There is STILL no such thing as "race"! But there IS such thing as racism.

This is the fourth thread I open in this forum about this topic. The last one was in 2019. So it would appear a reminder is in order.

There is NO such thing as "race". Not in biology, not in anthropology, not in genetics, not in sociology.... Nowhere! In biology, much effort was spent on attempting to find something that would justify "race". NOTHING was found. So, even though the term "race" was used, it never actually had more meaning than a "placeholder" that some expected to fill in.

This study is pretty definitive from the biological perspective
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/

In the anthropological area (which the above study leaves open) the following pretty much closes the door
https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583

So "race" is not even a social construct either. It's better referred to as "a bad habit". But if "race" doesn't exist, what is racism? In general, racism is the belief that races exist, and that they define some fundamental difference among human groups. But to be more precise, racism is the idea that there is one dominant group (American white Christian males, in the U.S) that is "superior" or is entitled to certain privileges. CRT (Critical Race Theory) claims that this is not true. They claim that the above is "prejudice", not "racism". And that racism is not an idea, but simply the set of advantages that the afore-mentioned group is awarded by the system (systemic racism). so whichever definition you prefer, the result is more or less the same.

Here are the objections I have seen:

1. If "race" doesn't exist, then "racism" (or "racists") can't exist: Wrong. See the paragraph above. This argument is like saying that if UFOs don't exist, then UFOlogists can't exist.
2. Government forms always ask for your "race": Some of these forms originated centuries ago. Bad habits are difficult to get rid of.
3. Medical treatments are tailored by "race": There have been several studies showing that this is not supported by science. Click here for one. The differences that do exist are ethnic, not racial. But ethnicity is dependent on the environment and culture, and not on genetics. Of course, people of certain ancestry (see next point) might be more propense to a particular set of conditions. However they do not map into a "race", but into particular environments the ancestors had in common.
4. A DNA test can determine the "race" of a person: Wrong! A DNA test can determine ancestry. So you can determine a person's likely ancestry. But this is likelihood of your ETHNIC origin. Ancestry does not map into race.
5. "Race" is what some call sub-species: Nope! There is a very precise definition of what is a sub-species. And, as this analysis demonstrates, in what pertains to humans, there is only ONE.
6. The word "race" is in the dictionary, therefore races must exist: The word "elf" is also in the dictionary. According to this logic, eleves must also exist. I'm not joking! somebody actually DID make this argument.

 

To complicated, like man has always done, use your SIGHT! Or if more inclined MATH!

 

Huh?

Interesting how you suddenly "forget" to quote your sources.

OF COURSE there are many ways to differentiate the Human Species from other species. Obviously the OP means there is no such thing as "race" WITHIN the Human Species.

The use of CI to define races was abandoned by science decades ago. But still very much used by racist sources.

 

LMAO, so you think I typed all that out LMFAO! Well thanks for the compliment hahhaahah

 

Gosh... you seem very concerned. Perhaps this is just your issue. No?

 

here we go again with this 2+2 = 5 crap
There is no such thing as my response
This response never happened
you are not reading an internet forum right now
Up is down and down is up
learn lefty logic NOW

 

No. I wouldn't expect that from you. But if you don't show your source, you are STILL committing plagiarism. And it COULD be interpreted by somebody as if you had written it. But, more importantly, hiding your sources, especially when what you posted is used by white supremacists as propaganda, it does raise a few flags.

That's what I thought. You still refuse to reveal your source. But what you quote is well known white supremacist propaganda. It was debunked by early 20th Century science when it was demonstrated that the CI of children born in the U.S. was very different from that of their immigrant parents. But it was still very much used by Nazis to determine who was allowed to reproduce and who would be sterilized.

Today CI is used for interesting things. Like determining how many generations somebody has been in the United States, for example. Because CI is not dependent on genetics, but in the environment.

I'm pretty sure you quote this because you are unaware of the racist origin of these charts, but now you know.

I didn't think of including this in the "objections" section, thinking that everybody understood this already. But... I guess I wasn't expecting you to read it.

 

To Golems defense, he is right about the DNA! But didn't research other means of determining race from skulls and skeletal remains
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Be that as it may, you are still wrong about race! One can't expect to fool the curious, and there is where you went wrong.. Race is a thing, just it takes a different examination to determine..

Good luck with your thread

 

This poster shamelessly used MY THREAD to link to this thread so he could get more traffic. So therefore I am doing the same.
here is what started all this nonsense:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ds-a-woman-in-left-wing-run-california.603759

 

It does look like explaining to people that what they read on racist blogs is not factual HAS become one of my most important issues.

 

This "nonsense" started years ago. But I only linked to this from your thread because it was off-topic there. I know you're a fan of "reporting", so I thought if I put this in that thread you would eventually get it deleted for being off-topic.

