[Tom Rogers]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi TomYou keep referring to human instinct, yet when I challenge it you fail to provide any answer.Instinct has a meaning, it describes fixed behaviour in animals, behavour that can not be controlled. If what you call instinct can be overridden then it is not instinct. It is not rocket science, just a bit of basic scientific description.As for "race" the early "racial scientists" thought they were recording actual biological "races" of humans. If you now say a biological definition of "race" is irrelevant, then what basis for "race" do you have?All you give is the fact we can see physical differences of skin colour.Again I ask you to define the number of "races" of humanity and perhaps show how we can explain the classification?If you fail to do so all you are left with is a vague idea that skin colour etc makes us a specific "race" and is therefore a social construct.

You suggest instinct cannot be overriden – are you sure about that?  I'm pretty sure I can provide you with some examples of when it can and is overriden among humans.

[Tom Rogers]

ALB wrote:

Tom Rogers wrote:

Can I take it, then, that you do not consider race to be a social construct afterall?  Otherwise, I think your position is self-contradictory.

No you can't. That's why I put the word "race", "racial" (but not racist) in inverted commas.

A look back at your previous posts shows that you have repeatedly used the terms race, mixed-race and racial groups, etc. and you have ascribed meaning to them, at one point accusing me of insulting people in mixed-race…sorry, "mixed-race"…relationships.  

[Tom Rogers]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi TomEarlier you asked me about instinct.I am of the opinion that humans are not instinctual creatures. The following quote is taken from an earlier thread "Human Nature? Whoopee!"Here is the link.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/human-nature-whoopee?page=3

SocialistPunk wrote:

Inborn complex patterns of behaviour that must exist in every member of the species and that cannot be overcome by will.Or simply put, non-learnt, unalterable behaviour. Examples being spiders web building and sea turtles heading for the sea after hatching.

I don't want to stray too far off topic, but the above quote sums up instinct pretty well. Please feel free to prove otherwise.Now back to "race". The following is a nice little comment found on a blog, answering a Professor with a similar position to yourself, (that it is obvious by looking around we have different "races" of humans.)"Obviously genes can vary with geography. I don't think any reasonable person would deny that. That isn't at all the same thing as saying that race is a biologically meaningful concept. The point Sternberg is making is that the races we've invented based on skin color are completely arbitrary classifications. Different human traits vary independently of each other, and they don't obey sharply differentiated boundaries, but vary along graduated clines. If we divided humans into groups based on some other characteristic, such as body proportions, skull shape, or blood type distribution, we would get a completely different set of "races." Sure, traits like cystic fibrosis and susceptibility to prostate cancer are more or less prevalent among certain populations. But "Africans" or "Europeans" are only rough approximations of those populations. Because different human populations aren't genetically isolated from each other, they haven't become clearly defined and biologically meaningful races." Now again we must look at the early taxonomists, privileged men obsessed with classifying "creation". Usually with a hierarchic slant.Let us take their favourite classification, skin colour. It seems obvious that "races" exist. If so, how many? And how do we work it out, what do we use to base our "races" on. Skin colour alone shows vast difference, likewise hair, nose, skull shape etc. What of height, stature. Size of hands and feet. The list of human characteristics are endless. Given enough time and a powerful enough computer it may be possible to break down human populations into countless "races".Instead humans still use just four "races" to generalise. A bit like those who insist you can tell all there is to know about people based on the twelve signs of the zodiac.I and many others on this forum are pointing out the flaws of "race". We say it makes the notion a bit ridiculous and completely useless.You say otherwise.So to clarify your position it may be helpful if you could please tell us how many "races" of humans there are?

