• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Race is a human/social construct.

MaGZ said:
Baker’s book contradicts you assertion. You can ignore it if you like, others here will investigate it for themselves. I make no claims to be an authority on racial anthropology so I defer to experts.

You are welcomed to your opinion on race even if it is based on ignorance.
Click to expand...

Himmler thought so, too, but that didn't make it so,
 
slingblade said:
But do you feel like you have the option? Can you choose how much you "notice" race? If you choose not to notice race, is your life personally affected? Will some people notice your race for you, and treat you accordingly?
Click to expand...

Well, I can't not notice race, and I think that's part of my point. To tell me that race doesn't exist, except as a social construct, conflicts with my experience.

If I see someone, I notice what they look like. I can't help it. I also can't help spontaneously categorizing them: tall, short, male, female, young, old, etc.

The more extreme an attribute is, compared to the norm, the more I'll notice that attribute, whether they're 6'9", or 90 years old, or very dark-skinned among people who are mostly coffee-colored or lighter. I don't think those attributes are social constructs, because I think they really do stand out from the norm and cluster in groups of tall people, old people, and black people.

There are also, separately, social constructs that go with different attributes. When I see the 6'9" guy, I'm going to wonder if he's annoyed by airplane seats, and when I see the really dark guy, I'll wonder if he experiences more prejudice around white people.

If I had a different cultural background, I'd absolutely connect different thoughts with those attributes. But to me, that's a separate thing than saying race itself (or tallness, or age, or whatever) as a category, simply doesn't exist.

We don't want to be blind to a person's "color," because that then makes us blind to what their "color" means to them and for them every day. Color does matter. Not noticing it won't make it not matter. Because it's not the color that's the problem, but the attitudes we've ascribed to it. The attitudes have to change first, and then the color won't matter.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Dessi said:
I've never heard of the term "race realist" until seeing this thread, I can definitely see the reason for avoiding the term.
Click to expand...

What she said.
 
L.Y.S. said:
Race is a poor and inaccurate description of a group of people unless the group itself is a nearly homogenous admixture of people.
Click to expand...

So overlaps negate any validity of the taxanomy? :confused:

The vast majority of resistence toward the concept of race is more or less just about the word itself, despite the involved peoples' convictions. It's for most parts a lot of huff n puff about the word as it is used both colloquially and anthropologically in a mixed manner. However, as it is, all related taxonomy is based on conventions used from observation and data of the lineage of human biogeographical/blood, and such groups are studied by mainstream psychology, genetics and medicine (defined as such), we can do little more in the face of scientific coherence than to just argue about the semantics of what terms to call the taxonomic realities we consistently observe.

We have the terms "populations" and "ethniticity" which are all fine and fit many contemporary given colloquial interpretations. As opposed to the four letter word formentioned, these terms holds a bit more comfort. Yet the main knee-jerk resistance to the choice of 'race' as a term to taxonomically group and classify humans comes from the rejection that traits thereof play an influental role through heredity. As it is, some years ago Cavalli-Sforza n Co put forth a volumnous study of the differences in genome et al between human populations. Ironically, it was almost the same groupings of Carleton Coons, only that the former called it "populations".

And it's been argued, for example, biological categories can't readily be based initially on one or two initially notable differences in physiology. Of course, this is little else than nonsense (also human groups differe on a lot more points than so). The actuality of this is that not only is it not nonsense, it's common practise. The denial of formentioned taxanomy as applied to human beings and differences there-of, by whatever word one wishes or convention preferred to substitute 'race', is just as nonsensical as to deny gender and biological differences there-of. I mean, schizophrenia was one of the 70's sociologists darlings to claim as a social effect largely explained by the use of Freud mixed with some boasian musings and sociology. But... we know today that you're never at such a predictable risk of having it as you are if you've got a primary relative with it.

I recommend RandFan and some here to read, apart from Pinker's "Blank Slate: Modern Denial of Human Nature", Frank Miele's and Vincent Sarich's (writers for Skeptic) book "Race: The Reality of Human Differences".
 
Last edited:
This thread feels like one of those retreating arguments used by christian apologists, where they keep redefining what god means into looser and looser characteristics until they say "god is the universe"

In this case, though we can ask when the last time a Mbuti pygmy woman gave birth to a blonde haired, blue eyed, five foot 6 woman
 
Jono said:
I recommend RandFan and some here to read, apart from Pinker's "Blank Slate: Modern Denial of Human Nature", Frank Miele's and Vincent Sarich's (writers for Skeptic) book "Race: The Reality of Human Differences".
Click to expand...

The irony is that RandFan, on other topics, cites Pinker and Shermer chapter and verse.
 
Pup said:
Well, I can't not notice race, and I think that's part of my point. To tell me that race doesn't exist, except as a social construct, conflicts with my experience.

If I see someone, I notice what they look like. I can't help it. I also can't help spontaneously categorizing them: tall, short, male, female, young, old, etc.

The more extreme an attribute is, compared to the norm, the more I'll notice that attribute, whether they're 6'9", or 90 years old, or very dark-skinned among people who are mostly coffee-colored or lighter. I don't think those attributes are social constructs, because I think they really do stand out from the norm and cluster in groups of tall people, old people, and black people.

There are also, separately, social constructs that go with different attributes. When I see the 6'9" guy, I'm going to wonder if he's annoyed by airplane seats, and when I see the really dark guy, I'll wonder if he experiences more prejudice around white people.

If I had a different cultural background, I'd absolutely connect different thoughts with those attributes. But to me, that's a separate thing than saying race itself (or tallness, or age, or whatever) as a category, simply doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
I take it that the statement "race is a social construct" is intended to undermine "scientific racism". In other words, if race is demonstrably a social construct, then there is no justification for the racists essentialist view that that the races are fundamentally different from each other.

I can see why people would make the statement, I just don't think its the best argument against racism. For what its worth, in the animal rights community, there's a popular essay titled Species is a Social Construction which makes the same argument, only generalized to species as well. I don't agree with the title of the essay, but I agree substantially with the arguments made in it (please excuse the lengthy excerpt, it's necessary for context):

[T]he philosopher Carl Cohen writes:

We incorporate the different moral standing of different species into our overall moral views; we think it reasonable to put earthworms on fishhooks but not cats; we think it reasonable to eat the flesh of cows but not the flesh of humans. The realization of the sharply different moral standing of different species we internalize… In the conduct of our day to day lives, we are constantly making decisions and acting on these moral differences among species. When we think clearly and judge fairly, we are all speciesists, of course. (Cohen, 62)​

I would first note that Cohen is using the term "speciesist" incorrectly, since he is talking not about the importance of "species" but about the importance of qualities that are correlated with our perceptions of species. His argument is therefore irrelevant because it ignores Singer’s point that individuals of different species (and individuals of the same species) should be treated differently insofar as they have morally relevant differences- just as men have no right to an affordable mammogram and wealthy white men have no right to the benefits of affirmative action. But what I really want to draw attention to is the question, what does Cohen mean by "species"? One might think that it would be giving Cohen the benefit of the doubt to just name one, preferably one that is accepted by many experts. Let's suppose, for instance, he is talking about Mayr’s biological species concept, which defines a species as a group of individuals capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. But surely Cohen does not believe that when we "are constantly making decisions and acting on these moral differences among species,” we are making our decisions based upon matters of who is capable of breeding with whom. For, not only do we not need to know any information about the mating capabilities of these animals to make moral distinctions between them; most of us wouldn’t even know what to do with this kind of information if we had it!

So perhaps Cohen means a "commonsense" concept of species. That is, what is morally relevant are the distinctions that we are all capable of making simply by looking, with no scientific or philosophical training. What is morally relevant, in other words, is appearance. Yet I doubt that when Cohen wrote this passage he had appearance in mind as a morally relevant characteristic. For Cohen, unlike Darwin, the difference between humans and other animals is not merely one of degree, but one of kind. It is difficult to imagine how Cohen might hold this essential difference of kind to be based upon appearance. More likely, he would probably claim that we make distinctions between species based upon appearance, but it is not the appearance that is morally relevant but something else that is inevitably correlated with appearance. For instance, we distinguish between worms and cats based upon how they look, but the morally important distinction is ‘something else’ that is correlated by appearance.

But unless someone can tell us what this ‘something else’ is, it is only prudent to assume that it is a "vivid illusion,” as biologists Frank Keil and Daniel Richardson argue in "Species, Stuff, and Patterns of Causation" (Keil and Richardson in Species, 273). And remember, this ‘something else’ cannot be intelligence, self-awareness, language, or capacity for suffering, because then those properties would be the morally relevant characteristics- but no one argues that they are equivalent to "species.” This ‘something else’ must simultaneously satisfy at least two conditions, which I believe is impossible. First, it must correspond with what we really mean when we talk about species, and second, it must at least be plausible that it is really the basis of our moral distinctions between supposed species. Mayr’s biological species concept and species concepts based on genes or DNA, for instance, do not satisfy the second condition. And properties like rationality and language do not satisfy the first condition.

