Race isn't a social construct. It is a physical, biological reality. It's the result of differences in inherited genes. It's a fact, not an opinion.
A social construct
is something that doesn't really exist, except by agreement, by common assent.
One example of a social construct is human dignity. We agree—some of us, anyway—to treat each other as if we each had human dignity. But it doesn't really exist apart from that agreement. If you think otherwise, try telling the next threat to your life, whether it is a human enemy, a wild animal, or a force of nature, that he/she/it may not mistreat you because you have 'human dignity,' and let us all know how it works out for you.
But race exists apart from consensus. It has observable effects that don't depend on whether you believe that race exists. Race is one of those parts of reality that will deal with you, if you refuse to deal with it. You can pretend that race isn't real, but you usually can't ignore the consequences of doing so.
[Added on 10 February 2016. The racial categories are indeed 'social constructs' because categories don't exist apart from a categorizer. However, this particular truth is trivial and it doesn't conflict with anything that racists believe. A chair is a physical object, but the idea that it is something to sit in is a social construct. Just so, the racial categories are social constructs, but the racial genetic variation itself is a physical reality. Perhaps the categories could be refined though research in genetics and racial morphology, but to dispense with racial categories entirely would be as large a mistake as to dispense with the color categories (red, yellow, green, blue, violet) in light or in pigments.]
Even white liberals know better than to live, work, recreate, or educate their kids where blacks form the dominant presence. However, they insist, most hypocritically, that common whites must, for moral
reasons, do what they won't
do. So that 'social progress' can be made. (Isn't it about time that those who have been profiting from these modern gladiatorial games be ushered into the arena as the final contestants?)
Furthermore, scientists generally come down on the side of race being biological reality,
and any presentation that holds forth to the contrary is merely leftist propaganda pretending to be biology in the same sense and manner that creationism pretends to be cosmology. Racial egalitarianism has the same kind of quasi-religious pseudo-scientific support structure that creationism does. The only significant difference is with whom the myths are popular.
The primary pushers of the 'race is a social construct' (or 'there's only ONE race the HUMAN race') meme is the Jews, who don't really believe it themselves. Go to Israel and see how much support for racial equality you see there. Even if an African black coverts to Judaism, or has been Jewish his entire life, he isn't welcome to immigrate to Israel. The Ashkenazi Jews, whose race forms the majority of that country's population, refer to black Jews as 'svartzes' (Yiddish for our censored N-word) and find excuses to deport them back to Africa.
Which isn't a bad idea, assuming that keeping their country of, by, and for themselves is their goal. The evil that the Jews do, they do to us, here, in our country, by preventing us from exercising the same wisdom that they do in Israel. There, racial solidarity for Jews is a GOOD thing. Here, racial solidarity among whites is a BAD thing. In the political sense. And the reason it's politically incorrect here is that the Jews run the press, the television networks, and all of the major movie production companies, which they've used to create propaganda-loaded fare continuously for the past 70 years.
The reason the government takes the Jews' side and serves as the muscle backing the Jewish voice is that the banking system, from which our government acquires its money, is controlled by Jews, and they can cut the government off. So the government serves them, and it only pretends to us that we get anything other than lip service.
And that, again, is why there's so much bogus 'science' regarding race. The scientific establishments are corrupted because the people who administrate them have chosen to serve their status and their paychecks instead of the truth about race. Men calling themselves 'scientists' want to be popular, and they want to keep their jobs, and they don't want to end up like James Watson. And what is a little lie, a false endorsement of the 'race is a social construct' meme, if it saves them so much trouble?
Of course, not all science is corrupted. Some branches of science are quite reliable. Mathematics is complicated, and the fact that it is complicated is what enables political tricksters to use it to deceive people who don't understand the details of mathematical reasoning. But math per se
isn't corrupt at all. If you have a leftist or a Jewish professor teaching you math, or physics, or chemistry, then you will probably get very good instruction from him.
