Do "races" exist?

[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.

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/f...mpaign?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.

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]

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 and/or interbred with Homo sapiens.

The only other known sub-species of Homo Sapiens died out 160'000 years ago. 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