Is race a social construct?

Yes. That doesn't mean that it is nonexistent though, just that it is social, rather than scientific.
>I am not saying we are all the same.
Human genetic diversity exists but it doesn't lend itself to clearly defined human races.

anthromadness.blogspot.com/2017/01/human-genetic-diversity-discrete-or.html
I know its a blog, but they cite their sources.

>Andamanese were genetically closer to East Asians than to Africans and West Eurasians.
And yet, Andamanese look "black." You are looking at selective adaptation, not a lost tribe of Africans.

It is about adaptation. Grain-eaters between the Baltic and Black Sea got pale skin, pale eyes and pale hair because they were under selective pressure to process more Vitamin D from limited sunlight. Lewontin, Wells’s other mentor, posited that
>if a nuclear war struck and only the Kenyan Kikuyu survived, they would still have 85% of the genetic variation of mankind; with a similar history and conditions, they too would turn blond and blue-eyed under the northern sun.

>Again, I am not saying we are all the same.

Race exists but the boundaries are fuzzy and social constructs supersede genetics rather regularly.

In other words, its a big fucking mess and nothing fits into neat and tidy little categories without criminally over-simplifying things.

Yes. Race is a social construct.

Species is not. Species consists of every individual who you can reproduce sexually with.

Genus is not. Genus consists of all descendants of a discrete individual.

That's not comparable.
No one forced humans to mix with anyone and to isolate themselves

What are geographical barriers for a thousand, Alex?

>"Congoid"
It's called negroid.

>Race is a construct in our world which has endless significance and utility

Fixed

>No one forced humans to mix with anyone and to isolate themselves

So the main difference to you is that animals were "forced" to do so?

...trough an artificial selection to create a specific phenotype
Race ≠ breed

>Is the american situation really that bad?
No

30 000 - 50 000 years for the aborigines m8

Daily reminder that biomedical studies will ALWAYS utilize the concept of race and save lives, time and money.

Is biology a social construct?

>Race ≠ breed
(Not true, by the way)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landrace

what is a sub-species ?

>capoids, australoids and congoids are all considered black
Yes

What a terrible picture, what am i looking at?

I was talking about breeds...

Do any of you even know how we got to the consensus that race doesn't exist?

i cropped out chinese, armenian it looks horrible
s-sorry

Ironically, the ice age was one hell of a punctuated equilibrium.

pls tell us. genuinely interested

As it's often used, yes. You could show me a Greek and a Turk and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference, yet in America the Greek would be white and the Turk wouldn't. I think the scientific examination and classification of different races like in the OP image is much more fruitful and useful.

no, its a cultural construct

a important and highly effective one but a construct

the notion itself has no real correlation with phenotypes and populations and so on, its a set of notions developed by a culture to designate populations by lumping them together based on general external traits

things like racism and xenophobia are expressions of basic human traits and standard biases, and as different human populations actualy get to interact in the world the biases and xenophobia are repeatedly strenghtened and become basic part of mentality

that way a culture develops sets of designations and terms for other people, and these people get categorised based on whatever the culture has to offer in way of beliefs, theories and biases, this generalised categorisation of people based on cultural bias is then the basis of the notion of a race

the thing the word is supposed to name dosent exist tho, humans dont live in races, lowest common denominator external trait does not realy equate group belonging

race is just a word, the reality is far far worse

Are you actually retarded

>endless significance

>endless utility

Okay.

Hiro says there are no retarded people on Veeky Forums.

>race specific medication
>racial profiling of criminals

etc

yes there are. we have americans everywhere.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Boas

>Boas was one of the most prominent opponents of the then popular ideologies of scientific racism, the idea that race is a biological concept and that human behavior is best understood through the typology of biological characteristics. In a series of groundbreaking studies of skeletal anatomy he showed that cranial shape and size was highly malleable depending on environmental factors such as health and nutrition, in contrast to the claims by racial anthropologists of the day that held head shape to be a stable racial trait.
>Boas studied 17,821 people, divided into seven ethno-national groups. Boas found that average measures of cranial size of immigrants were significantly different from members of these groups who were born in the United States. Moreover, he discovered that average measures of cranial size of children born within ten years of their mothers' arrival were significantly different from those of children born more than ten years after their mothers' arrival. Boas did not deny that physical features such as height or cranial size were inherited; he did, however, argue that the environment has an influence on these features, which is expressed through change over time.

tl;dr - In the study, American children of immigrants apparently looked more physically alike to each other than their ancestors did, suggesting that environment trumps inheritance in that regard.

In 1954, these physiognomy studies would be cited in Brown vs. Board of Education.

In 2003, this came up:
news.psu.edu/story/140739/2003/05/01/research/boas-bones-and-race

Do read the whole article, it explains it better than I could.

his bullshit has been debunked

educate us then, we're here to learn

We expect a post like the one above yours

Provide source on paper that apparently disproves his work.

You mean Boas? Yes, that's what I was driving at.

Not him but
nytimes.com/2002/10/08/science/a-new-look-at-old-data-may-discredit-a-theory-on-race.html

>Two physical anthropologists have reanalyzed data gathered by Franz Boas, a founder of American anthropology, and report that he erred in saying environment influenced human head shape. Boas's data, the two scientists say, show almost no such effect.

>The reanalysis bears on whether craniometrics, the measurement of skull shape, can validly identify ethnic origin. As such, it may prompt a re-evaluation of the definition of human races and of ancient skulls like that of Kennewick Man.

>''I have used Boas's study to fight what I guess could be considered racist approaches to anthropology,'' said Dr. David Thomas, curator of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. ''I have to say I am shocked at the findings.''

On the America situation, it depends on where you live.
Tallahassee is bad. Crime is organized and they will only target white people, black cashiers will purposely not serve white customers, and they especially target gay people.

>another pol shitpost thread

As far as the anti-race consensus, there was also Richard Lewontin, for whom "Lewontin's fallacy" was named, and the aforementioned Stephen Jay Gould, who wrote just all kinds of bullshit.

Sorry. :(

Here live caucasodis, tajiks and afghans.

Forgot pic

The truth is much more complicated than most people would like to admit.

Clever fake but still a fake

>Aryan->Nordid->Dane

Aaaand dropped

Of course not. The only people who say so are meme "scientists" who either have no real credentials or love pretending they know everything about every science but the one they have a degree in.

You only need functioning eyes and the knowledge that physical traits are determined by genetics (and not hold some bizarre archaic notion that what the mother believes her child will look like or most fears while it is in the womb will dtermine its appearance) to tell that race is more than a social construct.

"Race is social construct" is social construct.

...

What do you guys think of Jared Taylor's arguments?

youtube.com/watch?v=q8ev4XfM3iY

Je suis fier d'être à la tête d'un grand mouvement populaire, qui s'emploie à rendre à la France son honneur et sa grandeur.
Les cosmopolites ne pourront pas arrêter ce grand mouvement. La force du peuple français les obligera à reculer.

Lesquen 2022

No. The spaniards and portugueses were the first doing it.

>juillet 2017
>il s'est toujours pas mis en marche

Why can't people admit it's both a genetic and a social construct?

Yes. There are certainly genetic differences between human groups but the current classification of races doesn't follow those genetic differences but rather unscientific phenotypical criteria developed for social and historical reasons over the last few centuries.

If we allow race to be a genetic thing then middle easterners are white.

> current classification
Yeah, right.

Nah since there's no rule that there can be only 5 races. We just keep splitting until we get results we can work with.

>Nah since there's no rule that there can be only 5 races.
5 races display the jumps in diversity of humans best

it's the best match
roughly speaking when running a k-means algorithm you have to provide a k, but there are heuristics to find a best k (elbow method for example)

k=5 is the best number and it actually reflects continental variation too

ps
>We just keep splitting until we get results we can work with.
AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

you will never get results you can 'work with'
that's not the point of science - to give you results you can work with
it just gives you results

Congratulations, you're retarded!

