5 ms·

Opening statement is doing a disservice. Most parts of the world racism is defined on language/cultural maps, not literally black and white skin. For example th

Opening statement is doing a disservice. Most parts of the world racism is defined on language/cultural maps, not literally black and white skin. For example the Rwandan genocide, is based on ethnic clashes where all people there have the same literal skin color. But they are part of different ethnicities. Then you have the bosnian genocide, same skin color and even language. But culturally they were different enough for some other humans to target.

tootallgavin 5y ago
Weird how science still claims race exists, even as they show a dark skinned scientist When can we be post-race?
- AlotOfReading 5y ago
  Science absolutely does not claim biological human races exist. Almost all of the major anthropological societies have a statement somewhere like this: https://physanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statement-race-and-racism-2019/ https://physanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statemen... Or this: https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583 https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?I... Those statements also explain why being post-race is more difficult than it should be.
  - axguscbklp 5y ago
    I think that statements like this are usually written more for political than for scientific reasons. Yes, "races do not exist" is true in the sense that 19th century classifications made by racist Europeans do not do a good job of mapping the reality of human genetic diversity. However, race does exist in the sense that, for example, two randomly selected people from China are likely to be closer to each other genetically than either is to a randomly selected person from England - and not only that, but it is also likely that the average person or, for that matter, computer algorithm will do a fairly good job of guessing people's genetic distance based on their visual appearance, at least for relatively large genetic distances. I feel that too often, politically motivated people pick up on such academic statements and use them to justify implying that the very concept of racial difference is inherently empty or wrong and perhaps should even be tabooed. It is a bit of a motte and bailey technique: you first say, "Look at these statements - see, science rejects the very concept of race - any discussion of racial difference is thus unscientific and in any case what are you, some sort of bigot?" And if anyone pushes you more closely on the matter you can just retreat to the actually justifiable position, "Oh well of course I did not mean that there are no identifiable patterns in human genetic diversity, that would be absurd, I just meant that old European racial classifications are inaccurate."
    - dale_glass 5y ago
      The problem is that scientific "race" doesn't quite work that way. To be scientific about it, you have to be willing to conclude things like that a diverse looking group of people are actually all the same race because they happen to share common genetics, or that what looks like an all white group is really 5 distinct genetic groups that just happen to look similar. To really find what scientifically accurate genetic group a given person falls into you'd have to be scientific about it, and look at the genetics or at the very least their detailed ancestry. Simply looking at them doesn't cut it. Science is all about precision and eliminating biases. At that point, what is even the point? You know enough about them to treat them as an individual regardless of what they happen to look like.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - livinginfear 5y ago
    I would consider it a stretch to consider modern anthropology to be 'science'. > "The belief in races as a natural aspect of human biology and the institutional and structural inequities (racism) that have emerged in tandem with such beliefs in European colonial contexts are among the most damaging elements in human societies." The use of the term "European colonial contexts" betrays its intent immediately. I say this as a non-white person, of non-European origin. > "Race does not provide an accurate representation of human biological variation. It was never accurate in the past, and it remains inaccurate when referencing contemporary human populations" Only smart people could be convinced of such foolishness. A classification system as simple as 'race' may not provide an accurate taxonomy for all scientific purposes. It does however provide a sensible abstraction which has persisted uniformly across cultures and time because of its utility. Regardless of to what extent you believe the concept of 'race' explains population differences, there are clearly quantifiable differences between individuals associated with their genetic origins. This is well known in all biological scientific fields: medicine, forensics, pharmacology...
