Is race just a social construct?

.............,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 
Last edited:
Of course race is a social construct.
In my opinion the concept of "whiteness" is really just a group of Caucasian people that have been mainstreamed into the western world.
80 years ago the KKK was beating Catholics and burning down Catholic churches in the USA, and advertisements included warnings of "no Irish need apply."
The Irish Catholics were also widely depicted in cartoons as apelike creatures, and this propaganda was not that dissimilar to Nazi propaganda in publications like Der Stürmer.
Today, white nationalists and former KKK leaders like David Duke, tout Irish Catholics as "whites" and totally ignore their recent past of virulent exclusion and bigotry.
If being white wasn't a social construct, Irish Catholics would have been able to join the 2nd incarnation of the KKK in the 1920s.
Not "white" in late 1800s to early 1960s, but "white" in 2018= social construct.
Conversely, being "black" marks one as a perpetual outsider, and blackness by definition has negative associations with being impure and tainted.
 
The problem these days IMHO is that either people want to reject the obvious truth at any cost out of good but false political intentions (thus they insist that all humankind is the same and there is no significant diversity at all among human peoples, what's a shame, for we don't need to erase our diversity to affirm everybody is equal in rights and dignity), or they refuse to accept the much more complex reality that science has been uncovering and insist on those broad and totally arbitrary division of the entire humankind in just a few races that were clearly defined much more by a few visible traits of their phenotype than by their unique genetic makeup.

Sometimes even those who fight racism are conditioned to think that those clear-cut and vague subdivisions as "black race" do exist, and if you point out that they have been contaminated by the ideology and false notions of the racists themselves they can even tell you that you "want to separate and thus weaken the black people" or something like that.

It's really difficult these days to talk about genetic structures, because some people want to equate them with those clearly separate and unique races, and some want to consider "racism" any observation whatsoever about genetic differences and particularities between two peoples. Others still, out of politically correct intentions, end up making another confusion, a dangerous one IMO, and saying "there are no races, there are just ethnicities", and they then go on talking about how blacks and whites are "just ethnicities".

That is very misleading because they use a concept that is much more fluid and culturally shaped - ethnic identity - and again force some kind of essentialist genetic feature on it, again leading to the same old belief that there is something fundamentally different, not only in phenotype, between blacks and whites, and giving them the false notion that they can't even share the same ethnic identity/ethnicity. If their problem is with the word "race", because of everything that it evokes, then they should simply call "genetic structures" or maybe "genetic clusters of peoples".
 
hrvclv said:
To look at things from a different angle, and try and see the bright side, (and not intending to play the devil's advocate in any way): isn't it just marvelous that, whatever genetic proximity there is between us all humans, there should be such a huge diversity of heights, looks, skin colors, eye colors, eye shapes on this planet ? Isn't mankind more beautiful like this ?


I don't know what will become of us humans in future, but unless a nuclear war or cataclysmic volcanic eruption compels us to start over from scratch in very small scattered groups, some day will probably come when we will all end up looking pretty much alike. Racial distinctions and prejudices will disappear. But will it be better ? Just imagine merging all extant types of music into one all-inclusive common mixture. Or melting novel, drama, and poetry into a generic mixed genre. Wouldn't we lose more than we'd gain ? Diversity goes together with its burden of tensions. It also makes for the beauty of our species. Long may it last.
Click to expand...
Disagree here (sportively)
if no serious natural or other sort of pressure acts upon Human beings, future crossings will not create kind of a "mean" pop: rich crossings create diversity not levelling - but not diversity between pops, rather between individuals; only the skin colour could be levelled in a visible way. I can bet the differences in stature will increase,at the opposite, and things attached to them.
concerning social issues, the supposed absence of marked differences in aspect would not suppress the need among someones to oppose groups to other groups, with almost always hyerarchical arguments (intelligence, morals, etc...); "racism" is very often a bad term; discrimination does not need race, real or not; others said that and I agree with them.
 
Ygorcs said:
The problem these days IMHO is that either people want to reject the obvious truth at any cost out of good but false political intentions (thus they insist that all humankind is the same and there is no significant diversity at all among human peoples), or they refuse to accept the much more complex reality that science has been uncovering and insist on those broad and totally arbitrary division of the entire humankind in just a few races that were clearly defined much more by a few visible traits of their phenotype than by their unique genetic makeup.

Sometimes even those who fight racism are conditioned to think that those clear-cut and vague subdivisions as "black race" do exist, and if you point out that they have been contaminated by the ideology and false notions of the racists themselves they can even tell you that you "want to separate and thus weaken the black people" or something like that.

