Does Race exist?

[Senethro]

Look, if you don't think historical baggage is a good enough reason, then paint a swastika on your face and walk down your local high street. Its the quickest way to learn what historical baggage feels like.

 

[Kyriakos]

Look, if you don't think historical baggage is a good enough reason, then paint a swastika on your face and walk down your local high street. Its the quickest way to learn what historical baggage feels like.

How is that a reply to what i posted?

 

[Senethro]

How is that a reply to what i posted?

I'm disagreeing with you that classification of people using skin colour or the word race can be done neutrally (for at least the next few centuries). It will always be "negative or biased". While I think the concept of race is a useless tool and so should be discarded, unlike Kingdom, phylum, etc and even breed (which strictly isn't taxonomic), the historical baggage of who used the tool should always be the clincher.

 

[Modder_Mode]

What else could explain the disparity? People of colour, in an American context, are treated less favourably in comparison to white people by society and it's institutions, greatest example being the law.

Culture plays a huge part of this racial disparity. Statistical disparity doesn't necessarily indicate racism. For example men commit crimes far greater than women but we don't claim that the justice system is sexist. There will be a disparate impact on different groups of people that doesn't necessarily mean that something racist is going on even though there is a racial impact.

Well, yes, it's obvious that it's due to to racism.

Do you have evidence that it's due to racism and more importantly when can we decide that something racist has occurred?

Why do you think that racist discrimination can only happen in the law?

No. My reply was in response to Cloud_Strife and his comment that the racial disparity is institutionalized/systemic. Racism occurs across the spectrum of many different peoples, in my own personal experience the worse racism I have seen doesn't come from white folks, it comes from other ethnicities and colours, but that's just my world view, all of us have different experiences and world views so I am not going to try and use that as factual statement on "who's the most racist group of people".

You sound out of touch, black people are in danger everytime they're stopped by cops, which happens disproportionately to them, one only needs to look at the spate of cops shooting people of colour, whilst handling white people for comparable crimes differently.

I wouldn't say out of touch, I'd say more informed.

White men are more likely to be shot by the police than black men though?
Fatal police shootings are strongly tied to situations in which violent crime is being committed or suspected of being committed. A typical fatal police shooting occurs when there is the potential for imminent death to an officer or other citizen. Almost 85 percent of police fatal shootings involve armed citizens.

Even if it was true that black men are more likely to be shot than white men and its because of racism, are we then led to believe that there is some kind of racial conspiracy that brews amongst the ranks of the police force? That there's this kind of KKK element in the police force in which racist white police officers join the police force simply so that they can kill a black person and get away with it?

I disagree.

You disagree that white privilege is true?

Slavery, Jim Crow and the modern drug war specifically targeted black people.

Of course these laws were intrinsic in creating a racial disparity in the past, it's the whole reason why my statement acknowledged white privilege existed in the past. I am asking for current laws that would create a racial disparity?

 

[brennan]

Y
The use of the word race is an assertion that all people who look "black" (or asian or w/e) have some essence of "blackness" about them,

The use of the idea of 'race' predates models where skin colour was considered the primary determinant - so this is obviously untrue - or rather, not necessarily true. 'Modern' race distinctions (and racism) came about because for the first time in history people could see the whole panoply of the human race, whereas the classical Greeks could not - they merely distinguished between their neighbouring tribes and nations - Medians, Persians, Scythians, Macedonians etc - and notice that these distinctions would make less sense (if that is the argument people are still referring to) than black/white - since the actual genetic differences between these neighbouring peoples were almost certainly smaller than those between Europeans and Africans (considered as a group) - however this never stopped anyone from applying the idea. and likewise when people could see that there were major groupings that could be made by skin colour they did so. It was just the latest version of tribalism - applied globally.

and this idea was used to make it permissible to oppress and exploit them. Racists assert that people still have this innate racial essence they can diagnose, usually by looking at someone.

Like all those posters who bang on about white people?

Can't trust so many white people in one place.

TBH we're lucky jewish people aren't as sensitive about being genocided as white people are about doing genocides.

