What does this mean? - "Race didn't create racism, but racism created race."

[Lemur866]

Yes, but that doesn’t mean that “Black” or “White” in the United States are determined by skin color and ancestry. There are lots of people with recent African and European ancestors. Some of these people are sociologically White, while some are Black. And some of the White ones have more African ancestry than some of the Black ones.

So this is an example that was in the news recently. Two sisters with the same black mother and the same white father. Both are mixed race. Except they look like this:

So which one is black and which one is white? Or are they both black, because you are black if you have a black mother? Or is their mother black? Or is “mixed race” a different thing than black? If it is, how many people in America who think they’re black aren’t really black?

[BrianJ]

People seem to be using race as if it means ethnicity.

[naita]

@Blake

Once again, you are weaseling around in order to avoid answering simple questions.

What you actually said was:

Never mind what *you *think that I think *you *said. Can you please just explain what you actually actually *did *say? Where we don’t understand each other is the content that you actually posted,. The content that I quoted. Not anything that I think. I don’t understand what you actually wrote.

These are simple questions, so why are you being so coy about answering them?

You said that race obviously has a concrete meaning.

Do you mean that social race obviously has a concrete meaning, or that biological race obviously has a a concrete meaning.

If you mean that social race obviously has a concrete meaning, then can you tell us what that meaning is?

If you can’t tell us what that meaning is, then how can you claim that it is obvious and concrete?

And if you can tell us what the meaning is, where did you derive that meaning from and why you selected that meaning?

Do you believe there are multiple meanings to social race? If so then how can oyu claim that the meaning is obvious and concrete? And if you do not accept that there are multiple meaning, how do you explain that so many scholars use other, incompatible meanings of social race?

Since you claim race has a concrete meaning, can you use that meaning to tell us whether Irish and Jewish are races? Regardless of the answer to the previous question, how do you explain that so many scholars reject that answer if race has such a concrete answer?

If you are not claiming that the social construct known as race has an obvious, concrete meaning, then what did you mean when you posted that race obviously has a concrete meaning?

Nachtmusick, what you are posting makes no sense whatsoever. We are asking you simple questions to try to understand what you are posting, and instead of answering the questions you seem to want to be evasive.

At this juncture, nobody gives a shit whether race should matter or should not matter. All that we care about is your claim that race has an obvious, concrete meaning, and your claim that races are clearly different. Please explain how you arrived at those conclusion and what evidence your claims are based on.

Did you miss this post, nachtmusick? Because you seem to have replied only to Blake’s addendum, whereas this is where you could actually prove you were making sense all along.

[orcenio]

@BrianJ

People seem to be using race as if it means ethnicity.

The standing tradition is that race (or ‘the races,’ etc) means whatever one thinks/wants it to mean. This is why it is so subjective. Given a change in upbringing/era/location/exposure/class/social group and your idea of race will be different then mine. Still real, but different.

Another interesting note is that this idea is not only **externally **inconsistent (try getting five racialists to agree on racial categories or even defining characteristics…literally impossible), but are often **internally **inconsistent as racial classification varies in any given context (normal since identity is a complex and fluid concept).

[MrDibble]

@nachtmusick

You are a phenotype; the sum total of all the myriad groups and identities that define you.

That’s not what a phenotype is…

[treis]

@tomndebb

So, what does your claim mean? Are you claiming that the French Race, the Irish Race, the English Race, and the Jewish Race all have “scientific means by which [they] can be unambiguously determined”? What are the scientific differences that allow us to identify members of those races?

Subspecies is a scientifically valid concept. We have Bengal tigers and we have Siberian tigers, to use one example. There’s no reason that we can’t do the same with humans. You point out that there is no unambiguous way for a subspecies (i.e. race) to be determined. That is true, but it doesn’t make it a useless classification. It simply makes it an imperfect one.

[MrDibble]

@treis

Subspecies is a scientifically valid concept. We have Bengal tigers and we have Siberian tigers, to use one example. There’s no reason that we can’t do the same with humans.

Other than human sub-populations not meeting the accepted standards for subspecies, of course e.g. not being reproductively isolated in wild populations. What current biologists are calling human populations “subspecies”?

[orcenio]

@treis

Subspecies is a scientifically valid concept. We have Bengal tigers and we have Siberian tigers, to use one example. There’s no reason that we can’t do the same with humans. You point out that there is no unambiguous way for a subspecies (i.e. race) to be determined. That is true, but it doesn’t make it a useless classification. It simply makes it an imperfect one.

It’s arbitrary, not imperfect. If such a system is useful then perhaps you would like to do the honours and…

1. deliminate these racial groups.
2. provide the defining characteristics you used for your racial demarcation.
3. convince others of the supremacy of your particular system of classification.

I’m sure you can create a racial system that survives your own internal sense of consistency (thus giving it a personal sense of legitimacy to you), but you simply will not convince others of the supremacy of your system above their own arbitrary personal racial system.

[treis]

@MrDibble

Other than human sub-populations not meeting the accepted standards for subspecies, of course e.g. not being reproductively isolated in wild populations. What current biologists are calling human populations “subspecies”?

They use race or ethnicity but it’s a different word for what is essentially the same thing. And I’m not sure why you think humans were not reproductively isolated. To use an example, how often would you say the Sioux and Masai reproduced together before the advent of modern transportation? I’d imagine that would be never and I’d consider them reproductively isolated from each other.

[treis]

@orcenio

It’s arbitrary, not imperfect. If such a system is useful then perhaps you would like to do the honours and…

1. deliminate these racial groups.
2. provide the defining characteristics you used for your racial demarcation.
3. convince others of the supremacy of your particular system of classification.

I’m sure you can create a racial system that survives your own internal sense of consistency (thus giving it a personal sense of legitimacy to you), but you simply will not convince others of the supremacy of your system above their own arbitrary personal racial system.

I agree that no two people would come up with the exact same non-trivial racial classification system. But that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t have broad overlap. For example, in essentially every system the Sioux would be considered distinct from the Masai.

[orcenio]

@treis

I agree that no two people would come up with the exact same non-trivial racial classification system.

They are different because they are arbitrary. Based off of the whims and fancy of the particular classifier.

But that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t have broad overlap. For example, in essentially every system the Sioux would be considered distinct from the Masai.

Not my system. I lump humanity into homo sapiens and then “the others” (erectus, floresiensis, etc). How does your system hold more validity then mine?

[Lemur866]

@treis

Subspecies is a scientifically valid concept. We have Bengal tigers and we have Siberian tigers, to use one example. There’s no reason that we can’t do the same with humans. You point out that there is no unambiguous way for a subspecies (i.e. race) to be determined. That is true, but it doesn’t make it a useless classification. It simply makes it an imperfect one.

Sure, it is true that many species have what seem to be objectively real sub-species. Bornean vs Sumatran Orangutans, for instance. So it is perfectly valid to find such subspecies for Homo sapiens.

But it turns out that human beings are not one of the species that today has identifiable sub-species. Yes, people from Gabon tend to look different than people from Sweden, and if I blindfolded you and dropped you in a village you could probably guess whether you were in Sweden or Gabon just by observing the skin color, hair types, and facial features of the people around you. But how would you do if I dropped you in either Mexico or Kazakhstan?

Back 40,000 years ago there really were subspecies of human beings. But all those former subspecies are now either extinct or intermixed with the main population of humans. All modern humans are part of the same subspecies, even those with hair or skin colors or facial features that seem strange and unfamiliar. Again, it is certainly scientifically possible that Humans could have subspecies, but that’s a question of fact, and it turns out that humans don’t anymore.

[treis]

@orcenio

They are different because they are arbitrary. Based off of the whims and fancy of the particular classifier. Not my system. I lump humanity into homo sapiens and then “the others” (erectus, floresiensis, etc). How does your system hold more validity then mine?

Why is yours more valid than one that has Nenderthals and Humans as subspecies instead of separate species?

@Lemur866

But how would you do if I dropped you in either Mexico or Kazakhstan?

Being unable to distinguish a difference doesn’t mean they aren’t different. For example, I wouldn’t be able to determine if something is Fluoric or Hydrochloric acid by a simple physical inspection.

