"Race is a social construct" - what that statement really means

[Myanthropologies]

"Race is a social construct." This is a statement we have been starting to hear a lot after the release of the HGDP in the late 90s and early 2000s. However, both people who do believe race is a social construct and that race is biologically real tend to miss a few points.


- When geneticists say that race is a social construct, they do not mean that there isn't human genetic variation; there are indeed genetic differences between humans. What geneticists mean is that human genetic variation doesn't fit into the culturally constructed categories of "race" that we westerners know of today.
- human genetic variation is much less than the genetic variation that exists between most species, especially among related species like chimpanzees, etc.
- As David Reich points out, most non-African human populations today are composed of a mixture of many ancient human populations who were highly genetically differentiated from each other. For example, modern-day Europeans descend from populations that were as different from each other as East Asians and Europeans are today. You can't really say that there are discrete, pure human races when when most human beings are composed of a mixing of several ancient populations.
- Many ancient components are shared between different modern human populations. For example, ANE is shared with Native Americans and North Europeans. CHG/CHG-like ancestry is shared with West Asians, South Asians, Europeans, and possibly even Melanesians. Neolithic Farmer ancestry is shared between Europeans and Near Easterners, and PIE ancestry is shared between Europeans, West-Central, and South Asians.
- Our ideas of "race" are largely based off of our ideas of continents, which are also socially constructed and based off of 19th century thinking.

[Kamal900]

That's pretty much it really.

[Myanthropologies]

That's pretty much it really.

Also, there is more genetic diversity in Africa than anywhere else in the world.

[Kamal900]

Also, there is more genetic diversity in Africa than anywhere else in the world.

Indeed. Especially among the most archaic Africans like the San people.

[LoLeL]

Race is a biological term and only expert biologists can decide about the existence of races among modern humans.

[Myanthropologies]

Race is a biological term and only expert biologists can decide about the existence of races among modern humans.

But biologists already largely agree that while human genetic variation is real, that variation doesn't fit into constructed categories of "race."

[Dragoon]

But what if they talk about concepts of race in the classical anthropology way instead of genetics?
And how about countries which do create races for political or social means? (white vs African America vs Asian Pacific).
There has to be some consistency not a mishmash of crap (hello US census).. then it gets people thinking "something is not right its social construct"

Also true the concept of race was often done from a European point of views. We tend to see other races and simplify them differently how they see us.
i.e (black = African = negroid, nothing else). (yellow = Asian = Mongoloid). But ignore that there is more to it than just simply skin color or phenotype.

[LoLeL]

But biologists already largely agree that while human genetic variation is real, that variation doesn't fit into constructed categories of "race."

When did they publish such consensus?

[Mortimer]

"Race is a social construct." This is a statement we have been starting to hear a lot after the release of the HGDP in the late 90s and early 2000s. However, both people who do believe race is a social construct and that race is biologically real tend to miss a few points.


- When geneticists say that race is a social construct, they do not mean that there isn't human genetic variation; there are indeed genetic differences between humans. What geneticists mean is that human genetic variation doesn't fit into the culturally constructed categories of "race" that we westerners know of today.
- human genetic variation is much less than the genetic variation that exists between most species, especially among related species like chimpanzees, etc.
- As David Reich points out, most non-African human populations today are composed of a mixture of many ancient human populations who were highly genetically differentiated from each other. For example, modern-day Europeans descend from populations that were as different from each other as East Asians and Europeans are today. You can't really say that there are discrete, pure human races when when most human beings are composed of a mixing of several ancient populations.
- Many ancient components are shared between different modern human populations. For example, ANE is shared with Native Americans and North Europeans. CHG/CHG-like ancestry is shared with West Asians, South Asians, Europeans, and possibly even Melanesians. Neolithic Farmer ancestry is shared between Europeans and Near Easterners, and PIE ancestry is shared between Europeans, West-Central, and South Asians.
- Our ideas of "race" are largely based off of our ideas of continents, which are also socially constructed and based off of 19th century thinking.

Great summary

[Rædwald]

Certainly, it could be argued that these ancient populations who the modern ones are composed of. As you have mentioned here were able to supersede genetic groups to form new groups has to be a result of genetic or cultural superority? If that is the case I don't see how these groups could have arised by say a social constructivist viewpoint.