On the other hand, if your leftist Jewish professor is teaching you psychology, anthropology, history, human evolutionary biology, or social science, then you had best wear your ugliest boots to the classroom because the shit will be deep in there.
We can all agree that the races differ. We wouldn't know anything of race if that weren't so. The leftists will tell you, pursuant to their 'race is a social construct' meme, that the visible differences, the unimportant differences that we notice immediately, are the only
differences between races.
However, it would be very strange if nature, which brought about all of the heritable racial differences, had taken special care, with humans, such that evolution resulted only in "cosmetic" racial differences, and didn't permit any differences between races of which a modern leftist might disapprove. But that's what the leftists are telling us. They're essentially either saying that God exists and He is a Marxist,
or else they're saying that their views are correct despite some very unlikely odds—not to mention the abundant evidence that their views are wrong.
On the contrary, I think that it is much more likely that the racial gaps in IQ test scores mean exactly what they seem to mean. I think that blacks do less well than whites on math tests in school for the same reason. The black race might have its strengths, but those strong points are not as relevant to, or as compatible with, life in advanced, technically adroit cultures. They don't belong here. They belong in an environment that gives their racial advantages more traction.
And having non-whites among whites is certainly bad for the whites. Despite the likelihood that the Jews who run the mass media probably nix 90% of the news stories that prove this point, enough gets through their censorship to prove it anyway.
Indeed, the reason the immigration of non-whites into white countries leads to so much lessening of the culture and the standard of living is that these non-whites are working as hard as they can to convert the culture to which they've come into one that makes their adaptive advantages efficacious. They milk the white culture until that culture dies, and then the only result is that a larger portion of the Earth's land surface is occupied by the immigrants' lower
culture, the same
culture that they'd fled from a century or so earlier.TO THE POINT, NOW.
A misleading article, published in Scientific American for February 2016, prompted this posting. The author, Megan Gannon, puts her thematic falsehood right in her title: Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue
Gannon uses partial tellings of the truth as a means of deception. A significant quote:"What the study of complete genomes from different parts of the world has shown is that even between Africa and Europe, for example, there is not a single absolute genetic difference, meaning no single variant where all Africans have one variant and all Europeans another one, even when recent migration is disregarded," [biologist Svante] Pääbo, told Live Science. "It is all a question of differences in how frequent different variants are on different continents and in different regions."
That's quite correct. The races share alleles, or gene variants, because they weren't products of an entirely separate evolution. What differs is the allele frequencies.
However, it was never necessary for racists to prove that all of the good genes are here, and all of the bad genes are there.
No. That fact of there being MORE of the good genes here, and FEWER of them there, is quite sufficient to prove the racist argument. Whereas the all-here-none-there argument is false, the more-here-less-there argument is true.
And that's what these leftist damage-control articles such as Gannon's seek to cover up. Leftists don't acknowledge errors. They just continue chanting long-ago disproved slogans, quite as if no one had ever found out the lies in them.
No one, including the racists, has ever said that blacks and whites (for example) are the product of entirely separate evolution. No one has denied that all races hold genes in common. A very common propagandists' trick involves answering questions that were never asked as a way to imply that an opponents' arguments depend on something that they don't really depend on. That's what's going on with this article by Megan Gannon in this month's Scientific American.
Why do they bother clinging to disproved ideas? Leftists are subversives, inherently counter-culture, having as their primary aim the leveling of human condition. That requires them to oppose excellence in human quality by every means they can, including cleverly worded lies and nice-sounding, but false and ultimately harmful, ideas.
Imagine that you are a white woman trying to figure out why she should choose a white husband, instead of marrying a black man. Is it at all important whether her children will probably get genes for high IQs and grow up to do well in life (or at least have a chance to do so), or whether they are more likely to become criminal adults partly because of an uncompetitively low intelligence? I daresay that it probably has some importance.
