Not really. Human "races" are often compared to "dog breeds", but dog breeds differ MUCH more than humans, and dogs were very specifically bred for human companionship and different tasks.
Nearly all of the racial differences are purely aesthetic/morphological. The main exceptions would be producing the lactase enzyme into adulthood (mostly European, but not even racial) and then differences like Vitamin D deficiency for dark-skinned people in Europe, skin cancer and sweat-system damage for lighter-skinned people in equatorial regions.
The important thing is that the behavioral core is ridiculously uniform throughout the human race. One of the reasons for this is that our population used to be reduced to only a few thousand, very recently in the evolutionary time scale, and we are far too global to create the sort of isolation needed for any significant differences. (One of the premises behind Dune being the differences in people when separated by planet.)
But another is that we aren't a species that has to wait for evolution to create changes in behavior. We have extreme neuroplasticity and lots of extra neurons. So with a bit of socialization, you can make almost any behavior set become "instinctual". Which is to say, any behavioral differences are pretty much entirely sociological, NOT genetic.
The aesthetic differences might have come about for more interesting reasons though, and that's the part I'm interested in. Some reasons may be sexual selection while others natural selection. Lighter skin in less sunny environments. Or the Himalayas providing some of the isolation that gave east-Asians some of their unique appearance.
Some are actually useful. The people in the first nations of the Americas kept a surprising amount of pigmentation despite crossing the Bering Strait and migrating through ice-age Canada. The reason being, the diets of northern nations were high in north-Pacific cod (I believe it's cod) which are really high in Vitamin D. This was one way we discovered Vitamin D was the reason some people lost pigmentation.
But yeah, there really isn't any correlation between these physical traits and behavior, which is why scientific racism is debunked and so frowned upon.
Science has long since answered the question. I don't know why people are still asking this still to this day.
It's not like any person who believes that there is race, has anything to say thatcant be debunked by science.
The problem is, it's a lot of work and a lot of knowledge required, to dismantle every stupid ridiculous argument that can be made.
For some reason certain people need to believe in race. It confirms some beliefs they have.
But every single one of them is too lazy to go and actually learn something for themselves. Their not capable of questioning their beliefs.
Only making stupid arguments and when some scientist doesn't pop up to debunk all their claims, they think they won. They think they're really correct.
I mean, there's literal college courses on YouTube from real universities. Anyone can literally go learn about this shit themselves if the topic is so important to them.
It's on the onus of the racist to disprove the science. Good luck with that, without actually honestly investigating it.
Yeah whatever you say. White people are genetically different to Asians, blacks etc whether you like it or not no matter how much leftist scientists want to manipulate the obvious truth and control you like sheep with the word ''science'' and ''expert''.
Race is real, I can't stand people who try to erase that fact. The left wants to destroy the concept of race to further their anti-white agendas. Leftist scientists are so full of crap and use ''science'' to try to push leftist agendas. They can easily manipulate people like you with the word ''science''. I won't fall for liberal agenda ''science''. The Covid pandemic showed how dumb and crooked some of these scientists are.
A Siberian tiger is different to a Bengal tiger, a white man is different to an Australian aboriginal. Both are tigers, both are humans, guess what they are different based on their race and genetics, not social constructs.
I admit I pulled this quickly but not every scientist will peddle the left wing narrative: Some Science here, (Out of Africa theory debunked red ice) on YouTube, (race is not a social construct) from the channel polk23dot Ernst Myer (one of the 20th century's leading evolutionary biologists) seems to agree with my view.
I bet you're one of those losers that always preach about science and believe in the big bang, you believe that life came from nothing. Which is denying science as you can't create life from nonliving material.
Yeah yeah yeah ignore the science and scientists that don't back your worldview. You do it to mine il do it to yours.
Keep being brainwashed by the communist hijacked education system. Since you're ''right wing'' I assume you're familiar with Yuri Bezmenov? The kgb defector who talks about how commies hijack the education of the countries they want to subvert.
I have long since dug deep into the alt right and studied their "science." It's almost entirely old material long since debunked. I've gone deeper on the race realism train than you have.
The thing is, I'm smart enough to realize that one must juxtapose opposing ideas, compare and contrast them to find the truth.
