fightinfrenchman wrote:That doesn't mean it doesn't exist a social construct
It obviously does exist as a social construct, but that's not what's being discussed
It's being said under the idea that "People should stop talking about race" though
This is why I have an issue with what @Hawk_Girl is saying, because you can't disentangle the two today. Saying that races (or differences in groups of people or whatever you want to call it) aren't relevant/don't exist is just a way to invalidate the experiences of people who live their lives being discriminated against because of race.
Then talk about racism, and not about race. That's all I'm saying. Scientifically speaking race in humans do not exist. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. That doesn't mean discrimination doesn't exist. It's just a fact of human genetics that I'm talking about.
The point is that race also exists as a social construct. Who is considered "white" in America has changed over time because it is a socially contructed idea; that it doesn't really mean anything biologically doesn't matter
The fact that it has no bilogical relevance definately does matter, I would argue. I don't think most people who use the term race are aware that it's biological irrelevant. Even in this thread it was argued with sickle cell anemia and whatnot. Why do you need a scientifically incorrect term to discuss injustices?
Because the injustices were conducted along racial lines. After reading up a bit on wiki I agree with your scientific distinction (I was thinking about landraces in plant biology, my field, which aren't dissimilar from clades/clines).
However, modern anthropology didn't decide who was enslaved or not; old, very racist anthropology did, and those are the lines that divide the oppressed from the rest today, not your most modern scientific definition which is socially meaningless. Therefore your contribution to the discussion isn't useful, because socially we're working by necessity with outdated terms.
Awesome that you learned, but I don't get why you think what I'm saying is useless. I agree it's old racist anthropology that led to many structures today. But why can't you just say that, and talk about the history and about racism (not race) today? I think you underestimate everyone, including yourself, when you say we need the term race to have these conversations. The conversations in fact become way more fruitful when we all know the facts, the discuss and debate our opinions.
I said it several times before but I'll say it again to make it clear. Talk about racism, not race. They are not the same!
fightinfrenchman wrote:That doesn't mean it doesn't exist a social construct
It obviously does exist as a social construct, but that's not what's being discussed
It's being said under the idea that "People should stop talking about race" though
This is why I have an issue with what @Hawk_Girl is saying, because you can't disentangle the two today. Saying that races (or differences in groups of people or whatever you want to call it) aren't relevant/don't exist is just a way to invalidate the experiences of people who live their lives being discriminated against because of race.
Then talk about racism, and not about race. That's all I'm saying. Scientifically speaking race in humans do not exist. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. That doesn't mean discrimination doesn't exist. It's just a fact of human genetics that I'm talking about.
The point is that race also exists as a social construct. Who is considered "white" in America has changed over time because it is a socially contructed idea; that it doesn't really mean anything biologically doesn't matter
The fact that it has no bilogical relevance definately does matter, I would argue. I don't think most people who use the term race are aware that it's biological irrelevant. Even in this thread it was argued with sickle cell anemia and whatnot. Why do you need a scientifically incorrect term to discuss injustices?
Because the injustices were conducted along racial lines. After reading up a bit on wiki I agree with your scientific distinction (I was thinking about landraces in plant biology, my field, which aren't dissimilar from clades/clines).
However, modern anthropology didn't decide who was enslaved or not; old, very racist anthropology did, and those are the lines that divide the oppressed from the rest today, not your most modern scientific definition which is socially meaningless. Therefore your contribution to the discussion isn't useful, because socially we're working by necessity with outdated terms.
I mean you yourself thought just now that humans actually have races. Don't you think that's a big problem worth bringing up when you talk about these things?
fightinfrenchman wrote:@Hawk_Girl How exactly do you define "racism" then?
