Let's Critique Critical Race Theory

[Visbek]

If you two would pull your heads out of the echo chamber for a moment you might come to realize this is not complex:

View attachment 67339347

There is a scientific context for the term "race" that is base on scientifically verifiable evidence, like ancestry. If you want to pretend this definition does not exist and that race is only a social construct, be my guest. But neither your insistence on such nonsense nor your personal attacks against me make for a convincing argument. Quite the opposite.

lol

The first definition does not establish that the definition of race is biological. In fact, the part you didn't circle points out how "race" is often used to indicate ethnicity or cultural groupings, not biological groupings.

"Shared ancestry" is also rather vague -- which is why you can have people talking about the "Irish race" and "Scottish race," even though genetically they're pretty similar (and, obviously, both have white skin...).

As to the second you circled? Humans don't have any subspecies. (Scientists have also generally stopped using the term "race," and most agree that race is a social construct.)

I mean, really. What biological traits do you think all Asians share?

It's not skin color; Indians, Afghanis, Chinese, South Koreans, Indonesians et al don't have the same skin color.
It's not eye shape.
It's not lactose tolerance.
It's not height.
It's not the ratio of fast-twitch to slow-twitch muscle fibers.
There are dozens of distinct population groups with various compositions of over a dozen haplogroups in Southeast Asia alone.


What race is Archie Mountbatten-Windsor? His grandmother is African-American; his mother is often classified as African-American; the rest of his grandparents are European.

You really shouldn't claim that you're following "the science," when in fact the science shows that you're wrong.

Taking race out of human genetics | Science

 

[Visbek]

I just have to add this bit, from the Science article....

In one example that demonstrated genetic differences were not fixed along racial lines, the full genomes of James Watson and Craig Venter, two famous American scientists of European ancestry, were compared to that of a Korean scientist, Seong-Jin Kim. It turned out that Watson (who, ironically, became ostracized in the scientific community after making racist remarks) and Venter shared fewer variations in their genetic sequences than they each shared with Kim.

Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue

Racial categories are weak proxies for genetic diversity and need to be phased out

www.scientificamerican.com

Race has no real biological basis or utility. Proxies like skin color actually disguise, rather than reveal, the diversity of human populations. (I.e. your eyes are not an acceptable substitute for a DNA sequencer.)

It's a social construct, and our imposition of that social construct causes all sorts of effects that we mistake for being "biological" in origin.

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Just heard a very simple test to see if CRT is racist or not !
1) Everywhere in the document replace word "White" with the Word "Black"!
2) Let everyone re-read it and see if it sounds racist, If it does then the original version is racist, but "YOU" have been brain Washed by the left into thinking Racism against one race is good, but bad against all other races...

Also when they try to tell you how everything in America is White Supremacy B.S. Just remind them and yourself that There are other Countries in the World who do not have White people running those Governments, and if Whites are so damn bad, you would think all these NON-WHITE countries would be doing a Stellar job and all the Libs would move out of America....

 

[NatMorton]

lol

The first definition does not establish that the definition of race is biological. In fact, the part you didn't circle points out how "race" is often used to indicate ethnicity or cultural groupings, not biological groupings.

"Shared ancestry" is also rather vague -- which is why you can have people talking about the "Irish race" and "Scottish race," even though genetically they're pretty similar (and, obviously, both have white skin...).

As to the second you circled? Humans don't have any subspecies. (Scientists have also generally stopped using the term "race," and most agree that race is a social construct.)

I mean, really. What biological traits do you think all Asians share?

It's not skin color; Indians, Afghanis, Chinese, South Koreans, Indonesians et al don't have the same skin color.
It's not eye shape.
It's not lactose tolerance.
It's not height.
It's not the ratio of fast-twitch to slow-twitch muscle fibers.
There are dozens of distinct population groups with various compositions of over a dozen haplogroups in Southeast Asia alone.


What race is Archie Mountbatten-Windsor? His grandmother is African-American; his mother is often classified as African-American; the rest of his grandparents are European.

You really shouldn't claim that you're following "the science," when in fact the science shows that you're wrong.

Taking race out of human genetics | Science

I haven't the slightest idea what you're trying to prove. I said there is a scientific context for race, and there is. I never said nor implied that every person on the planet belongs to a specific race or that one can discern that race from a glance at a photo.

Why don't you give your straw-men (and your keyboard) a rest.

 

[ultmd]

If you two would pull your heads out of the echo chamber for a moment you might come to realize this is not complex:

....well, apparently, it's a bit too complex for someone like you.

Again, you're a few diplomas shy of being equipped to debate "the science" of race with me, Nat.

Now, were you implying that a dictionary definition is "proof" of "the science" of race? Is that what you thought you were doing, there?

If so, perhaps I should give you another chance to clarify your purpose here in this thread, by answering my questions:

• -Do you want to debate THE SCIENCE of race? Yes or No, please.
• -Or, do you actually just want to discuss the etymology of the word "race" with me?

