Go on.
Results 1 to 20 of 266
Is race REALLY just a social construct?
I am far from a leftist, but I do consider myself on the whole socially liberal. However, one thing I cannot get past is the belief that race is purely a social construct.
It is no coincedence that the fastest 100m sprinter has never been a white male. It is no coincedence that it's only some white, northern europeans which carry the immunity to aids gene.
While it should never affect how we are treated in the eyes of the law, racial differences are apparent. Some have advantages over others in certain areas, simple as that.
Go on.
The thing is they're not absolute or discrete. The genes which contribute to running speed which happen to be common in parts of Africa happen to be better than those which happen to be common in Europe, and so on. Two things are important though. For one thing, the main thing, it's a huge generalization, and second it's pretty trivial, it's pretty small differences in virtually every case.
Also one should consider the nature of Olympic competitions - it's the best in the world and it's teeny tiny weeny differences that make the top the top. Like one mutation that a few thousand people have could throw you over the edge, even though running speed is a very complex set of factors.
Sure differences exist as races developed independently in many areas for a long time but as stated before, these differences are trivial and certainly not the type to deem one race superior or inferior. Lets remember when the modern concept of slavery was developed, around the start of the African slave trade. After all, how can god fearing christians enslave other men? Makes it easier if they're animals right? Funny that it coincides with the bigining of modern capitalism :P. There was slavery before but not based on racist concepts, at least the ones we have today.
It is a small difference, but it's there. In that instance, they are superior. I will back the black pro runner against the white pro runner every time because of statistical averages. You train 10 West Africans and 10 asians to be sprinters in the same way. Sure, you might get a few anomalities but on the whole blacks will outperform the asians every time.
Another is that 'racism', or not racism but racial DIFFERENCES are accepted behind closed doors. When a pharmaceutical giant wants to pass a drug, they must firstly test it on men and women, because a lot of the time women and men respond differenly to the drug. They must do the same on people of different races, since we have inate biological differences.
Last edited by Ahazmaksya; 25th March 2008 at 04:53.
What's so difficult to comprehend?
What defines a race - its members - its characteristics etc. are discursively constituted over-time - this is empirically demonstrable.
There is no trans-historical 'white race', 'black race' or any other.
Define 'white'.
Then what is it?
Fate?
I don't understand what you're getting at.
Last edited by Black Dagger; 25th March 2008 at 04:59.
That is true, where one draws the line when seperating races can be blurry at times. However any rational person can see marked differences between a pygmy and a northenr european, or a West African and a south east asian.
It's just an example. Lets use any north european with naturally blonde hair and blue eyes as the example in this case.
Genetic differences which are limited to one particular group of people.
Last edited by Ahazmaksya; 25th March 2008 at 05:04.
My point is that any person who refuses to see that common traits and strengths are apparent within racial groupings is living in a fantasy land. It doesn't mean we should be treated differently, just that differences are apparent and it's stupid to refuse to recognise them.
Unless you adhere to some kind of philosophy that it's for the 'greater good' if we just remain ignorant and pretend we are all truly the same. Then you are really no different to the neo cons who promote their own myths for the greater good.
When we say that race is a social construct we don't mean that populations don't have varying genes and resultant genetic traits according to geography, but that the way those differences in gene expression are construed into 'races' is based on social views not on genetics...where one draws the line between races is artificial in the sense that its a social construct. In America, Barack Obama is a member of the same race as Desmund Tutu, whereas Fidel Castro and George Bush are members of different races; in Brazil, Barack Obama and Desmund Tutu are members of different races and Fidel Castro and George Bush are members of the same race. Its not that the Americans or the Brazilians have their racial classification wrong its that the classification is the product of social perceptions; this is what is how race is a social construct.
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
How is that possible?
In your opinion there are distinct biological races - if this is the case then the line can't be 'blurry' - that would suggest that race is socially, not scientifically constituted.
This is a very superficial argument.
Northern europe, west africa, south east asia etc. are all geographical locations not distinct 'racial' groups - the people who are born and live on these lands are not homogenous groups.