[Myanthropologies]

Certainly, it could be argued that these ancient populations who the modern ones are composed of. As you have mentioned here were able to supersede genetic groups to form new groups has to be a result of genetic or cultural superority? If that is the case I don't see how these groups could have arised by say a social constructivist viewpoint.

I don't understand your point.

[Myanthropologies]

When did they publish such consensus?

Anthropologists were asked to agree and disagree with the following statements, and here are the results:

https://preview.ibb.co/gCzard/anthropology_4.png (https://ibb.co/i8i1Wd)
https://preview.ibb.co/fKj8Bd/anthropology_3.png (https://ibb.co/edRc4y)
https://preview.ibb.co/i9Gc4y/Anthropology_2.png (https://ibb.co/kT9x4y)
https://preview.ibb.co/fpQtcJ/Anthropology_1.png (https://ibb.co/dufRxJ)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5299519/

[Insuperable]

I wasn't quite sure what are you trying to say so I had to use google translate.
https://s33.postimg.cc/f0c1it6b3/Untitled.png

[Mortimer]

I wasn't quite sure what are you trying to say so I had to use google translate.
https://s33.postimg.cc/f0c1it6b3/Untitled.png

probably because english isnt your native language

[dperucca]

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/066/098/648.jpg

[Insuperable]

probably because english isnt your native language

:picard2:

[Tauromachos]

"Race is a social construct." This is a statement we have been starting to hear a lot after the release of the HGDP in the late 90s and early 2000s. However, both people who do believe race is a social construct and that race is biologically real tend to miss a few points.
- human genetic variation is much less than the genetic variation that exists between most species, especially among related species like chimpanzees, etc.


Of course it is much less

Humans belong all to one and the same species

The distininction of Human races can't even compared to the distinction of species.

Also Greek geneticist Triandifilidis for example says it clearly you can't talk about Greek,Slavic or Arab DNA

You can only talk about the DNA of Greeks,of Slavs,of Arabs....

Therefore all this applications which probably use only statistical methods and calculate a person is this or that % Ashkenazi Jewish,Med Islander,West Asian are not
realy scientific they are more like Video game toys for Hobby geneticists.

Another thing is that even Neanderthals and Cromagnons would belong to the same species when they could mix and were able to have offspring and have fertile children.

As matter of fact geneticists confirm that Neanderthals did mix with Cromagnons.

Todays humans have low amounts of Neanderthal DNA.

[LoLeL]

Anthropologists were asked to agree and disagree with the following statements, and here are the results:

https://preview.ibb.co/gCzard/anthropology_4.png (https://ibb.co/i8i1Wd)
https://preview.ibb.co/fKj8Bd/anthropology_3.png (https://ibb.co/edRc4y)
https://preview.ibb.co/i9Gc4y/Anthropology_2.png (https://ibb.co/kT9x4y)
https://preview.ibb.co/fpQtcJ/Anthropology_1.png (https://ibb.co/dufRxJ)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5299519/

Read this study and think about it
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171124084320.htm

New species can develop in as little as two generations, Galapagos study finds

TWO GENERATIONS => New species

Some humans are isolated and untouched more than two generations, e.g. Aboriginal Australians. Also why not Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Negroid subspecies instead of Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Negroid race?!

What makes humans so special or an exceptional case?!

Another thing that may be interesting for you: Archaic human admixture with modern humans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_modern_humans)

[Swarthy_Syndicate]

I feel like race means very different things depending on the context. The two ways I've heard it used are:

Physical: you are "European" if you look white or white-passing, in a racial sense.

Cultural: you are "European", if you are Christian and speak a European language.

So there's Europeans that don't look very European, but are culturally European. And there's non-Europeans who look very European, but are culturally non-European. So it's possible to physically be one race, but culturally another.

[TheOldNorth]

I don't think this statement is so much factually wrong as it is deceiving in what it makes people think it means. Perhaps this is intentional do to the anti-scientific politically correct philosophy of our time

[TheOldNorth]

Read this study and think about it
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171124084320.htm

New species can develop in as little as two generations, Galapagos study finds

TWO GENERATIONS => New species

Some humans are isolated and untouched more than two generations, e.g. Aboriginal Australians. Also why not Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Negroid subspecies instead of Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Negroid race?!

