Race is a social construct. It doesn't actually exist beyond our belief in it. There's no actual biological difference that supports the idea of race or races and it's conception is simply there to oppress what people may perceive as "other" or "inferior". Here's the American Anthropologists Association official position on race: http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
Race is really more of an ideology than anything else and it's existence in itself just fosters discrimination I think. Building more divides does nothing to benefit humanity.
AncestryDNA and 23andme, along with countless of racial genetic studies: "Hold our beers."
There certainly are genetic differences between races, thus biological differences. Though for the most part, this doesn't matter since vast majority of these genetic differences are between DNA/genes that are expressionless (serving little to no purpose and effect). As for the genetic differences involve DNA/genes bearing an expression, well it's mostly in phenotype of course such as pigmentation and facial features.
Race is a social construct as well, but to a certain degree such as to where the line should be drawn between identifying race and what races does society most often consider to exist.
I definitely believe race exists but it doesn't exist on the same level as a biological species does. It exists well under the species taxon.
Why is there no animosity between people of different hair colors? Is it because as a society we dont give any meaning to hair color? Why then should we treat skin color any differently than we do hair color? I think that's the point Morgan Freeman is making here.
It doesn't make you colorblind to treat everyone the same. You can still accept that two people are different and still treat them as equals.
And I do agree with god when he says black history month is ridiculous. Taking February to talk about the struggles and accomplishments of black people makes no sense. Those topics are a piece of history same as everything else.
I think the main problem with the way we treat race today is that it drives a wedge between races. Something like black history month implies that black history is somehow different from the rest of history. Black Panther's marketing (nothing against the movie the movie was good) saying that black people finally have a hero to relate to is an issue because it implies that a white hero like Tony Stark just isn't relatable to a black teen. I could go on and on but I hope I made my point clear.
I get what he’s saying, and agree to an extent. But at this point it’s an unrealistic concept. We aren’t there yet, and probably won’t be for many, many, many, many, many generations down the road until races start to mix/blend together due to generations procreating with different races of people (if that ever even happens at all). Even then racism will probably exist in some level, but probably nowhere near the level of what it is today .
I get what he’s saying, and agree to an extent. But at this point it’s an unrealistic concept. We aren’t there yet, and probably won’t be for many, many, many, many, many generations down the road until races start to mix/blend together due to generations procreating with different races of people (if that ever even happens at all). Even then racism will probably exist in some level, but probably nowhere near the level of what it is today .
Black history month is stupid. I don’t like being pandered to or patronised, giving special treatment for a month is just a way to distance black people from other ethnicities, drawing attention to the differences which is anti-integration. Black history should just be history.
I’m not American but it’s a similar reasoning where ‘African-American’ is weird when white people aren’t called ‘European-American’
Log in to comment