Is Race Purely a Social Construct?

This isn't a real discussion more like a kindred spririts recruiting exercise.

OP obviously looking for like minds on the premise that race is a ' social construct '.

Reply 42

Original post by thebiggy

it's a social construct for very simple reason. social construct is something entirely made up and has no real physical differences. race on the other hand can be biologically verified.

So colour categories, for example, are not social constructs because they are based on objective wavelength differences? Which colour categorisation system is incontestably correct (i.e., objective) and why?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 43

OP

Original post by Zenomorph

This isn't a real discussion more like a kindred spririts recruiting exercise.
OP obviously looking for like minds on the premise that race is a ' social construct '.

I wanted to know other people's views on the matter, obviously. Tell me exactly how you know that I'm, in your words, "looking for like minds", since you think that it's 'obvious'.

If you have nothing worthwhile to contribute, why even post at all?

Reply 44

Original post by whyumadtho

So colour categories, for example, are not social constructs because they are based on objective wavelength differences? Which colour categorisation system is incontestably correct (i.e., objective) and why?

colour categories are not social constructs because specific wavelengths are attributed to specific colours -- there is a physical difference there which can be measured and validated. obviously the language of 'blue' and 'yellow' are social constructs but not the actual physical wave-length difference between them.

for example, are you saying that the sky at midday without any cloud coverage is not actually blue?

Reply 45

Original post by thebiggy

colour categories are not social constructs because specific wavelengths are attributed to specific colours

Referring to the spectrum that I posted previously: why are there six categories and why are they in those particular positions?

there is a physical difference there which can be measured and validated. obviously the language of 'blue' and 'yellow' are social constructs but not the actual physical wave-length difference between them.

Which is what I said in this post and throughout this thread.

for example, are you saying that the sky at midday without any cloud coverage is not actually blue?

It is emitting photons at various wavelengths. Deciding to treat 455-490nm as a category, and not 430-500nm, 450-451nm, 460-700nm, etc. is the social construct.

Reply 46

Original post by TheTranshumanist

I wanted to know other people's views on the matter, obviously. Tell me exactly how you know that I'm, in your words, "looking for like minds", since you think that it's 'obvious'.

If you have nothing worthwhile to contribute, why even post at all?

Don't think you have a rigfht to decide what is ' worthwhile '. Why no let the readers do that.

Well the question is, are you ?

note: bet he comes back with ' am I what ? '

So predictable.

Reply 47

OP

Original post by Zenomorph

Don't think you have a rigfht to decide what is ' worthwhile '. Why no let the readers do that.

Well the question is, are you ?

note: bet he comes back with ' am I what ? '

So predictable.

I didn't think that it was a worthwhile post, and I doubt that others will find it so.

"So predictable"? You wrongfully predicted my reply.

No, I didn't make this thread specifically to find 'like minds'. I was looking for a discussion. Happy?

Reply 48

Original post by whyumadtho

Referring to the spectrum that I posted previously: why are there six categories and why are they in those particular positions?

Which is what I said in this post and throughout this thread.

It is emitting photons at various wavelengths. Deciding to treat 455-490nm as a category, and not 430-500nm, 450-451nm, 460-700nm, etc. is the social construct.

this analogy with light-wave lengths as a human comparison has run its course long ago -- wavelengths are non-physical 'things'. they are not part of the biological world.

even so, wavelengths can still be grouped into a kind of 'species' or categories like blue, or red, or yellow; these categories can be broken down into light blue, dark blue, medium blue, desaturated blue etc etc etc and the same would apply for all other colours.

Reply 49

Original post by TheTranshumanist

I didn't think that it was a worthwhile post, and I doubt that others will find it so.

let them decide. end of.

it's very evident that for the vast majority , you can tell what race someone is so how can that be a social construct.

Reply 50

Original post by thebiggy

this analogy with light-wave lengths as a human comparison has run its course long ago -- wavelengths are non-physical 'things'. they are not part of the biological world.

You're already losing track of your argument.

Your previous post:

specific wavelengths are attributed to specific colours -- there is a physical difference there which can be measured and validated.

