Does Race exist?

[red_elk]

I also think - as i said many times, providing the reason why i think so - that the way most people go about trying to diminish racism is entirely futile

When the anti-racist position is based on emotions rather than facts and logic, it actually helps the opposite side.
Truthy provided good example with prostate cancer rates among AA population. When people are certain that higher rate is a result of discrimination, you cannot reason with them, despite having research evidence that rates are genetic-based. They will just scream "Racist!" to your face.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If you believe something else, make the case for it. I think you're too ignorant to define race scientifically and then show an biological mechanism for resistance to UV damage that correlates well.

So are you saying that if I don't do that then language and national dress are relevant?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Hmmmmmmm! Interesting! Why is it that a definition based on societal power and privilege would only make "white" people racist????????? (in the US)

(so close)

You're avoiding the point that these two definitions are completely contradictory.

It seems obvious why these two definitions exist though. One can be used to excuse non-white people of literally anything, while the other can be used to prove that white people are racist for literally anything. You just wheel out the appropriate definition for the conversation at hand. But that doesn't change that they completely contradict each other.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You are barely a step away from saying that being anti racism is being anti white

If you define racism as "that thing that white people do" then it pretty much is, yes. But since that's not how I define racism then I'm good.

 

[Senethro]

You're avoiding the point that these two definitions are completely contradictory.

It seems obvious why these two definitions exist though. One can be used to excuse non-white people of literally anything, while the other can be used to prove that white people are racist for literally anything. You just wheel out the appropriate definition for the conversation at hand. But that doesn't change that they completely contradict each other.

TBH I kinda sorta disagree with BiC. I just wanted to prod at you seeming upset that a definition explicitly highlighted (in the US) how white people benefit from systemic racism, and then you go full "anti-racist is code for anti-white" so worth it.

Anti-racism is against the racism and the system of racism, and that is only anti-white if to be white is to be for the system. I don't think it is.

So are you saying that if I don't do that then language and national dress are relevant?

That is silly and you know that it is silly. I never mentioned dress, that was your sarcastic post. I am officially agnostic with regards to national dress. But since you were scorning culture, I invited you to make the case for biology, which your posts in this and previous threads suggest you hold.

I mean, currently the "race as social construct" side are all facts and the "race as biology" side are all about their feelings as to how people must have different genes or something. Are you able to bring anything to the table?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

If you define racism as "that thing that white people do" then it pretty much is, yes. But since that's not how I define racism then I'm good.

Racism isn't something exclusively perpetrated by white people but historically they been very successful in monopolising it, even in non white majority countries (Rwanda being a good example, as well as South Africa, Brazil, etc).

The scale white people perpetrated it on is a lot larger as well (Colonialism for example).

Also never mind getting into the history of whiteness being extended to or removed from groups firmly considered white (Germans, French, Italians, the Irish etc) by today's standards, often for the purpose of self gain

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That's cool.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Nothing to say? Why is that?

 

[Senethro]

Manfred you could try being a little more rewarding to engage with.

 

[Berzerker]

Some Asian people are black, you know ? A Black person is a person whose skin tone is black. An Asian person is a person who originates from the Asian continent.

Dravidians (India) have very dark skin and they appear more closely related to Australian aborigines, but 'black' people typically refers to a recent African ancestry just as 'white' people refers to a recent European or Eurasian ancestry. Asian, at least while I grew up in San Francisco with a Chinese family on one side and a black and white family on the other, referred to E and SE Asians and not Arabs, Persians, Jews, Turks, Slavs etc. Now a racist may not care where people are from and base their opinions solely on skin color but I thought they have a hierarchy of hate with some people they find tolerable and some they really hate largely independent of skin color.

This is the problem with race. Its an arbitrary categorisation. Are Arabs, Indians and Chinese one race? They are all Asian but have little in common. What race are Indians? North India and the Middle East have been invaded by many different peoples throughout and before history. What race are their inhabitants?
If the proponents of race as a reality can't come up with answers to these questions why should we take them seriously?

You cant have racial mixing without races. India's a case in point:

"The researchers showed that most Indian populations are genetic admixtures of two ancient, genetically divergent groups, which each contributed around 40-60% of the DNA to most present-day populations. One ancestral lineage — which is genetically similar to Middle Eastern, Central Asian and European populations — was higher in upper-caste individuals and speakers of Indo-European languages such as Hindi, the researchers found. The other lineage was not close to any group outside the subcontinent, and was most common in people indigenous to the Andaman Islands, a remote archipelago in the Bay of Bengal."

https://www.nature.com/news/2009/090922/full/news.2009.935.html

 

[AmazonQueen]

Dravidians (India) have very dark skin and they appear more closely related to Australian aborigines, but 'black' people typically refers to a recent African ancestry just as 'white' people refers to a recent European or Eurasian ancestry. Asian, at least while I grew up in San Francisco with a Chinese family on one side and a black and white family on the other, referred to E and SE Asians and not Arabs, Persians, Jews, Turks, Slavs etc. Now a racist may not care where people are from and base their opinions solely on skin color but I thought they have a hierarchy of hate with some people they find tolerable and some they really hate largely independent of skin color.



