Even though 'Race' is A Social Construct, Racism Persists

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by camp_steveo, Apr 15, 2018.

  1. camp_steveo

    camp_steveo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    23,014
    Likes Received:
    6,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You constructed it in your own imagination, just like the imaginary race / gender matrix that I am pointing out, except sadly, the matrix I am pointing our is not imaginary.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2018
  2. camp_steveo

    camp_steveo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    23,014
    Likes Received:
    6,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok, if not for the purpose of creating a structure of ranking individuals based on predetermined assumptions, what is the point of 'race'?
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2018
  3. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course race is real. You just do not like the idea of differences in human beings, whether physical, or when it comes to average IQ scores. After all, all that race is denoting are differences in groups of human beings. Skin color, features, physical build, hair type, and even penis size, on average.

    Here is the deal. Human beings have the ability to discern differences in different groups of humans, and these differences can be enough of a difference to come up with an idea of racial determination. And so we classifed humans using these differences. To say they are not there is just ignoring what is obvious. That we used the term race to denote differences for some reason is not acceptable to you. So what? Those differences are still there, and the term race is used to distinguish differences. And if you could totally get rid of the term race, some other word would replace it, to denote differences in groups of people. IMO, you have a psychological resistance to any term that might note differences. And that is more of a personal psychological problem than anything else.

    So say I wanted to put together a winning basket ball team. Would I go looking at short asians to use for my team, or tall black folks? You think perhaps if you could get rid of the idea of race, that then all people would stop hating people of a different skin color? You actually think it is that simple?

    I don't know if you have been exposed to it, but people of a feather flock together, whether it be blacks or hispanics, or whites. Why is this? Well, they have more in common with their own race. ha ha. Shocking? And as long as people can discern the difference between groups, that look alike, and share a common culture, this isn't going away. So, is insisting on living among people of your own race...racism? Or just human nature? Getting rid of the term race will not stop this exercise of human nature. So I cannot see a reason for your position, except you deny that different groups of people are different in some sense and you naively believe that ending the idea of race will change humanity, so that racism never exists again.

    You remind me of watching two completely bald, old men, fighting over a comb. No point to it.
     
  4. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Have you considered that the flight of imagination here lies with you and not the rest of humanity? I think it is worthy of consideration, if even possible.

    There are differences in groups of human beings, and the term race was coined to denote such groups. Fact. There are only two genders, unless one is born, by genetic error, with both sexual organs. But this is a screw up of nature, a defect in genetics. Just because human beings are affected with several kinds of mental illness, does not create a whole host of different genders, it only denotes an affection of mental dysfunction or illness. Indulging the mentally ill, whether it is this mental issue of gender or if someone thinks he is Jesus Christ, is indulging mental illness. That you want to make the mentally ill, not mentally ill, is your Achilles Heel. Or you own kind of mental illness. Gender is not a social construct, it is what a mentally ill person thinks if they are male but think they are female. Reality is a harsh mistress. Some people will even deny it, deny reality. Mentally ill people generally are not astute intellects, in fact, in many cases they are totally disconnected from a rather simple reality. Just because one can think gender is only a social construct, does not make that thought valid, or a fact. The fact is, if you are born a male, you are a male, and if you think differently, then there is a problem with mental illness. If it hurts feelings to call a spade a spade, so be it. Seeking a cure for this kind of mental illness is what we should be doing, instead of trying to change society into believing a mental illness is not a mental illness. Indulging nutcases is never a good idea.
     
  5. camp_steveo

    camp_steveo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    23,014
    Likes Received:
    6,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Race is real in that it was constructed to place people in groups, arranged in a hierarchy. It is a sociological manifestation, or a social construct.

    I am espousing scientific understanding, not sociology. I am not a sociologist.

    Maybe National Geographic will convince you.

