Let's Critique Critical Race Theory

[Paradoxical]

Huh? How is it Marxism?

Marx believed the bourgeoisie oppressed and exploited the proletariat and that there should be a new economic system to replace capitalism. In this system, wealth would be distributed to those of the proletariat. Ultimately his philosophy became communism and socialism.

 

[ataraxia]

Marx believed the bourgeoisie oppressed and exploited the proletariat and that there should be a new economic system to replace capitalism. In this system, wealth would be distributed to those of the proletariat. Ultimately his philosophy became communism and socialism.

So orphanages are Marxism. Got it.

 

[Paradoxical]

So orphanages are Marxism. Got it.

orphanges? They have to do with CRT how?

 

[NatMorton]

Yes, we could choose to define race based on those characteristics. They are just as valid as skin color when it comes to grouping human beings. Which is to say, not very.

Ah, no. We have chosen to define face that way. Here’s Oxford Language’s definition for “race” in this context:

race
/rās/

noun
noun: race; plural noun: races

1. each of the major groupings into which humankind is considered (in various theories or contexts) to be divided on the basis of physical characteristics or shared ancestry.

 

[NatMorton]

Words are important and "woven" is not "inherent" and since when is WAPO a source document for CRT? You keep referring to opinions when if you really wanted to discuss the issue honestly, you would go critique the source documents instead of offering up opinions from Editors and critiquing their opinions.

You don’t need identical words to convey the same message; I therefore don’t find your instance on use of that exact word a very compelling argument. It’s more akin to grasping at straws.

 

[ataraxia]

orphanges? They have to do with CRT how?

I thought watching out for people in positions of weakness and vulnerability in society was Marxism.

 

[Paradoxical]

I thought watching out for people in positions of weakness and vulnerability in society was Marxism.

I thought watching out for people in positions of weakness and vulnerability in society was Marxism.

I was in an orphanage. What does this have to do with back people? They are vulnerable and weak and you need to take care of them? Marxism has to de with orphanages as oranges have to do with puppy dogs. Why is it that left-wingers always use these blatantly false equivalents to rationalize idiotic beliefs?

How many black kids are in orphanages? How many are from one-parent families?

 

[ataraxia]

I was in an orphanage. What does this have to do with back people? They are vulnerable and weak and you need to take care of them? Marxism has to de with orphanages as oranges have to do with puppy dogs. Why is it that left-wingers always use these blatantly false equivalents to rationalize idiotic beliefs?

How many black kids are in orphanages? How many are from one-parent families?

So who was paying for your orphanage?

People find themselves in positions of weakness and vulnerability in society for all sorts of contingent reasons- personal, social, historical,etc... Helping them is Marxism.

 

[NatMorton]

Left to their own skin color will naturally adapt to changes in exposure to sunlight over time. You take the population of the Congo and transport them to Scandinavia, and vice versa, and over the course of centuries their pigments will reverse.

Can you please describe for me what you mean by your use of the phrase "naturally adapt?" I'm not sure if you're describing change in a population genome or something else.

 

[ataraxia]

Can you please describe for me what you mean by your use of the phrase "naturally adapt?" I'm not sure if you're describing change in a population genome or something else.

The differences in skin color are as big a genetic difference as the difference in height or male pattern baldness. Only difference the former tends to be more prevalent in certain geographic locations than others.

So if you think skin color can be used to mark race, so can height and male pattern baldness.

Are bald people a different race of men?

 

[Visbek]

The visible characteristics of race -- the ones that were used as justification to enslave people of African ancestry -- are the product of biology.

I've already explained how that is not the case.

Yet again: Italians were "black," until they weren't.

Yet again: Irish were a separate "race" from Anglos, until they weren't.

Asians aren't a "race." Han, Uighurs, Pakistanis, Ainu, Filipinos, Kazhaks, Nepalis, Afghanis don't have a common skin color or eye shape. Needless to say, there is quite a bit of genetic diversity to the human inhabitants of Asia.

Indian castes are hereditary. That doesn't prove that "caste is a biological concept."

Yet again: The so-called "Aryan race" wasn't actually a race, and had the same skin color as other Europeans and "Semites." Many claims about the lineage of the "Aryan race" were based on linguistics, not biology.

Jews are not a "race." They're an ethnic and religious group. Biologically, they're nearly identical to neighboring communities. And yet, plenty of people insist that there is a "Jewish race."

Yet again: Many proclaim that "black" or "African" is a race, but in fact Africa has the greatest degree of genetic diversity of any continent.

The reality is that people create "racial" divisions based not on biological facts, but on whatever is culturally convenient at the time.

The "visible characteristics of race" are superficial features, that tell us nothing about the individual's biology, except for those "visible characteristics of race."

