My reference to "all look alike" was a reference to the unfamiliar being overwhelmed by the undeniable common racial look being such a large distractor. Physical genetic characteristics pertaining to what people observe. If that were not the case, there would be no issue or discussion.
Just my opinion, but I think your aversion to "race" is about the harm that comes from people assigning relative value or superiority/inferiority to the people within those groups. I share your concern, but don't think it helpful pretend that race does not exist because of the evils of racism. I doubt that there will be universal acceptance of your opinion that race is not real until we are so intermixed that what are known as racial differences are so small that they are not recognizable, and it will then actually not be a thing. People who look like you or me will be gone.
One last time, race is not evil, racism is. Denial will make neither of them go away.
***** I think that our impasse is that we are thinking of different things when the word race appears. I think I have clearly explained what I'm thinking of. Is that something different from what you are thinking of? And how, since I think that it must be? *****
"but you would see both as unmistakably Asian even if you know nothing else about them"
This is the point I was trying to make about Kazakh people. And, in fact, you made it too when you pointed out that your wife was mistaken for a Navajo woman. You seem to be assigning intrinsic value to the fact that we look at each other and make assumptions, even when those assumptions are wrong, and are then using those assumptions to conclude that racial categories are meaningful despite all scientific evidence to the contrary.
And yes, I know that racism is evil and not race. You don't need to say it "one last time." You didn't even need to say it the first time! I'm quite capable of telling the difference between the two and understand that the latter doesn't necessarily lead to the former. You're assuming that I'm in "denial" about race or "pretending" that it isn't real because I don't like racism (even though I've told you numerous times that's not the case). But the fact is simply that I've read the abundant scientific evidence on the topic.
I can only presume you haven't read the link I posted, because if I'm pretending, the people who wrote the papers referenced there are pretending too. Heck, the people who wrote the paper *you* linked would have to be pretending. I wouldn't be arguing this point at all, never mind for this long, if I was just pretending. I hope you know I have more intellectual integrity than that.
But yes, maybe we're still not hearing each other when we talk about what race is. And maybe the easiest way to clear that up is to ask; how many races are there? As I'm talking about it (and how I think the overwhelming majority of people talk about it) there are around five: White, Black, Asian, Native American, Hispanic, with some room to quibble about maybe Indian or Aboriginal people.
You seem to both use this definition of race, and an enormously more nuanced one that considers a wide array of genetic differentiation beyond skin tone (and would therefore lead to many, many more than five). That's why I'm still confused. For example, when you talk about the epicanthic fold, do you consider everybody who has this to be the same race? Because some African populations have high incidence of the epicanthic fold (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicanthic_fold). Is the key racial determinant in these cases the fold or their skin colour?
"I can only presume you haven't read the link I posted"
Which link? You provide many and I usually read them.
"I hope you know I have more intellectual integrity than that."
I do and apologize for that.
"You seem to be assigning intrinsic value to the fact that we look at each other and make assumptions, even when those assumptions are wrong, and are then using those assumptions to conclude that racial categories are meaningful despite all scientific evidence to the contrary."
I assign no intrinsic value to it. As I go through my day the race or gender of the people that I interact with is unimportant to me, but it might be to them. Do people sometimes draw incorrect conclusions about the things they observe? Of course. I might be fuller of doubt about many things than most people, but it doesn't mean I should not think or form opinions about things.
"how many races are there?" & "definition of race, and an enormously more nuanced one that considers a wide array of genetic differentiation beyond skin tone (and would therefore lead to many, many more than five)"
It depends upon which characteristics you use to make the determination. I've continuously stated that I see it as something more numerous than skin color which is an analog ranging from dark black thru shades of gĢ¶rĢ¶aĢ¶yĢ¶ brown to very white. To attempt absolute boundaries might reduce it to three (white, brown and black). Native American and Hispanic are more political than physical distinctions.
If the only thing you could see about my wife was the color of her skin, you could draw no conclusion about a racial category other than brown which is not the characteristic that jumps out at people first or leads to the one she associates with.
All those words to say that we are not thinking of the same things. Perhaps I should choose a less offensive word than race for the dominant physical characteristics of subsets of humanity which are not limited to skin color. With apologies to Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."
"Perhaps I should choose a less offensive word than race for the dominant physical characteristics of subsets of humanity which are not limited to skin color."
Dave, I'm not taking offence. The word "race" isn't offensive to me or to anybody I've ever come across. You seem absolutely convinced that my position is based on a desire to wish away the concept of race in the hope that racism will somehow die along with it. Please hear me when I say you couldn't be more wrong about that. My position is based purely on the data available (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics#Race_and_human_genetic_variation).
Despite my extensive writing on the topic, people often assume that somewhere, deep down, I'm unable to think critically and objectively about racial issues because I'm black. And so they assume I'm saying things I'm not saying. I'm not sure if it's what's happening here, but let me at least be clear that I'm not saying any of this because I think it will somehow end racism. If everybody on Earth understood that racial categories are meaningless tomorrow, almost exactly the same number of people would hate others almost exactly the same amount based on the colour of their skin.
But all that said, yes, I'd suggest that you choose a different word than "race" to describe the various characteristics that can be found in subsets of humanity *irrespective* of skin colour. Solely because not a single person or organisation I've ever come across uses the word "race" in that way, and I think you'll end up being misunderstood.
From "diversity" questionnaires to census data to government data sources, if you find the word "race" on a form, or you see a data point broken down by "race," what you'll find underneath it 100% of the time is a short list of categories that will include "Black, "White," "Asian," "Hispanic" etc.
No "Black but with an epicanthic fold," no "White but with sickle cell trait," no "Asian but with a high proportion of fast twitch muscle fibres." No differentiation between black people from Zimbabwe and Senegal. Or white people from Finland and Italy. Or Asians from Nepal and the Philippines.
Racial categories, as they're actually used, are so broad they're meaningless. Based entirely on a casual glance at an eye-catching physical characteristic. That's why I keep comparing them to grouping people by hair colour or height.
Anyway, I think I'll join you in quoting Forrest Gump here. Again, absolutely no offence was taken, so apologies if I came off aggressive at any point. My exasperation is in no way to be confused with animosity.
I'll repeat myself though I think I've been quite clear. "š š·š¦š³šŗ š“š®š¢šš š±š¢š³šµ š°š§ š°š¶š³ šØš¦šÆš°š®š¦ š¤š¢š³š³šŖš¦š“ š±š©šŗš“šŖš¤š¢š š¤š©š¢š³š¢š¤šµš¦š³šŖš“šµšŖš¤š“ š¤š°š®š®š°šÆ šµš° š“š¶š£š“š¦šµš“ š°š§ š©š¶š®š¢šÆšŖšµšŗ š³š¦š§š¦š³š³š¦š„ šµš° š¢ š³š¢š¤š¦." Those subsets of humanity are not monolithic and can be divided into smaller subsets. The common features vary in proportion and there is intermixing dilution. Since you are a world traveler, I doubt that you would mistake the average appearance Korean for an average Thai, but you would see both as unmistakably Asian even if you know nothing else about them. That is race and racial distinction as a subset. It is not just a construct formed by governments drawing lines on maps.
My reference to "all look alike" was a reference to the unfamiliar being overwhelmed by the undeniable common racial look being such a large distractor. Physical genetic characteristics pertaining to what people observe. If that were not the case, there would be no issue or discussion.
Just my opinion, but I think your aversion to "race" is about the harm that comes from people assigning relative value or superiority/inferiority to the people within those groups. I share your concern, but don't think it helpful pretend that race does not exist because of the evils of racism. I doubt that there will be universal acceptance of your opinion that race is not real until we are so intermixed that what are known as racial differences are so small that they are not recognizable, and it will then actually not be a thing. People who look like you or me will be gone.
One last time, race is not evil, racism is. Denial will make neither of them go away.
One of my favorite video shorts:
https://youtu.be/DWynJkN5HbQ
***** I think that our impasse is that we are thinking of different things when the word race appears. I think I have clearly explained what I'm thinking of. Is that something different from what you are thinking of? And how, since I think that it must be? *****
"but you would see both as unmistakably Asian even if you know nothing else about them"
This is the point I was trying to make about Kazakh people. And, in fact, you made it too when you pointed out that your wife was mistaken for a Navajo woman. You seem to be assigning intrinsic value to the fact that we look at each other and make assumptions, even when those assumptions are wrong, and are then using those assumptions to conclude that racial categories are meaningful despite all scientific evidence to the contrary.
And yes, I know that racism is evil and not race. You don't need to say it "one last time." You didn't even need to say it the first time! I'm quite capable of telling the difference between the two and understand that the latter doesn't necessarily lead to the former. You're assuming that I'm in "denial" about race or "pretending" that it isn't real because I don't like racism (even though I've told you numerous times that's not the case). But the fact is simply that I've read the abundant scientific evidence on the topic.
I can only presume you haven't read the link I posted, because if I'm pretending, the people who wrote the papers referenced there are pretending too. Heck, the people who wrote the paper *you* linked would have to be pretending. I wouldn't be arguing this point at all, never mind for this long, if I was just pretending. I hope you know I have more intellectual integrity than that.
But yes, maybe we're still not hearing each other when we talk about what race is. And maybe the easiest way to clear that up is to ask; how many races are there? As I'm talking about it (and how I think the overwhelming majority of people talk about it) there are around five: White, Black, Asian, Native American, Hispanic, with some room to quibble about maybe Indian or Aboriginal people.
