Do "races" exist?

[robbo203]

There is an interesting discussion going on here


http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/government-launches-immigrants-go-home-campaign?page=17

What are your thoughts on the matter?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

No.

There is only one homo hominid in existence at this point in time - Homo Sapiens Sapiens. The others either interbred with Homo sapiens and/or died off, as was the case with the denisovans, neanderthals and hobbits.

[DROSL]

Yes, human is a species. We're all equal, but saying where all the same race is denying facts. No political correctness for me. :laugh:

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Race is a social construct, but social constructs do have a certain kind of "existence" too. In other words, it has as much existence as money, the state, and religious self-identity

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Yes, human is a species. We're all equal, but saying where all the same race is denying facts. No political correctness for me. :laugh:

There's no political correctness about it. Every human being on the planet is a member of Homo Sapiens Sapiens - this is a scientific fact. The difference between separate ethnic groups is far too minuscule to class human groups as different species (races) or even subspecies.

But of course you wouldn't know that, what with your non-existent knowledge of scientific peer reviewed anthropological knowledge and evidence. After all, scientific facts are simply 'political correctness'.

Tl;dr : It's not 'politically correct' to realise that separate homo races do not exist in the modern day - it's just plain correct. As I mentioned earlier, other homo genus members have either interbred with, been killed off at the expense of, or directly gave rise to Homo Sapiens Sapiens, which exists at all corners of the globe, from inuits to melanesians to somalians to englishmen to arabs to hungarians to russians to san to hausas to mexicas to scandinavians to finns to han to.... well, you get the point.

I have grown to fucking hate the term 'political correctness'. It sounds like the sort of shitslinging phrase you'd expect out of the degenerate American political atmosphere.

[robbo203]

Yes, human is a species. We're all equal, but saying where all the same race is denying facts. No political correctness for me. :laugh:


Thats one way of looking at it. However, one of the problems that was brought up in the discussion on the forum mentioned above was the so called "boundary problem". If we take skin colour as a racial indicator, for example, at what point can one say one belongs to this "race" and not another? Skin colour is a spectrum and where you place your cut off points would seem to be arbitary. This has to do with the debate about nominalism versus realism. There is also the point that humanity today is largely the product of intermingling and intermixing over huge periods of time.

But assuming it is possible to objectively talk about there being races, the big question is what significance ought we to attach to the existence of such "races". The protagonist on one side of the debate on the SPGB forum seems to be saying that human being display a marked tendency towards tribalism and this tends to conform a pattern of racial differentiation. To put is crudely and simplistically , white people overwhelmingly associate with an intermarry with white people and black people overwhelmingly with black people. There is, in other words a systematic cultural preference or bias at work here based on race .


My counterargument to this would be that this overlooks the factor of probability which tends to reinforce existing patterns of population distribution. So for example if you are a black person living in a black community then the chances are that you are more likely to associate and marry with black folk and so perpetuate the pattern. Ditto with white folk. However, there is not some driving genetic compulsion to do so which is what the above individual seems to be saying. It is something that we have become culturally habituated to do

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm not really sure what part of that discussion is being pointed out. The segregationist's arguments?

Those arguments conflate appearence or physical characteristics with contemporary ideas around "race". Yes, there are biological trends in physical characteristics, but "race" as a modern social phenomena is not the same thing. Yes people have divided up and been divided up, but the argument also assumes that certain physcial characteristics is how people would "naturally" divde themselves when the categories that are implied by different physical characteristics change and it isn't historically consistant - people have divided themselves up in any number of ways, modern concepts of "race" are much different.

To talk about race in biological terms would be meaningless on a biological level because as people have said, humans have pretty small genetic differences (short time on the planet and very mobile) compared to other animals, even chimps and so on. To talk about race this way in social terms would also be meaningless since people are not necissarily consistantly oppressed by physical characteristics or geographical considerations. Just for example, people in the medditerranian are probably more physically similar to eachother than people they might be ethnically and racially grouped with.

The arguments against immigration that go with that poster's views are pretty good evidence why their assumptions should be rejected because that's where the logic leads... "socialist chauvanism" to put it lightly. Revolutionaries should seek to eliminate racial oppression and the power dynamics and divisions due to "race" as a social phenomena. This does not mean mandating some melting pot or demanding that people not hold onto specific cultural tradditions or likes. But I think it does mean that workers need to be able to work together for common interests and that eliminating divisions in the way society treats different parts of the class is a major part (and benifits both the oppressed and non-oppressed workers because racial oppression is often tied to pressing down wages and so on). Capitalism destroys any organic "grouping" of people by region because it cuts people's ties to the land and sets them off to sell their labor. This means that it is inherently reactionary to then demand some labor "go home" and furthermore it strenghtens the hands of domestic employers to blame lower wages on immigrants or migrants. strenghtens the state's ability to spy on people and repress them.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I was studying 1920s America the other day and this came up as a topic, so i've a good example for you guys to ponder:

In 1920s in the Deep South, there was a family who were designated as Mulatto (mixed-race) - due to the racists being very concerned with racial purity, people's exact racial specification according to the race laws was noted in the Census of 1920.

The same family moved to Philly in the 1930 census and was designated as black, because those outside the south were not that into racism, and weren't fussed about designating people according to race laws - they just said they were black.

So, we have a case where the same people in the same country were designated as different races for the same survey, simply because of the laws that applied where they live. Anybody who denies, in the face of such clear evidence, that race is a social construct, really ought to think long and hard about the implications of their thinking for race relations.

[synthesis]

I was studying 1920s America the other day and this came up as a topic, so i've a good example for you guys to ponder:

In 1920s in the Deep South, there was a family who were designated as Mulatto (mixed-race) - due to the racists being very concerned with racial purity, people's exact racial specification according to the race laws was noted in the Census of 1920.

The same family moved to Philly in the 1930 census and was designated as black, because those outside the south were not that into racism, and weren't fussed about designating people according to race laws - they just said they were black.

So, we have a case where the same people in the same country were designated as different races for the same survey, simply because of the laws that applied where they live. Anybody who denies, in the face of such clear evidence, that race is a social construct, really ought to think long and hard about the implications of their thinking for race relations.

I hope I don't come across as a defensive American here, but this has nothing on Nazi Germany. You could literally buy your way into reclassification; that's what the Wittgensteins did.

[robbo203]

There's no political correctness about it. Every human being on the planet is a member of Homo Sapiens Sapiens - this is a scientific fact. The difference between separate ethnic groups is far too minuscule to class human groups as different species (races) or even subspecies.
.

In fairness to the other side of the argument no one is suggesting that different human groups constitute different species. Races do not equate with species. So you are raising a straw argument here.

Of course. there was a time when race was indeed equated with species by polygenists - particularly in the 18th and 19th century when the old medieval Great Chain of Being was gradually transmogrified into a distinct racial hierarchy under the influence of materialist philosophy and evolutionism. Ironically the rival monogenist camp which claimed that all humans had the same orgins and were essentially similar was primarily inspired to do so out of religious convictions in order to avoid the disturbing implications that the rise of evolutionary thought presented. Such thought suggested that the "lower races" constituted an intermediate species that linked "human beings proper" with the great apes and monkeys. For that reason, and in response, the monogenists emphasised the uniqueness of all human beings and their separateness from the rest of creation by virtue of their possession of a soul. They did not wish for human beings to be sullied by association with the animal world as the materialists seemed to want to do..


This whole debate between monogenists and polygenists was precipitated by the outward expansion of European societies and their encounter with new strange exotic cultures in the remoter corners of the world. These different perspectives represent different ways in which individuals sought to accommodate and deal with "problem of the savage" as it is called within the theoretical framework of the time.

Today, of course, that particular debate no longer exists. Just about everyone, bar the odd nutjob , would accept that all human beings without exception belong to the same species

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I hope I don't come across as a defensive American here, but this has nothing on Nazi Germany. You could literally buy your way into reclassification; that's what the Wittgensteins did.

Indeed, though of course it would be naive to assume that this didn't occur in America, too. There were, I believe, plenty of reclassifications, particularly between White and Mulatto 'races', according to social status, wealth, ability to influence, ability to keep family heritage secret etc. I believe that, in general, around 1920 the threshold for being non-white was having at least one black great-grandparent, i.e. being at least 1/8 black.

Of course as well as Nazi Germany, South Africa's apartheid system operated perhaps one of the most crass systems of racial segregation and classification by race in modern memory, with again the ability to 'become white' through various nefarious means.

[Rational Radical]

Wow,it bugs me that even leftists can be so ahistorical and anti-science at times. As the other posters have alluded to,it's been debunked in anthropological circles several times showing genetic commonalities found through out the planet,and the roots of classifying groups who share phenotypic traits as races is directly linked to the beginning of the "New World" or European imperialist powers' development of capitalism,resulting in enslavement/colonization. race is a social construct specifically created to conquer people for imperial expansion,that should be understood and no "discussion" at least among revolutionaries and historically literate people should be had.

[RedAnarchist]

Humans are 99.9% genetically identical, so race only exists as a social construct.

[robbo203]

Of course as well as Nazi Germany, South Africa's apartheid system operated perhaps one of the most crass systems of racial segregation and classification by race in modern memory, with again the ability to 'become white' through various nefarious means.

Coming from South Africa myself, I can endorse that sentiment. I recall reading about what was called the "pencil test" in an IDAF publication which was particularly applied to "Cape Coloured" or "Mixed Race" people for the purposes of classification/reclassification

The Afrikaners - mainly descendants of the original Duth settlers - constitute about 60% of the white population. There was a long history of miscegenation between the Boers and indigenous peoples like the Khoi as well as slaves brought in by the Dutch East India company, Out of this emerged the present day "mixed race" population

Studies suggest that amongst the Afrikaners themselves about 5-10% of their genetic heritage is traceable to black orgins. (see this for example http://africanhistory.about.com/od/southafrica/p/AfrikanerGene.htm Under apartheid race was a matter of perception as much as anything. If you looked mixed race you were classified as such.

Occasionally however you would have a genetic throw back. A nominally white family would produce an offspring that had the appearance of a mixed race person such as the crinkly hair. Thats where the pencil test would come in. The authrorities would stick a pencil in your hair and ask you to bend over. If it fell out, you were a white; if it stayed put, you were mixed race. Surreal as it sounds its a fact

The consequences for the families concerned were needless to say often traumatic. Familes were split and children sent to separate schools etc and from there, moved on to live sepaare lives. Ironcially this could happen amongst some of the most staunchly pro0Nationalist Party white families. One can only imagine the kind of tortured soul searching it must have occasioned

[DROSL]

There's no political correctness about it. Every human being on the planet is a member of Homo Sapiens Sapiens - this is a scientific fact. The difference between separate ethnic groups is far too minuscule to class human groups as different species (races) or even subspecies.

But of course you wouldn't know that, what with your non-existent knowledge of scientific peer reviewed anthropological knowledge and evidence. After all, scientific facts are simply 'political correctness'.

Tl;dr : It's not 'politically correct' to realise that separate homo races do not exist in the modern day - it's just plain correct. As I mentioned earlier, other homo genus members have either interbred with, been killed off at the expense of, or directly gave rise to Homo Sapiens Sapiens, which exists at all corners of the globe, from inuits to melanesians to somalians to englishmen to arabs to hungarians to russians to san to hausas to mexicas to scandinavians to finns to han to.... well, you get the point.

I have grown to fucking hate the term 'political correctness'. It sounds like the sort of shitslinging phrase you'd expect out of the degenerate American political atmosphere.

Which is not a race. It's a species. What's so damn hard to understand about that.

[#FF0000]

Which is not a race. It's a species. What's so damn hard to understand about that.

"Races" are entirely social constructs. There is no scientific basis for "race" as a biological category, as Star Linn explained.

What's so damn hard to understand about that?

