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

[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://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.

[Mortimer]

I wasn't quite sure what are you trying to say so I had to use google translate.

probably because english isnt your native language

[dperucca]

[Insuperable]

probably because english isnt your native language

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

Read this study and think about it
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1124084320.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

[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