No amount of expression will make it so that your ancestors originated from somewhere other than from where they actually did. — The Great Whatever

So in our accurate description of ethnic groups, do we consider Eskimos to be yellow or red?

OK, but people from sub-saharan Africa are black. — The Great Whatever

So by that you mean they are more closely related to one another and have darker skin? Do you think we would recognize an all-encompassing category based on skin pigment?

If it weren't for the slave trade, there would still be black people, obviously. Why would you say something so clearly false? — The Great Whatever

There would be related groups of people from sub-Sarahan Africa, southern Asia, and Australia who had darker skin than everyone else. But they wouldn't be considered "black" in the sense of belonging to a racial category that is somehow inferior to groups of related lighter skinned people descended from elsewhere on the planet, particularly in Europe.

I would add further, that if it weren't for the slave trade, there wouldn't be black people, there would be Africans of different groups. And there wouldn't be white people, there would be people of various European descent.

I understand that there have been many non-European colonizers. What I'm saying is that whiteness as invented to justify domination of non-European groups. It's okay to own slaves because being black means being inferior and in need of a master. It was the dark skinned African's place in the world to serve the white man. That sort of thing. It didn't start out that way, but it turned into that. Problem is that it stayed on after slavery was ended, and was used as a justification for discriminating against blacks and other minorities. To pretend that whiteness, blackness, etc is separate from all that is to ignore history.

They would be "white?" Well, they would be black ex hypothesi, as you just said. We could use the word "white" to mean what we now mean by "black," sure. But that wouldn't make black people white. This is a use-mention confusion. — The Great Whatever

White people aren't white, and black people aren't black, if you want to get technical about it. So obviously we can use colors to denote something other than the actual skin pigment.

OK, but 'white' means roughly 'of European descent.' — The Great Whatever

It correlated with being of European descent, particularly from countries like England, Spain, France, Germany, etc. But what being white meant was being the group in power who gets to dominate the inferior people from other areas of the world.

Regardless of whether we can meaningfully categorize a large geographical population into one super ethnic group, that doesn't change the origin of doing so based on skin color, whose goal was to justify a social order where ethnic groups considered to be white had the power in society. That's the role of whiteness in Western civilization, and it hasn't gone away just because we've become more sensitive about treating people equally.

Also, it doesn't change the historical fact that Europeans didn't consider themselves belonging to a continent spanning racial category called white until rather recently (and there's always been a dispute over which ethnicities from Europe get to be called white).

Yes, by and large, European people have a common genetic ancestry in virtue of originating from the same continent. This does not mean that they are all the same, or that all Africans are the same, or anything like that. — The Great Whatever

But you wouldn't say the same about Asia, right, considering that Hindus, Chinese, Siberians and natives of Paupa Guinea vary considerably? Just as you don't think of Arabs when mentioning blacks. So what makes Europe different? That it's too small to have large enough differences? That they're all closely enough related such that they can be lumped into one racial category? Because Portuguese and Ukrainians are so much alike?

1) There are different groups of people who originated in different parts of the world.
2) These groups of people, due to breeding with those close to them, have differing physical features that are easily recognizable.
3) These groups are all different form each other, but they are more different from those who originated yet farther away from them.
4) One's belonging to one of these groups has serious implications for the sort of identity politics one can engage in, in the Western World. — The Great Whatever

1). They didn't originate there, unless it's sub-Saharan Africa, but okay, their ancestors lived there long enough to adapt.

2). To the extent it's passing genes on and not a common adaptation across multiple groups, sure. That said, do you believe that the entire continent interbred?

3). Does the science back this up? Are you sure that any given Scandinavia is more similar genetically to any Frenchman than a Korean?

4) The reason for identity politics is a reaction to the result of racial categorizations during Colonialism.

So you're denying that people who descended from European ancestors are part of a group? What do you mean by 'racial group,' and how does that differ from 'ethnic group?' — The Great Whatever

There part of many different groups, migrating in and out, fighting and conquering one another across an entire continent over thousands of years. You wouldn't claim that all Asians or Africans belong to a single racial group, would you?

Okay, so how is that different from race? If you don't want to use the word 'race' for political reasons, whatever. — The Great Whatever

I've never denied ethnicity. I've denied the concept of race based on skin color. The idea that an entire continent of people could be considered belonging to the same racial group, or that it's even meaningful to say that there are such racial groups, because their skin color is similar.

No, it stems from the fact that people come from different places and look different ways based on where they come from. There would still be white, black, etc. people whether or not this were used to attribute superiority or inferiority. — The Great Whatever

But there wouldn't be white, black , etc racial categories. Those were invented during the colonial era. There is no scientific evidence for a "white" race, anymore than there is for a "red" or "yellow" one. In fact, it's absurd on the face of it.

Consider, who belongs to the "brown" race? Mexicans, Arabs, Indians? That's three very distinct groups from different geographical locations. Who all is "black"? Do you count Aborigenes? What color are Polynesians? Are Eskimos "redskins"? Are Siberians or Hindus "yellow"?

There are no such races. It's a complete myth.

It's not the idea of ethnic origins, of which there are many in Europe, it's the idea of race that is the issue. The idea of being white, brown, black, red, or yellow stem from a belief of racial superiority and inferiority, which has been used to justify various political and economic policies over time which were discriminatory. This played out all over the Americas. Being white means you get to be in the higher social class. It's true that wealth matters as well, but it's been pointed out that being poor and black (or native) is always considered worse than being poor and white.

Nice! Thanks.

This is just wrong. People were aware of ethnic differences since there have been ethnic differences, and had labels for them. — The Great Whatever

I never said people weren't aware of ethnic differences. I said people considered themselves and others to belong to different groups over time, depending on the criteria. And being white is relatively recent. It's origin is the justification of colonialism and slavery. The idea of being white is the idea that you're skin color determines your status in society, and if your skin color is dark enough, you deserve to be a slave, or have less rights.

I was shocked to see you use this word. Are you from that part of the world, or did you know someone from those parts? — Punshhh

There was a Simpsons episode with Homer saying he was going to avoid his comeuppance. May have been when he became a food critic.

However, later classicists have responded that Snowden's work unnecessarily reduced all forms of racism to its peculiarly American version based on skin color and others markers of non-white identity. Thus, Benjamin Isaac (2004) and Denise McCoskey (2012) contend that the ancient Greeks and Romans did hold proto-racist views that applied to other groups which today might be considered white. Isaac persuasively argues that these views must be considered proto-racist: although they were formed without the aid of a modern race concept grounded in ideas of deterministic biology (2004, 5), they nevertheless resembled modern racism by attributing “to groups of people common characteristics considered to be unalterable because they are determined by external factors or heredity” (2004, 38).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/#HisConRac

Nonsense. Are you honestly going to tell me that ancient Europeans failed to notice the similarity in their skin tones? If not, then by "white" you mean something other than "white," in which case you ought to use different vocabulary so as to avoid equivocating. — Thorongil

You mean like "pink" or "tan" or even light brown? I'm sure people have always noticed differences. A red headed, freckled person who burns easily in the sun can look significantly different from someone else of the same ethnicity. So can a tall skinny person compared to someone stocky. So how do we go about grouping regarding difference? Do you think the Vikings considered themselves kin with Italians?

You're assuming that all Europeans would have agreed that they belong in some common group based on relatively lighter skin color than people from different geographic locations, despite all the regional differences amongst various European groups throughout history.

What would make a Spaniard or Italian more white than an Arab to a Northern or Eastern European? Is it because the Arabs have to cross a sea?

You can't get away with making a prima facie absurd claim like "being white is socially constructed" as if it were self-evident. The "better way of saying it," as you put it, is in fact not a way of saying it at all. It's to say something completely different. So pick one and stick to it. — Thorongil

The point is that people in Europe didn't consider themselves to be white before a certain point. They considered themselves to be in other categories, usually associated with their homeland, culture, language and religion.

What is the counter argument to this obvious observation? That Europeans were white before they considered themselves to be white? Based on what? Their lighter skin color compared to certain populations in other parts of the world?

Let's ask a different question. What is the usefulness in calling an entire continent of people "white" or "black" or whatever? What role does it serve?

Good questions. Wiki claims it was late 17th century for the term modern use of white, but I suppose you would want a more substantial source.

Also, what meaning is given to calling someone "Asian". It's a vast continent. What does a Mongolian have in common with a Pakistani, besides being human? Europe is just smaller, and it doesn't have a major desert separating populations like Africa does. But it's notable to consider how the British Isles have had their own ethnic struggles amongst the English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish, just in that little small area. There was certainly a time when they didn't all consider themselves to belong to the same race.

Postmodernism alert! — Thorongil

Well, some things are "socially constructed". Maybe there is a better way of saying it. How about, people have considered themselves and others to belong to varying groups over time, and being white is no exception to this. In the European past, it could have been Roman, or Spartan, or Scottish, or Jewish (which isn't always accepted as white).

So Romans considered various non-Roman groups to be barbarians. Jews called the non-Jewish Gentile. Various Germanic tribes would have had their own naming for the other. The point is that all of this made up by culture. Who is part of a group and who is an outsider, and how you think about that outsider, whether they are to be feared or conquered, or treated as savages.

People were white before and after slavery, and being white isn't defined in terms of being evil. — The Great Whatever

There was no such thing as being "white" or being "black" before a certain time. There were various ethnic groups competing and sometimes allying with one another. They didn't consider themselves to be all one race.

And anyway, unless you are an albino, nobody actually has white skin. So it's a false categorization to begin with.

