Races do not exist in the same sense that the periodic table does not exist. Both are constructs over reality, and they are both informative (i.e. science).
Periodic table uses objective criteria for categorization. American race classification is rooted in debunked theories and mostly meaningless today. One can say at least that there exists black subculture, black dialect of English etc among descendants of slaves. How much of that is related to 1st and 2nd generation immigrants from Africa, which have much stronger cultural links to their motherland, speak different languages and may even have different faith? Asian bucket is absolutely non-sensical — there’s either cultural proximity to America or to native Asian cultures, which are very different, so the people are very different. It is very hard to understand why Indians and Chinese should classify themselves the same way. This classification is imposed on them. How is this nonsense informative? It’s just some racist legacy.
In Europe we do not have that system and we don’t miss it.
You cannot be serious. It is very well established by science that biological races do not exist. They remain in the mostly American conversation as sociocultural constructs.
Maybe you at least read Wikipedia to educate yourself?
This is just obfuscation. The population clusters will still exist even if we don't use the word "race" to describe them, and they can be described in biological terms that will overwhelmingly overlap with the sociocultural construct.
You continue repeating this without any scientific evidence, yet any modern source points that racial theories are not supported by genetic research. There‘s no such overlap.
It turns out that if you cluster people together by their genetic information, the clusters that form are pretty similar to the racial groupings that ordinary Americans would understand. See this chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_clustering#/medi...
The 4 clusters in the K=4 column are pretty much just Black vs White vs (east) Asian vs Amerindian
First of all, you quote an old study with a very small dataset. We already know by now, that before going out of Africa at least two major genetic branches developed in addition to early Eurasians. At K=4 and clustering by genetic distance, they would likely represent two clusters while the rest of Africa would fall into one of remaining two. Not even close to what average American would understand.
Second, even if in the study you use, it’s „east Asian“. Where you would put Indians? How about southeast Asian people with black skin?
Why this clustering is even necessary when the rest of the world is doing fine without it?
> We already know by now, that before going out of Africa at least two major genetic branches developed in addition to early Eurasians.
Nice of you to acknowledge genetics.
> At K=4 and clustering by genetic distance, they would likely represent two clusters while the rest of Africa would fall into one of remaining two.
I suppose they would.
> Not even close to what average American would understand.
The average American would understand if those two branches lived among us today. The value of science is to inform us of what is occurring now and to predict what will occur next, including the impact of immigration on test scores.
> The average American would understand if those two branches lived among us today
Shall I break the news or you find out yourself?.. ok, I will do it.
Those two branches do live among Americans. Afro-American people have the biggest genetic diversity in America and their genetic subgroups are so distinctive that they require separate testing in clinical studies. I bet you won’t be able to tell the difference between them from their appearance though. Now good luck redefining the concept of race with this knowledge.
If you were not referring to extinct branches I don't know why you thought "they would likely represent two clusters" if they did not already in the clustering given.
> Afro-American people have the biggest genetic diversity in America and their genetic subgroups are so distinctive that they require separate testing in clinical studies.
Yes, and?
> I bet you won’t be able to tell the difference between them from their appearance though.
Maybe, and?
> Now good luck redefining the concept of race with this knowledge.
Good luck trying to deny biological race when you've just listed more evidence for it.
>I don't know why you thought "they would likely represent two clusters" if they did not already in the clustering given.
Read the study with the clustering. I did it, so you should too.
This is my last reply to you. If you need more answers, there’s already more than enough facts for you here to verify and learn something new in the process.
Races do not exist in the same sense that the periodic table does not exist. Both are constructs over reality, and they are both informative (i.e. science).