[ganeshkrishnan]

You are missing my point: Asians - vietnamese, chinese, japanese, naga indians, have very little in common from educational/ecnonomical/social point of view.

Same with "whites" (whatever the definition is and for the life of me I just dont understand). An Australian moving to Canada has a culture shock that is inversely similar to a Japanese going to Paris.

Americans are weirdly still clinging on to the race concept

[liontwist]

All that’s true, but you can still identify them trivially. There are common physical traits that form a family resemblance.

> Americans are clinging

Yeah, I’m not buying that race is a uniquely American construction. It’s probably the place where discussing race has the least social tolerance.

[wruza]

There are common physical traits that form a family resemblance.

There’s also skull shape and nose length. But what’s the point of binning by these traits? US usual racial division is nonsensical (and I’d say offensive if I was american) and no one dares to question it. You literally blow the question of genetical origin to 100x size compared to the rest of the world. And yet don’t even do it in a way that could make sense instead of being a phenomenon similar to racism but by ignorance and meaningless overgrouping. And then avoid talking about it cause it’s a taboo. It is uniquely American.

[ganeshkrishnan]

>It’s probably the place where discussing race has the least social tolerance.

No. the rest of the world doesnt discuss it because it makes the least sense. I gave you examples above. It doesnt make sense to put an Aussie and Canuck in same bracket, neither does it make sense to put a Thai and Japanese in same bracket for whatever data point you want.

Even within India a sikh has nothing in common with naga has nothing in common with Tamils.

Race is an absurd abstract. Why not hair color? or eye color? or eye shape?

[liontwist]

Hair color, eye shape, eye color, are all noticeable traits that contribute to the family resemblance of ethnic groups. What are you suggesting?

> It doesnt make sense to put an Aussie and Canuck in same bracket,

Of course it does? If you’re talking about their common ancestors groups.

[fuzztester]

Yes, indeed. Why not phrenology next, that absurd Victorian pseudo-science.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

[liontwist]

Notice that a charged label on a Wikipedia page is enough for you, a skeptical person, to make an absolute conclusion.

And that’s true for most people which is why editors fight so hard to control it.

If it’s so obviously false, can you share the landmark study or experiment that disproved it?

[fuzztester]

Why the heck should I, when you are not bothering to provide any evidence for your own statements, like this one I linked below?

>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42384308

And I quote two of your words from that comment:

"trivially" and "probably"

to show what I mean. See those words in the context of the sentences in which they occur, and it can be seen that you are not giving any evidence for your claims either.

Do your own research, if my comment is so important to you.

Also this is HN, a forum, not a court of law. Tons of other users on here, regularly and casually make comments which may seem false to others, without giving evidence for their statements.

[fuzztester]

>Notice that a charged label on a Wikipedia page is enough for you, a skeptical person, to make an absolute conclusion.

Don't try to mislead, by using words like "charged label". The conclusion is clearly made by the Wikipedia page, not by me. I merely quoted it. Anyone who doubts that can go read it first, before making "absolute conclusions".

[fuzztester]

>Notice that a charged label on a Wikipedia page is enough for you, a skeptical person, to make an absolute conclusion.

Notice what charged label on the page [1]? By common sense logic of conversation, if you considered that I was using a "charged label" (whatever the heck that means) in my argument, the onus was on you to, at a minimum, mention that label, which you clearly did not do, although I think I can guess which one you mean.

>If it’s so obviously false, can you share the landmark study or experiment that disproved it?

How about you first sharing "the landmark study or experiment" that proves it?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

And I wonder if you read the whole article, seeing that the word "discredited" (referring to phrenology) appears at least 5 or 6 times in the article, in many cases with citations.

[fuzztester]

From the above Wikipedia page:

Phrenology is a pseudoscience that involves the measurement of bumps on the skull to predict mental traits.[1][2]

[fuzztester]

>All that’s true, but you can still identify them trivially. There are common physical traits that form a family resemblance.

That's exactly what I implied by my above comment ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42383753 ), which means the same as this part of yours: (i.e. you can still identify them trivially. There are common physical traits that form a family resemblance.).

But mine was referring to the differences between Indians on the one hand, and East Asians (and some others) on the other hand.

Here, the ”East Asians” includes Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese and Koreans, among others, and the "some others" also includes Tibetans, Nepalese, Bhutanese and Sikkimese, and Burmese, and people of the North Eastern states of India, such as Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland, and Tripura.

All of these above people can easily be distinguished from (the rest of) Indians by their narrow eyes.

I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this. Nor is it discriminatory. It is simply stating obvious facts, that anyone can visually ascertain for themselves.

It is the people who behave in a discriminatory way towards anyone, based on where they come from, or their ethnicity, who are the real racists, not those who talk in an innocuous way about distinguishing visual characteristics of various categories of people.

>Yeah, I’m not buying that race is a uniquely American construction. It’s probably the place where discussing race has the least social tolerance.

(

>American

Say the word right, dude. USian, not American. :)

)

Discussing race may have the least social tolerance in USA (or not), but when it comes to actual behaviour, i.e. racism?

See:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States

What a huge amount of racism there is there, from the origin of the country until today. George Floyd, anyone (as just one example, as late as 2020)?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd

And I do not mean to single out the USA. There is plenty of racism in Europe and Asia too. I have myself experienced it in both places, and have heard of plenty of anecdotes about it from people whom I trust.