Your feelings on Race

[Sanctissima]

But you did, you implied it. Do I need to go back and quote you again?
That aside though, it's not a matter of the presence of genes so much as it is about phenotypes. And I think the phenotypes themselves are self-evident: skin colour, etc.

Phenotypes vary within so-called "races".

Defining races on a phenotypical basis only seems very arbitrary, and likely to run into issues with subjectivity. Human skin colour, for example, doesn't come in just two shades as modern racial terminology would imply. At what point does brown stop being "white" and start being "black"?

I'm not arguing in favour of modern racialism. My argument is that there are several overlapping races. Notably Whites, Blacks, Semites (although one could make an argument for a broader Middle-East Arabo-Persian racial grouping), etc.

Skin colour, general facial bone structure, epicanthic folds and other common features amongst peoples show this.

[Sanctissima]

Oh for the love of...

I'm not saying it should be a taxonomic classification. That would just be stupid.

I'm saying that it has more to do with it than just social construction. There's some obvious biological factors there.

Oh, so you want it to be biological when it isn't.

Why?

No, I'm just saying that it exists as more than a purely social construct. It has biological aspects.

[Conscentia]

Phenotypes vary within so-called "races".

Defining races on a phenotypical basis only seems very arbitrary, and likely to run into issues with subjectivity. Human skin colour, for example, doesn't come in just two shades as modern racial terminology would imply. At what point does brown stop being "white" and start being "black"?

I'm not arguing in favour of modern racialism. My argument is that there are several overlapping races. Notably Whites, Blacks, Semites (although one could make an argument for a broader Middle-East Arabo-Persian racial grouping), etc.

Skin colour, general facial bone structure, epicanthic folds and other common features amongst peoples show this.

So you're arguing for races that aren't discrete categories? Why? What's the point? Compromise?

I know what common features are used. They're arbitrary lines.

[Conscentia]

Oh, so you want it to be biological when it isn't.
Why?

No, I'm just saying that it exists as more than a purely social construct. It has biological aspects.

That's like saying the face on Mars has physical aspects because the rocks that look like a face are actually there. No. There is no face on Mars. It's just pareidolia. The face is entirely imaginary.

[Sanctissima]

I'm not arguing in favour of modern racialism. My argument is that there are several overlapping races. Notably Whites, Blacks, Semites (although one could make an argument for a broader Middle-East Arabo-Persian racial grouping), etc.

Skin colour, general facial bone structure, epicanthic folds and other common features amongst peoples show this.

So you're arguing for races that aren't discrete categories? Why? What's the point? Compromise?

I know what common features are used. They're arbitrary lines.

Because the argument from some people is that there is no such thing as race, and rather that there are just a lot of different ethnicities. This isn't about compromise, this is simply about recognizing that there are broad classifications for ethnicities.

[Mavorpen]

Oh, so you want it to be biological when it isn't.

Why?

No, I'm just saying that it exists as more than a purely social construct. It has biological aspects.

"It has biological aspects."

"Okay, so that means we can use those biological aspects to classify."

"No, it shouldn't be a taxonomic classification."

"Okay, so then there's no biological basis."

"Yes there is."

"Okay, so then we can classify."

We can do this all day, but at the end of the day, you're admitting race is bullshit but you appear to also be saying that you don't want it to be.

Why?

[Conscentia]

So you're arguing for races that aren't discrete categories? Why? What's the point? Compromise?
I know what common features are used. They're arbitrary lines.

Because the argument from some people is that there is no such thing as race, and rather that there are just a lot of different ethnicities. This isn't about compromise, this is simply about recognizing that there are broad classifications for ethnicities.

People arguing that there is no such thing as race take "race" to mean "subspecies". They do this because race realists have historically placed huge importance on the biological differences between races, arguing for discrete racial categories into which humans could be sorted. Such discrete biological categories of human simply do not exist.

Any notion of "race" that does not have discrete racial categories simply has no apparent merit. Why then do you try and preserve "race" with such a notion?

[Sanctissima]

No, I'm just saying that it exists as more than a purely social construct. It has biological aspects.

"It has biological aspects."

"Okay, so that means we can use those biological aspects to classify."

"No, it shouldn't be a taxonomic classification."

"Okay, so then there's no biological basis."

"Yes there is."

"Okay, so then we can classify."

We can do this all day, but at the end of the day, you're admitting race is bullshit but you appear to also be saying that you don't want it to be.

Why?

I'm saying that it isn't a taxonomic classification, but that it is a type of classification akin to that of ethnicities nonetheless. Just because something has biological aspects doesn't make it a taxonomic classification.

[Mavorpen]

"It has biological aspects."

"Okay, so that means we can use those biological aspects to classify."

"No, it shouldn't be a taxonomic classification."

"Okay, so then there's no biological basis."

"Yes there is."

"Okay, so then we can classify."

We can do this all day, but at the end of the day, you're admitting race is bullshit but you appear to also be saying that you don't want it to be.

Why?

I'm saying that it isn't a taxonomic classification, but that it is a type of classification akin to that of ethnicities nonetheless. Just because something has biological aspects doesn't make it a taxonomic classification.

Oh, so it's like ethnicity? In that case, it's an entirely social construct then, got it.

[Sanctissima]

Because the argument from some people is that there is no such thing as race, and rather that there are just a lot of different ethnicities. This isn't about compromise, this is simply about recognizing that there are broad classifications for ethnicities.

People arguing that there is no such thing as race take "race" to mean "subspecies". They do this because race realists have historically placed huge importance on the biological differences between races, arguing for discrete racial categories into which humans could be sorted. Such discrete biological categories of human simply do not exist.

Any notion of "race" that does not have discrete racial categories simply has no apparent merit. Why then do you try and preserve "race" with such a notion?

Does anyone outside of academia actually think of that though, when they refer to race?

I could be wrong, but I find that the general understanding of it is that it's a broad categorization for ethnicities. I thought the Social Darwinist interpretation of it has been mostly dead for a while now.

[Modern Skaaneland]

I could identify as white but I'm not sure about the term "caucasian".

[Conscentia]

People arguing that there is no such thing as race take "race" to mean "subspecies". They do this because race realists have historically placed huge importance on the biological differences between races, arguing for discrete racial categories into which humans could be sorted. Such discrete biological categories of human simply do not exist.
Any notion of "race" that does not have discrete racial categories simply has no apparent merit. Why then do you try and preserve "race" with such a notion?

Does anyone outside of academia actually think of that though, when they refer to race?

You think everyone on this thread who's denied the existence of races must be part of academia?

I could be wrong, but I find that the general understanding of it is that it's a broad categorization for ethnicities. I thought the Social Darwinist interpretation of it has been mostly dead for a while now.

Such an understanding is completely detached from the history of racism, and seems to me to be utterly lacking in merit. Preferable to argue that there are no races.

[Sanctissima]

Does anyone outside of academia actually think of that though, when they refer to race?

You think everyone on this thread who's denied the existence of races must be part of academia?

I could be wrong, but I find that the general understanding of it is that it's a broad categorization for ethnicities. I thought the Social Darwinist interpretation of it has been mostly dead for a while now.

Such an understanding is completely detached from the history of racism, and seems to me to be utterly lacking in merit. Preferable to argue that there are no races.

But why? What else would you call broad categorizations of ethnicities?

[Herargon]

I'm white, although I'd rather 'identify' (or whatever) with being Dutch than white, especially since I honestly dislike anything not Dutch and the fact that my family (both mommy and daddy's side) lived here longer than the idea of a Dutch nation existed. Aslong as there is no Dutch flag waving above it, good luck trying to get me to like it.

I'm beginning to feel sick by both these white nationalists and the non-whities. I think neither groups even have the right to dictate what my country and it's people should do. And to immigrants: Become Dutch or GTFO.