It's really difficult these days to talk about genetic structures, because some people want to equate them with those clearly separate and unique races, and some want to consider "racism" any observation whatsoever about genetic differences and particularities between two peoples. Others still, out of politically correct intentions, end up making another confusion, a dangerous one IMO, and saying "there are no races, there are just ethnicities", and they then go on talking about how blacks and whites are "just ethnicities".

That is very misleading because they use a concept that is much more fluid and culturally shaped - ethnic identity - and again force some kind of essentialist genetic feature on it, again leading to the same old belief that there is something fundamentally different, not only in phenotype, between blacks and whites, and giving them the false notion that they can't even share the same ethnic identity/ethnicity. If their problem is with the word "race", because of everything that it evokes, then they should simply call "genetic structures" or maybe "genetic clusters of peoples".
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with that, and I think that's all David Reich was saying. The furor is by people who can't abide the thought that while one should of course guarantee equality of rights and under the law, there is no "equality" even from individual to individual. We are not all the same in terms of traits, and it's stupidity to think we are. Logic and reason no longer matter. Everything gets bent to political and ideological dogma.
 
Angela said:
Yes, I agree with that, and I think that's all David Reich was saying. The furor is by people who can't abide the thought that while one should of course guarantee equality of rights and under the law, there is no "equality" even from individual to individual. We are not all the same in terms of traits, and it's stupidity to think we are. Logic and reason no longer matter. Everything gets bent to political and ideological dogma.
Click to expand...

Exactly. What's worse is how confused ordinary people are with all these disputes that don't even look for "the truth", but just the more convenient narrative according to their own political/ideological/ethnic allegiances. Just yesterday I had to read someone criticizing people for believing that races exist and still using that term, but at the same time claiming that "it is obvious that the right word for that is ethnicities, which are about the genetic adaptations of peoples according to their different environments, that has nothing to do with race".

What?! That person began denying the existence of races and acknowledging just ethnic distinctions, but then claimed exactly that peoples became different because they adapted their genome to different environments and conditions. But, for God's sake, what's that "differentiation by adaptation" if not exactly what in the most general, neutral way the term "race" means? They're so confused that they think so much about semantics and forget about much more important things like the very definitions and descriptions of what they're analyzing, regardless of whether you chose to call them "race", "ethnicity", "structure", "blah blah blah" or anything else.

"Races" became a controversial term just because we know all too well that people use that word to refer to arbitrarily defined subdivisions that don't take into account the often huge internal diversity and the many intermediary groups that don't fit neatly into any of the 3 or 4 generic labels they created. But "race" in the sense of "peoples who share much more ancestry and unique genetic adaptions among themselves than with any other people", thus "genetically differentiated groups", definitely do exist.

And what I find a bit prejudiced is to try to erase their history and their particularities for the sake of equality, as if they came from a weird premise where recognizing that other peoples are different and unique would imply that that is necessarily a "flaw" and those peoples aren't as worthy as your own people.

Sometimes, as I said, even members of anti-racist movements don't want to recognize the immense internal diversity among peoples that were generically and disrespectfully considered as just one homogeneous label called "blacks", because that would undeniably diminish their power in terms of sheer numbers. So, it's best to simply pretend that they're all one and the same people. I once had a sort of heated argument with someone in the Black Movement, on another social network, who was furious at me when I pointed out that he shouldn't keep talking about Australian Aboriginals and Papuans as "peoples of African descent" as if they were just transplanted Africans without their own extremely ancient history as a separate group of peoples. What mattered to that man is just that those Melanesians look dark-skinned, have kinky hair, are usually marginalized and less developed... in sum, all the same characteristics that also were the only things that mattered to the white supremacists. I can't get used to that similarity of concepts between racists and so many people who purport to fight against them.
 
I also agree on equality in rights but not necessarily in nature. That's just how it is.

But I also want to stress two things. First, the diversity we have seen so far among populations is still pretty small. True diversity that is comparable to what we see in other animals is sapiens-neanderthal. What we have today is very minor compared to that, at least from what we know so far.

Second, the meaning of "race" does not match the diversity we have. As you all know most of it is concentrated within what we would call the "black race". And most populations aren't even the just descendants of groups that have been separated for 40-60k years. For example, all East africans are about 30% Eurasian, even the khoi-san have neanderthal dna because of that.
 
Ownstyler said:
I also agree on equality in rights but not necessarily in nature. That's just how it is.

But I also want to stress two things. First, the diversity we have seen so far among populations is still pretty small. True diversity that is comparable to what we see in other animals is sapiens-neanderthal. What we have today is very minor compared to that, at least from what we know so far.

