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

[The Ascetic Crusader]

You said that word was not found in the bible. I showed you it was.

Take it up with the translators of the NIV.

"Kinsmen according to the flesh" does not mean RACE. Stop spreading the RACE lie DaveW. Do not continue this deception.

 

[Radrook]

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

The flaw is in the human character and not the classification system or the reality of the differences themselves.

 

[Dave-W]

"Kinsmen according to the flesh" does not mean RACE. Stop spreading the RACE lie DaveW. Do not continue this deception.

The translators of the NIV used the term "race." That was not ME. I would not have used that word there.
συγγενής means those related by blood. So "kinsmen" is probably a better translation.

But that does not alter the fact that the NIV translators used the word "race" IN THE BIBLE. (which you claim did not happen)

In post #17 you challenged us: "Quote me the word "RACE" or "RACISM" in the Bible." I did just that. Or are you claiming that the NIV is NOT the Bible?

I have a question for you: Who exactly made some humans with dark skin, others with light skin, some with round eyes and others with flap that slants their eyes?

Hint: It was not humans that did that.

 

[JackRT]

I have a question for you: Who exactly made some humans with dark skin, others with light skin, some with round eyes and others with flap that slants their eyes?

Hint: It was not humans that did that.

Well, actually humans did do that indirectly and unconsciously through the process of evolution.

 

[Dave-W]

Well, actually humans did do that indirectly and unconsciously through the process of evolution.

Wrong answer.

It occurred at the Tower of Babel. God not only confused the languages; but if you look at the pattern of "scattering," it pretty much reflects the racial diversity we see today. God did it.

 

[RDKirk]

Race is a social construct, but our biology interprets it as real -- not in the sense that we intuitively know that someone is a caucasian and and another a negroid, but that differences in appearance preconsciously determine reactions. These reactions can be blunted through learning, but I don't think they can ever be erased completely. This is an evolutionary thing; we're evolved to associate with those who share the most genes with us, i.e., who look most like us. But this can be overcome through reframing and willing, not to mention finding cultural similarities that can bond people of different "races" together.

No. "Race"--which is the idea that skin color or eye color or lip shape has any connotation beyond aesthetics is not only a social construct, it's only a modern construct. Ancient people saw physical differences only in the aesthetic sense. There is zero evidence of any such evolutionary repugnance--if anything, the fact that Europeans have Neanderthal DNA rather disproves that.

Yes, prejudice has always existed, but the prejudices people ascribe to "race" today were ascribed to nationality in ancient time. It was a prejudice against "that tribe over there" regardless of skin color.

 

[RDKirk]

Idk if race is a construct.

I mean, yeah you didn't have "black people" until the colonization of the New World and the institution of slavery, rather you just had Ethiopians, Kenyans, Bantu, etc.

However, the Bible mentions three races: the Shemites, the Hamites, and the Japhethites and it lists the traits of each race and were further divided into smaller races (Jews and Arabs are both descendants of Shen).

The modern human races can be traced back to the three original human races.

Those were not, in the genetic concept of the word, "races."

 

[RDKirk]

Wrong answer.

It occurred at the Tower of Babel. God not only confused the languages; but if you look at the pattern of "scattering," it pretty much reflects the racial diversity we see today. God did it.

The Babel story is specifically about language differences, not about genetic differences.

 

[Dave-W]

The Babel story is specifically about language differences, not about genetic differences.

Specifically - correct. But as I said - follow the dispersion pattern listed in the wake of the language break down. It follows the genetic pattern of the "races."

 

[RDKirk]

Specifically - correct. But as I said - follow the dispersion pattern listed in the wake of the language break down. It follows the genetic pattern of the "races."

The Noahide descendency does a better job of that, if that's where you want to go. The Babel story might well be the oral history of the spread of the Indo-European language tree, however.

 

[Dave-W]

I mean, yeah you didn't have "black people" until the colonization of the New World and the institution of slavery,

Do you know what the name Phinehas means? (Aaron's grandson) "Black Face."
Moses' wife was criticized for being a "Cushite," a black skinned tribe.
In SOS Shulamite had to remind everyone "I am black but lovely..."

 

[Received]

No. "Race"--which is the idea that skin color or eye color or lip shape has any connotation beyond aesthetics is not only a social construct, it's only a modern construct. Ancient people saw physical differences only in the aesthetic sense. There is zero evidence of any such evolutionary repugnance--if anything, the fact that Europeans have Neanderthal DNA rather disproves that.

Yes, prejudice has always existed, but the prejudices people ascribe to "race" today were ascribed to nationality in ancient time. It was a prejudice against "that tribe over there" regardless of skin color.

The evolution of prejudice is what I'm talking about, not that race is an evolutionary construct, whatever that means. I think the prejudice is biologically against difference, and there's plenty of room for environmental factors to shape which differences stand out the most to us. It's adaptive to stay with those who most resemble us in primitive contexts. The problem now is we have the instinct of being repulsed by differences that needs to be "learned over" again and again in a non-primitive context.

 

[RDKirk]

The evolution of prejudice is what I'm talking about, not that race is an evolutionary construct, whatever that means. I think the prejudice is biologically against difference, and there's plenty of room for environmental factors to shape which differences stand out the most to us. It's adaptive to stay with those who most resemble us in primitive contexts. The problem now is we have the instinct of being repulsed by differences that needs to be "learned over" again and again in a non-primitive context.

Children are taught "who is like us."

 

[SolomonVII]

The evolution of prejudice is what I'm talking about, not that race is an evolutionary construct, whatever that means. I think the prejudice is biologically against difference, and there's plenty of room for environmental factors to shape which differences stand out the most to us. It's adaptive to stay with those who most resemble us in primitive contexts. The problem now is we have the instinct of being repulsed by differences that needs to be "learned over" again and again in a non-primitive context.

I agree.
There have been enough studies that demonstrate this.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Accepting them as people is the same thing as accepting their practices.

Wrong. Accepting them as people is recognising that they are human beings who have the right to live, even if they are doing something wrong. Accepting their practices is saying that they are doing something right. These are two completely different things.

 

[The Ascetic Crusader]

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/...tionality-says-renowned-philosopher-1.3855571

RACE IS INDEED A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT.

 

[ken777]

T The problem now is we have the instinct of being repulsed by differences that needs to be "learned over" again and again in a non-primitive context.

What do you say to people who take pride in their racial heritage?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

What do you say to people who take pride in their racial heritage?

Good point. I wonder if those here who say that race is a social construct would say that next February, during Black History Month?

 

[greenguzzi]

Good point. I wonder if those here who say that race is a social construct would say that next February, during Black History Month?

Race being a social construct brings Black History Month into sharp focus.

Realising that race is a social construct doesn't mean that racialisation doesn't exist. Observing Black History Month remembers and acknowledged that racialisation occurs, and gives an opportunity to celebrate for those who fought it - and those who embraced it through self-racialisation.

Identifying with a particular race can sometime be of great importance. However this doesn't change the fact that race is a social construct.

Recognising that race is a social construct doesn't devalue those who are racialised. It does however shame those who used racialisation to oppress.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Received]

What do you say to people who take pride in their racial heritage?

I'd say it's their cultural heritage they're celebrating, with their "race" being symbolic of this cultural heritage.