Does Race exist?

[Kyriakos]

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

^That doesn't sound better despite being in the original german.

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.

Why the stubborn defense? What is to be gained?

First of all, how do you imagine it being discarded? Any examples of other such stuff that were discarded?
You are confusing that some are arguing about the cause of using skin tone in taxonomy, with the obviously horrible issue of racism. We were trying to present to you why they aren't one and the same. How more simply can it be put? Let's try this: "if early history man saw another man that had very different skin tone, he would identify that as a big enough difference to constitute a type". You fast forward thousands of years later and tie this to events which have nothing to do with why skin tone is a trait which allows for easily differentiating between bodily forms.

 

[H4run]

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

Your proposition is vulgar Kyriakos, while mine is cute and funny, well not until 100 years later when the orange race start refusing to rent their property to the evil grey race, vice versa.

 

[AmazonQueen]

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?

Do we get issued with colour charts? What happens to siblings who are borderline? Do they get classed as different races because one is slightly darker than the other?

Not only is race arbitrary there is no single definition it follows. Sometimes its colour, sometimes its ancestry, sometimes its just politics.
Just because a ridiculous, useless concept has been around for thousands of years is no reason to keep using it.

 

[Kyriakos]

Your proposition is vulgar Kyriakos, while mine is cute and funny, well not until 100 years later when the orange race start refusing to rent their property to the evil grey race, vice versa.

The racial theory i presented the categories of is vulgar, indeed. And dumb. But it happened. Also it happened again in glorious Fyrom (Fyronm)

 

[Senethro]

^That doesn't sound better despite being in the original german.



First of all, how do you imagine it being discarded? Any examples of other such stuff that were discarded?
You are confusing that some are arguing about the cause of using skin tone in taxonomy, with the obviously horrible issue of racism. We were trying to present to you why they aren't one and the same. How more simply can it be put? Let's try this: "if early history man saw another man that had very different skin tone, he would identify that as a big enough difference to constitute a type". You fast forward thousands of years later and tie this to events which have nothing to do with why skin tone is a trait which allows for easily differentiating between bodily forms.

Yeah, thats what I'm saying! Racists are bad and should be hung by the neck until dead, and taxonomists who try to use races (and especially skin colour) in human classification are stupid and should be peer reviewed very poorly if they submit to halfway decent journals.

I have opinions on both issues!

 

[H4run]

Do we get issued with colour charts? What happens to siblings who are borderline? Do they get classed as different races because one is slightly darker than the other?

Not only is race arbitrary there is no single definition it follows. Sometimes its colour, sometimes its ancestry, sometimes its just politics.
Just because a ridiculous, useless concept has been around for thousands of years is no reason to keep using it.

Of course Im just inviting people to think with that post. Like being a little bit sarcastic

 

[AmazonQueen]

Of course Im just inviting people to think with that post. Like being a little bit sarcastic

I understood that
I'm just too lazy to multiquote atm.

 

[Kyriakos]

Yeah, thats what I'm saying! Racists are bad and should be hung by the neck until dead, and taxonomists who try to use races in human classification are stupid and should be peer reviewed very poorly if they submit to halfway decent journals.

I have opinions on both issues!

You fail to understand a rather simple point (not because you aren't intelligent enough to get it, obviously, but because you are way too focused on a false tie there). Let me try this way: imagine NO ONE EVER USED SKIN TONE TO DEFINE RACE.
Now imagine that instead height was used. So you have races defined by height. Then you have slave-trade and genocides tied to height. Would this mean we should banish differentiation by height? Are we all of one height then? Both futile and false to try to change racism that way.

 

[H4run]

The racial theory i presented the categories of is vulgar, indeed. And dumb. But it happened. Also it happened again in glorious Fyrom (Fyronm)

Many vulgar and dumb thing happened then we give it up, so do race, if we want to justified race because the color diversity is observable, then lets used color. I suspect you are somehow light yellow

 

[Senethro]

You fail to understand a rather simple point (not because you aren't intelligent enough to get it, obviously, but because you are way too focused on a false tie there). Let me try this way: imagine NO ONE EVER USED SKIN TONE TO DEFINE RACE.
Now imagine that instead height was used. So you have races defined by height. Then you have slave-trade and genocides tied to height. Would this mean we should banish differentiation by height? Are we all of one height then? Both futile and false to try to change racism that way.

Hell yeah we would banish differentiation by height! Campaign for Equal Heights now!!!

Height would only be an issue of relevance between you and your doctor. Not you and your employer, your landlord, your friendly neighbourhood law enforcer and all the rest.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm really enjoying this conversation. I don't quite understand, but you'll notice that I'm also not interjecting with any opinion.

So, I have a question: whether or not I deserve social censure for using the N-word in a contemptuous manner depends on my [clarified factor here]. And would knowing my ethnicity allow you to predict how I qualify for the factor you'll put into the square brackets? Is 'ethnicity' the correct word to use in my clarifying question?

 

[Kyriakos]

Btw, i notice some goal-post moving. I care nothing about using skin tone in scientific taxonomy*. I thought we were discussing about the actual everyday use of differentiating bodily forms on account also of skin tone (like with height, hair etc).

