Race is a Social Construct: Proof

Though there are a couple different ways of explaining this, I will chose the simplest method in explaining how the official scientific position:

>there is no 'race gene' that determines race
>the best way to figure out race from a persons DNA is by making an educated guess from the presence or combination of a few different genes (eg skin tone, facial structure)
>even if such a race gene did exist, almost everyone would then be mixed race, as except for a few people living in isolated tribes, everyone is the product of racial interbreeding
>thus the definition of race is completely arbitrary
>eg in Nazi Germany a person with either three or four Jewish grandparents is considered to be a Jew, however this definition came from society rather than genetics, as one could argue just as well anyone with at least one Jewish parent is Jewish or that one's family must be purely Jewish for at least 5 generations in order for them to be Jewish
>since the definition of race is arbitrary, it is decided by society
>therefore race is a social construct

Note: this does not mean that race does not exist, only that race is a social construct

Further reading: statement from American Anthropological Association: americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583

If you disagree please point out which logical step I made was incorrect and be prepared to cite your sources

Other urls found in this thread:

annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043309?journalCode=soc
news.nationalpost.com/news/why-the-colour-indigo-is-disappearing-from-sir-isaac-newtons-occult-rainbow).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_distance
archive.is/T8J7f
americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Do you even know what Mendel's laws are?

>color is a social construct because there is a spectrum between green and blue and therefore nothing is actually green or actually blue
You
Are
This
Retarded

Read the OP
>Note: this does not mean that race does not exist, only that race is a social construct

But even then, if you look at the color analogy it is perfect example. Color by definition is a social construct. In English speaking societies, the color green is called 'green'. However in French speaking societies, the color 'green' is called 'vert'. Does that mean the French are wrong? No because color is a social construct. In fact it is even possible for society to exist that calls green blue and blue green because these definitions are arbitrary

>In English speaking societies, the color green is called 'green'. However in French speaking societies, the color 'green' is called 'vert'. Does that mean the French are wrong?

how fucking stupid are you? Differences in language has nothing to do with the point.

>A nigger isn't a nigger, it's white.

>Good goyim race doesn't exist let your country be flooded by the entire third-world

>there is no 'race gene' that determines race
Did anyone ever assert there was? Are differences between dog breeds a matter of a single gene?

Not everything that is a social construct is worthless. It just mean a certain categorization was implemented which can be done for good reasons too.

Do you even know what the term social construct means? Or do you just use it because its trendy on/pol/ because that's what it looks like right now. I'll explain only one more time and if it goes over your head that's on you.

Since the definition of color is arbitrary, using it anything other than a casual way makes no sense. Like if the government passed a law that said all blue car owners now have to pay 5% more tax that would be pretty pointless since the term blue itself doesn't mean anything. Teal car owners would say that they don't have to pay the tax, and many people with darker cars would argue that their car is more black and blue so the law doesn't apply to them. In order to do something like this the government would instead have to say all blue cars from which the light is between 450–495 nm have to pay 5% more tax. The term blue is meaningless and the statement would just as valid if they didn't use the term 'blue' at all but only stated exactly what wavelengths they were concerned about.
Likewise using racial terms is pointless in non casual contexts since their definitions are arbitrary and instead more precise definitions should be used (eg over x percent of melanin).

...

Everything is a social construct so nothing matters.

Sure thing ahmed.

If race isn't real why are liberals obsessed with it?

All communist must die, and one day, we will kill you too.

Correct. What I am trying to say is that Sup Forums should actually read what scientists are saying instead of claiming that they are all jews.
see pic
Even if a combination of genes defined race, everyone would be mixed race due to interbreeding. Unless you make the definition that over x percent of y genes defines a race but then again the x and y are arbitrary and therefore a social construct.

when did I say that nothing matters because it is a social construct? when did I say race wasn't real? you are grasping at straws my dude

No you fucking leaf, your example is reatarded. You are mixing linguistics and genetics.
Goddamnit are there any non morons on this board?

