Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Hispanic/Latino is NOT a race.

briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 6:13:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I never really understood why Americans, even Hispanic-Americans, believe that everyone who is born in or has heritage from a Spanish or Portuguese speaking country is the same 'race' of people when this is clearly NOT the case. First of all, I already think the concept of race in itself is flawed, and nothing more than a man-made social construct, but that's beside the point. Assuming race does exist, the terms Hispanic, Latino and Latin-American do not fit the criteria to be considered a racial or ethnic demographic.

Latin Americans are descended from people all over the world including Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. Most early inhabitants of Latin America and their descendants are Indigenous American, European, African or some mixture of the three. Even the terms Hispanic and Latino are completely different and refer to different things, despite being used interchangeably yet most Americans do not seem to know the difference and think all Latin Americans look, and act like Mexicans, who are mostly mestizo (admixture of Spanish and Native American) and have their own distinct culture in comparison to other Latin American nations.

I am honestly annoyed and tired of explaining this to ignorant non-Latinos who assume all Latinos are the same race, and Latino-Americans who are ignorant of their own culture, heritage and ancestry. What do you guys think? Any thoughts?
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 9:39:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Most of the relevant research on the field uses terms like ethnicity, ethnic/racial, Or ethnocultural when discussing Hispanics. For example, as my research is on Hispanics and other minority groups, I use ethnic/racial.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 4:37:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 9:39:40 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Most of the relevant research on the field uses terms like ethnicity, ethnic/racial, Or ethnocultural when discussing Hispanics. For example, as my research is on Hispanics and other minority groups, I use ethnic/racial.

But even terms like "ethnicity" is inaccurate when discussing Latin Americans as a whole. The only thing Latinos have in common is the fact that they come from a Spanish, Portuguese, or French speaking country in Latin America. They do not all have the same ethnic background, or culture. Even the Spanish spoken in various Spanish-speaking nations are not the same. So I feel like grouping all Latinos into one group and saying it's a separate race is really misguided.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 4:52:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 4:37:33 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/13/2015 9:39:40 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Most of the relevant research on the field uses terms like ethnicity, ethnic/racial, Or ethnocultural when discussing Hispanics. For example, as my research is on Hispanics and other minority groups, I use ethnic/racial.

But even terms like "ethnicity" is inaccurate when discussing Latin Americans as a whole. The only thing Latinos have in common is the fact that they come from a Spanish, Portuguese, or French speaking country in Latin America. They do not all have the same ethnic background, or culture. Even the Spanish spoken in various Spanish-speaking nations are not the same. So I feel like grouping all Latinos into one group and saying it's a separate race is really misguided.

You are correct in that it is inaccurate to categorize all Latinos/Hispanics under one label. The same could be said for Whites, Blacks, Asians, and every other prominent demographic category, and depending on the research, the delineating line can be narrowed to various degrees. When I say terms like ethnic/racial and ethnocultural are being used when discussing Hispanics/Latinos, I am affirming that, in the literature, it is recognized that they are not a racial group as classically defined.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 5:09:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 4:52:04 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 3/13/2015 4:37:33 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/13/2015 9:39:40 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Most of the relevant research on the field uses terms like ethnicity, ethnic/racial, Or ethnocultural when discussing Hispanics. For example, as my research is on Hispanics and other minority groups, I use ethnic/racial.

But even terms like "ethnicity" is inaccurate when discussing Latin Americans as a whole. The only thing Latinos have in common is the fact that they come from a Spanish, Portuguese, or French speaking country in Latin America. They do not all have the same ethnic background, or culture. Even the Spanish spoken in various Spanish-speaking nations are not the same. So I feel like grouping all Latinos into one group and saying it's a separate race is really misguided.

You are correct in that it is inaccurate to categorize all Latinos/Hispanics under one label. The same could be said for Whites, Blacks, Asians, and every other prominent demographic category, and depending on the research, the delineating line can be narrowed to various degrees. When I say terms like ethnic/racial and ethnocultural are being used when discussing Hispanics/Latinos, I am affirming that, in the literature, it is recognized that they are not a racial group as classically defined.

Yes that is true, but are you basically implying that the concept of race is flawed in itself? If all ethnic groups in the world can be narrowed down so far to the point where they are indistinguishable, and those who once were considered one race can somewhere down the line be separated from everyone else of that race, then the arbitrary line isn't really there to begin with and race doesn't really exist. It's merely a man-made social construct.

However, Latinos can be literally any ethnic group and usually, depending on the country we reside in or come from, that ethnic composition varies greatly. For example, the majority of Mexicans are Indigenous American, Spanish, or a mixture of Spanish and various indigenous American peoples, while the majority of Dominicans are of African ancestry, Spanish ancestry, or a mixture of African and Spanish. It seems the only thing the two countries have in common is the Spanish influence, and not really much else, and Spaniards are white Europeans. So I don't really see how they be considered the same race of people.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 5:09:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 6:13:14 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
I never really understood why Americans, even Hispanic-Americans, believe that everyone who is born in or has heritage from a Spanish or Portuguese speaking country is the same 'race' of people when this is clearly NOT the case. First of all, I already think the concept of race in itself is flawed, and nothing more than a man-made social construct, but that's beside the point. Assuming race does exist, the terms Hispanic, Latino and Latin-American do not fit the criteria to be considered a racial or ethnic demographic.