What makes humans so special or an exceptional case?!

Another thing that may be interesting for you: Archaic human admixture with modern humans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_modern_humans)

science and scientist have been bastardized in our era, they are forced to reject realities in front of their faces because their new faith of woke-ism demands them do so

[Smitty]

The OP is hardly revolutionary.

Point 1. The genetic variation we describe by our racial classifications does indeed fit the categories of race that we know of today. Europeans cluster by themselves. MENA peoples are close, but distinct. Asians cluster by themselves, South Asians by themselves, Africans and Amerindians, etc. There isn't really any overlap between these groups, other than obviously transitional groups.

Point 2. Who cares? Most people aren't suggesting that the races are analogous to species. The differences exist in spite of their relative insignificance.

Point 3. Again, who cares? The races we refer to exist today, A.D. 2021. What made them up in times past is irrelevant.

Point 4. Yet again, who cares? Only Christian Identity people and maybe evolutionists will have difficulty with the fact that all human beings are related. Amerindians are visibly and genetically different from Europeans, even if they share a "mother" 3000 years ago.

Point 5. Continents influence gene flow enormously. So not surprisingly, genetic clusters follow continental boundaries for the most part. Again, the races - Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Australoid - are genetically distinct and, not coincidentally, their clusters correlate with the continents.

[Mortimer]

I believe race exists but it is not clinical fully but there is lots of overlap even between the most distinct groups for example distinct people such as westafricans are fast runners but it is not impossible that a small number of whites or asians outdo them. I guess you know what I mean. To me race exists I'm aware of my race ie euroasian in the broader sense or western and southern euroasian hybrid in a narrower sense but those are large groups and descriptive to me as if I'm saying I'm a human or primate it is part of the identity but to me on third place there are other things more important to me now some will disagree who put race first but I accept their opinions too free speech...

[Petalpusher]

Trying to find species level of differences to disprove there are racial differences, is really a bizarre way of reasoning. Europeans are not "mixed races", nobody in Europe is between West Eurasians and Africans, or between West Eurasians and East Asians/Oceanians.

If other parts of the world were as studied we would found as much ancestral groups contributing to the genesis of those groups, and likely more of them, even likely more divergent/archaic (many putative ghost archaic pop in Africa and Oceania are predicted to be found). Even ff we were to study Japanese extensively, we would find as much of their local palo-meso-neo-BA component or whatever was the way they formed after the ENA split. Other parts of the world are just trailing behind when it comes to genetics for several reasons.


As a matter of fact

https://media-rd.s3.amazonaws.com/embedded_image/2019/04/genetic%20data.jpg

Only NA/MENA and India can be deemed as mixed race to varying degrees. One with SSA, one with Oceanians mainly.

[LittleDarkAge]

Humanity has evolved more in the last 10,000 years than it has in the last 100,000 years. The White race emerged approximately 12,000 years ago. At the same period the Whites emerged humanity started evolving rapidly. We can pretend that's just a coincidence, but someone will have to explain to me why the vast majority of scientists who created and innovated new technologies were Whites.

[Mortimer]

Trying to find species level of differences to disprove there are racial differences, is really a bizarre way of reasoning. Europeans are not "mixed races", nobody in Europe is between West Eurasians and Africans, or between West Eurasians and East Asians/Oceanians.

If other parts of the world were as studied we would found as much ancestral groups contributing to the genesis of those groups, and likely more of them, even likely more divergent/archaic (many putative ghost archaic pop in Africa and Oceania are predicted to be found). Even ff we were to study Japanese extensively, we would find as much of their local palo-meso-neo-BA component or whatever was the way they formed after the ENA split. Other parts of the world are just trailing behind when it comes to genetics for several reasons.


As a matter of fact

https://media-rd.s3.amazonaws.com/embedded_image/2019/04/genetic%20data.jpg

Only NA/MENA and India can be deemed as mixed race to varying degrees. One with SSA, one with Oceanians mainly.


Humanity has evolved more in the last 10,000 years than it has in the last 100,000 years. The White race emerged approximately 12,000 years ago. At the same period the Whites emerged humanity started evolving rapidly. We can pretend that's just a coincidence, but someone will have to explain to me why the vast majority of scientists who created and innovated new technologies were Whites.

