How can races/ethnicities be pure when all genes are mixed and environments constantly change?

submitted by CuteAsDuck from self.debatealtright

I have fortunately found some clarity in the midst of confusion on the subject of ethnicity/race, and understand it is not a social construct.

What I can not still wrap my head around however is "purity". How can there be ethnic/racial groups such as "european", "american", "african", "indian", "canadian", "japanese", "chinese", "korean", etc, etc, when throughout human history, people of various ethnicities/races have been mixing genes alongside each other, which means there isn't one single "european", "american", "african", "indian", "canadian", "japanese", "chinese", "korean", etc, etc, ethnicity/race and everyone is a mixture of multiple ethnicities? Most people that are of one of these ethnicities, always turns out are some percentages of other ethnicities too during the DNA testings. For instance, "I'm actually [insert number]% japanese!", a chinese might find out. How can they be only chinese ethnically when they have percentages of other ethnicities in their genes?

Or for instance, an american might find out they are "[insert number]% irish, and [insert number]% african". How can they be only ethnically american when they have percentages of other ethnicities in their genes?

Every "non-african" ethnicity shares genes with africans too, because every "non-african" population descends from africans. Isn't every ethnicity partly african and therefore a mixture of more than one ethnicity then? Which means there is no such a thing as a "non-african" ethnicity/race?

What brings up these questions is this particular answer on Quora, written by a phd molecular biologist that claims ethnicity/race is fluid, and can not be defined because all genes are mixed and environments constantly change: https://imgur.com/tXGzMJU

All “races" are minor adaptations to local environments and also the product of a genetic phenenmonen called Founder Effect. Southern Africans have the most molecular commonality with all other “races" and that is one of the main molecular based reasons why we say we can trace our lineage back to Africa.

Finally our environments are constantly changing as our microevolution to adapt to that change. Thus there is no fixed race, instead it is fluid and undefined.

And further this article that claims no ethnicity/race can be pure (in other words, that every ethnicity/race is fluid), because of these genetic mixings: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/harvard-geneticist-no-populations-dna-is-pure/

If every single ethnic group is a mix of other ethnic groups, how can they be considered only one ethnic group instead of a mixture? And if everyone is a mixture, how does it make sense to claim someone is mixed now (e.g. "half-white, half black")? Would it make no sense as everyone is essentially a mix?

all 11 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 14 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's called a continuum fallacy. It's like saying red and yellow don't exist because orange exists. We share 98% of our DNA with chimps. Does that mean there's no difference between us and chimps? Obviously not. The fact that nothing in nature is "pure" doesn't mean anything.

[–]aukofthecovenantWhite man with eyes 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're hung up on this notion of purity when you should be asking about distinguishability. American blacks tend to have about 25% European ancestry on average, but I imagine you have no trouble telling them apart from regular American whites. Look at the overlapping bell curves in this picture and ask yourself:

  1. Are they completely separate, i.e. "pure"?
  2. Can you tell them apart?

[–]NeoRail 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think the source of your confusion is improper definition of terms. Let us take a look at this, for example:

If every single ethnic group is a mix of other ethnic groups, how can they be considered only one ethnic group instead of a mixture?

What does this mean? Your question itself is incoherent, because if every single ethnic group is a mix of other ethnic groups, then the category "ethnic group" must necessarily refer to no content at all. It would be a label that does not refer to anything. We would not be able to speak of a "mixture", as there is nothing to mix, since all "ethnic groups" (something that would not exist according to your phrasing) constitute each other. Your definition of "ethnic group" here is self-referential and consists of nothing else other than that self-reference. The fact that the term "ethnic group" exists and carries specific meaning that we all understand already demonstrates that this is not the case. If you go to Europe and look at individuals with Caucasian features, then go to the opposite end of Eurasia and look at Chinese people with Chinese features, it will be very easy for you to tell that you are dealing with two separate groups that have their own separate features. The term "ethnic group" refers to what distinguishes these two groups from each other. If these two groups were indistinguishable, you would not be speaking of a "mixture", but rather would not be speaking of ethnicity at all.

And if everyone is a mixture, how does it make sense to claim someone is mixed now (e.g. "half-white, half black")?

