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

Stopping you right there, this classification is pretty broad and approximative and I don't believe in it.

Maybe scientists should be working on figuring out the actual classification instead of pushing ideologically driven BS like race or gender having no biological basis.

You just admitted these traits are genetic so you contradicted yourself. Of course genetics come from adaptation to the environment.

You mean skin and facial feature deep? Because I just showed that you can tell apart blacks from whites when they have the same skin color.

Which does nothing to prove that race doesn't exist since it only takes certain differences that remain constant between the two populations despite that genetic diversity for the idea to have a biological basis.

Genetic diversity within one species of apes is comparable to the distance between different species. So this is really not a point.

True but irrelevant, that's just muddying the waters. Just because some mean racists said that doesn't make it false, you still have to prove that it's false.

 

'Race' is a broad tribal identity. It's not usually invoked when humans want to kill each other: the Germans are the same race as the Russians and Poles, but the Nazis considered them inferior to Germans. Africans are of the same race, or 'race' if you prefer, but slaughter each other in great numbers.

When one tribe considers another inferior, there is often a kernel, or more than a kernel, of truth to it. The Germans were on a higher cultural level than the Russians, who were just emerging from a semi-feudal existence. The mistake is to take contingent realities for eternal, blood-derived (ie genetic) traits which are unchangeable.

History is full of examples of tribes altering their behavior drastically over what is, in biological evolutionary terms, an instant: ferocious Vikings become peaceful Danes, the advanced civilization of the Mayas becomes inert Guatemalan peasantry, the merchants and scholars of the Jewish diaspora become the IDF, proud Apache warriors become the alcohol-plagued inhabitants of the 'rez'. It's entirely plausible that our DNA has some influence on our behavior -- why should we be the only animal for whom this is not true? -- and it's entirely plausible that behavior-influencing DNA is differentially distributed among the tribes, but material circumstances play a far greater role in determining human behavior than the whispering within that DNA may provide.

Actually, everyone agrees here. If I have to choose my doctor, for an operation, from a group of surgeons, knowing nothing else about them except their race, I'll choose a Jew and not a Nigerian, and so would everyone else here. Whether their likely competence has been genetically influenced or socially constructed makes not the slightest bit of difference.

 

Meaning a race of people would evolve. Your argument only highlights genetic differences that occur over many generations they don't deny it.

 

There can be races and then subdivisions within those races, all being identifiable. Just like there are species and subspecies.

 

your wish to divide the human species by skin color doesn't work, as there are Caucasians who are dark as night and Africans with blond hair and green eyes.

 

What a beautiful world this would be if we would celebrate our similarities rather than search for our differences.

 

My only wish is to have an accurate view of reality.

You mean Indians? You're just proving my point that race is not skin color.

You mean melanesians? I think they're the same race as Australian aboriginals. Not Africans.

 

if thats the case then admit there is no such thing as the black race, white race and yellow race.

 

Skin color is just the colloquial name for the races. It's not 100% accurate.

 

"If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races (Figure 1B)."

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

Genetic variation does not exist in a race format. You both should let go of the concept. It is a faulty, but ok method for describing a person's appearance, but it tells you little to nothing about their genetic background. It definitely does not ascribe any specific behavior or personality.

From the same article:
"Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other."

 

Race is based on appearance (with regard to things you can't changel and Anatomy. Anatomy and appearance is influenced by genetics.

I don't think you understand the concept. You're talking about genetic markers. You clearly don't understand.

But again I will explain this to you because it's dogshit simple two black people can not make an Asian baby.

Are you suggesting you don't know what a black person is? If not are you an inhabitant of Earth? If not can I take credit for First Contact?

 

Let's avoid personal attacks because this has been a good debate so far.

Please define race for me.

 

I honestly was just trying to be funny.

a division within a species particularly of humans not different enough to be a subspecies and having similar distinctive physical as in anatomical characteristics.

 

OK, so are redheads and brunettes different races then?

 

Not necessarily

 

genetic research shows the old concept of race, is pure garbage

 

There is no evidence that genetically people who are Asian or Black or White are different races. You can believe whatever you want, but know you're doing it in spite of the evidence and opinion of experts.

 

Yeah, it's based on craniometry. LMAO the scientific analysis of skull volume as a measure of intelligence.

 

I've read the "opnion of experts" papers. It's a joke.

These people tell you "okay, these are the measured genetic differences between populations that are commonly refered to as races, oh look the differences are below the threshold required for them to be subspecies, therefore race is a social construct".

It's a massive strawman fallacy. They make up their own definition of race as subspecies (who allowed them to fix that definition, race is a colloquial word with no scientific definition so isn't that choice arbitrary?), they prove that there are no subspecies, and voila, race has no biological basis whatsoever.

 

its insane to think there are only 3 races.

genetic research doesn't support the idea.

 

There are zero, or you could say there is 1.

 

Lol by "these people" do mean scientists? And if you disagree that race is social construct do you think people with blonde hair are a different race than people with black hair? Do you think people with green eyes are a different race then people with brown? Do you think people with freckles are a different race than people without? These are minor genetic differences which they refer to, skin color being among them.

 

for the third time I never said it was genetic it may be influenced by genetics.

what evidence?

 

Here's how it work. Groups get isolated for various reasons such as geopolitical, i.e. war, or natural barriers such as deserts. While isolated, physical characteristics evolve to environmental factors, but that is as far as it goes. When biologists have studies the DNA of various physically different people, they have determined there to not bet enough difference to categorize races. Until something changes with either the definition of race, or with the genetics of the human race, then there will be no 'race' other than the social construct based on the racism-based science of craniometry, or the study of the volume of human skulls, measured by how much lead shot a skull would hold, as a measure of intelligence. That is not a position I would take up.

Now, I will give you this. Until race is no longer significant and the philosophy which holds one 'race' superior and another 'inferior', to use the words of the early 20th century Ethiopian Ambassador to the UN and Bob Marley song lyrics, is finally, totally and permanently discredited and abandoned, then race will have a role in that it will be used to root out racism and racists.

 

I posted evidence for you to read. If you need me to link it again let me know.

If you don't think race is a social construct and you don't think it's genetic what do you think it is?