and yeah race is different than ethnicity because ethnicity is actually a social construct by definition and not discribed by biology but rather how different groups of people associate themselves to a group through culture, phenotype, and proximity

lots of people want to conflate the 2 as being the same but race and ethnicity were actually created to be different terms that work on different mechanisms to define themselves

I think there is overlap of two entirely unrelated ideas that are falling under the same term.

perhaps the most scientificly accurate way to define races is to define them when genetic traits become the successful genetic trait in a populate till it becomes the dominant one purely due to natural selection

that might not be how races are defined though

though like species taxonomy, the taxonomy of race is also not static, it will develop as different sexually selective traits emerge in different populations, though racial mixing may both slow that down and speed it up at the same time depending on context

one is just assigning groups of genes that, as far as has been proven, originated from a particular area and have propagated from there. The other is an arbitrary group of easy to identity physical traits that are easy to identify by eye, but not by genes alone.

physical and social

but that is accurate

when talking about the latter that basically boils down to dark skin = black, light skin round eyed = white, light skin squinty eyed = Asian, i say it is right to say that out side the genes that actually control those phenotypes, they are not defined biologically.

which is the interpretation i get from Wood's statements.

probably best to catagorize ethnicity as a social construct and race as an archaic term for a modern concept of subspecies

the problem with race, is that humans sleep around so much, you end up with people who are 4 different "subspeices" in terms of genetic make-up, which might technically make them a new subspecies depending on how the genes interact/mutate with that new combo, and so on and so on, that it really doesn't have any meaning out side of "if you have one of these genes from this group, you might have these problems"

things are so scrambled that you are a collection of various races, which has created a unique grouping in and of itself

fucking slowmo, anyway so you cannot be defined by annoy of those parts

well thats where my statement about the process being slowed or sped up depending on certain contexts. i dont think race should really be used to heard contemporarey groups of people into different areas of the world and than locking them there and now we would have to deal with people who dont fit due to mixture. i think race should be described scientificaly and then people make of that what they will on introspectively purely.

an individual being a member of one race and only one race is a made up social construct as it is probably very rare these days to find a "pure blood" if you will, unless you are looking at England maybe ( 😉 ). instead any given individual is a made up of most likely at least 2 different races in terms of biology, particularly given the mobility of humans today, making isolation of genes much less likely to happen.

actually england isint a good example of a pure blood area, japan is a better example. either way lots of people are basicly derived from a single genetic lineage if defined by trait emergences while granted theres always been groups who are mixed and that population is growing now (basicly all of south america is mixed) that does not make the science pointless nor the process of catagorization for people if they choose to also pointless because it is still very likely to find you basicly decend from a single branch

i was making fun of the habit of the royal family inbreeding

also depending on the context if 2 branches converge for you at a very very distant time period your more recent branch is really what describes you best, its even likely your recent branch is where the traits which discribe the race emerge

also on the social construct side of the matter you could define european jewish people as simply european because while its true that looking at their genetics there is only a very little cross between that group and the europeans surrounding them, it is a case that the context of the european envirnment even within the relitively short 1500 years of jewish settlement of europe; has effected their natural selection process to drive the emergence of many traits from the population at a much faster rate than the surrounding europeans

yea one thing I didnt think of was that you can send your dna to ancenstry and it will tell you your race

It's worth noting that those numbers are less accurate than they'd like you to believe. As in there's not necessarily a guarantee that you're say 2% Scandanavian and 74% Asian on the dot. Their testing methodology, from what I've gathered, is nowhere near that sophisticated.

and 23 and me also only tells you based on your maternal lineage and not your paternal one to

i think, i could be wrong

Its not amazing, and coincidences happen as well. Since it tests by comparing your dna and checking how similar they are.

23andme csn tell your fathers side too

Mothers side via mitochondrial DNA, fathers through Y chromosome

My two cente: genetics is real and racial differences are real. If you deny this, it'll end poorly, as you can only deny reality so long before it bites you in the ass. But genetic differences do not and should not mean treating one person, or one group of people, with less respect and basic dignity than another

Depression is overrepresenter in northern european genetivs but we don't say that white people are emotionally inferior to others, eg

Most ironically for people who bring up the bell curve, the same data in TBC that shows a white/black iq gap also shows an asian/white and jewish/white iq gap but rwcial supremacists aren't going around talking about how jews are actually the master race.

Because iq doesnt define the worth of a human being

Also ive been pointing this out for years to no avail, but TBC spends like five pages saying "some people have lower intelligence than others and its genetic so this will never change" and five hundred pages saying "we need to help them, bc if we expect the same from them as we do more intelligent people, we will force them to live a life of misery and thats cruel and evil". But everyone ignores this part

wait wut

Wut which part?

TBC

The bell curve. Charles murray book. Widely considered to be hateful racial supremacist content because of a fiveish page digression where he points out different races have different average IQs

its still racist, i mean isn't that the soft bigotry of low exceptions and implying we need to "whiten up" the black race? i mean, isn't that the only way to help with genetic differences

The actual main thesis of the bell curve is:
1) IQ is an accurate measure of general intelligence
2) general intelligence is genetic and largely fixed; you cant really change it through eg education
3) iq is normally distributed, along a bell curve
4) american society is extremely good at filtering people by IQ, via the university system
5) this has the effect of taking the smartest people from every community out of that community
6) those smart people end up all in the same high-IQ bubble where they're all happy but ignorant of the reality of the rest of society
7) the resulting brain drain on other communities ends up leaving those less intelligent folks who are left behind in a poverty trap
8) this creates a de-facto caste system
9) this is oppressive to the lower castes (aka dumb people)

He was mostly advocating for... Actually I don't remember his proposed solution.

abolishing universities or IQ filtering?

idk