I don't believe in race well I do believe in that there is one race called the human

[tradeunionsupporter]

I don't believe in race well I do believe in that there is one race called the human race I know people have different skin colors and features because of the climate on the different continents but race and ethnic groups are and is a social construct Black people look the way they do because of the hot climate in Africa White people look the way they do because of the cold climate in Europe and the Asians look the way do because of the climate in Asia my point is I don't like calling myself White or Caucasian I prefer to be called Human does anyone agree ?
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php

[genstrike]

You're right that biologicallly there isn't really much of a thing called a race - race is a social construct, and racial categories have been in flux over time for a variety of reasons.

But, you also have to recognize that people are racialized and that racial oppression exists and needs to be fought.

Finally, the ability to not identify is a white privilege thing as well - because white is seen as "default", and because white people aren't oppressed. Society identifies people along racial lines, especially oppressed people. Self-identification only goes so far - if you were a black man getting pulled over for a DWB, try telling the racist cop beating your ass that you don't like calling yourself black and prefer to be called human - see how far that gets you.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I agree with you 100% also I agree that racism needs to fought.

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't believe in race. Well I do believe that there is one race, called the human race. I know people have different skin colors and features because of the climate on the different continents, but race and ethnic groups are a social construct. Black people (sic) look the way they do because of the hot climate in Africa, and white people look the way they do because of the cold climate in Europe, and the Asians look the way do because of the climate in Asia. My point is, I don't like calling myself White or Caucasian I prefer to be called Human. Does anyone agree ?
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php

Fixed that for you, Trade :thumbup1:
I agree. I don't even REALLy like calling myself a human. There's not much fundamentally different between me, a star, a starfish, and a rock. I like call myself an "existing being."

[RGacky3]

There's not much fundamentally different between me, a star, a starfish, and a rock. I like call myself an "existing being."

Yeah maaaaaaaaannnnnnnn.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yeah maaaaaaaaannnnnnnn.

And the difference between life and non-living matter is? Where do we draw the line; DNA, RNA, Organic compounds?

I find your poor attempt at a hippy joke, pedantic and unenlightened.

[hatzel]

Yeah, RSWU, that's the kind of crazy-ass thing you'd expect me to say! :laugh: Except for the fact that I would probably opt for '(non-)existing being;' as Abu Sa'id ibn Abi-l-Khayr said, "an hour reflecting on one’s own non-existence is better than a year of religious devotions with the thought that one exists." But this has absolutely nothing to do with the actual thread, so I'll drop that line now...:rolleyes:

Given the fact that I posted that Stirner thread the other day, complete with the line "[y]ou are indeed more than a Jew, more than a Christian, etc., but you are also more than a human being. Those are all ideas, but you are corporeal," I feel that I should be consistent here and agree that I'd rather not be called 'human,' as this is little better than being called 'white' (though maybe not everybody would agree on calling me that! :lol:)

...why am I even posting in this thread? Absolutely no reason. I guess just because there is that whole sticky in discrimination dedicated to race as a social construct, that being a pretty fundamental and widely accepted idea round here, so the idea of a thread saying 'race is a social construct, does anybody agree?' is about the same as a thread saying 'socialism is good, does anybody agree?'...perhaps I'm just trying to lively it up by talking about totally unrelated stuff, stuff that may still be up for discussion...

[Hiero]

Fixed that for you, Trade :thumbup1:
I agree. I don't even REALLy like calling myself a human. There's not much fundamentally different between me, a star, a starfish, and a rock. I like call myself an "existing being."

What do you take as fundamental?

If you take biology as the fundemental, there is a huge difference between living and non living.

If you take sentience as the fundemental, there is a difference between human and non-human.

[Revolution starts with U]

fundamental; atoms nd the 4 forces of nature. Unless u buy into that "spirit of consciousness" non-sense, there's no fundamental difference.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

And the difference between life and non-living matter is? Where do we draw the line; DNA, RNA, Organic compounds?

I find your poor attempt at a hippy joke, pedantic and unenlightened.

Scientifically?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/biology/cellcon.html#c3

At the very least, scientists agree that a living thing requires a self-replicating molecule.

[hatzel]

Loving how this thread has taken a rather sudden turn...

So what's the correct materialist position on all this? Did Marx have anything to say on the matter? :rolleyes:

[Revolution starts with U]

Scientifically?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/biology/cellcon.html#c3

At the very least, scientists agree that a living thing requires a self-replicating molecule.

And? It still is made of atoms, subject the four forces of nature.
You can leave the bio-centrism at the door.

[RGacky3]

And the difference between life and non-living matter is? Where do we draw the line; DNA, RNA, Organic compounds?

I find your poor attempt at a hippy joke, pedantic and unenlightened.

Sure logically, you can make that argument, but I've never felt love and solidarity with or for flowers or rocks.

[hatzel]

I've never felt love and solidarity with or for flowers or rocks.

...you bastard :lol:

One could question whether this is a symptom of humanism; the solidarity one feels for one's 'fellow human' seems rooted more in their apparent similarity, of belonging to a certain in-group (by which we mean the Human)—that is to say, of seeing oneself in the Other. It could be questioned whether solidarity can be considered authentic as long as it is only directed inwards, at one's own characteristics and attributes, even if one then creates the illusion that it is directed outwards, though only at those considered to share these fundamental (and personal) characteristics and attributes that one feels true sympathy for—in this case, Humanhood, or elements of it...ah...yeah...

Of course I won't be the one asking those questions, because I wouldn't want to unseat RSWU as this thread's resident hippie 'one with everything' kind of fellow :rolleyes:

[Revolution starts with U]

RGacky that's your loss. But actually, if you are an environmentalist... I would have to say you DO feel solidarity w rocks and flowers and shit.

Rabbi; ya, you get what I'm talking about. It's more Daoist than hippie, but w/e. I've never been one to care what labels you throw on me.

[RGacky3]

I think naturally people feel solidarity with people they can relate to and love with people they can share with.

I can't really relate or share with rocks. But hey, to each his own, maybe I'm just closed minded.

I'm an enviromentalist because I want to live in a nice world, it has nothing to do with love or solidarity with nature.

[Tim Cornelis]

Black people look the way they do because of the hot climate in Africa White people look the way they do because of the cold climate in Europe and the Asians look the way do because of the climate in Asia my point is I don't like calling myself White or Caucasian I prefer to be called Human does anyone agree?

The flaw is here is obvious "Asians look the way do because of the climate in Asia". There is no significant difference between climates in certain areas yet there are significant differences between peoples. It's a little more complicated than adjustment to climate. Also, you say "we look different because of climate, therefore race does not exist" but one might as well say "we look different because of climate, therefore race exists", there's no coherent argument in your logic.

Race may exist biologically but it exists today mostly as a social construct as evidenced by the fact that all black people are grouped under one race whilst there is more genetic variation between black people than there is between white people and Asian peoples.

[Revolution starts with U]

I think naturally people feel solidarity with people they can relate to and love with people they can share with.

I can't really relate or share with rocks. But hey, to each his own, maybe I'm just closed minded.

I'm an enviromentalist because I want to live in a nice world, it has nothing to do with love or solidarity with nature.
Eh, this is just potayto/potahto if you ask me. It's like the theistic argument of "you respect morals, ergo you accept god." Sure, w/e, if that's the criteria, I accept it. But it's really just a semantic issue at that point.


The flaw is here is obvious "Asians look the way do because of the climate in Asia". There is no significant difference between climates in certain areas yet there are significant differences between peoples. It's a little more complicated than adjustment to climate. Also, you say "we look different because of climate, therefore race does not exist" but one might as well say "we look different because of climate, therefore race exists", there's no coherent argument in your logic.

Race may exist biologically but it exists today mostly as a social construct as evidenced by the fact that all black people are grouped under one race whilst there is more genetic variation between black people than there is between white people and Asian peoples.

Ya, I forget the dominant theory on blackness, but I'm pretty sure whiteness is just a vitamin D deficiency (tho it could be blackness that is vD deficiency, tho I don't think so).

[ComradeMan]

You can leave the bio-centrism at the door.

Sarcastic trolling, good trolling indeed but trolling all the same.

Bio-centrism!? Fuck the rocks!!! :lol:

On this basis RSWU you would have to live naked in a cave eating and drinking nothing.... LOL!!! Afterall building a house is like "mineral/rock" abuse.... :thumbup1:

[Reznov]

Good for you, here is a cookie.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Race was constructed out of the ideology of class society.

"If you know the history of the whole concept of whiteness—if you know the history of the whole concept of the white race, where it came from and for what reason—you know that it was a trick, and it’s worked brilliantly. You see, prior to the mid to late 1600s, in the colonies of what would become the United States, there was no such thing as the white race. Those of us of European descent did not refer to ourselves by that term really ever before then." - Tim Wise, The Pathology of Privilege

"Historically, 19th century Europeans classified peoples in their colonies into a hierarchy of categories which placed northern Europeans at the top of a pseudo-evolutionary scale. They saw the dark, primitive peoples of the colonies as suitable for enlightenment by the civilized nations of Europe which often translated into economic and social exploitation and sometimes genocidal policies." - "Race" as a Social Construct (http://www.gossamer-wings.com/soc/Notes/race/tsld002.htm)

"The European colonists who founded the United States ... accepted the idea of racial hierarchy that was prevalent in Europe at the time. It was just too convenient: The socially constructed concept of race was a powerful tool that aided them in the conquest of the continent... Because they believed that races were genetically different (although they didn't describe it in those terms), many saw the exploitation of the Indians and Africans as no different from the use of farm animals. For such thinkers, the fact that the Bible had no explicit proscription against slavery justified the importation of millions of slaves from the western shores of Africa to meet the growing needs of agricultural production in the colonies." - The Problem, Simply Stated. The Race Myth: Why We Pretend Race Exists in America (http://www.enotalone.com/article/5043.html), by Joseph L. Graves Jr., Ph.D.

