By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sundin13 on 22 February 2018
Edit Thread
o_O.Q said:
sundin13 said:

1) Are Asian and Black people the same? No. Are Finnish people and French people the same? No. There is no biological reality of race. That does not mean variation does not exist across the species, it simply means that such variation is not in the form of distinct races, and as such, distinct races are not an accurate representation of that genetic diversity. There is a variety of allele frequencies across the population, however, genetic diversity within humanity exists in the form of a cline. This means that genetic diversity is a fairly continuous spectrum, not something that can neatly be divided up by any natural biological principle. Again, for more on this, look up the post that I linked which goes into detail about why "race" is not a biological classification. 

2) The broad importance of race is that of a social construct. That is largely what this conversation was about. Whether or not the importance of race is real or whether it is socially imposed. As for the hypothetical of being robbed by a black man, I would describe his physical characteristics, not use his race, as I don't know his race. Even still, not really sure what that hypothetical really has to do with my point.

1) "Are Finnish people and French people the same? No."

you couldn't tell the difference by just looking at them, its kind of disingenuous to imply that the differences are anywhere close to being in the same ballpark

 

2) "I would describe his physical characteristics, not use his race,"

ok so you wouldn't just call him a black man, can you give me an example of how you would describe him?

 

3) "not really sure what that hypothetical really has to do with my point."

well as far as i know any normal person would just use the person's race (black) to describe them, isn't your argument that they shouldn't do so since race does not exist? how is that not therefore relevant?

1) Well, first of all, there are some physical characteristics which vary between groups within the same (what is considered) "race", but even still, that doesn't really matter. Genetics (which are the basis of the biological reality of "race") largely indicate that the variation between more local groups can often be larger than the variation between groups separated by continents. This is similar to how you talk about penguin wings. They are still considered wings, largely because of their genotypic characteristics, even though they may be described otherwise by phenotypic characteristics. 

2) Assuming I saw him clearly and had a photographic memory, I would describe his skin color. The best way would probably to use some sort of reference or color wheel, but generally, I would probably just say "dark-skinned". But (see part 3)

3) My argument is that race is not a biological reality, not that people don't socially use race as a descriptor. That is kind of self-evident and shouldn't even need to be mentioned. However, it plays into the idea that race is a social construct, not a biological one. To use the fact that race is used socially as evidence that race should be used socially seems like circular logic (or something equally fallacious).