posted
Bass says {probably on the 27th of February):
''oppression and exploitation is the result of the social construct of race, not anything biological.''
I take it you are saying humans aren't a biological construct?
Then Mindovermatter718 chimes in with this and thinks he's helping Bass:
MindoverMatter718 posted 27 February, 2009 08:10 AM
''Mike I am pretty sure you can understand, and distinguish between the two, socially and biologically in that Bass is further reiterating there is no biological race.
''Socially we know race exists, but from a biological standpoint race does not exist. This is the point, nobody denies social races.''
This is some of that tautology ain't it.
Why don't you two just strangle each other and get it over.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
''oppression and exploitation is the result of the social construct of race, not anything biological.''
I take it you are saying humans aren't a biological construct?
Pretty clear, don't you think? Human "races" isn't based on biological principle, but socio-politically created constructs to divide society, largely by the state apparatus. This is does not say "humans" aren't biological.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
No it isn't clear. I'm not interested in races just how they (above) arrived at the conclusion that the construct doesn't come from humans who are biological.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Bass says {probably on the 27th of February):
''oppression and exploitation is the result of the social construct of race, not anything biological.''
I take it you are saying humans aren't a biological construct?
Then Mindovermatter718 chimes in with this and thinks he's helping Bass:
MindoverMatter718 posted 27 February, 2009 08:10 AM
''Mike I am pretty sure you can understand, and distinguish between the two, socially and biologically in that Bass is further reiterating there is no biological race.
''Socially we know race exists, but from a biological standpoint race does not exist. This is the point, nobody denies social races.''
This is some of that tautology ain't it.
Why don't you two just strangle each other and get it over.
I always knew you were slow.
Biologically speaking, I.e, assigning specific features to certain groups, and whereas only people with said specific features can be categorized as said group, defining a true "Negroid" or "Mongoloid" etc... is not the same as when someone socially identifies as black/Negro or white.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, when humans, who are biology, bring up social constructs, then they are appealing to... whom, if not themselves? And you still say biology and social is unrelated? Introduce me to this social guy so I can talk to him to see if I can get an answer on how to separate the two.
''I always knew you were slow.''
But there ain't no need to go fast around here. Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: So, when humans, who are biology, bring up social constructs, then they are appealing to... whom, if not themselves? And you still say biology and social is unrelated? Introduce me to this social guy so I can talk to him to see if I can get an answer on how to separate the two.
Is this a joke?
Race as a biological construct is invalid, since humans biologically can not be neatly separated into categorized races such as "Negroid", "Caucasoid" etc.., as explained, assigning specific features to certain groups and only those with said features can be part of this biological race of Negroid is invalid since not all Africans fit a Negroid morphology of a broad nose thick lips prognathous etc...
Africans are extremely diverse and to pigeonhole Africans under a biological race construct such as "True Negroid" puts a limit on Africans, that doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny.
All non Africans are simply descended from a subset of Africans, hence there is/was no separate races or species. In essence, all non Africans are simply Africans who moved to different parts of the world and morphologically adapted to the area they arrived in.
Hence biologically race is mooted and humans can not be categorized in this way.
Another example is Oceanians, who to the average laymen would appear to be African, but when genetic tests are ran, Oceanians tie with mainland Asia before anyone else.
But in turn, socially, as in people identifying black or white is purely social, and is ones own personal identification or opinion of themselves which is not scientific.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Race as a biological construct is invalid, since humans biologically can not be neatly separated into categorized races such as "Negroid", "Caucasoid" etc.., as explained, assigning specific features to certain groups and only those with said features can be part of this biological race of Negroid is invalid since not all Africans fit a Negroid morphology of a broad nose thick lips prognathous etc...
Add that "race" denotes direct shared ancestry, and that genetic distances between "races" is significant. Having similar cranio-facial traits doesn't necessarily translate into shared [in humans' case, "recent"] ancestry, and humans do not sport significant genetic variation to even warrant subspecies levels of variation. If there were one, visibly, one would see "abrupt" human variations as one moves geographical clines; this of course, is clearly not the case. Grumman is confusing someone's saying that "racialism" in human society and corresponding social privileges and what not, is more a product of socio-political construction, rooted in subjective politics, rather than rooted in basic biological principles of 'race'.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
No confusion at all. You guys ain't readin' straight. Akoben picked up on it right away.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
No confusion at all. You guys ain't readin' straight.
You've got it twisted; it is you who isn't reading a simple sentence as this [below] straight:
oppression and exploitation is the result of the social construct of race, not anything biological.
How anyone could not understand this, is beyond me. It is clearly saying that oppression and exploitation is the result of socio-cultural divisions created by humans, like "human races", rather than based on the biological principles of race.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
''How anyone could not understand this, is beyond me. It is clearly saying that oppression and exploitation is the result of socio-cultural divisions created by humans, like "human races", rather than based on the biological principles of race.'
Explorer, I'm not talking about biological principles of races, I'm talking about human beings as a biological unit creating, more than likely innately, the very same thing you just now agreed to but not within your context, when you posted this: ''It is clearly saying that oppression and exploitation is the result of socio-cultural divisions created by humans''
Now if humans created this, and I know they did, within this context from above (a few posts now), and they are a biological unit, which is indisputable, are you suggesting that predicament can be overcome, given humankind's operation on this planet, simply by saying if everyone knew there is no difference between humans, biologically, and there isn't, then these same people, armed with this profound and startlingly ''new'' information will suddenly cease being who they are, stop what they are doing and shout hallelujah to the brotherhood of humanity?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
''How anyone could not understand this, is beyond me. It is clearly saying that oppression and exploitation is the result of socio-cultural divisions created by humans, like "human races", rather than based on the biological principles of race.'
Explorer, I'm not talking about biological principles of races, I'm talking about human beings as a biological unit creating, more than likely innately, the very same thing you just now agreed to but not within your context, when you posted this: ''It is clearly saying that oppression and exploitation is the result of socio-cultural divisions created by humans''
Now if humans created this, and I know they did, within this context from above (a few posts now), and they are a biological unit, which is indisputable, are you suggesting that predicament can be overcome, given humankind's operation on this planet, simply by saying if everyone knew there is no difference between humans, biologically, and there isn't, then these same people, armed with this profound and startlingly ''new'' information will suddenly cease being who they are, stop what they are doing and shout hallelujah to the brotherhood of humanity?
This is a meaningless question, as the issue at hand was your misunderstanding of the highlighted piece above. I professed no agreement or disagreement with anything said; I just pointed out the meaning of the simple sentence, which you seem to be having trouble interpreting. However, for the record, it is a fact that "human races" is a social construct that has been used to divide people, wherein certain sections of the society were given socio-economic privilege based on their "race", while others were denied such privilege. Since this is a fact, trying to qualify it with ifs and buts is a tad pointless, don't you think?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Human societies has always and will always construct something to maintain hierarchies you stupid commie. Whether use of race, creed or class. It's biological.
Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other.
The Theory & Practice Of Oligarchical Collectivism.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Explorer said: ''This is a meaningless question, as the issue at hand was your misunderstanding of the highlighted piece above.''
...and you still can't separate what it is you need to know. Alrighty then why are you disputing what we both know when you posted this:
''I professed no agreement or disagreement with anything said; I just pointed out the meaning of the simple sentence, which you seem to be having trouble interpreting.''
Really.
Then you follow with this:
''However, for the record, it is a fact that "human races" is a social construct that has been used to divide people, wherein certain sections of the society were given socio-economic privilege based on their "race", while others were denied such privilege. Since this is a fact, trying to qualify it with ifs and buts is a tad pointless, don't you think?''
...and who said it wasn't true?
Now what is it you have to say about this from Akoben.
Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other.
And if I don't reply it will simply mean there is nothing to reply to.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The end of the neolithic is not a great span of human history and the stratification of societies and the emergence of complex forms of social organization do not imply or justify that such constructs are biological. They are not. Complex social hierarchies are much too recent within the human historical record to be biological, otherwise, they would have been there since the birth of modern humans. Social structures are cultural, in that the cultural patterns of a given group have determined how their patterns of organization developed. None of this is biological. Yes humans are social creatures as no man or woman can live or function alone. That indeed is biological. However, the structure of human societies and how humans come together promote the survival of the group is not. From the beginning mankind has grouped together for survival, however the earliest forms of hunter gather societies 200,000 had little in common with the more advanced cultural lifestyles of hunter gatherers 100,000 years later, let alone the more complex lifestyles of people during the neolithic. Therefore, such developments of complex societies are simply patterns of cultural development, wherein certain patterns "stuck" and became widespread, whereas others didn't. And while social hierarchies have been around for a while, the concept of social hierarchies based on contrived ideas of "race" is quite new and not ancient at all.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The end of the neolithic is not a great span of human history and the stratification of societies and the emergence of complex forms of social organization do not imply or justify that such constructs are biological.
Orwell's lack of attention to historical and archaeological detail aside, you are restricting (deliberately?) your argument to "complex" forms of social organization. This isn't proving anything as such societies didn't come in a vacuum.
quote:Complex social hierarchies are much to recent within the human historical record to be biological, otherwise, they would have been there since the birth of modern humans.
Yes, but like I said, before we got to complex there was the "basic", yes? Complex cultures didn't fall from thin air. Unless you believe in the Greek miracle or the "Agricultural Revolution" theory.
quote:However, the structure of human societies and how humans come together promote the survival of the group is not.
What drives human behaviour? Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug M says: ''Complex social hierarchies are much to recent within the human historical record to be biological, otherwise, they would have been there since the birth of modern humans.''
So humans stumbled onto their biology recently?
What were they before that?
How did complex social hierarchies come to be if biology wasn't involved? Can you help me understand how it is you know this.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Doug M says: ''Complex social hierarchies are much to recent within the human historical record to be biological, otherwise, they would have been there since the birth of modern humans.''
So humans stumbled onto their biology recently?
What were they before that?
How did complex social hierarchies come to be if biology wasn't involved? Can you help me understand how it is you know this.
Actually complex social hierarchies only came about recently. Human biology is much more ancient.
Biology is not social structure. Social structures have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years during the existence of modern humans. But modern human biology has not changed much over that time.
The point is that if human social structures were part of human biology then advanced civilization would have developed when modern humans developed 200,000 years ago. But advanced social structures did not develop 200,00 years ago they only developed about 10,000 years ago, which means it is a pattern of evolution and experimentation, not simply a preordained biological trait.
And if you don't know the difference between biology and social structures, there is nothing further to discuss because you wont understand.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Actually complex social hierarchies only came about recently.
Point is it didn't drop from the sky or imposed by Martians. If you are going to argue that the structure of human societies and how humans come together to promote the survival of the group is not connected with biology then bring us this social guy so we can talk to him to see if we can get an answer on how to separate the two.
Unless you're going to argue that social structures, whether primitive hierarchies or "advanced" ones, exist independent of human beings, you lost the debate before it even started.
quote:But advanced social structures did not develop 200,00 years ago
Doug wants to keep the discussion on "complex social hierarchies" in order to equate hierarchy with "advanced civilisation" so as to try and separate human evolution from it.
But he doesn't seem to understand that by speaking about "complex social hierarchies" he himself is implying that hierarchies are an evolutionary phenomena, not a one off human creation. Therefore, like humans who created them, it went through different stages.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Akoben already beat me to the punch but anyway.
Doug M: Actually complex social hierarchies only came about recently.'
So?
''Human biology is much more ancient.''
Now we're getting someplace.
''Biology is not social structure.''
Nope, we aren't getting anyplace.
''Social structures have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years during the existence of modern humans. But modern human biology has not changed much over that time.''
You say in the first sentence that social structure has evolved during the existence of modern humans, then you say modern human biology hasn't changed that much. Why would modern human biology have to evolve faster than their input? For that matter early humans too? Don't you think humans were doing the social evolving instead of social structure out there on its own without direction, without management from humans.
''The point is that if human social structures were part of human biology then advanced civilization would have developed when modern humans developed 200,000 years ago.''
Social structure can't exist without humans driving it. It doesn't matter what era it was in.
''And if you don't know the difference between biology and social structures, there is nothing further to discuss because you wont understand.''
There is no difference, no other force behind the two. Humans are the biological driving unit behind social structure.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
''This is a meaningless question, as the issue at hand was your misunderstanding of the highlighted piece above.''[/b]
...and you still can't separate what it is you need to know.
??? English please.
quote: Alrighty then why are you disputing what we both know when you posted this:
''I professed no agreement or disagreement with anything said; I just pointed out the meaning of the simple sentence, which you seem to be having trouble interpreting.''
Really.
Then you follow with this:
''However, for the record, it is a fact that "human races" is a social construct that has been used to divide people, wherein certain sections of the society were given socio-economic privilege based on their "race", while others were denied such privilege. Since this is a fact, trying to qualify it with ifs and buts is a tad pointless, don't you think?''
I presume that "past tense, present tense", et al. is something you were not taught in primary school? I'm glad to help anyway; the first is alluding to a past tense, meaning when I initially set to clarify the simple statement you could not understand, I did not profess a position in one way or another, but merely tried to make you understand the simple sentence you were having trouble with. In the latter, I made my position clear. Is it clear now?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic