Is race REALLY just a social construct?

[Antiochus]

What needs to be understood about scientific racism is that it is an unscientific method for the reflexive justification of a social hypothesis (e.g Creationists using "science").

Now, there is only a single homosapien species extant today for which there are NO APOMORPHIES that would distinguish "Black" or "White" people. What exists are continuums for the exact same fucking traits, with the exact same function (i.e variation, a basic principle of evolution). So, it doesn't actually mean anything that group A has a wider nose than group B and group C has a darker pigment, because no taxonomist would ever divide taxonomic groups like this.

Furthermore, the whole notion of race, which any thinking communist must understand is simply a part of the ideological justification for present conditions (i.e "Black people are poor because they are stupid and lazy").

Finally, one needs to understand that "race" (what a person's superficial phenotype 'says' about him/her) and genetic proximity are not actually all that correlated. Finns are genetically closer to people from Siberia than to nearby Danes, despite the "Nordicism" present in Finland and the title as the world's blondest country.

[Kirran]

What needs to be understood about scientific racism is that it is an unscientific method for the reflexive justification of a social hypothesis (e.g Creationists using "science").

Now, there is only a single homosapien species extant today for which there are NO APOMORPHIES that would distinguish "Black" or "White" people. What exists are continuums for the exact same fucking traits, with the exact same function (i.e variation, a basic principle of evolution). So, it doesn't actually mean anything that group A has a wider nose than group B and group C has a darker pigment, because no taxonomist would ever divide taxonomic groups like this.

Furthermore, the whole notion of race, which any thinking communist must understand is simply a part of the ideological justification for present conditions (i.e "Black people are poor because they are stupid and lazy").

Finally, one needs to understand that "race" (what a person's superficial phenotype 'says' about him/her) and genetic proximity are not actually all that correlated. Finns are genetically closer to people from Siberia than to nearby Danes, despite the "Nordicism" present in Finland and the title as the world's blondest country.

A substantial part of why I registered here (aside from the whole being-an-anarchist thing) was so I could agree with this post.

"Racial" genetic differences tend to be distributed either polymorphically or clinally.

[Tankie]

Race was created by scientists back in the day to justify racism. There is no race, just human species. If there were different species of humans then how can we interbreed with each other???

gotcha! :thumbup1:

[Long Live Mosley]

All through-out nature we see evidence of race among the animal kingdom. Whether it be lions, whales, birds. Whichever it may be. We can see different physical and mental traits (fur color, shape of bones or skull, behavior) among a species of animal. Take for example the African Elephant and the Asian Elephant or the Tiger and the Snow Tiger, this is called a "sub species" This taxonomic rank also applies to humans e.g blacks and whites have different types of hair, skin, stature and mental behavior. But to say a black or an asian is a "subspecies" of the human species is considered "racist" But race is definitely real, I can assure you.

[Alet]

All through-out nature we see evidence of race among the animal kingdom. Whether it be lions, whales, birds. Whichever it may be. We can see different physical and mental traits (fur color, shape of bones or skull, behavior) among a species of animal. Take for example the African Elephant and the Asian Elephant or the Tiger and the Snow Tiger, this is called a "sub species" This taxonomic rank also applies to humans e.g blacks and whites have different types of hair, skin, stature and mental behavior. But to say a black or an asian is a "subspecies" of the human species is considered "racist" But race is definitely real, I can assure you.

