You all are pretty smart right...

I thought it was the other way around. Isn't Jew an ethnic group and actually traceable back to a few hundred ancestors and white the broad topic?

How did you not test out? AP American History is easy af

I LEGITIMATELY don't understand why I was told in social science courses that race has no biological basis.

Can't you tell difference between populations due to various alleles?

Are not some ethnic groups more susceptible to certain disorders? example being: lactose intolerance in Europe and sickle cell in Africa.

this is the true biological equivalent

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cline_(biology)

The problem is that no one actually knows what happened in the past.

People can't accurately recall the events of five fucking minutes ago.

I understand that. However he took a "U.S. History to XYZ year" course and constructed a curriculum solely based off of why capitalism is evil and slavery is bad I get a bit annoyed.

Design a class based on why race is a social construct if you want to rant about it for entire class periods.

It's probably a geography class

test out? I dk I transferred to the top uni in my state for a stem degree. I still have gen eds to take and my orientation was the day before classes started. Not much time to choose my SJW cancer classes.

Ask him to define race.
Then ask him to define the terms he used to define race.

Keep going back until he has to rely on his axiomatic assumptions or he says something scientifically false.

Deconstructing innate biases is where real debate is done, everything else is just people talking past each other, in my opinion and experience.

Since this would be annoying to do in class, maybe talk to him during office hours about it.

hmm, pretty high quality bait (given Americans' retardedness towards these concepts)

I rate 6/10 :)

True. Although Jews are probably the absolute worst example because of the nebulous definition where someone "becomes" a Jew simply by converting to Judaism.

You can't "become" Slovenian or Navajo, f. ex.

Ironically exposition of race as a social construct (which it is imo) would also expose African Americans complete disregard for their roots (I suppose?). There are some pretty big differences between regions of Africa, like, have you ever wondered where your ancestors came from? Could it be present day Ghana, maybe Ivory Coast? What language did they speak originally?

I have the impression that questions like that are not even the tiniest blip on African Americans' radar.

Fucking wesley crusher.

He selfishly left indians to die, and he came back as a frogposter.

When will the world be free of this guy?

This is a bettet questuon for Veeky Forums.
Race as it is today is a social construct based off of biological and ethnologic grounds. This can be seen by the fact that around 1900 the meaning of "race" changed from a synonym for ethnicity to a value judgement of skin color.
Modern race clearly has biological basis, as in the case of physiological factors such as sickle cell anemia, however the force and significance behind the concept is mostly a social concept.
Many have gone too far in rejecting the issues relating to race such that they end up denying the fact that almost all social constructs have at least some biological basis.

Eh
Up to a point

For example we can differantiate between species on the basis that they can't produce fertile offspring
But there are no such sharp edges between races

Statistically there are mental and physical differences, but you can't decide which race someone belongs to based on their scores on said mental/physical capabilities, so it isn't a very reliable system

I wouldn't say it is entirely a social construct, but a big portion of it probably is

>race is a social construct
Really depends on what you mean. In a low-level sense, race is definitely based on perceivable differences in human populations. But, many ideas spring up and grow around this basic truth, and those ideas can be said to be social constructs.

HOWEVER, when people these days say basically anything is a social construct, they do so with the implication that said thing is "made up" or somehow invalid. Race isn't "made up", it's abstraction and extrapolation from observable reality. Unfortunately there's no way to debate this because a lot of these types just take as a base assumption that race is an invalid concept.

>There are some pretty big differences between regions of Africa, like, have you ever wondered where your ancestors came from?
Basically all "African Americans" as opposed to modern immigrants to the US from Africa came from the West coast. But they interbred so much with slaves from different regions as well as Whites and Mestizos that any ethnic markers have melted past recognition. A note, when people say a black person is "mixed", it's partially fallacious. Basically all blacks in America have white blood, some just have more than others or are the result of a very recent interbreeding. But still blacks create an outgroup by identifying "mixed" or "lightskinned" blacks as a different group or a subgroup, even assigning what you could describe as racial stereotypes to them. This is a good example of how social ideas about race are certainly social constructs but descend from observable reality very clearly.