Latin Americans are descended from people all over the world including Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. Most early inhabitants of Latin America and their descendants are Indigenous American, European, African or some mixture of the three. Even the terms Hispanic and Latino are completely different and refer to different things, despite being used interchangeably yet most Americans do not seem to know the difference and think all Latin Americans look, and act like Mexicans, who are mostly mestizo (admixture of Spanish and Native American) and have their own distinct culture in comparison to other Latin American nations.

I am honestly annoyed and tired of explaining this to ignorant non-Latinos who assume all Latinos are the same race, and Latino-Americans who are ignorant of their own culture, heritage and ancestry. What do you guys think? Any thoughts?

Question: How many races do you think there are? List them.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 5:35:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 5:09:54 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 3/13/2015 6:13:14 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
I never really understood why Americans, even Hispanic-Americans, believe that everyone who is born in or has heritage from a Spanish or Portuguese speaking country is the same 'race' of people when this is clearly NOT the case. First of all, I already think the concept of race in itself is flawed, and nothing more than a man-made social construct, but that's beside the point. Assuming race does exist, the terms Hispanic, Latino and Latin-American do not fit the criteria to be considered a racial or ethnic demographic.

Latin Americans are descended from people all over the world including Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. Most early inhabitants of Latin America and their descendants are Indigenous American, European, African or some mixture of the three. Even the terms Hispanic and Latino are completely different and refer to different things, despite being used interchangeably yet most Americans do not seem to know the difference and think all Latin Americans look, and act like Mexicans, who are mostly mestizo (admixture of Spanish and Native American) and have their own distinct culture in comparison to other Latin American nations.

I am honestly annoyed and tired of explaining this to ignorant non-Latinos who assume all Latinos are the same race, and Latino-Americans who are ignorant of their own culture, heritage and ancestry. What do you guys think? Any thoughts?

Question: How many races do you think there are? List them.

I don't believe race actually exists to begin with considering it's socially constructed. But according to how most people view race, the most narrow classification would probably be your standard Caucasian, Black, Mongol, and possibly Native American (who may or may not be considered Mongol in some parts of the world) and maybe Australian Aboriginal (who may or may not be considered black in some parts of the world), then you have Pacific Islanders (who may or may not be considered Mongol in some parts of the world) and sometimes, Middle Easterners and South Asians are considered Caucasian or their own separate groups. Regardless, Latinos can be and are descended from any of these groups. Although I must say, the fact that there are so many different interpretations as to what races actually exist is why the concept itself is nothing more than a social construct.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 5:38:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 5:35:23 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/13/2015 5:09:54 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 3/13/2015 6:13:14 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
I never really understood why Americans, even Hispanic-Americans, believe that everyone who is born in or has heritage from a Spanish or Portuguese speaking country is the same 'race' of people when this is clearly NOT the case. First of all, I already think the concept of race in itself is flawed, and nothing more than a man-made social construct, but that's beside the point. Assuming race does exist, the terms Hispanic, Latino and Latin-American do not fit the criteria to be considered a racial or ethnic demographic.

Latin Americans are descended from people all over the world including Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. Most early inhabitants of Latin America and their descendants are Indigenous American, European, African or some mixture of the three. Even the terms Hispanic and Latino are completely different and refer to different things, despite being used interchangeably yet most Americans do not seem to know the difference and think all Latin Americans look, and act like Mexicans, who are mostly mestizo (admixture of Spanish and Native American) and have their own distinct culture in comparison to other Latin American nations.

I am honestly annoyed and tired of explaining this to ignorant non-Latinos who assume all Latinos are the same race, and Latino-Americans who are ignorant of their own culture, heritage and ancestry. What do you guys think? Any thoughts?

Question: How many races do you think there are? List them.

I don't believe race actually exists to begin with considering it's socially constructed. But according to how most people view race, the most narrow classification would probably be your standard Caucasian, Black, Mongol, and possibly Native American (who may or may not be considered Mongol in some parts of the world) and maybe Australian Aboriginal (who may or may not be considered black in some parts of the world), then you have Pacific Islanders (who may or may not be considered Mongol in some parts of the world) and sometimes, Middle Easterners and South Asians are considered Caucasian or their own separate groups. Regardless, Latinos can be and are descended from any of these groups. Although I must say, the fact that there are so many different interpretations as to what races actually exist is why the concept itself is nothing more than a social construct.

Good response. I feel as though this source shows the over-simplification of 3 races: http://www.boneclones.com...
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 5:48:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 5:09:04 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/13/2015 4:52:04 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 3/13/2015 4:37:33 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/13/2015 9:39:40 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Most of the relevant research on the field uses terms like ethnicity, ethnic/racial, Or ethnocultural when discussing Hispanics. For example, as my research is on Hispanics and other minority groups, I use ethnic/racial.

