The Race Paradigm

Vortigern99

Sorcerer Supreme
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
7,905
Location
Austin, Texas
The idea of race has been scientifically discredited. Trait clusters exist (EG epicanthic folds and lanky black hair among east Asians; dark brown skin and higher levels of testosterone among persons of African descent. etc.) but these groupings of characteristics are too vague and non-universal to be useful or practical. And besides, the idea of race as it tends to be used today involves far more than mere physiology.

The concept of race depends on a multiplicity of affiliated factors, such as anatomy, culture, ethnicity, genetics, geography, history, language, religion, and social relationships. But these overlap among all populations, to the point of rendering the idea of race wholly inaccurate, especially today when there is so much global interaction. Yet the general public, the media and even scientists continue to employ the term race as though it's definable, real, present and quantifiable.

In American media today, accusations of "racism" are routinely brought against public figures who acknowledge, celebrate, emulate or poke fun at the differences that exist among human populations. Recently, for example, a young actress was excoriated in on-line news articles for dressing up on Halloween as a character from the TV show Orange Is the New Black. The actress in costume is called "white" and the character and actress she was dressed up as is called "black". Despite the young woman's explanation that she admired the character as whom she dressed, claims of racial insensitivity were made, references to "Minstrel shows" and "blackface" were invoked, and the costumed actress was generally portrayed as "stupid" for applying a light mocha-colored make-up to her own face. This kind of horrified reaction to a simple acknowledgement, or even celebration, of distinct physical traits among populations is common in the US, both publicly and privately.

My immediate questions were and remain: Why are "white" persons only allowed to dress up on Halloween as members of their own so-called race? This seems unnecessarily restrictive. Some people have darker skin than others; in what way is it offensive for a person to playfully costume him or herself as having a different color skin, or pretend for the sake of humor or in the spirit of a holiday that he or she belongs to another so-called race?

This is the Race Paradigmm. The above is only one example, and I'm certain the members here can think of many others. I submit that we try to eradicate the paradigm, to move forward where not only "racism" but the very idea of race is abolished from our enculturation process.

Summary and TL;DR version:
Morgan Freeman once famously suggested to interviewer Mike Douglas that Douglas stop calling Freeman a "black man", and that Freeman should stop referring to Douglas as a "white man". This is the kind of thing I'm on about.
 
Last edited:
Seems like you are ignoring the immense social consequences that the construct of race has had in order to claim that discussion fo race is silly.
 
Seems like you are ignoring the immense social consequences that the construct of race has had in order to claim that discussion fo race is silly.

Please point to the sentence(s) in which, in your view, I said anything approximating "discussion of race is silly".
 
Please point to the sentence(s) in which, in your view, I said anything approximating "discussion of race is silly".

:rolleyes:

Your entire post is aimed at minimizing social issues surrounding race simply because they have no scientific basis.
 
What are the social issues surrounding race that aren't/shouldn't be minimized by the fact that race has no scientific basis?
 
Despite the young woman's explanation that she admired the character as whom she dressed, claims of racial insensitivity were made, references to "Minstrel shows" and "blackface" were invoked, and the costumed actress was generally portrayed as "stupid" for applying a light mocha-colored make-up to her own face. This kind of horrified reaction to a simple acknowledgement, or even celebration, of distinct physical traits among populations is common in the US, both publicly and privately.

My immediate questions were and remain: Why are "white" persons only allowed to dress up on Halloween as members of their own so-called race? This seems unnecessarily restrictive. Some people have darker skin than others; in what way is it offensive for a person to playfully costume him or herself as having a different color skin, or pretend for the sake of humor or in the spirit of a holiday that he or she belongs to another so-called race?

You just answered your own question.
 
What are the social issues surrounding race that aren't/shouldn't be minimized by the fact that race has no scientific basis?

Unequal income distribution (e.g., proportionally more poor individuals of one race than poor individuals of another).
 
Unequal income distribution (e.g., proportionally more poor individuals of one race than poor individuals of another).

That seems less like a race-related issue and more like a racism-related one.
 
:rolleyes:

Your entire post is aimed at minimizing social issues surrounding race simply because they have no scientific basis.

I can't help but notice that you didn't provide a single example of any specific sentence(s) in which I "minimized social issues surrounding race" or claimed that "discussion of race is silly".

To clarify, this artificial social construct we call race is divisive and is based on perceptions that are at best vague and subjective, and at worst inaccurate. I don't believe "discussion of race is silly", in part because this very thread which I created proposes to do exactly that. Nor do I mean to "minimize social issues surrounding race"; rather, I suggest (as Morgan Freeman) has done) that we work to stop using the term to isolate one population from another based on physical traits and perceived affiliated intellectual or behavioral differences.
 
Unequal income distribution (e.g., proportionally more poor individuals of one race than poor individuals of another).
.
You are responsible for your income.
If there is a problem with that, it's your problem, and not cureable by "equalization"... taking from the more fortunate.
Work at getting more, not taking some from those that have more.
 
