Race is NOT a Social Construct

25 Myths about Race: Myth 1 – Race Is a “Social Construct”

by Russell James

 
We hear a lot today about how race is a “social construct”. This is a Cultural Marxist canard aimed at preventing White people from organizing to defend their legitimate collective interests. You’ll notice that it is only ever said to Whites when they’re discussing their racial interests. It’s never mentioned when blacks or other groups are blaming Whites for something in an effort to demean and dominate them.

 

The myth that “race is a social construct” is one of the few that can be traced back to an actual individual. It was created by Jewish “anthropologist”, Franz Boas, who forked anthropology by creating a branch of it known as “cultural” anthropology in order to advance his antarian ideas about race. (It’s enlightening to learn how many bad ideas and anti-White movements have Jews as their progenitors.)

 

The fact is that race is a genetic reality that goes much more than skin deep. For instance, physical anthropologists have been able to identify (for almost a century now) the race of an individual’s remains by a cursory examination of his or her bones. Also, because of the vast differences among the races, modern medical science is increasingly focusing on the race of the patient. It turns-out, different races react dramatically different to medicines and the various forms of treatment.

 

What we call “race” when referring to humans is the same as what we call “sub-species” in all other animals and the Human Genome Project has clearly identified three primary sub-species (that correlate directly to those long-identified by physical anthropology): Caucasian (Europeans, Middle Easterners, and North Africans), Negro (Sub-Saharan Africans), and Mongoloid (Asians and American Indians).

 

All of history and science shows one thing is certain: different peoples produce differing civilizations and cultures based on their genetic code and how it causes them to perceive their surroundings. So, not only is race not a “social construct” but the converse is true, society is a racial construct.

 

Editor’s note: This is a revised and enlarged version of an article published a few years ago.

Comments

Leroy Added Mar 25, 2017 - 9:43pm
I might have agreed with you a few years ago, Billy, but, today, I see it as an enormously complex issue.  For example, Asia and Europe share the same land mass.  One day, it will be declared one continent as it should be.  Consequently and especially on the front lines, there is quite a mixture.  Europe was raided by Asiatic tribes.  Some DNA tests don't distinguish between Asian and European calling it Eurasian.  My wife is Asian, yet she has more Eurasian content than I do (apparently, I am more Near Eastern).  If you would meet me, you would say that I am just your average whitie.
 
Even Negroid is controversial.  American blacks on average have a 25% European content.  Most everyone has some African content.
 
We're a pretty mixed up world.  How do you propose to divide up the races, by skin color?  DNA test?  Bone structure?
 
I agree that there are nominally three races and they could be sub-divided even further.  There's no one data point that defines race.  It's more of establishing a classification system to determine the best fit.   It would likely result in divided families.  Even a black swan comes along every now and then.  I prefer classification by culture.  If race determines culture, as you say, then it should all work out.  I accept Western culture and would welcome anyone else who also accepts it.
Mircea Negres Added Mar 26, 2017 - 7:45am
Billy, during apartheid a coloured (mixture of Khoi San, white, Asian and Bantu) woman got herself classified as white, abandoned her family, lived in a white suburb, married a white guy, had a better life, etc. After apartheid, she tried to have herself re-classified as coloured, but Home Affairs wouldn't let her.
 
In the early Nineties, a white family of farmers from the Free State had to send their child (confirmed by DNA and blood tests to have been theirs and theirs alone) to a school for black children because even though he was born of two white parents, he came out as black due to some ancestral hanky panky with the maid.
 
I think race is a social construct based on some genetic traits which manifest themselves most prominently in physical appearance. However, the subject is so complex that attempts to make systems out of it only creates more problems (eg. bloated bureaucracies, labor supply problems) for the societies which attempt it, such as happened to the Germans during the Third Reich and South Africans during (and after) apartheid.
 
Nevertheless, I think what you say about the concept of race as a social construct being used against whites is absolutely valid in South Africa, because here we have entities such as the Black Managers Forum, Black Business Council (or Chamber, can't recall which) and other such organizations not only without any problems, but also with the government's tolerance and support such as preferential awarding of government contracts. At the same time, there is no White Business Council or White Managers Forum because it would be judged as racist. This strikes me as hypocritical because you can't have one group creating racially-based groups and then deny it to others.  
Leroy Added Mar 26, 2017 - 9:08am
Race is also a matter of perspective.  A young "colored" lady from South Africa came to the US to work.  Everywhere she went people referred to her as "black".  She was offended and let everyone know that she was "colored".  She felt she was being discriminated against when she was called "black", even when blacks called her that.  She wasn't black.  She wasn't white.  In her mind, she was colored.  How would you classify her, Billy?
Billy Roper Added Mar 26, 2017 - 10:01am
Race is genetic, it is in our DNA. The fact that it is a spectrum doesn't make race a social construct any more than the fact that some men have more testosterone than others, or some women have more estrogen than others, makes gender a social construct. Liberals like to deny biological reality by pretending that exceptions queer the rules, or that outliers invalidate the truth. They do not.
Billy Roper Added Mar 26, 2017 - 10:05am
An excellent basic textbook on race distinguished in terms of observable, morphological features which remains valid to this day is Carleton S. Coon, The Living Races of Man (New York: Random House, 1965). The book is particularly valuable for its many photographs illustrating typical racial, subracial, and hybrid types.
 
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 26, 2017 - 10:12am
The size of an empire that can be controlled by one person before the industrial revolution was the distance a horse could take a person in a few days.   The vast majority of the population traveled by foot which place the range of people they contacted in their lives down to less then a hundred miles and in most cases for daily activities less then twenty miles, 40 kilometers.   So language culture and pool of genetic code was limited to this distance.   Armies and empires  and commerce, trade took a small portion of the population and spread them out much farther, but we are talking about less then 10% of the male population and much less of the female population.  If your particular family tree was near a traveling route then your community likely has a much broader mix of genetic code, and the opposite is also true.  The pockets with very little mixing have been identified and studied by anthropologist.  They have created language maps, culture maps and medical/genetic code maps by using these pockets.
 
Billy has just given told us about the courses division of man.  It does not take into account that mixing has always occurred so nothing is pure.
 
Billy Roper Added Mar 26, 2017 - 10:17am
I think that accepting nonWhites, even quarter-nonWhites, or those who are married to them, is Impurity Spiraling, a downward spiral of permissiveness, tolerance, and corruption. It’s kind of like, if you took a nice cold bowl of vanilla ice cream on a hot day, and put it under a microscope, you might find a microscopic fleck of fly feces. It could happen. If it did, would you throw the whole bowl of ice cream away? Would you try to ignore the microscopic fleck and eat it, anyway? How much feces in your ice cream would be too much, before it stopped being ice cream to you, and started being garbage? A tiny visible speck? A lump? A cup? At some point, we have to draw a line. As a former educator, I always counted an “A” as being 90% or better. I think that everyone, even those who want to parse semantics and try to quibble about percentages, claiming that since we do not have the perfect, we should not promote the good, can all agree to that standard, at least.
Leroy Added Mar 26, 2017 - 5:36pm
Tom, there are any number of sites that have this information.    I've seen numbers between 14% to 26%.  It varies significantly by region.  Here are a few links.  Not all support 25%. 
 
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/12/genetic-study-reveals-surprising-ancestry-many-americans
 
https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2009-10-12-r141
 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289685/
Billy Roper Added Mar 27, 2017 - 10:50am
While the added White genes, of whatever percentage, does make some African-Americans have higher IQs than native Africans, they still don't approach the average IQs of any other race.
Thomas Sutrina Added Mar 27, 2017 - 11:43am
Leroy, you are familiar with compound interest calculation.  I guessed that only 10% of a population travel far from their birth place.  They do interact and become fathers of children in those distant locations.  The effect of mixing their gene code century after century is like compounding interest.
Leroy Added Mar 28, 2017 - 5:22pm
Tom, obviously, I don't agree with the video.  I'll be the first to admit that Hitler and the NAZIs were not all bad.  If Hitler hadn't been obsessed with revenge, just imagine what Germany would have become.  Even today, Germany is an economy power, no small part due to the NAZIs.
 
But, when it comes to racial purity, I don't agree that the product of mixed couples is always inferior.  The US has and is suffering, not due to interbreeding with other races, but because of policy that reduces us to the lowest common denominator.  I'll be the first to admit that our culture is being undermined.  Rather than raising others up, we are being pulled down.  It is not our genes; it is the fault of our government.  We can't advance because we must always give racial consideration.    California, I have heard, doesn't allow IQ testing because some races score lower.  We can't crack down on crack because it is disproportionately used by certain races, so it is discriminatory.   If the government could just be colorblind and let the chips fall where they may, it would be a much better place.
 
I'll be the first to admit that Jews have influence beyond their numbers.  I don't see it has a bad thing.  There is someone that causes them to excel.  We could learn from it.  If it is in the DNA, we could benefit from it.
 
The Japanese are pretty much racially pure.  They had their moment in history, but I don't see them dominating today.  The China are fairly pure, at least as much as Europeans can be called pure.  They've become an economic powerhouse.  When I was in Shanghai, there was an old Australian blowhard there.  He had been there for decades and claimed to have had 13 Chinese wives and knew every whore between Shanghai and Beijing.  I can tell you that he knew most in Shanghai if not all.  I liked listening to him.  He knew the Chinese well.  He said to me one day, "If Western companies pulled out of China, the Chinese would be back to the rice patties in a decade." He was probably right, but we may never know.  Racial purity isn't a guaranty of success.  I don't think Europeans are all that pure, but you may prove me wrong.  Europeans were battle hardened over the centuries.  They became great warriors.  Does that make them superior?  They had dominion over other races; I can't dispute that.
Leroy Added Mar 30, 2017 - 8:34pm
I'm not so much into racial purity, but I can definitely see advantages.  It is quite easy to have expectations for the general population.  If it is mixed, as it is in the US, one can't apply the same expectations to a white as to another race.  We all suffer as we reach for the least common denominator. 
 
The Chinese view themselves as the superior race.  One common theme is that they are further evolved from the ape because they have less hair than Westerners.  My wife and friends got together one day and had a discussion on culture.  They had an epiphany.  They had discovered the true difference between Western and Chinese culture:  Westerners have no moral principles.  I laughed so hard I nearly fell on the floor.  I suppose superiority depends on your point of view.  From a Western point of view, it is difficult to see the moral superiority of the Chinese.  One obvious example is that lying is not immoral.  You are expected to lie.  It is laughable at the lies they will tell you.  On the other hand, the importance of family is paramount.  That, IMHO, is a good thing--to a point.
 
I think it is natural to be drawn towards what you are not.  Shaq has a thing for little women.  Perhaps I could be accused of the same.  White people want to make themselves darker.  Darker people want to make themselves lighter.  My former, skinny roommate was drawn towards fat women.  He married a whale.  A good friend did the same.  My wife is an anglophile.  Not everyone is drawn towards the exotic.  Some prefer sameness.
 
And, I have to say there is no shortage of scoundrels in my kin.  I respect other races as well as my own.  I only wish the respect was mutual.

Recent Articles by Writers Billy Roper follows.