@Lemur866

Again, it is certainly scientifically possible that Humans could have subspecies, but that’s a question of fact, and it turns out that humans don’t anymore.

This isn’t really true. It’s trivial to separate humans into broad ethnic groups based on genetics and if they are mixed, identify what ratio they are.

[orcenio]

To highlight the subjective nature that social factors play in identity and racial classification I will link to a short (3 min) clip of James Baldwin (a prominent gay, black, writer/intellectual). Baldwin describes how people’s perception of him (in particularly related to racial hatred) is influenced by their own personal/subjective self-identity; this evaluation is detached from any real characteristic of himself. Its interesting as he fully understands the perverse nature of this projection; his reply is that he isn’t a fool, and when confronted with it, he will point it out to others.

I’d like to link to a post from another, monstro; who describes a scenario where I believe shows an example of the internal inconsistency of racial categorization. That is, where one person perceives her to be of one racial group (hispanic), but with the addition of further information now sees her as belonging to her correct racial group. The real question is, has monstro changed in appearance between these two events? Of course not, but the perception of her has changed.

[orcenio]

@treis

Why is yours more valid than one that has Nenderthals and Humans as subspecies instead of separate species?

I don’t separate the races of homo sapiens into different species. Thus sapiens, Nenderthals, etc. are all of the species of homo sapiens.

[treis]

@orcenio

I don’t separate the races of homo sapiens into different species. Thus sapiens, Nenderthals, etc. are all of the species of homo sapiens.

And the question is why do you consider Sapieans and Neanderthals to be different species.

[orcenio]

@treis

And the question is why do you consider Sapieans and Neanderthals to be different species.

I shall repeat. I don’t consider sapieans and neanderthals to be different species. They are part of the same species of homo sapieans.

[Lemur866]

@treis

This isn’t really true. It’s trivial to separate humans into broad ethnic groups based on genetics and if they are mixed, identify what ratio they are.

Ethnicity isn’t the same as race, is it? By “broad ethnic groups” you mean African, European, and Asian, right? Except by genetics you’d have to lump all Eurasians into one group and split Africans into a dozen.

Thing is, I get it. Here in the United States, the divisions that historically mattered were if you were White, Black, or Red. And these divisions were pretty clear because this was a time when people from three continents were intermixing. So it wasn’t like determining whether a Kazakh is Asian or European, these were populations that had been fairly isolated from each other for thousands of years.

Except of course that if you had any known African ancestry you were Black. 1/2 European? Black. 3/4 European? Black. 7/8 European? Black.

Because “Black” wasn’t a genetic difference, it was a social difference. So it was absolutely the case that you couldn’t tell someone was black just by looking at them.

[Peremensoe]

@Lemur866

…if you had any known African ancestry you were Black. 1/2 European? Black. 3/4 European? Black. 7/8 European? Black.

Because “Black” wasn’t a genetic difference, it was a social difference. So it was absolutely the case that you couldn’t tell someone was black just by looking at them.

Well, if you could tell, they were black.

If you couldn’t tell at first, but then learned the ‘truth’ that they were secretly black, you’d have to remember that and let it be known.

We probably shouldn’t be using the past tense here.

[tomndebb]

@treis

Subspecies is a scientifically valid concept. We have Bengal tigers and we have Siberian tigers, to use one example. There’s no reason that we can’t do the same with humans. You point out that there is no unambiguous way for a subspecies (i.e. race) to be determined. That is true, but it doesn’t make it a useless classification. It simply makes it an imperfect one.

No. It makes it useless. What is the “use” in which one would employ it?
We cannot even get an agreement from people who believe in such things as to whom belongs to which race or what the races are, so how does one use that?
We cannot use it medically, because the populations that are prone to various diseases tend to make up smaller subsets of any of the purported “races,” or they tend to cross “racial” boundaries.
We cannot use it to identify social or cultural phenomena because there is far too much evidence that culture and society differ widely within purported “races” and that members of such purported “races” adopt the cultures and social mores of populations among whom they live.
As to breeding, the overwhelming evidence indicates the members of purported “races” are quite happy to interbreed with other “races.”

Is it impossible for humanity to have or support biological races?
No. It simply has not happened.