But even terms like "ethnicity" is inaccurate when discussing Latin Americans as a whole. The only thing Latinos have in common is the fact that they come from a Spanish, Portuguese, or French speaking country in Latin America. They do not all have the same ethnic background, or culture. Even the Spanish spoken in various Spanish-speaking nations are not the same. So I feel like grouping all Latinos into one group and saying it's a separate race is really misguided.

You are correct in that it is inaccurate to categorize all Latinos/Hispanics under one label. The same could be said for Whites, Blacks, Asians, and every other prominent demographic category, and depending on the research, the delineating line can be narrowed to various degrees. When I say terms like ethnic/racial and ethnocultural are being used when discussing Hispanics/Latinos, I am affirming that, in the literature, it is recognized that they are not a racial group as classically defined.

Yes that is true, but are you basically implying that the concept of race is flawed in itself? If all ethnic groups in the world can be narrowed down so far to the point where they are indistinguishable, and those who once were considered one race can somewhere down the line be separated from everyone else of that race, then the arbitrary line isn't really there to begin with and race doesn't really exist. It's merely a man-made social construct.

Yes, I agree.

However, Latinos can be literally any ethnic group and usually, depending on the country we reside in or come from, that ethnic composition varies greatly. For example, the majority of Mexicans are Indigenous American, Spanish, or a mixture of Spanish and various indigenous American peoples, while the majority of Dominicans are of African ancestry, Spanish ancestry, or a mixture of African and Spanish. It seems the only thing the two countries have in common is the Spanish influence, and not really much else, and Spaniards are white Europeans. So I don't really see how they be considered the same race of people.

I agree.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 6:00:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 5:35:23 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/13/2015 5:09:54 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 3/13/2015 6:13:14 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
I never really understood why Americans, even Hispanic-Americans, believe that everyone who is born in or has heritage from a Spanish or Portuguese speaking country is the same 'race' of people when this is clearly NOT the case. First of all, I already think the concept of race in itself is flawed, and nothing more than a man-made social construct, but that's beside the point. Assuming race does exist, the terms Hispanic, Latino and Latin-American do not fit the criteria to be considered a racial or ethnic demographic.

Latin Americans are descended from people all over the world including Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. Most early inhabitants of Latin America and their descendants are Indigenous American, European, African or some mixture of the three. Even the terms Hispanic and Latino are completely different and refer to different things, despite being used interchangeably yet most Americans do not seem to know the difference and think all Latin Americans look, and act like Mexicans, who are mostly mestizo (admixture of Spanish and Native American) and have their own distinct culture in comparison to other Latin American nations.

I am honestly annoyed and tired of explaining this to ignorant non-Latinos who assume all Latinos are the same race, and Latino-Americans who are ignorant of their own culture, heritage and ancestry. What do you guys think? Any thoughts?

Question: How many races do you think there are? List them.

I don't believe race actually exists to begin with considering it's socially constructed. But according to how most people view race, the most narrow classification would probably be your standard Caucasian, Black, Mongol, and possibly Native American (who may or may not be considered Mongol in some parts of the world) and maybe Australian Aboriginal (who may or may not be considered black in some parts of the world), then you have Pacific Islanders (who may or may not be considered Mongol in some parts of the world) and sometimes, Middle Easterners and South Asians are considered Caucasian or their own separate groups. Regardless, Latinos can be and are descended from any of these groups. Although I must say, the fact that there are so many different interpretations as to what races actually exist is why the concept itself is nothing more than a social construct.

Well, yes, it's a social construct. So are a lot of things. Like species, nations, religions, ideologies. That doesn't make it not real, it just makes it inexact, as all generalizations will, necessarily, be less complex then the reality which they are used to classify.

I actually did a pretty long post on Hispanic culture and its contrast with North American culture which sums up my views on this topic:

http://www.debate.org...
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 6:10:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 5:38:24 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 3/13/2015 5:35:23 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/13/2015 5:09:54 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 3/13/2015 6:13:14 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
I never really understood why Americans, even Hispanic-Americans, believe that everyone who is born in or has heritage from a Spanish or Portuguese speaking country is the same 'race' of people when this is clearly NOT the case. First of all, I already think the concept of race in itself is flawed, and nothing more than a man-made social construct, but that's beside the point. Assuming race does exist, the terms Hispanic, Latino and Latin-American do not fit the criteria to be considered a racial or ethnic demographic.

Latin Americans are descended from people all over the world including Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. Most early inhabitants of Latin America and their descendants are Indigenous American, European, African or some mixture of the three. Even the terms Hispanic and Latino are completely different and refer to different things, despite being used interchangeably yet most Americans do not seem to know the difference and think all Latin Americans look, and act like Mexicans, who are mostly mestizo (admixture of Spanish and Native American) and have their own distinct culture in comparison to other Latin American nations.

I am honestly annoyed and tired of explaining this to ignorant non-Latinos who assume all Latinos are the same race, and Latino-Americans who are ignorant of their own culture, heritage and ancestry. What do you guys think? Any thoughts?

Question: How many races do you think there are? List them.