The "SCIENCE" of race is clear. Race is a social construct, not a scientific one. There is no "white race" or "black race" or "brown race" in the world of genetics/science.

"Black" in the US doesn't even translate equally to "black" in other places and/or cultures (i.e. Brazil, South Africa, etc.). In the US, the concept of "race" was introduced in the 18th century as a way of justifying slavery and the racial caste system that it created. There was NEVER any scientific basis for it. There has only been a NEED (by anglo culture, and some people) to justify their inhumanity and subjugation of other human beings, for their own personal benefit.

There is a scientific context for the term "race" that is base on scientifically verifiable evidence, like ancestry.

...."Scientific context"???

There's "scientific context" for the term "ignorant racist", too. That doesn't mean that there is a scientific BASIS for it.

So, again, there is NO scientific basis for race as it is commonly used/define in modern society. It is COMPLETELY a social (i.e. unscientific) construct. And that is confirmed by almost every geneticist who is active in the field. There is, literally, no science supportive of your views. None.

In the year 2021, the ONLY people still arguing otherwise, are people like you (i.e. bigots, racists, white-grievance types, etc.)

If you want to pretend this definition does not exist and that race is only a social construct, be my guest. But neither your insistence on such nonsense nor your personal attacks against me make for a convincing argument. Quite the opposite.

...I'm not the one pretending, here.

If you want to PRETEND that your dictionary definition has ANY bearing on the SCIENCE of the issue of race....be my guest.

And, please, stop whining about "personal attacks" on you. Calling out ignorance and bigotry for what it is, isn't an "attack". Your views on the genetics of "race" are uniformed....just plain ignorant. And they are reflective of your ideology of white-grievance and white-supremacy. That's not name-calling. That's truth calling.

So stop whining.

 

[Visbek]

I haven't the slightest idea what you're trying to prove. I said there is a scientific context for race, and there is.

What scientists have proven, and what I am trying to explain to you, is that there is NO scientific context for "human races" anymore -- except for denoting the harmful effects of discrimination and racism. DNA research makes that abundantly clear.

I never said nor implied that every person on the planet belongs to a specific race or that one can discern that race from a glance at a photo.

You have repeatedly indicated that skin color is a valid indicator of ancestry. Are you changing your tune?

And do Afghanis and Indians not have a race at all, because they don't fit your stereotype of "Asian"?

 

[bluesmoke]

Cultural invention is quoted from the definition of CRT cited in the OP. So it's not "what [I} say," it's what the authors of CRT say.

I infer their meaning to be that race isn't something that is rooted in biology but instead an invention of society in the same way, say, moral codes are. And as I stated in the OP, I think that premise is ridiculous.

What do you think CRT advocates mean when they say race is only a cultural invention?

Socio-cultural anthropology never accepted the original posit of the three races, Negroid, Caucasian and Mongoloid. They are not taxonomic classifications. That these groups have differentiating identifiable general physical characteristics does not mean that makes them an actual race apart from others. There is only one remaining humanoid among the human race and that is the Homo-sapiens species, with the scantest trace of Neanderthal. Today, the one characteristic that classifies race more than anything is color, though Hispanic white is “white” but an ethnic subgroup as if of the “white race”. Same with North Africans and Middle Easterners. They are considered “white”. Spain, Italy and Greece are considered Euro-white.

That race is a cultural invention does not change the fact of racism. Call it what you want. Culturalism vs racism, culturalist vs racist. They all commit the same abhorrent behavior we’ve come to know as racism. A rose, by any other name…is no doubt a socio-cultural distinction where physical traits become convenient identifiers to separate out those who do not deserve the same privileges.

 

[bluesmoke]

People are equal. Cultures are not.

People are not treated equally. Cultures are different. That doesn't make them unequal. You hide behind the superiority and preference of culture in lieu of what is no diff than racist views.

 

[ataraxia]

Of course skin color an accurate gage of ancestry in many cases. It is not a guarantee but little other than a DNA test would be. But if you were to walk into the UN are you telling me you would be at a loss to spot the visible differences between the delegations of, say, Norway and Kenya?

The race as a biological context, and there’s really no arguing that point.

If you two would pull your heads out of the echo chamber for a moment you might come to realize this is not complex:

View attachment 67339347

There is a scientific context for the term "race" that is base on scientifically verifiable evidence, like ancestry. If you want to pretend this definition does not exist and that race is only a social construct, be my guest. But neither your insistence on such nonsense nor your personal attacks against me make for a convincing argument. Quite the opposite.

So are Italians white? Greeks? The Lebanese? What about Turks? Iranians? Pakistanis? Indians?

And yet if you travel across those countries, there is no distinct point at which one group is distinctly different than the other. There is just a smooth spectrum of skin tones and other characteristics. There are no natural limiting lines. It’s like saying there are distinct differences between being a short or tall person. What we consider short or tall is also a social construct, and varies according to the social context. What is considered short in one context, like an NCAA tryout, would be considered tall in another. How it’s defined depends on the social context in which those distinctions are being used. But it’s not a scientifically useful distinction. Race works the same way.

 

[bluesmoke]

People of all shapes and sizes need to make the proper decisions for themselves. They also need to own the decisions that they make.

Currently, we have one sub-group making a lot more of those bad decisions than the other sub groups.
It is likely NOT race that causes those bad decisions, but you can make a good argument that it IS the culture (where they live, who they idolize, what they find important).

When they/we can change those few things, I can guarantee you success in them moving away from being over-represented in the bad areas (crime, lack of education, out of wedlock children)

That is probably the furthest thing from racist that you could get. It would actually WORK! That first step is theirs to take though. I would offer help AFTER that decision making process is fixed.
Every 'race' has some percentage of these same problems, not every is represented by the same percentages though.

When Asians come in and blow everyone else out of the water, do you think their culture had anything to do with it?

Successful Asians have to put up with racism, too, the degree of which white people have never. Successful African-Americans the same. Nice car and wearing a suit, they still get pulled over and searched more often than white people. Those are facts. So, why is that? They're making "the right decisions" and succeeding in life. Still, they have to put up with racism. So, whose culture is at work there?

Just more racism hiding behind the veil of culturalism and for some reason black people making 382 yrs of bad decisions. Like deciding to be black, enslaved, sitting at the back of the bus, separate facilities, lower wages and less hiring and advancement. They decided all that?

 

[Cope]

Successful Asians have to put up with racism, too, the degree of which white people have never. Successful African-Americans the same. Nice car and wearing a suit, they still get pulled over and searched more often than white people. Those are facts. So, why is that? They're making "the right decisions" and succeeding in life. Still, they have to put up with racism. So, whose culture is at work there?

Just more racism hiding behind the veil of culturalism and for some reason black people making 382 yrs of bad decisions. Like deciding to be black, enslaved, sitting at the back of the bus, separate facilities, lower wages and less hiring and advancement. They decided all that?

Someone call the fire department, this post is on fire!

Individual acts of racism can and should be dealt with severely. Attempting to label an entire culture racist is phony baloney.

Any and every DOMINANT culture can be labeled thus by the minority cultures, all over the world.

 

[bluesmoke]

Someone call the fire department, this post is on fire!

Individual acts of racism can and should be dealt with severely. Attempting to label an entire culture racist is phony baloney.

Any and every DOMINANT culture can be labeled thus by the minority cultures, all over the world.

I answered your question, honestly. You did not answer mine. No sense in continuing debate with you, if you won’t do so forthrightly.

 

[Cope]

Successful Asians have to put up with racism, too, the degree of which white people have never. Successful African-Americans the same. Nice car and wearing a suit, they still get pulled over and searched more often than white people. Those are facts. So, why is that? They're making "the right decisions" and succeeding in life. Still, they have to put up with racism. So, whose culture is at work there?

Just more racism hiding behind the veil of culturalism and for some reason black people making 382 yrs of bad decisions. Like deciding to be black, enslaved, sitting at the back of the bus, separate facilities, lower wages and less hiring and advancement. They decided all that?

Which question did you want an honest answer to?

The why black people seem to find themselves policed more often?
The black culture is at work and the police culture is reacting (maybe over-reacting) to the black culture being over-represented in violent criminal activity. I am sure there are racists in the police force. They need to be fired and dealt with harshly.

Any racism needs to be dealt with severely and with finality, especially regarding the police.

Police policing black communities more often is NOT that racism though. It is a reaction to the black community being more prone to violent crime.

 

[bluesmoke]

Which question did you want an honest answer to?

The why black people seem to find themselves policed more often?
The black culture is at work and the police culture is reacting (maybe over-reacting) to the black culture being over-represented in violent criminal activity. I am sure there are racists in the police force. They need to be fired and dealt with harshly.

Any racism needs to be dealt with severely and with finality, especially regarding the police.

Police policing black communities more often is NOT that racism though. It is a reaction to the black community being more prone to violent crime.

I think an honest and forthright answer to the following question would be telling: What is the “one sub-group making a lot more of those bad decisions than the other sub groups” are you talking about?

That answer would the rest of our discussion into perspective.

 

[BlueTex]

 

[LostInSeattle]

we do not have a tall race comprised of tall people
or a short race of short people
fat, thin, bald, hairy
those are all biological differences, but there is nothing about them that causes us to label them to have any unique ability due to their tallness, shortness, baldness which would cause them to be a unique race
that is also true of skin color. different pigment, just like different height; obvious physical-biologically evident difference, but with no true distinction which should cause them to be found different in a positive or negative sense
we don't have a race of tall people and ascribe to them some attribute due to their tallness. that would be a cultural invention, just as pretending skin color has a significance other than differing skin color is a cultural invention

You nailed it!

 

[HangLow]

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


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?


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."


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

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.

​