The OP is banned, so they aren't posting on here any more.Then why are you posting on a web site called Revolutionary Left?
Results 121 to 140 of 266
Then why are you posting on a web site called Revolutionary Left?
"I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying." -Wilde
"Beaucoup de clopes! Beaucoup de vin! Beaucoup de rhum! Viva la révolution!"- Bilan
"The Sun shines. To hell with everything else!" -Stephen Fry
The OP is banned, so they aren't posting on here any more.Then why are you posting on a web site called Revolutionary Left?
I think racism is a social construct, and that most of the things associated with "racial identity" is socially constructed; but to argue that race itself is purely a social construct seems impossible.
Even if biological differences of the races only boil down to skin pigmentation; that alone is enough to validate a physical, biological category for "race".
That is good to know.
"I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying." -Wilde
"Beaucoup de clopes! Beaucoup de vin! Beaucoup de rhum! Viva la révolution!"- Bilan
"The Sun shines. To hell with everything else!" -Stephen Fry
Cultures can develop independently not races!
There is no such thing as races when it comes to humans. As someone said, race is constructed to put someone on top of the ladder and some closer to the apes. Ethnicity is a better word.
Last edited by anarko-syndikalist; 13th May 2009 at 18:23.
I think ther is only one race called humans then sub categories.But to say whites,blacks etc are a complete different race is dumb.Like dogs.Ther is loads of different dogs but all are still considered a dog
It is enough to state that there is one biological difference, but that is absolutely all.
It is not enough to associate anything else between two people, simply the colour of their skin. Whilst you can claim that that is enough to call it a "race", it is barely a race as we know it today, so I don't like it being called that to begin with.
In society, even in "harmless" ways, people make generalisations about people based on the colour of their skin. Examples include "black people make the best dancers" and "asians are hard working and extremely good at maths".
I have no doubt in my mind that some of the best dancers in the world are black, and that many Asians are hard working and extremely good at maths. This is not enough to make a statement like that based on skin colour, and so I believe the social construct of "race" must be done away with as soon as possible.
The Philosophers have only interpretted this world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.
Race, ethnicity, creed, gender issues etc are all only intra-culturally relevant and are always a reflection of a broader class struggle. Class is the actual social construct that envelopes all of these "problems" because it serves the pigs well to have us kill each other rather than those who enslave the lot of us.
Hence, I would say that race is a secondary construct that cannot exist without class antagonisms. Otherwise, what the original thread starter is referring to is not race, but rather randomly occurring physical differences that get racialized because to give light to the real issue--class--is a direct threat to the reified bullshit western life is.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. There is an extensive list of physical and psychological traits which separate blacks from whites. These characteristics can be measured scientifically, inferred via the deductive method or even realized through an aesthetics-based philosophical inquiry. I've studied this area extensively so feel free to ask any questions. To get the ball rolling here are a few examples to add to yours:
Blacks have a shorter gestation time in the womb but emerge more physically developed than other races.
Blacks have a higher muscle to fat ratio than other races.
Blacks have highly melinated skin which is thicker and tougher than that of other races.
Blacks have a higher bone density than other races - are less likely to suffer problems like osteoporosis.
Blacks are naturally prognathic (jaw protruding in advance of the brow).
Blacks have an undeveloped frontal lobe and parietal lobe - linked to prognathism.
Blacks have longer arms and smaller ears than other races.
Blacks have a higher E.Q. than I.Q.
Blacks have a lower average I.Q. than other races.
Blacks have a higher average E.Q. than other races.
Black children can sit upright, stand, walk and run earlier than children of other races.
Blacks are physically larger and more powerful than other races.
Most of these are highly subjective while some are not inherent at all. None of them constitute enough genetic difference to classify human beings into separate subspecies or races.This is only the tip of the iceberg. There is an extensive list of physical and psychological traits which separate blacks from whites. These characteristics can be measured scientifically, inferred via the deductive method or even realized through an aesthetics-based philosophical inquiry. I've studied this area extensively so feel free to ask any questions. To get the ball rolling here are a few examples to add to yours:
Blacks have a shorter gestation time in the womb but emerge more physically developed than other races.
Blacks have a higher muscle to fat ratio than other races.