He is very likely a troll, but this is not my point anyway. Even if he's genuine, I'm not going to discuss with this disgusting fucking piece of shit who thinks his pathetic life is a Hollywood movie and that we meager Communists therefore have to "convince" our precious, special boy as if particularly his, Long Live Mosley's personal engagement matters. This should be clear to every active member here by now - I do hope that I don't need to explain why the only appropriate answer to fascist scum is physical violence. What I want to point out is his line of argumentation and his justifications, of course not because it is in any way profound but for a very simple reason. We just had a discussion about man's relation to the animal kingdom, what defines humanity insofar as the SOCIAL/POLITICAL significance of man is concerned. Do not be confused by the fascists' fascination/concern for ecology, there is no inconsistency, ecologism really is a reactionary ideology, which pervaded the Left. Look at how this pathetic scum justifies racism: THIS, ladies and gentleman, this is the logical conclusion of perceiving humans as just another species among the animal kingdom. THIS is what it really leads to. That's why all those disgusting Leftists who infiltrate our intellectual "spaces" (I don't recall the appropriate term) with their disgusting talk of evolutionary psychology and how humans are "evidently" animals must not be tolerated: He who does not unconditionally reject every and all determinism and human nature/instincts, who does not realize that this controversy is class struggle on the level of theory, that the animality is effectively projected onto the precariat, the ghetto dwellers, Blacks, Muslims etc., who are in an anti-democratic manner excluded from the use of reason, which is reserved for the bourgeois expert - these ignorant pseudo-Leftists will sooner or later end up supporting neo-fascism. There is no reason for politeness; if you are not outright enraged by statements such as "humans are animals", if you think that this is less offensive than bluntly calling someone a motherfucking piece of shit, you should not associate with our tradition.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

He is very likely a troll, but this is not my point anyway.


Are we surprised that a guy named after a fascist is a troll?

[Fellow_Human]

All through-out nature we see evidence of race among the animal kingdom. Whether it be lions, whales, birds. Whichever it may be. We can see different physical and mental traits (fur color, shape of bones or skull, behavior) among a species of animal. Take for example the African Elephant and the Asian Elephant or the Tiger and the Snow Tiger, this is called a "sub species" This taxonomic rank also applies to humans e.g blacks and whites have different types of hair, skin, stature and mental behavior. But to say a black or an asian is a "subspecies" of the human species is considered "racist" But race is definitely real, I can assure you.

There is but one subspecies of Homo sapiens extent today, and it's called "Homo sapiens sapiens." At least one other subpecies of Homo sapiens roamed the earth once -- namely, Homo sapiens idaltu -- but it went extinct.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

There is but one subspecies of Homo sapiens extent today, and it's called "Homo sapiens sapiens." At least one other subpecies of Homo sapiens roamed the earth once -- namely, Homo sapiens idaltu -- but it went extinct.

... no need to try to disprove the pseudoscience of fascist trolls. Not only do they ignore reason, but they get banned here.

Also, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter if a human is another "subspecies" or not, they are still human.

[(A)]

This is the logical conclusion of perceiving humans as just another species among the animal kingdom.

You are saying that racism is the logical conclusion to the scientific fact that we are animals.

Scientists describe virtually everything that is alive as animal or plant. So, if you’re not an animal... then you are a plant. The logical conclusion being that we are not supreme beings and are in fact a part of an ecosystem; which really is not a big deal. Acknowledging that humans are animals creates a logical argument for Racism??? That is like saying that the logical conclusion to Darwin's theory of evolution is capitalism. It is a complexly insane stance that is drawn from a severely limited and biased "understanding" of science.

We are animals; believing otherwise is reactionary thought; drawing conclusions that justify racism and capitalism is absurdity.

Or simply: If you draw crazy reactionary conclusions from a scientific facts, odds are; your just a reactionary.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

He is very likely a troll, but this is not my point anyway. Even if he's genuine, I'm not going to discuss with this disgusting fucking piece of shit who thinks his pathetic life is a Hollywood movie and that we meager Communists therefore have to "convince" our precious, special boy as if particularly his, Long Live Mosley's personal engagement matters. This should be clear to every active member here by now - I do hope that I don't need to explain why the only appropriate answer to fascist scum is physical violence. What I want to point out is his line of argumentation and his justifications, of course not because it is in any way profound but for a very simple reason. We just had a discussion about man's relation to the animal kingdom, what defines humanity insofar as the SOCIAL/POLITICAL significance of man is concerned. Do not be confused by the fascists' fascination/concern for ecology, there is no inconsistency, ecologism really is a reactionary ideology, which pervaded the Left. Look at how this pathetic scum justifies racism: THIS, ladies and gentleman, this is the logical conclusion of perceiving humans as just another species among the animal kingdom. THIS is what it really leads to. That's why all those disgusting Leftists who infiltrate our intellectual "spaces" (I don't recall the appropriate term) with their disgusting talk of evolutionary psychology and how humans are "evidently" animals must not be tolerated. Plants,bacteria, fungi and archea all have cell walls. Animals do not. Humans do not. So we established that we are not plants bacteria fungi or archea. But alas we might be some magical unicorn life-form? Then how does one explain that like every animal we have the same organelles and no organelles exclusive to humans alone. How do you distinct ourselves from animals when there is nothing biologically different. You just sound like some flat earth climate change denier with your incoherent, factless rambling.

