Race vs Facts

[alecz]

It’s so strange how skeptical our society is today, yet we’ve never questioned race. Most people might say “it’s obvious why would you question it?” but I’d like to show you otherwise. I’d just like to get something straight first. In America we only have 4 ‘races’ ‘Black,’ ‘White,’ ‘Native American,’ and ‘Asian/Pacific islander.’ You can see this by any form you fill out. You don’t see Middle Eastern, Indian or Pakistani and Hispanic is a secondary question after they ask for your race.

Since we have that out of the way, I carried out a sort of social experiment here on GAG so that you could see for yourself what I’m talking about. I’ll be referring to it, so you can take a quick look at it.

https://www.girlsaskguys.com/how-do-i-look/q1674096-can-you-tell-me-the-races-of-these-people

Do we even know what ‘Race’ means?

Most people don’t know what it means. They can only tell you he’s white and she’s black but if you asked what does race mean? They’ll say skin color, where you are from, who your parents are etc. but if you used just those things to group people into races it doesn’t make sense. If race was based on skin color, then these two would be in the same race, the first one is actually paler but they're not the same race.

If you said it was based on where you are from then Russians would be grouped with the Chinese, Indians, and the Middle Easterners but they’re not.

The closest thing that makes any sense is the scientific idea of race that means subspecies. This means that when we are talking about the different human races we are talking about the different subspecies of humans. Sort of like how we talk about the subspecies of lions, dogs etc. Subspecies normally have something physical to identify them with like one bird having a specific color while the other doesn’t so you say they aren’t the same subspecies.

We categorize people differently

If you look at the answers in the question some people said the races were Indian, Dravidian, East Asian, South Asian, Middle Eastern, Mongoloid, Arabid, Latino, Mexican, then when I asked XxMochaDelightxX if Indians and Latinos are a race she responded with “As much as Asian or White are.” The US Government does not think Indians or Latinos are a race and when I asked an Anonymous responder if Indian is a race? Strider90 said they were not a race but belonged to the Dravidian race. Then I quoted the Wikipedia article that said they were not a race but a sub-race. Already you can see that from XxMochaDelightxX to our Government to Strider90 and many of the other responders there is no agreement on what counts as a race and what doesn’t. If you’re reading this, you might be even thinking what the hell is the Dravidian race or the Arabid race. I’ll explain later. But that just goes to show you that there are many ways to group people into races and we haven’t come to any agreement on what this is.

The way we categorize people just doesn’t make sense.

We like to think that Asians all look alike or that white people all look the same, that’s why we group them in the same category but if you look closely there is so much diversity that it doesn't make sense if we are grouping based on similarity.

The many looks of 'white people', which includes North Africans, Middle easterners and Europeans.

Southern Europeans are darker, with dark hair.

Scandanavians sometimes have eyes like so called 'Asians'.

Middle Easterners look very different but their race is 'white' according to the Government.

Northern Europeans tend to be paler.

The many looks of Black People

From the very dark

To the very light.

With everything in between.

East Africans tend to have looser curls and straight noses.

Central Africans tend to be very dark

West Africans tend to have more variety.

The Khoisan people like the Scandinavians have 'Asian Eyes"

The different Asian looks.

Southern Indians tend to be darker than Northern Indians.

Neither look anything like the rest of East Asia.

East Asians themselves vary. Some have monolid eyes like above, and some don't.

Some are pale.

Some are darker.

I wanted to show melanesians and Mongolians but there is limit to the images, but so far I've only touched on some of the diversity because there are still Native's and Latin America as well.

I'm not saying that races don't exist because we aren't different. I'm saying that we are all too different to fit into the races we have. But if we say there are more races then the more races we have the more mixed people we will have. For example, if we say Middle Easterners are a different race from Europeans then all of the children in America from Middle Eastern-European couples will be mixed, not white or Middle Eastern.

You can't have sub-races.

We already said race is a subspecies, so if you said there are subraces you are saying there are sub-sub-species? Have you ever heard of the sub-sub species of lion? No because there is no such thing. A subspecie is the lowest you can go.