What do you think of my opinion? I think my opinion is moderate

[Petalpusher]

What do you think of my opinion? I think my opinion is moderate

I don't disagree with what you said. Race can exist, you don't have to put it first and in general you can treat people individually. No mutually exclusives ideas.

[Scandal]

Why are humans often called a race (ie "human race"), when humans are a species?

[Leto]

In the past it wasn't uncommon to talk about the English race, the German race or even the Christian race, so I don't understand why some freak out at the mere term "race". Genetic differences between different groups of people are demonstrable and stating this fact has nothing to do with being left or right-wing or anything like that. The Bengali tiger differs from the Siberian tiger even though both are tigers, not leopards or lions. It's not a controversial thing to say.
Besides, if we're all the same, why does "diversity" matter? Who cares about skin color?
Looks like race doesn't exist until the white one is to blame for something...

[Hamilcar]

Trying to find species level of differences to disprove there are racial differences, is really a bizarre way of reasoning. Europeans are not "mixed races", nobody in Europe is between West Eurasians and Africans, or between West Eurasians and East Asians/Oceanians.

If other parts of the world were as studied we would found as much ancestral groups contributing to the genesis of those groups, and likely more of them, even likely more divergent/archaic (many putative ghost archaic pop in Africa and Oceania are predicted to be found). Even ff we were to study Japanese extensively, we would find as much of their local palo-meso-neo-BA component or whatever was the way they formed after the ENA split. Other parts of the world are just trailing behind when it comes to genetics for several reasons.


As a matter of fact



Only NA/MENA and India can be deemed as mixed race to varying degrees. One with SSA, one with Oceanians mainly.

south europeans have natufian, iran_N, iberomaurusian and in some cases even ssa admixture if that's not mixed i don't know what it is ...


also what about ANE ancestry among europeans ? WHG, ENF and Steppe people were very different from each other btw.

[Petalpusher]

south europeans have natufian, iran_N, iberomaurusian and in some cases even ssa admixture if that's not mixed i don't know what it is ...


also what about ANE ancestry among europeans ? WHG, ENF and Steppe people were very different from each other btw.

Not only S.Europeans, N.Euro have a lot of basal too. Even then that's not mix of different "races", otherwise we wouldn't be that tiny green cluster. Everything you refer to were close, to extremely close at the scale of the world ans steaming from the same ENA split (Eastern Non African) and basal Eurasian, which both have the same source anyway. ANE is a more ancient intermediate in Eurasian but it's very old and still contributed more to West Eurasians than East Eurasians (and even more to Amerindians). SSA admixture is inexistant in Europe, besides a few part of some countries we all know. 0,x something is not an admixture, even Japanese can score that amount of European components.

Or maybe you can see it another way, Africans and East Asians are so immensely far from us and all our ancestral components, that it dwarfs our differences. But then that makes them even more of a distinct race compared to us? You can't have both.

[Leto]

A Scot is still twice as close to a Yemeni Jew than to a Korean, let alone a Yoruba. To me that's enough of a validation for the theory of four or five major races of mankind. I don't care what so called liberal "scientists" say. The same people would say a child can choose their gender.

EDIT:
Actually more than twice

G25 scaled from the spreadsheet, you all can fact-check if you want to

Distance to: Scottish
0.25514966 Yemenite_Jew
0.57636734 Cambodian
0.61691507 Korean
0.74017833 Luhya_Kenya
0.77409777 Yoruba

[Petalpusher]

A Scot is still twice as close to a Yemeni Jew than to a Korean, let alone a Yoruba. To me that's enough of a validation for the theory of four or five major races of mankind. I don't care what so called liberal "scientists" say. The same people would say a child can choose their gender.

The current doxa is "All human variation is 0.5% genetically. We just ""forgot"" to tell you it's 1.5% with Chimps, 3% with a mice and 30% with a Banana"

[Petalpusher]

x2

[Scandal]

The current doxa is "All human variation is 0.5% genetically. We just ""forgot"" to tell you it's 1.5% with Chimps, 3% with a mice and 30% with a Banana"
I believe you, but can you post a link about 3% difference to mice and 30% to a banana? I'd like to have it as a source.

