Racism is the treatment of "race" as if it were real

[molten_dragon]

There is not "little genetic basis for the concept of race," but NO genetic basis for it.

I have proven this incorrect with a well written, and well researched scientific article. Since you've provided absolutely no proof of your own to the contrary, one of 3 things is true.

1. You didn't read the article and have no idea what you're talking about.
2. You read the article, and didn't understand how it proves your statement wrong.
3. You read the article, and are simply ignoring it since you don't want to admit that you were wrong.

So which is it?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I have proven this incorrect with a well written, and well researched scientific article. Since you've provided absolutely no proof of your own to the contrary, one of 3 things is true.

1. You didn't read the article and have no idea what you're talking about.
2. You read the article, and didn't understand how it proves your statement wrong.
3. You read the article, and are simply ignoring it since you don't want to admit that you were wrong.

So which is it?

No one disagrees that there aren't genetic traits that are passed down generation to generation.

But race itself is taking similar markers - and grouping them together accordingly. . . race changes depending on what country you're in - and physical characteristics aren't a constant (wide nose mom + wide nose dad = might have a narrow nosed child, etc) . . . These markers that designate your nose-type are biological: but there is no A=B=C when it comes to 'pairing' of traits (a narrow nosed individual could have wide-set eyes, or tight curly hair, or blond hair - etc - there's no standard that groups them together - always)

People who tend to argue that there are race-traits tend to do so by noticing 'groupings' of individual traits and cite that the frequency of groupings denote race. . . but in the end what is 'a black person' is a cultural concept - not a genetic constant.

 

[cmakaioz]

Two points here. First off, you're using a very narrow definition of 'real' to support your viewpoint. This is intellectually dishonest. Race is very real by any commonly used definition of the word.

My usage of real in the statement "'race'" isn't real" is the exact same usage as in the common sentence "The Easter Bunny isn't real."

Secondly, even by your narrow definition, race is real. There are concrete and measurable physical differences between races which are obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Wrong. There are of course physical differences among both individuals and groups of individuals within the human species. Those differences, however, do not operate on the causal basis premised by "race" mythology. You appear to be working from a basic misunderstanding of what "race" refers to in the first place. "Race" in common usage is NOT just loose description...but rather it also attributes actual causal power to "racial" categories. For example, when a participant in racism[sub]s[/sub] refers to someone as "half black, half white" or any similar nonsense, they are relying upon the expectation that anyone they're speaking to also shares in the notion that "racial" categories correspond to some THING -- some actual substance, in our bodies or genes, and that difference "races" have more or less of that substance. They are sharing an implication that one could find "race" through a microscope. Exactly the opposite is true. If you study actual genetics and heredity and make groupings based upon genetic descent and markers, the groupings you end up with do NOT reliably correspond with modern "racial" categorization.

This is the part that's not getting through to you..."racial" identification is not neutral description of traits (real or imagined), but attribution of those traits to a causal mechanism which is falsely believed to have concrete existence.

In other words, in the crude (mis)conception among participants in racism[sub]s[/sub], the basic premise is that the physical, concrete mechanisms of heredity and development which lead to a person looking a certain way, having or not having certain abilities and in a certain degree, etc. not only correlate with our "racial" categories...but are actually CAUSED by them. If you were to ask someone who is subscribes ideologically to racism[sub]s[/sub], they would agree to the FALSE statement that there actually IS such a thing as a "blackness" gene or set of genes, a "whiteness" gene or set of genes, etc.

The failure -- the basic factual mistake involved in racism[sub]s[/sub] -- is NOT in claiming that people have individual and group differences (obviously true)...NOT in claiming that (at least locally or regionally) "racial" categorizations may often show some consistency (often true), but instead that the categorizations (based upon superficial outward features mixed with a mishmash of obviously learned/cultural practices) correspond with and have a two-way causal relationship with matching differences "on the inside". This last claim is false, and belief to the contrary is the very essence of ideological racism.

No, I have acknowledged that race has little genetic basis. That is not the same as it being a fiction.

Having little genetic basis is indeed not the same as it being a fiction. What makes it a fiction is the fact that "race" is ENTIRELY a social concept. Take away the socially constructed aspect of "race," and there's absolutely nothing left over afterwards.

Once again -- since we seem to be talking past each other -- I would urge you to review the first paragraph from the OP:

“Race” is a political fiction. It gains its illusory causal power entirely from shared social and political conventions of practice with respect to identity. It makes references to some things which are real, but remains fictional because it attributes the operation and source of these things to fictional causes.

You seem to be reacting to my thesis in this thread as if it were something entirely different from what I've written. You seem to be reacting to it AS IF I were claiming that people don't have any differences stemming from real (TANGIBLE, CONCRETE) biological differences, or that popularly identified "races" don't make reference to real (TANGIBLE, CONCRETE) differences, or some combination of those two premises. BOTH are obviously false, and both are claims I've never made. The fictional nature of "race" hinges upon its attribution of real (TANGIBLE, CONCRETE) differences to decidedly UNREAL (abstract, immaterial) causal forces. The fundamental error is not in Point A or in Point B, but in the presumed causation between A and B:

A) Shaquille O'Neal has chocolate-brown skin and (if he stops shaving it) tightly curled "kinky" hair. People raised in the United States and many other current societies have been taught to categorize these features as common to "black" people.
B) Shaq IS "black." He has the skin color he does, and the type of hair texture he does...because he's "black."

A) is a fact.
B) is mythology, which mistakenly applies an after-the-fact and arbitrary labeling system and ignores the ACTUAL mechanisms of heredity (which brings us back to SmokeAndMirror's summary...the features associated with a "race" do not coincide with the groupings of people with an alleged "racial" trait).

There are of course genes which influence all kinds of characteristics, both apparent and hidden, but they don't break down along the lines premised by "race" mythology. There's no "black" or "white" or "Asian" gene. Instead, there are all kinds of genes, and then certain resulting clusters of phenotype are -- AFTER THE FACT -- assigned a "racial" identity. This is, once again, not at all surprising because "race" mythology was never and still isn't based upon examination of actual genetic material in the first place, but rather upon socially constructed groupings based upon superficial features (some real, many imagined).