Quick History

Humans never always thought that races existed but after Europeans came to the New World and needed cheap labor they came up with a reason why it was okay to exploit Native populations and enslave Africans. So they used physical difference as a reason. Scientist since, have tried to put us into categories, yet there still has been no agreement. From these psuedo-scientific theories they created many races and subraces such as Dravidians, Aryans, Mediterrenean, Nordic, Alpine, Negroid, Mongoloid, Cacousoid. These racial theories have been used not only against Africans and Native people but against many people we consider 'white' today; for example, the Irish were said to be 'Negroes inside out' and were said to be intellectually inferior according to an article in Harper's Weekly. Italians faced a lot of discrimination when they first came to America because of their skin color and religious beliefs and were not seen as 'white.' Hitler used race as an excuse to exterminate people who did not belong to what is called the 'Nordic race' (People who originated from Northern Europe) the main target being the Jews and Eastern Europeans or Slavs. Today it is a well established fact that there are no human races and scientists do not use these theories anymore.

Conclusion

I know this was sorta long but I hope you guys have a better understanding and this makes you think more about these theories and ideas.

[vishna]

I think you wrote this from a good place. And I see it, and I agree with you on so much.

But, there are some errors in this. Race was a concept before Europeans arrived in the New World. In Arabia there was a social class in which Arabs were higher than Africans and other non Arabs. And in many other cultures across time there has been an idea that this person is different than I, and possibly less than I am.

Second, I actually researched do scientists use the term 'race' when speaking of people. And though there are usually general consensuses in science, in this situation there is but, there are a lot of well respected, with good intentions, who do rely on race. They do this not so much to segregate and demean people but to do their job, ex) forensic scientist.

I think this is a great MyTake, and I see where you're coming from and I 100% agree. I had to expand upon those two things though.

[alecz]

"In Arabia there was a social class in which Arabs were higher than Africans and other non Arabs. And in many other cultures across time there has been an idea that this person is different than I, and possibly less than I am."
This is more a case of xenophobia, ethnic/national loyalty or tribalism rather than a racial theory. Notice how it is very dichotomous "Arab vs non-Arab" It's not about putting people into biological groups.

[vishna]

Not to split hairs, but couldn't, in most cases, they be the exact same thing.

[alecz]

"Second, I actually researched do scientists use the term 'race' when speaking of people..."
As I pointed out, race is a synonym for subspecies in science. Therefore race as a term can be used in science, it's not a bad term. When scientists say things like sickle cell is a 'black disease' or that 75% of Jews are lactose intolerant do they mean that they believe in biological races of 'Blacks' or 'Jews'? No, they are talking about a particular human population; people of African origin and people originating in the Levant. Also, these terms are misleading as well; not every 'black' person has sickle cell and not every Jew is lactose intolerant. It's just a way of saying sickle cell disease is more common in African populations and lactose intolerance is very common in the Shepardic Jewish population.

[vishna]

Well no scientists would say sickle cell is a black disease, it's simply common where there's an increase of malaria and those genes spread out.
I have no fondness or ulterior motive for playing devil's advocate about your MyTake. And yeah, I absolutely disagree that you can't pin 'races' on Europeans because you would need to then establish that throughout history and across cultures, this wasn't an idea.

www.pbs.org/.../does-race-exist.html

[alecz]

I don't need to prove that because it's an already well established fact. People did not classify themselves based on so-called races. They used nationality and tribal affiliation. Race as an idea only started to develop as an explanation to enslave native and African groups when colonizers needed cheap are wage free labor. This is history 101.

[vishna]

No one is taught this in History 101. It's pointless going back and forth about this, because I DON'T USE THE TERM 'RACE' however, you absolutely do have a burden of proof if you're blaming the concept of white people using African slaves.
www.pbs.org/.../002_04-background-02-09.htm

courses.wcupa.edu/jones/his311/notes/herod.htm Herodotus... definitely before colonialism

[alecz]

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. The PBS article you cited actually defends my position very clearly.

"Contemporary scholars agree that "race" was a recent invention and that it was essentially a folk idea, not a product of scientific research and discovery"

"Race and its ideology about human differences arose out of the context of African slavery. But many peoples throughout history have been enslaved without the imposition of racial ideology."

