Not entirely. What Keelai just said has some truth, scientifically speaking. But both of you have points with merit. Plus, although much of what Keelai has said in this thread is accurate, other positions he has espoused contradict what he’s saying here (I’ll touch on that later).
A lot depends on how one breaks down what "race" means, and what context it’s being viewed within, but it's much deeper than just skin. Skin color is not a good indicator of, say, medical factors, for example. You must have a complete genetic picture of the individual. For example, Mongols are very different from Koreans, even though they share some DNA, so saying they’re both “Asian” doesn’t have much meaning physically speaking. And why lump them together socially since they’re so different culturally? That’s like lumping an Irishman in with a Frenchman, which some would do under the banner of “white”, even though it’s just as meaningless and flawed. Completely different languages, culture, and divergent DNA. While skin color might point in a general direction, it ultimately misses the mark, and includes a very wide array of specific variations that must be considered.
In fact, that picture you posted is the perfect example of what I've tried to state on this board before. It shows an excellent example of the human race from one end of the genetic spectrum to the other (differences created by a mere .01% genetically). Sure, we could say that each individual square in the picture depicts a "race", but that also contradicts the erroneous five-race notion (so now there’s 63 races?). It's all in how you define it. But scientifically speaking, there's only one overarching race of human left on the planet, rendering “race” equivalent to “species” in our case. The other “races” (neanderthal, denisovans, etc.), by this definition, died out long ago (even that isn't that simple, because many of us have DNA from both, but they were technically different species).
So "black", "white", etc. doesn't accurately reflect the genetic reality, which is why Whoopie’s comments are so off the mark, and why lumping all white-looking people together as if they’re the same group (some even include Asians now under that umbrella), or all black-looking people, etc. is so misguided and damaging to society. It's like looking at a rainbow and drawing a circle around "yellow", only to then zoom in and realize you've just circled millions of gradient colors consisting of discreet, minute variations between green and orange that form a single string of adjacent variances so close that they can barely be discerned visually, until you start comparing shades that exist further from each other on the spectrum. Thinking of it in terms of "yellow" might be easier, but it isn't technically accurate once one drills down, and the deeper constituent components must be understood if one were to want to extract, identify, or blend colors with an outcome of true accuracy.
In fact, one person’s green might be another person’s yellow, whether due to differences in vision or opinion, while one person’s olive skin might be another person’s white skin. Which is why there’s merit to what Keelai says about it being a social construct. Race as you’re defining it is rife with subjective contextualization from within the scope of individual perspective, which is why it varies.
This, in turn, is why the racialization of everything by the Left in recent years is so dangerous, counterproductive, and ultimately self-defeating. One can’t be taken seriously by holding a sign in one hand that displays “black lives matter” while in the other holding a sign that depicts “skin color is no more relevant than eye color”. I mean… huh? Do they really not see it? That’s where the Left has gone awry, mired in internally conflicting belief. But those who prescribe to that extreme variation of ideology don’t realize they’re drowning in a deluge of contradictory dichotomy that will never produce positive results for society. They need to pull their heads from their arses and wise up.
CONTNIUED…
reply
share
warrior-poet (1333)
2 years ago
…CONTINUING
But ultimately, you both have a point and need try to understand each other.
Keelai: Germans and Jews both have white skin, but one considered the other a different race, driven by social, cultural and political reasons, and committed atrocities because of it. Socially speaking, skin color should be as irrelevant as eye color for a single species/race.
Quasimodo: But they were quite physically different races. Look at this picture!
Me: Genetically, they were indeed physically different, so could be categorized as such. But, the permutations are in fact legion, i.e. if discerning physical differences, there aren’t just five races; there’s at least dozens, probably hundreds, or more. But socially, there is no value, only harm, in doing so (e.g. “black lives matter” as opposed to “all lives matter”, white supremacists who perceive “black” or “Jewish” as inferior, etc.) As Keelai said, skin color should be as irrelevant as eye color (rendering many aspects of CRT a moot, worthless, even socially damaging, endeavor, mostly to those categorized as “minorities”). But Keelai’s talking about its application within a social framework, and I agree with him (just not on the ideological contradictions). However…
There is value in grasping genetic differences for physical reasons, a big one being medical, so you have a point as well. I just wouldn’t agree that the term “race” is still applicable because those differences go much deeper than “black”, “white”, “red”, etc., i.e. skin color. DNA is much more complex, much deeper, much more varied. So, while that picture of the human spectrum could be seen as individual discreet representations of around 63 different “races”, they’re actually no more individual races than a Poodle is from a Doberman, a Doberman from a Husky, etc. If “black” was an actual physically distinct race, so would a Dachshund be. And then what would you call a Cavapoo? Mixed race? If variant breeds of dog aren’t seen as different races, why should humans be viewed as such? Answer: within a certain context, they shouldn’t, and within modern science, they aren’t. However, to your point, they should be seen as having genetically-derived physical (entailing much more than just what’s externally visible) differences. And these physical differences come with varying advantages and disadvantages that must be acknowledged, which I suspect is the underlying point you’re trying to get at, a position I completely agree with.
I just don’t agree that it should be “race”. A more apt word would be “subrace”.
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason
reply
share
Quasimodo (16388)
2 years ago
No it isn't. Just because your bullshit goes on and on and on doesn't make it any less bullshit, just the opposite in fact.
What you people fail to acknowledge is that your argument entirely rests on the fact that you have redefined the idea of race out of existence. Race used to mean categories of people broken down by skin colour. That was what it meant and people understood it to be such.
Then after some scientists said we all share 99.9% of our DNA the Woke Folk saw their chance and immediately jumped on it and declared " See there's no such thing as race ! "
So if you redefine race out of existence in your own mind then for you it doesn't exist. But as the photo I posted above clearly shows race hasn't gone anywhere.
reply
share
warrior-poet (1333)
2 years ago
Your statement of the concept of race being diminished is true, because it's an antiquated notion that quite some time ago with the advent of genetics was realized as obsolete and inaccurate, having nothing to do with "woke" culture that's rampant today, but science of a couple decades back (although I'd agree that the "woke" have tried to take advantage of it, but in the process have also contradicted themselves and shot themselves in the foot, which I mention above). But the rest of what you say does not apply to my post, which I suggest you actually read in full and spend some time digesting and reflecting upon.
I think you'll find yourself agreeing with at least some of what I say.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
Quasimodo (16388)
2 years ago
It's like talking to a brick wall.
reply
share
warrior-poet (1333)
2 years ago
Me: "Your statement of the concept of race being diminished is true."
You: "It's like talking to a brick wall."
Me: "Then set the mirror down."
Okay, so as I allude to above, since that picture depicts 63+ genetic variations, you're saying there's 63 races? The very picture you linked to visually and quite plainly contradicts the five-race concept. if you want to define genetic groupings with the term race, you can't use colors to do so because it isn't accurate enough.
Mongols are different from Koreans, Irish are different from the French, which are different from Jews. And yet you want to lump them together into a groupings of "Yellow" and "White"? For what purpose? What does that accomplish, when it ignores their individual genetic differences, with "white" being the worst offender of the bunch, having a much broader and diverse array of genetic configurations (with some "whites" being much closer genetically to Chinese than other so-called "whites"?
I'd get behind use of the term "subrace" if someone were to make an effort to split it out into much more accurate groupings to where it might have a modicum of substantial meaning, but there'd be a very large number of them, and until that's done it really doesn't provide positive value. As it is, extremists on both sides of the ideological spectrum abuse it to their own ends, especially the ultra Left these days.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share