Can We End Racism by Ending the Idea of Race Itself?
Author Sheena Michele Mason offers an alternative vision for anti-racism.

The Raceless Antiracist: Why Ending Race Is the Future of Antiracism, by Sheena Michele Mason, Pitchstone Publishing, 256 pages, $17.95
Is race real? In The Raceless Antiracist, a follow-up to her 2022 book Theory of Racelessness, Sheena Michele Mason argues not only that it isn't, but that trying to stop racism while keeping the concept of race is like fighting "a flood by pouring water on it."
Mason, a literature professor at SUNY Oneonta, suggests that these futile approaches fall into two categories: "anti-racist resistance" and "color-blindness." While the first reifies race by making it the key to understanding most social phenomena, the second reifies it by treating it as a real thing that ought to be ignored, thus downplaying the reality of the racism that relies on it.
The Raceless Antiracist asks us to do something very uncomfortable: to adopt a new mental model, to think in a completely different set of categories. It doesn't deserve a snap judgment. It's a book for chewing on and wrestling with. It may puzzle or even disturb you.
Mason notes that our ancestors migrated at levels that most people grossly underestimate, leading to far more genetic mixing than people typically assume. She points out that our current understanding of DNA undermines a lot of assumptions that arose from observing external traits, such as skin color, nose shape, and eye shape, since such traits can arise from the same genetic allele but be inherited from entirely different people. Furthermore, thanks to the random genetic recombination that happens with every new generation, 75 percent of your genetic makeup is attributable to only 5 percent of your ancestors. A 23andMe test will tell you about only 8 percent of your ancestors, because they're the only ones left represented in your DNA today. In fact, it's possible that two dark South Africans can be more genetically divergent from one another than one of them is from a white Swede.
Even if race is a biological fiction—and I think Mason makes a strong case that it is—it could be real in the sense that money is real: constructed by us but constrained in its "nature" by the purpose it serves. People treat it as real, particularly the people who created the category as a rationale for dehumanizing those they oppress; and that, one might argue, makes it a social fact.
Mason rejects even this argument. We can build franchises, merchandise empires, and little girls' dreams out of princesses who create ice castles, but that does not mean those princesses themselves exist. So too, race is simply imaginary. It is racism that is the social construct: a social hierarchy based on an imagined category.
Mason sees this as an important difference, because she believes that people trapped in the ideology of race are fated never to actually end racism. We cannot beat the sin by embracing its core mistake.
The word trapped is instructive here. Think of how defining one's blackness as resistance to whiteness just prioritizes whiteness. What happens if the "whiteness" of Whiteness Studies programs—that is, the association of peach-colored people with legal and economic privilege—were actually to disappear? Would the meaning and purpose found in celebrating gospel music or soul food or the Civil Rights Movement disappear too? Obviously not! Those "black" things are not a celebration of race at all; they're a celebration of a culture shared by a particular ethnic group from a particular part of the U.S. who underwent a particular set of historical circumstances that shaped them in important ways.
Mason calls this "translation": Once one embraces racelessness, she says, one must translate what people really mean when they talk about "race" into actual insights about culture, ethnicity, class, or other categories. Consider Denzel Washington's comment when he was asked about why it mattered that the director of Malcolm X be a black man. "It's not about color," he replied: "It's about culture." He then went on to describe how a certain group of people know how the smell of a hot iron on their woolly hair makes them think of Sunday mornings and getting ready to go to a certain kind of church service. Martin Scorsese could make a great film out of the story of Malcolm X too. Just not that film.
By reifying race, thinkers like Ibram X. Kendi create a trap in which black Americans only matter as a group that's oppressed. By constantly referring to the disparate effects of this or that policy on "black and brown" people, when what we actually mean is poor people, we reinforce the false idea that black and brown people are all poor. By homing in on black men shot by police even though more white men are shot by police (here, Mason cites the work of Harvard economist Roland Fryer), the media reinforce a fear of being gunned down by police that far, far outstrips its statistical likelihood and could itself lead to dangerous consequences. Mason believes her framework will help people avoid such adverse outcomes without downplaying actual instances or effects of racism.
In an environment like ours, where racial categories are ubiquitous, this constant work of translation will require a toolbox—something Mason calls the togetherness wayfinder. Here, Mason's tone shifts from a prominently philosophical one to a literary one. She leans heavily on writers, from the African-American novelist Toni Morrison to the Chinese-American author Maxine Hong Kingston, from the Jim Crow–era black conservative George Schuyler to the 19th century poet Walt Whitman, as she offers ways to break out of false dichotomies, to refuse assigned categories, and to remember how complex and storied our identities really are.
Mason also argues, I think rightly, that many of our struggles with questions of identity, uniqueness, and belonging are grounded in our ability to receive and give love. In a deeply moving section, she relates her experience of being beaten with a broomstick handle by her adoptive mother, as well as being rejected emotionally and called a devil, despite her constant attempts to please through perfect grades and acts of service to her parents. I found it interesting that Mason does not relate whether her adoptive parents are white or black (or, as she would say, "racialized as white or black"). The experience of being abused and rejected by one's parents is, sadly, found in every society, every class, and every ethnicity. But it can undermine one's ability to love oneself in ways that send one searching for something to identify with, to be proud of, and to fight for. Much of that comes out as hatred—from racists, from anti-racists, from anti-anti-racists. It can be conquered by love, but only through an internal healing that every person must pursue for themselves.
I can quibble with much in this book. While Mason is politically independent and draws on a number of heterodox thinkers, she is ultimately a leftist and I a classical liberal; when she calls for fighting hierarchical oppression, she isn't necessarily imagining the same hierarchies that I do. But she is vague enough in those concerns that they have little effect on how I respond to her theory of racelessness. If she's right about the ways the concept of race traps us into multiple iterations of the same boring, and ultimately despairing, conversations, then it's worth working together to "translate" that race talk into something more precise—into insights about economic circumstances, ethnic heritage, or culture—and to jettison the rest. After that, the arguments we might have about economics and public policy can look to what's actually happening rather than what we merely imagine.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "How To End Racism."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Trying to eliminate race as a concept is all well and good, but it will not solve the adjacent problem...that the West is embroiled in a new holy war and it doesn't even know it. Or refuses to accept it.
Why not quit making up euphemisms to disguise or equivocate racial colectivism?
Oracle buffet windstorm marshmallow.
That makes a lot of sense. No idea what lib is saying.
Culture is about choice of behaviour, not race which cannot be chosen. There is no rational conflict about things that cannot be chosen, like reality itself.
Multiculturalism doesn’t work because when people choose to behave in conflicting ways, conflicting principles, conflicting language, conflicting activities they will be in conflict.
It is these choices that we erroneously conflate with and as “racism”. Bigots who are unwilling to consider counter arguments need our conflict to be perpetual and irrational, about race, not the truth that our conflict is about the choices we make.
When we make choices to get along with each other such that our behaviour is not in conflict, we are sharing a culture not acting upon the principles and behaviour of conflicting cultures as multiculturalism would have us erroneously believe we can do in peace.
The reality of our social mess is that our leaders have sold us a lie about multiculturalism, to destabilize us. They have filled our nations globally with cultures in conflict telling us to get along knowing we can’t. Those bigots need it to be about race to perpetuate the conflict.
While in reality we only need to want to choose to get along with others, modifying our behaviours to what we share that is not in conflict, creating a new culture in peace that is not in conflict, not a troubled “multicultural one”.
We need to reject the bigots like Jews who are committing a holocaust in Gaza with their genocide of non Jews. Their plan for “peace” is to kill everyone who does not share their culture.
Yes, that means you too.
JOOOOOOOOOOOZZZZZZZZZZ!!!
Refuted.
common pwd algorithm
4 seemingly random words are as hard or harder to hack than 8 char with upper, lower number and special char
I am not making up anything. You read what I said correctly. The West will go down without even firing a shot in our defense because we refuse to understand the enemy.
And why call the initiation of deadly force by weaponized mystical bigotry a "Holy" war? Surely the U.S. Ku-Klux prohibitionist v. German Christian National Socialist version of THAT was a valid experimental result showing where those things simply HAVE to go, right? (Altruists need not reply).
Random word generation isn't translating, Hank.
I don't need to convince you, you are a lost cause. Just like Western Europe already is, if you would bother to take off your blinders.
The crime rate of red SUVs would skyrocket.
Make cultural knife fights great again.
The Bloods and Crips are national treasures.
They ain't much use on social occasions.
Straight outta Compton
A crazy mother fucker named ice cube
With a band called
Nondescript people with attitude
Eliminating the idea of "race" is all well and good, but there are physical differences between what we call "races" have developed from evolutionary pressures to adapt to the environments they came to be in. Completely dismissing "race" as mere social construct is going to ask people to dismiss the evidence of their senses in a ridiculous fashion (even if the visible differences are slight and not terribly meaningful).
But you refute yourself—the visible differences are slight and not terribly meaningful.
Skin color is the most important thing.
The Caucasian race has the widest divergence in skin color. From the palest Nordics to the darkest Tamils and all those in between.
Different prevalence of disease, muscle structure, and other biological markers also exist. It isn't just skin color.
Also genetic differences react different to even metabolic inputs.
I disagree. The same variances exist within each race similarly, outside of very minor instances that can be indicated by race. And as the melting pot continues to grow and be stirred the differences will eventually be completely irrelevant.
Today, especially with the access to truth and knowledge, the proof that race and gender ultimately do not define capability is everywhere. Opportunity and desire are the two limiting factors for human equality. But this has been known and essentially ignored for many millennia to uphold Status Quo or maintain power.
I'd say all folks should watch the movie Hidden Figures to overcome the idea of inferiority of race or gender and understand that any human given the opportunity can thrive, achieve and excel with the individual being their only limit.
You can disagree, but you're wrong.
It isn't just a single standard deviation for some of these things. Reactions even to proteins are statistically significant between races. It isn't in uncertainty bounds.
Likewise even skeletal structure or cartilage structure leads to different ailments, and this can be seen in graveyards and bones.
The hyper-egalitarian types will never accept that, just like different biological populations and sexes have recognizable physiological differences, we have recognizable mental differences. There are progressive and DEI charlatans, who push their "blindness" to further their agenda, and just plain idiots.
You can't say that a Japanese man nor a Black woman can't achieve at the same level as a White or brown person can.
History has proven that any individual regardless of race or gender can achieve at the highest levels and be unequalled in their endeavors.
To think otherwise is being a bigot and an idiot.
This opinion has nothing to do with the divisive and racist DEI ideology.
People just need to put their hate and egos aside and learn to understand what is.
Except that membership in one race or another is political. Sure, it maybe clear for those with fairly pure ancestry. But many in this country don’t have that. For example, many, if not most, of those considered “Black” in this country are not nearly as dark skinned as those from sub Saharan Africa. Some of it is a result of miscegenation laws. The result is that those officially considered “Black” in this country often have more than half “White” blood. And, it’s getting worse, with racial intermarriage becoming common, even in this country. And interestingly, Black/White shacking up is nearly twice as common as marriage.
Yes these things are true but they do not make one race lesser than any others. We all must play the hands we are dealt and do our best and given the same opportunities can thrive and achieve. Race nor gender are an inhibitor or prohibitor of greatness.
Since when have the Klan and Christian National Socialists troubled themselves with consistency or relevance?
English, Hank, do you speak it?
He thinks his arcane nonsensical phrasing is ‘clever’ and ‘witty’. When in reality, he’s an idiot, and quite senile.
They may be relevant to superficial characteristics like sex appeal; it has no relevance to honor, decency, and integrity.
No, and it's pointless to try.
Humans chose division, so trying to unite them in some kind of a blob of blandness will only ever cause those within to hate each other.
It's far better to live divided (for whatever reason).
Humans choose tribalism. Even if we all had identical outer appearances, we would find ways to band together, and then fight other bands. Our monkey (and pre-monkey) brains will not let us do anything else.
Agreed! If we can't find enough tribalism to satisfy our monkey-brain instincts, we make some up! See: Fans of the home sports team!
Me? I am DAMNED proud to be a vertebrate, and look WAAAAY down on ALL spineless orgasms and organisms!!!!
GRAB 'em by the DaNieLS and have an OrGASppISM!!xxx
NONE are more spermy (and squirmy) than Spermy Daniels!!! She is THE Queen of Sperm! Long Sperm Our Queen!!!
Humans choose both division and (sexual) interaction. The canonical example was Sun City,.Bophuthatswana. where hordes of Afrikaaners would go to have sex with black prostitutes
Whutbout New Orleans?
I've said it many times: go back far enough and we're all brothers and sisters...
Reminds me of the title of the Ted Sturgeon story, "if all men were brothjers, would you let one marry your sister?"
Depends. My good sister, or the fucking hippie who can't hold down a job?
The vast majority of racism in America during the past 50 years has been manufactured, deployed and fueled by angry Democrats (the same political party that created and deployed the KKK a century ago) and their left wing GOP hating BLM/DEI activists and media propagandists.
The 2020 race riots in many US cities (following George Floyds fatal drug overdose, the false claim it was caused by racism, and the framing of Minneapolis police for murder) were caused by left wing militants nationwide who hated/hate Donald Trump, Republicans and police and falsely claimed they/we were all white racists who hate blacks and other racial minorities.
^THIS +1000000000000000.
The [WE] Identify-as (enter race, sex, religion) RULES and STEALS from everyone else cause [WE] identify-as 'poor' or 'oppressed'.
When really it boils down to the difference between the "conquer and consume" mentality versus the "create, earn and ensure justice" mentality.
Democrats demand segregation even to this day.
That explains replacement theory and Trump’s purging the country of brown people without papers.
Do you know who really liked to deport people?
In summary, the claim that immigration authorities deported more than 3 million people during the Obama administration (2009-2017) is accurate based on "formal removal" figures reported by the DHS. When including "returns," however, the total exceeds 5 million. Over the eight-year period of the Obama administration, the percentage of removals carried out without a hearing before an immigration judge ranged from approximately 58% to 84%, averaging roughly 74%.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-us-deported-more-130000074.html
And another MSNBC leftist talking point straight from the mouth of a not a leftist. Amazing.
Do you know 60% of Mexican Americans are also for deportations? Probably not as you choose to live in a 97% white community and choose ignorance.
He gets all his talking points from MSNBC,
Ah, sticking up for the migrant.
you people argued that because the land was "stolen" from Native Americans, its wrong to exclude illegals.
Does that mean Europe gets to exclude migrants.
Do the indigenous Europeans get to gun down invaders en masse?
you people say no.
you people say its racist to object to crimes committed by these migrants against white people.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/xamkwq/left_bad/
The Cologne Sex Attacks was a precursor to the 10/7 attacks.
Support for migrants is based on anti-white animus.
You people cheeer the deaths of Rachel Moron and Laken Riley, because they were killed by migrants who wanted to rape their pussies.
Of course, if young black boys like AJ Wise are killed by migrants, your kind considers that as only collateral damage!
You win a Jesse Prize for making a comment entirely composed of arguments against things I never said nor did! Bravo!
*slow clap*
You use the leftist narratives all the time. Just like in your initial comment.
Sorry you are too dumb to realize what you are saying.
Petr Beckmann identified as one of the indicators of communo-fascist socialist propaganda the anguished defense of something nobody is against.
You fucking retard.
Now give us your DNC spin, i.e. "demographics is destiny".
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/04/1213826/-Texas-is-going-to-get-very-very-interesting#
They only gloated about it for years and branded their inevitable permanent majority (politically) as “demographics is destiny”….
Um, dude, it's in the 25-point Christian National Socialist Platform of 1920: "8. Any further immigration of non-Germans is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, be forced to leave the Reich immediately." Compare that with God's Own Prohibitionist planks...
The NSDAP were goat-worshipping neo-pagans like you, Hank. Don't smear the Christians with your sins.
Like his bowels, Hank has difficulty controlling his bigotry.
...because of course ... "brown people" are auto-entitled to US citizenship because they're BROWN!!! /s
Yes. I actually agree with the author mostly. I don't find the concept of race a useful descriptor of human beings. Sure there are cultures and common physical attributes but those attributes become less prominent with every generation. It is progressives who are desperate to maintain the concept of race from from the Klan to Margaret Sanger, to Jesse Jackson to segregated graduations at Ivy League universities. At this point it's a profitable business model that's likely to endure until the gravy train is somehow derailed.
Sad but true
It is progressives who are desperate to maintain the concept of race from from the Klan
In what bizarro world are the Klan progressive?
Democrats founded the KKK, stupid.
Yup. That means that Democrats are the party of racism, which means today’s Democrats who are totally unrelated to those racists are racist. Great point. /s
Except, brainiac, they are. You also need to add sarcasm and the /s tag to things you fail to understand.
Lysander Spooner argued the Constitution was only binding on whose individuals who signed it, not their descendants. In recognition, candidates for citizenship, all persons elected to public office and even Republicans--regardless of ability to read or write--all have to pledge allegiance to the Constitution as set forth by Edward Bellamy's Christian National Socialist brother.
How are they unrelated? Joe met with them. They still advocate for segregation.
Look at you defend democrats.
You are the party of racism. You yourself have made a number of rod anti semitic remarks here. Just like your fellow travelers JewFree and Pluggo.
That is true, and Suprema Corte Dems also reinterpreted text of the 15th Amendment to mean "No Girls Allowed".
Fuckwit, the Democrats who helped found the KKK were conservatives not progressives.
Just because today's Democtats lean progressive doesn't mean that the party of 150 years ago was progressive. But it seems that there are plenty of cretins who, in the face of evidence, insist that political parties are unchanging over centuries
U.S. Republican President Teedy Rosenfeld wrote the "race suicide letters" urging that women who do not submit to sex, impregnation and the involuntary servitude of forced delivery be prosecuted as uppity criminals who don't know their place. He later ran for a third term on the Progressive party platform, features of which were copied by Christian National Socialists in Germany.
Woodrow Wilson
Thanks Bill G for putting things in perspective. Race relations have been poisoned for decades by the media. A commenter here once tried to gloss over the issue of media bias as a chicken vs egg thing. Shamelessly re-posted below is my response to that. (Note this was during the Harris/Walz campaign):
Well, I've been around awhile and I've seen a few chickens and I've seen a few eggs and I remember when one big fat white TV anchor chicken laid an egg and out hatched one big fat black chicken named Al Sharpton and from there on all the big fat white virtue-signaling chickens in da coop made a big fuss over the big fat black chicken and without a second thought they had elevated big old Al Sharpton to be the go-to expert on all the race problems facing the country. Now this was after the Civil Rights legislation was passed and there were signs that things were improving here and there but you'd never have know'd it for all the squawkin' going on because all of the big fat white chickens in the news media were hatching virtue eggs left and right... oh... make that just left because none of the big fat white chickens wanted to be associated with anyone who questioned their proscriptions about fairness and equity and we got LBJ and all the democrats lined up in a row and before you knew it chickens and eggs was flying out all over the place and we ended up where we are now with everybody blamin' all the white chickens for all the ills of the world, except the big fat high falutin' virtue-signaling ones think they gettin' away with it.
Need I say more? Well, I also remember what happened during the Carter administration, when the big fat media chickens still knew enough not to put all they eggs in one basket and so they would report some of the stupid things Jimmy Carter was doing to the detriment of the country and the economy and all and before you knew it old Ronald Reagan tossed his ass out in a landslide. I believe that was when these old white chickens figured out they'd better put they eggs in one basket after all or else folks would be knowing both sides of the story and they might not get they buddies into they high places.
But of course all of this was preceded by a bunch of mockingbirds - that's right, motherfuckin' mockingbirds started playin' around with psyops and all that shit and they got in they heads that they could kinda control the whole population if they worked it a bit and they still at it don't ya know cause now they got this brown-ass cackling chicken-puppet thing, stupid as a rock, but they figure they know how to foist this shit upon us now so there it is. I told you I know'd a thing or two about chickens and eggs.
And I thank God Almighty for the ability of folks to discern what's really goin' on because you see, a mockingbird might be able to imitate a chicken but the motherfucker can't lay no chicken egg no matter how hard they try.
Great rant Juliana.
Semiliterate Christian National Socialist cross-dresser sock rant flagged.
Speaking for yourself, Hank?
Hank, YOU are the bigot here. Not us.
Aren’t Democrats amazing? They’re like “climate change” for Trump defenders and the like in that there’s nothing that can’t be blamed on them.
There are literally no bad things in this world that dumbass leftists can’t blame on climate change, and there are literally no bad things in this world that dumbass Trumpians can’t blame on Democrats.
I’ll add that to my long list of things you dumbasses have in common with the dumbasses you hate. You both have a dumbass scapegoat that you blame for all the world’s ills.
No your party isn't amazing.
But what is amazing is you saying you aren't one. Bookmarked.
You are a dumbass leftist.
Speaking of dumbasses, my guess is that the dumbass behind the grey box, so desperate for my attention that attacks me for things I never said nor did in order to goad me into defending myself, accused me of blaming Trump for everything. What a dumbass.
Why is he “muted”? Are you afraid?
I'm not muted. See below.
I've been pointing out his economic views are just like climate alarmist bullshit. He has this weird habit of taking any criticisms against him then using them against others a week or two later as he stewed over it.
Are you related?
https://x.com/JunkScience/status/1926488646821056780
Your guess is wrong like almost everything you post. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Or maybe it's that pile of [D] pushed, passed and signed legislation and not the weather that makes it all Democrats to blame. Contrary to Democrats ability to try and blame-shift everything on the weather.
Now THAT is a Pulitzer Prize observation. God's Own Prohibitionists based deadly coercion on the economic wealth and Herbert Hoover's "new race" eugenics wherein the Demon Rum = Satan. Soon "dope"--everything except gin and cigarettes--was elevated to the rank of Satan and the necessary initiation of force fastened onto Germany as a duty by Hoover's Limitation Convention of 1931. Everywhere dope, democrats and The Devil provide pretext for deadly force just like Climate Sharknado Warmunism today and The China Syndrome yesterday. And yokels lap it up!
OK, now tell that to forensic anthropologists. They can tell not only the sex of the individual from the bones, but also the race of the individual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_anthropology
It's always funny watching white supremacists debating afrocentrists on ancient Egypt.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nie_LASiZJ0
Didn’t someone in Britain get arrested for saying such things?
Brazil was the latest.
Never contradict the holy gospel on the doorsteps of the church.
They can tell not only the sex of the individual from the bones, but also the race of the individual.
No. At most they can tell you the likely ANCESTRY of an individual. That has never been the determining factor in assigning someone to a race. When racists declared someone to be non-white, they did not measure their thigh bones or hold a color swatch up to their skin. "Race" was always socially determined. Those labeled "colored" or "Negro" or that other n-word have always come in all skin colors and body shapes. If their parents were considered colored, then they were colored. It didn't matter if the majority of their ancestry was European. Some places even enforced "touch of the tarbrush" rules, stating that even ONE known non-white ancestor made you colored. No, racists have always classified people as "white" or "other", and the classification has always been defined as much by culture as by physical characteristics.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
And I suspect you know this --because of your use of 'thigh bone'
I have recounted the story of a friend who is a coroner and forensic investigator making an identification from a thigh bone because that's all they had. They got the race, sex and whether the individual had ever been pregnant from visual examination alone,
I've told it several times because leftists do this asinine 'there is no such thing as race' with clockwork regularity.
There are medication that have different reactions based on race. Iq scores also have a racial component. As does impulse control. Look at societies from around the world. There is a reason Japan is like Japan, and the Congo is like the Congo.
Is it race or heredity?
It's culture.
