks, the list goes on. It was truly fascinating.
there's a great book called how the Irish became white. Fascinating history.
~shrugs~ We are all mutts. It is just that some of us tan better than others. ~glares at Freehold DM~ You are one of them! Stop tanning so much!
NEVER!
Why are white people called "Caucasian?"
Racist 19th-century pseudoscience.
A better term would be "European," which is what I try to use now.
Russia isn't exactly Europe.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wiki euphamism treadmill or english cowpath.
If something has negative connotations, whatever you change the word to will acquire those connotations again and need to be changed.
If something doesn't, no one cares, the word stays the same.
|
|
And is no longer accepted. "Semitic" today only refers to a language group, not a racial group....the Middle East (imagine how well Israel will take being told they're the same racial group as Palestinians)...They're called Semites - and similar ideas have been put forward before.
I'm a little confused about your point here - language family lineage is real, "race" not so much. In the case under scrutiny here, it's the same parameters for group identity either way.
I'm a little confused about your point here - language family lineage is real, "race" not so much. In the case under scrutiny here, it's the same parameters for group identity either way.And is no longer accepted. "Semitic" today only refers to a language group, not a racial group....the Middle East (imagine how well Israel will take being told they're the same racial group as Palestinians)...They're called Semites - and similar ideas have been put forward before.
We're discussing racial groups, not language families. The distinction is that a language family is not a racial group.
|
|
We're discussing racial groups, not language families. The distinction is that a language family is not a racial group.
Isn't it? The latter isn't even a real thing, though - the concept of "race" quickly falls apart as a coherent and accepted concept outside the English-speaking world, and to the extent that it can be considered real, it's almost the same thing as language groups.
In Sweden, both Caucasian and Afro-American get weird. I recently saw in an official document the word "kaukasisk", implying "white", but found that my first thought was actually "from Caucasia". It is not really that far away. Though why we would need specific information about their tolerance for various medical drugs is a bit strange to me.
Afro-American is weird both in that large black populations have no heritage from Africa beyond all our common such, and, interestingly, no connection to America either. And hey, if Afro-American is a term that has no connection to its component words, why is European American a problem?
Sis, I've seen you mention this before, and forgive what may sound like a stupid question: are you say that Swedish nationals of African ancestry are called Afro-American in Sweden? Like, Marcus Samuelsson is described as Afro-American rather than Ethiopian-born/Swedish-raised or whatever?
Isn't it? The latter isn't even a real thing, though - the concept of "race" quickly falls apart as a coherent and accepted concept outside the English-speaking world, and to the extent that it can be considered real, it's almost the same thing as language groups.
We're discussing racial groups, not language families. The distinction is that a language family is not a racial group.
I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but this sounds to me like you're equating race with ethnicity.
It was funny in mauritania watching everyone automatically subsitute african american for one of the two big racial groups, even though they weren't american.
Isn't it? The latter isn't even a real thing, though - the concept of "race" quickly falls apart as a coherent and accepted concept outside the English-speaking world, and to the extent that it can be considered real, it's almost the same thing as language groups.
We're discussing racial groups, not language families. The distinction is that a language family is not a racial group.
It's not even close to the same thing. Go to East Asia and argue that. You'll quickly realize just how much the differences between the East Asian races matter. As in, they still want to kill each other. You see similar within the Middle East and in Africa.
It's pretty much limited to Europe that racial distinctions no longer matter; it still matters very much to the rest of the world. Even Canada recently had racist policies, and they're quite possibly the nicest nation on Earth.
The Indo-European family, of which nearly all European languages are descended, currently covers the entirety of the continents of North America and Australia, nearly covers the entirety of Europe, and covers significant portions of South America, Africa, and Asia. It is quite easily the largest language family on the planet. Making it pointless to use language families for classifying people, since at this point you could reasonably say "native to Earth" for being what Indo-European covers. There isn't a race on the planet that lacks people who speak an Indo-European language.
Race isn't something that can be taken away by education. Language is. That's pretty much the only difference, and why it is race has been such of a lingering reason for discrimination.
|
|
What are we even trying to argue about now???