Second, the meaning of "race" does not match the diversity we have. As you all know most of it is concentrated within what we would call the "black race". And most populations aren't even the just descendants of groups that have been separated for 40-60k years. For example, all East africans are about 30% Eurasian, even the khoi-san have neanderthal dna because of that.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's all a matter of perspective. If you zoom in to the details of the genetic architecture of humankind, there is a lot of structure, differentiation and diversity from a people to another distant people. But in a broad and more general perspective we're all simultaneously very similar to each other, and diversity is quite small, even though it's still not just appreciable if you analyze it with the right resolution, but it's also clearly concentrated geographically and forming more or less diverged clusters, not just dispersed throughout the inhabited lands. That's why I think it is important to acknowledge, at the same time, how similar we all are, and also how visibly diverse our populations as a whole are if you compare them to others. When I say that that diversity is concentrated, forming groups that can be classified even if you remain aware that there is no rigid boundaries and no clear-cut unmixable labels, I mean that you can almost always pinpoint if someone's genome originated from East Asia, Northern Europe, South America or Central Africa.
 
Ygorcs said:
Exactly. What's worse is how confused ordinary people are with all these disputes that don't even look for "the truth", but just the more convenient narrative according to their own political/ideological/ethnic allegiances. Just yesterday I had to read someone criticizing people for believing that races exist and still using that term, but at the same time claiming that "it is obvious that the right word for that is ethnicities, which are about the genetic adaptations of peoples according to their different environments, that has nothing to do with race".

What?! That person began denying the existence of races and acknowledging just ethnic distinctions, but then claimed exactly that peoples became different because they adapted their genome to different environments and conditions. But, for God's sake, what's that "differentiation by adaptation" if not exactly what in the most general, neutral way the term "race" means? They're so confused that they think so much about semantics and forget about much more important things like the very definitions and descriptions of what they're analyzing, regardless of whether you chose to call them "race", "ethnicity", "structure", "blah blah blah" or anything else.

"Races" became a controversial term just because we know all too well that people use that word to refer to arbitrarily defined subdivisions that don't take into account the often huge internal diversity and the many intermediary groups that don't fit neatly into any of the 3 or 4 generic labels they created. But "race" in the sense of "peoples who share much more ancestry and unique genetic adaptions among themselves than with any other people", thus "genetically differentiated groups", definitely do exist.

And what I find a bit prejudiced is to try to erase their history and their particularities for the sake of equality, as if they came from a weird premise where recognizing that other peoples are different and unique would imply that that is necessarily a "flaw" and those peoples aren't as worthy as your own people.

Sometimes, as I said, even members of anti-racist movements don't want to recognize the immense internal diversity among peoples that were generically and disrespectfully considered as just one homogeneous label called "blacks", because that would undeniably diminish their power in terms of sheer numbers. So, it's best to simply pretend that they're all one and the same people. I once had a sort of heated argument with someone in the Black Movement, on another social network, who was furious at me when I pointed out that he shouldn't keep talking about Australian Aboriginals and Papuans as "peoples of African descent" as if they were just transplanted Africans without their own extremely ancient history as a separate group of peoples. What mattered to that man is just that those Melanesians look dark-skinned, have kinky hair, are usually marginalized and less developed... in sum, all the same characteristics that also were the only things that mattered to the white supremacists. I can't get used to that similarity of concepts between racists and so many people who purport to fight against them.
Click to expand...

This is what I meant when I said that logic and reason are dead, and so is the pursuit of the "truth". It is particularly dead among younger people attending university, at least in this country, as is freedom of speech.

That's why it is so increasingly difficult to reach compromise. People aren't reasoning, they're emoting.

I'm afraid David Reich is going to be sorry he was so honest. Funding depends on public relations, on perception, on the narrative that is "spun". That the narrative that is being "spun" is completely false doesn't matter in the slightest.
 
If we were all equal, we'd be clones...
 
Two dangers : racist fanatics, and antiracist fanatics.

Racists want to distribute men into arbitrary "racial" categories, usually establishing a hierarchy, and placing themselves in the top drawer. They deny others equal dignity and rights.

Anti-racist fanatics not only deny the fact that, starting from one point on the map, you'll find gradual genetic changes as you move away. They also blackmail you into sticking to their own so-called politically correct views when you discuss things that have nothing to do with "race", but have a lot to do with values and heritage. Very few people here in France today dare to say that when you uphold such tenets as "convert them or kill them", you should reconsider your dogma. If you do, you are labelled a racist; meanwhile, people trying to undermine the very foundations of democracy are using the fundamental values of democracy againt it. In blatant bad faith sometimes.

Races, no matter how you define them, are all equal in dignity and rights. Systems of thought are not. I refuse to be called a racist because I want people who threaten my life and my culture to be kicked out of my country.
 
Last edited:
Angela said:
David Reich is a brave man as well as a very intelligent one.

See:
"How Genetics is Changing Our Definition of Race"
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html?smid=tw-share

I read only a few of the comments, but it was enough to sicken me. Logic and reason are dead.
Click to expand...

