5 ms·

This is actually a well written and researched and interesting article about race as a social construct and as a physical reality. Perhaps you shouldn't just di

by bloat 11y ago

This is actually a well written and researched and interesting article about race as a social construct and as a physical reality. Perhaps you shouldn't just dismiss it because you (apparently) can't be bothered to think about these things. Also it's not exactly uncommon (or reprehensible) to hang an article like this off of a pithy and slightly overstated sound bite.

gozur88 11y ago
This "race as a social construct" stuff is the phrenology of the 21st century. It doesn't have any basis in science.
- empath75 11y ago
  It's literally the exact opposite of phrenology.
- personjerry 11y ago
  You are wrong. First, historically, race was only firmly established as a legacy of the colonial era. For example, in the colonial era, how was it decided in Louisiana if one man was black or not? The answer is, less than 1/32 of his ancestry must be of "black blood"[0]. This sort of thinking and arbitrary ruling is how race was established as a social construct. Science at the time, based on the physiology of skull shapes and other body features, was shaped in order to draw a line between the "superior" race and the "inferior" race; this is a belief we sometimes still carry. In modern science we know that there is enough variation in people that it is basically impossible to concretely associate certain genes with certain races[1]. So in fact, race IS a social construct; race is the generalizations we unfairly make. [As a bonus, any two humans average 99.5% the same DNA] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics
  - 67726e 11y ago
    That doesn't refute the parent's point. There is more to race than some jackass using it as a means to discriminate. It is not just a "social construct".
    - personjerry 11y ago
      I thought I effectively showed a "basis in science" (genetics), directly refuting the claim in the parent.
      - gozur88 11y ago
        So your idea is genetics are a social construct?
        personjerry 11y ago
        I'm saying race is based on historical and social circumstances. This notion is further supported because races are scientifically (genetically) difficult to distinguish. Hence "race is a social construct" is in fact based in science, directly arguing against the parent comment.
        Pilfer 11y ago
        >race is a social construct is based in science This is especially silly and misleading. Race is considered a "social construct" under the theory of Social Constructionism. For people who don't subscribe to the theory of Social constructionism, race is not a "social construct". Social constructionism itself is not based on biological and evolutionary fact. It is a philosophical approach to the world that conveniently disregards biology, genetics, behavioral ecology, and enormous scale (n=millions) of statistical studies. When you remove Social Constructionism from your thesis, your entire argument falls apart. Most people do not believe in discredited theories like social constructionism. The other posters in this thread are asking you to rework your argument without appeals to Social Constructionism, and you show you are unable to do so.
        gozur88 11y ago
  - gozur88 11y ago
    >First, historically, race was only firmly established as a legacy of the colonial era. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying a Roman in Africa didn't notice the guys around him had black skin? >For example, in the colonial era, how was it decided in Louisiana if one man was black or not? The answer is, less than 1/32 of his ancestry must be of "black blood"[0]. This sort of thinking and arbitrary ruling is how race was established as a social construct. This is non-responsive. You're talking about the legal response to race, which is irrelevant to the question of whether race actually exists. In fact, you've written nothing that addresses the point. When a white guy and a black guy are walking down the street, do you have trouble when someone asks you to point out the white guy?
    - personjerry 11y ago
