Species isn't a social construct, though. It's purely a biological one built off of the ability for members of a genetic population to reproduce fertile offspring. There's no debate in any of that.
The biological race concept does work, but it's never used appropriately in any cultural settings. We know that there are a specific number of phenotypes within human populations, but most people don't even know what their phenotypes are, and the breadth of variance among things like intelligence and physicality among phenotype groups is so wide it's not actually useful knowledge from a cultural perspective. Hence, "race" is simply not treated as a biological concept, but as a political one. I agree with that sentiment because that ends up being how it gets used. No one ends up actually caring what their genetic profile is, they just want to know what they can assert random people to be based off of a single look with no knowledge. Moreover, it is a useful political tool to manipulate people into clientele groups for ease of control through a party boss system.
My only caveat is that in your position there lies the implication that if we just "fixed" the environmental/cultural issue they would become much more identical to the rest of us, sans some adaptation pains.
I believe this is absolutely true, and I believe that the history of the US has shown that in localized environments these groups will tend to integrate well over time. This process takes somewhere around 5 generations, though. The constant rolling flood of immigration with no time to assimilate, integrate, nor interbreed prevents social cohesion from forming.
I think the easiest way for me to explain this is to say: I believe that "American" can be (possibly is) an ethnic group through ethnogenesis. The problem is that we have to allow for ethnogenesis to take place. This does not happen in an instant, and takes a long time for populations to intermix and settle. You kind need net zero or net negative migration for five to seven generation for such a thing to take place. What we've seen in history is that typically if political balkanization is not present these groups do naturally integrate into a shared nation over time and make progress doing so. But what's been happening is that all the gains made in 2-3 generations are suddenly reversed in 1 or 2. There is no reason that American blacks who've lived in the north for 300 years should be acting like "America isn't my country" or "This country isn't my people". They may not even have ever been slaves (those that were are almost universally genetically related to their masters as well). That's all Communist racial subversion. They are effectively foundational American stock, taught to hate their fellow Americans by Communists attempting to revolutionize the country into Racial Socialism.
There isn't but the mixture of connotation and denotation is what Leftist thrives on. When they say "same species" it means far more than its definition and they intentionally do so to confuse language and muddy discussions on the topic.
and the breadth of variance among things like intelligence and physicality among phenotype groups is so wide it's not actually useful knowledge from a cultural perspective
That's like saying "you can never tell who is a tranny because a handful of cherry picked examples pass really well." Exceptions don't disprove generalized assumptions. Stereotypes are basic human instinct because we have thousands of years of them working well enough to be consistently selected to stay evolutionarily. Even if you could go your entire life having them proven wrong, most of the major ones we develop are right often enough to be valuable assumptions.
Also, manipulators and idiots abusing a concept doesn't disprove it or make it useless. That's gun grabber logic, we must simply reject the failed applications as they happen through actual thought instead of just going along with the flow.
I believe that the history of the US has shown that in localized environments these groups will tend to integrate well over time.
And I do not believe it has shown anything of the sort, in that these bonds are too fragile when they appear to be considered anything but temporary alliances based on concepts like mutual enemies (such as the Muslims post-9/11). And building our ideas on things like that is a chaotic and unstable idea. Leftism does it through Intersectionality and you can see how often the two sides break down and kill each other when it stumbles for even a second.
The Whites and the Natives where I grew up integrated rather decently across our history, but the primary pillar of that was pure hatred of the Federal government over the last century+. But even still, we have strong enough separations and differences that people can and do point them out and tribalize away from each other along them. One of my group of three growing up was primarily Native, and it caused numerous differences in him both physically and culturally that really couldn't be handwaved away as trivial or forgettable.
He wasn't identical to us, but that didn't mean inferior or superior either. He was just different and no amount of talking would change that. It was obvious enough as a child, growing up in a place that was severely anti-racist towards Natives due to our shared history, that we still noted it.
