Race: Social Construct or Science?

[Qyrym]

One thing to consider is the disparity within ethnic family groups. For example, Arabs are Afro-Asiatic people of the Semitic branch, and go from African to Greco-Italian features. Hausa are also Afro-Asiatic, but are Chadic (Berbers are our closest relatives). Our features range from looking like the Nilo-Saharan and Bantu tribes to looking like Tuaregs to looking half-Arab. Russians are Indo-European and Slavs. They have blonde hair and blues to dark hair and brown eyes to redheads. All people groups (Arabs, Hausa and Russians) are Caucasians. Hausa people often look more like the Christian tribes of Ghana and Burkina Faso and Togo, but we are over 99% Muslim, smoke hookah, often wear turbans and abaya, and are of Haplogroups found in Eurasia. However, we are still black, because of our geographic and historic location, though my parents sometimes refer to us as “brown people”.

That's what i said higher as border region. Subsaharan Africa, yeah, it's like that

[Aureumterra]

One thing to consider is the disparity within ethnic family groups. For example, Arabs are Afro-Asiatic people of the Semitic branch, and go from African to Greco-Italian features. Hausa are also Afro-Asiatic, but are Chadic (Berbers are our closest relatives). Our features range from looking like the Nilo-Saharan and Bantu tribes to looking like Tuaregs to looking half-Arab. Russians are Indo-European and Slavs. They have blonde hair and blues to dark hair and brown eyes to redheads. All people groups (Arabs, Hausa and Russians) are Caucasians. Hausa people often look more like the Christian tribes of Ghana and Burkina Faso and Togo, but we are over 99% Muslim, smoke hookah, often wear turbans and abaya, and are of Haplogroups found in Eurasia. However, we are still black, because of our geographic and historic location, though my parents sometimes refer to us as “brown people”.

How are the Hausa, in any way, Caucasian?

[Insaanistan]

One thing to consider is the disparity within ethnic family groups. For example, Arabs are Afro-Asiatic people of the Semitic branch, and go from African to Greco-Italian features. Hausa are also Afro-Asiatic, but are Chadic (Berbers are our closest relatives). Our features range from looking like the Nilo-Saharan and Bantu tribes to looking like Tuaregs to looking half-Arab. Russians are Indo-European and Slavs. They have blonde hair and blues to dark hair and brown eyes to redheads. All people groups (Arabs, Hausa and Russians) are Caucasians. Hausa people often look more like the Christian tribes of Ghana and Burkina Faso and Togo, but we are over 99% Muslim, smoke hookah, often wear turbans and abaya, and are of Haplogroups found in Eurasia. However, we are still black, because of our geographic and historic location, though my parents sometimes refer to us as “brown people”.

How are the Hausa, in any way, Caucasian?

This video explains better than I can:
https://youtu.be/K40h_MiBFr8

[Rojava Free State]

How are the Hausa, in any way, Caucasian?

This video explains better than I can:
https://youtu.be/K40h_MiBFr8

Some would consider the Hausa to be negroid though, and within their country of origin no one even uses these terms to demarcate people groups. This is why race isn't real. One may say you're black while another may say you're white, and this changes based on the historical period and the country we are in.

[Aureumterra]

How are the Hausa, in any way, Caucasian?

This video explains better than I can:
https://youtu.be/K40h_MiBFr8

In the context of modern language, the term "caucasian" has changed its meaning from its classical definition to be interchangeable with "white." So the shape of the skull stuff isn’t the stuff people see

[Rojava Free State]

The Japanese have done that more times than just world war II, and that's just Japan. Have you seen what has happened in China since time immemorial? Mass murder and civil war are like a Chinese past time. Let's not pretend that white people have a monopoly on violence. White people are only remembered for that because #1 they had the weapons necessary to kill more people and #2 they went to other places on earth and didn't stay where they were like the Chinese. I'm sure you've seen the wars and violence that have plagued Africa for decades now. The reason this only happened recently is because it was only recently that many African countries seized the means of death's construction. Zulu Warriors with arrows cannot do as much damage as soldiers with AK-47s, guerillas with car bombs or jihadists with suicide vests can do. Clearly the predisposition for violence that is found throughout mankind was already there, and all they needed were the weapons to cause mass death.

Zulu warriors mostly have guns nowadays

I'm talking about back in like the 1800s, and now that they do have guns, you can see what happens. Africa is a warzone because Africans like other groups of people like war.

The only reason Europe stopped their big wars is because with the development of nuclear bombs, one more war in Europe would trigger a nuclear apocalypse, and even then there have still been wars in the Balkans. They were able to continue because no side had nukes.

[Rojava Free State]

This video explains better than I can:
https://youtu.be/K40h_MiBFr8

In the context of modern language, the term "caucasian" has changed its meaning from its classical definition to be interchangeable with "white." So the shape of the skull stuff isn’t the stuff people see

I mean Arab Americans and many latinos are caucasian though and many americans don't view them as white.

[Rojava Free State]

The Japanese have done that more times than just world war II, and that's just Japan. Have you seen what has happened in China since time immemorial? Mass murder and civil war are like a Chinese past time. Let's not pretend that white people have a monopoly on violence. White people are only remembered for that because #1 they had the weapons necessary to kill more people and #2 they went to other places on earth and didn't stay where they were like the Chinese. I'm sure you've seen the wars and violence that have plagued Africa for decades now. The reason this only happened recently is because it was only recently that many African countries seized the means of death's construction. Zulu Warriors with arrows cannot do as much damage as soldiers with AK-47s, guerillas with car bombs or jihadists with suicide vests can do. Clearly the predisposition for violence that is found throughout mankind was already there, and all they needed were the weapons to cause mass death.

We are all one bad day away from being Albanian. Never forget that. There is no "bad race." There are only circumstances and when the circumstances are right, anyone will stoop so low.

I never called them a bad race. Even Malik El-Shabazz, when he went on Hajj and saw White Muslims from the Balkans, Arab Muslims from MENA, and Black Muslims from Africa all eating, praying, and walking together, it changed husband perception of the world and Islam. When you look at Africa and Asia, 60% of our problems are because of Europe, how they drew borders with no regard to the people, how they would govern different tribes like different countries, only to stuff us in the same one. How they’d give on tribe guns and the other tribe is planning to attack, then do the same thing with other tribe, and watch us fight it out. However, I know the 40% is us. The rampant corruption. Our culture inferiority complex. Our belief our tribe, or religion, or way of life, or language, is better than someone else’s. We are responsible for some, but remember, Europe still has a choke-hold on us to this day, in several ways.

Europe has had a major league influence because of its era of dominance starting in the 1500s. We can't base our view on human history off one point in time.

Who knows? Maybe Africa will dominate the world in 1000 years. I know someone here is laughing at that idea but I can't rule it out. Once upon a time northern europe was a backwater and now they lead the world in many respects. All peoples are equal because they all have a come up and a collapse at some point in history.

[Rojava Free State]

There are 3 main races - yellow (mongolic), white (caucasian) and black (african).
Of course there are borderline regions, and the US is actually in many ways borderline, but major population chunks do live in other part of the world.
Those who say "reject race, we all are already one" are expanding their US experience on the whole world. It's worthless and pathetic.
In our part of the world (i'm actually from Russia), Eurasia\Eurafrica, there exists Sahara as a natural limit between negros and indoeuropeans\semitics, and also Himalayas and Pamir and Altay as the border between asians and europeans.
The enclave asian communities in Europe, such as Kalmykia, are from recent times (1700s), when travel became more cheap.
The turanic subrace (kazakhs, kyrgyzes) is the result of many ethnic shifts. Also, no natural border in Russia, Urals is too low. Nevertheless, Urals effectively barred russians from expansion in a traditional "mongoloid\turanoid" region, until 1600s when travel became more cheap and effective. So Siberian european population also can be attributed to recent times and can be called a big and dense "panhandle" between paleoasiatic Yamal, Taymır, Yakutya and turanic Kazakhstan, Mongolia and Asian China/Korea.
Tl\dr:
more than 1.500.000.000 people of asian race never seen or interbreeded with an european or an african.
more than 700.000.000 people of white race (including semitics or east-indians) never seen or interbreeded with an asian or an african.
more than 800.000.000 people of black race have never seen or interbreeded with two previous.
To be honest, the "white race" is also too big to not consider South branch (Semitics, caucasoids, mediterraneans such as Albanians or Bulgarians, and also Iranians and India\Paki people) as a separate entity, albeit, it can be called subrace just like turanoid. The border can be drawn in Alpes, Carpathians, Caucasus and south Central Asian deserts - all areas with small density.
It's just geography and history.