Some people like to have different definitions, but the basic one is the idea that humans can be divided into races. And that the different traits these races have make the differences between the races bigger than within the races. All of which have been disproven by science.
fightinfrenchman wrote:That doesn't mean it doesn't exist a social construct
It obviously does exist as a social construct, but that's not what's being discussed
It's being said under the idea that "People should stop talking about race" though
This is why I have an issue with what @Hawk_Girl is saying, because you can't disentangle the two today. Saying that races (or differences in groups of people or whatever you want to call it) aren't relevant/don't exist is just a way to invalidate the experiences of people who live their lives being discriminated against because of race.
Then talk about racism, and not about race. That's all I'm saying. Scientifically speaking race in humans do not exist. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. That doesn't mean discrimination doesn't exist. It's just a fact of human genetics that I'm talking about.
The point is that race also exists as a social construct. Who is considered "white" in America has changed over time because it is a socially contructed idea; that it doesn't really mean anything biologically doesn't matter
The fact that it has no bilogical relevance definately does matter, I would argue. I don't think most people who use the term race are aware that it's biological irrelevant. Even in this thread it was argued with sickle cell anemia and whatnot. Why do you need a scientifically incorrect term to discuss injustices?
Because the injustices were conducted along racial lines. After reading up a bit on wiki I agree with your scientific distinction (I was thinking about landraces in plant biology, my field, which aren't dissimilar from clades/clines).
However, modern anthropology didn't decide who was enslaved or not; old, very racist anthropology did, and those are the lines that divide the oppressed from the rest today, not your most modern scientific definition which is socially meaningless. Therefore your contribution to the discussion isn't useful, because socially we're working by necessity with outdated terms.
Awesome that you learned, but I don't get why you think what I'm saying is useless. I agree it's old racist anthropology that led to many structures today. But why can't you just say that, and talk about the history and about racism (not race) today? I think you underestimate everyone, including yourself, when you say we need the term race to have these conversations. The conversations in fact become way more fruitful when we all know the facts, the discuss and debate our opinions.
I said it several times before but I'll say it again to make it clear. Talk about racism, not race. They are not the same!
How exactly can you talk about racism without referring to race? I understand that you're trying to make the point that all people are of the same subspecies and don't deserve to be discriminated against because of where they are on some biological cline (something I of course agree with), but the problem is that you can't disentangle the two when you're talking to people that have racist attitudes.
In fact, saying that "all people are the same" and we can ignore differences has historically been a shield that racists hid behind to let them say that their actions were based on other characteristics (again, I'll bring up redlining as an example). So you're technically correct and I agree with your central theory, and I would love a world where we could legitimately have a discussion like this, but it's not possible outside of perhaps your academic circles where you can be sure that none of your colleagues have racial motivations.
fightinfrenchman wrote:That doesn't mean it doesn't exist a social construct
It obviously does exist as a social construct, but that's not what's being discussed
It's being said under the idea that "People should stop talking about race" though
This is why I have an issue with what @Hawk_Girl is saying, because you can't disentangle the two today. Saying that races (or differences in groups of people or whatever you want to call it) aren't relevant/don't exist is just a way to invalidate the experiences of people who live their lives being discriminated against because of race.
Then talk about racism, and not about race. That's all I'm saying. Scientifically speaking race in humans do not exist. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. That doesn't mean discrimination doesn't exist. It's just a fact of human genetics that I'm talking about.
The point is that race also exists as a social construct. Who is considered "white" in America has changed over time because it is a socially contructed idea; that it doesn't really mean anything biologically doesn't matter
The fact that it has no bilogical relevance definately does matter, I would argue. I don't think most people who use the term race are aware that it's biological irrelevant. Even in this thread it was argued with sickle cell anemia and whatnot. Why do you need a scientifically incorrect term to discuss injustices?
Because the injustices were conducted along racial lines. After reading up a bit on wiki I agree with your scientific distinction (I was thinking about landraces in plant biology, my field, which aren't dissimilar from clades/clines).
