Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin4hire
You're wrong... plain and simple.
You're making the mistake of assuming race exists as anything other than a social construct in the first place. Take away the social concept of race and you have genetic code that cannot be sorted intelligibly into any "breed".
With dogs there STILL are clear distinctions and they run more or less along the lines that we've identified thus far.
|
You`re seriously misinterpreting me. Nowhere did I say what you are thinking I am...
What I am trying to say is this - Dog breeds are ALSO pretty close to meaningless in anything other than appearance.
Breeds of dog are an
artificial concept, created by humans, to refer to specific traits among the sub-species that the dog belongs to. It`s not really a reference to genetic differences. It`s a name to call dogs that look a certain way - end of story. Take away the "names" that different looking populations of dogs are called, and they`re all dogs.
How is race any different? In the end, it`s a way to refer to different looking populations of humans - correct? Even taken out of a social construct, unless there is a mixing of genes these differences in appearance are not going to disappear.
ETA; You have to be the first person I`ve spoken to who referred to race in general as a social construct. That`s usually a term used to refer to the treatment of different groups/races in society - ie. assumption that one is higher/lower than another. Not the traits themselves, which are NOT a construct as they are clearly there and visible even without social context.
It`s sort of like saying that gender is a social construct - the assumption that one gender may be more suited to one thing than another, or more likely to do/think such and such may very well be a social construct... But gender itself, referring to the physical difference between males and females is NOT as it will still be there no matter what sort of society you are in.