[DROSL]

human groups as different species (races) or even subspecies.se

All the problem is right there. There's a hierarchy of the animal kingdom, you can't change stuff. Species are not races.

here's the scientific classification.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Biological_classification_L_Pengo_vflip.svg/200px-Biological_classification_L_Pengo_vflip.svg.png

If we want to stop racism, like I do, we should stop giving this much power to a simple word and just get over it. We're different physically, but that doesn't make us any less human.

And I think my usage of the term "political correct" was rightfully used.

[DROSL]

"Races" are entirely social constructs. There is no scientific basis for "race" as a biological category, as Star Linn explained.

What's so damn hard to understand about that?

That's what I'm trying to say since the beggining. Races aren't species!! I think I did not compose the sentence correctly, It may have confused some people.

[DROSL]

I also think the term "race" has been changed into "people"

[#FF0000]

That's what I'm trying to say since the beggining. Races aren't species!! I think I did not compose the sentence correctly, It may have confused some people.

Yes, we know that races aren't species. We are saying that "races" do not exist beyond as socially constructed categories.

[DROSL]

Yes, we know that races aren't species. We are saying that "races" do not exist beyond as socially constructed categories.

And please tell me where I said that, because I'm pretty sure I didn't.

[Tim Cornelis]

There's no political correctness about it. Every human being on the planet is a member of Homo Sapiens Sapiens - this is a scientific fact. The difference between separate ethnic groups is far too minuscule to class human groups as different species (races) or even subspecies.

But of course you wouldn't know that, what with your non-existent knowledge of scientific peer reviewed anthropological knowledge and evidence. After all, scientific facts are simply 'political correctness'.

Tl;dr : It's not 'politically correct' to realise that separate homo races do not exist in the modern day - it's just plain correct. As I mentioned earlier, other homo genus members have either interbred with, been killed off at the expense of, or directly gave rise to Homo Sapiens Sapiens, which exists at all corners of the globe, from inuits to melanesians to somalians to englishmen to arabs to hungarians to russians to san to hausas to mexicas to scandinavians to finns to han to.... well, you get the point.

I have grown to fucking hate the term 'political correctness'. It sounds like the sort of shitslinging phrase you'd expect out of the degenerate American political atmosphere.

I'm not an expert on biology, and I imagine neither are you, but this doesn't make any sense. The person you're replying to is not contesting that humans are... humans (homo sapiens sapiens). What he is saying is that humans can be subcategorised as different races. Saying that this is not true because of humanoids of a different genus interbred makes no sense in that regard because genus has nothing to do with racial classification. You're pretending as if race and genus are the same thing.

Kingdom:Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Order: Therapsida
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Race: ??? Does it exist ???

Referring to genus does not make sense in a discussion about the existence of race.


I was studying 1920s America the other day and this came up as a topic, so i've a good example for you guys to ponder:

In 1920s in the Deep South, there was a family who were designated as Mulatto (mixed-race) - due to the racists being very concerned with racial purity, people's exact racial specification according to the race laws was noted in the Census of 1920.

The same family moved to Philly in the 1930 census and was designated as black, because those outside the south were not that into racism, and weren't fussed about designating people according to race laws - they just said they were black.

So, we have a case where the same people in the same country were designated as different races for the same survey, simply because of the laws that applied where they live. Anybody who denies, in the face of such clear evidence, that race is a social construct, really ought to think long and hard about the implications of their thinking for race relations.

It proves that race as defined here is a social construct, but it does not negate that race therefore does not exist biologically. It's possible that race has been wrongly defined and its definition subject to social constructing, but it may also exist biologically but that the biological definition of race does not correspond to its social definition.

EDIT:


"Races" are entirely social constructs. There is no scientific basis for "race" as a biological category, as Star Linn explained.

What's so damn hard to understand about that?


Yes, we know that races aren't species. We are saying that "races" do not exist beyond as socially constructed categories.

No, Star Linn argued that there are no races within homo sapiens sapiens because subspecies of homo sapiens, and genus of homo, no longer exist, implying as if genus and species are synonymous for race. It's an utterly non-scientific strawman.

Saying races are a social construct "because" is not an argument.


Humans are 99.9% genetically identical, so race only exists as a social construct.

And what is to say that racial differentation cannot occur within the second decimal? Why is it acceptable to say humans are 99.9% genetically identical and therefore there is no race, and not say humans and chimpanzees are 98.5% genetically identical, species are a social construct? What's so significant about the 99.9%?

[#FF0000]

Saying races are a social construct "because" is not an argument.

Races aren't a social construct just "because". Races do not exist because the differences across the human species are neither distinct nor consistent enough to be able to separate people in to separate biological "races". Of course that doesn't stop people from saying "these people and these people are different races", but there's simply no biological basis for it.

Honestly this isn't even up for debate unless you've got something new and exciting to tell the folks who worked on the Human Genome Project. (http://www.nowpublic.com/world/human-genome-project-announces-race-does-not-exist)


And please tell me where I said that, because I'm pretty sure I didn't.

You said: "We're all equal, but saying where all the same race is denying facts. No political correctness for me"

And then we told you that race does not exist as a biological category. It is only a social one. If you didn't think race was a biological thing then I don't understand why you'd need to make the comment about political correctness, because there's nothing 'politically incorrect' about recognizing the fact that race is a social construct.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

Is a white house cat a different "race" to a black house cat? This is pretty much how i see this debate to be honest. Perhaps I'm missing something here but i don't see the distinctions between races being all that different to the distinctions between differently-coloured animals or something.

[DROSL]

Reminds me of the so called homosexuality between beatles or some shit as an argument for gay rights.

[#FF0000]

Is a white house cat a different "race" to a black house cat? This is pretty much how i see this debate to be honest. Perhaps I'm missing something here but i don't see the distinctions between races being all that different to the distinctions between differently-coloured animals or something.

That isn't a good example. There exist different "breeds" within a lot of animal species, and especially domestic ones.


Reminds me of the so called homosexuality between beatles or some shit as an argument for gay rights.

I think people bring up homosexual behavior in other species as a counter to the argument that homosexuality is "unnatural".

[helot]

Despite slight physical differences between human populations of different climates race itself is a social construct, one that emerges in relation to imperialism. Why else do you think the Irish were considered non-white?

[robbo203]

This is what the contributor called Hrothgar has to say over on the SPGB forum which I mentioned about in the OP. (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/government-launches-immigrants-go-home-campaign?page=14). He or she seems to think races are a biological reality


"Consciousness can exist in different forms and at different levels of sophistication. You know this well enough since one of the areas of debate among socialists and neo-Marxists is over what kind of consciousness might be sufficient for an authentic social revolution. Do we need class consciousness? Or is some kind of hazy trade union consciousness and mass support for a vanguard party enough? People can be - and generally are - conscious of their own racial identity in some way, and will take lifestyle decisions accordingly - e.g. white flight - but they will not necessarily be conscious of themselves as members of a race with distinctive racial goals and interests. Nevertheless, there must be a level of consciousness or how do you explain the racial structure of most human societies today, including the UK? Why do white people, on the whole, tend to live among mostly white people? And the same for blacks and Asians. Why do these divisions in society persist? I think you would put it down to false consciousness, but racialism is an enemy of capitalism and the capitalists have had to mount a relentless campaign of propaganda against the whole notion of racial integrity as well as invent and promote the concept of 'racism'. Why is this propaganda needed, and why is it still failing, if racial (i.e. tribal) consciousness is not something inherent in human nature? Of course, I am willing to concede that none of this means that people, on the whole, are willing or able to manifest racial consciousness in a politically-efficacious way , but I see that as more of a political problem and attributable to the unprecedented campaign of propaganda I have mentioned and the social and peer pressures it brings, some of which are evident in this thread. Why would someone want to display racial consciousness overtly and politically and challenge mixed-racial ideology if that means they have to be on the receiving end of insults, ridicule and loss of career or livelihood? Clearly very few people will do so and this in itself becomes an evolutionary pressure, so that we see a decline in the self-confidence and genetic strength of the indigenous or host population in a society, which is the intention of the capitalist class.

I do accept that there has been race-mixing among human beings for thousands of years, but for the most part the mixing has been at the margins. Until relatively recently, most human societies maintained a strong racial basis, and the way that human beings generally organise themselves socially into discrete racial types suggests that Race is enduring as a form of tribalism, though its basis is now weakening under an oppressive ideological assault. I would suggest that is a very bad thing because tribalism - and thus racialism - is an evolutionary process whereby a group seeks to adapt to its environment and protect its successful adaptations against other groups that are differently-adapted. It's natural and difficult to override because it is in our nature to discriminate and we are drawn to protect and defend our kin. Only repressive measures can defeat these impulses, and that is exactly what we see in our society now, and also on this thread in the way that you have mounted a verbal assault on myself, which is very typical. The notion of human equality is unscientific and counter-factual, and so its adherents must rely on lies and bullying (and violence as well) in order to get their way.

Part of what you imply is true in that modern racial definitions are socially-constructed and always have been, but that is not the end of the debate or a basis for dismissing racial concepts. There is an interaction between social and evolutionary processes respectively, so that racial formation is based on environmental factors which catalyse an evolutionary adapative process. The racial patterning that we see in the genome reflects the adaptive group selection going on over thousands of years."

[Tim Cornelis]

Races aren't a social construct just "because". Races do not exist because the differences across the human species are neither distinct nor consistent enough to be able to separate people in to separate biological "races". Of course that doesn't stop people from saying "these people and these people are different races", but there's simply no biological basis for it.

Honestly this isn't even up for debate unless you've got something new and exciting to tell the folks who worked on the Human Genome Project. (http://www.nowpublic.com/world/human-genome-project-announces-race-does-not-exist)


I'm not saying that races exist, I'm saying that the arguments prior to your post provided NO argument whatsoever to substantiate that races do not exist. And, incidentally, that scientifically inaccurate posts are 'thanked' because it claims races do not exist imply some knee-jerk reaction without actually looking at the arguments. Such uncritical and non-scientific thinking should be unwelcome.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm not saying that races exist, I'm saying that the arguments prior to your post provided NO argument whatsoever to substantiate that races do not exist. And, incidentally, that scientifically inaccurate posts are 'thanked' because it claims races do not exist imply some knee-jerk reaction without actually looking at the arguments. Such uncritical and non-scientific thinking should be unwelcome.

Why do we need to be scientific about something that isn't scientific?

In the United Kingdom in 2013, one of my friends counts as white. In other societies, he'd be called black. In other societies, he'd be mulatto/coloured.

Today, I am a white man. In Germany in the 1930s, i'd be a jew, or perhaps a slav.

Race literally means nothing. If I trace back long enough, i'm sure I can find some african ancestry. If I call myself black, you cannot 'scientifically' prove otherwise, since there have been many societies in history that have defined race in different ways, according to the socio-political realities of the time.

So actually, I think it is just fine to thank 'un-scientific' posts that point out the reality of race as a social construct.

[Tim Cornelis]

Why do we need to be scientific about something that isn't scientific?

Are you actually being serious? So if someone claims that species are not the product of natural selection and random mutations you would 'refute' it with saying that the Big Bang is accurate and therefore evolution is as well? Because that's about what happened in this thread* and it's embarrassing.

*someone claiming race does not exist because there is only one genus of homo left are two different subjects, although both within biology and my analogy between biology and astrophysics/cosmology -- still, my point stands.


In the United Kingdom in 2013, one of my friends counts as white. In other societies, he'd be called black. In other societies, he'd be mulatto/coloured.

Today, I am a white man. In Germany in the 1930s, i'd be a jew, or perhaps a slav.

Race literally means nothing. If I trace back long enough, i'm sure I can find some african ancestry. If I call myself black, you cannot 'scientifically' prove otherwise, since there have been many societies in history that have defined race in different ways, according to the socio-political realities of the time.

So actually, I think it is just fine to thank 'un-scientific' posts that point out the reality of race as a social construct.

This makes no sense whatsoever because it did not point out the reality of race being a social construct because it was a post about an irrelevant subject, namely genus, not a subspecies or race. Moreover, I already explained why definitions of race shifting is not sufficient refutation of race not existing biologically. The fact that definitions of race change does not pertain to whether or not a genetic pattern as a subcategory within a species exist -- it can exist both (race as social construct and biological). Race, as far as I possess information on the subject, does not exist. But I base this on relevant information, accumulated through the scientific method.

