Edit: this question has been answered now. Thank you to everyone who took the time to help me understand.

the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour.

Okay… But we can take a DNA test and get our ancestry, telling us what percentage of what races make up our overall ethnicity. So how is race a social construct and not a biological feature, when we have a scientific method to determine our race? This part of the philosophy has been bothering me ever since I read it, and I’ve been hesitant to ask because of how offensive people get when you question this system.

  • Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    I’ve heard it said that the average Englishman and the average Indian are more genetically similar than two random Englishmen, too.

    In other words, if that’s true, there are some general trends in genetic differences between “races”, those trends are, overall, far smaller and less significant than the random differences that pop up by chance within a single race.