Issues of Race in the USA

[Simple Minded]

While I think these identities are social constructs, I would point out that they aren't always constructed by the groups in question for their own benefit, and are just as often applied externally for the benefit of others. "You belong to group X, therefore I can own you/kill you/take your property" as the crudest example. Suddenly your group affiliation becomes extremely important to your quality of life, and it had nothing to do with you.

The run on "identity politics" today is a direct result of the swift and near-total success of the Gay Rights movement in the Western world. Can we really argue that gays and lesbians didn't need such a movement? Or that it was not rational for them to pursue these political goals? And why wouldn't other people try to emulate them?

Noam Chomsky predicted in 2002 that what he called "reactionary" groups would appropriate the language and tactics of identity politics and use them for to defend the status quo and majority interests. Whatever you think of his body of work as a whole, clearly he got that one right. This is exactly what the "alt-right" is.

True. You always get to choose your own self-applied group identity, but you don't get to choose how others perceive you. My point is that when painting with the broad brush of group identity, it gets sloppy.

Was Fred the victim of the group identity that others applied to Fred, or is Fred's fate the result of his own behavior, or his own chosen self-identity? Fred says he was discriminated against by several people due to his/their demographics, but those who know Fred shun him because he is a self-destructive, a**hole.

Many instances of both exist. Not evaluating each case on its own individual merits is futile and meaningless.

I've had the good fortune in life to have never encountered a member of the _________ community. All the people I have ever dealt with were individuals. Politicians and activists don't have that same....... "privilege."

I think the new "self-identification" movement will fix that. Not knowing how any potential oppressor self-identifies will make the claim to victim hood more troublesome.

I could probably make a good case in court that the woman's marches are poplulated by a bunch sexist, female, chauvinist pigs! They make me feel oppressed due to my lack of a vagina, unless of course, I choose to self-identify as an oppressed female. The line between victim group identity and oppressor group identity is blurry. Me thinks due to the use of the word "group!"

[Nonc Hilaire]

I think identity based on social class, economic status and type of employment is often relevant, but it is too crass for most social manipulators to pull on those handles visably.

[Ibrahim]

I think identity based on social class, economic status and type of employment is often relevant, but it is too crass for most social manipulators to pull on those handles visably.

I think this a s type of grouping that is routinely exploited by politicians. You work, you pay your taxes, and you are by no means rich but you are comfortable. But do you really want your tax revenue - the fruit of your hard work - to pass into the hands of welfare queens/immigrants/ungrateful minorities who didn't "earn" a comfortable life?

All racial coding since the Civil Rights movement until 2016 employed this language. Before that, and again today apparently, you can just say you don't like group X because they are lazy/dumb/violent.

[noddy]

Do any of you posting in this thread really believe, deep down, that there is a fundamental difference between, say, a white person and a black person? In any meaningful sense?

Because I'm just curious whether the debate is really about the political-cultural groups that have seized on the concept of race as a political issue, or whether they honestly believe there is something to it beyond the cultural and political.


For example, I've been utterly fascinated by the rise of the "alt-right" and the mainstreaming of a certain amount of racist language and ideology in the past several years. But its interesting to me as a political phenomenon. The actual "ideas" of a white nationalists, or their equivalents in, say, N.O.I. or Black Israelite ideology, are not particularly interesting. It also strikes me as an on/off switch. You either think certain people are fundamentally beneath you or you don't, its not something you're going to rationally argue someone into accepting or rejecting.

the only problem with that analysis is that all sorts gets blurred into the worst of historical racism, which hasnt always been my experience.

plenty of Chinese just prefer the cultural comforts of hanging with other Chinese, you know all the little rules, life is just simpler and easier and they live in China towns and dont leave their comfort zones much and nobody cares.

because of history, and an education system with a rather one eyed view of that history (do irish and other poor europeans get lumped into white people ? they came to the new world as barely above slaves) any group of grumpy whites who just want a "normal" life of living by the rules you were raised with - is considered the second coming of hitler.

this whole globalisation/modernisation thing is pushing the ability for humans to adapt fast enough to suit - you can also see alot of the islamic reactionaries and social stresses in Africa through the same lens.

on a much cruder level, places like the anglosphere are running 20-40% of the population as fresh immigrants, thats a huge amount of cultural adaption which no other countries are going through, its easy to see integration problems in countries which actually have immigrants.

what is normal.. I can find riots and civil wars all through south east asia when the locals feel (rightly or wrongly) that their cultural status quo is under threat.

[Apollonius]

Thank you.

[Ibrahim]

Do any of you posting in this thread really believe, deep down, that there is a fundamental difference between, say, a white person and a black person? In any meaningful sense?

Because I'm just curious whether the debate is really about the political-cultural groups that have seized on the concept of race as a political issue, or whether they honestly believe there is something to it beyond the cultural and political.


