# Is race really just a social construct? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 31, 2003, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-race-really-just-a-social-construct/165402 "2003-03-31T07:44:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-race-really-just-a-social-construct/165402/61 "2003-04-01T11:46:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > **Race is a useful scientific concept. However, it does not apply to the human species. Ethnic groups aren’t races.** The problem is that your entire argumentation is based on premises that have no basis in facts, but merely technicalities and grammar. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-race-really-just-a-social-construct/165402/62 "2003-04-01T11:52:42Z")
‘c)Genetic variance within an ethnic group is higher than between ethnic groups. As such, looking at the ‘average’ member of an ethnic group is not useful. There is no such thing.’ I would tend to agree, except that it could be that the ethnic group being considered is poorly defined… is it not the case that the Baka people of Cameroon are very distinct genetically from the !Kung of Botswana? And so on for comparisons between several lineages in Africa. It may well be that the groups have different distributions of some genetic markers, or that individuals exist within those groups which have different markers to other members of the same population… We had better consider these things now, before such apparently distinct lineages disappear. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-race-really-just-a-social-construct/165402/63 "2003-04-01T11:58:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ambushed \* > > \*\* I don’t like that definition because the term “alike” seems too vague and improperly loaded. I prefer to say that race consists of a general set of broad phenotypic and genotypic “clusters” which loosely distinguish – **on average** – one population group from another. (So I had to try to define it anyway…) > \*\* In fact, ‘alike’ is not at all vague. We’re talking about genetic code here, and how many ‘letters’ two individuals have in common is not only determinable, it is quantifiable. > [@](#): > > \*\* > So I stand still by my first post: Although genotypic differences are certainly not reliably ascertained by visible phenotypic differences, race objectively exists, and is not merely a “social construction”. \*\* What does exist are different ethnic groups that have developed (or de-developed) certain physical traits in an attempt to adapt to the environment they live in, both by slow changes within the group and by intermarriage with other ethnic groups in which a given trait might be more prevalent. That doesn’t have anything to do with race. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-race-really-just-a-social-construct/165402/64 "2003-04-01T12:53:39Z")
> [@](#): > > Does your statement imply that, because there may be variance between any two such “lists”, there can be no objective, scientific basis to include anything at all on such “lists”? No. My persistent point (through three years and thousands of posts) has been that the word race does not convey what people believe it conveys. Certainly different scientists _could_ come up with some definition that would cover an objective reality. However, to date, no one **has** even come up with a consistent definition. Is it morphology (the original source of the classifications)? Then we have “races” that include people that do not look alike and other people who do look alike that are excluded from those races. Is it genetic coherence? Then we are still left with the fact (pointed out in several earlier threads) that there is more genetic diversity among troops of lowland gorillas in a single region of Africa (who are _not_ identified as separate races or subspecies) than among the 6 billion humans scattered across the globe. What meaning is conveyed by the word race when it contains internal contradictions? Is it possible to frame a definition so that we could have an “objective” description of race? Probably. However, that defintion will not be understood by the vast majority of people who hear it, so what is the point of re-using an old, misleading word, simply to cause confusion? I have never seen a definition of race (until this topic became one of saving the word at all costs) where it did not mean a group in which an individual would have all the appropriate characteristics of that race. Now we’re changing the definition to mean people among whom their might be a statistical possibility of connection at some point. **IzzyR** called attention to an article in _Science_ from December, 2002, in which a group of researchers were able to do statistical analyses of 52 selected populations and group them by geographic origin. No person in the study would necessarily have all the markers for any given region (and, with a couple minor exceptions, every marker was found in every region), but by analyzing anywhere from 150 to 377 markers in combination for prevalence, a computer could figure out where they were most likely to have originated. OK. So now we can (with some assurance) identify a place of origin. Does that make a race? The regions were Africa, Europe, Middle East, Central/South Asia, East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas. While Africa, East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas roughly correspond\* to the Negroid, Mongoloid, Malay, and American races of Blumenbach, we find the old Caucasian race scattered across three separate groups, intermixed with some Mongols. In each of the groups, we have people with widely different susceptibility to diseases and widely diverging physical appearances. Beyond their “origin” what do they have in common to allow the use of the word “race” that will not confuse any hearer of the word? (There is also a small problem in that the researchers selected people from very specific ethnic groups known to have a certain coherence. We don’t yet know that they could get the same results with randomly selected individuals from across the globe.) There are, in humanity, clearly populations with a great deal of coherence, but using the word race implies a greater coherence for a larger number of people than we can identify _unless we change the definition_. - Even that rough correspondence might need to be tailored based on which groups at the “edge” of the regions were included or excluded. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-race-really-just-a-social-construct/165402/65 "2003-04-01T12:54:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > **In fact, ‘alike’ is not at all vague.** Not at all vague? Then you’d agree that strawberries and watermelons are ‘alike’ because they’re both fruits, just as cow-milking and roller-blading are ‘alike’ because they’re both activities. What two things, pray tell, _aren’t_ ‘alike’, given your curious assertion? > [@](#): > > **We’re talking about genetic code here, and how many ‘letters’ two individuals have in common is not only determinable, it is quantifiable.** The one thing we know for _certain_ about human DNA is that we’re still a long way from truly understanding it and exactly how our genetic information is fully coded. Humans are far more complex than flowering plants, but the DNA of some such plant species have more than **15 times** as many genes than humans’ mere 30,000! That means that human DNA coding is far more complex then we’d ever imagined and that a mere brute force comparison of alleles may not be sufficiently probative. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > **What does exist are different ethnic groups that have developed (or de-developed) certain physical traits in an attempt to adapt to the environment they live in, both by slow changes within the group and by intermarriage with other ethnic groups in which a given trait might be more prevalent.** Yep, race exists. Please review my earlier posts. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > **That doesn’t have anything to do with race.** My, you’re full of bald assertions today, aren’t you… ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-race-really-just-a-social-construct/165402/66 "2003-04-01T13:13:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ambushed \* > \*\*Not at all vague? Then you’d agree that strawberries and watermelons are ‘alike’ because they’re both fruits, just as cow-milking and roller-blading are ‘alike’ because they’re both activities. What two things, pray tell, _aren’t_ ‘alike’, given your curious assertion? \*\* I asserted nothing of the sort you imply. I suggest you read what is being said instead of making things up and putting words in people’s statements that aren’t there. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The one thing we know for _certain_ about human DNA is that we’re still a long way from truly understanding it and exactly how our genetic information is fully coded. Humans are far more complex than flowering plants, but the DNA of some such plant species have more than **15 times** as many genes than humans’ mere 30,000! That means that human DNA coding is far more complex then we’d ever imagined and that a mere brute force comparison of alleles may not be sufficiently probative. > \*\* I’d suggest not trying to lecture a molecular biologist on what he earns his bread with. The molecular clock has been shown time and again to work admirably well. Unfortunately, the point you make have very little to do with the issue you are debating. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Yep, race exists. Please review my earlier posts. > > My, you’re full of bald assertions today, aren’t you… \*\* Hardly. Just because you happily ignore the supporting arguments doesn’t make something an unfounded assertion. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-race-really-just-a-social-construct/165402/67 "2003-04-01T13:13:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > **My persistent point (through three years and thousands of posts) has been that the word race does not convey what people believe it conveys.** I certainly agree, but again, you seem to also agree with me that something we can call “race” does exist, even though it is not easily defined and does not denote a fixed, pre-defined, clear-cut set of hard-and-fast distinctions between any two individuals. My own ‘persistent point’ remains that there’s _something_ that may suitably be referred to as “race” that’s objectively real and is more than merely a social construct, whether the concept is scientifically useful or not. If we were to abolish the word “race”, another word would be immediately needed to take its place to refer to this phenomenon. And it is apparently measurable for at least some races, according to Risch, et. al. Other than that, we’re mostly in agreement. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-race-really-just-a-social-construct/165402/68 "2003-04-01T13:19:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > \*\*Just because you happily ignore the supporting arguments doesn’t make something an unfounded assertion. \*\* You mean you actually offered supporting arguments somewhere? Perhaps you deleted them accidentally… Just because you happily provide unfounded assertions doesn’t make it an argument. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-race-really-just-a-social-construct/165402/69 "2003-04-01T13:21:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ambushed \* > \*\*You mean you actually offered supporting arguments somewhere? Perhaps you deleted them accidentally… > > Just because you happily provide unfounded assertions doesn’t make it an argument. \*\* I would suggest reading a thread before posting in it. And I’d also suggest reading a post before replying to it. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-race-really-just-a-social-construct/165402/70 "2003-04-01T13:32:23Z")