    - nextaccountic 5y ago
      > I would consider it a stretch to consider modern anthropology to be 'science'. On what basis do you state that?
    - AlotOfReading 5y ago
      You have a bit of a contradiction going on here. Your first sentence states that you think anthropology isn't science and your last sentence cites it as an example of a "biological scientific field". The part of forensics that deals with human bodies and especially racial classification is called forensic anthropology. Now, the relationship between academic and forensic anthropologists is pretty fraught, but not because the regular anthropologists are out there inventing new genders all the time. It's because forensic anthropology uses outdated methodologies widely considered unscientific, including racial identifications. That's why the US National Academy called for forensic science reform back in 2009 and why you still get debates like this between academics and forensic anthropologists: https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14513 https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14513
    - 5y ago
- gjhh244 5y ago
  Probably not any time soon. The current trend among the woke crowd seems to be emphasizing importance of race, rather than trying to get past it. Worst racists of today are ones who divide people to privileged and underprivileged simply based on their skin colour, when the reality is way more complicated.
  - fogihujy 5y ago
    It's funny how the rest of the World is suddenly expected to adhere to U.S. cultural boundaries even though they simply don't apply. All of a sudden I've somehow changed ethnicity to "White". Simultaneously, people of African, Middle-Eastern and Indian origin -- some of the most ethnically diverse areas on the entire planet -- are just considered "Black" and thought of as a single group. It's outright ridiculous.
    - desktopninja 5y ago
      "Racism" is a fancy word for "Tribalism".
  - zingar 5y ago
    I like that you recognise that reality is complicated. However your comment underestimates racism. It may not have happened in front of your eyes, but in this world there are people who will for example: - be willing to verbally _or physically_ assault a person because of their skin colour (yes, to the point of serious injury or death) - deliberately undermine a good candidate's chances of getting a job or promotion _because of their skin colour_ - deliberately undermine a good tenant's chances of finding a place to live close to work or a good school Most people (including myself) are shocked to learn of situations like this once presented with evidence of it. I'm honestly talking about something as straightforward and undeniably racist as: a landlord asking a real estate startup to screen out any black tenants. There's also a huge range of experiences where the above happen across lines of race but more accidentally. Racist outcomes without racist intentions. All the kids who can afford to live near the good schools are white, all the informal mentorship happens to people who are similar in background to the founder, etc. The reason "emphasising importance of race" happens is because there's no chance of avoiding or preventing these situations if we pretend/hope that they don't happen. I might have misinterpreted you, but "trying to get past it" feels like pretend/hope rather than a willingness to fix things.
chewz 5y ago
> Most parts of the world racism is defined on language/cultural maps, not literally black and white skin. Also social class - protecting skin from sun had been a display that you are of non-working class rather then different genetic pool...
enriquto 5y ago
> Opening statement is doing a disservice. Most parts of the world racism is defined But this was written by a journalist. You have to translate Journalistese into English as you read it. For example "in most parts of the world" means "here where I live". In a similar way, "everybody" means "a cousin of mine", and so on. Once you get used to their language, newspapers start to make more sense. A bit less interesting, but definitely more informative.
wesleywt 5y ago
The target audience for the article are white Europeans living in the USA or Europe, where racism is often targeted at black Africans or African heritage.

