I recall an earlier discussion about whether race is a real thing or a social construct (that is likely an inelegant and possibly an inaccurate description).
This article reminded me of the discussion and I thought others might find it interesting.
1 Like
It’s not ‘or’.
1 Like
Social constructs are real things. Language is a social construct. Humor is a social construct. Computers can be taught social constructs, so what?
6 Likes
There are populations of humans where certain genetic traits are found at a higher or lower rate than in other human populations. That’s a real thing. What relevancy this has in society, ethics, and morality is a very different thing. That’s where social constructs come into play.
3 Likes
We have content on this exact thing if you’re interested.
3 Likes
I was thinking that since all evolution is micro in the short term only becoming a change in species when the micro changes become sufficient perhaps “race” just denotes a subgroup of a species that is somewhat isolated from others in which the accumulated mutations fall far short of impeding interbreeding? Are there other factors that mark the threshold to the creation of a new species?
Languages are a decent (but flawed) analogy. One could imagine that if Americans, Brits, and Aussies were isolated from each other long enough that group specific changes to the English language would produce populations that could no longer understand one another (i.e. macro). At the same time, each generation on each continent could understand one another even though there are small changes in each generation (i.e. micro).
There is also a real possibility that there were other species of humans in the not so distant past, such as the Neanderthals and Denisovans. There was some interbreeding between the groups, but not much.
2 Likes
Interesting podcast, thanks
2 Likes
I think “race” in the modern layman’s sense exists independent of social constructs because there are arbitrary differences between people groups, but I think the word here is a misnomer stemming from outdated science; all the “races” of people today are Homo sapiens, so really they’re members of the same species, contrary to what racial supremacists and old-time scientists believed. We should definitely find a better word.
2 Likes
Charles, I don’t see how another word, a different word, would be better.
1 Like
How about ethnicity?
Ethnicity seems inferior due to increased ambiguity, as it mixes culture and genetics.
3 Likes
At least ethnicity doesn’t imply an entirely different race! So it seems less prejudicial in that regard, though I don’t doubt that bigots can very much still be prejudicial at any possible level.
2 Likes
Mervin, why would acknowledging a person’s race be prejudicial?
Observing a person is of a certain race is simply an observation, not evidence of malice or dislike or some other shameful action.
I love people of all races and assess people on the content of their character. Don’t you?
My Asian friends are obviously Asian, and my Black friends are obviously Black, and my white friends are obviously white, and my wonderful Black/white grandnephew who watches 1950s sci-fi with me is obviously mixed race, and the young boys that I taught in Sunday school were obviously mixed children of my WASP friend from Augusta Georgia and his lovely bride from Hong Kong.
1 Like
Now that I understand ‘race’ to mean ‘human race’, for me to continue to use it in the plural feels to me like an implication then that other ‘races’ are then something other than human. So given that understanding, my conscience wouldn’t feel good about continuing to use the term [other than for our one human race as a whole]. Your point is well taken that all humans should get along with and love each other as fully human - and I accept that other people will continue to use that word because it isn’t linguistically realistic that such terms just suddenly disappear from everyone’s vocabulary.
As I recall, we really went down this rabbit hole of “social construct” vs. “not a construct” in a thread some time ago. (and if memory serves - you were near the center of all that then, Vance). We could probably just dig that up and link to it rather than try to rehash all that here again. I accepted the corrections that scientifically knowledgeable people offered then, and I still do now and will continue to do so.
There are a couple of issues here. One is that the concept of race as an objective way of classifying humans has historically (including in its origins) been deeply entangled with racist notions of the superiority of some races, as well as with the idea that different races have essentially different characteristics. A second, related issue is that what race we characterize someone as reflects our own cultural understanding of racial categories. Those categories vary from place to place (e.g. the US and Brazil classify races quite differently) and do still reflect the highly racist and culturally specific origin of our categories.
Which is not to say that we should or could ignore race, but it’s not a neutral concept.
6 Likes
As long as you view that sentence as being no different than saying ‘my tall friends are tall’, my brown-eyed friends are brown eyed, my blonde haired friends, blonde, etc. If you see all of what I just said here as interchangeable with what you said … well and good.
And I too look forward to a day when such differences can be celebrated as beautiful and lose their association with ugly and painful bigotries that have been applied to those very same differences in the past.
1 Like
It is difficult to communicate with people who use their own special definitions, especially on written forums.
Steve, you seem to think that recognizing race entails a feeling of superiority.
Perhaps rather than questioning the recognition of race, people should question the feeling of superiority—a failing that is found in people of all three races.
1 Like