Okay, -SUPPOSE- (emphasis on suppose) race is merely a social construct. What does that change? You can call it anything you want. When people see a pattern of distinct physical characteristics, they will automatically start categorizing the similarities into a defined group. I'm not saying I want that to happen, but it's what will and has happened. Whether or not you call it a race or a social construct is irrelevant. There will still be social divisions and inequalities. Movie producers will still be giving lead roles primarily to the majority "social construct", white people. The depiction of normality will naturally learn towards the majority "social construct", and everyone who's in a minority "social construct" will be labelled as "exotic". The depiction of normality created by the media will shape the dating and job seeking world, making living more difficult for some than others, because of these "social constructs". The problem doesn't stem purely from biological elements, it comes from social elements as well. A cute white girl such as yourself has a hard time seeing these things because you live in a fairytale world where everything is perfect, and never experience these issues.
You're argument only holds water based on the assumptions that these divisions are based on innate characteristics, and how would they be innate if they weren't biological?
What if the mere act of defining a race as "others" caused them to develop cultural differences? I'd argue that giving race cultural significance is what caused cultural differences in the first place, which makes your racism counter productive.
It's very interesting to note how similar Australian Aboriginal culture is to Native American culture. Those groups of people were continents apart. Do you account for the similarities between them using their racial make-up, because it's genetically quite dissimilar?
"You're argument only holds water based on the assumptions that these divisions are based on innate characteristics, and how would they be innate if they weren't biological?"
I didn't just type "characteristics". I wrote "PHYSICAL characteristics", because I was typing that post with the hypothetical that race is just a social construct, and that the mental function of all the social constructs are the same. You can't deny there are obvious aesthetic differences that would naturally lead to categorization though.
"What if the mere act of defining a race as "others" caused them to develop cultural differences? I'd argue that giving race cultural significance is what caused cultural differences in the first place, which makes your racism counter productive."
The human instinct to categorize observations is a product of evolution. It's an essential part of science,organization, logic, etc. Natural selection killed off the apes that lacked the capacity for categorization. Even though it causes problems in a diverse society, eliminating it from the gene pool would cause even more problems in other areas. As long as the human instinct to categorize exists, there will be distinctions between social constructs.
Blonde hair vs brown hair vs red hair are also physical characteristics, but you deem those to be of no significance, so don't act as if this is an argument based on physicality.
No, that is most certainly not the human instinct. If it were, we would assign social traits to people with different hair and eye colors. Those traits actually do hold more biological significance than skin color. We merely assign skin color significance because skin color was a biological adaptation to living in different parts of the world, and humans are biologically programmed to reject that which is unfamiliar- for good reason.
There is no scientific evidence supporting theories that intelligence levels or hormones are different between races. If you can find such evidence I'd like to see it, but as far as I've read those theories are pseudo-science that was created 100's of years ago in order to justify slavery and wars. Feel free to prove me wrong, with facts and not your opinions. I'm open to read any legitimate articles that you provide, and open to changing my mind should you prove me wrong.
Is it normal to hate multiculturalism?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Okay, -SUPPOSE- (emphasis on suppose) race is merely a social construct. What does that change? You can call it anything you want. When people see a pattern of distinct physical characteristics, they will automatically start categorizing the similarities into a defined group. I'm not saying I want that to happen, but it's what will and has happened. Whether or not you call it a race or a social construct is irrelevant. There will still be social divisions and inequalities. Movie producers will still be giving lead roles primarily to the majority "social construct", white people. The depiction of normality will naturally learn towards the majority "social construct", and everyone who's in a minority "social construct" will be labelled as "exotic". The depiction of normality created by the media will shape the dating and job seeking world, making living more difficult for some than others, because of these "social constructs". The problem doesn't stem purely from biological elements, it comes from social elements as well. A cute white girl such as yourself has a hard time seeing these things because you live in a fairytale world where everything is perfect, and never experience these issues.
--
CountessDouche
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You're argument only holds water based on the assumptions that these divisions are based on innate characteristics, and how would they be innate if they weren't biological?
What if the mere act of defining a race as "others" caused them to develop cultural differences? I'd argue that giving race cultural significance is what caused cultural differences in the first place, which makes your racism counter productive.
It's very interesting to note how similar Australian Aboriginal culture is to Native American culture. Those groups of people were continents apart. Do you account for the similarities between them using their racial make-up, because it's genetically quite dissimilar?
--
Anonymous Post Author
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
"You're argument only holds water based on the assumptions that these divisions are based on innate characteristics, and how would they be innate if they weren't biological?"
I didn't just type "characteristics". I wrote "PHYSICAL characteristics", because I was typing that post with the hypothetical that race is just a social construct, and that the mental function of all the social constructs are the same. You can't deny there are obvious aesthetic differences that would naturally lead to categorization though.
"What if the mere act of defining a race as "others" caused them to develop cultural differences? I'd argue that giving race cultural significance is what caused cultural differences in the first place, which makes your racism counter productive."
The human instinct to categorize observations is a product of evolution. It's an essential part of science,organization, logic, etc. Natural selection killed off the apes that lacked the capacity for categorization. Even though it causes problems in a diverse society, eliminating it from the gene pool would cause even more problems in other areas. As long as the human instinct to categorize exists, there will be distinctions between social constructs.
--
CountessDouche
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Blonde hair vs brown hair vs red hair are also physical characteristics, but you deem those to be of no significance, so don't act as if this is an argument based on physicality.
No, that is most certainly not the human instinct. If it were, we would assign social traits to people with different hair and eye colors. Those traits actually do hold more biological significance than skin color. We merely assign skin color significance because skin color was a biological adaptation to living in different parts of the world, and humans are biologically programmed to reject that which is unfamiliar- for good reason.
There is no scientific evidence supporting theories that intelligence levels or hormones are different between races. If you can find such evidence I'd like to see it, but as far as I've read those theories are pseudo-science that was created 100's of years ago in order to justify slavery and wars. Feel free to prove me wrong, with facts and not your opinions. I'm open to read any legitimate articles that you provide, and open to changing my mind should you prove me wrong.
--
Anonymous Post Author
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Too tired. Going to sleep. It was nice talking to you.
--
CountessDouche
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You're pathetic. You're 40 years old and you can't do a google search. This is why people think you're a dumbass.
--
Anonymous Post Author
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
I'm 18... I'm willing to send you a timestamped picture if it helps make you feel stupid.