Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Race

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

I find this interesting. There are many sources on the topic that race is just a construct by humans. Just search "illusion of race" on youtube.
There is no such thing as race when looking at it scientifically. As for example the genetic difference between people within each race is larger than the difference between races.
My main question is if this is a bunch of empty PC talk by university types, or really the case.

But I also want to offer an explanation why this race-thinking keeps on existing, even with such a large tolerance and diversity crowd hunting down every trace of supposed bigotry.
It seems to me that political arguments about race are just too powerful to be given up. It is a political tool that is impossible to argue against, as we tend to give in to arguments supposedly made on behalf of victim-groups, to not be branded as hateful.
This means that wanting this or that political benefit or change, if it can be phrased in a way that makes seem like helping a victim-group, you'll get it.
The sad thing is that this keeps up the illusion of race, instead of just thinking about groups of people with certain attributes. If for example in a school 80% of the students with below average scores are black, and 80% of the students with above average scores are white, it is easy to make the argument that this has something to do with race. It is rather a problem with 'the students that have bad scores', not black students. Which makes us search for the wrong solutions.
The diversity soft-heads don't care if they actually do any good. They just want to feel fluffy about helping those who are downtrodden from the legacy of racism. For example with affirmative action and other special treatment. This branding and labeling into groups in the name of tolerance - go figure - is the bigger problem than actual racists. A constantly available excuse from personal responsibility is the real reason that blacks are disproportionately in poverty, not racism or it's legacy. Once we quit thinking "blacks are this or that" and start thinking "the group that is this or that", we can find real solutions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9IyroYm4n4

@EmperorNero,

Good idea but very naive.Ive got blue eyes they may have a certain weakness to sunlight, is that being racist?
Racism is based on tribalism, colour is easily spotted as distinguishing one tribe from another,facial similarities can give clues to a tribe.Language is the final tribal indicator.If we act or dont act in a racial manner we still make judgements about who we meet and decide if they are from our tribe.American accent, Germanic accent, no their not English and it divides us immediately.
African Americans when they feel not excluded from the tribe succeed just as well as any European American.Centuries of being excluded from THE tribe has had a devastating effect on African Americans.This is why Obama has been so beneficial to including African Americans into the tribe.Blacks feel included so much more than they ever did before.They are now feeling pride , included and expectant for the future.

@xris,

Quote:

As for example the genetic difference between people within each race is larger than the difference between races.

The same is true for the sexes.
The genetic difference between people of the same sex is larger then the difference between people of the opposite sex... But no one denies that there are two sexes.

@EmperorNero,

I don't think anyone really thinks affirmative action is "A Good Thing" - but many would say that it is a better thing than allowing employers to discriminate based on prejudices they may hold (perhaps without even realising it) for or against certain minorities.

As an extreme example - before the invasion of Afghanistan it was common for women needing medical attention to be denied access to hospitals.

The "logic" here was that medical supplies were short - that men contributed more to the military and economic strength of the country (such as it was) - and that therefore girls and women with illnesses should not be treated.

This seems to me to be the same sort of attitude adopted by those who moan about affirmative action - they simply feel that it's no social disadvantage to certain sections of the community to be denied opportunity due to discrimination - but if they percieve that an elite (usually a member of a majority - as the complainers themselves always seem to be) is denied an opportunity because of the quotas required by affirmative action - then they feel terribly aggreived.

Clearly it would be wonderful if discrimination did not exist and if all employers really did simply choose the best person for the job. However, whilst it does affirmative action is the lesser of evils.

---------- Post added at 05:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 PM ----------

Drizzt Do'Urden wrote:

The same is true for the sexes.
The genetic difference between people of the same sex is larger then the difference between people of the opposite sex... But no one denies that there are two sexes.

Sounds pretty ludicrous to me - what with women having more genetic material than men. How is it so that two people of the same sex have more genetic differences than two people of opposite sex?

@Drizzt DoUrden,

Drizzt Do'Urden;60033 wrote:

The same is true for the sexes.
The genetic difference between people of the same sex is larger then the difference between people of the opposite sex... But no one denies that there are two sexes.

True. All humans share 99.9% of genes. Humans share 50% of genes with Yeast.
The genetic difference is not great. I would say it's about difference in attributes, not genetics. So saying that men and women are different is a helpful categorization. They need different medical care, they have different abilities and needs. Categorizing based on skin color serves no need, except when we talk about getting sunburns, it doesn't really matter in a debate about grades or poverty.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

True.

No, it's piffle. The Y chromosome is an incomplete X chromosome - so how can two members of two different genders generally have less in common genetically than two members of the same gender (all things being equal in terms of obvious things like familial ties and so on)?

Male humans have only 75% percent of the genetic material on the 23rd Chromosome that female humans have - which would seem to me to go a long way to demonstrating that males are more like males than they are like females.

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;60037 wrote:

No, it's piffle. The Y chromosome is an incomplete X chromosome - so how can two members of two different genders generally have less in common genetically than two members of the same gender (all things being equal in terms of obvious things like familial ties and so on)?

I actually don't know if the genders have more genetic dissimilarity within the gender than with the other gender.
I would assume so, but I made the point that it doesn't matter as much attributes, see last post.

@EmperorNero,

The last post where you say it's true about what Drizzt says - that there is more genetic difference between two members of the same sex than two members of different sexes?

@Dave Allen,

And i finally found a source of my claims... :p
Lewontin's Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@EmperorNero,

That's an interesting article - but I can't see anything there about simularities and differences according to gender.

I would also point out that this article also discusses repudiations of the argument in favour of suggesting that genetic diversity occurs more within populations than it does between populations. It actually does suggest that race is a valid taxonomic category.

Quote:

Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy is a 2003 paper by A.W.F. Edwards that criticizes Richard Lewontin's 1972 conclusion[1] that race is an invalid taxonomic construct, because the perception that most differences occur between groups rather than within groups is incorrect. Because the overwhelming majority of human genetic variation (85%) is between individuals within the same population, and that about 6-10% is between populations within the same continent, he concludes that racial classification can only account for between 5-10% of human variation, and is therefore of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance. This implies that any two humans from the same group are almost as different as any two humans from different groups.

Edwards argued that while Lewontin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of individual loci between individuals, the probability of misclassification rapidly approaches 0% when one takes into account more loci.

In other words - if you only look at a single point on a gene members from different populations show as much variance as members from one population. If you look at multiple areas though it is easy to spot simularities between members of the same population.

@Drizzt DoUrden,

Drizzt Do'Urden;60041 wrote:

And i finally found a source of my claims... :p
Lewontin's Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That would answer my question if the 'race doesnt exist' theories are a bunch of politically correct talk from hippies.
Thanks for enlightening me Drizzt.

Dave Allen: yes, that post. But the whole gender thing doesn't mater to the overall question.
What I'm saying is that categorizations by race are arbitrary for most purposes. Race is a valid taxonomic category, but not when we talk about education, for example.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

I find this interesting. There are many sources on the topic that race is just a construct by humans. Just search "illusion of race" on youtube.

I also find race relations to be an interesting subject. Much of what we take as common place racial distinctions just do not make sense - a child of a white person and a black person is socially considered black in many places.

EmperorNero wrote:

There is no such thing as race when looking at it scientifically. As for example the genetic difference between people within each race is larger than the difference between races.

Well, there is a scientific difference, and a readily apparent one: skin color. Skin's pigment is mostly the result of genetics. There are also other physical traits that vary among the races, adaptations to environmental conditions. However, we can see the same sort of variations among people of the same race. So, at the end of the day, when we consider the remarkable genetic similarities (or sheer lack of difference) between supposed races and the extent to which society has created the notion of different races (for example, the division between Tutsi Hutu leading up to the genocide in Rwanda) the usefulness of racial distinctions becomes decreasingly apparent.

EmperorNero wrote:

My main question is if this is a bunch of empty PC talk by university types, or really the case.

From what I have seen in interviews and short articles by "university types" regarding race and race relations, the primary point is this: we are all related, we are all human, and we need to simultaneously get over the negative stereotyping and racism based on our differences, and learn to celebrate our own and respect the uniqueness of other racial/social groups.

EmperorNero wrote:

The sad thing is that this keeps up the illusion of race, instead of just thinking about groups of people with certain attributes. If for example in a school 80% of the students with below average scores are black, and 80% of the students with above average scores are white, it is easy to make the argument that this has something to do with race. It is rather a problem with 'the students that have bad scores', not black students. Which makes us search for the wrong solutions.

I am basing my comments on my experience with the American education system: I have several family members who are public school teachers, all of whom work in a system comprised of roughly equal portions or black and white students with a small Hispanic minority.

Often times the students who perform the worst on tests are minorities. But the argument that the test scores are related to skin color is not made as you say. Instead, these educators understand that the issue is not "well, the student is black" but instead that the students who perform the worst on tests typically come from poor families and broken families, families with drug problems in the household, ect. And that these sorts of environments are somewhat more common to minorities, not because of skin color, but because of economic conditions. The poor have fewer resources, more difficulties in life, and the poor are more likely to be racial groups who have been marginalized and abused in the past.

These educators are not fools, well, not typically. They understand that the problem is not race, but instead largely an economic issue. An issue of opportunity and home life.

EmperorNero wrote:

The diversity soft-heads don't care if they actually do any good. They just want to feel fluffy about helping those who are downtrodden from the legacy of racism.

That is a terrible thing to say about people who make it their life's work to help the less fortunate and the oppressed. The legacy of racism is real in the US. I'm not sure who you mean by "diversity soft-heads", but if they are people who work to help solve this nation's race related issues, then they are heroes. Go walk through a ghetto some time and then tell me that people who work to correct those conditions are working just to "feel fluffy".

EmperorNero wrote:

For example with affirmative action and other special treatment. This branding and labeling into groups in the name of tolerance - go figure - is the bigger problem than actual racists.

So affirmative action is more dangerous than a noose-tying, shotgun wielding band of crazies who rush out into the night, leaving mutilated black bodies on lawns for families to see when the sun rises? I don't think so, brother.

EmperorNero wrote:

A constantly available excuse from personal responsibility is the real reason that blacks are disproportionately in poverty, not racism or it's legacy.

No sir. That is not the case. I wish I could offer something other than a textbook, but that's all I have. African Americans: A Concise History is a wonderful introduction to the history of African Americans, economic and informative.

Amazon.com: African Americans : A Concise History, Combined Volume (2nd Edition): Darlene Clark Hine, Stanley C Harrold, William C. Hine: Books

The website of one of the editors, Darlene Clark Hine:
https://www.msu.edu/~hined/

EmperorNero wrote:

Once we quit thinking "blacks are this or that" and start thinking "the group that is this or that", we can find real solutions.

The "real solutions" are there. Educators have a number of well-established solutions to pursue. Not only do educators recognize the urgent need to address the economic plight of marginalized people, but they also recognize the need for equality in the quality of education offered to students. Inner city schools get roughly half the funding as suburban schools on average. That creates a massive imbalance in the quality of education being offered to children.

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

That's an interesting article - but I can't see anything there about simularities and differences according to gender.

I would also point out that this article also discusses repudiations of the argument in favour of suggesting that genetic diversity occurs more within populations than it does between populations. It actually does suggest that race is a valid taxonomic category.

In other words - if you only look at a single point on a gene members from different populations show as much variance as members from one population. If you look at multiple areas though it is easy to spot simularities between members of the same population.