I never said that slavery was an entirely European affair or that in order to have slavery you needed to be racist. I said that race came when Europeans who came to the new world needed cheap/free labor and enslaving native and African populations seemed most ideal.

[alecz]

As for the Herodotus article. It doesn't even mention race. The closest thing is his quote

"they have black skins and curly hair (not that that amounts to much, as other nations have the same)." [Herodotus, Histories, 167."

which he described skin color; not race. In fact he was speaking about Colchians. So I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to prove.

[Nuqood]

Slow. Clap. So. Hard. My. Hands. Just. Broke.

I came into this thinking that you wouldn't go where you did, but I'm so glad to see that you went there. I'm sick of people thinking that phenotypes dictate separate biological races, and that each 'race' has specific qualities in intelligence, physical prowess, and behaviour as if culture and hard work didn't determine said stereotypical qualities.

Good job, and hopefully people will use words like 'racist' properly, in that a racist is someone who believes in separate biological races. I wonder if you'd do a take on what bigotry actually is and how people don't hate the skin colour of a person but what culture that skin colour represents.

[koko124]

Separate biological races exist.

[alecz]

@koko124 Great argument. I mean all you have to do to prove something is just state and that makes it true. I state that "The sky is red," therefore the sky is red. I state "separate biological races exist," Therefore separate biological races must exist.

[Watermelonoma]

and look at the downvotes you received for this. And some people wonder why i say a good portion of the male population on here is legit retarded

[Nuqood]

@Watermelonoma Seriously, it's pathetic how badly people want to be different from each other and how separated and superior people want to feel over their fellow man.

[Watermelonoma]

It's just that people are very anti social today... so they feel like everyone is beneath them, since they don't actually know anybody...

[Strider90]

The Quick History part is utter bullshit. Yes I said it. I don't just disagree, it is utter bullshit.
Humans were aware of races since the beginning of known human history in the ancient times. Greece, Egypt, Persia and later with the Roman Empire.
You have divided white people, black people and Asian people in different categories therefore accepting that in a race you have different types of SUB races! So you call them something! The first person is Medditeranid, the 2nd Nordic, the 3rd Pontid, the 4th Keltic.
On to slavery. Slavery is a millennia old practice. Literraly every people in this world at some point in history has either practiced it or been a victim of. And guess what, Africans sold their own people to whites and in some African countries this is still happening even among Africans only. Telling that white people had to come up with a reason to enslave people is laughable and I see what you're trying to do there.
Hitler had a thing for Slavs because of the communist regime. If he really wanted to exterminate every non Nordic human then why didn't he killed himself from the beginning as he didn't have nordic characteristics? His 2nd in command was Rudolf Hess with a crystal clear south European look. And so were many officials of the NS regime. Why did he ally with the Italians? Why did he allow black people in the Wehrmacht during the war and Asian people as well, even in the SS! The German Army was possibly even more diverse than the British during the war. It certainly was the one with the most ethnicities.
So tell me how is it an established fact that races don't exist when you have pointed them out and identified them in this take for yourself?

[alecz]

Ah Strider90 nice to see you again. It was really hard trying to respond to your opinion. You were just all over the place. I'll try to respond anyhow.

"I don't just disagree, it is utter bullshit."

High five, good job expressing you're emotional ad hominem response. You should get an award. Wait they never awarded anyone for ad hominem attacks. Oh well, maybe try some logic next time.

"Humans were aware of races since the beginning of known human history in the ancient times. Greece, Egypt, Persia and later with the Roman Empire."

There is no evidence to support this; it's even common sense. No Greek, Egyptian, Persian or Roman source speaks of the 'black race' or the 'white race.' They spoke about the Greeks and the Barbarians who was anyone non-Greek. The Egyptians spoke of Egyptians, Libyans, Nubians and Asiatics. I have yet to hear of any real scholar speak about 'Race in Ancient Persia.' It's not even a topic being discussed.

