Race is Artificial

There is nothing organic about race. We must be taught how to recognize race, and how to treat others based on their race. Race is socially constructed and no meaningful genetic or biological difference can be found among different races. The definition of race, and who is a member of what race, also changes from culture to culture. Children find a natural interest in all people and do not have the ability to discriminate until they are instructed on how to do so. The process of racialization is the transformation of unbiased human beings into discriminating social roles within a particular race. This occurs through institutions of learning, but also through media and culture. Society strictly enforces these lessons with severe forms of punishment, as well as rewards for submission. People are required to adopt the psychological characteristics of "their race" based on a false form of heritability that is socially determined, and are severely alienated from their friends and families if they reject racialism. The issue of race also divides the working class in a way that prevents solidarity, and reduces the capacity of that class to organize. This weapon of the bourgeoisie against the only class that can alter society in a radical way. We must reject race, and convince those around us to reject it as well.

I agree. Race only serves to obscure the concept of nation and give left-wing nationalism a bad name.

no-maps wrote:There is nothing organic about race.

Organic? What does that even mean? If you mean race isn't natural you are completely wrong. Every species has sub-divisions and variations within their own species so if natural is meant, race is completely natural.

We must be taught how to recognize race, and how to treat others based on their race.

Agreed somewhat, but, that doesn't prove that race doesn't exist.

Race is socially constructed and no meaningful genetic or biological difference can be found among different races.

Burden of proof is on you. If you ask me this is the dumbest thing I have ever heard considering differences can be found even in the shapes of skeletons of different races of man.

The definition of race, and who is a member of what race, also changes from culture to culture.

True, and it also changes as various races and sub-races form different admixtures. One can even argue about the definition of what race is now.

Children find a natural interest in all people and do not have the ability to discriminate until they are instructed on how to do so.

Prove it. In fact, studies might have suggested otherwise. My old school cafeteria for the most part looked like it was segregated, but it wasn't forcibly so.

The process of racialization is the transformation of unbiased human beings into discriminating social roles within a particular race. This occurs through institutions of learning, but also through media and culture.

Like I said, it is your burden of proof to prove that humans are these completely unbiased angels once they spring from the womb of their mothers.

Society strictly enforces these lessons with severe forms of punishment, as well as rewards for submission. People are required to adopt the psychological characteristics of "their race" based on a false form of heritability that is socially determined, and are severely alienated from their friends and families if they reject racialism.

LOL. What rewards do I get for adopting the typical characteristics of my race? I haven't been rewarded shit, in fact, I am sometimes even seen as "un-cool" and "mad white". Heritability is a fact.

When I was 13-14 I was very much racialist and one could even say "racist". I was alienated from my friends and family for that, NOT the other way around.

The issue of race also divides the working class in a way that prevents solidarity, and reduces the capacity of that class to organize. This weapon of the bourgeoisie against the only class that can alter society in a radical way.

This is true. That doesn't make race a completely false construct though, just cause it is used to divide the working class today. There is very real differences between races due to societal factors and genetic factors both. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try for solidarity against the ruling class, but denying race is a hopeless endeavor.

We must reject race, and convince those around us to reject it as well.

Who is we? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?


With that said:



Maps is fishing for people shouting "White powa!!".

no-maps wrote:There is nothing organic about race.

It depends on what you mean by "race." What most people are referring to when they use the term are the physical features which distinguish various populations from one another. Those physical differences—e.g., skin color, hair texture, facial features, etc.—are obviously genetic in origin, therefore they actually are organic.

We must be taught how to recognize race, and how to treat others based on their race.

So you're suggesting that the Native Americans, for example, were unable to recognize that they were a different race from the European conquistadors who brutalized them, since they weren't explicitly taught to recognize race? Such a notion is preposterous, in my opinion.

Race is socially constructed and no meaningful genetic or biological difference can be found among different races.

It's premature to state that conclusively. Race has been, and continues to be, one of the most contested issues in the scientific community. Personally, I side with the skeptics (Gould, Lewontin, et al.) regarding the alleged behavioral implications of race, but denying the significance of race with respect to intelligence or behavior has nothing whatever to do with the matter of how people perceive of race. We currently live in a culture which has gone to great lengths to instil in people the notion that the various races of man are 'equal,' and yet we still observe self-segregation and various other expressions of ethnocentrism.

The definition of race, and who is a member of what race, also changes from culture to culture.

Of course. How people choose to delineate race is clearly arbitrary, but the fact is virtually all cultures are still delineating nonetheless, which is telling in itself.

Children find a natural interest in all people and do not have the ability to discriminate until they are instructed on how to do so.

I disagree, but if you can find a study supporting this claim, I'd be interested in reading it.

The process of racialization is the transformation of unbiased human beings into discriminating social roles within a particular race. This occurs through institutions of learning, but also through media and culture. Society strictly enforces these lessons with severe forms of punishment, as well as rewards for submission.

This is a very Skinnerian idea. I'm not necessarily saying it's inaccurate, but it doesn't fully explain the ethnocentric phenomenon. We can all see that the United States, post-slavery and Jim Crow, is a far more tolerant nation than it previously had been. Our educational institutions, media, and culture have gone from promoting blatant racism to teaching tolerance and respect. So, if your theory were correct, we should be living in a nation totally free of ethnocentrism, and yet we're still far from that. Ethnocentrism, for the most part, has taken on a more benign form, but no one can deny that it continues to exist.

People are required to adopt the psychological characteristics of "their race" based on a false form of heritability that is socially determined, and are severely alienated from their friends and families if they reject racialism.

Very few families in the contemporary global north would reject their children if they weren't strict racialists. In fact, it is the racists who are typically alienated from society today (and rightfully so, in most cases).

The issue of race also divides the working class in a way that prevents solidarity, and reduces the capacity of that class to organize. This weapon of the bourgeoisie against the only class that can alter society in a radical way. We must reject race, and convince those around us to reject it as well.

You're entirely correct in stressing that race differences divide the working class, and, consequently, serve to undermine the proletariat's position in the class struggle. However, the Left has been attempting to 'fight racism' and ethnocentrism for decades now and has made very little progress. So the question is, should we continue down that path or formulate a new strategy? If you were to analyze the racial demographics of basically any of the countries in the global north, you'd find that Caucasians remain the working class majority. If you're suggesting we must socially engineer this mass to be sufficiently colorblind before the proletarian revolution can advance, I would submit to you that we neither the resources nor the time to do so—assuming such a process could even work, that is. The late Socialist Party politician, H. H. Stallard, argued that "if enlisting one negro or pushing him to the front will prevent ten white men from studying socialism we have done the negro as well as the whiteman an injury"; he further claimed that if "Socialism is what we all want, then let us adopt a resolution declaring for segregation of the negro and let him work out his own destiny" [Bissett, James. Agrarian Socialism in America: Marx, Jefferson, and Jesus in the Oklahoma Countryside, 1904-1920, p. 117]. I think there's some validity in Stallard's position, and, frankly, I find it patronizing when Caucasian socialists and communists act as though they really understand the plight of minority workers. I'm not suggesting that the dominant anti-racist approach is wrong, but rather that it's only one approach. I believe it's time to try a fundamentally different tactic, wherein minority concerns are set aside in favor of an exclusively class-based policy, and if it should succeed in bringing humanity closer to socialism, we'll be all the better off for it.

It's also important to recognise the difference between racialism (recognising differences between races) and racism (deciding those differences make one race the best).

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14345-ten-commandments-of-race-and-genetics-issued.html

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

I think that these could explain much better than I can.

I would like to point out that the burden is on whoever believes race exists to prove existence. This statement is a positive statement, and the denial of race as a genetic function is a negative. It is illogical to attempt to prove a negative statement.

Rev Scare wrote: Rev Scare on Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:30 pm in Marxism and Nationalism?!: There is no objective basis for describing the core principles of this forum as fascist. The burden of proof is on you to reveal elements of fascism within the forum's narrative, not on us to provide negative proof.

The point of linking to this thread is not to say the forum is fascist, but to show a precedence for logic. I will also point out that in the discussion with Einstein on the valuation of race based on any material basis, Einstein did not explain what defines race or the proof that it exists, yet those who hold a proper view on the sociological nature of race are burdened to prove their side.

Rev Scare wrote: Rev Scare on Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:08 pm in The RevLeft Troll Thread: I could bother to procure sources from psychology and sociology in order to bolster my case, but I do not find it is necessary for me to prove something that is blatantly obvious to the vast majority of the human population.

no-maps wrote:I would like to point out that the burden is on whoever believes race exists to prove existence.

Again, it depends entirely on what one means by the term "race." Even the most staunch "scientific" racist wouldn't be ignorant enough to claim that race is an objective category. On the contrary, they're perfectly willing to admit that the manner by which we choose to classify race is subjective. They will, however, go on to state that self-identified racial categories are nevertheless useful for determining such attributes as the mean level of intelligence, aggressiveness, athleticism, etc. for each group.

Celtiberian wrote: However, they will go on to state that self-identified racial categories are nevertheless useful for determining such attributes as the mean level of intelligence, aggressiveness, athleticism, etc. for each group.

I would like to point out that a much better way of determining the spread of those attributes is at the genetic level; as in, those with gene x are more likely to exhibit behavior z. I think that race as a subjective concept is a weak one and should be replaced by the much better grounded gene-centered category system. I will admit that race does help in medicine in, for example, diagnosis of sickle cell anemia (the most socialist of all diseases), but as you yourself have admitted, the concept of race has porous borders. This confusion of labeling of some individuals goes away with the elimination of race as a divider. The replacement of race towards a species or gene-centered method of disease and allele frequency is a much better representation of the real world. I hope I've made my case.

My red best,
Red Aegis

Red Aegis wrote:I would like to point out that a much better way of determining the spread of those attributes is at the genetic level; as in, those with gene x are more likely to exhibit behavior z. I think that race as a subjective concept is a weak one and should be replaced by the much better grounded gene-centered category system. I will admit that race does help in medicine in, for example, diagnosis of sickle cell anemia (the most socialist of all diseases), but as you yourself have admitted, the concept of race has porous borders. This confusion of labeling of some individuals goes away with the elimination of race as a divider. The replacement of race towards a species or gene-centered method of disease and allele frequency is a much better representation of the real world. I hope I've made my case.

I agree that, for matters of scientific investigation, it's more appropriate to examine specific population groups, as opposed to arbitrarily contrived races. However, for issues pertaining to sociological phenomena, such as ethnocentrism, race is far more useful—as people tend to divide themselves based upon surface differences, not whatever the allele frequencies happen to be in their genome (which they obviously couldn't know).

Sickle cell is not a "black disease," it is statistically more prominent in people who share a common lineage. It is not transferred through the "blackness" of an individual, rather that the trait of skin color and the trait of carrying of the genetic defect have a high correlation due to the social and sexual choices of people who are potential carriers. The existence of sickle cell and it's predominance among people who identify as African Americans does not show that race exists. When racialism is smashed by revolution, as are all bourgeois social relations, the artificial borders of "race" will also slowly wither away and these expressions of "race" will become increasingly less meaningful.

Kids as young as 6 months judge others based on skin color.

Link

When the kids turned 3, Katz showed them photographs of other children and asked them to choose whom they'd like to have as friends. Of the white children, 86 percent picked children of their own race. When the kids were 5 and 6, Katz gave these children a small deck of cards, with drawings of people on them. Katz told the children to sort the cards into two piles any way they wanted. Only 16 percent of the kids used gender to split the piles. But 68 percent of the kids used race to split the cards, without any prompting. In reporting her findings, Katz concluded: "I think it is fair to say that at no point in the study did the children exhibit the Rousseau type of color-blindness that many adults expect."

I rest my case.

no-maps wrote:When racialism is smashed by revolution, as are all bourgeois social relations, the artificial borders of "race" will also slowly wither away and these expressions of "race" will become increasingly less meaningful.

I wouldn't consider racialism a manifestation of bourgeois social relations, as it antecedes capitalism by millenia. Whether or not identifications based upon race, or ethnocentric behavior in general, will wither away following the ascent of socialism and communism is an open question.

To celt,I agree with that as well, only this is why I think that science education should be reworked such that the general population will recognize that they themselves are creating the phenomenon of race and cease their useless bickering over it. I think that class is the best way of grouping, but we're trying to eliminate class too; therefore, nationality should be the way to group people, as it promotes unity without the amorphousness race. Nations have clear borders and little ambiguity between them.

To no-maps, I'm not saying that race does exist, but if it did, as a social construct, it would be useful for some things. Sickle-cell does occur more in those of west african decent who would be described as the "black race" by many. That is how I meant that it would be useful, not necessarily true.

To Leon, while children may be able to distinguish between people of different skin colors, all the connotations that go with that are not present. If they are I would like nothing more than for you to link them.

My red best,
Red Aegis

Red Aegis, what i meant to prove with scientific data, is that segregation based on apparent racial differences is absolutely natural, because even small children do it. The myth that we are all born color blind, and such notions of "racial groups" that we must adhere too are imposed to us is just that, a myth.

So trying to teach people to be "colorblind" is as hard as trying to change any other innate characteristic. As Celt pointed out, the "left" has been trying to that for decades now, with pathetic results, while alienating great chunks of the working class in the process.

Red Aegis wrote:To celt,I agree with that as well, only this is why I think that science education should be reworked such that the general population will recognize that they themselves are creating the phenomenon of race and cease their useless bickering over it.

As much as I dislike David Hume, I think he was partially correct when he wrote:

"Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason."
Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature, p. 325.

Even an appropriate scientific education won't ensure that people will cease exhibiting ethnocentric behavior, as human beings aren't entirely rational creatures. Fortunately, there are methods by which people can make more rational decisions (see George Lakoff's work on the significance of framing metaphors, for example), but it still won't serve to change our behavior in any profound sense.

I think that class is the best way of grouping, but we're trying to eliminate class too; therefore, nationality should be the way to group people, as it promotes unity without the amorphousness race. Nations have clear borders and little ambiguity between them.

Agreed.

Leon, in response to the article you posted.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/09/04/see-baby-discriminate.html

Only fourteen percent of the children surveyed claimed their parents don't like black people. At the extreme young age of the population sampled, it is impossible for the participant to determine what their parents think. These children are also more likely to report that their parents know what they feel more than they do, which means these children poorly evaluate their own feelings. Children at this age are likely to attributed ideas to others falsely due to their egocentric interpretation of reality, and due to their inability to understand others.

The participants in these experiments must draw conclusions from the limited amount of available information and their limited ability to translate that information. Children at this age can only focus on a single detail of an object or person, and that detail is usually the most obvious. A persons skin color, however, is not always the most obvious characteristic a person has, and when a child is presented with numerous differences between them and another person they will only be able to pay attention to the most obvious one. This implies that children are not racialist or able to construct race as an ideal even if they can notice skin color.

no-maps, the conclusions are clear, the younger the children are, the more they will pick their friends based on apparent racial differences. Purely physical ones. They don't say the others are better or worse, but they segregate naturally based on it. So "my group" is an innate trace,and is far from the "colorblindness" that was attributed to children.

In absurd, blond children might segregate from brunette ones. I don't know if such a study exist, but i would love to see one.

Either way, i don't have any problem saying that asian people are a different race than me. It's obvious that there is enough physical differences for this. Is the same as saying that the russian husky in a different race than the german sheppard, and the two dogs are almost identical in shape and size.

As long as you refuse people of other "races" to the right of your love and your children, that will continue to be true. In that sense race is a product of social policy.

Again, racism may certainly be so, no-maps, but racialism isn't.

What is racialism, and what role does it serve in the process of nationalization? It's not okay for a nation to determine its citizenship based on race, and communists (and all other revolutionary leftists) must resist the formation of any nationalism that uses race as a definition of its citizenship. This whole notion of "self-determination" can apologize for incorrect views for so long before it must be questioned and held accountable.

I personally don't refuse any "love". Although i do have my preferences regarding that, as i have regarding anything in a girl. As for forbidding my children from doing it, thats a moot point, since parents rarely have a say about who their grown up sons and daughters date. They can say their opinion, but that's usually it.

Maps, they're saying that race exists just as people exist with different color eyes, but that they're still equal. I don't think that they're advocating for superiority, in fact I know that they aren't. What they are advocating, is that grouping of race is in fact a useful way of classifying certain traits. I tend to disagree but that's just me.