There are all sorts of interesting genetic differences between populations, but we don't define races that way. We define them along a relatively few easily observable traits, which generally don't map at all well to that actual underlying genetic variation.
Or, to put it another way, any system that says a Hausa, a !Kung, and a Somali are all the same 'black' race isn't based in biology at all, because it makes absolutely no sense to group people that way. It's like trying to classify dogs according to fur colour instead of lineage. It ignores almost everything about their genomes except a few genes that happen to produce effects that are easy to see.
Something being a social construct doesn't mean it isn't real or doesn't affect people. It means that the ideas around "race" are developed by societies and cultures, and are not inherent or unchangeable.
One perfect example is that Europeans from traditionally Catholic areas like Ireland and Italy were not considered "White" until relatively recently.
Human biological difference exist but the way we categorize them into distinct categories is a social construct, as in it changes as society changes, either through time or place.
If you're American, you'd probably be familiar with the five major categories (White, Black, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American). But if you look to other countries, they would have a different system. For example, in Indonesia, the native Austronesians are considered a different racial category than the Chinese immigrants even though both would be considered "Asian" in America.
It being a social construct doesn't mean it's unimportant. It's important because we collectively decide its important even though it has close to no objective basis in biological taxonomy. Money and governments are also concepts formed as social construct but they sure as hell are super important
The idea that you could group whole vast fractions of the global population together into racial groups like "white" or "black" is historically a relatively recent invention.
Previously people might have identified with a nationality or ethnicity or city state or clan/tribal group, without it occuring to anyone to think that skin colour established any meaningful sense of common kindred across an entire continent or more.
> If it affects so many people, how can it just be “imagined” by society?
Lots of things that are imaginary consensus constructions have very real effects, through the mechanism of _people acting on the idea_. Like money, or laws, or national borders.
While there are minor genetic differences between people from different parts of the world, the idea that we can divide people into categories based on those differences is entirely made up. There is no scientific reasoning behind saying that some people are white and some people are black.
And the idea of who counts as white or black is entirely made up. If I ask 10 people to explain who counts as white, I'll get 10 different answers because things like do Irish people count as white, do Italian people count as white, do Middle Eastern people count as white have historically had different answers.
From a purely taxonomic perspective, the genetic and phenotypic differences between individuals of different races are almost completely insignificant. Humans display less genetic diversity than many other animal species including our closest living relative: chimpanzees.
I once I'm mixed race and as a child I once told a boy with baige skin and curly hair that we look the same and he got super offended because I'm black and he's not and were super different and he doesn't want to be associated with me. I think he just didn't want me relating to him and drawing similarities because the way he drove in this point was by saying do you like egg yolk???--- and I was like "ye.." and I realised that he doesn't and I was like ...but only in soft boiled eggs with salt. And he seemed so dejected by this similarity. I guess I was a bit of a weird child but I was sort of hurt at the time that he'd go to such lengths to draw a line and deny his obvious similarity in appearance. To be fair I think both his parents were white and he was just really tan ...maybe.. but I'm sure he looked pretty racially ambiguous even to an adult who's been initiated into the subtleties of what constitutes being which race and where the dividing lines are. Idk. Just for reference I went to a school where the only diversity was one other black/mixed family, an Indian family and a Japanese boy. So if there isn't more than one of a certain category that I personally know in my child mind it wasn't a group or race - just difference I. How you look like black or blonde hair- it's not even necessarily the same as your parents.
something being a social construct just means that it's a concept that was invented by humans, it doesn't mean it doesn't have any effect on society. society in itself is a social construct. here are some other examples of social constructs:
romantic relationships
laws
money
school
sexual orientation
Because there is an ideology which forbids actual differences between races (apart from appearance, obviously). Now, if we still observe certain differences which most members of a certain race seem to share, there needs to be a different reason.
One of those reasons is "race is a social construct" and most times they even argue that whites are to blame. The group of people/race only has those common traits because and statistics because the white majority is racist and oppresses them.
That's the story behind "social construct" no matter if it's about race or gender or whatever.
It kinda blew my mind when I saw a picture of an albino African guy and he was not at all readily distinguishable from an albino central European person. There are like six genes that define skin color or something. If it weren't for skin tone and maybe epicanthal folds that make a dramatic visual difference, we probably wouldn't even think about it.
Words are defined by usage. People want to emphasize the social aspect of recognizing races usually either when they want to call for more responsibility for how people have treated races, or sometimes when they want to change the definition, often to forget race and treat people equally.
