Race was invented to justify slavery. It was harder to justify slavery when everyone is human, so by dehumanizing others it made it easier for the "masters" to justify enslaving large groups of people. Merely by saying they aren't part of the 'human' race, and by inventing "breeds" or "races" and treating them like separate species.
This allowed certain people to feel less guilty about how they treated other people. Race beyond this was just differences in appearance, such as lighter or darker skin, hair, different noses, etc, and these differences always existed, and in certain parts of the world a certain type of nose, or hair, or skin tone might be more common, but "race" is an ideology and treats these differences as something significant to the behavior of the person.
Race was invented way before slavery. 32.000 years ago to be exact. You made two comments for saying the exact same thing. No need to do that.
It was harder to justify slavery when everyone is human, so by dehumanizing others it made it easier for the "masters" to justify enslaving large groups of people. Merely by saying they aren't part of the 'human' race, and by inventing "breeds" or "races" and treating them like separate species.
Ancient Egyptians didn't have the word race nor did homosapiens when they were abusing neanderthals to the point of extinction. Your logic is over simplistic. The problem is not the linguistic part. again. read the darn article before you spout SJW mantra.
they are part of the human race. they are just different. much like dogs have different races and each race has different traits. no race is better than another. they are just different. key word here is "different". work on it.
lol. as an anthropologist I can assure you that they didn't always exist. Those traits changed along with the environment over hundreds of thousands of years.
now who is the "ignorant" one? I would advice you not to take your arguments from liberal college campuses. Answers stemming from there do not necessarily reflect reality.
Each "race" does not have different traits because race doesn't correlate with genetic differences. A "breed" in a dog such as a Pitbull is not inherently more violent than a German Shepard. It's all in how the dog is trained, not the "breed". Breed is nothing but the physical features of the dog and has nothing to do with how intelligent the dog is, or what traits the dog can have, because dogs have genes and are mixed.
Breeds only exist because humans enforced it into existence but there is nothing more about it than that. If humans like for example pale skin and blue eyes, then the humans mate more with people who have that, and got more of that in certain places, but that is sexual preference toward a particular appearance and nothing more. It doesn't mean that somehow having these physical features reveals anything about the personality of the human because it doesn't.
So of humans force dogs to mate in a certain way so they'll be better at racing? So now we have the grey hound. This doesn't mean the grey hound "breed" can be compared to human "races" because there was no domestication where some master forced humans to mate over thousands of years.
You can bring up Egypt, and slavery, and you can bring up some times where there were arranged marriages, or where there is rape, but the fact is the majority of humans on the earth weren't raped, and every human has ancestors who were slave masters and slaves, so that is moot. In a lab setting, yes you can create races by forcing humans to breed in unnatural patterns, but there is no forced eugenics right now and even if there was, race is still just a social construct which wouldn't exist on it's own without some government, or dictator, or religion or something to enforce it.
how much do you want to bed on that?
other species enforce it as well. this is how the environment works.
oh yes there was. it is called the african savanna ecosystem. the indo-europea..heck even slaves in united states were bread like animals in order to produce the most strong one. dana-edwards. you need to do ridiculous amount of reading. this is like 101 sociology.
actually for hunderds of thousands of years..except the last 6000, humans were raping each other much like other animals do, forcing themselves to breed.
labs exist in the natural environment. you keep using that word "aritficial". i don't think it means what you think it means sunshine.
lol. rich people right now choose traits for their children based on genetic engineering. poor people can't do that.
dana dana dana...you talk so much..you say so little...
I did back up what I say with some sources. You've offered none to support your hypothesis.
So the point? Yes you can remove certain traits from a population if you use a domestication process over a very long period of time, but it took thousands of years to tame dogs, and then hundreds of years more to have what we now call "breeds". Human beings don't have enough control over each other for a long enough period of time to do that, even in the context of slavery there was never that much control over mating.
I could be wrong, and maybe you can show me some documents which support your thesis, but you haven't. If we look at the genetics of black people today, or white people today, we don't see anything genetic which shows any sort of evidence that they have innately different traits.
So unless you believe black people are inherently better at sports (which you aren't saying but you hint at by saying slavery enforced stronger offspring) then you're spouting conspiracy theories and myths without any scientific (genetic) evidence to prove it happened.
Provide some evidence for that.
Bet? I would go with the science no matter what the popular myth has to say. There is no scientific factual evidence to support that Pitbulls are more violent than German Shepards. If we are tracking dog bites, then we don't see that Pitbulls bite people more on average. There is no evidence that any breed of dog is inherently more violent than another.