Blacks have highly melinated skin which is thicker and tougher than that of other races.
Blacks have a higher bone density than other races - are less likely to suffer problems like osteoporosis.
Blacks are naturally prognathic (jaw protruding in advance of the brow).
Blacks have an undeveloped frontal lobe and parietal lobe - linked to prognathism.
Blacks have longer arms and smaller ears than other races.
Blacks have a higher E.Q. than I.Q.
Blacks have a lower average I.Q. than other races.
Blacks have a higher average E.Q. than other races.
Black children can sit upright, stand, walk and run earlier than children of other races.
Blacks are physically larger and more powerful than other races.
First of all, most of this is just racist pseudo-science. Second, yes there are some physical characteristics that differentiate people form different regions to some degree although I think if you look within those "races" you will find as much variation in physical characteristics as between different "races".This is only the tip of the iceberg. There is an extensive list of physical and psychological traits which separate blacks from whites. These characteristics can be measured scientifically, inferred via the deductive method or even realized through an aesthetics-based philosophical inquiry. I've studied this area extensively so feel free to ask any questions. To get the ball rolling here are a few examples to add to yours:
Blacks have a shorter gestation time in the womb but emerge more physically developed than other races.
Blacks have a higher muscle to fat ratio than other races.
Blacks have highly melinated skin which is thicker and tougher than that of other races.
Blacks have a higher bone density than other races - are less likely to suffer problems like osteoporosis.
Blacks are naturally prognathic (jaw protruding in advance of the brow).
Blacks have an undeveloped frontal lobe and parietal lobe - linked to prognathism.
Blacks have longer arms and smaller ears than other races.
Blacks have a higher E.Q. than I.Q.
Blacks have a lower average I.Q. than other races.
Blacks have a higher average E.Q. than other races.
Black children can sit upright, stand, walk and run earlier than children of other races.
Blacks are physically larger and more powerful than other races.
Second, race is a social construct. In the early 20th century, the US supreme court tried to define race in order to have clear race-based regulations and segregation. First a Japanese business man sued for equal treatment as whites because he had skin as white as European Americans. The supreme court rejected the claim and said someone had to be from the same cultures and ancient tribes as white Americans to be considered white.
In response to this ruling, an Indian sued for full rights saying that as an Aryan person he should have the same rights as Aryan Europeans. The supreme court then basically said: I can't define white but I know it when I see it.
All sorts of groups in America that are Europeans with light skin have been considered "not-white" when it suits the racists in power. What is considered "race" changes over time and therefore race is a social construct. There was a time when Europeans thought that Africans and Arabs were the same race or that Asians and Indians were the same race and yet now we consider them different.
Finally Obama is considered black even though he is as black as he is white. If he was born poor and ran into a racist, the racist would hate him for being black even if he did not know that Obama is bi-racial. Fascists in the US don't even hate him for being bi-racial, they just hate him because he's black. Race is a social construct - it matters in contemporary society and we can not dismiss it, but it does not exist outside society.
Are skin color, bone density, hair texture, musculature, cranium size, etc... subjective phenomena? Everything that can be observed in a bilogical entitiy has a correlation on the genome.Originally Posted by Plagueround
Are you suggesting that the physical differences between say, a Polish and an English person are greater than between either of them and someone from the Congo? You'd have to dig very deep to prove that one. I'd wager you can't without indulging in some comparative, statistical manipulation involving genetics.Originally Posted by Gravedigger
You said this numerous times, as though this is some kind of criticism. How can race be more of a subjective fallacy than politics, especially when there is quantifiable scientific and phenomenological data which can be used to distinguish human physical types and predict their presence in different regions of the world. There is no such way of distinguishing humans based upon political affiliations. Politics is wholly a social construct, whereas race transcends human ideas and is part of the measurable, physical world.
(We might be able to predict political affiliations based on racial criteria though, consider, for example, that in a multiracial society most blacks will support socialist policies which will minimize the racial advantages whites have due to their intelligence).
And how is denying the existence of race any different from the political manouverings you describe above? You only have to extend your thinking a bit further and you'll see that, logically speaking, denying the existence of race is only another tool of the ruling class (whites).