[Petalpusher]

I believe you, but can you post a link about 3% difference to mice and 30% to a banana? I'd like to have it as a source.

That was a caricature of a statement but some part of mice genomes are actually 99% similar to us, some other less similar, but considering their size and other characteristics, they are really close to us. That's why we test a lot of things on mices for human applications.

Chimps :
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC129726/

Used to be 98.5, now other estimates put it at 95%, that's still only 4.5% more, best case scenario, than within all humans.

30% is with slugs, less than 40% difference with a banana


Banana: more than 60 percent identical. Many of the “housekeeping” genes that are necessary for basic cellular function, such as for replicating DNA, controlling the cell cycle, and helping cells divide are shared between many plants (including bananas) and animals.”

The bottom line is even plants are like "half humans", some freaking stuff you might walk on. So trying to pass 0.5% as a minuscule difference is misleading to say the least, when you have only a couple percent of difference with chimps.

[Roy]

A Scot is still twice as close to a Yemeni Jew than to a Korean, let alone a Yoruba. To me that's enough of a validation for the theory of four or five major races of mankind. I don't care what so called liberal "scientists" say. The same people would say a child can choose their gender.

EDIT:
Actually more than twice

G25 scaled from the spreadsheet, you all can fact-check if you want to

Distance to: Scottish
0.25514966 Yemenite_Jew
0.57636734 Cambodian
0.61691507 Korean
0.74017833 Luhya_Kenya
0.77409777 Yoruba

Yup it is political correctness at its worst.

[Roy]

south europeans have natufian, iran_N, iberomaurusian and in some cases even ssa admixture if that's not mixed i don't know what it is ...


also what about ANE ancestry among europeans ? WHG, ENF and Steppe people were very different from each other btw.

WHG, ENF & Steppe people were white though.

[Scandal]

WHG, ENF & Steppe people were white though.
Descendants of WHG are white today and they contributed to the modern white/european race, but if you lived in 6000 BC Europe when there were pure whg specimens around, you probably wouldn't recognize them as white (white in the modern european way) because they looked different and darker.

[Petalpusher]

The problem is interepreting this through our present day prism. European HG had "brown" skin overall but they had skulls (and everything else) comparable to modern Europeans, at least in the realm of West Eurasians. It's like white guys doing blackface on social medias, they still don't look Africans or Oceanians, they just look like they have some paint over their faces. Reverse is true as well, Albinos look like something we have never seen before. "White" or else, goes way beyond a few snps controlling melanin release. It just happens that Eurasians in general have all selected positively ligther skins, to mainly absorb more vitamins from a lower sunlight environement. Some earlier than others, light eyes as well that is a bit better for low light. HG had them early but it's much less crucial to survival as it would have been to get a properly adapted skin.

The second fallacy is that everything revolve around social prejudices based on the color of a skin

https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/1b6c60dc8c13474eb7011f4619d10b04_18.jpeg?resize=77 0%2C513
(And they are Belgians so if it doesn't work with Belgians..)

Mainstream medias and minorities go nuts when they see a blackface. It reminds them that Africans still wouldn't be white with a white skin and it's indeed not a matter of skin shade.

[Roy]

Descendants of WHG are white today and they contributed to the modern white/european race, but if you lived in 6000 BC Europe when there were pure whg specimens around, you probably wouldn't recognize them as white (white in the modern european way) because they looked different and darker.

They were Caucasoid though or at least Loschbour Man clearly was.

[Hamilcar]

Not only S.Europeans, N.Euro have a lot of basal too. Even then that's not mix of different "races", otherwise we wouldn't be that tiny green cluster. Everything you refer to were close, to extremely close at the scale of the world ans steaming from the same ENA split (Eastern Non African) and basal Eurasian, which both have the same source anyway. ANE is a more ancient intermediate in Eurasian but it's very old and still contributed more to West Eurasians than East Eurasians (and even more to Amerindians). SSA admixture is inexistant in Europe, besides a few part of some countries we all know. 0,x something is not an admixture, even Japanese can score that amount of European components.

