Race is imaginary

[Metalic Wings]

Man-made without logical basis.

Out of curiousity, would anyone even really be willing to debate this?
I have a lot of reading that supports the title of this thread from my Anthropology class that I've found really interesting and thought-provoking. Expecially with the way that this topic lends to ideas about human nature.

So, any thoughts or comments?
(Or should I put up some of the things I've read? I'm almost hesitant to make a huge first post, thereby scaring away potential conversation >< )

 

[Willamena]

Out of curiousity, would anyone even really be willing to debate this?

Of course. Categorization is what we do best.
(Edit: Some would argue that fracturing the world into its various bits is why we are here.)

I have a lot of reading that supports the title of this thread from my Anthropology class that I've found really interesting and thought-provoking. Expecially with the way that this topic lends to ideas about human nature.

So, any thoughts or comments?

Putting up some of the things you've read would be welcome. In the meantime, I'll just point out that we facilitate all categories.

 

[Metalic Wings]

"The scientific use of 'race' is part of the cultural conversation that creates and recreates in mind a local biology of 'face'; it fashions a discursive formation into an apparent natural, empirical, and biological reality. Because it is a thing of the mind, the semantic meaning of 'race' differs from place to place and time to time even in the same place.Where ( and when) such concepts are biological (some notions or 'race' are cultural), they constitute a key component of local biology, the local cultural construction of human biology taken to be real, natural, and universal"

Atwood D. Gaines

 

[Metalic Wings]

"In the US, an allegedly majority group, variously called 'white' or 'Caucasian,' is distinguished in research not only as a biogenetic group, but also as a distinct culture. The 'majority' cultural group definition creates other groups as 'minorities.' However, this usage manifests an implicit 'racial' classificatory system and a leap in logic from there. That is, people assume that 'race' is culture. Hence, in science and society, individuals refer to something called the 'majority,' 'mainstream,' or 'dominant culture' borne by 'white' or 'caucasian' people."

Oh, and note: I'm sorry for any errors. I'm skimming through this chapter from Gaines's book and typing as fast as I can xD

 

[Willamena]

"The scientific use of 'race' is part of the cultural conversation that creates and recreates in mind a local biology of 'face'; it fashions a discursive formation into an apparent natural, empirical, and biological reality. Because it is a thing of the mind, the semantic meaning of 'race' differs from place to place and time to time even in the same place.Where ( and when) such concepts are biological (some notions or 'race' are cultural), they constitute a key component of local biology, the local cultural construction of human biology taken to be real, natural, and universal"

Atwood D. Gaines

Thank you for the quote.

It would seem to me that what is "imaginary" is "an apparent natural, empirical, and biological reality" of "race". So if we drop the "natural, empirical and biological" bit, we are left with a bit that emphasizes the importance of apperance.

 

[Metalic Wings]

"Though all systems of 'racial' beliefs are cultural constructions, they may form paramount social realities in a given culture. These conceptions are examples of 'culture in mind,' to use Bradd Shore's felicitous phrase (1996), in the form of local biology. In societies adhering to beliefs about biological bases of various human groups, we find that differences having to do with achievement, wealth, intelligence, morality, and other indices of success and well-being, are presumed to derive from biology. this determainistic view is (re)asserted in that paean to the 'natural' virtues of inequality, The Bell Curve. Such works typically ignore the rather obvious social (and cultural) contexts and constraints on life status and achievement."

 

[Metalic Wings]

Thank you for the quote.

It would seem to me that what is "imaginary" is "an apparent natural, empirical, and biological reality" of "race". So if we drop the "natural, empirical and biological" bit, we are left with a bit that emphasizes the importance of apperance.

The appearance-factor in race really bothers me. However I believe that Mr. Gaines is quite right in saying that most people try to group humans into races by culture. Oftentimes, race and ethnicity are used interchangably.

I believe that race is an imaginary tool, created by grasping at all of the straws a man can get at, in order to force his will onto other men without resistance.

 

[Willamena]

The appearance-factor in race really bothers me. However I believe that Mr. Gaines is quite right in saying that most people try to group humans into races by culture. Oftentimes, race and ethnicity are used interchangably.

I believe that race is an imaginary tool, created by grasping at all of the straws a man can get at, in order to force his will onto other men without resistance.