Because whether or not you acknowledge that race is a reality, the genes that determine the intelligence of your children will be inherited by them from yourself and from your mate in roughly equal amounts. If you marry someone with a low IQ, especially if your partner's recessive genes (i.e. his race) also conduce toward a low IQ, then you necessarily shift the mean in the distribution of your children's IQ downward. And that's bad.
And that badness
will have its effect in the real world regardless of whether or not you think that race is a 'social construct.'
The idea that race is a social construct arose from a 1972 article by Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin, in which he gave an opinion that nobody working with genetic information alone could predict how someone would classify himself racially, and therefore race had no scientific importance.
In the circles of the American intelligentsia, this idea became known as "The Lewontin Hypothesis," and it prompted the creation of a number of leftist chants and placard slogans, including "Race Is A Social Construct" and "There Is Only ONE Race The Human Race."
Unfortunately for them, the Lewontin Hypothesis was proved wrong by the late 1990s with the rise of genetic fingerprinting by DNA analysis. The Lewontin Hypothesis held scientific tenability for only ~20 years. Ever since geneticists discovered that the races clustered into an allele space defined by genetic markers, it has been clear that race isn't merely a social construct.
Working with genetic information alone, it is possible to tell whether someone is white, black, Amerindian, Asian, and so on. It's even possible to extract details about whether a white person is mostly French, mostly German, mostly Russian, etc.
In February 2005, geneticists Tang, Quertermous, Rodriguez, et al, published their article "Genetic structure, self-identified race/ethnicity, and confounding in case-control association studies"
in the American Journal of Human Genetics. I link here to that paper.
The article is the published report of an experiment involving 3636 test subjects, including whites, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. Using genetic information alone, the researchers were able to predict how each subject would classify himself racially in about 99.9% of cases.CONCLUSION.
Like it or not, the racists are right. The racists have always been right.
The Marxist lefties have had it wrong ever since they closed their minds to evidence from the real world, the world of natural laws, and began clinging instead to their nice-nice egalitarian fantasies.
Watch this video.
The author of that video doesn't mean, by 'social construct,' what most of the leftists mean.
The leftists are trying to say that race is a concept arising from erroneous consensus
(among evil white people), that really there are only people of the same kind except for different colors of skin, and that all other differences are imaginary.
The leftists are wrong. Those 'other' differences, including variations in average intelligence and in the per capita rates of violent behavior, are just as real as the differences in skin color are, and the differences tend to run in correlated bundles, exactly as the racists have always said.
The author of that video is saying that social constructs are the categories
into which we assign real things, rather than being the real things themselves. Which is true, though (as the author himself acknowledges) trivially so.
The best point he makes is that the general FST among humans is about the same as that for Asian dogs, for European wildcats, or for North American coyotes, and although the leftists have no problem at all in accepting the idea of subspecies (or races) among these other animals, they do have a problem accepting the idea of race among humans
That problem, obviously, is a political problem.
However reasonable it might be to acknowledge that race is as real in the human species as it is in other animal species, the idea runs contrary to the leftist-Marxist equality dogma. The dogma is wrong, but since when has error ever stopped the faithful believer from persisting in his beliefs?
No, the only way to change the world, at least until such time as humans have, on average, a substantially higher IQ, is to wait until all the deluded power-mongers have died, and then pick up the pieces of the world and try to put them together in a better way.
Of course, if the day of deliverance can be hastened, then so much the better.
Genetics-wise leftists commonly make expositions that are intended to invite skepticism to the idea of DNA identification of race in humans. They proceed either by using too few
genetic markers to clearly separate the races in allele space (e.g. California Newsreel's "RACE: The Power of an Illusion"), or else they go to the extreme by using only ONE gene and saying that you can find "any gene variant" in any race. Which is true.
What isn't true, and what they won't
tell you, is that you will find some variants more commonly
in one race than in another. They also won't tell you that the more alleles you use as genetic markers, the more reliable your racial identification becomes.
When you use only one genetic marker, you might be wrong about a person's race 40% of the time.
When you use 100 alleles as markers, you'll be right about 97% of the time.
When you use 1000 alleles, you'll almost never