    There’s No Scientific Basis for Race—It's a Made-Up Label
    It's been used to define and separate people for millennia. But the concept of race is not grounded in genetics.
    VIEW IMAGES
    The four letters of the genetic code —A, C, G, and T—are projected onto Ryan Lingarmillar, a Ugandan. DNA reveals what skin color obscures: We all have African ancestors.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/
     
  6. camp_steveo

    camp_steveo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    23,014
    Likes Received:
    6,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "By analyzing the genes of present-day Africans, researchers have concluded that the Khoe-San, who now live in southern Africa, represent one of the oldest branches of the human family tree. The Pygmies of central Africa also have a very long history as a distinct group. What this means is that the deepest splits in the human family aren’t between what are usually thought of as different races—whites, say, or blacks or Asians or Native Americans. They’re between African populations such as the Khoe-San and the Pygmies, who spent tens of thousands of years separated from one another even before humans left Africa."

    There is actually more genetic diversity within the African continent than when comparing the genomes of European or Asian to Africans.

    (NatGeo) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/
     
  7. camp_steveo

    camp_steveo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    23,014
    Likes Received:
    6,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here is a perfect explanation of what I have been trying to say throughout this thread. This is what I was talking about when I wrote "imagine a flow of genes across space and time".

    "All non-Africans today, the genetics tells us, are descended from a few thousand humans who left Africa maybe 60,000 years ago. These migrants were most closely related to groups that today live in East Africa, including the Hadza of Tanzania. Because they were just a small subset of Africa’s population, the migrants took with them only a fraction of its genetic diversity.

    Somewhere along the way, perhaps in the Middle East, the travelers met and had sex with another human species, the Neanderthals; farther east they encountered yet another, the Denisovans. It’s believed that both species evolved in Eurasia from a hominin that had migrated out of Africa much earlier. Some scientists also believe the exodus 60,000 years ago was actually the second wave of modern humans to leave Africa. If so, judging from our genomes today, the second wave swamped the first.

    In what was, relatively speaking, a great rush, the offspring of all these migrants dispersed around the world. By 50,000 years ago they had reached Australia. By 45,000 years ago they’d settled in Siberia, and by 15,000 years ago they’d reached South America. As they moved into different parts of the world, they formed new groups that became geographically isolated from one another and, in the process, acquired their own distinctive set of genetic mutations."
    (natgeo)
     
  8. camp_steveo

    camp_steveo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    23,014
    Likes Received:
    6,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here is a map of the migration of modern humans. The subspecies of neanderthal and denosivans were absorbed with the new homo sapien humans over the millennia.
    [​IMG]
    As humans migrated out of Africa—in two waves, some scientists say—they adapted to new environments in many ways. Skin color is just one; high-altitude populations, for example, adapted to breathing low-oxygen air. natgeo
     
  9. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If there are differences in dna, that determines skin tone, hair type, etc, that seems to be scientific. If you do not want to use the term race to denote differences, another term works just as well. Language is a social construct sure. But language is only being used to denote differences in various groups of humans. You cannot deny those differences do exist. To ignore them, and the genetics that create these differences is not very scientific at all.

    We have used the term race to denote the differences between groups, and that is all. Why the push back against this discernment is puzzling to me, except the agenda of some to try and say these differences, being genetic, do not exist. And that is just nonsense. You may as well try to tell us that there is no difference between a cocker spaniel, and a great dane. Yes, both are canines, and yet there is a great difference in their looks and even their breed's characteristics which set them apart from one another. You want to rid of the different breeds, and just call them dogs? And how is this different from what you are maintaining in regards to race and the differences that created the term race, to begin with?

    I do of course understand that sorting groups of people into races creates division, or can be used to create division, and division which can lead to conflict is not a good thing. But to disregard the difference in human groups, is not at all scientific, given that we have always categorized most things in human existence, with science being responsible for much of that.

    I would say that the move to negate race, based upon genetics, is not at all scientific, but a social thing. Now, if we cannot tell what a person's race is, by looking at the genetics, which determine race, then of course I must agree with you. But genetics is not a social construct. I have no trouble seeing that difference but you and even some people in science do. I think what is going on in science, with some in science, is driven more by a social construct than the science of genetics.