But "appearance" is paramount in everything we humans "fracture" (categorize). Everything is, to us, as it appears to be, and we act based on that. We uphold morality because it appears to be the best thing for people. We go deeper into credit because it appears it will support the economy. We attack Iraq because it appears to be responsible for 911. We buy and sell on appearances, we date each other on appearances, and we went to the moon on apperances. (I kinda hope that was one of the intended messages of "Defying Gravity".)

"Race" is arbitrary, I don't think any one would deny that, but it is not without purpose, as any (even arbitrary) category isn't. It doesn't have to be about superiority and inferiority --that's a distinct topic.

 

[Metalic Wings]

But "appearance" is paramount in everything we humans "fracture" (categorize). Everything is, to us, as it appears to be, and we act based on that. We uphold morality because it appears to be the best thing for people. We go deeper into credit because it appears it will support the economy. We attack Iraq because it appears to be responsible for 911. We buy and sell on appearances, we date each other on appearances, and we went to the moon on apperances. (I kinda hope that was one of the intended messages of "Defying Gravity".)

But can "appearance" account for biologically defined differences? Humans share some 99.95% of DNA. Does one's "appearance" make one any better? Can appearance define a person's intelligence? Can appearance decide whether a person should live or die?

just because humans fracture on a regular basis doesn't make it morally or intellectually correct.

"Race" is arbitrary, I don't think any one would deny that, but it is not without purpose, as any (even arbitrary) category isn't. It doesn't have to be about superiority and inferiority --that's a distinct topic.

"In 1991, taking note of the increasing interest (and conflict) of the US with people of the Middle East, I aruged then that people of this region were being constructed as a "race." Increasingly, after that date, medical papers appeared wherein people from the Middle East were compared to other groups. Since the events of September 11, 2001, we see the fluorescence of this conceptualization. The 'racialization' of a group has now advanced to where profiling is defended as 'just,' a reaction to 'evil doers,' in the words of the current vocabulary-challenged president (2003)." -Gaines

Alright. I concede that it doesn't always have to be about superiority. However (in general) when "races" are involved there has to be one that is higher on the scale than the other (because of the human race's need to not only fracture, but then order)

What about "Middle-Eastern people" in the US during 911? What about Japanese-Americans who were put into internment camps after Pear Harbor? Race tends to be something that lumps a person into a group and doesn't account for individual differences.

What is the purpose of this?
Security?

 

[Willamena]

But can "appearance" account for biologically defined differences? Humans share some 99.95% of DNA. Does one's "appearance" make one any better?

How can it not? Each distinction (fracture, category) that comprises those 99.95% is as it appears to be. Evolution (each generational species) is as it appears to be. Can it account for differences not dependent on it ("better") or mistakenly thought to depend on it? Certainly not.

Can appearance define a person's intelligence? Can appearance decide whether a person should live or die?

Of course it can (and has).

just because humans fracture on a regular basis doesn't make it morally or intellectually correct.

But it is what we do, so whether "right" or "wrong" (and we've fractured both) it's just there, hanging in the air, always.

"In 1991, taking note of the increasing interest (and conflict) of the US with people of the Middle East, I aruged then that people of this region were being constructed as a "race." Increasingly, after that date, medical papers appeared wherein people from the Middle East were compared to other groups. Since the events of September 11, 2001, we see the fluorescence of this conceptualization. The 'racialization' of a group has now advanced to where profiling is defended as 'just,' a reaction to 'evil doers,' in the words of the current vocabulary-challenged president (2003)." -Gaines

Thanks for the quote. Racialization is inevitable. Profiling is not.

Alright. I concede that it doesn't always have to be about superiority. However (in general) when "races" are involved there has to be one that is higher on the scale than the other (because of the human race's need to not only fracture, but then order)

What about "Middle-Eastern people" in the US during 911? What about Japanese-Americans who were put into internment camps after Pear Harbor?

Good point. There will always be something deemed "significant' (by an individual or group) that raises one fracture above another.

Race tends to be something that lumps a person into a group and doesn't account for individual differences.

What is the purpose of this?
Security?

I would say it is ignorance that doesn't account for those differences. I think you made a very strong argument. Well done.

 

[Metalic Wings]

How can it not? Each distinction (fracture, category) that comprises those 99.95% is as it appears to be. Evolution (each generational species) is as it appears to be. Can it account for differences not dependent on it ("better") or mistakenly thought to depend on it? Certainly not.

Of course it can (and has).

