Quote:
|
Originally Posted by abaya
Now Ustwo, you didn't answer my question about what race I am, which I would still like to know. You are correct that race, as a "general descriptor" (in a social sense) exists, which is unfortunate... it will be a long time before humans are ready to let go of that particular taxonomy. But what you are talking about here:... is correct, but it is not "race." It is clinal variation (which I've said for the 4th time on TFP). Experts in the field do not talk about these variations using the word "race," period. I'd expect the same from other educated people, though that may be hoping for too much.
|
You asked me what race you were? I missed that, you are multiracial, if you were a canine you would be a mutt. I'm not sure why thats so important to the discussion, no one has said races can't intermix, if we were then the discussion would be species not races.
I'd add that experts in the field DO talk about races, perhaps not the ones you know, but as it is they are just being PC.
Using 'clinical variation' to describe race is like using 'differently abled' to describe handicapped, or 'learning disability' to describe being retarded. Race is a descriptor only and one that has a lot of information in it. If someone thinks it has too much negative historical baggage to use, thats fine, but it means the same thing.
If you want to say 'The individual contained several genetic groups which gave rise to phenotypic traits consistent with those who's ancestry is from the European continent', I'll say 'He was a white guy.'
Edit:And I'll add that calling it clinical variation is sort of silly on other levels. Clinical variation is normally used to describe differences we don't see. Mitochondrial mutations, important as they are in this discussion, are 'clinical variations'. Skin color not so much as its both obvious and leads to real functional differences.