This is also something worth addressing. Let us take White Americans as an example. White Americans are a mixture of various European ethnicities. Would you say that, since they are a mixture of various ethnicities, they are the same or at least indistinguishable from someone who is "half white, half black"? I do not think you would, even though that would be technically correct in absolute terms so long as you are looking at those very specific criteria. This type of observation is useless, though. It does not account for relative difference or context at all and is therefore a lot more nonsensical than the alternative.

[–]FoxySDTWhite Nationalist 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What is your deal buddy? You keep making these race-denier posts, each dumber than the previous one, and after each post gets answered you delete it and make new one. What the hell is this? Are you seriously asking why a person who is 95% Chinese and 5% Japanese identifies as Chinese instead of Chinese-Japanese? Are you genuinely confused by it? This is so incredibly basic even layman with no background in anything intuitively understands this. I try but I have huge trouble pretending you are asking this in good faith.

[–]NeoRail 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I thought your reply was needlessly aggressive at first, but I went to check the original poster's post history and it seems that you are correct. He has deleted all his previous posts. Moreover, he seems to ask similarly bizarre questions in other subreddits. Maybe he is doing research for some think-tank, who knows.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Read Richard Dawkins "River out of Eden". Races are akin to streams of genes that mix and match, but the set of alleles i.e. versions of particular gene, are finite and different between "streams" or races. e.g. Hair color genes, Asians only have brown hair genes, Swedes stream has a variety of hair colors, as do most Nordics. Evolution works by physical separation, i.e. mutations within a given stream. When streams mix, i.e. through migration, you get essentially a new race. Africans and non-Africans have been physically separated for nearly 200,000 years, all dogs were wolves 30,000 years ago if you think that isn't enough time to evolve into dramatically different creatures.

[–]Nombre27 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://imgur.com/tXGzMJU

Amazing that a "PhD level molecular biologist" ((X) DOUBT) can write this sentence with a straight face

"Ultimately all "races" are minor adaptations to local environments and also the product of a genetic phenomenon called Founder Effect."

 

minor adaptations

Founder effect

Pick one.

Basic logic dictates that you're wrong.

No one is going to be as genetically identical to me as an exact clone would be. The next closest would be an identical twin, then a brother/sister, then your parents, cousins, etc., etc. As someone else pointed out you're making the continuum fallacy.

Sociologically, your fallacious reasoning would lead to believe that families don't exist just because they're made up of humans and therefore other humans would be just as interchangeable to any a parent-offspring pairing. This is obviously stupid and nonsensical.

Your argument basically boils down to the result of modern mass (relative to history) intercontinental transport and pointing out exceptions that you seem to be interpreting as rules.

This makes me think you're either a simpleton or disingenuous.

[–]Girondin 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

the most correct definition of race is "breeding populations separated in prehistory and adapted to different environments" (from Edward Dutton's new book on Race), this is not a statement concerning purity but relatedness and "genetic kinship". I think there should maybe be a term for this (purity misconception?), I think this stems from misunderstandings taught in school over what "race scientists" and Nazis believed.

Also, how can you tell mixtures (mulatto) if you didn't know the "pure" races (white and black).

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

from misunderstandings taught in school over what "race scientists" and Nazis believed.

Exactly this. It's a word I've never heard any modern person on the Dissident Right even use. (I could be wrong but I think it's either not true or an exaggeration that the NatSocs constantly talked about it either.) It's only brought up as a convenient punching bag by leftists because obviously to some degree all racial and ethnic groups are blends therefore for the left it's an easy 'gotcha' to say 'Ha you think this nation/group is pure what about the Hugenout immigration?????'.

The bottom line is that purity is not a pre-requisite for ethnic/racial self-determination and advocacy.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You made a similar post the other day so my answer is the same: 'purity' is not a pre requisite for racial or ethnic advocacy. I, frankly, don't even know what it means and have never used it as an argument for why white people should collectively advocate for their interests. I only ever see it used as a sort of slur by the left who misunderstand our arguments and misrepresent them.

I've also genuinely never heard anybody use this argument against non-white groups which is why for me it's such a suspect form of argumentation.

[–]Nombre27 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I only ever see it used as a sort of slur by the left who misunderstand our arguments and misrepresent them.

Definitely a smear campaign (misrepresentation).