Both? Like clearly the differences between different races are biological, but how we choose to actually draw the lines between one race and another is entirely social. Like, how dark does someone's skin have to be before they're considered a wholly different race? How much does eye or hair color matter? Stuff like that is all socially determined, even if the factors used are biological.
its social i think and it did not really become an issue till after the American civil war and ww2 with hitler.
while there were ethnic killings much earlier like vlad tepes and his war against the turks or muslims it really wasn't a controversial thing till later on.
Social construct. Race classification is only a recent phenomena prior to the Spanish inquisition it didn`t exist. "blue blood" was used to differentiate between White Spaniards whos blood appeared blue due to lighter skin compared to darker Moors.
Today Race is used by losers who are irrelevant in society to ride on the achievements of others they even called paler irish people "white niggers" to justify enslaving them. There descendants are still living in the Caribbean today called "red legs".
Phenotypes are fluid in homosapiens you can have darker skinned people with blonde hair and blue eyes like the Melanesians.
Feom a biological pov, you can talk about ethnicity more than race but it's pretty much the same thing. It gained a negative meaning because of well medias society and stuff, but sure there are biological differences between ethnicities. So I guess you can say it's both, since both biological and social factors are involved
Social construct. The genetic variation between people (of the same gender) of the same race is 1%, the difference between different races is the same i. e. their is no significant difference between races to the point where its undefinable through science. Even the differences that are observable are not strictly associated with one race i. e. dark skin can be multiple groups, same with nose shape etc. So it is very much a social construct.
People are ridiculous. Some weird studies on the huffignonpost or some youtube video doesn't change facts. I'd instantly lose respect for anyone's intelligence if they actually believe in their heads that race is just the the outcome of a social construct. That's not being liberal and accepting... that's being a delusional fucking retard. I can't even..
Sorry to disappoint you, but scientific studies has been on the side of those "delusional fucking retard" for the past 30-50 years. The finding of DNA shattered the concept of biological races into pieces decades ago.
I don't know what facts you're referring to but I'm 100% positive that it's some 16th century pseudoscience BS.
@Starrk Black people have much different hair. Black people actually use different types and shampoo and conditioning products for this reason. Hair stylist have to have learn how to work with black hair and white hair because there is such a difference. My hair isn't a social concept OP. Blacks have a different skin color. I'm sorry to inform you, but me having lighter skin isn't a social concept. I have lighter skin because my mom is white. If my mom was black then I'd have darker skin.
I see your confusion on the subject. When we say race is a social construct what we are saying is that our classification (Black, White, Asian) of race is flawed since it does not correspond with biology. Just because two people have the same skin color or hair color or hair texture doesn't mean they are biologically alike the same way two people who are both 6'2 doesn't make them genetically related.
Those black tribes in Africa are genetically different from one another. More different then a White American is from a Black American. However, we place all those black tribes under one race despite them being very different from one another. We as a society simply took a glance at their skin complexion and hair texture and immediately threw them in the same box without taking into account their DNA.
That's what we mean when we say social construct. The concept of race was created by looking at people's appearance and then throwing them into inaccurate boxes while yelling science.
@Starrk So basically the word race is a social construct along with the words black and white? Every word in every language is technically a social construct then lol. Blacks correspond with very similar biology just as Asians do.
No you're still not getting it. The entire racial classification system is flawed. You can't use differences in physical features as basis for race because no racial feature is exclusive to a particular race. Not to mention physical features doesn't tell you what a persons genes look like so how can you argue genetic similarity.
Social construct doesn't mean there are not genetic differences among us. There are these things called genetic clusters which is evidence that groups of humans are slightly genetically different from one another. The problem is that our racial system (Caucasian and Negroid) doesn't match these genetic clusters. Why? Because genetic clusters is based entirely on genetic similarities. Race is based entirely on physical features.
Studies have been done on this for decades and the conclusion is always the same. Race as we know it has no biological significance. What race you belong to depends entirely on where society places you.
@Starrk I do understand science, you queer. I'm halfway to a Chemical Engineering degree. Scientists in relevant fields do overwhelmingly acknowledge the biological reality of race - especially outside of the West, where people don't buy into the faggy nonsense about race being purely "phenotypical" or "social" in nature. The only relevant group I can think of that denies this is anthropologists, and they're not even scientists to begin with.
Being an expert in chemical engineering doesn't mean your an expert in the field of science that talks about genetics or biology. Matter of fact, chemical engineering has nothing to do with race, so your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.
Also Biologists and Geneticists rejects the notion of race. They prefer the more accurate classification system genetic clusters instead of race.
@Amon2 A beta male? What are you, a meninist, fan of this Red Pill or whatever it's called? This isn't Reddit.
And oh that's so funny, because I am halfway to my degree in biological engineering! So I would say, as @Starrk stated, that someone from my field is way more qualified to talk about this. "Race" as a way to divide humans is a social construct. Some physical features, like dark or light skin, hair texture, facial features, are of course coded by every individuals DNA. So if someone says that race is a biological, then all people with blonde hair, or all with brown or with red hair, all people with green eyes, etc, would be their own race. Also, when people think of race, many more things than just appearance come to mind - but these other things are stereotypes that don't apply to nearly everyone of the same ethnicity.
I don't know why I would assume you would understand this, I can just hope that a fellow scientist also thinks scientific and has some common sense.
@cosmickitty biological engineering? You mean biomed? That's just a useless imaginary discipline meant to make women feel like they're STEM.
Race isn't just phenotypical features, which I've already explained, like after the beta male lied about the majority of geneticists supporting his bullshit. It can be measured by disparity in IQ, cranial structure, spinal curvature, etc. Go back to making sandwiches. This conversation is for men, which also excludes Starrk.
Can be measured by disparity in IQ? Wrong. IQ is equally affect by environment and so many other third variables. Try again.
Cranial structure? Is not absolute and doesn't correlate to genetic cluster. Try again
Spinal curvature? Get the fuck out of here. Curvature of spine and race has nothing to do with one another.
Also geneticist do agree that race isn't biological. In 2013 a science writer by the name of Nicholas Wade wrote a book in which he tried to use the field of genetics to show that race is a biological fact and that it account IQ difference, violence and etc. His book resulted in 140 geneticists (including the famous one within the field) to write him a letter telling him to essentially stop bastardizing their field with conjectures.
All modern humans are of the Biological RACE: Homo sapiens sapiens. That is Caucasian, Asian, 'Black' or 'Eskimo', 'Native American' or any others!! We are all more genetically alike, than different!! The Phenotype: how we look, and skin color, eye shape, physical attributes, have all been used to segregate, and divide us, socially!! What people call 'Race' is a social construct, to divide, and separate us through the phenotype that our physical bodies express.
Social construct. There is a biological component in race but I can guarantee you that what they consider different races and what you consider different races is completely different so putting them together or even calling them the same thing is just making it more confusing.
How is race a social construct Race refers to a distinct sub population with given characteristics within a species, it is purely biological and can be reliably evaluated by DNA.
Plus each race has it's own physical characteristics and features unique to to them or people who share their DNA.
It biological diversity. Red fox's can be red, white, brown, or in rare cases black. They can have big tails or small tails, long hair or short fuzz. But in the end they are all red foxes. They all look different, some closer then others, but in the end they are all the same.
People are different from one another and that is a fact. What is a social construct is that different is separate.
"Race" is completely arbitrary. The scientific theory du jour is that human life started in Africa. If true, that would mean all Americans, for example, are African-American. So why the obsession with the distinctions?
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
It was literally created as a social construct. It's not enough to say, for example, that those of the Caucasian race are defined by blue eyes and blond hair because there are other race individuals who share those characteristics as well. It's an arbitrary set of classifications that are applying less and less these days, and of course what does one do if one is the dark eyed, dark haired, and darker skinned Caucasian?
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)
+1 y
It's definitely biological to an extent, but for the most part it doesn't matter and we blow it out of proportion. The difference between two races is about as significant between the difference between two (naturally created) dog breeds. They're both pretty cool animals. And if they get together they'll still make a cute little pupper.
@MlleCake Well I watched it and I cannot agree. Stating that there isn't a gene for race is one thing, stating that you can't tell one race from the other and therefore races aren't a thing is complete and utter bullshit. How many black Caucasians with curly hair have you seen? You slice a guy open and based on his bone structure you can determine sex, age and guess what - his race too. If this is not enough I don't know what is. Different environment leads to different genes. Just because most people fall within a range instead of an exact model doesn't mean they are not black or white or Asian or whatever. The same claim can be made about cat breeds or virtually every other group of species. Just because race =/= species doesn't mean there are no races. I just love how people refuse to acknowledge what they don't like.
