What is wrong with the concept of "race"?

[ranskaldan]

What is inherently different between classifying human appearances and, say, classifying chemicals, rocks, stars or climates?

Race does not exist? -
Neither do rock types, chemical types, star types or climate types, by themselves. These are all pigeonholes used for easy description and reference. So, why can't we see race as "human appearance types"?

So, once again, what is wrong with the concept of "race"?

[Felch]

Only one of those sub-human members of the Canadian race would ask such a question.

Really nothing, so long as people don't hurt other people over it.

[MrFun]

It's not really harmful, unless it's used for the wrong purposes, or if the concept of race is distorted.

For instance, based on sociological and anthropoligical research, race is not based on genetics --- or, if it is, the differences that result based on race from genetics, is 1%.

Something else to remember with the difference between racialism and racism.

During the Romanticism era of the 19th century, many whites embraced the ideology of racialism. This was based on the idea that there were indeed, innate differences between the different races, but were not necessarily inferior to one another.

Racialists would say that blacks were more feminine, and more emotional than whites. They would believe that the differences between all the races complimented the attributes of the other races in society.

Racists, on the other hand, merely believe that one race is superior to another race.

Racists would say that blacks are lacking attributes that are present in all humans, regardless of race -- such as intelligence, rational thinking, and other attributes.


I think Romantic racialists, in spite of their skewed and distorted view of races, was the first step toward seeing races as equal in the 19th century.

[Urban Ranger]

One difference is "race" is based on extremely insignificant differences between groups, unlike rocks, chemicals, and stars. The differences are so minor that there are significant overlaps among the different races in terms of abilities.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Stars and rocks are classified by scientists; moreover, despite their infinite capacity for evil, people aren't inclined to hate and destroy stars and rocks for being different.

But race, while it's seen as a scientific category, is rejected by scientists themselves. So that means its really a sociological category, and like all sociological phenomena we can make choices about it. The question is, is it a useful sociological category? Well, historically...

- you could be killed with impunity for being of the wrong race
- you could be denied all sorts of rights for being of the wrong race
- you could be (mis)classified in order to promote notions of racial superiority (e.g., Southerners who had one black great-great-great gandparent wer classified as "black," the same way being 1/16 Jewish got you shipped to the death camps under the Nazis. There could apparently be multiple races, but by mixing blood the whit race got "polluted").

In short, what's wrong with "race" is that neither states nor ordinary people can be trusted with the concept; it's hard to think of any good that's been done in the name of race, which makes it an even more damaging sociological concept than religion. Since scientists don't need it there's really no reason to keep it around.

[Felch]

We treat rocks like dirt.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Felch X
We treat rocks like dirt.

Rufus,

An excellently reasoned and written explanation of why we will all be better off once we can forget the idea of race. Cultures are more easily defined and inherently useful sociological concepts, and more often than not when we speak of race we actually mean culture anyway.

[DarkCloud]

There are no races, or even subspecies... If there were different "Races" of humans- they could not breed with each other- it is as simple as that.

That is why there is not 2 or 3 "Races" of humans.

[Goingonit]

Race implies a large genetic difference. There is nothing wrong with ethnicity, however.

[OzzyKP]

The concept of race is made up and harmful. It only serves to divide people into superficial categories. Cultural differences are plenty. It is most useful in the Americas (I'd imagine) for Americans who because of slavery don't have a clear family history nor can trace themselves to a single region or nation in Africa. So they are just called black.

But it does bias people. A new imigrant from Germany is treated much different than a new imigrant from Mexico. Mostly because skin color is an obvious outward way to pigeon hole someone.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Sikander
An excellently reasoned and written explanation of why we will all be better off once we can forget the idea of race. Cultures are more easily defined and inherently useful sociological concepts, and more often than not when we speak of race we actually mean culture anyway.

So would you, and others who don't support the notion of race, then support abolishing afirmative action?

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Felch X
We treat rocks like dirt.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


So would you, and others who don't support the notion of race, then support abolishing afirmative action?

Affirmitive Action is RACIST!!!!(&$(@!#&

The fiends are supporting racial inequality and supporting biases and hate!*(!&@(&!#(%*&

There should be NO affirmitive action EXCEPT in cases where the "minority's" credidentials equal the White's credidentials, in which case I may argue that the minority should possibly be given a slight exception.

They DESERVE NOTHING !@#&%(&@#(%

THEY SHOULD WORK LIKE EVEYRONE ELSE

DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A SOVIET GULAG!
DO YOU WANT YOUR COUNTRY TO COLLAPSE!

I WOULD RATHER HAVE A COMPETENT PERSON WORK ON MY CAR AS A MECHANIC OR MANAGE MY MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM THAN SOMEONE PUT THERE BY "AFFIRMITIVE ACTION"

hmph.
(please don't call me the new Wigalf... but I dislike AA )

[Goingonit]

AA is indeed very stupid and racist. However, this does not mean that Black or Hispanic people aren't less likely to recieve a good education - this may be remedied thorugh vouchers or increased school funding and support.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Goingonit
AA is indeed very stupid and racist. However, this does not mean that Black or Hispanic people aren't less likely to recieve a good education - this may be remedied thorugh vouchers or increased school funding and support.

True, if thatt is carried out fairly, I suppose I may support it!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Goingonit
Race implies a large genetic difference.

So in other words, you disagree with the latest sociological and anthropological research and studies??

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Affirmitive Action is RACIST!!!!(&$(@!#&

I'm completely sick of the whiners complaining about AA. They basically claim they want racial equality, but when any attempt is made to create this equality, the whiners start screaming their heads off like DarkCloud.

Let's face it. They don't want racial equality. They just want to keep things the same and that means a world where all the jobs go to white men.

Most companies don't even really have Affirmative Action. Managers just use it as an excuse to avoid telling slackers that they didn't get the job because they're incompetent.

AA has become a convenient crutch for slackers. They don't work hard and when they don't get a job, they blame it on AA.

[mactbone]

Except when there are racial quotas to promote diversity (i.e. what they're starting to do with Special Ops, and Police forces, etc.). Or when every bloody idiot starts yelling that, "He only got the coaching job because he's white" BS. How many times do we have to hear "Rev." J. Jackson tell the World that so and so wasn't hired because he's black. Yeah, the qualifications of the two people in question had *nothing* to do with it Or the University policys that favor minoritys to keep the numbers up so that they aren't picketed.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Except when there are racial quotas to promote diversity (i.e. what they're starting to do with Special Ops, and Police forces, etc.). Or when every bloody idiot starts yelling that, "He only got the coaching job because he's white" BS. How many times do we have to hear "Rev." J. Jackson tell the World that so and so wasn't hired because he's black. Yeah, the qualifications of the two people in question had *nothing* to do with it Or the University policys that favor minoritys to keep the numbers up so that they aren't picketed.

Some people take the extreme of either end on any issue, then try to distort other people's perceptions on these issues.

I support affirmative action, but I see Jackson as close to being an extremist, and find myself disagreeing with some of his rhetoric.

[C0ckney]

Tingkai, doesn't it seem a little off to solve the problem of discrimination against one group by discriminating against another?

If companies etc. simply hired people on merit with no regard to race or gender then all groups should be represented equally. Wouldn't this make more sense than making race or gender a tie breaker between candidates?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by C0ckney
Tingkai, doesn't it seem a little off to solve the problem of discrimination against one group by discriminating against another?

If companies etc. simply hired people on merit with no regard to race or gender then all groups should be represented equally. Wouldn't this make more sense than making race or gender a tie breaker between candidates?

Yes, and when you find the magical land where companies do that, you be sure to let us know, okay?

The fear that AA advocates have is that once you eliminate special advantages for minorities, all you'll be left with is special advantages for the majority. Take colleges, for example. As an undergrad, I went to an Ivy League school, and my roommate later worked for the admissions office. You may not know it, but the Ivies and other elite schools use the question, "did your mother or father go here?" as part of the admission criteria. If the answer is yes, you can be less qualified than other candidates and still get in. (Such admissions are called "legacies," and you know it's how our current "president" ended up at Yale.)

I dated a legacy in college. Nice, nice girl -- but no way nearly as bright as the friends I had who didn't get into the school. Still, she's got an Ivy League degree -- with all the doors that opened -- and they don't. Incidently, she later went on to work at a Fortune 500 company in an industry where she had no experience and no qualifications; the company CEO, however, was a family friend. And she did a fine job, because someone gave her a chance. But she got that chance because she was a rich white girl with family connections. AA could be thought of as compensating for that phenomena.

That being said, I favor affirmative action based on class, not race. But I'd rather have race-based affirmative action than eliminate it altogether.

[chequita guevara]

Gee Rufus, use reason in an argument about AA? What are you thinking?

=============

There is a scientific, biological concept of race. It does not apply to humans. For example, suppose you have a particular speicies of frog. Over time, it expands around a large lake. Over time, subtle variations show up between frogs on one side of the lake versus frogs on the other side. They are still the same species, however; the two types of frogs won't mate. They're genetically compatable, they just won't mate. These frogs have divided into races.

Humans most certainly will mate with other, variated, members of their species. My relationship, among millions of others, is proof of this.

[Sikander]

Again I agree with Rufus, using class to create opportunity where it is lacking is the way to go. That way Colin Powell's children won't get special opportunities, but the children of hillbillies will. If some ethnicities lag behind others statistically (which of course they do), then they will receive benefits in accordance with their lack of opportunity. This system is fair all the way around, and accomplishes the goals of AA (which I would define as equality of opportunity but not necessarily outcome).

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by C0ckney
Tingkai, doesn't it seem a little off to solve the problem of discrimination against one group by discriminating against another?

How else are you going to create racial equality. If you have 100 workers and none are black then the only way to reduce the inequality is to hire a black person for the next open spot. You end up discriminating against the white person, but the alternative is to leave the situation the same.

[Az]

you could try to give everyone equal education , so the ones that are good will do good and the ones that won't , will not. with nothing considering race at all. But hey , what do I know. taking people to jobs , just because they're from a certain group that we're trying to please But hey , what do I know...


and stop assuming things about peole you don't know, Tinki.


"did your mother/father go there?"

... that IS awful.

I guess I am lucky to live in the great socialist state of Israel

[Solly]

Originally posted by C0ckney
Tingkai, doesn't it seem a little off to solve the problem of discrimination against one group by discriminating against another?

If companies etc. simply hired people on merit with no regard to race or gender then all groups should be represented equally. Wouldn't this make more sense than making race or gender a tie breaker between candidates?

And by hiring a less well-equipped (white) candidate merely on the grounds of race, the company are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Let them, I say.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
you could try to give everyone equal education , so the ones that are good will do good and the ones that won't , will not. with nothing considering race at all. But hey , what do I know. taking people to jobs , just because they're from a certain group that we're trying to please But hey , what do I know...


and stop assuming things about peole you don't know, Tinki.

Oh sure, that's all we need to do to solve the problem: give everyone an equal education. Lord knows that well-educated people never face racism.

What assumptions are you talking about, Spagetti? I'm not making any.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai


How else are you going to create racial equality. If you have 100 workers and none are black then the only way to reduce the inequality is to hire a black person for the next open spot. You end up discriminating against the white person, but the alternative is to leave the situation the same.

According to many of the posters here we already have racial equality, in that the concept of race is meaningless. I disagree that we want anything like ethnic equality in the sense that we magically arrive in a situation where we have an even distribution of all ethnic groups across all professions. We are stronger for our diversity in a world that values specialization. If that means that certain ethnic groups tend to prefer certain professions over others than so be it. We are better off having people who hold martial values in our military, people who value music most as our musicians and people who value justice most as our judges. To the extent that these values are determined by the subcultures in our society we will see some grouping by ethnicity. So what?

The goal of affirmative should not be equality of outcome, but harmony through equality of opportunity. This allows the most utility and freedom, and if properly implemented can do so without increasing friction between the various ethnic groups, but decreasing it by helping those who need help, not just the members of certain ethnicities.

[Ecowiz Returns]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
What is inherently different between classifying human appearances and, say, classifying chemicals, rocks, stars or climates?

Race does not exist? -
Neither do rock types, chemical types, star types or climate types, by themselves. These are all pigeonholes used for easy description and reference. So, why can't we see race as "human appearance types"?

So, once again, what is wrong with the concept of "race"?

I believe you're example ilustrates it perfectly.

There is some use, i.e, some benefit derived from classifying chemicals, rocks, stars or climates.

The question is: what's the use of classifiing human beings.

The perversity of race classification goes further when, as it happens, for instance with the classification of chemicals, one then uses it to determine the best usage:
- acids are good for this... base are good for that...
- white are better in this ... black are better in that...

Then we go the the qualitative apreciation of aleged distinctive properties:
- for instance, one may prefer to have a source hidrocarbon chemicals in his backyard that a source of sulfur
- when one comes to "race" some say they prefer white (or asian, for that matter) people when it comes to ensure high intelectual performances but black when it comes to win the next Basketball championship.

So, i think there are many problems regarding the concept of "race" (not to mention the scientific one - it simply does not have any genetic relevance which "race" a person "bewlongs to").

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Yes, and when you find the magical land where companies do that, you be sure to let us know, okay?

What can I say, I'm an optimist

(Such admissions are called "legacies," and you know it's how our current "president" ended up at Yale.)

His natural intelligence and hard work?

The fear that AA advocates have is that once you eliminate special advantages for minorities, all you'll be left with is special advantages for the majority. Take colleges, for example. As an undergrad, I went to an Ivy League school, and my roommate later worked for the admissions office. You may not know it, but the Ivies and other elite schools use the question, "did your mother or father go here?" as part of the admission criteria. If the answer is yes, you can be less qualified than other candidates and still get in.

We have that here, an 'old boys network' or the 'old school tie' but that doesn't discriminate on race, rather on class. In that a white person whose parents hadn't gone to Yale would have as much chance as black person whose parents didn't go to Yale. Taking on more black people simply because they are black will just shift the discrimination on to other groups without solving the underlying problem.

But she got that chance because she was a rich white girl with family connections. AA could be thought of as compensating for that phenomena.

Rich people with family connections come in all colours.

That being said, I favor affirmative action based on class, not race. But I'd rather have race-based affirmative action than eliminate it altogether.

I think race (or gender based) AA does more harm than good in its present form. Sikander put it perfectly we should strive for equality of opportunity, not outcome.

Tingkai,

How else are you going to create racial equality. If you have 100 workers and none are black then the only way to reduce the inequality is to hire a black person for the next open spot. You end up discriminating against the white person, but the alternative is to leave the situation the same.

Again you're advocating solving the problem of discrimination against one group by discriminating against another, doesn't that sound a little silly to you?

If the company in question where to hire the best person for the next job that came up regardless of race or gender then eventually you should see a fair representation of blacks etc. in the company. It would take longer but it would be through a fair and equitable system which is what we all want after all.