Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Social ScienceAnthropology · 2 months ago

What's with this "race is a social construction" bullcrap?

I'm not buying it. Ever since is it considered evil to think that race is a natural thing.

Races are biological and are there to help humans adapt and survive in different environments places and such. Remember back then. Much like with Cro-Magnons, Neanderthals, Denisovans etc. That's how modern races are too. You can't stop evolution and diversity. Why do people think that the idea of different human subraces is evil

I'm not saying any race is superior than the other. I'm just saying that races do exist are natural, and are a part of evolution. From a subraces a new species might occurr

Why the **** has feminist and liberals brainwashed people by telling them that races don't exist?

7 Answers

Relevance
  • 2 days ago

    Race is a biological fact. Only LIEberals pretend it is not.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 month ago

    The ultimate test of "race" is to see if the offspring of what you would call a mixed-race couple can then create the next generation (i.e. grandchild of the original couple.)  If they can do it, they were NOT different despite your incorrect belief in that race foolishness.

    By the way, for an example that would FAIL the test I just named, the common mule cannot reproduce.  It is the offspring of a horse and a donkey.  They are different "races" (if you prefer that term) because the cannot have a natural grandchild.  The mule is sterile.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 2 months ago

    The next race of man will be the "spaceman".  He or she will without much color, hair, nails and will probably not be able to be on earth without the aid of special equipment. 

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 2 months ago

    Humans differ in lots of ways, and race is not a biological category. The Nazis could not define 'jewish' in any clear and consistent way, not could apartheid South Africa define 'black' or 'Bantu'.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    No, it's that literally there is no such thing as "a black race" biologically. Africans are more genetically distinct from each other than a random white and black American. Genotypes and phenotype aren't consistent over time. The ancestors of Native Americans or Europeans were dark skinned and I don't mean in Africa, I mean 10,000 years ago in Europe and America. There's no good evidence of traits having evolved to fit specific environments with the exception of dark skin color protecting people from the sun/cancer. Pale skin didn't evolve because of climate, it was an accident of diet and migration patterns.

    Race exists culturally absolutely, but I don't know how anyone can claim it's a real biological thing when you can't even define it categorically. Who is white? Europeans? But not in the past. So...

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    Humans move around. It is true that wherever we go, we adapt to the local environment and evolve differences, but because of migration and admixing, many traits that were the result of adaptation to one climate end up being found in populations that live in a different climate. As a result it is not possible to define races on the basis of any of these traits. For example, take skin color, there are many differences within any race in skin color. Middle Eastern people are traditionally classified as Caucasians, but because of admixing with people who also migrated there from Africa, there are many people who look like Europeans, with tall and narrow noses, thin lips but they have dark skin. Conversely, many Asians also have cold adapted traits like light skin, straight hair which they got from their ancestors from northern China, but they also have flat and broad and noses and full lips, just like their ancient African ancestors who settled into the area 60,000 years ago. Then there are also dark skinned Asians with tall and narrow noses. It is all mixed up.

    That is why scientists throw up their hands and say they cannot accurately separate people into different races using any taxonomic character. Therefore it is totally arbitrary as to what race any individual supposedly belong to. Besides therefore scientists no longer waste their time trying to define races. In terms of sociology, we all know that race is often important how people are treated. But these practices have no scientific basis. It is based mainly on tribalism. If we cannot define races scientifically, it is of course a "social construction" that is being used to mistreat people and deny them their rights.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Zirp
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    Real scientists looked at human genetics, and found that any two humans are far more alike genetically than a german shepherd is to a chihuahua.

    Yes, you can call Neanderthals, Denisovans and Cro-magnons races, but those races are extinct. Homo Sapiens Sapiens is all there's left, and we're so alike that we have to assume we almost went extinct, twice - the last time just a few dozen millennia ago.

    Since we have 47 independently passed-on bundles of DNA each, skincolour says nothing about your talents, abilities or allergies

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.