Does Race exist?

[red_elk]

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.

Nobody in this thread bothered to. Feel free to prove me wrong, if you can quote anybody who argued against this idea.
Because nobody gave an exact definition of what they mean by "social construct"
Neither give examples of any concept which is not a social construct, which would at least help to understand their position.

 

[Berzerker]

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.

If we analyzed the DNA of 2 Irish people would they be closer to each other than either is to an unrelated Australian aborigine?

 

[Senethro]

If we analyzed the DNA of 2 Irish people would they be closer to each other than either is to an unrelated Australian aborigine?

If the Australian aborigine is unrelated (my interpretation: very distantly related) then the two ethnic Irish people will necessarily be closer due to having a more recent ancestor. However, given that in the human species genetic diversity is much lower than most mammals and that ~85% of genetic diversity is within each (reasonably sized) human population, it is not in fact that unlikely that one of the Irish people will be more similar to the Australian Aborigine. ("The average proportion of genetic differences between individuals from different human populations only slightly exceeds that between unrelated individuals from a single population.",http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~huatang/gene244/readings/Science 2002 Rosenberg.pdf)

 

[Estebonrober]

If the Australian aborigine is unrelated (my interpretation: very distantly related) then the two ethnic Irish people will necessarily be closer due to having a more recent ancestor. However, given that in the human species genetic diversity is much lower than most mammals and that ~85% of genetic diversity is within each (reasonably sized) human population, it is not in fact that unlikely that one of the Irish people will be more similar to the Australian Aborigine. ("The average proportion of genetic differences between individuals from different human populations only slightly exceeds that between unrelated individuals from a single population.",http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~huatang/gene244/readings/Science 2002 Rosenberg.pdf)

This.

Nobody in this thread bothered to. Feel free to prove me wrong, if you can quote anybody who argued against this idea.
Because nobody gave an exact definition of what they mean by "social construct"
Neither give examples of any concept which is not a social construct, which would at least help to understand their position.

If we analyzed the DNA of 2 Irish people would they be closer to each other than either is to an unrelated Australian aborigine?

Okay?

 

[red_elk]

Okay?

Not sure what you mean by quoting Berzerker's question after my post.

Whether race is a social construct depends on the definition of social construct.
If for example, eye color falls under that definition, then I'm fine with calling race a social construct.
If social construct means only concepts completely unrelated to biology, like culture, then I disagree.

 

[Estebonrober]

Not sure what you mean by quoting Berzerker's question after my post.

Whether race is a social construct depends on the definition of social construct.
If for example, eye color falls under that definition, then I'm fine with calling race a social construct.
If social construct means only concepts completely unrelated to biology, like culture, then I disagree.

Sometimes this stuff can be so trying. You asked me to quote someone making the argument that race was more than a social construct, by linking DNA to race he is arguing it is more than just a social construct.

 

[Berzerker]

If the Australian aborigine is unrelated (my interpretation: very distantly related) then the two ethnic Irish people will necessarily be closer due to having a more recent ancestor. However, given that in the human species genetic diversity is much lower than most mammals and that ~85% of genetic diversity is within each (reasonably sized) human population, it is not in fact that unlikely that one of the Irish people will be more similar to the Australian Aborigine. ("The average proportion of genetic differences between individuals from different human populations only slightly exceeds that between unrelated individuals from a single population.",http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~huatang/gene244/readings/Science 2002 Rosenberg.pdf)

Thx for the link, I'll read the rest of it but for now I have a couple questions: I've heard the greatest diversity is in Africa because thats where people have lived the longest. And ofc Neanderthals and Denisovans who left earlier would have even more genetic diversity, but many people who left Africa ran into them. Does the Neanderthal DNA in me account for the slightly larger difference between me and 2 Africans? If I have no Neanderthal DNA would I be closer to the same 2 Africans?

 

[Senethro]

Thx for the link, I'll read the rest of it but for now I have a couple questions: I've heard the greatest diversity is in Africa because thats where people have lived the longest. And ofc Neanderthals and Denisovans who left earlier would have even more genetic diversity, but many people who left Africa ran into them. Does the Neanderthal DNA in me account for the slightly larger difference between me and 2 Africans? If I have no Neanderthal DNA would I be closer to the same 2 Africans?

I fall very far short of the expertise needed to answer this!

Keep in mind that by now Neanderthal DNA is extremely well mixed so that any single individual is unlikely to have much and it probably wasn't that different from us anyway.

 

[red_elk]

Sometimes this stuff can be so trying. You asked me to quote someone making the argument that race was more than a social construct, by linking DNA to race he is arguing it is more than just a social construct.