You also get hung up on semantics. It doesn't matter what races are called, it matters whether we can identify biological subcategories within species. That 'black' has been defined differently throughout history would not change whether or not sub-saharan people fall within a genetic subcategory of homo sapiens sapiens, or not -- and apparently they don't.

[#FF0000]

I'm not saying that races exist, I'm saying that the arguments prior to your post provided NO argument whatsoever to substantiate that races do not exist.

Ah, okay I see what you're saying, then.

[Skyhilist]

Species are social constructs too. Just saying. The percentage of DNA that we must share in common with someone to be considered the "same species" as them is a totally arbitrary number used to make animals easily viewed as an animal. "I share 99% of my DNA with this individual, totally ok to test on him. But I share 99.9% of my DNA with this individual, totally not ok to test on him." When you get down to the numbers, it's just like discrimination based on race, just with different percentages. I mean how similar is that to "that black man share only 99.91% of my DNA but the white man shares 99.98% of his DNA. The white man is superior." And of course, no one states the percentages, but that's what's always implied when someone is discriminated against due to genetic differences.

[Rational Radical]

:laugh: goddamn,leftists just can't seem to admit that they were wrong and need to do studying or reevaluation of their own beliefs so they formulate stupid ass theories with leftist rhetoric,it's both amusing and frustrating, yo #FF0000 thanks for linking to one of the numerous studies proving that race doesnt have any biological basis thus it being a social construct,don't argue without atleast checking Googe first.

[Quail]

I think the argument that "races" are more of a spectrum than discrete categories is fairly convincing, to be honest. It means that essentially even if you did make categories called "races" there are people that wouldn't fit into them, so obviously there wouldn't be enough categories. But then if you kept making more categories so that you had enough to fit people into, you'd just end up with a spectrum. Thus there aren't really discrete categories of "races."

[Skyhilist]

I think the argument that "races" are more of a spectrum than discrete categories is fairly convincing, to be honest. It means that essentially even if you did make categories called "races" there are people that wouldn't fit into them, so obviously there wouldn't be enough categories. But then if you kept making more categories so that you had enough to fit people into, you'd just end up with a spectrum.

You'd need an infinite number of dimensions then on that spectrum.
Like on a color spectrum, purple goes between blue and red.
Where do you put the person who's X% ethnicity A, Y% ethnicity B, Z% ethnicity C, etc.
I mean if there's more than two races there's nothing you can put them between on any spectrum like the color spectrum. I mean if you go by skin color you could, but much like the concept of race itself, such a spectrum would exist but be totally arbitrary, especially given convergent evolution.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I'm not saying that races exist, I'm saying that the arguments prior to your post provided NO argument whatsoever to substantiate that races do not exist. And, incidentally, that scientifically inaccurate posts are 'thanked' because it claims races do not exist imply some knee-jerk reaction without actually looking at the arguments. Such uncritical and non-scientific thinking should be unwelcome.

Wow, you really are a bit of full-of-yourself moron, aren't you Tim. I made it clear in my post that there were no differences between humans to classify them as species or subspecies.




There's no political correctness about it. Every human being on the planet is a member of Homo Sapiens Sapiens - this is a scientific fact. The difference between separate ethnic groups is far too minuscule to class human groups as different species (races) or even subspecies.


If you'd like me to elaborate, then I'll fucking elaborate. As I have said, other members of the Genus homo, such as homo floresiensis, homo neanderthalis and the denisovans, either died out (http://australianmuseum.net.au/Homo-floresiensis) and/or interbred (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.551.html) with (http://discovermagazine.com/2013/march/14-interbreeding-neanderthals#.UlIK_CRge9U) Homo sapiens.

The only other known sub-species of Homo Sapiens died out 160'000 years ago (http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/herto_skulls.php). There's your sourcing.

There was no 'scientific inaccuracy' to be found in my post, unless you count where I placed that fucking ridiculous term in the sentence, in which case I am sorry - I'm not good with placing completely unscientific sociological terms inside biological classification. Unless you can prove that there exists another member of the genus homo living on planet earth at this point in time, or another subspecies of homo sapiens, my argument stands. Now fuck you and good day.

[bcbm]

I'm not saying that races exist, I'm saying that the arguments prior to your post provided NO argument whatsoever to substantiate that races do not exist.

the burden of proof is on those trying to prove races do exist, i would think. and anyone who is basically scientifically literate about human biology and genetics knows it is scientific fact, and has been for some time, that race does not exist so i really don't see why its wrong to thank posts even if they don't feel like rehashing this subject for those who are too lazy to learn science.


And, incidentally, that scientifically inaccurate posts are 'thanked' because it claims races do not exist imply some knee-jerk reaction without actually looking at the arguments. Such uncritical and non-scientific thinking should be unwelcome.

uncritical and non-scientific thinking is unwelcome, specifically that which suggests 'race' exists as anything but a social construction.


Species are social constructs too. Just saying.

not really in the sense we are talking about here.


. The percentage of DNA that we must share in common with someone to be considered the "same species" as them is a totally arbitrary number used to make animals easily viewed as an animal. "I share 99% of my DNA with this individual, totally ok to test on him. But I share 99.9% of my DNA with this individual, totally not ok to test on him." When you get down to the numbers, it's just like discrimination based on race, just with different percentages. I mean how similar is that to "that black man share only 99.91% of my DNA but the white man shares 99.98% of his DNA. The white man is superior." And of course, no one states the percentages, but that's what's always implied when someone is discriminated against due to genetic differences.

this isn't how species differentiation works, or how racism works for that matter.

[Lily Briscoe]

This is a really good website on the subject:

edit: I can't post links. Could someone who can post them, fix this link or repost it. Thanks.

www [dot] understandingrace [dot] org/humvar/race_humvar.html

[robbo203]

I think the argument that "races" are more of a spectrum than discrete categories is fairly convincing, to be honest. It means that essentially even if you did make categories called "races" there are people that wouldn't fit into them, so obviously there wouldn't be enough categories. But then if you kept making more categories so that you had enough to fit people into, you'd just end up with a spectrum. Thus there aren't really discrete categories of "races."

Its a good point - referring to what is called the boundary problem - but, be aware, that it can rebound against you. For example, it could be used to argue that we dont actually live in a class based society based on discrete classes but in a society in which there is a continuous spectrum to be found whereby one individual can be differentiated from another in terms of the amount of capital they possess. There would thus be a grey area between working class and capitalist class as you move from one to the other, not a sharp dividing line. It is the absence of a sharp dividing line that could then be construed by some as evdience that we dont actually live in a class society.

Of course it is true that "working class" and "capitalist class" are entirely social constructs but that does not remove the boundary problem which as I say can be cited as evidence against the claim that we live in a class society. In the case of species we have a clear-cut objective criterion that differentiates one from another - namely the ability to interbreed. But do we have an analogous criterion to distinguish classes in capitalism? There is afterall a (very) limited degree of social mobility between classes


The problem with the bald contention that races do not exist - and let me emphasise that I am not saying that they do exist - is that from the perspective of Joe or Jill Citizen, it doesnt make much sense. "What! youre trying to tell me that there are no white people and black people and that you cant tell the difference between them" is the sort of thing they are likely to think. How do you deal with that kind of argument? Dismissing race as simply a "social construct" seems, from that perspective, to defy commonsense: of couse you can distinguish between white and black on the basis of skin colour, they will argue. In fact, from their point of view, you will likely come across as being unrealistic and in complete denial and they might extend this attitude of theirs to other aspects of your worldview such as your desiire to transform society. Merely saying race is a social construct which, in a sense, is quite true, doesnt strike me as saying nearly enough


Im not quite sure what Im trying to say here but let us suppose for the sake of argument we went along with the claim that races did exist as biological categories distinguishable on grounds of certain physical indicators such as skin colour which obviously has a genetic basis how would that effect the argument? My first reaction would be to say "so what?". These are uninteresting or unimportant differences as far I am concerned. They signifiy nothing to me as far as I relate to my fellow human beings

In other words, what matters is not whether or not races exist as a biological reality but, rather, what importance you attach to their existence. It may well be true that races as biological categoies do not exist and that the very concept of race is unscientific but this is not going to cut much ice with the "commonsensical" view of Joe and Jill Citizen.

To paraphrase someone else - Biologists have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it

[bcbm]

The problem with the bald contention that races do not exist - and let me emphasise that I am not saying that they do exist - is that from the perspective of Joe or Jill Citizen, it doesnt make much sense. "What! youre trying to tell me that there are no white people and black people and that you cant tell the difference between them" is the sort of thing they are likely to think. How do you deal with that kind of argument?

'skin color exists. race doesnt'

[Rational Radical]

And if Joe and Jill can't grasp that then you'll have a harder time spreading anti-capitalist/communist theory,they better be willing to listen to this objective fact with scientific backing or they're a lost cause in the struggle against capital.

[robbo203]

'skin color exists. race doesnt'

Yes I appreciate what you are saying here but my point is a little different. People, rightly or wrongly , and undeniably in the main interpret skin colour as an indicator of race. That is to say racial groupings are defined in their minds by skin colour and other physical features but particularly skin colour How do you separate the two when, for them, these things are inseparable. This is what a great many people mean by "race" and so for them race has an objective biological basis (skin colour), Appeals to learned scientific journals or assertions to the effect that race is merely a "social construct" are not going to cut any ice with them and might even, as I suggest, rebound against you. Have a look at the forum I mentioned in the OP and you will see what I mean

How do you break out of this impasse? The whole point of the exercise is to combat racist ideas and to do that effectively we have to attack such ideas at their weakest point - their Achilles Heel

[robbo203]

And if Joe and Jill can't grasp that then you'll have a harder time spreading anti-capitalist/communist theory,they better be willing to listen to this objective fact with scientific backing or they're a lost cause in the struggle against capital.


Yes thats all quite true but if they're a lost cause in the struggle against capital then the struggle against capital is itself a lost cause since it cannot succeed without Joe and Jills involvement in that struggle. We might as well then just shut up shop , go home, crack open a can of lager and become a potato couch with no further interest in changing society. I for one am not prepared to do that.

As I ve indicated this not really a problem of science; it is a problem of ideology. From the point of view of the racist it is not race that is a "social construct" but rather the views of the anti-racists (including those in the politically motivated scientific establishment) in their denial of the reality of "race". From the point of view of racists the "objective facts" are on their side, not ours.

This is real problem we have to face.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes I appreciate what you are saying here but my point is a little different. People, rightly or wrongly , and undeniably in the main interpret skin colour as an indicator of race. That is to say racial groupings are defined in their minds by skin colour and other physical features but particularly skin colour How do you separate the two when, for them, these things are inseparable. This is what a great many people mean by "race" and so for them race has an objective biological basis (skin colour), Appeals to learned scientific journals or assertions to the effect that race is merely a "social construct" are not going to cut any ice with them and might even, as I suggest, rebound against you. Have a look at the forum I mentioned in the OP and you will see what I mean

How do you break out of this impasse? The whole point of the exercise is to combat racist ideas and to do that effectively we have to attack such ideas at their weakest point - their Achilles Heel

Well I think it's problematic if we take the argument too far in the "construct" direction so that race and racial oppression are made abstract: "race is a social construct and doesn't 'really' exist, so we just need a revolution and then race-problems will disolve themselves". It's the sort of radical version of "color-blind" arguments in the US.

So race is a social construct, but it's also daily lived experience - especailly in the Americas and at least in the US it's one of the main ways people sort of self-dicipline themselves in relation to society at large. So for the most part in daily sort of agitation, in social movements or whatnot, I think the issue shouldn't be so much to make "race is a social construct" the main point, but "eliminating racial oppression". "Race is a social construct" is more of an answer to well why should people of different races have the same rights and power and respect in society?

