1. never signed up for anything like this,
  2. never donated to or signed up for emails from the DNC, et al.,
  3. political texts like this come all the time, and
  4. I hesitate to reply “stop” because I don’t want them to know this is a live number (is my instinct here outdated/inapplicable?)
  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Phenotype has nothing to do with nationality. Nationality =/= ethnicity.

    See here on the other side of the Atlantic

    You force migrant Africans to drown in the Mediterranean, get off your high horse dude.

    So it would be inaccurate to call Obama African American because he has no slave ancestry?

    It would be debatable. That’s the point I’ve been trying to make. You take a set of physical characteristics and common heritage and you classify people based on that. Some people won’t neatly fall into those classifications and that’s okay, but the classifications are still valid.

    I didn’t say anything about validity.

    That’s the whole point of the phrase “race is a social construct”. Attacking the validity of race as a concept.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Nationality =/= ethnicity.

      I never claimed them to be equal. Also, “Nordic” isn’t a nationality, Norwegian would be. If Harris was born in the US, moved to Norway when she was 3, went to school in Norway, studied in Norway, then returned to the US, what ethnicity do you think she would identify with? And yes bi-ethnic people exist, very common in fact because people do move around.

      You force migrant Africans to drown in the Mediterranean, get off your high horse dude.

      Did you just call me Italian. Or Greek. Or whatever. You force migrant Latinos to drown in the Rio Grande.

      You take a set of physical characteristics and common heritage and you classify people based on that.

      Why would you connect such unconnected things as phenotype and heritage? Why not have separate classifiers for both things? Why, then, on top of that, sort people into subcultures based on those classifiers?

      That’s the whole point of the phrase “race is a social construct”. Attacking the validity of race as a concept.

      Democracy is a social construct. Freedom is a social construct. The only thing that’s getting attack, and should and must be attacked, is a purported biological basis for ascribing properties to people based on phenotype because that’s complete BS. And with that, I repeat the Epictetus quote:

      These reasonings are unconnected: “I am richer than you, therefore I am better”; “I am more eloquent than you, therefore I am better.” The connection is rather this: “I am richer than you, therefore my property is greater than yours;” “I am more eloquent than you, therefore my style is better than yours.” But you, after all, are neither property nor style.

      Do you now, finally, understand what he’s saying there? The connection is not “You have black skin, therefore, you are African American”, the connection is rather “You have black skin, therefore, you get sunburnt less easy than me”.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        If Harris was born in the US, moved to Norway when she was 3, went to school in Norway, studied in Norway, then returned to the US, what ethnicity do you think she would identify with?

        Identity with, or identify as? You can choose the former to an extent, but the latter is biologically inherited.

        Why would you connect such unconnected things as phenotype and heritage?

        Fine, since you’re getting hung up on definitions, instead of “phenotype” say “inherited physical characteristics”. I don’t feel like getting into an argument about genetics, it’s beside the point. The point is, people inherit physical characteristics common to their enthnicity, and that is what “race” is. It’s not a bad thing, just a descriptor.

        The connection is not “You have black skin, therefore, you are African American”

        The connection is “you have black skin, and wiry hair, and African ancestry, and X and Y and Z, therefore you are Black.” And it’s less a connection than a definition. No value judgment, just a statement.

        It sounds like what you should be arguing against is “you are Black, therefore you are inferior”. Which would be a really easy and common argument to make without all this bullshit “race is imaginary” crap.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          You can choose the former to an extent, but the latter is biologically inherited.

          So Obama isn’t African American, got it.

          The point is, people inherit physical characteristics common to their enthnicity

          Ethnicity is not genetic. Are you one of those yanks spewing nonsense such as “I’m 23% French that’s why I like mayonnaise”.

          “race is imaginary”

          That anyone said that is something you’re imagining. Also just because we’re imagining something doesn’t mean it’s not real. A judge is just a human in fancy clothes imagining to have power over you, try telling them that as a defendant they’ll be impressed at your reasoning skills. The bailiffs? Only imagining that they have to follow the judge’s orders.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Ethnicity is not genetic.

            I told you, ignore the genetic bit if you want to quibble about it. I’m talking about inherited physical characteristics. What would you call it? Pick a word, whatever. That’s what I’m talking about, and that’s the basis for race.

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              I’m talking about inherited physical characteristics.

              That’s genetics.

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Ok, there you have it. I think that’s an incorrect usage of the word, but for the sake of discussion, let’s call it genetics. It’s a real, physical, biological phenomenon and it’s not purely a social construct (except in the vague sense that all of interpreted reality is a social construct).

                • barsoap@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  What is real and physical about Harris being black when looked from one perspective, and as white when looked at from another?