This is all straw man stuff and I feel I've dealt with these points already and so I won't repeat ad naseum what I have already stated earlier in the thread.  The response to the 'Professor' is just begging the question.  The writer is quoted using the term 'races' in the last sentence, but he uses it in the context of 'biologically-defined groups', which is not what I have referred to (and which I doubt is what the 'Professor' – whoever he was – referred to), but there are clearly somatic differences (not just skin colour, nor even based on skin colour necessarily) and these are differences between distinct groups of people and those differences have arisen from evolution and are discretely definable and classifiable.  To deny this is just silly.  To suggest that racial classification is invalid because different population groups share certain characteristics is very disingenuous.  Race is apparent from walking into any cosmopolitan town, city or university, just as it's apparent that if I jump from the twentieth floor of an apartment block I am going to fall rapidly to earth, due to the force of gravity.  Is gravity a social construct?  I would invite anyone who thinks so to try the experiment.  This whole discussion reminds me of an encounter I once had with an ethical relativist.  I asked him how, if he is an ethical relativist, he was so certain that moral universalism is a bad thing.

[Tom Rogers]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

i just want to comment on the situation i have often come cross often and that is light skin is better than dark skin. Throughout the world there are various cosmetics and applications for both sexes to lighten the skin (some quite dangerous). Black appears not to be beautiful for dark skinned black people.This is i think not one of aesthetics or race but class. Think back to why we call the aristocrats blue-bloods – because pale skin that showed the veins revealed that you did not work in the fields under the sun or become weather-beaten.Similarly in Third World light skin denotes someone who is city bred, works in an office or school, not outside, doing manual labour.Every successful movie star or singer seems to be light skinned, the menial domestics remain darker. Michael Jackson was no isolated victim and that is the tragedy.Lighter skinned blacks has been demonstated to have better jobs and be higher up the pecking order than blacker blacks in such places as Cuba and Brazil. Thus again reinforcing the cultural class aspirations of the poor with a demand for skin lightening products.Many everyday popular brands re-focus their advertising to the alledged skin lightening qualities of their products such as Nivea to exploit the local market and increase profits. Where in the West it is usually about anti-ageing claims, elsewhere its the blackness of skin.As for kids looking like parents, from anecdotal evidence a lot of asian women want light skinned, big nosed, round eyed mixed parentage babies. Cosmetic surgery in Asia for the more "western" look is big business.

ALB asked for an example of how race-mixing might not be a good thing for societies.  I refer to the above, being one example among many.  The truth is that multiculturalism is simply part of the ideological justification for capitalism.  Societies of mixed race suit those who have rootless utilitarian attitudes.  I would say that the working population in Britain is politically-weaker than ever today and this is partly (though not wholly) due to multiculturalism (i.e. the acceptance that the population of the country should not be racially-homogenous).  I am not suggesting that people cannot or should not co-operate across racial and cultural boundaries to achieve a better society, but I do think it is a mistake to assume that people can be bound together simply on the basis of their material interests alone.

[Tom Rogers]

ALB wrote:

Tom Rogers wrote:

You refer to "millions of people" who don't form relationships on the basis of what I define (roughly-speaking) as kin instincts: it would be good to see evidence for this. While I don't necessarily doubt that is true, I would suggest that such people are overriding an instinct to procreate within their own racial or ethnic group.  In your view, that is a good thing. In my view, it might not necessarily always be a good thing, but no matter how you define the terminology,

I would have thought that the evidence is all around you, in the street,  on the TV, in the sports stadiums, etc where people said to be of "mixed race" are numerous.Here's the figures from the 2011 UK Census:http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/2011-census-mixed-race-jessica-1484384and from the 2010 US Census:http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/27/census-more-people-identify-as-mixed-race/You say that such "race-mixing" might "not necessarily always be a good thing" ? Can you give any examples of it being a "bad thing".