>I have the impression that questions like that are not even the tiniest blip on African Americans' radar
Only ones who would even care are young middle-class blacks who feel "disconnected from their culture" (You notice many leaders of things like BLM are not the people that would in theory be affected by the issues but people from middle class or higher i.e privileged backgrounds, they're virtue signaling to other black people) and/or the African Power types, and in either case it's usually focused on some nebulous "African/Black identity" as if such a thing exists rather than individual regions or cultures. And to be fair most of the time they don't have much to go on.

>around 1900 the meaning of "race" changed from a synonym for ethnicity to a value judgement of skin color
It wasn't really a value judgement explicitly, or even implicitly. There were stereotypes that could be called value judgements, but it's dishonest to characterize the broad idea of race in that period as inherently about value judgements.

That race is a social construct doesn't mean that there aren't biological differences between people of different genetic makeups.

Race is a social construct, because where you draw the lines are somewhat arbitrary.

You could have constructed the races as only two races, for example Sub Saharansand Eurasians(others included).
You can go further though, and add in asians.
Or east asians specifically.
Or chinese.
Or han.

Oh my God. This thread is a shit show. He's 100% correct. Second line of wiki guys ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) ),

"Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable"

Also, the concept of race has been used historically for nefarious purposes (slavery, genocide, invasion, etc.).

For the racists, you are likely categorized as caucasian. Middle eastern folk are also categorized as caucasian. You and middle eastern folk are the same race. Kek. I am having fun imaging racist shithead minds explode right now.

There has to be some kind of underlying biological construct around which certain concepts agglutinate in order for this to work. How am I to know which stereotypes to apply to who if there's no way for me to tell who is black and who isn't, who is asian and who isn't, etc., so that even if we assume that culture in many ways impact our perception of race, we still have to presume of the existence of some residue we can't do away with with social constructs.

Now, what this residue means I don't know.

Race is real but we apply subjective social constructs to it.

>Race is real but we apply subjective social constructs to it.

No, that's not the problem. The problem is that race is ill-defined.

It's garbage terminology for dumb people who do not know what they are talking about.

What's the difference between ethnicity and race?

>race is a social construct
It basically is but the problem is that anything using the word race becomes a shit show pretty quickly so it's hard to have a coherent conversation about.

Race is generally used the way the word Art is used. You don't know how to define it but you're sure that this thing or that thing count or don't count.

It tends to mean whatever you want it to mean, which is the very definition of a social construct.

You all are pretty easily trolled right? I'm a /pol/tard and am in a thread where the OP is constantly a faggot.
Is that true? no bully pls
p.s. it's a CIS requirement

He's right but species is also a social construct

So is the language you are speaking

But niggers are black and have monkey face, no way they are like me.
They look different therefore they are a different race.

But you have to be careful with this hypothesis, because you run the risk of inviting /pol/tards who insist that white superiority is innately genetic and that black people are biologically inclined to destructive behaviour, when white trash on both sides of the Atlantic clearly demonstrate this to be absolute hokum. Poverty and culture are much greater indicators of criminality, as post-Soviet countries have massive problems with public order as well.

I agree with other posters on race having some valid biological concepts; however, a lot of it is also constructed as well from the preconceptions of others and one's own history/culture. It's definitely not friendly to reductionism, as extremists would want us to believe.

Ethnicity simply denotes the specific geographical location of your origin. Race is a hypothetical subgroup of humanity you can be classified as which has some (read: a teensy bit of) biological basis, but ultimately is a really shaky concept, considering you can make hundreds of different class systems based on arbitrary genetic/phenotypical differences (e.g. disease/resistance) and the fact that humans really don't differ much at all (or else we'd have subspecies like Neanderthals).

I don't understand, isn't race just a collection of ethnic groups? Wouldn't that make race a social construct as well?

The reason he says that, is because what people associate with the word race isn't stuff like that fact that Africans have a higher incidence of sickle cell anemia, it's that Africans are by nature lazy and degenerate.

The first is undoubtedly true, the other is a racial stereotype and a value judgement about the characteristics of a group, which has no basis in science.

I hate when people say thay. What is meant is that race isnt the best clade to categorize humanity genetically. Race is still race.

but they are bad, and both were integral in US history post colonial era.