"Race is a social construct"

Can we either squash this right now or actually convince me of its validity? I've heard this argument take so many forms, but at the end of the day, I cannot help but assign specific behavior to distinct groups. And if race is a social construct, what then isn't? Sexuality? Gender? I'm highly suspicious.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=caanqmV96j0
jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/
youtube.com/watch?v=wLoG9zBvvLQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Society is a racial construct.

thats what they do, try to undermine the pillars of society by questioning and redefining anything that keeps order. most things are a social construct, where does one color end and another begin? its hard to decide, does it mean all colors are the same?

Everything is a social construct. But that does not make it less true

It's a theoretical definition that has been taught as if it is empirically true. It's not terrible helpful a definition though. Some reduce it to a fiction, but that's not what social constructs are. They are very true and real. Rape is a social construct.

Race is not a social construct. It's man's adaption to its environment. For tens of thousands of years, people have been adapting. People in Europe turn white due to less sunlight, people in Africa are black because of so much sun. Asians are also well suited to their high climate environment with their eye adaptation

youtube.com/watch?v=caanqmV96j0

Those who argue that "race is a social construct" engage in the logical fallacy of equivocation by changing the definition of race. You can still concede that race IS a "social construct" (whatever that means) but IT IS ALSO BIOLOGICAL. If race is not biological, then how can a forensic scientist immediately and accurately identify a person's race just from their skull?

Civilization is a social construct
It's a meaningless statement. Taxonomy itself is a social construct, it doesn't fucking matter to anyone but us, but it doesn't mean it isn't important to us.

If someone claims X is a social construct, ask them:

1. Define social construct
2. What ISN'T a social construct?

It's best to know what they mean and, if possible, point out the stupidity.

Its bull, I keep hearing it in my Sociology class. Just cause this gay pseudo-science is a sociol construct doesn't mean race is.

But aren't both sexuality and gender social constructs? We, as Western society, have assigned certain behaviors to certain genders. That's not to say whatever argument you're making is less valid, just that you can't use biology as a basis for your argument.

Africa is the most ethically diverse continent, yet all Africans are counted as the same race. There are more genetic differences between East Africans and West Africans than there are between East Africans and Europeans. Therefore any argument you make based on grouping all Africans together and comparing them to Europeans can't have a biological basis, it has to have a social one, because we have superficially grouped Africans and Europeans into category based on phenotype, not genotype

what? who counts berbers the same as khoisan?

>convince me of its validity?
Give me an objective definition of who is considered white that can be accepted by most people, most biologists, most anthropologists, or most sociologists. If you can't than race is a social construct because there isn't a clear delineation between races.

>objective definition
mtDNA Haplogroups

I wasn't talking about Berbers. I alluding to Somalis.

Another example would be that Aboriginal Australians look like Africans, but are more similar to any European than they are any African.

jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/

but nobody considers abos african

It is a social construct, the distinction is man made just like men and women. But even though the categorization itself is not real, the distinction that made men separate men from women are indeed real. You can call a man a woman because he chopped off his dick, but writing on his ID card "woman" and recognizing him as a woman won't suddenly change what he is biologically speaking.

Maybe no one on here, but put a video of some people from Papua New Guinea on a TV and people are going to call them black. My dad, who is probably one Quran away from full blown black supremacy, calls them black.

If, socially, Aboriginals can be considered black although they're as genetically different as you'll get in humans, then race has a social function not a genetic one.

If you go by haplogroup, then there is no white race. There are almost a dozen European races.

im sorry your dads retarded but if someone doesnt know the difference between fruits and vegetables it doesnt make them magically the same

What are you even talking about? Do you actually have anything to say or are you just shitposting?

Let me know, I would love to go full /bant/ in this thread.

>there is no white race. There are almost a dozen European races.
Ok, then let's define the "white race" as the sum total of all European races.

Haplogroups just trace the male lineage. If a man with R1a as his haplogroup has a son with a black woman that muulato boy will be R1a. If he in turn has a son with a black woman his 3/4ths black son will be R1a. If he has a son with a black woman he will be R1a despite being 7/8ths African.

Everything humans do and think are social constructs ffs

The correct reply is "so what?"

Laws are social constructs
Languages are social constructs
Families are social constructs

The frequency of mulatto babies 20,000 years ago is too small to be consequential.