That's how asian race traits, such as "blue dot" just above the anal hole, shovel-shaped incisors, black straight oily hair and epicanthus are propagated in complex in an overwhelming majority of asian people, while corresponding white race traits are propagated usually in complex in an overwhelming majority of european people.
And some asian traits are, to add, 'dominant' unlike 'recessive' european ones. And some african traits are even dominant on asian ones (and vice versa). That's why white pair sometimes has a black child. It's called genetics.
Honestly, it's disappointing to hear here such a discussion about a genetical fact:
isolated (blurry, but still 80%+ homogenous) blobs of human beings with a sheer size and with a drastic contrast in traits somehow do exist even in our time of unprecedented societal mobility.
Races do exist and they do not need to be 'approved' by any chairborne theoretist.

Genetic clusters exist. Races as we know them do not. You should know that the difference between an ethiopian and a Nigerian. And the border with the asian race as you call it isn't the Himalayas. Have you seen Kazakhs? They look alot like mongolians, and then as you go from there to Uzbekistan, asian traits slowly give way to "caucasian features."

[Qyrym]

There are 3 main races - yellow (mongolic), white (caucasian) and black (african).
Of course there are borderline regions, and the US is actually in many ways borderline, but major population chunks do live in other part of the world.
Those who say "reject race, we all are already one" are expanding their US experience on the whole world. It's worthless and pathetic.
In our part of the world (i'm actually from Russia), Eurasia\Eurafrica, there exists Sahara as a natural limit between negros and indoeuropeans\semitics, and also Himalayas and Pamir and Altay as the border between asians and europeans.
The enclave asian communities in Europe, such as Kalmykia, are from recent times (1700s), when travel became more cheap.
The turanic subrace (kazakhs, kyrgyzes) is the result of many ethnic shifts. Also, no natural border in Russia, Urals is too low. Nevertheless, Urals effectively barred russians from expansion in a traditional "mongoloid\turanoid" region, until 1600s when travel became more cheap and effective. So Siberian european population also can be attributed to recent times and can be called a big and dense "panhandle" between paleoasiatic Yamal, Taymır, Yakutya and turanic Kazakhstan, Mongolia and Asian China/Korea.
Tl\dr:
more than 1.500.000.000 people of asian race never seen or interbreeded with an european or an african.
more than 700.000.000 people of white race (including semitics or east-indians) never seen or interbreeded with an asian or an african.
more than 800.000.000 people of black race have never seen or interbreeded with two previous.
To be honest, the "white race" is also too big to not consider South branch (Semitics, caucasoids, mediterraneans such as Albanians or Bulgarians, and also Iranians and India\Paki people) as a separate entity, albeit, it can be called subrace just like turanoid. The border can be drawn in Alpes, Carpathians, Caucasus and south Central Asian deserts - all areas with small density.
It's just geography and history.

That's how asian race traits, such as "blue dot" just above the anal hole, shovel-shaped incisors, black straight oily hair and epicanthus are propagated in complex in an overwhelming majority of asian people, while corresponding white race traits are propagated usually in complex in an overwhelming majority of european people.
And some asian traits are, to add, 'dominant' unlike 'recessive' european ones. And some african traits are even dominant on asian ones (and vice versa). That's why white pair sometimes has a black child. It's called genetics.
Honestly, it's disappointing to hear here such a discussion about a genetical fact:
isolated (blurry, but still 80%+ homogenous) blobs of human beings with a sheer size and with a drastic contrast in traits somehow do exist even in our time of unprecedented societal mobility.
Races do exist and they do not need to be 'approved' by any chairborne theoretist.