However, modern anthropology didn't decide who was enslaved or not; old, very racist anthropology did, and those are the lines that divide the oppressed from the rest today, not your most modern scientific definition which is socially meaningless. Therefore your contribution to the discussion isn't useful, because socially we're working by necessity with outdated terms.
I mean you yourself thought just now that humans actually have races. Don't you think that's a big problem worth bringing up when you talk about these things?
If people define themselves as being part of different races, and other people define them as such, then races exist (socially at least).
fightinfrenchman wrote:That doesn't mean it doesn't exist a social construct
It obviously does exist as a social construct, but that's not what's being discussed
It's being said under the idea that "People should stop talking about race" though
This is why I have an issue with what @Hawk_Girl is saying, because you can't disentangle the two today. Saying that races (or differences in groups of people or whatever you want to call it) aren't relevant/don't exist is just a way to invalidate the experiences of people who live their lives being discriminated against because of race.
Then talk about racism, and not about race. That's all I'm saying. Scientifically speaking race in humans do not exist. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. That doesn't mean discrimination doesn't exist. It's just a fact of human genetics that I'm talking about.
The point is that race also exists as a social construct. Who is considered "white" in America has changed over time because it is a socially contructed idea; that it doesn't really mean anything biologically doesn't matter
The fact that it has no bilogical relevance definately does matter, I would argue. I don't think most people who use the term race are aware that it's biological irrelevant. Even in this thread it was argued with sickle cell anemia and whatnot. Why do you need a scientifically incorrect term to discuss injustices?
Because the injustices were conducted along racial lines. After reading up a bit on wiki I agree with your scientific distinction (I was thinking about landraces in plant biology, my field, which aren't dissimilar from clades/clines).
However, modern anthropology didn't decide who was enslaved or not; old, very racist anthropology did, and those are the lines that divide the oppressed from the rest today, not your most modern scientific definition which is socially meaningless. Therefore your contribution to the discussion isn't useful, because socially we're working by necessity with outdated terms.
Awesome that you learned, but I don't get why you think what I'm saying is useless. I agree it's old racist anthropology that led to many structures today. But why can't you just say that, and talk about the history and about racism (not race) today? I think you underestimate everyone, including yourself, when you say we need the term race to have these conversations. The conversations in fact become way more fruitful when we all know the facts, the discuss and debate our opinions.
I said it several times before but I'll say it again to make it clear. Talk about racism, not race. They are not the same!
How exactly can you talk about racism without referring to race? I understand that you're trying to make the point that all people are of the same subspecies and don't deserve to be discriminated against because of where they are on some biological cline (something I of course agree with), but the problem is that you can't disentangle the two when you're talking to people that have racist attitudes.
In fact, saying that "all people are the same" and we can ignore differences has historically been a shield that racists hid behind to let them say that their actions were based on other characteristics (again, I'll bring up redlining as an example). So you're technically correct and I agree with your central theory, and I would love a world where we could legitimately have a discussion like this, but it's not possible outside of perhaps your academic circles where you can be sure that none of your colleagues have racial motivations.
This is the whole problem. You don't even think you can talk about racism without referring to race. In Sweden noone talks about race, even the far right party, and just the mention of the word would make it wierd because we are so used to not using it. Despite that we talk so much about racism and about immigration without using race. So it's definately doable, and honestly I think it's sad that you think you need race to talk about racism and injustices.
I'm not saying all people all the same, nor am I saying that all people have the same experiences, nor am I saying that history and the racism of earlier years is irrelevant. I think you are attributing several opinions to me because I am saying that race is a bad word and concept to use. And honestly I don't understand at all when you say you need to use the concept of race to talk with people who might be racist. Then it's more important than ever to be correct, I'd say. If you talk to a racist and agree with them that race is a thing, surely that just adds to their own conviction.