tootallgavin 5y ago

Weird how science still claims race exists, even as they show a dark skinned scientist When can we be post-race?

AlotOfReading 5y ago
Science absolutely does not claim biological human races exist. Almost all of the major anthropological societies have a statement somewhere like this: https://physanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statement-race-and-racism-2019/ https://physanth.org/about/position-statements/aapa-statemen... Or this: https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583 https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?I... Those statements also explain why being post-race is more difficult than it should be.
- axguscbklp 5y ago
  I think that statements like this are usually written more for political than for scientific reasons. Yes, "races do not exist" is true in the sense that 19th century classifications made by racist Europeans do not do a good job of mapping the reality of human genetic diversity. However, race does exist in the sense that, for example, two randomly selected people from China are likely to be closer to each other genetically than either is to a randomly selected person from England - and not only that, but it is also likely that the average person or, for that matter, computer algorithm will do a fairly good job of guessing people's genetic distance based on their visual appearance, at least for relatively large genetic distances. I feel that too often, politically motivated people pick up on such academic statements and use them to justify implying that the very concept of racial difference is inherently empty or wrong and perhaps should even be tabooed. It is a bit of a motte and bailey technique: you first say, "Look at these statements - see, science rejects the very concept of race - any discussion of racial difference is thus unscientific and in any case what are you, some sort of bigot?" And if anyone pushes you more closely on the matter you can just retreat to the actually justifiable position, "Oh well of course I did not mean that there are no identifiable patterns in human genetic diversity, that would be absurd, I just meant that old European racial classifications are inaccurate."
  - dale_glass 5y ago
    The problem is that scientific "race" doesn't quite work that way. To be scientific about it, you have to be willing to conclude things like that a diverse looking group of people are actually all the same race because they happen to share common genetics, or that what looks like an all white group is really 5 distinct genetic groups that just happen to look similar. To really find what scientifically accurate genetic group a given person falls into you'd have to be scientific about it, and look at the genetics or at the very least their detailed ancestry. Simply looking at them doesn't cut it. Science is all about precision and eliminating biases. At that point, what is even the point? You know enough about them to treat them as an individual regardless of what they happen to look like.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- livinginfear 5y ago
  I would consider it a stretch to consider modern anthropology to be 'science'. > "The belief in races as a natural aspect of human biology and the institutional and structural inequities (racism) that have emerged in tandem with such beliefs in European colonial contexts are among the most damaging elements in human societies." The use of the term "European colonial contexts" betrays its intent immediately. I say this as a non-white person, of non-European origin. > "Race does not provide an accurate representation of human biological variation. It was never accurate in the past, and it remains inaccurate when referencing contemporary human populations" Only smart people could be convinced of such foolishness. A classification system as simple as 'race' may not provide an accurate taxonomy for all scientific purposes. It does however provide a sensible abstraction which has persisted uniformly across cultures and time because of its utility. Regardless of to what extent you believe the concept of 'race' explains population differences, there are clearly quantifiable differences between individuals associated with their genetic origins. This is well known in all biological scientific fields: medicine, forensics, pharmacology...
  - nextaccountic 5y ago
    > I would consider it a stretch to consider modern anthropology to be 'science'. On what basis do you state that?
  - AlotOfReading 5y ago
    You have a bit of a contradiction going on here. Your first sentence states that you think anthropology isn't science and your last sentence cites it as an example of a "biological scientific field". The part of forensics that deals with human bodies and especially racial classification is called forensic anthropology. Now, the relationship between academic and forensic anthropologists is pretty fraught, but not because the regular anthropologists are out there inventing new genders all the time. It's because forensic anthropology uses outdated methodologies widely considered unscientific, including racial identifications. That's why the US National Academy called for forensic science reform back in 2009 and why you still get debates like this between academics and forensic anthropologists: https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14513 https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14513
  - 5y ago
gjhh244 5y ago
Probably not any time soon. The current trend among the woke crowd seems to be emphasizing importance of race, rather than trying to get past it. Worst racists of today are ones who divide people to privileged and underprivileged simply based on their skin colour, when the reality is way more complicated.
- fogihujy 5y ago
  It's funny how the rest of the World is suddenly expected to adhere to U.S. cultural boundaries even though they simply don't apply. All of a sudden I've somehow changed ethnicity to "White". Simultaneously, people of African, Middle-Eastern and Indian origin -- some of the most ethnically diverse areas on the entire planet -- are just considered "Black" and thought of as a single group. It's outright ridiculous.
  - desktopninja 5y ago
    "Racism" is a fancy word for "Tribalism".
- zingar 5y ago
  I like that you recognise that reality is complicated. However your comment underestimates racism. It may not have happened in front of your eyes, but in this world there are people who will for example: - be willing to verbally _or physically_ assault a person because of their skin colour (yes, to the point of serious injury or death) - deliberately undermine a good candidate's chances of getting a job or promotion _because of their skin colour_ - deliberately undermine a good tenant's chances of finding a place to live close to work or a good school Most people (including myself) are shocked to learn of situations like this once presented with evidence of it. I'm honestly talking about something as straightforward and undeniably racist as: a landlord asking a real estate startup to screen out any black tenants. There's also a huge range of experiences where the above happen across lines of race but more accidentally. Racist outcomes without racist intentions. All the kids who can afford to live near the good schools are white, all the informal mentorship happens to people who are similar in background to the founder, etc. The reason "emphasising importance of race" happens is because there's no chance of avoiding or preventing these situations if we pretend/hope that they don't happen. I might have misinterpreted you, but "trying to get past it" feels like pretend/hope rather than a willingness to fix things.

chewz 5y ago

> Most parts of the world racism is defined on language/cultural maps, not literally black and white skin. Also social class - protecting skin from sun had been a display that you are of non-working class rather then different genetic pool...

enriquto 5y ago

> Opening statement is doing a disservice. Most parts of the world racism is defined But this was written by a journalist. You have to translate Journalistese into English as you read it. For example "in most parts of the world" means "here where I live". In a similar way, "everybody" means "a cousin of mine", and so on. Once you get used to their language, newspapers start to make more sense. A bit less interesting, but definitely more informative.

wesleywt 5y ago

The target audience for the article are white Europeans living in the USA or Europe, where racism is often targeted at black Africans or African heritage.