I don't believe race actually exists to begin with considering it's socially constructed. But according to how most people view race, the most narrow classification would probably be your standard Caucasian, Black, Mongol, and possibly Native American (who may or may not be considered Mongol in some parts of the world) and maybe Australian Aboriginal (who may or may not be considered black in some parts of the world), then you have Pacific Islanders (who may or may not be considered Mongol in some parts of the world) and sometimes, Middle Easterners and South Asians are considered Caucasian or their own separate groups. Regardless, Latinos can be and are descended from any of these groups. Although I must say, the fact that there are so many different interpretations as to what races actually exist is why the concept itself is nothing more than a social construct.

Good response. I feel as though this source shows the over-simplification of 3 races: http://www.boneclones.com...

Exactly. All of those skulls look virtually similar, with minor differences that would can actually be found within the so called 'races' themselves. If you take two Asian skulls and compared them, you will always find a difference just as you would two African skulls or two European skulls. It really comes down to individual characteristics, and one skull does not represent millions of people as a whole.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 6:21:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 6:00:37 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/13/2015 5:35:23 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/13/2015 5:09:54 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 3/13/2015 6:13:14 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
I never really understood why Americans, even Hispanic-Americans, believe that everyone who is born in or has heritage from a Spanish or Portuguese speaking country is the same 'race' of people when this is clearly NOT the case. First of all, I already think the concept of race in itself is flawed, and nothing more than a man-made social construct, but that's beside the point. Assuming race does exist, the terms Hispanic, Latino and Latin-American do not fit the criteria to be considered a racial or ethnic demographic.

Latin Americans are descended from people all over the world including Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. Most early inhabitants of Latin America and their descendants are Indigenous American, European, African or some mixture of the three. Even the terms Hispanic and Latino are completely different and refer to different things, despite being used interchangeably yet most Americans do not seem to know the difference and think all Latin Americans look, and act like Mexicans, who are mostly mestizo (admixture of Spanish and Native American) and have their own distinct culture in comparison to other Latin American nations.

I am honestly annoyed and tired of explaining this to ignorant non-Latinos who assume all Latinos are the same race, and Latino-Americans who are ignorant of their own culture, heritage and ancestry. What do you guys think? Any thoughts?

Question: How many races do you think there are? List them.

I don't believe race actually exists to begin with considering it's socially constructed. But according to how most people view race, the most narrow classification would probably be your standard Caucasian, Black, Mongol, and possibly Native American (who may or may not be considered Mongol in some parts of the world) and maybe Australian Aboriginal (who may or may not be considered black in some parts of the world), then you have Pacific Islanders (who may or may not be considered Mongol in some parts of the world) and sometimes, Middle Easterners and South Asians are considered Caucasian or their own separate groups. Regardless, Latinos can be and are descended from any of these groups. Although I must say, the fact that there are so many different interpretations as to what races actually exist is why the concept itself is nothing more than a social construct.

Well, yes, it's a social construct. So are a lot of things. Like species, nations, religions, ideologies. That doesn't make it not real, it just makes it inexact, as all generalizations will, necessarily, be less complex then the reality which they are used to classify.

I mean the concept of race doesn't exist on a biological level. All human beings come from the same species. The way we divide each other based on 'race' is nothing more than man-made fabrication, because the physical differences between us are merely caused by adaptations to our environment over thousands of years, a result of natural selection to help our ancestors better survive in the places they lived, but they are all still homo sapiens sapiens, or modern humans. Species actually aren't social constructs, as they can be observed and measured biologically, and they never change according to our perception of them. The only thing that changes a species is evolution, not a government form or census document.

I actually did a pretty long post on Hispanic culture and its contrast with North American culture which sums up my views on this topic:

http://www.debate.org...

Interesting post. But I must point out that, while there are differences between North American and Latin American cultures, there are also differences between Latin American cultures themselves. Puerto Rican culture is not Mexican culture and so on. Different histories, different influences, different impacts.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 6:34:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 6:21:13 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/13/2015 6:00:37 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/13/2015 5:35:23 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/13/2015 5:09:54 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 3/13/2015 6:13:14 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
I never really understood why Americans, even Hispanic-Americans, believe that everyone who is born in or has heritage from a Spanish or Portuguese speaking country is the same 'race' of people when this is clearly NOT the case. First of all, I already think the concept of race in itself is flawed, and nothing more than a man-made social construct, but that's beside the point. Assuming race does exist, the terms Hispanic, Latino and Latin-American do not fit the criteria to be considered a racial or ethnic demographic.

Latin Americans are descended from people all over the world including Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. Most early inhabitants of Latin America and their descendants are Indigenous American, European, African or some mixture of the three. Even the terms Hispanic and Latino are completely different and refer to different things, despite being used interchangeably yet most Americans do not seem to know the difference and think all Latin Americans look, and act like Mexicans, who are mostly mestizo (admixture of Spanish and Native American) and have their own distinct culture in comparison to other Latin American nations.