Even in one of the best examples in American history of two of the "major races" integrating, we were still demonstrably different on a level that came naturally to everyone to be aware of. The hatred of one another disappeared, but the separation did not.
Species isn't a social construct, though. It's purely a biological one built off of the ability for members of a genetic population to reproduce fertile offspring. There's no debate in any of that.
The biological race concept does work, but it's never used appropriately in any cultural settings. We know that there are a specific number of phenotypes within human populations, but most people don't even know what their phenotypes are, and the breadth of variance among things like intelligence and physicality among phenotype groups is so wide it's not actually useful knowledge from a cultural perspective. Hence, "race" is simply not treated as a biological concept, but as a political one. I agree with that sentiment because that ends up being how it gets used. No one ends up actually caring what their genetic profile is, they just want to know what they can assert random people to be based off of a single look with no knowledge. Moreover, it is a useful political tool to manipulate people into clientele groups for ease of control through a party boss system.
I believe this is absolutely true, and I believe that the history of the US has shown that in localized environments these groups will tend to integrate well over time. This process takes somewhere around 5 generations, though. The constant rolling flood of immigration with no time to assimilate, integrate, nor interbreed prevents social cohesion from forming.
I think the easiest way for me to explain this is to say: I believe that "American" can be (possibly is) an ethnic group through ethnogenesis. The problem is that we have to allow for ethnogenesis to take place. This does not happen in an instant, and takes a long time for populations to intermix and settle. You kind need net zero or net negative migration for five to seven generation for such a thing to take place. What we've seen in history is that typically if political balkanization is not present these groups do naturally integrate into a shared nation over time and make progress doing so. But what's been happening is that all the gains made in 2-3 generations are suddenly reversed in 1 or 2. There is no reason that American blacks who've lived in the north for 300 years should be acting like "America isn't my country" or "This country isn't my people". They may not even have ever been slaves (those that were are almost universally genetically related to their masters as well). That's all Communist racial subversion. They are effectively foundational American stock, taught to hate their fellow Americans by Communists attempting to revolutionize the country into Racial Socialism.
There isn't but the mixture of connotation and denotation is what Leftist thrives on. When they say "same species" it means far more than its definition and they intentionally do so to confuse language and muddy discussions on the topic.
That's like saying "you can never tell who is a tranny because a handful of cherry picked examples pass really well." Exceptions don't disprove generalized assumptions. Stereotypes are basic human instinct because we have thousands of years of them working well enough to be consistently selected to stay evolutionarily. Even if you could go your entire life having them proven wrong, most of the major ones we develop are right often enough to be valuable assumptions.
Also, manipulators and idiots abusing a concept doesn't disprove it or make it useless. That's gun grabber logic, we must simply reject the failed applications as they happen through actual thought instead of just going along with the flow.
And I do not believe it has shown anything of the sort, in that these bonds are too fragile when they appear to be considered anything but temporary alliances based on concepts like mutual enemies (such as the Muslims post-9/11). And building our ideas on things like that is a chaotic and unstable idea. Leftism does it through Intersectionality and you can see how often the two sides break down and kill each other when it stumbles for even a second.
The Whites and the Natives where I grew up integrated rather decently across our history, but the primary pillar of that was pure hatred of the Federal government over the last century+. But even still, we have strong enough separations and differences that people can and do point them out and tribalize away from each other along them. One of my group of three growing up was primarily Native, and it caused numerous differences in him both physically and culturally that really couldn't be handwaved away as trivial or forgettable.
He wasn't identical to us, but that didn't mean inferior or superior either. He was just different and no amount of talking would change that. It was obvious enough as a child, growing up in a place that was severely anti-racist towards Natives due to our shared history, that we still noted it.
Even in one of the best examples in American history of two of the "major races" integrating, we were still demonstrably different on a level that came naturally to everyone to be aware of. The hatred of one another disappeared, but the separation did not.