@Phantomium It's not a matter of agree or don't agree - it's not an opinion. What you're saying is you reject the actual science of genetics in favor of an idea that has been proven incorrect.
In the US, most of who we call black often have a significant "white" contribution, but we still insist they are black. This tells me it isn't about biological accuracy.
Read some of the articles too, especially the one from Scientific American.
Black people don't give birth to Asian people, its very fair to say that race is based on genetics. That doesn't make any race inferior to any other it just means that your ancestors dictate what race you are.
@MlleCake I love how people throw the "IT'S SCIENCE!" argument even though they hardly understand the actual scientific facts behind the claim. I'm not saying people have to be a perfect specimens without any other race mixed inside to be black or white. BUT there are dominant characteristics in every human being. Those are the ones who determine your race. An albino kid from Africa is still part of the Negroid group because of genetic markers, skeletal structure, etc. I'm not saying he or she's inferior. I'm simply saying he is OBJECTIVELY not part of the Mongoloid or Caucasoid groups. Pure and simple.
@Phantomium I have a great deal more background in evolutionary biology and genetics than you'd probably guess. (Clearly) All that stuff about Negroid and Caucasoid groups has literally been thrown out the window by biologists. It was conceived of in 1776, was based on simple observation and not genetics, and is no longer considered accurate. You can keep demanding otherwise, but you're just plain factually incorrect on this, yet you claim I'm the one who doesn't understand the science. You're a joke.
@MlleCake So there's no such thing as racial-specific diseases like sickle-cell anemia? You can't determine one's "non-existent race" by looking at their skeletal structure? All that's just my inner racist screaming nonsense? You know, by your logic there aren't any humans or cats or dogs either. There are only mammals! Genius!
Race refers to a distinct sub population with given characteristics within a species, it is purely biological and can be reliably evaluated by DNA. Ethnicity is a combination of race and social factors like culture.
Dumbest thing I've read for today. Culture is a racial construct. The reason people in America live in houses today and not animal skin tents is because the race of people living there chnaged few centuries ago. The reason Egypt was the center of science and philosophy two thousand years ago and today is a third world shithole is because the race of people living there has changed. The reason Haiti today is a third world country while less than three centuries ago it was one of the most thriving lands in the Americas is because the pioneers from Europe were thrown out and the Africans there became independent. The reason Europe today is being islamised and more mosques are being built instead of churches, with more and more terrorist attacks taking place is because the race of people living in those lands has changed. When one demographic is replaced by another demographic of another culture and it is the latter culture that will dominate. You can't have one without the other.
Bro you are so far up there on 'Make Believe Mountain" that I don't think even a group of scientists can bring you down. Anyone who says something as foolish as "Culture is a racial construct" and gives bogus explanation behind Egypt's and Haiti's success is someone who should be ignored.
We live in a world were knowledge is a keystroke away. If you haven't used this technology yet to educate yourself on the truth then there is nothing I could possibly do to make you see the light. It would be like me arguing with a roach.
@Starrk@TheFlak38 Well if you look at what race means it is a biological term. Ethnicity has to do with culture of people in a particular demographic region. So maybe I should have said ethnicity to be more technical... I don't think that I was inaccurate with my original statement though. Here is a link that may answer your questions: www.google.com/.../...fference-race-ethnicity.html
Yea I just wish people could have civil conversations on here instead of starting off a debate with you're stupid... I think that the reason people think race is a social construct is because they think of race and ethnicity as the same thing when they are not.
-The Flak38 The reason why you have me on block is because every time we had a debate you got butthurt. It's not my problem you're not e
Now as for you @Damaqueen, I'm now going to educate you. Race is not a biological fact. Every single branch of science from Biology to Anthropology reject the notion of race being anything but a social construct. There's not even a taxonomy called "race" within the field of biology. The so call concept of race is exclusive to humans alone for some odd reason.
