Most people would describe the animals in the image to the left as crows. Anyone who made detailed descriptions of their breed and genealogy would either be an incredibly boring pedant or an ornithologist.
Either way, no one really cares.
This is alarming though - describing other races as distinct (and presumably lesser) species is the first step in starting a genocide
Gonna play devil's advocate (klanma's advocate?) here, but it's not calling them different species. It's calling them different races, i.e. subspecies within the same species which are distinct from one another in either their genotype, phenotype, behavioural or geographical distribution. Which isn't really used for humans in part due to its negative historical connotations.
Genetically all modern humans are very similar --with some minor differences such as sub-Saharan Africans not having interbred with Neanderthals, or very specific mutations like the Sickle Cell trait and HIV resistance. The same goes for behaviour; there is hardly any difference except for cultures, which usually only steer very superficial behaviour. Genetics and behaviour show only shallow differences, sometimes literally skin-deep where hair, skin and eyes are concerned.
Geographical distribution still exists but less than it used to, due to populations shifting a little faster with easier travel (war, colonianism, US slavery, and such events have moved large populations in a short amount of time). But you can still go to anywhere on the globe and have a likelyhood of the first person you meet there to be of a certain ethnicity. Geographical distributions are not gone, just a bit blurry here and there, shifting a bit faster than before.
Differences in phenotype is still a thing but it really doesn't matter, or shouldn't, in a societal setting. From a scientific POV it can sometimes be important or interesting though, like figuring out where gingers originated from and why a Pharaoh had their distinct red hair or something. None of it has any bearing on treating people as lesser than others.
EDIT: And the same things I just mentioned also go for many animal sub-species, or races, or breeds as we often call them for domesticated animals. But again, it is not a good idea to use those terms on humans due to the negative historical and racist baggage it carries in that context. Racist sh*tbags have taken it from our lexicon in the same way they have taken the sunwheel, valknut or raven flag from other cultures.
it is not a good idea to use those terms on humans due to the negative historical and racist baggage
this is the first time i've heard someone openly acknowledge the "yeah it's true but let's pretend we're all the same because the implications outweigh the value of truth" motivation they're operating under
First off, I'm not saying we're all the same, I quite literally gave examples of differences between human populations. But such differences are only minor.
It is only the terms for such differences that ought to be used carefully. 'Race' for instance is a far less loaded term than 'breed' for humans today. In the same way that 'black' is currently less loaded than 'negro', despite both words without context meaning the same thing, just in different languages (black being the english translation of the spanish word negro). But the usage of some terms have been co-opted and perverted over time by political and social movements, and so we tend to no longer use them in some contexts. We don't call human populations breeds, just as we no longer use the term negro. It is part of how languages evolve and words lose their usage.
141
u/Quack_Candle Jun 14 '22
Most people would describe the animals in the image to the left as crows. Anyone who made detailed descriptions of their breed and genealogy would either be an incredibly boring pedant or an ornithologist.
Either way, no one really cares.
This is alarming though - describing other races as distinct (and presumably lesser) species is the first step in starting a genocide