Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More like Asslilps acknowledges that black adults "want" white children. Perverts.
Here we have Ace acknowledging that black men want white women to have their children rather than black women whenever possible.
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."
As I suspected. He is a Jew. Take the example of Prof. Relethford himself: "I’m JewishI 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.
Because then they would have to explain why some races Asians,Jews and Whites are superior to inferior races Blacks,Indians,Mulatto's etc. The ultimate goal is a huge mixed race of dumbed down mutts that are easy to control.Why does nobody understand that race is a genetic construct?