Again, you are being intellectually dishonest by using an extremely narrow definition of 'real'. And if you actually wanted to make the point that race was not tangible (which is different from it not being real) you should have said that.

"Race" is indeed NOT tangible, and I pointed this out in the OP, front and center. If you live and work among some linguistically isolated and exceptional subpopulation of North American English speakers, among whom the clearly implied contrast between FICTIONAL vs. ACTUAL is an unfamiliar usage, then that would account for the misunderstanding.

While race does have a very minor genetic basis, something I've admitted already, there is a physical basis for it. That does indeed give it concrete substance.

"Race" mythology purports to offer a causal explanation for real things, but the causal mechanisms it posits are NOT real, and have absolutely no material existence or causal force. See above regarding attribution of real things to fictional causes (much as with Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc.) You appear to be appealing to the "race" equivalent of protesting "But hey! I get gifts under the Christmas Tree! That PROVES that Santa Claus is REAL!!!"

It's quite apparent that it was only obvious to yourself that you were talking about race being intangible when you said it wasn't real.

Wrong, and demonstrably so. SmokeAndMirrors understood the statement perfectly, and successfully summarized it to other posters.

There is a very simple and easy solution to your misunderstanding. Whatever ambiguity you may have perceived before, if it makes you happy, I'll spell this out for you:

When Chad Makaio Zichterman of Oakland, CA makes statements of the form "'Race' isn't real" in the context of any DP thread, his usage of 'real' refers to the common popular understanding of ACTUAL and TANGIBLE... (as often contrasted against opposite meanings like FICTIONAL and ABSTRACT.

If you're still not fully clear on the parallel between the political fiction of Santa Claus and the political fiction of "race" -- and the features common to any political fiction, then by all means let me know what's getting in your way.

 

[molten_dragon]

No one disagrees that there aren't genetic traits that are passed down generation to generation.

But race itself is taking similar markers - and grouping them together accordingly. . . race changes depending on what country you're in - and physical characteristics aren't a constant (wide nose mom + wide nose dad = might have a narrow nosed child, etc) . . . These markers that designate your nose-type are biological: but there is no A=B=C when it comes to 'pairing' of traits (a narrow nosed individual could have wide-set eyes, or tight curly hair, or blond hair - etc - there's no standard that groups them together - always)

People who tend to argue that there are race-traits tend to do so by noticing 'groupings' of individual traits and cite that the frequency of groupings denote race. . . but in the end what is 'a black person' is a cultural concept - not a genetic constant.

This simply isn't true. There are genetic variations between races which aren't present among members of the same race. Those variations are minor, but they exist.

And there are physical traits that the majority of members of a race share as well. No, not every feature is present in every member of the race, but there are shared physical traits.

 

[molten_dragon]

My usage of real in the statement "'race'" isn't real" is the exact same usage as in the common sentence "The Easter Bunny isn't real."

If that's the way you're using it, then as I have repeatedly pointed out, your statement is incorrect.

Wrong. There are of course physical differences among both individuals and groups of individuals within the human species. Those differences, however, do not operate on the causal basis premised by "race" mythology. You appear to be working from a basic misunderstanding of what "race" refers to in the first place. "Race" in common usage is NOT just loose description...but rather it also attributes actual causal power to "racial" categories.but rather it also attributes actual causal power to "racial" categories. For example, when a participant in racism[sub]s[/sub] refers to someone as "half black, half white" or any similar nonsense, they are relying upon the expectation that anyone they're speaking to also shares in the notion that "racial" categories correspond to some THING -- some actual substance, in our bodies or genes, and that difference "races" have more or less of that substance. They are sharing an implication that one could find "race" through a microscope. Exactly the opposite is true. If you study actual genetics and heredity and make groupings based upon genetic descent and markers, the groupings you end up with do NOT reliably correspond with modern "racial" categorization.

This is the part that's not getting through to you..."racial" identification is not neutral description of traits (real or imagined), but attribution of those traits to a causal mechanism which is falsely believed to have concrete existence.

In other words, in the crude (mis)conception among participants in racism[sub]s[/sub], the basic premise is that the physical, concrete mechanisms of heredity and development which lead to a person looking a certain way, having or not having certain abilities and in a certain degree, etc. not only correlate with our "racial" categories...but are actually CAUSED by them. If you were to ask someone who is subscribes ideologically to racism[sub]s[/sub], they would agree to the FALSE statement that there actually IS such a thing as a "blackness" gene or set of genes, a "whiteness" gene or set of genes, etc.

The failure -- the basic factual mistake involved in racism[sub]s[/sub] -- is NOT in claiming that people have individual and group differences (obviously true)...NOT in claiming that (at least locally or regionally) "racial" categorizations may often show some consistency (often true), but instead that the categorizations (based upon superficial outward features mixed with a mishmash of obviously learned/cultural practices) correspond with and have a two-way causal relationship with matching differences "on the inside". This last claim is false, and belief to the contrary is the very essence of ideological racism.

Actually, as race is commonly used it IS just a loose description. You're the only person I've ever met who subscribes to the belief that the majority of people think that race lives in our genes. On the contrary most people base the idea of race strictly on observed physical characteristics. You're the one who is misusing the term race, not me.

Having little genetic basis is indeed not the same as it being a fiction. What makes it a fiction is the fact that "race" is ENTIRELY a social concept. Take away the socially constructed aspect of "race," and there's absolutely nothing left over afterwards.

This is simply idiotic. All you have to do is look at a black person, a white person, and an Asian person standing side by side to know that race is not entirely a social concept.

"Race" is indeed NOT tangible, and I pointed this out in the OP, front and center. If you live and work among some linguistically isolated and exceptional subpopulation of North American English speakers, among whom the clearly implied contrast between FICTIONAL vs. ACTUAL is an unfamiliar usage, then that would account for the misunderstanding.

