Racism has been in the forefront of the media lately. Which leads the general populace to see the different between those of different color and ethnic backgrounds. Those differences are judged on a public scale used to separate individual ethic groups from each other in a discriminatory manner. But how does race play into this mix or is it just a fictitious word used to fuel the fire of differences throughout the many different cultures of the human race?
I look at things differently then most, to me the world is a mixing pot, culture are coexisting and cultures and backgrounds coming together to make the world we see today. I see all cultures tied to together as a whole and each has had both positive and negative effects on the world throughout history.
My focus is that there is but one human race and many different cultures there in. We are a different and we all have our faults but there is only one race.
Yup, just one. Superficially we might look different, and culturally and linguistically we certainly are, but we are all just one race. I remember reading somewhere that, despite how dissimilar we might look, we are actually (genetically) nearly identical…probably stemming from the fact that around 70k years ago or so we nearly went extinct and only a few thousand of us survived. And we are basically all descended from those few thousand survivors.
One seems to be the general consensus of anyone who knows anything about this subject (at least in my experience), but there are a hell of a lot of hide bound and ignorant folks out there. And even if the general population felt that we were all one race (as is evident since ‘race’ is really meaningless and ill defined, and clearly we are all one species since we can interbreed with viable offspring), that’s not going to miraculously make everyone suddenly give up on racism. Partly, this is cultural, but partly it probably has to do with the fact that people have very small circles of folks they consider their ‘in’ group (I’ve heard that no one can think of a close association of more than 100 people, and most it’s much smaller). Probably a survival trait from when we were parts of very small hunter/gatherer groups on the edge of disaster, one bad hunt away from going TU and never sure if the group one encountered were friend, foe or something in-between. You’d think we could get past that sort of baggage, but as with this board, it’s taking longer than we thought it would…
From a biological perspective there is only one race. But race isn’t just a biological concept. In fact today it isn’t generally seen as being a biological subject at all. Race is primarily sociological. And from a sociological perspective, there are indisputably multiple races.
So long as society perceives multiple races, then racism is likely to remain a problem. So long as society accepts that someone can be racially a negro, then there are going to have to be assumptions made about the traits of “Negro race”. And so long as that is the case, some of those assumptions are going to be negative, and thus race will remain a problem.
Societies can move beyond these sorts of assumptions quite perfectly. Few societies still accept the reality of a genetic class, which was universally accepted for a few thousand years. Once classes became mobile enough to expose people to the simple fact that people of any class can achieve as much or as little as any other, the concept rapidly disintegrated. But it was almost universally accepted as little as 100 years ago.
I would hope that we are seeing the same trend WRT race, with people gradually rejecting the idea that the social concept of race has any physical reality just as they did with class.
But for the moment, race remains a rather potent social reality. Hence the problems caused by the concept.
Is there any sympathy for the “micro-races” view – that there are meaningful reproductively isolated groups of people who have physical characteristics that are recognizable? Humans really do come in visibly distinguishable groups.
The sets are obviously hugely fuzzy. Groups interbreed; it is extremely rare to see someone who is 100% pure-blooded Hopi, let us say. But the “Hopi” group does exist as a recognizable subset of humanity.
The pure-blooded Tasmanian race, for instance, was destroyed, and the last 100% Tasmanian was killed in the 18th or 19th century, but there are still people who are of mixed Tasmanian descent, and many of them call themselves Tasmanians today. By marrying within their group, they have reinforced the Tasmanian lineage, and some, at least, can boast of nearly 100% Tasmanian descent.
I know I’m treading close to the deadly precipice of “race realism” and I’ve seen the debates here. I don’t want to be on the same side as “those guys,” but, at the same time, I can’t accept that there aren’t some reproductively isolated groups of people.
Just so you know, you haven’t presented even the tiniest bit of an argument, other than “I’m a special snowflake who thinks this must be true” to back up your thesis. Most people here are going to agree with you, so they won’t challenge you all that much. But, frankly, your argument doesn’t hold water. It’s like what I used to tell my students when I was a TA: it’s not about getting the right answer, it’s knowing why the answer is right.
So, the question I will ask you is: Do you want to understand how to make an argument about race, or are you just witnessing to tell us that you, join date Sept 2015, are one of the folks who just feel that they’re right no matter whether they can actually demonstrate that they are or not.
Anyone with eyes can see there are differing and recognisable features among humans, across the planet.
Yeah, it is only external and the lines are blurry and there is a lot of mixing, but put a typical Korean beside a typical Somali and…well, it’s pretty obvious.
Ackowledging that humans form a colourful mosaic, isn’t racism.
Adhering different qualities to these external differences is.
There might 5 or 6 of these races, comprising maybe 0.001% of the human population
So if they are fuzzy and interbreeding, in what way do they meet your criteria of reproductively isolated with recognisable physical characteristics? How can a group be be both fuzzy *and *physically recognisable? How can it be both reproductively isolated *and *interbreeding with other groups?
Can you provide any evidence at all for this claim? Who claims to be able to physically recognise the Hopi as a subset of humanity? How did this person determine that they are able to physically recognise the Hopi as a subset of humanity.
I have asked you this same basic question n the past, and IIRC you admitted there was no evidence that anybody can physically separate the Hopi.
OK, firstly tell us what that even means and how it is measured.
Who was the last Australoid person who could trace all their ancestors for at least the previous four generations to Tasmania is a matter of dispute, however they all died quite peacefully.
So, no.
Evidence please.
There are.
There is at least one such group living on the Andaman Islands. But that is a group of maybe 300 people, out of 7 billion humans. All such groups might number a few thousand, out of 7 billion. If you want to argue that there is one super-race that accounts for 99.999% of humanity, and 5 other races with a maximum of 6000 members, that might have some legs. But that isn’t a usage of race that anybody else in the world agrees with so you are really just confusing the issue for no reason.
Persuasive argument, but you haven’t quite convinced me.
Or across the city. Or across the street. These groups are called families, not races.
What is pretty obvious?
Now put a typical Sri Lankan beside a typical Somali. Is “it” still pretty obvious or not? What about we put a typical Khazaki next to a typical Korean?
And if the obvious doesn’t tell us anything about the degree of relatedness or geographic distance then what do you think it is telling us?
In short, what do you think is pretty obvious< because it isn’t obivous to me.
Or is your point simply the tautology that obvious physical differences are obvious? How does that relate to race?
Right, because it antithetical to the whole concept of race, which is that humans form discrete, physically differentiable groups that correspond to ancestry. If you are arguing that we form a mosaic then you are refuting the existence of any races.
What external differences?
Surely nobody disputes that different qualities map to external differences. People with Down’s Syndrome are less intelligent, people with blue eyes suffer more from cataracts, long thin people withstand the heat better etc.
So, in a rainbow, there is no difference between red and orange. Because ‘hey, where do you draw the line?’
Therfefore there is also no difference between red and blue.
