>>14362896I’m with you, but I’m going to say even with that. I think they’re just going to argue semantics.
Listen. Even if this is true, we should say OK. And stop arguing that races exist, but show that you can creat population groups that correlate with geographic ancestry.
Like, it doesn’t matter. The point is that the amount of genetic variation between groups is significant enough that you can plot it on a PCA diagram and have clusters of 1 group in a geographic region.
So, like, Subsaharan Africans and East Asians. There is variation between people in Africa and Asia, however, between Africa and Asia, you find that any one person from East Asia is more genetically close to any other East Asian than they would be with an African. Vice versa. On a PCA chart, you will see two clusters of data: sub Saharan Africans, and East Asians. Where all Subsaharan Africans can be observed to be on opposite ends to the East Asian side. You you have two groups, statistically, graphically, and visually.
Call it what you may, race, happogroup, but the difference exists. There are genetic differences between groups in geography. Particularly with continents. Same thing can be said about Europeans, who are all more close to each other than East Asians and Africans, genetically.
You can objectively distinguish two groups by their genetic ancestry, in which it correlates with earth geography. We can of course have finer differences, which the Nazis did. They didn’t view Europeans the same. And this won’t change anything.
You have broadly: humans
More specifically: Africans, aboriginals, East Asians, Caucasians.
More specifically: ethno-lingual correlations (slavs tend to be genetically similar to one another, like a Polish person won’t find themself plotted with a Spanish person- they are more genetically close to Russians)
Then: family.
If they don’t want to call it race, fine, we can just say population groups. But the implications will remain.