The construct continues on today as an element of this society. It won't be eliminated by "anti-racist action," "diversity," "reverse racism," or any other activist method which actually works to strengthen the concept of racial division, to the detriment of the international working class.

It will only be overcome and eliminated when it's source is, through the activity of the working class. Seeds of this were seen in historic episodes like the Coal Creek War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Creek_War) in Tennessee. White miners there were being replaced with mostly black prison laborers. The miners repeatedly freed the prisoners and burnt down the stockades they were being held in. These monumental acts, which had more effect than ten thousand vigils could, were done not because someone had convinced them that racism was morally wrong, but rather because it was in their interests to do so.

[Revolution starts with U]

Sarcastic trolling, good trolling indeed but trolling all the same.

Bio-centrism!? Fuck the rocks!!! :lol:

On this basis RSWU you would have to live naked in a cave eating and drinking nothing.... LOL!!! Afterall building a house is like "mineral/rock" abuse.... :thumbup1:

Again, it's not hippy primitivism. I have affinity w animals, still eat meat; w plants, still eat veggies and shit. I have affinity w rocks, I will build a house. And when I am done, I will rot and refertilize the earth. Im just not seperating myself from what I can only subjectively say I am dominant over.
Bio-centrism runs strong in the human psyche, and I feel it is utterly irrational.

[hatzel]

it's not hippy primitivism

Not that there's anything inherently wrong with either of these two things :) Despite the fact that we seem to have had a few threads about how evil both are recently, with clearly divided opinions...

[Hiero]

Race was constructed out of the ideology of class society.

"If you know the history of the whole concept of whiteness—if you know the history of the whole concept of the white race, where it came from and for what reason—you know that it was a trick, and it’s worked brilliantly. You see, prior to the mid to late 1600s, in the colonies of what would become the United States, there was no such thing as the white race. Those of us of European descent did not refer to ourselves by that term really ever before then." - Tim Wise, The Pathology of Privilege

"Historically, 19th century Europeans classified peoples in their colonies into a hierarchy of categories which placed northern Europeans at the top of a pseudo-evolutionary scale. They saw the dark, primitive peoples of the colonies as suitable for enlightenment by the civilized nations of Europe which often translated into economic and social exploitation and sometimes genocidal policies." - "Race" as a Social Construct (http://www.gossamer-wings.com/soc/Notes/race/tsld002.htm)

"The European colonists who founded the United States ... accepted the idea of racial hierarchy that was prevalent in Europe at the time. It was just too convenient: The socially constructed concept of race was a powerful tool that aided them in the conquest of the continent... Because they believed that races were genetically different (although they didn't describe it in those terms), many saw the exploitation of the Indians and Africans as no different from the use of farm animals. For such thinkers, the fact that the Bible had no explicit proscription against slavery justified the importation of millions of slaves from the western shores of Africa to meet the growing needs of agricultural production in the colonies." - The Problem, Simply Stated. The Race Myth: Why We Pretend Race Exists in America (http://www.enotalone.com/article/5043.html), by Joseph L. Graves Jr., Ph.D.

I would add to that, that logic grew out of the classification system from Europe pre the colonial era. The difference that the ruling class saw between themselves and the lower classes was similar to races, they believed they were "biologically" different. The rule of society reflected the rule of nature bestowed upon people by God. When European colonialism really kicked off, they applied this logic to the peoples of America, Asia, Africa, Australia and the Pacific. Then the creation of white people occured.

It is amazing the ways the ruling aristocrats through about the toiling masses, they weren't just humans without the same means, but some form of sub humans. If you brought a aristocrat back from the 1600s they would be abosultly disgusted with the various white nations like the USA or Australia.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yeah, that's right.

"One of the functions of racism is to compensate the latent universalism of bourgeois liberalism: since all human beings have the same rights, the Algerian will be made a subhuman." - Sartre

[Pioneers_Violin]

Race, schmace.
We're all RED on the insides.

Except for the flowers and rocks that is. :o


RevLefters are even more Red than most or maybe it's just that we have accepted our Redness rather than make pretensions of Blue-bloodedness.

[Tommy4ever]

I can't believe how fast this thread took a turn towards the ludicrous. :laugh:

Thanks for the giggles Revolution starts with U (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=30252)! :thumbup1:

[hatzel]

I can't believe how fast this thread took a turn towards the ludicrous. :laugh:

It appears as though you haven't been taking the incredibly serious arguments on board; there is nothing ludicrous in this thread, only insightful points which are not discussed anywhere near frequently enough round here :)