You refuse to learn real science in favor of what you hope confirms your beliefs.
I've already don't it all myself. It's up to you to do the same.
Because I'm not going to sit here and try to educate your ignorant ass. My only goal is for people to stop being lazy and actually learn things and question your beliefs.
If you really try hard enough you'll soon realize all your racist shit is nonsense.
The left don't think, you have the globalist/communists that pull the strings in the education, media, press, corporations, institutes, and then you have the useful idiots who eat up the narrative.
Yes. It's called in biology subspecies and even there is a factor in genetic difference that determinate one subspecies from another. Humans easily fulfill this threshold for subspecies and even there are more subspecies than those 3 which are easily distinctive according to skin color and facial structure. Another evidence is lack of compatibility for organ and tissue transplantation between individuals from different regions of origin.
Of course there is topic of cultural and technological achievement, but for the comfort of some individuals in this forum I won't talk about this topic.
@Pizaz check out blood types (A, B, O, &c.). There are incompatibilities, but of course this is not any evidence of a biological basis for race, unless you want to say that people in the same family are different races because they can have different blood types. And of course there are also instances of pig organs being sucessfully transplanted into humans, so if you are to continue this line of logic that organ transplantation is proof of being the same or different races, then people and pigs are the same race.
As for the subspecies claim, since we are going to use biology and science, and scientists have recognized and named subspecies, it would help if @freyared could tell us what the subspecies names are for the races of humans. For example, the binomen (species name) for leopard is Panthera pardus. The trinomen Panthera pardus fusca denotes a subspecies, the Indian leopard. If the claim is true, there will be scientific names for the corresponding races @freyared is claiming exist.
@zeitgeist057 It's not only blood type there are other markers than ABO and of course there are people with organ compatibility among different races but matching an organ donor in your own ethnic groups is much easier. I guess if you have enough money to test millions of pigs for organ compatibility, you will find a match sooner or later.
I'm not a specialist but a noble prize winner for discovering of DNA experienced media shitstorm last years just because he dared to have a non-compatible mainstream media opinion about human races. Maybe you're willing to live in a system where woke dogmas became a new religious cult but I'm not. Maybe we are one human race, maybe we are not. I'm open for any scientific evidence that we are one race from your side. Are you open for the idea that we aren't all the same?
@freyared I'm down for anything with a scientific standard. Such as the previously mentioned subspecies definition. Only as far as I know, there are no official subspecies labels for the supposed races.
There's no need for the fictional narrative of "enough money to test millions of pigs to find a match sooner or later". Surgeons transplanted kidneys from random pigs (two), into random humans (two), and in both cases, the kidneys functioned normally. 100% success and compatibility, with no testing of millions.
I absolutely agree we are different, but I wouldn't say that necessarily supports the idea that race is not a social construct. We have lots of differences: Height, weight, freckles, pendulous earlobes, shades of skin, size of nose, epicanthic folds, eye color, hair color, predisposition to medical ailments, &c. But are redheads with freckles truly another race?
Yes, it does. We are now told it doesn't because there's more genetic difference within a so-called race than between. That may be true but it doesn't change the fact some morphological differences are bigger and more noticeable than others. Nobody looks at two different major races and says they can't tell them apart. If the police find a skull they immediately identify it by race. Is there a lot of overlap? Yes, does it matter? No. But we should still acknowledge there are distinct groups.
Yes but that’s environmental factors affecting humans differently. Like Darwin saw in finches on different islands. They’re all finches, but with slightly different beaks.
But they were different species of finches. Environmental factors influence evolution but if two black people have a baby in Scotland it's not going to pop out white and ginger.
Of course it exists. People don't make up words then go looking for something to apply it too. The thing exists first then a word is used to describe it. That's how language works.
People talk about race. Other people know what it means. How many billions of times has the word "race" been used to communicate, and the other person understands it?
I'm willing to bet that every single person who read this question formed a picture of race when they read it. That includes the people who claim race doesn't exist. I dare anyone who claims it doesn't exist to deny that they form a picture of certain types of people. If anyone denied it I'd call them a liar.