[alecz]

As for the Romans, the closest thing to 'racism' is Julian the Apostate when he said:

"Come, tell me why it is that the Celts and the Germans are fierce, while the Hellenes and Romans are, generally speaking, inclined to political life and humane, though at the same time unyielding and warlike? Why the Egyptians are more intelligent and more given to crafts, and the Syrians unwarlike and effeminate, but at the same time intelligent, hot-tempered, vain and quick to learn?"

and even in this case he divides people by culture and nationality might I point out what Syria looks like today. Trogus Pompey also described the Spaniards as a "barbaric and wild people."

"You have divided white people, black people and Asian people in different categories therefore accepting that in a race you have different types of SUB races! So you call them something!"

I didn't divide anyone. I was analyzing a hypothesis. Nowhere, did I affirm that these people belonged to any race.

[alecz]

"Slavery is a millennia old practice. Literraly every people in this world at some point in history has either practiced it or been a victim of. And guess what, Africans sold their own people to whites and in some African countries this is still happening even among Africans only."

Great. I'm not sure how Africans selling other Africans relates to the existence of race but hey if you like to throw out random facts that don't pertain to the discussion, by all means go ahead.

"Telling that white people had to come up with a reason to enslave people is laughable and I see what you're trying to do there."

Jokes on you buddy and I'm glad you're clearly seeing what I'm trying to do; use my brain. Hopefully you'll start doing the same. It's a well established fact that Europeans and even some people living in the colonies felt uneasy about the slave trade, so race and racism explained why it was okay and gave people the legal opportunity to carry out the slave trade.

[alecz]

"Hitler had a thing for Slavs because of the communist regime. If he really wanted to exterminate every non Nordic human then why didn't he killed himself from the beginning as he didn't have nordic characteristics? His 2nd in command was Rudolf Hess with a crystal clear south European look. And so were many officials of the NS regime. Why did he ally with the Italians? Why did he allow black people in the Wehrmacht during the war and Asian people as well, even in the SS! The German Army was possibly even more diverse than the British during the war. It certainly was the one with the most ethnicities."

As a whole this is perhaps the greatest paragraph ever written by man. Strider90's ability to shift from 'Hitler and the Slavs to diversity in the German Army is both novel and unmatched. No clear focus, rambling from one point to the next, stumbling over historical questions that have nothing to do with each other; what elegant nonsense I have come across

[alecz]

Now for the step by step destruction of this infamous paragraph.

"Hitler had a thing for Slavs because of the communist regime. If he really wanted to exterminate every non Nordic human then why didn't he killed himself from the beginning as he didn't have nordic characteristics?"

Unfortunately, this doesn't mean anything. It is well documented that Hitler hated the Slavs because he thought them to not be of the 'Nordic stock,' and 'polluted' with the Jewish influence. Asking why he advocated a theory that favored a category of people he himself didn't fall into seems to just be the stupidity of the racial theory and stupidity on his part. Why he didn't choose to kill himself in the first place I can't answer. I don't know the mind of a psychotic racist.

[alecz]

"His 2nd in command was Rudolf Hess with a crystal clear south European look. And so were many officials of the NS regime. Why did he ally with the Italians? Why did he allow black people in the Wehrmacht during the war and Asian people as well, even in the SS! The German Army was possibly even more diverse than the British during the war. It certainly was the one with the most ethnicities."

The real question is why wouldn't he? Racial theories are simply stupid and impractical, and while they might seem to make sense, in the real world they don't. So why wouldn't Hitler save a qualified man and increase his army's numbers by recruiting even the Jews he was trying to exterminate? Seems a brilliant idea to me. Also, you don't seem to know much about History, so in case you didn't know, certain groups and people who proved profitable to him (Italians, Japanese etc) granted were granted the Honorary Aryan title, so even though they weren't really Aryan they were 'naturalized' as such.

[Gommers]

Genetically we're all spawn and spread from the Cradle of Life in Africa. We were all at one time black; our generations of evolution have made us better and more suited to the environment in which we live. Generally, the more intelligent a group of people are the harsher the climate their ancestors came from, or the more dangerous the animals, or less fertile the ground. It's retarded, to separate ourselves out into races, it's contradictive. If we want to progress as a species and a planet, we have to give up the bullshit elitism and just fucking stop fighting over stupid shit and work to progress. Too bad people are fucking stupid and as Harvey Danger said "I've been around the world and only stupid people are breeding".