Yes, i seriously can't remember where i read about the gender thing. I first thought it was in the same article but... The point is that the existence of races can't be disapproved by using genetics. (or anything else IMO)

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos,

Let's - very simplified - say that blacks were once slaves, hence they were disproportionately poorer and thus still have less opportunity. So that's why they are still poor today. - The so-called legacy of racism.
Now, if we just let past evils be past, blacks have an somewhat worse starting position, but ultimately there is no reason why blacks shouldn't become as successful as whites. As there is enough social mobility in the US for personal responsibility to bear fruit.
There may be actual racists, but we can only work to reduce this racism.
Now, we constantly remind blacks that there is a reason for their potential lack of success. If they fail, it is not their fault, like it is for a white person, it is because of racism. Now people want to do good, they wants to give blacks some benefit to quicker get ahead, like affirmative action (and we're even leaving out that it discriminates against others). But to get it politically they have to justify this with the legacy of racism, so they can't do it without offering blacks an excuse from personal responsibility. The whole premise of it is that racism is still the cause of the disproportionate poverty. That's what I call 'the legacy of the legacy of racism'. Racism may have been the original starter of the problem, but it's effects would have worn out by today if not for the do-good'ers who perpetuate it's effects.
Racism does not really have to exist for it's effects to be detrimental, it's enough that people believe it does. And it doesn't really matter if there still is real racism. All that matters is that there is an excuse from personal responsibility. Now tell me who is the one who is causing todays probllem, racists or do-good'ers?

@EmperorNero,

You fail to see the long term effects of racism.In Britain the invasion of the Normans subjugated the vast majority to serfdom and the legacy is still noticed today.Accents can be divided into class distinction, even names can give a measure of proposed ability.This after over a thousand years, we still have certain barriers built into our Psyche.I can imagine therefor the stigma the inadequate feelings certain decedents of slaves feel about their history.It will take centuries to rebuild the confidence of African Americans, from slave to a full active member of a society that abused them beyond comprehension.In my lifetime blacks have been treated as second class citizens with little respect for their humanity.You need to invest as much as you removed from those who suffered slavery.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Racism does not really have to exist for it's effects to be detrimental, it's enough that people believe it does. And it doesn't really matter if there still is real racism. All that matters is that there is an excuse from personal responsibility. Now tell me who is the one who is causing todays probllem, racists or do-good'ers?

Both. Enough racism exists to give proponents of affirmative action the conviction that were it to be abandoned we would once again see sections of society unfairly disadvantaged because of prejudice. Affirmative action is exploited by some who benefit from it to negate personal responsibility.

Two evils - the lesser of which the gestalt in the US seem to view as affirmative action.

There does seem to be a shift away from the racial tenstions that existed in the US in the past, though there are still plenty of racists raising their voice in opposition to anything that seeks to level the playing field.

I suspect that such rhetoric shores up the determination of those that advocate affirmative action to continue to do so - as clearly people who do wish to discriminate against racial minorities still exist.

A manichean view of the problem such as your own might also shore up such a view. In asking whether it is racists or "do-gooders" (I don't think the use of such obviously insincere pejoratives do your argument any favours, by the way) who advocate affirmative action who cause the problem you seem to miss the apparent truth that either ideology can and does produce problems.

Do you honestly think that those who wish to discriminate against racial minorities in the traditionally held view of racial discrimination are not responsible for any social problems, and would not look to be responsible for more if legal impediments to their worldview - such as affirmative action - were revoked?

I think they do - and until I think that such people are no longer a threat I will tend to support the admittedly patronising lesser evil of affirmative action.

@xris,

xris;60479 wrote:

You fail to see the long term effects of racism.In Britain the invasion of the Normans subjugated the vast majority to serfdom and the legacy is still noticed today.Accents can be divided into class distinction, even names can give a measure of proposed ability.This after over a thousand years, we still have certain barriers built into our Psyche.