Genetic clusters exist. Races as we know them do not. You should know that the difference between an ethiopian and a Nigerian. And the border with the asian race as you call it isn't the Himalayas. Have you seen Kazakhs? They look alot like mongolians, and then as you go from there to Uzbekistan, asian traits slowly give way to "caucasian features."

You disregarded my passage about Urals and Turanic subrace. White race protrudes in Asia in two places - under Himalayas and over Kazakh steppes, just under Yamal, Taymır and Yakutia.

[Insaanistan]

In the context of modern language, the term "caucasian" has changed its meaning from its classical definition to be interchangeable with "white." So the shape of the skull stuff isn’t the stuff people see

I mean Arab Americans and many latinos are caucasian though and many americans don't view them as white.

Using the more proper use of the term Caucasian, all whites are Caucasian, but not all Caucasians are white. And Arabs are actually officially considered white because when the US was more openly exist than it is now (I know it’s hard to imagine, but bear with me) it passed a law discriminating against Asians (the law specifically said “Chinese” but obviously, that’s what all Asians are, right?). Now, most Arabs entering the US at the time were from Syria, which is in Asia. So not to discriminated against so soon after getting off the boat, these Syrians pushed for Arabs to be officially considered white in the US.

[Rojava Free State]

Genetic clusters exist. Races as we know them do not. You should know that the difference between an ethiopian and a Nigerian. And the border with the asian race as you call it isn't the Himalayas. Have you seen Kazakhs? They look alot like mongolians, and then as you go from there to Uzbekistan, asian traits slowly give way to "caucasian features."

You disregarded my passage about Urals and Turanic subrace. White race protrudes in Asia in two places - under Himalayas and over Kazakh steppes, just under Yamal, Taymır and Yakutia.

Except it's disrupted whether those people are white or not. No one can agree on what race an Uzbek or a turkmen are because their history is full of diverse groups, hence why racial categories are ridiculous.

[Rojava Free State]

I mean Arab Americans and many latinos are caucasian though and many americans don't view them as white.

Using the more proper use of the term Caucasian, all whites are Caucasian, but not all Caucasians are white. And Arabs are actually officially considered white because when the US was more openly exist than it is now (I know it’s hard to imagine, but bear with me) it passed a law discriminating against Asians (the law specifically said “Chinese” but obviously, that’s what all Asians are, right?). Now, most Arabs entering the US at the time were from Syria, which is in Asia. So not to discriminated against so soon after getting off the boat, these Syrians pushed for Arabs to be officially considered white in the US.

Arabs became white because they look similar enough to your average american and assimilated in. Same reason why we dont call italians non white anymore. Recently however whiteness has been in retreat in America. Alot of formerly white groups are now once again seen as "brown."

[Qyrym]

You disregarded my passage about Urals and Turanic subrace. White race protrudes in Asia in two places - under Himalayas and over Kazakh steppes, just under Yamal, Taymır and Yakutia.

Except it's disrupted whether those people are white or not. No one can agree on what race an Uzbek or a turkmen are because their history is full of diverse groups, hence why racial categories are ridiculous.

b o r d e r r e g i o n s.
Racial blobs do exist, the overall population of all Central Asia (in Soviet part) gets 60 mln, Chinese part 30 mln, Afghani 30 mln. It's slightly more than one Germany. So, for the overall asian or european blobs, this is too small amount. but the most cherished by me

[Rojava Free State]

Except it's disrupted whether those people are white or not. No one can agree on what race an Uzbek or a turkmen are because their history is full of diverse groups, hence why racial categories are ridiculous.

b o r d e r r e g i o n s.
Racial blobs do exist, the overall population of all Central Asia (in Soviet part) gets 60 mln, Chinese part 30 mln, Afghani 30 mln. It's slightly more than one Germany. So, for the overall asian or european blobs, this is too small amount. but the most cherished by me

Considering that other people have completely different definitions of race from you, I think it is safe to say race is a construct

Genetics exist, but are two diverse and mixed to categorize into such broad groups.

