People claim that “Race” doesn’t exist as long as they talk about the interests of Whites. Mention the interests of non-whites – Affirmative Action, Rights, and Victims, rear their heads. White Narcissists are those whites, who believe that everyone exists…except themselves; they don’t believe in race, until they are asked about Affirmative Racism.
“Race” is a socio-biological concept because its genetic component is interpreted socially. Social forces are apparent in terms like “latino” and “asian,” biological ones in genetically consistent categories of “white” and “negroid.”
The term “race” should not be taken to signify that each and every “race” contains the same amount of distinct features as another, or is differentiated by the same criteria. Geneticist can easily identify the ancestry of an individual – and cluster it according to Caucasoid, Sub-Saharan, Mongoloid, Capoid, and Australoasian, but the distinctiveness of each race is not the same.
If Arabs are included as “Caucasoids” only Sub-Saharan Africans would remain as a coherent racial group.
“Mongoloids” suffer from too great a dispersal to be convincingly considered as a single-race; too many Cherokees boast D-ancestry.
The size of a racial population also plays a role in consideration for “race” status. The irrelevance of Capoids and Australoasians being a case in point.
Complications such as these have some scientists suggesting that race is entirely a “social construct.” Most often, the ones suggesting this are exclusively “white” – raising red-flags about their motivations in misconstruing basic genetic data. Is it a politicization of science in order to deal with white narcissism; a way to play their Freudian racial game?
In the Clash of Races hypothesis “races” are genetic supra-ethnic groups (or another view – genetic families) distinguished from other supra-groups through their shared ancestry. Narcissists can argue against the existence of Mongoloids and Caucasoids, conflate the irreconcilability of regional terms such as “latino” and “asian” with actual genetic data, and argue in favor of “ethnicity” over race because of the latter’s reliability, but they cannot deny genetic facts of shared ancestry and differentiation, nor can they deny the actual ability of one race group to differentiate itself from another.
While the narcissist’s critique of social race is accurate, it deliberately omits the possibility of a scientific re-categorization, with statistics consistently indicating continental clustering according to shared ancestry. Such a re-categorisation would break down somewhere between “race” in the established popular sense, and a supra-ethnicity or genetic families.
Traditional categories of race are problematic, because there is not one consistent marker to distinguish racial groups, and inter-race differentiation is not done according to a set of predetermined criteria. Its a “classification” in retrospect. Save for Sub-Saharan Africans, “whites” are not “caucasoids” and “yellows” are certainly not “mongoloids,” and if you insist on classifying people according to one criteria, then race is untenable.
This leads certain scientists to wrongfully claim that race is an invention of the Scottish Southern Plantationer. Wrongfully – because it assumes, that if a term is applied inconsistently, it therefore fails to meet the semantic needs of society. But as inconsistent as “race” may appear to such a waspy or jewish white scientist in the heat of a public debate, all appearances melt into thin air when s/he signs on that down payment for a 30 year mortgage in a well-to-do, largely Asian or White, neighbourhood!
Most people readily acknowledge the distinct nature of “whites” and “blacks”. Indians, Cambodians, Levantines, Brazilians, Mexicans, and a slew of other groups – cannot be pinned down racially, and a white narcissist may conclude that Levantines disprove the existance of race.
If life were so simple, one could simply ignore that even if some groups do not form part of a supra-ethnic entity, others do. Arguing against race because some fail to fit the term, is like arguing for race, because others do.
Clash of Races breaks in the empirical middle, and takes the political aspect of “race” into account. Only four functional “racial” categories are identifiable in a political sense. Two of them are genetic races – white and negroid – the other are empty sets which convey the absence of whiteness and/or negritude.
Here is where White narcissists object to “white” and “black” on the grounds of colour theory. “White” they rightfully note – is not something uncommon to significant portions of Japan’s elite, and the population of Iran or Syria, and “black” is not a monopoly of Sub-Saharan Africans!
True – but Iranians have no gene for freckles or light hair, and “black” certainly denotes to the overall distinctiveness of Sub-Saharan Africans, not just skin-colour.
The Clash of Races hypothesis assumes that “whites” are characterized by at least three proprietary traits even if recessive – they all burn, possess at least a recessive gene for light eye-colour,and an equally high-number does not posses the trademark pitch-black hair everyone except the occasional Australian Aboriginese sports.
Blacks are understood as “negroes.” Negro is not derogatory in this context. “Black” is a neologism that doesn’t fully capture what makes Sub-Saharan African’s unique. Negro captures both the anatomical, physiognomic, colour, and temperamental attributes that distinguish Sub-Saharan’s an exceptionally identifiable “race.” Like their white counterparts, negroes come in varieties – but negro hair, faces, physique, and colour, do not.
The two empty set categories are Non-white, and non-white non-black/negro. They presume genetically verifiable simplicity of whites and negroes, and accepts the complexity of non-white, and non-black and non-white groups; an admission of the social variable in “race” definitions, that avoids the pitfalls of nonsense terms such as “Asian,” “Latino,” or “Levantine/Semitic.”
In maters of race, what matters above all, is the ability of members to identify non-members. To deny race scientifically, is to negate street reality, and unwittingly – to assert one’s whiteness. To create races where none exist, is equally egregious.
The English classifying Pakistanis as “Asians” in the sense that Americans classify a Korean and Chinese an “Asian” is not racial, it’s nonsensical. Genetically, Pakistani’s are a mix of Caucasoid, Afroid, and Australoasian – to conflate them with the Vietnamese and Malaysians, takes exceptional stupidity. That said, neither a Japanese, nor Pakistani, could conceivably be considered “white” or “negroid,” hence they are thrown in the non-white and non-white race group. Why such a category is necessary, will become apparent later.
footnote: the inconsistency of those who profess non-belief in race, yet gleefully defend Affirmative Racism, is an idea original formulated by the Irish Savant.