Delaware students can now choose their own race (Yes, RACE!) under new regulations.

[o_O.Q]

sundin13 said:

o_O.Q said:

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). 

"largely indicate that the variation between more local groups can often be larger than the variation between groups separated by continents. "

so you're telling me and i'm supposed to take you seriously when you claim that there's greater genetic variation with regards to physical characteristics between caucasians from europe than there is between edit: caucasians from europe and africans?

 

"but generally, I would probably just say "dark-skinned"."

dark as in tanned? or naturally dark? because its possible to confuse the two

 

"My argument is that race is not a biological reality"

our appearance stems from biological factors and despite your claims anyone can clearly tell the difference in the vast majority of cases between someone native to africa and someone native to europe

 

lets illustrate this a bit:

russianenglish

african

 

"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. "

people use the the physical characteristics arising from biological factors as descriptors for race... that's a far better way of putting that

which is why i asked you about how you would describe someone... because appearance is what is critical here... i mean its not like we identify asians because we give them name tags or something, its because we can look at them and differentiate them from their physical characteristics

 

" However, it plays into the idea that race is a social construct, not a biological one."

so uh black people get their curly hair and darker skin from tanning and curling irons or something? 

asian people have their narrow set eyes from squinting at lights or something?

am i really having this conversation right now?

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 22 February 2018