I don't believe in race: e.g. I believe it's a nonsensical construct meant only to divide us.
~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2001-12-29 |
Race is either biological, regional, or cultural. But none holds up to scrutiny.
Biological[edit | edit source]
- The furthest two human races have less genetic variance than the two closest breeds of dog
- You can't find a single disease or genetic sequence that applies to only one "race", and if you could, the people that had that, would not all look like what we call a "race"
- You can't tell race by looking at someone: people try, and are often wrong. Not all Orientals have epicanthic folds, not all Occidentals don't. Skin tone varies widely in all races. You get statistical trends, but no clear absolutes.
- We intermix (cross-breed) way too often for there to be any purity and definition. Nobody could pass AKC muster for being purebred.
- There are virtually no genetic differences other than superficial and minor attributes -- and virtually any of them you can define, have other groups fail.
So race as a biological concept is bullshit
Fallacy of Race[edit source]
 Race generally meant subspecies in taxonomy, and genetically, humans don't have enough variance to really be separated: we are all Homo sapiens. That's our race. So if we know that race is "made up", and has no real basis in science (as applied to humans), then what's left is political. Thus, it was a construct made up by politicians to divide and control us. And those who buy-in, are tools of those pols that are mind-controlling them. Thus anyone that really talks about "race" as applied to humans is either a polemic or a rube. |
| 🗒️ Note: |
|---|
| I like to point out I have more in common with a black computer nerd from the burbs of Orange County, than I have with some Iranian kid that grew up in the Ghetto of Detroit or the slums of Turkey: because culture means more than race. The same that a Black and White person that are Marines, will find plenty more in common than they will with an anti-Military activist of the same color. So it isn't race, it's culture, and what you take from a culture is a choice.
This is why Black kids raised by Asians, generally perform as well on tests as Asians. And white kids raised by blacks, generally score more like blacks. Or why upper class Black and Latino middle-class kids (or first generation immigrants) don't have the same problems with gangs/crime/murders or other cultural problems as poor black/white/latino kids: unless they immerse themselves in those cultures. So what most people attribute to race is culture, and what you take from a culture is a choice and not about skin color. |
Geographical/Regional[edit | edit source]
We generally don't call Whites in South Africa, "African". (Or Elon Musk an African American). And in Japan, 4th generation people of Korean Origins aren't considered Japanese. Dark Skinned and light skinned Jamacans are called Jamacians, but we don't consider Jamacan a race. Americans come in all colors. African Americans usually exclude Africans who are direct immigrants from Africa, but they'll try to throw in people from India or Jamaca (Kamala Harris) when it suits them politically.
So race as a regional/geographic concept is bullshit
Cultural[edit | edit source]
Yes, humans tribe up and create cliques.
But even there:
- Whites: the implication that Russian and a German, an Irish and an Englishman, or an Iranian and a Jew, all along and belong to the same tribe? At they work together against blacks/Latinos/Asians because of race?
- Asians: How about the Japaense or Chinese getting along to work as one race? Let alone the Japanese or Chinese working with other Asians that hate them over past wars. They all have epicanthic folds, how can they not unite against Whites/Blacks/Latinos?
- Blacks: at least blacks can unite? African immigrants that come here all want to join the same gangs that American blacks and people from India join, because it's the darkies against the rest? And Gangs/tribes aren't divided by geography but by skin tone purity, right?
- Latinos: which are just a subgroup of white, all get along, right? Mexicans and Brazilians are the same thing, even if they don't speak the same language. Guatamalans and Jamacans have a natural bond because "LatinX", amiright?
There's no such thing as a cultural race
Conclusion[edit | edit source]
I do NOT believe in race. It is a human construct.
For there to be racism, you need to believe that:
- (a) there is such a thing as race (and you can define it, and test for it)
- (b) that it is biologically significant
- (c) that some races are objectively superior to others.
But individuals and as a culture, we should and do reject all of that. The furthest racial diversity (genetically) among humans is less than those among the two closest dog breeds -- there just isn't that much diversity in our gene pool. Superficial coloring and facial features just really don't matter much. And the lines are so fuzzy as to what's "racial grouping", that I think it is all bullshit.
There's some superficial differences in our genetics (diseases we tend to catch), but to me, almost all significant differences are either individual genetic differences (which has far more variability than race) or cultural differences (which are opt-in and not racial at all).
What we get down it is that Crips and Bloods fight. Irish and British don't always get along. Asians don't like each other just because because they have similar eyes. Most crime/violence/friction is intra-racial not inter-racial. And thus in the pecking order of things to care about -- race is way, way, way down the list. Thus race as a construct is silly, as it means nothing. It is used by bigots and partisans to divide us. But the divisions are arbitrary, meaningless, and mostly irrelevant.
🔗 More
| |
🔗 Links
- Daily Signal: Author Explains Why ‘Race Does Not Exist’ there’s no black race, there’s no white race, there’s no yellow or red race. These are ideas that were literally created by some taxonomist a very long time ago.”
Tags: Racism/all