**Ambushed** : I guess a semantic issue will continue to exist, because for me a phenotypically similar group of people that shows only a loose genetic coherence = social construct ;). Why? Because that loose genetic coherence is _so_ loose as a universal ( again, if we’re talking large classical groupings like black or asian ) as to be virtually meaningless IMHO. Which is why it is of not much scientific use as you acknowledge. Black on the scale of the U.S. has some medical utility for allocation of resources for things like outreach, as much for cultural reasons as genetic ( for example higher rates of hypertension and diabetes in American black populations quite probably correlate, partially or wholely, to diet ). Black on a global scale seems to lack such utility. The Andaman Islander conundrum again. The real center of that definition is phenotypically similar. Intuitive differences by phenotype are identified and reenforced by social interaction. Hence race, on that broad intuitive level we seem to be discussing, is essentially a social construct. Now, as has been argued before many times, if you start narrowing your focus to smaller and smaller populations, that genetic coherence in _some_ cases will tighten and become meaningful. But at that point those broad intuitive phenotypes no longer refer to a single race. Which is why population would be the preferred term. Technicalities and semantics? Perhaps. But sometimes technicalities matter :). - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-race-really-just-a-social-construct/165402/71 "2003-04-01T13:42:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Biggirl \* > **Not so much. Especially not so much in the US.** I’m not sure from that answer whether you agree or disagree with the statement. Let me reword: Do you agree or disagree with the statement ‘black recipients have a better chance of finding a match among black donors than they do among white donors’. ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-race-really-just-a-social-construct/165402/72 "2003-04-01T14:11:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zwaldd \* > \*\*I’m not sure from that answer whether you agree or disagree with the statement. Let me reword: > > Do you agree or disagree with the statement ‘black recipients have a better chance of finding a match among black donors than they do among white donors’. \*\* You already asked this question and I already answered it. Now how about answering the questions I asked you? > [@](#): > > This is why I keep asking for a scientific definition of biological race. How many races are there? On under what principles are these racial groupings classified? What criteria are you using to seperate these races? What biological identifiers are you using to mark person as a member of one particular race instead of another? I’d like to see **ambushed** take a crack at them too. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-race-really-just-a-social-construct/165402/73 "2003-04-01T14:20:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ambushed \* > My own ‘persistent point’ remains that there’s _something_ that may suitably be referred to as “race” that’s objectively real and is more than merely a social construct, whether the concept is scientifically useful or not. IMO that social construct is indeed objectively real. It also doesn’t rule out some degree of genetic inter-relatedness. It just means that what **defines** the group as a **whole** is not _necessarily_ genetic inter-relatedness, but rather a perception of inter-relatedness based on shared appearances. Closer? - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-race-really-just-a-social-construct/165402/74 "2003-04-01T14:35:51Z")
[peering through the haze of smoke generated by all the brushfires] > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Cuckoorex:_ > \*\*I quite honestly don’t know if I’ve ever felt as unwelcome at a message board as I do right now. \*\*Aw, honey, so Collounsbury barked at you, so what? He barks at _everybody_. 😃 _Illegitimi nil carborundum_ and all that, eh? 😉 You posted a perfectly straightforward and sensible GD topic, it’s not your fault that C-bury has issues and jumped all over you. So don’t go hide out on us in GQ. You’re one of the few non-raving-loonies here. [enjoying the spectacle of Lucwarm accusing Tom~ of “intellectual dishonesty”] ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-race-really-just-a-social-construct/165402/75 "2003-04-01T14:57:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Biggirl \* > **You already asked this question and I already answered it. Now how about answering the questions I asked you?** I wasn’t sure by your answer if you agreed or disagreed with the statement. By ‘not so much’ did you mean you did not so much disagree or not so much agree? In answer to your question, the groupings are being classified as Caucasian, African, Asian, and Native American. I’m assuming the criteria used to separate races is self identification. They are not using biological identifiers to mark people as a member of a race, but using race (by their definition) as a marker of likely marrow compatibility. ---
**Author:** ![ticker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@ticker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ticker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-race-really-just-a-social-construct/165402/76 "2003-04-01T14:59:33Z")
From this [Scientific American](http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0002A353-C027-1E1C-8B3B809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2) article: > [@](#): > > There’s hardly any difference in the DNA of human races. That doesn’t mean, argues sociologist Troy Duster, that genomics research can ignore the concept ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-race-really-just-a-social-construct/165402/77 "2003-04-01T16:05:57Z")
> [@](#): > > There’s hardly any difference in the DNA of human races. That doesn’t mean, argues sociologist Troy Duster, that genomics research can ignore the concept Yep. Scientiss keep arguing the subject, just as we do. Ineresting article. Including: > [@](#): > > Duster, along with fellow committee member Dorothy Nelkin of New York University, highlighted the ways in which cultural context influences the application of medical and behavioral genetics. Now Collins is relying on Duster and other collaborators, such as University of Wisconsin molecular biologist Pilar Ossorio, to help explain why race must be acknowledged even if it is biologically inconsequential. “It’s a tightrope between trying to rescue the importance and meaning of research on race without giving it a false reality,” Duster says. > > Indeed, although he maintains that race is significant in genetics, Duster insists it is misleading to reinscribe race as a definitive system to group people who share geographic origins and thus some genes. For one, concepts of race vary geographically as well as historically. The ethnic status of South Asians, for example, has changed over the past century in the U.S. and more often serves to define a political and cultural “other” than something biological. > [@](#): > > Specific variations in DNA can be linked to ancestral geographic origins, but those differences only occasionally offer a medically important clue. They fail to define any essential characteristics of a whole group. Race, itself a fluid idea, is part of the environmental context of the genome, Duster suggests. “Race is a relationship,” he says. “When you talk about race as a relationship, it prevents anyone from giving it false meaning.” ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-race-really-just-a-social-construct/165402/78 "2003-04-01T17:45:31Z")
Scientists _are_ looking very deeply into gene diversity and genetic distance. What they are finding (and keep finding) is that human populations do not break down into the broad catagories of race that many of you keep arguing for. [Here is a site that explains some of the ways genetic distance is calculated.](http://hpgl.stanford.edu/projects/microsat/distance.html) And here are a few reports on research in genetic distance. [http://batzerlab.lsu.edu/Publications/Batzer%20et%20al.%201996%20J%20Molecular%20Evolution%20(human%20variation).pdf](http://batzerlab.lsu.edu/Publications/Batzer%20et%20al.%201996%20J%20Molecular%20Evolution%20(human%20variation).pdf) [http://www.css.orst.edu/CLASSES/css620/2002literature/Genetic\_Sampling\_Error\_of\_Genetic\_Distance.pdf](http://www.css.orst.edu/CLASSES/css620/2002literature/Genetic_Sampling_Error_of_Genetic_Distance.pdf) [http://www.bio.psu.edu/People/Faculty/Nei/Lab/1993-nei-roychoudhury.pdf](http://www.bio.psu.edu/People/Faculty/Nei/Lab/1993-nei-roychoudhury.pdf) [http://courses.washington.edu/phg513/boehnke00.pdf](http://courses.washington.edu/phg513/boehnke00.pdf) They are all pdf except for the first. Geneticist are studing human variations. They are studying them quite intensely. The fact that what they are finding out does not match popular belief seems a bit hard for many to understand. ---
**Author:** ![godzillatemple](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/49beb7/32.png) [@godzillatemple](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godzillatemple)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-race-really-just-a-social-construct/165402/79 "2003-04-01T18:22:46Z")
Since this is Great Debates and not General Questions, allow me to add my personal opinion on the subject without any references to supporting documentation whatsoever… Yes, there really is such a thing as “race” and no, it’s not “just” a social construct. But it is, in a very literal sense, just “skin-deep” and really not worth making a fuss about. Most Asian people, to take an example, have certain physical characteristics that distinguish them from, say, most Caucasian people. And those physical characteristics are passed from one generation to the next, indicating that there must be _some_ genetic component involved. These differences, however, are not particularly significant, and have their origin in the fact that for many thousands of years people tended to live in large groups essentially isolated from other groups of people, and also tended to intermarry within those groups. Yes, there are “black” people (meaning people with dark skin, curly black hair, flattened noses, etc.). And there are “Asian” people (meaning people with epithelial folds, yellowish skin tones, etc.) But that fact is no more significant than the fact that there are people with blue eyes, or red hair. What makes race a “social construct” in my opinion is that some people ascribe a significance to these outward physical differences that doesn’t belong. I have brown hair and brown eyes, and it would be generally considered ridiculous to claim that I was a different “race” from somebody with blond hair and green eyes. It’s just that, since there are large populations of people living in or from well-defined (more or less) areas that share a group of similar physical traits, it is easy to claim that there must be “other” traits that they also have in common (different levels of intelligence, for example). To sum up, it is disingenous to say that there are no differences between the various “races” of people, or that the differences have no basis in genetics. It’s just that those diffrences are not significant, and the color of one’s skin says as much about who a person is as the color of one’s eyes. Regards, Barry ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-race-really-just-a-social-construct/165402/80 "2003-04-01T18:36:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Biggirl \* > \*\* The fact that what they are finding out does not match popular belief seems a bit hard for many to understand. \*\* That fact that what they are finding out does not match popular belief does not negate points such as [differences between races were greater than differences within races](http://archlab.uindy.edu/BARFAA1998.html) and [the most likely match is an African American donor](http://www.marrow.org/NMDP/aaul.html) and [genetics cannot prove that race doesn’t exist](http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0002A353-C027-1E1C-8B3B809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2). That seems a bit hard for you to understand. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-race-really-just-a-social-construct/165402.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-race-really-just-a-social-construct/165402.md?page=5)