Racial segregation refers to the separation of people into racial or other ethnic groups in daily life, including spatial and mandatory use of different institutions such as schools and hospitals. It is a form of institutional racism that has been enforced across the United States for much of its history. The “blank” was passed in 1968 to aid tribal members in seeking equal representation and equality under the law.
The European Commission defines segregation as “the act by which a (natural or legal) person separates other persons on the basis of race, color, language, religion, nationality or national”. Segregation can be de jure or de facto, sanctioned by law or custom. De jure segregation mandated the separation of races by law, while de facto segregation required separate housing, education, and other services for people of color.
Apartheid was the policy that governed relations between the white minority and the nonwhite majority of South Africa during the 1926 Supplement to the Virginia Code of 1924, “Separation of Races”, also known as the Public Assemblages Act. When whites regained control of southern states, they began to enact laws that oppressed African Americans through segregation (known as Jim Crow Laws).
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) is the centerpiece of the fight against racial segregation. The Convention aims to ensure that all individuals are treated fairly and fairly in all aspects of their lives, regardless of their race, color, religion, or nationality.
| Article | Description | Site |
|---|---|---|
| Racial segregation | Racial segregation is the separation of people into racial or other ethnic groups in daily life. Segregation can involve the spatial separation of the races. | en.wikipedia.org |
| segregation | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute | Segregation is the action of separating people, historically on the basis of race and/or gender. Segregation implies the physical separation of people. | law.cornell.edu |
| Racial segregation | History, Meaning, Examples, Laws, & … | Racial segregation, the practice of restricting people to certain circumscribed areas of residence or to separate institutions (eg, schools, churches) and … | britannica.com |
📹 The myth of race, debunked in 3 minutes
You may know exactly what race you are, but how would you prove it if somebody disagreed with you? Jenée Desmond Harris …
What Are The Four Types Of Segregation?
Separation of people can be understood through various forms of segregation, including geographical, school, housing, racial, and religious segregation. Geographical segregation examines the uneven distribution of differing populations within a defined space. School segregation highlights the uneven access to education based on race and has raised criticism for perpetuating racial divides. Racial segregation, a major concern, manifests through practices that restrict individuals to certain areas or institutions based on race, historically enforced through laws such as Jim Crow.
Segregation can be classified into de jure, which is legally mandated, and de facto, which occurs in practice without formal legislation. The impact of segregation extends beyond residential patterns to influence social, educational, and political environments, perpetuating inequality. In the context of institutional settings, such as maximum security prisons, segregation can include isolation and administrative segregation.
Additionally, segregation impacts workplaces visibly through horizontal and vertical dimensions, contributing to gender inequality and reinforcing systemic discrimination. Overall, segregation, whether based on race, gender, or other characteristics, serves to highlight and perpetuate social inequalities within various spheres of life.
What Is The Jim Crow Law?
Jim Crow laws were state and local statutes enacted primarily in the Southern United States from the late 19th century to the 1960s, designed to enforce racial segregation and deny African Americans basic civil rights. Originating from the Black Codes established post-Civil War, these laws institutionalized discrimination by prohibiting African Americans from voting, accessing education, and securing employment. The term "Jim Crow" itself arose from a minstrel character created in 1828 by Thomas Dartmouth Rice, which became synonymous with the system of racial segregation that emerged after the Civil War.
Jim Crow laws mandated segregation in public facilities, including water fountains, restrooms, restaurants, and transportation, under the guise of "separate but equal," despite being inherently unequal. This system operated under a culture of fear among white populations, who sought to suppress the freedoms gained by Black individuals. The laws directly contributed to a harsh reality of systemic racism, legitimized by prevalent societal attitudes and, at times, supported by religious institutions. They persisted until the civil rights movement, which aimed to dismantle this oppressive framework and fight for equality.
Who Practiced Racial Segregation?
Historically, various conquerors, such as the Asian Mongols and American Aztecs, practiced discrimination and segregation of subject races. Racial segregation aims to maintain the economic advantages and social status of the dominant group, often employed by white populations against others through legal and social barriers. The Jim Crow Laws, enacted between 1874 and 1975 in the American South, mandated racial segregation, promising "separate but equal" treatment, which was rarely realized.
Notable African American figures, including writers and civil rights leaders, contributed to the push against these laws. The civil rights movement, beginning in the late 1940s and continuing into the 1960s, aimed to eliminate racial discrimination and secure equal rights. The Supreme Court's 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson upheld segregation, further entrenching systemic racism. The NAACP played a significant role in challenging segregation legally.
Despite some social discrimination, the Jim Crow era formally codified racial apartheid. Legal segregation persisted until the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which ultimately prohibited racial segregation and discrimination in the United States, dismantling a long-standing system of oppression.
What Is The Difference Between Separation And Segregation?
Separation refers to the intentional establishment of a barrier between discordant entities to prevent their convergence, while segregation involves distancing incompatible substances within the same space. Separation allows for complete control over one's economy, politics, and society; it’s about having your own and managing it independently. In contrast, segregation often stems from discriminatory motives, particularly in social contexts. The distinction lies in the neutrality of separation versus the prejudice of segregation.
Historically, segregation has marginalized certain groups, presenting effective arguments for its discriminatory nature. Integration, conversely, seeks to unite diverse groups, such as blacks and whites. Segregation manifests in specific realms such as housing, education, employment, and social interactions. The law of segregation in genetics illustrates how parental genes are randomly separated during meiosis, ensuring offspring have equal chances of inheriting alleles.
While all segregation is a form of separation, not all separation entails discrimination. Understanding these terms—and their implications—is critical in discussions on inclusion and equity in society.
What Is The Difference Between Segregation And Apartheid?
Apartheid and segregation in South Africa share fundamental principles, with apartheid representing a legal framework for enforced racial separation instituted by the Afrikaner Nationalist Party after 1948. While segregation generally refers to the separation of various racial groups in society, apartheid was a more formalized and oppressive system implemented by the government, supported by legislation and an apparatus to punish dissent. This policy of legal and cultural segregation targeted non-white citizens, resulting in systemic repression and enforced poverty among black South Africans.
Unlike segregation, which can occur based on various traits, apartheid specifically discriminated based on race. Although intended to allow different races to develop independently, it ultimately perpetuated inequality. The apartheid regime was characterized by harsh enforcement of separation policies, reengineering of traditional leadership roles, and brutal state oppression. It maintained a pronounced distinction between white and non-white populations, leading to widespread socio-economic disparities.
Notably, apartheid ended in 1994 following the efforts of activists like Nelson Mandela and F. W. de Klerk, who fought against this deeply-rooted system. This historical context highlights the severe nature of apartheid as a particularly aggressive and institutionalized form of racial segregation, fundamentally shaping South African society and its ongoing struggles with inequality.
What Is The Term For Race Separation?
Segregation refers to the practice of separating individuals based on characteristics such as race and gender. This separation manifests in daily activities, professional life, and civil rights, creating conditions of inequality. Racial segregation, a prominent form, restricts individuals to specific living areas and institutions (like schools and churches) based on race. It can occur through explicit, systematic measures, or through implicit biases favoring one group over another, affecting access to goods, services, and opportunities.
Historically, laws known as Jim Crow laws enforced segregation, impacting aspects of life from education to public spaces. Racial segregation is characterized by distinct barriers in communal settings, where people of different races are kept apart despite engaging in similar activities. The term "racism" emerged in the late nineteenth century, highlighting the discriminatory practices prevalent in society.
Segregation can manifest as either de jure (legal separation) or de facto (socially accepted separation), with racial, ethnic, and income disparities influencing such divisions. Ultimately, segregation promotes distinct treatment of different groups based on race or other attributes, establishing an environment of inequality and exclusion within society.
What Is The Enforced Separation Of A Racial Group?
Segregation denotes the enforced separation of racial groups, categorizing individuals based on their race or ethnicity. This practice leads to the establishment of distinct facilities, schools, and neighborhoods for various racial groups. In the United States, racial segregation primarily involved the legal and social separation of African Americans from whites, as well as other ethnic minorities. The Jim Crow laws, enacted in the Southern states between 1874 and 1975, epitomized this systematic discrimination, enforcing segregation and denying African Americans equal rights and opportunities.
These laws were rooted in a formal system of racial apartheid, with "separate but equal" maintained as a legal doctrine despite its inherent inequality. Segregation manifested in many public spheres—such as transportation, education, and housing—restricting access and resources based on race. Activism and protests eventually sought to dismantle these discriminatory practices. In essence, racial segregation reflects broader social divisions, implemented through laws and policies that foster inequality, impacting daily life and community interactions. It remains a significant chapter in American history, characterized by significant disparities in treatment and opportunity based on race.
What Were The Worst Jim Crow Laws?
Jim Crow laws were state and local statutes enacted in the Southern United States from the late 19th century through the 1960s, designed to enforce racial segregation and suppress the rights of African Americans. Following the 13th Amendment in 1865, these laws emerged from the earlier Black codes, which restricted the freedoms of Black individuals. Racially segregated facilities—including dining rooms, restrooms, and public parks—were commonplace, with signs directing Black visitors to designated areas.
Marriages between races were strictly forbidden, reinforcing the segregationist ideology. The laws not only mandated separation in public spaces, but also curtailed African Americans' voting rights through practices like poll taxes and exclusion from political parties. This systemic discrimination created severe barriers in employment, leading to Black individuals receiving the lowest-paying jobs while white workers monopolized better opportunities.
The Jim Crow era was marked by widespread humiliation and social control, significantly dehumanizing African Americans within society. Through these oppressive laws, Southern states sought to maintain white supremacy and eliminate any possibility of racial equality, leaving a lasting impact on American societal structures and the lived experiences of Black citizens.
Is Segregation A Law?
The legitimacy of segregation laws was upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, which established the "separate but equal" doctrine. The initial steps towards segregation began with the "Black Codes" enacted in southern states around 1865, regulating aspects of Black life. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 aimed to dismantle segregation in public places and prohibit employment discrimination based on race and other factors, though it fell short of addressing school segregation.
Jim Crow laws, enacted after the Civil War, institutionalized racial segregation and denied Black citizens equal opportunities in various areas of life. These laws remained in effect until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which outlawed de jure segregation. Segregation can exist as de jure (by law), or de facto (in practice). The laws limited Black voters' power and enforced separation across multiple societal aspects.
The NAACP advocated for federal anti-lynching laws and sought reforms throughout this period. Overall, segregation represented a systematic racial apartheid that greatly impacted the lives and rights of Black Americans until civil rights movements initiated significant legislative changes.
When Did Racial Segregation Become A Law?
Racial segregation laws, known as Jim Crow laws, governed much of the American South until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Originating as "Black Codes" post-Civil War, these laws dictated various aspects of Black lives, enforcing segregation and disenfranchising Black voters by prohibiting intermarriage and limiting suffrage. The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pivotal in ending segregation and outlawing employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Despite claims of "separate but equal," public facilities remained legally segregated from the late 19th century until the 1950s, and the 1896 Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson upheld segregation laws. The era saw a mass migration of Black Southerners to northern cities, where they faced similar discrimination and violence. President John F. Kennedy's address on civil rights in 1963 highlighted the struggle against segregation. The NAACP sought not only to abolish segregation and discrimination but also to combat racial violence, particularly lynching.
By the mid-20th century, the movement focused on dismantling racial discrimination in all areas of American life, culminating in significant legislative changes that aimed to ensure equal rights for all citizens. Despite progress, the fight against racism and segregation would continue.
What Are The Three Laws Of Segregation?
Mendel's laws of inheritance, formulated in the mid-1860s, consist of three fundamental principles: the Law of Dominance, the Law of Segregation, and the Law of Independent Assortment. These laws stem from Gregor Mendel's experiments with pea plants, as detailed in his 1865 paper "Experiments on Plant Hybridization."
- Law of Dominance: This law asserts that a dominant allele will mask the expression of a recessive allele in a heterozygous genotype.
- Law of Segregation: According to this law, each individual possesses two alleles for each trait, which segregate randomly during gamete formation. This means that each gamete receives only one allele from each gene pair, ensuring a 50% chance for the offspring to inherit either allele.
