Are people "mixed" or "something else"?

It astounds me how someone unwilling to accept the findings of population geneticists frequents a site largely dedicated to population genetics.
 
It astounds me how someone unwilling to accept the findings of population geneticists frequents a site largely dedicated to population genetics.

? sry, but how you want to group things, or the question when mixed populations become a new exclusive group is afaik not clearly defined by population genetics. "when the mix is uniform" is a vague personal opinion. Jovialis has the opinion that just looking at the source populations makes the groups. it's again just a matter of opinions.

actually, again a thought experiment with central asians. some people would say they are mixed, but with your argumentation they aren't because they specific populations there are more or less uniform. so if they are their own entity and every other population is it's own thing and not mixed doesn't that mean that racial groupings can't exist? without mixed populations, every single population would have to be a "pure type"
 
If they're not a people too isolated, which could allow them to change even without important gene flows, but they're still relatively homogeneous - not resulting from a too recent mix -, perhaps they could be both: something unto themselves genetically, but still mixed. (?)
 
I think as time goes on and we see more and more mixtures its going to be harder for people to check a box for any one group so if there was an option for mix or other, you may be inclined to just designate Mixed as your racial identity. For instance if a Swedish woman has a Swedish mother but a Chinese Father is she going to identify as Caucasian or Asian what if she looks like any other Sami?. You may get to a point where cultures are used in place of racial identity. Like Hispanic for Latin Americans, Scandinavian, Iberian, similar to how they offer a Middle Eastern option now where as before it was just considered Caucasian. As people stop to view color or phenotype with any racial bias it will matter less and less especially if more and more people have visible examples of mixed people in their own family. I have a fair skinned red haired cousin in Latin America that has a darker complected father or brother who could pass for Lebanese with dark hair and eye color but her mom is red headed and green eyed I believe of Polish descent, that's not uncommon and the racial bias is not there like it still is to a certain extent stateside. That doesn't mean it was always like that, there was a European caste system at one time, and as expected people fought out of that, but travel to Jalisco Mexico or more so in Latin America Chile, Argentina Paraguay you don't find the racial tensions against a good majority. Does it exist in the minority sure...anyhow perhaps that wasn't the original ask...I rant a lot...

One more thing I think in America it is kinda pompous that we from the United States refer to ourselves as that :D but for the longest time only the original colonist would refer to themselves as that everyone else that came later suddenly were Irish-American, Italian-American, Polish-American ect ect, I think we are slowly getting to the point were the "I'm an American" can refer to any ethnicity without having to clarify...
 
Maybe this belongs in the philosophy section.

If two different groups mix, are they mixed, or are they something unto themselves? When it happens in mass it becomes a construct (i.e. observation of a biological phenomenon in human evolution) that can be identified and fixed to time.

The whole is not the sum of its parts.

Would you consider a mixed person who looks entirely on only one side of their parent as mixed?
 
Would you consider a mixed person who looks entirely on only one side of their parent as mixed?

Yes I would, even if someone has a phenotype more similar to one parent, than the other, they would be "mixed" genetically still.
 

This thread has been viewed 5909 times.

Back
Top