6 ms·

"Race is problematic in a number of levels. Yes it is a social construct with no real genetic basis, at least as we have constructed it." Sorry, what? Are you

by omonra 13y ago

"Race is problematic in a number of levels. Yes it is a social construct with no real genetic basis, at least as we have constructed it." Sorry, what? Are you talking about how things are on Earth or some other planet? Perhaps a cursory look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics might help.

einhverfr 13y ago
So if race is fully based on genetics would it be equally correct to say "Barack Obama is white" as it is to say "Barack Obama is black?" Why or why not? And which matches our social constructs?
- ars 13y ago
  > So if race is fully based on genetics would it be equally correct to say "Barack Obama is white" as it is to say "Barack Obama is black?" Yes, of course. He's a mixed race. I don't know why people call him the first black president - he's exactly half and half, with equal claim to either race. Unless you subscribe to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_drop_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_drop_rule
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    > Yes, of course. He's a mixed race. I don't know why people call him the first black president - he's exactly half and half, with equal claim to either race. You have just shown that social construction of race is not the same as your biological base. If most of the population agrees "he is black and not white" and biology says otherwise, then the social construct is unmoored from biology. I don't think one has to go as far as a one drop rule, though that was a construction that has existed in some parts of the country at some times (as have other tests, like the brown paper bag test). Things are more nuanced today and it would be more accurate to say he is black because: 1. He claims to be black, and 2. Society recognizes his claim as legitimate. Since these are organic social constructs, they don't need hard, strict, articulable rules any more than English grammar does (I suppose someone, probably me (note the case shift contrary to formal grammars), will have to point the reader to actual articles by linguists on this topic).
    - omonra 13y ago
      I decided to respond to this part of the thread to keep discussion in one place. --- So your point is that since 2.9% of US population are not single-race (estimate of mixed race in the US [1]) the other 97% aren't either? By the same token you could also say that there are no heterosexuals in the world since roughly 3% of people are gay. I remember some Hispanic comedian who said in the 90s - "In the future everybody will look Filipino". He had a point - if humans spend a few thousand years mixing it up, the end result will look Brazilian of Filipino. But for now the majority of Earth population is of a specific definable race (which have many differences deeper than skin tone). [1] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/mixed-race-america/?pagewanted=all http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/mixed-race-amer...
      - einhverfr 13y ago
        > So your point is that since 2.9% of US population are not single-race (estimate of mixed race in the US [1]) the other 97% aren't either? From a biological perspective, I am not sure you can biologically define "single race" vs "mixed race" to the point where such a categorization makes sense. I think what you can do is specify identifiable populations which share some identifiable genetic markers (say, Chinese vs Mongolians, or Scandinavians vs Mediterraneans). So what I am saying is that 2.9% of Americans are socially of "mixed race" but population groups are much more porous than that, and that does not match the biological realities. This doesn't mean one cannot come up with a biological definition of race, but I don't think it will match our social definitions very closely.
        omonra 13y ago
        "I think what you can do is specify identifiable populations which share some identifiable genetic markers (say, Chinese vs Mongolians, or Scandinavians vs Mediterraneans)." Yes, and likewise you can further extend it - grouping Mongolians & Chinese into one group and various sub-Sararan tribes into another. And voilà - you've got yourself nice Asian and African races. Because they will still share these distinct identifiable genetic markers. "This doesn't mean one cannot come up with a biological definition of race, but I don't think it will match our social definitions very closely." Our social definitions are pretty spot on, if you don't try to come up with exceptions (ie Barack Obama et al). Jay Z is black and Seinfeld is white - how complicated is that?
- omonra 13y ago
  Me: Blue and Red are different colors. There is a branch of physics called optics that deals with it. You: But what about Brown - is it blue or red? I guess you can't answer, therefore colors don't exist and are instead social constructs.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    But the point is: Society unambiguously recognizes Obama as black. Biology does not. Therefore if you say society is wrong, you are just saying the social construct of race is wrong, and reinforcing the idea that race in our society is socially constructed and independent of any biological idea you can put forward. The larger question would be for shades that we might accept are "red" but don't necessarily meet the wavelength definition. Additionally human populations are not like wavelengths in that they are dynamically defined. You can find all sorts of populations with identifiable genetic similarities. However, we construct race differently than that. Arguing that society is biologically incorrect in a definition of race is just saying that the social construct is unmoored from the biology.

