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.
Yes, but for the time being nation-states are a necessary evil. I am an anarchist in the grand scheme of things, but I understand that government is necessary as it stands now. Maybe as we evolve we'll get away from out need for central government, but that day is generations away.
But that doesnt mean race doesnt exist. facial structure, bone density, susceptibility to disease, absorption of light, natural height, hair and eye color.
Generally "race" has to do with the fact that for people living near the equator, dark skin is advantageous as the increased melanin will protect against the strong ultraviolet radiation, whereas for people living in higher latitudes, light skin is advantageous as it makes vitamin D production easier where the sun isn't as strong.
So that's the "biological" reason. That doesn't sound like it has anything to do with how we define race today, does it?
The basic premise behind the claim that race is fake is that races cannot be precisely defined (what is "black" and what is "white" etc) and that they are basically social constructs, and thus fake. But this got me thinking, if this is true then doesn't that mean that basically all forms of identity are fake? What is an "American"? What is a "British" person? You can't apply a scientific definition to those words. Nations are basically cultural constructs just like race is. Now of course both nations as well as races share some degree of common heritage, but the fact remains that it's not possible to define exactly what prerequisites a person must fulfill in order to be a "true" member of race X or nation X. To me it does not make sense to claim races are fake because they are constructed and yet still believe at the same time that nations are real even though they are also constructs. If rallying around the idea of race is evil then why is it ok to also rally around the idea of the nation?
" But this got me thinking,"
After reading the rest, I don't think your were thinking at all!
The basic premise behind the claim that race is fake is that races cannot be precisely defined (what is "black" and what is "white" etc) and that they are basically social constructs, and thus fake. But this got me thinking, if this is true then doesn't that mean that basically all forms of identity are fake? What is an "American"? What is a "British" person? You can't apply a scientific definition to those words. Nations are basically cultural constructs just like race is. Now of course both nations as well as races share some degree of common heritage, but the fact remains that it's not possible to define exactly what prerequisites a person must fulfill in order to be a "true" member of race X or nation X. To me it does not make sense to claim races are fake because they are constructed and yet still believe at the same time that nations are real even though they are also constructs. If rallying around the idea of race is evil then why is it ok to also rally around the idea of the nation?
is race fake???.... no
there is only ONE RACE...the human race
nations???... are SET boundries....the boundries may change from time to time...but they are not fake
Nations, unlike races, are governed by enforceable laws that specifically define who is and who isn't a citizen of that nation. It's completely possible to define who has met the prerequisites to be a member of a nation.
This is not true. 'Nationality" is a functional term. That is, it is a sociological determination of a group of people who identify with one another as having a common bond or purpose (culture, religion, race, etc.), often resulting in increased political cooperation between those people as opposed to outsiders.
No government can tell people who belongs to their nation, if the people flat out disagree on a sociological and political (functional) level. The behavior of people in real life will simply exclude those who are too different by their national standards. Sure, people can be legally a part of a country, but a nation is sometimes without borders and is always decided on by the functional behavior of the people of the nation - not law. I can call myself Black, Jewish, or Irish, but if I am not functionally accepted by Blacks, Jews, or Irish as such then I am not an actual part of their nation
Jewish people saw themselves as their own nation for millennia, despite not having a country of their own and being citizens of other countries. A Chinese migrant might come to the Finland and become a Finnish citizen, but they may never realize being a part of the Nation of Finland if they are not successful in integrating to a certain social standard.
This is why multiculturalism is flawed. We put a myriad of nations next to each other in the same country, and give them citizenship to that country, but they most often remain different nations. This leads to international conflict within the same country. It's a recipe for social discord.
Both race and nationality are purely accidents of birth.
"Accidents" isn't a fair word. You are the sum of mostly your genetics, assuming adequate shelter, nutrition, cognitively normal parents, and low developmental and stress trauma. Your genetics were shaped by the evolution wrought by trials and hardships of your ancestors over the course of probably millions of years. It all resulted in your race and your eventual nationality. There was nothing "accidental" about it. You were shaped by the choices and survival will of your ancestors. Saying that your race and nationality are "accidents" is equating life itself, and its will to survive and evolve, as "accidental". In actuality, it is the opposite of an "accident" as it is the opposite of entropy wherein accidents are entropic in nature. It is the life expression of the will toward higher genetic and social organization, however you are making your comparison.
Even Americans with our polyglot and multiculturalism qualified as a nation.
Most of us qualify as part of a nation, according to our observable chosen sociopolitical affiliations and resultant cultures and preferences, but the USA is unquestionably multinational on a grand scale. No one in their right mind would declare the various nations that live within these borders to be one nation. Sociological observation disproves that notion decisively, although I know of no one that would need a such a formal study to confirm what they have observed all their lives to be true. A nation is not and has never been "country", except secondarily and only when such a country is inhabited by only one nation.
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.
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.