I really hate having to do this, but you don't seem to be able to understand without me doing so. Below is the dictionary definition of the word 'real'.

re·al1    [ree-uhl, reel] Show IPA
adjective
1.
true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: the real reason for an act.
2.
existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious: a story taken from real life.
3.
being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary: The events you will see in the film are real and not just made up.
4.
being actually such; not merely so-called: a real victory.
5.
genuine; not counterfeit, artificial, or imitation; authentic: a real antique; a real diamond; real silk.

Notice that the word 'tangible' doesn't show up in that definition. Also at no point in your OP did you use the word tangible. Tangible and real are synonyms, but they do not mean the exact same thing. If you meant tangible, you should have used the word tangible.

"Race" mythology purports to offer a causal explanation for real things, but the causal mechanisms it posits are NOT real, and have absolutely no material existence or causal force.

As I've already pointed out, common usage of race has nothing to do with causality. Race is generally used simply as a descriptor for similar physical traits among population groups, and by that definition race is absolutely real and tangible.

There's no point in us continuing this discussion though, since we're simply arguing word definitions and usage. I've made the substantive arguments that I intend to make, and you have generally ignored or dismissed them with no factual reason. I don't subscribe to your view of the world, and you don't subscribe to mine, so any further discussion is likely to be pointless.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

This simply isn't true. There are genetic variations between races which aren't present among members of the same race. Those variations are minor, but they exist.

And there are physical traits that the majority of members of a race share as well. No, not every feature is present in every member of the race, but there are shared physical traits.

Similarities by race according to whose criteria? US division of races - Brazilian division of races - Thailand division of races?

yes - shared physical traits is how all the many different categories of races are defined by countless cultures: by taking similarities that occur frequently together and labeling them accordingly.

 

[cmakaioz]

This simply isn't true. There are genetic variations between races which aren't present among members of the same race. Those variations are minor, but they exist.

This is my last response to you unless/until you are able to demonstrate that you are actually understanding my posts. I'm not seeing any progress on that front. You're tilting at a windmill of a misconception of my thesis, instead of the actual thesis.

The categories within popular "race" mythology are completely different from the classification systems used to trace lineage, patterns of variation, descent, etc. used by population scientists who have access to actual genetic material. When a GENETICIST (being a trained scientist, with access to actual genetic material) makes a classification of some subpopulation or looks at a pattern of variation, s/he does so on a basis which is COMPLETELY INACCESSIBLE AND SEPARATE FROM the basis upon which casual observers participate in "race" mythology. In case you're still not getting what I'm talking about, here's a rather blatant example of this difference:

Casual observer / everyday person using terms from "race" mythology: "I was at this football game and this black guy and a white dude got into a fight after the ref threw a flag on a touchdown and recalled it."

GENETICIST or POPULATION SCIENTIST: "Over the history of human migration, geographic and social isolation have led to gradations in visible phenotype often corresponding roughly to certain regions of the world. These migration patterns may often be traced through DNA."

So what, then, does the casual observer participating in "race" mythology look at to assign someone's "race?" Superficial outward features, and occasionally some cultural practices as well (which any competent scientist will immediately recognize as NOT being biological, since learned behaviors are not transmitted through genes), as perceived when looking at individuals and small groups.

What does the geneticist or biologist look at? Actual genetic material, and the expression (or interference with expession) of traits in populations.

It is thus completely unremarkable that "race" as imagined in the popular mind is not at all the same thing as subpopulations or descent lines or clines or any of a host of other categorization systems which ARE scientific, but are utterly removed from the dynamics and mechanisms falsely presumed by "race" mythology...precisely because BOTH the basis of the categorization methods AND the object of classification of "race" mythology vs. actual science are completely different.

If you bust out a world map and let a casual observer draw upon it a diagram of where the "races" come from, after even a small number of different casual observers, you'll already have contradictions between "racial" categorization systems (in number of categories, in borders of where those categories allegedly correspond to geographic regions, etc.). If you take a world map and set it before a population scientist (for example Spencer Wells), he can sketch out a pattern of human migration *based upon actual DNA* which any other geneticist with the requisite training can closely reproduce. UNLIKE the political fiction of "race", the genetic markers of descent and human migration ARE concrete, and so the conclusions about direction, exchange of genes, etc. among various human populations (that's POPULATIONS, NOT "RACES") and subpopulations ARE REAL. "Race" mythology is fiction, while population sciences, like genetics, are based upon ACTUAL causal mechanisms which are observable to anyone with the appropriate skills and tools.

And there are physical traits that the majority of members of a race share as well. No, not every feature is present in every member of the race, but there are shared physical traits.

Majority doesn't cut it. There is not ONE feature of an alleged "race" which is manifest among all supposed members of a "race," nor is there any feature which ONLY shows up among members of an alleged "race" and no one else. That slipperiness is why Seal and Lisa Bonet are uncontroversially both identified as "black" in "race" mythology, and yet an empirical observation of even their superficial traits demolishes the notion that they rationally belong in even the same superficial visual category, let alone the outright superstition of "race" which holds that these two people (and millions more, chalk full of similar striking contrasts in phenotype) are part of a larger "race" which has in common even more "racial" characteristics hidden from view. On this front, "race" isn't even INTERNALLY consistent in its dogmatism.

The simple fact that casual observers don't go around sampling DNA and crunching it through statistical pattern software is already obvious proof that what scientists look at -- and what casual observers base "racial" categorization upon -- are two completely different things. But if you're still obsessed over this non-starter, then I invite you to sit back, relax a bit, and watch this:

Race - the Power of an Illusion

or the classic Blue Eye / Brown Eye reconstruction of political fiction in the microcosm of a grade school classroom:
Jane Elliott - Brown Eyes vs. Blue Eyes - YouTube

Note: in Jane Eliot's exercise (the second link), it's not just the accellerated development of a discriminatory system which is illustrative, but also the REIFICATION process, where an arbitrary distinction -- based upon REAL difference (eye color) -- is transformed into mythological beliefs about internal and cultural abilities which have absolutely no REAL (tangible) causal force, and are created solely through social conventions which mark such things as artificially significant.

 

[Goshin]

May I suggest you bring this information to the attention of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. :mrgreen:


Let us know how that works out....

