What do people mean exactly when they say that race is a social construct?

[mad_scientist]

If the concept of "race" does not exist than how can companies like national geographic, 23andme, ancestry dna, my family tree and others process your dna to find your ethnic heritage (e.g. 40% east asian, European Jewish, polynesian etc.)?

 

Obviously, east asians are different genetically from Africans due to suffering from a bottleneck many, many generations ago after leaving Africa and from having neanderthal/denisovan dna and having mutations here and there from time to time as they migrated out of Africa.

 

Africans are more genetically diverse than Europeans, asians, native Americans and australian aborigines and Pacific islanders and others who left Africa.

 

Africans mature at a younger age while east asians mature at an older age. Asians lack fast twitch muscle fibers to compete with tall Africans and Europeans in many competitive individual and team sports leading many west african countries to dominate in sprinting, weight-lifting and others.

 

If race really is a social construct how can nigerians look more similar to each other than people from iceland? Chinese people look more similar to each other than other than they do when you compare them to other races. Race being a social construct, would this mean that what we are seeing is really an illusion? What does it mean when we say that "race" does not exist???

 

I'm really confused. A lot of Africans have more dense circular curly hair. This is obviously different and I certainly don't have hair like this. Are we really all the same?

Edited June 5, 2017 by mad_scientist

[swansont]

We're all the same species. Humans can and do interbreed, regardless of the tiny genetic differences present from variation in e.g. skin pigmentation. Skin color doesn't tell you much about other genetic traits.

 

http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-11.htm

 

"Most traits are influenced by different genes, so they're inherited independently, not grouped into the few packages we call races. In other words, the presence of one trait doesn't guarantee the presence of another. Can you tell a person's eye color from their height? What about their blood type from the size of their head?

 

...

 

Genetic differences do exist between people, but it is more accurate to speak of ancestry, rather than race, as the root of inherited diseases or conditions. Not everyone who looks alike or lives in the same region shares a common ancestry, so using "race" as a shorthand for ancestry can be misleading."

[KipIngram]

As far as race being a social construct, I don't think they mean purely - as swansont just pointed out there are real physical differences at the genetic level. But we've certainly taken race and made it a much bigger deal than it should be on the genetic basis alone, and you could call that a social construct.

 

As far as I'm concerned the sooner we get over that the better. I think each new generation that comes along does a better job on that front (at least here in the US).

[Phi for All]

In modern culture, the only thing the term "race" distinguishes is a vague grouping of the color of the skin. It has no real benefits, even as a social construct, imo.

[KipIngram]

In modern culture, the only thing the term "race" distinguishes is a vague grouping of the color of the skin. It has no real benefits, even as a social construct, imo.

 

Agreed - no real benefit and has led to plenty of problems.

[zapatos]

If the concept of "race" does not exist...

The concept of 'race' does exist, but it means different things to different people at different times. Hence, it is a social construct, rather than a scientific classification.

 

I remember as a child my father explaining the 'one drop rule' to me.

[KipIngram]

That there even was a rule (used by government and other institutions) was indicative of a problem. I look forward to a time when our official institutions are strictly "color blind." That would mean not even having data indicating race, not having race checkboxes on forms, and so on. It's utterly irrelevant, or at least should be.

[swansont]

As far as race being a social construct, I don't think they mean purely - as swansont just pointed out there are real physical differences at the genetic level.

 

 

The gist of the article was that these differences are not clear-cut, i.e. not a one-to-one mapping of genetics to a physical attribute. IOW you can have people with a similar physical attributes but not have them share the genetics, meaning they would not represent a population that would lead to creating a subspecies if they were isolated.

[CharonY]

Race classification as commonly used is entirely a social construct as it is often based on vague traits and do not really take ancestry into account. For example someone looking like Barack Obama would in many cases be classified as black, yet we know that this is not an accurate reflection of his ancestry.

 

The definition of races has been borne out of socio-historic contexts and are not based on actual ancestry. The latter is far more defined by geology rather than skin colour (i.e. people that live in close proximity are much likelier to interbreed). The historic component is also important. And again, the classifications we use today (Hispanic, black, white etc.) are borne from history. The classes were first made up and then filled with biological content, not the other way round. Whether one identifies as black (or any other classification) is only loosely (if at all) dependent on the actual traits that have been associated with it. Again, Barack Obama could be as much identified as black as he could be identified as white. The fact that we choose one over the other is a social construct.

[seriously disabled]

Race is not completely a social construction in my opinion.

 

I believe that there are some biological (or physiological as you may call it) differences between humans. We are not completely all the same.

 

Some people are much better-looking and healthier than others which proves that we are not all the same.