Moreover, the fact a large proportion of peoples from west africa have brown skin and from northern europe pale skin does not 'prove' the exist of distinct biological races ('black' and 'white' in this case) - merely that small genetic variations have accumulated over time in human populations. Indeed, skin colour is probably one of the most obvious means to debunk this 'race' non-sense, given the inconsistencies in social perceptions of a persons race vs. the colour of their skin.
No it's not - you're using categories that are critical to accepting the logic of your argument - if you want to assert that there are distinct biological races than you must be able to define what these races are - who is a member of each and why - indeed this should be 'easy' given that you seem to think biological race is an obvious 'fact'.
Genetic differences limited to a particular demographic group do not prove distinct biological 'race' - that's a ridiculous argument - not all 'white' people share this AIDS gene - so are the carriers of this gene a separate race to other 'whites'?
Last edited by Black Dagger; 25th March 2008 at 07:20.
Is it a social construct? No.
Skin pigments are what create race, with a little help in some cases from genes.
Superiority of any one race, however, is a social construct. There is no superiority.
If brains were the things that made gold, Capitalist Burgeois would be quite a bit more humble.
Not necessarily. It's possible that one could select objective standards, and a certain selection of gene frequencies would be substantially better by those standards. What's important is that this happens not to be the case because of the triviality of gene differences for most sensible purposes.
Then how you do account for the fact that the definition of 'races' change over time?Originally Posted by Crest
In australia for example, there have been over a hundred different definitions for Aboriginality used by colonial authorities over the past two hundred years. In a similar vein, in apartheid south africa, it was not uncommon to be racially reclassified in one's lifetime as the state definitions of each 'race' changed over time.
Ok then - define these races - what are they called - who is a member of each and why?
Ok then - define these races>>>
To me there are original genes from Africa, and we all have different amounts of them, in a ratio with mutated genes that were mutated after certain people left africa and became geolocially isolated and their DNA changed, along with certain groups even practicing infanticides of babies who had features they didnt like- introducing other recessive genes to take the place of the african genes....depicting in different features on differnt people.
Sometimes this can be noticed in groups, like " latino -caribbean people in general show alot of black features" however....my point still stands.
There are original genes or lack there of.
The absense of color is not a color. Its called a recessive gene. So white isnt even really a real race. Race is a stupid theory, people lose in races. There aer so many variations in "white" people. "White" is nothing more then a lack of black DNA. Like recessive genes taking the place of where original genes should be on a helix, commading a persons hair to grow in blonde. ANd hair is a world of its own. We got melanin, the melanin that produces a red color like on a red head, and then the LACK THERE OF which leaves hair white. A person with a little bit of the red melanin will be a blonde. A person with the red melanin and the original melanin will have brown hair of some sort depending on the distribution of the two, and a person with just the first melanin will have jet black hair, which is usually people who are in asia, because even most african people have some sort of red melanin in their hair making them have dark brown hair.
Do these melanins talk about race?
No!
There are different distributions in the different melanins that were all in the gene pools of the original people.
I think racial extremeties are really the results of ancient infanticides and/or incest usually happening at the same time, because in many societies back in primitive times infanticide was no big deal. Certain kids just were bad luck and shit.....and they'd kill it.
But race...there is no such thing as race. There is original genes and the mutations that cause the lack there of.
The original african people had many different characteristics. Some had freckles, some had blue eyes, some had slanted eyes or softer hair then others, these features were there to begin with. There were always recessive genes, but the concentration of recessive genes so as to make white people, was due to infanticides and isolation and maybe a slight evolution.
You tell Moses to make bricks without straw,
Now he tells you to make cities without bricks!
I am simplifying things when I say 'white, black' etc because that much IS a social construct, I agree. Not because it is inherently wrong to seperate people, but because it is far to simplified, and therefore of no benefit. The point I was trying to get across was that there are still groupings of people which share common, distinct genetic traits which give them particular abilities/susceptibility to certain diseases etc. To ignore this and just class everyone as exactly the same is detrimental and ignorant IMO.