I am honestly annoyed and tired of explaining this to ignorant non-Latinos who assume all Latinos are the same race, and Latino-Americans who are ignorant of their own culture, heritage and ancestry. What do you guys think? Any thoughts?

Question: How many races do you think there are? List them.

I don't believe race actually exists to begin with considering it's socially constructed. But according to how most people view race, the most narrow classification would probably be your standard Caucasian, Black, Mongol, and possibly Native American (who may or may not be considered Mongol in some parts of the world) and maybe Australian Aboriginal (who may or may not be considered black in some parts of the world), then you have Pacific Islanders (who may or may not be considered Mongol in some parts of the world) and sometimes, Middle Easterners and South Asians are considered Caucasian or their own separate groups. Regardless, Latinos can be and are descended from any of these groups. Although I must say, the fact that there are so many different interpretations as to what races actually exist is why the concept itself is nothing more than a social construct.

Well, yes, it's a social construct. So are a lot of things. Like species, nations, religions, ideologies. That doesn't make it not real, it just makes it inexact, as all generalizations will, necessarily, be less complex then the reality which they are used to classify.

I mean the concept of race doesn't exist on a biological level. All human beings come from the same species.

Eh, that doesn't mean much either way. Everything is individualized on the biological level, but at the same time we can see distinct genetic grouping. This is how nature always works. And saying that we're all the same species means very little, just that we can all breed with one another (most of the times it doesn't even mean that. It means that some dusty old man moved a branch on an phylogenetic tree and argued about it for six years).

The way we divide each other based on 'race' is nothing more than man-made fabrication, because the physical differences between us are merely caused by adaptations to our environment over thousands of years, a result of natural selection to help our ancestors better survive in the places they lived, but they are all still homo sapiens sapiens, or modern humans.

You're putting way too much stock in general taxonomy and not enough in genetics. Race does exist, it can be modeled very reliably genetically. Is it exact? No, nothing is when you're looking at biological classification. But it's definitely there. You can almost look at races as subspecies, or the beginnings of then, which is pretty much what you're describing here.

Species actually aren't social constructs, as they can be observed and measured biologically, and they never change according to our perception of them. The only thing that changes a species is evolution, not a government form or census document.

... Nope. I have a BS in biology, and I specialized in ferns for a bit. Species are much more complicated than that, when you look at hybridization, polyploidy, subspecies, chimerae, and other phenomenon which severely blur those lines which we think are so distinct. Ferns destroyed any faith that I possessed in the unshakeable soundness of classification and taxonomy. Pretty much all taxonomists acknowledge this as well; species are never really held up as any sort of absolute.

I'm not saying that we can say that race X is Y, just that there are genetic pools of shared traits (susceptibility to sickle cell anemia or sunburn, higher instances of resistance towards the black death, and the more obvious physical characteristics). Those differences do exist in a real way.

I actually did a pretty long post on Hispanic culture and its contrast with North American culture which sums up my views on this topic:

http://www.debate.org...

Interesting post. But I must point out that, while there are differences between North American and Latin American cultures, there are also differences between Latin American cultures themselves. Puerto Rican culture is not Mexican culture and so on. Different histories, different influences, different impacts.

Yes, I agree. But they are all bound together by the legacy of Spanish imperialism, especially a strong Catholic cultural influence. That diversity united under one roof is actually a distinctly Iberian historical motif.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Bennett91
Posts: 4,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 6:45:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 6:13:14 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
I never really understood why Americans, even Hispanic-Americans, believe that everyone who is born in or has heritage from a Spanish or Portuguese speaking country is the same 'race' of people when this is clearly NOT the case. First of all, I already think the concept of race in itself is flawed, and nothing more than a man-made social construct, but that's beside the point. Assuming race does exist, the terms Hispanic, Latino and Latin-American do not fit the criteria to be considered a racial or ethnic demographic.

Latin Americans are descended from people all over the world including Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. Most early inhabitants of Latin America and their descendants are Indigenous American, European, African or some mixture of the three. Even the terms Hispanic and Latino are completely different and refer to different things, despite being used interchangeably yet most Americans do not seem to know the difference and think all Latin Americans look, and act like Mexicans, who are mostly mestizo (admixture of Spanish and Native American) and have their own distinct culture in comparison to other Latin American nations.

I am honestly annoyed and tired of explaining this to ignorant non-Latinos who assume all Latinos are the same race, and Latino-Americans who are ignorant of their own culture, heritage and ancestry. What do you guys think? Any thoughts?

The foundings of race are already on shaky grounds, so it's to be expected you'll find logical inconsistencies in it's application. The same convoluted logic is applied to the other races as well.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 7:34:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 6:34:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/13/2015 6:21:13 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/13/2015 6:00:37 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/13/2015 5:35:23 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/13/2015 5:09:54 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 3/13/2015 6:13:14 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
I never really understood why Americans, even Hispanic-Americans, believe that everyone who is born in or has heritage from a Spanish or Portuguese speaking country is the same 'race' of people when this is clearly NOT the case. First of all, I already think the concept of race in itself is flawed, and nothing more than a man-made social construct, but that's beside the point. Assuming race does exist, the terms Hispanic, Latino and Latin-American do not fit the criteria to be considered a racial or ethnic demographic.

