Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You want to maintain that (1) race is not socially constructed: since race is determined by skin color and physical features, all of which is not socially constructed, and (2) racism is socially constructed.
Yet, as I and (Ralp_Kirk and Aredhel) have collectively explained: The inception of race presupposed that human populations can be divided into homogenous groups. That itself, presupposed that there were inherent differences between these groups, which necessitated ideas and associations within and between these groups.
And yet, there are no groups that are genetically homogeneous within and heterogeneous between. So, race being a classification of human population differences is an idea that is not supported by genetic studies.
Therefore you see that race is a social construct. Furthermore, you can see that racism began with the inception of race, similar to how time began with space.
And just to clarify, your stance on skin color and nose size etc, being the basis for racial classification does not invalidate race as a social construct because those differences were perceived on the basis that they were characteristics of homogenous exclusive groups. Which again, is genetically incorrect.
Last edited by Stephen1110; 12-11-2015 at 05:38 PM..
You want to maintain that (1) race is not socially constructed: since race is determined by skin color and physical features, all of which is not socially constructed, and (2) racism is socially constructed.
Yet, as I and (Ralp_Kirk and Aredhel) have collectively explained: The inception of race presupposed that human populations can be divided into homogenous groups. That itself, presupposed that there were inherent differences between these groups, which necessitated ideas and associations within and between these groups.
And yet, there are no groups that are genetically homogeneous within and heterogeneous between. So, race being a classification of human population differences is an idea that is not supported by genetic studies.
Therefore you see that race is a social construct. Furthermore, you can see that racism began with the inception of race, similar to how time began with space.
And just to clarify, your stance on skin color and nose size etc, being the basis for racial classification does not invalidate race as a social construct because those differences were perceived on the basis that they were characteristics of homogenous exclusive groups. Which again, is genetically incorrect.
That's right. Your family doesn't exist. You're just as genetically related to your boss as you are to your dad.
That's right. Your family doesn't exist. You're just as genetically related to your boss as you are to your dad.
This is progress....
Quote:
Since Fst among human populations on a world scale is reliably 10 to 15%, kinship between two individuals of the same human population is equivalent to kinship between grandparent and grandchild or between half siblings.
Why not a different population? You just proved yourself wrong. Lol
Make no mistake, it covers for different populations too. 6% variation amongst populations translates into kinship equivalent to that of great grandparent and grandchild, while 15% translates into grandparent and grandchild. - genetic similarity is real. Lol
Last edited by Stephen1110; 12-11-2015 at 11:34 PM..
You want to maintain that (1) race is not socially constructed: since race is determined by skin color and physical features, all of which is not socially constructed, and (2) racism is socially constructed.
Yet, as I and (Ralp_Kirk and Aredhel) have collectively explained: The inception of race presupposed that human populations can be divided into homogenous groups. That itself, presupposed that there were inherent differences between these groups, which necessitated ideas and associations within and between these groups.
And yet, there are no groups that are genetically homogeneous within and heterogeneous between. So, race being a classification of human population differences is an idea that is not supported by genetic studies.
Therefore you see that race is a social construct. Furthermore, you can see that racism began with the inception of race, similar to how time began with space.
And just to clarify, your stance on skin color and nose size etc, being the basis for racial classification does not invalidate race as a social construct because those differences were perceived on the basis that they were characteristics of homogenous exclusive groups. Which again, is genetically incorrect.
Your argument fails...I'm sorry to say....because it is the same as saying that everything is made of atoms, and all atoms have electrons, neutrons and protons, and therefore everything is the same, and all the differences we perceive in things that are made of atoms are "socially constructed."
That's right. Your family doesn't exist. You're just as genetically related to your boss as you are to your dad.
LOL
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.