![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
EDIT: this is a criticism of race as an "objective" biological categorisation. I do have arguments against (or at least about) race as a social phenomenon, but they are outside the scope of this "short" post. Sorry for being unclear!
A while ago there was a post on debunkingwhite challenging people to talk on their ljs about how race has no basis in biology. I added it to my "queue of topics to make thinky posts about" (I find it best to let things stew for a while there, and anyway was feeling sick and stupid 1) and today got around to reading other people's responses.
Anyway, I reserve the right to make a long thinky post later, but this post and comment in particular really helped crystalise it for me personally:
So. Human beings are not genetically uniform. Different populations have observable genetic differences in their average makeup (ie the percentages present of various genes) and these result in observable differences (and presumably, also more subtle ones we haven't noticed) in things like skin colour, susceptibility to particular diseases etc.
There is also the historical/social concept of "race", which divides the world into fairly strict categories (asian, african etc) based on physical, geographical, and cultural markers, and which associates various traits (intelligence, criminality etc) to each race.
These two divisions, the genetic and the racial? Have pretty much no relationship to each other what-so-ever.
A fact which I have long thought that everyone who makes generalisations about "black people" needs to be hit over the head with is this: there is significantly more genetic variation between groups of black africans than there is within the entire rest of the world. If we were to divide the world into fairly broad genetic "races" in any objective way, we would have a hundred or whatever2 african groups, and one "Other" group, which would cover asians, europeans, arabs, native americans etc as one big effectively homogeneous group.
Instead, "race" as it is constructed in practice is a historical artifact of colonisation and conquest and was created to separate the haves from the have-nots, like the class divisions in the feudal system. It has no basis in biology. Does this mean "race" doesn't exist? No, it exists as much as any other socially constructed category, like class, nationality or religion3, and like them it has major effects which can't be ignored. It just doesn't make any sense as a biological categorisation.
It's also worth noting that while average genetic differences do exist between certain ethnic groups, the spread of genetic diversity inside those populations is much larger than the differences between populations and so means diddly-squat at an individual level (and racism usually relies on making assumptions about individuals)
(1)Sidenote: it may be a coincidence, but I took![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sonnlich's advice to take zinc tablets and I feel SO much better.
(2)Number chosen at random since I can't be bothered looking it up. Most of the other posts went to effort of giving references, I say lazily :)
(3)I'm not talking about religious belief, I'm just saying there's no bioliogical difference between, say, catholics and protestants. Religious belief as a social construct is a very interesting topic but again, well beyond the scope of this post!
A while ago there was a post on debunkingwhite challenging people to talk on their ljs about how race has no basis in biology. I added it to my "queue of topics to make thinky posts about" (I find it best to let things stew for a while there, and anyway was feeling sick and stupid 1) and today got around to reading other people's responses.
Anyway, I reserve the right to make a long thinky post later, but this post and comment in particular really helped crystalise it for me personally:
So. Human beings are not genetically uniform. Different populations have observable genetic differences in their average makeup (ie the percentages present of various genes) and these result in observable differences (and presumably, also more subtle ones we haven't noticed) in things like skin colour, susceptibility to particular diseases etc.
There is also the historical/social concept of "race", which divides the world into fairly strict categories (asian, african etc) based on physical, geographical, and cultural markers, and which associates various traits (intelligence, criminality etc) to each race.
These two divisions, the genetic and the racial? Have pretty much no relationship to each other what-so-ever.
A fact which I have long thought that everyone who makes generalisations about "black people" needs to be hit over the head with is this: there is significantly more genetic variation between groups of black africans than there is within the entire rest of the world. If we were to divide the world into fairly broad genetic "races" in any objective way, we would have a hundred or whatever2 african groups, and one "Other" group, which would cover asians, europeans, arabs, native americans etc as one big effectively homogeneous group.
Instead, "race" as it is constructed in practice is a historical artifact of colonisation and conquest and was created to separate the haves from the have-nots, like the class divisions in the feudal system. It has no basis in biology. Does this mean "race" doesn't exist? No, it exists as much as any other socially constructed category, like class, nationality or religion3, and like them it has major effects which can't be ignored. It just doesn't make any sense as a biological categorisation.
It's also worth noting that while average genetic differences do exist between certain ethnic groups, the spread of genetic diversity inside those populations is much larger than the differences between populations and so means diddly-squat at an individual level (and racism usually relies on making assumptions about individuals)
(1)Sidenote: it may be a coincidence, but I took
sonnlich's advice to take zinc tablets and I feel SO much better. (2)Number chosen at random since I can't be bothered looking it up. Most of the other posts went to effort of giving references, I say lazily :)
(3)I'm not talking about religious belief, I'm just saying there's no bioliogical difference between, say, catholics and protestants. Religious belief as a social construct is a very interesting topic but again, well beyond the scope of this post!
no subject
Not quite, though I agree the two aren't 100% correlated. Yes, racism would still be wrong even if race had an objective biological basis, the same way that sexism is wrong despite the fact that gender has an objective biological basis (albeit one which isn't as clear cut as people like to think) Also, most modern racist arguments don't rely on biological justifications, but on cultural/social ones, and so my post does nothing to disprove them.
But some racist arguments do rely on biological justifications, and when you take that justification away those arguments are exposed for the nasty nonsense they really are. Also I think a lot of people deep down have a subconscious belief in race-as-biological-destiny (myself included), and that's something which needs exposing and disproving.
Also, I wasn't really writing this to convince people/fight racism so much as share an epiphany :)
Claiming that race is completely socially constructed is kind of ridiculous
Ok, yes, it's not completely socially constructed. But it's biological underpinnings are very shaky, you might as well say nationality is biological. For every person whose "race" is obvious, there are twenty who get read as something they're not: I personally have been mistaken for latino, african(!), italian, and "muslim" (I've yet to have anyone "correctly" guess eastern european or jewish), and it took me two years to figure out that the little old catholic grandmother living next to me was Iraqi rather than italian. Context and culture have as much to do with it as appearance, see for example this post, and the maori who is constantly mistaken for an aboriginal woman.
More generally I get ranty when I hear people make reductionist statements like "foo is just a bar".
Yeah, sorry, my tendency to make huge unqualified generalisations made me a terrible mathematician :)