Also: Just because people think something matters doesn't make it real. As Philip K. Dick said, "reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away," and the concept of "race" specifically does not make that cut - neither, as a matter of fact, does group identity in general.
What are we even trying to argue about now???
Also: Just because people think something matters doesn't make it real. As Philip K. Dick said, "reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away," and the concept of "race" specifically does not make that cut - neither, as a matter of fact, does group identity in general.
Not believing in race doesn't suddenly change the melanin content of your skin, your bone structure, or your tendency towards certain diseases or mental disorders. Or whether or not the people who most look like you tend to be poor and arrested more often.
You can sit back and argue it has no basis in reality if you wish. Medical science disagrees. Geneticists disagree. Psychology disagrees. The societal mechanisms of America that enforce the nation's ongoing race problems disagree. For them, race not only exists, but have serious effects that can massively impact your life.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stop arguing out there! I'm trying to become more powerful than ever before!
there's a great book called how the Irish became white. Fascinating history.
By New Left Maoist, Noel Ignatiev. Who still taught at Massachusetts College of Arts last time I checked, but he may have retired since then.
His former colleague (now deceased) in the Sojourner Truth Organization, Theodore Allen, wrote a two volume book which might be of interest to those interested in this thread:
The Invention of the White Race
(Article about book by dude I met a couple of months ago when we brought along La Principessa's Single Mother Comrade who used to date dude's union brother back when they were trying to take their postal workers union local back from the mob. Have since learned that La Principessa's Single Mother Comrade also used to have drinks with Laurence Fishburne and, she claims, dated Alec Baldwin for a while and now regrets dumping him.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd actually love to see a kind of cladistic human family tree. I poked around a bit, but didn't come across anything.
Ahhhh, the joys of b*@&$#$% "science". Among the most hilarious parts of racial biology was the third reich's focus of the sovereignty of the Aryans, which are a group of people in northern India, IIRC. Blue eyes and blonde hair are not usually on the menu...
The traditional name of Iran, "Eranshahr" basically translates as "Kingdom of the Aryans."
What are we even trying to argue about now???
Also: Just because people think something matters doesn't make it real. As Philip K. Dick said, "reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away," and the concept of "race" specifically does not make that cut - neither, as a matter of fact, does group identity in general.
Not believing in race doesn't suddenly change the melanin content of your skin, your bone structure, or your tendency towards certain diseases or mental disorders. Or whether or not the people who most look like you tend to be poor and arrested more often.
You can sit back and argue it has no basis in reality if you wish. Medical science disagrees. Geneticists disagree. Psychology disagrees. The societal mechanisms of America that enforce the nation's ongoing race problems disagree. For them, race not only exists, but have serious effects that can massively impact your life.
Racism certainly exists.
"Race" is much trickier. There are certainly genetic groups, but distinguishing between them strictly on easily observable markers like skin color is problematic. Native Australians and Melanesians aren't the same race as Africans, despite both being black.
As I understand it, even within "African" there's more genetic diversity than in the rest of the world put together. That it might make most sense to distinguish something like 4 racial groups within Africa, one of which includes everyone else. That's complicated a bit by mixture with Neandertals and Denisovians.
I'd actually love to see a kind of cladistic human family tree. I poked around a bit, but didn't come across anything.
I'd love to see such a family tree too.
I think the only reason they haven't made one is they're still trying to nail down the origins of some groups.
Linky?
I'd actually love to see a kind of cladistic human family tree. I poked around a bit, but didn't come across anything.
Added to my favorites list so I can study it sometime.
Linky?
I'd actually love to see a kind of cladistic human family tree. I poked around a bit, but didn't come across anything.
I was digging through my hazy memories of a PBS show I saw about tracking y chromosome mutations when you linked this; well ninja'd, sir!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd actually love to see a kind of cladistic human family tree. I poked around a bit, but didn't come across anything.
I'd love to see such a family tree too.
I think the only reason they haven't made one is they're still trying to nail down the origins of some groups.
No, it's more fundamental than that. How can you make a cladistic tree when the stuff you're clustering does not form clades?
