What is race?

[+or-1]

In point of fact there is one race. The human race. Any other definitions are a fiction created by someone with some kind of typically meaningless agenda they're trying to push. I despair of the majority of humans ever figuring this out.

 

[thebeave]

What purpose does categorizing people by these characteristics serve?

Probably instinctual. One thing to keep in mind, we categorize well beyond race. NY'ers v Bostonians. North End v South End. People who like dogs v People who like cats. Republican v Democrat. Patriot fans v Raider fans. Gays v Straights v Dunno (triple threat!). Countryfolk v Cityfolk (Farmers Only Dot Com).

We love dividing ourselves into groups. A lot of it is arbitrary, other is sociopolitical. We have a gay "race" because of laws created to hold back gay rights. We have a black "race" in America because of that whole slavery followed by Jim Crow thing.

You have confused "instinctual" with "cultural." All the dichotomies you list are social constructs, where people have different beliefs which they learned, sometime after their birth. If you want to see instinct in action, bring a bunch a Democrats and Republicans into a room and set off the fire alarm. I'm willing to bet you wont be able to tell which is which. It's the same for the rest of your list.

I'm saying the need to group off is instinctual.

What evidence is there that the need to group off is instinctual?

Instinct: an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli. Example: Birds have an instinct to build nests.

Do you mean a human baby is born with an innate knowledge that people of other skin colors should be avoided?

OK, I'll bite. The answer is yes:

http://time.com/67092/baby-racists-survival-strategy/

You always suspected babies were no good, didn’t you? They’re loud, narcissistic, spoiled, volatile and not exactly possessed of good table manners. Now it turns out that they’re racists too.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Actually babies are not born racist, but they can learn it early

New research indicates that by the time they are 9 months old, babies are better able to recognize faces and emotional expressions of people who belong to the group they interact with most, than they are those of people who belong to another race.

Babies don't start out this way; younger infants appear equally able to tell people apart, regardless of race.

"These results suggest that biases in face recognition and perception begin in preverbal infants, well before concepts about race are formed. It is important for us to understand the nature of these biases in order to reduce or eliminate [the biases]," said study researcher Lisa Scott, a psychologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, in a statement. [3-Year-Olds Fancy Own Ethnic Group]

In the study, 48 Caucasian infants were given the task of differentiating between faces of their own race and faces that belonged to another, unfamiliar, race. In another experiment, sensors placed on the babies' heads detected brain activity when the babies saw images of faces of Caucasian or African-American races expressing emotions that either matched or did not match sounds they heard, such as laughing and crying.

While 5-month-olds were equally able to distinguish faces from different races, 9-month-olds fared better with their own race. Likewise, brain-activity measurements showed the 9-month-olds processed emotional expressions among Caucasian faces differently than those of African-American faces, while the 5-month-olds did not.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/racist-babies-nine-month-olds-bias-faces_n_1477937.html

 

[OLDMAN]

I can barely tell the difference between Hobbits and Dwarfs..

 

[EricK]

OK, I'll bite. The answer is yes:

http://time.com/67092/baby-racists-survival-strategy/

You always suspected babies were no good, didn’t you? They’re loud, narcissistic, spoiled, volatile and not exactly possessed of good table manners. Now it turns out that they’re racists too.

I don't think this means babies are born racists. For one thing, the children in question were 15 months old i.e. they had time to absorb various facts about their scenarios.

My reading of this result is that what seems to be happening is that babies are born with the ability to spot similarities and differences between people, and they start noticing similarities (eg in appearance, sound, smell, behaviour etc) between the people they interact with. They will use those similarities to define their 'in group', and after a while, they will define someone who lacks one or more of these features as a member of an 'out-group' and therefore potentially dangerous or untrustworthy.

So for example, if everybody they interacted with from birth had dark hair, but had all different types of skin colour, then skin colour would not be a determining factor in their in-group, but hair colour would be. i.e. a "white" person with dark hair would be 'in', but a "white" person with exactly the same skin colour but with blond hair would be 'out'.