 

[Wake]

If race doesn't exist, than neither can racism.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

If race doesn't exist, than neither can racism.

All sorts of other terms for that, though - like ethnocentrism.

 

[cmakaioz]

If race doesn't exist, than [sic] neither can racism.

All sorts of other terms for that, though - like ethnocentrism.

Basic failures of logic like the one above (by Wake) are a big part of why he was the very first person I flushed on DP.

 

[Wake]

All sorts of other terms for that, though - like ethnocentrism.

Racism is quite a bit different from ethnocentrism. The OP asserts that race does not exist. Therefore, if race does not exist than neither can racism, because racism directly relies on the existence of race.

 

[cmakaioz]

So long as racism is misrepresented (as in the popular sense, racism[sub]i[/sub]) as a problem of individual attitude, the bulk of racism[sub]s[/sub] is left largely unchecked, unremarked, pretended away, etc.

Racism[sub]i[/sub] and its memes become a vehicle of evasion. We can tell that popular acceptance of racism[sub]i[/sub] as an operative definition is in place because of not only the defensiveness of privileged people (in this case, "white") people in many attempted discussions of "race," but also the type and scope of that defensiveness. One of the most common refrains by "white" people in such discussion is "I'm not racist...I believe we should treat every individual according to how they act." That's all well and good, but this nails down the concept in that person's head: they are throwing up presumptive defenses against possible charges of BEING a racist in the sense of racism[sub]i[/sub].

If we instead recognize racism as racism[sub]s[/sub] -- participation in action or expression which treats "race" as real -- then at least two major implications come up:

1. That the relevant strategy of overturning racism[sub]i[/sub] is radically different from that of overturning racism[sub]s[/sub]. The focus of work ostensibly aimed at curbing or eliminating racism[sub]i[/sub] is that of individual attitude. Someone identified as racist[sub]i[/sub] in this context is viewed as having a socially destructive attitude / harmful beliefs, and so the solution in this framing is to challenge those beliefs (in the case of people whose racism[sub]i[/sub] has not yet involved breaking any laws) or limiting their capacity to inflict harm based upon those beliefs (in the case of people who commit assault or arson or other acts of clear and concrete violence based upon their racism[sub]i[/sub]). If we recognize the problem as racism[sub]s[/sub], however, the appropriate focus of attempts at overturning racism[sub]s[/sub] are the many (and often institutionalized) forms of racist[sub]s[/sub] action, which can and frequently do manifest without any requirement of conscious desire to harm members of particular "races", or, for that matter, even needing to personally subscribe to racism[sub]s[/sub] in the first place. Anyone raised within a racism[sub]s[/sub] society will likely have enough social training to match the dominant social conventions of their local/regional "race" mythology without needing to buy into it ideologically. As such, it is perfectly possible for members of law enforcement, for example, to participate in racial profiling (a textbook case of racism[sub]s[/sub]) even if they personally find such categorization systems to be nonsense. A category system need not be based on reality in order to be consistent (consider all kinds of popular fiction series, the characters of which can be easily identified by fans of the franchise, yet which remain fictional nonetheless).
   
2. That the popular misconception of racism as being ONLY racism[sub]i[/sub] and not racism[sub]s[/sub] functions, sometimes with intention but usually not, as an effective catch-all escape hatch to avoid addressing larger systemic issues and (most of all) the psychological, political, and economic implications of normalization of unearned privileges. The pretense of treating racism as a system attitudes instead of a system of actions and concrete conditions associated with those attitudes (around the central theme of an alleged "racial" reality) prevents real attempts a working together to change those actions and conditions. After all, when racism is falsely cast as being ONLY a personal issue -- and trying to either win hearts and minds (engagement) or identify and steer clear of the malevolent and the ignorant (avoidance) becomes the coping strategy -- the remaining bulk of actual racism, racism[sub]s[/sub] is neither acknowledged nor strategized against.

 

[cmakaioz]

For those who dismiss my framing of the contrast between racism[sub]i[/sub] and racism[sub]s[/sub], I pose the following challenge:

I submit that it is not by accident that taking a disembodied, abstracted position against racism[sub]i[/sub] -- while ignoring or even denying outright the importance of racism[sub]s[/sub] -- lies at the heart of current maintenance of white supremacy. This can be seen by looking at the actual conduct of people who would not be considered participants in racism[sub]i[/sub], but who would clearly be considered participants in racism[sub]s[/sub]:

• people who consistently declare color-blind ideology as a basis for identifying themselves as outside of racism[sub]i[/sub], and acknowledge -- as an abstraction -- that there are still (presumably other-than-themselves) people who fit the definition of racism[sub]i[/sub] and cause real problems, but they don't go so far as to actually identify them, nor do they acknowledge that "white" people benefit from both racism[sub]i[/sub] and racism[sub]s[/sub];
• public officials and politicians who declare rejection of racism[sub]i[/sub], but who -- in actual practice -- oppose any attempts at systemic redress for racist oppression (keeping in mind that racist oppression does NOT require adherence to racism[sub]i[/sub]);
• "white" liberal, progressive, and even leftist activists who take an explicit anti-racist stance in their work (thus not fitting into racism[sub]i[/sub]), but who still fail to interrogate, acknowledge, and challenge white supremacy embedded in their approach to such activism by challenging racism[sub]s[/sub] on a strategic rather than universal basis.

At the end of the day, it boils down to this question:

Whatever one's declared stance may be, look instead at their actual behavior and statements, and ask this:

Has their conduct resulted in acknowledging white supremacy as a major problem, and concretely changing their participation and (in the case of "white" people) complicity in it, or has it left such white supremacy unchallenged?


I raise this question this way because addressing racism[sub]i[/sub] is treated as a personal failing, a kind of mental illness. While that's true, it's perfectly possible (and indeed, the norm) for people to participate in racism[sub]s[/sub] WITHOUT adhering to racism[sub]i[/sub], and since racism[sub]s[/sub] accounts for most of the oppression and privilege which embodies white supremacy. The crux of the matter -- especially for "white" people -- is that the primary privilege they possess as a result of white supremacy is the luxury of ignorance. They remain free to have financially, personally, and professionally successful lives while remaining mostly or even completely ignorant of the plight of people of color.

