No, I simply don't believe you care an iota about 'humanity'.

But you do care about humanity so I guess that makes you a good person. You care about all of humanity. You're right to an extent though, I think it's impossible to care about humanity as a whole. You don't know them, and some of them are complete monsters. At the end of the day I care about individuals getting what they deserve.

Why. Why the hell does 'that group' become accountable for its actions and not the whole of society? Are you suggesting they're a completely causally isolated group, because that would be an absurd claim.

I meant that group as individuals.

Responsibility primarily rests at the individual level. I'm aware there could be external factors, but in the end you need to own your actions. There are mitigating factors, for sure.

I've already said I'm on board with certain reforms. I've wanted to end the war on drugs for years. Even if the situation with blacks in America were a billion times worse and black people were being threatened with literal extermination that group remains accountable for its actions. When we strip people of accountability, we strip them of their humanity.

Why not just go after policeman or government officials as opposed to random small business owners if you're fine with violence? If you're fine with violence and you hate cops then why aren't you advocating violence there? Kind of makes sense for you to be anti gun control here.

I'm not sure in any case if it makes sense to apply just war doctrine to a situation like this. A group of people is slowly murdered and looted with impunity, it's "enemy" is the society they live in and are supposed to be a part of. It's all rather academic since a majority of people in the US seem to be ready to embrace some of the changes necessary.

The Just War comparison is not a perfect comparison. I adopted it because I was trying to give an opponent an extreme benefit of the doubt (e.g. even if we were at war with the US...) because I know I see things different from those on the far left.

Even so, let's take the examples of the Jews in 1940. Your argument that it wouldn't be effective isn't an argument against the moral right of the Jews back then to bomb and burn buildings indiscriminately as they were murdered indiscriminately by the State apparatus supported by the German people; either actively or by doing nothing. — Benkei

Yes, I argued that it wouldn't be effective but I also made the moral point. There's a scale of responsibility among the German population that needs to be taken seriously and we don't take this seriously when we just treat them as one amorphous blob to be murdered because of their society and complicity.

And there's a parallel there with modern times in that it isn't enough to not be a racist but to be actively anti-racist. It wasn't enough not to be a Nazi but to be anti-Nazi. That's the only way to stop racism. — Benkei

In the case of Nazi Germany being anti-Nazi was a serious, serious risk. You're not just risking yourself, you're risking your family. The anti-Nazis in Germany went above and beyond in regard to moral duty, and IMO it's not realistic to ask everyone to behave like that in a scenario where you're under the thumb of a totalitarian regime. Don't get me wrong, it's wonderful that anti-Nazis behaved like that and risked what they did but in many cases it was downright suicidal.

In the case of race today I consider myself a non-racist. I think racism is stupid. I'm not entirely sure what anti-racism is, but I get the sense that they tend to be pretty vocal. Frankly, as a lighter skinned person, I think my job is just mostly to listen during discussions on the those topics. If I see actual racism I'm happy to call it out, but it can be difficult to know in some cases.

So yes, terrorist acts by Jews causing mass casualties among citizens who do nothing as their fellow countrymen are slaughtered would've been totally justified by the time they started the concentration camps. — Benkei

When I was younger I agreed with this, but in reality it would have just likely driven the German population closer to the Nazis and the Nazis would have heavily publicized it and used it as proof that the Jews were intent on destroying the German people.

From a moral angle I find pretty bad. It's not a crime to be a German civilian in 1942/1943. There's just such a large scale of guilt here ranging from babies and children up to the planners of the final solution and indiscriminate bombings of civilians group essentially don't acknowledge this scale of guilt. If we wish to apply morality to war at all that project should begin with the distinction between civilians and combatants - valid targets and invalid targets. Otherwise war is just murder and soldiers are just murderers.

I don't accept that targets like property or even civilians are absolutely out-of-bounds in a conflict situation — Baden

Just to be clear I'm not saying this either. I am saying that intentionally targeting civilians is wrong. Industries directly contributing to the war effort are valid targets. Civilians will always be killed in war.

If that would have stopped the holocaust, I would have been all for it. Done purely for punitive reasons, no. — Baden

If I can recall the bombings were done to destroy the morale of the population and to cower the enemy into surrender. Who knows maybe it helped in some marginal way by removing tax payers.

I know you said you're Jewish, but even if you weren't I think I would see the general point of principle even though I thoroughly disagree with it. — Baden

Do you take the consequentialist view then?