It applies under all circumstances though. Not to mention that going back 20,000 years ago is retarded because the vast majority of European peoples didn't even exist since the Indo-European migrations wouldn't happen for another 15,000 years or so.

But southern Italy shares a haplogroup with Tunisia, East Africa and the Middle East. Does that mean Italians aren't white or North Africans and Arabs are?

But none of those are abstract like race is.

>based on physical appearance
>abstract

It's abstract if people can't even agree on whether Latinos and Arabs are white or not. Everyone can agree on what is or isn't a law.

Just because a concept is contestable and difficult to understand doesn't make it abstract. The grounds for race are are based in physical reality. Name another abstraction that follows the same path.

It's abstract because there is no set barrier. Everyone doesn't fall cleanly into a racial category. Start in Hungary then move west across the map until the people stop being white and start being Asian. What about mixed raced people? Is the protocol with them to just go with the darker race? The official percentage?
The lack of "rules" for defining race and the lack of consensus on which races are actually races is what makes it abstract.

The issue is critical theory, bucko.

youtube.com/watch?v=wLoG9zBvvLQ

>What is DNA

ALL WHITES HAVE PINK NIPPLES, ALL NONWHITES DON'T
IT'S THAT SIMPLE FOLKS

Nigger you have to realize that the whole "race is a social construct" along with "being gay is genetic, not a choice" etc. etc. and any other bullshit they're trying to cram down everyone's throat is a direct attempt to subvert social norms, destroy families, and end objectivity. Yes, objectivity. There are many things in life black and white. Male and female. There aren't 1,000 different genders. This is all goes back to marxism and commie fucks from berkeley with their "experts" trying to normalize completely degenerate behavior like their NAMBLA lawyers trying to say it's "progressive" to want to fuck little boys. None of this shit is true. None of it.

I'll cite an earlier poster in this thread in response.
>where does one color end and another begin? its hard to decide, does it mean all colors are the same?
I don't wholly disagree with you, just on the point of race as being abstract.

Simple answer: not exactly
Slightly more technical answer: taxonomists unironically shirpost at eachother the same way most Sup Forumsacks do about race (is x white?) so they haven't come up with globally accepted terminologies yet

I'll see if I can dig up a thread in about some user going into more details about it

>119614532
I'm sure you can figure it out from there

I'm not saying race is fictional, I'm saying that to say that there's only a societal basis for it, and therefore its definition and limits are nebulous and abstract. There are phenotypical differences between people; no one denies that. The thing is that color of skin, shape of a nose or eyes of texture of hair says nothing about what's going on genetically under the hood. Superficial things like skin tone can change in a generation or two.

Color is much the same way. Different cultures and languages recognize different colors and put up different barriers than we do in English. In Madagascar there are 3 colors: white, black and red. In Russia blue and cyan are two distinct colors that have nothing to do with one another.

Where we put up barriers for race, just like where we put the barrier between pink and red, is completely arbitrary.

Why do you need proof that this is bullshit? Maybe it's because I'm a reclusive neet, but how can you not see it. Study history. Realize that society has always had labels for difference races and ethnic groups.

You'd have to be pretty retarded to not see this.

I don't know much about genetics, but doesn't a phenotypical manifestation stem from an according genotype? And I hear what you're saying about how we distinguish color, but to me that phenomenon only supports the idea that we possess certain characteristics based on our environment, which at the core of it, is what conceptions of race rest on. Granted, abstractions are sometimes hard for me to understand, but I think we simply have conflicting views on what one is.

There are hundreds of genes that determine things like skin tone and nose shape. There isn't even correlation between them either. Genes controlling melanin production in your body only control melanin production in your body, so your resulting skin tone doesn't say anything else about what's going on. There are even long strands of genes that don't even do anything, they're just there. Phenotype just shows the small number number of genes being expressed in your physical appearance.
Genotype is your phenotype plus all the stuff you can't see. There is relatively little genetic diversity in modern humans, but our phenotypes are wildly different.

Unless they're colorblind, all human beings see the same colors. The phenomenon of how we name colors and the order in which it's done and is pretty formulaic. Black and white are used to denote light and dark and then red is for things you avoid like blood and poisonous insects. Color recognition shows what a culture places importance on. In Madagascar, and all pre-industrial societies, you really only need five colors to describe the natural world.

Before the industrial revolution, English didn't have specific names for purple, orange, grey or blue. There wasn't any need for them so no one made the distinction.