The American Association of Anthropology released a statement regarding Race and the many misconception about it years ago. They concluded that race (as a form of biological classification) is heavily flawed since it does not correlate to genes. You can't classify groups of people into races just because they share the same hair texture or skin color and then claim it's a biological fact when their genotype is different.
People who say race is a social construct knows the difference between ethnicity and race. Race is a crude way of classifying people who look the same into arbitrary groups and then making the assumption that these people MUST be genetically alike, when in actuality they are not. Ethnicity has more to do with a group's culture, history, language and etc.
We know the difference, we just are aware that this idea that race is a biological fact is a myth. If race was truly biological then why has the definition of Black and White changed several times throughout history? Why is it that the concept of race changes from country to country (what's Black in America isn't Black in Brazil)?
Who gets put into what race is based entirely on social perspective, not genes or biology.
According to what I studied I believe it's a social construct. There's just one human Race... so the differences between us aren't really races as we refer to them, they're just differences.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)
+1 y
Race is entirely a social construct propigated in the concept of social darwinism. What we call race is really the manifestation of a variety of phenotypic traits amongst the population. In fact, you are more genetically similar to someone who is of a different 'race' than to someone of your own race. Scientists have also discredited the idea that there is significant distinction among various races.
I would say it's a social construct. I'm African American but if you saw me you would disagree because I have Beige skin, curly reddish brown hair and my features are not common of a black person, even black people think I'm Mexican or something
It's both. And don't let the fact that it's largely a social construct make you think it's less valid. A persons race denotes (usually) the culture they come from. It's useful for common sense interpersonal skills.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
92Opinion
Both? Like clearly the differences between different races are biological, but how we choose to actually draw the lines between one race and another is entirely social. Like, how dark does someone's skin have to be before they're considered a wholly different race? How much does eye or hair color matter? Stuff like that is all socially determined, even if the factors used are biological.
its social i think and it did not really become an issue till after the American civil war and ww2 with hitler.
while there were ethnic killings much earlier like vlad tepes and his war against the turks or muslims it really wasn't a controversial thing till later on.
Social construct.
Race classification is only a recent phenomena prior to the Spanish inquisition it didn`t exist. "blue blood" was used to differentiate between White Spaniards whos blood appeared blue due to lighter skin compared to darker Moors.
Today Race is used by losers who are irrelevant in society to ride on the achievements of others they even called paler irish people "white niggers" to justify enslaving them. There descendants are still living in the Caribbean today called "red legs".
Phenotypes are fluid in homosapiens you can have darker skinned people with blonde hair and blue eyes like the Melanesians.
Feom a biological pov, you can talk about ethnicity more than race but it's pretty much the same thing. It gained a negative meaning because of well medias society and stuff, but sure there are biological differences between ethnicities. So I guess you can say it's both, since both biological and social factors are involved
Social construct. The genetic variation between people (of the same gender) of the same race is 1%, the difference between different races is the same i. e. their is no significant difference between races to the point where its undefinable through science. Even the differences that are observable are not strictly associated with one race i. e. dark skin can be multiple groups, same with nose shape etc. So it is very much a social construct.
People are ridiculous. Some weird studies on the huffignonpost or some youtube video doesn't change facts. I'd instantly lose respect for anyone's intelligence if they actually believe in their heads that race is just the the outcome of a social construct. That's not being liberal and accepting... that's being a delusional fucking retard. I can't even..
Sorry to disappoint you, but scientific studies has been on the side of those "delusional fucking retard" for the past 30-50 years. The finding of DNA shattered the concept of biological races into pieces decades ago.
I don't know what facts you're referring to but I'm 100% positive that it's some 16th century pseudoscience BS.
@Starrk Black people have much different hair. Black people actually use different types and shampoo and conditioning products for this reason. Hair stylist have to have learn how to work with black hair and white hair because there is such a difference. My hair isn't a social concept OP. Blacks have a different skin color. I'm sorry to inform you, but me having lighter skin isn't a social concept. I have lighter skin because my mom is white. If my mom was black then I'd have darker skin.
I see your confusion on the subject. When we say race is a social construct what we are saying is that our classification (Black, White, Asian) of race is flawed since it does not correspond with biology. Just because two people have the same skin color or hair color or hair texture doesn't mean they are biologically alike the same way two people who are both 6'2 doesn't make them genetically related.
