(moved) "RACE" IS AN ARTIFICIAL SOCIAL CONSTRUCT.

[Inkfingers]

Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
The parameters (skin colour etc.) are chosen by whim, not reason. Therefore they are arbitrary. By the popular definition, race is not real.

That is nonsense.

The distinctions are clear to see (skin colour etc). Belief that any races are superior is a construct, but the existence of the races themselves is a matter of fact.

 

[greenguzzi]

To me that sounds similar to saying that Pit Bulls and Chihuahuas are not real but are merely arbitrary constructs. I mean, they are obviously all dogs! So doggishness isn't the issue.

You are quite brave to bring dog breeding into the discussion; dog breeding being an extreme example of eugenics.
But I'll play along:

Even in the extremely artificial world of dog breeding, their race remains true. In most cases, a pit bull terrier and a chihuahua will produce viable and sterile offspring. All dogs - despite their arbitrary physical differences - are members of the species canis lupus familiaris. All dogs are of the same race, which even goes as far as to included wolves.

Race is a social construct.

 

[Armoured]

will produce viable and sterile offspring.

Indeed?

 

[greenguzzi]

That is nonsense.

The distinctions are clear to see (skin colour etc). Belief that any races are superior is a construct, but the existence of the races themselves is a matter of fact.

The distinctions are clear to see (height etc).
The distinctions are clear to see (eye colour etc).
The distinctions are clear to see (hair colour etc).
The distinctions are clear to see (nose length etc).
The distinctions are clear to see (face shape etc).

One can choose any parameter one wants, and make it a proxy for the myth of "race". But race continues to be a fiction.

 

[Radrook]

You are quite brave to bring dog breeding into the discussion; dog breeding being an extreme example of eugenics.
But I'll play along:

Even in the extremely artificial world of dog breeding, their race remains true. In most cases, a pit bull terrier and a chihuahua will produce viable and sterile offspring. All dogs - despite their arbitrary physical differences - are members of the species canis lupus familiaris. All dogs are of the same race, which even goes as far as to included wolves.

Race is a social construct.

Yes, I agree. They remain dogs or of the canis dog kind.
But their classification isn't arbitrary. It is based on certain characteristics which are typical of the breed-right? If indeed that is so, then how is race classification which is based on certain observations which are typical of a certain group arbitrary?

I think that you are confusing the uneducated opinions of the common ignorant people who are inconsistent in their classification of individuals into racial categories. But I'm not talking about the uninformed or the ignorant human and their asinine opinions. I am talking about the official anthropological system of classification which is definitely not arbitrary..

Are you aware that forensic criminal investigators and fossil experts can determine race via tooth structure? No arbitrariness there at all. Oriental people have a distinct tooth structure which automatically identifies them as oriental. If indeed what you say is true, then the whole science of forensic investigating based on skeletal remains examination would come crashing down.

 

[Inkfingers]

The distinctions are clear to see (height etc).
The distinctions are clear to see (eye colour etc).
The distinctions are clear to see (hair colour etc).
The distinctions are clear to see (nose length etc).
The distinctions are clear to see (face shape etc).

One can choose any parameter one wants, and make it a proxy for the myth of "race". But race continues to be a fiction.

Is skin colour a fiction? Is skull shape a fiction?

No.

Race is reality but racism is the creation of a fictional hierarchy based upon it.

 

[greenguzzi]

Indeed?

Yep, despite the fact that humans have fracked with the canine genome, in a surprising number of cases, the canine's genes win.

 

[greenguzzi]

I think that you are confusing the uneducated opinions of the common ignorant people who are inconsistent in their classification of individuals into racial categories.

Not confusing, just compartmentalising. In the context of the OP, and the subsequent posts (especially the deleted ones), there is no place for the word "race". It has no place or relevance.

Now if you want to use the word "race" in a forensic sense, in the same way that we would use a person's blood group or hair folicle type, then that's OK. But to use that argument to say that it's ok to use the word "race" in regular speech, in situations where we wouldn't just as freely use the phrase "blood group", then you are being disingenuous.

 

[greenguzzi]

Is skin colour a fiction? Is skull shape a fiction?

Every single one of us has a different everything. This is true but arbitrary.

Race is a social construct.

 

[Inkfingers]

Every single one of us has a different everything. This is true but arbitrary.

Race is a social construct.

You are not engaging in a conversation, so I'll leave you to it.

 

[Armoured]

Yep, despite the fact that humans have fracked with the canine genome, in a surprising number of cases, the canine's genes win.

and that makes them viable AND sterile at the same time, does it?

 

[greenguzzi]

and that makes them viable AND sterile at the same time, does it?

Ah yes. I must remember to engage brain before mouth or keyboard.

Oops!

 

[greenguzzi]

I'm glad it was you that caught me out.

 

[greenguzzi]

I meant viable and fertile.

 

[Radrook]

Not confusing, just compartmentalising. In the context of the OP, and the subsequent posts (especially the deleted ones), there is no place for the word "race". It has no place or relevance.

Now if you want to use the word "race" in a forensic sense, in the same way that we would use a person's blood group or hair folicle type, then that's OK. But to use that argument to say that it's ok to use the word "race" in regular speech, in situations where we wouldn't just as freely use the phrase "blood group", then you are being disingenuous.

So if there are two dogs and I am required to describe the dogs it is disingenuous for me to say Great Dane and Chihuahua? How would I get around being disingenuous in that situation?

Simple Definition of disingenuous

• : not truly honest or sincere : giving the false appearance of being honest or sincere

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disingenuous

Another source gave the meaning as: "guileful" or "deceitful."

Please explain how I am being any of those two when describing those dogs as Great Dane and Chihuahua. Actually accusation would be true if I did not. Then I would be being deceitful and using guile for perhaps some ulterior motive. Sure, I could say "dogs:" but if the Landlord specifically asked what type of dogs, then my response would be suspiciously evasive and deceitful.

The word race itself isn't the problem. The problem are the racists.

 

[greenguzzi]

So if there are two dogs and I am required to describe the dogs it is disingenuous for me to say Great Dane and Chihuahua? How would I get around being disingenuous in that situation?

Another source gave the meaning as: "guileful" or "deceitful."

Please explain how I am being any of those two by describing those dogs as such.
Actually that would be true if I did not. Then I would be being deceitful and using guile for perhaps some ulterior motive.

First of all, you get 100 points from me for not taking advantage of my awful faux-pas. In light of which I retract my disingenuous accusation.

So, getting back to the subject at hand. It's OK to describe a Great Dane as a Great Dane, or a Chihuahua as a Chihuahua. Or - if you need to describe me - a scruffy, white skinned, blond haired, bearded man with a confused look on his face. But being able to describe a dog or a person has nothing to do with whether or not race is a thing.

 

[Radrook]

First of all, you get 100 points from me for not taking advantage of my awful faux-pas. In light of which I retract my disingenuous accusation.

So, getting back to the subject at hand. It's OK to describe a Great Dane as a Great Dane, or a Chihuahua as a Chihuahua. Or - if you need to describe me - a scruffy, white skinned, blond haired, bearded man with a confused look on his face. But being able to describe a dog or a person has nothing to do with whether or not race is a thing.

How would I prove that dog breeds are not a thing? Isn't that similar?

 

[JackRT]

if you need to describe me - a scruffy, white skinned, blond haired, bearded man with a confused look on his face.

I would call it "dazed and confused"

 

[SolomonVII]

As for the dehumanization of people based on skin color in the Bible. Can you please offer scriptural evidence that such a dehumanization actually was promoted? You see, I have studied the Bible most of my life and I have never come across such a biblically approved policy. True, Moses' sister and Aron complained that Moses took an Ethiopian wife. But in the Bible there is no prohibition on avoiding marriage based on race. The prohibitions are based on the moral customs of the people involved. For example, even though Israel was ancestrally related to Moab via Lot, they wee still told to avoid the Moabites due to their false worship. The same applied to the Edomites who were related to Israel via Jacobs's brother Edom, and to the Ammonites who were also related to Israel via Lot.

I certainly WOULD NOT offer any evidence that the Bible promotes dehumanization according to race, because that would be completely contrary to the Biblical message.
I would even say that your one example at least implies the very opposite. There would be poetic justice in Miriam being struck 'white' with leprosy for her denigration of Moses' African wife.

Racism exists, and the dehumanization of racism exists as a result of sin, and not as a result of the Biblical message, which is the exact opposite of that message. Racism is according to the morality of the world, and the Bible is an antidote to it.

 

[The Ascetic Crusader]

Race is reality but racism is the creation of a fictional hierarchy based upon it.

RACE IS A HUMAN CONSTRUCT. A MYTH. AN EVIL RUSE PUSHED ON HUMANITY BY SLAVE MASTERS IN ORDER TO MAKE BETTER SLAVES.