Race is a social construct

[DOTR]

Obviously.

 

[TrueTT]

Race is *made important* because of social constructs.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. Life would be utterly boring and largely meaningless without said social constructs.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Obviously.

View attachment 238123

/----/ Looks like the line up for the titty bar I went to in Baton Rouge.

 

[TrueTT]

Obviously.

View attachment 238123

/----/ Looks like the line up for the titty bar I went to in Baton Rouge.

Glad you made it out of there alive.

 

[well named]

I usually recommend this article (from a physical anthropologist) as a starting point on this subject: Race is a Social Construction: Race, Genetics, Anthropology

When it comes to race and genetics, I usually avoid phrases like “race is a social construction.” Such phrases have become too much like mantras. They function too much like shortcuts. Any time someone says “social construction” it is going to be wildly misunderstood and misinterpreted. The idea that race is a social construction also often misses the point about the salience of racism, which is what makes race categories so durable. For more see Race, Racism, and Protesting Anthropology.

John H. Relethford provides a better phrase than “race is a social construction.” It is still concise but more accurate, and perhaps less susceptible to misinterpretation. Race is a “culturally constructed label that crudely and imprecisely describes real variation” (Race and global patterns of phenotypic variation 2009:20)....

“Race is a social construction” draws attention to how the social, legal, and political categories traditionally used to define “race” exhibit significant inter-society, within-society, and historical variability, so that these social categories are at best a crude approximation of actually existing human biological variation.

In other words, it was not a denial of human biological variation and diversity. Nor was it necessarily a denial of how human biological variation might be structured, usually geographically. And it was especially and emphatically not a claim that these categories are not real. These social-political-legal categories of race have quite real lived effects, including quite real biological effects. This is something Clarence Gravlee details marvelously in How race becomes biology: Embodiment of social inequality. For an illuminating follow-up with ethnographic material, see Race and Consequence: “Reality” and Social Constructs at the Torso and Oblong blog, which discusses how social categories become devastatingly real in the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
​

 

[JoeMoma]

Obviously.

View attachment 238123

/----/ Looks like the line up for the titty bar I went to in Baton Rouge.

Did you have to wear a helmet?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Obviously.

View attachment 238123

/----/ Looks like the line up for the titty bar I went to in Baton Rouge.

Did you have to wear a helmet?

/----/ It was mandatory if you wanted the half price Gin & Tonics.

 

[longknife]

Why does nobody understand that race is a genetic construct?

 

[DOTR]

Why does nobody understand that race is a genetic construct?

Science in service to leftist politics.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why does nobody understand that race is a genetic construct?

Depends on what you mean when you say "race".

 

[longknife]

Why does nobody understand that race is a genetic construct?

Depends on what you mean when you say "race".

Okay, so "experts" claim that race is a social construct. But one has to admit that human types differ because of where they have lived for thousands of years. People from the north who don't receive heavy sunlight tend to have light skin and hair while those who live in tropical areas with heavy sunlight have more melatonin to protect them from skin diseases.

It appears to me that those are biological differences caused by where they live.

 

[well named]

The point of the "social construct" verbiage is that the racial categories people use (black, white, and asian primarily) do not correspond very closely to the actual geographically structured patterns of human variation, and also (and more importantly) that the beliefs, stereotypes, and cultural values we ascribe to people of various racial groups don't correspond in any neat way to actual biological variation either.

The picture in the OP really isn't the evidence that DOTR thinks it is, for that reason. After all, it's not as if all white people are taller than all black people. You can find a picture of a single 6'6 white guy standing next to a bunch of 5' white women too. The picture is capturing a lot variation that is a result of sex differences, not racial differences, and cultural differences as well. All of that gets conflated with the idea of race.

That's why the anthropologist I cited above suggests this definition of race: "a culturally constructed label that crudely and imprecisely describes real variation."

 

[abu afak]

The point of the "social construct" verbiage is that the racial categories people use (black, white, and asian primarily) do not correspond very closely to the actual geographically structured patterns of human variation, and also (and more importantly) that the beliefs, stereotypes, and cultural values we ascribe to people of various racial groups don't correspond in any neat way to actual biological variation either.

The picture in the OP really isn't the evidence that DOTR thinks it is, for that reason. After all, it's not as if all white people are taller than all black people. You can find a picture of a single 6'6 white guy standing next to a bunch of 5' white women too. The picture is capturing a lot variation that is a result of sex differences, not racial differences, and cultural differences as well. All of that gets conflated with the idea of race.

That's why the anthropologist I cited above suggests this definition of race: "a culturally constructed label that crudely and imprecisely describes real variation."

You are clueless what constitutes Race. As is just about everyone else here.

Race (human classification) - Wikipedia
Morphologically differentiated populations

Traditionally, subspecies are seen as geographically isolated and genetically differentiated populations. That is, "the designation 'subspecies' is used to indicate an objective degree of microevolutionary divergence" One objection to this idea is that it does not specify what degree of differentiation is required. Therefore, any population that is somewhat biologically different could be considered a subspecies, even to the level of a local population. As a result, Templeton has argued that it is necessary to impose a threshold on the level of difference that is required for a population to be designated a subspecies.

This effectively means that populations of organisms must have reached a certain measurable level of difference to be recognised as subspecies. Dean Amadon proposed in 1949 that subspecies would be defined according to the 75% rule which means that 75% of a population must lie outside 99% of the range of other populations for a given defining morphological character or a set of characters. The 75% rule still has defenders but other scholars argue that it should be replaced with 90 or 95% rule.

In 1978, Sewall Wright suggested that human populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the world should, in general, be considered different subspecies by the USUAL criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection.

Wright argued that it does not require a trained anthropologist to classify an array of Englishmen, West Africans, and Chinese with 100% accuracy by features, skin color, and type of hair despite so much variability within Each of these groups that every individual can Easily be Distinguished from every other.

However, it is Customary to use the term Race Rather than Subspecies for the major subdivisions of the Human species as well as for minor ones.
...​

`

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Race a social construct?

I always thought it was just natural to run along with others to see who's the fastest.

 

[Picaro]

Why does nobody understand that race is a genetic construct?

Depends on what you mean when you say "race".

Okay, so "experts" claim that race is a social construct. But one has to admit that human types differ because of where they have lived for thousands of years. People from the north who don't receive heavy sunlight tend to have light skin and hair while those who live in tropical areas with heavy sunlight have more melatonin to protect them from skin diseases.

It appears to me that those are biological differences caused by where they live.

But nobody morphs into another race by by moving to those respective locations. Few Dutch settlers ever turned negroid after they moved to South Africa, and no negroids ever turned into blonde blue eyed Anglo-Saxons and Swedes after moving to England or Sweden. And we have many generations of both to see that. That indicates hard wired differences.

 

[Picaro]

The point of the "social construct" verbiage is that the racial categories people use (black, white, and asian primarily) do not correspond very closely to the actual geographically structured patterns of human variation, and also (and more importantly) that the beliefs, stereotypes, and cultural values we ascribe to people of various racial groups don't correspond in any neat way to actual biological variation either.

They don't have to; they just have to acknowledge definite trends. No requirements that they have to apply 100% to be generally true.

 

[Asclepias]

Obviously.

View attachment 238123

Obviously.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Obviously.

View attachment 238123

/----/ Looks like the line up for the titty bar I went to in Baton Rouge.

That's just sad!

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Why does nobody understand that race is a genetic construct?

Sane people do

 

[Picaro]

Obviously.

View attachment 238123

Obviously.

Here we have Ace acknowledging that black men want white women to have their children rather than black women whenever possible.