*ie as i noted already in my very first post in this thread:

I do agree with Brennan regarding that obviously there is both object to differentiate and ability to differentiate. Of course skin colour doesn't mean anything other than skin colour. Yet it isn't correct to claim that skin colour isn't to be used in taxonomy; it is used in all other beings on earth too despite most other traits in those species being in common. In other words, the problem in my view isn't that people can identify "x colour human" as easy to differentiate from "y colour human"; that by itself isn't negative or biased.

 

[Lexicus]

Now imagine that instead height was used. So you have races defined by height. Then you have slave-trade and genocides tied to height. Would this mean we should banish differentiation by height? Are we all of one height then? Both futile and false to try to change racism that way.

The only way to "change racism" is a massive global realignment: to bring about the end of the "undeveloped world" and of the racial wealth gaps within countries of the "developed world."

I thought we were discussing about the actual everyday use of differentiating bodily forms on account also of skin tone (like with height, hair etc).

That's not what we are discussing at all. My girlfriend is African and has very dark skin, and I have "white" skin, and I can tell that those two things are different, but I don't think it means that my girlfriend is a different subspecies or non-human. You're basically conflating those two things, whether intentionally I cannot tell.

 

[Senethro]

Hell yeah we would banish differentiation by height! Campaign for Equal Heights now!!!

Height would only be an issue of relevance between you and your doctor. Not you and your employer, your landlord, your friendly neighbourhood law enforcer and all the rest.

This post is slightly tongue in cheek, hence I'm replying to it to make a more serious point.

Racism has been so prevalent in our society that Kyriakos tried to make a silly example here, but its actually true. Differentiating by skin tone really is just as silly as differentiating by height. The *******s in our history have programmed us via language and society to regard skin colour as a significant, real and obvious way to differentiate. This is **** that babies learn just by growing up and learning social norms. That is why is must be banished!

 

[Kyriakos]

I do agree with Brennan regarding that obviously there is both object to differentiate and ability to differentiate. Of course skin colour doesn't mean anything other than skin colour. Yet it isn't correct to claim that skin colour isn't to be used in taxonomy; it is used in all other beings on earth too despite most other traits in those species being in common. In other words, the problem in my view isn't that people can identify "x colour human" as easy to differentiate from "y colour human"; that by itself isn't negative or biased.

The only way to "change racism" is a massive global realignment: to bring about the end of the "undeveloped world" and of the racial wealth gaps within countries of the "developed world."



That's not what we are discussing at all. My girlfriend is African and has very dark skin, and I have "white" skin, and I can tell that those two things are different, but I don't think it means that my girlfriend is a different subspecies or non-human. You're basically conflating those two things, whether intentionally I cannot tell.

Well, it is rather strange to think i am of the view that people of different skin tone are "sub-human"*. And the category, as i noted already in my opening post in this thread, is only about the visible skin tone and not a "if you have this skin tone then it follows you have traits x,y etc" ...

*possibly a synthesis of subspecies and nonhuman ^_^

 

[Senethro]

Btw, i notice some goal-post moving. I care nothing about using skin tone in scientific taxonomy*. I thought we were discussing about the actual everyday use of differentiating bodily forms on account also of skin tone (like with height, hair etc).

Why bother? Just read their genome. Much better. Molecular phylogeny rules, morphology sucks.

 

[Hrothbern]

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?

Some countries have only the Red-Blue version of us-them

Some Olympics increased that number from 2 to 5. more "thems" !

And "ofc" the combinations of de Coubertin are purely coincidental: blue (Europe for blue blood), yellow (Asia), black (for Africans), green (Oceania), and red (indigenous North-America)

The rings are five interlocking rings, coloured blue, yellow, black, green, and red on a white field, known as the "Olympic rings". The symbol was originally designed in 1912 by de Coubertin.[5] He appears to have intended the rings to represent the five continents: Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, and America.[6] According to Coubertin, the colours of the rings together with the white of the background included the colours composing every competing nation's flag at the time. Upon its initial introduction, Coubertin stated the following in the August 1912 edition of Olympique:[7]
... the six colours [including the flag's white background] combined in this way reproduce the colours of every country without exception. The blue and yellow of Sweden, the blue and white of Greece, the tricolour flags of France, England [i.e. United Kingdom], the United States, Germany, Belgium, Italy and Hungary, and the yellow and red of Spain are included, as are the innovative flags of Brazil and Australia, and those of ancient Japan and modern China. This, truly, is an international emblem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_symbols

 

[H4run]

Some countries have only the Red-Blue version of us-them

Some Olympics increased that number from 2 to 5. more "thems" !

And "ofc" the combinations of de Coubertin are purely coincidental: blue (Europe for blue blood), yellow (Asia), black (for Africans), green (Oceania), and red for E (indigenous North-America)

Of course! I like blue much better than white! I dont know why but it sound more noble!

Such a noble color blue is...

 

[Kyriakos]

Why bother? Just read their genome. Much better. Molecular phylogeny rules, morphology sucks.

When i am Neo from the Matrix i will no longer need to use eyes and will just see code

 

[Senethro]

When i am Neo from the Matrix i will no longer need to use eyes and will just see code

Sorry, I was still stuck on scientific taxonomy.

But in the social sphere I feel like the only legit use of the concept of race is as a form of error checking, where data is collected on race to determine if the social machine is still causing incorrect outcomes due to still containing parts from the 19th century.