Remember that liberal whites voted Obama into power precisely because he is black. The economic and psycho-social pay-offs are huge in the long term. Had Obama campaigned on a reparations ticket - the only economic policy that makes any historical sense for a black president - he wouldn't have got anywhere near the White House.
How then do you explain different racial types amongst primates? Chimpanzees have been observed with black and white skins, their physical differences do not end there either.
There are observable physical trends generally between people of different regions - the subjective part is how society decides to draw thoes lines. Skin color is as biologically meaningless as different shaped noses or straight versues curly hair.
Scientists pretty much agree that humans are biologically pretty homogeneous. There is less genetic variation among humans all over the world than in chimps living only hundreds of mailes apart. Humans are pretty recent and the most migratory primates in history so genetically there's little baggage or isolation.
No I'm saying the variation between one Polish person and another Polish person is as much as between a Polish person and some from another race.
In the 1880s, if you walked into New York and asked someone if they could spot an Irish person by appearence alone - I'm pretty sure they would say yes. Well try that today and people would just laugh at you because we no longer consider Irish to be all that physically different than British.
Or all sorts of famous people have been accused of being Jews by anti-semites in the past century even though they had no jewish ancestry. Ringo Star for one. But I'm sure most Americans in 1900 would say they could spot a jew based on appearence - hell there's probably a sizable portion of Americans who still think this.
What I'm saying is that most of the observable physical differences are simply stereotypes with no real correlation to some kind of "racial physical average" of a group.
Racial categories do not transend human ideas since racial categories are fluid and have changed over time.
Finished reading "the Bell Curve" yet? Try reading some Stephen J. Gould.
I do not consider race unimportant, it is a social construct but one that is a huge part of contemporary society. Conservatives say race doesn't matter because they want to advance a myth about systematic racism having been overcome. On the other hand, I believe race has little biological meaning but doe smean something socially and racism is something that must be confronted and destroyed.
Chimps are much older and geographically confined. There is actually a great deal more genetic variation between them than between humans. There are two species of chip, common and bonobo (different behavior and body shape) and within these species there are chimps of various skin and hair tones. Additionally, chimps change color throughout their lives - from light to dark.
If Chimps grew a complex social consiousness like ours, had a ruling class that wanted to keep the chimp-mob divided, I doubt they would divide themselves by skin color - they would probably choose some other physical charateristic to base racial differences on.
Highly dubious and circular, not to say racist!This is only the tip of the iceberg. There is an extensive list of physical and psychological traits which separate blacks from whites. These characteristics can be measured scientifically, inferred via the deductive method or even realized through an aesthetics-based philosophical inquiry. I've studied this area extensively so feel free to ask any questions. To get the ball rolling here are a few examples to add to yours:
Blacks have a shorter gestation time in the womb but emerge more physically developed than other races.
Blacks have a higher muscle to fat ratio than other races.
Blacks have highly melinated skin which is thicker and tougher than that of other races.
Blacks have a higher bone density than other races - are less likely to suffer problems like osteoporosis.
Blacks are naturally prognathic (jaw protruding in advance of the brow).
Blacks have an undeveloped frontal lobe and parietal lobe - linked to prognathism.
Blacks have longer arms and smaller ears than other races.
Blacks have a higher E.Q. than I.Q.
Blacks have a lower average I.Q. than other races.
Blacks have a higher average E.Q. than other races.
Black children can sit upright, stand, walk and run earlier than children of other races.
Blacks are physically larger and more powerful than other races.
The actual science shows that there is more genetic variation among African populations than there is among the rest of the world put together,hence the idea that everyone who happens to be of recent African origins is a 'member' of the same 'race' is clearly flawed. Of course once you choose to define race, arbitrarily, you can then reel off any number of features which are associated with that 'race', but you've still constructed it. We can choose to designate 'tallness' as 6ft or over and by measuring skeletons determine who is among the 'talls' and who isn't, but we've still imaginatively decided where being 'tall' starts, hence both 'tallness' and 'race' are social constructions.
It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. Karl Marx.
Well, I don't know if tallness has the same kind of social implications as race (not that you were really arguing that), but yeah, dead on.