Or maybe you can see it another way, Africans and East Asians are so immensely far from us and all our ancestral components, that it dwarfs our differences. But then that makes them even more of a distinct race compared to us? You can't have both.

that doesn't make sense because that "tiny green cluster" can be replaced by any ethnicity (this point of reference is simply subjective). Moreover the closest people to basal eurasians were iberomaurusians and they were far from plotting next to europeans. And no this SSA is not just "0.x" this is the reality :



Lastly, three recent studies highlight the possibility of genetic exchange between Europe and Africa. Moorjani et al. (9) estimated that about 1–3% of recent Sub-Saharan African ancestry is present in multiple southern European populations; Cerezo et al. (23) find evidence of older (11,000 ya) Sub-Saharan gene flow toward Europe based on mtDNA genomes; and Auton et al. (8) found that short haplotypes were shared between the Yoruban Nigerians and southwestern Europeans.


A gradient of shared IBD segments is observed from southern to northern Europe (based on WEA; Fig. 2 and SI Appendix, Table S3). This sharing is highest in the Iberian Peninsula for both North Africa and Sub-Saharan African IBD segments.

https://www.pnas.org/content/110/29/11791

[Hamilcar]

WHG, ENF & Steppe people were white though.

"white" means absolutely nothing in that context

WHG were dark skinned and they all plotted far from each other (modern europeans are simply the product of this massive prehistoric miscegenation )

[Petalpusher]

that doesn't make sense because that "tiny green cluster" can be replaced by any ethnicity (this point of reference is simply subjective). Moreover the closest people to basal eurasians were iberomaurusians and they were far from plotting next to europeans. And no this SSA is not just "0.x" this is the reality :





https://www.pnas.org/content/110/29/11791

The position of European is not random or subjective, it's based off all their West Eurasian related ancestral populations, like WHG, LBK,... That would be the crown of West Eurasia and it's that tiny green cluster.
We know Iberians, S.Italy, etc.. have some low levels of SSA/NA. And?


If everybody else had anything significant, you would see some intermediates going from Europe towards Africa on the pca, just like Mexicans go towards Amerindians or MENA and in particular North Africans go in the direction of SSA. But we don't see that for Europe. It's so the opposite of that, even Iberians are still in that tiny cluster as they have so much West Eurasian stuff, and more so than some SE pops that they are relatively closer to MENAs (it's very relative they are just on the periphery of the green) but you expect that when you are like 98-99% peak West Eurasia. You are just going to go 1-2% of the distance between W.Eurasia towards SSA or something else for that matter, towards Asian for some NE groups, that's it.

You still don't understand that basal eurasian isn't IBM, but only everything that was not SSA in it was very basal like, we know that for Natufians and some other groups too. Europeans can't be modelled properly with something Taforalt, only a few regions in the south, because im gonna repeat it again, vast majority of Europeans lack the SSA for it to comform to any sort of IBM/Taforalt like ancestry. This is why models prefer ANF, which is basal + WHG, and for some you can add CHG/Iran_N which is basal + ANE.



The IBD map with SSA has been posted about a million times by now. Happy that you are not the only one with African ancestor? Are we supposed to care, or pretend we have some too, even if we don't score it? How much would like us to imagine for you to feel better?
Honestly i don't care about your identity problems, now stop quoting me each time we talk about that, it was not even the subject really, we know you have hard time to accept the SSA in you so you want to give some to everybody else, but im not going to distort reality just so you can cope with your issues, when facts are that crystal clear even on a simple pca.

it's really funny because the actual op of this thread had exactly the same syndrom, he wanted to give Oceanian to all Euro while denying Afghan had any, that or Indian ancestry. Hilarious same mental mechanic.

[Leto]

Nassbean, you are an African. That's a fact. Maybe not the George Floyd type of African but still you are one. And culturally you clearly don't fit into the country you live in. So leave the Europeans alone.

[Zanzibar]

Not only S.Europeans, N.Euro have a lot of basal too. Even then that's not mix of different "races", otherwise we wouldn't be that tiny green cluster. Everything you refer to were close, to extremely close at the scale of the world ans steaming from the same ENA split (Eastern Non African) and basal Eurasian, which both have the same source anyway. ANE is a more ancient intermediate in Eurasian but it's very old and still contributed more to West Eurasians than East Eurasians (and even more to Amerindians). SSA admixture is inexistant in Europe, besides a few part of some countries we all know. 0,x something is not an admixture, even Japanese can score that amount of European components.

