Sure, I amended my wording. Although, you admitted continents were somewhat arbitrary divisions, but they can be admitted into science nevertheless.

I have to wonder though, considering your past posting history on metaphysics. Do you believe anything is objectively real?

Equivocating about what? I noted that Europeans have considered themselves to belong to different groups over time. You said that didn't have anything to do with race being a social construction. It appears you and TGW think that the entire European continent belongs to an objectively real racial category, one discoverable by science.

Once again, the lack of melanin in the skin of Europeans was a fact about them before there was a society to allegedly construct it. There's nothing to discuss here. TGW has so thoroughly interred your stupid claim into the ground that you now appear a sucker for punishment. — Thorongil

My argument was never about the range of melanin in Europeans (notice how Northern Europeans tend to have less than Southern). TGW decided to make it about that. Anyway, history says different about the racial categories of white and black.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that was all that counted. — The Great Whatever

It's irrelevant to this particular discussion on whether "whiteness" is a relatively recent invention.

So white people were enslaved and discriminated against in the West based on their whiteness?

I think they never began or ended. It's because of vanity that white people focus on their own exploits -- being the best at being evil gives them some sort of weird masochistic hard-on, I swear. — The Great Whatever

That doesn't change the fact that black people were considered property, then were denied various rights and targeted by hate groups for a long time.

People would just think different things about dark people. — The Great Whatever

It's the different things people would think about dark people that is the entire issue of racism.

I think that race issues are mostly a pot of incoherent moral hysteria that have nothing to do with the issues people actually face and serve as a crutch to place a comic book ethical facade over daily life because the real world is too difficult to handle. — The Great Whatever

So you then the racial issues around slavery and Jim Crow laws in the past ceased being a problem shortly after the Civil Rights movement, or perhaps a decade ago or something?

But the idea of being dark would be the reverse of what black has been considered for the past several centuries in the west. That's the point I'm making. That's what's socially constructed, not the actual skin color or where one's ancestors came from.

Let's try a thought experiment. Say history went different, and an Ethiopian empire dominated Europe and much of the globe for several centuries. It imposed it's own class structure based on how dark your skin was. The pale people, what we call white in our world, occupied the lowest rung because lacking in melanin, and being a conquered and enslaved people, they clearly were inferior mentally, morally and deserved their social status.

In such a world, how would we view dark and light skin?

White people are utterly delusional about race, and all minorities know this and exploit them for it, so their opinions don't matter on the subject. As for other minorities, I can't speak for them, but having listened to them all my life I think they're delusional too. — The Great Whatever

I'd be interested to know what you think isn't delusional, since it seems you think everyone is delusional about the issue.

Which is not the same thing as saying that whiteness is a social construct or was invented to justify colonialism and slavery. — The Great Whatever

The idea of whiteness is, not the pinkish skin pigment, or relative relatedness on the European continent.

Sure, but there are plenty of minorities who do say it remains a real problem. And white people.

OK, how does that mean that being of European ancestry was invented several hundred years ago? — The Great Whatever

No, but the idea of being white as a racially superior category was.

mean, I went to university, I understand that this is what people are told. — The Great Whatever

You don't have to go to university to understand that racism, even if it's the subtle kind, is still an issue. But don't believe me, go ask any American minority what it means to be a minority compared to being white.

How could it have been a social construct? If there was nothing to latch onto, it wouldn't have worked, because you literally wouldn't have been able to tell the difference between white and black people, after these things were supposedly 'invented.' — The Great Whatever

It was a social construct that having light skin meant one was from a superior racial category that rightfully gets to dominate as a result. Or are you just going to overlook that part of history?

I said it was social construct, didn't I?

To express racial superiority or inferiority, and the resulting advantages/disadvantages that go with that.

Are you asking me why people use words to group things into certain categories? — The Great Whatever

I already know the reason, and it's not to identify the geography of one's ancestors.

The question is what the motivation is for lumping such large populations into a groups based on skin color. I've noticed that people of European descent can vary quite a bit in their skin pigment, and even look quite dark with enough sun, just as African descendants can be quite light.

If all we cared about was noting that people descend from certain geographic locations, why not just use European, African, Indian, North American, etc?

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?