What's Veeky Forums's opinion on social constructionism?

>it would be more ideal to focus on fostering a strong civic identity instead of trying to keep racial identity in the social conciousness.
Too late.
Non-whites have no interest in abandoning their racial identities or their racial history and we have encouraged them to strenghten their ties with them. How do you craft a "strong civic identity" among people whose ancestors were adversarial with each other, without preventing people from remembering their history?
How do you convince a proud descendant of a conquered race that the conquest of his people was a thing to be celebrated?

You can't.

Happens all the time just takes a long time

No, it does not happen "all the time". You can't simultaneously be proud of your history and consider it something worth preserving while also thinking that its good that your people were conquered and their culture is no longer dominant. The two ideas are mutually exclusive.

This map is missing a big part
Environnement and history?

This. I'll be happy to accept donations trough my paypal account from people claiming social constructs, like money and rent, aren't real.

Its called every nation ever, a strong center exists and conquers the surrounding regions, then the people of the surrounding regions grow to consider themselves proud patriots.
The French who got de-facto colonized by Paris, and in the south actively conquered in various crusades, continue to be proud of various regional customs and heritages.
The English, who got conquered and assimilated by the French, look back with pride on people like Boudica who were not even not only from the French-based polity of 1066, nor even from the Anglo-Saxons who preceded them, but from the native Britons.
A bunch of Northern German states were annexed by Prussia in military expansionism and still continue to like their regional traditions.
Generally the past was never one of everybody coming and signing songs together, certainly not for modern nation-states, but national identity arose regardless.
Non-White people in the US can fully think that their histories are important while still being submerged into the civic identity. For the vast majority of them, asides from some fringe movements, it is.

The problem is that recently non-whites have been moving away from any civic identity and towards race/roots. It isn't just fringe movements either, it is in all forms of media and academia. I don't have any stats on this but I would argue that national identity has decreased in the past 20 years.

It's just not just non-whites. There's been a sharp rise in white identity politics as well. Everyone's jumping on the wagon.

Way to downplay and ignore the deliberate policies enacted to encourage homogenization of culture in the nations in question.

A). Tons of regional French culture has been wiped away over the centuries and continues to be wiped away.
B). If the English were "conquered and assimilated by the French" why isn't England part of France? Clearly the assimilation failed.
C). Prussia and it's culture no longer exists. Clearly the assimilation failed.

As a reaction to darkies attempting to overthrow the white historical narrative and seize cultural dominance from whites.

>B). If the English were "conquered and assimilated by the French" why isn't England part of France? Clearly the assimilation failed.

Because the French didn't occupy the United Kingdom? Back to /pol/ with you.

Blacks got the vote in 1965, whites got it in 1776, to say there would be behavioral differences in a group heavily discriminated against in living memory is both obvious and trite.

No, it's just a vicious cycle.

>Muh race
>No muh race
>FUCK YOU MUH RACE
>NO FUCK YOU MUH RACE

and on and on till the end of time. Everyone who engages in this stupid bullshit is to blame.

It's something leftists use to dismantle identities that are not useful for the revolutionary communist project.

I don't even care about "social constructionism" as an idea, because politics is not about ideas. Politics is a struggle where you want to kill your enemy, rape their women and enslave their children, ideas are weapons and if social constructionism is the weapon of the enemy, I will fight it, except when it is useful to me, then I will use it.

I know who my enemy is. It is Michel Foucalt, it is Gramsci. It is Paulo Freire. It is the eternal communist party that never ceased to exist. What is the point in discussing principles with peaplo who admit exploiting it for political gains?

Seriously, if there is one thing you need to understand, is that commies are meant to be killed, that commies ideas are meant to be rejected except if they are useful to you. Because commies will kill you if they get the chance. Because commies will use your ideas only if they are useful and reject it otherwise.

Act accordingly.

That's my opinion on social constructionism.

>conquered and assimilated
>weren't occupied
Pick one then idiot, it can't be both.

