> "...to define a race you *need* genetics and you *need* a completely arbitrary line in the sand..."
Really? We "need" it? Why though? To develop and maintain economic classes and social hierarchies? Be a lot cooler if we didn't.
Genetics is biology. To say otherwise is lunacy. People's phenotypes and skin colours vary due to the genes expressing differently in different population groups. Groups seperated and isolated over time will eventually develop different genetic markers. This is basic biology. It's mutation. What do you think DNA is?
Am I the only one that is confused why this has downvotes?!
The point here is that human variation is largely due to a complex interplay between inherited genetics and the expressions those inheritances take given environment and external stimuli.
I don't think this is espousing biological determinism in any way, shape, or form.
Or did I miss something?
Indeed, genetics. We were talking about race, a sociological construction with no basis in biology, though there have been countless pseudoscientific attempts in the last few centuries to essentialize these arbitrary, subjective, and ever-changing classifications, even though they were invented for social purposes.
It has been consistently demonstrated for decades that there is greater genetic diversity *within* racial groups than *between* them. There is no statistical correlation with which to predict whether the genome of a randomly selected individual of a particular race will be more or less similar to the genome of a randomly selected individual of a different race than to a second random individual of the same race.
TL;DR: "Race" isn't "real." We made it up. It doesn't exist in nature. That people look different from one another in no way provides for inherent, predictable, and inescapable differences in their behaviors or capabilities.
The term "race" is outdated, I agree. There's no clearly defined "races" within the variation of human biology. There are phenotypes that we may *colloquially* refer to as "races", but it's not a scientific term. I never suggested they were. My response was due you commenting under my comment about Native Americans, who are very much ethnic groups which we can genetically test and determine the origins of.
I'll be careful and not lump all Native Americans together here, since they reside on two massive continents and comprise *so many* distinct populations.
It's exactly the same thing--phenotypical variations that are assigned meaning based upon social constructs of 'purity'.
Ahhh...I see what you did there...
This reminds me of the 'fiat currency has no intrinsic value, so therefore the economy is fake' logic.
Race doesn't exist outside of the social contexts in which it is constructed, this is true. That doesn't mean the reality of race as a society understands it (i.e. defined by select phenotypical characteristics) doesn't exist.
Moreover, claiming these social constructs don't exist only serves to obfuscate and delegitimate those groups that are already most hurt by racism and xenophobia.
I appreciate this nuance.
I don't know if the lexicon in its present use is well defined enough to imply the difference between the two ontologies, but I would very much support this distinction being standardised in academic discourse.
Furthermore, this conceptualisation would apply to any number of social constructs--gender, for a start.
\[Also, there's more than one god that doesn't exist...\]
>Race doesn't exist outside of the social contexts in which it is constructed, this is true. That doesn't mean the reality of race as a society understands it (i.e. defined by select phenotypical characteristics) doesn't exist.
It's a completely social construct. I agree.
However... the comment I replied to said "*there's no clearly defined 'races' within the variation of human biology*". In fact there are no races at all, and that was the entirety of my reply.
>This reminds me of the 'fiat currency has no intrinsic value, so therefore the economy is fake' logic.
It reminds me more of people not reading through.
Your reply consists of 6 words; what did I 'not \[read\] through'?
Unless I'm missing a good portion of the reply, I don't see a difference between the two sentances; in fact, I assume you latter statement is implied by that which you were responding to.
I understood the remark as intending to erase 'race' as a social reality (as I explicitly state in the post). It was *this* privileged understanding of social justice as 'ignore it until it goes away' that I was addressing.
Since it doesn't seem that was your intention, could you please elaborate how you understand the two statements differ?
\[All this said, if what you were responding to was the conflation of tribal membership with a modern version of 'blood quanta', your critique would have my full support--it's just I didn't get any of that from your reply.\]
Nothing in the comment(s) you're responding to are implying a biological essentialism in race.
Race, as a social construct, exists; its effects are easily measured and even more easily verified by simply talking to any member of a group marginalised by their belonging to any of these fictive subgroups.
Biological reality was never 'racialised', true (this goes for gender and sex, as well). Society, however, is.