[Qyrym]

b o r d e r r e g i o n s.
Racial blobs do exist, the overall population of all Central Asia (in Soviet part) gets 60 mln, Chinese part 30 mln, Afghani 30 mln. It's slightly more than one Germany. So, for the overall asian or european blobs, this is too small amount. but the most cherished by me

Considering that other people have completely different definitions of race from you, I think it is safe to say race is a construct

Genetics exist, but are two diverse and mixed to categorize into such broad groups.

It's not unlike an Altaic question. Guess what? I'm pro-altaic, partly because i'm actually learning both Tatar and Japanese now, and there are a huge ton of similarities in grammar, for example, in word order, lack of sex divisions in language, in cases and sometimes lacking multiple number. But westerners reject this theory just because it is invented in Moscow.
Returning to our topic:
I think, that in, for example, wired pottery era borders were more solid and there were clear distinct subraces. Yet, again, the humanity lives only about 300 years in a society when you can freely travel to another end of the world. So too small amount of time has passed, and we cannot completely say that "race is a construct", at least, until 50% of population lives in China and India (and neighboring countries) - one is too conservative and self-isolated, and other is too poor to travel.

[Rojava Free State]

Considering that other people have completely different definitions of race from you, I think it is safe to say race is a construct

Genetics exist, but are two diverse and mixed to categorize into such broad groups.

It's not unlike an Altaic question. Guess what? I'm pro-altaic, partly because i'm actually learning both Tatar and Japanese now, and there are a huge ton of similarities in grammar, for example, in word order, lack of sex divisions in language, in cases and sometimes lacking multiple number. But westerners reject this theory just because it is invented in Moscow.
Returning to our topic:
I think, that in, for example, wired pottery era borders were more solid and there were clear distinct subraces. Yet, again, the humanity lives only about 300 years in a society when you can freely travel to another end of the world. So too small amount of time has passed, and we cannot completely say that "race is a construct", at least, until 50% of population lives in China and India (and neighboring countries) - one is too conservative and self-isolated, and other is too poor to travel.

Different genetic clusters exist, but they aren't races as defined by science, and the boxes we draw that we call race are different depending on where you go.

I'm a brown man in America but a white man in the philippines. I can't be both at once.

[Qyrym]

It's not unlike an Altaic question. Guess what? I'm pro-altaic, partly because i'm actually learning both Tatar and Japanese now, and there are a huge ton of similarities in grammar, for example, in word order, lack of sex divisions in language, in cases and sometimes lacking multiple number. But westerners reject this theory just because it is invented in Moscow.
Returning to our topic:
I think, that in, for example, wired pottery era borders were more solid and there were clear distinct subraces. Yet, again, the humanity lives only about 300 years in a society when you can freely travel to another end of the world. So too small amount of time has passed, and we cannot completely say that "race is a construct", at least, until 50% of population lives in China and India (and neighboring countries) - one is too conservative and self-isolated, and other is too poor to travel.

Different genetic clusters exist, but they aren't races as defined by science, and the boxes we draw that we call race are different depending on where you go.

I'm a brown man in America but a white man in the philippines. I can't be both at once.

Wow. I know they in the US use some dull categories. Their 'race' isn't even race, it's a strange weird mix of race, ethnicity and even language (as with latino).
Don't worry, i'd rather choose the Pilipino one in your place to self-define, just because USA classification system is strange, not only in these cases. I recently read an interesting article by some W Anderson about the real roots and even contemporary real usage of racial statistics in the US. But i forgot the name of the article, that's bad.
\
By the way, in Russia we say "the human is negro" if he has brown enough face, and "the human is asian" if he has mongoloid eyes with an epicanthus. But having both is still considered "negro" because negroid features are genetically dominant, and the brown face also is overall more visible, than eyes' shape.

[Insaanistan]

You disregarded my passage about Urals and Turanic subrace. White race protrudes in Asia in two places - under Himalayas and over Kazakh steppes, just under Yamal, Taymır and Yakutia.

Except it's disrupted whether those people are white or not. No one can agree on what race an Uzbek or a turkmen are because their history is full of diverse groups, hence why racial categories are ridiculous.

Well... I’d say mixed between white, brown, and Asian. That’s another problem, several people groups, especially where continents meet or trade routes traditionally were are mixed.