>implying it's not the whites who struggle with adopting a civic identity

They spent hundreds of years enslaving and exploiting blacks and others, what makes you think they'd want to remove their positions of power?

Some day you'll realize that it's not everyone else that's stupid for being human, it's you that's being dumb for thinking you can somehow be something else.

Go home, /pol/. You lost.

He meant conquered and assimilated the English in South Western France NOT the UK. It'd be pretty clear to anyone without a learning disability.

That's because positions of power are what establish "civic identity", darky

If you let Africans into power and they make grass-skirts the official garb of state then there goes the "civic identity" the white people were adhering to.

...

>darky
I'm white.

Is there even a single country in the world that has an "official garb"? What even is that? Something you'd be forced to wear, or what?

You do realize that pretty much all African leaders follow the suit and tie attire as well, right?

How do you fuck up that badly? How do you miss that many major visible ethnicities?

You do realize that's entirely irrelevant to my point, right?
"Civic identity" is meaningless and entirely at the mercy of whoever holds political power.

Are you going to ask me to explain to you what air is next?

Name a single country that has an "official garb", and where the wearing of that garb is enforced.

You're autistic user

Yeah, "official garb" isn't a thing.

Thanks for playing.

Admittedly he's autistic but you can't think of any countries that enforce garb wearing?

Think about some middle eastern countries.

Is there anyone who genuinelly believes environmental factors are the sole reason for differences between human demographics?

I guess people who's ideology depends on it.

But what does religious clothing have to do with official, state sanctioned garb?

When you're a theocracy there's no distinction between state and religion.

Yeah, but the conversation was about civic nationalism.

I'd wager that genetics have a role to play but I'm very much inclined to believe environment is far and away the biggest contributing factor.

top cringe

Why not? Environmental factors are pretty good at explaining human demographics.

You the same person who threw a tantrum when asked what definition of globalism he used when asking about globalism in an older thread?

Not entirely but obviously the bulk of it.

kek

Is this pasta or an actual fucking opinion?

I do not wish to give ammo to /pol/ idiots but there are differences between races. Read the Bell curve. However, differences between individuals are way greater and way more important. White's are on average more intelligent then blacks, but being white does not make you superior to or more intelligent then every random black person. And if you judge people on the basis of their race and assume for example their intelligence you're retarded. So we should not care about what race an individual is when dealing with them, only take into account the relevant factors. But when we see differences between how races perform in society, there is no reason to be suprised or ascribe it to things like racism.

Cute idea with no actual scientific evidence behind it. Basically a new religion for depressed liberals.

...

Yeah but what countries with civic nationalism have a national garb? WTF even is that?

Poppy pseudo-philosophy with no means.

>Environmental factors are pretty good at explaining human demographics.

How does environment explain IQ differences in individuals?

If environment was all there was in this case, it should've been enough to feed people vegetables, legumes and lean meat and everyone in the U.S would be as smart as Richard Feynman.

Everyone is racist as fuck and anti racism is just a way to brow beat white people into not working in their group racial interests. That's all it is.

Bhutan.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Bhutan#National_dress_code
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driglam_namzha#Clothing

Reminder to get your facts right before shitposting smug anime reaction images.

>Maybe she just light skinned, like that BLM guy.
Sean King is just a wigger who dresses and grooms like a black guy. He looks more Cuban/Puerto Rican than anything.

Oceania and NZ btfo

That's what I'm fucking saying

It means it's only nominally "real".
Whiteness is more a measure of normality than any discrete biological taxon. Irish and Italians in America were pretty much niggers until they assimilated. Likewise, the majority of Turks, Brazilians, Argentinians etc. consider themselves white, even though most people would disagree. Shit, even non-Dravidian Indians call themselves white. The term is so vaguely defined it's practically meaningless outside of describing in-groups and out-groups, just like "Jew". Ashkenazim have like 60-80% European admixture compared to their Middle Eastern origins, in Southern Europe, but they're not considered white because they're a cultural minority.
journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006644

NE admixture is slightly less but they're still pretty much the only Jews that stormfags bitch about.