I guess a better question is "Should such racial beliefs be allowed to determine a person's "status" as a human?" Should it be okay for a black person to be hung from a tree and watched as a spectical (as was once done) just because they're of the "black race?"

I doubt it.

But it is what we do, so whether "right" or "wrong" (and we've fractured both) it's just there, hanging in the air, always.

Then, of course, the next question to ask is "Who defines right and wrong?" If taken with a cultural relativity approach (that each culture should be judged based on its own concepts, rules, and standpoint), each culture is the basis for defining right and wrong. Meaning that it's not up to a "majority" race to tell people whether they are right or not.

However, sadly, from this standpoint of cultural relativity, one could also argue that those who believe in race from a cultural standpoint must judge themselves on right and wrong since that is how their culture works...

Good point. There will always be something deemed "significant' (by an individual or group) that raises one fracture above another.

If fracturing is inevitable, and the raising of one group over another is as well, doesn't that make race and racism inevitable? And yet, to quote Gaines (once again-he's my best source): "We recognize that concepts of 'race' are not peculiar to the West, nor are they universal. We find 'racial' beliefs in a variety of cultures around the world. However, the meaning of the term is not the same in those places and, of course, did not and does not exist in the majority of extinct or extant cultures."

What Gaines is saying here is that race is not something that every culture has developed or even adopted. The majority of extinct cultures didn't even HAVE races.

I would say it is ignorance that doesn't account for those differences. I think you made a very strong argument. Well done.

So then ignorace is the mother of race?
(And thank you I'm glad to get to explore this topic on an intellectual level. I find it purely fascinating.)

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

Race and Culture are two very different terms. But I do think that race exists. Medications are an easy way to prove this: some medications have a different effect on certain "racial individuals" than others. But that could be simply from diet and environment from which the race emerged imprinting descendants, but that could still be argued as a racial characteristic, not cultural.
Now, taking America into consideration. The American culture is widely known and criticized, and those who are a part of that culture are from many diverse races and backgrounds, but still unified under the same culture, but then there are many sub-cultures, and then it gets confusing, so...
Anyway, yes, races may be a made-up categorizational tool, but there are still biological implications.

 

[Herr Heinrich]

Man-made without logical basis.

I agree to an extent. It is human nature to categorize. I mean if something looks different from something else it is only natural to make a category for it. I think it is only illogical when violence and hate come from it.

 

[Kathryn]

Well, I think it's sad that we feel a compulsion to assign value (and hence, LESS value) to race, instead of simply enjoying the wide array of differences that are obvious in different ethnic groups.

Personally, I hope we never merge into a nondescript brown race that all look similar. I love all the differences!

However, I admit that I've done my share of diluting the gene pools of perfectly good dark brown people by birthing four multiracial kids... in various shades of brown...

 

[Metalic Wings]

Well, I think it's sad that we feel a compulsion to assign value (and hence, LESS value) to race, instead of simply enjoying the wide array of differences that are obvious in different ethnic groups.

Personally, I hope we never merge into a nondescript brown race that all look similar. I love all the differences!

However, I admit that I've done my share of diluting the gene pools of perfectly good dark brown people by birthing four multiracial kids... in various shades of brown...

I would have to agree. I'm very against everyone being the same. I just feel that race is an arbitrary categorization that has it's main basis in skin color (in the US). There's another article I'd like to read about racism in Brazil (as it sounds to me) is bases mainly off of the kind of hair you have.

In that way, the term "race" is is culturally defined. Not because one race is one culture, but because each culture has their own definition for race and what groups different people.

That said, I do agree with Heavenly Heathen that there can be different effects on different "races" with medicine. However that could very well have to do with differences in biology, as you mentioned. The biggest argument against race as a whole is that there is no set of biological features that belong solely to one "race." in fact, there is usually just one or two biological factors that determine race and the rest is overlooked.

If skin-color is the factor used to deteremine race, as in the US, it very well COULD have different effects on medicine. As my teacher loves to point out: people that grew and developed near the equator usually have darker skin because they have more melanine to block out harmful rays from the sun that would cause skin problems. People that developed close to the poles often had very light skin because--although they can be harmful--the sun's rays provide Vitamin D which our bodies need to be healthy. When they are so far north and it is cold, most of their body would be covered and so the little skin that IS bared needs to absorb as much sunlight as possible.