Bacteria, in general, form clades; one bacterium splits into two bacteria and so two different bacteria will either have the same parent or different parents. Bacterial genes, by contrast, transfer between individuals bacteria and so an individual bacterium might have genes from twenty different bacteria, including different species.
Languages, by convention, are also cladistic; English "came from" West Germanic, and merely borrowed from French.
So we can divide languages very cleanly, for example, into languages descended from Germanic and languages descended from Latin, and there's no overlap between the two.
People are not cladistic. I have two parents, and I share only one of them with my half-brother. So we can't divide people neatly into "people descended from person X" and "people descended from person Y"; some people might fit into two categories.
There's actually a very powerful theorem for population genetics. After a long enough time, you will either be an ancestor of all living humans, or of none of them, but not of "some of them." Because of this, we can sort species into clades as well; all birds are descended from dinosaurs, all ostriches are descended from proto-raitites, no sparrows are descended from proto-raitites.
But we literally can't do that with humans. Some humans are descended from some other humans, and some humans aren't descended from other humans, and some humans are more closely descended from other humans than still other humans.
That's also the problem with tying "race" to genetic traits. You wrote, correctly, that "Not believing in race doesn't suddenly change the melanin content of your skin, your bone structure, or your tendency towards certain diseases or mental disorders." But believing in race doesn't help understanding those attributes, because there's no natural grouping that ties together all the people with any particular bone structure, and there's no usefully strong correlation between bone structure and melanin content.
It doesn't make sense to draw a line between blue-eyed people with straight blond hair and brown-eyed people with curly dark hair when there are as many or more brown-eyed people with curly blond hair. And no sensible way to tie that third group into either of the two previous groups.
|
|
Not believing in race doesn't suddenly change the melanin content of your skin, your bone structure, or your tendency towards certain diseases or mental disorders. Or whether or not the people who most look like you tend to be poor and arrested more often.You can sit back and argue it has no basis in reality if you wish. Medical science disagrees. Geneticists disagree. Psychology disagrees. The societal mechanisms of America that enforce the nation's ongoing race problems disagree. For them, race not only exists, but have serious effects that can massively impact your life.
The bits and pieces are real. Genes are real. The sum of those parts that society recognizes (and calls "race") isn't, even though society's behavior to date based on their belief in that fabricated sum is real - the fact that the Irish could "become white" is a perfect example of this.
EDIT: Eloquently ninja'd by Orfamay Quest. Kazuka and I weren't entirely on the same page.
My favorite African-American actress is Charlize Theron.
Reminds me of when Comrade Omar (RIP), for reasons that I won't go into here, bought me a dashiki and a kufi. When La Principessa objected to me wearing these items of clothing due to cultural appropriation, Comrade Omar invoked his Egyptian descent to claim African-American status and, thus, not cultural appropriation.
It didn't really fly, but, luckily, the Nigerian Princess stepped in and said it was okay and La Principessa had to maintain a reluctant silence.
Later, during one of our fights, La Principessa informed me that she threw away all my stuff and all the presents I ever gave her (shades of Talia Shire in The Godfather). On my recent visit, I noticed that the books I gave her and Season 2 of Game of Thrones were still on her shelf, but the kufi was missing.
I'll have to make a point of guilt-tripping her.
Fascinating, but more complex than I can really follow. :)Linky?
I'd actually love to see a kind of cladistic human family tree. I poked around a bit, but didn't come across anything.
Yeah, not to denigrate the work -- it's very good -- but it's not exactly cladistic, is it?
And, for that matter, it's the study of one chromosome. Make a map of mDNA (or of a different chromosome, although that's harder) and it will most likely look entirely different.
Because human genetics doesn't really fit into a tree structure. Hell, it barely fits a Zwicky box.
There's actually a very powerful theorem for population genetics. After a long enough time, you will either be an ancestor of all living humans, or of none of them, but not of "some of them." Because of this, we can sort species into clades as well; all birds are descended from dinosaurs, all ostriches are descended from proto-raitites, no sparrows are descended from proto-raitites.
But we literally can't do that with humans. Some humans are descended from some other humans, and some humans aren't descended from other humans, and some humans are more closely descended from other humans that still other humans.