And in 1939, 1942 or 1944? When exactly was it justified for them to attack the society murdering them with impunity? — Benkei

Was it the society or was the Nazi regime that was murdering them with impunity? If it's the entire society you should have no problem carpet bombing German cities which had no connection to the war effort. If you believe it's the Nazi regime you'd probably discriminate a little more and we can have a conversation over what constitutes a valid target.

Watch out that you don't get banned. — ssu

I'd like to see them ban me for that I'm Ashkenazi Jewish with family killed in the Holocaust.

Nobody will say: "Ok, we got the reforms we wanted." Nobody will be happy about the majority of people being against police brutality. Nope, it will go to a level of stupidity where some will see everywhere traces of systemic racism and will attack this systemic racism. So I guess soon burning the US Flag will be an act of protest against systemic racism and then flying the US flag will become a microaggression and racist. — ssu

I can see this being the case. Honestly, my point was that even if the rioters concerns are valid - and I have no problem with body cameras or better training for police or independent commissions going over police reports - there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to go about trying to achieve reforms. Even if the rioters consider this a war there are still valid and invalid targets in war.

And the oodles of evidence for systemic racism?

I'm fine having a discussion about that, but what we're talking about now is the rioters and their own personal moral responsibility.

I said this earlier with Baden: Even Jews in 1935-1936 wouldn't have been justified in destroying local German businesses (ones unconnected with Nazism) because even in war there are valid and invalid targets.

Getting back to the example of the Jews, why shouldn't they have rioted? I think your position is extreme here. Their very existence was under threat. I would say their scope for justified counter-action was wide open. For me, based on a straightforward utilitarian and consequentialist position, pretty much everything was permissible for the Jews if, of course, it would have contributed to their safety as individuals and as a people. So, strategy aside, on what ethical basis, if any, are you objecting here? Why is it wrong? You have a dominant party aimed at destroying an oppressed minority. If anything they have an obligation to do everything possible to defend themselves, right? — Baden

Yes, their obligation is to defend themselves, and their existence is threatened. The Jews are very much at war here. There is, however, a just war tradition both in Judaism and Christianity which speaks to the necessity of differentiating between valid and invalid targets.

Don't get me wrong, there's an argument that everyone and everything on the opposing side is a valid, legitimate target. Lets imagine a 10 year old German boy in 1940 who goes to a corner store and buys a pair of shoes. Maybe the tax goes to to the war industry. Maybe even in 4-5 years that boy could be fighting in a Nazi uniform. There's a case to be made here for killing him if we're going by purely utilitarian grounds.

Still, the cost for indulging in this 'total war' or 'win by all costs' scenario is that you turn into the ******* devil. This kind of thing happens in war, but at the end of the day that 10 year German boy is really no different from a 10 year old Jewish one. When it comes to rioting, simply the fact that a German business exists doesn't provide grounds to destroy it. Destroying businesses can leave people homeless or unable to afford food or crucial medication. I can condone the destruction of certain German businesses but there needs to be sufficient reason.

Why is hypothetical unsourced harm more important to you than real harm done on a daily basis? Why does it weigh heavier in your considerations regarding the protests than the lived reality?

By the same token, you can think of all the hypothetical instances of police brutality agitating against police brutality and for police reform would do.

In my discussion with Baden he asked me a question: Why don't disabled people riot? We (I say "we" because I mentioned I have a disability earlier) haven't rioted, so the situation is hypothetical. If we were to riot there would actually be harm.

If you're asking me about real riots which ended up destroying real black-owned businesses then that harm has been very much documented. That harm is very much real and will likely persist for years to come.

Why not? — Baden

Because it's incredibly unproductive and some of the those businesses we burn might even belong with disabled people. Or maybe siblings or parents of the disabled.

We can advocate for changes in legislation, but I wouldn't really count on it too much. Far better to network through other people in the community and form those connections. The best way out of dependence - and this applies just generally, not only in the context of disabled people - is getting wealth, and when you destroy local businesses often owned by those of the "oppressed" class you're really just shooting yourself in the foot. Financial independence is huge for overcoming systemic bias.

...the primary ethical responsibility of the individual is to oppose the wider injustice

Injustice ought to be opposed where ever it is. If Jews in 1935 started destroying German shops I'd condemn that - no problem (there are Holocaust victims in my family.) We shouldn't turn a blind eye simply because someone who committed the injustice is an oppressed class, and when we do that we actually end up dehumanizing them because we're not holding them up to the same standards as everyone else.