There are all sorts of ways that the concept of "race" does not match any biological facts at all. This is because... wait for it... race is a social construct, which is not actually based in any real biological categories.

Even before genetics were understood the concept of ancestry was used to determine who was eligible to be a slave and who was not.

...except that those "visible signs of race" weren't and aren't reliable indicators of ancestry -- which is, again, why some people could pass as members of another race, or why the concept of "race" keeps changing.

 

[NatMorton]

The differences in skin color are as big a genetic difference as the difference in height or male pattern baldness. Only difference the former tends to be more prevalent in certain geographic locations than others.

So if you think skin color can be used to mark race, so can height and male pattern baldness.

Are bald people a different race of men?

Average height of a large population can be indicative of race, but it's not a good gauge for individuals. For example, I could say I have two males, A & B. One is of Nordic ancestry and the other Japanese. The height of A is 5'11" and B is 5'7". You might be able to guess correctly which is which, but you shouldn't be surprised if you were wrong. On the other hand, if I told you I had two populations of a million males, one group Nordic, one Japanese, and those were the average heights, you should have no trouble guessing which is which (BTW, those are the actual average heights of those populations). Other factors like skin color are, for better or worse, far more consistent than traits like height and thus better markers for a given ancestry.

Back to the point. We are talking about race and discrimination. One can debate whether a particular genetic trait is indicative of a race, or not. The relevant facts are that, historically, some of these traits have been used to identify people as being members of a given race (i.e. a given ancestry) and these traits are not societal constructs. How we've treated members of those races has been.

 

[NatMorton]

I've already explained how that is not the case.

You have not done an effective job of that. Skin color is a biological trait and one closely tied to ancestry. You're welcome to convince yourself it is not, but you've yet to provide a reason why anyone else should.

The flaw in the rest of your argument is the implied assertion that if any group has suffered discrimination that they have done so because they're viewed as a different race. That is a flawed assumption. For example, 19th century Irish immigrants were not looked down on in my area of the country because they were deemed "not white." They were culturally different than those who came before them.

Prejudice is not limited to race.

 

[Visbek]

Average height of a large population can be indicative of race, but it's not a good gauge for individuals.

lol, no. Average height of a national population is heavily influenced by diet and medical care, not genetics.

For example, I could say I have two males, A & B. One is of Nordic ancestry and the other Japanese. The height of A is 5'11" and B is 5'7".

"Japanese" and "Nordic" aren't races. They're ethnicities.

Needless to say, national variations in average height don't actually match the alleged "race" distinctions:

Other factors like skin color are, for better or worse, far more consistent than traits like height and thus better markers for a given ancestry.

lol... No, they aren't.

Europeans are all classified as "white." So why do their average heights vary by as much as 10cm?

Africans are classified as "black." So why do their average heights vary by 10-15cm? Why do people of Botswana and Italy have roughly the same average heights?

"Blacks" are classified as a single race. However, African groups can vary from an average height of 150cm (pygmies) to 183cm (Dinka).

So no, skin color isn't consistently correlated with "genetic factors controlling height," and it definitely isn't a useful indicator of ancestry. That is just your own *cough* cultural conceptions preventing you from accepting that the only genetic trait indicated by skin color is... skin color.

 

[NatMorton]

lol, no. Average height of a national population is heavily influenced by diet and medical care, not genetics.

That's why I selected first world regions. Are you seriously telling us you believe the only reason there's a four inch average height difference between the Japansense and the Danes is diet?

 

[ataraxia]

Average height of a large population can be indicative of race, but it's not a good gauge for individuals. For example, I could say I have two males, A & B. One is of Nordic ancestry and the other Japanese. The height of A is 5'11" and B is 5'7". You might be able to guess correctly which is which, but you shouldn't be surprised if you were wrong. On the other hand, if I told you I had two populations of a million males, one group Nordic, one Japanese, and those were the average heights, you should have no trouble guessing which is which (BTW, those are the actual average heights of those populations). Other factors like skin color are, for better or worse, far more consistent than traits like height and thus better markers for a given ancestry.

Back to the point. We are talking about race and discrimination. One can debate whether a particular genetic trait is indicative of a race, or not. The relevant facts are that, historically, some of these traits have been used to identify people as being members of a given race (i.e. a given ancestry) and these traits are not societal constructs. How we've treated members of those races has been.

Genetics has gotten good enough where we can trace what particular neighborhood of London someone’s ancestry may have been from.

Whether we choose to define that as a race or not is completely contingent and a social construct.

So are people from South Hempstead a different race of men? Depends on how a particular society chooses to define “race”. The definition is socially constructed.

 

[NatMorton]

Genetics has gotten good enough where we can trace what particular neighborhood of London someone’s ancestry may have been from.

No, it hasn't. People (and thus their genes) are far more mobile than that.

Whether we choose to define that as a race or not is completely contingent and a social construct.

So are people from South Hempstead a different race of men? Depends on how a particular society chooses to define “race”. The definition is socially constructed.

No, folks from South Hempstead are not a "race of men" in this context because they do not share anything like a recent common ancestry with a common set of ancestral traits. Why is this so hard to grasp?

 

[Visbek]

You have not done an effective job of that.

Yeah, I have. You just don't want to accept it.

Skin color is a biological trait and one closely tied to ancestry.

And again: Skin color is a biological trait... but the only thing it indicates is skin color. It doesn't accurately indicate any other traits (biological or otherwise).

And again.... It doesn't take much mixing of heritage to make it possible for someone with recent African ancestry to pass as white. Did it ever occur to you that Carol Channing had any recent African ancestry?

The flaw in the rest of your argument is the implied assertion that if any group has suffered discrimination that they have done so because they're viewed as a different race. That is a flawed assumption.

Nope. It's just a fact.

Irish, Italians, Germans, Jews were all classified as "races." The Nazis clearly saw "Aryans" as a race, even though their skin color was the same as other Europeans. The British routinely refer to people from India as "Asian," but Americans generally do not.

Unsurprisingly, you have the causality backwards. It isn't that "Irish were viewed as a different race, and on that basis subject to discrimination." It's that "Irish were being discriminated against, thus the prevailing social ideas about race changed to justify and perpetuate that discrimination."

For example, 19th century Irish immigrants were not looked down on in my area of the country because they were deemed "not white."

Yes. They were.

When Irish Immigrants Weren't Considered 'White'

In the mid-1800s, the white American establishment feared Irish immigrants would alter the country's makeup with foreign religion and customs.

history.howstuffworks.com

There is no question that Americans (and Brits) classified Irish as a separate "race" as part and parcel of the discrimination against the Irish.

And we haven't even gotten into the morass of Hispanic / Latino / Central and South American "races." "Hispanic" isn't a "race" or "ancestry" at all, it's a linguistic grouping. Hispanics and Latinos don't have a single skin color, but Americans still treat it like it's a single "race."

What "race" includes Brazilians, Colombians, Guatemalans and Mexicans? They aren't all Hispanic -- Brazilians speak Portuguese, not Spanish. "Latino" isn't an indicator of ancestry either. These populations are a mix of diverse indigenous groups, Africans and Europeans. You can't accurately determine the ancestry of many of these people by looking just at skin color -- especially since "white" skin can turn "light brown" when consistently exposed to the sun.

Just for fun, let's narrow it down. What "race" are Mexicans? Surprise! The question doesn't work, they're just too diverse.

Genetically, There's No Such Thing as a Mexican

Medical researchers and census-takers may lump Latinos or Hispanics into one group, but a giant study of Mexican genetics shows there’s no such thing.

www.nbcnews.com

Prejudice is not limited to race.

I didn't say it was. You're just failing to understand my claims, or accept basic facts about how racism actually operates throughout history.

 

[Elmo]

Ah, no. We have chosen to define face that way. Here’s Oxford Language’s definition for “race” in this context:

race
/rās/

noun
noun: race; plural noun: races

1. each of the major groupings into which humankind is considered (in various theories or contexts) to be divided on the basis of physical characteristics or shared ancestry.

Yes, I said it before. We (society) have CHOSEN to define race by skin color. And that choice was not based on biology. Genetically, skin color variations are no more significant than other minor characteristics. So choosing to define race in other ways is just as valid genetically.

Go respond to post #183. I'm pretty sure you ignored it intentionally because it demonstrates serious flaws in your position.

The oxford dictionary is not written by biologists. In science, race and ancestry are separate concepts. Do you need me to give you the link again? Do you only care about science when it gives you definitions you agree with?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Can you please describe for me what you mean by your use of the phrase "naturally adapt?"

Evolution.

 

[NatMorton]

Evolution.

And thus genetic.

 

[Jredbaron96]

And thus genetic.

Okay? It will still change over time.

 

[ataraxia]

No, it hasn't. People (and thus their genes) are far more mobile than that.


No, folks from South Hempstead are not a "race of men" in this context because they do not share anything like a recent common ancestry with a common set of ancestral traits. Why is this so hard to grasp?

So what’s the scientific definition of race?

 

[NatMorton]

Okay? It will still change over time.

The sub-debate here is whether race is only a social construct. If you weren’t arguing for that then I misread your original reply to me.

 

[Jredbaron96]

The sub-debate here is whether race is only a social construct.

Race does carry social additions that extend beyond its biological base, yes.