Thread: Humans vary biologically, but race is a social construct

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Oh... I thought we were a "species."

Valid point.

Originally Posted by DuB

What exactly are the implications of whether or not race is a "social construct"? Is this intended as a kind of indirect argument that racial discrimination is irrational?

Yes. I intended to bring to light to Thatperson how ironically primitive his partiality to racial discrimination is. How his denial of the illusory and empty constitution forming the "biological human races" concept originates his tendency to cling to boring, delusive generalizations, e.g.

every single european nation has prospered yet only a single african nation every propered

Originally Posted by DuB

If it were decided that race is not a social construct, would racial discrimination then be rational?

This is appreciated... to the extent I'll step down and no longer uphold my argument about ethnicity. Although its academic use is helpful in eliminating most racially discriminating undertones, ethnicity really encompasses all that race should in regards to observing biological trends and such. Regardless of vocabulary, the ultimate point is how boring, futile and tiresome such arguments are. I do not vouch that we are all born equal and special, as objective reality proves otherwise; however, segregating entire populations to satisfy your distorted pallet is terribly weak and ignobly dissatisfying for the rest of the species to witness.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I take the OP's implication to be that excessive investment in the concept of race is unrealistic, and I would add that it is rarely beneficial and often counter to one's own interests and the interests of society, regardless of whether it results in discrimination from or against you.

Yes.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

damn you text: Y u no let sarcasm happen.

Oh, damn. That's twice in less than 24 hours. Sorry man

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The trait is not a racial characteristic; the trend for the trait to be prevalent may be characteristic of the large population you want to group as Asian, but is not characteristic of every sub-population, and certainly not of every individual. The more traits you add on, while all of them might be individually prevalent in the large population, the more you come up with a stereotype that fits a smaller and smaller number of sub-populations, and then a smaller and smaller number of individuals within those populations, until your idea of a typical Asian fits very few if any humans on earth.

While it's true that the "typical Asian" would fit very few people exactly, a randomly chosen Asian would (presumably) have a higher correlation with the "typical Asian", than would a randomly chosen Scandinavian, or Native American, or whatever. The point isn't to build a model that encompasses everyone exactly.

Originally Posted by khh

While it's true that the "typical Asian" would fit very few people exactly, a randomly chosen Asian would (presumably) have a higher correlation with the "typical Asian", than would a randomly chosen Scandinavian, or Native American, or whatever. The point isn't to build a model that encompasses everyone exactly.

The point is that we're better off erring on the side of under-emphasizing race--the concept's explanatory power and utility--than over-emphasizing it, because there's ultimately not much to it.