you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

There is a long line of people starting in the Arctic circle and ending at the equator.

Along this line, everyone pretty much looks like his neighbours in terms of skin pigmentation.

But, at the Arctic circle end, the people are very pale, and at the equatorial end, the people are very dark.

There are no discontinuities on this line, everyone just pretty much blends into their neighbours, appearance-wise.

Then one day some groups from the northern end of the big line, decide to go live in a colony together. And for (bad) reasons, some people from the southern end of the line are bought there also.

Now, we have, people who at home blend into their neighbors - but because we're in a colonial setting away from home, it's easy to see who came from the north of the line and who came from the south.

WHITES ARE OPPRESSORS

People from the north of the line had a lot of geographical advantages. They could do a four-crop rotation, which was not possible further south than France for climate reasons, and so feed a far larger population. They had access to massive oak forests to build boats to sail the world. They had the right climactic moisture levels to process cotton and flax in amounts massive enough to trigger an Industrial Revolution. So, the north of the line, people ended up in an advantageous position because of geography.

NONWHITES ARE VICTIMS

When they moved to their colonies, they utilised the fact that some groups were recognisably not from the north of the line, to build an exclusionary society. You already know how people with darker pigmentation were banned from living in White Australia. Or how people with darker pigmentation had to use different restaurants or water fountains or banks or sports leagues in America and couldn't get a mortgage or store to rent, and were legally discriminated against, I know this is not new information to anyone.

BUT RACE DOESN'T EXIST

it certainly doesn't. Notice how all along the big line of people, everyone blends imperceptibly into their neighbors. It's only when you take a group from one end of the line, and a group from the other end of the line, and compare them, can you create the idea of race. Ethniticies do exist. Race does not. There is no scientific marker or genome that can be pointed to as proof of race. But ethniticies do exist with markers that can be scientifically established.

YET I LOVE RACIAL DIVERSITY

Race doesn't exist but ethnic diversity is fantastic and preferred by nature, because it encourages the diversification of disease resistance and antibodies. The most successful, innovative and healthy societies have always been multiethnic.

AND I CELEBRATE OUR DIFFERENCES BECAUSE WE'RE ALL THE SAME

Two animals can only have fertile offspring when the two animals are the same species. And all humans are the same species, yet, with different disease resistances and antibodies and cultural history and so on, which are valuable to nature and society.

So there, OP, I know some people are mentally deficient and were never taught this stuff at school, so I thought I would help you be explaining this to you. Now you know.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

Race

noun

each of the major groupings into which humankind is considered (in various theories or contexts) to be divided on the basis of physical characteristics or shared ancestry.

[–]Site_rly_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

considered (in various theories or contexts) to be divided

A social concept. Not a scientific reality. You'll also be able to look up unicorns and dragons in the dictionary. Doesn't mean they're real

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Words are a way of defing and categorising our understanding of things in a short and simple way. We use the word race so that we don't have to write an essay every time we have a simple conversation to explain the scientific meaning behind the categorisation we are referring to.

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ok so did you have any issue with my post to OP or are you just piping up to let everyone know that words are shorthand for large concepts

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Not particularly, it's a well read post as is your knowledge of the distribution of humans and their ethnic origins. I merely disagree with the dismissal of the existence of race, as it describes the concept of groups of humans. Your post misses the point somewhat though, as it primarily mocks the mainstream narratives fed to us via common sources of media which can be contradictory in nature. The meme is political, not targeting race itself but the message being shared by those narratives. Perhaps study less on biology and more on etymology, my friend.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Race already has a scientific meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

There's not enough genetic diversity in humans to claim that there are any different races left. When we had Neaderthals and Denisovans, sure. But they've been absorbed now.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Yes. We often make use of words that don't fit their scientific term appropriately, but due to the word being used, it's meaning is understood and has become commonplace. This is the nature of language.

An example would be "fossil fuels", which don't technically come from fossils but we accept the use the term nevertheless and it is rarely questioned as the word race is here.

Even so, the scientific term loosely refers to an informal rank of subspecies that are typically unable to interbreed, and may be defined as being physiologically or geographically distinct. That's not to say it is correct to use the word scientifically to define different ethnicity. I would say, that we use the word race informally as opposed to formally. We recognise the difference in the animal kingdom such as in dogs as being different but not genetically distinct.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

An example would be "fossil fuels", which don't technically come from fossils

I think that's not the correct etymology.

The phrases came the other way around. The etymology of "fossil" is from the Latin meaning "dug up" from the ground. The term fossil fuel predates the use of the word "fossil" to mean "the remains or impression of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock." It just means fuel that's been dug up from the ground.

I would say, that we use the word race informally as opposed to formally.

Sure. And i know what i expect "Asian" to look like compared to "Caucasian". None the less it is a social concept rather than a scientific reality.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You are correct, fossil fuel perhaps being a poor example on my part. Although my point stands that when a word is used interchangeably, in this case with ethnicity, it becomes the commonly accepted term socially.

That said, the word fossil for use to refer to geological remains of plants and animals may indeed have predated the use of the term fossil fuel. I wonder how reliable Wikipedia is as a source of historical references when it is only as concise as the information added to it publicly. Both terms would have originated in a similar time period.

[–]JasonCarswell 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Next you're going to tell me that there is no such thing as short and tall and fat and skinny.

You'll also be able to look up unicorns and dragons in the dictionary.

Am I racist because I recognize dragons as having wings and unicorns by their alicorns?

I agree it's a social concept, and simultaneously know that some distinctions exist, and further, some distinctions matter to some people.

Classifications and labels help in communication - and, like anything, can be weaponized.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Next you're going to tell me that there is no such thing as short and tall and fat and skinny.

Words don't mean things anymore in our Marxist Utopia.

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I agree it's a social concept, and simultaneously know that some distinctions exist

Congratulations you have just discovered that ethniticies are real and races aren't. Sounds like you're in total agreement with me and disagreement with the dumb OP image macro, right?

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The OP is in /s/funny.
You have lost your sense of humour.
Try removing your black and white glasses. The world is in more shades than just binary thinking.