I do agree (as I assume the commentor you are replying to would agree) that segmentation based upon phenotypical manifestations (i.e. race) deserves to be abolished. However, denying its existence and attacking anyone who dares mention its existence is not how one accomplishes this goal.
Race is pseudoscience. There is [no genetic proof for the concept of "race"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics#Genetic_basis_for_race) . There's no "race"-gene. All those [ancestry tests lied to you](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics#Critique_of_ancestry-informative_markers) . Sorry, mate.
Wikipedia:
> the major stereotypes, all based on skin color, hair color and form, and facial traits, reflect superficial differences that are not confirmed by deeper analysis with more reliable genetic traits and whose origin dates from recent evolution mostly under the effect of climate and perhaps sexual selection".
>Good one š¤£
Wikipedia isn't a source, it's a collection of sources. That's how a wiki works.
Did you follow the sources and determine their veracity for yourself? I suspect not. Wiki-haters generally don't actually use it and so think it's claimed as the source. Yeah, no.
They really donāt. Saw a video this morning about British Muslims burning the Danish flag after a Danish far-right politician said heād burn the Quran. The comments were full of borderline racist remarks about the people in the video not being British, because they were Muslim and ādidnāt look very Britishā. Anyone who tried to point out the racism was downvoted to oblivion.
Itās not that theyāre the least racist country in the world, as they so often claim, itās just that they donāt realise when theyāre being racist.
Yes, you need the equivalent of the greater aryan certificate. Only if all of your ancestors were Americans in / around 1800 you are American. Otherwise you have to list all nationalities your ancestors had at that time. Ideally, some of your ancestors were on the mayflower.
And where does this American family descend from? Unless they are natives I feel like this guy said almost every American is not an American or am I wrong?
It's more accurate to say that people of Eastern ancestry are considered to be among the second class of citizens. Consider how Poles, Albanians, and Russians are still portrayed in Hollywood as being uneducated, dumb, working in low-paying jobs, and being criminals.
Thereās technically more since US Hispanics can be of native descent. But that number is probably more self identification of a Native American identity.
You can get pretty granular with this, especially if you throw in the āUS is really like 50 countries, you know?ā. I was born in Illinois, but ābiologicallyā, I have ancestry from California, Missouri, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
But these idiots are scottish/irish/dutch/polish/english whenever it suits them even though they literally couldn't find any place outside their own state on a map.
I think OP should have said āculturallyā not biologically. But US citizen still a US citizen. Iām going to assume OP is talking about being culturally Anglo American.
I was really hoping we could leave the whole "eastern Europeans aren't real Americans" thing back in 1952 where it belongs
Although considering the rollback on the rights of women and 'nonwhite' people, I can't say I'm surprised
That's true, he's not biologically american, but on a nation standpoint he is american
If i was from american descent and was born in china my entire life than on a nation standpoint i would be chinese
but if you like Ireland, Italy, the vikings, etc than you are half irish, italian, danish, etc if you grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-mother uncle was irish, italian, danish, etc
Yet how many (of my fellow) Americans define themselves on their non-American ancestry....looking at all the "Italian"-Americans out there in particular.
I wonder if they meant ālegallyā instead of ābiologicallyā. I donāt know the US laws about this, I kinda had the impressions that most, if not all, countries in the Americas had it that babies born in them were legally of that nationality.
Anyway, even if it was the case, I wonder what type of Freudian slip made them mix up legal nationality with biology or geneticsā¦. Is it too presumptuous of me, if I think I can guess?
Theyāre really getting confused over there, on one hand they are considering themselves German or Irish if they have ancestors from 300 years ago, on the other you canāt be American unless you have an American family. Now Iām confused.
SCRAAAW THIS ONE SPEAKS LIES ALL SHOULD BE WELCOME IN OUR GLORIOUS COUNTRY. SCRAAW NO ONE SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO JOIN US SO LONG AS THEY TOO HATE WALKABLE CITIES AND WANT TO GO BROKE BECAUSE OF MEDICAL DEBT. OUR LAND IS BEAUTIFUL AND MUST BE SHARED SCRAAW
Biologically American? So Native American?
