Thread about the ridiculous term "race"

This post is not meant to mock anyone but only to show how subjective these "White" "Black" etc categories are and not related to "race"/science whatsoever except for cultural anthropologists. "White"has no meaning in genetics, same as black, yellow, red, (1/23)

pink or even green. They are all social constructs, sociopolitical terms because the definition of being white, same as "black" changes over the course of history. So whether someone is “white” or not, depends on groups, individuals, political climate. (2/23)

Someone may be counted as “white” one moment and accused or treated separately the next. This sometimes happens for groups such as Jews, Slavs, Romani Iberians etc. Who arent traditionally “white.” Originally, only English and Germans constituted “White people”. (3/23)

Because to be "white", you would have to project a certain degree of political influence over the rest of humanity. This definition slowly expanded to include Dutch and French. Then, to Swedes and Danes. Then in the early 20th century, to Irish, Slavs, and Italians. Yes, (4/23)

even though nobody could be any paler than the Irish, ironically they weren't considered white throughout most of colonial history. They were barely considered people! Fast forward to mid 20th century, this definition slowly included white Hispanics, Spaniards, (5/23)

and Levants.

In Medieval Europe depicting your enemy as "Black" in medieval art was a representative of the evil or darkness. A good example are the Moors. After the defeat they were portraited as "Black" against the good(=Whiteness) or lightness of the Christians. (6/23)

Blackness in this context is associated with the dread of the Muslim world, and what historian Jerome Branche calls “the millennial association of darkness and the diabolical in the Christian tradition, of "blacks" as the incarnation of evil. (7/23)

” together with european poets and illuminators of that period who used the color black (chiefly black skin] in a pejorative way, associating it with the devil or evil” in relationship to their view of Muslim enemies. By the later Middle Ages, (8/23)

Europeans applied the same "racial" ties to the word "Saracen" as a pejorative term for any Muslim. The racial symbolic belief at the time that Saracens were "black"-skinned stems from this association with evilness. Notwithstanding that, (9/23)

European Muslims from places like Albania, Macedonia, and even Chechnya were considered Saracens. (Logic was and still is not a requirement in any "racial" classification, after all)

At a basal level, people identify as clans, tribes, nationalities. (10/23)

Sub Saharan people who migrate to the Americas, who dont even want to be considered black are made "black". Even biracial people are put on pressure to choose to be one thing if they dont appear or inheritad traits of the none "black" parent. (11/23)

Putting aside for now that "black" people are actually very diverse and that there is also a wide variation within the "black" race itself and not all of "black Africans" have what we call broad "Negroid" features.

In some North West African societies though, (12/23)

"white" is used in dichotomy with the "black" people, like in Mauritania were the Bidhanes distinguish themselves, even though some Bidhanes are already mixed with sub saharan people. There is no "white" scientifically speaking anyway. (13/23)

"Race" in terms of colour was not a thing however racism existed way before that and is not an "European invention" as some people claim. We may call it tribalism but it was not just about which tribe you are from. Your culture, (14/23)

religion and language contributed to "race" back then. Arabs thought they was a superior race because of the religion they had, language they spoke etc. And oppressed those who was not Arab. Not based on colour, as Somali and Sudanese was considered Arab, (15/23)

but those in habasha was not etc.

Point here made is for people who put forward the 'Race is a social construct' meme, hold out that as humans we are all the same or equal. This is a denial of any possibility of divergent evolution in the last 100,000 years for humans, (16/23)

or since local populations began separating. "Race" is genetics. Only genes can show our history, our kinship and etcetera.There is one human race. Within the human race there are subraces. Races are mutations to the same human race. (17/23)

Race is a biological organism subjected to evolution through many factors.
Otherwise if they weren’t, haplogroups would be meaningless in evolutionary debate and study. Cephalometric studies have revealed craniofacial differences between different populations, ages, (18/23)

and sexes" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3669484/
Race is not based on color, skin tone is just a trait.. like eye colour and it's controlled by melanin. (19/23)

Skin color is not a race and skull type means everything for physical anthropologists to determine "race" altho bone structure can be extremely misleading at times.

The race distinction is in skull conformation, skeleton, genetics etc not color. (20/23)

So with this I hope its clear that so called modern racial classification into "black" and "white" is oversimplified and has no meaning in reality/science. This ‘no such thing as race‘ stance is not the norm among physical anthropologists. (21/23)

This TNSTAR is about color constructions which fails to explain that "race" is not about "color". There are different races of people yes. But we are not different species, we all evolved the way we did into different racial (clusters)groups as mutations to the same race.(22/23)

The Human race. (23/23)