The argument that science has proven that race doesn't exist is complete BS. Science has proven no such thing. Because it's not true. It should be blatantly obvious that it's not true. Those arguments are lame and not in any way scientific.
Everyone knows what race means. To deny it is completely absurd. Every single person who denies it can use the word in a sentence in a context that has real meaning.
"We literally do make up shit in order to label something" The "something" already exists. Yes we make up shit (words) in order to describe it. This is exactly what I said.
To say that race doesn't exist is totally ludicrous. You know damn well what it means. You know damn well that it exists. Stop playing stupid and pretending that you don't know what it means.
That something is skin color. And whatever else we update it to keep the upper crust whites happy. Catholics weren’t considered “white” in America until after Kennedy.
Well, it both does and doesn't exist depending on how you are defining it.
It is a construct, it doesn't have to exist, there is no basis for the distinctions we make genetically speaking and there is no reason why we should view skin colour etc any differently than we view hair or eye colour etc.
It is also quite recent, only a few hundred years old.
So racism is a learned behaviour just like the colours of the rainbow are learned, in reality there are no colours or an infinite amount of colours, however you want to look at it, it is a continuous spectrum which we have chosen to divide up into sections so that we can talk about them etc but we dont have to be so limited, we could have chosen to define hundreds of colours and then we would be much better at perceiving colour and talking about it.
People from different cultures, especially semi isolated cultures use a different set of definitions of colours than people in the Western world and as a result can perceive differences in e. g. 2 types of green which would just look the same to us.
0
1 Reply
Opinion Owner
+1 y
So with regard to it being measurable, it is measurable but we constructed the parameters which are being measured.
One of the common mistakes which people make is that they will tell you that there is a gene for x skin colour or for eye shape etc and they will then say that this means that genetically there are races but this is not at all scientific, what is happening is that they have already decided that there are races and then they looking for data which supports this idea but if instead you look at the genetic coding and group people together based on how similar they are genetically, how much of the code is shared then you will get people from all different races in the same group and in different groups to a bunch of other people who are again all from different races to each other within the group etc. So genetically speaking there are no races, or it is ridiculous to group people by race because it is meaningless.
There is no scientific evidence for the existence of a race in the human species. Those who say the opposite are lying, knowing or not that they are lying.
The dermal phenotype is commonly called race. This is and remains a purely popular thing supported in the US by the Chicago school sociological literature of a century ago. In particular, from the contributions of Ezra Parks. Unlike what was argued in Europe, where ethnicities are given by the common belief in a common ancestor, in the US ethnicities are determined by appearance and the term ethnicity overlaps that of race.
Skull shape, facial features (slanted eyes, big lips, big nostrils, hook noses, bone density) all things that can also be measure with certain races. Siberian tigers are different than Bengal tigers, must be because of a social construct, or maybe they are two different races of tigers and are genetically different.
@RonStone45 Anthropometry, the study and cataloging of the measures and proportions of the human body, became the scientific crutch on which to lean: each race could be defined by a precise set of numbers and statistics, an idea that did not take changes into account between one generation and the next, and which completely eliminated from the discourse the evident variability within the same presumed "race".
It was enough to repeat the studies with an eye to these details to understand how anthropometry was based on nothing: at the beginning of the twentieth century, Franz Boas published studies that demonstrated how many differences there were between one generation and another of the same alleged "race" , and how even the average values of certain parameters changed with the passing of generations. Then came the turning point: the rediscovery of Mendelian laws on heredity gave way to the search for purely hereditary genetic traits, useful for distinguishing the alleged races from each other. But even genetics failed to find correlations between alleged races and genes.
Yep. And how your subspecies is made to do all the work. I downloaded some old pdfs of pro slavery assholes just to read their arguments. It’s pretty stupid. And wicked.
No bro see you wanna be black you ain’t real black you been softened up with a little pink Nigerians mixed, Ethiopians mixed, African Americans mixed, I seen a guy so black he look blue, call him Johnny blue black, that’s a royal color
@JustiReno Right, you are not talking about science. You are talking about your perceptions.
You do know that science has nothing to do with what you perceive, right? It isn't an opinion. It is based upon these things we call facts. And when it comes to Africans. . . especially the type you are obsessed with. . . the sub-Saharans, they typically share much less genetic commonality with each other than they would with you.
No matter what you think you see.
The average nucleotide diversity (π) for the 50 segments is only 0.061% ± 0.010% among Asians and 0.064% ± 0.011% among Europeans but almost twice as high (0.115% ± 0.016%) among Africans. The African diversity estimate is even higher than that between Africans and Eurasians (0.096% ± 0.012%).
No … nothing about that. You wanna say “well everyone migrated from Africa”, “ancestral eve” whatever, they left and fucked monkeys or fucked their families. You wouldn’t say you’re 50% banana tree would you? No, that’s what we call races. People evolve and you just so hurt by this idea? And, there are still pygmies in sub Saharan Africa, they have diversity cause they fucked the most monkeys
There’s white, black, red, yellow originating from geographic isolation. How come they didn’t find white or black people when the Spanish came to Mexico? Because the children of those races were not present, the red race was. Those red people didn’t get lighter with time, they were exterminated, those are mixed race children
@RonStone45 That doesn't mean anything. It doesn't stop Russians from invading Ukraine. It doesn't stop the Scottish from having their issues with the British. It doesn't explain the Catalan Independence movement in Spain. Race cannot explain any of those issues.
But culture can.
It is a fact that a person can be 100% European. And that many racists claim that "Whiteness" is pure.
But this doesn't mean anything to people who simply do not have racial concerns.
I bring scientific facts. You bring your feelings and your opinions. The fact remains that there is no genetic basis for race. And that despite your nutty references to evolution. . . it is pretty apparent that Humans outside of Africa have not evolved much beyond the blueprint created in the continent. Africans still have the greatest genetic diversity on the planet, (And that is. . . sub-saharan. . . to be specific).
Because race is real. Like a Siberian tiger is different to a Bengal tiger, a white man is different to an Australian aboriginal. Both are tigers, both are humans, guess what they are different based on their race and genetics, not social constructs.
Bro your science is irrelevant, with your collection of data points it’s obvious how you came to your conclusions. And you acting hurt.
Sports car? Is it a thing, well it is now, we seen one, then we seen another. People can argue over what’s a sports car and what isn’t. But, when you hear that word you know what people talking about. Same with race?
You can’t get a degree in race like you can in genetics. That’s why your science doesn’t matter, it’s not science at all. Culture is not scientific either how can we measure it? But, it means a lot to some people.
And your note about genetic diversity is true because they have children who have lived from before the revolutions of agriculture and husbandry. They have Stone Age hunter gatherers and pygmies, those people have been exterminated from Europe
Those are mixed race people, lots of Russian have Turkish (asiatic/tartar) ancestry. With dna tests you can tell everything. White people are a race with different sub groups, Germanic, Celtic, Slavic, Mediterranean. You can tell with skull shape, physical appearance and yes with DNA.
Some wolves have small amounts of coyote dna in north america due to mixing with coyotes, same goes for whites with non white races.
There is the Russian nationality and then there is the Russian ethnicity, two different things. An ethnic/racial Russian is white. Russia was invaded by turks and tatars often in the last 2000 years, also Russia covers a lot of asia.
You are talking about sports cars. That’s science? That’s how science works? Do cars have sex and offspring now? In cartoons, cars can do a lot of stuff. But cartoons are not real. Cars don’t talk. They don’t have families.
But you can get a degree in race. It is called social science. People study you and study what you think accounts for differences. They study your history, culture, group dynamic etc. Race and raciology falls into that category. Because again, it isn’t genetics. It isn’t objective science.
It is a social science. It is a product of a given society. You know. . . just like culture.
So full race people are now “mixed”. Yes DNA tests tell you everything. They tell you how much genetic commonality you have with the Irish, the Iberian peninsula, if you have some commonality with Jewish folks, or some from the Baltic states, southern Italy, etc. Slavic heritage, or more specifically Slovak, Serbian, Kazakh. . .
Race is never mentioned. And it only comes in when a raciologist claims a certain group is or is not “White”. I think it is hilarious. We have folks here at GaG, darker skinned than me, claiming to be “White”.