[Novus America]

It's not unlike an Altaic question. Guess what? I'm pro-altaic, partly because i'm actually learning both Tatar and Japanese now, and there are a huge ton of similarities in grammar, for example, in word order, lack of sex divisions in language, in cases and sometimes lacking multiple number. But westerners reject this theory just because it is invented in Moscow.
Returning to our topic:
I think, that in, for example, wired pottery era borders were more solid and there were clear distinct subraces. Yet, again, the humanity lives only about 300 years in a society when you can freely travel to another end of the world. So too small amount of time has passed, and we cannot completely say that "race is a construct", at least, until 50% of population lives in China and India (and neighboring countries) - one is too conservative and self-isolated, and other is too poor to travel.

Different genetic clusters exist, but they aren't races as defined by science, and the boxes we draw that we call race are different depending on where you go.

I'm a brown man in America but a white man in the philippines. I can't be both at once.

That is the thing, although clusters exist where you draw the lines, what lines you draw, and what you name the lines is a fluid and somewhat arbitrary process.

[UniversalCommons]

Quoting Carl Linnaeus from 1758 is wildly unscientific. This is where the idea of three main races came from. It is dead in the water. It is also an inaccurate quote, there are four races according to Linnaeus. The defined races do not include white, they include Europeans, Asiatics, Africans, and Americans. Asiatics would have included Russia and the Middle East. If you are referring to the old system-- white wasn't even in the original category, European was. Blumenbach changed it to a five category system based on geography, not ability.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/t ... er-of-race

There is a definite arbitrariness in how races are defined. Three races as a system does not account for Pacific Islanders, or Native Americans. It discounts a huge amount of the world.

[Qyrym]

Quoting Carl Linnaeus from 1758 is wildly unscientific. This is where the idea of three main races came from. It is dead in the water. It is also an inaccurate quote, there are four races according to Linnaeus. The defined races do not include white, they include Europeans, Asiatics, Africans, and Americans. Asiatics would have included Russia and the Middle East. If you are referring to the old system-- white wasn't even in the original category, European was. Blumenbach changed it to a five category system based on geography, not ability.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/t ... er-of-race

There is a definite arbitrariness in how races are defined. Three races as a system does not account for Pacific Islanders, or Native Americans. It discounts a huge amount of the world.

Islanders and West-Indians are mostly Asian.

[UniversalCommons]

Quoting Carl Linnaeus from 1758 is wildly unscientific. This is where the idea of three main races came from. It is dead in the water. It is also an inaccurate quote, there are four races according to Linnaeus. The defined races do not include white, they include Europeans, Asiatics, Africans, and Americans. Asiatics would have included Russia and the Middle East. If you are referring to the old system-- white wasn't even in the original category, European was. Blumenbach changed it to a five category system based on geography, not ability.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/t ... er-of-race

There is a definite arbitrariness in how races are defined. Three races as a system does not account for Pacific Islanders, or Native Americans. It discounts a huge amount of the world.

Islanders and West-Indians are mostly Asian.

This is a false statement. Pacific Islanders are a mix of melanesian and asian. About half are melanesian.

[Insaanistan]

Quoting Carl Linnaeus from 1758 is wildly unscientific. This is where the idea of three main races came from. It is dead in the water. It is also an inaccurate quote, there are four races according to Linnaeus. The defined races do not include white, they include Europeans, Asiatics, Africans, and Americans. Asiatics would have included Russia and the Middle East. If you are referring to the old system-- white wasn't even in the original category, European was. Blumenbach changed it to a five category system based on geography, not ability.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/t ... er-of-race

There is a definite arbitrariness in how races are defined. Three races as a system does not account for Pacific Islanders, or Native Americans. It discounts a huge amount of the world.

Islanders and West-Indians are mostly Asian.

I’m sorry what?

[UniversalCommons]

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach was a disciple of Linnaeus. He created the concept of five races as part of the beginnings of physical anthropology to describe where people were located in the world. It is more than a little mixed up with lots of discredited 19th century ideas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Fr ... Blumenbach

I find it to be a little more than discredited.