Is race really a social construct?

Is race really a social construct?

no

In America is mostly is. I grew up in an American expat community (I'm Asian)and the kids in said community didn't really see race but was mostly and us (English speaking expats) vs them (non English speaking locals). It was when my family returned to the states when I noticed how much being "white" mattered to Americans

Not entirely.

The idea of social constructs are a social construct.

Really fired up my grey matter.

No.

is science a social construct?

Must be one hell of a social construct if it makes you have a different head shape beside other distinct features

everything is, does it mean nothing actually exists? no

You're pretty retarded for an Asian. Race "mattering" or not doesn't have anything to do with it being a social construct.

Phenotypes do exists. But what separates one race from another as a race is a social construct.

ex. A long time ago the English thought they were a different race from the Irish.

Race in relation to community ties and cultural behaviors is.

Take the military as an example, each branch will identify strongly with other members of their branch (the more cultlike and insular the branch the stronger the identification) you have Marines, Navy, Army and Airforce all sticking with each other regardless of race due to wanting familiarity with other from the same social circle where predictable behaviors can be expected while all of them see civilians as "others"

this. there's obviously a genetic element upon which the concept of race is based, but the popularly accepted concept of race (and certainly the application of these ideas) is not congruent with what nature tells us.

then you have retards who try to justify their worldview with haplogroups, which they clearly don't understand.

>A long time ago the English thought they were a different race from the Irish.

We still do. Literally no one believes in a "British race".

it is in the sense that it's a human concept that does not exist outside our own perception. it's a product of our perceived (though very real) differences

there are no real biological markers for what we consider race, only haplogroups which simply denote lineage. the kind of skyrim anthropology that Sup Forums espouses is bullshit

in reality differences between humans operate on a spectrum. only when we select and compare individuals from far ends of the spectrum do we see what we could consider individual races. of course, the spectrum is not smooth thanks to varying levels of geographic (and therefore evolutionary) isolation, so contrasts between groups can vary greatly

take, for example, china or india. though being single nations, composed of what we would consider to be single races, the diversity of peoples that you find in those countries is staggering.

race is a useful social concept, but it's not a scientific one. however, that's not to say that there aren't significant phenotypic differences between different groups of humans

English != potato niggers

It isn't a construct, its biological. Every race has different skull shapes, different body characteristics, different skins and eyes. Have you ever seen a pygmie from Congo for example? Does it look similar to an italian for example? No, and that is why it is biological. Its in the genes

My brother's girlfriend has a black cousin who was adopted at birth. So he was raised by white parents in a mostly white environment. He acts perfectly normal. So it probably is to some extent.

/thread

society is racially based

Well germanics look like pigs

race is something that doesn't neccesarily matter, blm makes it about race to bait right wingers and cause turmoil, as long as they do the best work I will pay them the same amount, I'll reward to whoever does the best amount of work, don't give a shit if you literally have orgys with black people in hot topic, just do the fuckin job

Yes in the same way that western civilization itself is just a figment of our imaginations. Advanced science road schools hospitals etc. aren't really important

civilization is a social construct

As much of a social construct as gender.

no, and thats the dumbest assertion ever. laughable.

>this here dumb niglet failed out of grade 8 and popped out 7 kids before her 18th birthday because culture did it

I don't believe in the white, black and yellow race paradigm. I do believe that people are different though. Who would deny that?
I think ethnic group is more important than race.

having basis in very real genetic differences doesn't mean that it's not a social construct. you're almost deliberately misunderstanding the idea of a 'social construct'. it's not to say that there aren't very real and significant differences between peoples, it's just that the racial categories that we use day to day don't truly exist outside of our perceptions.

genetic variation does not mean that human groups can be neatly categorised, only generalised based on our own limited perceptions. race is strictly a social concept, grounded in our evolutionary past.

greece smaht for once in two millennia

Isn't it amazing how people can be so different? Even neighbours. And humans don't even have that much genetic differentiation from what I've read. Impressive. Are we just very well-trained at spotting the differences? Who knows. I personally have trouble identifying with anything other than my ethnic group, because everyone else seems "wrong" to me in some aspect.

For mason-satanist cult that`s a dogma.

to simplify, it comes down to two questions:

>are there genetic and phenotypic differences between people
yes

>can peoples be neatly categorised based upon those differences
no


the idea that a complex, chaotic, adaptive system such as the earth would spew forth complex, adaptive organisms that conveniently fit into restrictively narrow categories is ridiculous. stupid. moronic.

it is truly a marvel of nature. humans in general are particularly finely tuned for recognising fellow human faces, so it comes as no surprise that we're also adept at spotting differences. i believe a big part of it is our seemingly innate in-group preference, or implicit bias.

i.e. the people that look like you are more likely to nurture you, the people that are unlike you are more likely to harm you

in evolutionary terms, those that can identify and band with their own are at a strict darwinian advantage.

I never liked Emma Watson

I never liked you, nigger. You will be the first to hang on the day of the rope!

>it's just that the racial categories that we use day to day don't truly exist outside of our perceptions.

The issue with this -- and, well, the idea of lamenting things as being a "social construct" -- is that... what doesn't exist outside of our perception? We create categories to help mentally organize -- it's just nature.

But, if you look at it more in-depth, it comes down to: is everything a social construct? If everything we classify, i.e. name, is a social construct, then it's tautological and saying nothing at all.

All in all, decrying something as a social construct is, indeed, saying nothing. Calling something as it is, is redundant. Language games do, in fact, rely on agreements between parties -- and this party extends to the "social", i.e. public at large.

Race is a social construct as much as science is or art or food or words: it's just a means of categorization to help convey something.

It really does nothing to call something a social construct.

the problem there is the history of race-science. bad science was used to make sweeping predictions and generalizations about groups of individuals, upon which policy and some really brutal stuff was based. you have to view it in context.

>Race in relation to community ties and cultural behaviors is.
>Take the military as an example, each branch will identify strongly with other members of their branch (the more cultlike and insular the branch the stronger the identification) you have Marines, Navy, Army and Airforce all sticking with each other regardless of race due to wanting familiarity with other from the same social circle where predictable behaviors can be expected while all of them see civilians as "others"
There is no logical connect between what you wrote and your conclusion. The millitary is an invention, people being instructed to behaving in a certain manner and following it to a large degree. Calling the evolutionary divergence of species a social construct is a lie by omission and false equivalence. It's retarded

True

i agree with most everything you're saying. decrying anything as a social construct does not change any of the material, physical phenomenon that our generalisations are based on. however, sometimes we need to reorient our perceptions as we become limited by the restrictions we place on ourselves as we attempt to categorise everything.

particularly, the root problem with our generalisations in biological phenomena is that there is no black and white in biology. this is where we encounter cases like progressives dismissing concepts like gender or race entirely when not everything fits our limited models or rigid categories. instead of acknowledging that our innate capacity to catalog and categorise simply fails to capture the complexity of nature, they cede to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Sup Forums has the opposite problem, and insists that everything must fit into the categories which we erect for ourselves.

Are Golden Retrievers a social concstruct?

you're assuming that the popular definitions of race match the evolutionary divergence of humans, and they don't. that's not even getting into the confounding issues of individual variations within groups

carrying capacity for blacks and whites r different , in any other animal this would be a sign of speciation

The classification of race, even in scientific context, is a social construct.

However, that is never a reason to dismiss it. Morality, countries and laws are all social constructs, as are language and culture. The fact that they are social constructs is no argument in and of itself. It's like calling clouds "just water in the sky" when the other side is trying to find out whether it is going to rain or not.

It's a post-modern bullshit merchant tactic to shift the topic to whether or not the social construct of race should exist, instead of the actual races that exist and have actual, tangible effects on the world.

wow. ur childhood was unique and u r veyr enlightened.

social constructs serve valuable purposes

of course, goyim

a simple way to view human groups, such as in your example, is as being a network of loyalties. loyalties to self, family, community, religion, ethnicity, race, guild and nation.

some loyalties are innate (self, family, community, race)
some loyalties are learned (nation, religion, guild)
many are both to some degree

when one loyalty outweighs the rest, people are able to overcome stark differences.
>e.g. loyalty within multiracial/multicultural military groups
conversely, when one loyalty undermines the rest, communities may become fractured
>e.g. sectarian/racial warfare within communities

the latter being amplified by the hobbesian trap

not everything comes down to race

i'm not great with taxonomy, but given that all human groups are successfully interbreeding isn't any other argument for speciation basically moot?

regardless, species is simply another human social construct, and we could reapply the previous arguments even if you were correct.

No, there are three races: caucasoid, negroid and mongoloid.

It does change ones understanding of things.
If someone refuses to acknowledge something as a social construct, believing it to be physical phenomena for instance, then their understanding of the subject is skewed and further conclusions based on such beliefs will be more concrete while subject to unintentional error. If someone is aware of margins of error, their conclusions are more flexible and their understanding of fact and conjecture is more complete.

inflexible thinking is something that far too many people here fall victim too. falling prey to the limitations we place on our own thinking is a seemingly unavoidable pitfall.

i think the idea of a social construct is a useful one, but it's misused on the left and misunderstood on the right.

this. the "social construct" shit was developed in response to idiots with no respect for the massive margins of error and complexity of race science.

...

...