Can I take it, then, that you do not consider race to be a social construct afterall?  Otherwise, I think your position is self-contradictory. I agree that the evidence for miscegenation is all around us, but this does not help you establish that race is only a social construct, it just indicates that some people will breed outside their own wider kin group under the influence of propaganda and a particular consciousness that is accepting and encouraging of race-mixing.  This is likely to happen under a more globalised system of capitalism which relies on the migration of cheap labour.  Explain why so much effort needs to be put into propagandising the benefits of multiculturalism ('race-mixing'), if not because it suits an agenda.  Isn't this an effort to overcome and discourage instinct-level behaviours, drives and inclinations that would otherwise see people develop relationships mainly among those with whom they self-identify?  Please don't reply with something banal like "well, we all self-identify as human beings".  Of course, we are all part of the human family, but we are also part of smaller, extended racial families.  In support, I refer to the fact that most people still breed within their own racial group, and thus they perpetuate their own racial group.  This is real, observable human behaviour but it is something you cannot explain within the theoretical position you adopt, partly because you ignore 'race' as a construct when it suits you. Furthermore, white people do have this inconvenient tendency to flee residential areas that become non-white.  In fact, the Census data that you refer to seems to confirm this.  Why do white people do this?  

[Tom Rogers]

DJP wrote:

Tom Rogers wrote:

As previously stated, the physical fact of race is, to me, empirically self-evident.  By denying this, you deny what is plainly in front of you. 

Of course it cannot be denied that there are slight differences in the DNA of human beings that give rise to different observable physical characteristics. However, which of these observable differences determine "race" and which do not are arbitrary and a social construct.

Tom Rogers wrote:

Are we?  And if we are, does it follow that race does not exist and is a mere social construct?  

You really should learn something about the origin of the human species. Humans first evolved in Africa and then spread out throughout the world. I would have thought that for the race to have any physical basis there would have to be separate groups of humans with origins from different parts of the world. I far as I understand, the human genome project has proved this not to be the case.

Yes, but I'm curious as to why you think it is self-evident that a common origin (assuming that is the case, which I don't necessarily doubt) precludes the existence of races?  I think I said above that I do not consider humanity to have any sub-species (though, interestingly, there is some debate about the variety of pre-historic 'human' sub-species and how this might influence our origins).  Isn't it possible that, from common origins, various and distinct racial groups might have evolved?  Obviously, if we assume common origins (and I am willing to accept this), it is acknowledged that there would be a close genetic relation between the groups, but each group would over time adjust to its environment and develop distinct physical attributes to reflect its needs.  Is this not the case?  If so, how can race be considered as a mere social construct?  The fact that there are defining physical characteristics for each group that reflect its environment is evidence that race is a physical reality, not just – or not merely – a random, man-made classification.Of course, even if I am right about this, you could still argue that the idea of race is just stupid, crass and bunkum anyway, and even if it is a natural epiphenomenon, we should do away with it on the ground that in the modern world it serves no utility.  That's fine but that's a matter for debate, and my response to that would be negative.  To encourage a consciousness that is grounded in utilitarian values rather than instinct is anti-human, in that it turns human beings into social objects, cogs in a machine.  OK, it may be that the instinctual aspect of our consciousness is less attractive, even unpleasant, not to mention didactically inconvenient for socialists, but it does not follow that we should work to impose a layer of consciousness that goes against our essential natures.But let us suppose – just for the sake of argument – that you are right and I am wrong on the point in debate here and in fact race does not physically exist and is merely a social construct.  OK, but even if I were to accept this (which I don't, but let's suppose for present purposes that I do), my next question would be: So what?  Even if race is a social construct, it can still be said to exist and the argument for racial separation (which essentially is what this is about) and against multi-culturalism would still hold – in fact, in a sense, the argument would be stronger because we would be acknowledging that race is a purely conscious phenomenon, even rational, and if people wish to live among 'their own kind', and they make that choice (which, I would assert, they have so far not resiled from) then they are quite entitled to do so, even if what they define as 'their own kind' is, scientifically-speaking, based on fairly superficial characteristics and other dubious criteria.

[Tom Rogers]

HollyHead wrote:

Are we not all of "African origin"?

Are we?  And if we are, does it follow that race does not exist and is a mere social construct?  

[Tom Rogers]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Tom Rogers wrote:

OK, but again so what?  Just because the characteristics that form a man-made, socially-constructed racial classification are accidental – even random – it does not follow that race itself is not a physical fact.

