Home
By:
Filters

Race is real versus race is a social construct.

roc_abilly

roc_abilly

Member
Clearly there is foundation for both claims at the same time.

Race is real:

There is a biological basis for race because there are some genetic variances between races.

However as Richard Dawkins is careful to point out, you find much greater genetic variances within the racial group itself than these cross racial variances.

So, it has biological reality, but at the same time these differences are insignificant compared to differences you find within each racial group themselves, again a scientific point that Dawkins emphasises to give the necessary context to his position that "race is real".

And certainly the reality of these differences is not in any degree approaching white supremacists claiming we can say we are in fact dealing with "sub species" and the like when we talk about races.

Race is a social construct.

Without doubt it is also true that 'whiteness' is related to imperialism/colonialism, slavery, and modern-day racism.

Our white ancestors participating in the humiliation of black people is admittedly an identifying marker of whiteness.

There has been in the past, and continues to be in the present a social importance attached to skin colour. From this it is plain to observe there is a system that confers privileges (and burdens) on people because of their colour.

Resolution of these two truths.

So what truth ought to have greater weight?

The truth that between races there are genomic differences? But remember that these genomic differences when put beside other categories of genomic differences are tiny and insignificant.

Or else the truth that thinking of race in terms of a social construct enables us to tackle the poisonous legacy of white on black racism, and do something about the system that conferred privileges on people because of their colour (or as some would prefer to put it, "race")?

The two camps.

On the whole, those who like to emphssise the truth that race is a social construct do so because they think it is justice and social progress to do away with the social meaning of skin colour, to prepare the ground for true equality and the real brotherhood of every person no matter their skin colour. They are attacking a system.

Whereas those who seek to emphasise the truth that "race is real" (and note in general they also seek to wildly exaggerate this truth, to the point of claiming races are "sub species"), do so in order to assuage their inferiority complex.

 
I suppose we could call this some sort of progress (following your disastrous backfire of introducing Dawkins, who's a biologist, to the debate).

I hate to shatter your ego but this isn't the first time I've had a gun pointed at me..



Ha, I'm always thinking of movies me, I'm like the Mowl Mowl with the ladies soccer, can't get enough of it

No, what I meant to say is, this isn't the first time I've encountered the argument, that of there being more genetic variation within a race than between them. In fact, I first encountered this argument from a fellow online years ago. He was much like you (except he was Canadian) - anti-white, a race denier and obsessed with the (imaginary) racism of whites against blacks in the US.

But I want to ask you, you say that because of this disparity, the difference between the races is (words like) insignificant?

Now, I'm not a geneticist (and neither are you) but how do you arrive at that conclusion, precisely? It seems to me that all you're saying is that because one thing is bigger than another, the other is insignificant.
 
Truth League said:
... But I want to ask you, you say that because of this disparity, the difference between the races is (words like) insignificant?

Now, I'm not a geneticist (and neither are you) but how do you arrive at that conclusion, precisely? It seems to me that all you're saying is that because one thing is bigger than another, the other is insignificant.
Click to expand...
Yes, because you always have to measure something against something else. You need a scale.

So from the perspective of a microbe, a pebble is like a mountain. From the perspective of an elephant, it is miniscule.

It is not my conclusion either. Again in the words of Dawkins, "... now what is true is that the variance between different races is much less than the variance within races...".

That scale is important. So what perspective and conclusion does Dawkins draw from it? He says he is a member of the human race (to mark down something else on the forms asking what race he is, is nonsense to him).

Because he is completely familiar with the scale involved in these respective variances, and therefore the significance and insignificance of the respective disparities.

This is Dawkin's conclusion, not mine, in this question of the genetics at issue, I am merely citing him, he is the expert.
 
roc_abilly said:
Yes, because you always have to measure something against something else. You need a scale.

So from the perspective of a microbe, a pebble is like a mountain. From the perspective of an elephant, it is miniscule.

It is not my conclusion either. Again in the words of Dawkins, "... now what is true is that the variance between different races is much less than the variance within races...".

That scale is important. So what perspective and conclusion does Dawkins draw from it? He says he is a member of the human race (to mark down something else on the forms asking what race he is, is nonsense to him).

Because he is completely familiar with the scale involved in these respective variances, and therefore the significance and insignificance of the respective disparities.

This is Dawkin's conclusion, not mine, in this question of the genetics at issue, I am merely citing him, he is the expert.
Click to expand...
Dawkins says that race is (biologically) real and not a "social construct".

You're not answering the question. How is the difference between the races insignificant because one thing is bigger than another?

I mean, in terms of genetics, you can have very small differences that result in two different species.
 
I did answer the question. And clearly. Read the post again.

And yes, again, he acknowledged they are biologically real because marked by genetic differences.

But scale is important. As I described above.

Truth League said:
I mean, in terms of genetics, you can have very small differences that result in two different species.
Click to expand...

You are talking 1-2 percent difference to have a different species. E.g. Between humans and chimpanzees.

Within the human species we are all 99.9% the same genetically.

The widest variance within this 0.1% is not cross racial, it is in how some are tall, others are short; some are stocky, others thin; some are gifted musically, others tone deaf; some are athletic, others awkward; some are outgoing, others introverted; some are intelligent, others stupid; some can write great poetry or music, most cannot.

There is thus absolutely zero basis for your cult to describe different races as "sub species".
 
roc_abilly said:
I did answer the question. And clearly. Read the post again.

And yes, again, he acknowledged they are biologically real because marked by genetic differences.

But scale is important. As I described above.



You are talking 1-2 percent difference to have a different species. E.g. Between humans and chimpanzees.

Within the human species we are all 99.9% the same genetically.

The widest variance within this 0.1% is not cross racial, it is in how some are tall, others are short; some are stocky, others thin; some are gifted musically, others tone deaf; some are athletic, others awkward; some are outgoing, others introverted; some are intelligent, others stupid; some can write great poetry or music, most cannot.
Click to expand...
As Dawkins says, most of the genetic variation of the human species is contained within a race, and there are also (genetic) differences between the races, ergo race is real, why are those differences insignificant?

roc_abilly said:
There is thus absolutely zero basis for your cult to describe different races as "sub species".
Click to expand...
A definition of subspecies is evolving in seperate geographical locations and capable of interbreeding, why do think that doesn't apply to humans?
 
Significant relative to what?

What is 1mm when you are fitting a piston in an engine cylinder, as against throwing up a firewood shelter from bits lying around?

You must have scale. How can you not grasp that?
 
roc_abilly said:
Significant relative to what?
Click to expand...
Insignificant. Is what I said, well you said it actually

roc_abilly said:
What is 1mm when you are fitting a piston in an engine cylinder, as against throwing up a firewood shelter from bits lying around?

You must have scale. How can you not grasp that?
Click to expand...
In genetics, very small differences can result in drastically different results (different species). How does that fit in to your "scale" argument? 🤔
 
You have basic comprehension issues. What can I say except watch Dawkin's presentation again and again until you understand how incredibly far away the genetic variances involved are from categories like species or "sub species", rather how there is more genetic sameness across the entire human race than between two chimpanzees from the same forest.

 
roc_abilly said:
You have basic comprehension issues. What can I say except watch Dawkin's presentation again and again until you understand how incredibly far away the genetic variances involved are from categories like species or "sub species", rather how there is more genetic sameness across the entire human race than between two chimpanzees from the same forest.

Click to expand...

No I don't, have comprehension issues, if anyone that's you that is and now you're just hail marying the "We are all Africans presentation" again without answering the questions
 
Truth League said:
Ha, I'm always thinking of movies me, I'm like the Mowl Mowl with the ladies soccer, can't get enough of it
Click to expand...

So in other words you prefer to watch sweaty men play football than sweaty women playing football.

That's not just misogynistic, it's blatantly and openly gay.

You really do hate women, don't you!?!

Must be down to your Ma committing suicide rather than putting up with you.

Rope, pills, a gun, a tall bridge, or what?
 
Mowl said:
So in other words you prefer to watch sweaty men play football than sweaty women playing football.

That's not just misogynistic, it's blatantly and openly gay.
Click to expand...
Preferring to watch lesbians play a poor version of a man's sport doesn't strike me as particularly not gay, or not NG, bit like N/A

Mowl said:
You really do hate women, don't you!?!

Must be down to your Ma committing suicide rather than putting up with you.

Rope, pills, a gun, a tall bridge, or what?
Click to expand...
Cancer, actually
 
Wait - so Noel Gallagher played in Dublin last night and you were on the Isle talking about life with a single Mam and a father who ran out on the both of you?

Is it only Liam that rocks your boat?
 
Mowl said:
Wait - so Noel Gallagher played in Dublin last night and you were on the Isle talking about life with a single Mam and a father who ran out on the both of you?

Is it only Liam that rocks your boat?
Click to expand...
The High Flying Birds?

Nah, not my cup of tea.

I mean, I suppose he plays Oasis songs too but you know, he's not what he used to be.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom