If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Think about it. What is "meaning"? Everyone perceives the world in a different way, depending on their own experiences and temprement. How can anyone argue with that? Surely the fact that no one on this thread can actually agree what "race" means is fairly good proof of that. It has a different meaning to different people.
I rolled my eyes when you first asked the question to indicate that I don't think its a question worth asking.
Are you going to make a point now?
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/TaxonomicConstruct.pdf
Jesus, you don't believe that crap do you? Black people are better at sport due to genetics? Fuck sake spliffie, you rejoined the BNP?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton
From the same page -
You don't think genetics play a part in black dominance of basketball, sprinting/running events etc?
Whether or not Rushton's work is valid, I can't say, not being scientifically literate; so I suppose it's up to you to provide a critique.
No, I don't. No one takes that idea seriously, apart from racists.
I think its enough to look at what his agenda is - it's a racist one.
Joined the BNP again have you (or was it the NF you were in?)
Hardly surprising you resort to crying heresy instead of dismissing Rushton's work by means of reason.
And no, I haven't joined the BNP, nor have I ever been a member of any political organisation.
What are you talking about "heresy"? I have, however, pointed out his connections to racist hate groups.
I'm sure you said a couple of years ago about your former involvement with the far right. Apologies if it wasn't you, but I'm 99% certain it was.
You're having a laugh, right?
Now I know you're having a laugh
Your views appear to be strongly right wing now, too.
You keep on saying Blagsta that 'what we mean by race is not DNA', and I keep on having to point out that this is not really true. Practically everybody who uses the word 'race' positively is talking about the major subspecies of man - the big continental groupings. And their differences in DNA profiles and the range of ways we distinguished them before DNA testing became possible reach spectacularly congruent conclusions. We did not know 200 years ago that the source of the observable physical differences was written in code in strands of DNA, but it seems we didn't NEED to – DNA testing powerfully confirms the traditional groupings of secular and professional usage, and this falsifies your argument. Once again: These 3000+ people were not chosen because they ''knew what race really means'' (unlike all the other idiots you think are walking around) - yet what they ''mean[t] by race'', to directly quote you, turned out to mean the very same thing as their ''differences in DNA''. Your confused 'we' is a very small portion of the population Blagsta. Just who are they?
You are correct in saying the concept of race is more ancient than genetics – I have said so myself in this thread in referring to the ultimate authority for biological taxonomy: The question will always remain unanswered for it cannot be answered by the race-does-not-exist idealogues – why should we exclude modern man from the taxonomic system universally applied for all other species? Their agenda is political, not scientific, and having checked out Spliffie's claims about the biases of American Anthropological Association, I was staggered to find just how biased and political that organisation and its leading lights has been, and how frequently they have been found to have falsified the evidence of the research in their most famous books and studies. If I find the time I'll post some quotes from credible people like Daniel Dennett and Steven Pinker, who cannot be dismissed as opposition ideologues, describing the scientific frauds and abuses of Boas, Mead, Benedict and other prominent race-deniers such as Lewontin, Gould and Montagu that make the case conclusively. In fact, the accused don't even deny it. I must say again – the 'race is a social construct' meme has been intended to convey and has been understood to assert that there is no valid biological basis for using the term race. I think we all know that, and I think you are being a little cute by pretending innocence that this is so. If, now that you know differently, you should wish to state your argument more honestly, you should phrase it: people have opinions of all kinds about different racial groups. - No shit! You may have been watching the C4 series 'Face of Britain' – the show's geneticist is able to tell the public participants just how Celtic as opposed to A/S they are. If agreement can made about who the Celts were - and who wasn't a Celt back in the day, so can it be for 'White' today, and just the same type of comparative analysis done to that end. Your apparent (or feigned) inability to understand that the various meanings of 'White' make the designation a political question today, but that it is perfectly possible to make it a purely scientific question tomorrow if the political answer was decided upon, is a problem for you, not for me. As I have said: Any taxonomy is ultimately a convenient but artificial way to parcel up the constantly evolving continuum of the genes of all life. Race has only ever had one scientific meaning, it has meant subspecies. Many scientists still use the specific term - race – others talk about 'population groups' and 'ethnic groups' to discuss the very same concepts which race has always stood for.