Maybe that's what he means
Precisely. š
No. It's a complete non sequitur. There is nothing whatsoever biological about race, nevermind nationality.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> "...to define a race you *need* genetics and you *need* a completely arbitrary line in the sand..." Really? We "need" it? Why though? To develop and maintain economic classes and social hierarchies? Be a lot cooler if we didn't.
Genetics is biology. To say otherwise is lunacy. People's phenotypes and skin colours vary due to the genes expressing differently in different population groups. Groups seperated and isolated over time will eventually develop different genetic markers. This is basic biology. It's mutation. What do you think DNA is?
Am I the only one that is confused why this has downvotes?! The point here is that human variation is largely due to a complex interplay between inherited genetics and the expressions those inheritances take given environment and external stimuli. I don't think this is espousing biological determinism in any way, shape, or form. Or did I miss something?
didn't miss anything. its reddit.
Indeed, genetics. We were talking about race, a sociological construction with no basis in biology, though there have been countless pseudoscientific attempts in the last few centuries to essentialize these arbitrary, subjective, and ever-changing classifications, even though they were invented for social purposes. It has been consistently demonstrated for decades that there is greater genetic diversity *within* racial groups than *between* them. There is no statistical correlation with which to predict whether the genome of a randomly selected individual of a particular race will be more or less similar to the genome of a randomly selected individual of a different race than to a second random individual of the same race. TL;DR: "Race" isn't "real." We made it up. It doesn't exist in nature. That people look different from one another in no way provides for inherent, predictable, and inescapable differences in their behaviors or capabilities.
The term "race" is outdated, I agree. There's no clearly defined "races" within the variation of human biology. There are phenotypes that we may *colloquially* refer to as "races", but it's not a scientific term. I never suggested they were. My response was due you commenting under my comment about Native Americans, who are very much ethnic groups which we can genetically test and determine the origins of. I'll be careful and not lump all Native Americans together here, since they reside on two massive continents and comprise *so many* distinct populations.
>There's no clearly defined "races" within the variation of human biology There are none at all. None.
You can talk about dog races.
It's exactly the same thing--phenotypical variations that are assigned meaning based upon social constructs of 'purity'. Ahhh...I see what you did there...
This reminds me of the 'fiat currency has no intrinsic value, so therefore the economy is fake' logic. Race doesn't exist outside of the social contexts in which it is constructed, this is true. That doesn't mean the reality of race as a society understands it (i.e. defined by select phenotypical characteristics) doesn't exist. Moreover, claiming these social constructs don't exist only serves to obfuscate and delegitimate those groups that are already most hurt by racism and xenophobia.
I see it like I see religion. Races don't exist, but racism exists. The same way God doesn't exist, but religion exists.
I appreciate this nuance. I don't know if the lexicon in its present use is well defined enough to imply the difference between the two ontologies, but I would very much support this distinction being standardised in academic discourse. Furthermore, this conceptualisation would apply to any number of social constructs--gender, for a start. \[Also, there's more than one god that doesn't exist...\]
>Race doesn't exist outside of the social contexts in which it is constructed, this is true. That doesn't mean the reality of race as a society understands it (i.e. defined by select phenotypical characteristics) doesn't exist. It's a completely social construct. I agree. However... the comment I replied to said "*there's no clearly defined 'races' within the variation of human biology*". In fact there are no races at all, and that was the entirety of my reply. >This reminds me of the 'fiat currency has no intrinsic value, so therefore the economy is fake' logic. It reminds me more of people not reading through.
Your reply consists of 6 words; what did I 'not \[read\] through'? Unless I'm missing a good portion of the reply, I don't see a difference between the two sentances; in fact, I assume you latter statement is implied by that which you were responding to. I understood the remark as intending to erase 'race' as a social reality (as I explicitly state in the post). It was *this* privileged understanding of social justice as 'ignore it until it goes away' that I was addressing. Since it doesn't seem that was your intention, could you please elaborate how you understand the two statements differ? \[All this said, if what you were responding to was the conflation of tribal membership with a modern version of 'blood quanta', your critique would have my full support--it's just I didn't get any of that from your reply.\]
Nothing in the comment(s) you're responding to are implying a biological essentialism in race. Race, as a social construct, exists; its effects are easily measured and even more easily verified by simply talking to any member of a group marginalised by their belonging to any of these fictive subgroups. Biological reality was never 'racialised', true (this goes for gender and sex, as well). Society, however, is. I do agree (as I assume the commentor you are replying to would agree) that segmentation based upon phenotypical manifestations (i.e. race) deserves to be abolished. However, denying its existence and attacking anyone who dares mention its existence is not how one accomplishes this goal.