How did they get such a different definition from you. . . if your standard of race is nothing but objective and not some subjective biased standard you were taught or learned?
The most hilarious standard that racists have. . . is the one of pure "Whiteness". Which ethnic group (s) are "White".
No other groupings have this problem. No other group asks such silly questions. And that is including the European groups you speak of. They are concerned about culture first and foremost.
@RonStone45 Yes, Russian is a nationality. So is Latvian, Estonian, Ukrainian, Belarussian, Kazakh, Polish, etc. . .
And none of those groups are going to give up their culture, their history and their identity because some unknown guy at a website, thinks they are the same race.
I have traveled through Eastern Europe on various projects for months at a time.
Race is a part of culture, and determining who's white or not is quite easy, and if you need to be precise about it you have dna testing. Not sure what you're rabbling about the mixed race thing. Some white people will be 2% Asian sometimes like a wolf would have a bit of coyote dna, again I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Some white people are pure or almost pure and you can't tell until you have a dna test. Again race is genetic, and white people have different subgroups of their race this is not complicated.
ok first buddy, what you mean science, is the empirical method, second skin color is independently observable and inherited through DNA, what you mean it’s not science? Look at SE Asia, they do have black people in Papua New Guinea but they are Stone Age people and spawn from a different booodline
@RonStone45 How is “race” apart of culture? They are both social standards. You simply do the opposite of what almost every other human being does. Everyone outside of the U. S. is worried about what a person believes in terms of identity, history, tradition, etc. That whole race nonsense is secondary.
I am not rabbling about mixed race. You are rabbling about mixed race. And it is so cute!
You look at a person’s phenotype, then decide if they have common ground with you. Which is why you have no understanding as to why Ukraine and Russia would be at war. Or why Catalan would want to cede from Spain. That is because you understand nothing about culture and look at people through the prism of race.
Now culture is still apart of the issues within the United States. But it is only raciologists who believe culture and race have anything to do with each other. Any human being is capable of emulating or adopting a cultural trait/behavior. They just have to be raised and schooled in that specific culture. Their genetics don’t block them from adopting behavior.
That isn't a rational position actually. That is pretty much. . . well. . . insane.
@JustiReno Of course skin color is a genetic trait. So is eye color, hair color. . . and guess what? So are dimples, freckles, but also thousands upon thousands of traits you will never ever see.
You are telling me what you see, you are not telling me what someone’s genetic makeup. Obviously the woman I posted didn’t get her skin color totally from Europe. Neither is it totally from Africa. But she received other genetic markers from the European peninsula.
I mean, you are basically failing genetics 101. You say your obsession makes for race. But science doesn’t care about your obsessions.
And the hilarious thing is, you can't even tell me what genetic percentages are acceptable to the Master Race. Can you be "White" if you have 20% non-"White" DNA?
What the hell is "White" DNA anyway? The folks who run this forum are Turkish. . . are you claiming they are not "White"? The Conquerers of the Roman Empire who interbred with the Romans are not "White"?
Race is a part of cultural identity. Race itself is not a social construct. I'm getting tired of this. Go explain to the Siberian tigers and Bengal tigers that there is no difference between them and that it's a social construct. You just hate the idea that people are different racially, that white people are their own race and that they want to preserve themselves and not get flooded with immigrants. See ya.
@RonStone45 They are the same race? Why are they are war? Why wouldn’t they do what you do. . . shun all divison within the Master Race and stop this war?
Maybe that’s because their culture (s) means more to them that some nonsensical kindergarten notion of race. Maybe that’s why there is so much ethnic conflict in Africa. Or why China is threatening and intimidating other Asian nations over the South China Sea?
Just sayin’. That race thing doesn’t really tell you much about behavior. It doesn’t explain why different groups are pissed with each other.
Only culture and historical contexts can do that.
I get that race means a lot to you. You haven’t explain how this fake objective standard is observed anywhere else outside of insane crazy racist land.
Ah whatever dude argue with JustiReno, I'm so tired of this. I won't change my mind, you won't change your mind. I already said everything I needed to say on this post/question. See ya
@RonStone45 So you mean objective science changed its mind and decided that the Irish were 100% . . . er “White”? Even the ones who were having sex with “Black” slaves as indentured servants?