[zapatos]

Race is not completely a social construction in my opinion.

 

I believe that there are some biological (or physiological as you may call it) differences between humans. We are not completely all the same.

 

Some people are much better-looking and healthier than others which proves that we are not all the same.

And that's why it is a social construction. Some people base their definition of race on skin color, when you could just have easily based it on looks, height, hair color, etc.

 

No one is denying there are biological differences, just that there is no meaningful, consistent, and widely accepted definition of what constitutes a given race.

[seriously disabled]

And that's why it is a social construction. Some people base their definition of race on skin color, when you could just have easily based it on looks, height, hair color, etc.

 

No one is denying there are biological differences, just that there is no meaningful, consistent, and widely accepted definition of what constitutes a given race.

It's not a social construct.

 

The differences between people are real biological differences and not social differences.

 

Regardless how you want to paint the world, the world is a not a rosy and heart-warming place like you want it to be.

Edited June 6, 2017 by seriously disabled

[Manticore]

There's a good reason it's called the 'Human Race', and that's because all humans are in it.

[dimreepr]

The differences between people are real biological differences and not social differences.

 

I'd like to think so, when you say something like that, but intelligence isn't a factor, much like your so called biological differences.

Edited June 6, 2017 by dimreepr

[Delta1212]

It's not a social construct.

 

The differences between people are real biological differences and not social differences.

 

Regardless how you want to paint the world, the world is a not a rosy and heart-warming place like you want it to be.

You are mistaking what is meant by social construct.

 

If I have a red triangle, a blue circle and a red sphere, I have three objects that are all different from each other.

 

I can group them in various ways. I can say I have two flats and a solid, two rounds and a pointy or two reds and a blue.

 

Those are all categories based on real physical differences, but which differences and similarities I choose to emphasize is an arbitrary choice. I can categorize them in different ways and wind up with completely different groupings.

 

But, given an arbitrary grouping, I can certainly identify which shapes fit into which group.

 

 

It is not that you cannot find shared traits to use to categorize people. It is that there is a near infinite number of ways to define those categories that will give you very different groupings.

 

It is not the physical traits that are socially constructed. It is the way in which we choose to group those traits, and which traits we choose to emphasize as determiners of group status, that are socially constructed. There is no objectively correct definition of human race, and different people will fall under different groupings depending on how one chooses to define race.

[Strange]

It's not a social construct.

 

The differences between people are real biological differences and not social differences.

 

 

So each person is a different race?

 

Assigning people to groups on an arbitrary basis (probably not related to ancestry or genetics) and then calling those groups "races" is a purely social construct. In other words, the only basis for those groupings is how some people consider others should be grouped. Sounds like a social construct to me.

It is not the physical traits that are socially constructed. It is the way in which we choose to group those traits, and which traits we choose to emphasize as determiners of group status, that are socially constructed. There is no objectively correct definition of human race, and different people will fall under different groupings depending on how one chooses to define race.

 

This.

[CharonY]

It is also relevant to note that the genesis of the term "race" is based on social inception first and then filled with associated biological properties. I.e. depending on time and place certain categories were defined and then filled with certain traits (such as skin or hair colour). The modern use did not really start before the 19th century.

[Sammy Boy]

Race is a biological construct defined by ancestry like other taxa. Biology means the study of living things. Any construct using attributes of living things is by definition biological. The whole "social construct" thing is sophistry meant to imply arbitrary and unimportant. Ancestry is highly correlated with genetic similarity, and genetic similarity allows highly predictive inferences. When you notice variation correlates in humans, it's not an optical illusion. It's a real predictive phenomenon. Classifications based on arbitrary traits are not predictive. Classifications based on ancestry are highly predictive.

Here are some actual scientists using the biological construct in a recent interesting paper. 

Quote

.GWAS meta-analysis (N=279,930) identifies new genes and ..... participants of European ancestry and 9,398,186 genetic variants passing quality ...

http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/06/184853.1

Is it a "social construct"?

It's exactly the same as the Darwinian ancestry based race concept and still in use.

The virtue signalling SJW pseudoscientists on this forum will lie it's based on "skin color", the differences are "small" based on nothing, they'll sloganeer about "one race the human race" as if categories don't subdivide. They're just liars parroting Marxist slogans because it's fashionable and/or they're afraid of getting Watsonned.

Needless to say people like me will be banned from their echo chamber.

[tuco]

As it was noted, its a social construct in sense that as AAA puts it:

Quote

In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.

http://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583

Edited September 15, 2017 by tuco

[Sammy Boy]

38 minutes ago, tuco said:

As it was noted, its a social construct in sense that as AAA puts it:

http://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583

Lol there's more variation within some species than between them.

http://muse.jhu.edu/article/381884/pdf

Did you really not know that? Did it not occur to you to check whether variation in other taxa were similar? Does every single piece of DNA have to be different to constitute a different subspecies? Does that make sense given your vast knowledge of biology? Care to admit you're wrong before changing the subject?

The AAA board was stacked with leftists and put out that statement with no membership voting.

http://en.rightpedia.info/w/American_Anthropological_Association_Statement_on_"Race" (link appears broken due to length, copy paste)

Doubtless we're now going to run in circles through all of the race denial fallacies.

http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Arguments_regarding_the_existence_of_races

Fake science, fake everything. Sad.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Sammy Boy

[bimbo36]

There are two types of people mainly . White people and black people . lol

White people has some advantage over black people .

White people are more attractive than black people

Why is this such a complex thing to understand .

 

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, bimbo36 said:

There are two types of people mainly . White people and black people . lol

White people has some advantage over black people .

White people are more attractive than black people

Why is this such a complex thing to understand .

6

"There are two types of people" those that understand why the latest two posts are ignorant BS and those that write it.

Edited September 15, 2017 by dimreepr

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Sammy Boy said:

Lol there's more variation within some species than between them.

http://muse.jhu.edu/article/381884/pdf

Did you really not know that? Did it not occur to you to check whether variation in other taxa were similar? Does every single piece of DNA have to be different to constitute a different subspecies? Does that make sense given your vast knowledge of biology? Care to admit you're wrong before changing the subject?

The AAA board was stacked with leftists and put out that statement with no membership voting.

http://en.rightpedia.info/w/American_Anthropological_Association_Statement_on_"Race" (link appears broken due to length, copy paste)

Doubtless we're now going to run in circles through all of the race denial fallacies.

http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Arguments_regarding_the_existence_of_races

Fake science, fake everything. Sad.

!

Moderator Note

Leave the politics out of it, as well as sources with a political axe to grind.

And no, don't respond to this in the thread, It's not open to negotiation.

 

[Sammy Boy]

On 9/15/2017 at 2:13 PM, dimreepr said:

"There are two types of people" those that understand why the latest two posts are ignorant BS and those that write it.

Ignorant BS? Ironic. Aren't vacuous posts like this moderated here?

On 6/6/2017 at 10:33 PM, Strange said:

Assigning people to groups on an arbitrary basis (probably not related to ancestry or genetics) and then calling those groups "races" is a purely social construct. In other words, the only basis for those groupings is how some people consider others should be grouped. Sounds like a social construct to me.

So you don't actually bother to find out how your opponent defines race, make up some stupid definition yourself, and then dismiss it as stupid? There's a name for that kind of argument.

On 6/6/2017 at 7:44 PM, Delta1212 said:

You are mistaking what is meant by social construct.

If I have a red triangle, a blue circle and a red sphere, I have three objects that are all different from each other.

I can group them in various ways. I can say I have two flats and a solid, two rounds and a pointy or two reds and a blue.

Those are all categories based on real physical differences, but which differences and similarities I choose to emphasize is an arbitrary choice. I can categorize them in different ways and wind up with completely different groupings.

But, given an arbitrary grouping, I can certainly identify which shapes fit into which group.

It is not that you cannot find shared traits to use to categorize people. It is that there is a near infinite number of ways to define those categories that will give you very different groupings.

It is not the physical traits that are socially constructed. It is the way in which we choose to group those traits, and which traits we choose to emphasize as determiners of group status, that are socially constructed. There is no objectively correct definition of human race, and different people will fall under different groupings depending on how one chooses to define race.

Who defines race like this? Can you find any examples? Can you find examples of people ending up with wildly different race groupings based on using one or two randomly selected traits? Other than strawman constructing race denying sophists.

For example Blumenbach wrote of the importance of using large numbers of non metric traits in combination, especially idiosyncratic and superficial heritable traits which reliably indicate shared ancestry. Darwin echoed this. Neither of them wrote "hey guys let's randomly select one or two traits to infer ancestry lol". Presumably you are unaware of the relevant passages in either. Race scholars aren't. No race scholar has produced any grouping significantly different from the classic Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid first approximation. Your objection seems purely theoretical and detached from any data.

Further is a classification based on one or two traits not a biological construct? I get it's arbitrary and pointless, and only used in the context of lame strawman arguments, but why not biological? How are you defining a biological construct? Eye-color is a biological attribute right? So an "eye-color/body-weight race" would be stupid and arbitrary and never used by any serious scientist, but it would be a biological construct.

Edited September 16, 2017 by Sammy Boy

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, Sammy Boy said:

There's a name for that kind of argument.

 

Yep, accurate...