>there is only one human race
>but there are over 150 genders

Colour is not defined arbitrarily, there is an objective definition. The colour green is visible light with a wavelength of 495–570 nm. The fact French people call it "vert" and English people call it "green" is irrelevant.

Gravity isn't a social construct because it is called "Gravity" in English and Jūryoku (重力) in Japanese.

>Race is a Social Construct
No it's not

>tfw to intelligent too be white

So what difference does it make if it's a social construct or not? Have the same relevance and meaning.

Interesting that the twisted meaning of this term could very well be something made up by leftists calling things "just" social construct; it's like how some are trying to make racism mean being bigoted AND priviliged.

It's ironic a lot of right wingers fall for these same tricks.

I didn't use the term you dumb fuck leaf, you did.

Gas yourself

>Even if a combination of genes defined race, everyone would be mixed race due to interbreeding. Unless you make the definition that over x percent of y genes defines a race but then again the x and y are arbitrary and therefore a social construct.

>There is no such thing as race. Race is a social construct.
> fuck white people! Dey all be racsis! We wun reparissuns!

You can't have it both ways snowflake.

Are dog breeds social construct? Is chihuahua and dane the same?

...

The fact that an idiot, fuck even a dog can distinguish a nigger from a nordic by a quick glance but so called intelligent scientists claim there's no perceivable difference between them is just fucking mind numbing.

Just seems that everything people are being taught these days is wrong or deceitful. And they think they're smart because they've been fed a bunch of lies and paid thousands of dollars for it.

There's no 'species gene' that defines species either.
Is that why you legalized bestiality canuck?

No matter how much obfuscation and wordplay you use, it doesn't change the fact that race is easy to see and strongly correlated with many things like intelligence.
>b-but there's no intelligence gene either, the definition of intelligence is arbitrary

Fuck off Nigger

annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043309?journalCode=soc

Diversity is not our strength

...

Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean that it isn't real. I have never made that claim. Read the OP: >Note: this does not mean that race does not exist, only that race is a social construct

>Colour is not defined arbitrarily, there is an objective definition. The colour green is visible light with a wavelength of 495–570 nm. The fact French people call it "vert" and English people call it "green" is irrelevant.
There is no natural law that says that wavelengths need to split with different color names exactly at the 495 and 570 nm mark. If instead we said blue = 500–575 nm science would not cease to work. In fact historically the wavelengths for the color purple used to be split into violet and indigo and the definition was only changed recently. Why? because originally society wanted to have 7 colors in the rainbow as six was an evil number but now society decided that is pretty silly. (news.nationalpost.com/news/why-the-colour-indigo-is-disappearing-from-sir-isaac-newtons-occult-rainbow). Thus color is defined by society not science.

>if race isn't binary then it doesn't exist!

>if something can be between two distinct categories then the categories don't exist!

I could have a glass of pure water, or orange juice.
I can mix my water and orange juice.
>"ah, well if I can mix my water and orange juice then at what point is is EITHER orange juice or water? HAHA CHECK MATE RACISTS, water and orange juice don't exist."

Just because I can mix distinct characteristics doesn't mean that they don't exist

kill yourself, sage

if race is a social construct then tell me why blacks living in the same environment as whites are more prone to certain health conditions

Allow me to.

Race exists, but it is arbitrary. Specific races in high altitude climates will have larger lungs than races which live in the deserts and contain higher levels of melanin. Race is simply a humans adaptation to a specific environment. People like to use race to make arguments on levels of intelligence, but those are entirely social issues (poorer education, improper nutrition, etc). .

It's a social construct with a biological basis. There's a debate over what constitutes particular populations but that doesn't mean it's completely arbitrary. That's like saying the difference between a Chihuahua and a Husky is arbitrary.

see pic here >So what difference does it make if it's a social construct or not?
That's up to you to decide. I am simply supporting the claim that race is a social construct.