But that is biology based on where you live. So does that mean that where you live determines your race?

 

[Alceste]

I'm reading The Greatest Show on Earth at the moment, and the first chapter deals with dog breeding. All domestic dog breeds are descendents of wolves. Breeders limit the gene pool of each breed, selecting for certain traits (sheep herding ability, stubby legs, short or long noses, etc). All the variety in dog breeds we see were accomplished in only a few hundred years of limiting the mating opportunities for each breed, which I find astonishing.

Clearly the same occurs with humans, except that the human gene pool is extremely viscous compared to purebred dogs - we cover a lot of territory and (generally speaking, as a population) do not limit our mating activity to select for certain traits.

Anyway, I suppose I'm not really going anywhere with that line of thinking. It's just interesting. I don't believe in race as it relates to class and status, however I recognize that humans are not immune to the effects of evolution. Geographic separation and selective breeding, if the boundaries were not quite so porous, could one day result into homo sapiens sapiens splitting into two or more distinct species. All the intermediate biological differences between populations of humans are significant in this sense.

We listened to HG Wells The Time Machine on audio book on our last road trip, which explores that idea. In it, the working class and the ruling elite over several million years became so genetically isolated from one another they evolved into two completely different species.

This would not have seemed so outlandish in Wells' time. The malnutrition of the working class in Victorian England was so severe that their growth was stunted - the upper class was generally several inches taller.

That said, yes, I agree that "race" is a meaningless concept.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Race is imaginary

Yet, racism is very real. Spooky.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Man-made without logical basis.

Out of curiousity, would anyone even really be willing to debate this?
I have a lot of reading that supports the title of this thread from my Anthropology class that I've found really interesting and thought-provoking. Expecially with the way that this topic lends to ideas about human nature.

So, any thoughts or comments?
(Or should I put up some of the things I've read? I'm almost hesitant to make a huge first post, thereby scaring away potential conversation >< )

I would agree on a purely physical level anyway

there are population trends, and no such thing as race

Americans seem hung up on race...

....

Going beyond the physical the story may differ of course, but we arent doing that

 

[Mr Cheese]

:sarcastic

I'm reading The Greatest Show on Earth at the moment, and the first chapter deals with dog breeding. All domestic dog breeds are descendents of wolves. Breeders limit the gene pool of each breed, selecting for certain traits (sheep herding ability, stubby legs, short or long noses, etc). All the variety in dog breeds we see were accomplished in only a few hundred years of limiting the mating opportunities for each breed, which I find astonishing.

Clearly the same occurs with humans, except that the human gene pool is extremely viscous compared to purebred dogs - we cover a lot of territory and (generally speaking, as a population) do not limit our mating activity to select for certain traits.

Anyway, I suppose I'm not really going anywhere with that line of thinking. It's just interesting. I don't believe in race as it relates to class and status, however I recognize that humans are not immune to the effects of evolution. Geographic separation and selective breeding, if the boundaries were not quite so porous, could one day result into homo sapiens sapiens splitting into two or more distinct species. All the intermediate biological differences between populations of humans are significant in this sense.

We listened to HG Wells The Time Machine on audio book on our last road trip, which explores that idea. In it, the working class and the ruling elite over several million years became so genetically isolated from one another they evolved into two completely different species.

This would not have seemed so outlandish in Wells' time. The malnutrition of the working class in Victorian England was so severe that their growth was stunted - the upper class was generally several inches taller.

That said, yes, I agree that "race" is a meaningless concept.

the funny thing is... we find that there are exceptions

there people that seemingly by their biology should be "white" or "asian"
in that they have the biological trends one would ascribe to a certain group.
Yet they are not "bi-racial"

One can only conclude....as Americans like to say, people are "mutts"...all people...
and accordign to science this "mutt-dom" occured a few millenia ago...probably before recorded history

thus the idea of racial purety is another human concept with large holes in it. But then that doesnt stop us believing in many other human concepts as "infallible truth":thud:

 

[MSizer]

I think the author was saying that it is imaginary that cultural traits can be attributed to race. I don't think he was denying the salient differences in physical traits between groups of people from different parts of the globe. I think the fact that certain culture tends to be attributed to certain races is purely due to the fact that members of a race have tended (though of course this is changing) to be consolidated, therefore they happen to be nurtured by the same societal norms.

I think as people spread more and more throughout the planet the false associations will be less prevalent.