It is a very curious position that you and others argue Blagsta - that because the word 'race' was adopted into broader non-scientific usage, and has been used to talk about families, or class groups, or cultures, sometimes for ill-conceived ends - then the scientific use of the word should be considered unsound and its usage withdrawn. I would think it more necessary to insist on a clear and scientific definition if I wanted to avoid undesirable socio-political outcomes, not to propose a strictly cultural view of the concept - UNLESS I was happy with the status quo and it was my faction, and my political agendas which dominated the contemporary discourse.... ahah! Ask yourself how many families there are in London.
The obvious problems - I'm sure you'll quickly notice them - are where to place the limits of each family; and of how many families is each Londoner a member; and where are the limits of London and London's families? And of course – most of the genes found in any one family are found in all families.
Now tell me – are there valid reasons to conflate relatedness between parents and children, siblings, etc with the 'social construct' of family? If there are, your argument against race is shot to pieces.
A confirmation of the aptness of the family/race association is the acknowledgement by the medical profession that because blood and tissue types tend to vary by race and transplants between people of the same race have better success rates, it is preferable to ensure donor and patient are the same race. It is also a fact that mixed-race children are often unable to receive donations from their own parents.
I understand Rushton is married to an Asian woman, as is Chris Brand who was hounded out of Edinburgh for his IQ work. Some White supremacists they are!
I don't mind it, just curious as to why it's the only topic you lot seem to want to argue on.
Race is a biological fact (similar to the biological differences between sexes). But, I think the social construction factor comes into it with regards to the structural inequalities that are placed on top of race.
For example, race was often cited by slave owners are fair justification for having slaves. Black men and women are often denied access to the upper echeleons of society due to race. Black children are often faced with massive educational inequalities because the school system is based on white education. I could go on.
Essentially, while biologically (genetically) these races are different (as people have already pointed out), this should be no justification on how race works in the social world. The base genetic differences have no massive correlation with how someone should be perceived in the world. As someone has already said, that black men dominate the world of sport is (I believe) as much (if not more) to do with their upbringing and socialisation than it has to do with their genetics. In addition, if you look at this case, for black men in society sport is often one of the few ways they can progress socially due to the fact a bunch of doors are already closed to them (e.g. administrative posts) due to their race.
I would say race is as much to do with society as it is with biology. To just focus on biology is just biological determinism.
What an interesting turn of phrase.
In other words, does objective reality exist or is reality ENTIRELY subjective?
Obviously, reality is not ENTIRELY subjective. Thus, objective reality exists and therefore, objective meaning exists as well.
~Ray Bradley
http://www.eequalsmcsquared.auckland.ac.nz/sites/emc2/tl/philosophy/is-everything-relative-including-truth.cfm
First, would you provide a link to ShyBoy's thread?
Second, I do not understand your question; would you like to restate it?
It's a long essay, but there's a whole lot on the first page.
Thanks for posting that informative link.
Norwegians are good at skiing because they get a lot of snow. Australia are good at swimming because they spend a fortune on it. Romania are good at gymnastics, because they force their kids to practice over fire pits (so I hear).
No problem:link
My question was that I don't understand how you can't get that race is a social construct as well.
Where'd I say that?
Although to be controversial, it has been shown that during teenage years on average african / black males get more testosterone than caucasian / white males. Maybe that would contribute to sporting excellence. (saw a documentary about it, if people are unconvinced I can go hunting for smoe evidence, I'm sure I'll find some)
Maybe it doesn't though. But why do men run consistently faster than women? Purely social? I admit in games / skill based sports like basketball where it is a lot about technique rather than natural talent and physical ability that theres no reason a white guy (or girl) if they practice enough can run rings around the other players.
And I also don't get why you can't see that meaning is socially constructed and heavily context dependant.
Anyway, in an intelligent discussion, it's obvious that Northern Whites of English heritage are different from Southern Whites of English heritage. Still, that doesn't make being English meaningless, but that doesn't stop them from saying it, ad nauseam.
After re-reading this post there appears to be a fatal typo in it. Would you like to correct it and re-submit your question?
And thanks for spotting that error. Fixed now
I think that's what most people think.