Race is a social construct. It does not exist. There are no determinate characteristics distinguishing groups of Homo sapiens as separate, whether in discernible genetics or characteristics of brain architecture. Differences among individuals exists, but you cannot cogently pool certain groups of individuals together based off similar genes or brain architecture. Thus, “White”, “Black”, “Hispanic”, and so forth are all inadequate abstractions in describing the unique properties present in a human being. People that do not understand this are lost in cultural trifles.
It is an arbitrary division people drew up for the sake of classifying perceived groups of others. In reality, it is not an adequate means to evaluate the character of another. Your perception of someone’s “race” says absolutely nothing about his or her values or temperament.
I am tired of how human beings are dancing around to non-existent tunes, wasting energy.
Welcome to the Straight Dope. You may wish to avail yourself of the search function, or use the one on Google to search this site as it’s better. We’ve had many (many, many) discussions of this topic that might interest you.
Yes, you can. There have been discussions about this here on the dope before. You may want to look for old threads.
From Before the Dawn (pp. 187-188):
Telling a computer to analyze DNA at 377 sites throughout the human chromosomes, the analysis found 5 natural groups to divide the DNA into - Indo-European, east Asian, (original) American, African, and South Pacific Islander.
Neighborhoods are social constructs. They do not exist. There are no determinate characteristics distinguishing groups of buildings or locations as separate, whether in discernible coordinates or characteristics of building architecture. Differences among individual buildings and locations exist, but you cannot cogently pool certain groups of buildings together based off similar locations or architecture. Thus, “Chinatown”, “Lower East Side”, “Murray Hill”, and so forth are all inadequate abstractions in describing the unique properties present in a neighborhood. People that do not understand this are lost in cultural trifles.
It is an arbitrary division people drew up for the sake of classifying perceived groups of buildings and locations. In reality, it is not an adequate means to evaluate the character of particular location. Your perception of someone’s “neighborhood” says absolutely nothing about his or her rent or income.
I am tired of how human beings are dancing around to non-existent tunes, wasting energy.
The studies I’ve seen tend to – at the highest level – sort human populations into around five genetic groups: four groups mostly all within Africa, and one group including both some African populations and all the other world’s populations (Europe, Asia, Americas, Australia, etc). It’s also worth noting that the variation within any group is tremendously higher than the variation between groups.
So, yeah, of course you can sort human populations into some sort of genetic groupings, but they have almost no correlation with skin and hair color, (which is generally how cultural ‘races’ are defined), and they’re not very useful at predicting anything about a particular individual.
So, yeah, the OP’s point is valid. It’s not exactly news here on the Dope, but worth keeping in mind
I’m unfamiliar with those. The conclusion that race doesn’t exist isn’t valid from the study I cited (although race’s lack of importance I don’t dispute). Got any links?
It’s indisputable that there’s more genetic variation in Africa than anywhere else in the world - the first emigrants off the continent may have been a band of only 100 individuals, with the corresponding lack of genetic diversity.
Maybe it’s that the study I cited looked at unused portions of DNA, which can mutate faster without killing the mutatee.
Your first two sentences contradict each other. You’ll need to be more grammatically precise around here if you want to come charging in announcing to all of us how the world works.
Yes and no. The real issue is that there are any number of ways to distinguish any number of groups and there isn’t any one system that is objectively right. Plus, the differences we do see are clinal in nature, not abrupt.
Wow! Finally someone else figured it out. Amazing how many people defend the social construct of race. Substitute Tooth Fairy for race and then listen to the reactions. As far as I’m concerned, racism is the belief in races, physically or socially constructed. Discussing the subject is fine, but I won’t call someone ‘Black’ or ‘White’.
I almost but not quite agree here, TriPolar. I don’t believe in race as such, and I refuse to select any option other than "human"on forms and such, but I have to acknowledge that I fit the usual criteria for “African-American” (how I hate that cacophonous term!) and am perceived as such by others.
It’s not unreasonable to discuss the social construct. But I feel the use of the socially constructed terms reinforce the notion that race is a real thing. I understand people will consider me a ‘white’ man, but it offends my sensibilities to be associated with people who think like that. Unfortunately, these are victims of racism themselves, so I have to moderate my ideals to keep from judging others immediately on that basis.
I understand that, and I really want to behave that way. But the attitude’s too entrenched to be killed in our generation. And of course, racists like a certain board member I won’t name (though I suspect you can guess who I mean), who are obsessed with the idea of racial purity, keep the destructive notion alive.
The struggle will continue. But from time to time I remind myself of the great progress that’s been made since I was born. When I see recent political events where peoples views on homosexuality and many other issues have changed over time I feel more confident that one day people will look back in time and laugh at the ignorance of the racists in our time. Or maybe cry. Or maybe both.
I never can tell which way people want to take this discussion when they open up like the OP. It could be coming from a pie eyed hippie type who is saying that there are no differences in people anywhere you look and we are all just one people whether you are an ethnic Scandinavian or a San Bushman from southern Africa.
It could also be coming from someone who has read the works of respected scientists like Spencer Wells (who is charge of the The Genographic Project that collects DNA from populations all over the world for analysis) and is simply saying that classic ideas about the races and their popular breakdowns are wrong.
If you are the former, I will say you are hopelessly naive and don’t understand the current science on the matter. If you are just saying that the classical ideas about race need to be heavily revised or discarded in favor of newer scientific models then I am all for it. The fact remains there are genetic differences human populations both large and small and the reasons for that are becoming more and more understood.
Which one of those two types are you most close too?
This is true. It leads to recognize how Nirvana and Samsara are not two.
More people need to read Nagarjuna. One should not hold the conventional realm “personal”, for the idea of a self or “I” is a convention too. There is no region of the brain where “I” occurs - it is more distributed rather than localized; while one can find correlates for the sense of subjectivity, the sense of “I-me-mine” is more provisional and context-sensitive.
One should not negate the illusions, but rather see it for what it is. Classifications are useful when applied for actual action. They are insignificant otherwise. The classification of “race” is a social construct and does not exist outside of human convention.