Race is related to skin color and skin color is coded in DNA. If it makes race not a social construct, then it is not the one.
Senethro earlier mentioned that he considers eye color (which is a phenotypical trait and also coded in DNA), a social construct too.
See, different people mean different things by social construct, that's why defining it is important, to be on the same page.

 

[Senethro]

Not quite. The culture you are raised in teaches you what colours are and where the boundaries are. Also, check out this sweet diagram I saw the previous time I linked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue–green_distinction_in_language

Pretty different from anglo huh.

What is perceived as colour exists objectively as light of a particular wavelength. Your eye receives it and your brain interprets it using your culture and declare it as being blue (or green).

Eye colour variation exists but colour-words are a social construct.

SIMILARLY

Human variation exists but race-words are a social construct. You perceive a dark skinned human and interpret them using your culture and declare them to be "black".

But actually they're just a dark skinned human.

 

[Kyriakos]

One should also be careful what they wish for. Usually people think that the current society can be maintained, with some negative facets removed. In practice it would seem that visible changes have a ripple effect. It is a bit like arguing that you don't want to have an edge to things; but by definition an edge always exists.
What i mean to say is that the actual formation of "negative" or "different" traits is not dependent on specific traits (by and large; this has some asterisks due to extremes always being more easy to pick up) as much as it is on the need to have negative/different etc traits always. In essence the specific traits are only circumstantial (again, with asterisks).
Of course, once again, the above has nothing to do with the mere ability to notice differences, such as skin tone. Those won't go away, much like noticing any other somatic difference won't go away. Some are more prominent due to social reason too, of course, but the basis for picking them up isn't social.

 

[red_elk]

Eye colour variation exists but colour-words are a social construct.
Human variation exists but race-words are a social construct.

Words are generally social constructs, nobody in the thread is arguing otherwise.
The question is why we want to keep some of them and get rid of the others.

 

[Kyriakos]

Human variation exists but race-words are a social construct. You perceive a dark skinned human and interpret them using your culture and declare them to be "black".

But actually they're just a dark skinned human.

The (ancient, also modern) greek term for that literally means "dark skinned (toned)": μελα(ν)ψός.
Furthermore it isn't realistic to claim that "black" when used for people connotes anything other than the skin tone. Of course, as happens with any word, the term can have other meanings, and all words function on a number of levels. But you don't see anyone being angry that "black" is used to describe the tone of the letters on the screen.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

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?

I'm well aware that British-Irish relations have not always exactly been brilliant, but I don't think that was particularly based around them being "not white". That definitely feels more like an American concept for the immigrants over there. Feel free to correct me with a barrage of links if you like, but I'm genuinely not very interested in how certain people classified the Irish 100+ years ago.

Like I said before, that has essentially nothing to do with anything I said, and also dates from a time before even my grandparents were born, so why are you suddenly demanding I talk about it?

And if your understanding of scientific concepts is that they are things that are "fixed" then maybe you need to revise your understanding of what science is.

 

[Kyriakos]

I'm well aware that British-Irish relations have not always exactly been brilliant, but I don't think that was particularly based around them being "not white". That definitely feels more like an American concept for the immigrants over there. Feel free to correct me with a barrage of links if you like, but I'm genuinely not very interested in how certain people classified the Irish 100+ years ago.

Like I said before, that has essentially nothing to do with anything I said, and also dates from a time before even my grandparents were born, so why are you suddenly demanding I talk about it?

And if your understanding of scientific concepts is that they are things that are "fixed" then maybe you need to revise your understanding of what science is.

English propaganda against the irish certainly included racial theory.

 

[Estebonrober]

Like I said before, that has essentially nothing to do with anything I said, and also dates from a time before even my grandparents were born, so why are you suddenly demanding I talk about it?
.

The world your grandparents lived in still shapes the world today, to think otherwise is silly. Their policies still shade discussions today.

 

[Lexicus]

It's also silly to claim that his grandparents weren't born in 1998 when the Troubles finally (officially) ended. But I suspect that someone will come in to insist that the Troubles had nothing to do with racism because God turned racism 'off' on some date which will never be specified.

 

[Senethro]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/bloodysunday

Do the British authorities yet see Irish lives as having equal value?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

What am I supposed to say when contemporary sources depicted and claimed Irish people were different from Anglo-Saxons and proposed the idea that they bridged the gap between Black and white people, being seperate from the latter?

 

[Hehehe]

English propaganda against the irish certainly included racial theory.

The magazine that originally published that picture did it as a joke. It's not a serious anthropological piece. In general, according to all accounts, the Irish have always been considered white.