Defining Racism

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Skip, any difference with diaphragms probably is gene expression, meaning that other factors influence its development during pregnancy and birth.

And it's way more likely. Many differences between people's features between regions and countries can be explained pretty well looking at access to education, nutrition and health care and some minor statistical variations, caused by interbreeding for a relatively short period (non-evolutionary). Also the culture one is born in can influence mental development to such extremes that any genetic difference would be the least of the factors.

[jupiviv]

Genetic differences between groups of people classified as "races" are real, therefore those groups are as genetically different as I want them to be. I think they are different enough to be classified as races. Anyone who disagrees with me is irrational because they deny the existence of genetic differences between races.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Jup, please don't modify or make up sentences when you want to use the quote button. That is fraudulent and cannot be allowed even as joke.

If you read back you'd see I was first addressing racism, not races. Then (local) population, not races. Then genetic variance, like seen over a continent, not races. This seems to frustrate you to such extent that you need to modify sentences and present it as my quote now?

Now let me rephrase your own fake quote to let it reflect my posts: "Genetic differences between groups of people are real enough although they are one of the many variables. The concept of race, like population, remains a difficult entity and does not map very well to only differentiation in DNA. The term racist should be used only when people refer to the original theory on races and the proposed inherent differences".

[jupiviv]

If you read back you'd see I was first addressing racism, not races. Then (local) population, not races. Then genetic variance, like seen over a continent, not races. This seems to frustrate you to such extent that you need to modify sentences and present it as my quote now?

Sure I'm the one getting frustrated. Also I didn't modify anything, you did. I misquoted you with my words, in my post. Anyway, the problem/contention is precisely this baseless assumption that racism both historical and current is separable from bad faith attempts to justify race concepts scientifically.

Now let me rephrase your own fake quote to let it reflect my posts: "Genetic differences between groups of people are real enough although they are one of the many variables. The concept of race, like population, remains a difficult entity and does not map very well to only differentiation in DNA. The term racist should be used only when people refer to the original theory on races and the proposed inherent differences".

No the term racist should be used whenever people assume that observed differences between socially constructed human races validate the differences assumed within the framework of those constructs as following from or correspondent to the former.

Also, just for context, this is the post you were satirically disagreeing with:

The racial reality is this:

Black, ethnically sub Saharan Africans function in their bodies lower than the other races. Their fully diaphragm is functional which distributes blood flow directly into the hips and legs and away from the brain.

Native north, central, and south Americans use less of their diaphragm and breath at a higher range, but is still relatively low compared to the other races, feeling their breath mainly in the lower abdomen.

Ethnic Europeans, Arabs and Indians use still less diaphragm and can breath in either more the stomach and the chest area, distributing more blood to the brain.

Asians are the fastest thinkers getting the most brain blood flow and do not feel much of their body very strongly at all relative to the other races, breathing mostly into their upper chest.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Anyway, the problem/contention is precisely this baseless assumption that racism both historical and current is separable from bad faith attempts to justify race concepts scientifically.

But it's exactly that assumption you're failing to back up. Why even bother asserting it again? As if that means something by your sheer will power.

the term racist should be used whenever people assume that observed differences between socially constructed human races validate the differences assumed within the framework of those constructs as following from or correspondent to the former.

That's an opinion and a popular one. But the problem with it is that it enables the transition from "socially constructed races" to using this loaded term (linked to the biggest, most grotesque mass murder in history) to any discussion of value differences regarding cultures, religions or nations. As such, the label "racist" and also "alt-right" is becoming an indiscriminate weapon in itself. Opposing this process is not racism either; more like anti-violence.

[jupiviv]

Anyway, the problem/contention is precisely this baseless assumption that racism both historical and current is separable from bad faith attempts to justify race concepts scientifically.

But it's exactly that assumption you're failing to back up. Why even bother asserting it again? As if that means something by your sheer will power.

Can you just specify what I need to back up? Post hoc collection of evidence to justify beliefs about race divisions isn't racism?

the term racist should be used whenever people assume that observed differences between socially constructed human races validate the differences assumed within the framework of those constructs as following from or correspondent to the former.

That's an opinion and a popular one. But the problem with it is that it enables the transition from "socially constructed races" to using this loaded term (linked to the biggest, most grotesque mass murder in history) to any discussion of value differences regarding cultures, religions or nations. As such, the label "racist" and also "alt-right" is becoming an indiscriminate weapon in itself. Opposing this process is not racism either; more like anti-violence.

It's not an opinion and racism certainly doesn't automatically imply support for the Holocaust. And even if it did, I've explained what I mean by it.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Anyway, the problem/contention is precisely this baseless assumption that racism both historical and current is separable from bad faith attempts to justify race concepts scientifically.

But it's exactly that assumption you're failing to back up. Why even bother asserting it again? As if that means something by your sheer will power.

Can you just specify what I need to back up?

That racism both historical and current is not separable from attempts to "justify race concepts scientifically".

... racism certainly doesn't automatically imply support for the Holocaust. And even if it did, I've explained what I mean by it.

Just here above you wrote they would not be separable! Of course we could add Atlantic slave trade and segregation in the US and South Africa.

Since racism and the theory on races were fundamental to this, using the term simply is like calling people Nazi or Putin-boy or communist. It's more like a feature of the which hunts of old. The term functions now like some branding, some mark to curse people or parties with.

