2 thoughts on “LIST: 11 ways race isn’t (biologically) real”
I find the points made in the article to be more articulate and specific representations of my own opinion. The idea that the budding of racism relates back to the”division of people into groups based on general geographical origins of their ancestors or descriptions of the way they look, is the basis of a manmade strategy” “as a way of resolving the contradiction between a natural right to freedom and the fact of slavery” seems more then plausible. I wonder though, if it also has to do with an already existing form of hierarchy. In society those with higher educations were generally the richest and most powerful. Upon the discovery of new peoples instead of trying to learn from them and considering them equals conquerors deemed them uncivilized and barbaric, allowing race (geographically similar appearances) to equal a determined level of smarts or lack thereof. The stem of racism may well be geographic, but in regards to the behavior/education of people other then europeans in comparison. Europeans assuming themselves superior. There seems to already be a sort of supremacy. One example is the discovery of America and Native Americans.
Just a quick point of clarification: Classifying people in terms of appearance and geographical origin is, strictly speaking, the paradigm form of premodern racialism (according to Paul Taylor’s terminology). But note please carefully that this in itself is *not* classifying people in terms of *Races* (the four or five concepts of Race that we have been forced by convention to use since the early 17th century). Recall this insightful sentence from Taylor’s text: “The ancients lived in a world of multiple peoples, rather than a world of a few races …” (p. 23). That whole paragraph is worth re-reading and digesting.
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2339890/shutterstock_218073364.0.jpg)
I find the points made in the article to be more articulate and specific representations of my own opinion. The idea that the budding of racism relates back to the”division of people into groups based on general geographical origins of their ancestors or descriptions of the way they look, is the basis of a manmade strategy” “as a way of resolving the contradiction between a natural right to freedom and the fact of slavery” seems more then plausible. I wonder though, if it also has to do with an already existing form of hierarchy. In society those with higher educations were generally the richest and most powerful. Upon the discovery of new peoples instead of trying to learn from them and considering them equals conquerors deemed them uncivilized and barbaric, allowing race (geographically similar appearances) to equal a determined level of smarts or lack thereof. The stem of racism may well be geographic, but in regards to the behavior/education of people other then europeans in comparison. Europeans assuming themselves superior. There seems to already be a sort of supremacy. One example is the discovery of America and Native Americans.
Just a quick point of clarification: Classifying people in terms of appearance and geographical origin is, strictly speaking, the paradigm form of premodern racialism (according to Paul Taylor’s terminology). But note please carefully that this in itself is *not* classifying people in terms of *Races* (the four or five concepts of Race that we have been forced by convention to use since the early 17th century). Recall this insightful sentence from Taylor’s text: “The ancients lived in a world of multiple peoples, rather than a world of a few races …” (p. 23). That whole paragraph is worth re-reading and digesting.
Thanks for getting us going on the blog, Rachel!