A lot of them, and of ALL "races." Using the term is itself a support of the concept that "race" is a reality. Only the PERCEPTION of race is a reality, given that today the US changes its definitions from time to time. Most recently:
1) American Indian or Alaska Native
2) Asian
3) Black or African American
4) Hispanic or Latino
5) Middle Eastern or North African
6) Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
7) WhiteUpdates to Race/Ethnicity Standards for Our Nation United States Census Bureau.
So long ago the now-abandonned taxonomy was:
1) CaucasoidThe BELIEF that racial groups are somehow distinct by "color terminology" and that values can be assigned to these is fallacious. An associated BELIEF that a taxonomic hierarchy somehow defines "race" is also demonstrably fallacious.
2) Negroid
3) Mongoloid
4) Capoid
5) Australoid
Thus, the ludicrous assertion which I have heard on the streets of NYC so long ago -- "Blacks cannot be racist" -- is a laugh, for the sentence itself relies on "race" and then says one "race" is not "racist."
Use to term to argue for group characteristics of a certain value(s) different from another group is "racist" for it builds on those shifting sands of language. Use "race" and one is "racist."
Some of the long abandoned terms and taxonomies for "race" are a hoot, should one want to stroll into the historical weeds.
Not debating nor disputing but how do you do demographics then? Sometimes important in medical applications for instance. “Asian” is particularly useless. Include Caucasoid Indians and Mongoloid Chinese, Japanese. Always lumpers and splitters, then we end up with 57 genders
Watson’s general comment about Africa policy was true when he said it and remains true today.
We can debate why it was true—given the obvious wide variety of people who live in Africa—but his point deserved serious discussion instead of banishment and turning him into a non-person for daring to have the discussion.