There are ton of words and categories that have ambiguous margins. Even something like "chair" is infamously difficult to define truly accurately. It doesn't mean the words mean nothing.
The internet has had a whole meme war over "Is a taco a hot dog?".
Language is, be design, vague, so that it can deliver concepts quickly and concisely. "There is a chair over there you can sit on", you look, and there is a padded cylinder with a slight concave top, but no other objects, you will likely correctly assume it is some type of stool, a chair subtype, to sit upon.
Likewise, if I said "there's an asian guy over there who you should talk to", you're not going to ask for phenotype tests of the red-haired white guy and the ebon-black afro-man while a fellow of clear Chinese ancestry stands beside them. Race may be ambiguous to an extent, but arguing that it doesn't exist is arguing that hot dogs don't exist because tacos also are bread product in a curve holding a meat product with toppings.
Races are very large groups, and, I point this out often, race is determined by self-identification. What race is then, from a research perspective, is the most you can get a person to tell you about their genetic ancestry based on a multiple choice. And from a political perspective, it tells you how they see themselves.
So I totally see why a scientist would look at this as low grade data, which is why I say by all means feel free to study people genetically along other lines. But sociologists also want to pretend race doesn't exist. Which is weird because that's people telling you how they identify. Which I thought was something sociologists tried to respect and study.
No it's not. Race is biological reality. Anthropologists can look at your skull and teeth and tell your near exact racial mix down to several generations.
I hadn't been considering fossils and the like. For living people, race is determined by asking them their race. You could do it biologically, but that's not what happens. My point was while that is valid very broadly, it provides little detail about your genetics. Thus I understand if scientists would like to rely on different data.
There are ton of words and categories that have ambiguous margins. Even something like "chair" is infamously difficult to define truly accurately. It doesn't mean the words mean nothing.
The internet has had a whole meme war over "Is a taco a hot dog?".
Language is, be design, vague, so that it can deliver concepts quickly and concisely. "There is a chair over there you can sit on", you look, and there is a padded cylinder with a slight concave top, but no other objects, you will likely correctly assume it is some type of stool, a chair subtype, to sit upon.
Likewise, if I said "there's an asian guy over there who you should talk to", you're not going to ask for phenotype tests of the red-haired white guy and the ebon-black afro-man while a fellow of clear Chinese ancestry stands beside them. Race may be ambiguous to an extent, but arguing that it doesn't exist is arguing that hot dogs don't exist because tacos also are bread product in a curve holding a meat product with toppings.
Actual quote from a supervisor: "Go give it to that short Mexican over there." ...
My response: "Which one? They're all short."
Races are very large groups, and, I point this out often, race is determined by self-identification. What race is then, from a research perspective, is the most you can get a person to tell you about their genetic ancestry based on a multiple choice. And from a political perspective, it tells you how they see themselves.
So I totally see why a scientist would look at this as low grade data, which is why I say by all means feel free to study people genetically along other lines. But sociologists also want to pretend race doesn't exist. Which is weird because that's people telling you how they identify. Which I thought was something sociologists tried to respect and study.
No it's not. Race is biological reality. Anthropologists can look at your skull and teeth and tell your near exact racial mix down to several generations.
It has not a damn thing to do with "identify."
I hadn't been considering fossils and the like. For living people, race is determined by asking them their race. You could do it biologically, but that's not what happens. My point was while that is valid very broadly, it provides little detail about your genetics. Thus I understand if scientists would like to rely on different data.
For living people, race is determined by their DNA and appearance.
I can claim I'm japanese, but I'd still be white. Biological facts aren't a matter of opinion.