Latin Americans are descended from people all over the world including Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. Most early inhabitants of Latin America and their descendants are Indigenous American, European, African or some mixture of the three. Even the terms Hispanic and Latino are completely different and refer to different things, despite being used interchangeably yet most Americans do not seem to know the difference and think all Latin Americans look, and act like Mexicans, who are mostly mestizo (admixture of Spanish and Native American) and have their own distinct culture in comparison to other Latin American nations.

I am honestly annoyed and tired of explaining this to ignorant non-Latinos who assume all Latinos are the same race, and Latino-Americans who are ignorant of their own culture, heritage and ancestry. What do you guys think? Any thoughts?

Question: How many races do you think there are? List them.

I don't believe race actually exists to begin with considering it's socially constructed. But according to how most people view race, the most narrow classification would probably be your standard Caucasian, Black, Mongol, and possibly Native American (who may or may not be considered Mongol in some parts of the world) and maybe Australian Aboriginal (who may or may not be considered black in some parts of the world), then you have Pacific Islanders (who may or may not be considered Mongol in some parts of the world) and sometimes, Middle Easterners and South Asians are considered Caucasian or their own separate groups. Regardless, Latinos can be and are descended from any of these groups. Although I must say, the fact that there are so many different interpretations as to what races actually exist is why the concept itself is nothing more than a social construct.

Well, yes, it's a social construct. So are a lot of things. Like species, nations, religions, ideologies. That doesn't make it not real, it just makes it inexact, as all generalizations will, necessarily, be less complex then the reality which they are used to classify.

I mean the concept of race doesn't exist on a biological level. All human beings come from the same species.

Eh, that doesn't mean much either way. Everything is individualized on the biological level, but at the same time we can see distinct genetic grouping. This is how nature always works. And saying that we're all the same species means very little, just that we can all breed with one another (most of the times it doesn't even mean that. It means that some dusty old man moved a branch on an phylogenetic tree and argued about it for six years).

Yes, everything is individualized on a biological level, but we are all still one species, which means were are more genetically related to one another than we are to any other species. And the distinct genetic grouping you see does not really make us different races entirely, as they are very minor. Are there distinct ethnic groupings? Yes, but most of us are a mixture of more than one and even then those groupings are not considered 'races' as they are normally defined and categorized. If every distinct genetic grouping were considered a 'race' there would literally be thousands of different 'races' instead of just 'black', 'white' and 'Asian'.

The way we divide each other based on 'race' is nothing more than man-made fabrication, because the physical differences between us are merely caused by adaptations to our environment over thousands of years, a result of natural selection to help our ancestors better survive in the places they lived, but they are all still homo sapiens sapiens, or modern humans.

You're putting way too much stock in general taxonomy and not enough in genetics. Race does exist, it can be modeled very reliably genetically. Is it exact? No, nothing is when you're looking at biological classification. But it's definitely there. You can almost look at races as subspecies, or the beginnings of then, which is pretty much what you're describing here.

So all people considered 'black' have the same phenotype and genetics, enough to be considered one 'sub-species'? Not really. If you take a native South African, a West African and a Somalian from East Africa, who would normally all be considered 'black' and examined their genetic background, you can clearly see both the phenotypical and genetic differences between all of them.

Species actually aren't social constructs, as they can be observed and measured biologically, and they never change according to our perception of them. The only thing that changes a species is evolution, not a government form or census document.

... Nope. I have a BS in biology, and I specialized in ferns for a bit. Species are much more complicated than that, when you look at hybridization, polyploidy, subspecies, chimerae, and other phenomenon which severely blur those lines which we think are so distinct. Ferns destroyed any faith that I possessed in the unshakeable soundness of classification and taxonomy. Pretty much all taxonomists acknowledge this as well; species are never really held up as any sort of absolute.

Fair enough. But that doesn't really change the fact that race is divided as simply as human beings claim it is. Literally, there is more than just black, white. If race was determined the way you say it is, there would literally be thousands of different races out there, and most of us would be a mixture of more than one. We are still one species, regardless.

I'm not saying that we can say that race X is Y, just that there are genetic pools of shared traits (susceptibility to sickle cell anemia or sunburn, higher instances of resistance towards the black death, and the more obvious physical characteristics). Those differences do exist in a real way.

That brings me back to my initial claim. There is more to 'race' than the way most humans decide to define and categorize it.

I actually did a pretty long post on Hispanic culture and its contrast with North American culture which sums up my views on this topic:

http://www.debate.org...

Interesting post. But I must point out that, while there are differences between North American and Latin American cultures, there are also differences between Latin American cultures themselves. Puerto Rican culture is not Mexican culture and so on. Different histories, different influences, different impacts.

Yes, I agree. But they are all bound together by the legacy of Spanish imperialism, especially a strong Catholic cultural influence. That diversity united under one roof is actually a distinctly Iberian historical motif.

Yes, and for that reason I find it unnecessary to group Latinos as a whole into one racial demographic. In fact, I can say this for every group on the planet.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 7:35:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 6:45:37 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/13/2015 6:13:14 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
I never really understood why Americans, even Hispanic-Americans, believe that everyone who is born in or has heritage from a Spanish or Portuguese speaking country is the same 'race' of people when this is clearly NOT the case. First of all, I already think the concept of race in itself is flawed, and nothing more than a man-made social construct, but that's beside the point. Assuming race does exist, the terms Hispanic, Latino and Latin-American do not fit the criteria to be considered a racial or ethnic demographic.

Latin Americans are descended from people all over the world including Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. Most early inhabitants of Latin America and their descendants are Indigenous American, European, African or some mixture of the three. Even the terms Hispanic and Latino are completely different and refer to different things, despite being used interchangeably yet most Americans do not seem to know the difference and think all Latin Americans look, and act like Mexicans, who are mostly mestizo (admixture of Spanish and Native American) and have their own distinct culture in comparison to other Latin American nations.

I am honestly annoyed and tired of explaining this to ignorant non-Latinos who assume all Latinos are the same race, and Latino-Americans who are ignorant of their own culture, heritage and ancestry. What do you guys think? Any thoughts?

The foundings of race are already on shaky grounds, so it's to be expected you'll find logical inconsistencies in it's application. The same convoluted logic is applied to the other races as well.

I agree.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 7:44:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Lol, race definitely exists. Any anthropolist, that thinks otherwise is letting some odd sense of political correctness dictate their opinion.

@Brian if you want to debate the existence of race, I'll send out the challenge right now.

What next are people going to start saying that height differences don't exist. SMH
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 8:07:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 7:44:30 PM, Wylted wrote:
Lol, race definitely exists. Any anthropolist, that thinks otherwise is letting some odd sense of political correctness dictate their opinion.

@Brian if you want to debate the existence of race, I'll send out the challenge right now.

What next are people going to start saying that height differences don't exist. SMH

Maybe I would take your debate challenge more seriously if you didn't resort to logical fallacy, condescending language, and politically biased rhetoric to make a point. You can take your incompetence somewhere else, because until you decided to comment everything was civil and I prefer it to stay that way.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 8:12:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 8:07:44 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/13/2015 7:44:30 PM, Wylted wrote:
Lol, race definitely exists. Any anthropolist, that thinks otherwise is letting some odd sense of political correctness dictate their opinion.

@Brian if you want to debate the existence of race, I'll send out the challenge right now.

What next are people going to start saying that height differences don't exist. SMH

Maybe I would take your debate challenge more seriously if you didn't resort to logical fallacy, condescending language, and politically biased rhetoric to make a point. You can take your incompetence somewhere else, because until you decided to comment everything was civil and I prefer it to stay that way.

When we are done with that, do you want to debate whether height differences exist between people?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 8:23:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 8:07:44 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/13/2015 7:44:30 PM, Wylted wrote:
Lol, race definitely exists. Any anthropolist, that thinks otherwise is letting some odd sense of political correctness dictate their opinion.

@Brian if you want to debate the existence of race, I'll send out the challenge right now.

What next are people going to start saying that height differences don't exist. SMH

Maybe I would take your debate challenge more seriously if you didn't resort to logical fallacy, condescending language, and politically biased rhetoric to make a point. You can take your incompetence somewhere else, because until you decided to comment everything was civil and I prefer it to stay that way.

Challenge sent http://www.debate.org...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 8:36:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 8:24:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
Good luck arguing haplogroups don't exist

The concept of race is not necessarily based on haplogroups, especially when it comes to mutts. Also by using this argument you're conflating demographics with geography as a means of determining race.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 8:41:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 8:36:25 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/13/2015 8:24:29 PM, Wylted wrote:
Good luck arguing haplogroups don't exist

The concept of race is not necessarily based on haplogroups, especially when it comes to mutts. Also by using this argument you're conflating demographics with geography as a means of determining race.

That is right. The way anthropologists use the word race is much different than the layman.

We still need to be able to classify races (geographical origons), because it is useful in reconstructing mystery people through DNA, or to better diagnose diseases and risk factors.

If we start with this hippy nonsense that races (geographical origons), don't exist than we really hurt the fields of forensics, medicine, anthropogenic and many others.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 8:43:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 4:52:04 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 3/13/2015 4:37:33 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/13/2015 9:39:40 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Most of the relevant research on the field uses terms like ethnicity, ethnic/racial, Or ethnocultural when discussing Hispanics. For example, as my research is on Hispanics and other minority groups, I use ethnic/racial.

But even terms like "ethnicity" is inaccurate when discussing Latin Americans as a whole. The only thing Latinos have in common is the fact that they come from a Spanish, Portuguese, or French speaking country in Latin America. They do not all have the same ethnic background, or culture. Even the Spanish spoken in various Spanish-speaking nations are not the same. So I feel like grouping all Latinos into one group and saying it's a separate race is really misguided.