    I think as long as the human brain tends to catergorize difference, between groups of humans, the idea of race is going nowhere. For some term needs to exist which notes such differences. I really do need to know if the area of town I am about to go in,after dark, is comprised of what race, if mostly the same race. It could very well save my life, and so anything that might insure survival, has merit and even importance. Wishing it away is just not practical or useful.
     
  10. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never rejected any of this. All that I have basically said that genetic differences are at the root of what we refer to as race. Can't we look at genetics and arrive at what race a person was, without even seeing the person? Perhaps we have only the bones remaining.

    And we can look at the genetics of a scottish terrier and determine it is not a great dane, right? I see race in the same manner, being determined by the genes of the respective person. Race really boils down to genetics, a physical thing which can be analyzed to predict general appearance. And the research seems to say that not only are there differences in physical appearance between races, due to genetics, but also average IQ scores. So it involves more than just physical traits, and you see this in the various breeds of dogs as well. As a breed, some breeds are more intelligent than others. Which does not mean you cannot have a more intelligent dog that comes from a breed which on average is not as intelligent as another breed, known for intelligence. Yet all dogs are canines. The social construct comes in if we decide not to notice differences, instead of noticing what is obvious and stands out.

    I really wonder if anything is being served by rejecting the idea that genetics determine appearance, and that there are differences in appearance between races? It would be so nice if we did not need to know what race a person was, but reality is what it is. Sure it can be used for hateful and nefarious reasons, but is that reason enough to claim genetics do not matter to traits seen in various races of humans? You may as well claim that a toy poodle is no different from a Bull Mastiff. And if I notice a difference, I am simply not perceiving that both are canines? And that I should never notice a difference, for the difference simply does not exist? You do understand why many people cannot buy into this, right?
     
  11. Canell

    Canell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,269
    Likes Received:
    1,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yep, plain and simple.

    Because the Left is terribly afraid of something - being accused and labeled racist, racist, racist! :laughing:
     
  12. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,133
    Likes Received:
    16,080
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not quite true.
    While there is not a single gene that specifically designates a race, there are genes that dictate racial variables, that when present in a group do identify a race.
    Part of the issue here is dilution between races, which muddies things up in that respect. When you look at a purebred dog, you see consistent characteristics,
    When you look at a cross-bred dog from two different purebred parents, you see characteristics of both, but the consistency of how they appear becomes variable, so within a litter one might have for example inconsistencies in color or other hair characteristics. As mutts are bred to mutts, most identifying characteristics are getting further diluted; it becomes like reaching in to a bag of random jellybeans and grabbing one. That has resulted in a white woman married to a white man having a black child, because the black genes were part of the genetic structure they inherited from a parent or grandparent. However when you see a mixed-race person, there is usually more than one characteristic of the alternate races present. You don't seen a clearly blond child with fully kinky hair, for example- usually, black or dark color hair and kinky hair show up together. While there is dilution- there is also some coherence of the original racial identity genetics. That would indicate that racial indicators in DNA tend to have a group affiliation.

    As for us all being alike- the variables are tiny, buy highly significant. Chimpanzee DNA for example is closer to humans than to gorillas- and is generally accepted as being 99% identical to humans. Bonobos, another ape, is similar. However, nobody feels like chimpanzees and people are "all the same" because the differences are so small, do they?

    There are creatures in nature that can't cross breed. Others that can, but produce sterile offspring. However most creatures in nature, even though some are extremely close in many cases and could cross breed, choose to stay true to their natural origin, and I suspect there is a good reason for that. Despite being dumb animals, they seem to be capable of a great many things that people cannot do- and in some ways, outsmart us every day.
     
