Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
the differences are mostly superficial. which is why our tribal instincts latch onto "races" as a way to organize humans. because outward appearance is the first impression we get of someone.
but in terms of genetics there aren't really distinct human races. even in terms of the superficial outward differences there aren't really distinct races but more like a variety of physical characteristics that our pattern-seeking brains tend to try to use to categorize people.
|
The phenotypical differences are great enough to categorize them as different races. This shouldn't be confused as trying to categorize them as different species, think of it more like categorizing it into different dog breeds. Genetically, a chihuahua and a great dane are as similar as a black or white person, but their appearances are strikingly different enough to categorize them differently. Kill two white dudes, two black dudes, and two Asian dudes. Once you've defleshed the skull (don't know how to do this, go ask Carpe), you'll notice that there are differences in the nasal cavities, forehead, and jaw structures among other things. The white skulls, the black skulls, and the Asian skulls will be more similar to the other skull in their own racial categorization than the other four skulls. This kind of **** goes down in forensics all the time, and race isn't a social construct at that point, it's an identifier of a victim of a crime or whatever. Saying that the genetical similarities disprove the concept of race is like saying that a science fiction novel and a biography of Napolean are the same because they both used the same word processor.
I think it's fine to identify race because there are enough consistent characteristic differences between the main three races that you can be right (though interracial breeding has made this a tad more difficult) often. As long as it's not used to belittle or elevate a certain race, I see no problem with it.
#anthropologybanter