You are correct in that it is inaccurate to categorize all Latinos/Hispanics under one label. The same could be said for Whites, Blacks, Asians, and every other prominent demographic category, and depending on the research, the delineating line can be narrowed to various degrees. When I say terms like ethnic/racial and ethnocultural are being used when discussing Hispanics/Latinos, I am affirming that, in the literature, it is recognized that they are not a racial group as classically defined.

Yeah, we're puerto ricans :D
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 9:38:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 8:23:31 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/13/2015 8:07:44 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/13/2015 7:44:30 PM, Wylted wrote:
Lol, race definitely exists. Any anthropolist, that thinks otherwise is letting some odd sense of political correctness dictate their opinion.

@Brian if you want to debate the existence of race, I'll send out the challenge right now.

What next are people going to start saying that height differences don't exist. SMH

Maybe I would take your debate challenge more seriously if you didn't resort to logical fallacy, condescending language, and politically biased rhetoric to make a point. You can take your incompetence somewhere else, because until you decided to comment everything was civil and I prefer it to stay that way.

Challenge sent http://www.debate.org...

I didn't consent to a debate with you.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 9:41:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 9:38:26 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/13/2015 8:23:31 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/13/2015 8:07:44 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/13/2015 7:44:30 PM, Wylted wrote:
Lol, race definitely exists. Any anthropolist, that thinks otherwise is letting some odd sense of political correctness dictate their opinion.

@Brian if you want to debate the existence of race, I'll send out the challenge right now.

What next are people going to start saying that height differences don't exist. SMH

Maybe I would take your debate challenge more seriously if you didn't resort to logical fallacy, condescending language, and politically biased rhetoric to make a point. You can take your incompetence somewhere else, because until you decided to comment everything was civil and I prefer it to stay that way.

Challenge sent http://www.debate.org...

I didn't consent to a debate with you.

I thought you said race doesn't exist and was willing to defend that, I'm sorry I was mistaken
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 9:56:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 9:41:43 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/13/2015 9:38:26 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/13/2015 8:23:31 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/13/2015 8:07:44 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/13/2015 7:44:30 PM, Wylted wrote:
Lol, race definitely exists. Any anthropolist, that thinks otherwise is letting some odd sense of political correctness dictate their opinion.

@Brian if you want to debate the existence of race, I'll send out the challenge right now.

What next are people going to start saying that height differences don't exist. SMH

Maybe I would take your debate challenge more seriously if you didn't resort to logical fallacy, condescending language, and politically biased rhetoric to make a point. You can take your incompetence somewhere else, because until you decided to comment everything was civil and I prefer it to stay that way.

Challenge sent http://www.debate.org...

I didn't consent to a debate with you.

I thought you said race doesn't exist and was willing to defend that, I'm sorry I was mistaken

1. I already defended my side of the argument, with people worth having a rational discussion.

2. I still didn't consent to a debate with you.

3. This forum has absolutely nothing to with whether or not race exists, I simply pointed out the fact that I believed the concept of race, based on the societal point of view, was flawed. The forum is about Latinos being categorized as one racial group, so I don't know why you, and a few other people on this site, always pick a fight with me by changing the subject to something completely irrelevant.

4. Within the first round of the debate challenge you sent lies a straw-man argument. I never said "haplogroups didn't exist", and you literally distorted by argument. So we are done here.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 10:02:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 9:56:13 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/13/2015 9:41:43 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/13/2015 9:38:26 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/13/2015 8:23:31 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/13/2015 8:07:44 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 3/13/2015 7:44:30 PM, Wylted wrote:
Lol, race definitely exists. Any anthropolist, that thinks otherwise is letting some odd sense of political correctness dictate their opinion.

@Brian if you want to debate the existence of race, I'll send out the challenge right now.

What next are people going to start saying that height differences don't exist. SMH

Maybe I would take your debate challenge more seriously if you didn't resort to logical fallacy, condescending language, and politically biased rhetoric to make a point. You can take your incompetence somewhere else, because until you decided to comment everything was civil and I prefer it to stay that way.

Challenge sent http://www.debate.org...

I didn't consent to a debate with you.

I thought you said race doesn't exist and was willing to defend that, I'm sorry I was mistaken

1. I already defended my side of the argument, with people worth having a rational discussion.

That is subjective but I respect your opinion.

2. I still didn't consent to a debate with you.

I will force it on you, even if it takes a date rape drug to do so.


3. This forum has absolutely nothing to with whether or not race exists, I simply pointed out the fact that I believed the concept of race, based on the societal point of view, was flawed. The forum is about Latinos being categorized as one racial group, so I don't know why you, and a few other people on this site, always pick a fight with me by changing the subject to something completely irrelevant.

It is partially because you act like an idealogue and throw out strawmans and speculate on motives when you don't understand the premises for a political position that disagrees with you.

Let's not forget that it is fun as hell to get under your skin. I'm not sure why but it is.

4. Within the first round of the debate challenge you sent lies a straw-man argument. I never said "haplogroups didn't exist", and you literally distorted by argument. So we are done here.

When I said races exist, that is what I meant by the term race (for the most part). I assumed we were working with the same definitions.

I hope we can still be friends.

What do you say, can we still be niggas?