"Blood banks segregate blood based on race because it is a useful heuristic that cuts through the detailed complexities of blood compatibility. Giving people of the same race blood from one another has a lower probability of complications due to niche antigen combinations."
Yes, it can be a useful heuristic, which is why it's still used in many cases. The problem is that in many cases it's also used (or asked of patients) when it is technically irrelevant, perhaps even almost racist. For example, assuming that someone is more likely to accidentally get pregnant based on their ethnicity, even though socio-economic background is the actual predictor (and in this case ethnicity happens to correlate with socio-economic background, but is much more difficult to gauge than just asking patients their ethnicity). This perpetuates wrongful stereotypes about certain groups of people.

Tbh I have not read that much on race specifically, I just have a background in biology & philosophy. As a thought experiment, just imagine if humanity's entire collective memory was suddenly wiped out, do you think we would divide humans along the same lines as we do today? I think not, the way we define "race" is too entangled with contingent, historical facts, but you can make up your own mind.

The book you mentioned seems fine, and I've heard "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Gould is a classic if you want further reading.

This is all not to say that there is no practical use to using "race" in medicine, as there are bound to be some correlations between historically defined "races" and biology. But it is a slippery slope, as race is often included in cases where it doesn't make any sense at all, and gives people the idea that there is a scientific background to historically/culturally defined races (which, again, there really isn't, it all goes back to the idea of scientific racism). This is why you see racists clinging onto cases like this, because they believe "oh no the woke left rejects reality", while actually they just do not understand what they are talking about.

You could do that, but where would you draw the lines that define a race? Sure, there are groups of people that e.g. have common ancestry and therefore are more genetically related. But this will always be a gradual difference, and there is no a priori way to cluster groups of people.

Sure, but something like blood type does not follow the delineations of "race" as is used in common discourse. This is what is meant by saying that race is a social construct, the way we often talk about races is based purely on historical artifacts, not biology.

Yes, there exists some biological correlation between people who are more related to each other, but this does not follow the same lines as historically defined races such as "white" (which was constructed in the 17th century in the context of racialized slavery, i.e. only exists to differentiate "civilized Europeans" from other "inferior" people).

But this is a perfect example of why race should not play a role. It is blood type that matters, not "race" (which has no biological meaning in this case).

Why do British people look like they're still in the Middle Ages

>Painting of some dudes who fought to create a more tolerant society
>Revisionist Nazi song

What did he mean by this??

ADHD maybe?

Replace "white supremacists" with "street gangs" and it's equally true. People join extreme/violent organizations because it somehow makes them feel good, you don't need to be a psychologist to understand that.