Is race just a social construct?

What exactly do you agree with? Do you think that race isn't real? Do you support BLM, their narrative about white privilege, and that the USA is a white supremacist hell? Do you embrace replacement migration?


I want to be sure about your point in order to respond to your comment.

Like I said I sincerely believe race is in the end a social construct, is not a given thing. In different parts of the world we got different racial definitions, so that is imo a sign that it's not a given thing.

I don't think an institute like the Max Planck has to give such declarations of support of BLM (nor the proud boys nor....fill in). That's too political imo, they are a scientific institute, no think tank or something like that.

For the rest I hang on to a certain "color blindness". Alt right and BLM do mirror each other imo. I support emancipation movements but that has imo "no color" good education, good houses etc and is imo not a matter of race.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness_(racial_classification)
 
Last edited:
What exactly do you agree with? Do you think that race isn't real? Do you support BLM, their narrative about white privilege, and that the USA is a white supremacist hell? Do you embrace replacement migration?


I want to be sure about your point in order to respond to your comment.

where did they talk about replacement migration? sure, every migration will lead to mixture, but that should not be a reason to be against migration. sadly this is still the case for many people and those are adressed by Reich.

and also Krauses points against race are valid. i've already asked several times. i would really like to hear from people what trait differentiates human races so clearly that we can speak of them as races in a purely biological sense? as Krause said the additional difference between racial groups is extremely small compared to the differences that already exist within those groups. and then there is also the thing with the gradients and the difficulty to draw the borders.
 
I have long speculated that wokery, especially as an online presence, with fake Twitter and Facebook bots, are a Chinese government initiative to disrupt order in the West. They're utilizing useful idiots abroad to facilitate their agenda to undermine our posterity, and vilify our past. Corporations are under the influence of Chinese wealth too. Lenin was right to say, the capitalists will sell us rope we will hang them with.

Interesting thing to watch about this is Yuri Bezmenov.

https://odysee.com/@Roxy-Stellar:2/ideological-subversion-yuri-bezmenov

Can't find the short clip on YouTube anymore for some reason, the hour long interview is still up though.

He's a KGB defector from USSR who worked on subversion of India, but fell in love with some Indian girl so decided to flee to America.

Jovialis said:
Woke individuals are essentially assets of our foreign rivals. Ironically, these people would absolutely be abused in Russia and China. They would be put to death for conducting similar actions in those countries, no doubt.


Hm.
You made the same quote as he did.

“[T]he useful idiots, the leftists who are idealistically believing in the beauty of the Soviet socialist or Communist or whatever system, when they get disillusioned, they become the worst enemies. That’s why my KGB instructors specifically made the point: never bother with leftists. Forget about these political prostitutes. Aim higher. [...] They serve a purpose only at the stage of destabilization of a nation. For example, your leftists in the United States: all these professors and all these beautiful civil rights defenders. They are instrumental in the process of the subversion only to destabilize a nation. When their job is completed, they are not needed any more. They know too much. Some of them, when they get disillusioned, when they see that Marxist-Leninists come to power—obviously they get offended—they think that they will come to power. That will never happen, of course. They will be lined up against the wall and shot.”
 
Good article in this respect:
theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/reich-genetics-racism/558818/

Jerry Coyne responded to Reich's piece, and its response article in the nytimes.
whyevolutionistrue.com/2018/04/01/geneticist-david-reich-responds-to-critics-of-his-views-on-race/

Reich's six points

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.
 
Putin uses every way to destabilize Europe and the US. Some "right wing populist" are getting money from them....And although right wing populist play the own nationalistic cards and "defense", they are seldom critical towards Putin, why?

The U.S. government estimates that Russia has spent $300 million trying to influence politics in other countries. There are no specifics, but it seems that anything that advances the potential interests of Russia is funded, and yes that probably includes far-right groups.
 
The U.S. government estimates that Russia has spent $300 million trying to influence politics in other countries. There are no specifics, but it seems that anything that advances the potential interests of Russia is funded, and yes that probably includes far-right groups.

Yes indeed and we see Putin and Xi are approaching each other more and more. Autocratic regimes are the real danger in the world right now....
 
Autocratic regimes in Russia and China today ? I really miss the downvote button at times... I do not know how one can be so active and opinionated on the "political" section of a forum without having adopted...or rather figured out the proper terminology of basic things...but this is typical for our times I guess.
 
This idea of race being a social construct is similar to reducing the matter of the universe down to the sub atomic quantum level and saying that the universe we see around us is just an illusion. i.e. by reducing the diversity of humanity down to its genetic components you end up failing to notice that groups of people can be classified into 'races' due to the fact that they all share similarities of appearance and characteristics.
 
This idea of race being a social construct is similar to reducing the matter of the universe down to the sub atomic quantum level and saying that the universe we see around us is just an illusion. i.e. by reducing the diversity of humanity down to its genetic components you end up failing to notice that groups of people can be classified into 'races' due to the fact that they all share similarities of appearance and characteristics.

Then what are those races and what are the marks in appearance and those in other characteristics?
 
Autocratic regimes in Russia and China today ? I really miss the downvote button at times... I do not know how one can be so active and opinionated on the "political" section of a forum without having adopted...or rather figured out the proper terminology of basic things...but this is typical for our times I guess.

Ok, guess who said this:
"Today the world faces a choice between democracy and autocracy"?
 
Then what are those races and what are the marks in appearance and those in other characteristics?

Yes some seem to confuse a place on a PCA with some kind of phenotype (constituting for race).

I once saw a G25 model connected with phenotypes......:p
 
After how many vodkas on taxpayers money, God bless her...?

Before another in-depth analysis of the US or world reality, get your terminology straight. The difference between Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism was taught in mid school.
 
Then what are those races and what are the marks in appearance and those in other characteristics?

Use your eyes and you will observe differences in the appearance of people from different parts of the world. e.g. in place near the equator people have darker skins than those far from the equator. This will give you a basic idea of what a 'race' is.
 
Black and white races are social constructs that have no scientific basis any way. If these social constructs weren't created, there would not be any stupid arguments about people being black and white in regards to anything. Human beings are far too diverse to be pinned down to color names. There is a highly great amount of diversity in Africa alone. Africans have the greatest genetic variation. Africa is an extremely diverse continent with over 2,000 ethnic groups. That includes Nigeria with over 400 ethnic groups. These social constructs of races were created out of ignorance. I stopped believing in the social constructs of the black and white races over 7 years ago.


White or Caucasian was not always considered a unified race composed of anyone of European descent.


Whiteness was often considered exclusive to Anglo-Saxon descendants while other European groups were broken into different ethnic categories such as "Celt", "Slavs", "Iberics", and "Hebrews" which were considered separate races from the 1840s to the early 20th Century.


In the 1920s when there was a stemming migration from Europe, different races were subsumed into one category called "whiteness" to shore up a cultural majority against other racial groups and immigrants and this persisted throughout the 20th Century.


Race started as as a marker of kinship, but then we see it shift to become less about familial inheritance and more focused on physical indicators due to the rise of Enlightenment reasoning and labor exploitation.


I have been into Genetic Genealogy since 2011. The more I read up on genetics of human populations, the more I am convinced that the social constructs of the black and white races are outdated and stupid.


I never believed in the one drop rule which is outdated, racist, and stupid. I even identified as multiracial/multiethnic for the last 3 US Censuses.


According to a 2015 research study, The Genetic Ancestry of African Americans, Latinos, and European Americans across the United States:


From 23andme database


African Americans show average proportions of 73.2% African, 24.0% European, and 0.8% Native American ancestry.


Latinos show average proportions of 65.1% European, 18.0% Native American, and 6.2% African ancestry


European Americans show average proportions of 98.6% European, 0.19% African, and 0.18% Native American ancestry



I am of highly mixed ancestry. Maybe I incarnated as a very mixed person to not only believe that there should be unity and universal love but also to challenge the social constructs of race.
Therefore, I don't fit in any of the racial categories. I identified as multiracial/multiethnic for the last 3 US Censuses. I have never believed in the one drop rule. I never identified as black nor African American.



My 23andme Ancestry Composition has me as being
49.7% Sub Saharan African
47.5% European
1.7% Indigenous American
0.6% West Asian
0.3% Chinese/Southeast Asian
0.2% Unassigned


parental inheritance derived from my DNA phasing between my mother's DNA and my DNA
Sub Saharan African: 43.4% is paternal, 6.3% is maternal
European: 43.2% is maternal, 4.3% is paternal
Indigenous American: 1.0% is maternal, 0.7% is paternal
West Asian: 0.6% is maternal
Chinese/Southeast Asian: 0.3% is paternal
Unassigned: 0.2% is maternal


My mother is mostly European (86.3%) with some Sub Saharan African (10.1%) with a little Indigenous American (1.9%). She has peach colored skin that fits anywhere in Europe, and she can tan. My father was mostly Sub Saharan African with some European with a little Indigenous American. He had chocolate brown skin that would fit quite well in the Sub Saharan regions of Africa. My tan skin is like a blending of my parents' skin colors, and I can get as dark as my father if I stay out in the sunlight for a long period of time.