The problem with your argument is that judaism is a race as much as being muslim is a race, yes there´s a gene CODE for arab muslims, so you can tell by looking at somebody´s DNA weather or nor that person has arab/muslim genes.
Now if you want to claim that there´s no difference between a sub-saharan african and a Swede, you are out of your mind.
There are different dog breed, so as there are different human breed/races, if you are 1/4 jewish, it doesn´t matter, for you will still be 100% white, yet if you are 1/4 black, you´ll have a lot of differences with other whites, both in the colour of your skin and in your features, such as the shape of the skull, the texture of the hair, the IQ, etc.

Also:
>Race is a social construct

No.

Ethnicity (based upon skin colour, geographical location + country, culture, religion, race etc) is a social construct.

Race is purely a biological principle.

They are two completely different words, with two completely different meanings.
Leftists love to conflate them, mixing up these definitions in order to try and dispute biology.

Kill yourself (X2)

+ more
Holy fuck do you faggots know how to read? Reread the OP and then try again. I'll even link it for you:
>Note: this does not mean that race does not exist, only that race is a social construct

k so retarded bait, got it.

Should we argue whether water is wet or if wetness is actually a social construct?

Uhhh, yes, it is painfully obvious that anything that is given a name or a definition by human beings is considered to be a social construct, therefore, everything that we know is a social construct...

See
Race =/= ethnicity.

Stop mixing these words up.

Race is biological.
Ethnicity is social.

>race is a social construct

What isn't anyway? To say that a slant-eyed gook and a nigger from Africa are one and the same is pure folly.

>"there is no 'race gene' that determines race"
>"since the definition of race is arbitrary, it is decided by society"

>gene markers may delineate societies names for races, but genes still dictate races

>Ultramarine is blue
>aqua is blue
>since humans decided to arbitrarily separate these to blues into separate categories, these shades and all colors are social constructs

Dog if you are not willing to argue if water is wet you need to get out of the intellectual game.

I have a feeling most of the arguments in this thread went way over your head so you just read the buzzwords and posted your response.

>since humans decided to arbitrarily separate these to blues into separate categories, these shades and all colors are social constructs
Correct. Read

So tornados are a fucking social construct because the wind must have X amount of speed, and since you determine X, tornados are a social construct.

I have a feeling that retarded ass leafs come here to talk nuance about something that's irrelevant.

Regardless of social construct or now, it changes nothing.

Color is literally a social construct. It's a system we've created to assign value to different perceptions of light. Red and yellow don't exist, even if the frequency of light producing red and yellow does.

All words are made up.
Hence words are not real.
QED

You seem to be mixed up about the relation between labels and objects. The object of colour is a reality apart from whatever societal labels exists. The label, which like all words and symbols are decided socially, refers to something outside of society.

If there existed a set of genes or a genetic structure which corresponded fairly well to the labels we have for race, then it would make sense to say the concept of race was objective. There is to my knowledge not a ready answer to whether there is a genetic foundation for what we call race, mostly because it would be social suicide to want to study it.
Sure there would exist next to no "purebreed", but still a significant structure to categorize people according to their genes, as we do with other species.

>Thus color is defined by society not science.
>language is defined by society
>colour is a social construct because society can choose to redefine the terms with which they refer to an objective fact

tfw fruitless discussion on linguistics

>Race is biological
Alright then I challenge you to give me a biological definition of a race and I will provide you with a counterexample.

So if humans didn't exist, there wouldn't be color categories?

A race would come along in the future after humanity and have no conception of different colors as a result of our deciding they were different?

>everyone is a bit fat
>this means that people who are ultra obese are as a fat as normal weight people

No the point I am making is that using race is useless without a precise definition of it, and if a precise definition is created on the basis of certain biological factors, why not use those factors instead of race? It would work just as well without defining race at all

>biological definition

You mean in terms of genetics?

