Results 41 to 60 of 93
'skin color exists. race doesnt'
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
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.
"You can have all my shine I'll give you the lighttt"
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
For genuine free access communism
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=792
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.
For genuine free access communism
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=792
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Last edited by Tim Cornelis; 7th October 2013 at 10:13.
pew pew pew
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.
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.
"Her development, her freedom, her independence must come from and through herself. First, by asserting herself as a personality, and not as a sex commodity. Second, by refusing the right to anyone over her body; by refusing to bear children unless she wants them; by refusing to become a servant to God, the State, society, the husband, the family, etc. ... by freeing herself from the fear of public opinion and public condemnation. Only that, and not the ballot, will set woman free, will make her a force hitherto unknown in the world, a force for real love, for peace, for harmony; a force of divine fire, of life-giving; a creator of free men and women."~ Emma Goldman
Support RevLeft!
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.
"to become a philosopher, start by walking very slowly"
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.
pew pew pew
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?
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
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.
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:
No.
(The reason for this more elaborate exposition is to answer Jimmie Higgins)
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.
pew pew pew
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.
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
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.
pew pew pew
'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.
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
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
For genuine free access communism
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=792
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%2...ssification%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_..._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!
See also: http://reddit.com/r/socialism http://www.reddit.com/r/anarchistnews http://reddit.com/r/anarchism
The only slaves who are happy, are the crazy ones.
No, they're a bourgeois construct.
My machine my machine,
Please bring my machine.
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.
pew pew pew
