What a stupid idea, as though the earth were formed and every single “race” we recognize today were all already there. Even if we don’t conflate race and ethnicity, modern “races” are already a grab bag of different DNA as this meme sort of alludes to. Creationism had 2 people (arguably 3), as it true of many creation stories. For all humans to come from 2 people, where did the other DNA come from? If one believes in evolution- the idea that all these races emerged from the sea and endured for millions plus years is also silly. In either case one might rightly point to genetic mutation- “Adam and Eve (or whoever) were not mixed- the races they weren’t are mutations!” Ok. Then that would mean that even if two people of the same race “stick to their race” eventually mutation would “ruin” the racial purity as a new race would be created over time by mutation.
Of course- that ignores the other side of the issue- “race” is not a physical and actual aspect of nature- it is a concept. Humans create the concept of race and humans define race. Race is not defined in your genes- consider this, who is “Black”? Like- define what the exact criteria to classify a person as black are. In the USA, people from Africa or with ancestry tied to Africa are often called “Black” right? But one can be dark skinned in the USA and not be “black,” many southeast Asians are very dark skinned, Mexicans, South Americans, various indigenous groups, and many pale or “pink” or “peach” skinned people are not considered “White.” But one also does not have to be directly from Africa or have parents from Africa etc. to be considered “Black.” We know Race isn’t geographic- there are “white” people in Africa and the region commonly called the “Middle East” is in Africa but those groups are generally considered distinct from Africans- now, European countries like in the…
… Mediterranean region are often home to darker skinned people who often share culture or even strong genetic ties to the Middle East- though these links might be thousands or more years old and hardly recent. Under the prevailing theory that human beings migrated from Africa as our origins- we could then say that all people would be “black” couldn’t we? Of course not. But where your ancestors are from or the region you live in or come from or your skin color alone don’t dictate that racial group do they? In fact- throughout the world today and even in history, who is identified as “black” varies. In some places almost anyone is “black” so long as they have darker skin than the general population or the speaker. Of course skin color alone can’t be what defines “race” can it? That can vary quite a bit among close generic relatives even, and tends to change sometimes radically with environmental factors in any given person as well.
General when people speak of “racial” purity they are conflating ethnicity- a concept of culture and perceived shared culture. The history and cultures of France and England and Germany are all very different- but they do share a history and proximity as well as a lot of genetic mixing. This means that some general cosmetic traits tend to be similar among those who have been the majority populations of these regions for serval hundred years. The cultural similarities between these groups create familiarity and comfort compared to cultures that have vastly different ways and even vastly different core values. So it isn’t a coincidence that “race” often is assigned largely off of general regional groupings and following closely to recent migrations of said groupings. Those in proximity tend to share culture and genetics more readily.
When we consider Europe- certain groups of “white” Europeans have historically and perhaps even to a degree in the modern day been “othered.” Spain, Italy, Greece, etc. are or can be called “white,” though wether these people comfort themselves “white” or are considered “white” by others can be subjective. The history of these nations in regard to Germany or France or the UK is perhaps… well it all gets tricky, but what I will cheekily call the “gloomy and pastier” parts of Europe have tended to regard these regions as a bit “exotic” or “alien” despite proximity.
So let’s look at “white”- is white “Caucasian”? Turkish, Armenians, many Jewish people are and have long been “Caucasian.” So generally speaking most concerned with racial purity or “whiteness” aren’t thinking of northern Iranians as “white.” The US census actually classified many of these groups as “white” when it comes to “race” as well, along with certain other groups too that one may or may not consider “white.”
Now- many ideas of “white” identity center on Teutonic peoples as white. Of course “Teutonic peoples” is… vague. It generally refers to Teutonic language, like English or German, which is spoken by people with little and distant genetic links to indo Europeans. In a “racial sense” the term is sort of a reference to the groups who are credited as originating the languages. This is of course historically and scientifically tricky.
The groups that originated the “Teutonic peoples” did not themselves originally speak Teutonic languages and were at least three in number. Of course they didn’t materialize from thin air so would have generic and cultural links elsewhere of course. But the “Teutonic” peoples racially tend to be many Germans, Swedes, some British, Austrians, Norwegians etc. so to the early observations- Spain. Italy, Greece, these aren’t “white” people generally if one is considering “white” as “Teutonic.”
And that gets rather stupid as one must consider that the distinctions become somewhat arbitrary at that point. There isn’t really a clear distinction beyond somewhat arbitrary distinctions that are again- all artificial for the most part.