Such an perspective in that web-debate would immediately have practical implications racial seperation (as the person seems to be arguing for as "natural") wouldn't do shit to address actual concrete isses of racism in society. The whole underlying non-marxist/non-anarchist premise seems to be that (if that poster even cared about conditions for other workers not of his group) oppression of immigrants, migrants, ethnic/religious/racial minorities is the result of "intergration" which is so unnatural that it must result in such conflicts.

[Tim Cornelis]

Wow, you really are a bit of full-of-yourself moron, aren't you Tim. I made it clear in my post that there were no differences between humans to classify them as species or subspecies.

You did say that but you also referenced the genus of homo as somehow bearing any relation to racial classification:

No.

There is only one homo hominid in existence at this point in time - Homo Sapiens Sapiens. The others either interbred with Homo sapiens and/or died off, as was the case with the denisovans, neanderthals and hobbits.

Hobbits are a member of the genus homo, but are not a member of the species homo sapiens, the other two are disputed.

Then you go on to say that:

It's not 'politically correct' to realise that separate homo races do not exist in the modern day - it's just plain correct. As I mentioned earlier, other homo genus members have either interbred with, been killed off at the expense of, or directly gave rise to Homo Sapiens Sapiens, which exists at all corners of the globe, from inuits to melanesians to somalians to englishmen to arabs to hungarians to russians to san to hausas to mexicas to scandinavians to finns to han to.... well, you get the point.

As if the non-existence of other members of the genus Homo means there are no races within homo sapiens or homo sapiens sapiens. Thereby you suggest that genus and race are synonymous. So there's no need to get mad to be called out on such nonsense.


If you'd like me to elaborate, then I'll fucking elaborate. As I have said, other members of the Genus homo, such as homo floresiensis, homo neanderthalis and the denisovans, either died out (http://australianmuseum.net.au/Homo-floresiensis) and/or interbred (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.551.html) with (http://discovermagazine.com/2013/march/14-interbreeding-neanderthals#.UlIK_CRge9U) Homo sapiens.

The only other known sub-species of Homo Sapiens died out 160'000 years ago (http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/herto_skulls.php). There's your sourcing.

All you did was provide sources to the claim, which I did not dispute, that the species homo sapiens is the only extant member of the genus homo. But to say that this means races do not exist is to say that genus and race are synonymous, which is utterly wrong.


There was no 'scientific inaccuracy' to be found in my post, unless you count where I placed that fucking ridiculous term in the sentence, in which case I am sorry - I'm not good with placing completely unscientific sociological terms inside biological classification. Unless you can prove that there exists another member of the genus homo living on planet earth at this point in time, or another subspecies of homo sapiens, my argument stands. Now fuck you and good day.

No really doesn't stand. Maybe, instead of becoming all pissed off because you're being called out on spouting nonsense, you need to grow a thicker skin or learn to reflect. None of what I said was even offensive or aggressive, so I don't understand why you get your knicks in a twist. And my point is that people merely postulate the scientificity of something based on preference. They'd rather there be no races, therefore there are no races, instead of looking at the actual evidence. Proof of this is that so far '#FF0000, bcbm, Chomsssssssky, CommunistMetalhead, Comrade Dracula, Danielle Ni Dhighe, dodger, Fakeblock, Hermes, Jimmie Higgins, Rafiko Bingo, Rational Radical, Rugged Collectivist, Tenka' all these people have thanked a post which gets basic biological knowledge wrong merely because they presuppose its conclusion (races do not exist) to be correct.

unless you count where I placed that fucking ridiculous term in the sentence, in which case I am sorry - I'm not good with placing completely unscientific sociological terms inside biological classification

Also are you saying that since race is not scientific, therefore it might as well be synonymous with genus, and since there is only one extant member of genus homo, there's no such thing as races?


the burden of proof is on those trying to prove races do exist, i would think. and anyone who is basically scientifically literate about human biology and genetics knows it is scientific fact, and has been for some time, that race does not exist so i really don't see why its wrong to thank posts even if they don't feel like rehashing this subject for those who are too lazy to learn science.

Of course the burden of proof is on them, but don't then go and tell some scientifically illiterate nonsense and pass it off as proof on the contrary.


uncritical and non-scientific thinking is unwelcome, specifically that which suggests 'race' exists as anything but a social construction.

And my point is that people merely postulate the scientificity of something based on preference. They'd rather there be no races, therefore there are no races, instead of looking at the actual evidence.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm not sure what you are arguing Tim. What is the scientific or objective measure of race? I think people are arguing for the most part that it exists as something in society, but has no scientific or objective measure. How would race be defined scientifically - if it is not a socially created category? Socially in the 1950s, US people considered Arabs and Persians to be white, but by the 1970s Arabs were considered their own "race" socially. As other people mentioned, the racial caste structures of the Spanish colonies vs. the US south vs. the US north in the last centuries fluxuated quite a bit and so someone who was light-skinned at one point in one region would be considered black if they had any black ancestory, they would be considered something else in other situations.

It seems historically that the only consistant when it comes to racial categorization is that it has a lot more to do with social rights and treatment, local customs, and political/legal classifications than anything biological.

[Quail]

Its a good point - referring to what is called the boundary problem - but, be aware, that it can rebound against you. For example, it could be used to argue that we dont actually live in a class based society based on discrete classes but in a society in which there is a continuous spectrum to be found whereby one individual can be differentiated from another in terms of the amount of capital they possess. There would thus be a grey area between working class and capitalist class as you move from one to the other, not a sharp dividing line. It is the absence of a sharp dividing line that could then be construed by some as evdience that we dont actually live in a class society.


I don't think this is really true if we define classes as the relationship to the means of production. There aren't that many grey areas.

[synthesis]

In other words, what matters is not whether or not races exist as a biological reality but, rather, what importance you attach to their existence. It may well be true that races as biological categoies do not exist and that the very concept of race is unscientific but this is not going to cut much ice with the "commonsensical" view of Joe and Jill Citizen.

The problem with this line of thinking, to me, is that it assumes that Joe and Jill Citizen are idiots who can't think for themselves. Even if Mr. and Mrs. Citizen are just stuck in their ways, so to speak, we can at least hope that their kids won't be.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm not sure what you are arguing Tim. What is the scientific or objective measure of race? I think people are arguing for the most part that it exists as something in society, but has no scientific or objective measure. How would race be defined scientifically - if it is not a socially created category? Socially in the 1950s, US people considered Arabs and Persians to be white, but by the 1970s Arabs were considered their own "race" socially. As other people mentioned, the racial caste structures of the Spanish colonies vs. the US south vs. the US north in the last centuries fluxuated quite a bit and so someone who was light-skinned at one point in one region would be considered black if they had any black ancestory, they would be considered something else in other situations.

It seems historically that the only consistant when it comes to racial categorization is that it has a lot more to do with social rights and treatment, local customs, and political/legal classifications than anything biological.

As I already explained twice, the changing definitions and demarcations of race is not sufficient refutation that race, as a biological concept, does not exist. It can simply mean that the social understanding of race does not align or conform to its biological reality. So yes, it's a fact that race is understood as a social construct (because it's a fact that it's been defined differently over time and between places). However, this does not preclude that it exists as a biological concept as well. In other words, folk taxonomy does not mean scientific taxonomy is not possible also.

Race would be something of (hypothetical) taxonomically distinct groups with diverging genetic patterns and alleles within the same species (in which case it is a subspecies) or subspecies (in which case it's below a subspecies). Now, is it possible to determine this? Probably not, and not as far as I know. Starr Linn, on the contrary, argued that, among others, Hobbits and Homo Sapiens Sapiens are different races (while in reality they are different species, which he ignorantly seems to equate), and that since hobbits and all other such members of the genus homos are extinct, homo sapiens sapiens are the only human race left, and therefore different races do not exist. However, genus, species, and race are distinct biological categories and thus the claim made by Starr Linn is scientifically inaccurate -- yet, it received many 'thanks'.

So what I'm arguing is that people should follow the scientific method and not just believe that races do not exist because they deem it inconvenient or uncomfortable -- not just postulate something.

[Blake's Baby]

So, scientifically the question is 'is there any biological/genetic basis for a theory of "races"?' and the answer is 'no'. That's what you're saying, I think?

[Jimmie Higgins]

As I already explained twice, the changing definitions and demarcations of race is not sufficient refutation that race, as a biological concept, does not exist. It can simply mean that the social understanding of race does not align or conform to its biological reality. So yes, it's a fact that race is understood as a social construct (because it's a fact that it's been defined differently over time and between places). However, this does not preclude that it exists as a biological concept as well. In other words, folk taxonomy does not mean scientific taxonomy is not possible also.Yes, but what I am not understanding is what IS that scientific basis? I know of none and what I do know about human genetics is that we are vastly similar and genetically mixed compared to even other primates. Groups of Chimps (not Chimps and Bonobos, but just Chimps) that live hundreds of miles apart have much more genetic differences than all of humans all over the world. This is because we spread and move quickly and have things like world trade (and had trade and networks over vast regions even before modern civilizations and economic trade systems).

So I don't understand your insistance on a "hypothetical" scientific understanding of race when there isn't any evidence for it as far as I'm aware and even if there was such a consistant biological categorization that meant anything it would have very little to do with "race" as a (constructed) social reality today.


Race would be something of (hypothetical) taxonomically distinct groups with diverging genetic patterns and alleles within the same species (in which case it is a subspecies) or subspecies (in which case it's below a subspecies). Now, is it possible to determine this? Probably not, and not as far as I know.But what is the basis of these genetic patterns and even if they existed, what would be the ramifications for "race" as we know it in modern society which is not based on any of this anyway?


So what I'm arguing is that people should follow the scientific method and not just believe that races do not exist because they deem it inconvenient or uncomfortable -- not just postulate something.But I don't think this is the starting point for revolutionary ideas and theories of race (and race as a social construct) anyway. This seems besides the point to me: race exists in a meaningful political way in terms of a "social construct" - racial oppression and restrictions are the aspect of "race" that is meaningful. If there are genetic patterns or not, there is no practical differences between people of different groups outside of the way they are treated in modern constructed social dynamics and rights.

[Tim Cornelis]

So, scientifically the question is 'is there any biological/genetic basis for a theory of "races"?' and the answer is 'no'. That's what you're saying, I think?

Well my point was not so much that, but yes that was what I was saying.

The question would be, for example:
Given the evident differences in appearances of different populations native to a particular region -- so much that anyone, even without having enjoyed either informal or formal education in biology or anthropology can readily and effortlessly distinguish between them solely on that basis and accurately categorise them accordingly, for instance as African, European, and Mongoloid -- can we recognise divergent genetic patterns between various human populations whereby different populations would be able to be classified on the basis of such genetic patterns, and thereby constitute a taxonomic unit below species (homo sapiens) or perhaps subspecies (homo sapiens sapiens), called "race"?

The (ostensible) answer:


DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.

No.

(The reason for this more elaborate exposition is to answer Jimmie Higgins)


Yes, but what I am not understanding is what IS that scientific basis? I know of none and what I do know about human genetics is that we are vastly similar and genetically mixed compared to even other primates. Groups of Chimps (not Chimps and Bonobos, but just Chimps) that live hundreds of miles apart have much more genetic differences than all of humans all over the world. This is because we spread and move quickly and have things like world trade (and had trade and networks over vast regions even before modern civilizations and economic trade systems).

So I don't understand your insistance on a "hypothetical" scientific understanding of race when there isn't any evidence for it as far as I'm aware and even if there was such a consistant biological categorization that meant anything it would have very little to do with "race" as a (constructed) social reality today.

But what is the basis of these genetic patterns and even if they existed, what would be the ramifications for "race" as we know it in modern society which is not based on any of this anyway?

But I don't think this is the starting point for revolutionary ideas and theories of race (and race as a social construct) anyway. This seems besides the point to me: race exists in a meaningful political way in terms of a "social construct" - racial oppression and restrictions are the aspect of "race" that is meaningful. If there are genetic patterns or not, there is no practical differences between people of different groups outside of the way they are treated in modern constructed social dynamics and rights.