Since the predictable result of not challenging a dominant sociopolitical order is that such an order will continue, and since "white" people are the only people (on the axis of "race") who benefit from white supremacy, it logically falls upon "white" people to take responsibility for their ongoing acceptance -- TODAY -- of stolen and unearned wealth, privilege, and status. To reject or neglect such responsibility is a de facto endorsement of the dominant order (white supremacy), no matter what someone's declared or asserted principles may be.

If one accepts as a principle that one is responsible for the predictable results of one's actions (including inaction), then failure among "white" people to examine and challenge their own privilege is thus -- ethically speaking -- just as atrocious as promoting white supremacy through racism[sub]i[/sub].

In terms of discussion and debate of racism and racist oppression, this translates back into the practical question above which may be applied to anyone (white or nonwhite): are the stances and actions one takes, on balance, actually acknowledging racism and racist oppression as real and serious concrete problems, or are they just (one way or another) rationalizing keeping things as they are. While there is theoretical neutrality on this, in terms of actual conduct and effect, there is not: one's conduct either challenges or maintains the dominant order. One is either proactively engaged in challenging the concrete manifestations of racism and racist oppression, or one is (by design or complicity) supporting racism and racist oppression. Abstract liberalism -- defined by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva as endorsing anti-racist/pro-equality principles as hypotheticals while opposing in actual practice any actual implementation of those principles -- is thus thin camouflage for participation/complicity in racist oppression.

 

[Rhodesia]

All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm : Discovery News
There actually is a biological difference between races considering we have different DNA. More over considering that that there's a significant difference in IQ testing between races intelligence can't be discounted and a group is defined by it's majority. The cultural argument is bunk if you try to make that because Asians tend to score a little higher than the average European despite having a different culture.
'Junk DNA' defines differences between humans and chimps
Were also nearly identical genetically to chimpanzee's. Should we treat them the exact same and discount species because of that? The most important part of how identical the chimpanzee's DNA is is that it undermines the argument of "Look at our DNA, were so identical, were all the same". But if a small amount of DNA is the line between chimp and human then certainly the small amount between races has some credit.

 

[cmakaioz]

All Non-Africans Part Neanderthal, Genetics Confirm : Discovery News
There actually is a biological difference between races considering we have different DNA.

No, we don't, because "race" as popularly understood refers to social identifications made entirely on a basis which HAS NO ACCESS TO OR UNDERSTANDING OF DNA. Furthermore, "race" mythology posits that the superficial features seized upon in order to define casual "race" categories are consistently coincident with deeper causal forces anchored in genes. People can go along with all manner of social pretenses, including quite complicated ones, but the fact remains that "race" is incapable of being defined genetically because the social co-creators and maintainers of "race" (everyday people without the specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment for examining and analyzing genetic patterns) have no means of identifying genes in the first place.

For the upteenth time: yes, human variation is real and fascinating, but NO, it doesn't break down into the shifting-winds categories posited by "race" mythology.

More over considering that that there's a significant difference in IQ testing between races intelligence can't be discounted

On the contrary, fictional causes can indeed be discounted, because they can't actually cause anything at all in their own right. Real people can and often do take real actions based upon fictions, but it is their actions (not the fiction(s) in question) which actually get anything done.

and a group is defined by it's majority. The cultural argument is bunk if you try to make that because Asians tend to score a little higher than the average European despite having a different culture.

"Racial" identifications aren't even internally consistent, nor are they even parallel. For purposes of racist framing of IQ test scores, "racially" Asian peoples are all lumped together, without reference to their ACTUAL cultural participation. It is not, for example, at all a reliable presumption to assert that all "Asians" share a culture, or that the allegedly "racially Asian" people within a scoring sample don't share a culture with the allegedly "racially" European sitting in the desk next to them. A third-generation Asian American student who is considered "racially Asian" in a California suburb often has little to no practical connection to their ancestral cultures (in much the same way that "white" people generally have lost their cultural ties to specific European ethnicities), so the presumption that "race" will correspond with particular cultural contexts is not warranted.

'Junk DNA' defines differences between humans and chimps
Were also nearly identical genetically to chimpanzee's. Should we treat them the exact same and discount species because of that? The most important part of how identical the chimpanzee's DNA is is that it undermines the argument of "Look at our DNA, were so identical, were all the same". But if a small amount of DNA is the line between chimp and human then certainly the small amount between races has some credit.

Chimps are irrelevant. Chimps have no "race" mythology to contend with. Chimps don't invent political fictions to justify and reinforce hierarchical orders which go far beyond the direct physical or social dominance of a prominent chimp in a group.

 

[Rhodesia]

No, we don't, because "race" as popularly understood refers to social identifications made entirely on a basis which HAS NO ACCESS TO OR UNDERSTANDING OF DNA. Furthermore, "race" mythology posits that the superficial features seized upon in order to define casual "race" categories are consistently coincident with deeper causal forces anchored in genes.

I was unaware that how the average person defines something irregardless of intellectually established definitions is what matters in the establishment of something. I'm glad we can argue in absolute obscurity. I'm referring to the anthropological and taxonomic definition of race. Sure we can argue phenotype's are not the be all end all of racial classification but if you put an anthropologist in a room with skulls of different races they would be able to tell the difference.

People can go along with all manner of social pretenses, including quite complicated ones, but the fact remains that "race" is incapable of being defined genetically because the social co-creators and maintainers of "race" (everyday people without the specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment for examining and analyzing genetic patterns) have no means of identifying genes in the first place.

I never proposed that I am pandering to what the average person thinks of race and how to classify it. I'm arguing your point that there is no discernible way to determine race at all and for the existence of race itself. Not to mention you could educate people on the actual difference between races instead of just plugging your ears, declaring race a myth, and saying were all the same.

For the upteenth time: yes, human variation is real and fascinating, but NO, it doesn't break down into the shifting-winds categories posited by "race" mythology.

Human variation IS race. It's a taxonomic way of to categorize people. If you have any understanding of evolution then it wouldn't be hard to understand that if you have two members of the same species put in isolated areas then they will change. Would you argue German Shepard's and Chiuauas are the same?