Of course in the case of Jews rioting the wider injustice is Nazi Germany. When I say that the Jews shouldn't have done that or that the rioters shouldn't have done that that's not saying "oh bring in the tanks" or that we need a heavy handed response. I'm just saying that they shouldn't do it.

Fundamental to that perspective is the establishment of a form of equality that extends beyond the theoretical into the lived experience of all communities and social stakeholders. — Baden

We get it - you want equality: Who doesn't? Who wouldn't want a more fair America?

I definitely get it. Showing you my victimhood card here - I am disabled. I have a disability protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act and I can tell you that discrimination against those with disabilities is pretty rampant. Yet, you don't see us setting buildings on fire or demonizing abled people who contribute to structures of systemic blah blah blah. We have our solutions and we support each other - it's not like we're totally indifferent about things.

And from this vantage point, the primary ethical responsibility of the individual is to oppose the wider injustice — Baden

Yes, when you divide people into oppressed and oppressor the oppressed is justified in doing what he needs to do to even the score. Any calls to the misdeeds done by the oppressed are just products or sympathizers of the oppressive system. The oppressed aren't individuals or moral agents - they're just an amorphous, oppressed blob whose singular purpose is to dismantle systemic injustice and if they need to break a few eggs to make the omelette then so be it - they're fighting evil. It's all just black and white - no shades of grey. Oppressor vs. oppressed. Poor vs. Rich. Black vs. White. People are defined by these identities.

If you choose this vantage point, that's on you.

Animalistic is not objectification. An animal can still be regarded as having agency - still capable of making choices and having preferences, in this case during sex. Otherwise I agree with you. What you’re saying is related to relationships that extend beyond the sexual act, but we weren’t really going there in this thread. — Possibility

Sure, I get what you're saying here and it probably comes down to his we define 'objectification.' I do notice a lot of language around sex involves objectification, though - "get it," "take it" etc.

But sure - the animal comparison might be better. It's not too important to me though whether we use 'animal' or 'object' - I see sex as a break from civilization; a reminder that we're not just rational, civilized beings who take part in the routines or rituals required to maintain modern society. I do think this "animalism" or "objectification" or whatever you want to call it takes places from both sides though.

Taking account of the part society plays in in the behaviour of some population is not the equivalent of assuming it is entirely responsible for everything. — Isaac

Both. — Isaac

I'm just thrilled you're able to acknowledge personal responsibility. As individuals we can't really control external social systems, but we can control ourselves. Once we acknowledge that people have agency and that they are at fault for doing what they're doing.... that's really all I wanted to hear from you. I understand that there's social factors at play, but one's actions ultimately come down to that individual. Presumably, since you'd blame yourself if you destroyed and looted a local business then we can draw the conclusion that the rioters are also at fault.

My question is: Do you think these four grouping categories about where you are from (race, religion, ethnicity, and nationality), are essentially important? Or are they holding us back? — Wheatley

I wouldn't call them "essentially important" but they can be important when it comes to forming connections and relationships due to how someone else's answers compare to our own. Basically, when we don't know people we look for connections. We all have a cultural heritage and it can be fun to talk culture with people. It provides a safe, fun, informative ground for getting to know that person and their culture.

Obviously, I'm not going to be like "oh you're from X, therefore you're like Y" but there is such a thing as cultural trends and if someone bucks a trend that's interesting in its own right. Learning another language is an excellent way to gain insight into another culture and help form a bridge. Personally, I regard my cultural background as important but in no way is it the entirety of me - only one aspect.

The reason it's not of "essential" importance is that we can (or at least should) be able to hit it off great with people from different backgrounds. I think values and worldview are more of "essential" importance.

and they are to blame for the damage caused by making an entire community so furious and desperate that they resort to rioting. — Isaac

An entire community so furious - so even the rich white kids who decide to go into a mall in an urban area and vandalize it during the riots are just....the fault of the government. People apparently don't have agency, they're just little wind-up toys to be wound up and released and whatever damage they cause is clearly on whoever wound them up. I swear you could come across a man beating a pregnant woman and you'd be thinking "god, how could the evil forces of systemic racism/classism/capitalism/etc be doing this to her!"