You seem to both use this definition of race, and an enormously more nuanced one that considers a wide array of genetic differentiation beyond skin tone (and would therefore lead to many, many more than five). That's why I'm still confused. For example, when you talk about the epicanthic fold, do you consider everybody who has this to be the same race? Because some African populations have high incidence of the epicanthic fold (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicanthic_fold). Is the key racial determinant in these cases the fold or their skin colour?
"I can only presume you haven't read the link I posted"
Which link? You provide many and I usually read them.
"I hope you know I have more intellectual integrity than that."
I do and apologize for that.
"You seem to be assigning intrinsic value to the fact that we look at each other and make assumptions, even when those assumptions are wrong, and are then using those assumptions to conclude that racial categories are meaningful despite all scientific evidence to the contrary."
I assign no intrinsic value to it. As I go through my day the race or gender of the people that I interact with is unimportant to me, but it might be to them. Do people sometimes draw incorrect conclusions about the things they observe? Of course. I might be fuller of doubt about many things than most people, but it doesn't mean I should not think or form opinions about things.
If science (the most abused word in all of discussion) concludes that there are not observable dominant physical characteristics to commonly found in subsets of humanity known as race, the science is probably political science, an ever-changing set of opinions which conform to public opinion. At that point it is quibbling about evolving definitions of words. šš„š„ šØš šš”š šš”š¢š§š š¬ šš¬š¬šØšš¢šššš š°š¢šš” š«ššš ššš„š„ š®š§ššš« šØšÆšš«š„šš©š©š¢š§š šš¢š¬šš«š¢šš®šš¢šØš§ šš®š«šÆšš¬ šš¬š¬šØšš¢šššš š°š¢šš” šÆšš«š¢šØš®š¬ š š«šØš®š© šš”šš«ššššš«š¢š¬šš¢šš¬ š°š¢šš” šÆšš«š¢šØš®š¬ š¬ššš§ššš«š šššÆš¢ššš¢šØš§š¬. Thanks to intermixing an increasing number of people fall into the overlap and become less classifiable. People categorize, an ancient survival instinct.
"how many races are there?" & "definition of race, and an enormously more nuanced one that considers a wide array of genetic differentiation beyond skin tone (and would therefore lead to many, many more than five)"
It depends upon which characteristics you use to make the determination. I've continuously stated that I see it as something more numerous than skin color which is an analog ranging from dark black thru shades of gĢ¶rĢ¶aĢ¶yĢ¶ brown to very white. To attempt absolute boundaries might reduce it to three (white, brown and black). Native American and Hispanic are more political than physical distinctions.
If the only thing you could see about my wife was the color of her skin, you could draw no conclusion about a racial category other than brown which is not the characteristic that jumps out at people first or leads to the one she associates with.
All those words to say that we are not thinking of the same things. Perhaps I should choose a less offensive word than race for the dominant physical characteristics of subsets of humanity which are not limited to skin color. With apologies to Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."
"Perhaps I should choose a less offensive word than race for the dominant physical characteristics of subsets of humanity which are not limited to skin color."
Dave, I'm not taking offence. The word "race" isn't offensive to me or to anybody I've ever come across. You seem absolutely convinced that my position is based on a desire to wish away the concept of race in the hope that racism will somehow die along with it. Please hear me when I say you couldn't be more wrong about that. My position is based purely on the data available (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics#Race_and_human_genetic_variation).
Despite my extensive writing on the topic, people often assume that somewhere, deep down, I'm unable to think critically and objectively about racial issues because I'm black. And so they assume I'm saying things I'm not saying. I'm not sure if it's what's happening here, but let me at least be clear that I'm not saying any of this because I think it will somehow end racism. If everybody on Earth understood that racial categories are meaningless tomorrow, almost exactly the same number of people would hate others almost exactly the same amount based on the colour of their skin.
But all that said, yes, I'd suggest that you choose a different word than "race" to describe the various characteristics that can be found in subsets of humanity *irrespective* of skin colour. Solely because not a single person or organisation I've ever come across uses the word "race" in that way, and I think you'll end up being misunderstood.
From "diversity" questionnaires to census data to government data sources, if you find the word "race" on a form, or you see a data point broken down by "race," what you'll find underneath it 100% of the time is a short list of categories that will include "Black, "White," "Asian," "Hispanic" etc.
No "Black but with an epicanthic fold," no "White but with sickle cell trait," no "Asian but with a high proportion of fast twitch muscle fibres." No differentiation between black people from Zimbabwe and Senegal. Or white people from Finland and Italy. Or Asians from Nepal and the Philippines.
Racial categories, as they're actually used, are so broad they're meaningless. Based entirely on a casual glance at an eye-catching physical characteristic. That's why I keep comparing them to grouping people by hair colour or height.
Anyway, I think I'll join you in quoting Forrest Gump here. Again, absolutely no offence was taken, so apologies if I came off aggressive at any point. My exasperation is in no way to be confused with animosity.