What's new

If race is a construct, what exactly has been constructed?

The ontological reality/actual existence of a social construct like race, caste, gender, etc. is a philosophical question. What is real is that people behave as if these social constructs are real, and pass these behaviors onto their children and others in their purview. These ideas have real social inertia; they do not dissipate when ignored, and often spread. So, helping those who are disadvantaged by being in the supposed lower/inferior/more restricted groupings/tiers means acknowledging the existence of these constructs in order to fight them, not ignoring their existence.



Of course it can be fixed. The Irish became white* (that is, white as a social construct) about a century ago. On the other hand, Arabs seem to be losing their whiteness* recently. The goal will be achieved when everyone is white*, regardless of skin color.



I don't know about you, but I continue on with these terms knowing they are incorrect, yet still in wide usage. You can only communicate in a language other people recognize.
How does supposed cultural appropriation play into the eradication of social constructs of race? Seems to me the entire concept just exacerbates the situation.
 
This has it's roots in our tribal nature which, way back before modern societies, was a means of survival and resource acquisition and allocation. It has since morphed into the racist lines we see today, which could be viewed as bigger tribes still vying for resources, only the means have changed from raids and wars to systematic oppression. Only we live in an age where everyone can actually win together, but it takes everyone purposefully overcoming that tribal mentality.
Xenophobia, fear of strangers, was an evolutionary development that took place before the evolution of human beings. A self-preservation mechanism. But this is something we need to overcome. Sports is a way in which we can overcome it in a peaceful and less violent manner.
 
How does supposed cultural appropriation play into the eradication of social constructs of race? Seems to me the entire concept just exacerbates the situation.

Cultural appropriation is a tricky concept, from what I can tell. When early rock adopted some of the feature of the blues, was that bad or good? You might be able to argue that without rock, Motown never exists. Is wearing dreadlocks as a part of a Halloween costume respectful or disrespectful? I am not educated enough to make these kinds of judgments.

Cultures naturally borrow and blend, and I think that's a good thing. However, some people take advantage of that to mock, or for pretense, or for other reasons that diminish respect, and that is a bad thing.
 
Eenie Meenie and Bulletproof kind of touched on this topic in the fan ban thread, and I wanted to know what you guys think about it.

Race appears to be a useless construct that doesn't help humanity. The terms "black" and "white" are antebellum terms that don't accurately describe human beings that are honestly beige and brown, but have nevertheless ended up on our state and federal forms.

If these terms are not accurate, if they are falsehoods that we accept as identifiers, what is the cost of treating them as authentic? Do kids understand the concept of "constructs"? What damage is caused until they come to grips with that concept? And what about people who never figure out that ideas related to race are constructs?

I feel like the terms we use, especially "black" and "white", should be abandoned. I think the extreme nature of these terms create unnatural and unnecessary consequences for humanity.

The terms are inaccurate, per se, as identifiers; there are distinct differences in skin tones. Where the construct has problems is that people tend to load up the identifiers with attributes that are associated with them. In similar vein, there are clear differences between men and women in terms of appearance, sex organs, etc., so distinguishing between a man and a woman makes sense (though we've learned not the clear cut always), but again the problem comes when we associate attributes to each sex; this is where gender and gender norms come in. Unfortunately women for millenia were disadvantaged by what attributes men, and women it must be added, attributed to their sex (aka gender norms).

Such physical/appearance differences have always existed and will always exist, and it's not wrong, I suppose, to note such differences, the problem is we humans are not capable of doing so without at the same time attaching certain attributes to them. If we abandon black and white, humans will find some other way to denote the differences and then associated attributes with those differences. I'm afraid that's human nature.

The term "construct" sound high falutin, but in its absence, what word would we use, because it identifies what we humans do, again, construct a series of attributes that we associate with specific human characteristics? If we don't call them constructs, we must invent another word for it.

In any case, good topic, it's got me thinking about it when I should be working (so not so great a topic, I suppose).
 

The article is good, except for the fact that it still identifies the developed gene as "white". There is literally no such thing as white skin, nor a white race. The race is misidentified with an antebellum notion that is destructive (intentionally or not) to society.

and SLC45A2


It is disconcerting, to say the least, that the depigmentation genes in question both contain the letters "SLC". The science seems destined to lead to jokes about Utah.
 
Last edited:
The terms are inaccurate, per se, as identifiers; there are distinct differences in skin tones.

Then the accurate thing to do would be to identify people for what they actually are, using terms that do not carry the cultural baggage of the usual terms.

In practice, you would say that someone is "beige" if they are beige. Or "brown" if they are brown. Descriptions would only be physical, not racial. I'm not sorry that this makes more sense than what we actually do.

Cultural identifiers should be regional. If you are from Germany, then that is the term that should be used. Nigeria? --> Nigerian. Etc., Etc.

Where the construct has problems is that people tend to load up the identifiers with attributes that are associated with them.

Which is precisely why they should be abandoned like the poison that they are. It is essentially an unnecessary tradition that continues to guide us down a destructive path, and all of it is based upon falsehoods.

If we abandon black and white, humans will find some other way to denote the differences and then associated attributes with those differences. I'm afraid that's human nature.

While I agree in principle with your point on human nature, abandoning black and white abandons a particularly awful set of myths and would benefit everyone not served by the lie (I.E., equality). Brown and beige, which are more accurate, do not carry that baggage. The more that people use correct identifiers, the more we will be able to reduce the effects of the false terms.

Continuing on with a society built upon faulty constructs will continue to undermine everything else that is positive in society. "Black" and "white" are that monolithic. No one in either category can live up to the baggage. But in making the attempt, they must necessarily dehumanize themselves and others.

The term "construct" sound high falutin, but in its absence, what word would we use, because it identifies what we humans do, again, construct a series of attributes that we associate with specific human characteristics? If we don't call them constructs, we must invent another word for it.

"Beige" is just a physical descriptor. Same with "brown". People can still attach mythic meanings to anything, sure. But less so when it is tied to something accurate. Terms like German and Nigerian can still be mythic, but at least there are actualities that can benefit cultures and people that are real. "White" is a projection that never had a basis in reality, whatsoever. It is pure simulacra.
 
The notion that there are different races is a scientific/biological fact. Racism is what is made up by the people. Just like any other thing within social life. And it is one of the products that makes humanity shoot itself in the leg.
 
The notion that there are different races is a scientific/biological fact. Racism is what is made up by the people. Just like any other thing within social life. And it is one of the products that makes humanity shoot itself in the leg.
What are the races?
 
Back
Top