Serious question though: Do you apply these standards/this account to yourself. If you were to destroy a local business, would you blame yourself or something else? Plenty of these rioters are not from the community being vandalized, they're from outside.

I'd be pretty pissed off I should think. I don't see why how I'd feel about it should come above how the community feel about their plight. Why should I ask a group of underprivileged, down-beaten protestors who've just had one of their community murdered to give a shit about my feelings here? — Isaac

Sure, and what if they wanted to destroy and loot your house after? I mean it's just the voice of the under-privileged, who are you to object?

Surely those small business owners who had their livelihoods destroyed and the businesses that they built up over the years have no valid claim against the voice of the under-class, though.

Good sex is animalistic, and I think objectification during sex is entirely natural and fine. After sex, if you're going to carry on a relation with that person, you're probably going to want to start treating them as a reasonable person again. Or maybe not. I don't know, it's up to that relationship, but I remember Kant viewed humanity or dignity as tied to our capacity for reason and if you have a partner who you view as incapable or bad at reason it's gonna be hard for the relationship if not totally impossible. You'd basically have to constantly manage them.

Yep, we've already established that in some cases some types of reform can be achieved through peaceful means, we're talking about the cases and reform types where peaceful means seem to have failed in a timescale those suffering from the injustice feel is no longer reasonable to ask them to wait. — Isaac

I'm sure there's more you'd like to change about the US outside the scope of BLM. Hell, plenty of people think the tax code is unfair are we going to throw rocks through windows and assault business owners until that's fixed? Also, what is an appropriate timescale? If everyone followed your idea, we'd just be in a constant state of rioting because everyone has complaints about the law and the government.

No, it's not about sidetracking to some other issue. It's fundamental to your argument that the properties and livelihoods being damaged in the riots are both innocent and a net loss to the community. — Isaac

Lets back track.

I presented a claim which was something along the lines of 'Intentionally destroying innocent local businesses is evil.' I didn't present much of an argument for it... I was just asking you whether you agree or disagree. Lets just start there. You sometimes argue against points which I haven't really made.

I don't think I do need to look it up, because it's probably Latin.

It's basically a conclusion which doesn't logically follow from the premises.

the consequences of rioting are either trivial (in the case of a bit of bystander property damage)

It amazes me how destroying someone's livelihood and in some cases personal business that they've saved up for their entire life is "trivial." It's only trivial to you because you have no skin in the game. If it was your business it probably wouldn't be trivial.

You're wanting to take that away from them on the ground that a few people might have to find another job. — Isaac

You can be as angry as you want, it's fine. Just because I'm angry doesn't condone me punching you or destroying your business. Honestly, you learn this at like 5 years old. If you had your own business in one of those streets would you be okay with people destroying it? Honest question - they're just angry about racial injustice, who are you to deny them that expression? Would you let them destroy your home? It's just property, you can get a new one... maybe.

One can always use 'so far' as an excuse. It's a non sequitur because it's unfalsifiable. — Isaac

I think you need to look up the meaning of non-sequitur.

In any case, there already have been these transitions and reforms without massive riots so the idea that peaceful means don't accomplish anything is just wrong. If you want to extend things even further boycotts are a legitimate method. There are steps between peaceful, non-violent protest and indiscriminate destruction of local businesses.

I've literally just detailed exactly what they've done wrong, it's several thousand times greater loss of legally owed earnings than burning down the store lost. — Isaac

Ok but you're sidetracking the argument. You asked me what my position was and I basically said "X" - now you're like "Well what about A-Z? but you're not taking issue with X. All I'm going for here is X. We can talk about A-Z another time.

Right, I'm not familiar with the history there, but presuming you're right, at the very least we can say that sometimes peaceful means work and sometimes they don't. The question is what to do when they don't. — Isaac

All you can say is that peaceful means have have not worked so far. What are even the demands exactly? I have no idea what dismantling systemic racism in the entire US actually means. Give us concrete proposals.

Causing people some financial hardship is 'evil' is it? — Isaac

No, that's not what I said. A boycott is not inherently evil. I'm saying arbitrarily destroying local businesses that have done nothing wrong is evil. If there's just cause for the financial penalty we can have a discussion about that.

You can't just say that political lobbying doesn't work. I'm not a police expert by any means, but I know in Camden they did some reforms or in other parts of the country there have been more community-oriented approaches which were achieved through other means besides violent rioting.