You also think we did not evolve from animals i presume? Evolution is a conspiracy theory?

[Nope]

Plants,bacteria, fungi and archea all have cell walls. Animals do not. Humans do not. So we established that we are not plants bacteria fungi or archea. But alas we might be some magical unicorn life-form? Then how does one explain that like every animal we have the same organelles and no organelles exclusive to humans alone. How do you distinct ourselves from animals when there is nothing biologically different. You just sound like some flat earth climate change denier with your incoherent, factless rambling.

You also think we did not evolve from animals i presume? Evolution is a conspiracy theory?


Plants,bacteria, fungi and archea all have cell walls. Animals do not. Humans do not. So we established that we are not plants bacteria fungi or archea. But alas we might be some magical unicorn life-form? Then how does one explain that like every animal we have the same organelles and no organelles exclusive to humans alone. How do you distinct ourselves from animals when there is nothing biologically different. You just sound like some flat earth climate change denier with your incoherent, factless rambling.

You also think we did not evolve from animals i presume? Evolution is a conspiracy theory?

Nowhere did he state that evolution isn't real, the problem is the set of inferences you've drawn from the basic principle of evolution. In the strictly taxonomic, formal sense, yes, humans can be classified as "animals" by merit of their evolutionary history, however, this is not the equivalent of suggesting that humans are animals when it comes to everything else, in the traditional comparative sense. What is meant by this is that there are particular aberrations inherent within humanity that differentiate us from being equivocated alongside the rest of the animal kingdom. In this respect, humans are not animals, we cannot be traditionally compared to animals outside of the basic evolutionary category of our history, but if we assess the higher elements of our own existence, humanity is fundamentally alien to nature, to itself. Alet's point, from my understanding, isn't that there is no trace of 'animal' in us, but that the strictly reductionist categorization of people as per their biological history is not sufficient to explain or definitively categorize humanity--there is something exceptional about our classification, about our essence, something contradictory to the notion of our origins, something that 'undoes' us from nature. This is not a 'creationist' notion, it's one that touches upon social theories that curtail formal reduction, it is an ideal that strives to distance humanity from being perceived in the same way that evolutionary psychologists behold us; perhaps Alet should have referred to thinking of humanity in an 'animalistic' way, as the detestable position. If you read into what is being said less literally, I think you may prove capable of understanding.

The dimension being touched upon here is one that is more philosophical than it is direct, perhaps read into the continental school of leftist philosophy in order to gain better insight, so that you can grasp the nuance to the discussion, as none of this should be taken so bluntly or basically. I'm not sure where I should advise you to start, as presumably you possess no knowledge of this discourse--perhaps "Being and time" by Heidegger? It's a complicated, fairly dense book, but it's a pretty fundamental basis, even if Heidegger himself would later deviate from this line of thinking entirely. It's a necessary link in a long philosophical chain. This isn't a matter of 'magic' or 'being a unicorn', but of a different line of philosophical thinking, of self perception. You do not need to entail 'magical' properties in order to differentiate us at a higher level, into a new category--magic implies something fundamentally unknowable, but this is antithetical to our entire premise of discourse: Those of the continental school claim to be touching upon a very real social dimension that simply entails different 'elements of being' altogether, kind of like how a linguistic prescriptivist differs from a linguistic descriptivist, one camp is not suggesting 'magic' by disagreeing fwith the other, they are thinking from a radically different perspective that reorganizes the whole perception of the subject matter.

The logical conclusion of "animalizing" humanity, of perceiving it in an ecological fashion (I don't mean to deny the existence of ecosystems in saying this, I am referring specifically to the mode of thought that confines humanity into a mechanized set of behaviours, as fatalistic and as ecologically predetermined) is in fact racism, it's the basis of Nazi ideology, if you read into the actual writings of Hitler, you'll see that Nazism's primary concern was a return to the primordial state of mankind's assumed relation to nature. Hitler sought the ossification of humanity into distinct naturalistic causes, then ascribing tribalism based on this line of thought, it was about the zoological equivocation, that is, the categorization, of humanity into subtypes that were predetermined behaviorally, since this same logic dictates that all elements of culture, of spirit, etc. are therefore owed to the innate components of a person's actions--in the same way that the behavior of animals is based on evolutionary reflexes. It's funny, evolutionary psychology does something quite similar to this, alongside its interlinked behaviorism, only now the terminology is concealed behind politically correct terms.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

Nowhere did he state that evolution isn't real, the problem is the set of inferences you've drawn from the basic principle of evolution. In the strictly taxonomic, formal sense, yes, humans can be classified as "animals" by merit of their evolutionary history, however, this is not the equivalent of suggesting that humans are animals when it comes to everything else, in the traditional comparative sense. What is meant by this is that there are particular aberrations inherent within humanity that differentiate us from being equivocated alongside the rest of the animal kingdom. In this respect, humans are not animals, we cannot be traditionally compared to animals outside of the basic evolutionary category of our history, but if we assess the higher elements of our own existence, humanity is fundamentally alien to nature, to itself. Alet's point, from my understanding, isn't that there is no trace of 'animal' in us, but that the strictly reductionist categorization of people as per their biological history is not sufficient to explain or definitively categorize humanity--there is something exceptional about our classification, about our essence, something contradictory to the notion of our origins, something that 'undoes' us from nature. This is not a 'creationist' notion, it's one that touches upon social theories that curtail formal reduction, it is an ideal that strives to distance humanity from being perceived in the same way that evolutionary psychologists behold us; perhaps Alet should have referred to thinking of humanity in an 'animalistic' way, as the detestable position. If you read into what is being said less literally, I think you may prove capable of understanding.

The dimension being touched upon here is one that is more philosophical than it is direct, perhaps read into the continental school of leftist philosophy in order to gain better insight, so that you can grasp the nuance to the discussion, as none of this should be taken so bluntly or basically. I'm not sure where I should advise you to start, as presumably you possess no knowledge of this discourse--perhaps "Being and time" by Heidegger? It's a complicated, fairly dense book, but it's a pretty fundamental basis, even if Heidegger himself would later deviate from this line of thinking entirely. It's a necessary link in a long philosophical chain. This isn't a matter of 'magic' or 'being a unicorn', but of a different line of philosophical thinking, of self perception. You do not need to entail 'magical' properties in order to differentiate us at a higher level, into a new category--magic implies something fundamentally unknowable, but this is antithetical to our entire premise of discourse: Those of the continental school claim to be touching upon a very real social dimension that simply entails different 'elements of being' altogether, kind of like how a linguistic prescriptivist differs from a linguistic descriptivist, one camp is not suggesting 'magic' by disagreeing fwith the other, they are thinking from a radically different perspective that reorganizes the whole perception of the subject matter.

The logical conclusion of "animalizing" humanity, of perceiving it in an ecological fashion (I don't mean to deny the existence of ecosystems in saying this, I am referring specifically to the mode of thought that confines humanity into a mechanized set of behaviours, as fatalistic and as ecologically predetermined) is in fact racism, it's the basis of Nazi ideology, if you read into the actual writings of Hitler, you'll see that Nazism's primary concern was a return to the primordial state of mankind's assumed relation to nature. Hitler sought the ossification of humanity into distinct naturalistic causes, then ascribing tribalism based on this line of thought, it was about the zoological equivocation, that is, the categorization, of humanity into subtypes that were predetermined behaviorally, since this same logic dictates that all elements of culture, of spirit, etc. are therefore owed to the innate components of a person's actions--in the same way that the behavior of animals is based on evolutionary reflexes. It's funny, evolutionary psychology does something quite similar to this, alongside its interlinked behaviorism, only now the terminology is concealed behind politically correct terms. I don't mean that we are entirely like animals, obviously we have way higher intelligence then any animals. However this stupid rhetoric of "we are not animals!!!!" is ridiculous and should be corrected. If one wants to have a serious discussion they should not say stuff like this. Just admit we are animals but that our brains are more developed so we have a better capability of reasoning. All these "anti-ecology" ideologues never define what they mean with ecologism and what ecology fetishism actually entails. Nobody in their right mind thinks that humans and animals are equal.

[Nope]

I don't mean that we are entirely like animals, obviously we have way higher intelligence then any animals. However this stupid rhetoric of "we are not animals!!!!" is ridiculous and should be corrected. If one wants to have a serious discussion they should not say stuff like this. Just admit we are animals but that our brains are more developed so we have a better capability of reasoning. All these "anti-ecology" ideologues never define what they mean with ecologism and what ecology fetishism actually entails. Nobody in their right mind thinks that humans and animals are equal.

Anti-ecologism is precisely that though, it's the condemnation of equivocating us with animals. Ecology fetishism is the idea of reducing human behaviour to be perceived as something mechanistic, as behaviourally alike animals. It is not a matter of quantifiable, "higher intelligence", it is the fundamental essence of our intelligence that differs. There is a qualitative unnature within human behaviour. Saying 'we are animals' is a simple truth that owes itself to the history of our evolutionary classification, as I already accepted. However, the fundamental point of differentiation is that which is 'actively' us, meaning, the human being is not an animal in any way beyond their ancient derivative evolutionary history, there is an intrinsic breaking point to our pathos that means our lived existence is something that transcends all "animalisms". What is being implied here isn't just some tangible notion of intelligence at the quantitatively measurable level, it's the issue of our total essence (everything about us as we actively understand it, not the core of our flesh, but the core of our existential recognition) being socially distinctive. You are looking at this from a very analytic perspective when you suggest that we are merely "more intelligent" as a means of differentiation. Again, I feel that much of what is being said isn't going through, it seems most nuance is being lost and then re-translated in analytic terms, yet these perspectives are intrinsically contradictory, so much of the discussion here is being lost in translation. Our differentiation is that the qualia of our intellect is unnatural, is socially subsumed. The social practice of humanity is fundamentally different from the actions of animals, based on a dimension of being that is uniquely inherent to us. Animals lack this entirely, even if they are 'social', the essence of their social interaction is not built upon layers of subjective contingency as per consciousness. Perhaps a better starting point would be this book, which I suggest you take a look at. This book is a bit more precise in terminology, and yet it is still not a very thorough exploration of the topic, because this is all very complicated and I'm heavily condensing things into a sort of jargon-esque summation. What this book does, however, is it overviews the basic discourse here and illuminates some more precise levels of difference, which it seems you are looking for in a succinctly defined way. I should warn that this isn't something that can be succinctly defined, there's no shortcut really, and as I said, this is merely a starting point--it's also a starting point written by someone who isn't a dialectical materialist, and is more of a classical idealist, but speaking purely as a starting point, the core concepts touched upon are well-introduced herein. To further explore the topic, you'd have to then move away from the idealism it espouses, and into the grounded continental theories of philosophy as a whole.
Anyways, here's the book (I can't link it directly, unfortunately, because I don't have 25+ posts yet), but I can give you the name: Aping Mankind by Raymond Tallis. Fully read it if you can, it's a fairly quick read.

Lastly, as for humans and animals being equal, no, of course nobody thinks this, but when Alet and other "anti-ecologists" (if you can call us that) condemn the starry eyed gazing unto the animal kingdom, it's because we are advocating our own unnatural humanness as a justification for the perceived ugliness of nature. To us, naturalism is an affront worth defiling, for ideological reasons that, as far as we may be concerned, are fundamental to the question of defining humanity itself through actions.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

Anti-ecologism is precisely that though, it's the condemnation of equivocating us with animals. Ecology fetishism is the idea of reducing human behaviour to be perceived as something mechanistic, as behaviourally alike animals. It is not a matter of quantifiable, "higher intelligence", it is the fundamental essence of our intelligence that differs. There is a qualitative unnature within human behaviour. Saying 'we are animals' is a simple truth that owes itself to the history of our evolutionary classification, as I already accepted. However, the fundamental point of differentiation is that which is 'actively' us, meaning, the human being is not an animal in any way beyond their ancient derivative evolutionary history, there is an intrinsic breaking point to our pathos that means our lived existence is something that transcends all "animalisms". What is being implied here isn't just some tangible notion of intelligence at the quantitatively measurable level, it's the issue of our total essence (everything about us as we actively understand it, not the core of our flesh, but the core of our existential recognition) being socially distinctive. You are looking at this from a very analytic perspective when you suggest that we are merely "more intelligent" as a means of differentiation. Again, I feel that much of what is being said isn't going through, it seems most nuance is being lost and then re-translated in analytic terms, yet these perspectives are intrinsically contradictory, so much of the discussion here is being lost in translation. Our differentiation is that the qualia of our intellect is unnatural, is socially subsumed. The social practice of humanity is fundamentally different from the actions of animals, based on a dimension of being that is uniquely inherent to us. Animals lack this entirely, even if they are 'social', the essence of their social interaction is not built upon layers of subjective contingency as per consciousness. Perhaps a better starting point would be this book, which I suggest you take a look at. This book is a bit more precise in terminology, and yet it is still not a very thorough exploration of the topic, because this is all very complicated and I'm heavily condensing things into a sort of jargon-esque summation. What this book does, however, is it overviews the basic discourse here and illuminates some more precise levels of difference, which it seems you are looking for in a succinctly defined way. I should warn that this isn't something that can be succinctly defined, there's no shortcut really, and as I said, this is merely a starting point--it's also a starting point written by someone who isn't a dialectical materialist, and is more of a classical idealist, but speaking purely as a starting point, the core concepts touched upon are well-introduced herein. To further explore the topic, you'd have to then move away from the idealism it espouses, and into the grounded continental theory as a whole.
Anyways, here's the book (I can't link it directly, unfortunately, because I don't have 25+ posts yet), but I can give you the name: Aping Mankind by Raymond Tallis. Fully read it if you can, it's a fairly quick read. I am going to read this and will pm you, or post again here when i am done. I am still reading other books to so it might take a while. I'm not going to lie, but reading the abstract it seems a bit nonsensical but am going to give it a fair read! see you later :)

Edit: if you reach 25 posts ( or can maybe pm me) please send me a good pdf of this book, i am now reading some shitty scanned version which pains my eyes. I will add the link to this post if you pm it to me.

[criticalrealist]

IMO, race is a social construct. Racism, however, is an instance of the forces, or dialectical mechanisms, of capitalist domination.

[SirBrendan]

Race, on a biological level, is a largely irrelevant and even disproven concept. There are minor indicators that are product of localized populations, but these neither have a meaningful impact on our makeup nor do they constitute a racial whole but rather a ethnic, geographical addendum. There is absolutely no science to substantiate implications of intellectual or behavioural attachments to the race concept, so the real question I always have to wonder is: why do you even care about it?

Sure, on average black skinned people can often be taller than people of east esian ethnicity. They'll also be more prone to obesity or diabetes (Read Jared Diamond's, 'The World Until Yesterday' for some fascinating interpretations as to why this is). To use these minor physical tendencies and then try to contend they substantiate race as a meaningful biological factor as a result is some pretty insultingly shallow stuff. Especially because these minor alterations are typically response to very direct and modern sources, such as famine or malaria exposure.

So on the biological level we've established it is, at most, a minor construct. On the social however, race is the only construct to ever supplant class primacy as the primary indicator for the outcome of our lives and opportunities afforded us. It is literally and quantifiably the single most important social concept in determining whether you've a job, you go to jail, get an education, or get shot. So when we say race is a social construct, we mean it is only meaningfully understood or impactful with that framework. I sincerely hope though that this pathetic discourse can now crawl back under the rug until another 'curious' fellow thinks about the NBA