[jupiviv]

That racism both historical and current is not separable from attempts to "justify race concepts scientifically".

Science doesn't justify anything, least of all socially constructed categories that were and are motivated by political and economic factors and that have altered drastically over time due to changes in those same factors.

Race concepts do not and have never played any well-defined role within credible scientific work on human genetic diversity. Thus, attempts to "justify" race concepts with scientific findings on human genetic diversity that occasionally partially overlap with race concepts necessarily require a priori belief in the validity of race concepts, viz. racism.

... racism certainly doesn't automatically imply support for the Holocaust. And even if it did, I've explained what I mean by it.

Just here above you wrote they would not be separable!

No.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Race concepts do not and have never played any well-defined role within credible scientific work on human genetic diversity. Thus, attempts to "justify" race concepts with scientific findings on human genetic diversity that occasionally partially overlap with race concepts necessarily require a priori belief in the validity of race concepts, viz. racism.

Race, in modern language, is still a common dictionary word for any given categorization of humans by common descent or heredity. Therefore any "race concept", socially or genetically can be justified by the simple power of distinction and science will play its part. This is way different from racism where it's about belief or flawed science about one category being superior to another or any other negative stance like prejudice, discrimination or antagonism based on inherent traits.

However, people arguing against immigrants, failed societies or Islam as ideology or religious practice are often not invoking race or ethnicity in the most common meaning of the world. If we then say it's still addressing qualitative differences in grouping by common history, language or cultural traits, then yes, they do address races in qualitative sense. But to cast judgement between groups based on perceived culture, ideology or history is not racism. It's simply adhering to ones values.

We could switch to terms like populations, peoples, ethnic groups or even communities, like some would like to force but underlying realities of making distinctions and categories do not change. They still relate to large groups, localities, appearance and still could involve genes.

[jupiviv]

Race concepts do not and have never played any well-defined role within credible scientific work on human genetic diversity. Thus, attempts to "justify" race concepts with scientific findings on human genetic diversity that occasionally partially overlap with race concepts necessarily require a priori belief in the validity of race concepts, viz. racism.

Race, in modern language, is still a common dictionary word for any given categorization of humans by common descent or heredity. Therefore any "race concept", socially or genetically can be justified by the simple power of distinction and science will play its part.

The existence of categories/distinctions called "race" are not what is being denied here. Rather, it's the a priori unscientific judgments that motivate the most common applications of them.

inherent traits.

Including attempts to justify bigoted feelings about the nature of race categories via retroactive and retarded interpretation of data.

However, people arguing against immigrants, failed societies or Islam as ideology or religious practice are often not invoking race or ethnicity in the most common meaning of the world. If we then say it's still addressing qualitative differences in grouping by common history, language or cultural traits, then yes, they do address races in qualitative sense. But to cast judgement between groups based on perceived culture, ideology or history is not racism. It's simply adhering to ones values.

This is the same red herring as above.

We could switch to terms like populations, peoples, ethnic groups or even communities, like some would like to force but underlying realities of making distinctions and categories do not change.

Really dumb. A momentary glance at actual history would show that distinctions and categories change all the time, for all kinds of reasons.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The existence of categories/distinctions called "race" are not what is being denied here. Rather, it's the a priori unscientific judgments that motivate the most common applications of them.

So you now say that categories/distinctions based on common descent or heredity do play a role within credible scientific work on human genetic diversity? Or you want people just to stop using the term "race" for that? You have arrived at the first paragraph of the thread, finally!

We could switch to terms like populations, peoples, ethnic groups or even communities, like some would like to force but underlying realities of making distinctions and categories do not change.

A momentary glance at actual history would show that distinctions and categories change all the time, for all kinds of reasons.

So again your point is that people should stop using the term race because it's too loaded according to a certain, mostly Western subculture? When I wrote "underlying realities", I meant that changing a term like race into meaning "socio-ethnic" group which still can share common gene pools is not changing anything at all. It sounds more like an attempt to purify language instead of race. There's a godwinian title for such people.

[jupiviv]

The existence of categories/distinctions called "race" are not what is being denied here. Rather, it's the a priori unscientific judgments that motivate the most common applications of them.

So you now say that categories/distinctions based on common descent or heredity do play a role within credible scientific work on human genetic diversity? Or you want people just to stop using the term "race" for that? You have arrived at the first paragraph of the thread, finally!

I mean both you and the racist who started this thread have been repeating the exact same fallacy, namely overlapping entities in categories = overlapping validity/usage of categories.

We could switch to terms like populations, peoples, ethnic groups or even communities, like some would like to force but underlying realities of making distinctions and categories do not change.

A momentary glance at actual history would show that distinctions and categories change all the time, for all kinds of reasons.

So again your point is that people should stop using the term race because it's too loaded according to a certain, mostly Western subculture?

Folk concepts of "race" (that you accurately recognise as being "too loaded") aren't used in science. They might be subjects of scientific research but that is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Likewise the ethics of their real/potential usage.

When I wrote "underlying realities", I meant that changing a term like race into meaning "socio-ethnic" group which still can share common gene pools is not changing anything at all.

This can apply to any socially constructed group and all potential temporal change/modication thereof, which is not how you or the racist OP have used "race" in this thread.