If Mort Divine ruled the world

[EternalMetal]

But the discourse on race didn't originate from studies on the evolutionary discrepancies or disparities between human beings of different skin color. It originated as a discourse of profiling, disenfranchisement, and hierarchy. When we talk about the biological differences between humans we're not talking about "race." Race is something entirely different, with a different cultural function and different cultural origins. Its original relationship to science is tenuous at best (and shoddy science, no less), and it didn't serve scientific purposes--it served social and political purposes. That's what race is predominantly a social construct.

Considering that I come from a genetics background, im not an expert on human history so admittedly I just used Wiki's accelerated history lesson on race which says such:

Race is the classification of humans into groups based on physical traits, ancestry, genetics, or social relations, or the relations between them.[1][2][3][4][5] First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century race began to refer to physical (i.e. phenotypical) traits. The term was often used in a general biological taxonomic sense,[6] starting from the 19th century, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.[7][8]

Sounds relatively unbiased to me, but I havent read the most popular papers released by liberal profs.

no man America has denied or halted entry for any immigrant since it was a British colony. The only people Europeans wanted on N. America were slaves and they didn't have any rights.

Haha, they did a pretty bad job then. Look at all the diversity these Brits failed to regulate. I prefer to think of the US via the classic melting pot mentality, and therefore doesnt really have much of a significant cultural identity aside from very early settlers.

huh? obviously not un-American but American identity of black culture is different than Rwanda's black culture, for instance. I don't know why you went with this weird tangent of yours

The starting point of this whole discussion was a pasty white American girl falling in love with black American culture. You quoted from me what I thought Dolezal should be fighting for, which is why im quoting American cultural ideas. Your reply actually reinforces the idea that the black culture that Dolezal embraces actually comes from her country of origin, not from Africa itself, which is why she should fight for her just appropriation of it. She doesnt, which is why she is just an out of touch piece of shit who just, as Ein suggested, didnt want to get out of her distasteful Halloween costume.

the first point is you don't get to call yourself black, you either are viewed as black or you aren't. If you're anything but white you aren't considered white, unless your features don't show.

I guess my point is that if purity isnt relevant whatsoever, there wouldnt be any ambiguity at all, which isnt true. There is black, white, and shades of grey. Unless you automatically think anyone with any sort of "black" in them identifies them as black, this is where the ambiguities of racial impurity start to come through. I dont think the concept is so black or white, no pun intended (im referring to the social construct definition of race in this case).

It's quite obvious who is considered what, people from specific regions of the globe look a certain way and that pigeonholes them into "white" "brown" or "black"

If they are pure, then yea obviously. When mixing occurs, the exact pigeonhole becomes obscured.

Why do you think this is such a radical viewpoint? Is it just because it is insensitive to point out, or are you really that fixated on some marginal percentage of a racial population in the past the interbred?

Can't doctors or scientists tell just from bones of a deceased person whether they are negroid, caucasoid or mongoloid?

Yes.

Also, aren't there certain infections, diseases and health risks specifically associated with race?

Also yes. Sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, and Tay-Sachs disease are all significant racially. Other diseases have higher and lower statistics based on race accordingly. I also remember reading that some Africans are immune to malaria due to a genetic mutation in T-cells that became inherited. As far as I know there are other examples of similar occurrences, but off the top of my head this is what I know.

 

[CiG]

I mean, given that I don't quite understand how race is a social construct.

 

[Einherjar86]

Considering that I come from a genetics background, im not an expert on human history so admittedly I just used Wiki's accelerated history lesson on race which says such:

Sounds relatively unbiased to me, but I havent read the most popular papers released by liberal profs.

It wasn't unbiased at all. Just claiming that racial science was grounded in biology doesn't erase the historical scenario. Interest in the relationship between race and genetics is very recent, only going back to the late-twentieth century.

Historically speaking, modern racial studies emerged out of a cultural scenario in which colonialism was already the norm. Naturalists and physico-theologists formed the bases of racial distinctions in accordance with colonial and imperial supremacy. All you have you do is read historical writings from the time period to see that racial otherness was associated with European degeneration:

Cotton Mather, 1696: "Now 'tis as observable that tho' the first English planters of this country had usually a government and a discipline in their families that had a sufficient severity in it, yet, as if the climate had taught us to Indianize, the relaxation of it is now such that it seems almost wholly laid aside."

From its inception, the modern institution of race and racial studies has been framed through the lens of European colonialism--this is what we mean when we say that race is socially constructed. Native Americans, Africans, etc. were considered to be "biologically" closer to animals than to European "humans."

Sarah Kemble Knight, 1704: "I had scarce done thinking when an Indian-like Animal come to the door, on a creature very much like himselfe, in mien and feature[...]"

In a lecture titled "Essay Upon the Causes of the Different Colours of People in Different Climates" (1745), John Mitchell said that John Smith (yes, the John Smith, Pocahontas John Smith) "by living only three years among the Indians, became 'so like an Indian, in Habit and Complexion, that he knew him not but by his Tongue," and that the perspiration of "black or Tawny people" is "more apt to degenerate to a contagious Miasma, than the milder Effluvia of Whites."

These kinds of descriptions increased in the nineteenth century to flat-out racism, in the writing of people like Lamarck, who basically concluded from bone structures whether certain races were more likely to commit crimes. The entire construction of what we understand as "race" is a socially conditioned construct, not a legitimate biological study.

And yes, people from different regions have different bone structures; but this doesn't point to some primordial or primeval notion of "natural race," or some such. All it suggests is that humans in particular areas evolved in particular ways. There's nothing racially original or pure about this.

I mean, given that I don't quite understand how race is a social construct.

Susceptibility to diseases can be passed on hereditarily, and the original susceptibility or immunity is due to regional exposure and mutative resistance. If certain people from a particular region or environment develop certain reactions to certain diseases, it makes perfect sense that some of these reactions would spread throughout the people of that region.

The error lies in seeing a particular response to disease among a racially homogeneous group of people and extending the cause of that response to that group's race; but it's just as likely that the response derives not from some genetic predisposition in that group of people and from some historical period of time in which that group was exposed to certain conditions and developed a particular response, which they then passed on to their descendants.

None of that supports race as a biological construct, it only suggests that people from a similar region, who happen to look the same, developed a homogeneous response due to formative conditions of exposure in the past.

 

[CiG]

You seem to be shifting the goalposts here, what is "natural race" to begin with? I would never deny that it is an evolved difference, because I'm not a creationist who believes each different race of man was created different.

If you don't call thousands of years of evolved difference between the various tribes of man "race" then what is it called?

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not shifting anything, forget I said "natural race"--that was just a differently-worded reference to Eternal's comment on racial purity (i.e. that it exists).

What would I call biological variances between different regions? Biological variances. Race implies hierarchy, and it always has. Of course, today we have the problem of identity politics--i.e. racial hierarchy has been in place for so long that people of certain races now identify as that race. Race is a social construct much like identity is a social construct. This is why, as I suggested above, racial identity is obligatory. You identify as a particular race because that's how you're viewed by others. It has very little to do with genetics or biology.

EDIT: I should clarify that I don't think race doesn't exist, or that it's not an operative term. Saying something is a "social construct" doesn't mean it's unreal. Social constructs can be as deterministic as biological factors. And again, I'm not fond of the phrase "social construct"--it's a socially obligatory category, but it's not constructed in any intentional or purposeful sense. It just happens to emerge within European discourses on colonial prospects, and that betrays any biological recourse it purports to have.

 

[EternalMetal]

Thank you for the detailed response. I think I have a better understanding of your viewpoint now. Basically what happened when people of different races started to associate with each other is that they viewed themselves as superior, probably because they felt uncomfortable around them and preferred their own kind. So to categorize these differences, people invented names for racial classification, and thus the dick wagging contest was waged.

I still think this all stems from a biological origin, even if the social component of race became enormous. Race was defined because people look different first and foremost; judgment came afterwards, perhaps even simultaneously. The reason entirely stemming from differences in appearance, aka biological differences. Hence why I disagree that "race is primarily a social construct".

I'm not shifting anything, forget I said "natural race"--that was just a differently-worded reference to Eternal's comment on racial purity (i.e. that it exists).

What would I call biological variances between different regions? Biological variances. Race implies hierarchy, and it always has. Of course, today we have the problem of identity politics--i.e. racial hierarchy has been in place for so long that people of certain races now identify as that race. Race is a social construct much like identity is a social construct. This is why, as I suggested above, racial identity is obligatory.

Which viewpoint has an agenda now? Race exists because of biological variance. Why do we have to degenerate it to imply that it has to be hierarchical? Maybe people sneer while they identify somebody as black, but at the core of it all it is just an observation due to biological variance. Race does not have to imply hierarchy, so maybe it would be more accurate to say that racial hierarchy is a social construct?

You identify as a particular race because that's how you're viewed by others. It has very little to do with genetics or biology.

Nonsense. It has ALL to do with genetics and biology. Black skin exists because the extra melanin content in the skin was important for survival in hot tropical climates that received lots of sun. It doesnt exist because people wanted to define differences for social reasons. You identify as a particular race because you inherited it. Everything is defined/labelled through social discourse, does that then make everything a social construct?

EDIT: I should clarify that I don't think race doesn't exist, or that it's not an operative term. Saying something is a "social construct" doesn't mean it's unreal. Social constructs can be as deterministic as biological factors. And again, I'm not fond of the phrase "social construct"--it's a socially obligatory category, but it's not constructed in any intentional or purposeful sense. It just happens to emerge within European discourses on colonial prospects, and that betrays any biological recourse it purports to have.

I dont think I ever tried to discredit the affect or reality of social constructs. Racial discrimination is indeed a social construct, but racial identification is not. If you discard the implications of race, you can elucidate the genetic lineage of mankind by region. While race may have been discovered and labelled during times of tumultuous race relations, I dont think we should discredit the idea that it is fundamentally biological.

 

[Einherjar86]

Thank you for the detailed response. I think I have a better understanding of your viewpoint now. Basically what happened when people of different races started to associate with each other is that they viewed themselves as superior, probably because they felt uncomfortable around them and preferred their own kind. So to categorize these differences, people invented names for racial classification, and thus the dick wagging contest was waged.

I still think this all stems from a biological origin, even if the social component of race became enormous. Race was defined because people look different first and foremost; judgment came afterwards, perhaps even simultaneously. The reason entirely stemming from differences in appearance, aka biological differences. Hence why I disagree that "race is primarily a social construct".

As long as we're clear on the historical dynamics, then I'm fine with disagreeing. It's great that in our society today we resist defining difference or otherness as somehow diminished, but the cultural baggage is still so heavy. That's my concern. When we use terms that are loaded with historical value, we have to be conscious of that value. Maybe race becomes a less inflammatory word over the next hundred years; or maybe another word rises in its place.

Which viewpoint has an agenda now? Race exists because of biological variance. Why do we have to degenerate it to imply that it has to be hierarchical? Maybe people sneer while they identify somebody as black, but at the core of it all it is just an observation due to biological variance. Race does not have to imply hierarchy, so maybe it would be more accurate to say that racial hierarchy is a social construct?

I admit this is true, it just comes down to the histories that words communicate. I think by now most people here are aware of my allergy to limiting things to the present moment. The present is never completely present, as far as I'm concerned--it's drenched and dripping with the past, and there's no way to squeeze out every last drop. I applaud those who acknowledge the social dynamics of racial discourse, but I'm still wary of transplanting racial discourse into contemporary biological/scientific discourse. If we abandoned the implications that accompany racial descriptions, maybe biological results would tell us something very different.

Nonsense. It has ALL to do with genetics and biology. Black skin exists because the extra melanin content in the skin was important for survival in hot tropical climates that received lots of sun. It doesnt exist because people wanted to define differences for social reasons. You identify as a particular race because you inherited it. Everything is defined/labelled through social discourse, does that then make everything a social construct?

Fair enough, I could be clearer. The physical traits that give rise to our modern notion of race do have to do with biology. I'm simply saying that race, as it was deployed through the twentieth century (and in some cases is still deployed today), had less to do with biological differences and more to do with social differences (wealthy v. poor, lawful v. criminal, sane v. insane, intelligent v. unintelligent, etc.). When someone applies hierarchy to racial difference and calls it biology, I call it bullshit.

This is precisely what you've suggested race doesn't have to be, and that's fine. Unfortunately, saying race doesn't have to be that doesn't mean that race isn't that, at least in the vast majority of discourses in which race appears. In that respect, it bears more meaning as a social construct than as a biological one.

I dont think I ever tried to discredit the affect or reality of social constructs. Racial discrimination is indeed a social construct, but racial identification is not. If you discard the implications of race, you can elucidate the genetic lineage of mankind by region. While race may have been discovered and labelled during times of tumultuous race relations, I dont think we should discredit the idea that it is fundamentally biological.

That wasn't directed at you, it was just a general comment to forestall any accusations that I'm saying race doesn't exist. I just don't think it's biological. At the very least, it has to be a combination of factors. But from my perspective, the historical use of race is more meaningful that any set of biological conditions that might be used to categorize race, even in a non-hierarchical sense.

 

[rms]

I prefer to think of the US via the classic melting pot mentality, and therefore doesnt really have much of a significant cultural identity aside from very early settlers.

that's how whoever was in charge has tried to frame it, but it's pretty untrue. We are a melting pot, but it's not like we've ever loved immigrants.

Your reply actually reinforces the idea that the black culture that Dolezal embraces actually comes from her country of origin, not from Africa itself, which is why she should fight for her just appropriation of it.

this comment just makes no sense to me. She is trying to be black while ethnically American-black. I don't see where the complication or confusion is

there wouldnt be any ambiguity at all

there really isnt. but you keep saying your posting out of ignorance so maybe some textbooks are messing with you or something

Unless you automatically think anyone with any sort of "black" in them identifies them as black, this is where the ambiguities of racial impurity start to come through. I dont think the concept is so black or white, no pun intended (im referring to the social construct definition of race in this case).

this is literally how it is. bi-racial people aren't viewed as white

When mixing occurs, the exact pigeonhole becomes obscured.

again, nah man

 

[rms]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/opinions/other-victim-in-facebook-killers-crime/index.html

"Old, black man gets shot. How do we steal the spotlight?"

 

[Dak]

https://amgreatness.com/2017/04/18/fundamentalist-nihilism/

Nailed it.

 

[rms]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/opinions/other-victim-in-facebook-killers-crime/index.html

"Old, black man gets shot. How do we steal the spotlight?"

NOTHING PEOPLE?

http://www.thestranger.com/features...lezal-the-white-woman-who-identifies-as-black

hell hath no fury like a black woman trivialized

 

[Einherjar86]

https://amgreatness.com/2017/04/18/fundamentalist-nihilism/

Nailed it.

These themes completely ignore obvious paradoxes: a) if the United States is so awful, why would foreign nationals risk life and limb to enter its borders illegally; and if apprehended, would not deportation seem a godsend?; b) if the American southwest still did belong to Mexico, or if it were to recalibrate itself to cultural, political, and economic norms existing in contemporary Mexico, would arrivals from southern Mexico then flee still further northward?; c) how can protestors expect Americans to continue to accept illegal immigration, when protests on behalf of illegal aliens, whether inadvertently or not, come across as hostile to the U.S., or at least hostile to anyone who might dare to ask that guests follow the laws of their hosts?

Only thing this nails is how to prejudicially misrepresent the ideas of those you political oppose. But then, I'm not surprised, given that the website's name is "American Greatness" and that it has a tab devoted specifically to conservatives, but none to liberals. Can liberals not be a part of American greatness?

Honestly, that site could be satirical if it weren't so transparent.

 

[Dak]

Only thing this nails is how to prejudicially misrepresent the ideas of those you political oppose. But then, I'm not surprised, given that the website's name is "American Greatness" and that it has a tab devoted specifically to conservatives, but none to liberals. Can liberals not be a part of American greatness?

Honestly, that site could be satirical if it weren't so transparent.

What's misrespresented? That droughts are cyclical? That larger concentrations of water consuming omnivores need larger concentrations of consistent water supples? That immigrant inflows from one cultural region to another indicate some sort of inferiority of prior condition? That acknowledging this inferiority is necessary to maintaining difference? That there are persons with zero knowledge outside of their own selfish ends, regardless of their cognitive faculties?

Inquisitive minds want to know where the misrepresentation is.

American liberals have the whole of MSM to represent their views without legitimate rebuttal; that that one site has no balance is only evidence in that bias is systemic in the web at large.

 

[Einherjar86]

I was referring specifically to the passage I quoted. Protests for immigration aren't "hostile to the U.S." although they might appear that way to people who champion this kind of "American greatness." Likewise, a country can be imperfect and yet still be attractive to outsiders. It's just an article that mistakes its own passionate political biases for rational clarity.

It's this kind of self-righteous certainty that makes me gag at conservatives.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

And for affluent minorities, is the argument that the son of an Asian-American pharmacist or the daughter of an attorney general of the United States suffers more hurt from racism than does a rural Tennessean from poverty?

That bit is just factually wrong; affirmative action discriminates against Asians more than it does whites, at least in the topic state of California where the author is a professor. Whites actually have institutional privilege over Asians in that case, in addition to any subconscious/unofficial white privilege.

 

[arg]

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The botface bit made me chuckle.

 

[Dak]

I was referring specifically to the passage I quoted. Protests for immigration aren't "hostile to the U.S." although they might appear that way to people who champion this kind of "American greatness." Likewise, a country can be imperfect and yet still be attractive to outsiders. It's just an article that mistakes its own passionate political biases for rational clarity.

I disagree.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2017-04-17/liberal-order-rigged

Cosmopolitans argue (correctly) that immigrants ultimately offer more benefits than costs and that nativist fears about refugees are often based more on prejudice than fact. The United States is a country of immigrants and continues to gain energy and ideas from talented newcomers. Nonetheless, almost everyone agrees that there is some limit to how rapidly a country can absorb immigrants, and that implies a need for tough decisions about how fast people can come in and how many resources should be devoted to their integration. It is not bigotry to calibrate immigration levels to the ability of immigrants to assimilate and to society’s ability to adjust. Proponents of a global liberal order must find ways of seeking greater national consensus on this issue. To be politically sustainable, their ideas will have to respect the importance of national solidarity.

The current reaction to immigration is primarily due to the concomitant attitude in immigration protesters (a lot of of self-righteous certainty is required to be a protestor - or money) and very culturally liberal persons that assimilation demands are bigoted rather than necessary for social cohesion. The author from the AM writeup noted that all the "Hecho en Mexico" paraphernalia displays have died down some. Having spent seven years in a border town, I know exactly what he's talking about. Refusing to assimilate/facilitating non-assimilation makes immigration a problem.

It's this kind of self-righteous certainty that makes me gag at conservatives.

Maybe you're only sensitive to it in this case because it's from the other side. It's obviously there in that article, but it's present in basically every piece of news and opinion. I tried to go back and find a particular article I read recently a piece (I thought it was Vox but maybe not) that relied on the data given here http://www.journalism.org/2017/01/1...vided-in-their-main-source-for-election-news/ that Fox News was the only biased news source because Hillary voters got their news from almost anywhere else while Fox stood out with Trump voters. Of course, the other interpretation is that Hillary voters didn't show any particular preference other than not-Fox because it's all the same message from everywhere else, right or wrong. In the latter interpretation, which is "everything is biased", it also carries that the language used on all sides carries singificant certainty.

 

[Einherjar86]

I disagree.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2017-04-17/liberal-order-rigged

The current reaction to immigration is primarily due to the concomitant attitude in immigration protesters (a lot of of self-righteous certainty is required to be a protestor - or money) and very culturally liberal persons that assimilation demands are bigoted rather than necessary for social cohesion. The author from the AM writeup noted that all the "Hecho en Mexico" paraphernalia displays have died down some. Having spent seven years in a border town, I know exactly what he's talking about. Refusing to assimilate/facilitating non-assimilation makes immigration a problem.

No, it doesn't. It only makes it a problem for people sensitive to it...

Speaking of.

Maybe you're only sensitive to it in this case because it's from the other side. It's obviously there in that article, but it's present in basically every piece of news and opinion.

I admit that I'm sensitive to it. That doesn't mean I'm imagining it.

All news is biased, sure; but not every piece of news is so dripping with discontent toward the left (which is really what that whole site is designed for).

 

[Dak]

No, it doesn't. It only makes it a problem for people sensitive to it...

A group cannot maintain functionality when it admits members or allows nonmember participants around that either A. Are disinterested in maintaining its functionality or B. Actively working against its functionality. A disinterest or unwillingness to assimilate is either A or B. Members of a group that promote non-assimilation are B. This is basic social group dynamics. I think the professors from Princeton and Brown understand this.

I admit that I'm sensitive to it. That doesn't mean I'm imagining it.

All news is biased, sure; but not every piece of news is so dripping with discontent toward the left (which is really what that whole site is designed for).

No, you aren't imagining it, and of course not every piece of news is dripping with discontent toward the left. The majority of journalists are leftists. That leftism so dominates journalism renders "normal" the discourse that myself and others (like the author of this article) find equally irritating and snide as you found his piece. That is what I meant in my comment about your sensitivity. You are relatively numb to ridiculously leftist content and irritating tone (unless it just goes full retard ala HuffPost) because it's not aimed at your perspective.