  13. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Could be I guess, but I think that they believe that if you got rid of the idea of race, this would end racism. But it isn't noticing differences between races that is the problem, the problem is some people using race as a reason for their hatred. The left cannot of course do a thing about the base side of human nature, including hatred, and so they resort to a low hanging fruit, as if getting rid of the idea of race will solve anything. The irony here, is the pathological looking hatred we see coming from them in regards to the guy who beat hillary, trump, is the same driving factor behind racism. Hatred. But if they went after the primary cause for racism, they would have to look at their own hatred, and it seems they enjoy hating quite a bit. Deceiving oneself is part and parcel of this hyper partisanship seen today. For a partisan, the current kind, must be up to the ears in self deception, and very narrow tunnel vision, and tons of simple hypocrisy. I guess clinging to their beliefs drives them, and demands hatred, self deception, and hypocrisy. It is the cost of this hyper partisanship and ideological purity. And they are all too willing to pay that price. IMO, normal people, healthier brains, will always be a hybrid of both liberal/progressive beliefs mixed in with some conservative or libertarian beliefs. For a purist ideology demands a certain ignoring of reality, otherwise no purity could exist. And then in order to try to make such a purist ideology viable, requires what I see as intellectual dishonesty, along with self deception and hypocrisy. For instance, if a lower IQ is a driving factor of poverty, and it is, but if your purist ideology has to claim poverty is always due to laziness, you must disconnect from reality, and self delude, and bring out the tunnel vision and hypocrisy. In order to continue believing in what in some manner brings personal gratification, due to the flawed personality which demands it. For if lower IQ is a primary factor of poverty, you cannot fix that, but if laziness is the driving factor, you can just call such people lazy, a self inflicted wound, done by willing it so, and ignore one of the greater causes, which cannot be fixed. Then you can watch people who are in poverty, and blame it on them, their laziness, and not be concerned a bit if they or their kids don't have enough food, are homeless, etc. If we accepted that so much poverty is caused by lower IQ, then not being able to fix this, we would feel ok in using tax dollars to care for the lower IQ people. And not expect such people to fit into a high technology economy, and become middle class.
     
    Canell likes this.
  14. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Differences are always named. That is what makes language language. Is that a tall building or a short building? OMG, you are a buildingist! They are just buildings.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2018
    Canell likes this.
  15. camp_steveo

    camp_steveo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    23,014
    Likes Received:
    6,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, if a building is short can you assume how structurally sound it is also? If it is tall can you make assumptions about the people who live or work in it, like people do with a persons skin color?
     
  16. camp_steveo

    camp_steveo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    23,014
    Likes Received:
    6,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gene expression is caused by the epigenome.
    We are all ancestors of the same people, and the only 'race' is in our imagination.
     
  17. camp_steveo

    camp_steveo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    23,014
    Likes Received:
    6,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is not a conspiracy.
     
  18. Dr. Righteous

    Dr. Righteous Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    10,545
    Likes Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Racism should have died in the 1950s the day DNA was discovered.

    Here is a simple thought experiment for alt-right white supremacists. Suppose you and another white girl have a baby together, and that baby coincidentally happens to be born with all of the genetic mutations necessary (and only those mutations) to cause it to be genetically a black person. Every genetic test says that the baby is black with black African ancestry.

    Is your baby black or white? Actually, don't bother wasting time answering that. I'll answer it for you. There is no right answer because race is subjective and is just a bunch of bullshit that some people just randomly made up. It's not real, get over it. It was disproven long ago by actual real science.

    There is a reason that anatomically modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) are not further subdivided into a lower taxonomic rank. If race was a real thing, then we would be. But it's pseudoscientific nonsense.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2018
    camp_steveo and T_K_Richards like this.
  19. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,640
    Likes Received:
    11,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2018
    Canell likes this.
  20. T_K_Richards

    T_K_Richards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    539
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I seriously doubt the veracity of your link.

    People from different regions sometimes have different phenotypic markers, but that doesn't make them a different race genetically.

    Wolfs and dogs aren't the same species either.
     
  21. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Progressives and Race Baiting SJWs hate this idea.
     
  22. T_K_Richards

    T_K_Richards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    539
    Trophy Points:
    113
    People with albinism look very different.

    You are mistaken about genetic diversity. There are large ranges of genetic diversity within humans. You just can't predict someone's genetics by their appearance. Race is strictly determined by a persons appearance.
     
  23. T_K_Richards

    T_K_Richards Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    1,659
    Likes Received:
    539
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you think people with blonde and brown hair are different races too?

    Genetic diversity occurs in DNA that isn't part of the 99% that all humans share.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2018
  24. Doug1943

    Doug1943 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Messages:
    3,741
    Likes Received:
    1,748
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    'Racism' is a sub-category of something broader, which, for want of a better word, we could call 'tribalism' (even though that's not quite precise either).

    Hatred, fear, distaste, of one group of humans for another group is a human universal, and it's not irrational. The English used to have contempt for the (Catholic) Irish, whom they saw as unintelligent, prone to superstition and violence, fit only for menial work. The Protestants in Northern Ireland have, or had, these feelings with a vengeance.

    All over the world, when two groups with distinct identities get close to each other, trouble ensues, or is a possibility. This is true even when the two groups share most of their DNA: look at the way Africans of different tribes butcher each other, decade after decade; the way the Buddhists and Hindus of Sri Lanka (the Sinhalese and Tamils) have slaughtered each other; the way American Indian tribes fought each other; the way the South Slavs of the former Yugoslavia killed and ethnically cleansed each other, the way Sunni Muslims and Shi'a Muslims (and not just Persians and Arabs, but Arab Shias and Arab Sunnis) kill each other, the way Pakistani Muslims murder Pakistani Christians (and also Pakistani Ahmadi Muslims), and on and on and on and on.

    You can put this down to competition for scarce resources. Probably our distant hunter-gatherer ancestors, when the human population was sparse, could just move on if unpleasant neighbors began turning up in the neighborhood.

    But once land became scarce, you had to defend what you had.

    Plus: for young men, primitive war is fun, when you win: you get loot, the pleasure of killing (and possibly torturing) enemies, and, especially, taking their women. (This fun and games aspect of war seems sometimes to have displeased the austere God of the Old Testament, and he had to specifically warn the Jews, in certain of their conflicts, that they had to kill ALL their enemies, including the women and children, AND the animals. But only sometimes.)

    Technicalities about DNA play little role in immediate conflict. Where DNA similarities may be important is that if two warring peoples actually look very similar, it will be easier for them to merge with each other over time, which is the only long-term way to end 'racism' and all inter-tribal warfare. Make your babies with someone from a different 'race'.

    But we shouldn't be over-optimistic: in the former Yugoslavia the peoples had had forty years of socialist indoctrination in the 'brotherhood of man, unity of the workingclass'; they were of the same genetic stock, spoke the same language, and there were hundreds of thousands of 'mixed marriages'. But when the time came to drive out the Other from your area, they didn't hesitate for long.

    The US has been spared serious inter-tribal conflict. The existing peoples on the American continent were easily exterminated or pushed into 'reservations'. [American Indians are America's Palestinians. Boycott, Divest, and Sanction!] The Blacks are not a serious threat to white rule, just an ongoing annoyance. The small percentage of Asians just get on with making successful careers. The various European white tribes got mashed together pretty well -- this is where similarities in DNA help -- and even the Jews are out-marrying at a rate of more than 50%. Hispanics intermarry at a high rate, and in any case, don't (yet) challenge the national integrity of the US.

    So the majority of the US population has never experienced tribalist warfare. That's what makes our foreign policy so naive: we think everyone else is like us.
     
    camp_steveo likes this.
  25. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,814
    Likes Received:
    13,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never brought race into it.

    I was debating the poster who said all people are exactly the same.

    We aren't.
     
    Canell likes this.

Share This Page