Nearly, except that I am disputing the "physical fact of race".  The onus is now on you to demonstrate that there is some "physical fact", some Thing we can call race.  Specifically, you'll need to demonstrate how the "empirically self-evident" differences between people differ from the "empirically self-evident" physical fact that the sun goes round the Earth.If you can't, we're left with the relatively banal idea that human beings are not genetically identical with each other, and the differences between any given two people become greater the further back you can trace a shared ancestor.p.s. gender is a social construct, sex isn't.

As previously stated, the physical fact of race is, to me, empirically self-evident.  By denying this, you deny what is plainly in front of you. For that reason I think we have exhausted this discussion as our differences on this basic point are intractable.

[Tom Rogers]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

to which I replied

YMS wrote:

there are no inherent sets of characteristics/bundles of features by which any human population can be separated from any other.

i.e. that the apparent differences are only accidental, and not a factor of a coherent thing called 'race'.  indeed, within apparent "racial" groups, you'll find more variation of genetics/features than between such groups.  The coincidence of, say, blond hair and blue eyes is not essential, the two features can be divorced.For instance, I am "white" (well, grey), but I have patches of brown skin (often referred to as freckles, but essentially, they are patches of melanin, which means that the difference between myself and a "brown" person is not qualitative but quantitative).Differences in skin tone are no more significant than difference in height or eye colour.

OK, but again so what?  Just because the characteristics that form a man-made, socially-constructed racial classification are accidental – even random – it does not follow that race itself is not a physical fact.  Don't misunderstand, I do see your point.  You are saying (and I appreciate this is putting it crudely and simplistically) that the various characteristics crucial to racial classification were just thrown together, more or less ad hoc using crude observational techniques, and that essentially 'race' means nothing useful in scientific or anthropological terms and is merely a concept designed to serve a social purpose (i.e. oppression of other races by white people).Personally I have to reject this argument (though I appreciate the internal logic of it).  To me, this argument is, in itself, a social construct.  The flaw is in separating race from its material reality.  In a sense, race is being seen through a deconstructionist, anti-materialist lens.  In short, it's quackery.  Sort of like transsexualism: the notion that if a man has his genitals surgically removed, he then becomes a woman.  It's plain that he doesn't become a woman – he is still a man – but some very intelligent people would rubbish this and say that he is a woman because, after all, sex and gender are social constructs.  Maybe the desk I am sitting at now is a social construct and the PC I am typing this into is too?  Perhaps the lady who is shouting at me for being a sad idiot who spends so long on the computer is also a social construct?  Perhaps I am imagining it all?  I really do need to keep off those magic mushrooms.  

[Tom Rogers]

ALB wrote:

Tom Rogers wrote:

I see, as a last resort, you are bringing social etiquette into the equation.  Please explain how it is insulting to argue that human beings might instinctively wish to associate with kin groups?  Please enumerate for us the ways in which one might find this insulting.

My reference was to people who consciously decide to marry/have children with someone they considered to be of the same "racial group" as them.  You are talking of people who might "instinctively" do this. I doubt that this is a human "instinct" if only because of people of the millions of people who don't do this (the reason why me and others described your claim about this to be nonsense) but also because one of the features of the human species is to have very little instinctual behaviour. 

It depends on how one should define 'instinct' and 'consciousness' respectively and how one sees the relationship between the two.  I see consciousness as a formation of both instinct and intellect.  I accept that intellect can override instinctive behaviours, but I also probably ascribe greater importance to instinct than you do.You refer to "millions of people" who don't form relationships on the basis of what I define (roughly-speaking) as kin instincts: it would be good to see evidence for this. While I don't necessarily doubt that is true, I would suggest that such people are overriding an instinct to procreate within their own racial or ethnic group.  In your view, that is a good thing. In my view, it might not necessarily always be a good thing, but no matter how you define the terminology, I don't see how you can deny that historically and prehistorically humans have mated within genetically-cohesive social groups. The rest, whether you think consciousness should override this is, to me, a normative point.  You either agree with it or you don't.  I don't necessarily.  

