AL_DA_GREAT said:
No, but I'm not sure how an ill-defined set of congruent social behaviors has anything to do with evolution.
AL_DA_GREAT said:
I agree, I don't identify myself as white, my identity is much more local.
That's fine. You see where I'm going though? That whiteness is an identity, which can be adopted or rejected. You've done it; I fail to see why you can't see that other people might do the same thing.
AL_DA_GREAT said:
Would you really say that to a concerned native American? Don'y worry, you don't really exist. All these people comming off the boat will not cause any harm.
I don't think native Americans (here referring to those groups living in America pre-1491) would have identified themselves as
being native Americans. The term wouldn't have had a wit of meaning to them. It wouldn't have had a meaning to Columbus either he was convinced he'd discovered the Indies. That said, I don't deny that a Native American construed identity now exists, I just deny that it has a biological basis.
AL_DA_GREAT said:
So evolution doesn't exist? Seriously if you can't see the diversity in mankind you are blind. You deny that white people exist. That is anti white.
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that 'white' identity
isn't biological i.e. that it can exist independent of skin color and that the things 'white people do' aren't hard-coded.
Quackers said:
..are we going to get into that crazy academic definitions of "race" now?
I haven't talked about race. I have talked about identity, which is really a simple concept to grasp. You could be: British, Black, Londoner, Man United Fan in that order or British, not English, Londoner but
really from Leeds, Leeds United fan if it wins, which isn't often, and therefore a Man United fan the rest of the time. Identities tend to be layered, that is people hold to more than one and react to events and situations around them. It's instinctive. Just think about how you act in front of your mum compared to your friends; apply that to how broader topics like how you might react if someone called Churchill an Imperialist and you can figure out where you sit.
Quackers said:
"Race is only a social construct", I never really understood that, the wikipedia article on it is mystifying. It's like reading the longest TF post ever.
Race is a social construct; in the sense that people define it. But it does have
some biological basis; having said that, race doesn't influence identity or how we behave. The kinds of things we associate with 'white people' inability to sing, dance etc. have nothing to do with biology and everything to do with what we think white identity entails. Moreover, 'white' identity isn't synonymous with a 'white' race (which doesn't exist
per say); one could not adhere to a white identity and still belong to the (hypothetical) 'white' race.