That’s hilarious.
You keep whining about how much explaining you are doing. Yet you have offered no genetic definition of a “White” person. So are Spanish folks from the Iberian pensinula “White”. Even as the “Moors” invaded and conquered Spain and were there for centuries?
I will just bet that you are the other troll can’t even agree on who is “White” and who is not. . . and you have the nerve to bring your fruitcake half-baked theory to this forum.
@RonStone45 Of course it is a construct. You are telling me someone's race. . . not because you know their genetic makeup. But because of what you think you see.
And when you are proven wrong about their identity. . . you just label them mixed race.
That isn't science.
That is a cute little toddler learning about different colors.
@RolandCuthbert yo. you bringing other stuff up. White people has world war 0, 1 and 2 and world war 3 in Africa, you confused. Families can fight… I’m not obsessed with race, but you’re saying it’s not “real” then falling back on its not “scientific” you study this in detail more than white people. I’m not obsessed you are, she’s mixed race I stand by my comment. Why you wanna talk to me about passing for white or Master Race, I was in Turkey an American woman thought I was Turkish. Again you add more stuff because you wanna have your rant about your friends in Ukraine, guess what freedom ain’t free n your buddies better pay back Uncle Sam
@JustiReno Families fight. Cultures go to war. And these wars have the possibility of bringing about the end of human existence. Russia is threatening the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
That isn't some family spat. No doubt you insane crazy racists would use nuclear weapons on "Black" folks, since you are obsessed with us.
But other nations have other concerns. That's why Pakistan would use nuclear weapons on India. China would use them on Taiwan. And Russia is definitely threatening to use them against Ukraine.
Their supposed "brothers".
Or "cousins". . . or whatever you fruitcake theory says.
Again, race does not explain behavior or beliefs.
Culture does. Because culture is connected to history, language, tradition. . . you know. . things that actually matter.
Face the nation Ronald you’re just another light skinned wigger playing black face! I see through your schemes! We need harmony not division! Like the Indian caste system 🤔
@OddBeMe Well, you know how racists are. They pretend to be all logical and scientific, then when science can't be twisted to support their nonsense, they just become big man-children and start slinging insults and racial slurs.
Because in the end, that is all they are. Just some kids who learned how to say the n-word.
Yeah…it’s racial preference first, then “evidence”. I try to talk to racists with posts like this because it’s a family thing. His father, his friends, his community does this. Bad. But I think it can be cured.
But they have to want to change. I think we really need to study racists and their belief system.
Remember, these people are looking for an objective scientific reason to hate.
As their logic is, I hate "Black" people because of the things they do. Which is related to their genetics. Which in turn, they are not even responsible for.
A racist is so insane, that he doesn't even know the difference between hating someone because of something they did. . . or because of what they are. It is an incredible hypocritical foundation belief, that still exists to this day. And one has to wonder how can humanity survive when large numbers of people share this nonsensical belief.
But it doesn't. Liberalism isn't really a political belief, right?
At least not in this age.
In this age, everything outside their racist nonsensical batshit politics is liberal. So the traditional conservative worldview is liberal. To be economically conservative is liberal. To have morals and ethics is liberal.
All of these principles and values conservatives spent decades trying to explain and to incorporate into their vision of America are now liberal.
Think about this. In one thread, racists and xenophobes are decrying porn.
In other thread, they embrace it.
And no one even questions their own hypocrisy. Because their ideology is not about values or morals. It is about control and power. And until everyone who is not apart of this cult realizes what at they are, democracy is in danger.
You see, I am actually a conservative. I am never going to give up my foundational beliefs. But this is no longer a political debate. This is a debate about democracy itself.
LOL, gender is not a social construct, this is just beyond ridiculous now, this conversation is over. I was talking to a complete nutjob this entire time. Not all scientist think that gender is a social construct, if any scientist believe that, they should not be allowed to be a scientist, this is pure stupidity. This here is the cancer of western civilization.
Men naturally like guy things, women naturally like female things, men have a penis and balls, women have a vagina, women give birth, you are retarded.
