If IQ isn't genetic, rabbits would have the same average IQ as humans.
But that does not mean "races" have to have different inherent average IQs.
But that does not mean "races" have to have different inherent average IQs.
Right?
No, it is not. "Races" are identified by a range of superficial characteristics relating to appearance and by language and cultural background. The connection to genetics is very loose. The idea that black people in Africa all belong to a single "race" would seem quite absurd to most Africans, for example.
Sure, racists are interested in race and everything related to it because they feel they are superior, and conveniently disregard the things that don't support them being superior.
But race is not a cultural construct, as evidenced by the fact that you can't culturally adapt your skin to change colors.
It is entirely possible to note the differences between men and women without being sexist. It is also possible to be interested in and note the differences between different parts of the human population without being racist.
But people who believe in "races" don't think that it's just a matter of skin color. They think that skin color (or whatever other feature) is a marker of some deeper difference. That's where the mistake lies. Otherwise racial differences would be of no more significance than, say, differences in hair or eye color.
Racial categories are nowhere near as objective as you suggest. For example, Italians used not to be considered "white" in the US. Many Americans who self-identify as "black" would not be considered black in many parts of Africa.
And then of course with ever increasing mobility, the differences are probably 'smoothing out' so to speak.
>Otherwise racial differences would be of no more significance than, say, differences in hair or eye color.
Interesting example, because red haired people generally have more sensitive skin and are prone to burning in the sun. This is an example of the kinds of differences that it is actually interesting and helpful to study.
No, it's completely correct, in the sense that there is no objective or scientific definition of "race". Every cultural construct is based on something.
>This is an example of the kinds of differences that it is actually interesting and helpful to study.
And of course, these are exactly the differences that people obsessed with "race" aren't interested in.
2. Racists can't point to actual genetic variation to establish their ideas.
3. Racists can go fuck right off.
It's also very hard to research since actual IQ is strongly affected by environmental factors like nutrition etc.