quote:Originally posted by dkw: In my example the person was asked to divide the group by race, not to divide them into two racial groups. The number of groups was not specified.
That's a problem with your example. The idea that there is such a thing as race demands that there are a limited number of races. That is why a reduction of that argument shows its absurdity.
What do you think would happen if you asked them to group people who were most similar?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think virtually anyone would arrange them according to racial affiliation, failing that, whichever physical characteristics were most strikingly similar- say skin color, hair, build, facial features, etc. I am not denying that people of different ethnic backgrounds don't actually look different or similar to whatever degree, to any other human observer. So what is your point? Because you're trying my patience.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to clarify, I am not making any claims to the utility, meaning, or sociopolitical rammifications of different racial groups. I am simply pointing out that such groups do indeed exist, beyond simple social construct.
I believe that pretending that these differences don't exist is just hiding ones head under he blanket so the monster can't get you.
Certainly we should treat people equally. We don't need to pretend that people don't appear different when they come from different regions of earth.
Yes, I get Colbert's point.
Yes, dog breeds are a valid example, because we are also a single species with genetic and phenotype differences based on selective breeding.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, you are asserting that they exist. You have not "simply pointed out" anything. The grouping of human populations into races according to racial characteristics is highly Eurocentric and misleading, and doesn't represent the reality. You can't define the groups not because you don't know enough, but because there are no boundaries between groups. There are no groups. It's *not* effing simple.
Why you don't get that through your skull I have no idea- I can only guess you just don't want to, or you're married to the idea that I actually believe nobody is different from anybody else. What you fail to realise is that I think *everyone* is different from everyone else. I understand that there are no racial monoliths, and that mostly what society "understands" about race is simply wrong. Congrats, you're a believer. Just like in the 1st grade when you thought the fact that a glass was taller meant that it would hold more water than a squat glass. You were being logical then, and you're being logical now.
Divide a sack of rice into groups please, based on appearance. Go ahead, I'll wait.
quote: Just to clarify, I am not making any claims to the utility, meaning, or sociopolitical rammifications of different racial groups.
I think you probably do, or else you wouldn't cling to your beliefs, but that's not this discussion.
Eta:
quote: Yes, I get Colbert's point.
You don't get how that's not relevant to this discussion, and that's a problem. You're so politically conscious you can't help but think you're fighting PC activism instead of reason.
posted
I'm sorry Orincoro, but you're no longer having a discussion, you're just being smug and insulting. Enjoy yourself.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say yeas. it's primarily a social construct. I mean Irish used to be considered "non white"
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Yes, it exists primarily as a social construct. As Kwea pointed out, variance from any mean which separates human populations into distinct categories is as wide as the categories are from each other. This means that variation within "racial" groups is as wide as variation between them, meaning there are no discrete groups.
The most-oft cited defining characteristics of race (appearance) are the least important and are not uniform except in the public imagination, and then only as defined by the narrowest of categories, which are themselves stereotyped and often incorrectly assumed to define discrete groups. Examples are skin, eye, and hair color, size, shape of eyes and nose, size of hands and feet, etc. Most anthropological museums have a display demonstrating the smoothness of variation among "racial" groups which helps us to eliminate our preconceptions of racial segmentation. Race as defined by appearance only is a spectrum, with no discrete corners or center.
As I've said from day one in Hatrack....I do not believe in race. Unfortunately most people are ignorant. I've been called a racist for taking the stance that I do not believe in race. We are all human. We may as well divide ourselves into political groups based upon hair color.
What political movement, conservative or liberal, likes to define people by color, sex, sexual orientation, etc? A simple question: Which group considers ideology over skin color and sex or sexual orientation?
The left has plenty of pro choice "reverends" with no real power. The left loves the Sharptons of the world. Sharpton has no power. They sell him as a "black leader" but he is a party hack.
Conservatives, such as myself, respect people for merit. Conservatives give actual power to minorities who deserve it. Conservatives provide the dreams of MLK. Conservatives care about character.
We have a party of ideals vs a coalition of groups.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:As a general rule, the assertion "X is a social construct" does say more about the researcher making it than about X, but why is it a stupid thing to investigate?
No one would give this a second thought if it wasn't a political category. This is headline grabbing, nothing else. Why on earth would there be some racial a priori? Practical considerations aside, such as the complete impossibility of controlling on variables, the whole question just makes no sense.
Am I supposed I have something in common with Proust's narrator and McCarthy's the Judge just because we're all white?
Practically, it is impossible to investigate. The only reason anyone cares is politics, and if you're starting with this question, you're starting in a place that makes us all stupider just for being in your vicinity.
posted
I'm getting the feeling that this is such a politically charged question that some people are unable to discuss it rationally.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Foust: This is the kind of stupid question academics start asking when they have no other ideas. I'll bet his colleagues are embarrassed by this book, no matter what the author's answer to the question is.
Her. The book was written by a 67 year old black woman, (and considering she was a former Princeton history professor, I doubt most of her former colleagues are embarrassed by the book).
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
quote:As a general rule, the assertion "X is a social construct" does say more about the researcher making it than about X, but why is it a stupid thing to investigate?
No one would give this a second thought if it wasn't a political category. This is headline grabbing, nothing else. Why on earth would there be some racial a priori? Practically considerations aside, such as the complete impossibility of controlling on variables, the whole question just makes no sense.
Am I supposed I have something in common with Proust's narrator and McCarthy's the Judge just because we're all white?
Practically, it is impossible to investigate. The only reason anyone cares is politics, and if you're starting with this question, you're starting in a place that makes us all stupider just for being in your vicinity.
` I don't believe the five year old in the video posted earlier had any political motivations,
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie: Out of the mouths of babes: race as a social construct. Check out the video.
This example is anecdotal, but sadly it is still illustrative of something that is more prevalent than we may wish. It is not the first such example I have seen. Social programming (including social constructs of race) begins so early that its inculcation weaves into the fabric of all our perceptions.
Also, we must note a common human tendency to react irrationally (and often negatively) to differences.
but I believe this example alone illustrates it is a question worthy of study.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I'm getting the feeling that this is such a politically charged question that some people are unable to discuss it rationally.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I'm getting the feeling that this is such a politically charged question that some people are unable to discuss it rationally.
As I said, you are married to the idea that this reasoning is politically motivated PC nonsense. You need it to be, because if it isn't then you're :gasp: mistaken in your previously held assumptions. It is not. Whining about how nobody takes your shallow ideas seriously won't help you that much... or really at all.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The book was written by a 67 year old black woman, (and considering she was a former Princeton history professor, I doubt most of her former colleagues are embarrassed by the book).
No, I'm sure there's plenty of eye rolling going on behind her back. It's pretty hard to get respect from academics for writing a popular book, still less on a topic that surely feels worn out to anyone in the social sciences.
Maybe I'm not being clear. I am in basic agreement with her conclusions. There is nothing a priori about race. What I'm saying is, it's a stupid question.
If we all sit down and "honestly" ask the question "is slavery acceptable?" it doesn't matter if every last one of us says "no, of course not, it is monstrous" -- we're still all stupider for having had the discussion.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It’s always worth establishing first principle. It’s always worth saying what would you do if you met a Flat Earth Society member? Come to think of it, how can I prove the earth is round? Am I sure about the theory of evolution? I know it’s supposed to be true. Here’s someone who says there’s no such thing; it’s all intelligent design. How sure am I of my own views? Don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus, and the felling that whatever you think you’re bound to be OK, because you’re in the safely moral majority.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: [QB] Orincoro: Project, much?
Spending a little too much time being passive aggressive are we? Yay, fun. The first to accuse the other of something is the winner because he said it first. You're the one projecting there buddy- "it's all political, wah wah wah, they won't invite me to their liberal birthday parties..." Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
yes, there is such a thing as "race" if you define "race" as a set of genetic traits passed down through generations that set similar characteristics of body type.
However, "Race" as defined as "a genetic based way to categorize peoples abilities, likes, fears, skills, and capabilities" is a social construct.
Seeing a group of black men standing on the corner it is scientifically true to say "odds are they have an African heritage generations back." It is not scientific to say, "They are black, they must be a gang about ready to rob me."
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, this is all academic to me. You seem to have a deep emotional stake in it, and frankly you're being rude and aren't really discussing the topic, just claiming to be right by insulting me.
Honestly, I don't care much, but in the interest of intellectual honesty, you might want to examine your feelings on the topic.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be scientifically unsound to make any judgments about them in any respect apart from origin. The gang member thing is obvious to most of us, but the "must be good at basketball" thing, some people actually believe that's true, and believe that that's somehow "scientific."
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Orincoro, this is all academic to me. You seem to have a deep emotional stake in it,
Nope, I have no significant emotional stake in it. I'm just right, and hate to think you should go on being wrong for any other reason than that you choose to be. Don't try and weasel your way out of it this way. It's pathetic.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, there's such a thing as weak evidence. If I'm told that person A is white, and person B is black, and nothing else, then I would be justified in making a bet at odds not too far from 50-50 that B is better than A at basketball. Say maybe 55 with a payoff of 100.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Correct for: "good at basketball by dint of race alone." Maybe, "genetically good at basketball," or whatever other piece of nonsense folk wisdom people have constructed to explain away their environments in the simplest terms possible.
ETA: And KoM, please don't come back at me with "genetically tall." Height is height, not ability, aptitude, predisposition, etc. I'm fully aware some things are genetic- I'm also fully aware that genes are not everything.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if someone's arguing that blacks are better at basketball because of some sort of mystic essence-of-blackness that includes the Spirit Of Basketball, then yes, they are raving utter lunatics. Granted. And at this point I'd love to say that I don't think many people say that, but I know I'd be proven incorrect. So, fair enough, on that definition there is no race.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You would be proven incorrect, yes. The greatest part of what race is to society is superstition, full stop. The devil may be in the details, sure, but big picture, what you described really *is* race to most people.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if you don't have an emotional stake, then you're just being rude and obtuse for fun. I guess you win?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm right. I don't know that it's a contest... oh did you think we were competing. :polite laugh: No we were not competing.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm fully aware some things are genetic- I'm also fully aware that genes are not everything.
Genes are not everything, but genes influence everything. Admittedly it's mostly not in ways we understand yet.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course you'd win, Orincoro, because you are working with your own definition of "race" and your own definition of "right" and your own definition of "win."
In your competition, I'm sure that your argument is "compelling" and that you're very "smart."
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe we could define "win" as "not acting like a petulant 15 year old"? It'd be great to see you two compete over that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Maybe we could define "win" as "not acting like a petulant 15 year old"? It'd be great to see you two compete over that.
Oh, you want to join the party too? There's room, nancy boy Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
People segregate themselves into categories much less than race. There are home town rivalries against neighboring town's for homecoming football games. (despite the fact the teams are multi-racial). Gang's will kill rival gang members of the same race who live on the other side of town.
Race is nothing compared to a Blood vs a Cryp. Race means nothing for a high school football rivalry. Race is meaningless when one member of that race will kill another member of the same race, for living in another city.
Of course it's a social construct. My high school hated people from the neighboring town.......was that racist? People are tribal. The tribe of my town and team was multi-racial and some tribes will kill people of the same race.
Genetically, race is no more significant than hair color. People have a natural tendency to group up. In the Navy, I was an Electronics Tech. ET's didn't hang out with Bowswain's Mates. EM's didn't get along with EW's and the Phillipino's sat at the same table in the chow hall.
Some have learned to manipulate our natural instinct to stick with our own. Scape goats are big sellers. If you can provide a scape goat for my failure, I'll be eager to listen.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Conservatives, such as myself, respect people for merit. Conservatives give actual power to minorities who deserve it. Conservatives provide the dreams of MLK. Conservatives care about character.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