by omonra 13y ago

einhverfr 13y ago

So if race is fully based on genetics would it be equally correct to say "Barack Obama is white" as it is to say "Barack Obama is black?" Why or why not? And which matches our social constructs?

ars 13y ago
> So if race is fully based on genetics would it be equally correct to say "Barack Obama is white" as it is to say "Barack Obama is black?" Yes, of course. He's a mixed race. I don't know why people call him the first black president - he's exactly half and half, with equal claim to either race. Unless you subscribe to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_drop_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_drop_rule
- einhverfr 13y ago
  > Yes, of course. He's a mixed race. I don't know why people call him the first black president - he's exactly half and half, with equal claim to either race. You have just shown that social construction of race is not the same as your biological base. If most of the population agrees "he is black and not white" and biology says otherwise, then the social construct is unmoored from biology. I don't think one has to go as far as a one drop rule, though that was a construction that has existed in some parts of the country at some times (as have other tests, like the brown paper bag test). Things are more nuanced today and it would be more accurate to say he is black because: 1. He claims to be black, and 2. Society recognizes his claim as legitimate. Since these are organic social constructs, they don't need hard, strict, articulable rules any more than English grammar does (I suppose someone, probably me (note the case shift contrary to formal grammars), will have to point the reader to actual articles by linguists on this topic).
  - omonra 13y ago
    I decided to respond to this part of the thread to keep discussion in one place. --- So your point is that since 2.9% of US population are not single-race (estimate of mixed race in the US [1]) the other 97% aren't either? By the same token you could also say that there are no heterosexuals in the world since roughly 3% of people are gay. I remember some Hispanic comedian who said in the 90s - "In the future everybody will look Filipino". He had a point - if humans spend a few thousand years mixing it up, the end result will look Brazilian of Filipino. But for now the majority of Earth population is of a specific definable race (which have many differences deeper than skin tone). [1] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/mixed-race-america/?pagewanted=all http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/mixed-race-amer...
    - einhverfr 13y ago
      > So your point is that since 2.9% of US population are not single-race (estimate of mixed race in the US [1]) the other 97% aren't either? From a biological perspective, I am not sure you can biologically define "single race" vs "mixed race" to the point where such a categorization makes sense. I think what you can do is specify identifiable populations which share some identifiable genetic markers (say, Chinese vs Mongolians, or Scandinavians vs Mediterraneans). So what I am saying is that 2.9% of Americans are socially of "mixed race" but population groups are much more porous than that, and that does not match the biological realities. This doesn't mean one cannot come up with a biological definition of race, but I don't think it will match our social definitions very closely.
      - omonra 13y ago
        "I think what you can do is specify identifiable populations which share some identifiable genetic markers (say, Chinese vs Mongolians, or Scandinavians vs Mediterraneans)." Yes, and likewise you can further extend it - grouping Mongolians & Chinese into one group and various sub-Sararan tribes into another. And voilà - you've got yourself nice Asian and African races. Because they will still share these distinct identifiable genetic markers. "This doesn't mean one cannot come up with a biological definition of race, but I don't think it will match our social definitions very closely." Our social definitions are pretty spot on, if you don't try to come up with exceptions (ie Barack Obama et al). Jay Z is black and Seinfeld is white - how complicated is that?
omonra 13y ago
Me: Blue and Red are different colors. There is a branch of physics called optics that deals with it. You: But what about Brown - is it blue or red? I guess you can't answer, therefore colors don't exist and are instead social constructs.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  But the point is: Society unambiguously recognizes Obama as black. Biology does not. Therefore if you say society is wrong, you are just saying the social construct of race is wrong, and reinforcing the idea that race in our society is socially constructed and independent of any biological idea you can put forward. The larger question would be for shades that we might accept are "red" but don't necessarily meet the wavelength definition. Additionally human populations are not like wavelengths in that they are dynamically defined. You can find all sorts of populations with identifiable genetic similarities. However, we construct race differently than that. Arguing that society is biologically incorrect in a definition of race is just saying that the social construct is unmoored from the biology.