That's also the problem with tying "race" to genetic traits. You wrote, correctly, that "Not believing in race doesn't suddenly change the melanin content of your skin, your bone structure, or your tendency towards certain diseases or mental disorders." But believing in race doesn't help understanding those attributes, because there's no natural grouping that ties together all the people with any particular bone structure, and there's no usefully strong correlation between bone structure and melanin content.
Which contradicts what has been said by geneticists for awhile now.
One of the things they've done is define certain genetic features as being tied to certain races. It's how they know, for example, how much a percentage of Caucasian DNA is within an African American. It's also one of the ways they track the spread of racial groups across Earth.
And the idea that bone structure is tied to race is at the roots of forensic anthropology. Which is controversial, but still heavily used and relied upon.
Also, I haven't really watched MTV in about 20 years, but I do see their Decoded videos occasionally on Facebook and I always enjoy them.
Gonna link the last one I ran across, for shiznits and giggles:
The Weird History of Asian Sex Stereotypes | Decoded | MTV News
Not believing in race doesn't suddenly change the melanin content of your skin, your bone structure, or your tendency towards certain diseases or mental disorders. Or whether or not the people who most look like you tend to be poor and arrested more often.You can sit back and argue it has no basis in reality if you wish. Medical science disagrees. Geneticists disagree. Psychology disagrees. The societal mechanisms of America that enforce the nation's ongoing race problems disagree. For them, race not only exists, but have serious effects that can massively impact your life.
The bits and pieces are real. Genes are real. The sum of those parts that society recognizes (and calls "race") isn't, even though society's behavior to date based on their belief in that fabricated sum is real - the fact that the Irish could "become white" is a perfect example of this.
EDIT: Eloquently ninja'd by Orfamay Quest. Kazuka and I weren't entirely on the same page.
And the science of genetics ties certain genetic traits to certain races. It's one of the ways they track how racially mixed someone is for modern studies of the genetics of race. It's part of how they determined that a lot of African Americans are lighter in skin color because of mixed ancestry.
It's one thing to argue with a set of societal standards that make no sense. It's another to argue with established science.
Which contradicts what has been said by geneticists for awhile now.
One of the things they've done is define certain genetic features as being tied to certain races. It's how they know, for example, how much a percentage of Caucasian DNA is within an African American. It's also one of the ways they track the spread of racial groups across Earth.
You're misunderstanding what they're doing.
And the idea that bone structure is tied to race is at the roots of forensic anthropology. Which is controversial, but still heavily used and relied upon.
And, for that matter, what these guys are doing, too. The forensic anthroplogists are not trying to study race; they're trying to develop evidence that will help the legal process along. They are looking for clues to individual identify, including clues about how a particular person would be described in a missing person's report (so you can determine if anyone reported this five-year-old skeleton as missing).
You could have a brother-sister pair of skeletons that the forensic anthropologists would classify as different races. This is ludicrous if "race" is, in fact, the kind of heritable trait that the actual racialists suggest.
Which contradicts what has been said by geneticists for awhile now.
One of the things they've done is define certain genetic features as being tied to certain races. It's how they know, for example, how much a percentage of Caucasian DNA is within an African American. It's also one of the ways they track the spread of racial groups across Earth.
You're misunderstanding what they're doing.
And the idea that bone structure is tied to race is at the roots of forensic anthropology. Which is controversial, but still heavily used and relied upon.And, for that matter, what these guys are doing, too. The forensic anthroplogists are not trying to study race; they're trying to develop evidence that will help the legal process along. They are looking for clues to individual identify, including clues about how a particular person would be described in a missing person's report (so you can determine if anyone reported this five-year-old skeleton as missing).
You could have a brother-sister pair of skeletons that the forensic anthropologists would classify as different races. This is ludicrous if "race" is, in fact, the kind of heritable trait that the actual racialists suggest.
Yet, geneticists can determine how much of someone's ancestry belongs to each race. And whether or not you claim I misunderstand what they've been doing, it's exactly what they've been doing. They cannot make such a determination about racial ancestry unless they've first determined what genetic traits belong to which races.
Also, how can they make a racial determination about bone structure unless they've assigned certain bone structures to certain races?