This is your history and it's ending one birth at a time.

[AdamThomas]

This argument seems to be mainly about terminology. There are small biological differences between different ethnicities, for example different ethnicities are more prone to different diseases, transplants are more successful when the donor is of the same ethnicity, different ethnicities have different bacteria in their mouths etc. Of course those aren't excuses to treat others like shit.

As for the idea that our ancestors never thought race existed until Europeans used it as an excuse to exploit and enslave other races, how can that be true when there has always been war between people of different races (sub-species), and the slave trade is as old as the existence of human beings? People of all ethnicities have enslaved others as well as their own. For example the word slave comes from the word Slav, because the ly were the favorite slaves of the Turks, Arabs and Mongolians.

[AdamThomas]

Also when white Europeans enslaved Africans they had to buy the slaves from African slave owners, they couldn't go over and kidnap slaves themselves because they were prone to many of the diseases prevalent in West Africa, so much so that even a small amount of time spent there was a risk of poor health and even death. Africa was known as the "white man's grave".

[Nuqood]

African slaves were sold mostly by the Arabs..

[AdamThomas]

@Nuqood - all slaves were sold mostly by the Arabs, the Muslim slave trade was the largest of all. Either way the idea that they didn't think race existed, that it was a European idea to exploit other races or that there are no biological differences between different races or sub-species as he puts it is wrong.

[Nuqood]

Yes, that part is definitely wrong since even the Egyptians painted people differently (literally). Thing is, though, even during Roman conquest anyone born closest to the heart of Rome whether black or white or any other ethnic group were considered 'more Roman' than other Romans born further away from Rome, so there are civilizations where there didn't exist a skin colour caste system.

I could be wrong about the above; I've read things about Romans having that specific caste system.

[Nuqood]

He isn't wrong, though, about Homo-Sapien-Sapien not having any subspecies (or race) within it since A) We are a subspecies of a subspecies of a genus and B) we are the only member of the Homo genus alive.

If we had separate subspecies within our species, our taxonomy would be summat like "Homo-Sapien-Sapien-Congoid", or "Homo-Sapien-Sapien-Assyrian" or "Homo-Sapien-Sapien-Aryan-Basque-Anglo" (for indigenous English, since the 'white' ethnic group's origins so far are the ancestors of Iranians, and the ancestors of native English are the Spaniard Basque people).

Humans have no subspecies since we are the Homo genus at this point instead of being part of it.

[alecz]

Actually, it's not so much about terminology as it is about the validity of (a) category (ies), namely race. I would not deny genetic variation within certain human populations but this does not mean that races exist nor does it mean that the genetic predispositions align properly with our general understanding of 'race.' For example "Seventy-five percent of all African-American, Jewish, Mexican-American, and Native American adults are lactose intolerant."
"Ninety percent of Asian-American adults are lactose intolerant."
"Lactose intolerance is least common among people with a northern European heritage."

Jews are said to be 'white' yet, in terms of lactose intolerance their genetics align more with Mexicans, so-called African Americans, Native populations and people from the Orient. So it's more interesting and useful to view populations rather than incorrect 'races.'

[alecz]

As for Egyptians believing in race. This is not true. They noted physical and nationalistic differences but they did not believe that humans were divided into subspecies (race). If you could have had a conversation with an Ancient Egyptian about 'black people' or 'white people' he'd probably think you mad because he only knows Nubians, Egyptians, Libyans etc. Neither the Greeks nor the Romans believed this either. In fact, there is a book written about how they had more of a prototype or precursor to what developed into racial theories in later Europe; they believed that being too pale made you a coward. They were more concerned about language, that is, if you spoke their language then you would be Greek but if not you were just a barbarian. I think the largest evidence that proves that our ancestors didn't believe in race is early Colonial America when indentured Africans easily married indentured Europeans because race just wasn't an idea yet, then when it did, that ended.

[jaydogs1990]

Its a good take. a lot more to wrote but it would fill at least two books. Being irish and reading about being an inside out negro was funny. People to this day will still use any half baked theory or argument if it furthers what they personally want to believe and to get what they want.

[alecz]

There's definitely a lot more. I used to have this mythical idea that Europeans just all came here to America without a care in the world but the facts show it wasn't like that at all. The Irish really had some hard times and then after they got settled they gave the Italians a real hard time too. History just contradicts us every time.

[Anonymous]

Of course there are no sub-sub species, but there are genetic variants, or variations: www.bbc.co.uk/.../

[alecz]

Oh yes there are genetic variations; that's very obvious. The problem is when we over exaggerate the differences we find between so-called races and downplay the obvious differences found within the 'races.'

[Opinion Owner]

I agree 100%

[koko124]

"What is race?"

There are two ways to look at race: socially and biologically.

Social race is what the average layman thinks race is. This is primarily determined by pigmentation.

Biological race is the genetic relatedness of human groups.

Social race loosely coincides with biological race, but is imperfect.

For example, you could theoretically engineer a white person to have dark skin and dark eyes/hair. The person would not be considered white anywhere in the world, but would still be white from a biological point of view, because the genes that determine pigmentation are so few that they are insignificant.

You could also engineer a north Asian to have light eyes and light hair. The person would probably be perceived as scandinavian or russian, but would not be biologically caucasian.

The black examples you posted are flawed, because two of those black people have significant white ancestry.

[koko124]

Also, the US government's definition of race is even more inaccurate than normally accepted "social" race, because it has political undertones.

For example, Indians actually used to be considered caucasian, along with Middle Easterners, until Indians themselves lobbied to be considered "Asian". The reason they did this was because the government gives out minority business grants. This happened several decades ago, and now actually works against Indians due to anti-Asian affirmative action policies.

The US also considers you "black" or "native" even if your ancestry is 88% white.

[alecz]

There isn't a 'social race' or a 'biological race'. Social scientists normally speak of the social reality of race, that is, the existence of race as an idea within the social sphere. This social reality of race is normally based on folk racial theories rather scientific racial theories. Natural scientists on the other hand can speak about the biological reality of race, that is, whether humans can be divided into various subspecies or 'races.'

"Biological race is the genetic relatedness of human groups."
There is a problem with this definition. You defined race in terms of: 1 relatedness and 2. preexisting human groups. If your definition is correct then race would be a measure of how related one human group is to the next and so race wouldn't be about categorizing people into groups but measuring similarity or relatedness. How do you define those groups in the first place however, you haven't explained.

[alecz]

"The black examples you posted are flawed, because two of those black people have significant white ancestry."

The question is what race should they mark on their census? If you say half white or white then you are going against the one drop rule, which would only prove my point further that their is no standard way of categorizing so-called races.

[Anonymous]

It really is unfortunate how we are now so divided due to those involved in the trading of slaves making up reasons why blacks were inferior. Instead of celebrating the fact that different groups of humans were able to adapt to survive better in their climates, we are now more divided then ever.

After fictitious claims were made about those being imported as slaves from Africa more and more irrational claims were being made by all across all races about others. The racial tension in the United States right now is unbelievable. Although I am sure one day all people living in the US will all be equal there will still be a major divide due to countries and borders we currently have. I hope, however, that within a few centuries that people will live as one people, on one planet.

[YourFutureEx]

I wish this take should never ended. Enjoyed it way too much. I agree completely. Indians say that I am Asian but when I ask Asians, they call me Indian. This is totally messed up!

[alecz]

I know the struggle.

[MysteriousFlower]

I've always viewed as race by nationality/tribe not the skin colour. There are some obvious differences in physical traits though, such as Asians and African. This was a nice take.

[alecz]

Yep, just like the obvious differences between Scandinavians and Northern Europeans.

[VictoriousSausage]

fantastic take, but to avoid complication most British people (except the far right people (you know the really racist ones)) just call them Humans, its a good label, and it doesn't discriminate, although i'd recommend you look at the classing of races in our census', i think you might be quite interested in that

[alecz]

Sorry for writing from just the American view. I'll definitely take a look at your census though, I'm pretty sure I'm gonna find something interesting.

[VictoriousSausage]

no need to apologise, if i wrote this it's likely just to be from a British view, its a fantastic take

[TyraMayes]

Surprisingly this is actually one of my favorite mytakes

[alecz]

Glad you liked it.