Those black tribes in Africa are genetically different from one another. More different then a White American is from a Black American. However, we place all those black tribes under one race despite them being very different from one another. We as a society simply took a glance at their skin complexion and hair texture and immediately threw them in the same box without taking into account their DNA.
That's what we mean when we say social construct. The concept of race was created by looking at people's appearance and then throwing them into inaccurate boxes while yelling science.
I was ready to spit out some science for you, but I couldn't have said it any better than @Starrk - he said everything needed.
@Starrk So basically the word race is a social construct along with the words black and white? Every word in every language is technically a social construct then lol. Blacks correspond with very similar biology just as Asians do.
@Chico_brah
No you're still not getting it. The entire racial classification system is flawed. You can't use differences in physical features as basis for race because no racial feature is exclusive to a particular race. Not to mention physical features doesn't tell you what a persons genes look like so how can you argue genetic similarity.
Social construct doesn't mean there are not genetic differences among us. There are these things called genetic clusters which is evidence that groups of humans are slightly genetically different from one another. The problem is that our racial system (Caucasian and Negroid) doesn't match these genetic clusters. Why? Because genetic clusters is based entirely on genetic similarities. Race is based entirely on physical features.
Studies have been done on this for decades and the conclusion is always the same. Race as we know it has no biological significance. What race you belong to depends entirely on where society places you.
Ignore Starrk, just another whiny beta male who fetishizes the groups that hate him.
@Amon2
It's not my fault you don't understand science. :)
@Starrk I do understand science, you queer. I'm halfway to a Chemical Engineering degree. Scientists in relevant fields do overwhelmingly acknowledge the biological reality of race - especially outside of the West, where people don't buy into the faggy nonsense about race being purely "phenotypical" or "social" in nature. The only relevant group I can think of that denies this is anthropologists, and they're not even scientists to begin with.
@Amon2
Being an expert in chemical engineering doesn't mean your an expert in the field of science that talks about genetics or biology. Matter of fact, chemical engineering has nothing to do with race, so your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.
Also Biologists and Geneticists rejects the notion of race. They prefer the more accurate classification system genetic clusters instead of race.
@Amon2
A beta male? What are you, a meninist, fan of this Red Pill or whatever it's called? This isn't Reddit.
And oh that's so funny, because I am halfway to my degree in biological engineering! So I would say, as @Starrk stated, that someone from my field is way more qualified to talk about this.
"Race" as a way to divide humans is a social construct. Some physical features, like dark or light skin, hair texture, facial features, are of course coded by every individuals DNA.
So if someone says that race is a biological, then all people with blonde hair, or all with brown or with red hair, all people with green eyes, etc, would be their own race.
Also, when people think of race, many more things than just appearance come to mind - but these other things are stereotypes that don't apply to nearly everyone of the same ethnicity.
I don't know why I would assume you would understand this, I can just hope that a fellow scientist also thinks scientific and has some common sense.
@cosmickitty biological engineering? You mean biomed? That's just a useless imaginary discipline meant to make women feel like they're STEM.
Race isn't just phenotypical features, which I've already explained, like after the beta male lied about the majority of geneticists supporting his bullshit. It can be measured by disparity in IQ, cranial structure, spinal curvature, etc. Go back to making sandwiches. This conversation is for men, which also excludes Starrk.
@Amon2
Can be measured by disparity in IQ? Wrong. IQ is equally affect by environment and so many other third variables. Try again.
Cranial structure? Is not absolute and doesn't correlate to genetic cluster. Try again
Spinal curvature? Get the fuck out of here. Curvature of spine and race has nothing to do with one another.
Also geneticist do agree that race isn't biological. In 2013 a science writer by the name of Nicholas Wade wrote a book in which he tried to use the field of genetics to show that race is a biological fact and that it account IQ difference, violence and etc. His book resulted in 140 geneticists (including the famous one within the field) to write him a letter telling him to essentially stop bastardizing their field with conjectures.
cehg.stanford.edu/letter-from-population-geneticists
If that's the best argument you can muster up then I'm extremely disappointed in you.
All modern humans are of the Biological RACE: Homo sapiens sapiens. That is Caucasian, Asian, 'Black' or 'Eskimo', 'Native American' or any others!!
