But surely Charles has a point. Physical characteristics are used , rightly or
wrongly, as
a basis for racial identification even though race is a social construct. That is,
there
is a gross physical basis for people's recognition of someone as being of a certain
race. It is
because of that the black-skinned student faced racial discrimination that her
light-skinned sister did not. The term "visible minorities" makes sense only if there
physical characteristics
that make them visible. These physical characteristics are stereotypical but they
nevertheless
exist and it seems wrong to deny that they do or that they have no foundation in
purely physical aspects of people's bodies even if these characteristics are quite
superficial in terms
of any useful biological categories. If black skin had not been a common sign of race
identification then
Papa would not have been able to play his joke on the reporter or to make his point
about the black
hand holding the whip.
Of course the social aspect may negate or deny the physical. For example a Metis
family
was regarded as Metis when they lived in the poorer Metis section of a northern
settlement
but when their economic status changed and they moved into the more affluent "white"
sectiion of the community they were no longer identified as Metis by either Metis or
non-Metis or themselves.
Just make you skin black as was done by someone as I recall and see what happens.
But
it wouldnt have happened to the person without the black skin.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
Peter Dorman wrote:
> Jeez, it's hard to get through to some people.
>
> Charles Brown wrote:
> >
> > That race is a socially constructed category means two things >
>especially.Firstly, skin color, hair texture and facial features ( the main >
>elements of the modern concept of race), though determined in part by > heredity are
>not correlated with a hereditary determination of "humanness", > virtue, soulfulness,
>intelligence, and other behaviors.
>
> Repeat: skin, color, hair texture, and facial features do not constitute
> a basis for "race". The "modern concept" of race is that it has *no*
> basis in biology. Neither these three features nor any other set (with
> N>1) provide a stable foundation for dividing humankind into races.
> People with darker skin colors have a vast variety of facial features
> (within Africa alone the variety is extraordinary), etc. You define
> racism as attaching a higher value to some "races" than others. I
> reject that. Racism, as a belief condition, is holding the view that
> races exist as biological entities -- that there are discrete racial
> genuses of species homo sapiens. The only reliable (politically and
> scientifically) view is that race is *entirely* a social construct.
> Once you accept the notion of biological races you open yourself up to
> all sorts of stereotyping and labeling. The alternatives then become
> invidious racism a la Herrnstein and Murray and benign racism a la
> Charles Brown (races are different but not better or worse with respect
> to "humanness"). And then you have to play the numbers game to
> determine whether racial differences are benign or malignant.
>
> Don't play that game. Open yourself up to modern biology and reject the
> biological category of race.
>
> Peter Dorman