[GuyBot]

"You can't have sub-races."
Stop.
You can. There is no such thing as a race, it's just a concept, therefore we can easily extend that concept. The only question is, whether it makes sense to have even smaller groups, considering what we usually see as race today is already based on very few characteristics.
That being said, it is no fact that there are no human races, it is just that the concept is officially not used anymore.

[alecz]

This isn't how taxonomy works I'm afraid. It's not "just a concept" that can easily be extended, it's a branch of taxonomy, and the general scientific consensus is that we do not have sub-sub-species.

"it is no fact that there are no human races, it is just that the concept is officially not used anymore."

I'm sorry but this is a terrible point. If a concept in science is no longer used it simply means it is false. This is very much like saying "it is no fact that the earth isn't flat, it is just that the concept is officially not used anymore." This doesn't make sense.

[GuyBot]

It is just a concept. If you truly believe the public consent is the only truth, you are one of those people who, if they had lived back then, have prevented science from gaining knowledge.

Your analogy doesn't make sense at all, that the earth is round is not a concept, it's what is seen,
race isn't seen, it's completely made up by mankind, purely fictional.

[alecz]

"If you truly believe the public consent is the only truth, you are one of those people who, if they had lived back then, have prevented science from gaining knowledge."

While I do believe science should promote free thinking, it isn't a free for all; if it was it wouldn't be science. I don't believe in 'public consent,' I have trust in the 'scientific community.' until there is rational evidence presented that would prompt me to doubt current models, and this is how proper science is done.

And yes it is a concept at least for the most of us who have unfortunately never been to outer-space and have never seen the earth in it's entirety with our own eyes, it continues to be a concept.

[GuyBot]

You have some sick perspective on science.
If you haven't noticed, the scientific community for hundreds of years has been wrong, until one person said otherwise.
Proper science doesn't say that something is wrong until it's proven otherwise, and I don't see any proof for the non existance of races, because after all, as races don't exist, it's just terminology.
If to you everything you haven't seen yourself is a concept, it's your problem, as in reality it isn't a concept when we talk about the earth being round, it's not just an idea of how it could be, it is based upon empirical observation. North and South is a concept though, it's really just magnetic field with characteristics A here and magnetic field with characteristics B there.

[Kelfuma]

So what does it mean when someone says "you're racist, I don't tolerate racism, goodbye"?
Maybe they're the people who just love to fuck and sleep all day and turn an intelligent conversation into some sort of rant to justify their shortsighted views that "everyone knows".

[alecz]

It means that you believe in racial theories and discriminate against people based on those false ideas.

[Kelfuma]

Okay, I'm a racist and? I'm used to people talking shit about Asians so it's wrong for me to talk shit like that too? Should I "man" up and "participate" in society? Fuck them and their lousy egos.

[Kelfuma]

White people are just as racist as anyone else except they are polite about their racism:

www.ijreview.com/.../

[Kelfuma]

Wait, I should read articles before I share them -.-

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../...harts_n_5521104.html

[abundantlyrich]

Most gaggers think ancestral nationality is a race. hahahhahahaha.

Europeans are europeans and are mostly white.

[abundantlyrich]

The biological so called races are the ones who breed with their distant or close blood member. :P.. etc Jewish, Arabs and some indigenous tribes.

[chintita]

nice take, i never actively defined myself as a "black person" just because no one says that here haha. ethnicity is what we should go by if we ever want to classify people.

[Anpu23]

Nice take, what's interesting to me is how much people feed into this stuff. Well done.

[LittleSally]

It's true there are different skin color variations in each race...
No one was ever denying that. Or were they?
*confused*

[Anonymous]

Defining races as subspecies israther strange, dehumanizing , and wrong. There's not enough variation between races to really be considered subspecies

[John_Doesnt]

There is a sub-species of lion called a Tigon and a Liger.

[alecz]

I'm afraid there's no such subspecies. A tigon is simply a hybrid, not a subspecies.

[jjmarvin]

Very nice. Race shifts and it's all just arbitrary

[alecz]

Couldn't have said it better myself.