darkSpyro

so, today my polisci teacher tried to tell me that race is a social construct create by rich white men in order to oppress people.

something about that just doesn't sit right with me, though? like, i've heard that you tell the race of a decomposed human just by looking at the characteristics in the skeleton.

anyway, can anyone one here tell me what's true and what isnt?

race is a biological difference, just like how you would tell a corgi from a german sheperd, just not as drastic

the social implications of race ARE the ones created by rich white men in order to oppress people

The concept of race is a way of categorizing people who have a certain set of features such as skin color, facial features, hair texture, but that isn't always completely true for each individual since it's all just chance of certain genes being expressed and they can pass as a different race than one or both their parents might because biology is weird.

Quote: zacklar

race is a biological difference, just like how you would tell a corgi from a german sheperd, just not as drastic

the social implications of race ARE the ones created by rich white men in order to oppress people

it wasnt just rich white men though, it was elites. the leaders.

racism itself is a spectrum, anyone can be racist towards anyone else.

i was just using your same words, i know you only need to be a pedantic prick to be racist

you can put a corgi and a poodle in the same place and as long as they are both friendly they will like each other regardless of their race, but lets say that poodles, for some reason felt superior to corgies and started shunning and attacking at them just because they are corgies even though both are dogs, and both have their advantages and disvantages, that's human behavior for you, they will always want to feel superior to anybody, even their own kind, instead of working togheter because in the end, black, white, latin, they are all humans, just as how corgies, poodles, german shepherds all are dogs in the end

very well said

Quote: zacklar

i was just using your same words, i know you only need to be a pedantic prick to be racist

you can put a corgi and a poodle in the same place and as long as they are both friendly they will like each other regardless of their race, but lets say that poodles, for some reason felt superior to corgies and started shunning and attacking at them just because they are corgies even though both are dogs, and both have their advantages and disvantages, that's human behavior for you, they will always want to feel superior to anybody, even their own kind, instead of working togheter because in the end, black, white, latin, they are all humans, just as how corgies, poodles, german shepherds all are dogs in the end

Wonderfully put, a much better response than I could come up with.

I will try my best, Paris! :')

I'm pretty sure your teacher is referring to the idea that forensic anthropology began with the intention to prove the white people were a superior race in the evolutionary line.

Earnest Hooton basically spearheaded the idea of physical anthropology back when it was largely disregarded as a pseudoscience. He popularized the idea. I've heard that some people considered him racist, but what from I have read, he seemed to be completely opposed to the idea that any one race held superiority among the other in his several writings.

Some people claim him to be a "racist eugenicist," based on the fact that his work apparently attributes to the separation of different races.

The other side argue the opposite, based on the fact that he wrote an article, "Is The Negro Inferior?" In the article he tries to provide the idea that race is determined more by a social reaction between people rather than "race" itself. Also stating that that the intelligence tests at the time were created in favor of whites, and should be disregarded.

Hooton was also an American, as a note.

Wilton M. Krogman was the one who garnered the attention to Forensic Anthropolgy from his association with the FBI during the Korean war, and so truly began the study.

Today, a large group of people share the opinion that your teacher has, that the science, or in their eyes "pseudoscience" that is Forensic Anthropology is a discriminatory practice based on the fact that it encourages, well, racial discrimination by pointing to differences between the races. The reason it is found offensive, again, points to the idea that the study was founded in order to prove that Caucasians were superior. Similar to the idea of where the word Caucasian comes from, but that's a different story.

On the other hand, forensic anthropology is very much a thing, and, yes, there have been accurate deductions made by comparing thousands of human skulls to pinpoint differences in structure between races. In forensic Anthropoly there are considered to be seven main races to deduce from...

"Whites, Blacks, American Indian, East Asian, Polynesian and Melanesian/Australian."

This study, which is used frequently in forensic investigations when DNA is no longer an option, due to decay or any other form of irreparable damage to the DNA of the victim or deceased individual.

The skull is the main factor based on several different parts, including the jawbone and nose bone/cavity. However, the pelvic bone is sometimes also used, just as it is in forensics to determine the age and sex of the deceased individual.

people argue, however, that the research, especially in modern times, is inaccurate because of the increasing interracial relationships, and therefore offspring of the modern day. Basically meaning that we are far more mixed than we once were. The idea here is that "we're too mixed for it to be a completely reliable source."

pretty much, there's a huge argument over the whole thing, and whether or not the practice should be continued in the modern age or not.

Here's an article by someone who disagrees with the practice, someone like your teacher...

http://www.slate.com/articles/...it_othello.html

Here's an article by a Forensic Anthropologist who attempts to explain how the procedures work...

https://jenjdanna.com/blog/201...-the-skull.html


----


To me, I honestly agree with you, Paris, it doesn't seem right to dismiss the entire thing off as white supremacy despite where it may have had its roots. I think that Forensic Anthropology can be put to good use, and there legitimately are physical different characteristics between different races that can be more or less common, or else how would we look different from eachother?

That's how I see it, anyway.

I hope this helps! :-)

that puts a lot of things into perspective, thank you!

Quote: parisruelz12

so, today my polisci teacher tried to tell me that race is a social construct create by rich white men in order to oppress people.

something about that just doesn't sit right with me, though? like, i've heard that you tell the race of a decomposed human just by looking at the characteristics in the skeleton.

anyway, can anyone one here tell me what's true and what isnt?

I think your original question is already Well answered so I try to give another perspective to it.

In philosophy there has been many who have seen other races much more stupid then their own. But mostly they have been ignored in modern days and I think Thats what we should do.

But is there races? I say Yes, Thats pretty much clear when you just look different people. The real question in my opinion is, How much and in which way that should matter? And how much stereotypical things (other then looks) about races have come from social structure?

In the global world we now live in my opinion is that race does not matter, it should not matter at least. If our world keeps going more and more global, it might be that someday we do not have much races. What I think your teacher was going at was that there are no difference (other then looks) in races and Thats Why the meaning of those has been made by the leaders. But I think the way your teacher said it was false and what he/she said was wrong when said like that. But like said before this is a subject which has so many different opinions that nobody can really say what is the absolute truth.

In my opinion this question comes down to this: How much the Person we are comes from things we have learn and experienced. And How much comes from the genes. Tabula rasa is a philosophycal theory which says that everything (besides looks) comes from learning. I think that is not correct but I think it is close to it. We have natural things as human which we do not learn, we are animals after all. But other then that, my answer would be Yes. So now to my "theory" : if you take looks away, what are races? I would say nothing. So do I think there is races: Yes, Do I think those should matter? : No

There is some of my thoughts, but of course Thats just what I think.

Quote: parisruelz12

that puts a lot of things into perspective, thank you!

You are very welcome, Paris! I'm glad I could help you! ^_^

Quote: cyndego

Quote: parisruelz12

so, today my polisci teacher tried to tell me that race is a social construct create by rich white men in order to oppress people.

something about that just doesn't sit right with me, though? like, i've heard that you tell the race of a decomposed human just by looking at the characteristics in the skeleton.

anyway, can anyone one here tell me what's true and what isnt?

I think your original question is already Well answered so I try to give another perspective to it.

In philosophy there has been many who have seen other races much more stupid then their own. But mostly they have been ignored in modern days and I think Thats what we should do.

But is there races? I say Yes, Thats pretty much clear when you just look different people. The real question in my opinion is, How much and in which way that should matter? And how much stereotypical things (other then looks) about races have come from social structure?

In the global world we now live in my opinion is that race does not matter, it should not matter at least. If our world keeps going more and more global, it might be that someday we do not have much races. What I think your teacher was going at was that there are no difference (other then looks) in races and Thats Why the meaning of those has been made by the leaders. But I think the way your teacher said it was false and what he/she said was wrong when said like that. But like said before this is a subject which has so many different opinions that nobody can really say what is the absolute truth.

In my opinion this question comes down to this: How much the Person we are comes from things we have learn and experienced. And How much comes from the genes. Tabula rasa is a philosophycal theory which says that everything (besides looks) comes from learning. I think that is not correct but I think it is close to it. We have natural things as human which we do not learn, we are animals after all. But other then that, my answer would be Yes. So now to my "theory" : if you take looks away, what are races? I would say nothing. So do I think there is races: Yes, Do I think those should matter? : No

There is some of my thoughts, but of course Thats just what I think.

Quote: Samius

Quote: parisruelz12

so, today my polisci teacher tried to tell me that race is a social construct create by rich white men in order to oppress people.

something about that just doesn't sit right with me, though? like, i've heard that you tell the race of a decomposed human just by looking at the characteristics in the skeleton.

anyway, can anyone one here tell me what's true and what isnt?

Actual, tangible biological differences are real but "race" as a social construct is just that, a social construct. It's all just wordplay, as if the words themselves had an effect on reality, and not the other way around.
For example, there is no scientific definition for white people that I know of, and the term itself is highly subjective (a Brazilian white man would probably pass as black or latino in Finland). "Caucasian" is the taxon, the correct scientific name that is often used to describe whites, even though it actually encompasses many "races" of similar skeletal structure, regardless of skin color or other factors.

Still, that in no way implies that all people are the same. That "one race" stuff is ridiculous. Obviously there are differences in humans, commonly referred to as "racial" differences, but they're really just differences in genomes. We just use the term "race" to lump people in groups depending on those differences.

The part about the rich white men though... Saying that implies that it was something recently created for a specific purpose, which I don't think is true at all. The idea of the human races was created by learned men of the past (we are now more learned) and is perpetuated today by stereotypes and actual cultural/biological differences. Your teacher probably had some sort of a personal political opinion behind that statement.
Though it's fair to say that the concept of race is often used today as a political motivator, and is the central idea behind most forms of identity politics. It just goes unexamined, since talking about race is a bit of a taboo, and no-one likes bad publicity.

But I have to admit that something does irk me about how people throw around the statement "race is a social construct". To me it's more of a non-statement. In the same way I could say that paychecks and taxes are social constructs, but it doesn't mean they have no meaning. Indeed, it's the meaning behind the word that matters, not the word itself.

