Do "races" exist?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

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

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

[skitty]

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

They do claim to have an option where one remains anonymous; but I threw caution to the wind and went public, making myself available for questions regarding known ancestors. I hope, by going this route, they will throw more info my way in the future.

[robbo203]

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

You half get this point when you say:

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

[bcbm]

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

[robbo203]

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

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

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

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

[bcbm]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

yes, hence 'part of.'

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

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

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

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

[cyu]

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

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

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

[robbo203]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

[Rational Radical]

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

[robbo203]

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

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

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

[Yuppie Grinder]

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

[robbo203]

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

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

[Rational Radical]

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