The problems of “I don’t see color or race”: 1. It allows you to ignore the complexity of racial issues 2. You’re not actively dismantling your own prejudices or micro aggressions 3. It minimizes the struggle of POC in today’s society 4. It limits your ability to appreciate individualism 5. You can’t fix something that you don’t see
Not really. Culture is a family doing something they’re ancestors did years ago, in a community perhaps with similar families. Boom culture. How is that being stripped away?
I'm 100% of white native European blood, meaning that all of my genes came from white European countries. If I was to have sex with a woman of a similar genetic profile our offspring is probably 10s of thousands of times more likely to have blond hair and blue eyes. then some couple that looks clearly of some other race.
It does not no. Different human races were disproven thoroughly following WWII and the dismantling of racial-biology institutions. Humans have different ethnicities, not races, and it only persists in usage today because of politics and embedded socio-economic culture.
There is only one human race left on this planet; Homo sapiens. The Human Genome Project has confirmed that the genomes found around the globe are 99.9% identical in every person. The concept of different human races is a lie. The question, “Does race exist?” (when referring to humans) has only one correct answer; it is not a matter of opinion, but science.
I said "no" because all people are medically the same inside, but anyone who thinks that your skintone, culture and religion don't radically change the way you see and interact with the world is an absolute fool.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
There's only one race and many different ethnicities within that race.
However, people just got used to referring to different ethnicities as races and it spread around to the point where you can't change it now.
Well an ethnic group is a group of people who share common distinctive traits, religion, culture, language, backgrounds etc. Tangible means that something is perceptible by touch. If you can for example, identify an Asian person as belonging to specific ethnic group having distinctive traits, culture, language, background etc. you can certainly touch her and explore her unique traits if she consents for you to do so.
We are human - people. Devils are dumb not able to comprehend that determined to maintain a lie, calling it the truth through people. Demons introduced money that is anti-Christ. That strengthens the racist illution.
You know, for something that 'doesn't exist', scientists sure are good at determining it, thousands of years after the people have died, from their bones alone.
Even if you wanna go down that route, you'd have to note that the disparities in people's looks have a biological component. And I don't think that those differences or disparities in creatinine levels along race lines are somehow 'social constructs'.
Brilliant analogy, and if someone was to just flat out deny that rocks can be grouped together by properties such as their chemical composition geologists would hand you a diploma right away. Hey, does the height of rock formations signal something to you about the differences between different groups of rocks (categories of which can be determined by their chemical makeup) or is that just a lie made up so as to keep the obsidians down?
Yeah, different skull shapes are a social construct. Natural attraction and preference must also be a social construct. Are different breed of dogs social constructs too, wolves and coyotees? Race is real.
1. Different skull shapes? Does that mean a baby is a different race to an adult? (Just incorrect). 2. Natural attraction does not determine a "race" 😂😂 3. And different breeds of dogs are different species (which is not "race"). Before commenting, maybe you should take a few biology lessons 😘👍
You're just incorrect. Different races do not have individually different skulls. Wolves and coyotes are races, they're species. And just because they can breed that doesn't make them the same species. A species are a group of organisms who can successfully reproduce to produce fertile offspring. Which wolves and dogs simply cannot. Please go and pick up a book instead of making dumb statements on the internet.
Wolves can produce fertile offspring with coyotes. Here's another example Kodiak bear and Grizzly bear. RaCe iS a SoCiaL cOnStruCt. Are you gonna block me like the typical leftist?
I'm not going to block you unless you start spamming me lol. "Race is a social construct" is literally A FACT. You cannot dispute it. I'm not a leftist but I'm guessing you've run out of arguments and so turn to name calling and politics like a typical right-wing, science-denier, sad old man 😘
1. The human species has different phenotypical variants which means certain groups of humans differ from each other morphologically (based on their physical attributes or appearance). This diversity predates historical times (by this I mean written history) and is due to the adaptation to different enviromental circumstances which the early humans met after they “split up” and wandered all across the globe. Eg. people in equatorial regions tend to have darker skin due to increased amount of sunlight and this trait developed SEPARATELY in different populations (Africans and Austroasians).
2. This diversity in its natural form cannot be divided to exact groups (“races”) because the differences between humans are changing GRADUALLY as we move on the map - simply put there is no straight line separating one “race” from another because people residing next to each other tend to look similar and differences are only visible when you’re sampling individuals from greater distances: You can easily tell a Nigerian person from a Norwegian, but where could you draw the lines between these archetypical “races”? People residing in the intermediate regions tend to look like they’re “in between” or “phasing through”.
So yes there are differences between humans but these are much more diverse then the racial cathegories they’re grouped into. Moreover the WAY these differences are CLASSIFIED into distinct groups - the attributes which are taken into consideration (skin color, certain facial features) - is ARBITRARY and INCIDENTAL, and is only due to human perceptions and decisions (not inherently biological). Which means they’re CULTURAL.
You didn't debunk anything, you love the idea of humans having no race, and that humans are all the same. A dna test can distinguish between the different races of humans, and the percentages of which race they are. Dna tests can distinguish a southern European from a Jewish person for example. Language is a social construct; Human races are not. A Kodiak bear and a grizzly bear are different, not due to social constructs, but due to genetics or RACE.
You're confusing species with races. How many races are there? The same amount as genders? 😂😂 Or just black and white? You're not very bright are you? 😂 "Jewish" isn't a "race", Judaism is a religion. I'm praying for you. I don't know how you've survived so long in this world with only half a brain. What did you study in college? Or did you not even graduate nursery? 😂😂
@RonStone45 good point, attraction and preference are absolutely influenced by society. We see heaps of examples of this, as we compare what is "beautiful" and "attractive" across cultures. I think of the elongated necks of some tribes I saw on National Geographic. I personally find a 3' long neck to be grotesque, but as you point out, that's influenced by my society. Great argument! I also like how you pointed out wolves and coyotes, which are different species, canis lupus and canis latrans. That gives even more weight to the argument that there is no such thing as race, since we are all homo sapiens, and there are no deviations signifying that there are separate species or "races". All in all, great talking points, but I don't understand your statement at the end, "Race is real.". did you forget your /s? /s
@RonStone45 her point is that obviously people can look different from having different skin but same applies to hair colour. You wouldn't claim people of different hair colour are different species would you? It's just like any trait that changes and flexes over millennia.
This is due to one word having multiple definitions. I can say "that's gay" without actually implying it's homo. A dude who likes this Is pretty gay. But technically straight at the same time because it's a biological female.
As you say he is confusing race and species... I see what both of you mean. Social constructs can be invented, so there may be one you refer to as "race". And yet many people use the word race for something more than a social construct. But who the fuck can dictate the right and only definition of a word?
You also said "no." So if race doesn't exist because you view it as a social construct, then gender doesn't exist either? I'm sure the word "gender" has long been used for only 2, before they invented a hundred of them. And it happens to come from the Latin "genus".
That's not what you think it means. Genus is a word invented by a scientist when referring to a group of organisms in a classification (which at the time could mean the same thing as gender/race etc)
Gender is a social construct according to literally every scientist on earth. Definition from WHO - Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed.
@RonStone45 The gender being a social construct used to baffle me because in my head (and most people's heads) gender is just another word for sex. Then I realised when people nowadays say gender they mean more like style of expression/way of dressing/living so when someone changes gender they're changing their style of expression from e. g. male to female.
I don't don't when this new meaning of gender came around, I only started seeing it being used in around 2010s but in Wikipedia gender is defined as basically how masculine or feminine someone dresses with additional non-binary styles etc included as possible genders https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender
People with special needs recently invented a social construct called gender, a word that already existed becore, but that doesn't change its history lol.
I guess we’re talking about humans organizing the details of the animal kingdom. So perhaps “race” is a name we label certain groups but that name and group changes all the time.
Who was considered “White” in America changed quite frequently. So much so, religion was considered.
Doesn't matter what is or was ''considered'' what matters is what it actually is. Saying Irish people aren't white is wrong by genetics, physical appearance. They also had indo-european culture and language.
Holidays 
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
+1 y
+1 y
Opinion Owner+1 y
353 Reply
Most Helpful Opinions