My point is you definately can disentangle the two, you are just not used to it, and noone around you does it. Literally 2 hours ago you thought that humans have races. So when you say you can't have a conversation about these problems without using race I just feel like you haven't even tried. I must say I am astonished all the time when I see americans from all over the political spectra use the term race.
i mean there are phenotypical differences in humans and people discriminate on the basis of those phenotypical differences... that's what people are referring to when they talk about race & racism...
fightinfrenchman wrote:That doesn't mean it doesn't exist a social construct
It obviously does exist as a social construct, but that's not what's being discussed
It's being said under the idea that "People should stop talking about race" though
This is why I have an issue with what @Hawk_Girl is saying, because you can't disentangle the two today. Saying that races (or differences in groups of people or whatever you want to call it) aren't relevant/don't exist is just a way to invalidate the experiences of people who live their lives being discriminated against because of race.
Then talk about racism, and not about race. That's all I'm saying. Scientifically speaking race in humans do not exist. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. That doesn't mean discrimination doesn't exist. It's just a fact of human genetics that I'm talking about.
The point is that race also exists as a social construct. Who is considered "white" in America has changed over time because it is a socially contructed idea; that it doesn't really mean anything biologically doesn't matter
The fact that it has no bilogical relevance definately does matter, I would argue. I don't think most people who use the term race are aware that it's biological irrelevant. Even in this thread it was argued with sickle cell anemia and whatnot. Why do you need a scientifically incorrect term to discuss injustices?
Because the injustices were conducted along racial lines. After reading up a bit on wiki I agree with your scientific distinction (I was thinking about landraces in plant biology, my field, which aren't dissimilar from clades/clines).
However, modern anthropology didn't decide who was enslaved or not; old, very racist anthropology did, and those are the lines that divide the oppressed from the rest today, not your most modern scientific definition which is socially meaningless. Therefore your contribution to the discussion isn't useful, because socially we're working by necessity with outdated terms.
I mean you yourself thought just now that humans actually have races. Don't you think that's a big problem worth bringing up when you talk about these things?
If people define themselves as being part of different races, and other people define them as such, then races exist (socially at least).
That's just not true. You defining yourself as a part of a race don't mean that it's true. That's not how science works. Even if people have different experiences of life due to racism, then that doesn't mean that they are a race. I wish you and people all over america would just abandon the word race and also (as you have now) realized the science behind why it's a bad concept.
Cometk wrote:i mean there are phenotypical differences in humans and people discriminate on the basis of those phenotypical differences... that's what people are referring to when they talk about race & racism...
What you describe is racism, not race. And as proven just by this thread, there are people (even on the left) who use race and kind of think humans can be divided in races scientifically. And of course there are phenotypical differences, noone is arguing that. The problem is that people attribute this to race which incorrect and also in my opinion harmful.
Cometk wrote:i mean there are phenotypical differences in humans and people discriminate on the basis of those phenotypical differences... that's what people are referring to when they talk about race & racism...
What you describe is racism, not race. And as proven just by this thread, there are people (even on the left) who use race and kind of think humans can be divided in races scientifically. And of course there are phenotypical differences, noone is arguing that. The problem is that people attribute this to race which incorrect and also in my opinion harmful.
Pr 50 talking about shit on forums too. Sorry to hear you play like a private tho.
The topic is not black and white. For hundred years scientists accepted the taxononomical decision then what changed? Clearly there is more than a scientific debate, like banning Dr. Watson after his speech about races. This now how scientific discussion is held on. There are paradigms in science communities.
Here is a quote from an article about controversy which is pro-racedenier in year 2000.
Slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The other half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the "racial lens." link
Imagine the percentage 50 years before and 20 year later after the arcticle, there is certainly a slow change going on. Scientific break-troughs happen in an instant, not through 50 years of paradigm shift. Not to discuss weight of the paradigms in science sure there may be more than politcal correctness but you cant easily deny the topic and back up science. Taxonomy is not an easy subject.
Race is a social construct. Unfortunately we have to use the word racism because there is no real alternative at the moment in the English language, but what it's really getting at is discrimination on the basis of shade of skin or ethnic group.
