Is race REALLY just a social construct?

Dogs are a subspecies of wolf, one of 39. Modern humans have no such subspecies. Since we're talking about humans, I'm curious as to why you brought this up?

So you acknowledge that subspecies exist?

Race, breed, and subspecies are the same distinction. They all define groups that share physical and behavioral differences, but can reproduce.

I brought it up because it's common sense that different breeds of dog exist, but we're raised on politically correct liberal propaganda to believe that that same common sense should not apply to humans.

It matters because we can't address racial problems without acknowledging racial differences. Now please answer my question.

Here, I'll bold what I wrote in hopes that you'll understand a second time around:

Dogs are a subspecies of wolf, one of 39. Modern humans have no such subspecies. Since we're talking about humans, I'm curious as to why you brought this up?

Show me the scientific research that proves that there is enough genetic difference to warrant the classifications of subspecies in human beings.*


*Linking to stormfront doesn't count.

Dog breeds were created by artificial selection.

Arguing with a PC liberal about race is like arguing with a creationist about evolution. I know that no amount of evidence will be enough to satisfy you, but I'll humor you.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-genetics.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture05329.html

http://news.softpedia.com/news/12-of...ns-40872.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6174510.stm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17122850

I could return the favor by bolding some sentences for you, but since your knowledge of genetics seems to be lacking, I think it'd be better if you actually read the articles.

Now, let's pretend that all these scientific journals, geneticists, and universities are all Stormfront posters and part of a racist conspiracy. We'll look at the Human Genome Project instead, which is a source you liberals love to use (even though it's findings were debunked by the sources I just provided). It concluded that human races only differ genetically by .01%.

The DNA of humans and bananas is 50% identical. Even .01% is a massive difference, enough to warrant a subspecies classification. And the sources I just provided you with all indicate that races differ genetically by as much as 12%.

I've noticed a trend in your posts to label anyone who doesn't adhere to your views a PC liberal. It's pretty annoying. Anyway...

In response to those articles, I think this person refutes it in better words than I can, plus I'm quite busy:

Basically, CNV variation is a different kind of variation that cannot be used to proclaim the existence of subspecies in human beings. Is that PC liberal enough for you?

As a side note, if a new discovery came out that proved your claims, and we were to start dividing human beings into discernible subspecies, what would we gain out of that other than a greater understanding of genetics? What social impact would you personally derive out of it?

EDIT: Nevermind, it appears you've been banned. Good job on the complete failure at reading comprehension though.

No. Comparing genetic variation between humans produced by evolution with the relationship betweens dog breeds or species similar to dogs - is not a point about human 'races' - it's just gibberish disguised as science, AKA 'race science'. It's pretty telling, you spend more time talking about dogs than about human genetics, as if they were analogous.

Yes, except if you were really familar with the science behind humans and human evolution rather than simply borrowing phrases, and crafting false analogies to trick then you would know that human behaviour is much more complex than wolf behaviour or dog behaviour and is driven by a more complex system (or brain).
The human brain and thousands of years of social culture (environment) mean that humans are far from simple in their behaviour or thought processess - we have a lot to consider, not just unseen genetic guidelines but complex emotion (something dogs lack, they are capable of simple emotion only), philosophy, religion, personal relationships - our upbringing etc.
Species without complex thought processes (brains and consciousness) usually operate on the basis of pre-programmed behavioural responses (like genetic 'instinct') to situations, but some also have a capacity for learned behaviour. These genetic guidelines may be quite broad but the point is their behaviour is not the result of critical thinking. A wolf has no complex conception of itself as an individual or of 'wolf-kind', or of what human children are.

In your analogy you liken humans to dogs (warning sign #1 Dogs are vastly different to humans, less complex) - suggesting that although you don't believe in superior 'races' you still wouldn't trust certain (human) races, expecting they would behave in a pre-defined way or share a common disposition (like dog breeds do).

This ignores the fact that genetic similarities may be quite small between individuals - so even though we both share the genes that lead to a particular skin colour - the rest of our genetic history may be very different - as undoubtedly with all the environmental factors i mentioned earlier (upbringing etc.) genetic similiarities become even less useful as a guide to how similar individual humans will actually be as people. Indeed, although individuals who share a particular gene or group of genes in common may share other genes too - this does not have to be the case (unless they're related!). And as genes like those that relate to skin colour are not bundled with 'personality' or 'behaviour' genes, the idea of 'racial' disposition is ridiculous.

In short, there is no scientific basis whatsoever to suggest that people who have the same skin colour would have the same disposition, personality, behavioural traits etc.

You're talking about dogs here, as people have mentioned many dog 'subspecies' are the result of human manipulation - not evolution. Maybe if someone took control of all human breeding globally and spent hundreds or thousands of years breeding humans who shared particular genes together to make 'guard humans' then you could talk of human subspecies who shared common behaviours. But even then you'd be ignoring the fact humans (with our big brains!) are less the product of genetic programming than simple species like dogs.


Just to re-iterate, if this was ever to happen and was based on real science and not the ideology of racism that dog-breed lover is talking about, then i highly doubt these subspecies would be drawn on the basis of skin colour (which i assume is what dog lover would want). Indeed the only reason why race has been defined by humans in that way is because we can't see most other genetic differences in our outward appearance. But that doesn't change the fact that skin colour has very little to do with genetic groupings.

Animals are not divided into races, so why would we be? Have you ever heard of an elephant race, an ant race, a fox race, a shrimp race, a shark race etc?
No. Well, you could argue that the tiger shark and the white shark are different shark races but that would be wrong, they don't even belong to the same families.