On the contrary, fictional causes can indeed be discounted, because they can't actually cause anything at all in their own right. Real people can and often do take real actions based upon fictions, but it is their actions (not the fiction(s) in question) which actually get anything done.

Because the causes that you propose are deeply based in fact and not just subjective social science speculation.

"Racial" identifications aren't even internally consistent, nor are they even parallel. For purposes of racist framing of IQ test scores, "racially" Asian peoples are all lumped together, without reference to their ACTUAL cultural participation. It is not, for example, at all a reliable presumption to assert that all "Asians" share a culture, or that the allegedly "racially Asian" people within a scoring sample don't share a culture with the allegedly "racially" European sitting in the desk next to them. A third-generation Asian American student who is considered "racially Asian" in a California suburb often has little to no practical connection to their ancestral cultures (in much the same way that "white" people generally have lost their cultural ties to specific European ethnicities), so the presumption that "race" will correspond with particular cultural contexts is not warranted.

Even if the Asians do share a culture with the European that doesn't explain why they consistently score higher than Europeans. Saying that they lump them together further proves my point because technically they should be scoring the same.

Chimps are irrelevant. Chimps have no "race" mythology to contend with. Chimps don't invent political fictions to justify and reinforce hierarchical orders which go far beyond the direct physical or social dominance of a prominent chimp in a group.

Way to miss my point completely. I was making the point that chimp DNA is almost identical to ours. This means it only took a small bit evolution and tweaking to the DNA in order for us to be different from them. If this is so then the differences genetically we previous looked upon as minuscule are actually significantly large.

You're also making an argument from the dead position of people being born as blank slates. I know a lot of social scientists like to believe this is true so that their theories are consistent but it isn't. Even just from an evolutionary stand point it doesn't make sense.

 

[cmakaioz]

I was unaware that how the average person defines something irregardless of intellectually established definitions is what matters in the establishment of something.

Then with all due respect, come out of your cave more than once every few years. When discussing the political and economic baggage associated with a social identification, the social part is a huge part of the picture. In the case of a complete political fiction like "race", it is the picture.

I'm glad we can argue in absolute obscurity. I'm referring to the anthropological and taxonomic definition of race.

The popular myth of "race" is premised on the notion that social identifications actually reflect some underlying CAUSAL biological reality which is further premised to actually operates upon/is articulated through lines matching up with the social identifications. The social identifications, in turn, were created and are maintained in a manner which reflects both past and ongoing power relations, NOT biological or scientific taxonomy.

In other words, the moment you start to mention physical or biological sciences, you're no longer talking about "race" as popularly understood and treated.

Sure we can argue phenotype's are not the be all end all of racial classification but if you put an anthropologist in a room with skulls of different races they would be able to tell the difference.

We need only acknowledge the obvious: that what a physical anthropologist uses as the basis of her identification of human remains is not what everyday casual observers use. Further (I could've sworn I'd already mentioned this), scientific taxonomies -- at least if based upon evidence instead of confirmation bias -- will, over time, converge (because they're looking at the same evidence and using the same general methodologies). Social identifications, on the other hand, can and do display all kinds of absurd variations and nonparallel schemes, with non-parallel causal narratives, non-parallel attribution of significance, etc. Lay (casual, social) "race" mythologies diverge rather than converge.

I never proposed that I am pandering to what the average person thinks of race and how to classify it.

Then you're not discussing "race." If you intend to look at scientific taxonomy, you must abandon "race," as there's no place for it in legitimate, peer-reviewed, evidentiary empirical study.

I'm arguing your point that there is no discernible way to determine race at all and for the existence of race itself.

It's not an argument. It's a settled matter of scientific fact. Biologically speaking, there's no such thing as different human races. The point of this thread is not to rehash all the same tired nonsense which comprises racism[sub]s[/sub], but to address a larger political and psychological phenomenon -- a societal illness -- on terms which match the scale and character of its operation.

Not to mention you could educate people on the actual difference between races instead of just plugging your ears, declaring race a myth, and saying were all the same.

I can't educated people on something that doesn't exist in the first place. Humans absolutely do display wide variation, but not on a racial basis. If you're conceptually tone deaf to what that means, I doubt you'd be able to digest anything further I'd have to say on that tangent. But let's be clear; that's NOT the topic here.

Human variation IS race. It's a taxonomic way of to categorize people.

Left-handed vs. right-handed is also a taxonomic way to categorize people. So is party affiliation, or any of a host of other bases. What "race" is not, however, is science.

If you have any understanding of evolution then it wouldn't be hard to understand that if you have two members of the same species put in isolated areas then they will change. Would you argue German Shepard's and Chiuauas are the same?

Complete non-sequitur/failed analogy. German Shephards and Chihuahuas don't invent and implement political fictions. If a German Shephard menaces and scares out a chihuahua, it's because one dog is ACTUALLY bigger, stronger, and louder than the other...not because of politically motivated brainwashing and oppression having falsely asserted such through a false causal narrative.

Because the causes that you propose are deeply based in fact and not just subjective social science speculation.

You don't seem to understand what lay "race" IS. "Race" mythology is absolutely NOT just mere identification/association of outward traits. "Race" mythology involves the establishment of a CAUSAL presumption, in which social categories based upon superficial features (some real, some imagined) are REIFIED, and treated AS IF they actually cause such features (i.e. "He's got a broad nose because he's black". It's an absurd cycle. Obviously people have all kinds of variation, but the mechanics of how those variations come about and operate does not operate along the premises put forth by "race" mythology (blood quanta, confabulating cultural and acquired traits with biological ones, and presuming a linkage between superficial and deep traits where none exists, etc.)

Even if the Asians do share a culture with the European that doesn't explain why they consistently score higher than Europeans.

You've gone circular and completely missed the most obvious point here: The sociocultural identification of someone as "Asian" vs. the "racial" identification of someone as Asian...DO NOT LINE UP. If you still don't understand why this demolishes the nonsense about "racial" genetic influence upon IQ test scores, then follow up with some questions.