[Tom Rogers]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Tom,the reason we say there is no such thing as race, is that there are no inherent sets of characteristics/bundles of features by which any human population can be separated from any other.  The perceptive dfferences between people are accompanied by overwhelming similarity.  What there are are a series of characteristic frequencies. Take a look at the notion "black" how many "black" people actually have black skin?  hardly any.  Most are a shade of brown.  Most "white" people are a funny sort of grey/red colour.  Some east asians used to be referred to as yellow, but otehr than Jaundice victims, no one is actually a yellow colour.  The discourse of skin colour is socially determined, and has little to do with the reality of human morphological variation.Lets try an easy counter example.  Dapple horses are easilly distinguished from chestnut, but no-one would seriously claim that dapple horses were a different race/sub-species, it's just a colour tone (and no stallion would spend five seconds choosing a dapple over a chestnut mare).Likewise, a horse looking at two humans would prbably not notice the skin colour or hair, and just see a human.

Fine, but I am not suggesting there are sub-species of humans.  I think we are dealing with a straw man argument here and I have already explained why I think racial classification is of significance.

[Tom Rogers]

ALB wrote:

The point I was making was this: that of course there are genetically-based differences between humans but the ones that are selected to differentiate "races" are socially-determined (eg skin colour rather than hair colour). So that why's it fair to say that "race" is a social not a biological classification.I still say that it is nonsense to say:

Quote:

we want to have our children with females who 'look like us' (in the racial sense) because we want our children to resemble us.

And insulting too to the millions who don't choose to marry/have children with somebody of the same "racial" group. In fact, I would say that someone who wanted to marry/have children with someone just because they resembled their "racial group" would be a racist.In any event please exlude me from your "we".

Yes, arguably skin colour is "socially-determined" but in making that observation you are trying to cleverly twist the argument.  The term 'skin colour' is a social construction, but skin colour itself is natural.  If people sexually select based on skin colour then, yes, it could be said that skin colour is socially-determined, but it does not follow that race (or any inherent racial attribute) is a social construction.  In fact, none of my interlocutors on here have yet posed a rational argument to support the assertion that race is a social construction.  I would suggest that is because the assertion is nothing more than sociological quackery, used by people who are not, deep down, intellectually-curious and who wish to appear cleverer than they really are.  I am sorry to say that plainly applies to many people on here.  There's nothing wrong with believing in things because you like the sound of them, but it is emphatically not an intellectual position.I see, as a last resort, you are bringing social etiquette into the equation.  Please explain how it is insulting to argue that human beings might instinctively wish to associate with kin groups?  Please enumerate for us the ways in which one might find this insulting.  I would suggest it is not insulting at all, and that your claim that it is so is just another feeble rhetoricism and an attempt to deflect the argument.You then go on to dispense an insult yourself, by suggesting that those who sexually select based on race are "racist".  It is of course fine for you to insult whoever you like, and at will, but please define racist and explain why people should be castigated (and presumably, in your view, locked-up) for this attribute?You finish with another rhetorical flourish, asking me not to use the term 'we'.  I am not sure why, but I have never asked the Socialist Party to refrain from using the term 'we' in its arguments for socialism.  Why should I do so?  Of course, I shouldn't.  It's just another silly, disingenuous distraction from you.

[Tom Rogers]

ALB wrote:

Tom Rogers wrote:

we want to have our children with females who 'look like us' (in the racial sense) because we want our children to resemble us.

Socialist Punk has already pointed out that this is nonsense. Do redheads want to marry other redheads? If not, why not? Surely because skin colour is a "social construct"  as a marker of  "race" today while red-headedness isn't, though both have a genetic basis. And why, in this country, are so-called "mixed race" people regarded and sometimes regard themselves as "black" rather than "white" (which would be equally logical — or illogical, from a biological point of view). Surely, again, because "black" and "white" are "social constructs" not biological categories.