We only talk about races when we talk about domesticated animals such as horses, dogs, cats etc. and thats because we have created these races through selective breeding. Races do not exist naturally.

Races are also a different thing than sub-species, our species Homo Sapiens have had another sub species that was called Homo Sapiens Idaltu but it is long since dead. Black people for example are not a different sub-species like Idaltu was.

But sure, theres biological differences between white people and black people (it's easily noticed, an example of this is that white people have lighter skin than black people) but it very seldom hold any relevance at all (though some medicines and deceases can effect different groups of people more or less efficiently). Theres also differences between north europeans and south europeans, between swedes and finns, between swedes from Lappland and swedes from Scania etc.

Theres also some biological differences between men and women, for example men have cocks while women have ****s. Men also have (in general) better picture memory while women have better semantic memory, theres also differences in brain activity in amygdala etc. But we should not focus so much on petty details so that we fail to understand the bigger picture. In large we are pretty much the same and the large majority of that what differences us from eachother is dirived from culture, society and individual experiences.

You my friend, should pray that a system which divides human beings after intellectual and moral capacity is not in force.

what a stupid thread- pointless

Technically it's a social contruct, as in there is no genetic support of it. Despite that, it still exists and will always exist.

I view race as the way eye colour is. Yes, it exists because we see it. No, it obviously make sno fucking difference about how a human being is, because its just a colour, a physical difference that is meaningless in terms of ones personality or abilities.

If we assume that the racialists are correct and different skin colours also reflect different levels of intelligence, would it really change anything at all? What do they want us to do? Kill everyone with a lower than median intelligence? Then we would have to kill half the US population.

I kind of agree with this though I think there are some good posts here debunking the racist stuff.

I'm inclined to think that anyone who really cares about 'race' in the sense of wondering about how or why someone with a certain skin pigmentation just won an olympic medal is probably not worth trying to reason with though I salute those that had the patience to do so.

I wouldn't say that there is "no genetic support of it." The entire concept of "race" is to genetics as "God" is to the creation of the world - in other words, a filler, a drastic oversimplification back when people didn't have anything better to work with, as well as the connotations of "race" helping to provide tidy justifications for exploitation, domination, and genocide. Like religion.

Academically speaking, it would appear that racism is a far more powerful and deeply entrenched facet of humanity than "race" itself.

In any case, I think it's important to go beyond simply dismissing sentiments such as those held by Adam KH as simply "hateful" or racist - however true - and actually demonstrate how they are founded in genuine ignorance - that is, when one perceives oneself to be close to the truth when in fact they are far, far away.

There are wide variations in human genetics, true, but to draw any kind of meaningful conclusion from it - "race X has trait Y and therefore we should do Z" - takes much, much more effort than any of these people are willing to commit.

You have to provide a concrete definition of "race X", define "trait Y" as a specific function of genetics, then prove how it is limited to "race X" and finally explain why this justifies "atrocity Z."

That's pretty tough work - impossible, actually. That's why racism is bullshit. It's all oversimplification, easy answers for ignorant people.

I couldn't disagree more!

The reason for this threads continued existence is its role in debunking 'race' theories, 'race science' etc. Think of it as learning through a devil's advocate style. We have people coming in here to make ridiculous claims about race - such as the ones i replied to above - and these are refuted intelligently. It is hoped that should you encounter such arguments in your day-to-day life that this thread would have prepared for you some decent responses.

Also, as a former mod of the discrimination i got sick of people starting threads of this nature - so i thought it appropriate to create a single sticky where all the varying race theorists could defeacate... i mean conglomerate.

This is a far point. Obviously the thread is useful from an educational point of view. I do think though outside the forum you would only bother arguing with a racist to discredit him/her in eyes of any listeners rather than trying to convince him - I'm not saying you're trying to convince the racist by the way. I think your posts are very valuable.

My underlying point is that racism is not a matter of reason and as such cannot be argued with. It's a matter of prejudice/hatred that seeks out justifications in the real world. A lot of people have some kind of racist view without being hardened racists and often contact with the social group they think is so odious is enough to cure them. These people, the ones I think communists can address, are unlikely to have anything more than a series of vague ideas to back up their prejudice - african americans are lazy criminals and get too much welfare for example - and the argument here is quite different because particularly for working people it's important to explain that these stereotypes are false and point out that black and white workers have a common cause.

The problem is not just with racists - but anyone, and this is most people - who thinks that human 'races' are real. On a social level - sure, but on a biological level they are not; yet many people still talk and act like they are. Those kinda people can be reasoned with, they're not malicious in their views but accepting race as biologically real nevertheless emboldens racism and is worth challenging.

Well, I don't really disagree but ... 19th century theories of biological racism are explicitly racist as I'm sure you know. This sort of pseudo-science mixed with the colonial/imperial heritage/white man's burden stuff has left a pretty toxic ideological undercurrent just below the surface of PC society. In my experience if you scratch the surface of someone who says, 'yes there are biological races' you'll find some racist attitudes based on fear or condecension. The theory (ill-thought out and all the rest) is justifying something.

Of course these people are not going to join a KKK lynch-mob and I agree they can be reasoned with but the central point is their emotional reaction to another social group rather than their rationalisation of the reaction. In other words it's the feeling that 'those people' are somehow different/threatening or whatever that makes the idea of race seem to make sense.

If the feeling went away because of social contact, common adversity or common struggle then I think the 'biological racism' arguments would lose their power.

Look, I don't want to sound as though I'm saying the evidence doesn't matter. Clearly it does and as you say explaining the actual scientific view is part of diminishing the influence of racism.

even if people with big noses and curly hair like me have lower median intelligence it has no political significance whatsoever its like saying lets kill all obese people for having more propensity to get ill