Saying that they lump them together further proves my point because technically they should be scoring the same.

You're missing something far more basic. The "they" in your sentence :

...because technically they should be scoring the same

circularly presupposes a "racial" reality which is not only not in evidence, but has already been disproven.

Put another way: Unless absolutely every test-taker scored the same (a miraculous result in any normal context), ANY arbitrary basis (ear shape, handedness, choice of favorite sports team) for grouping test takers would show some variation in average (however small) between groups. To suggest (or accept the suggestion) that such correlation warrants claims of causation is to commit a basic fallacy.

Way to miss my point completely. I was making the point that chimp DNA is almost identical to ours. This means it only took a small bit evolution and tweaking to the DNA in order for us to be different from them. If this is so then the differences genetically we previous looked upon as minuscule are actually significantly large.

I'm quite familiar with the chimp/human DNA similarity canard, thanks. What you are ignoring (or perhaps you're not ignoring, you simply have never understood) is that:

• interspecies genetic variation is not measured the same way as intraspecies genetic variation (this is a relatively obscure technical issue, so most people don't know about it);
• the genes known to code for skin color, basic facial map, and the relative handful of other phenotypic features falsely pretended to exhaust the basis of lay "race" categorizations...are a staggeringly small portion of our genetic makeup.

You're also making an argument from the dead position of people being born as blank slates.

I've done nothing of the kind, and I won't be wasting any calories defending a position I don't -- and have never -- held.

Once AGAIN: Humans have plenty of variation...but that variation simply does not operate on the basis premised by "race" mythology. However, while "race" is fiction, RACISM --the sum total of expressions and actions which treat "race" AS IF it were biologically real -- is of course quite real and has profound (even lethal) consequences.

The purpose of this thread is to examine those consequences, and argue in favor of a more inclusive identification of racism because such inclusion more accurately reflects both the basis and the impact of racism.

 

[Rhodesia]

Then with all due respect, come out of your cave more than once every few years. When discussing the political and economic baggage associated with a social identification, the social part is a huge part of the picture. In the case of a complete political fiction like "race", it is the picture.

Identifying political baggage and social identification thought up by the average man is a fruitless task. You're looking at something where people with no knowledge and generally with a vision deeply rooted in apathy are making assumptions that you can't discern what is legitimate and what isn't. Race can and should be looked at from a anthropological position instead of being discounted because of not wanting to offend people.

The popular myth of "race" is premised on the notion that social identifications actually reflect some underlying CAUSAL biological reality which is further premised to actually operates upon/is articulated through lines matching up with the social identifications. The social identifications, in turn, were created and are maintained in a manner which reflects both past and ongoing power relations, NOT biological or scientific taxonomy.

In other words, the moment you start to mention physical or biological sciences, you're no longer talking about "race" as popularly understood and treated.

How you discern and discount race and the biological differences between them from those power relations seems ridiculous.

We need only acknowledge the obvious: that what a physical anthropologist uses as the basis of her identification of human remains is not what everyday casual observers use. Further (I could've sworn I'd already mentioned this), scientific taxonomies -- at least if based upon evidence instead of confirmation bias -- will, over time, converge (because they're looking at the same evidence and using the same general methodologies). Social identifications, on the other hand, can and do display all kinds of absurd variations and nonparallel schemes, with non-parallel causal narratives, non-parallel attribution of significance, etc. Lay (casual, social) "race" mythologies diverge rather than converge.

In that case then there's a mythology built up around just about thing within society because the general populace ether doesn't care or is too apathetic. I'm saying that there exists anthropologically race and that it's in the interest of science to examine the differences instead of bowing down to people being upset.

Then you're not discussing "race." If you intend to look at scientific taxonomy, you must abandon "race," as there's no place for it in legitimate, peer-reviewed, evidentiary empirical study.

Would prefer the term "sub-species". It is used science, race is just more commonly understood.

It's not an argument. It's a settled matter of scientific fact. Biologically speaking, there's no such thing as different human races. The point of this thread is not to rehash all the same tired nonsense which comprises racism[sub]s[/sub], but to address a larger political and psychological phenomenon -- a societal illness -- on terms which match the scale and character of its operation.

There is. You're just not accepting that its a classification still used. Whether you want to call it sub-species or not is up to you. So long is we don't live in a perfect world where every person of every race is exactly the same and there's still things like black comedians that make race jokes or Indian ones, still gangster rappers, and still everything else called "black culture" etc. Then you will always have these myths. You can't defeat apathy and mass culture.

I can't educated people on something that doesn't exist in the first place. Humans absolutely do display wide variation, but not on a racial basis. If you're conceptually tone deaf to what that means, I doubt you'd be able to digest anything further I'd have to say on that tangent. But let's be clear; that's NOT the topic here.

There's still many on going debates about that so to rule it out completely is ridiculous.

Left-handed vs. right-handed is also a taxonomic way to categorize people. So is party affiliation, or any of a host of other bases. What "race" is not, however, is science.



Complete non-sequitur/failed analogy. German Shephards and Chihuahuas don't invent and implement political fictions. If a German Shephard menaces and scares out a chihuahua, it's because one dog is ACTUALLY bigger, stronger, and louder than the other...not because of politically motivated brainwashing and oppression having falsely asserted such through a false causal narrative.

But some races can have differences advantages over each other because they are genetically different.

You don't seem to understand what lay "race" IS. "Race" mythology is absolutely NOT just mere identification/association of outward traits. "Race" mythology involves the establishment of a CAUSAL presumption, in which social categories based upon superficial features (some real, some imagined) are REIFIED, and treated AS IF they actually cause such features (i.e. "He's got a broad nose because he's black". It's an absurd cycle. Obviously people have all kinds of variation, but the mechanics of how those variations come about and operate does not operate along the premises put forth by "race" mythology (blood quanta, confabulating cultural and acquired traits with biological ones, and presuming a linkage between superficial and deep traits where none exists, etc.)

Then as I have said before. I understand that happens but I think were arguing two different things. I'm saying there can be found some legitimate basis in understanding people based on race. My question is discerning it from your "race mythology" instead of just discounting it all together such as you have.

