Jump to content
Roderick

Feminism

Recommended Posts

Oof, this is going to be tricky to word...

You're mixing the bio-SCIENCE!! view with the identity politics one, and the two have greatly different definitions of race/ethnicity. It's your right, obv, from SCIENCE!! but be aware you'll be at cross-purposes with those talking from ID-politics.

I will say, the colorblind/raceblind thing is an interesting generational cohort marker since ISTR it was a total child-in-the-Reagan/Thatcher-years thing.

Sure, that's why I said culturally. There's no reliable scientific backing "races" even existing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but walk into an African-American Studies dept and say that, and campus security will be escorting you out.

(About an hour later, after the faculty have disarmed you with a lot of Theory talk and your eyes have glazed over and you're begging them to please please stop no please oh god please dont let the Fellow in Post-Structuralist Studies talk please no.)

(I have a bad habit of editing posts within the firs five minutes they are up. I promise I will not do so with this one.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, but walk into an African-American Studies dept and say that, and campus security will be escorting you out.

African-American studies is about the history and culture of African-Americans...? You're confusing me, subbes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes! That is how I win threads!

(SWIRLS CAPE MAJESTICALLY, TRIPS AND FALLS BACKWARDS INTO VOLCANO.)

But really, I mean walk into an AAStudies dept and tell them race doesn't exist, and you'll have signs and signifiers out the earhole within minutes (assuming anyone has the time).

Biologically race may not exist (not having studied it, IDK) but non-biologically we sure do have a lot of stuff about it. Which, er, may have been your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But really, I mean walk into an AAStudies dept and tell them race doesn't exist, and you'll have signs and signifiers out the earhole within minutes (assuming anyone has the time).

I still don't understand. Cultural definitions exist, and they're studying the history of a given culture. It's no different than studying Jewish History or American History, for that matter. Biology isn't relevant at all.

Biologically race may not exist (not having studied it, IDK) but non-biologically we sure do have a lot of stuff about it. Which, er, may have been your point?

Something like that :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are races and there are differences between them and those differences make perfect evolutionary sense. Genetically speaking I am very different from a Mongol, an African Negro, an Oriental etc (crude terms but forgive me).

I'm not sure what you mean when you say there is 'no reliable scientific data to show races even exists'?

It should not be taboo to say there are differences between races, there definitely is and we should celebrate them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the broad sweep of history and evolution, there are definitely 'races' of people we can describe. Crudely, yes, but it's undeniable that there are such things as different peoples and races. We're all human beings, but there are subdivisions in that too. Compare a pygmy to a Swede and it should be pretty obvious. There is an astounding level of biological diversity within the human species (far less than dogs, but infinitely more than, say, zebras).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are races and there are differences between them and those differences make perfect evolutionary sense. Genetically speaking I am very different from a Mongol, an African Negro, an Oriental etc (crude terms but forgive me).

I'm not sure what you mean when you say there is 'no reliable scientific data to show races even exists'?

It should not be taboo to say there are differences between races, there definitely is and we should celebrate them.

The differences you describe do not amount to a sub-species. Just because there are visual differences due to genetic heredity does not equal a "race". Or rather, it does, but only in the same way that red haired people are a race, or that British people are a race. In other words, it's meaningless.

Edited by ThunderPeel2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any of us took the term 'subspecies' in the mouth. That makes it sound a lot more drastic.

And the differences between human races run far deeper than just visual. From the tolerance of foods (Europeans and their descendants can drink milk, Asians and Africans can not) to physical differences (due to natural selection the feet muscles and tendons in certain African tribes are longer and stronger, making them by far superior runners/jumpers to others. Then there's body length, differences in skull shape, skin colour and many more.

You are correct that, as in most of nature, sharp boundaries are often not present, so we have to rather arbitrarily or crudely decide where race ends and begins, but that's not the same as saying there is no such thing. As for putting red-haired people into a separate race, I can't say anything about that since I have little knowledge about that. It might be, it might not be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are races and there are differences between them and those differences make perfect evolutionary sense. Genetically speaking I am very different from a Mongol, an African Negro, an Oriental etc (crude terms but forgive me).

I'm not sure what you mean when you say there is 'no reliable scientific data to show races even exists'?

It should not be taboo to say there are differences between races, there definitely is and we should celebrate them.

Actually, take two people from neighbouring countries in Africa, and one will be more genetically different to the other than they are to, say, white Europeans. Africa has massively more genetic diversity than the rest of the world put together (since the rest of the world stems from just a couple of emigrant tribes).

So yes, whilst there are genetic differences between different populations, physical differences are not a good guide to these variations.

This is why people say race does not exist - because the traditional views of races and what defines them are completely wrong.

Other tidbits: Most white people have a black person in their not-too distant ancestry. Most black people have a white person in theirs. This makes no difference to anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, every human being on the planet shares an ancestor if you go back MAX 20,000 years. This also makes absolutely no difference to anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think any of us took the term 'subspecies' in the mouth. That makes it sound a lot more drastic.

And the differences between human races run far deeper than just visual. From the tolerance of foods (Europeans and their descendants can drink milk, Asians and Africans can not) to physical differences (due to natural selection the feet muscles and tendons in certain African tribes are longer and stronger, making them by far superior runners/jumpers to others. Then there's body length, differences in skull shape, skin colour and many more.

You are correct that, as in most of nature, sharp boundaries are often not present, so we have to rather arbitrarily or crudely decide where race ends and begins, but that's not the same as saying there is no such thing. As for putting red-haired people into a separate race, I can't say anything about that since I have little knowledge about that. It might be, it might not be.

Every "difference" you've described is purely physical. It's no different than saying blonde haired people are more prone to sub-burn or red haired people are more likely to have freckles. In other words the differences are meaningless, and are no basis for any real or important distinction. For some reason modern society has latched on to skin colour or ethnicity to describe "race", when really, as Dan points out, science tells us that these definitions are not reflected genetically.

As I said before, "race" is one of the most misused and misunderstood words around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the differences are physical, what other differences could there be? The only differences between humans and pigs are physical too!

We obviously have different ideas of what constitutes race. I use race perhaps more as a way of describing that there are (physical, visual) differences between different peoples. That might not be wholly correct and at no point do I consider the differences especially huge. But the conversation will be much strained if I'd have to avoid mentioning the word 'race' mainly because its historic connotation with bad shit happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course the differences are physical, what other differences could there be? The only differences between humans and pigs are physical too!

We obviously have different ideas of what constitutes race. I use race perhaps more as a way of describing that there are (physical, visual) differences between different peoples. That might not be wholly correct and at no point do I consider the differences especially huge. But the conversation will be much strained if I'd have to avoid mentioning the word 'race' mainly because its historic connotation with bad shit happening.

Correctly using the word "race" has got nothing to do with historical connotations, it's just science. As I say, it's become a very confusing word. Given what we know now, it's just good to be aware that talking about the African "race" and the European "race" is technically like talking about the British "race" or the "brown haired" race.

As Dan pointed out, there are more genetic differences between two people from two different African nations than there are between an African and a European -- yet (presumably) because of how visually orientated human beings are, we look at skin colour and other visual cues, and consider those things significant.

To reiterate, it's not about being opinionated in a way that is different from me, it's just about understanding how relevant/irrelevant race actually is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thinking has been shallow.

I've read up on the situation a little more because I was frustrated with my lack of knowledge about the whole thing. I understand that race is not entirely the correct way to describe differences between people if you discuss it in the familiar way (blacks vs whites vs asians).

So, I'd like to know how that will pan out. As long as humans have eyes they will see the difference, but how to put that into words? Can I say 'Asiatic people'? Yeah, probably.

Even though I didn't learn any new information today, I have readjusted my terminology. That's profit to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correctly using the word "race" has got nothing to do with historical connotations, it's just science.

Correct? If we're discussing discrimination and identity, we're discussing the cultural construction of race. Science doesn't enter into it and it's IMO readily apparent that whatever definition scientist want to apply to the term, it only has influence in their labs. The cultural conception of race has existed far longer and has massive influence in everybody's lives. There doesn't need to be a basis in genetics when the reality is everybody lives through their lives with a racial identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct? If we're discussing discrimination and identity, we're discussing the cultural construction of race. Science doesn't enter into it and it's IMO readily apparent that whatever definition scientist want to apply to the term, it only has influence in their labs. The cultural conception of race has existed far longer and has massive influence in everybody's lives. There doesn't need to be a basis in genetics when the reality is everybody lives through their lives with a racial identity.

Ah! I see a way to tie this back to the thread topic.

Culture/tradition/the past can be superseded by advancing knowledge and the spread of that knowledge via education. Just because concepts of race or gender have been a particular way for a long time does not mean that they cannot change. Thus in both these fields education is the major tool for improving the future. Discussion is of course an excellent method of education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct? If we're discussing discrimination and identity, we're discussing the cultural construction of race.

Right, and culturally there is a sense or belief that there are major differences between an African and a European, and that those differences are more profound than say something like, eye colour or height or skin colour, and, most importantly, that this belief has some science to back it up. Which is incorrect.

The above thinking has lead to racist beliefs being justified in many people's minds, for example, the Nazi belief of a "master race". Or, on a larger scale, that people themselves can be judged by these differences.

As Dan says, education can be used to dispel these myths, so at least people are aware that these so-called "obvious" divisions are as only equally significant as blonde hair or being tall and thin. Thus using such beliefs to pre-judge someone becomes obviously rather silly. (Of course, if someone wants to hold onto those beliefs, they can and will, but hopefully through education they'll at least be aware that science doesn't see the same divisions their eyes do, and thus the word "race" in a human context is pretty much meaningless.)

I tried really hard to word this correctly -- I hope I didn't get anything wrong!

Edited by ThunderPeel2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knowledge of human genetics is beneficial for fighting against claims of racial superiority or inferiority, but what I'm contesting is your last claim of "race" being meaningless. We wouldn't be discussing it if it were so. There are layers and layers of meaning attached to the term. People have to deal with race every day of their lives.

Confusing the biological definition of the term with the popular conception of human races only confuses things... unless someone first brings up science to claim superiority, in which case it's logical to use science to disprove that claim.

Here's an analogy (this didn't turn out as clear as I wanted it):

Say we were discussing stereotypes and opinions two neighbouring peoples had of each other. Obviously nationality is a cultural conception and stereotypes are unlikely to describe very many people of a given nation. Still, I think it's interesting to study these conceptions because they exist due to historical reasons and affect people's actions today.

Now, someone comes in and says that according to biology, nationality doesn't exist and the people living in each nation are pretty much the same. This is technically true, but not very interesting and doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion at hand. It also won't stop people identifying with their nationality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The above thinking has lead to racist beliefs being justified in many people's minds, for example, the Nazi belief of a "master race". Or, on a larger scale, that people themselves can be judged by these differences.

:hitlerbomb:

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided to read that as not referring to my quote but his first paragraph :x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, same here. :) I posted the smiley purely as a joke and because it has been unused for too long (thank god).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Say we were discussing stereotypes and opinions two neighbouring peoples had of each other. Obviously nationality is a cultural conception and stereotypes are unlikely to describe very many people of a given nation. Still, I think it's interesting to study these conceptions because they exist due to historical reasons and affect people's actions today.

I totally agree. What you're describing are stereotypes, though, not race. Even stereotypes based on people's idea of "race" are still stereotypes. Discussing these human inventions can definitely be interesting, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hrm, no. I'm talking about the concept of race in the context of human culture and how its existence cannot be denied. It's a part of us much like nationality or religion whether we like it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×