critical race theory

[_33]

I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line.  Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?   

That's exactly what I was about to say.  It doesn't really change anything.  So people categorize and discriminate against people based on 'skin color' instead of based on 'race'?  Is it just a push back against the antiquated idea that certain races were biologically superior?

[Cire]

I think it’s just meant as a way to have discourse moving on.

I don’t think it’s meant anything more than a new way to have dialogue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CHONGS]

I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line.  Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?   

A tremendous number of people think that race is well defined biological concept, and this means that these races are physiologically different from each other and that these racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples.

[michigancat]

I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line.  Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?   

A tremendous number of people think that race is well defined biological concept, and this means that these races are physiologically different from each other and that these racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples.

yeah that seems fairly significant when trying to understand how we got here.

[Cire]

I think it also goes to “I don’t see race” I”I don’t see color “

Because if that’s what you think, you are admitting that the differences exist


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[_33]

I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line.  Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?   

A tremendous number of people think that race is well defined biological concept, and this means that these races are physiologically different from each other and that these racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples.

Of course.  I guess I was just confused by the verbiage.  'Race is not biological but instead a social construct' is confusing because there ARE biological differences even if they are insignificant to determine behavior or abilities.  Like, that's been the argument against racism forever.  The fact that you're discriminating against someone solely based on the color of their skin is wrong.

[DQ12]

I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line.  Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?   

A tremendous number of people think that race is well defined biological concept, and this means that these races are physiologically different from each other and that these racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples.

I think this is why a lot of this is confusing.  Some of us are hearing bits of an argument without getting the entire context of the argument.

So the "race is a social construct" idea is basically just saying that "race alone isn't predictive of a human's qualities"? 

[CHONGS]

I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line.  Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?   

A tremendous number of people think that race is well defined biological concept, and this means that these races are physiologically different from each other and that these racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples.

Of course.  I guess I was just confused by the verbiage.  'Race is not biological but instead a social construct' is confusing because there ARE biological differences even if they are insignificant to determine behavior or abilities.  Like, that's been the argument against racism forever.  The fact that you're discriminating against someone solely based on the color of their skin is wrong.

You personally may think discrimination is wrong, but if you are someone who believes that human populations are significantly different enough from each other to require biological classification below the species level you can then justify laws and actions that are discriminatory as necessary and just reactions to the "real word". This is the basis behind so-called race realism. 

[CHONGS]

I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line.  Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?   

A tremendous number of people think that race is well defined biological concept, and this means that these races are physiologically different from each other and that these racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples.

I think this is why a lot of this is confusing.  Some of us are hearing bits of an argument without getting the entire context of the argument.

So the "race is a social construct" idea is basically just saying that "race alone isn't predictive of a human's qualities"? 

No its more than that.  It's saying the very concept that there is a small number of well-defined human races (which are generally tied to a continent) is not biologically valid, these races are rather arbitrary and not grounded by genetics.

This is not the same as saying there is no biological variation between populations. 

[Cire]

I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line.  Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?   

That's exactly what I was about to say.  It doesn't really change anything.  So people categorize and discriminate against people based on 'skin color' instead of based on 'race'?  Is it just a push back against the antiquated idea that certain races were biologically superior?

Yes, race and racism were created in the past in order to justify exploitation of POC.

Inequities today are a result of that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DQ12]

I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line.  Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?   

A tremendous number of people think that race is well defined biological concept, and this means that these races are physiologically different from each other and that these racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples.

I think this is why a lot of this is confusing.  Some of us are hearing bits of an argument without getting the entire context of the argument.

So the "race is a social construct" idea is basically just saying that "race alone isn't predictive of a human's qualities"? 

No its more than that.  It's saying the very concept that there is a small number of well-defined human races (which are generally tied to a continent) is not biologically valid, these races are rather arbitrary and not grounded by genetics.

This is not the same as saying there is no biological variation between populations.

Sorry i'm not trying to be pedantic but I want to make sure i'm following because your two sentences seem possibly contradictory.

If there are biological differences between populations, couldn't those distinct populations be well-defined?  Is the point that those "populations" != "race" -- or at least the general conceptions of "race"? 

[Cire]

I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line.  Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?   

A tremendous number of people think that race is well defined biological concept, and this means that these races are physiologically different from each other and that these racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples.

I think this is why a lot of this is confusing.  Some of us are hearing bits of an argument without getting the entire context of the argument.

So the "race is a social construct" idea is basically just saying that "race alone isn't predictive of a human's qualities"? 

No its more than that.  It's saying the very concept that there is a small number of well-defined human races (which are generally tied to a continent) is not biologically valid, these races are rather arbitrary and not grounded by genetics.

This is not the same as saying there is no biological variation between populations.

Sorry i'm not trying to be pedantic but I want to make sure i'm following because your two sentences seem possibly contradictory.

If there are biological differences between populations, couldn't those distinct populations be well-defined?  Is the point that those "populations" != "race" -- or at least the general conceptions of "race"?

Cats and birds are different

Black and white are not


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DQ12]

I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line.  Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?   

A tremendous number of people think that race is well defined biological concept, and this means that these races are physiologically different from each other and that these racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples.

I think this is why a lot of this is confusing.  Some of us are hearing bits of an argument without getting the entire context of the argument.

So the "race is a social construct" idea is basically just saying that "race alone isn't predictive of a human's qualities"? 

No its more than that.  It's saying the very concept that there is a small number of well-defined human races (which are generally tied to a continent) is not biologically valid, these races are rather arbitrary and not grounded by genetics.

This is not the same as saying there is no biological variation between populations.

Sorry i'm not trying to be pedantic but I want to make sure i'm following because your two sentences seem possibly contradictory.

If there are biological differences between populations, couldn't those distinct populations be well-defined?  Is the point that those "populations" != "race" -- or at least the general conceptions of "race"?

Cats and birds are different

Black and white are not

Chingon referenced the possibility of actual identifiable biological differences between populations which is what I was asking about.

[Cire]

I’m not going to speak for chings but I think he’s saying that we don’t define race by eye color or  hair color but we do with skin color which is why it’s made up


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CHONGS]

Biological concepts to read:

Phenotype vs genotype

Clinal variation

[DQ12]

Biological concepts to read:

Phenotype vs genotype

Clinal variation

This is where I get lost.  I'll take your word for it.

[_33]

OK, so I understand those things.  Now what is the point of CRT establishing race as a social construct as a core tenet?  Is it simply to say that there is no biological basis for discrimination?

[Cire]

Because it’s inherently racist to define people by skin color so stop rough ridin' doing it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MakeItRain]

Because it’s inherently racist to define people by skin color so stop rough ridin' doing it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Before we get the inevitable "yeah but" it's only racist to do so because of how white people have done so historically. Even colorism within black and Latin communities are rooted in the principle of passing.

[CHONGS]

I can't speak for CRT, but establishing race as a social construct is important because it doesn't deny the that the concept of race exists.  If they are going to talk about race they need to define their terms; they are defining race as a social concept and not a biological one. When they talk about Black they don't assert there is some "true" biological definition for Black.  If someone is Black, it's because society has agreed that they are Black.

[DQ12]

I can't speak for CRT, but establishing race as a social construct is important because it doesn't deny the that the concept of race exists.  If they are going to talk about race they need to define their terms; they are defining race as a social concept and not a biological one. When they talk about Black they don't assert there is some "true" biological definition for Black.  If someone is Black, it's because society has agreed that they are Black.

That I can comprehend.  TY, Chings.

[Spracne]

I don't really understand the significant of the "race is a social construct" line.  Even if it is a social construct, what's the conclusion or the implication of that?   

That's exactly what I was about to say.  It doesn't really change anything.  So people categorize and discriminate against people based on 'skin color' instead of based on 'race'?  Is it just a push back against the antiquated idea that certain races were biologically superior?

Yes, race and racism were created in the past in order to justify exploitation of POC.

Inequities today are a result of that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with both statements, as I do with most statements made by proponents of CRT. I still don't understand wtf CRT is, though. As far as I can tell, it seems like a loose bundle of factual statements centered around recognizing the realities of how we got to the present moment in time as it relates to race. I still don't understand the theory part, despite everyone's help ITT.

[Cire]

Theory is that inequities in society today are a result of systematic racism/injustice that has never been addressed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spracne]

Theory is that inequities in society today are a result of systematic racism/injustice that has never been addressed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean never fully/adequately/satisfactorily addressed? That checks out. I guess my point is, where do we go from here? Those of us honestly acknowledging and discussing reality are on board, but are we to change the hearts and minds of those who are conditioned otherwise? I can't even convince my parents to get vaccinated, and I don't really try because it would merely drive a wedge in our relationships.

[Cire]

CRT proponents would argue that we should be active social justice warriors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk