> I am not deconstructing the reality of race but your conception of it.
You haven't deconstructed any conception at all you have done is say that there are groups are close to being white or that you can break down whites into more groups within the category.
> This begs the question of how exactly your categorization works. It's not as simple as with color.
Like you said "categorizing by phenotype, genotype, and also geography, linguistics, history". It is not simple but it does not mean the categories are not there
> What may be insurmountable is the fact that there are peoples who, for whatever reason, don't know entire color families but have twenty names for shades of green
And?
> You already saw it here, some people admitted to Christian Arabs being "honorary whites".
Do you know what that means? They are admitting to the fact that these **people are not white** but since these Arabs maintained Christianity in there heavily Islamic homeland's they are gotten the "honorary" status.
> If some tribe has no concept of redness, can we say red has a mind-independent existence? Hardly. In that, colors are different from ethnic groups.
And? It is still a category and there is no shit lib tier arguments that will change that. @AH-64
