I think what they really mean is that racial categories don't perfectly line up with genetically-related populations. (But they mostly do.)
-
-
-
ok that seems like a reasonable claim to me, but also feels pretty different from "there's no scientific basis for race"
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Race is based on where someone before you was born, just like stars for astrology. Are you reason for you, or the genes that were given to you.
-
not where they were so much as what they were. we're more than our genes but not that much more, and we can never be free of their influence.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I think it'd be more likely to conclude that there are many more races of man than the few we currently acknowledge, not that race doesn't exist at all.
End of conversation
-
-
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
I think it's like naming colors? Like, technically there's no strict definition of red, lots of languages have more expensive uses for the word, it's just an arbitrary category we created.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
there’s no more meaningful genetic delineation that separates our typical racial categories than that which separates, say, Irish and Italian-descended people— both of whom would be considered “white” (ie same group)
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.