>see pic related of how humans are classified, purely by genetics, into races

This isn't based upon one gene, but multiple genes.

Race is literally in genes. You may not feel comfortable with the differences in humans, but love it or hate it, they are there in general population groups.

Olympic athletes have genes we don't have. Not everyone can be olympic. that's ok. Calling those super athlete genes "social constructs" doesn't counter them in any way.

You're a filthy solipsist.

Sure


>1. the best way to figure out race from a persons DNA is by making an educated guess from the presence or combination of a few different genes (eg skin tone, facial structure)

>2. even if such a race gene did exist, almost everyone would then be mixed race, as except for a few people living in isolated tribes, everyone is the product of racial interbreeding

>3. thus the definition of race is completely arbitrary

2 is an incorrect step because a unit does not need to be purely X to be considered to be X, and "mixed" only applies if the variation is above some level.

For example: You have a bowling ball of gold atoms. However, in the middle, there is a single carbon atom. The bowling ball would still be described as being "made of gold" and not "made of a gold-carbon mixture".

3 is incorrect because a definition being imprecise with vague borders and a more solid center does not mean the definition is "completely arbitrary" as you call it.

This is quite obvious. Take for example a concept like "ladder". Is a wooden square a ladder? What if each side is extended a tiny amount, so there are two nubs on the top and two nubs on the bottom? What if these nubs are extended gradually - at what point does it become a ladder with two steps? If a ladder needs more than two steps, then repeat the same with the requisite number of crossbars.

This lack of a precise definition of a ladder to a microscopic level does not mean that the definition is arbitrary. I cannot define that the air is a ladder.

Hence, even if the definition of "ladder" or "race" is not precise to a microscopic level, it is also not arbitrary. Point 3 fails.

If that race came along in the future I highly doubt they would randomly come up with the exact same definition for each color as us

Well, words are also a social construct, my ass is a social construct there is no ass gene.
My hair is a social construct, the sky is a social construct. Niggers are a social construct, religion does not exist, gun laws are in realty just pieces of paper that most humans agreed on. Society is not real because humans just made it up and how can the world be real if my eyes aren't real.

Diversity in genetics in %
human 0.7 subspecies 0
jaguar 0.7 subspecies 9
Chimpanzee 0.6 subspecies 4
Leopard 0.6 subspecies 8
puma 0.5 subspecies 6
elk 0.4 subspecies 7

If race is just a social construct then:
>niggers have no excuse to act like niggers and can stop at any time
>niggers have no excuse to use niggerbabble ebonics and use English like everyone else in the country they've been in for generations.

2+2=Chiggun

Source: South-side of Chicago

So you're big problem is that we're not all using the same words?

Because you seem to admit race fundamentally, scientifically, exists.

Prove me wrong

Diet.
Next question

Bonus reading, how genetic distance is calculated:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_distance

Anything above 0.1, via that calculation, is deemed as a different race.

Protip: people can indeed breed between these races, but that does not mean that these races don't exist.

Dog breeds. Buildings are also a social construct. That doesn't mean they're not real. A pit bull is not the same as a teacup poodle.

Race plays a definite role in intellect, just as much as it does in all physical aspects. And the brain, yes, is also a physical aspect.

I wish it weren't this way, I wish who your ancestors fucked didn't define how good you were at tennis, but no matter how much you scream and pretend it doesn't, it will. And the dumber people compensate for being fucking stupid by breeding like rats. It's literally why we're not in the stars by now. The smarter, more technologically advanced people, overcome, time and time again, by fucking brown retards.

>the bowling ball would still be described as being "made of gold" and not "made of a gold-carbon mixture"

So even though it is a gold-carbon mixture, people would arbitrarily define it to fit their notions of mixture?

I would be willing to wager that you could find ladder designs where people would disagree over whether or not it was a ladder. This demonstrates that ladder is not a literal thing, but a cultural marker we assign to an object. Take a ladder back before it was invented and what do you have?