In other words, my main reason for saying that species is socially constructed is that we often unconsciously argue as if species has an essence; as if there is something about species in the background that can not be described, but which can simultaneously satisfy both the first and second condition. Given the basis of any species concept, few would argue that that basis is morally relevant in any significant way. Given the basis of Mayr’s biological species concept, few would argue that whom we have the ability to mate with is a relevant characteristic for determining how much moral consideration we should be granted (Lewis Petrinovich may be an exception, though his work is not altogether clear on the matter). Given the major basis of commonsense notions of species, few would argue that how we look should determine how much moral consideration we should be granted. Why, then, do some philosophers hold that our species can determine how much moral consideration we should be granted? I believe it is because they do not equate species with any biological or commonsense way of determining species. Rather, they are probably committing Washoe’s fallacy, thinking of species membership as some essential characteristic of an individual that, in reality, does not exist.
Click to expand...

When people say race -- or species -- is a social construction, what they really mean is that race is not a morally relevant characteristic, knowing a person's race does not communicate any information about whether that person deserves food, shelter, or to be free from harm. Whatever properties determine a person's moral worth, like their capacity to feel pain and pleasure, rationality, morally reciprocating, are, by definition, the morally relevant characteristics we care about, and none of those characteristics are equivalent to race at all.

I don't think its necessary to deny that race really is a characteristic of human populations. The line of thought above is more than adequate to totally undermine any rational argument for racism (or speciesism).
 
Last edited:
Delvo said:
Just arbitrarily, randomly grouping any 2 or more traits bears no resemblance to it...
Click to expand...
But THAT'S what you are doing. You are finding corelating traits and using those traits to justify "race".

...not only because you're dealing with so few traits compared to the hundreds of genes that establish racial populations
Click to expand...
Begging the question. You've not established what racial populations are or how one gene would justify inclusion.

This is what bothers me about your posts. You make grand claims with no basis for them. How on earth would a gene be a "racial" gene? OR What special combination of genes makes a race and how would we know of the myriad combinations which compose a race? You can't tell us because no such things exist.

...but also because those traits you're choosing aren't statistically correlated with each other; having one such trait is not linked to the odds of having the other.
Click to expand...
Demonstrate that traits are only correlated with other traits for races?
 
Jono said:
So overlaps negate any validity of the taxanomy? :confused:
Click to expand...
No. I already conceded that point. That there is so much overlap and so little unique variation leaves little room for such groups as race.

The vast majority of resistence toward the concept of race is more or less just about the word itself, despite the involved peoples' convictions.
Click to expand...
I care about the truth. I started with the belief that race was an easily defined and easily determined thing. I found it is just a lot of nonsense. I could put you in a room with 50 people and without much effort pick individuals that you couldn't determine the race of any of them.

Jono said:
I recommend RandFan and some here to read, apart from Pinker's "Blank Slate: Modern Denial of Human Nature", Frank Miele's and Vincent Sarich's (writers for Skeptic) book "Race: The Reality of Human Differences".
Click to expand...
:biggrin: Cain is right. I have the Pinker books and I'm right now re-reading Blank slate for the third time.

What is your point?
 
Last edited:
Dessi said:
I don't think its necessary to deny that race really is a characteristic of human populations. The line of thought above is more than adequate to totally undermine any rational argument for racism (or speciesism).
Click to expand...

Indeed, pretty much what Pinker did with his work on the matter, as he seperates race-denial from logical arguments against racism.
 
pipelineaudio said:
This thread feels like one of those retreating arguments used by christian apologists, where they keep redefining what god means into looser and looser characteristics until they say "god is the universe"
Click to expand...
Agreed. The definition of race not only has not been provided to any satisfaction it's fading.

In this case, though we can ask when the last time a Mbuti pygmy woman gave birth to a blonde haired, blue eyed, five foot 6 woman
Click to expand...
When the thread started I conceded that had there been no genetic mixing an argument for race could have been more easily made. Given how sexualy active humans are it wouldn't surprise me one bit that a pygmy could give birth to a blonde haired blue eyed woman who would grow to be 5 foot 6. You? Or do you honestly believe that Mbuti pygmies never copulate with other non-Mbuti pygmies?

If we go back in time to when we didn't interbreed, then sure, I accept your premise, so what? There still is far, far more in common than there are differences and the pygmy certainly can reproduce with non-pygmies so besides some insignificant phenotypes what's the point?
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
No. I already conceded that point. That there is so much overlap and so little unique variation leaves little room for such groups as race.
Click to expand...

Well you forgot to add "for humans...", as we seperate entire species of lice on a lot less differences and others for equal, more and less overlaps. The basic point that the history of taxonomy and contemporay science tells us that obviously an overlap does not negate 'race, as it's swiftly determinable what, under those terms, biogeographical ancestry a given individual predominantely has. The phrasings by which we call the consistently emerging groups that still lay prime basic origin variables, is less relevant... but unfortunately that is where the hick-up is for most people even today.