The question of race is a question of whether or not a taxonomic unit below homo sapiens or homo sapiens sapiens exists (see explanation in this post above). Starr Linn, in contrast, treated it as if race were equal to genus or species. So applying the scientific method to the question of race is producing evidence that concludes whether or not a taxonomic unit of 'race' exists in humans, which, apparently, the Human Genome Project has done, concluding negatively. That is scientific. Misrepresenting the question of race and conflating it with genus or species is not applying the scientific method, and for this reason I called it scientifically illiterate and ignorant.

[bcbm]

Misrepresenting the question of race and conflating it with genus or species is not applying the scientific method, and for this reason I called it scientifically illiterate and ignorant.

they said that humans are all homo sapiens sapiens and there exists no reason to subclassify beyond that into something like 'races,' which is scientifically accurate.

[Tim Cornelis]

they said that humans are all homo sapiens sapiens and there exists no reason to subclassify beyond that into something like 'races,' which is scientifically accurate.

That'd be scientifically accurate, but that was not what was said. Read the first post:

Question: do races exist?

Answer: There is only one homo hominid in existence at this point in time - Homo Sapiens Sapiens. The others either interbred with Homo sapiens and/or died off, as was the case with the denisovans, neanderthals and hobbits.

The implication of this being that since there are no 'homo hominid' other than homo sapiens sapiens alive, there are no races, and, simultaneously, that if hobbits, and neanderthals, and other members of the genus homo were alive then the answer to the question of whether races exist would be a positive one. In other words, it was suggested that different species of humans is what's meant by races, it was suggested as if people claiming race exist believe Africans to be a different species than Asians. That is scientifically inaccurate and ignorant.

[bcbm]

That'd be scientifically accurate, but that was not what was said. Read the first post:

Question: do races exist?

Answer: There is only one homo hominid in existence at this point in time - Homo Sapiens Sapiens. The others either interbred with Homo sapiens and/or died off, as was the case with the denisovans, neanderthals and hobbits.

The implication of this being that since there are no 'homo hominid' other than homo sapiens sapiens alive, there are no races, and, simultaneously, that if hobbits, and neanderthals, and other members of the genus homo were alive then the answer to the question of whether races exist would be a positive one. In other words, it was suggested that different species of humans is what's meant by races, it was suggested as if people claiming race exist believe Africans to be a different species than Asians. That is scientifically inaccurate and ignorant.

'race' is typically used to mean 'subspecies' but all humans on earth today are members of homo sapiens subspecies sapiens. i can't speak to denisovans or 'hobbits' since i do not know enough, but using neanderthals as an example makes sense if you agree with the classification homo sapiens neanderthalensis, ie a sub species, which i think makes sense given evidence of interbreeding in pre-history.

[robbo203]

I don't think this is really true if we define classes as the relationship to the means of production. There aren't that many grey areas.

Hmm. I wouldnt say that. I think it is a case of one class shading into another. I dont particularly like the term "petit bourgeois" but here is a case in point where a certain section of the populace occupy precisely such a grey area.

Its the same with management. In the USA if my memory serves me correct, the average "compensation package" of CEOs (including stock options) of the top 500 companies is around $20m per year. That would most definitely put them in the lower echelons of the capitalist class. The great bulk of managers, however, get nowhere near that and particularly middle management and the lower rungs of management are overwhelmingly members of the working class in a strict Marxian sense. There is thus a gradation from these levels of management to the top managers - and particularly the top managers of large corporations - that runs right through what can quite reasonably be called a "grey area".

That doesnt mean the working class and the capitalist class dont exist. It just means that social reality is little more complex than class theory allows for. Even if most members of the working class are very clearly members or the working class and most members of the capitalist class are very clearly capitalists there is a grey area where it is difficult to decide which class the individual belongs to

To remind ourselves why we are talking about class differentiation in these terms - basically it has to do with what is called the boundary problem and this has applications for our discussion on race and racism.

What I am trying to suggest is that not advisable to invoke the boundary problem in the case of race because it can backfire and call into question our class analysis of capitalism. If race is defined in a certain way e,g, skin colour - and Im not here concerned whether such a definition is correct or not - you cannot legitimately argue that race does not exist because there is a gradation in skin colour.

If you want to argue that race does not exist you would have to argue on other grounds than this because the fact that such racial groups (as defined by skin colour) are not discrete groups does NOT mean you can cannot distinguish between people on the basis of skin colour. Anymore than you distinguish between classes because some individuals are on the boderline between capitalist and worker. Most are not and so, by the same token a racist would argue that most blacks are clearly black and most whites clearly white

[cyu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29

There are no white people or black people. If you actually saw someone with skin that can be properly described as white or black, you would probably either think that person is a freak or think he has some sort of disease.

If you wanted to properly describe people using skin color, you would have to use colors other than white and black... and for certain people, their skin color would change based on whether they've been out in the sun too much lately.

If you wanted to describe people based on geographical origin, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans pretty much makes the question moot - unless you wanted to descrbe "recent" geographical origin - in which case, I might say I was recently in the general geographical area of the bathroom.

If you wanted to describe people as Arab based on language or Jewish based on religion, then clearly those are only cultural descriptions. Long live the communist race! ;)

[tachosomoza]

No, they're a bourgeois construct.

[Tim Cornelis]

'race' is typically used to mean 'subspecies' but all humans on earth today are members of homo sapiens subspecies sapiens. i can't speak to denisovans or 'hobbits' since i do not know enough, but using neanderthals as an example makes sense if you agree with the classification homo sapiens neanderthalensis, ie a sub species, which i think makes sense given evidence of interbreeding in pre-history.

That is highly contested. Whether denisovans and neanderthals are subspecies or separate species is disputed, and there is no consensus. If they are not, then we are homo sapiens and not homo sapiens sapiens, and thus not a subspecies. Hobbits are a different species in the genus homo. Race doesn't need to be a subspecies in the same way that a breed of dogs or cats can be a race.

In this sentence:
The difference between separate ethnic groups is far too minuscule to class human groups as different species (races) or even subspecies.

Star Linn argues species is synonymous with races, and that subspecies are a subcategory or races apparently. So apparently cats and dogs are different races.

[robbo203]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29

There are no white people or black people. If you actually saw someone with skin that can be properly described as white or black, you would probably either think that person is a freak or think he has some sort of disease.

If you wanted to properly describe people using skin color, you would have to use colors other than white and black... and for certain people, their skin color would change based on whether they've been out in the sun too much lately.


Yes thats fair enough as an observation - although it can hardly be denied that people do have different skin colours. Nor can it be denied that some people - perhaps most - categorise people as belonging to different races depending on their skin colour (although other physical attributes may also be cited).

Please dont misunderstand me. Im not here trying to argue that races exist as a biological reality. My point is a very different one. What I am trying to raise as an issue for discussion is the question of the usefulness of trying to deny to existence of races as a biological reality as a way of combatiing racist ideas. To put it more bluntly, it is not particularly relevant or helpful from that point of view, arguing that race is purely a "social construct" and not a biological reality - even if this was quite true which no doubt is the case

To understand why you have to put yourself in the shoes of a racist. From the point of view of a racist , race IS a biological reality. People CAN be differentiated according skin colour and if skin colour is what defines race - we shall ignore any other aspects which might complicate the issue - then race differences is a biological reality.... because skin colour differentiation is a biological reality.

From the racist's point of view , asserting that race is purely a social construct is a denial of biological reality and as such is unscientific. For the racists, race IS a scientific fact even though you would say the exact opposite

Now of course you can argue that this is not a usefuyl way of defining race. Thats is true. But dont you see - here is the problem. Once you start arguing about definitions of race you are into the world of Humpty Dumpty where, as Humpty Dumpty said , a "word means whatever I say it means". There is no way of getting a racist to see the error of his or her ways using this approach because they will simply say you are the one who is being unscientific and ignoring the biological reality of race. If you dont believe look at the contributions by the individual called Hrothgar on the SPGB forum which I mentioned about in the OP (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/government-launches-immigrants-go-home-campaign?page=17)


Far better, I would say, is to simply bypass the whole question of whether or not race is a biological reality and focus instead on the significance of the concept. The approach I would adopt towards someone harbouring racist ideas would be to say even assuming that races did exist why does that matter? It is in attempting to show how race allegedly matters that the whole nonsenical worldview of the racist will become all too apparent

[Blake's Baby]

Not really. No racist defines race by skin colour alone. The point about races is that external differences are also mirrored by internal (generally, psychological) differences. Black people are childlike, have no moral sense, are lazy, prone to criminality etc. White people are hard-working, innovative, clever and natural leaders. If all racists were saying was 'people have different coloured skin' then ther'd be no point in arguing. People do. We're different heights too, but you rarely see people arguing that that's significant.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I have a few thoughts - I confess that I skimmed the thread to some degree, so I hope I'm not either repeating anything or going wildly off topic.

For starters, I think we need to get way more historically and politically specific when we talk about race, because what "race" means now is different than what race meant even a hundred years ago (let alone a few hundred!), and, similarly, means something different in Canada than in China. This is an important starting point when dealing with arseholes who hold up "scientific" notions of race: It's not that there was some breakthrough showing, "Aha! Celts, Slavs, and Anglo-Saxons were the same race all along - white!" or that geneticists finally discovered, "Here the gene that differentiates Spaniards and Moors, Greeks and Turks!" Contemporary race is a judico-political and economic historical phenomenon, not a revelation.

Secondly, I think it's really important to grapple with the relationship between race and class, and, speaking here particularly from a N. American settler-colonial context, the "colour coding" of proletarians, often in explicit de jure terms (Jim Crow, the Indian Act) in addition to more subtle systemic ways (immigration law, policing). The fact is race exists as a real line of social/political/economic demarcation within the working class: it's not a "pre-capitalist" remnant, but a very real class relationship to the means of production (for example, in de facto prison slavery, sub-minimum wage agricultural labour, de facto indentured domestic labour).

So, you know, it's not really skin colour - and it doesn't take a particularly in depth investigation to reveal this. For example, I could probably pass as Mi'kmaq (and my father def. could), so my whiteness isn't (just) my body (skin/eye/hair colour) - there are other processes that are necessary for racialization to be possible.

[robbo203]

Not really. No racist defines race by skin colour alone.

Thats what i said. I only used skin colour as a surrogate for all racist criteria of race probably because it is the primary one that is cited though, of course, there are other physical attributes that are also cited - as I indicated



The point about races is that external differences are also mirrored by internal (generally, psychological) differences. Black people are childlike, have no moral sense, are lazy, prone to criminality etc. White people are hard-working, innovative, clever and natural leaders. If all racists were saying was 'people have different coloured skin' then ther'd be no point in arguing. People do. We're different heights too, but you rarely see people arguing that that's significant.

Nobody is suggesting that all racists are saying is that 'people have different coloured skin'. The point is that they primarily (though not exclusively) distinguish between races on this basios of skin colour and once have made that distinction then attribute to each racial group certain qualities such as the ones you mention. But they can hardly call black people lazy and white people hardworking without some notion of what is meant by black and white people respectively, can they? Skin colour is an important part of theirr definition of black and white - obviously.

What I was suggesting was that instead of focussing on whether races exist, we focus on the patently ridiculous claim that being lazy or being hardworking is a function of the alleged "race" to which one supposedly belongs. Trying to persuade people that race is only a social construct and has no scientific basis when they clearly believe race exists and is linked primarily to skin colour in their view - differences in skin colour being something they can see for their own eyes - is like trying to flog a dead horse. It simply wont work


From the point of view of the racist, his or her view is based on scientific fact and observable reality. Differences in skin colour etc is undeniable, Therefore races based on these criteria is equally undeniable . Whether or not it is true that race is based on these criteria that is how the racist sees it and those who deny it are therefore, from his or her warped point of view, being unscientific , irrational and in denial about race

[Rational Radical]

But here's the thing robbo,the mere notion of skin color or other phenotypic traits being an indicator of racial differences or that races exist at all is the basis of these theories and were used to associate certain characteristics with specific groups of people who share the same skin color,hair texture,facial features etc. So it would be impossible to-from what I understand you to be hinting at separating "race from racism",the concept of race has no genetic foundation and is based off appearance rather than the actual scientific reality. And just because race seems natural to a racist doesn't mean it's something worth considering among rational people just like a preordained selfish human nature.