But your thread is relevant. DO see @Darthcervantes 's thread for a clear example of a blog (Breitbart) gone full-racist. Notice the clear emphasis on how the guy there, a child rapist and a murderer (according to the OP), is to be punished... not for raping a child... not for murder... but for being a foreigner living in this country illegally (by deporting him, of course). If you want to discuss "racism" you can do it here or there. If you want to discuss "race", THIS would be the place to do it.

 

Even if someone believes that race is only a social construct (which i don't), it would still exist.

Social constructs exist.

 

Not quite right bro.
"Race" regarding to humans is a pure sociological Object.
Please look here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/difference-between-race-and-ethnicity

 

Why continue to dodge reality? The words used are semantics. The reality is obvious; anyone in the world can identify an individual who displays clear characteristics of their genetic heritage - caucasian, negroid, mongoloid. While those terms may be considered obsolete by the intellectuals, the common understanding is not. Can you tell the difference between a black angus and a hereford? Is one somehow diminished by being identified that way? If they are, then we should only use words that sound complimentary to describe anything, then replace then with something new when they become recognized as representing something we want to pretend is not there?

No problems are solved by manipulating the words that describe them. The problems may be concealed for a while in that way, but that only postpones any beneficial understanding.
You are all about chastising people for not following your line of self approved thinking- but not about solving problems. That's unfortunate, because you keep shifting focus on things instead of addressing the relevant aspects. Black people tend to be black. White people tend to be white. Redbirds tend to be red. Bluebirds tend to be blue. God, that's all so confusing.... Let's rename them in some way that won't indicate there may be any differences, then nobody will notice.

 

So, in your opinion, folks shouldn't then take seriously the reporting they are seeing from places like MSM MSNBC, CNN, et al? I mean that is where I see the most racist messaging taking place.

 

This is really a silly thread. I don't care how you define them, people from different areas of this globe are different. They differ both physically and mentally. You can argue that the mental part is more a result of environment than their DNA, but they are still different.

 

There’s just SO much wrong here it’s difficult to address it all. So I’ll just start with one.

There are races. That’s why an anthropologist can pick your bones up 1000 years from now and tell you with EXACT PRECISION which of the races you belonged.

What they CANNOT tell you with exact precision is your ethnicity. They CANNOT tell you if you were polish or Russian but they CAN tell you if you were a caucasoid or a mongoloid. So this argument that our differences simply reflect our ethnicity is pure nonsense.

Furthermore the definition of subspecies is:

Subspecies
In biological classification, subspecies is a rank below species, used for populations that live in different areas and vary in size, shape, or other physical characteristics, but that can successfully interbreed.

Please explain how the human races such as caucasoid, mongoloid and negroid do not fit that definition verbatim.

 

A dictionary?

The purpose of a dictionary is to explain what a meaning a typical English speaker would give to a particular word. They are NOT intended to be used as authority for any sort of academic debate.

Please read the following article, for more information about "Argumentum ad Dictionarium" (a.k.a. "Dictionary Fallacy")
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium

BTW, throwing in a link instead of making the argument yourself is against forum rules. Links are meant to support an argument. Not to make if for you. So saith TPTB in this forum.

 

Something does not need to exist to be exploited. God does not exist, but look at how religion has been used to manipulate the masses throughout history.

This looks like an attempt to create a shield in which one can hide behind while calling others racist. No reasonable person would buy what you are selling here today.

 

Hey guys, EVERYONE else in the country is wrong.

What is your problem man? Did you just bring SCIENCE into this? Don't hold your breath for a reply!

 

The same goes for everything else, as well. For instance, there is no such thing as math. This is because all things in the universe are unique [affected by unique forces], therefore what does "2" mean?

The same reasoning can applied to all things until you reach the conclusion that the human intellect just kind of makes it up as we go. This is why I suggest to you [Dr. Research], that you can study things til the cows come home, but you'll still be missing the mark. You only need to open your eyes and ears. No interpretation necessary.

 

Very often I can't. But those are phonotypes.

Looks like you are one of those people who are easily deceived by appearances. But what you describe has NOTHING to do with "race". You can differentiate a very white person from a very black person. But the genetic difference between the two can be determined by as little as two genes. Whereas somebody with blue eyes, and another with green eyes could have hundreds of different genes even if the skin color of both is white.

The "appearances" argument has been debunked many times through many many methods. For example, comparing genes of a white person whose ancestors have lived in Africa for the last 200 years, with a very black person whose family has been in America for the same period. Compare both to a white person who has lived in America, and the black person will almost assuredly be much more similar.

So no...

 

You're funny.... A thread about ethnicity and "race" and right off the bat you want to derail it. I remember some time in the past when you at least made SOME attempt to rebut my arguments and THEN tried to change the subject when you realized you couldn't. Looks like you have now learned something from your experience so you just "skip" the painful part and proceed to the smoke screen right off the bat...