I care about the truth. I started with the belief that race was an easily defined and easily determined thing. I found it is just a lot of nonsense.
Click to expand...

Yes but that's the classic flap-door from at one end swallowing what people were arguing that a category is defined as "B", overtuned by the arguments that it can't possibly be defined as simplistically as that (and for some dumb reason assumed/argued it is a social construct).

could put you in a room with 50 people and without much effort pick individuals that you couldn't determine the race of any of them.
Click to expand...

While morphology is relevant, you're again assuming two things; A) that "race" is only morphologically visible and B)that ones singularis or pluralis of "race" always has to be visible.

I could show you 50 mixed dogs whose degree, property or main breed you'd be hard pressed to tell. Would that mean they had none? Would it mean their individual biological properties easily definable by genetics were social constructs as well? No, of course not. Hopefully now you realise that you just made a less than fitting argument yes?

Cain is right. I have the Pinker and I'm right now re-reading Blank slate for the third time.

What is your point?
Click to expand...

The point given by those two books are, resoundly, against argumentation that the existence of race or to say that any differences inbetween such groupings (gender, ethniticity, individuals etc) are rightfully chalked down to socially constructed explanations. I.e, as Pinker said it's part of the modern denial of human nature, taking its form of the Blank Slate, Noble Savage and The Ghost in the Machine. The latter tends to be less of a controversy for people here to grasp, but the other two... oi vey.
 
Last edited:
I've come to the position that "race" is, yes, largely imaginative. Physical differences among humans are factual, of course, but skin color is genetically not all that different from hair color.

I do think our arguments over race, like others have said, have a lot to do with geography. Different geographical populations developed different genetic tendencies. Over time, we labeled geographic groups and we've retained those labels even as we've become globalized.

If you research genetics though, you'll find surprising stuff. For instance, that two isolated populations have more in common with each other than they with other populations that physically look more like them. Or that there's more genetic diversity in Africa than in the rest of the world.

Big Important Add: I think the arguments over "race," in light of emerging genetic technologies, are hair-splitting. So what if we can genetically distinguish one group from another? Truths about groups will never be true for all individuals in that group because humans are so genetically similar to each other.
 
Last edited:
Jono said:
The basic point that the history of taxonomy and contemporay science tells us that obviously an overlap does not negate 'race, as it's swiftly determinable what, under those terms, biogeographical ancestry a given individual predominantely has. The phrasings by which we call the consistently emerging groups that still lay prime basic origin variables, is less relevant... but unfortunately that is where the hick-up is for most people even today.
Click to expand...
Begging the question. Your premise explicitly assumes the conclusion. You will need to re-work that.

In any event, the ancestry bit is nonsense. Due to recombination we can't get every ancestral line. My mitocondrial DNA might track back to Ireland (and that can be determined) while I also have ancestors from Germany, native America and Sweden right? And how would a geneticist know since recombination erases those lines?

While morphology is relevant, you're again assuming two things; A) that "race" is only morphologically visible and B)that ones singularis or pluralis of "race" always has to be visible.

I could show you 50 mixed dogs whose degree, property or main breed you'd be hard pressed to tell. Would that mean they had none? Would it mean their individual biological properties easily definable by genetics were social constructs as well? No, of course not. Hopefully now you realise that you just made a less than fitting argument yes?
Click to expand...
I will concede your premises.

So, tell me, what is a race?
 
RandFan said:
What does that mean? And what is race? How is it determined? How many races are there? Sub races?
Click to expand...

For other creatures we classify via the international codes or the phylogenic codes, and related scientists do not always agree... yet I've never heard one to claim one or the other of being a social construct, let alone the concepts thereof in applying to be that. But of course... humans aren't all that mammalian are we? We're social constructs, or all definable as an homogenous blob, or only differentiable on an individual basis... then of course there's gender... and... well now the denial is just getting silly isn't it?
 
Someone please to provide a working definition of race used and accepted by anthropologists?

American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race"

Most anthropologists no longer take the idea of race seriously. Human populations do differ in some respects in their genetic makeup (e.g. blood types), but there is little use in trying to lump groups into racial groupings based on often, physically meaningless characteristics (e.g. skin pigmentation).
Click to expand...
 
Jono said:
But of course... humans aren't all that mammalian are we? We're social constructs, or all definable as an homogenous blob, or only differentiable on an individual basis... then of course there's gender... and... well now the denial is just getting silly isn't it?
Click to expand...
I conceded ethnicity, I conceded haplogroups. I don't have a problem with classifications. I can find no meaningful distinction of race. That's all. No reason to make this more than it needs be. Instead of the belittling why don't you make a case for race? Tell us what you think it is and how we can objectively determine race?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom