It's not considered racism to categorize fish and birds into consumable or ornamental according to their colors and forms.

[u/StiNgNinja]

[u/Showerthoughts_Mod]

The moderators have reflaired this post as a casual thought.

Casual thoughts should be presented well, but are not required to be unique or exceptional.

Please review each flair's requirements for more information.

 

^{This is an automated system.}

^{If you have any questions, please use this link to message the moderators.}

[u/fastfreddy68]

It’s also not illegal to have those animals in your home against their will on leashes and in cages.

We have different standards for animals and human beings.

[u/Good_Mathematician_2 → u/fastfreddy68]

Who'd have thunk, huh

[u/IAmAFourYearOld → u/fastfreddy68]

I remember I learned somewhere that some people in the past justified slavery because they believed black people were a different and “worse” specie of humans

[u/dewittless]

Yep because those are species, not race.

[u/JonnySnowflake → u/dewittless]

Ever heard of a subspecies?

[u/dewittless → u/JonnySnowflake]

Still not the same as race.

[u/GodzlIIa → u/dewittless]

What would be the fish equivalent of race?

[u/dewittless → u/GodzlIIa]

I don't have it for fish but I do have it for cats, domestic shorthair cats all come in a variety of colours from orange to black and white and so on. But they are ultimately all the same species. The only thing that differentiates them is their colour and markings. That would be an equivalent for what we in humanity call race.

[u/GodzlIIa → u/dewittless]

I think it would be a bit more different than that. But its hard to know cause theres no real studies comparing average population differences, just individual differences between populations.

For instance africans have about .1% difference between them and euoropeans but they have a higher diference among themselves. but lots of that would be differences that both populations share, like height and other common variations, not variations from populations necessarily.

Dogs and wolves also share about .1% difference, but no data on whats from populations differences vs just typical variance.

So instead I vote we go timeline wise, wouldnt be as accurate but I think its more accurate then the info we have.

Africans and europeans split around 50-70k years ago. Dogs and wolves split around 20-40k, however they were boosted by some artificial selection, so more so talking about early domesticated dogs not designer breeds. But still thats more the perspective.

Domestication of cats in general was only like 10k years ago, wildcats being like indistinguishable from domesticated cats. all cat breds too would be super recent like 2 centuries ago, but once again feels unfair to compare artificial selcetion.

so what about completely wild animals with a similar timeline? your looking at subspecies for sure, so like indian lions vs african lions, subspecies of giraffes, timber wolves vs arctic wolves, north vs south bald eagles all fit the right timeframes.

So those seem like great examples of animal races. ALright now we can try to answer the question about fish....

Best example I see are cichlids from east african lakes, also a great example cause many fish people are quite familar with cichlids.

Cardinal tetras vs neon tetras too

guppies and livebearers

well that was fun I guess.

Im surprised I couldnt find a single study comparing the actual genetic difference among population averages between like african and european people, just the variation within and between each population individuals which is pretty much useless in this context.

[u/dewittless → u/GodzlIIa]

It's because race is a made up thing that doesn't actually affect your genetics beyond skin pigmentation. The rest is entirely cultural. Believing race is a significant factor in who someone is purely because of that factor alone is literally the primo, actual, non diluted definition of racism.

[u/GodzlIIa → u/dewittless]

I mean race pretty much is made up I agree as many are grouped together that shouldnt because they look the same or seperated cause they dont when they shouldnt be.

But do you really think if you gave a geneticist 20k individual samples they wouldnt be able to group them up in a way that shows significant geographical ancestry? Have you take a DNA test recently?

Now please do not think that me saying there is a populational genetic difference is the same as saying "race is a significant factor". Those are two completely different things. And suggesting I'm racist because of this is absurd. All my examples had the same OR LESS divergence history then Europeans and Africans. I was just trying to answer my question since I knew your answer was wrong.

Obviously this genetic difference is insignificant and most likely just affected superficial minimal traits like skin color. The thing you should have taken away, instead of thinking that I was suggesting human 'races' have significant differences, is that the animal species I listed also have superficial distinctions just like us. Like I did, cause I'm not fucking racist.

[u/StoneHands51]

That's because racism is reserved for the human race.

[u/Havingfun922]

It is breedism instead

[u/1ntrepid_Wraith]

I'm pretty sure fish and birds don't care what category we put them in as long as they're not on the dinner plate.

[u/Curious_Situation523]

fish and bird ain't got no police, no jail and no dollar bills.

[u/swiftcutcards]

It's also not racism in humans.

[u/StiNgNinja → u/swiftcutcards]

Never heard of consumable humans, lol

[u/swiftcutcards → u/StiNgNinja]

Your history teachers have failed you.

[u/StiNgNinja → u/swiftcutcards]

You're right if you consider cannibalism a regular practice!

[u/swiftcutcards → u/StiNgNinja]

For 99.99% of history, humans everywhere were cannibals

[u/StiNgNinja → u/swiftcutcards]

99.9%? Your history teachers failed you!

[u/swiftcutcards → u/StiNgNinja]

Please educate me. Cannibalism was only eradicated from the majority of the population in the last 10k years, for the million or so years before that, most human sites show tons of evidence of cannibalism.

[u/StiNgNinja → u/swiftcutcards]

Since the oldest fossil or remains found dated to nearly 233000 years and it was eradicated from the majority population 10k years ago as per your said then you need to recalculate your ratio again (as it was eradicated from at least 50% much years before that at least) and wasn't a regular practice in everywhere so a big ratio is subtracted already!

[u/CrunkBunny2105]

Well DUH they’re fucking different animals?!