The recent issue involving Whoopi Goldberg’s comments has caused me to ponder think such things. And I’m not sure I can figure out how any such terms can be used such that they are commonly defined/understood by everyone.
Is race entirely a social construct? So the fact that Nazis considered Jews to be an inferior “race” establishes that Jewishness is a race? I have not conducted an extensive study, but I can’t recall any Jew I’ve known as describing their Jewishness as a race. Judaism is a challenging category, as it combines ethnicity, religion, culture… Is a black person who converts to Judaism the same rave as a person of Ashkenazi heritage?
In some limited settings, I feel it can be worthwhile to refer to individuals/groups by certain shared characteristics, whether Black, hispanic/Latinx, Asian… But how can that be done if the categories are entirely up to individual interpretation?
Please understand that I am not desiring to refer to people by any specific terms, or to assign values/characteristics to people based on such designations. Just hoping some of you can help me wrap my mind around such issues.
What are you asking here? Does it even matter what “rationale” Nazis and other racists use to determine whom to victimize? There is not too much to wrap your mind around there, no deep underlying truth you are missing.
ETA Since you mention Jews, different groups of Jews do not even agree on which other groups of Jews are really Jews. Again, did any of that matter when they all got genocided?
Race is a social construct that was invented as a rationale to oppress others. So it is only “real” in the sense that some people want to enslave or exterminate others, and created certain categories of appearance and traits to support legal theories and social norms to rationalize those aims.
Just to demonstrate how laughably arbitrary the category of “race” is, let’s have a quote from Benjamin Franklin:
In the modern day, Swedes and Germans are now broadly considered the paragons of whiteness. But Ben Franklin was convinced they were “swarthy” elements who would dilute the true “whiteness” of Anglo-Saxons. Obviously this wasn’t based on color or intellect. People like Franklin just didn’t want to share their bounteous new continent with anyone, even with Nordic or so-called Aryan Europeans, if they didn’t share their language and culture. And he rationalized this by saying they weren’t “white”.
Some will return to the boring and dreary arguments of “race realism”, which is really just an attempt to back-rationalize this xenophobia and slavery. White people can’t accept that their privileged status was entirely invented out of whole cloth to justify extracting labor and land from others. So they hunt endlessly for a biological rationalization for something that clearly originated as a technology of social control.
In short, race is real like Pokemons are real. We can’t deny that there’s a whole galaxy of economic and social phenomena that arise from it, but it’s not a physical reality, just a social contrivance to extract profits.
Genetics are a real thing. Cultural differences are a real thing.
It is possible to group people together by how much genetics they share; it is also possible to group people together by how much culture they share (language, religion, what they call a long sandwich, etc.) Many scientists will use the words “race” and “ethnicity” when talking about those groups.
Do those scientifically derived groups map nicely onto the things a racist hates people for? Absolutely not. Two Black people might be hated equally by a white supremacist, even though their African heritage means they are genetically very distant from each other. (There is more genetic diversity within Africa than the rest of the world.)
I think the mistake is in trying to ascribe logic or forethought to racist thinking.
I would say it’s more that race is real like money is real. Humans made it up; and aside from what we made up about it, there’s no difference between a piece of green paper that says $1 on it and one that says $100 on it; let alone between the bits of data in computers that say there is, or isn’t, $X in my bank account. And whether a piece of paper with $1 on it can buy a loaf of bread, or six, or none at all is entirely dependent on what humans think that $1 means, in context with the rest of the markings on the bill, at any given moment. Nevertheless, human-invented money can and does affect every detail of people’s lives.
The terms can be used meaningfully in certain contexts – they have to be, or we can’t in any way discuss the subject. And we most certainly need to be able to discuss it, because it massively affects people’s lives. But part of what needs to be discussed about it is that we did indeed make it up; and that it doesn’t reflect nice neat genetically-distinct categories of humans.
While I don’t deny that race has been used as a rationale to oppress others, this doesn’t ring true to me as an origin story or explanation for why the concept of race arose in the first place. One reason (though not the only) is that human beings haven’t seemed to have much trouble enslaving or exterminating people who weren’t racially different.
Just because something is socially constructed doesn’t mean it isn’t real. That social construction represents a real division and grouping. Just because individuals don’t agree doesn’t mean that society as a whole can’t agree.
Most social categories are fuzzy at the borders. It doesn’t make them not useful. How many straight people are there with exceptions? How does someone with mixed ancestry consider themselves ethnically? Is an eighteen year old an adult or a teenager? How much expertise do I need to be an expert? Those are all just off the top of my head.
It’s ba mixture of what society thinks and what the individual identifies as.
I was just hoping to engage in a conversation, because I could have easily imagined myself making the same error Whoopi did. I honestly never would have considered Judaism to be a race - whatever Hitler said.
Also, tho race is considered “a social construct”, what does it mean that genetic testing can identify whether one is descended from people historically considered Black, Asian, … If a term like race is so fluid and ambiguous, and can be chosen by an individual, can it be meaningfully discussed? Can disagreement and offense be avoided?
No, not really. But that doesn’t keep me from doubting your claim, at least unless you have some actual evidence in its favor.
For us in the modern world, there’s no excuse for not knowing that people of different “races” are all essentially the same except for whatever ways our culture has shaped us; but that hasn’t always been inherently obvious.
So much of the world’s folklore, mythology, and fantasy involves different races or types of intelligent beings (elves, dwarfs, giants, leprechauns, fairies, genii, goblins, etc.) that it looks to me like it somehow comes natural to us to believe that there’s more than one fundamental type of people.
One can statistically look at variations in the human DNA sequence, for example, and see whether certain variations are more common in a given geographical area, if that is what you are referring to.
It sure can be meaningfully discussed, otherwise people would not be complaining about racism.
Yes, by avoiding all kinds of racism and prejudice. E.g., the Nazis had a whole pseudo-scientific racial theory where they classified people (so that Jews and Slavs are sub-human and so forth), so right off the bat one should know something is rotten.
It’s like in your example: say you know that such an individual is “descended from people historically considered Black, Asian…”, or is ethnically Slavic. What do you want to make of it? It does not have to be for racist purposes.
ETA and it makes sense to talk about it. Maybe the one guy grew up in Ukraine. Maybe the other guy is descended from Mende people. Those are meaningful statements, not necessarily fluid and ambiguous.
As long as people can be discriminated against because of their skin colors and other ancestral features, we have a problem, and we need to talk about it, and we need some kind of vocabulary and shared understanding to have the conversation. Not necessarily exactly the vocabulary we have now, but something.
So does everyone here feel that Jews are a “race”?
If race is primarily a social construct, why was it wrong for Rachel Dolezal (a “white” woman) to identify as Black? Or why is it an issue if a Black person chooses to “pass” as white?
I personally don’t think anything is really a “race” although it’s convenient to talk about it. I think there is a smooth continuum. But if Nazis thought the Jews were race, and thought that race should be exterminated, then they were racist.
Because she had no Black ancestry, did not grow up identifying as Black, lied about many aspects of her background, and just woke up one day and decided to be Black.
In times past Black people might choose to “pass” to avoid discriminatory or outright abusive treatment. But why do you ask why it’s an “issue”? Who says it’s an issue?