On a side note, shortness is also a social construct. So as Mark Steel says: there's no way that Napoleon could have had a "Napoleon complex" given that, at 5' 6" tall, Napoleon was average height for his time.
This article, on the "racial" makeup of the Brazilian population, might be of some help to explain why race is a "social construct":
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/1/177.full.pdf+html
Luís Henrique
@Thread...
The structure of the skin is the objective concern of the biological sciences; it's 'meaning' in this sense is determined by how it enables an organism to survive and proliferate. My statement in the first post regarding skin elasticity and strength is one that has been confirmed by empirical testing. Black skin is impervious to the kind of electromagnetic radiation that causes skin cancer; in Australia over 50% of the white population will develop melanomas, many fatal, yet it is nonexistent amongst the Aboriginal population. Black skin also does not show signs of aging as acutely as white skin since it is thicker and more elastic (but this is more of a vanity consideration). A simpleminded liberal will, at this point, exclaim that this provides good reason why Australians should breed with blacks (and thereby reinforce the cultural brainwashing he has received regarding multiracial societies being inherently good). But as has been already pointed out, race is not just a matter of skin color. Evolutionary divergence means one phenotype changing, advancing over time, progressing, and the other stagnating. There is abundant evidence in the fossil record as well as in many living organisms of where evolution has been arrested in one branch of a specie and continued in another. Eventually, though, that branch which has fallen into stasis will either go extinct or be destroyed.Originally Posted by Gravedigger
Consider that a primate is less susceptible to cold than humans because of a thick layer of fur covering its body. Is that a physical advantage that we could do with in the north? Take your time with that one...
That's because it is white people that decide who is and is not human. They alter the taxonomy according to their needs. How else do you explain the fact that blacks were classed as sub-human, but are now classed as human, yet they haven't physically changed at all in that time?
Hint: trying to blame it on a neologism like racism only conveniently obscures the fact that it was white people who decided. 'Racism' is a concept they only recently invented to conceal this.
I'm not interested in what liberal academics have to say. Nearly all blacks voted for Obama, simply because his socialist policies appeal to them racially. It's the same in every white country in which blacks are a minority. They always vote left.
What you've done now is create a scale of genetic diversity in which you have placed primates as the most genetic diverse, blacks nearer to them and other races further away. The implication is clear: more diverse, more primitive.
No different to the white liberals that voted Obama into power. Remember, whether they are liberal or conservative it doesn't matter, they are members of the same race and so the outcome will always favor whites regardless of the politics.
Your fear of blacks and the problems they present is understandable.
I have seen no evidence of this phenomena.
Yep, tall buildings are a 'social construct', or perhaps that should be an 'architectural construct'?Originally Posted by Oswy
Liberal realativism is entertaining, but intellectually its garbage.
To speak of 'genetic diversity' is simply to parrot, on a biological level, the economic goals of the modern white world. Presumably, as a liberal, you prefer that blacks are bred out of the population rather than physically destroyed as many members of the far right would advocate. I guess ultimately this could be reduced to an argument regarding honesty of intentions.
No it isn't just another of natures gifts.
The issue, as I see it, is semantics. Race is a loaded word, associated with all kinds of history, most of which can be characterized by ignorance. I think that a truly comprehensive study of the majority of the planet would reveal that there are thousands of "races," i.e. people who could be grouped together based on differing social and physical characteristics.
There is no doubt that people's genetic code defines a great deal of their personality, and therefore a great deal of how they develop physically, politically, morally, etc.
Nonetheless, environmental factors - poverty, access to clean water and food, level of education, lifestyle, quality of health care - play an equal role.
So is race really a social construct?
In that it is used to determine political and social perspectives, yes, it is a social construct. Trying to define people (and how they act) by "race" is kind of like trying to define clouds by shape.
In that race can be scientifically quantified, no, it is not a social construct but a reality of our world.
Really though, all of this discussion is a moot point: there is no logic in using race as a way to segregate and police people, and so whether or not it is real doesn't matter.
it does not matter if race is biologically real or not. we communists would still be fighting for racial equality and would still have a burning desire to decorate the street lamposts with the best fruits of those who divide us.
Formerly dada
[URL="https://gemeinwesen.wordpress.com/"species being[/URL] - A magazine of communist polemic
