Does Race exist?

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, I will say that part of the cognitive divide is the ability to separate whether 'race' is more than just a skin colour. I'm still trying to figure out the labeling system I'd used to distinguish people of French, German, Vietnamese, and Korean heritage. Obviously I can divide that into two groups that makes some type of real 'sense'. I'm just not sure what to use other than " West European" and "East Asian".

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think it's obviously more than just skin colour.

 

[El_Machinae]

It seems to be a cultural baggage that's foisted upon someone based on the color of their skin. That baggage will be somewhat location specific.

 

[Berzerker]

If people disagree about the existence of race they probably agree tribalism and ethnicity are real. So what is the next step up or do we jump from ethnicity to the human race? Looks to me like there is at least one more set of groups squeezed in there representing related ethnicities.

 

[Kyriakos]

Going by focus on race, some extraterrestrial would think that everyone of the same "race" does fine with the rest of that subset.
Differences (as a type; ie ability to name a difference) don't change, and always will lead to issues. Arbitrarily trying to cancel one larger subset - even if it was possible - would leave other subsets intact.

In a way it is like looking at a machine with hundreds of buttons and an ominous message flashing on the screen. Sure, you can try pressing buttons to stop it, but maybe only a combination of thousands of buttons (many repeating) pressed in exact sequence would have an effect. Perhaps that is also why that message has been on the screen since forever.

 

[H4run]

If people disagree about the existence of race they probably agree tribalism and ethnicity are real.

Culture is a product of men, it's a dynamic variable and it has loose classification and adaptable.

While race is something that you are born into, it's static and generalizing in nature. People may finds the concept of race appealing if they born into a certain privilege within that arbitrary classification, it's like a build in advantage, they get backed up statistically, while the pseudo science makes some rationalization, people can always gives a pat in their back, boost up some confidence, or better chance in life and perception in general.

OTOH for the people of color this means they are born into a statistical misfortune. Statistic said they are not collectively good, this "reality" get empowered further with "scientific" based rationalization, it is like you born into an original sin that only carried by specific group, your group, you can do nothing about it.

 

[Hehehe]

Ease (and cost) of replaceability is the biggest determining factor of wages.
Not the value added.

Not really. That is a function of bargaining power, which is related to your ability to be replaced and who owns the capital.

This is why you have unions, so that workers can't be "just replaced", at least not easily. I guess this goes deep into the specifics, but reason why many workers in industries which do produce a lot of value, have been able to negotiate such good wages is precisely because they produce value and can't be replaced. Then again, that's in Finland, maybe it's different in other countries. Even if your union laws are radically different, surely you have to admit that value added at least has some effect on wages, even if it obviously isn't the only factor?

In any case, in general, since a lot of immigrants are uneducated, that increases low skill workforce and therefore puts a downward pressure on wages (low skill workers tend to be more replaceable when there are more of them). That's exactly why big parts of the working class have switched to supporting "right-wing populists", because progressives have been working against their interests for years.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Culture is a product of men, it's a dynamic variable and it has loose classification and adaptable.

And women!

 

[bernie14]

It must not be coming out from nowhere, there should be a good reason behind the coincide-ntal coincidence

The fact that immigrant are coming from either a nation, a culture, a religion or a skin colour that is racialized upon is definitely a determining factors isn't it?

This is settled already with my discussion with Truthy, your question is comparable with "can't our eyes differentiates the color of people by their skin's color?' the answer of this question doesn't proves anything in regards to social classification of human based on their skin color.

So do the genetic group classification are not comparable in any level of reality with race in a sociocultural sense. Both are not related.

no, I don't think that "race" and "racism" mean the same thing

 

[H4run]

And women!

nice one you got me, I owe you some walnuts and cookies

no, I don't think that "race" and "racism" mean the same thing

Yes they are different but correlated, imagine that you are a teacher, what good can it bring if you classify the students between the blue eyes and the brown eyes, then you try to classify further to know which group get the higher average mark.

You may argue there are no discrimination within the classification process but the clear statement already made that one group born to have higher average intelligent than the other group. People playing with such concept so much and they mostly use statistic to backed up their claim, check up physiognomy.

 

[Berzerker]

if you're out in the wilderness 100,000 years ago and meet someone of a different race, you wont be thinking about average intelligence. You'll be thinking about surviving the encounter and 'race' can help inform that process, especially if your last experience was negative.