- Law of Independent Assortment: This principle states that genes for different traits assort independently from one another, provided they are located on different chromosomes.
These laws provide a foundational understanding of genetic inheritance, paving the way for future studies in genetics and biology. Mendel's research established the basis for the concepts of alleles, genotype, and phenotype, which remain central to modern genetics.
📹 Systemic Racism Explained
Systemic racism affects every area of life in the US. From incarceration rates to predatory loans, and trying to solve these problems …
What’s funny is, genetically speaking, skin color is probably the worst way to separate ‘races’ and yet it’s been the most important factor throughout history. The only thing skin color can accurately predict is how close that person, or his/her ancestors was to the equator. The closer you are to the equator, the darker your skin is.
Let me get this straight. Because the USA have regulary changed definitions of race, because a few people who do not clearly belong to a single race identify as a certain race, because ”people” can’t prove ”people” wrong – because of all that, race doesn’t exist? This is one of the most ignorant statements I’ve ever had to hear. Let me give you a few counter examples: The ”cheeseburger” has changed shape, weight, cheese and other ingredients regulary throughout history. What you consider a cheeseburger today has nothing to do with a cheeseburger in 1950. A Japanese Cheeseburger will taste quite differently to a European cheeseburger. Some people put eggs in their patty, others use low-gluten bums, yet others ommit the salad and use only ketchup. Therefore cheeseburgers don’t exist. Marriage. In one culture you might marry several wifes, in another several men – in one you might marry only the opposite sex, in another you might marry whoever you like. One culture allows marriages only after a certain age, another culture does not make distinctions about this whatsoever. So marriage doesn’t exist. The idea of race is a categorical construct, same as cheeseburgers or marriage – you select objective markers ( Such as certain Gene markers, certain bone structure markers, certain enzyme markers etc. ) and then you apply those markers with a CHOSEN threshold to the worlds population. Within one such categorical construct, you could say that, for instance, North Africans are ON AVERAGE white, in another such Cat.
People are missing the point. The very idea of race was invented, in 1776, with no basis in science, by people who didn’t know enough to wash their hands before preforming surgery. There is no mention of race in any literature before that time. We are not different types of humans, we are just different shades of humans. Shades caused by living for generations in a specif geographical location, because of variations in the intensity of the sunlight. If you take a diverse group of humans and pair them with who they share the most DNA in common with within the group, race means nothing. It was all made up, then used to justify slavery.
The problem isn’t being a different race from someone else. The problem is being treated differently/mistreated because you’re a different race from the next person. Sure, maybe things would be simpler if we all look the same, but really, I think we’d just find something else to use as a basis to determine whether one person is better than someone else. That just seems to be the way humans operate. Someone always has to find something that makes them feel they’re better than someone else. Apparently, being equal isn’t enough.
This article isn’t saying that race doesn’t exist… It’s saying “legal definitions of race are stupid”. But I’m not even sure the article’s aware of what it’s trying to say. “It’s really using race in place of other factors, such as ancestry.” I dunno how you can say being asian as a race is different from having a majority of your ancestors be from parts of asia. That just seems like needlessly splitting hairs. If the idea is to try and remove/fight prejudice, just removing the word “Race” will do absolutely nothing. The word isn’t what brings hate.
Since I notice a lot of confusion on the term “Hispanic,” I want to help on clarifying somethings. Originally, the word Hispanic was used to create a distinction between English speaking whites (Anglo) and Spanish speaking whites (Hispanic). That has change, nowadays the term “Hispanic” is used to classify all people of ancestry of Spanish speaking countries making it a ethnic group (meaning sharing a similar culture) not a racial group. I see a lot of people using the word “Hispanic” synonymous as being the same of mixed race and that is simply not accurate. The association is use because the biggest racial group in Latin America is mestizo which mean mixed and it is understood as being half-white and half-indigenous. But a Hispanic could be any race as long you are born in a Spanish speaking countries or have ancestry from it. You could be both white and Hispanic, you could be Asian and Hispanic, you could be black and Hispanic, and you could be mixed. I am white for example because my family is from Spain (and yes I could trace my family tree) specifically from both Galicia and the Canary Islands. Also, there is some people who only associate the term Hispanic with just being white of Spaniard descent but that is disputed.
Easy to debunk the “myth” of race when you are only considering it culturally. By saying that race doesn’t exist because an individual may identify themselves with one that they do not appear to belong too, you should just as easily state that the sexes don’t exist because some people might identify with a gender that they do not appear to belong to. Contrary to what you have stated in the article, you CAN prove them wrong or right with DNA testing. In both cases, the person is either right, wrong, or stuck between categories where they choose which one they will identify with on a cultural basis (NOT a biological one). Simply because I think that I am an ostrich does not mean that I will sprout feathers and grow a beak, though I may choose to behave as an ostrich and adhere to the cultural norms of ostriches and be accepted by an ostrich community. Similarly, me thinking that I am asian or male does not effect my biological makeup and make my physical structure change. A person can choose which culture they belong to, yes. But the culture belonging to a specific race is distinct from the race itself- obvious example being the African American culture VS. the hundreds of distinct African races and cultures that it stems from. They are different beyond belief due to the fact that the culture of both peoples is not dependent on their biological race, but on their unique history- even if some of them are of the exact same racial groups. I could reasonably claim to be an African American if I lived within that culture, but it would be silly for me to proclaim myself as black when I have close to no genetic material from that race and am quite pasty.
There is genetic history related to indigenous people of a region, but if you draw a line on the map from place to place, you can sometimes see how physical traits slightly shift based on region as though it’s not absolute what it meant to be generally black, white, Asian, Middle Eastern, Amerindian, etc. How people are treated should just be that, equal and fair.
To see how a country made up of immigrants still have this issues of just a minority considered “American and nothing else” is really interesting Also because going not far, here in Europe, to call a black man of a different race of a white, to label him with a race, is generally considered racist, offensive and stuffy way to think
This article essentially sums up the premise of Loïc Wacquant’s article “From Slavery to Mass Incarceration”. He distinguishes race as an essentialist phenomenon from race as a social category. Most times we talk about race, we talk about the social implications and consequences that accompany it. Not about actual biological features and attributes.