Race is not a social construct.

It's the name given to visible biological characteristics that happen due to genetic diversity.

If race were a social construct, I could argue that I am black while I am a pale motherfucker.

Being "black" implies visible physical characteristics that come with certain genes.

Race is an IMPRECISE concept to define genetic diversity. Not a social construct.

I'm pretty sure this is why there is a gold stand anons

Reminder that white features can never truly go away because we understand the mutations that go into making white features.
With genetic engineering becoming a reality white aesthetics can never truly disappear.
Blonde hair is just the absence of a type of melanin production anyway, its one of the same things that turns hair grey. The only difference between straight/curly/ and kinky hair is the placement of the hair follicle on the head.
All genetic traits within the scope of humanity can be replicated in any other race given enough selective breeding, race is LITERALLY a social construct.

Why do blacks have a average lower IQ than whites? why do Asians have a higher iq then whites? Why do you believe intelligence is sacred when skin color and shape of cranium is not? Why do black have higher levels of testosterone? why do blacks have smaller brains? why do Asians and whites have certain gens that blacks do not have? why are the muscles of blacks more suited for tuning than whites and Asians? why do black score an average of 80 on iq scores in white adopted families?

I'm pretty sure this is why there is a gold standard anons*

>It's the name given to visible biological characteristics that happen due to genetic diversity.

Race is not skin deep. As pointed out above, it determines health conditions, metabolism and yes things like IQ and emotional responses. Emotions are sensors after all.

If this is true then remove the "visible" part and you get it

>colour is defined by society not by science
Kek, oh my sides. Leaf.

Without going into too much colour we see is due to several things.
Firstly, light from sun.
Secondly, how materials/particles effect wavelengths
Thirdly, how our biological "instruments" (eyes, brain) interpret that.

What people call it is irrelevant as generally it's the inherent difference of the observed wavelengths that count.

Also if you have a point to make, make it clear and concise, don't ramble. How humans interpret colour has little to do with "race as a social construct".
Personally though, whether race is or isn't a social construct isn't important because reguardless of whether people are of mixed genetics or not, they're still going to associate with people that look like them more than people that don't. Hence creating a "group" of people that look similar that share a similar identity.

>For example: You have a bowling ball of gold atoms. However, in the middle, there is a single carbon atom. The bowling ball would still be described as being "made of gold" and not "made of a gold-carbon mixture".
I disagree. It is incorrect to say something is gold when it is not completely gold. If you took a purely gold ball and a gold ball that only a few carbon atoms in it they would still have different properties such as density.
>mixed" only applies if the variation is above some level.
And what decides this level? It is arbitrary.

If we wanted to be precise and compare spheres using your definition of gold it would not be possible until we defined exactly how many carbon atoms makes a sphere not be 'gold' anymore. But in that case using the term 'gold' at all becomes redundant when instead we can just compare the spheres in terms of atom composition instead of a label that is arbitrary defined.

Likewise for race, if we wanted make decisions based on 'race' it would not be possible until we made exact biological definitions of each race. But in that case using each racial term would still be pretty useless when we can use the more precise biological definitions. For instance it would be pointless to make correlations between race and intelligence when the race would also encompass a variety of factors that didn't affect race at all such as genes responsible for hair color. Instead it would make sense just to compare people in terms of what intelligence genes they possess.

Thank you for the logical response.

>there is no 'race gene' that determines race
Of course not, because that's not how anything is determined. You don't find a subspecies gene, or even a fly gene, you have cluster of different genes arranged in different manners which help you identify them at the level required. This is the reason why Ligers are a thing, you absolute retard.

How do you reconcile race being a social construct with the fact that its basis is on objective biology? At some point you have to admit that the groups are not the same. You cannot say that an East Asian is the same as an African. Even in the absence of society and its perceptions there are objective physical differences between these groups of people.