 

[H4run]

if you're out in the wilderness 100,000 years ago and meet someone of a different race, you wont be thinking about average intelligence. You'll be thinking about surviving the encounter and 'race' can help inform that process, especially if your last experience was negative.

I really get your point there, generalisation is used as a shortcut cognitive option that made us able to made proper decision making that helps our survival.

But this kind of primitive survival kits is the one that deluded our perception and creates racial prejudice under the pretext of protecting their community and the future of their children. Same primitive motive.

 

[Berzerker]

Indeed, we have an evolutionary affinity for comfort and security and a natural suspicion of difference. From that we generalize once we add experience to the memory banks, the stranger who attacked or helped you in the past will inform future meetings with similar looking people. Racism is thinking you're superior and therefore 'justifies' mistreating them. That mindset is not limited to racists, our egos drive us to think we're superior - at least to someone out there - followed by the snob in us.

 

[H4run]

When it operates in a large pseudo group identity, it creates racism.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Maybe we should change the thread title to "Are you racist?". At least then we'd all be on the same page and aware of what game is being played.

 

[Kyriakos]

I really get your point there, generalisation is used as a shortcut cognitive option that made us able to made proper decision making that helps our survival.

But this kind of primitive survival kits is the one that deluded our perception and creates racial prejudice under the pretext of protecting their community and the future of their children. Same primitive motive.

All kinds of primitive survival kit still exists, though, and imo the mere ability to identify categories based on optical differences is hardly that primitive a survival kit to begin with
Much before you get to that there are more primitive, indeed pro-lingual stuff which remains and is quite decisive under some conditions. Most of our feelings aren't exactly analyzed past some degree, and feelings are certainly older and more primordial than any ability to form notions (which making categories based on optical difference is a synthesis of, and itself not near the first phase of human prehistoric ability to form notions).

Imo trying to cancel something like ability to categorize based on form, with the supposed end to cancel racism, is a lot like trying to rehabilitate a murderer by giving them a lobotomy. Sure, if you manage to ruin their ability to think at all they likely won't go on killing, but that wasn't exactly a surgical strike (well, if you don't take into account the pun ).

 

[H4run]

imo the mere ability to identify categories based on optical differences is hardly that primitive a survival kit to begin with

Obviously it is our empirical sensory tools, but that's only half of the point, let me rephrase my main objection here using your own sentence:

"Using the ability to identify categories based on optical differences in order to generalized people based on observable physical pattern"

Take for instance the observation that you have a blue eyes is not the problem, but it is to classify you inside "the blue eyes people" category, then to further build up some collective personality based on that variable, for instance what is the average income of "the blue eyes" in comparison with "the green eyes"? How prone "the blue eyes" to commit crimes in comparison to "the green eyes"? These information not without impact, it will be used to crafted the collective personality for instance "the blue eyes are mostly less successful and more prone to crime in comparison to the green eyes". This thinking shortcut might have its function to save our budd back then, but it's only serves as a mean prejudice now. Berzerker put a very good and honest wording for this:

You'll be thinking about surviving the encounter and 'race' can help inform that process, especially if your last experience was negative.

Much before you get to that there are more primitive, indeed pro-lingual stuff which remains and is quite decisive under some conditions. Most of our feelings aren't exactly analyzed past some degree, and feelings are certainly older and more primordial than any ability to form notions (which making categories based on optical difference is a synthesis of, and itself not near the first phase of human prehistoric ability to form notions).

It is not the fact of its primordial traits of human that makes it dreadful, but how it corrupts the society with the false negative alarm that makes it bad. It's your old spyware system that delivered you a tons of false negative, resulting you to deletes so many important data in your computer.

Imo trying to cancel something like ability to categorize based on form, with the supposed end to cancel racism, is a lot like trying to rehabilitate a murderer by giving them a lobotomy.

I can recognized your unique physical attribute without lumping you in a box of collective physical category that I precept to be your group, then subconsciously or consciously start to related you with certain subset group personality that already crafted within that category.

 

[Kyriakos]

Obviously it is our empirical sensory tools, but that's only half of the point, let me rephrase my main objection here using your own sentence:

"Using the ability to identify categories based on optical differences in order to generalized people based on observable physical pattern"

Take for instance the observation that you have a blue eyes is not the problem, but it is to classify you inside "the blue eyes people" category, then to further build up some collective personality based on that variable, for instance what is the average income of "the blue eyes" in comparison with "the green eyes"? How prone "the blue eyes" to commit crimes in comparison to "the green eyes"? These information not without impact, it will be used to crafted the collective personality for instance "the blue eyes are mostly less successful and more prone to crime in comparison to the green eyes". This thinking shortcut might have its function to save our budd back then, but it's only serves as a mean prejudice now. Berzerker put a very good and honest wording for this:





It is not the fact of its primordial traits of human that makes it dreadful, but how it corrupts the society with the false negative alarm that makes it bad. It's your old spyware system that delivered you a tons of false negative, resulting you to deletes so many important data in your computer.



I can recognized your unique physical attribute without lumping you in a box of collective physical category that I precept to be your group, then subconsciously or consciously start to related you with certain subset group personality that already crafted within that category.

Groups were already categorized according to other body/looks traits since antiquity For example Herodotos mentions how the Thracians had usually red hair, and the thracian gods were made in likeness of that. Eye colour is also noted persistently. Skin colour wasn't the only thing that helped form a category, and as already shown it wasn't a "the darker your skin tone, the more worthless/worse you are"; ancient greeks obviously didn't have a high regard for hyperborean europeans; those were regarded (as was to be expected) as pretty much feral. By contrast no writer i know of ever comments on persians having different skin tone from greeks (ancient period), and despite of that there are numerous accounts of persians deemed as pretty backward (for better or worse; i am merely noting that skin tone wasn't part of it at all).
Shouldn't it follow logically that the ability to make a category out of such traits does not itself even have anything to do with racism?

Famous individuals also were commented upon due to body/looks. For example Aesop is said to have had a considerably darker skin tone than the average for a greek, while Socrates by numerous accounts looked rather bizarre (iirc his skin tone was the usual for the area, though).

 

[H4run]

Groups were already categorized according to other body/looks traits since antiquity For example Herodotos mentions how the Thracians had usually red hair, and the thracian gods were made in likeness of that. Eye colour is also noted persistently.

I think the spirit of the ancient Greek were pretty much in a search for the arche, a really collective and vigorous hard work on that. They try to classify, questions and construct their surrounding reality. But the deconstruction of a concept, or we may say, the destruction of a concept is not necessarily counter progress, I think this is the very spirit of the Ancient Greek dialectics dynamic, in order to negates the old false thesis we must deconstruct it first.

ancient greeks obviously didn't have a high regard for hyperborean europeans; those were regarded (as was to be expected) as pretty much feral. By contrast no writer i know of ever comments on persians having different skin tone from greeks (ancient period), and despite of that there are numerous accounts of persians deemed as pretty backward (for better or worse; i am merely noting that skin tone wasn't part of it at all).
Shouldn't it follow logically that the ability to make a category out of such traits does not itself even have anything to do with racism?

There should be so many factor to why they were less interest or maybe unable to categorized the Persian or North European. However lets said if a physical pattern of Persian and North European were defined, it will just bolstered the generalization and results racism for sure.

The ideas of the backward Persian and the feral North European will get injected in the physical group pattern of Persian and North European, they can further associate the individual who belong to Persian physical group pattern with the trait backwarded, while the individual who belong to North European physical group pattern with being feral. It will get semiotically simulated

while Socrates by numerous accounts looked rather bizarre (iirc his skin tone was the usual for the area, though).

Poor Socrates, I remember how Nietzsche deemed him to be evil and dismissed his ideas by the fact that he precept him to posses an ugly face, as he quoted one anthropologist stated that "monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo" monster in face, monster in heart; it is in twilight of the idol IIRC. Sure we can laugh at that horrid generalization now, but we are pretty much still the same in a way.

 

[abradley]

It may not be scientifically correct but it sure is handy in many instances:

Nine Killed in Shooting at Black Church in Charleston
Police officers outside the church.CreditRichard Ellis/European Pressphoto Agency

Image

Police officers outside the church.CreditCreditRichard Ellis/European Pressphoto Agency
By Jason Horowitz, Nick Corasaniti and Ashley Southall

• June 17, 2015

CHARLESTON, S.C. — A white gunman opened fire Wednesday night at a historic black church in downtown Charleston, S.C., killing nine people before fleeing and setting off an overnight manhunt, the police said.

Continued
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/us/church-attacked-in-charleston-south-carolina.html

I don't see any racism in calling him white.