 

[Bronzeage]

I can barely tell the difference between Hobbits and Dwarfs..

Check the feet.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I can barely tell the difference between Hobbits and Dwarfs..

Check the feet.

Yeah, it is important to know if it is international or US survey feet.

 

[Toni]

Some infants react negatively to what is unfamiliar and some do not. The reactivity to whst is unfamiliar may have some genetic component just as some other traits of temperament such as shyness may have a genetic component . But yes, infants are necessarily quite good at picking up on the reactions and responses of others .

 

[pegasus8]

Is race about color? Yep it is about the only color of green and yellow as in dollars and gold!

Yesterday I went to see Maleficent which was worth the 8 $bucks. My point is that in the movie the people from the castle have these thick Scottish accents. You know like something out of "Brave Heart." It was kind of awkward but you get the director's view. There seems to be one of the guards, or the King's leaders of this troops, as being a black actor. I do not have a problem with this yet there are some who would zero in on this in a New York minute. My point is that this black actor who was quite good in his role as an officer also had this thick Scottish accent. It actually looked kind of weird seeing a black man with a Scottish accent. I thought that it was kind of cool.

So are we conditioned in the real world to bring these "preconditions," of what a black man, a white man or whatever kind of person should or should not act like, sound like, look like, etc? After posting comments here on " What Is Race," this perplexing dilemma stood before me. This situation reminded me of when the brilliant comedian, Father Quido Sardouchi [sp], would have this Korean fellow speak perfect Italian during his skit on SNL back in the day. It was so cool because we, well at least myself, were not familiar with a Korean gentlemen speaking beautiful fluent Italian on TV. It was totally cool and all that. In like manner I thought that the black actor in Maleficent speaking with a thick groggy Scottish accent was also cool.

So race can take on many interesting interpretations. We see this in the great tragic Othello and the poor humble Caliban in the "Tempest," over 400 years ago! We can also see race interpretation in Southern literature being played out with the concept of "passing." Passing is when someone say from the South portrays themselves as being white so as to not be exposed to all the hellish racist asshole state sponsored BS that has been a trademark of pre-war and post war reconstruction South. Passing does not necessarily need be about race since it can denote a class, gender, ethnicity, etc., situation as seen in film and literature.

So from the good comments above some see race as having physiological attributes, which can be argued either way. Most here see race, correctly IMO, as a result of social construct. What better way to alienate those while you have your foot on their neck then to fabricate and manipulate them into the "other?" And the interpretation of the other also need not be about race as most of us know. So basically you get the working class slobs, you and I, fighting amongst ourselves over who is the other, race, gender, class, etc., while the slim slice of the pie's population laughs and chuckles.

When this country was founded in the 18th century most of the population were not considered citizens and or were not allowed to vote. Even if you were white and had paid off your " indentured servitude $$$$" through labor you still were not allowed to vote! States like Maryland and Virginia had some of the strictest voting requirements in the new experimental nation of America. So basically America was founded on principles based on race, gender and class! This is something that most people do not know, do not realize or know but refuse to talk about for fear of retribution and or ideological intimidation. So even from America's pristine birth race has been and, IMO, continues to be that chain around her neck.

People always point out piss ass poor inner city folks. Well try going to the South in the backwood parts to see how piss ass poor America looks. And even today the South in certain areas and cities is still segregated by race. It is not segregated by race because of the economic reasons only like the inner city. The South is segregated by choice and race in some areas outside the large metropolises. If you want to meet some of the nicest people in America, IMO, just go to the South. It is like you are in another country. And race still is a big part of the South.

What is race? Race is a big part of America. From the Spanish conquistadors in 16th century Santa Fe and St. Augustine to the ill-advised Anglo/Saxon Protestants in Mass. and Virginia it has always been about race. Race has always been about economics, power and control; always has and always will.

Peace

Pegasus