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

Well every chinese person has those 'east asian eyes' and no europeans have this. This is a trait present in 100.00% of 1 group but 0.00% of another. Forensic scientists can tell the race of a person by skeleton and teeth alone. Race is as much of a social constucts as humans are a social construct.

I assume you don't believe racism exists, seeing as races dont?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Well every chinese person has those 'east asian eyes'

i.e. the epicanthic fold, and false.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

and no europeans have this.

and false.

The epicanthic fold is highly prevalent but not at all universal in people of recent East-Asian descent, and is also found in people with no recent East-Asian ancestry. You really have to be practicing some selective perception to have never encountered a European with epicanthic folds, unless you just assumed they were Eurasian to keep your worldview intact.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Forensic scientists can tell the race of a person by skeleton and teeth alone. Race is as much of a social constucts as humans are a social construct.

Forensic scientists can *sometimes* draw conclusions about recent ancestry to varying degrees of specificity. Whether they will frame those conclusions in terms of race, nationality, ethnicity, or even family depends on which framework will be most useful in identifying the person, which in turn depends on local social constructs.

I know, I know--pesky reality.

Originally Posted by Xei

Well that's wrong, isn't it.

In regards to dark skin, the quickest example coming to mind is people native to India. Even some Arabs are quite black.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Well every chinese person has those 'east asian eyes' and no europeans have this. This is a trait present in 100.00% of 1 group but 0.00% of another.

Ack! Taosaur sums it up quite well.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I don't see the problem with identifying people to be members of a certain race. The DNA similarities are irrelevant. If our brains naturally divide people into categories based on shared phenotypes, then why try to deny it?

I don't see what the problem is with identifying black people, Hispanic people, etc. and putting those labels on them. I can only imagine it would be a problem to people who fear racism and are perhaps subconsciously racist themselves, and think there is anything wrong with being in a certain category.

You might as well say that no one really has a hair colour and that judging someone to be a 'blonde' or 'brunette' is a social construct.

I am actually quite indifferent to classifying humans in general. It is obviously convenient to distinguish individuals in speech, as you mentioned our minds naturally do so, anyway. I wouldn't mind using the word race, if it weren't for the connotations attached to the blasted word.

The DNA similarities are irrelevant.

Today, most people understand and agree to this point. The whole purpose of this thread regards the problem of those, like Thatperson, who disagree this point. I assumed, as is being done academically, if race was replaced with ethnicity, one of the many "semantic battles" found at this forum would be eliminated.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I assume you don't believe racism exists, seeing as races dont?

False. This is another reason why I suggested we abstain from using race, since doing so would further isolate racists like Thatperson, who backwardly utilize biological essentialism in differentiating between groupings of people.

I can honestly say I have not even seen 1 european with an epicathic fold, although it doesnt need to be 100.00% just the fact that is is so common in east asians and so rare in europeans demonstrates just one racial difference that clearly exists, there may not be a single gene that is prevelent is absolutly 100.0000% of one group and 0.000000% of another but thats fine because race is about common descent. A race is a group of closely related ethnicities. Swedish, dutch and irish being ethnicities of the White race, han chinese, japanese and korean being ethnicities of the east asian race. Just because your sociology friends don't use the term race anymore, most of the population understand what it means.

The human term race is similar to that of 'breed' as used for dogs, mongrels may exist, but greyhounds and poodles still exist as distrint breeds.

im the worstest mongrel their ever wuz, yo


P.S. As for the epicanthic fold, aren't we forgetting Amerindians?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I can honestly say I have not even seen 1 european with an epicathic fold, although it doesnt need to be 100.00% just the fact that is is so common in east asians and so rare in europeans demonstrates just one racial difference that clearly exists,

Your insistence doesn't make it so. The only difference that exists is a high incidence of the trait in more populations that you would consider Asian, but also in some populations of Scandinavians, South Americans, Africans and Poles. 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.

Race is an heuristic with limited useful applications and considerable risks when misapplied. The useful applications further decline and the risks increase as transportation and communications advance, creating more points of contact between formerly insulated populations.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

The human term race is similar to that of 'breed' as used for dogs, mongrels may exist, but greyhounds and poodles still exist as distrint breeds.

The closest human analog to dog breeds is a situation like medieval European nobility, where inbreeding was forced but carefully monitored to minimize the negative consequences. Breeds are something we created and actively maintain. Race is an idea we imposed on patterns of ancestry and migration after the fact.

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.