[robbo203]

But here's the thing robbo,the mere notion of skin color or other phenotypic traits being an indicator of racial differences or that races exist at all is the basis of these theories and were used to associate certain characteristics with specific groups of people who share the same skin color,hair texture,facial features etc. So it would be impossible to-from what I understand you to be hinting at separating "race from racism",the concept of race has no genetic foundation and is based off appearance rather than the actual scientific reality. And just because race seems natural to a racist doesn't mean it's something worth considering among rational people just like a preordained selfish human nature.

No you misunderstand where Im coming from. Im not saying race is something worth considering. In fact, Im not particularly interested in the question of whether races exists or not, t0 be quite frank. What concerns me is combating racism. You can't do that effectively by getting bogged down with a debate about whether races exists or not. Why? Because you will not ever be able to budge the racist from his or her conviction that race is a scientific fact and an observable reality since for the racist, race IS defined by phenotpypical features such as skin colour. Now skin colour differences do clearly exist even if you yourself do not consider such differences to legitimise the idea of race. For the racist such differences do precusely that.

So rather than get into a Humpty Dumpty war of words over the definition of race I suggest dont bother with the argument over whether races exist. Its an argument you cant win while a racist defines race in such a way at to make it virrually impossible to deny "races" exists. Of course. you can refuse to accept that definition but that is not going to win the argument either

The best approach I feel is to simply bypass or sidestep the whole debate about whether races exists and concentrate instead on the question of what that actually signifies if races did actually exist.. In short, does it really matter? Racism is not simply about whether races exist; its about discrimination and the grounds on which racists discriminate

THAT is the weak underbelly of racism and THAT is what we should concentrate our attack upon,

[cyu]

I would say there's a difference between discussing the validity of the concept of "human race" versus discussing dispelling racist propaganda. For dispelling racist propaganda, here are the top 2 tactics off the top of my head:

1. Discussing the usefulness of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule as a tactic for the ruling class to control both racists and non-racists.

2. Disputing "Darwinian" concepts of competition as a mistake in interpretation, as opposed to the use of cooperation in human civilization. Presenting arguments as to why ideologies based on competition (like Nazism) are in fact less fit to survive than ideologies based on cooperation.

[Rational Radical]

robbo now you're just being dishonest,your original post (even the title !!!)invited discussion of the existence of race outside it being a social construct(not only used but created to discrimante as i stated in my first post)which and I other posters have rejected based on scientific and historical evidence,I have to call you out on your BS for that. As far as sidestepping the existence of race it would be the same as sidestepping an argument that Marx(not engles;) ) was a capitalist,it should be opposed on factual grounds which in my opinion could directly challenge the perceptions of racists unless they "know" it does exists which means the whole point of debating them is pointless because they're ideologues and won't be won over,people like that,fuck em and keep it pushing on to the next prole with historical and scientific backing

[skitty]

A while back I sent some genetic material to National Geographic's Genographic Project. The results traced my journey back through northern Europe, the middle east, western Asia and Africa. Though I don't look like them now, I am all these people, a total mutt, a Heinz 57. I hope to get to the point where having a discussion about race wouldn't even occur to anyone; and I'll throw gender in there too. Maybe we're all just beings, all the way down to stray cats:).

[bcbm]

That is highly contested.

hence 'if you agree' in my statement.


If they are not, then we are homo sapiens and not homo sapiens sapiens, and thus not a subspecies.

no, we would still be homo sapiens sapiens.


Race doesn't need to be a subspecies in the same way that a breed of dogs or cats can be a race.

In this sentence:
The difference between separate ethnic groups is far too minuscule to class human groups as different species (races) or even subspecies.

Star Linn argues species is synonymous with races, and that subspecies are a subcategory or races apparently. So apparently cats and dogs are different races.

yes, that part is a bit inaccurate.


What concerns me is combating racism. You can't do that effectively by getting bogged down with a debate about whether races exists or not. Why? Because you will not ever be able to budge the racist from his or her conviction that race is a scientific fact and an observable reality since for the racist, race IS defined by phenotpypical features such as skin colour. Now skin colour differences do clearly exist even if you yourself do not consider such differences to legitimise the idea of race. For the racist such differences do precusely that.

i mean to me this sounds like argument with creationists or climate change deniers- whats the point? if they aren't going to accept scientific reality i don't see much of a point in trying to change their mind.


The best approach I feel is to simply bypass or sidestep the whole debate about whether races exists and concentrate instead on the question of what that actually signifies if races did actually exist.. In short, does it really matter? Racism is not simply about whether races exist; its about discrimination and the grounds on which racists discriminate

THAT is the weak underbelly of racism and THAT is what we should concentrate our attack upon,

if you're a racist who can't be convinced by science, i suspect your answer to 'does it really matter' will be 'yes, white power'

[robbo203]

robbo now you're just being dishonest,your original post (even the title !!!)invited discussion of the existence of race outside it being a social construct(not only used but created to discrimante as i stated in my first post)which and I other posters have rejected based on scientific and historical evidence,I have to call you out on your BS for that. As far as sidestepping the existence of race it would be the same as sidestepping an argument that Marx(not engles;) ) was a capitalist,it should be opposed on factual grounds which in my opinion could directly challenge the perceptions of racists unless they "know" it does exists which means the whole point of debating them is pointless because they're ideologues and won't be won over,people like that,fuck em and keep it pushing on to the next prole with historical and scientific backing


Perhaps Im not making myself clear or something but you (and one or two others here) still dont seem to be getting the point. There's nothing "dishonest" about what I am saying - thats a preposterous charge! - and you dont seem to understand the rhetorical point of the title if you think that. It is the racists who think race exists- obviously! - and the whole thrust of what I am trying to say is how do we tackle racist ideas I am trying to prod you into thinking strategically about this matter

What you and others are trying to do is not whittle down the whole structure of the racist argument bit by bit but to go for the big one - to attack the very assumption that races exists on the grounds that this is unscientific. As Ive repeatedly said, this is not a matter oif science but ideology. You will make no impression on the racist becuase the racist views race as a scientific fact based on empirically observable phenotypical characteristics. That is how the racist defines race afterall - yes? From the racist point of view you are one who is being unscientific , burying your head in the sand and not facing the hard facts.

So for the racist, the claim that races exist is a hermetically sealed dogma anchored in material reality - in the undeniable phenotypical characteristics that exist between people. Whether those differences amount to race is really besides the point - it is how the racist perceive them and what I am trying to say to you is that you cannot tackle definitional-type foundational statements of this kind by invoking "science". You are overlooking the very thing that makes this impossible - that race defined in this way way is an ideological construct that itself appeals to science and observable empirical reality

What I am saying is that instead of charging yourself with the impossible task of tackling the central underpinning dogma of the racist worldview - that races exist - it would be far better to focus on the way that racists apply that worldview to the social reality we live in - in the putative correlations they make between "races" and the kind of attributes that Blakes Baby mentioned and also of course in their racist and segregationist prescriptions for the world. It is in repect of these sorts of things that you can definitely make headway in exposing the absurdity of racism unlike trying to tackle head on the foundational claim that races exist


You intorduce another twist to the argument by suggesting that if you cannot tackle head on the foundational claim of the racist that races exist then you might as well not bother anyway. As you put it: "they're ideologues and won't be won over,people like that,fuck em and keep it pushing on to the next prole with historical and scientific backing"

I think this is a potentially disastrous line of thought to adopt. You are simply shooting yourself in the foot here. You are conceding ground to the racists not combating racist ideas.

Look Ill be frank here. Whatever the sceintific establishment may think I believe that the vast majority of workers do believe that races exist. Thats does not necessarily means they are consciously racist - it is I suppose theoretically possible to think races exists without necessarily thinking one is superior to the other - but it does means they share with the racist the fundamental assumption that race is a biological reality based on phenotypical difference.


This is where the racist is one up on you; they can tap into this widely, if not universally shared assumption that races exist and can introduce on the basis of that their own repugnant racist agenda. Youve got to think smart in these circumstances. You cant just "push on to the next prole with historical and scientific backing" becuase that next prole is more likely than not to think races exist as well. They are more likely than not to ask you how you can possibly deny that phenotypical differences exists - and hence races - which is what your claim that races do not exist will seem to amount to. Straightaway youy have put yourself at a disadvantage. Straightaway you have made the racist to appear to be the one in touch with reality and you to be the one with his or head in the clouds and out of touch with reality,

Invoking science will not help. Science can call into question the boundaries between so called races on the basis of genetic mixing , genetic drift and so on. But science does not deny the obvious fact that people do differ phenotypically. "Race" as a concept is the attempt to systematise these differences into a pattern. You may argue that such a pattern is a social construct and I believe that is indeed the case but you cannot assert that the raw material out of which such a pattern is constructed does not exist: phenotypical differentiation. This is what the racist seizes upon

This is also unfortunately precisely what the attempt to invoke science to disprove the existence of race will come across as saying from the point oif view o the "next prole with historical and scientific backing" and this is what will place you on a losing wicket if you insist on in making such an attempt. You will acorss as denying phenotypical differentiatiuon

Far better first to soften up the racist for the sucker punch in the end by tackling first the application of his or her race-coloured view of the world to the social reality we live in and the invalid inferences that racists draw from such a view. Thats all Im saying

[Rational Radical]

Lol I've been saying phenotypes are falsely used to place people into racial groups since my first post ,no one is disputing that or saying that we're all grey blobs who share the same physical features, what we're all arguing is these differences are insignificant and don't constitute the existence of race. As bcbm said , "skin color exists, races do not" would be the right approach, explaining why we look different ie. phenotype,the origin of the concept of race and why it was created etc. This is the only way to fight racism, and if a racist can't wrap their head around it there's nothing that you can ever do to convince them that we're equal because they "know" we're not.For an example that might get us on equal footing: if an exploited worker genuinely believes,due to his somewhat comfortable life style,that capitalism is an efficient mode of production with the purpose of allocating goods for consumption,the boss is non exploitative or people who don't have decent standards of living is due to them not being as competitive,or hardworking ,because after all we're naturally individualistic and competitive: moral of the story is you can't convince everyone and don't expect to

[Tim Cornelis]

no, we would still be homo sapiens sapiens.

No, you can't be a subspecies if there's just one subspecies -- because then that 'subspecies' would just be the species. The minimum of subspecies is two.

[StalinBad]

No.

[Jimmie Higgins]

No.Hi, you're new, so this is just a friendly request to refrain from one-liners - or one-worders in this case:lol:. It's discouraged on this website because it takes up room and doesn't help further any discussion. And we'd much rather read your thoughts on these subjects.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Hey Robbo, I see what you're getting at, but I think you're simultaneously underestimating and overestimating "the average worker" (someday I'll meet them!). In the former instance, by assuming most people couldn't grasp the historical construction of race; in the latter by assuming they've actually thought about it.

For starters, I'm going to go out on a limb, and say most people couldn't tell you why they think race exists. Race is generally presented as "common sense," - it's not something people understand well enough to defend scientifically or otherwise. Generally, in my experience, people don't think race is any more than skin colour, or skin colour plus "ethnicity" (ie culture). While people are of course resistant to anything that will cause mad cognitive dissonance, pointing out the diversity of both skin colour/bodies and ethnicity within "races" isn't a particularly theoretically difficult task.

As for explaining the social and historical construction of race, sure, one can't go-all-heavy-theory on people, but I don't think it's necessary. In terms of framing in a way people will understand, just put it out there as a history lesson, instead of as a critical theory graduate seminar. People aren't stupid. They might not ditch their socialization at the end of a one-off conversation outlining how race has developed, but provided with "the true story" they'll probably start putting two and two together given the chance.