I think vox was only trying to point out that the socially constructed hierarchies that we have in western countries based on skin colour and ethnic origin are myths that we have been telling ourselves for centuries. there might well be ancestral genetic differences between geographically dispersed groups of people, but these differences definitely do not correspond to our physiognomically focused racial categories, nor do they imply any sort of racial hierarchy.
A race chromosome HAHA. She must not know anything about genetics. There are genes that account for different genes. Obviously there aren’t race chromosomes, but yes, different races have different GENES! Genotypes that cause different phenotypes like dark or light skin as well as facial appearance, height, susceptibility to certain illnesses, etc. define a person’s race. Race definitely exists.
Everyone just needs to keep in mind that this website is arguing for a position that physical anthropologists and evolutionary biologists still disagree on to a large extent. Yes, this is a completely one-sided rhetorical point of view on race with one eye on politics, but that is the way it is now. If you want real information, it is very, very hard to find, but look up journal articles from the above groups. Here is a starting point if you’re really interested: pages.ucsd.edu/~jmoore/courses/anth42web/CartmillRaceConcept1998.pdf
this is an embarrassingly bad article. who did the research on this one? what makes a person from a specific race can be pointed to. it’s a specific collection of genes that are geographically related to one’s ancestors. it has no distinct black and white lines, yes, but that does NOT mean race does not exist lol. furthermore, saying that “race” was made up by some guy in 1776 and using that as an argument is really really (really) dumb. simply because a person finally put a term to the thing doesn’t mean that it was invented. words are labels, and putting or not putting a word to a thing does not define its existence. we are all the same species, we are not all the same race, and i know the point of this article was to debunk justifications for racism, but it is seriously misplaced. you don’t have to try to erase something to make the point that we are all humans, regardless of race, and that alone is enough reason to not be racist. it’s also funny how this article is about how race doesn’t actually exist but then the article ends by saying that what race you are is important and this article isn’t meant to minimize the hardship that certain races experience. congrats on that feat of ridiculous.
“When the medical community links race to health outcomes” They are saying that the category “race” is useful enough and therefore coherent enough, that predictions can be made using it. That is the definition of an accurate category. The admission that medical professionals use that category is an admission that it’s NOT a social construct.
The only time this article actually addressed race was when it said there is no part of the DNA that defines race. I’m not sure they know what race is, at this point, because race is just a series of hereditary physical features, and those are indeed in the DNA, the DNA of the parents combine to form the baby, we know exactly what features are dominant over others too and are more likely to show up in the baby (for example dark hair over blonde hair). Not sure what this article is trying to debunk here… Also for evolution to be real then races must exist as a first step towards speciation. Races must have existed in the past and will exist in the future if we accept the current understanding of evolution, so…
The title doesn’t make any sense. It should either be “The Myth of Race” or “Race Debunked”. The Myth of race debunked, means that the concept that ‘race is a myth’, has been debunked. And just because race has such a vague definition and is ultimately based on superficial mammalian traits … doesn’t mean its a myth. It’s a fact that groups of people who share a common history in a given region, share similar genetic traits, behaviors and customs. They’ve become a race of people- it’s easy to understand. Don’t over complicate – and looking for a specific gene that defines race is plain stupid. Look for general combinations of genetic familial traits, and voila – you’ve got a race.
I’m white, very very white. I did a test and I’m 97% Irish heritage. I wear socks and sandals, I drink tea 5 times a day and I wear my grandmother’s snuggie. In primary school, there was only white kids. I haven’t seen my eyebrows in 6 years. I’m like a cleaning product that sells the whitest white put me next to a wall and there would just be a crop of ginger hair floating with random speckles.
Wow. Now I see that Darwin’s marine iguanas and birds of the Galapagos were really no different than iguanas and birds elsewhere, they just look, act, and feed differently. Since we cannot precisely identify the genes that lead to these differences, they therefore are merely apparent and only social constructs. It’s my prejudice that makes marine iguanas feed underwater instead of on land like iguanas elsewhere. I had no idea that subspecies were not a result of adaptation of groups to local environment over time, but were actually caused by white privilege. Thanks for setting me straight, Jenee!
The response to “You may think you know exactly what your race are but how would you prove it if someone disagreed with you” is the same as if someone said “You may think you know what exactly what kind of car you drive but how would you prove it if someone disagreed with you” I’d call them an dumbass and move on
It’s hard because many of us are mixed race. We as a society often times assign characteristics, background, or moral constructs to a certain race which can make many who don’t agree with it confused on what they really are. If race wasn’t such a dividing concept more people would accept what their “census” race is but most like myself don’t feel like we can really fit into any category as it doesn’t relate or represent us and where we came from.
In the words of a wise man: The myth of planets, debunked in 3 minutes. You may think you know exactly what planet you live on, but how would you prove it if someone disagreed with you? The fact is, even though planets drive a lot of social and political outcomes, planets aren’t real. One of the first cultures who tried to categorise lights in the sky according to planets was Babylon, around 650BC. They came up with five different planets according to their motions, and what they saw, plus the sun and moon. Babylonians of Semitic descent eagerly bought into this type of thinking, around the same time. Some historians have said the idea of different planets helped them resolve the contradiction between an eternal and static view of the heavens, and the fact that some of the lights in the sky move. If planets were in their own distinct category, then everyone could feel a lot better about denying planet-hood to other lights which they labelled stars, and decided were fundamentally different. But, as scientific priorities changed, definitions of planets in America adjust right along with them. For example, if you were the light Pluto in the 1930, you were considered a Planet. Then the International Astronomical Union decided Pluto was not a planet, to avoid including numerous large icy objects into the category of planets. And what it took to be a planet once varied so wildly throughout the astronomical community, from their mass, to their ability to fuse deuterium, to if it was part of a distinct population such as a belt, to the infamous alternate proposal created by Julio Ángel Fernández, that lights in the sky could actually change planetary classification just by talking to different people.
I’m Caucasian. I can prove that by showing you a DNA test that shows certain DNA markers that are unique to me and other similar Caucasians. The fact that race is sometimes hard to define and sometimes people get unfairly categorized doesnt mean there aren’t distinct physical characteristics among races of humans.