You've gone circular and completely missed the most obvious point here: The sociocultural identification of someone as "Asian" vs. the "racial" identification of someone as Asian...DO NOT LINE UP. If you still don't understand why this demolishes the nonsense about "racial" genetic influence upon IQ test scores, then follow up with some questions.

I'm saying the fact that they don't line up further proves my point. Because what you're saying is that someone can look Asian but my be culturally American. My point is that then why is it if there's these Asian people racially of both American and Asian culture in the tests do Asian people on average score higher than European?

You're missing something far more basic. The "they" in your sentence :

...because technically they should be scoring the same

circularly presupposes a "racial" reality which is not only not in evidence, but has already been disproven.

Put another way: Unless absolutely every test-taker scored the same (a miraculous result in any normal context), ANY arbitrary basis (ear shape, handedness, choice of favorite sports team) for grouping test takers would show some variation in average (however small) between groups. To suggest (or accept the suggestion) that such correlation warrants claims of causation is to commit a basic fallacy.

Saying it doesn't exist doesn't make it nonexistent. I'm not saying they should or need to score the same. I'm saying based upon racial lines they do score significantly differently.

I'm quite familiar with the chimp/human DNA similarity canard, thanks. What you are ignoring (or perhaps you're not ignoring, you simply have never understood) is that:

• interspecies genetic variation is not measured the same way as intraspecies genetic variation (this is a relatively obscure technical issue, so most people don't know about it);
• the genes known to code for skin color, basic facial map, and the relative handful of other phenotypic features falsely pretended to exhaust the basis of lay "race" categorizations...are a staggeringly small portion of our genetic makeup.

It's still an evolutionary difference. Are you arguing that there isn't no evolutionary difference between someone from a European back ground and someone from an Asian or African back ground?

I've done nothing of the kind, and I won't be wasting any calories defending a position I don't -- and have never -- held.

Once AGAIN: Humans have plenty of variation...but that variation simply does not operate on the basis premised by "race" mythology. However, while "race" is fiction, RACISM --the sum total of expressions and actions which treat "race" AS IF it were biologically real -- is of course quite real and has profound (even lethal) consequences.

The purpose of this thread is to examine those consequences, and argue in favor of a more inclusive identification of racism because such inclusion more accurately reflects both the basis and the impact of racism.

That's fine. I'm arguing that there is a biological basis and difference between races/sub-species and that some of these differences can help us better understand how society operates.

 

[cmakaioz]

Identifying political baggage and social identification thought up by the average man is a fruitless task.

Mighty entitled of you.

You're looking at something where people with no knowledge and generally with a vision deeply rooted in apathy are making assumptions that you can't discern what is legitimate and what isn't. Race can and should be looked at from a anthropological position instead of being discounted because of not wanting to offend people.

It's not about basing anything on offense (for or against), but ACCURACY. "Race" as popularly understood is NOT biologically real. You have acknowledged that scientists (those relative few who still use the word "race" in what they present as science) are not referring to the same thing.

How you discern and discount race and the biological differences between them from those power relations seems ridiculous.

You don't seem to grasp what is being discussed.

In that case then there's a mythology built up around just about thing within society because the general populace ether doesn't care or is too apathetic. I'm saying that there exists anthropologically race and that it's in the interest of science to examine the differences instead of bowing down to people being upset.

Anthropological notions of race do not coincide with lay "race." THIS TOPIC deals with lay race, and with racism (defined as those expressions and actions which act AS IF lay "race" actually has biological reality). If you're not concerned with or discussing lay "race" (and the associated racism), you're not discussing the topic.

Would prefer the term "sub-species". It is used science, race is just more commonly understood.

This line makes me suspect that you're a sock-puppet of Hicup. Can't prove it, of course, but all of the nonsense I dealt with in Hicup's posts in a different thread ended up being a waste of time. In this thread, it would be not only wasteful, but off-topic.

There is. You're just not accepting that its a classification still used.

You have declared that you're not concerned with lay "race." As such, you're not discussing the topic.

Whether you want to call it sub-species or not is up to you.

You're welcome to go waste time on this tangent in the thread on "race" and its alleged genetic influence (in the view of racists) on IQ test scores. It has no place here.

Then as I have said before. I understand that happens but I think were arguing two different things. I'm saying there can be found some legitimate basis in understanding people based on race.

As a social and political phenomenon, of course. As a biological phenomenon, there are no existent human subspecies, so that's a non-starter.

I'm saying the fact that they don't line up further proves my point. Because what you're saying is that someone can look Asian but my be culturally American. My point is that then why is it if there's these Asian people racially of both American and Asian culture in the tests do Asian people on average score higher than European?

I already addressed this circular reasoning fallacy when Hicup committed it earlier. This thread is not the place to repeat it.

It's still an evolutionary difference. Are you arguing that there isn't no evolutionary difference between someone from a European back ground and someone from an Asian or African back ground?

"European" and "African" are not lay races, but broad generalizations of geographical ancestry. In any case, off-topic here.

That's fine. I'm arguing that there is a biological basis and difference between races/sub-species and that some of these differences can help us better understand how society operates.

Completely off-topic here. Take it outside/join your twin Hicup in the appropriate thread. If pursued here, it would be a derail.

 

[Awesome!]

I think we would be better served if we can find and adhere to a lay race framework that is centered not on mythical definitions that are seeking to define the defined if you will, but rather a more subjective framework that doesn’t seek to bypass empirical data, but, rather seeks, to formulate assumptions conducive to the lay race definition. This would lead to a conceptual foundation for a broader, more adequate standard to justify our said characterization (s) of race associated conclusions, whether cultural, or by class related socio economic factors. Not to completely broad brush the mythical (paralleled) with the underpinnings of different said definitions that haven’t been weighted and interpreted with any proper scientific methods, but just notions as being ….notions, and nothing more for the sake of a the layman’s said definition that contributes to the framework. While abstract and immeasurable; the consciousness of the individual’s perception of what is race, coupled with the “lay race” factor, creates a wonderful dichotomy, but yet centers in a definition of race…