We could get very detailed and in depth beyond even this- but simply put “white” or “black” or “Asian” or “Martian” as races are simply labels we define. Anyone can be whatever we want to call them. There isn’t any universal definition. It’s like saying you want to have “cool” kids so you should only sleep with “cool” people- you choose the definition of what “cool” is and it isn’t universal. It changes person to person and culture to culture and time period to time period. There also are no guarantees that any two parents kids will meet their definitions of “cool” just because both parents are “cool” unless the distinction is purely arbitrary and to be considered cool one simply needs to consider one cool or associated to cool.
So quite often- perhaps most often- this type of “racism” is not so much about “race” as it is about certain generalizations concerning traits that may be common to peoples of certain vaguely related criteria which are then classified into a race for the sake of convenience or even politics. It is generally true that humans have an instinctual draw to the familiar and an instinctual aversion to the unfamiliar. A species generally doesn’t survive by being overly trusting of the unknown unless they are quite durable or reproduce prolifically. We know that in general people tend to be attracted to the familiar, we tend to develop response mechanisms to the familiar as conditioning. This can be said to be a major root of preference. Babies operate primarily on instinct as we understand it- part of that instinct is in trust. Through experience they start to familiarize themselves with foods and people and sounds and environments and such.
As we age, getting into being closer to toddlers, we start to develop preferences based on our earliest experiences and natural instincts and genetic predispositions and such. Because these things draw us, we get some satisfaction or pleasure or comfort from them, we tend to repeat the process and that becomes like habit. So a preference for sweetness leads to the eating of sweet foods which leads to cementing that preference. The older we get and the longer we are conditioned the harder it becomes to break or change these things- though there are some developmental exceptions usually based on external stimuli. So generally babies do show a preference for a given group of people based on who they identify with from early experience as “familiar.”
Of course an adult is not a baby and possesses higher reasoning if we chose to use it. So I mean- the whole thing is a bit dumb. Without exploring ethics or social issues etc. there are certainly things we could say about genetics and how various genetic pairings can possibly result in healthier offspring or certain traits. We know there are genes that can dictate wether a person is likely to need more sleep or be less functional on less sleep. Genes tied to muscle composition and associated with certain types of athletic prowess, genes tied to certain diseases or differences in ability, fat retention, cancer, fertility, etc.
so strictly scientifically speaking without addressing the emotional or ethical concerns- one can make certain cases that the pairing of certain peoples genes in offspring can be important in the health and statistical probabilities governing a child’s future and their future offspring as well. That said- we have little predictability long term in…
.. ultimate results or if it is even advantageous or desirable for a child to posses certain genes given that there are so many variables and many more which can be introduced- consider that microorganisms and pathogens evolve as well as a certain gene that is associated with endurance might one day be a weak link to a contagion or generic disorder. Many conditions seen as debilitating or disabling etc. today can be linked to genes that at one point in human history offered social or survival advantage. We also must recognize that even if we hypothetically discuss in a morality vacuum an idea of mating based on possible genetic tailoring of a child- there is NO reason to assume that “racial purity” is the best or even any way to achieve long term desirable genetic offspring.
Consider that any group which remains “pure” will almost certainly become genetically stagnant. The risks of “inbreeding” are well known and documented. Long before we even had a concept of genetics and even in nature one often finds aversions or stigma to the practice- even many royal lines of old inbred for political purposes were often aware that there was some link between inbreeding and issues with offspring down the line- but culturally or politically it was often not prudent to advertise or acknowledge. A “pure” race almost inevitably ends up full of regressive and stagnant dna and prone to all manner of mental and physical health issues. Which… hey… when we look at the sorts of folks most often talking about “racial purity…” mental development issues sorts fits pretty well.
Now- many ideas of “white” identity center on Teutonic peoples as white. Of course “Teutonic peoples” is… vague. It generally refers to Teutonic language, like English or German, which is spoken by people with little and distant genetic links to indo Europeans. In a “racial sense” the term is sort of a reference to the groups who are credited as originating the languages. This is of course historically and scientifically tricky.
And that gets rather stupid as one must consider that the distinctions become somewhat arbitrary at that point. There isn’t really a clear distinction beyond somewhat arbitrary distinctions that are again- all artificial for the most part.
so strictly scientifically speaking without addressing the emotional or ethical concerns- one can make certain cases that the pairing of certain peoples genes in offspring can be important in the health and statistical probabilities governing a child’s future and their future offspring as well. That said- we have little predictability long term in…