I do agree. But what is the standard? Equality of outcome? That is just impossible.
Of course bad things that happened have an effect on today. Do you want to repay all that? What should the standard be? That every "race" has exactly the wealth proportionately to it's share of the population?
What about cultures that were just annihilated and hence have no heirs?

I'm saying: The cure is worse than the disease. You respond: The disease is really, really bad.
Well yeah, but the cure is still worse.

I'm advocating a new deal. Whatever happened happened. Expecting racism to keep blacks down is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

I do agree. But what is the standard?

That a state or authoritative body demonstrate a commitment to equal opportunities, within reason, if it is to justifiably claim to be non-racist.

Quotas being the ugly truth behind data, data being the best way in which to demonstrate facts.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

I do agree. But what is the standard? Equality of outcome? That is just impossible.
Of course bad things that happened have an effect on today. Do you want to repay all that? What should the standard be? That every "race" has exactly the wealth proportionately to it's share of the population?
What about cultures that were just annihilated and hence have no heirs?

I'm saying: The cure is worse than the disease. You respond: The disease is really, really bad.
Well yeah, but the cure is still worse.

I'm advocating a new deal. Whatever happened happened. Expecting racism to keep blacks down is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you want me to prophecy, i will say not addressing the problem will only cost you more in the long run.It is not always resolving the problem in the short term but recognising the difficulties certain members of your society have and understanding the reasons why.An allowance that some, not all,are not benefiting from the American dream but the nightmare their fathers experienced.
A friend has just returned from America and commented on how he noticed from his last visit,twenty years ago, how the atmosphere had changed and how the mix of races were getting on so well but there was so much poverty, especially among the black community.Is this a common feeling or view of America today?

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;60480 wrote:

Both.

I agree. But I do believe that affirmative action has the opposite effect of it's intention. And that's not even taking into account that if it were working, it were wrong.

Dave Allen;60480 wrote:

I suspect that such rhetoric shores up the determination of those that advocate affirmative action to continue to do so - as clearly people who do wish to discriminate against racial minorities still exist.

Let 'em be racists. It's not their action but our reaction that causes the problem.

Dave Allen;60480 wrote:

A manichean view of the problem such as your own might also shore up such a view.

Sorry. You'll have to explain that term in this context.

Dave Allen;60480 wrote:

In asking whether it is racists or "do-gooders" (...) who advocate affirmative action who cause the problem you seem to miss the apparent truth that either ideology can and does produce problems.

Well yeah, so if both cause problems. The one we can't really change (in the short-term), but we can choose to discontinue the other. Shouldn't we stop producing problems?

Dave Allen;60480 wrote:

Do you honestly think that those who wish to discriminate against racial minorities in the traditionally held view of racial discrimination are not responsible for any social problems, and would not look to be responsible for more if legal impediments to their worldview - such as affirmative action - were revoked?

I'm saying that the - now I don't have a term for them... the diversity crowd - is better at it than actual racists. (I don't see any racists btw.)

Also I don't see how individual racism and special benefits to (other) individual blacks are mutually exclusive.

---------- Post added at 03:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 PM ----------

xris;60485 wrote:

If you want me to prophecy, i will say not addressing the problem will only cost you more in the long run.It is not always resolving the problem in the short term but recognising the difficulties certain members of your society have and understanding the reasons why.An allowance that some, not all,are not benefiting from the American dream but the nightmare their fathers experienced.

I am not advocating to not address the problem. I am advocating to not try to reconstruct things that happened in the past. I'm all for methods that create a better future from the standpoint that is the current situation we have.

xris;60485 wrote:

A friend has just returned from America and commented on how he noticed from his last visit,twenty years ago, how the atmosphere had changed and how the mix of races were getting on so well but there was so much poverty, especially among the black community.Is this a common feeling or view of America today?

Not my view. I believe there are good and bad people, rich and poor people, race is not something that factors into that.

"I'm not a racist. To me, all people are white." - Borat Smile

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Race

Quick Links

My Account

able2know