The geographical area in which you live inherently has it’s effect your body as well as your genes to some extent, and it can be debated whether certain geographical regions can cause people to grow a bit different in some aspects than people from other geographical regions. Nevertheless, while you could collectively compare one “race” to another, the differences would be no larger than that between individuals categorised in the exact same “race”. Therefore making any assumption on a person’s ability in any thing based solely on their “race” is ridiculous. At the end of the day the only thing that matters is that we’re humans, we all experience life, we’re all capable of doing the same things to a great extent and all humans should be treated as such.
Being a medical researcher this is actually not very good in a lot of ways. The fact that many diseases are very correlated with certain ethnic groups is important to know. A matter of fact it’s very crucial we know people who are ethnically mixed have less chances of diseases because they inherit better genes.
there isn’t a race chromosome, there are multiple chromosomes that determine varying traits. All of these factors combined together make a human being what they are. Certain people of different descents of different cultures from different parts of the world have different traits. Skin colour being one of them. And as human beings, we use our visual senses more than any other. We see someone being a different skin colour and associate them with being different. Now sure, some people like I mentioned previously, do have differences based on this. I’m not saying any one race is superior or inferior to any other. All I’m saying is that race isn’t a social construct, what we call race is.
You may think you know exactly what planet you live on, but how would you prove it if someone disagreed with you? The fact is, even though planets drive a lot of social and political outcomes, planets aren’t real. One of the first cultures who tried to categorise lights in the sky according to planets was Babylon, around 650BC. They came up with five different planets according to their motions, and what they saw, plus the sun and moon. Babylonians of Semitic descent eagerly bought into this type of thinking, around the same time. Some historians have said the idea of different planets helped them resolve the contradiction between an eternal and static view of the heavens, and the fact that some of the lights in the sky move. If planets were in their own distinct category, then everyone could feel a lot better about denying planet-hood to other lights which they labelled stars, and decided were fundamentally different. But, as scientific priorities changed, definitions of planets in America adjust right along with them. For example, if you were the light Pluto in the 1930, you were considered a Planet. Then the International Astronomical Union decided Pluto was not a planet, to avoid including numerous large icy objects into the category of planets. And what it took to be a planet once varied so wildly throughout the astronomical community, from their mass, to their ability to fuse deuterium, to if it was part of a distinct population such as a belt, to the infamous alternate proposal created by Julio Ángel Fernández, that lights in the sky could actually change planetary classification just by talking to different people.
That racial categories are made up does not negate the undeniablefact that people originating from different parts of the world tend to have physical characteristics more in common with others from the same geographical region. This does not change just because some people try to manipulate definitions for nefarious purposes.
Simply put, there is no valid scientific approach to linking physical characteristics to discrete genetic factors and neatly categorizing them into unambiguous concrete groups. This does not negate the premise that race or racism exists as a social phenomenon, the issue is rather that one cannot construct an universally applicable scientific interpretation.
“Where your ancestors came from” The article author does not understand how geneticists use the word ‘race’. It’s pretty sad for our intellectual climate if a article like this gets 5,000 views on it’s first day. All categories are ‘made up’ because language is only possible through social construction. Pointing out categories are imperfect doesn’t mean race is not real unless you subscribe to the view that since language games exist then language is not real.
If races aren’t real, then nor are subspecies, species, genera, etc. Race is the result of evolution. When populations of the same species have little to no gene flow between them, the shared phenotypical traits found in different populations will begin to diverge from each other. If the populations are completely isolated from each other, then this leads to speciation. You didn’t really debunk anything here. Sure you can call race a social construct, but so is every single manmade word, term or concept. We socially construct our languages and our sciences to be able to speak about the world around us and understand it through our own lens. We invent words, concepts and categories as we see them useful. However, the various natural and biological phenomena, that causes us invent these words, are NOT social constructs, they are real occurring and observable natural phenomenon! We have made the very real observation, that when populations of people are somewhat isolated from each other, the shared phenotypical traits of each population begins to diverge away from each other, causing differences in appearance between different populations. This is a real observable phenomenon, that we observe throughout nature, not just in our own species. Thus we have seen fit to invent the word ‘race’ in order to name this phenomenon so that we may speak about it. And yes, sure the lines are blurry, they pretty much have to be since it is totally possible for people of different races to interbreed.
I have read many of the comments, and most of those stating that race does exist are saying that the science hasn’t been done properly. This article did not go into that detail, but the science has been done. There is no subset of genes that explains the physical and mental attributes that we call race. There are plenty of articles and books about this now. There are cultures, but no races (or breeds as some have crudely suggested comparing us to animals). Breeds are a man-made fabrication by selective breeding. The only selective breeding that has been done to humans is geographical barriers. Now that anyone can go anywhere easily, that is going to change things
It baffles me how, while nowadays we are focused on not labeling any of those race categories as superior or inferior to another, there is a general acceptance for the “fact” that two people of “different races” are completely and intrinsically different, like they are completely different species with their specific behaviors and ideologies.
There’s no such thing as a single gay gene, nor a single alcoholic, blue-eye, fat, freckle, introvert or schizophrenic gene either, it’s probably a combination of many genes and/or environmental conditions that lead to such physiological, neurological and psychological characteristics, but nonetheless that doesn’t mean they don’t exist in a fuzzy way, on some level, or that we can’t meaningfully discuss them, that these genes and/or environmental conditions don’t often show up together in the same person or people.
“More important, as critical race theorists we adopt a stance that PRESUMES that racism has contributed to ALL contemporary manifestations of group advantage and disadvantage along RACIAL lines, including differences in income, imprisonment,health, housing, education, political representation, and military service. Our history calls for this PRESUMPTION.” “Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment” by Matsuda, Lawrence III, Delgado, and KIMBERLE’ WILLIAMS CRENSHAW Those are their words from their intellectual papers: It is the entire foundation of the premise. CRT promotes the notion that the fact that a group is measurably superior is proof that everybody in that group is guilty; and, that a group being inferior is proof that everybody in that group is a victim. Further: this principle projects through time; asserting that what happened to the long dead projects onto the guilt or victimhood of the living; even if the living never experienced it at all……….. CRT uses history and statistics to justify using government force to implement racial discrimination. CRT obviates the need for any thought, word or act of racism as proof of their presumed verdict. All they need is their preferred race measuring less favorably than another. Regardless of the cause: they declare their favored race to be victims of the other. Then they would use real government enforced discrimination in response to their presumed discrimination; altering laws, policies and practices to favor their preferred race.
Easy fix: mute the article, read subtitles. I believe the idea the article is trying to say is not that race doesn’t exist and therefore racism doesn’t but that our emphasis over the years on race has led to racism. Like the annoying-voiced-lady said, if whites could separate themselves as different from blacks, they can justify their racist actions. Ethnicity and nationality definitely exist; a.k.a your culture, your national/regional origin, and “group” you’ve grown up with. However, it’s the fact that race is such an unstable term, more based solely on appearance and constantly changing its definition. Our race doesn’t determine how talented or gifted we’ll be, how much ability we have or how much success. Yet its the racism that says, “Hey, you look different (that race = you must solely be in one group), therefore you’re a different ‘kind of human’ and should be treated as such”, that does limit a race on how successful they can be. The idea of race encourages more confusion, stigmas, and stereotypes than a more accurate term such as ethnicity because you can’t determine anything about a person judging solely on their race.
Race as a concept is mostly American/american centric anyways. Most cultures dont distinguish race based on skin color like americans do, but instead based on country/ethnic group. I’m arab and didn’t really get the American concept of race for the longest time, arabs generally identify race mostly by country but then also by ethnic group. For example there’s “bukharis” which is an ethnic group centered in Uzbekistan and central asia, theres 2 major labels we have for black Africans (east and western africans are the two largest subcategory, “black” is a completely meaningless and useless category because theres a lot of different african ethnicities and the minimum amount of broad categories is 2 really), even the domestic terms are based on origin rather than appearance, I largely pass as beduin but I’m actually fully hathari aka immigrant
“Race is a substitute of other factors like where your ancestors came from, experiences etc” well yes that seems to be the objective. It’s shared experiences your ancestors had that’s led us to group people with similar genomes in these categories. I’m a black sub-Saharan African because my ancestors experiences and shared traits has lead to my current state of being hence my race. Just a way to track your ancestry in comparison to other groups.
When the same lineage of people have the same exact outcome wherever they live in the world. There’s two explanations. There’s an imaginary, systemic, invisible, international, institutional force that’s being mean to people just because they happen to look a certain way. Or A biological explanation.
If so called “race” could be proven there would be a lot less arguing and it would be easier for people to discuss the subject. When Americans discuss “race” they are never talking about the same exact thing. And when people in different respective countries discuss it the “race” categories, labels and characteristics vary even more.
As someone who actually works on classification problems all the time, I find this pseudoscience enraging. Race isn’t fake or arbitrary. All real-world classification problems have groups with blurry edges and outliers. Race is no different. Saying race is fake makes as much sense as saying that motorcycles and SUVs are the same thing, citing the existence of triwheelers as proof. The simple fact is that all genes evolve and spread regionally. Some of them cause visible changes in appearance, some merely correlate with them and some cross the borders, forming invisible races. While people have focused disproportionately and even created myths about genes relating to appearance and what they correlate to, the opposite that this article promotes is just as false. But, of course, no pseudoscience ever comes out without the company of some irrelevant guilt trip, such as the way the concept of race was used for shameful politics. Now, you don’t have to debate how unscientific your claims are. Now that you’ve mixed the issues, you can just claim that the scientist who’s correcting you is only doing it to defend the KKK.
You know what I find very telling? People these days are more likely to agree we are a part of the animal kingdom then to accept this part of science as well. In other words, people would rather acknowledge we are animals rather than closer related to who we perceive as a different race. That’s pretty sad…..
We are human in race. Melanin levels, dna and environment changes our skin tones and features. It’s really cultural differences that we have. If you look at every continent the darker version of that group are usually in the southern regions and lighter on the northern. I don’t know the significance of it but I just noticed this also have anyone ever noticed that you can get multiple people together from different so called “race” that have the same features and the only difference is melanin levels? I think our origins are the same we just migrated to different part of the world where we chose to be with the same looking people because even when we so called mix race we don’t create a freakin’ alien we just make another human with features similar to the persons the came from but the child’s culture is defined by how they are raised not some enact way that we “naturally” act.
In essence, very influential white people back in colonial times came up with a way to classify people in such a way that it became easier to deny them their human dignity and now we are more or less stuck with the categories because of how long they existed and how they were enforced. And we get in arguments about them. We positively identify with the same or related terms that would have been used to oppress people. Or make fun of people who didnt meet a white supremacy standard.
The races of the world were shaped by environment and life style. In modern times as races mix, racial physical distinction becomes less prominent. Its like the different breeds of dogs are now being more and more mixed and less distinct because dogs are no longer used as heavily for specific jobs. They are mostly used for pets now.
Dear Vox, I love most of your articles for their concise, and very visual explanations. They are also generally well centered, showing little if any bias. This one, however, is crap. The central point that our current concept of race is a social construct – and, as such, is made up – is completely spot on. However, the way this is presented strongly suggests that there is no real basis for that construct. That is absurd. To suggest that someone who looks Caucasian is genetically identical to someone who looks African is silly. Are we to understand that skin pigmentation is brought on by nurture? That if I will myself to be Asian I will develop a flatter nose?? Race may not – rather, should not – matter when it comes to how we manage society. That doesn’t mean we should just pretend it isn’t real.
Just because something is “made up” does not make it not “real”. Of COURSE the concept of “race” is made up. So what? First, the word “race”, by definition, is ANY systematic categorization of a collection of items. That categorization is based on made up factors. That does not make it “not real”. And the idea that it does is a cop out, that allows the author and those who espouse such nonsense as the claim that “there is only one race, the human race” to hand wave away real racial disparities and trivialize serious issues of injustice in this country and elsewhere based on the people’s perception of race. And that perception is not going anywhere. Because like it or not, people look different, and can be categorized in many ways, and people inherently group people into in groups and out groups based on many criteria, including physical appearance! Claiming this is not so does not magically make it not so!
I wouldn’t go so far as to say race isn’t real. There are real physical characteristics that distinguish the average black person, asian, and white person from each other. Those physical characteristics are grouped together as someone’s race. Of course there isn’t a gene in everyone’s DNA that specifically denotes you as one of 15 or so races, don’t be foolish. But there are easily identifiable physical cues for many people to determine what race they are. That being said, as time goes on and society becomes more integrated, race will become more and more vague and insufficient as a metric to distinguish people from one another. I myself am half-white half-asian, and I shouldn’t have to identify as solely one or the other. I envision a society one day in which there is no black or white, there is simply the human race.
“Race is used for other factors such as where your ancestors came from.” Is that not what race is? The genetic lineage of where you’re from? Also follows up with “experiences of people in the same racial group as you,” so there is no race its just that people the same race as you. That doesn’t make sense?
Not one characteristic, trait, or gene distinguishes all members of one so-called race from all members of another so-called race. Unlike many animals, modern humans have not been around long enough, nor have populations been isolated enough, to evolve into separate subspecies or races. Despite surface differences, we are among the most similar of all species. Of the small amount of total human genetic variation, 85% exists within any local population, be they Italians, Kurds, Koreans, or Cherokees. Two random Koreans are likely to be as genetically different as a Korean and an Italian – PBS. An anthropologist who proposed using race as a serious way of describing human variability would be laughed out of the profession—not for reasons of political correctness, but because the idea displays a manifest ignorance of biology – Dr. Shea.
The biological definition of species is difficult to define, problematic, and causes many issues regarding the classification of organisms. So I guess it is also ‘not real’ and is a social construct, so we should not differentiate between humans and dogs as two different categories. This would be speciesism.
Race is a social construct and here are some central points: The human genome lacks diversity with respect to other species of animal (assumedly due to some near-extinction event early in human history that limited breeding populations) The variation of traits between individual human beings is large compared to the variation of traits between theoretical racial groups, meaning that statistically there is no evidence that ‘race’ is not a useful or verifiable biological concept Haplogroups exist in the human species, reflecting lineages that were geologically isolated and thus historically incapable of interbreeding, but these group differences account for a very small proportion of the human genome, and are only maintained in the modern world by social and cultural restrictions The concept of race itself is largely a function of the Colonial era, when technological innovations in arms and transportation allowed Europeans to expand rapidly outward and subjugate large regions of the world, encountering and exploiting a wide range of new peoples.
Racial categories like “black”, “white”,”latino” and “asian” are social constructs. Race is almost exclusively used and misused as a made up and rather loosely fitting term of physical appearance and culture. In that setting is not an myth. In biological taxonomy, race would be under subspecies (which humans dont have) but the consept of race was never formalized there. The problem with the race thing is that you’re setting a difference at an arbitrary point. There really isn’t any objective point at which you can differentiate between races in any sensible way genetically speaking, even less so after centuries and millenniums of interbreeding and migrations of said races. We decided on skin tone and culture for our nonsensical racial classification of humans, ignoring or not knowing that there was more genetic variation among people of the same racial group than between racial groups. We could have chosen something else and ended up with different races, and it would be just as genetically and bilogically (un)valid.
Race was just a justification of superiority or genocide i don’t think so I think race and ethnicity’s are based on actual anthropology, and genetics to say one human is better than the other is just actions stereotyping that we put on animals and ourselves one species may be smarter than the other does not mean that they are better for instants in physical or other energetically attributes
Of course the first person you mention is German scientist That goes with the narrative However truth be told the term “race” is somewhat redundant because humans for millnennia have been noticing there’s differences between some people groups This goes back thousands of years, not since 1776 This type of gas lighting is dangerous I hope whoever did this article takes a long look at themselves and ask “Am I being truthful”
I don’t understand why in dogs have breeds and those breeds are so foreign looking from each other you could almost consider it a different race, but for us humans its just pretty much a color swap, and then racial traits but we’re all considered separate races. I mean I thought we were the Human Race, I don’t get the logic down here.
Asserting that there is no genetic basis for “race”—or whatever term(s) you want to use to describe differences amongst groups—is not only wrong, it’s actually medically dangerous. Reducing genetic differences to skin color, as most tend to do, denies ppl of valuable information. Genetic predispositions that tend to occur in certain groups are clinically significant, & physicians need to be aware of them in order to provide the best care possible. For instance, Asian women—whether in America, China or elsewhere—are at increased risk of developing gDM compared to women from other groups, even when the basics are controlled for (weight, age, income, parity, etc.). An OBGYN who is denied this information cannot possibly provide the best care possible to patients.
I think its problematic to just say race doesn’t exist, it could give ppl a reason to dismiss things people deal with because of your race, and it can justify people crossing boundaries that the shouldn’t, like being transracial and such. Race exists, is a noun, its a thing, and idk about every other category, but I’ve noticed im “black” everywhere i been. We should focus more on not treating each other poorly because of race, instead looking for a reason to abolish it
The race is a group of people with similar, identifiable anatomical traits. It has been built since the 18th century with anatomical features. The term is also often used to refer to a biological species. Refers to recessions with genetically different origins from the 19th century. The ethnic diversity of Asian peoples In the 18th century, anthropologists classified the human race into four categories. Yellow-skinned people were classified as Mongoloids, white-skinned people as Caucasoids, and black-skinned Negroes and Asteroids. In the 19th century, all the monsters were genetically identified as being of the same species. So there is currently no tendency to classify the human race. People of an ethnic group have a common language, tradition, culture and religion.
People who disagree – You need to learn the concept of Ecotypes. Races is very well a social construct. In brief, people living in different situations evolved differently throughout history. That does not mean they are different from each other, but just that the environment they evolved in made them different, as compared to some one else who might’ve evolved in a different environment and conditions. For example- An average person living in a certain African nation, compared to an average person living in US, partake in way more physical activities making an average African more healthy compared to an American, such as have more tensile/muscle strength etc. Now this better health results in better immune system and hence better chances of fighting diseases etc. as compared to an American. Now you can correlate these ecotypical evolution to race, but as we know, Correlation is not causation, Race seems to be a social construct. So before you all open your mouths, please be more informed.