progs when identitarians make the case for the white race
>but what is the white race? Can you even touch it? Can you weight it? Don't you see it has changed? It always changes! We can never know what it actually is, it's just a flimsy concept!
progs when it's time to enact affirmative action policies
>clearly by cranial capacity measurement and cluster analysis we can easily tell that the white race is comprised by all the ethnicities that fall under this precise geographical and genetic groups, which means all of them have to give their money to third-worlders

They don't have to be the sole contributing factor, but I find the stormfag crowd is ignorant on a lot of genetic matters despite holding them up as a holy grail of defining human value:

- treating phenotype as synonymous with genotype
- ignoring heterozygosity
- not considering that environment can influence expression of heritable traits
- disregarding that not all inherited traits are biological in nature (such as wealth or reputation)
- treating biology as a fixed state of nature that doesn't change over generations
- making race out to be discrete categories, rather than a continuum of traits across geographical distance
- composition/division fallacy when judging individuals based on race and vice-versa
- failing to explain why selective factors would have made intelligence more valuable to fitness in Europe and Asia than Africa or The Americas
- treating intelligence as synonymous with civilization attainment, despite the latter being much more cyclical
- thinking reducing the genetic diversity of a population is somehow eugenics

Sounds like a social construct

That's a pretty cool list of strawmen. Have you got another one by any chance?

Sorry, who are you quoting? You appear to be making a strawman argument.

>clearly by cranial capacity measurement and cluster analysis we can easily tell that the white race is comprised by all the ethnicities that fall under this precise geographical and genetic groups, which means all of them have to give their money to third-worlders

SJWs don't define white people by cranial capacity and cluster analysis. They argue it based on social privileges that are ascribed to white people as they've been historically treated. Hence, social constructionism. You can't even think outside of your stormfag logic when trying to make a bad argument for the other side.

>They argue it based on social privileges that are ascribed to white people as they've been historically treated.
Do they say that italians and irish should receive partial affirmative action? Or maybe pay fewer taxes than anglos? Do they also discriminate against high-caste indians? I mean, they've been pretty privileged all their lives, so they surely are going to do that, right?

It's not a strawman, although it is based somewhat on anecdotal experience, just like any encounters with people of a particular ideology will be. If I tried to survey them, half of them wouldn't even know what heterozygosity means, or just call it data mining. It's no surprise to anyone except stormfags that stormfags lack nuance, Cletus.

>Do they say that italians and irish should receive partial affirmative action?

They probably would have, if affirmative action had been a concept when Irish and Italians were defined as an out-group.

>Do they also discriminate against high-caste indians? I mean, they've been pretty privileged all their lives, so they surely are going to do that, right?

There are progressives in India that argue against the caste system, yes. Progressivist movements are not unique to white people.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Battle-against-caste-system-goes-global/articleshow/45517174.cms
I really doubt you even attempted to investigate before asking that rhetorical question, though. Just another example of the spotlight fallacy.

>It's not a strawman
Of course it is, you're taking the easiest defeatable points and prop them up as if they constistute a worldviews that anyone aside from morons accept.
If you want to defeat a claim, you have to defeat the best version of it, you're just complaining about the moron version of human biological diversity.

> you're taking the easiest defeatable points
as if there any non-easy defeatable ones,

>They probably would have, if affirmative action had been a concept when Irish and Italians were defined as an out-group.
Wait a second, irish and italians have had years and years of racial oppression, why wouldn't they now be entitled to affirmative action. It's almost as history doesn't really count in the SJW's mind and actual racial classification does.
>There are progressives in India
I'm not talking about india, I'm talking about western countries.

Of course there are, I can agree that each and every one of those points is valid and still believe that there are significant genetic differences between human populations.

> significant genetic differences
Like what? Significant is completely arbitrary.

>Wait a second, irish and italians have had years and years of racial oppression, why wouldn't they now be entitled to affirmative action.

Because they're integrated so far into regular old american white culture that they get all the benefits that come with being white.

Other minorities don't get those benefits.

It's like you don't even know what your opponents argue.

>there are significant genetic differences between human populations

But those populations do not correspond to our conceptions of race in all likelyhood. Skin color is not the most genetically significant trait.

>Significant is completely arbitrary
Not really, no. We can easily find a threshold above which everyone agrees that a difference is significant. Like, not everyone would agree that a 1 point difference in average IQ between groups is significant, but 5? You'd have to be quite ignorant of it.
First of all, nobody uses just skin color to determine race. Nobody says that south indians are the same race as africans with the same skin color.
Second, so what?

>Because they're integrated so far into regular old american white culture that they get all the benefits that come with being white.
Wait...how do you know that? They still earn quite significantly less than german americans or anglo americans. Surely that must mean there is some covert racism going on and/or the racism they faced back in the days must be still influencing them. It's kinda evil not to include them in affirmative actions (and to not discriminate against high-caste indians).

>Wait a second, irish and italians have had years and years of racial oppression, why wouldn't they now be entitled to affirmative action. It's almost as history doesn't really count in the SJW's mind and actual racial classification does.

Because they're defined as white now that the anti-catholic and anglo-specific nativist sentiment has died down, and don't have as many issues with ongoing marginalization and poverty that other minorities do to this day. Though personally, if it was found that certain families of Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans were still suffering negative effects due to things like bonded labor in the past, sure, I'd support some kind of measures to remedy that.

The scope of affirmative action is overstated anyway. Only 3.5% of racial minority students receive scholarships based on race
finaid.org/scholarships/20110902racescholarships.pdf
Affirmative action isn't even mandatory unless you contract or subcontract with the federal government. It's usually employed as a voluntary PR measure. Privately held companies are pretty much free to discriminate.
dol.gov/general/topic/hiring/affirmativeact
archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11246.html

>(202) Except in contracts exempted in accordance with Section 204 of this Order, all Government contracting agencies shall include in every Government contract hereafter entered into the following provisions:
>"During the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees as follows:
>"(1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

>I'm not talking about india, I'm talking about western countries.

So... the actual politics of India aren't relevant to India? Holy shifting the goalposts, batman! Nobody specified "western progressives". It's just something you take as implicit because of the trendy SJW caricature going on right now.

>We can easily find a threshold above which everyone agrees that a difference is significant.

I'd like to see you try.

I literally did so in the post you quoted.

>less than 5% consider race
Blacks make up 11% of the scolarship recipients, am I supposed to go "wow, only half of them" (or only a quarter of them if we include hispanics) ?
And yes, Indian policies are relevant to India. Thank god I didn't mention India even once, so if there's someone who is moving the goalpost it's you.

>. Shit, even non-Dravidian Indians call themselves white.
No we fucking don't. A few online indian /pol/tards don't mean shit.

>everyone agrees

Yeah, your own post doesn't qualify for that level of intersubjectivity.

Where did you get that magic 5% figure from?
Read it again.
>Only 3.5% of racial minority students receive scholarships based on race
This is not contradicted at all by
>Blacks make up 11% of the scolarship recipients
This doesn't contradict what I said. You're making a conversion error here between the percentage of minorities that are scholarship recipients, and the percentage of scholarship recipients that are minorities. 11% is even less than their proportion in the general population.

>And yes, Indian policies are relevant to India. Thank god I didn't mention India even once, so if there's someone who is moving the goalpost it's you.

You didn't mention "western countries" either, but obviously caste discrimination among Indians is more relevant in India, where they actually have a historical precedent of said caste system.

>It's kinda evil not to include them in affirmative actions (and to not discriminate against high-caste indians).

This is just a drawn out form of ad hominem tu quoque. Nobody says this independently, wishing to genuinely co-operate to include Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans among other measures to alleviate persistent discrimination against racial minorities. It's just a disingenuous talking point designed to discredit measures to help other groups. If you really believe it, you have to be willing to accept that other forms of affirmative action are valid.

I didn't hear it from /pol/