Unequal income distribution (e.g., proportionally more poor individuals of one race than poor individuals of another).

Yes, I concur: this should not be minimized in the least, and should be addressed as assiduously as possible, hopefully with the goal of rooting it out of our enculturation process. The phenomenon appears to be based in historically institutionalized preferences and discrimination in hiring practices and civil rights. If we can work towards recognizing, for example, that skin color is just a physical trait in the same way as hair or eye color, and not an indication of this artificial perception we call race, then we might be on the right track towards overcoming this polarized economic disparity.
 
It doesn't seem that Julianne Hough meant any harm with her costume, but you can't divorce blackface from its historical context. I agree that in an ideal world it wouldn't be an issue, but we don't live in an ideal world, we live in a world in which minstrel shows were a real thing within living memory, and were part of the systematic oppression of black people - an oppression which in itself was a hangover from slavery, which isn't that far out of living memory.

No matter what you mean by them, you cannot divorce your actions from the context they have in the wider world, and you cannot be surprised if people do react to them in that context.
 
Last edited:
Did I? Where? Can you please be specific and not at all vague?

"Blackface" has a whole slew of sociohistorical baggage that simply cannot be handwaved away by notions of "hey, it's just a 'celebration' of distinct physical traits among populations".

And the fact that race is a social construct, not a biological one, is the actual problem here. The social race issue will not be solved by saying how nice it would be if we could just forget all about the uncomfortable and often vile history of racial perceptions and portrayals of non-whites by whites so that oblivious white actresses can finally wear blackface without suffering the terrible trauma of getting called out publicly for doing something so self-centeredly boneheaded.

EDIT: Or what Squeegee Beckenheim said.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't seem that Julianne Hough meant any harm with her costume, but you can't divorce blackface from its historical context. I agree that in an ideal world it wouldn't be an issue, but we don't live in an ideal world, we live in a world in which minstrel shows were a real thing within living memory, and were part of the systematic oppression of black people - an oppression which in itself was a hangover from slavery, which isn't that far out of living memory.

No matter what you mean by them, you cannot divorce your actions from the context they have in the wider world, and you cannot be surprised if people do react to them in that context.

I understand what you're saying and I'm aware of the arguments put forth against it, but I disagree that applying dark-skinned make-up for a Halloween costume should remain a social taboo in 2013 because it evokes an entertainment performed (at its height) 150 years ago in which African-Americans were ridiculed. Hough did not dress up as the "Orange" character to ridicule or oppress her, but because she admired the character. You're welcome to disagree, but it's part of my campaign, which begins right here and right now, to stop pretending that race exists. It doesn't.
 
"Blackface" has a whole slew of sociohistorical baggage that simply cannot be handwaved away by notions of "hey, it's just a 'celebration' of distinct physical traits among populations".

And the fact that race is a social construct, not a biological one, is the actual problem here. The social race issue will not be solved by saying how nice it would be if we could just forget all about the uncomfortable and often vile history of racial perceptions and portrayals of non-whites by whites so that oblivious white actresses can finally wear blackface without suffering the terrible trauma of getting called out publicly for doing something so self-centeredly boneheaded.

EDIT: Or what Squeegee Beckenheim said.

Some people's ancestors historically oppressed, ridiculed, dehumanized, slaughtered and enslaved other people's ancestors. My own ancestors had all of this done to them, and were heinously treated to the point of near genocide. None of the people who committed those crimes are alive anymore, and I don't hold their descendants responsible. I understand we live in a world in which people are still discriminated against for their perceived affiliation with others due to trait clusters such as skin color, and that is precisely the problem I propose we work to eliminate. Hough was "oblivious" of the offense she unintentionally caused, in part because for the generation to which she belongs, race is far less divisive than it is for those of older generations. I like that attitude and suggest, like Morgan Freeman, that we all try to adopt it.
 
If a lack of clear demarcation lines between two things invalidates classification, then "species" has been scientifically discredited also.

And because there is an entire rainbow of colors in an unbroken line between red and blue, both "red" and "blue" are meaningless concepts! Right?

Since there is no clear switching off point between someone being "healthy" and "unhealthy" then both words aren't in any way helpful for us to use as descriptors.

higher levels of testosterone among persons of African descent

Indeed. Now, let's say I was to go along with your premise that race is an invalidated concept, and not helpful to society to acknowledge or take notice of. Okay... then let's just think about things in terms of genes and clusters of genes. I'm down with that.

Can you be sure that genes which code for 15% higher testosterone on average are exactly as compatible with civil society as genes which code for 15% lower testosterone on average? Wouldn't you agree that testosterone has implications for aggression and impulse control, etc?

So the simplest way for me to put my question is: doesn't society have an interest in the frequency with which different types of genes are appearing and observing trends in that? And if outwardly visible characteristics are a strong indicator of genes (which they are) how can you say it's in society's best interest to ignore those characteristics?
 
If a lack of clear demarcation lines between two things invalidates classification, then "species" has been scientifically discredited also.