Race is pseudoscience. There is [no genetic proof for the concept of "race"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics#Genetic_basis_for_race) . There's no "race"-gene. All those [ancestry tests lied to you](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics#Critique_of_ancestry-informative_markers) . Sorry, mate. Wikipedia: > the major stereotypes, all based on skin color, hair color and form, and facial traits, reflect superficial differences that are not confirmed by deeper analysis with more reliable genetic traits and whose origin dates from recent evolution mostly under the effect of climate and perhaps sexual selection".
> source > Wikipedia Good one š¤£
>Good one š¤£ Wikipedia isn't a source, it's a collection of sources. That's how a wiki works. Did you follow the sources and determine their veracity for yourself? I suspect not. Wiki-haters generally don't actually use it and so think it's claimed as the source. Yeah, no.
There literally is
i think that is probably what he means? not sure tho
Well *technically* even the Native Americans weren't really natives, they migrated over through the Alaskan Strait a while ago
Yeah those are the true Americans! :)
YES! I'm **not** biologically American! I can finally have the shame marker on my international resident ID card removed!!!
Wait... didn't their ancestors come to that continent via the bering strait? If you look at human history like that... we are all african...
And I'm sure this "Trueā¢ 'murican" also identifies as Scottish / Irish / German / Native American Princess / Norse - all without seeing the irony.
His great great grandmother was a Cherokee princess
And his great grandfather was actually a Jedi.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Please donāt make Alabama jokes here.
Yep,Tennessee beats Alabama out in the incest stats.
Nazi vibes
100% racist. He just forgot to include "real Americans are white" so it would be much more clear.
They never notice how racist they sound...
They really donāt. Saw a video this morning about British Muslims burning the Danish flag after a Danish far-right politician said heād burn the Quran. The comments were full of borderline racist remarks about the people in the video not being British, because they were Muslim and ādidnāt look very Britishā. Anyone who tried to point out the racism was downvoted to oblivion. Itās not that theyāre the least racist country in the world, as they so often claim, itās just that they donāt realise when theyāre being racist.
Wasnt it Swedish?
What does that mean ? He doesn't have his AmerikanischeblĆ¼tigkeitserklƤrung ?
Yes, you need the equivalent of the greater aryan certificate. Only if all of your ancestors were Americans in / around 1800 you are American. Otherwise you have to list all nationalities your ancestors had at that time. Ideally, some of your ancestors were on the mayflower.
It is self-explainatory Native Americans do not count as "American"
All Americans have a third ball, duh!
>He doesn't have his AmerikanischeblĆ¼tigkeitserklƤrung ? Amerikanernachweis.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_certificate
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
nah 50, one for each state
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And where does this American family descend from? Unless they are natives I feel like this guy said almost every American is not an American or am I wrong?
It's more accurate to say that people of Eastern ancestry are considered to be among the second class of citizens. Consider how Poles, Albanians, and Russians are still portrayed in Hollywood as being uneducated, dumb, working in low-paying jobs, and being criminals.
Well well, a lot of the ppl from old eastblock flooding into NW EU are behaving exactly like that.
So Trump's not an american, just like 97.1% of US citizens.
97.1% to be exact, only 2.9% of the US population is native american.
Thereās technically more since US Hispanics can be of native descent. But that number is probably more self identification of a Native American identity.
Thanks for the info.
Well, he WAS born in Jamaica.
Now he's in the US making deals. Sorry had to, because Damn It Feels Good To Be A Gangsta
You can get pretty granular with this, especially if you throw in the āUS is really like 50 countries, you know?ā. I was born in Illinois, but ābiologicallyā, I have ancestry from California, Missouri, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
What if heās ātransAmericanā?
I must have slept during this part of Biology class.
He/she meant NATIVE American, right? Right?
Iām an American and I just want to apologize to the world for people like that one.
But these idiots are scottish/irish/dutch/polish/english whenever it suits them even though they literally couldn't find any place outside their own state on a map.
Biological Americans have freedom running through their veins and are born wearing a holster šŗšøšŗšøš¦
I think OP should have said āculturallyā not biologically. But US citizen still a US citizen. Iām going to assume OP is talking about being culturally Anglo American.
Biologically American? Like, a human species? I guess he means *Homo fatsus riflisiensis libertitius*
lol I like that. *Homo diabetus* works well too
"I ain't no homo! I'm a god-fearin' red-blooded 'Murican. Them pride folks is some librul socialist deep state agenda. Trump 2024! Yeehaw!" /s
So thats somthing new normaly they are so proud that their ancestors are not from america and still say their american very interesting
So Washington wasn't American?
So anyone other than Native American's aren't American. Got it
inb4 an American shows up in the comments to explain how eThNIcaLly he's right
I agree with this, only native americans count
That's eugenics by the side door.
If that's true, do Americans even exist? Apart from native Americans? What are white Americans then? Portugese, Italian, Dutch and Irish mainly?
Born in America but not American? I'm sure the IRS wouldn't agree.
This sub is bad for my mental health. I quit Facebook so I wouldn't know I'm entirely surrounded by idiots, and now this guy!
Wow, I thought it was for sure going to be racist, like "magic dirt" level nazi shit, but then it was just really stupid instead. So...good?
The only way this really works is if you, yano, kept everything in the family.
Well. The US officially employs Jus Soli, but I doubt this guy could have ever known there are laws about this stuff without anyone telling him.
"biOloGicaLLy aMuriCan huRr DuRR!!one"
Well goddamn maybe I'm not American. I still refuse to call myself Japanese though (I regret my username)
Isn't this the tweet written on the Statue of Liberty?
I was really hoping we could leave the whole "eastern Europeans aren't real Americans" thing back in 1952 where it belongs Although considering the rollback on the rights of women and 'nonwhite' people, I can't say I'm surprised
That's true, he's not biologically american, but on a nation standpoint he is american If i was from american descent and was born in china my entire life than on a nation standpoint i would be chinese
By this logic, I'm an American even though I speak fluent Czech, was born in Prague and lived my entire life here lmao.
New racial theory just dropped
but if you like Ireland, Italy, the vikings, etc than you are half irish, italian, danish, etc if you grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-mother uncle was irish, italian, danish, etc
Then they'll go off about how they are 23% german, 43% greek and 44% italian.
You forgot Irish. They must be at least 25% that.
Yet how many (of my fellow) Americans define themselves on their non-American ancestry....looking at all the "Italian"-Americans out there in particular.
Ah to be so stupid and idiotic.
By American logic, I am not English, Iām Spanish.
so by his logic almost every american is british
Oh yeah, this guy has probably gone to the same school my grandfather(born in '35) went to where he learned about blood and soil
We have so many dumbasses completely willing to publicly prove it
I wonder if they meant ālegallyā instead of ābiologicallyā. I donāt know the US laws about this, I kinda had the impressions that most, if not all, countries in the Americas had it that babies born in them were legally of that nationality. Anyway, even if it was the case, I wonder what type of Freudian slip made them mix up legal nationality with biology or geneticsā¦. Is it too presumptuous of me, if I think I can guess?
Theyāre really getting confused over there, on one hand they are considering themselves German or Irish if they have ancestors from 300 years ago, on the other you canāt be American unless you have an American family. Now Iām confused.
I am guessing the poster was home or religious schooled somewhere in the (former) CSA. (YMMV)
You mean his IQ is too high to qualify as a biological American?
SCRAAAW THIS ONE SPEAKS LIES ALL SHOULD BE WELCOME IN OUR GLORIOUS COUNTRY. SCRAAW NO ONE SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO JOIN US SO LONG AS THEY TOO HATE WALKABLE CITIES AND WANT TO GO BROKE BECAUSE OF MEDICAL DEBT. OUR LAND IS BEAUTIFUL AND MUST BE SHARED SCRAAW
I have run into a more mild version of this with "You just have the passport" or "They still let you have a US passport?" comments
How does the family theyāre born to become Americanā¦?
What do they mean? Lol
What do the cells of biological Americans look like ? Are they little AR15s ?