Since you accept the empirical fact that photons move at different wavelengths that can be "measured and validated", we can continue with this analogy.

even so, wavelengths can still be grouped into a kind of 'species' or categories like blue, or red, or yellow; these categories can be broken down into light blue, dark blue, medium blue, desaturated blue etc etc etc and the same would apply for all other colours.

Everything can be grouped; I'm asking you why particular grouping systems are used. Like everyone with whom I've debated this topic you seem to be avoiding the questions. Let's try again: why are there six categories and why are they in those particular positions?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 51

OP

Original post by Zenomorph

it's very evident that for the vast majority , you can tell what race someone is so how can that be a social construct.

People are generally grouped into races based on certain characteristics, such as skin colour, skull size etc. My question is why are these specific characteristics important enough to categorise people into races? The fact that we make certain characteristics important when determining race makes it a social construct. Also, if we take skin colour for example, how dark exactly does someone's skin have to be in order for them to be 'black'?

I'd imagine that the vast majority of us classify people into races subjectively, without much thought. If we were to ask everyone how they group people into 'races', you would get different answers. Try asking everyone to define 'race' and to set exact parameters that draw the line between these races.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 52

Original post by TheTranshumanist

People are generally grouped into races based on certain characteristics, such as skin colour, skull size etc. My question is why are these specific characteristics important enough to categorise people into races? The fact that we make certain characteristics important when determining race makes it a social construct. Also, if we take skin colour for example, how dark exactly does someone's skin have to be in order for them to be 'black'?

I'd imagine that the vast majority of us classify people into races subjectively, without much thought. If we were to ask everyone how they group people into 'races', you would get different answers. Try asking everyone to define 'race' and to set exact parameters that draw the line between these races.

Well that's obvious is it not ?

cats are all cats but still there are differences between them enough for seperate categorisation - tiger / lion / jaguar / puma etc.

humans are the same.

Reply 53

OP

Original post by Zenomorph

Well that's obvious is it not ?

cats are all cats but still there are differences between them enough for seperate categorisation - tiger / lion / jaguar / puma etc.

humans are the same.

I'm not saying that there aren't differences between people. I'm questioning why we use certain characteristics (over others) as determinants of race.

Reply 54

Original post by TheTranshumanist

I'm not saying that there aren't differences between people. I'm questioning why we use certain characteristics (over others) as determinants of race.

Cause they are the most obvious ! Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer .

What other characteristics could there be !? very weird

Reply 55

OP

Original post by Zenomorph

Cause they are the most obvious! Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer .
What other characteristics could there be !? very weird

"What other characteristics could there be"? Think! There are a multitude of other characteristics. You only gave a 'stupid answer' because you couldn't think of anything better.

Anyway, your reply was more stupid than even you intended for it to be. In fact, pretty much all of your posts on this thread have been awkward. You're clearly not here for a serious discussion, so I'm going to stop replying to you.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 56

Original post by whyumadtho

You're already losing track of your argument.

Your previous post:

Since you accept the empirical fact that photons move at different wavelengths that can be "measured and validated", we can continue with this analogy.

Everything can be grouped; I'm asking you why particular grouping systems are used. Like everyone with whom I've debated this topic you seem to be avoiding the questions. Let's try again: why are there six categories and why are they in those particular positions?

No. Just tired of the wave length analogy. I was playing along to say that's its a bad analogy anyway -- Maybe I can make a tedious analogy and ask if you think flat screen TV's are all exactly the same regardless of manufacturer.....after all these things are almost identical. even within same brand and model numbers you get different performance. therefore why even make distinctions between them?

i understand your argument about who chooses distinctions but thats more a question of philosophy.

you can determine race by biology therefore it is not a social construct.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 57

Original post by TheTranshumanist

I'm not saying that there aren't differences between people. I'm questioning why we use certain characteristics (over others) as determinants of race.

i don't think it's a question of arbitrarily choosing.

for example. i imagine you are a white guy. if you painted your skin black it would be very easy for ordinary people to tell you were not african and even easier for geneticists to tell you were not african ( if they had samples of your blood or DNA etc )

human beings have been living apart for over a hundred thousand years in completely different environments. physical appearance is just a marker of the environment humans have evolved in. but its silly to think it ends there.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 58