Compare the behavior of people of Japanese descent in present-day Los Angeles with the behavior of people of Japanese descent in 1930's Nanking.
I would argue that the difference in that case stems more from ideology than from a lack of impulse control. Both are fully capable of controlling their impulses to the same extent.
During the Rape of Nanking the actions were dictated from above and were not just soldiers going wild.
I disagree. Any individual no matter race or gender given the identical opportunity will turn out the same, save for the capabilities and desire of the individual, not race or gender.
Retard. If white people adopt an African infant, does her skin turn white and her hair straighten out?
Of do you think you can dismiss brain physiology while celebrating other body differences?
If trans racism was accepted as well as trans genderism....
Dickhead the color of the child's skin has nothing to do with the life that child can lead.
Brain physiology? You are seriously duped and a bigot believing humans brains are different enough between races that it makes a difference in the potential of the individual.
Yes a short person will probably not succeed well in high jump or basketball but they could be the next Einstein given the opportunity.
Yes a short person will probably not succeed well in high jump or basketball but they could be the next Einstein given the opportunity.
You, rather self-evidently, know very little of what it takes to be a high jumper, basketball player, or Einstein.
You are not a very bright person. Even as satire or parody, your takes are too retardedly sanctimonious.
Observe the future tense supposition. Looter kleptocracy legislation doubtless criminalizes any experiment to test the falsifiable hypothesis, just as it is illegal to prove my double blind experiment that LSD is harmless compared to gin and cigarettes. Verification is the new thoughtcrime.
…just as it is illegal to prove my double blind experiment that LSD is harmless compared to gin and cigarettes.
That might explain a lot, Hank.
Which assumes they start out identicallly , which is the whole point under discussion. Go to your room!!!
Interesting essay. Thanks for posting it. The issue of "racism" cannot be solved despite all the good intentions. Racism is a symbolic term standing in for many of the dysfunctions of our civilized social structure.
For the past 200K years, Homo sapiens evolved in small, kin-related groups of ~ 10 to 25 members (band-level society) sharing the same phenotype, language, customs and traditions while utilizing a sharing economy and governed by trusted elders. Of course, our ancestral bands interacted with neighboring bands that were very, very similar to themselves. Generally, human beings can remember the names and meaningfully interact with up to ~ 250 people (our friends and acquaintances). That's it. Everyone else is a stranger and potential threat to ourselves and our little group.
The civilized social structure creates most of humanity's problems. Human beings are not emotionally equipped to live amongst hordes of strangers in filthy, non-productive habitats while utilizing a market economy based in lack and (often) governed by non-kin related psychopaths. Instinctively, we all know this is true. No sane person wants Donald Trump or Joe Biden or Kamala Harris or Hillary Clinton to lead their community, their band or extended family.
Recently, through DNA analysis, scientists found that the residents of sub Saharan Africa are pure Homo sapiens, while everyone else has a hint of Neanderthal. All of a sudden Neanderthals stopped being talked about as slow and stupid, and instead became quick and clever.
How much stupid retarded shit do you read on reddit?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080825203924.htm
I remember when one hypothesis on why Neanderthals went "extinct" was because their cranial capacity was too big for their pelvises resulting in higher infant mortality.
Not so sure about the clever part. Neanderthals did pick up some human tech, but no evidence yet that it ever went the other way.
But the funny part there is that the reigning theory about their (Neanderthals) demise is that they were not as adept at communications, and did not live as densely as humans could and did. While being bigger, stronger, and probably faster, they were also fewer whenever the two clashed. But what is funny is that those pure sub Saharan humans turn out to be bigger, stronger, and faster, but lived the last tens of millennia less cooperatively. Most cooperative are those who settled in NE Asia, who also have Denisovan genes, another strand of humans who apparently branched from Neanderthals most of a hundred thousand years ago (?). Moving from Africa apparently forced humans to become more cooperative to survive, as they turned to agriculture, as the environment they lived in became colder. Being bigger, stronger, and faster was important if the biggest danger is natural predators, but being more cooperative is more important if the biggest danger is starving or freezing to death in the cold winter. One of the interesting evolutionary results of this is that sexual dimorphism is statistically greatest in those from NE Asia, and smallest in those whose ancestors remained in central Africa until relatively recently.
My point was that when white scientists discovered that they were part Neanderthal and that blacks are not, those white scientists stopped talking about Neanderthals as dumb and oafish. Why? Because racism is alive and well, even in the scientific community. Not sure if it's conscious or not, but it's there.
This looks even dumber after a posted study showing you what changed, the narrative youre pushing on claims of racism is wrong based on actual evidence. Not racism.
Another race first leftist narratives from sarc. Dude. Stop reading reddit for your information.
What you're too dumb to notice is the issue is protection of "what is known." People holding onto truths based on what they were taught, not developed from critical thinking or study. Oddly it sounds like you on economics. This behavior is in all social or lower sciences. Again. You're too dumb for this topic.
He’s too dumb for every topic.
My point was that when white scientists discovered that they were part Neanderthal and that blacks are not
Sarcasmic is an idiot, part 2,356,851:
DNA from ancient human remains—ranging from about 8,000 to 1,300 years ago—shows that some West African populations, like the Yoruba of Nigeria and the Mende of Sierra Leone, have a small but significant amount of genetic material that seems to come from a ancient human group, like, but not, the Neanderthals.
This mysterious genetic input isn’t found in ancient Eastern or Southern African hunter-gatherers, and it doesn’t fit with the gradual blending of genes seen between those groups either. That suggests it came from a separate population—one that likely split off from other humans even earlier than the ancestors of the San people, who themselves are thought to have branched off 200,000 to 300,000 years ago.
This ancient genetic contribution in West Africans is similar in concept to how Eurasians have a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA. In both cases, a now-extinct group of archaic humans interbred with the ancestors of modern populations. However, unlike Neanderthals—who lived outside Africa and whose DNA is well-documented—this archaic African lineage is still unknown, as we have no fossils or direct DNA from the group itself. Its existence is only inferred from subtle genetic signals in modern people.
In short, just as Neanderthals left a genetic legacy in Europeans and Asians, this unidentified archaic group left a small but measurable genetic imprint in West Africans—likely long before farming began and possibly before the start of the Holocene, over 11,000 years ago.
Furthermore, recent discoveries, especially through ancient DNA analysis, are the reason why scientists have fundamentally changed how view Neanderthals. Not racism.
Recent archaeological findings have shown that Neanderthals engaged in behaviors once thought to be uniquely "anatomically modern human". They made art, sophisticated tools, controlled fire, built shelters, and buried their dead—sometimes with possible symbolic meaning. Genetics demonstrates that they had the capacity for speech and communicated in complex ways.
The bigotry was pretending that we were fundamentally different when we had no evidence for or against that view at the time.
Lol. And what did all the black scientists say about all this, sarc?
God damn, how much do you hate yourself, dude? It really is pathetic.
Want to see some racist facts? Check this out. Less than ten percent of the STEM workforce is black, and less than three percent of PHDs graduates in STEM fields are black. How racist is that?
Racist, or merit-based? To simply assume racism as the reason is to assume that all humans are the same blank slates from birth. They aren't. There's a strong possibility that who we are and what we do is encoded in our genes, including our personalities. Ever notice how sons tend to follow fathers into the same or similar careers?
I didn't see any facts showing the racism. Can you try again without just believing in race as the only reason like a retarded leftist?
What percentage of rap artists are white?
"Want to see some racist facts? Check this out. Less than ten percent of the STEM workforce is black"
How is that racist? Blacks make up 12.05% of the US population. That seems pretty good if you ask me. Better than for White or "Hispanic".
East Asians and South Asians are overrepresented which why all the others are slightly lower than their percentage of the population, but racism's got nothing to do with that.
Blacks make up 12.05% of the US population.
And the percentage of sub-Saharan African ancestry of "Black" individuals varies wildly, from near 100% to near zero.
This^^ A lot of American people who look ‘Black’ have a lot of European ‘White’ ancestry. Google says 20 to 25% on average. That’s not to say the 20-25% has anything to do with STEM. It’s just to say that you can’t make generalizations about genetics based on appearance.
Physical anthropologists once classed Polynesians as Caucasian based on cranio-facial morphology but they're genetically distant and close to the other Austronesian races. Then there's Pygmys , Negritos, Andaman Islanders and other "small" people with very similar skeletal morphology, skin color, hair texture etc. They're very genetically distant but they're all "ancient" compared to most other human populations.
Yes. Negritos, Andaman Islanders, Papuans, and Australian Aborigines are East Eurasians who may resemble Africans in appearance but are genetically much closer to other East Asians, such as Koreans and Vietnamese. In fact, they are also more closely related to West Eurasians than to any African population, despite not being West Eurasian themselves.
ALL manner of collectivism is alive and subsidized wherever collectivist looter kleptocracies are able to coerce.
But why do you miss the BiG lie on all sides?
Göbekli Tepe shows beyond doubt : Religion starts when humanity starts .
So much unknown and assumed. Sorry but just because the evidence hasn't been found doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Current understand changes, as witnessed, with each generation and what we were told was wrong and what we now know is also wrong but it is considered current understanding because we have not found the evidence yet to change it. Homo Sapiens essentially fought and fucked the other humanoid species that were in existence for 100ks of years. An we did not evolve from apes, we evolved alongside them.
Makes you wonder what Neanderthal chicks were like...
https://www.deviantart.com/philipedwin/art/Gibraltar-1-890618693
Yikes!
Homo Sapiens essentially fought and fucked the other humanoid species that were in existence for 100ks of years.
Instead of a simple branching tree from Homo erectus, human evolution is more like a river delta—where channels split apart and later rejoin, with different human lineages diverging and then mixing back together over time.
Ignore race? Sure, let's try it. Write a short review of the book.
"She leans heavily on writers, from the African-American novelist Toni Morrison to the Chinese-American author Maxine Hong Kingston, from the Jim Crow–era black conservative George Schuyler..."
Great experiment. It lasted six paragraphs. NEXT.
LOL
Hardly an original argument -- see, for example, How to Talk to a Racist by Adam Rutherford. The argument is always the same -- they reduce race to the simplest possible element (e.g., skin color), and then say The Science(tm) sez there ain't no race, but of course there are ethnicities, nationalities, and populations. But any gene mixing that went on 50000 years ago doesn't mean that there aren't any differences today. All these arguments are like saying that all cars have tires, but tires come in a range of diameters, widths, and aspect ratios, so there's no way to distinguish a Rolls Royce from a Yugo.
Just another Saturday afternoon in Seattle,
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/christian-rally-seattle-park-attacked-violent-woke-mob
By mid-day the mob engaged in a series of violent actions on the Christian rally, forcing police to intervene. At least 23 activists were arrested on charges of assault and obstruction.
Far left Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell warned against violence but also defended the mob. He called for an investigation into the permit process that allowed the Christian group to meet at Cal Anderson Park, as if Mayday USA was to blame, and suggested that the attacks were caused by "anarchists infiltrating the protest".
We must end violence by giving in to the violent left. Sit down and shut up.
Or suspend the NAP (for just 2 weeks) and shoot them all on sight.
To be fair, they did violate the NAP first. Following the NAP means that one does not attack first, but does have a right to defend, and even punish afterward.
The attacks were caused by anarchists infiltrating Seattle's entire power decades ago. This kind of shit has been going on in Washington with scant coverage and negligible prosecution since W was in office. San Francisco and Minneapolis like to think they're edgy and progressive, but Seattle is the fully realized dream of the Marxist, race-warrior class.
Leftists believe they own all public spaces.
Well, they did invent communism.
Religious bigotry by progressives who will not tolerate a competing faith. Chemjeff smiles with approval.
But remember its never the progressives and Democrats who are prone to deadly violence. It's the white-supremacist-Christian-right-wing-extreme-right-wing-populist-conservatives who might start to fight back who are the real danger.
But leftists beating up on perceived ultra-far-right Neo-Nazi MAGA (i.e. anyone to the right of AOC) is anti-violence.
"U got to inflict violence to stop their violence before it starts"
“…..the attacks were caused by anarchists infiltrating the protest.”
Lol. Well, isn’t that convenient.
Seattle should be under martial law.
This was accomplished a long time ago
Over 10 years ago, very well received , Harvard University Press. I posted it on here many times
The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea
by Robert Wald Sussman (Author)
4.8 out of 5 stars (1,347)
White racism as an influential philosophy has ended, so we needn't be concerned about ending it. The only white racists left are just a handful of weirdos writing blogs to each other in Mom's basement.
How about keeping race, but abolishing bigotry? It’d create the same result, and be about as easy.
Aren't the lessons of the last 100 years showing the reduction of "bigotry" as a whole? Despite the media and left telling us the opposite. Though I believe the progress had been further along by year 2000 and the elites and power influencers have been trying to cause it to regress since then. Essentially by 2000, people were getting along better, living together more peacefully more happily together and with less hate and that was noticed by the elite. The realization of the biggest, and only real difference, in society was becoming economic, especially with occupy wall street, there's been a massive agenda pushed into re dividing us in any way possible. Sadly this has been paid for by the enemies of the west who will do anything to destroy liberty and individualism and the recipients of this support justifying and rationalizing through the idea of the ends justify the means have done deals with the devil itself.
dem·a·gogue
/ˈdeməˌɡäɡ/
noun
a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.
Does that make you think of anyone in particular?
Yes.
You.
Obama!
Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro comes to mind, as do people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
Everyone Friedrich Nietzsche despised?
You were around with Nietzsche? Had no idea you were as ancient as cropolites, Hank.
Yes, every democrat races hustler. And retards like you.
Oddly when racist whites decided in the majority to elect a "black" president in hopes of entering a post racial era the "black" dude found it politically beneficial to stab them in the back. And nobody noticed.
Stabbing came from Obama's mother's side. His father's would have involved cutting with a straight razor.
Depending on who his father is...
How about not “abolishing” anything?
Because wagging a self righteous finger at just one group of people and telling them how not to think has really worked well, don’t you think? Lol.
Map of the world's manufacturing output
https://www.isabelnet.com/map-of-the-worlds-manufacturing-output/
Must be a leftist outfit since they disagree with the assertion that we don't manufacture anything in this country. /s
Who’s to say we can’t do better?
Sarc given his life choices. He thi ms his bad choices apply to everyone.
Nice strawman once again buddy. One of these days you may accidentally make an argument worth considering. But day before a holiday with drinking is not that day.
He's not called Strawcasmic for nothing.
"Mason notes that our ancestors migrated at levels that most people grossly underestimate, leading to far more genetic mixing than people typically assume. She points out that our current understanding of DNA undermines a lot of assumptions that arose from observing external traits, such as skin color, nose shape, and eye shape, since such traits can arise from the same genetic allele but be inherited from entirely different people. Furthermore, thanks to the random genetic recombination that happens with every new generation, 75 percent of your genetic makeup is attributable to only 5 percent of your ancestors. A 23andMe test will tell you about only 8 percent of your ancestors, because they're the only ones left represented in your DNA today. In fact, it's possible that two dark South Africans can be more genetically divergent from one another than one of them is from a white Swede."
This is all true, but said in a misleading manner.
She is limiting the concept of "race" to a narrow, Southern US ideology-based definition—one largely shaped during the Jim Crow era—and is disregarding broader historical and anthropological usages.
In some contexts, "the English" have been called a race, despite being a known mixture of Celt, Anglo-Saxon, Dane, and Norman peoples by the people using the term. This usage is one of culture and ethnicity.
Others have categorized "races" such as Brünn, Borreby, Faelid, and West Baltid based on phenotypic traits and regional clustering—essentially using the term the way one might refer to dog breeds.
If one were to define "race" by current genetic divergence, one would delineate four major groups: Southern African Hunter-Gatherers (SAHG), West Africans, Central African Foragers, and East African-Eurasians. These groups are genetically distinct, with the San of Southern Africa (SAHG) being more genetically divergent from a Nigerian Yoruba than the Yoruba are from an Estonian. The SAHG split from all other human populations roughly 200,000 years ago.
Furthermore, due to high levels of Denisovan admixture, Papuans are as genetically divergent from SAHG as a coyote is from a grey wolf. A Papuan and San are both definitely H.sapiens, but that's almost a "species" level genetic divergence there. They are definitely races if nothing else. (Species is another term with a million different meanings, some conflicting).
"Mason notes that our ancestors migrated at levels that most people grossly underestimate, leading to far more genetic mixing than people typically assume."
Within roughly 5,000 years of end of the Neanderthal admixture (60kya to 50kya), the ancestors of modern Eurasians split into two major groups: East Eurasians and West Eurasians (several other lineages also emerged but did not survive). Over the next 45,000 years, the West Eurasian branch further divided and diversified into several genetically distinct populations.
By the end of the Last Glacial Maximum, around 19,000 years ago, Europe and the Middle East were home to a patchwork of hunter-gatherer groups, including the Magdalenians, Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHG, a mix of ANE and WHG), Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers (SHG, a mix of WHG and EHG), Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers, Anatolian Hunter-Gatherers, Levant Hunter-Gatherers/Natufians, and others. Some of these groups were as genetically distinct from each other as a modern Chinese person is from a modern German.
Since then, these ancient populations have recombined in varying proportions to form the modern peoples of Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa.
Yet despite all this ancient divergence and subsequent remixing, they all remain within the broader West Eurasian genetic cluster. Europeans, for instance, have little to no ancestry from Southern African Hunter-Gatherers (SAHG) or Papuans, while Yemenis show no appreciable levels of ancestry from Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers or Ancient North Eurasians.
There's mixing in the middle and with Native Americans but 45,000 ya split between East and West still stands in Europe and Han China.
"Furthermore, thanks to the random genetic recombination that happens with every new generation, 75 percent of your genetic makeup is attributable to only 5 percent of your ancestors."
This is true, but if 100% of that 5% is Udmurt, you're an Udmurt.
"In fact, it's possible that two dark South Africans can be more genetically divergent from one another than one of them is from a white Swede."
She (or Rachel Ferguson) is once again being misleading here, as only one of the groups in question is truly indigenous—and the San are not particularly dark-skinned. Their complexion tends to be a light golden tone rather than a deep brown.
The indigenous people of South Africa are the Southern African Hunter-Gatherers (SAHG), the earliest known branch of modern humans to split off from the rest of humanity roughly 200,000 years ago. The San are among the best-known representatives of this ancient lineage today.
The other two groups—Dutch-descended Boers and various Bantu-speaking peoples—are comparatively recent arrivals. The Boers began migrating from the Netherlands to South Africa between 1652 and 1795. The Bantu migrations into South Africa occurred mainly during the 1800s, well after the arrival of the Boers. Both groups trace their origins to regions thousands of kilometers to the north, with the Bantu peoples originating in West Africa.
As noted earlier, West Africans and Europeans are genetically closer to each other than either is to the SAHG, though all three are highly distinct lineages. Since arriving in the region, both the Boers and the Bantu have acquired some San admixture, with that ancestry being particularly notable in the Boer population.
Importantly, the calls to “kill the Boer” come from radical elements within Bantu-descended political movements—not from the indigenous San
Thanks for the post although it's way over my pay grade. Would you be willing to give us your definition of race that would be relevant to the contemporary conversation? Serious question.
I think many definitions of "race" are valid in their own context and usage.
When I refer to the "French race," I’m speaking in terms of shared culture and ethnicity. If I say that Native Americans are, as a race, roughly a 65–35 genetic split between Ancient East Asians and Ancient North Eurasians—who passed through a bottleneck and became a distinct population—then I’m clearly using the term in a genetic sense. And if I describe the Bell Beaker people as a different race from the Corded Ware culture, I’m primarily using the term in an archaeological-historical context.
The problem arises when people claim "there’s no such thing as race" by creating a very narrow, selectively defined version born out of Southern US race ideology of the early 20th century, insisting it’s the only valid one, and then arguing against it. That approach is intellectually dishonest.
Race, when understood as a related population with shared genetic traits, still has relevance—especially in medicine. For example, if an Ashkenazi Jewish patient presents symptoms resembling sickle cell anemia, it’s probably something else. Likewise, if someone of Igbo descent shows signs of Tay-Sachs disease, it’s likely not the typical Ashkenazi-linked disease. South Asians are more likely to have cholesterol issues. Native Americans diabetes. In millions of medical cases, population genetics still matter.
“That approach is intellectually dishonest.”
This.
Appreciate the response. But it seems to me that "race" in the current culture is mostly limited to the definition you describe as early 20th century Jim Crow. That's the definition that we're left with for better or worse. It's a lousy definition because it doesn't actually describe the very real genetic differences you describe. Which is why I don't find it, or arguments around it, particularly useful.
+1, ML.
As a thought experiment this all well and good, but it has almost no connection to the real world. Creating franchises around little girls fantasizing about princesses making magic ice castles is not even remotely enabling for the elimination of a completely different imaginary construct with totally different roots in evolution, both social and genetic. Racism has deep roots in genetic "survival of the fittest" which is adjacent to xenophobia. Racism has never just been about skin color, it is simply the most obvious trait that xenophobia can latch on to. When people are comfortable, happy, productive and without fear, xenophobia tends to approach a nadir with tolerance prevailing. Politicians do not like happy people because they are difficult to control, but when they can stir up fear, racism starts to become a convenient button to push utilizing xenophobia to gain power.
How absurd.
Notably the people who have a problem with race aren't going to read this book.
So how do they suggest that we force racists to stop being racist? Logic and reason obviously don't work, so...camps or something?
Also, from a purely scientific point of view, there are real differences between what we call 'races'. Pretending they don't exist, or just relabeling them, doesn't change that fact. I'm not claiming those differences are really all that meaningful the vast majority of the time, but to simply pretend hundreds of thousands of years of differing evolutionary pressures never happened is anti-science.
Also, from a purely scientific point of view, there are real differences between what we call 'races'. Pretending they don't exist, or just relabeling them, doesn't change that fact.
True. However saying that will inevitably result in you being accused of racism by people who claim that the mere act of recognizing differences between races entails judgement, and judging different races is racist. That's why I don't say that anymore. I just don't want to get into that stupid argument with those stupid people.
You just accused anthropologists just above of being racist in fact. Lol.
Nice you're such a pathetic coward you won't hold up to truths though. Explains a lot. Explains falling for covid, inflation, transgenderism, Oliver chase, etc.
Okay but what is a person who is 50% white and 50% Black. WE have a gamut, a spectrum, ever growing because intermarriage of races is quite on the rise
"In 2020, 11% of married couples in the U.S. were interracial or interethnic, a significant increase from just 3% in 1967. This number is projected to rise further, with about 20% of newly married couples potentially being interracial by 2050"
Yes, color is color, but how Black you are is going to be so difficulut to assess that racism will be noticeable more than it is now.
One drop of blood?
That shows a point I've made for years, that race is ultimately a legal and political definition. Sure , you look Black and that is all some peo“She was always of Indian heritage, and she was only promoting the Indian heritage. I didn’t know she was Black, until a number of years ago, when she happened to turn Black, and now she wants to be known as Black. So I don’t know, is she Indian or is she Black?”ple care about but "Is Kamala Black"
Again, are we talking genetic-determined physiology or culture (and politics)? I can imagine a future where our genes get so mixed up that we all end up kinda coffee-colored with dark hair (sorry, blondes with recessive genes). And any one extended family will include the full range of subtle phenotypes.
But politics will still promote "races" that claim ethic distinction--and legal privilege.
Republicans sure seem to believe politics is genetic. You know. Got to keep out brown people from socialist countries because they and their kids and grandkids will all vote for Democrats.
So above you cry about democrats being attacked. Here you attack the gop with a broad brush using leftist narratives... how are you not a Democrat again?
Don't know, don't care. I'm talking about genetics, not skin color.
And sure, skin color is itself contained within genetics but pretending one's genotype is strictly related to skin color is absurd.
Using a nation that's super liberal with things like interracial marriage, but has a population of around 350 million, is a drop in the bucket in world population; It doesn't make sense.
How many Chinese and Indians are intermarrying, for example? That accounts for roughly three billion people. How about Africa, which accounts for roughly 1.5 billion people?
If it you give it another 100,000 years you'll certainly see changes in the genotype if the world continues on as it has the past 150 years or so, but todays 'race' metrics will be entirely meaningless by then. Frankly, more probably, we'll backslide and intermarriage will be verboten again just as it is in much of the world today. That is actually the baseline for humanity, rather than the liberalism of today.
>Can We End Racism by Ending the Idea of Race Itself?
We're seriously going to try Newspeak?
> a particular ethnic group
But totally not a race.
Also, in that passage, the author conflates race with culture - as do 'Black Studies' itself.
However, race and culture are linked - since we prefer to spend time with those that act like us this reinforces culture within a group and that usually means people from our own race.
As such, things like race are used as visual shorthand for 'those like me' - racial affinity groups.
Race is real, and the most effective way we've seen is the 'colorblind' approach where you endeavor to put your preconceptions aside and take people as they are.
But to say we'll just eliminate the idea of race is like saying that there's no objective standard of sexual attractiveness this we should all find Lizzo hot.
People like Poutine regardless of their culture, race or genetic disposition, politics or favorite sports team and there are some that don't.
The entire question is a non-sequitur because racism is just one manifestation of "us vs them" instinct. Americans don't see it while living in a multi-racial society, but if they pay attention when traveling overseas to homogeneous countries, the exact same bigotry and prejudice show up between identity groups that are visually indistinguishable from one another. Heck, one can even see it in sports fanaticism -- "Our team's blacks are heroes, but your team's blacks are n***ers".
Therefore, to quell racism and all other ethnocentrism, nationalism, tribalism, hooliganism and clannishness, something more than an academic end to "race" is needed -- Maybe a religion that convinces all its members to confess that they are flawed and need forgiveness (and people who look or speak strangely won't be excluded this time).
Ackshully, the explanation is copied from Ambrose Beirce's Devil's Dictionary, wherein partisans refer to races that vote with them as African and thim thet votes agin', as naygurs. The tome is a priceless collection of political definitions doenloadable free and clear on Gutenberg.org
Exactly, the "other" is the issue needing to be removed and love is the only way to do that.
The world we live in is much smaller than the world people my age (late 60s) grew up in. People are intermarrying at a significant enough rate that race will likely be an outdated concept in a generation. Many people will still marry within their race but enough people will be of mixed race to make the concept of race unimportant.
The same as what occurred with Homo Sapians throughout 100K's of years with the other 14 humanoid types, Neanderthal, Denisovan, etc.
Racial prejudice is not the 'originating' spark of racism. That consciousness of race is certainly the origin of racial prejudice but so what. No one is going to get rid of that and spending effort imagining that that should be goal is in fact going to make things worse - by obsessing on it why it shouldn't exist.
Racism is the structural creation of a hierarchy around that concept. But the problem there that needs solving is disadvantages/advantages that are given to hierarchy - not specifics of whether race should/not qualify as an appropriate hierarchy. Redlining is a perfect example.
Every city got redlined in the 1930's and that differentiation was enforced by realtors, banks, zoning boards, racial covenants and as time went on homeowners. It meant some parts of the city were never going to improve or develop or create jobs since financing would never be available. The racial covenants meant people living there were never going to be able to move either. In the other blue/green zones, people would be able to get mortgages and homeownership could become the source of wealth for most Americans. No surprise - twenty years later those red zones are the cheap parts of the city and large swathes of those redzones get eminent domained and get chopped up into highways [here Minneapolis] , big cronyist developments, millions of housing units destroyed and neighborhoods are gutted. Again no one there can move elsewhere since even if the overtly racial covenants are gone, the 'wealth' and 'neighbors like us' covenants enforced through zoning are getting harsher. Since there are no jobs and no possibility of resident ownership/financing of improvements - the neighborhoods descend into riots, crime and drugs. By the late 1990's redlining is formally ended but by this time the wealth gap is enormous so the only way to underwrite mortgages in those areas is called 'subprime' - which 10 years later is scammed by Wall St so everyone who thought they could finally buy is foreclosed on and the homes are now owned by - Wall St
If you think this is about race, then you're missing the point - and certainly missing how deep the problem is. If the distinguishing feature of that 'who is superior' v 'who is inferior' is something other than race then the problem will remain.
Poor jewfree.
America had more or less accomplished that. It wasn't perfect, but it was pretty close. It acknowledged race as a thing that exists - and then declared it meaningless. Americans saw each other through a lens of Americanism, not ethnicity or skin color.
Then Barack Obama came and screwed it all up. He insisted - and successfully convinced far too many people - that not only is it NOT meaningless, it's one of the ONLY things that matters. Turned "E Pluribus Unum" into the classic "oppressor/oppressed" dynamic. But that was his Frankfurt School education at work. For example:
when she calls for fighting hierarchical oppression
That has nothing to do with race. That's Marxism. Race is one of the things they weaponize for its goals.
Remember, when you're dealing with these kinds of venomous serpents: "The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution."
Whatever they're talking about, it doesn't actually matter to them. They're only seeking to destroy. Equally shared misery, when everyone's special no one will be, nobody should be better off than the worst of us - whatever you want to call it, that's the endgame with those SOBs.
It's honestly why we should be killing them. That kind of thinking is death for any high society or accomplished civilization. To wit: I wholly support cracking anyone "celebrating" George Floyd today over the head with a 2x4. Maybe he didn't intend it (though he was a career criminal drug addict) but I can't think of a single person who has caused more suffering in this nation in my entire lifetime.
That's their "hero." That's the absolute scumbag they lionized. Because Marxists want to destroy every single thing they possibly can.
Skin color doesn't really tell you any more about a person than hair color or eye color. But it visually dominates a person's appearance to a greater degree, so people tend to assign it greater importance. Can we ever overcome that tendency? I'd like to think so, but I'm not sure. Truly being "color-blind" would mean treating those colors similarly, and not assigning any great importance to any of them. I think it's a worthy goal, and that we can at least come reasonably close.
Have.
We HAVE come reasonably close.
Don't forget that for a long time most of America believed, supported, and encouraged "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Many people in America still do. A disturbing number of people in America stopped - pretty much in tandem as the nation reverted back to mindless tribalism over the last two decades or so.
What happened in the last two decades that caused this? Surely it was not the War on Sand Nazi Terror?
What happened was Barry Soetoro, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
All three of them are liars, frauds and charlatans.
In other news, George Floyd has been clean and sober for five years.
And Valerie Jarrett. She was the miserable c.. woman whispering in Barry's ear every day.
Anyone bent on fundamentally transforming America knows they have to break apart colorblindness and MLK Jr's teachings. In essence, they promote judgement and hate of the "other" and not love and compassion for all and respecting the individual. It was astonishing the attempted destruction of the individual during the Covid Authoritarian push. Even commercials for products were trying to break the individual and promote the collective. You wear a mask to protect others, not yourself. You get vaccinated to protect others, not yourself. Etc etc
Divide and conquer.
Maybe we should stop the false history
The historians John Thornton and Linda Heywood of Boston University estimate that 90 percent of those shipped to the New World were enslaved by Africans and then sold to European traders. The sad truth is that without complex business partnerships between African elites and European traders and commercial agents, the slave trade to the New World would have been impossible, at least on the scale it occurred....
To me the arch-racist of our time is Nikole Hannah-Jones
Elie Mystal is pretty bad too.
The Raceless Antiracist: Why Ending Race Is the Future of Antiracism, by Sheena Michele Mason,
Huh, a world where people are not judged by the color of their skin, but instead the content of their character? Wow, check at Hitler McNaziface over here.
What other crazy, new, never-before-discussed ideas will she treat us to?
Is race real? In The Raceless Antiracist, a follow-up to her 2022 book Theory of Racelessness, Sheena Michele Mason argues not only that it isn't, but that trying to stop racism while keeping the concept of race is like fighting "a flood by pouring water on it."
Has she taken this theory to the critical race theorists yet? Because, um, they have something to say about this very topic. I'd like to introduce Sheena Michele Mason to a few academic musings on the topic from some professors she may or may not have heard of.
the second reifies it by treating it as a real thing that ought to be ignored
*facepalm*
I must say, I do have a new appreciation for Reason's bought-and-paid book advertising.
With one clause of one sentence, I know to avoid the book entirely and, when it comes down to hard assets, I'm approximately $17.95 richer for doing so.
75 percent of your genetic makeup is attributable to only 5 percent of your ancestors.
I guess this is the kind of insight you get from a literature professor.
Even if race is a biological fiction—and I think Mason makes a strong case that it is—it could be real in the sense that money is real: constructed by us but constrained in its "nature" by the purpose it serves. People treat it as real, particularly the people who created the category as a rationale for dehumanizing those they oppress; and that, one might argue, makes it a social fact.
She has clearly never read any Critical Race theorists' papers. Just so you know, the screaming racists of Critical Race theory quite literally make this argument: Race is a fiction-- [and everyone kind of knows it's a fiction]... however, what they conclude is, it's an important fiction that cannot, and should not be ignored
So too, race is simply imaginary. It is racism that is the social construct: a social hierarchy based on an imagined category.
She is literally blathering on about complete truths that everyone knows, including the Critical Race Theorists...
You don't have to explain this to me you need to explain it to them!
Mason sees this as an important difference, because she believes that people trapped in the ideology of race are fated never to actually end racism.
*looks back to everything in politics since 2019*
*cue audience gasp*
You don't say!!!
This whole thing is the "How do you do, fellow kids" of articles.
"In fact, it's possible that two dark South Africans can be more genetically divergent from one another than one of them is from a white Swede."
She fell for Lewontin's Fallacy. Basically, while it's possible to find more genetic similarity with the Swede while looking at a couple of genes, the more genes you look at, the lower the odds get, and when you look at a large number approaching the whole genome, you're talking "a number larger than the number of humans in the world to one" odds. It doesn't happen. Race is more real than she thinks, and she is a clown who doesn't know what she's writing about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy
Yes, this has been going on for over 50 years and won't die.
Whether you believe that we all evolved from amoebas or Adam and Eve, we all share an original genetic makeup. We were the same race.
Millennia of evolution, directed by different choices of individuals, groups and eventually culture have brought us distinct physical and genetic differences we call race today.
Just as Jews are trying to force genetics into their religion by dictating that what a person believes passes from parent to offspring.
All conflict comes from our choices of principles, languages and actions that put us in conflict.
Jews are pressing on in that direction with their holocaust in Gaza, killing everyone who isn’t like them. Their uncivilized barbarity needs to be stopped and the perpetrators brought to justice.
Ending what we erroneously call “racism” is as simple as choosing to work together in peace. Changing those specific behaviours that put us in conflict.
What begins as a new culture of peace, will become genetically a race in a few millennia.
Jews have the agenda to either make it Judaism or death. They need to change their choice or be stopped.
Gross, really gross. Rob Misek. "Jews are pressing on in that direction with their holocaust in Gaza, killing everyone who isn’t like them. Their uncivilized barbarity needs to be stopped and the perpetrators brought to justice."
Israel is trying to protect itself and save the innocent Palestinians from the evil that steps on their necks every day. And you believe the disgusting drivel you wrote?
The war criminal Netanyahu with international warrants for his arrest.
The United Nations International Court of Justice has Israel on trial for committing genocide.
34 nations that support the case against Israel
South Africa
Bolivia
Maldives
Chile
Türkiye
Spain
Palestine
Mexico
Libya
Columbia
Nicaragua
Ireland
Egypt
Cuba
Belgium
Algeria
Bangladesh
Brazil
China
Comoros
Djibouti
Indonesia
Iraq
Jordan
Lebanon
Malaysia
Namibia
Pakistan
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Slovenia
Syria
Venezuela
Zimbabwe
Fuck Israel and fuck the genocidal Jews who coordinated, funded and executed October 7 as a false flag, inside job.
Why are you so self-loathing, especially now that you've admitted your Jewish heritage?
In this thread, Rob admits he's a Jew.
As long as there are race baiters such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Jasmine Crockett, and Barry Soetoro, the friction will continue.
That along with LBJ's "Great Society" program that destroyed black families.
The results are as thus: Chicago Crime, Murder & Mayhem | Criminal Infographics | HeyJackass! | Illustrating Chicago Values
https://heyjackass.com/
heyjackass.com
CWB Chicago - Chicago public safety and crime news
https://cwbchicago.com/
cwbchicago.com
All forms of corruption on earth including the few people you mentioned are merely the symptom that we observe of the cause, the disease.
It’s like blaming the itchy red spots for measles.
The cause of every case of corruption on earth is lying. Prevent lying and all of it goes away.
The first step is to properly define, criminalize and prosecute lying.
Any visceral negative reaction to this suggestion is irrational as wanting a disease.
If you value logic and reality, apply it.
Lying isn't the only problem. It's the lust for power and control. The democrats decided decades ago to make blacks their favorite victims. That led to programs that rewarded black single women to have as many children as they wish and receive welfare unlimited.
The words from the mouth of LBJ when that program was passed is very telling.
The real truth is the destruction of the black family and the repercussions anyone with two good eyes can see.
The frauds and charlatans attempting to place the blame on other factors while deliberately ignoring the truth.
Lying is the cause and enabler.
You can lust for all the corruption you want and you won’t ACHIEVE any of it without lying.
Of course there’s always open war, which will come eventually when enough lies are exposed and the corrupt are fully seated in power.
Better to criminalize lying first, don’t you think?
That must be some high quality data if they host it on a website called "heyjackass".
If you're going to talk about "race baiters" and the call Barack Obama by the surname of his Indonesian stepfather that he used when he was a kid (under 10), then maybe you should look in the mirror first.
it's actually a quality site, or at least was back when I followed it closely. .
That must be some high quality data if they host it on a website called "heyjackass".
Argumentum ad hominem.
They source all their data. Go check it for yourself if you feel compelled to ignorantly dismiss it out of hand.
I check Reason all the time on their data. No reason you can't, unless you're less interested in what "is" and more interested in "what you want it to be."
Race isn't a thing in Judaism. I don't even know what the Hebrew word for "Race" is. Jews come in all races. I attend a synagogue with members who would not have been allowed to attend my elementary school in the Jim Crow South, we have Asian Jews as members, and we just had an Ethiopian rabbi from Israel visit us last week.
Genocide is a thing in Judaism.
Racism is fueled mainly by government. Homer Plessy was white and no one here would say differently. All reports agree but he was legally Black
Sen Warren was able to legally claim to be Cherokee though embarrassing DNA evidence made her retract.
Kamala can claim to be Black, she is no such thing
Even entertainers cash in
Buffy Sainte-Marie's racial identity has been a subject of debate, with recent investigations casting doubt on her claims of Indigenous ancestry. While she has identified as Indigenous, particularly Mi'kmaq, for decades, an investigation by CBC News in 2023 concluded that she was born in the United States and is of Italian and English descent.
I first heard "race is a social construct" in the early 1990s. It's never struck me as any more true than "gender is malleable" and that gender is distinct from biological sex. Both are objectively, observably, common sense-ically, false. Both fall under this maxim:
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
You’re making their argument for them without realizing it.
If “ your eyes and ears” processing the information in your brain demonstrates the truth aka reality, then SO DOES THEIRS.
This is why civilization has developed correctly applied logic and science to irrefutably demonstrate truth, objectively for everyone.
Like math, those who don’t accept this are stupid.