No, I was saying you could have a static definition that accepted the obvious fact that the White race would evolve over thousands of generations.
I will also say now that there are many definitions of the White race and that to whatever extent there is one "the definition" of the White race, it changes over time, too.
And you have at the end made a logical error. Just because there are a range of possible definitions of the White race does not mean that all possible definitions of the White race are acceptable. Just because there are components of and aspects of the definition of the White race that my change, does not mean that there are not components and aspects which may not change. And, while there may be edge cases, in general, one needs to have White parents to be White. That's because one's race is determined by one's ancestry.
Ok so there was a long period of time when "white" people didn't have white fathers. But earlier you said that's not possible.
Another way of saying there's edge cases for a rule is that the rule isn't a rule at all.
> That's because one's race is determined by one's ancestry.
Not true! You and I both agree that some people that were previously referred to as non-white are now commonly referred to as white. Ancestry is one part of the muddled definition that racists try to worm their way around into being objective. The truth is there's no objective basis for race, it is all made up, and it changes pretty constantly. I'd consider myself white but I have Polish (Slavic) and Scottish (previously non-white) ancestry. But, at some point, it became fine for me and people like me to call ourselves white. The English would have disagreed, as recently as the 1850s.
The white race is continually being formed, which is evidenced by the changing attitudes towards whether Italians, Greeks, Irish, Scottish and Polish people are white - amongst others. You'll find a tonne of people that disagree over whether Polish people, and others, are white. There's no central authority that definitively decides.
> Biological race is just ancestry.
What's the scientific definition of race? Feel free to use biology papers for this discussion.
> Genetic variation is greater within groups than between them :^) There is no biological justification for racial groupings :^) Race is purely a social construct :^)
Which admittedly isn't much of a definition but does make it clear (incorrectly) that there is no valid biological justification for racialism.
I define a race just like dictionaries did before the race-doesn't-exist-except-as-a-social-construct movement was established did:
>a group of people having common ancestors
> A race: a people who have been largely or totally isolated (in terms of procreation) from other peoples for a very great number of generations.
Which is still very far from perfect. Definitions are difficult.
sorry not gonna do any maps, doesn't seem right to put 5x more effort into this conversation than you are
Thanks for playing!
What year did they originate and where, by the way?
I don't think I could make a good map of where the White race has lived over time even if I watnted to. I think it started somewhere in Europe in like 15,000 BC (very roughly), then spread throughout Europe, then had a colonial period during the last millennia where it colonised all over the world. Certainly I'm very far from an expert on this and it would depend obviously on the exact definition of the White race being used.
But let me stop you right there and ask you, if you think the white race is a real thing. Because if it requires at a minimum to be "largely" isolated from others, but you and I can't collectively identify with certainty where or when that isolation happened - I don't think either of us can definitively even say if "white" is a real race based on those requirements.
Ok! When and where?
I mean at this point this is just hilarious, because you've said white people are a real thing, and they were isolated from other people at some point (15000 BC???) which made the race form but you can't say exactly when or where that happened. So you, supposedly great at "formal logic" have no idea when this thing started existing, its existence by your definition would have been passed down to now from that point through ancestry, and yet you are somehow certain that it exists.
That also seems to suggest there's no objective definition of white, which also seems to suggest that any claim that all white people need to have a white father would be utter garbage.