White Americans can be pretty mixed too. They say black Americans are about 20%, though I have doubts. Some family members say we have French in us, but our last name is Teutonic (which I like to use as instead of Germanic so you know I mean more than German) surname. I still don't identify as French and I probably won't if a test proves it (I'm also a bit of an anglophile). If I don't identify as French, that doesn't erase the heritage. I honestly prefer to identify as American.
Turks like to imagine their related to people's farther in Asia ( think Turkmenistan) but really their genetics show they're quite Anatolian.
I'm rambling because a part of racial identity is social construction. You could identify as all those specific parts in your background, white, European, Indo-European (or Aryan if you feel like explaining that Aryan is the previous term), Australian or just human. We have tests for that you can buy to see your ancestry.
This is what I mean when I say things get fuzzy. I kind of get where you're coming from, but I'm still not going to dismiss the concept of race. Maybe I like wasting time, who knows.
Notice I never call myself australian. Because the only real australians come from papua new guinea. Essentially, in one point in time, there WAS no Australians. At one point in time, there WAS no X race. And it is all just a social construction. So you know what that means right? You already admited it is just a social construction. It means that race can not be used to justify any flaws or advantages.
Because the only real australians come from papua new guinea.
They didn't found the country. They were on the land, but they're of a difference culture. I said identity was partly a social construct. Even if it was fully a construct, statistically observed "advantages" and "flaws" would be purely the result of identifying with those constructs.
(post is archived)