You cant have racial mixing without races. India's a case in point:

"The researchers showed that most Indian populations are genetic admixtures of two ancient, genetically divergent groups, which each contributed around 40-60% of the DNA to most present-day populations. One ancestral lineage — which is genetically similar to Middle Eastern, Central Asian and European populations — was higher in upper-caste individuals and speakers of Indo-European languages such as Hindi, the researchers found. The other lineage was not close to any group outside the subcontinent, and was most common in people indigenous to the Andaman Islands, a remote archipelago in the Bay of Bengal."

https://www.nature.com/news/2009/090922/full/news.2009.935.html

Generally I find theres no consistency at all in how people classify race. Skin colour, ancestry, geography, genetics, they all get used, and there is no agreement on the classifications to be used even amongst those who think them valid.

American classification of Asian differs from British probably because for the most part Asian immigrants in the US have been from different parts of Asia to those who came to the UK.

 

[Berzerker]

thats true, the UK and USA do attract people from different parts of Asia... a product of colonialism and geography I suppose

 

[AmazonQueen]

thats true, the UK and USA do attract people from different parts of Asia... a product of colonialism and geography I suppose

Yes, if you said Asian to someone one from the US they'd think of someone Chinese, Japanese, maybe Korean or Vietnamese I'd think.
To someone in the UK it would first bring to mind someone from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh.

But Asian is supposedly a racial classification and included on forms in the UK as such.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Nothing to say? Why is that?

Because (other than including a quote of what I'd said) it didn't appear to be addressed to me. Not sure what you want me to say about it. The first part was pretty much in agreement with what I said, and the second part didn't really have anything to do with what I said. And you also didn't actually ask anything. So all in all.... "that's cool" is about all it warrants really.

I mean sure, you can talk about the historical exclusion of Irish/Italians from "whiteness" if you like, even though that would seem to be a rather American-centric phenomenon. It hasn't been brought up for a couple of pages at least so you can remind us all if you like. Carry on.

 

[Estebonrober]

I think that’s win on the “race is a social construct” side. Since they’ve stated there are differences about humans but not enough closed off from each other to justify a race designation. Not that that is a thing scientifically anyways. Also it seems to me that the “race is a social construct” side conceded that it is used, albeit inconsistently and usually controversially, quite often even though it’s a bunch of nonsense.


Humans are humans. We have many different backgrounds and colors, but racial descriptions are putting up artificial barriers that are adversarial in nature.

 

[Senethro]

Because (other than including a quote of what I'd said) it didn't appear to be addressed to me. Not sure what you want me to say about it. The first part was pretty much in agreement with what I said, and the second part didn't really have anything to do with what I said. And you also didn't actually ask anything. So all in all.... "that's cool" is about all it warrants really.

I mean sure, you can talk about the historical exclusion of Irish/Italians from "whiteness" if you like, even though that would seem to be a rather American-centric phenomenon. It hasn't been brought up for a couple of pages at least so you can remind us all if you like. Carry on.

I think the British exporting grain at gunpoint from Ireland to feed their cattle during a time of famine qualifies. Not just American-centric.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Because (other than including a quote of what I'd said) it didn't appear to be addressed to me. Not sure what you want me to say about it. The first part was pretty much in agreement with what I said, and the second part didn't really have anything to do with what I said. And you also didn't actually ask anything. So all in all.... "that's cool" is about all it warrants really.

I mean sure, you can talk about the historical exclusion of Irish/Italians from "whiteness" if you like, even though that would seem to be a rather American-centric phenomenon. It hasn't been brought up for a couple of pages at least so you can remind us all if you like. Carry on.

The British literally hated and treated the Irish as sub human before America even existed as a concept, let alone a country.

Maybe you should do some research on, I don't know, Irish-British relations? Time of troubles? Ulster plantation? Bloody Sunday? Battle of the Boyne? Potato famine? The treatment of Irish immigrants by the British? To claim it is American centric is at best ignorant and at worst an intentional lie.

Remember these were fellow white people but the British certainly didn't treat them or acknowledge them as such, is it any wonder where America inherited her hatred of the Irish from

Heck, you could even make the case that other European countries didn't see each other as being of the same race, so what does that say about race being a fixed, scientific thing?

 

[red_elk]

I think that’s win on the “race is a social construct” side.

The argument was about whether the concept of race makes sense and should be kept, or not. Read the first post of the thread.
Whether it's social construct or not is irrelevant. Ethnicity is certainly a social construct, yet nobody suggests to get rid of it.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Because (other than including a quote of what I'd said) it didn't appear to be addressed to me. Not sure what you want me to say about it. The first part was pretty much in agreement with what I said, and the second part didn't really have anything to do with what I said. And you also didn't actually ask anything. So all in all.... "that's cool" is about all it warrants really.

I mean sure, you can talk about the historical exclusion of Irish/Italians from "whiteness" if you like, even though that would seem to be a rather American-centric phenomenon. It hasn't been brought up for a couple of pages at least so you can remind us all if you like. Carry on.

Historical exclusion of Irish from whiteness rather began with the British https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...sm-for-more-than-eight-centuries-1342976.html

 

[Senethro]

The argument was about whether the concept of race makes sense and should be kept, or not. Read the first post of the thread.
Whether it's social construct or not is irrelevant. Ethnicity is certainly a social construct, yet nobody suggests to get rid of it.

But its worth repeating that it is only a social construct and noone in this thread has been able to give evidence or reason to think otherwise.