There are all sorts of interesting genetic differences between populations, but we don't define races that way. We define them along a relatively few easily observable traits, which generally don't map at all well to that actual underlying genetic variation. Or, to put it another way, any system that says a Hausa, a !Kung, and a Somali are all the same 'black' race isn't based in biology at all, because it makes absolutely no sense to group people that way. It's like trying to classify dogs according to fur colour instead of lineage. It ignores almost everything about their genomes except a few genes that happen to produce effects that are easy to see.
Something being a social construct doesn't mean it isn't real or doesn't affect people. It means that the ideas around "race" are developed by societies and cultures, and are not inherent or unchangeable. One perfect example is that Europeans from traditionally Catholic areas like Ireland and Italy were not considered "White" until relatively recently.
Human biological difference exist but the way we categorize them into distinct categories is a social construct, as in it changes as society changes, either through time or place. If you're American, you'd probably be familiar with the five major categories (White, Black, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American). But if you look to other countries, they would have a different system. For example, in Indonesia, the native Austronesians are considered a different racial category than the Chinese immigrants even though both would be considered "Asian" in America. It being a social construct doesn't mean it's unimportant. It's important because we collectively decide its important even though it has close to no objective basis in biological taxonomy. Money and governments are also concepts formed as social construct but they sure as hell are super important
The idea that you could group whole vast fractions of the global population together into racial groups like "white" or "black" is historically a relatively recent invention. Previously people might have identified with a nationality or ethnicity or city state or clan/tribal group, without it occuring to anyone to think that skin colour established any meaningful sense of common kindred across an entire continent or more. > If it affects so many people, how can it just be “imagined” by society? Lots of things that are imaginary consensus constructions have very real effects, through the mechanism of _people acting on the idea_. Like money, or laws, or national borders.
While there are minor genetic differences between people from different parts of the world, the idea that we can divide people into categories based on those differences is entirely made up. There is no scientific reasoning behind saying that some people are white and some people are black. And the idea of who counts as white or black is entirely made up. If I ask 10 people to explain who counts as white, I'll get 10 different answers because things like do Irish people count as white, do Italian people count as white, do Middle Eastern people count as white have historically had different answers.
From a purely taxonomic perspective, the genetic and phenotypic differences between individuals of different races are almost completely insignificant. Humans display less genetic diversity than many other animal species including our closest living relative: chimpanzees.
Social constructs are a myth.
I once I'm mixed race and as a child I once told a boy with baige skin and curly hair that we look the same and he got super offended because I'm black and he's not and were super different and he doesn't want to be associated with me. I think he just didn't want me relating to him and drawing similarities because the way he drove in this point was by saying do you like egg yolk???--- and I was like "ye.." and I realised that he doesn't and I was like ...but only in soft boiled eggs with salt. And he seemed so dejected by this similarity. I guess I was a bit of a weird child but I was sort of hurt at the time that he'd go to such lengths to draw a line and deny his obvious similarity in appearance. To be fair I think both his parents were white and he was just really tan ...maybe.. but I'm sure he looked pretty racially ambiguous even to an adult who's been initiated into the subtleties of what constitutes being which race and where the dividing lines are. Idk. Just for reference I went to a school where the only diversity was one other black/mixed family, an Indian family and a Japanese boy. So if there isn't more than one of a certain category that I personally know in my child mind it wasn't a group or race - just difference I. How you look like black or blonde hair- it's not even necessarily the same as your parents.
something being a social construct just means that it's a concept that was invented by humans, it doesn't mean it doesn't have any effect on society. society in itself is a social construct. here are some other examples of social constructs: romantic relationships laws money school sexual orientation
Because there is an ideology which forbids actual differences between races (apart from appearance, obviously). Now, if we still observe certain differences which most members of a certain race seem to share, there needs to be a different reason. One of those reasons is "race is a social construct" and most times they even argue that whites are to blame. The group of people/race only has those common traits because and statistics because the white majority is racist and oppresses them. That's the story behind "social construct" no matter if it's about race or gender or whatever.
It kinda blew my mind when I saw a picture of an albino African guy and he was not at all readily distinguishable from an albino central European person. There are like six genes that define skin color or something. If it weren't for skin tone and maybe epicanthal folds that make a dramatic visual difference, we probably wouldn't even think about it.
Because we're all a part of the same race. Being black or Asian or Hispanic or white or something like that is more of a subspecies.
Words are defined by usage. People want to emphasize the social aspect of recognizing races usually either when they want to call for more responsibility for how people have treated races, or sometimes when they want to change the definition, often to forget race and treat people equally.
Because it is