If “race” is a social construct, then what word do we use to describe the various groups of humans with observable physical differences.
For example, there is a clear physical difference between the people who migrated into North America 15,000 years ago and those who migrated 400 years ago via Europe.
For the avoidance of doubt, anybody can respond to this question.
Race clearly means different things to different people, and indeed different things in different contexts. At one level we are all part of the human race! (And I love the redefining in Pink Floyd’s The Final Cut: “it seems the human race is run”.)
Not answering your question, but the reference to asian alcohol intolerance as initially introduced in this thread referred to genetics and not race, the enzyme deficiency apparently being inherited, prevalent in the referenced population. In this context I think the reference should be specifically East Asian, meaning the indigenous population of that part of the world (essentially China and Japan), where I believe possibly 100s of generations may have had relatively low interbreeding with populations outside of the region, and developed distinctive characteristics, commonly including alcohol intolerance.
I have had periods when I’ve drunk a lot more than Dr’s say I should and still find it difficult to remain below recommended unit intakes but I almost never get very drunk due to fear of hangovers which seem to have gotten worse the older I get.
When I was a teenager in the late 1980’s there was also a bit of a trend for not drinking amongst my friends but instead we took copious ammounts of ecstacy and smoked hash both of which where connected heavily to my love of music and also my now atrocious spelling and use of grammar.
I’ve travelled a lot throughout Asia mostly India it is very true that the Asians I met especially Indians cannot handle their drink. I don’t know why that is but they become drunk quite quickly and a lot of the more annoying things displayed by drunk people are more exaggerated. At the other end of the scale most German’s I’ve met can drink until the cows come home and remain mostly sensible.
All joking aside Alcoholism is most definetly a terrible disease and I’m talking about the life destroying kind not the couple of glasses of wine everyday as defined by the medical profession kind. It’s a disease that runs through the generations of my family and that does kill you if not arrested. We have a family member in his seventies about to die from Alcoholism (not all Alcoholics die young) and a very close family member who is still not ready to admit they have a problem but who has and still does cause problems daily after getting drunk. So anyone young or old who refrains from drinking or who has stopped drinking I say more power to you but unfortunately I’m not ready to join you just yet.
The question would be why do you need such a word? Observable physical differences are irrelevant as the genetics are often near identical. It’s a choice to make that distinction not a need. Celts for example are considered mostly white but Scots have genetically more in common with black Africans than they do the Welsh.
There is no “if race is a social construct”. It is scientifically accepted that it is.
It has become a trend to have your genetics looked over by other agents to give probabilities of illnesses, diseases and traits. My other half had one done and it proved interesting in relation to her family history, and has made some lifestyle changes.
Maybe the topic for a new thread? Have at it!
All I can say to that is “oh dear”.
It takes very little reading indeed to establish that such things are, in forum parlance, snake oil. Lifestyle changes will hopefully always be a positive thing but there’s no guarantee of that at all and scientists repeatedly comment on the dangers of basing them on the work of charlatans and the lack of regulation and penalty. There have been cases of people making quite incremental changes which actually endangered their health.
Such companies can tell you next to nothing as regards family history. That would require genetic testing of other family members. A scientific approach as taken by the NHS for example. Their presentation of probabilities is often negligent also. Having quadruple the average risk of a specific cancer for example is neither here nor there if the absolute risk remains statistically insignificant.
Finally, one has the thorny issue of privacy. Check your terms and conditions. You’ve just given your DNA to a private company who will be sharing that and more with third parties. Did their privacy policy name them? Did it link to their privacy policies?
I remain constantly staggered and depressed at the gullibility.
One of my non-alcoholic drinks of choice at home is a 50:50 mix of orange juice and bitter lemon. The bitter lemon tames the sweetest of the OJ nicely.
“The question would be, why do you need such a word ?”
Erm, that was not my question. You pointed out that “race” was not the correct word to describe differences between groups of people such as the ones mentioned by IB. For the sake of clarity, I extended the grouping to 1st Nation North American’s and North American immigrants via Europe. I would be quite happy for you, or others, to provide the correct word.
It’s also a legal construct: Title VII of the (US) Civil Rights Act of 1964
UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
No, it wasn’t your question and nor did I assert that it was. Just as I didn’t assert that race wasn’t the correct word. I said that race was a social construct.
My point was that your question is irrelevant. Why do you feel so strongly that there ought to be a word? What exactly is the gain? As I’ve already stated, making that distinction is a choice. Beyond a justifucation for discrimination please objectively justify the need for a word. A need for any distinction at all to exist.
I’m quite used to reading convoluted written thoughts, but yours are particularly difficult.
I’m not sure when you are making a positive statement or a negative one. Sometimes they seem both entwined and it’s difficult to discern what you are trying to put across - exciting in a semantic sense, but useless in a common sense.
Mike, I accept that you choose not to use the word “race” in the sense (and generally accurate sense) as used by Bart, IB and myself in this thread. But as I say, that is your choice.
The three questions that you ask are so contemptuous that I shall not be responding. And yes, I know this is a response, but you know what I mean.
What happened to the nice interesting chat about non alcoholic drinks😳
Erdlinger? And Becks Blue for me, disappointed in Peroni Zero.
Cheers
CK
Anyone recommend a non-alcoholic beer that is not a pale lager style?
Adnams Ghostship - almost as good as the real thing.
Absolutely. Has anyone else noticed it’s nearly always the usual suspects who seem to engineer the ‘thread drift’?
Brew Dog Nanny State has a bit of body, non lager style, nice for a change.
CK
Many years ago, before pubs were content to serve tap water, I tried the non-alcoholic lagers and found them better than dying of thirst, and better than fizzy pop or sickly fruit juices (I declined to pay exorbitant prices for bottled waters like Perrier). Thankfully water is now easy to get. As an ale drinker I tried Nanny State when came across it recently, but thought it was awful!
Adam’s Ale.