Agreed, I think too that people that immigrate in our nation are fine, they just have to completely assimilate. If you want to get to the Netherlands, behave like the Netherlanders do.

Herargon

[Conscentia]

You think everyone on this thread who's denied the existence of races must be part of academia?

Such an understanding is completely detached from the history of racism, and seems to me to be utterly lacking in merit. Preferable to argue that there are no races.

But why? What else would you call broad categorizations of ethnicities?

Depends on what you're hoping to achieve in broad categorisation. Could group them in all sorts of different ways according to different criteria, focussing on different similarities between them. A linguistic focus, for example, can produce large, broad, groups such as Indo-European, Turkic, and Afro-Asiatic.

Broadly categorising ethnicities by guessing which "race" they would've been part of according to now discredited notions of race is arbitrary and seems to achieve nothing of use.

[Stellonia]

Frankly, I've never understood why Latinos/Hispanics have been considered a distinct race when they can be classified as white, black, Amerindian, or a mixture thereof. It is, in my opinion, arbitrary to regard a pale, blond Mexican as "Latino" while simultaneously viewing an olive-skinned Italian as "white."

[Cetacea]

Frankly, I've never understood why Latinos/Hispanics have been considered a distinct race when they can be classified as white, black, Amerindian, or a mixture thereof. It is, in my opinion, arbitrary to regard a pale, blond Mexican as "Latino" while simultaneously viewing an olive-skinned Italian as "white."

Yep its another racist hangover which luckily is largely confined to the US. It comes from old stereotypes about swarthy spaniards and Irish being 'black' rather than good Anglo white.

Btw got a bit more to post on The origin of the term Caucasian and also European fair skin but am on phone so will wait to get to a puter

[Barunn]

"There are two kinds of people; Caucasians & Trash."

[Jochistan]

"There are two kinds of people; Caucasians & Trash."

Wow. That's very nice of you.

[Barunn]

"There are two kinds of people; Caucasians & Trash."

Wow. That's very nice of you.

My pleasure.

[Baltenstein]

Frankly, I've never understood why Latinos/Hispanics have been considered a distinct race when they can be classified as white, black, Amerindian, or a mixture thereof. It is, in my opinion, arbitrary to regard a pale, blond Mexican as "Latino" while simultaneously viewing an olive-skinned Italian as "white."

Good sir, a look on this observation from 19th century's finest scientific minds will quickly convince you:

[Jochistan]

Wow. That's very nice of you.

My pleasure.

And so NSG crumbles.

[USS Monitor]

There isn't a single trait that's found only in one racial group and not found in any other. That would be a huge red flag to anyone who cares enough to look at this topic objectively.

Why does a single trait have to be found in only one racial group for it to be valid? How is that a litmus test for proving race exists as opposed to a different criteria put forth? Do you expect me to believe that before interracial reproduction ever happened on any large scale, that the single traits weren't separate between peoples which were geographically far apart?

"Interracial" reproduction has probably been going on for as long as there was enough human diversity for someone to come up with the idea of race. Some ethnic groups (e.g. Sentinelese) have been isolated for long periods of their history, but not whole races.

[USS Monitor]

Frankly, I've never understood why Latinos/Hispanics have been considered a distinct race when they can be classified as white, black, Amerindian, or a mixture thereof. It is, in my opinion, arbitrary to regard a pale, blond Mexican as "Latino" while simultaneously viewing an olive-skinned Italian as "white."

Good sir, a look on this observation from 19th century's finest scientific minds will quickly convince you:

Since I am from the 19th century, I just want to clarify, I had nothing to do with that publication.

[Ashlak]

Frankly, I've never understood why Latinos/Hispanics have been considered a distinct race when they can be classified as white, black, Amerindian, or a mixture thereof. It is, in my opinion, arbitrary to regard a pale, blond Mexican as "Latino" while simultaneously viewing an olive-skinned Italian as "white."

Good sir, a look on this observation from 19th century's finest scientific minds will quickly convince you:

Mr. Anglo-Teutonic has quite the forehead.