[bcbm]

No, you can't be a subspecies if there's just one subspecies -- because then that 'subspecies' would just be the species. The minimum of subspecies is two.

yes, our direct ancestor homo sapiens idaltu was another subspecies of homo sapiens, and so we are homo sapiens sapiens regardless of whether you include neanderthals or not.

[robbo203]

Hey Robbo, I see what you're getting at


Thank heavens someone is! I was beginning to wonder if I had just not explained myself clearly enough :)



but I think you're simultaneously underestimating and overestimating "the average worker" (someday I'll meet them!). In the former instance, by assuming most people couldn't grasp the historical construction of race; in the latter by assuming they've actually thought about it.

For starters, I'm going to go out on a limb, and say most people couldn't tell you why they think race exists. Race is generally presented as "common sense," - it's not something people understand well enough to defend scientifically or otherwise. Generally, in my experience, people don't think race is any more than skin colour, or skin colour plus "ethnicity" (ie culture). While people are of course resistant to anything that will cause mad cognitive dissonance, pointing out the diversity of both skin colour/bodies and ethnicity within "races" isn't a particularly theoretically difficult task.

As for explaining the social and historical construction of race, sure, one can't go-all-heavy-theory on people, but I don't think it's necessary. In terms of framing in a way people will understand, just put it out there as a history lesson, instead of as a critical theory graduate seminar. People aren't stupid. They might not ditch their socialization at the end of a one-off conversation outlining how race has developed, but provided with "the true story" they'll probably start putting two and two together given the chance.

Yes I can go along with a great deal of what you say here but would be respectfully disagree with the approach advocated by Rational Radical which is quite different. As she or he puts it

"bcbm said , "skin color exists, races do not" would be the right approach, explaining why we look different ie. phenotype,the origin of the concept of race and why it was created etc"


I think plugging the line that races do not exist far from being the right approach is the wrong approach to combating racism for the reasons I gave. Arguing that races are a "social construct" - while that is true - is not very convincing way of going about demonstrating the non existence of races. After all, the state is a social construct as well. Does that mean it is not real, does not exist? The institution of private property is not a physical or biological fact but you try flouting the sanctity of private property by breaking into somebody's house and you will soon enough find your wrists clamped togther by a very real physical object in the shape of a pair of handcuffs.

What worrries me about this whole line of argument that "skin color exists, races do not" is that it puts those promoting this line of argument in a quite untenable position. What are you to say to a black guy in Harlem or Brixton, London, who has had first hand experience of racial discrimination. Are you gonna say to him "Well I cannot see how you could have been racially discriminated against because, actually races dont really exist you see". Come on. Lets get real here

Races may be be a social construct but that does not mean they do not exist. They exist not in a physical sense even if they are defined and demarcated in physical terms and with reference to physical phenotypes, but rather as social facts in the Durkheimian sense. You might say that races exists as a way of looking at the world in precisely the same way as classes exist. Like classes there is the possibility of ensuring that they no longer exist. In that event phenotypical characteristics such as skin colour will of course continue to exiist but without the racial connotations it has today

[Rational Radical]

robbo you have poor reading comprehension skills,my first post stated that it was CREATED for the purpose of slavery and colonization(and might I add still manifests it self via segregated communities,the war on drugs,double to triple the joblessness rate,police hyper surveillance and terrorism, prison industrial complex and more)I've been stopped and frisked because of my black skin!!!That's what make it a real thing,that it's socially imposed upon people rather than genetic differences being actually significant to categorize people in groups,it was you who tried to entertain a discussion of it existing outside of what society says,not me,and shit quite frankly it was people like CLR James,Malcolm X,Fanon and the BPP who got me into socialism as a young black man. Lol you flipped my argument on me which is quite deceptive and leads me to believe that you believed races could've existed but then when rational people jumped on the thread and shot the idea down you went along with the flow,I mean didn't you bring up the idea for "tribalism" a few pages back then sidestepped it to it being a discussion by how to combat racism without saying race doesn't exist ? Please,I see right through you,you wanted some rationale on why you probably grab your purse when you see young black men and got everything except that then misrepresented opinions. New viewers could go to any page to see what I'm talking about. Robbo,guess what ? No matter how much Marx or Kropotkin you read it doesn't make you immune from saying or entertaining dumb shit. RR out,not posting on this thread no more but I usually break promises and will read it still.

[cyu]

Racism is taught. Calling people white, black, Arab, or Jew is also taught. Nobody is born into the world knowing what a white man is, or what a black man is. Kids do notice that everyone looks different from one another, however, they don't learn to call some people "black people" or others "Arabs" until someone "teaches" them what a "black person" is, or what a "Jew" is.

Whether kids are taught this by relatives, friends, teachers, or other people, these ideas do not simply exist spontaneously. They are brought into existence. While the spread of many memes do occur unconsciously and subconsciously, there are also memes that are created and spread through intentional and conscious acts.

So what good is it for a society to have memes about race? If these memes do not make a society more fit to survive, why do they exist at all? I would say that though race memes don't make the society itself more fit to survive, since they play a big role in the divide-and-conquer tactics of the ruling class, they help the ruling class itself survive. And because the ruling class wields more power than everyone else, their power allows them to spread the kinds of memes that keeps them entrenched in power.

If you wanted a culture or society that de-emphasized memes about race, you would have to overthrow those who benefit from divide-and-conquer tactics. Control of the mass media would have to be taken away from both capitalist authoritarians and other kinds of authoritarians. Until that happens, race-baiting will always be part of their arsenal of control.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

A while back I sent some genetic material to National Geographic's Genographic Project. The results traced my journey back through northern Europe, the middle east, western Asia and Africa. Though I don't look like them now, I am all these people, a total mutt, a Heinz 57. I hope to get to the point where having a discussion about race wouldn't even occur to anyone; and I'll throw gender in there too. Maybe we're all just beings, all the way down to stray cats:).

I've always wanted to do this but most of the companies that provide this service have some terrifying terms of service when it comes to what they can do with your genome afterwards. Did you happen to look into what national geographic's TOS was? It would be great to find a place that did it, without having the right to mass produce cloned ethics gradients to mine asteroids at some point in the future or whatever the fuck.

[skitty]

I've always wanted to do this but most of the companies that provide this service have some terrifying terms of service when it comes to what they can do with your genome afterwards. Did you happen to look into what national geographic's TOS was? It would be great to find a place that did it, without having the right to mass produce cloned ethics gradients to mine asteroids at some point in the future or whatever the fuck.They do claim to have an option where one remains anonymous; but I threw caution to the wind and went public, making myself available for questions regarding known ancestors. I hope, by going this route, they will throw more info my way in the future.

[robbo203]

robbo you have poor reading comprehension skills,my first post stated that it was CREATED for the purpose of slavery and colonization(and might I add still manifests it self via segregated communities,the war on drugs,double to triple the joblessness rate,police hyper surveillance and terrorism, prison industrial complex and more)I've been stopped and frisked because of my black skin!!!That's what make it a real thing,that it's socially imposed upon people rather than genetic differences being actually significant to categorize people in groups,it was you who tried to entertain a discussion of it existing outside of what society says,not me,and shit quite frankly it was people like CLR James,Malcolm X,Fanon and the BPP who got me into socialism as a young black man. Lol you flipped my argument on me which is quite deceptive and leads me to believe that you believed races could've existed but then when rational people jumped on the thread and shot the idea down you went along with the flow,I mean didn't you bring up the idea for "tribalism" a few pages back then sidestepped it to it being a discussion by how to combat racism without saying race doesn't exist ? Please,I see right through you,you wanted some rationale on why you probably grab your purse when you see young black men and got everything except that then misrepresented opinions. New viewers could go to any page to see what I'm talking about. Robbo,guess what ? No matter how much Marx or Kropotkin you read it doesn't make you immune from saying or entertaining dumb shit. RR out,not posting on this thread no more but I usually break promises and will read it still.

I get tired of having to explain myself yet again. Again and again you are missing the point completely. Its not me that has "poor comprehension skills" but you, friend, with your ridiculous misconstructions of what I have been saying. Strewth, what is about some on the Left and their seemingly inveterate ability to think outside the black box , outside of their comfortable little circle of well honed cliches.

Look, nothing you said about racism being created for the purposes of slavery and colonisation contradicts what I said. Do you not understand this or do I really have to spell it out for you? I am not disagreeing with you at all in that respect. Why do you keep on insisiting that I am?

You are barking up completely the wrong tree, as I far as I am concerned. Ive said racism is a social construct and therefore ipso facto has a historical dimension. That is , it developed out of the movement of society through history. However, that does NOT lend support to the claim repeatedly made here that "skin color exists, races do not" This is where our disagreement lies and its quite clear to me that you haven't got a clue why it is that I take issue with this claim. You imagine somehow that I am saying race is a biological reality but that is not at all what i am saying.


What I am saying is that claim "skin color exists, races do not" is a a case of pure idealism which detatches the idea of race from society. It is an ahistorical prouncement on the concept of race. THIS IS WHAT I AM CRITICISING.


Races DO exist but they exist NOT as biological facts but as social constructs or social facts in Durkheim's sense of the word. When you say say races do not exist what you are really saying is that that you would rather they did not exist. So do I but we are talking about the world as it is, not as we would like it to be


The utter absurdiy of your whole position is fully exposed to the light of day when you admit that racism still "manifests it self via segregated communities,the war on drugs,double to triple the joblessness rate,police hyper surveillance and terrorism, prison industrial complex and more)". But racial discrimination is an absolutely meaningless concept without the accompanying concept of race upon which it is predicated. You cannot discriminate between people on grounds of race without some idea that they belong to a different "race" to you. Thats pretty obvious is it not?

This is the point. Racism is an outlook, a mindset, a way of looking at the world. Races are constitutted out this mindset. Races are not biological facts. They are, rather, social assemblages of biological facts into certain patterns to facilitate certain identifiable social purposes such as slavery which you mentioned

You half get this point when you say:

That's what make it a real thing,that it's socially imposed upon people rather than genetic differences being actually significant to categorize people in groups

Yes, racism is something that is socially imposed on people, it is something we are socialised into. But you entirely miss the point when you suggest that genetic differencves are not actually significant when it comes to categorising people into groups. It is racism and the historical forces that lead to racism that makes these genetic differences significant, that invests them with significance. This is another instance of your underlying idealist way of looking at things - the suggestion that "significance" is something that emerges from the material being examined rather than from the society or the individuals who doing the examining

The French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu, once said something along the lines that every social order seeks to brring about the "naturalisation" of its own arbitrariness. You can look on racism in the same light. It organises the spectrum of genetic differences into particular patterns that serves its own purposes . Phenotypical characteristics such as skin colour constitute genetically based markers which demarcate different racial groups that constitute the building blocks of the racist world view. It is in this way that racism seeks to "naturalise" and so perpetuate itself - by anachoring itself in the particular patterns it constructs out of the very natural (inherited) differences that eixst between people


In perpetiuating itself racism presents itself as a social fact as a way of looking at the world, constraining or directing us to distinguish between people along certain lines and in terms of "race". The fact that races are a social construct, however, does not make them not "real" or "non existent". Keep in mind that race is a concept, the only sensible interpretation of the claim that "race does not exist" is that people do not entertain such a concept. Is that what you arre saying? If so that is palpable nonsense. If only it were true we would not be having this conversation.


Your criterion for something to "exist" seems to be that it must have a physical reality - it must be physical in itself. Logically then according to this reductionist view the state cannot exist, private property cannot exist, classes cannot exist. This is utter madness. Its is naive empiricism at its worst. Show me how in your terms, and according to your empiricist understanding of the term "existence", how the working class can be said to 'exist". Can you touch taste, smell, see or hear the working class? No of course not. Sure, you can touch taste smell see or hear individual workers but where does the working class fit into this epistemological explanation? You are supposed to be a revolutiuonary socialist who sees the working class as the revolutionary subject but how can that be if you have deprived yourself of any grounds for believing in the existence of such a class?

