If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Talos of Atmora]

To be fair, it was an astonishingly ridiculous ad.

 

[CiG]

Next far left position from the twilight zone: race is a social construct.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/01/us/rachel-dolezal-race-social-construct-cnntv/index.html

Why is CNN playing along with this? It'd be like if FOX went along with a flat-earther or a young earth creationist.

 

[rms]

race is undeniably a social construct. the fact that anyone on the left might deny it is ridiculous

 

[CiG]

I hope that's sarcasm or something.

 

[rms]

nope

 

[EternalMetal]

I always thought race was traditionally defined by genetic and cultural heritage that arose throughout history due to isolated cultures. Calling it a social construct ignores the biological and regional aspects of race as it were originally defined. I would argue that a white man born and raised in Japan cannot accurately say that his race is Japanese; only his nationality can be considered Japanese. This is why I do not see race as simply a cultural identity, but an identity with lineage. Race goes deeper than nationality, something that Dolezal clearly thinks is the reverse. She should be arguing that cultural and social norms should not be nationally or racially defined, not the idea that she fits into a category that she clearly does not.

Countries like the US which do not inherently have a racial identity are gradually diluting race into obscurity. Immigration dilutes race. Only mass immigration dilutes national culture. Dolazel is doing what some would say is 'cultural appropriation'. And even worse, she is trying to diminish the idea of racial identity and reduce it to something that you can claim admittance to, which is objectively impossible. Race is not a social construct; it is a biological construct that people are incorrectly trying to define as a social one due to rampant immigration in the modern world. Racial purity is a real thing, whether people other than indigenous Americans like to admit it or not.

 

[rms]

Race is a different classification than ethnicity, not nationality. Nationality's only parameters are to what country are you a citizen of?

but an identity with lineage.

this is the problem. An african descendant in America is the same race as an African descendant living in Iceland. That is why race classifications are dumb, lineage is ignored. It's primary focus is the color of your skin, and once there are inconsistencies within that color group (african americans and african immigrants to the U.S., for example) it debunks the entire thing, to me.

Countries like the US which do not inherently have a racial identity

this is just wrong since the foundation

She should be arguing that cultural and social norms should not be nationally or racially defined

don't see how one can separate racial identity from cultural/societal norms within a specific nation-state

Race is not a social construct; it is a biological construct

what's the difference between going into another gender(sex) and going from "white" to "black" ?

Racial purity is a real thing, whether people other than indigenous Americans like to admit it or not.

indigenous is an incorrect word choice here, but 'racial purity' is a weird thing to suggest in terms of racial categories. Racial identity, especially where blacks (who are the predominant victim and now proponents of racial theory IMO) intends to unify all blacks into one category, not distinguish between which blacks are 'pure'

 

[Einherjar86]

I disagree that there is any such thing as "racial purity." It's an ideal, a paranoid fantasy perpetrated by those with racist agendas. There are certainly biological differences between people from North America and those from Africa, or people from Asia and those from Australia. All this means is that environmental differences likely have some causal role in evolutionary trends throughout the human species.

I don't like saying that "race is a social construct" because the phrase is often abused, which is what Dolezal has done. She's making a salient point but seems to have a complete disregard for the kind of "passing" that she performed. Basically, light-skinned blacks could pass as white, and did so in order to be viewed as white within society--because it's better to be a white person in America than a black person. Dolezal's passing is a kind of demented parlor trick, one of those poor-taste Halloween costumes that she got carried away with and decided never to take off. She's not entirely incorrect that race is a construct, but she completely disregards the reason why race is a social construct--that is, racial identity is obligatory.

Blacks identify as black because that's how society views them. Same with being white, or brown, or Asian, etc. When light-skinned blacks were able to pass as white, they did so out of fear. It wasn't selective in the sense that it was that much of a choice; they saw the possibility for a better life and took it. Dolezal's stunt is purely selective, and parades this idea around that "race can be fun!" Really disrespectful, in my opinion.

But all that said, yeah... race is primarily a social construct. Or rather, race is an obligatory identity. It's not something you are, it's what others view you as (but this doesn't mean that racial identity isn't a powerful and unifying force).

 

[EternalMetal]

Race is a different classification than ethnicity, not nationality. Nationality's only parameters are to what country are you a citizen of?

Ethnicity is more specific than race, which applies to a larger region. As for nationality, yes.

this is the problem. An african descendant in America is the same race as an African descendant living in Iceland. That is why race classifications are dumb, lineage is ignored. It's primary focus is the color of your skin, and once there are inconsistencies within that color group (african americans and african immigrants to the U.S., for example) it debunks the entire thing, to me.

You can call it dumb, but that is what race is.

this is just wrong since the foundation

So Caucasian then? Only in the loosest sense then, since the country was basically established as a migrant country for all.

don't see how one can separate racial identity from cultural/societal norms within a specific nation-state

Is it un-American for a white person to "act" black, or vice versa? Should Asians act a certain way in the US? I thought a lot of people considered this shit racist?

what's the difference between going into another gender(sex) and going from "white" to "black" ?

Sex is entirely biological, unlike the modern concept of gender. Otherwise the difference is very little, both are disingenuous. You cant make a full change from male to female (or vice versa), and you cant change your race. Appearances are superficial in the classification of both.

indigenous is an incorrect word choice here, but 'racial purity' is a weird thing to suggest in terms of racial categories. Racial identity, especially where blacks (who are the predominant victim and now proponents of racial theory IMO) intends to unify all blacks into one category, not distinguish between which blacks are 'pure'

Im referring to native Americans btw, which the correct term these days is indigenous people to America, no? (CIG recently posted something about a certain tribe wanting to exclude those who werent part of their race, which was always an issue with native Americans) I really dont care how liberal that modern proponents of racial theory want to be these days, but race definitely has a purity component to it. Could I call myself black if I had a few black ancestors? How dark would my skin have to be to qualify? It is definitely a spectrum, whether people like it or not.

I disagree that there is any such thing as "racial purity." It's an ideal, a paranoid fantasy perpetrated by those with racist agendas. There are certainly biological differences between people from North America and those from Africa, or people from Asia and those from Australia. All this means is that environmental differences likely have some causal role in evolutionary trends throughout the human species.

Well I disagree with you too, lol. I dont think one has to have an agenda to talk about the purity of a racial lineage. Im going to use the popular case study of Darwin's finches. Nobody is trying to dismiss their differences, nor is anyone trying to say that one is better than another. They are just different evolutionary examples of breeding in isolation. The interbreeding of such animals in an environment that allows for the survival of all types inevitably dilutes the original evolutionary specificity of the original isolated samples. I wont even start going all Varg on you and start claiming intellectual superiority or any such divisive shit cause I dont care enough. Im just not going to ignore the idea that race exists because of different evolutionary paths that developed because of relatively long periods of isolation. It happened in mankind's past and cant unhappen just because we all eventually came together (except there is still so much fucking tension over the merger).

I don't like saying that "race is a social construct" because the phrase is often abused, which is what Dolezal has done. She's making a salient point but seems to have a complete disregard for the kind of "passing" that she performed. Basically, light-skinned blacks could pass as white, and did so in order to be viewed as white within society--because it's better to be a white person in America than a black person. Dolezal's passing is a kind of demented parlor trick, one of those poor-taste Halloween costumes that she got carried away with and decided never to take off. She's not entirely incorrect that race is a construct, but she completely disregards the reason why race is a social construct--that is, racial identity is obligatory.

Blacks identify as black because that's how society views them. Same with being white, or brown, or Asian, etc. When light-skinned blacks were able to pass as white, they did so out of fear. It wasn't selective in the sense that it was that much of a choice; they saw the possibility for a better life and took it. Dolezal's stunt is purely selective, and parades this idea around that "race can be fun!" Really disrespectful, in my opinion.

But all that said, yeah... race is primarily a social construct. Or rather, race is an obligatory identity. It's not something you are, it's what others view you as (but this doesn't mean that racial identity isn't a powerful and unifying force).

Race is only a social construct because of the primary biological differences. We are all animals from different environments trying to come together. The biological differences precede the social ones, not the other way around; otherwise I agree with the sentiment of your stance.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well I disagree with you too, lol. I dont think one has to have an agenda to talk about the purity of a racial lineage. Im going to use the popular case study of Darwin's finches. Nobody is trying to dismiss their differences, nor is anyone trying to say that one is better than another. They are just different evolutionary examples of breeding in isolation.

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.

 

[rms]

So Caucasian then? Only in the loosest sense then, since the country was basically established as a migrant country for all.

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.

Is it un-American for a white person to "act" black, or vice versa? Should Asians act a certain way in the US? I thought a lot of people considered this shit racist?

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

Could I call myself black if I had a few black ancestors? How dark would my skin have to be to qualify? It is definitely a spectrum, whether people like it or not.

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.

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"

 

[CiG]

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

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

 

[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