Last edited by Ahazmaksya; 25th March 2008 at 10:24.
Well, first, a "social construct" is not something that does not exist.
Compare human "races" to what is much closer to the concept, like dog's races. Is a black cocker spaniel of the same race as a black poodle... or is it of the same race as a caramel cocker spaniel?
No, it is not coincidence. It is a matter of genetic pool. Evidently "Blacks" perform better at running short distances, as well as "Whites" perform better at swimming. However, consider the following: it is not the case simply that "Blacks" perform better in running: there are a great number of people who are considered "Black" but do not share such trait (and no, I'm not talking about training). After all, we consider "Black" a person who has one negroid grandparent and three caucasoid grandparents. I hope you understand that this is a purely social "construct" - why isn't it the opposite?
About the issue of AIDS immunity (btw I was used to the opposite idea, ie, that AIDS immunity was a privilege of some Kenian women - but it really doesn't matter). As it is a genetic mutation, it is obvious that it had to start somewhere. According to you, it started in Northern Europe. And so it is shared by a small group of people that is considered "White". But evidently it is not a trait of a supposed "White race" - most "Whites" don't share that trait; not even most Northern Europeans do.
If one of these Northern Europeans would interbreed with an African, their kindred would follow Mendel's law. If it is a dominant gene, all of them would be immune. If it is recessive, all of them would be carriers. If then those "Black" (because having two "Black" grandparents they would be considered "Black", not "White") go live in Africa, we will soon have a AIDS-immune "Black" population. In other words, the relation between the genes that cause "white" complexion (or any other trait that you associate with the "White race") and the gene that causes AIDS immunity is historical, not structural.
Well, yes. Those advantages, however, tend to be far more individual than "racial". It is true that Negroids are better sprint runners, but it is not true that "Blacks" are such. On the other hand, it is not true that "Blacks" are better philosophers, or that "Whites" are better musicians, or that "Asians" are better bookkeepers. In fact, it is impossible to find any intellectual or moral trait that is more common among any "race".
Luís Henrique
Some white people (and presumably some black/asian people who descend from those white people) have such an immunity due to a genetic mutation which came into existence around the time of the plagues in europe in the 14th to 17th centuries. It has nothing to do with them being white.
So, pale white people are a different race to darker-skinned white people, even if they were closely related cousins or siblings?
Er? Do you mean that all "white people" have exactly the same complexion?
Luís Henrique
Of course race is real - but its basis is social, not biological.
But if you think otherwise, by all means provide evidence - so far no one has been able to do this.
Uh, it's not 'white guilt' - it's called science.
You can't have it both ways.Originally Posted by Ahazmaksya
On the one hand you admit that racial categories, i.e. 'races' are socially constituted - but you also insist that racial 'groupings' are grounded in biology, genetics. I don't think you understand what 'races' are meant to be or human evolution/biology.
Of course there are - but that's all they are - groupings of people which share common, distinct genetic traits which give them particular abilities/susceptibility to certain diseases etc. - such groups don't represent distinct biological races - indeed, 'race' as a concept has nothing to do with what you're talking about (which is not controversial in the slightest) - and the fact that you interpret this situation as constituting evidence of distinct biological 'races' is just confusing - and leads me to the conclusion that you must be even more confused than i am reading your arguments.Originally Posted by Ahazmaksya
Indeed, what if two members of these 'groupings' had a child - are you saying that their child would belong neither 'race'? Both? A new 'distinct' race?
Besides, if you're going to employ the concept of race it must be defined (something you've refused to/can't do)- names, conditions of membership etc. - that is how the concept of race has been employed historically.
Who actually thinks that? AFAIK no one - it's common knowledge that genetic variation exists between humans - and indeed that certain groups of people share common genes - but to accept these well-known scientific facts is one thing - to assert that the mere existence of shared genetic material is evidence for the existence of several, distinct 'races' or types of human is just absurd (and is regarded as such by the contemporary 'scientific community').Originally Posted by Ahazmaksya
Last edited by Black Dagger; 25th March 2008 at 14:09.