>It is incorrect to say something is gold when it is not completely gold.
Then go around making lawsuits, because by your logic nothing is made of gold.

>people would arbitrarily define it

No, it's not arbitrary, but a universal concept.

>to fit their notions of mixture?

No, it would be according to what they perceive to be a common definition of mixture.

1. I would be willing to wager that you could find ladder designs where people would disagree over whether or not it was a ladder.
2. This demonstrates that ladder is not a literal thing

2 is wrong - a ladder is obviously a literal thing.

>Take a ladder back before it was invented and what do you have?

You have a ladder that has been taken back in time to before ladders were invented

>I am simply supporting the claim that race is a social construct
Your claim is no more no less than a logical fallacy
" Various terminologies are used to classify human differences in genomic research including race, ethnicity, and ancestry."
" Although race and ethnicity are related, race refers to a person’s physical appearance, such as skin color and eye color. Ethnicity, on the other hand, refers to communality in cultural heritage, language, social practice, traditions, and geopolitical factors."
" Mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection operated in parallel with demographic and historical events to weave the patterns of human variation in extant populations."
" The result of this interplay was the imprint of genetic ancestry and population structure carried in the genome of each individual and groups that lead to the development of the remarkable racial and ethnic diversity that we see today."
archive.is/T8J7f

That doesnt get rid of the argument being presented that we are human being with no wide genetic differences that would separate us as different species but race does exist by nation, color, iq, economic development etc. To argue that a nig, spic and eurocuck are different species because of gene clusters that simply show how we've changed in our environment an thise gene clusters stayed within that geographic location doesnt' make us different species but there are races that are inferior only in the sense that their society has not had the perfect circumstances or enough circumstances to advance in the specific way others have and thus this reflects in their IQ and societal structure.

More primitive cultures are not able to adapt to western sociological structures because they arent there collectively to handle it to maintain is because they never made it there naturally which is why previous colonies fail at certain levels Africa being by far the worst and South America being eh, and places like the US and such colonies predominantly european are more successful because they have that societal build up already. an example of this is you dont expect a child to know to ride a bike but eventually all people can learn.

This doesnt get rid of race though, nigs are still retarded and spics are pretty stupid but that doesnt mean they arent human and that there arent exceptions

Someone who knows his shit.

You do realize when you speak or when we talk its just fucking gibberish we've assigned as language or are you retarded. Are these the types of arguments being made for this or is this bait because its retarded

>what are phenotypes
You're fucking retarded if any of this is presented as a serious argument.

>poorer education, improper nutrition, etc
Wrong, bell curve

You're arguing semantics and not about race.

Your primary arguments have nothing to do with the concept of "race" in terms of genetics and only have to do with the language construct of "race."

Your secondary argument that "even if such a race gene did exist, almost everyone would then be mixed race" is irrelevant. Even if a person adds a new mixed-race parent at every stage of their family tree in the last 100 generations, you will still be able to identify their aggregate DNA structure to determine what % of what genetic markers are present, ergo you can determine their racial mix no matter how complex it gets.

>Further reading: statement from (((American))) Anthropological Association: americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2583

>They even shift from one country to another, changing with the eye of the beholder

Are you trying to pilpul me?
Compost yourself

Truth OP
And also one factor that crippled African advancement was not having tameable wildlife
Pic related

>iranian
>pooinloo
>arabs
>european
What?
Theyre more related to africans than whites

>post bait
>responds and gets mad when people bite
they don't make leafs like they used to.

>race is just a social construct
>picks black male and white female to show this every time
it's almost as if you're looking for a black man and a white female, but isn't there no such thing?

>the best way to figure out race from a persons DNA is by making an educated guess from the presence or combination of a few different genes (eg skin tone, facial structure)
flat out wrong. this isn't 1985, population genetics and autosomal studies have come a long way. with stable isotope analysis scientists are even able to determine where a person was raised and what their diet was.