The science has to reflect reality. Arbitrary algorithms have no intrinsic value.

>t. cuck

Not in the sense that people with different skin colour are literally the same

Yes in the sense that different cultures see and treat race differently

The prime example of this are black/white relations in the US compared to those in South Africa

For the longest time, and still somewhat today, the US based race relations on the one drop rule, where even if you had one black ancestor, you would be considered black or a negro

During the same time period however, in South Africa, a mixed person (Coloured) would always be considered higher on the social ladder than a "fully" black person. People with a white and a black parent (or asian) would be treated a lot better and even had some amount of political representation

No, in the sense that common concepts of race do more or less accurately represent the underlying genetics. Yes, in the sense that the concepts are imperfect.

This. There are no pure races.

In Spanish, there is no word for breed. They use 'raza' (race) both for animals and people.

race is not just colors
archive.is/E3RCx
archive.is/LRe05

very differenr phenotypes

...

>European
>East Asian
k e k

This. When you classify based on phenotypes, the results can lead you to some misleading conclusions.
Solomon Islanders can have naturally occurring blonde hair, but this is not due to admixture from Eurasian groups, but from a mutation that developed independently.
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3481182/
They also display phenotypes that may lead people to believe that they are "negroid," despite the fact that on average, Papuans, Australian Aborigines and many Pacific Islanders are among the most genetically distant from Sub-Saharan Africans.

These people should be brought here to Sweden and mate with a blonde Swede. Let's see what happens.

This map is retarded

middle easterners don't genetically fall in the european cluster, by proximities

A lot of regions in the world deserve more attention.

I don't know about those Australoids in India but other than that is pretty accurate.

>The science has to reflect reality. Arbitrary algorithms have no intrinsic value
yeah okay
now please explain why k=6+ is better than k=5 at "reflecting reality"
without reaching the conclusion that k=7,000,000 would be ideal

>k=7,000,000
woah where did my zeroes go
obviously meant 7,000,000,000

No.

Culture is more important though.

What we're looking for is a Pan-European component because without it nothing matters.
Europeans are not Saudis.

Doesn't matter if it's lesser in the Mediterranean.

there are enough nordicist retards in the world, you don't need to roleplay as one

It's a different gene than the one that causes blondness in Europeans (and both traits are recessive) so I'm not sure if blondness would appear in a single generation.

Europeans and East Asians don't share any skin depigmentation alleles yet Elliots are about as light as East Asians or a bit more sometimes

What exactly is supposedly the difference between Negroids and Congoids?

I read that some people classify the the people living there as so different from other Africans to be a different race, with skin 'described as more golden brown', If I remember correctly. And something about different hair type.

Did not know what you meant at first when you meant by Elliots at first, but kek's once I did.
But you bring up a fair point.
What do half-Australian aboriginal, half-European settler children look like? Do they sometimes have blonde hair?

>tfw the furthest genetically from sub-Saharan African

Yes. It's fuzzy and ill-defined. People just throw all dark-skinned Africans into the "black" category despite being the most genetically diverse, but they can't decide what the fuck "white" even means.

That's nothing compared to Homo erectus. The differences between modern humans is fucking tiny compared to them, so much in fact that many archaic humans are now currently listed as just a subspecies of Homo erectus. We don't have subspecies anymore except for ourselves.

Negroids are just black people. Congoids is the bullshit alternative term for Negroids (which was shit but relatively alright until you get into genetics) because idiots thought that all black people came from the Congo. "Capoids" are the Khoikhoi, San, and other related ethnic groups that popped up in modern human evolution before other Black Africans. They even have different physical appearances once you look into it.

Are you an Abbo?

polynesian

Phenotypes and genetics aren't but the cultural associations with race and the definitions of are.

they do
white is pretty well defined in OP's map actually

with the exception of chile and mexico being different (mexico is actually whiter than chile, but mexicans have more of a mestizo identity while chileans like to call themselves white - it's cultural)