And it is evil. Many Americans live paycheck to paycheck and when you destroy and loot their places of work you are effectively cutting off their livelihood.

Do you seriously think this hadn't been tried already at various points in last five years during which police brutality has just been getting worse?

Ok we're gonna break more windows and burn stuff down that'll get America on our side.

In any case, don't do evil so that good may come.

It's good that you and I can deal with both of them as separate things and maybe not have our opinion of the goals of the protests be affected by the consequences of the disturbances but most people can't.

Then that's their problem. Those people are just bad at thinking. I think it's imperative that we deal with them as separate things. No problem at all with sympathizing or supporting the protests and the message, while condemning the rioting.

So it's tactical to ignore one of them because of the importance of the other in light of the tactics of the other side.

I understand - in the media or just in everyday life if someone is paying an enormous amount of attention to only one side of the coin it's really suspect. That person probably has an agenda. I figure since we're on a philosophy forum we should be able to call a spade a spade.

OK. Why is that a problem in your view?

Because a position which doesn't distinguish between protesters and rioters places itself in the same camp as authoritarians. The US Constitution guarantees the right to protest peacefully, but authoritarians regard all challenges to the state under one banner. Protesting - in and of itself - is as American as apple pie, but rioting can be incredibly destructive and often just ends up hurting those who are most already most vulnerable.

I guess I'm more forgiving and much more of a collectivist than you to subscribe to "ultimately". What if I poke you every second all the time? Are you ultimately responsible for hitting me in the face or did I have it coming? The US had it coming especially after voting in a racist like Trump. In that respect I consider the restraint of the black community this time around rather legendary, when compared to the reaction to the ludicrous judgment in the Rodney King case in 1992.

I feel like a more apt comparison would be if you kept poking me and then I eventually lashed out and punched Baden. Destroying a mom & pop corner shop or a sporting goods store is not "punching up" or "fighting the system" - if anything, it emboldens the far right and worries the centrists. Take to the polls or raise money for your candidates. Talk to local community leaders who have connections with the police force. By destroying local communities the riots are placing more people in poverty and it takes years for a community to recover.

On the subject of responsibility I just think its important for someone to take ownership of themselves and their actions. If we deny this we basically take away their personhood. In other words, in my mind you're basically treating them like a child who is not responsible for his actions. I understand that there's plenty of injustice that goes around and everyone's been damaged or hurt, but how the individual handles this is a direct reflection on their character and maturity. In fact, I'd say how a person deals with injustice/pain is probably the most defining aspect of their character.

Is it really important to know who lit up what building or is it important to understand the social and civil unrest leading up to these sorts of disturbances? I'm in favour of the latter.

I don't understand why it's an "either/or" scenario... why can't we find both important? I understand you might not care about a building being set on fire but you'd probably care if it was your workplace.

Second, I'm not convinced a hard distinction can be made between protesters and rioters, which makes the effort futile - leading to endless discussions. — Benkei

The rioters are the violent ones. It's concerning that you don't seem to draw much of a distinction between people who peacefully protest and those who destroy and loot local businesses.

Protests and riots are symptoms, say, emergent properties of the system. — Benkei

That's fine and we can discuss that, but we shouldn't ignore the other side of the coin which is that people are moral agents who are capable of making decisions and possess moral autonomy. People are ultimately responsible for their actions even if the cards have never been in their favor.

I think calling people, who are by far mostly peaceful protesters, "rioters", is harmful to any possible progress because to many it would invalidate the grievances of the protesters (because, unfortunately, poisoning the well is totally effective as a rhetorical device and affecting public opinion, even if it's a fallacy).

We need to make a sharp distinction between protesters and rioters. I have no problem with protesters. I am not calling peaceful protesters rioters, I am calling those who destroy businesses and property and assault business owners in the name of this cause "rioters."

I disagree that condemning the rioters invalidates the grievances of the protesters. I hope you agree that just because someone supports X, doesn't mean that they are condoned to achieve X at virtually any cost.

I'll call that collateral damage and insist that it doesn't affect the righteousness of the cause being pursued, much as, when a bomb is dropped on a strategic bridge, we don't care about the loss of life of non-combatants.

I can tell you that as someone in the Air Force, we do care about collateral damage. Even if we were targeting bin laden himself (I know he's dead) we don't have a blank cheque to, say, destroy a city in order to kill him. There's a serious discussion to be had over how much collateral damage is permissible, but no one is saying that everything is acceptable in the name of achieving an objective or that the loss of life from collateral damage doesn't matter.