I am so multiethnic that I am related to many of my fellow Americans in many different ways.



My Genealogical Ancestry

I am a 4th generation Californian on my mother's side, and my father was a 7th generation Louisianan.


paternal grandfather: African American born in Louisiana


paternal grandmother's father: African American born in Southern Louisiana
other roots in Virginia, South Carolina, and Kentucky


paternal grandmother's mother: African American with English and Acadian (French in what now known as Nova Scotia) born in Southern Louisiana
colonial roots in Louisiana, Virginia, and North Carolina


maternal grandfather's father: American born in California and son of immigrants from Cape Verde (Portuguese and Sub Saharan African)


maternal grandfather's mother: American born in California with a father from Puerto Rico (Spanish, Sub Saharan African, and Taino) and a mother that was a Hawaiian daughter of immigrants from Madeira (Portuguese with Sub Saharan African)


maternal grandmother's father: European American born in Oregon of mainly English ancestry with German, Swiss, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Dutch, and Frisian
colonial roots in Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island
other roots in Missouri, Kansas, Alabama, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Indiana


maternal grandmother's mother: Ashkenazi Jewish American born in Nebraska with a father born in Romania and a mother born in Courland (in what is now known as Latvia) in Russian Empire




Because of the Transatlantic Slave trade, I don't know anything about my Sub Saharan African ancestry, but I am sure that it's mainly from West and Central Africa. Most of the Sub Saharan African slaves were brought from West and Central Africa. Africa has over 2,000 ethnic groups, and that includes Nigeria having over 400 ethnic groups. My Sub Saharan African ancestry is highly likely to consist of many Sub Saharan African ethnic groups. I don't know what kind of Indigenous American ancestry that I have on my father's side.
 
I am all for getting rid of the residue of Scientific Racism which the social constructs of the races are. I stopped believing in them over 7 years ago. I was brainwashed to believe in the social constructs of the races during my early conditioning as a child in 1970s and 1980s. I have experienced racism for being a person that is around half Sub Saharan African. I've been called the n'word numerous time. My first time was my 9th birthday. The last time was back in 2009. There have been people that have tried to make me identify as black. Maybe those experiences why it took me so damned long for me to stop believing in the social constructs of the races when I was around 44 years old. I am 51 years old. Reading about genetics of human populations, learning a lot about my ancestral roots from genetic testing and genealogy including connecting with long lost family, and Rachel Dolezal Soul Woman fiasco were factors in why I changed my views about social constructs of race. I have grown to now despise them.


Johann Friedrich Blumenbach divided the human species into five races in 1779, later founded on cranial research (description of human skulls), and called them


the Caucasian race (Europe, the Caucasus, Asia Minor, North Africa and West Asia)


the Mongolian race (East Asia, Central Asia and South Asia)


the Aethiopian race (Sub-Saharan Africa)


the American race (North America and South America)


the Malayan race (Southeast Asia)


These five groups saw some continuity in the various classification schemes of the 19th century, in some cases augmented, e.g. by the Australoid race and the Capoid race in some cases the Mongolian (East Asian) and American collapsed into a single group.


The "three great races" according to Meyers Konversations-Lexikon of 1885–90.


The subtypes are:


Mongoloid race


Caucasoid race


Negroid race


Dravidians and Sinhalese and their classification is described as uncertain


The Mongoloid race sees the widest geographic distribution, including all of the Americas, North Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia, the entire inhabited Arctic while they form most of Central Asia and the Pacific Islands.


Arthur de Gobineau was a successful diplomat for the Second French Empire. He came to believe that race created culture, arguing that distinctions between the three "black", "white", and "yellow" races were natural barriers, and that "race-mixing" breaks those barriers down and leads to chaos. He classified the populations of the Middle East, Central Asia, the Indian subcontinent, North Africa, and southern France as being racially mixed. Gobineau also believed that the white race was superior to all others. He thought it corresponded to the ancient Indo-European culture, also known as "Aryan".According to his definitions, the people of Spain, most of France, most of Germany, southern and western Iran as well as Switzerland, Austria, Northern Italy, and a large part of Britain, consisted of a degenerative race that arose from miscegenation. Also according to him, the whole population of North India consisted of a yellow race.


In 1939, Charles Coon published The Races of Europe, in which he concluded:


The Caucasian race is of dual origin consisting of Upper Paleolithic (mixture of Homo sapiens and Neanderthals) types and Mediterranean (purely Homo sapiens) types.


The Upper Paleolithic peoples are the truly indigenous peoples of Europe.


Mediterraneans invaded Europe in large numbers during the Neolithic period and settled there.


The racial situation in Europe today may be explained as a mixture of Upper Paleolithic survivors and Mediterraneans.


When reduced Upper Paleolithic survivors and Mediterraneans mix, then occurs the process of dinarization, which produces a hybrid with non-intermediate features.


The Caucasian race encompasses the regions of Europe, Central Asia, South Asia, the Near East, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa.


The Nordic race is part of the Mediterranean racial stock, being a mixture of Corded and Danubian Mediterraneans.


In 1962, Coon also published The Origin of Races, wherein he offered a definitive statement of the polygenist view. Coon divided humanity into five races and believed that each race had ascended the ladder of human evolution at different rates.


Since Coon followed the traditional methods of physical anthropology, relying on morphological characteristics, and not on the emerging genetics to classify humans, the debate over Origin of Races has been "viewed as the last gasp of an outdated scientific methodology that was soon to be supplanted."


Charles Darwin concluded that the biological similarities between the different races were "too great" for the polygenist thesis to be plausible. He also used the idea of races to argue for the continuity between humans and animals, noting that it would be highly implausible that man should, by mere accident acquire characteristics shared by many apes.


In The Descent of Man, Darwin noted the great difficulty naturalists had in trying to decide how many "races" there actually were:


Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.


Charles Darwin's ideas have been discounted by people in his time period because he believed in Abolitionism.


I believe that people that advocate and/or defend the social constructs of the races are part of the problem with racism.


The racial categories Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid are actually considered obsolete racial classification of human beings based on a now-disproven theory of biological race.
 
The following AABA Statement on Race & Racism was written by the AABA subcommittee tasked with revising the previous AABA statement on the Biological Aspects of Race that was published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 101, pp 569-570, 1996. The Committee on Diversity (COD) subcommittee was comprised of (in alpha order): Rebecca Ackermann, Sheela Athreya, Deborah Bolnick, Agustín Fuentes (chair), Tina Lasisi, Sang-Hee Lee, Shay-Akil McLean, and Robin Nelson.


The statement was unanimously accepted by the AABA Executive Committee at its meeting on March 27, 2019 at the 88th Annual Meeting in Cleveland, Ohio.



Executive Summary: AABA Statement on Race and Racism


Race does not provide an accurate representation of human biological variation. It was never accurate in the past, and it remains inaccurate when referencing contemporary human populations. Humans are not divided biologically into distinct continental types or racial genetic clusters. Instead, the Western concept of race must be understood as a classification system that emerged from, and in support of, European colonialism, oppression, and discrimination. It thus does not have its roots in biological reality, but in policies of discrimination. Because of that, over the last five centuries, race has become a social reality that structures societies and how we experience the world. In this regard, race is real, as is racism, and both have real biological consequences.


Humans share the vast majority (99.9%) of our DNA in common. Individuals nevertheless exhibit substantial genetic and phenotypic variability. Genome/environment interactions, local and regional biological changes through time, and genetic exchange among populations have produced the biological diversity we see in humans today. Notably, variants are not distributed across our species in a manner that maps clearly onto socially-recognized racial groups. This is true even for aspects of human variation that we frequently emphasize in discussions of race, such as facial features, skin color and hair type. No group of people is, or ever has been, biologically homogeneous or “pure.” Furthermore, human populations are not — and never have been — biologically discrete, truly isolated, or fixed.


While race does not accurately represent the patterns of human biological diversity, an abundance of scientific research demonstrates that racism, prejudice against someone because of their race and a belief in the inherent superiority and inferiority of different racial groups, affects our biology, health, and well-being. This means that race, while not a scientifically accurate biological concept, can have important biological consequences because of the effects of racism. The belief in races as a natural aspect of human biology and the institutional and structural inequities (racism) that have emerged in tandem with such beliefs in European colonial contexts are among the most damaging elements in human societies.
 
Is there a genetic break between Caucasians and East Asian as there is with Black Africans and Northern Africans/Middle Easterns? (Especially if we ignore Somalis, North Sudanese and North Ethiopians)
 
Is there a genetic break between Caucasians and East Asian as there is with Black Africans and Northern Africans/Middle Easterns? (Especially if we ignore Somalis, North Sudanese and North Ethiopians)
How do you define race in this PCA?
Eurasian_PCA.png
 
How do you define race in this PCA?
Eurasian_PCA.png
Maybe not by the position of their plot, but the sum of their archic hominid ancestry? If so, their position on the plot is on a gradient of those ancient hominids, rather than their modern cluster being a polar within and of itself.
 

This thread has been viewed 59535 times.

Back
Top