We are all more genetically alike, than different!! The Phenotype: how we look, and skin color, eye shape, physical attributes, have all been used to segregate, and divide us, socially!! What people call 'Race' is a social construct, to divide, and separate us through the phenotype that our physical bodies express.
Social construct. There is a biological component in race but I can guarantee you that what they consider different races and what you consider different races is completely different so putting them together or even calling them the same thing is just making it more confusing.
How is race a social construct Race refers to a distinct sub population with given characteristics within a species, it is purely biological and can be reliably evaluated by DNA.
Plus each race has it's own physical characteristics and features unique to to them or people who share their DNA.
It biological diversity. Red fox's can be red, white, brown, or in rare cases black. They can have big tails or small tails, long hair or short fuzz. But in the end they are all red foxes. They all look different, some closer then others, but in the end they are all the same.
People are different from one another and that is a fact. What is a social construct is that different is separate.
"Race" is completely arbitrary. The scientific theory du jour is that human life started in Africa. If true, that would mean all Americans, for example, are African-American. So why the obsession with the distinctions?
It was literally created as a social construct. It's not enough to say, for example, that those of the Caucasian race are defined by blue eyes and blond hair because there are other race individuals who share those characteristics as well. It's an arbitrary set of classifications that are applying less and less these days, and of course what does one do if one is the dark eyed, dark haired, and darker skinned Caucasian?
It's definitely biological to an extent, but for the most part it doesn't matter and we blow it out of proportion. The difference between two races is about as significant between the difference between two (naturally created) dog breeds. They're both pretty cool animals. And if they get together they'll still make a cute little pupper.
how the fuck is this even a question ofc its genetic
It isn't actually. Watch the videos posted.
@MlleCake Well I watched it and I cannot agree. Stating that there isn't a gene for race is one thing, stating that you can't tell one race from the other and therefore races aren't a thing is complete and utter bullshit. How many black Caucasians with curly hair have you seen? You slice a guy open and based on his bone structure you can determine sex, age and guess what - his race too. If this is not enough I don't know what is. Different environment leads to different genes. Just because most people fall within a range instead of an exact model doesn't mean they are not black or white or Asian or whatever. The same claim can be made about cat breeds or virtually every other group of species. Just because race =/= species doesn't mean there are no races. I just love how people refuse to acknowledge what they don't like.
@Phantomium It's not a matter of agree or don't agree - it's not an opinion. What you're saying is you reject the actual science of genetics in favor of an idea that has been proven incorrect.
In the US, most of who we call black often have a significant "white" contribution, but we still insist they are black. This tells me it isn't about biological accuracy.
Read some of the articles too, especially the one from Scientific American.
Black people don't give birth to Asian people, its very fair to say that race is based on genetics. That doesn't make any race inferior to any other it just means that your ancestors dictate what race you are.
@MlleCake I love how people throw the "IT'S SCIENCE!" argument even though they hardly understand the actual scientific facts behind the claim. I'm not saying people have to be a perfect specimens without any other race mixed inside to be black or white. BUT there are dominant characteristics in every human being. Those are the ones who determine your race. An albino kid from Africa is still part of the Negroid group because of genetic markers, skeletal structure, etc. I'm not saying he or she's inferior. I'm simply saying he is OBJECTIVELY not part of the Mongoloid or Caucasoid groups. Pure and simple.
^^^^ exactly
@Phantomium I have a great deal more background in evolutionary biology and genetics than you'd probably guess. (Clearly) All that stuff about Negroid and Caucasoid groups has literally been thrown out the window by biologists. It was conceived of in 1776, was based on simple observation and not genetics, and is no longer considered accurate. You can keep demanding otherwise, but you're just plain factually incorrect on this, yet you claim I'm the one who doesn't understand the science. You're a joke.
nobody is saying we're not technically the same species dude
we're all the same on the inside and race describes what certain broad groups of people look like on the outside
@MlleCake So there's no such thing as racial-specific diseases like sickle-cell anemia? You can't determine one's "non-existent race" by looking at their skeletal structure? All that's just my inner racist screaming nonsense? You know, by your logic there aren't any humans or cats or dogs either. There are only mammals! Genius!
I wonder if "background in evolutionary biology and genetics" means being a fan of Richard Dawkins lmao
He's an interesting writer, but no. I'm not even an atheist, so... uh, no.