In any case in this scenario we're talking about the actions of individuals, not potentially imprecise bombs or possibly faulty intel being dropped on an enemy. Collateral damage implies a degree of inevitability, but we need to be seriously careful about this whether we're talking about an actual war or social change. Reasonable people agree with fighting Hitler, but disagree with some of the bombing runs - say, Dresden. Be careful in the name of fighting a monster that you don't become one yourself. This is always one of the dangers of war.

If things don't materially change so that US society becomes more just because the political institutions are either a) incapable or b) unwilling to affect change, then riots definitely become an option in my book and ethically defensible. Just more collateral damage.

I would strongly advise using other means to achieve your goals. I think rioting and destroying local private businesses is almost never excusable - even if the system is unchangeably rotten to the core. I wouldn't have excused Jews rioting in Nazi Germany and destroying German businesses even after the Nuremberg laws were passed. It just wouldn't have been the proper response on several fronts, and I say this as someone with family killed in the Holocaust. If we're talking about targeting government officials that's a different story.

Ok if you don't support the "disturbances" that's fine. Your quote did imply it though.

As to whether I'm gunning for a fight... am I just not allowed to engage people who I disagree with? Should I only respond to you to express agreement? I'm sure we'd have great discussions just going back and forth telling each other that we agree with each other.

But don't you support the riots against police brutality? It's just Americans doing their civic duty.

Violence is the continuation of politics by different means. It's a matter of dispute resolution and therefore looting and rioting can be a means, and should be if the social institutions are incapable of change when they perpetuate injustices.

Interesting how if a group of white people went out and destroyed a black owned business everyone would be upset, but if the same action were done because these white people were outraged over police brutality it's just them expressing their virtue and they the group should be praised.

I have a 10 hour video for you to watch on race. I'd like you to watch it and then respond with an 8-10 page paper properly annotated (MLA format). Until then I refuse to engage you on this topic!

I read somewhere that of the top 200 times in the 100m dash all of them are held by black men (this was a few years ago but have things really changed much?) Would you like to see the stats for the 200m? Or the 50m? I'm more than happy to go through the stats here. Just curious, is there any point where you'd like "hey, maybe there's something up here...." It's not just Jamaicans, you've got blacks from all across the world but what I believe they have in common is west african ancestry.

No, I'm not going to take 50 minutes out of my day before I'm allowed to respond. What then, do I need to address every point in the video? I have 3 books on the subject in mind that you can read in the meantime.

Take a look at the top 100m sprinters in the world. They come from all over the world - not just Jamaica, but also the US, Canada, Africa, even Great Britain and France. It's actually a relatively diverse group from various cultures.

Do you know what they all have in common though? I shouldn't even have to say this because you already know.

By all means, lets look at the list for the 200m record holders or 400m record holders.

Skin color is just another type of variation within the human genome. Racism is a category error where one's skin color is inferred to have a casual relationship with some other characteristic where it doesn't - like one's performance on the job or on the track, or in this case - that if you have white skin then your white skins makes you hate blacks.

I don't think it's skin color strictly speaking, but why do blacks dominate on the track? The most straight-forward, common reason relates to the quantity of fast-twitch muscle fibers and bigger bone structure we see in black athletes.

If you someone wants to deny this then I guess they'd need to argue that white runners, hispanic, runners, and asian runners apparently just don't work as hard or it's not in their culture which is stupid.

In any case it's important to look at the whole person rather than just immediately define them by a superficial aspect of them. I think that's what a lot of racism is - considering race as central to identity.

The reason blacks are faster is because they have I think on average a higher amount of fast twitch muscles. That's just the case. I'm pretty sure even sociologists accept this explanation. Of course there are plenty of slow blacks too.

Do you have an alternative explanation for why blacks dominate sprinting?

Tim, it's not just American blacks. Blacks from all over the world dominate sprinting; it's not even close. You have Jamaican blacks, Canadian blacks, doesn't matter.

In any case I agree that race is largely socially constructed and even if one race tends to be better at athletics or any particular area on average that doesn't mean that they're "superior." Genetics is not fate. The Irish, Greeks, Italians and Jews were at one point not considered "white" and to me the question of whether they really are "white" is ridiculous.