Orf, do you think it's possible to recognize that race is a social construct rather a heritable trait, but still think it's "real?" 'Cause that's sort of where I am at this point.
Edit: That's not what the geneticists are doing, Kaz, and the assignment of certain bone structures to certain races are incorrect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Orf, do you think it's possible to recognize that race is a social construct rather a heritable trait, but still think it's "real?" 'Cause that's sort of where I am at this point.
Well, social constructs are definitely real in some sense. If I try to practice medicine without a license, I'm really going to a real jail, but the license itself is entirely a social construct. A whole bunch of people sat down and agreed upon a set of hoops that a person has to jump through in order to be licensed, not all of which are related to the actual practice of medicine.
Similarly, the actual social construct of medical licensure varies from person to person and from place to place; I might be licensed in Alabama but not in Mississippi, because the social group we call Alabama has constructed it differently. And Missiissippi may or may not allow me to practice with an Alabama license, and whether or not I am allowed to practice may also vary with the (socially constructed) circumstances -- for example, someone is hit by a car, I may be allowed to provide emergency treatment while waiting for the ambulance to arrive, when I'd not be allowed open a clinic.
Also, how can they make a racial determination about bone structure unless they've assigned certain bone structures to certain races?
This online quiz assigns people to houses at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry based on their personality traits.
By your line of reasoning, the existence of this test proves that Hogwarts and its houses exist.
Orf, do you think it's possible to recognize that race is a social construct rather a heritable trait, but still think it's "real?" 'Cause that's sort of where I am at this point.
Edit: That's not what the geneticists are doing, Kaz, and the assignment of certain bone structures to certain races are incorrect.
The assignment of bone structures to certain races is still something that happened.
And, actually, the use of race to understand gene frequencies between groups informs the way modern science thinks about race. The lead scientist in that paper even notes, "Race is used widely in human biological research and clinical practice to elucidate the relationship between our ancestry and our genes."
This particular scientist is against the continued use of race in science, but goes on to note all of the ways science does use it and the resulting assignment of certain traits and certain disease risks to certain races.
Now, genetics doesn't support the social construct of race, but at the same time even this scientist notes that race does have genetic links and is used to understand human genetic ancestry.
So, yes, that is what geneticists are doing.
This article is from February of this year. This isn't ancient history or science from last decade.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's been a long time since I've done any work in the field. But back in the day when I was studying Physical Anthropology and taking courses in human osteology from a Medical Examiner we used a 3 fold breakdown into "caucasoid", mongoloid" and "negroid" for trying to determine what racial group a skeleton had come from. This was determined by both certain visual cues based on the shape/morphology of some of the bones and by running measurements taken from the bones through a formula that was based on a linear regression analysis of "known" skeletons.
However, the main purpose of that was simply to try to identify whose remains we were dealing with. If the analyses we performed indicated that we had the skeleton of an approximately 30 year old "mongoloid" male then the remains were most likely not those of the 20 year old caucasian female who had been reported missing 2 years ago. It should be noted in this context that "mongoloid" referring to a racial group and "mongoloid" referring to somebody suffering from Down's syndrome are two totally different things.
I know that there have been a lot of advances made in the field since I left, and I assume it is now much easier to get DNA samples and run analyses on them these days than it was in the early 1990's. That could make things a lot easier.
As far as other things go, attempting to separate humans into various racial groups is fraught with a variety of difficulties. The "differences" between the various racial groups are such that when you start trying to analyze the data obtained from studying large numbers of people you realize that you are in fact dealing with data arranged in a continuum and there aren't any real clear dividing lines. Hence part of the reason for the 3 fold breakdown discussed earlier was an attempt to try to simplify things when one was simply considering skeletal morphology. To the extent that we can actually "read" DNA these days then that does give us a lot more information, but the increase in information does not necessarily "clarify" the picture. Instead it demonstrates just how truly complex things are.
In short, people like to sleep with each other too much for humanity as a whole to be much more than one gigantic, occasionally clumpy, mix of a myriad different varieties of Heinz 57's. While it is possible to break things down into certain smaller categories for the purposes of certain types of discussion and analysis, that doesn't necessarily mean that what one has achieved is actually significant.