Or maybe you can see it another way, Africans and East Asians are so immensely far from us and all our ancestral components, that it dwarfs our differences. But then that makes them even more of a distinct race compared to us? You can't have both.

I thought ANE was predominantly West Eurasian (related to Upper Paleolithic Euros like Sunghir, Kostenki) with around 1/4 ancient East Eurasian ancestry? Do Amerindians have significant ancient West Eurasian themselves from their ANE ancestry?

[Scandal]

In the past it wasn't uncommon to talk about the English race, the German race or even the Christian race, so I don't understand why some freak out at the mere term "race". Genetic differences between different groups of people are demonstrable and stating this fact has nothing to do with being left or right-wing or anything like that. The Bengali tiger differs from the Siberian tiger even though both are tigers, not leopards or lions. It's not a controversial thing to say.
Besides, if we're all the same, why does "diversity" matter? Who cares about skin color?
Looks like race doesn't exist until the white one is to blame for something...
Bengali and Siberian Tiger belong to the same Tiger subspecies. A better analogy would be Siberian/Bengali Tiger vs Javan/Sumatran Tiger. The tigers from deep Southeast Asia are classified as a different subspecies of Tiger than the ones from India/Siberia. There are tons of such examples from the animal kingdom. In africa there are 3 different subspecies of Cheetah, I don't know how much those subspecies differ genetically from each other though.

From what I've seen, in biology the term "race" isn't popular.. Instead, the subspecies is often used. Race supposedly denotes smaller differences than the term "subscpecies".

Hybridization which is mixing between different species (let alone between different subspecies) happens in the wild and such offsprings are healthy. Polar bears and Brown bears are classified as different species and half-polar-half brown bears exist in North America. I read brown bears are often something like 5-10% polar bear genetically which is a very old admixture. The issue about human biodiversity is obviously politicized.

What leftists and "woke" people get wrong is they claim "Race is to a degree socially constructed, therefore it's fake, not real" etc. They're right about the first statement (it is indeed to a degree "socially constructed"), but the conclusion they draw from the premise is BS. Countries, laws etc are also sOcIaL cOnStRuCtS but no sane person would try to say they don't exist because they are only social construcs.

[Mortimer]

I agree to some degree with many here even if they might have another background of thinking or draw totally different conclusions from the observations but I agree race exists but is to a degree socially constructed not fully I read once that is similar to the color spectrum where two colors form a third or different lighting can create different hues like sometimes it is a bit subjektiv or very different species can see color differently But colors still exist so I think people on both sides are a bit correct and sometimes people on both sides can get too stubborn and radical

[JamesBond007]

That "race is a social construct" is just more mendacious liberal bullshit. They resort to politically motivated statistical manipulation of genetics but physical forensic anthropology (as done by the police) undermines it generally speaking.

[JamesBond007]

Liberals mentally retarded argument is akin to saying ultraviolet light or the different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum are social constructs :


https://www.novuslight.com/uploads//UVspectrum.jpg

^oh, look, the electromagnetic spectrum is one big rainbow and ultraviolet light etc... does not exist as a discrete phenomena or entity !

[Chocolate_Hound]

The lines between "races" become extremely fuzzy when you go from Southern Europe/Middle East and Eastern Europe/North Asia.

[zebruh]

It is. Austrailian aborigines look more like sub saharans but technically they are closer to asians. Same with andaman islanders.

The idea of race is different from culture to culture. But often times its based off what someone looks like. Not so much their genetics and family origins. This is especially true in non hispanic countries.

[Bataver]

It is not a construct of course, and everyone sees that; most people want to belief that we are all the same, but thats not true. The media tells us that there are no races and many people want to belief that or they don´t even care.
Sure the environment also has an impact on behavior but the race is the foundation - the whole style the ability to grasp, its all a question of blood.
The white races in particular have great differences in character, inclinations and talents.
Don´t listen to the people who say we are all the same, because we are not.
That doesn´t mean that I hate other races, they´re just different.
But of course there are cruel races with bad charisma...

In europe race officilaly doenst excist, in ´the US its only the colour of the skin.
But its so much more and it regards everyone - blood is everywhere.