 The fact that you dismiss me so arrogantly says a great deal about the strength of our respective arguments, I think.  Your points are also feeble.  I did not say, nor imply, nor refer to, the idea that "redheads" should marry other redheads, and your other observations are equally spurious and irrelevant.  "Surely" what?  Surely I should just swallow it?  There is no innate reason why I should respect someone who carries himself with such arrogance.

[Tom Rogers]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Tom Rogers wrote:

We feel closer to those who generally look like us, and who share close linguistic and blood ties with us, and we want to have our children with females who 'look like us' (in the racial sense) because we want our children to resemble us.  Of course, it may be that some people do not feel these instincts so keenly, or choose to deny them, but should those who see kin as a basic aspect of humanness be denied their instincts?

You talk of a need to breed with the same "racial" type as ourselves as if it were some human instinct. So can you explain why it is that humans have been so able to overide our instincts for thousands of years and continue that trend quite willingly today, by taking partners from other so called "races". My partners best friend married a black dude she met while at Uni' in Birmingham and they now have a young son of so called "mixed race". I do not think his parents have any issue regarding his not looking like them.It is a well known fact that the more diverse genetic mix humans have the better it is for our offspring and so our species.So much for instinct!?

Well, I don't refer to a "need" to breed with the same racial type.  Again, that's a misrepresentation.  What I state is that there is an instinct.  I hope you are not denying that human beings have instincts – it would be very odd if you did – but perhaps for clarification you might want to tell us your position?  If you accept that human beings do have certain instincts then a great deal follows from that.  Now, here is where you misrepresent me again.  I have not suggested that the relevant instinct of person X is to breed with a white woman because he is a white man.  What I am referring to here is kin, of which race is an inevitable consequence: groups that breed together will look alike.  The existence of races in the world today proves this, no?  Ah, no you're a candidate for the Flat Earth Society, aren't you.  (I'm pulling your leg).  Again, I am no scientist and so I must adopt a somewhat humble posture in the matter, but I would respectfully posit that people feel closer to their own kin and that racial and ethnic groups could be considered as extended kinship groups that have evolved with time, and that these kinship groups serve a variety of social, cultural, ethnographic, medical, even political, purposes.  If this is at all true, then there are implications.

[Tom Rogers]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Tom Rogers wrote:

I think any fair and sensible observation betrays that race does exist

I think that just about sorts the issue out. What do modern scientists know? We just have to look at the obvious, skin colour, language, what clothes people wear, the food people eat and we can tell what "race" they belong to. Easy. Just like the pioneers of human "racial" classification.If you are interested in the truth about "race", I urge you to look into the history of human "racial" classification. Very often history has a habit of exposing the truth. 

You're misrepresenting me here.  I clearly didn't make these statements that you attribute to me.  I doubt you have done this intentionally, though.  Rather, I think this is an issue you are emotional about and so you are latching on to my comments and extracting the odd word or choice phrase as if this represents my entire position.  This is a perfectly understandable (and human) thing to do, and it's something we all do from time-to-time when we feel strongly about an issue, but it doesn't advance your points.  Skin colour can only be superficially indicative of race, in some cases it will be quite a definitive and conclusive attribute, in others not.  The other variables you refer to are more relevant to considerations of ethnicity and culture.  I looked at the articles you link to above (for which, thanks).  The articles are politically-charged but in any case they do not necessarily contradict my observation that race is a material reality and not just a social construct.  I am no scientist (nor am I an anthropologist) and I will always defer to scientific opinion within reason, but much in science depends on interpretation.  My point, that race exists as a valid delimiter, is a more existential one, for which there may or may not be firm contemporary scientific support, but for which many people feel strongly that some allowance and consideration should be made.  It is not always necessary to go out and prove something down to the nearest adenine or guanine, and though any genuine efforts to do so are of course welcome, a rational society makes constructive use of its scientists, it doesn't worship them.  I don't consider my position here to be ignorant or bigoted or unreasonable in any way, nor do I ignore or discount valid scientific work, but nor do I take it as gospel either.

[Author]

Posts