@Phantomium Those are ethnicity specific diseases. Race is not a term used in biology.
Race refers to a distinct sub population with given characteristics within a species, it is purely biological and can be reliably evaluated by DNA. Ethnicity is a combination of race and social factors like culture.
Even if the basis is in biological factors, the sorting into categories is still a social matter though
Race is biological but culture is a social construct
Dumbest thing I've read for today. Culture is a racial construct. The reason people in America live in houses today and not animal skin tents is because the race of people living there chnaged few centuries ago. The reason Egypt was the center of science and philosophy two thousand years ago and today is a third world shithole is because the race of people living there has changed. The reason Haiti today is a third world country while less than three centuries ago it was one of the most thriving lands in the Americas is because the pioneers from Europe were thrown out and the Africans there became independent. The reason Europe today is being islamised and more mosques are being built instead of churches, with more and more terrorist attacks taking place is because the race of people living in those lands has changed. When one demographic is replaced by another demographic of another culture and it is the latter culture that will dominate. You can't have one without the other.
Ignore him. He hasn't taken his meds today. :)
@Starrk I can't see your argument to counter my reply.
@TheFlak38
Bro you are so far up there on 'Make Believe Mountain" that I don't think even a group of scientists can bring you down. Anyone who says something as foolish as "Culture is a racial construct" and gives bogus explanation behind Egypt's and Haiti's success is someone who should be ignored.
We live in a world were knowledge is a keystroke away. If you haven't used this technology yet to educate yourself on the truth then there is nothing I could possibly do to make you see the light. It would be like me arguing with a roach.
@Starrk I still can't see counter argument. Educate me then Mr. Smart. What shall I read?
@Starrk @TheFlak38 Well if you look at what race means it is a biological term. Ethnicity has to do with culture of people in a particular demographic region. So maybe I should have said ethnicity to be more technical... I don't think that I was inaccurate with my original statement though. Here is a link that may answer your questions: www.google.com/.../...fference-race-ethnicity.html
* I met to say geographic region
At least you can talk. Unlike that Stark moron. No wonder I got him blocked long time ago.
Yea I just wish people could have civil conversations on here instead of starting off a debate with you're stupid... I think that the reason people think race is a social construct is because they think of race and ethnicity as the same thing when they are not.
-The Flak38
The reason why you have me on block is because every time we had a debate you got butthurt. It's not my problem you're not e
Now as for you @Damaqueen, I'm now going to educate you. Race is not a biological fact. Every single branch of science from Biology to Anthropology reject the notion of race being anything but a social construct. There's not even a taxonomy called "race" within the field of biology. The so call concept of race is exclusive to humans alone for some odd reason.
The American Association of Anthropology released a statement regarding Race and the many misconception about it years ago. They concluded that race (as a form of biological classification) is heavily flawed since it does not correlate to genes. You can't classify groups of people into races just because they share the same hair texture or skin color and then claim it's a biological fact when their genotype is different.
www.americananthro.org/.../Content.aspx
People who say race is a social construct knows the difference between ethnicity and race. Race is a crude way of classifying people who look the same into arbitrary groups and then making the assumption that these people MUST be genetically alike, when in actuality they are not. Ethnicity has more to do with a group's culture, history, language and etc.
We know the difference, we just are aware that this idea that race is a biological fact is a myth. If race was truly biological then why has the definition of Black and White changed several times throughout history? Why is it that the concept of race changes from country to country (what's Black in America isn't Black in Brazil)?
Who gets put into what race is based entirely on social perspective, not genes or biology.
According to what I studied I believe it's a social construct. There's just one human Race... so the differences between us aren't really races as we refer to them, they're just differences.
Race is entirely a social construct propigated in the concept of social darwinism. What we call race is really the manifestation of a variety of phenotypic traits amongst the population. In fact, you are more genetically similar to someone who is of a different 'race' than to someone of your own race. Scientists have also discredited the idea that there is significant distinction among various races.
I would say it's a social construct. I'm African American but if you saw me you would disagree because I have Beige skin, curly reddish brown hair and my features are not common of a black person, even black people think I'm Mexican or something
It's both. And don't let the fact that it's largely a social construct make you think it's less valid. A persons race denotes (usually) the culture they come from. It's useful for common sense interpersonal skills.