The question is

Can genetics bring a new kind of racism with it?

Perhabs even a more subtle and sinister one than what was known before?

I see the main problem in peoples minds
 
cybernautic said:
The question is

Can genetics bring a new kind of racism with it?

Perhabs even a more subtle and sinister one than what was known before?

I see the main problem in peoples minds
Click to expand...

If it should actually turn out that studies are done showing that the clear "superiority" of one group over another on any number of human traits is due in large part to genetics, there's no doubt in my mind that some people or countries will put that data to nefarious uses.

It's happening already, even though a lot of it is hidden from sight on the "dark web".

The question is whether a sort of "understood" consensus in the progressive democracies to not pursue these kinds of inquiries would succeed in keeping the genie in the bottle, so to speak. I don't think it would. How could anyone doubt that Vladimir Putin's Russia will study it, or China, or even India perhaps.

The information will be sought, found, and disseminated. Better if it is done by responsible people who can put it in the proper context. I think that's David Reich's calculus, although, of course, I can't know that.

Where I probably differ from him is in, perhaps, his belief in the ultimate reasonableness and decency of human beings.
 
davef said:
If we were all equal, we'd be clones...
Click to expand...

This thread question is not there, or I misunderstood your post! We are (or were) discussing the moving reality of the concept of race for modern Humans, not 'equality'; based on what? And does 'equality' correspond strictly to physical or even psychological interchangeability?
 
MOESAN said:
This thread question is not there, or I misunderstood your post! We are (or were) discussing the moving reality of the concept of race for modern Humans, not 'equality'; based on what? And does 'equality' correspond strictly to physical or even psychological interchangeability?
Click to expand...

It's nature vs culture. Nature never produced two men (let alone "races") who were ever strictly identical or "equal". Even twin football players often play at different posts. I wish I were as handsome as George Clooney, as smart (and rich) as Bill gates, and built like a decathlon olympic champ ! Problem is : "L'égalité entre les hommes est une règle qui ne compte que des exceptions." (Ernest Joubert) Equality among men is a rule that numbers only exceptions.

And then there's culture, civilization, abstract rules that ensure harmonious coexistence. There you can posit equality of rights as a founding concept. But that concern for equal rights a society can have should not be perverted in order to harm that very society. When you refuse to attend history or biology classes (as requested by the law) because what is taught there goes against the allegiances of your subgroup, it is unfair to claim you are denied "equality" because you are not granted preferential treatment. What you are after is undue privileges that undermine the essential values of the collectivity. What you are after is a political/ideological agenda. You can't demand to benefit from the equality guaranteed by the laws of the republic, then demand that those laws be adjusted when they don't suit your ideas or religion. And when you keep silent and condone such abuse, because you are manipulated and blackmailed with racism, what you get in the end is the Rotherham and Telford scandals.
 
Last edited:
It was hard to read peace of propaganda! Every generation a certain group of people, who live in close proximity experience in average 25 mutations. Those mutation are not shared by marriage with groups who live far in a distance. As time goes by the number of mutations not shared grows, until as time becomes large enough the breakthrough happens, which is another species is born.
 
From my point of view, it should be possible for everyone to hold in their heads the following six truths:
1. “Race” is fundamentally a social category — not a biological one — as anthropologists have shown.
2. There are clear genetic contributors to many traits, including behavior.
3. Present-day human populations, which often but not always are correlated to today’s “race” categories, have in a number of instances been largely isolated from one another for tens of thousands of years. These long separations have provided adequate opportunity for the frequencies of genetic variations to change.
4. Genetic variations are likely to affect behavior and cognition just as they affect other traits, even though we know that the average genetic influences on behavior and cognition are strongly affected by upbringing and are likely to be more modest than genetic influences on bodily traits or disease.
5. The genetic variations that influence behavior in one population will almost certainly have an effect on behavior in others populations, even if the ways those genetic variations manifest in each population may be very different. Given that all genetically determined traits differ somewhat among populations, we should expect that there will be differences in the average effects, including in traits like behavior.
6. To insist that no meaningful average differences among human populations are possible is harmful. It is perceived as misleading, even patronizing, by the general public. And it encourages people not to trust the honesty of scholars and instead to embrace theories that are not scientifically grounded and often racist.
In short, I think everyone can understand that very modest differences across human population in the genetic influences on behavior and cognition are to be expected. And I think everyone can understand that even if we do not yet have any idea about what the difference are, we do not need to be worried about what we will find because we can already be sure that any differences will be small (far smaller than those among individuals).
As a society, we are already committed to giving everyone a full opportunity for self-realization — regardless of the particular hand each person is dealt from the deck of life. Since we are already committed to this, accommodating any slight differences in the average genetic influences on traits that might eventually be found should only be a little extra work to handle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 59466 times.

Back
Top