Yes, Europeans are different from each other, but they are more different from Africans. — The Great Whatever

Particularly with the Neanderthal genes, but at any rate, the history of being in the white or black race is one of slavery and then deep discrimination, so it's something a bit more than just noticing that people descendended from different geographic locations tending to look different. Also, it includes a history of which Europeans groups got to be considered white, and which weren't, depending on the time period.

I mean, you understand that people who originate from different parts of the world look different, right? — The Great Whatever

You mean like how Northern Europeans look different than Southern Europeans? What about red head, freckled Irish people with their light skin? Are they more white than someone from Romania?

Yes Europeans are made up of many ethnic groups, but each of these are more closely related than sub-Saharan African ethnic subgroups, and so on — The Great Whatever

Yes, but why lump them into one category called "white", "black" or "red"? The reason this happend is because of racism during the colonial era to justify the economics of slavery, and driving natives off their land.

]There's some serious metaphysical juju going on in trying to transmogrify your very genes into pure evil."

Which I never said. I stated that being white or black (or Asian, etc) is a social construction.

Europeans are made up of many ethnic groups, just as Africans are. The idea of a single white race to which various ethnic groups may or may not be included in is based on a history of thinking there were superior and inferior groups of humanity based on some racial characteristics, with skin color being predominant.

So do we consider Persians to be white? They're not European, but they don't identify as Arabs. What about Aborigines? Are they black? South Asians with very dark skin, what are they?

But the idea of being white was invented to justify colonialism and slavery. Before that, people were French, German, English, Polish, etc.

Some argue that the notion of whiteness is itself racist and privileged, and that the solution to racism (at least in the West), is to abolish "whiteness" (blackness is tied to the definition of whiteness).

This doesn't mean that the people we currently identify as "white" don't get to participate in their unique ethnicity, unlike everyone else. It just means that we stop treating people descended from a continent as belonging to one race, be it white, black or otherwise.

The insight being -- it's not that the trick of remembering good times is especially good. It's that the practice of philosophy is so good that all you need is a simple mental trick to endure any pain. — Moliere

Sounds like bullshit, with all due respect to Epicurus. But, some people are more disciplined in what they can endure. I'm skeptical that any kind of suffering can be endured in such a fashion.

Sociopaths certainly exist. I wasn't aware that psychology denied this. But it is on a continuum, as has been pointed out. Most sociopaths aren't serial killers, where the term "psychopath" probably came from. And the majority aren't anti-social. What they are is different, emotionally, but varying by degree. They tend to be cold and calculating, instead of empathic. But they're good at faking it. This does have advantages in some arenas. The disadvantages to others is when a sociopath is manipulative and exploitative. They can use their superficial charm and lack of empathy to fool others for personal gain or for the fun of it.

This is different from being a jerk. The truth is we all probably have a bit it of sociopathy at times, just like we can all be a bit narcissistic. And that's probably healthy, because you wouldn't be able to function if you were always feeling altruistic.

I find it hard to believe that Hillary could or would let down - and even damage - the left to the extent that Obama did. — photographer

LOL. What makes a Clinton that much different than Obama? Please.

And

Hillary hate is misogyny, pure and simple: — photographer

Or maybe some people just don't like here as a presidential candidate. There's no such thing as pure and simple when it comes to human motives.

Interesting. Lakoff and Johnson wrote a book called Philosophy in the Flesh in which they see the bewitchment of language for philosophers as one of taking metaphor literally, or failing to recognize how much of our thinking is based on metaphor.

They probably go a bit overboard with that, but it does make me wonder what it really means to understand. Do we primarily understand the world by creating all sorts of metaphors? If so, then the majority of our understanding is non-literal. It's more noticing similarities between different domains and using that to 'grasp' concepts in a new way.

If the word "horse" denotes properties A, B, and C (or the things that have them) then to be a horse is to have properties A, B, and C. I can't make sense of it any other way. — Michael

But horses had properties A, B, and C before we called them horses. And that's why we know them as horses and not rabbits or any other animal.

Just to be clear, what you're arguing is that meaning has nothing whatsoever to do with things themselves. Before there was any words for horses, there was no horse meaning, although those animals still existed. And if we decided to change all our horse language to talk about rabbits instead, then there would no longer be any horse meaning.

Although, there would still be horses, just not as we understand. Those animals would be incomprehensible to us.

If they don't, then why are talking about horses being equine animals, regardless of whether we decide to use the word "horse" differently at some future date?

The fact that we use the terms "bachelor" and "unmarried man" to refer to the same sort of thing. — Michael

And the thing being referred to is non-linguistic. Tying this back to the Chinese Room argument, Searle's contention was that correctly outputting the right word in a given situation is not meaningful, because meaning is in the reference (to horses, rabbits, unmarried men). Meaning is about something, not when to use a symbol.

Consider that it's perfectly possible to say the right word in a conversation without knowing what it means. A person can fake knowing what a word means. So can a machine.

To be a horse is to be an equine animal only because we use the word "horse" to refer to equine animals. — Michael

No, you're mixing up the meaning with the word being used.