As the world’s ideologies and borders change over time, so do our criteria for identifying races. At one point, people living in Italy weren’t considered to be truly “white”. The reality is that racial identity is nothing more than a sentiment of belonging to a certain group of people. Our ancestors are the one’s who give us our genes, and they are not shared with your fellow citizens unless you are actually related to them.
It’s really interesting to see political priorities change and definitions of race in America adjust accordingly. It is a scientific fact that certain genetic characteristics are preferred by location, and race evolves according to those characteristics, and society also judges and determines race accordingly. For example, there are a lot of mixed-race people these days, and I think it’s important how we classify them by race. Usually, mixed-race people don’t even think about their race and identity properly. They don’t think they can belong to any category, according to the article.
Our race is simply our largest extended family. One is always more related to those in their race than those outside of their race. These are undeniable facts. It does not matter that therr is no clean line between human groups. We define other things in this way. For example, the line between dwarf planet and planet could theoretically be set anywhere. But we choose a line that is useful to us as there are meaningful distinctions between the two.
This article honestly seems like a session of bashing White people. The idea of ‘Race’ and ‘Nationality’ has been around since forever. In Ancient Egypt, drawings often showcase people of different skin colors. Race is a social construct, yes, but that’s not an argument for it not existing. The only real argument I have found for race being a pseudoscience, is that all Humans have a common ancestor, and since Race is commonly based on ancestry, all Humans are a single race.
People in the comments are either misunderstanding that race being a social construct does not mean it isn’t real or purposefully putting up strawmen. Race is real but its basis in genetics is weak at best if not inexistent and we only view it socially. Socially it has an impact because it holds people back sometimes. That’s why it matters.
I feel like what they are trying to say is that it is not about skin color, or eye shape, hair pattern etc that makes us Black, Mexican, White, Asian, etc because the common characteristics in people of those groups mentioned are not a product of them already being such race…but of those genes that were passed down to them through their ancestors of who adapted uniquely to each environment. I don’t think they are denying that there are differences in people, because indeed there are, but they are basically saying, how can we say if someone is black based on the color of their skin or the size of their lips when we can find dark skin and thicker lips on individuals we would not classify as black. I think they are just trying to take off such a heavy generalization on humanity as a whole…I am black and white per say, but I don’t have brown eyes because I am black, or curly hair instead of kinky hair because I am white but because of the way my genes combined. I mean…how then do we explain that my brother is darker than me? Is he more black? No. His genes just combined in a way that produced more melanocytes. Idk. I hope a made some sense.
The whole racial superiority thing boils down to who’s making the most stuff or tech advance. If you believe that only your race can go to the moon, you’ll insist you’re special somewhat. Anybody with a brain and the “interest” can do those things. For instance, Innoson vehicles in Nigeria and him lacking support because of the part of Nigeria he’s from. Tribalism/racism is the issue with humans, not capacity differences.
Race is real… Anyone can see that. It takes about 1 second to discern if someone is white/Asian/black. I have found only nefarious individuals hate the term “race” because of their own insecurities. God created different races for a reason and we should respect that… NOT try to pretend we are all the same. True diversity means accepting our differences and celebrating them..NOT forcing everyone into an imaginary category the is devoid of any variation.
Wide ethnic, cultural, and historical differences plainly exist. Otherwise there would never be so much dispute, and discussion over the topic! To flatly deny that such differences exist, and have existed for millenia, is to claim the sky is not blue, or that gravity does not exist. If we truly want to solve issues, and disputes, it might be advisable to face the historical facts.
Although she did say that the definition of race keeps changing, she didn’t disprove its existence. The assumption throughout this is some white/non-white paradigm, when race is really just particular characteristics that unite particular group of people. Various nationalities and ethnic groups in the past have been called races, as have religions and social classes and castes. In a modern context we like to push race and those differences far more, which is dangerous!
She confuses the two meanings of the word ‘race’ – denotation and connotation. Race is a biological objective reality (denotation); however it is a charged word re racism, discrimination, etc (connotation). People confuse nationality, race and identity. Obama is of mixed race, viz, half-African and half-Caucasian. His nationality is USA. His identity is black (African) for personal and political reasons.
I think respectfully that there hasn’t been a debunking, but rather an introspection on why USA says that they’ve multiple races. What then, what would be the proper term for it? ‘Ancestry’? The article itself says it: they use the term ‘race’ for medical purposes for background’s knowledge; so it is needed in what differences we have, cause physically we aren’t the same because of weather and nutrition factors, and it’s okay; it shouldn’t have an ideological division amid, cause psychologically we are capable of experimenting the same on the regular basis. I’m asking with truly respect, and wanting to know a certain answer to not only be confused but to comprehend and help this ideological gap the term race has made through all this years.
Well Race isn’t a Myth so it can’t be debunked. Race literally means Lineage or Nationality & it always has until modern times. Then the European started teaching & using it as if it had a different content Mainly for things like Evolution which is itself a Race Theory, They just edit the title today so your not aware of the Darwin-Galton Family.
I would like to point out that although her statement “no race chromosome” may be true at such a large and gross generalization of genetics (because there is not an ENTIRE chromosome dedicated to certain races), genes most certainly do influence one’s phenotype in the respect of race – both at the genetic and epigenetic level. For example, individuals of Germanic, and Scandinavian (to name a few) descent will generally have blue eyes or carry the recessive traits for blue eyes. This is because as humans migrated north, their need to absorb more sunlight and thus vitamins increased with less and less hours of sunlight and less and less intensity of sunlight per day. This is also one reason white skin developed. Additionally, among countless examples of these sorts of findings, is the flared nostrils characteristic African people. Similar to how alligators gape to release heat in hot weather, the nostrils of Africans would serve to gape heat away in their hot environment (the opposite is true for the various races of white people – the more closed nostrils worked to conserve heat in cold northern conditions). And there are plenty more arguments that can be made to relate one’s race and origins to definitive genetic and epigenetic sources. So just don’t take everything on the internet for truth — even this comment. Go and spend 10 minutes researching what I have said to personally verify it, by multiple sources. Although “race” may be a medium of categorization, that does not mean someone can identify as a race they are not.