this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2024
206 points (91.9% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4644 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
206
The concept of race has its roots in Christian Nationalist views of "inferior" people (www.lgbtqnation.com)
submitted 1 month ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RadicalEagle@lemmy.world 34 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Article titles like these always feel like a bit of a stretch. I would think the concept of race would extend as far back as homo sapiens vs neanderthals.

Obviously race is also a part of Christianity, but if I remember correctly the most relevant thing Jesus said about race is that salvation wasn't just for the Jews and that God's love extended to everyone. Weird how far off track Christianity can get when used as a populist tool for oppression.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I mean… not really. Neanderthals were a distinct species and were far more genetically distinct than any modern human populations are from each other. There isn’t any scientifically valid definition of race that remotely resembles its use in common parlance. Certainly different cultures exist. But we don’t define race by culture exactly. Different physical traits exist as well, but they often overlap between different races, so they don’t completely define race either.

Race is an artificial amalgam of different concepts used to rank people hierarchically. It isn’t real in any physical sense, but only exists as an idea to justify stratifications on society.

[–] quicklime@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

The comment I'm replying to is not merely opinion, by the way; it's the widely shared consensus in modern biology and anthropology.

[–] dudinax@programming.dev -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Neanderthals weren't a distinct species otherwise we couldn't have interbred with them.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nah, species do interbreed. That they can't is a myth

[–] dudinax@programming.dev 0 points 1 month ago

Whether some populations breed true "in the wild" defines species. In the real world this is seriously muddy, but that's beside the point.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago

Some people have argued they were a subspecies instead for this reason. But I didn’t want to get into that because it doesn’t change the overall picture. Whatever you want to call them, they’re far more distinct than human races today. Races aren’t distinct enough to be labeled at any taxonomic level that’s used to describe distinct taxonomic groups within non-human species. This didn’t stop early racist thinkers from trying, but the picture has become clear after more than a century of scientific research on the topic

But yeah the difference between species and subspecies can be a bit fuzzy as well. We used to define species such that they couldn’t interbreed, but then we learned that lots of clearly distinct species can interbreed too.

In some cases, species can be maintained by natural selection rather than reproductive barriers. A classic example is oak trees. Many oak species can easily cross with their close relatives and do so very frequently. However, since each species is adapted to a different ecological niche, the hybrids end up in ecological no-mans land, doing worse than either pure parent in their respective habitats. Because of this, they rarely reach maturity or contribute much to the gene pool, and the species remain distinct.

However, in some very specific environments they can, and this has been very important for oak evolution since it allows entire clusters of species to occasionally share genes, aiding in their evolution. This is thought to be one reason why oaks have adapted to almost every temperate treed environment in North America.

[–] mashbooq@infosec.pub 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Christianity doesn't follow Jesus; it follows Paul. The "Christ" part is marketing.

[–] ReputedlyDeplorable@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Too true! If you actually pay attention the later fan fiction (letters to the churches) doesn’t match up with what Jesus was recorded saying by Matt, Mark, Luke and John but especially John. But of course the people who claim to follow the Bible seem to rarely read and contemplate it.

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

It just struck me -

Ironically enough, in a way, these stories are essentially a retelling of Adam's fall from grace, just with some of the details changed.

The basic gist of the story is identical - humans were living in a state of grace right up until the moment that the evil [serpent/christian nationalists/etc.] corrupted them with [knowledge/racism/etc.].

Though I don't feel it myself, there must be some common gut level appeal to that whole idea.

(edited for clarity)

[–] forrgott@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My own take is that the story of Adam is simply intended to teach us that self awareness means you are capable of acting against your own self interest; the greater your "knowledge", the greater your capacity for "sin". Whether as an individual or a community. But some sexist bigots managed to somehow make it a story about the evil nature of women instead, which is total bull.

So yeah, that's gonna be a very universal idea.

[–] RadicalEagle@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Yep! I always understood the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil to be the Christian mythology's explaination for the birth of consciousness. Once you're conscious of the concepts of right and wrong you'll be capable of feeling shame for your mistakes.

Throwing Eve under the bus is a real beta move.

[–] RadicalEagle@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah, that's a cool observation and it makes sense. There's an idea that there's really only one "story", which is the hero's journey. I think it might be a fundamental way of how people frame their experiences and observations.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Probably back to at least the cambrian explosion (which was caused by predators finally showing up.)

Even before predators, with everything being relatively peaceful, tribalism would still give evolutionary advantage; by ensuring your team got resources.

The concept of race definitely came from the concept of “other”, with our understanding of “other” expanding as we became increasingly social.

But it’s still there, under the surface. Which is why it’s so damn hard to stamp out…. And why the repukes are trying so damn hard to otherwise LGBTQ- it triggers tribalism and fear of the other and they don’t have anything else.

[–] Beldarofremulak@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Why start so late? Matter and antimatter.

[–] Vandals_handle@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Speaking of outdated theories "An even smaller group, estimated at no more than 20 Chukchis, crossed what is now the Bering Sea approximately 13,000 years ago during the last glacial period, and migrated into North America. They are the ancestors of Native Americans, and 800 years later, they reached as far as South America."

The discovery of fossilized human footprints in New Mexico that are over 21,000 -23,000 years old was reported in 2021. Just this week a report from Argentina of a 21,000 year old fossilized Armadillo showing evidence of butchering by stone knives was released.

I'm not as up to date on racist theories but the rest of the article aligns with what I have read from multiple sources. Race is a relatively modern concept created to justify conquest and enslavement.

[–] Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Any arbitrary criterion to sort people is meant for that.

[–] PythagreousTitties@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

People have always called other people that's different than them names. It started long before "beginning in the 15th Century of the Common Era (CE) and reaching its apex in the early 20th Century CE."

This article is trash.

What happened to the other human species that were around in ancient times? They didn't die out because of a religion that started a milinia after they were alive.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago

People have always called other people that's different than them names

Yes, but the specific social construct of race was an invention of white Christian colonialists trying to justify their bigoted behavior and prejudices towards people with more melanin.

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Well, referring to groups as gods people and unwashed heathens kinda does have a dehumanizing effect. Whouda thunk?

[–] ThePerfectLink@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Lol. Us vs them mentality has stretched back since the beginning of the homo genus... probably before that. Racism is just an extension of that but with larger communities. It's more accurate to say "The Christian Nationalist Views of Inferior People have Roots Stemming from the Concept of Race". Which is kinda obvious and doesn't make much of a headline.

[–] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's not accurate to say it's rooted in the inferiority of other people but in their own self professed supremacy. Christians think they're better than everyone.

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

That's just semantics. If they believe they are supreme compared to another, they still believe the other is inferior. They're just trying to justify it to themselves in a way that doesn't make them feel bad about the way they feel. Especially since christians are supposed to go out and preach the word to convert people, thereby making them part of the 'chosen group' of betters.