 

[H4run]

@Truthy look truthy, either you agreed Europe dweller includes immigrant or not it is not helping our discussion about race.

The fact that there are genetic difference between human doesnt implied or helping anything in the disputed object of discussion which is the reality of race as a concept of human classification, if you agree that race is a political term than a term that emerged from biological reality, then I dont understand what we are disagreeing here.

 

[Senethro]

Medians, Persians, Scythians, Macedonians are cultural/ethnic groups. Perfectly sensible social and extended family of families based groupings. V. different from the ideology based on skin colour groupings of race.

The atlantic slave trade predates the movement of rais/razza (various romance) into race (english). The seeking of profit created the need for ideology which reinforced itself.

Like all those posters who bang on about white people?

You can't trust white people! You take your eye off them for a minute and they try to reclaim confederate symbols or the concept of races as being acceptable in our societies.

 

[brennan]

Perfectly sensible social and extended family of families based groupings. V. different

And not at all susceptible to genocidal abuse?

The Hutu Ten Commandments

1. Every Hutu should know that a Tutsi woman, whoever she is, works for the interest of her Tutsi ethnic group. As a result, we shall consider a traitor any Hutu who

• marries a Tutsi woman
• employs a Tutsi woman as concubine
• employs a Tutsi woman as a secretary or takes her under protection.

2. Every Hutu should know that our Hutu daughters are more suitable and conscientious in their role as woman, wife and mother of the family. Are they not beautiful, good secretaries and more honest?
3. Hutu women, be vigilant and try to bring your husbands, brothers and sons back to reason.
4. Every Hutu should know that every Tutsi is dishonest in business. His only aim is the supremacy of his ethnic group. As a result, any Hutu who does the following is a traitor:

• makes a partnership with Tutsi in business
• invests his money or the government's money in a Tutsi enterprise
• lends or borrows money from a Tutsi
• gives favours to Tutsi in business (obtaining import licenses, bank loans, construction sites, public markets, etc.).

5. All strategic positions, political, administrative, economic, military and security should be entrusted only to Hutu.
6. The education sector (school pupils, students, teachers) must be majority Hutu.
7. The Rwandan Armed Forces should be exclusively Hutu. The experience of the October 1990 war has taught us a lesson. No member of the military shall marry a Tutsi.
8. The Hutu should stop having mercy on the Tutsi.
9. The Hutu, wherever they are, must have unity and solidarity and be concerned with the fate of their Hutu brothers.

• The Hutu inside and outside Rwanda must constantly look for friends and allies for the Hutu cause, starting with their Hutu brothers.
• They must constantly counteract Tutsi propaganda.
• The Hutu must be firm and vigilant against their common Tutsi enemy.

10. The Social Revolution of 1959, the Referendum of 1961, and the Hutu Ideology, must be taught to every Hutu at every level. Every Hutu must spread this ideology widely. Any Hutu who persecutes his brother Hutu for having read, spread, and taught this ideology is a traitor.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutu_Ten_Commandments

Also see: Bosnia and Kosovo. Innumerable others throughout history.

 

[Senethro]

Could you make your point more explicitly? I'm at risk of making a lazy strawman.

 

[Kyriakos]

Could you make your point more explicitly? I'm at risk of making a lazy strawman.

Too late


My own point is not that "race" can realistically be used by all as neutral (obviously this can't happen). My point is that it is both futile and irrational to try to banish racism by refusing obvious traits being used in taxonomy.
Lightness of skin colour wasn't deemed as "superior" since the dawn of history. You seriously think (eg) greeks (or even romans) regarded the northern barbarian tribes as superior? Yet they could very logically differentiate them as a group also by use of skin tone.

 

[Senethro]

Too late


My own point is not that "race" can realistically be used by all as neutral (obviously this can't happen). My point is that it is both futile and irrational to try to banish racism by refusing obvious traits being used in taxonomy.
Lightness of skin colour wasn't deemed as "superior" since the dawn of history. You seriously think (eg) greeks (or even romans) regarded the northern barbarian tribes as superior? Yet they could very logically differentiate them as a group also by use of skin tone.

Skin colour is not an obvious trait to use in taxonomy with regards to humans. It would lead to paraphyletic groups, a mortal sin as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Kyriakos]

Skin colour is not an obvious trait to use in taxonomy with regards to humans. It would lead to paraphyletic groups, a mortal sin as far as I'm concerned.

If it is not obvious then why was it used since early historic times? And already shown to you to not have been used in a "the lighter your skin tone is the better you are".

 

[brennan]

Skin colour is not an obvious trait...

You are funny.

Edit: Genocide can happen just as easily via groupings Senthro is happy to use as ones he rejects because they played a role in genocides. As I asserted 10 pages ago, the position he occupies is entirely incoherent.

 

[Senethro]

You are funny.

Its an obvious trait for racists to use, its not an obvious trait for rigorous classification.

Edit: Genocide can happen just as easily via groupings Senthro is happy to use as ones he rejects because they played a role in genocides.

"Genocide doesn't require race therefore race is cool and good." is so exceptionally stupid that I felt sure I must have misread you. Hence I invited you to make your actual point more explicitly.

 

[Kyriakos]

Its an obvious trait for racists to use, its not an obvious trait for rigorous classification.

Only it isn't only obvious for racists, given it should have been made clear to you by now that it was used by people since early historic times. And those who used it didn't give a crap about whiter-than-white norse.
I think part of the issue is that in a part of the world "racism" is presented as just being about "black and white" or also "jews and white". This just doesn't stand to any examination. Brennan already mentioned the nice genocide in Africa between rather glaringly non-white groups. In east-asia almost no one cares about this subset of racism that has to do with the slave trade, cause they don't frame it as the centerpiece and had no reason to.
Besides, just cause one cannot prove if the Goldbach conjecture is true or not, it doesn't mean it would be a good idea to erase other parts of math. Likewise, that a way to differentiate happens to play a part in the specific context of slave trade (and also 17th- later century Europe) doesn't mean much regarding why skin colour was used in differentiating groups of people since early historic times.
To put it briefly, your view regarding use of skin tone in defining categories is both impossible to implement and would have failed in removing racism even if magically it could be done; cause by itself isn't about racism but ability to see differences in forms or traits.

edit: there is a poignant local saying making fun of arguing in favour of supposed solutions which are based on somehow erasing the whole lot and not just the problematic part. It can be translated to: "if you hand hurts then cut it off" ^_^

 

[brennan]

Senthro, you're projecting again.

 

[H4run]

I'm saying that almost every system of classification in use uses arbitrary standards to separate groups. The stance that the taxon 'race' makes no sense because it uses arbitrary standards (e.g. as simple as skin colour)......

Black people are different from white people - you can tell the difference with your eyes. Black people are black, white people are white.

In this term then should race being differentiated with color? For instance

Black race
White race
Red race
Yellow race
Grey race (black white combination)
Light yellow race (yellow white combination)
Orange race (yellow red combination)
Etc

This is more coherence than the nation state based racial classification.

Great idea isnt it?

 

[Kyriakos]

In this term then should race being differentiated with color? For instance

Black race
White race
Red race
Yellow race
Grey race (black white combination)
Light yellow race (yellow white combination)
Orange race (yellow red combination)
Etc

This is more coherence than the nation state based racial classification.

Great idea isnt it?

Why not follow the 18th century german Fyrom historian model and go with: -germanic mac, - negroid (sic), -mongoloid (sic).

 

[Lexicus]

White people: "racism doesn't exist anymore, those underdeveloped countries/poor non-whites should stop whining and try to assimilate!"
Also white people: "race is just as legitimate a classification as any other biological taxonomy!"

Here's a politically incorrect opinion that will be probably be censored: people who actually believe in Rassenkunde should be lined up and shot.

 

[Senethro]

Like, what about this is so hard? The concept of race (in humans) has no good uses, few neutral uses and some awful uses that have made dark stains on history and could do so again.

Therefore, it should be discarded. Thats sensible, right?

Why the stubborn defense? What is to be gained? Why do you want to be able to point to someone in the street and say "They are in the category of black".