      >I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying a Roman in Africa didn't notice the guys around him had black skin? "Romans in Africa vs. black skin" is actually a different point. Differences existed between people, but the notion of "race" did not. I'm trying to explain what the history of the notion of "race" was, because we take it for granted now. If you would read the history of race, especially the colonial time around the 17th to 19th century[0], you can see that that is when the notion of "race" as we know it really started to develop as a result of anthropological studies and colonial goals (but NOT genetic, modern scientific studies). >For example, in the colonial era, how was it decided in Louisiana if one man was black or not? The answer is, less than 1/32 of his ancestry must be of "black blood"[0]. This sort of thinking and arbitrary ruling is how race was established as a social construct. This is an example of how arbitrary and socially constructed race is. Not sure if you read my second paragraph, but I wrote this: "In modern science we know that there is enough variation in people that it is basically impossible to concretely associate certain genes with certain races[1]." You seemed to be convinced that "race is a social construct" has no scientific basis, but my argument is that there is no strong basis for race in science. The only alternative choice then seems to be social.
      - loki49152 11y ago
        The term "race" was most likely coined by Immanuel Kant, in German as rassen, to name his view that there were actually different kinds of people. The more common view before Kant was that environment shaped people. It's not really true that race is a "socially construct". It's a specific belief about the nature of human beings, attributable to a specific person. As a fun side note, being "racist" means believing that race is a real thing. It has nothing to do with what one thinks of different races, how one feels about them, or whether or not one feels differently about them at all. Just be living that "race" names something true about humans makes a person a racist.
kelnos 11y ago
Did you read the whole thing? The conclusion of the article seems to be the same as that of your parent poster, even if the article's author has gotten there in a more rigorous manner. Reading through, it feels like the "other side" is guilty of the same bias you accuse your parent -- the so-called experts referenced in the article who are on the side that race doesn't exist... they came off as ignoring actual real data (and when presented real data, hand-waving it away) in favor of what they want to believe as the ideal. And I'd agree with that ideal, that race shouldn't exist as a social construct -- but! -- that doesn't preclude race as being a predictor of certain body shapes and types. Saying "white people tend to have longer torsos and shorter legs, while black people tend to have shorter torsos and longer legs" isn't racist. Even if it's wrong, why must it be racist? I mean... what possible racially-biased motivation could you have to compare torso vs. leg length in different ways? There are far easier, more obvious ways to be racist, if that's your thing. But, regardless, the data here seems to suggest that there actually is a difference, so... well, there we are.
chrismcb 11y ago
My biggest problem with the article was just a few paragraphs into it, the author claims that the shirt company early on discovered "They seemed to fit worse, in a predictable way, on people who weren’t Caucasian." And then the author spends the next 80% of the article discussing whether race is an illusion and whether data about race being different is typically wrong. BUT the author started off by saying that basically by asking this question, the company can make the shirts fit better. Isn't that the answer then? We are all different, without perfect custom tailoring, you can't really mass market to fit everyone. Not everyone who is 5'11 will wear the same size shirt. Nor will everyone who is "black." The author takes great pains to point out that we are a range. But the author also pointed out at some point you say "that person is 'Asian'" But if this company figured out a way to make the shirts fit better simply by asking for the ethnicity, then what is the problem?

by bloat 11y ago

gozur88 11y ago

This "race as a social construct" stuff is the phrenology of the 21st century. It doesn't have any basis in science.

empath75 11y ago
It's literally the exact opposite of phrenology.
personjerry 11y ago
You are wrong. First, historically, race was only firmly established as a legacy of the colonial era. For example, in the colonial era, how was it decided in Louisiana if one man was black or not? The answer is, less than 1/32 of his ancestry must be of "black blood"[0]. This sort of thinking and arbitrary ruling is how race was established as a social construct. Science at the time, based on the physiology of skull shapes and other body features, was shaped in order to draw a line between the "superior" race and the "inferior" race; this is a belief we sometimes still carry. In modern science we know that there is enough variation in people that it is basically impossible to concretely associate certain genes with certain races[1]. So in fact, race IS a social construct; race is the generalizations we unfairly make. [As a bonus, any two humans average 99.5% the same DNA] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics
- 67726e 11y ago
  That doesn't refute the parent's point. There is more to race than some jackass using it as a means to discriminate. It is not just a "social construct".
  - personjerry 11y ago
    I thought I effectively showed a "basis in science" (genetics), directly refuting the claim in the parent.
    - gozur88 11y ago
      So your idea is genetics are a social construct?
      - personjerry 11y ago
        I'm saying race is based on historical and social circumstances. This notion is further supported because races are scientifically (genetically) difficult to distinguish. Hence "race is a social construct" is in fact based in science, directly arguing against the parent comment.
        Pilfer 11y ago
        >race is a social construct is based in science This is especially silly and misleading. Race is considered a "social construct" under the theory of Social Constructionism. For people who don't subscribe to the theory of Social constructionism, race is not a "social construct". Social constructionism itself is not based on biological and evolutionary fact. It is a philosophical approach to the world that conveniently disregards biology, genetics, behavioral ecology, and enormous scale (n=millions) of statistical studies. When you remove Social Constructionism from your thesis, your entire argument falls apart. Most people do not believe in discredited theories like social constructionism. The other posters in this thread are asking you to rework your argument without appeals to Social Constructionism, and you show you are unable to do so.
        gozur88 11y ago
- gozur88 11y ago
  >First, historically, race was only firmly established as a legacy of the colonial era. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying a Roman in Africa didn't notice the guys around him had black skin? >For example, in the colonial era, how was it decided in Louisiana if one man was black or not? The answer is, less than 1/32 of his ancestry must be of "black blood"[0]. This sort of thinking and arbitrary ruling is how race was established as a social construct. This is non-responsive. You're talking about the legal response to race, which is irrelevant to the question of whether race actually exists. In fact, you've written nothing that addresses the point. When a white guy and a black guy are walking down the street, do you have trouble when someone asks you to point out the white guy?
  - personjerry 11y ago
    >I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying a Roman in Africa didn't notice the guys around him had black skin? "Romans in Africa vs. black skin" is actually a different point. Differences existed between people, but the notion of "race" did not. I'm trying to explain what the history of the notion of "race" was, because we take it for granted now. If you would read the history of race, especially the colonial time around the 17th to 19th century[0], you can see that that is when the notion of "race" as we know it really started to develop as a result of anthropological studies and colonial goals (but NOT genetic, modern scientific studies). >For example, in the colonial era, how was it decided in Louisiana if one man was black or not? The answer is, less than 1/32 of his ancestry must be of "black blood"[0]. This sort of thinking and arbitrary ruling is how race was established as a social construct. This is an example of how arbitrary and socially constructed race is. Not sure if you read my second paragraph, but I wrote this: "In modern science we know that there is enough variation in people that it is basically impossible to concretely associate certain genes with certain races[1]." You seemed to be convinced that "race is a social construct" has no scientific basis, but my argument is that there is no strong basis for race in science. The only alternative choice then seems to be social.
    - loki49152 11y ago
      The term "race" was most likely coined by Immanuel Kant, in German as rassen, to name his view that there were actually different kinds of people. The more common view before Kant was that environment shaped people. It's not really true that race is a "socially construct". It's a specific belief about the nature of human beings, attributable to a specific person. As a fun side note, being "racist" means believing that race is a real thing. It has nothing to do with what one thinks of different races, how one feels about them, or whether or not one feels differently about them at all. Just be living that "race" names something true about humans makes a person a racist.

kelnos 11y ago

Did you read the whole thing? The conclusion of the article seems to be the same as that of your parent poster, even if the article's author has gotten there in a more rigorous manner. Reading through, it feels like the "other side" is guilty of the same bias you accuse your parent -- the so-called experts referenced in the article who are on the side that race doesn't exist... they came off as ignoring actual real data (and when presented real data, hand-waving it away) in favor of what they want to believe as the ideal. And I'd agree with that ideal, that race shouldn't exist as a social construct -- but! -- that doesn't preclude race as being a predictor of certain body shapes and types. Saying "white people tend to have longer torsos and shorter legs, while black people tend to have shorter torsos and longer legs" isn't racist. Even if it's wrong, why must it be racist? I mean... what possible racially-biased motivation could you have to compare torso vs. leg length in different ways? There are far easier, more obvious ways to be racist, if that's your thing. But, regardless, the data here seems to suggest that there actually is a difference, so... well, there we are.

chrismcb 11y ago

My biggest problem with the article was just a few paragraphs into it, the author claims that the shirt company early on discovered "They seemed to fit worse, in a predictable way, on people who weren’t Caucasian." And then the author spends the next 80% of the article discussing whether race is an illusion and whether data about race being different is typically wrong. BUT the author started off by saying that basically by asking this question, the company can make the shirts fit better. Isn't that the answer then? We are all different, without perfect custom tailoring, you can't really mass market to fit everyone. Not everyone who is 5'11 will wear the same size shirt. Nor will everyone who is "black." The author takes great pains to point out that we are a range. But the author also pointed out at some point you say "that person is 'Asian'" But if this company figured out a way to make the shirts fit better simply by asking for the ethnicity, then what is the problem?