The working class exists as a social construct in the same way as races exist as a social consruct. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend that this is not the case and that people who are being racially disciriminated against are not really being discirimninated because, well, "races dont exist" but you are not going to alter the fact - or precisely the social fact that races do exist in a certain sense - in the mind of people . For them races are "real" and that is precisely the problem you want to ignore


Social facts have a capacity to change - and even die out and disappear - as society changes. However, if you dont understand that racism and racial categorisation of people is a social fact that is deeply embedded in the minds of people then you cannot begin to understand how we are ever going to remove this scourge of racism from our midst

[bcbm]

i don't think anyone here was denying the existence of race as a social construction.. quite the opposite. but dismantling the biological aspect of race is part of destroying the social construction of race.

[robbo203]

i don't think anyone here was denying the existence of race as a social construction.. quite the opposite. but dismantling the biological aspect of race is part of destroying the social construction of race.

Do I take that to mean, then, that you have rescinded your orginal claim "skin color exists, races do not". You now seem to agree that races do indeed exist as a social construct.

The question remains however - how do you dismantle the "biological aspect of race" - racial phenotypes - when it is precisely these that serves as markers in the social construction of race? I dont think you can, personally speaking. To the contrary, I think it is the social construction of race that needs to challenged as a whole since the biological aspect of race is an integral part of race as a social construct and cannot therefore be "destroyed" independently of that social construct. In others you cannot prove to the satisfaction of a racist that races do not exist because of such processes as genetic mixing or genetic drift because the racist can always point to the existence of biologically-based phenotypes as evidence of the existence of races and as a means of "naturalising" his or her own social construction of race

The only way to destroy the social construction of race is to demonstrate its complete and utter irrelevance to our lives. We can then happily admit to the existence of differences in skin colour without this signifiying anything of consequence

[bcbm]

Do I take that to mean, then, that you have rescinded your orginal claim "skin color exists, races do not". You now seem to agree that races do indeed exist as a social construct.


uncritical and non-scientific thinking is unwelcome, specifically that which suggests 'race' exists as anything but a social construction.

the claim 'skin color exists, races do not' was suggested as a possible response to the argument from 'joe or jill citizen' that ' youre trying to tell me that there are no white people and black people and that you cant tell the difference between them,' which is a sensible way to begin a discussion on the fact that 'white people and black people' as racial categories have no biological basis. skin color exists and is a way you can tell 'the difference between them,' but that different does not mean they come from different 'races.'

or, in short, no i don't rescind anything.


The question remains however - how do you dismantle the "biological aspect of race" - racial phenotypes - when it is precisely these that serves as markers in the social construction of race?

by showing that they are a bullshit factor in determining anything about a human being beyond the fact that their skin is a certain color? which is easy to do given that there exists no biological basis for using skin color as an arbiter of race any more than eye color.


I dont think you can, personally speaking. To the contrary, I think it is the social construction of race that needs to challenged as a whole since the biological aspect of race is an integral part of race as a social construct and cannot therefore be "destroyed" independently of that social construct.

yes, hence 'part of.'


In others you cannot prove to the satisfaction of a racist that races do not exist because of such processes as genetic mixing or genetic drift because the racist can always point to the existence of biologically-based phenotypes as evidence of the existence of races and as a means of "naturalising" his or her own social construction of race

and like i said before, a racist is not going to be convinced whatever you argue and your suggestion of 'if race exists, so what?' will likely illicit the response 'white power.' arguing with a racist is like arguing with a climate denier, it isn't likely to go anywhere. but for any potential to be fruitful, i think peer-evaluated scientific literature is not a bad place to start from. add in a little history and you have a nice package of dismantling race. if that isn't something they will accept, there is no point in continuing the discussion because they are a troglodyte.


The only way to destroy the social construction of race is to demonstrate its complete and utter irrelevance to our lives. We can then happily admit to the existence of differences in skin colour without this signifiying anything of consequence

and no racist will accept this however nicely you try to package it. but anyone with a working mind will surely see some value in scientific and historical fact.

[cyu]

The only way to destroy the social construction of race is to demonstrate its complete and utter irrelevance to our lives.


That would require control of the mass media of course =]

I remember a study that showed that people who watched more TV tended to have more racist attitudes. Can't find it right now unfortunately =/

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5350/7390069728_167d31af94_z.jpg

[robbo203]

the claim 'skin color exists, races do not' was suggested as a possible response to the argument from 'joe or jill citizen' that ' youre trying to tell me that there are no white people and black people and that you cant tell the difference between them,' which is a sensible way to begin a discussion on the fact that 'white people and black people' as racial categories have no biological basis. skin color exists and is a way you can tell 'the difference between them,' but that different does not mean they come from different 'races.'

or, in short, no i don't rescind anything.

Well , be that as it may, you now seem to agree that races do indeed exist as a social construct which is a little different from, and sits uneasily with, theother claim you made that "races do not exist". I took the latter to mean that races dont exist in any sense - hence, perhaps the confusion. Social constructs are no less "real" for being social constructs. The state or the institution of private property "exist" despite not being biological or physical facts. And racial discrimmination which clearly exists presupposes the existence of races between which such discrimination takes place

I would, however, take issue with your claim that "racial categories have no biological basis" - or, at any rate, I suggest it could be misleading. Race is a social construct rather than a biological fact but nevertheless it is one that seeks to differentiate between individuals in quite obviously biological terms - that is, in terms of clusters of phenotypical traits of which skin colour is arguably the most salient. In other words, a racist outlook strives to naturalise itself in what are clearly biological terms. The racial categories themselves - white, black, etc - may be social in origin but their terms of reference are distinctly biological




by showing that they are a bullshit factor in determining anything about a human being beyond the fact that their skin is a certain color? which is easy to do given that there exists no biological basis for using skin color as an arbiter of race any more than eye color.
.


Yes of course biological phenotypes tell us nothing about a human beiung other than the fact that "their skin is a certain color". Thats precisely what I have been saying all along and what I have been arguing is the primary point that need to be stressed in combating racist ideas, That is to say, the irrelevance of racially categorising people. But you kind of miss the point when you say there is "no biological basis for using skin color as an arbiter of race any more than eye color". Of course it is not a "biological basis" upon which skin colour is chosen as an arbiter of race (unless one is saying white people are genetically disposed to prefer white people or black, black) . But that does not mean there is no reason why skin colour should thus be chosen. The reason is ideological. It is ideology not biology that latches onto to such criteria as skin colour and invests it with symbolic significance. People are not racist because they dont understand biology and genetics and have got it all wrong from that point oif view




and like i said before, a racist is not going to be convinced whatever you argue and your suggestion of 'if race exists, so what?' will likely illicit the response 'white power.' arguing with a racist is like arguing with a climate denier, it isn't likely to go anywhere. but for any potential to be fruitful, i think peer-evaluated scientific literature is not a bad place to start from. add in a little history and you have a nice package of dismantling race. if that isn't something they will accept, there is no point in continuing the discussion because they are a troglodyte.
.

But what would peer-evaluated scientific literature demonstrate? How would it convince a racist that his or her views are untenable? It is enough for the racist to point to the fact that people clearly vary in such characteristics as skin colour. Science cannot refute that since clearly people do vary in skin colour, dont they?


You can see then why from the racist point of view, trying to prove that races do not exist when, from that point of view. race is identified with skin colour (amongst other things) , will come across as absurd. It is tantamount to trying to prove that variation in skin colour does not exist. As I have been say all along, the real problem is why people attach significance to skin colour at all. This is not something that science - or at least the biological sceinces - is equpped to answer. It is a social matter becuase race is a social construct

Science can provide an explanation as why "White" people are "white" and "black" people are black in terms of the degree of melanin pigmentation and how this came about from an evolutiuonary perspective etc etc but it cannot in itself get to grips with the significance that racists attach to the fact that some people are white and others, black.



and no racist will accept this however nicely you try to package it. but anyone with a working mind will surely see some value in scientific and historical fact.

The problem is that the vast majority of people associate race with things like skin colour. This is not at all the same as saying nearly everyone is a racist. To be a racist is to evaluate different races differently and is not neceesarily about admitting different races exist. You and I both agree that different races exist as social constructs. These constructs rely on certain criteria like skin colour which are biological in character. That is a matter of convention rather than science.


Unless I have badly miusunderstand you, you seem to be saying that we need to get people to stop thinking that races exist using science as our weapon of choice. I think thats the wrong way of going about resolving the problem not least becuase race is a question of how people to define it . You cant "scientifically prove that the defintion is wrong. What you can scientifically prove is some hypothesis constructed on the basis of this definition such as that "white people are hardworking and black people are lazy" is wrong. Scientific proof is about cause-and-effect relationships. It is not about defintions. The fact that people define race in terms of skin colour is not scientifically interesting but it is sociologically illuminating


I*dont know if Im making myself clear but I hope you get the drfit of what I am saying . The point Im making is once people find they are unable to infer anything socially significant from the existence of "races" the very idea of race as a social construct will wither and die along wioth racism itself

[Rational Radical]

"Yes bcbm,you have finally realized races are a social construct with no biological basis even though you've said it since your first post ,but you miss the part about it having a biological basis and it existing outside of a social construct, which you dint specify in your first post,although the racist is wrong with no proof he has his proof that makes you wrong, perhaps I'm not making myself clear" oh the mindfuckeryyy

[robbo203]

"Yes bcbm,you have finally realized races are a social construct with no biological basis even though you've said it since your first post ,but you miss the part about it having a biological basis and it existing outside of a social construct, which you dint specify in your first post,although the racist is wrong with no proof he has his proof that makes you wrong, perhaps I'm not making myself clear" oh the mindfuckeryyy

No no no - you dont get it, do you? The biological basis upon which racism grounds itself is constititued WITHIN the process of socially constructing the notion of race - not outside it! As Ive said umpteen times, before racism is not a science, it is an ideology, and "race" is not an inference drawn from the objective study of biology but one imposed upon it. It is a particular interpretation of the biological data which is linked to a particular socio-historical project such as slavery or colonialism as you yourself pointed out.

Racism actively selects those biological criteria , those phenotypical traits such as skin colour as the basis upon which it categorises and demarcates between people along racial lines. It has to do this , it has to "naturalise" itself - that is to say present "race" as something embedded in nature and expressing our natural essence. Otherwise there would be no point to racism at all, would there?

[Yuppie Grinder]

If you look at how much the concept of race has changed through history, it becomes obvious race is an artificial social construct. People from different environments have different physical characteristics, but people aren't naturally divided into neat little categories like that. Races are arbitrary classifications, subject to change, with no scientific validity.

[robbo203]

If you look at how much the concept of race has changed through history, it becomes obvious race is an artificial social construct. People from different environments have different physical characteristics, but people aren't naturally divided into neat little categories like that. Races are arbitrary classifications, subject to change, with no scientific validity.

That is absolutely true but nevertheless racist ideology has to insist that these arbitary classifications are not arbitrary at all but natural and embedded in nature. The very logic of racism requires this otherwise it cannot function as an ideology on its own terms. So it has to assume that what we, as antiracists. see as arbitrary and changing is instead something fixed and eternal. It has to delude itself into thinking it has scientific validity. This, Im afraid, is the point that bcbm and Rational Radical have been missing

[Rational Radical]

Lol robbo we've been saying phenotypic differences are used as a basis of placing human beings into racial groups very early in this discussion,that's not what we're opposing,we were rejecting the method of sidestepping debunking race as purely a social construct used to oppress,and that debating racists who would flat out reject historical and scientific fact is pointless because they're mind is already made up. We(especially a black male like myself) wouldnt give a fuck about trying to convince some middle aged klansmen that race is a social construct that actually oppresses him too,but if we can use these facts for his children who haven't perhaps been as brainwashed as their father and just other humans beings as well it would be extremely powerful and change their perceptions,making them question if there are other things that have no legitimacy but have been legitimized ie the state, private property, and how they function in society. That's all we've been saying, so it's as if you were agreeing with us the whole time...