And because there is an entire rainbow of colors in an unbroken line between red and blue, both "red" and "blue" are meaningless concepts! Right?

Since there is no clear switching off point between someone being "healthy" and "unhealthy" then both words aren't in any way helpful for us to use as descriptors.

I don't accept the premise that "a lack of clear demarcation lines between two things invalidates classification". Rather than the simplified straw men you're attempting to present as the premise of my OP, I wrote something more nuanced and complex:

...[The] groupings of characteristics [which we call "races"] are too vague and non-universal to be useful or practical. And besides, the idea of race as it tends to be used today involves far more than mere physiology.

The concept of race depends on a multiplicity of affiliated factors, such as anatomy, culture, ethnicity, genetics, geography, history, language, religion, and social relationships. But these overlap among all populations, to the point of rendering the idea of race wholly inaccurate, especially today when there is so much global interaction....​

To address your specific points, the notion of species does not involve any of the hilited factors beyond the anatomical and genetic. The main hues that exist between red and blue are violet and purple, which rather complicates your presentation of the two colors on either side as being the sole choices. Further, the precise differentiation of colors is subjective; one person may name a hue that is 51% red and 49% blue "violet" while to another person that color is "purple". This is exactly the point with regard to the idea of race. The delineation as to where one race ends and another begins is subjective, and is further complicated by all of the hilited factors, many of which cannot possibly be known to an observer attempting to classify an observed person according to race.

Indeed. Now, let's say I was to go along with your premise that race is an invalidated concept, and not helpful to society to acknowledge or take notice of. Okay... then let's just think about things in terms of genes and clusters of genes. I'm down with that.

Before we proceed, I want to clarify that despite how you've (perhaps inadvertently) misrepresented my position, I do not, in fact, maintain that it's "unhelpful to society to acknowledge or take notice of" the traits that are perceived to make up race. That would be impossible, as skin color for one example is a rather obvious visually discernible trait. Rather, I opine that it's divisive and false to classify those traits as indicative of something called race, and to affiliate the person observed with other persons who share those same traits.

Do you see the distinction I'm making here? "Acknowledge and take notice" of the traits themselves all day long -- that person has creamy chocolate-colored skin; this person has reddish-pinkish-yellow skin, etc. -- but don't classify them based on those traits as members of some invented "race", because you'll probably be wrong about their genetic identity and geographic ancestral origins, and it's divisive and harmful to society to do so.

Can you be sure that genes which code for 15% higher testosterone on average are exactly as compatible with civil society as genes which code for 15% lower testosterone on average? Wouldn't you agree that testosterone has implications for aggression and impulse control, etc?

So the simplest way for me to put my question is: doesn't society have an interest in the frequency with which different types of genes are appearing and observing trends in that? And if outwardly visible characteristics are a strong indicator of genes (which they are) how can you say it's in society's best interest to ignore those characteristics?

I don't fully understand what you're asking and am somewhat exhausted after eating a large dinner while reading and answering your above points. I'll read your links and make an effort to understand your questions, and come back later to respond.
 
That seems less like a race-related issue and more like a racism-related one.
Yes, and identifying unequal income distribution with 'proportionally more poor individuals of one race than another' is just more racism.

Why should skin color be singled out, when so many other factors may affect a person's income? If it's due to their forebears being enslaved and treated as subhuman for hundreds of years, then they are suffering from the results of racism. Ditto if their 'culture' is to blame, since it grew out of the same circumstances. Another possibility is that having dark skin makes you dumb and lazy...

I Ratant said:
You are responsible for your income.
If there is a problem with that, it's your problem, and not curable by "equalization"... taking from the more fortunate.
Work at getting more, not taking some from those that have more.
Nonsense. If everyone came into this world being totally responsible for their own income and not taking from others, none of us would survive for long. You are a product of your genes, your parenting and education, and how the rest of society treats you. By the time you reach adulthood and are able to earn a living, the die has already been cast. A few will be lucky enough to use their combination of talent, opportunity and support to become (or more likely stay) wealthy. Others will work hard for a lifetime and get nowhere.

So if you have been unfairly disadvantaged by practices such as slavery or discrimination, why shouldn't you be compensated enough to redress the balance? You say that it's 'your problem, and not curable by equalization', but that is illogical. If inequality is the disease, equalization is certainly the cure. Unless by 'equalization' you mean a grossly inadequate attempt to redress the balance.

A 79 year old white lady spills hot coffee on her lap and the damage is worth $650,000. A 20 year old black man gets abducted from his home, transported to another country and worked to death in the cotton fields, and what does he get for 'equalization'? Another 200 years of his family being abused and discriminated against, with perhaps a bit of belated 'affirmative action' for some his great great great grandchildren...
 
I think that the scientific discrediting of race as a biological category in humans would not preclude someone from being a racist, with racism being the arbitrary disfavouring of a group of people on the basis of the perceived notion that those people are of a particular (usually inferior) race.
 

Back
Top Bottom