I like the points that you guys made! Thank you for posting these, I think others should read through it.

Quote: zacklar

race is a biological difference, just like how you would tell a corgi from a german sheperd, just not as drastic

the social implications of race ARE the ones created by rich white men in order to oppress people

I wouldn't use that analogy. Dog breeds aren't the same as race biologically speaking. Race is really an evolved subspecies in terms of appearance to adapt better to the different environments. Dog breeds are artificially created through human led selective breeding. One is caused by the several processes of speciation (allopatric, peripatric etc) through natural selection, the other anthropogenically artificial.

Quote: Ice Dragoness

Quote: zacklar

race is a biological difference, just like how you would tell a corgi from a german sheperd, just not as drastic

the social implications of race ARE the ones created by rich white men in order to oppress people

I wouldn't use that analogy. Dog breeds aren't the same as race biologically speaking. Race is really an evolved subspecies in terms of appearance to adapt better to the different environments. Dog breeds are artificially created through human led selective breeding. One is caused by the several processes of speciation (allopatric, peripatric etc) through natural selection, the other anthropogenically artificial.

i was trying to make a simple analogy, something easy to understand, but if you insist i can put it a bit broader, i would say a dog and a fox, both are canines, and both are docile, so just replace any iteration of corgi with dog and any iteration of poodle with fox and you still get the same point in the end

aaaand in case you make an argument that they are different species unlike humans who are still humans no matter if black or whatever

even when dogs are different races, be it artificially bred or not, they still treat other dogs as dogs, the point is that humans always look for an excuse to feel superior to others, and it doesn't even stops at race, they just use race as an excuse to group people even more, but humans can be discrimatory in a lot of ways, race, body build, intelligence, wealth, etc

none of those stop a dog from playing with another dog though because they don't discriminate

Quote: zacklar

Quote: Ice Dragoness

Quote: zacklar

race is a biological difference, just like how you would tell a corgi from a german sheperd, just not as drastic

the social implications of race ARE the ones created by rich white men in order to oppress people

I wouldn't use that analogy. Dog breeds aren't the same as race biologically speaking. Race is really an evolved subspecies in terms of appearance to adapt better to the different environments. Dog breeds are artificially created through human led selective breeding. One is caused by the several processes of speciation (allopatric, peripatric etc) through natural selection, the other anthropogenically artificial.

i was trying to make a simple analogy, something easy to understand, but if you insist i can put it a bit broader, i would say a dog and a fox, both are canines, and both are docile, so just replace any iteration of corgi with dog and any iteration of poodle with fox and you still get the same point in the end

aaaand in case you make an argument that they are different species unlike humans who are still humans no matter if black or whatever

even when dogs are different races, be it artificially bred or not, they still treat other dogs as dogs, the point is that humans always look for an excuse to feel superior to others, and it doesn't even stops at race, they just use race as an excuse to group people even more, but humans can be discrimatory in a lot of ways, race, body build, intelligence, wealth, etc

none of those stop a dog from playing with another dog though because they don't discriminate

Your social analogy is not wrong, but biologically dogs aren't of different races, they are of different breeds. A real analogy would be the bengal tiger and the indochinese tiger. I've studied speciation at university level.

Few animals can compare to the odd human social ways anyway. However, animals can and do discriminate by appearance. Google 'ginger seal'.

Quote: Ice Dragoness

Quote: zacklar

Quote: Ice Dragoness

I wouldn't use that analogy. Dog breeds aren't the same as race biologically speaking. Race is really an evolved subspecies in terms of appearance to adapt better to the different environments. Dog breeds are artificially created through human led selective breeding. One is caused by the several processes of speciation (allopatric, peripatric etc) through natural selection, the other anthropogenically artificial.

i was trying to make a simple analogy, something easy to understand, but if you insist i can put it a bit broader, i would say a dog and a fox, both are canines, and both are docile, so just replace any iteration of corgi with dog and any iteration of poodle with fox and you still get the same point in the end

aaaand in case you make an argument that they are different species unlike humans who are still humans no matter if black or whatever

even when dogs are different races, be it artificially bred or not, they still treat other dogs as dogs, the point is that humans always look for an excuse to feel superior to others, and it doesn't even stops at race, they just use race as an excuse to group people even more, but humans can be discrimatory in a lot of ways, race, body build, intelligence, wealth, etc

none of those stop a dog from playing with another dog though because they don't discriminate

Your social analogy is not wrong, but biologically dogs aren't of different races, they are of different breeds. A real analogy would be the bengal tiger and the indochinese tiger. I've studied speciation at university level.

Few animals can compare to the odd human social ways anyway. However, animals can and do discriminate by appearance. Google 'ginger seal'.

im not a biologist to be honest, i am a software developer, so even as much as i wanted i couldn't really think of a more accurate comparison that easily

also i didn't say animals don't discriminate, i just said that dogs don't, there are aggressive and territorial animals, there are animals who try to prove themselves better to the others to find a female, etc.
the difference here is that humans have a very higher intelligence, and instead of using it in the most productive way they use it to segregate people, to group them, to discriminate them