For example, I've been utterly fascinated by the rise of the "alt-right" and the mainstreaming of a certain amount of racist language and ideology in the past several years. But its interesting to me as a political phenomenon. The actual "ideas" of a white nationalists, or their equivalents in, say, N.O.I. or Black Israelite ideology, are not particularly interesting. It also strikes me as an on/off switch. You either think certain people are fundamentally beneath you or you don't, its not something you're going to rationally argue someone into accepting or rejecting.

the only problem with that analysis is that all sorts gets blurred into the worst of historical racism, which hasnt always been my experience.

plenty of Chinese just prefer the cultural comforts of hanging with other Chinese, you know all the little rules, life is just simpler and easier and they live in China towns and dont leave their comfort zones much and nobody cares.

because of history, and an education system with a rather one eyed view of that history (do irish and other poor europeans get lumped into white people ? they came to the new world as barely above slaves) any group of grumpy whites who just want a "normal" life of living by the rules you were raised with - is considered the second coming of hitler.

this whole globalisation/modernisation thing is pushing the ability for humans to adapt fast enough to suit - you can also see alot of the islamic reactionaries and social stresses in Africa through the same lens.

on a much cruder level, places like the anglosphere are running 20-40% of the population as fresh immigrants, thats a huge amount of cultural adaption which no other countries are going through, its easy to see integration problems in countries which actually have immigrants.

what is normal.. I can find riots and civil wars all through south east asia when the locals feel (rightly or wrongly) that their cultural status quo is under threat.

I don't really disagree with anything you are saying here, so I'm not sure where you are taking issue. I might quibble that Chinatowns were the result of some pretty brutal laws controlling Chinese migration into North America, Australia and elsewhere. But I do agree with the general point some people just like to live around similar people with similar cultural reference points. The extent one goes to protect these cultural enclaves says quite a lot, and I would expect most people wouldn't be willing to consign others to some horrible fate just to prevent the old corner store on their childhood block from becoming a kebab shop or whatever.

My original question - which was somewhat rhetorical since I don't think anyone here would answer affirmatively - was whether or not anyone thought that another person was inferior to them because they belonged to a different ethnic or cultural group. Even people who professionally flog the "blacks have a lower average IQ than whites" books probably don't assume that a every black person they meet is less intelligent than they are. Some people on this forum have written (moreso on the original forum) some pretty hateful things about certain groups, but would probably be polite to a member of that group they met face to face in a social situation. This was the distinction I was trying to focus on.


When racism is widely and openly practiced in a given political context we can probably find another motivation. Coupled with the universal human traits of weakness and suggestibility of course.

[noddy]

in my experience the amount of actual hater type racists, rather than casual "my culture is best" racists is very small.

I think the victorian type "blacks are monkeys" type is almost extinct now, tho small pockets of it can be found

the next generation of racists is going to be much more focused on real practical differences and much harder to confront, and thats the differences in attitude to work/life and government, the differences between comfy locals and hard working immigrants.

I met this lovely lady from a south pacific country who has no problem with most people or cultures but has the goal of kicking all Chinese out of her island, the reasons being they stuff up the whole balance of life for them - work too hard, far too focused on acquiring land and money - much the same story that has played out badly in malaysia and indonesia and formed singapore.

at various points in history, jews, chinese and whites have all been accused of that, others outside my references points aswell, no doubt.

some would argue she is lazy and backward, deserving of having her culture crushed by a more industrious people, Im not convinced of that.

this is the real nuts and guts of globalism, the next wave of hating energy, the next wave of lazy locals being replaced by hard working immigrants... maybe this time the colours of who is replacing who will change but the anger will be real, and not racist, but it will be expressed in racist terms.

[Ibrahim]

So you could argue that more often than not these are conventional political questions - who gets what, how we divide up resources and responsibilities - that end up getting framed in racial terms.

I feel like the majority of people framing things in racial terms aren't themselves true believers, but only frame the issue that way because it doesn't seem to get results, especially lately. But the occasionally someone will take things too far and actually act on some of the more extreme rhetoric. What I can't decide is where the responsibility lies, and on a personal level I can't decide what I find more objectionable, the true believers or the cynics.

[noddy]

So you could argue that more often than not these are conventional political questions - who gets what, how we divide up resources and responsibilities - that end up getting framed in racial terms.

pretty much - proof of that is how the american left and right speak of each other

some of the memes ive seen from both sides of that divide would cause many conniptions if pointing at another race, even tho the motivations are largely the same, for these exact reasons.

I feel like the majority of people framing things in racial terms aren't themselves true believers, but only frame the issue that way because it doesn't seem to get results, especially lately. But the occasionally someone will take things too far and actually act on some of the more extreme rhetoric. What I can't decide is where the responsibility lies, and on a personal level I can't decide what I find more objectionable, the true believers or the cynics.

ive argued against that elsewhere , cause once you get passed the reasons, its suspiciously americans and arabs going bang and killing random strangers in large numbers.

the rest of the world has all the same pressures, all the same racism and class divides, yet somehow isnt quite as prone as throwing up mass murdering loons.

its hard to be more racist than some chinese, or more classist than many indians, yet they dont appear to go postal with the same regularity.

still, its all overblown, i dont fear exploding muslims nor gun happy rednecks and consider all the fear generated against both a cynical ploy from the usual power grabbing suspects

[Parodite]

The current label-ism where everybody calls everybody a racist, a Nazi, supremacist has pretty much eroded these words to nothing more than "you are a dangerous durian" of sorts. Instead and in the future it will be more and more those with money and political power versus the masses that struggle at the bottom without much money, no power, and no vote that counts as a vote. I think the yellow vests are the first sign of that.

[Ibrahim]

The current label-ism where everybody calls everybody a racist, a Nazi, supremacist has pretty much eroded these words to nothing more than "you are a dangerous durian" of sorts. Instead and in the future it will be more and more those with money and political power versus the masses that struggle at the bottom without much money, no power, and no vote that counts as a vote. I think the yellow vests are the first sign of that.

The concepts have some kind of value, or far right wouldn't spend so much time dissembling. Looking back at Spengler forum, the prevailing approach was "this is not technically racist." If racism didn't still mean something to people why would they bother?



The evolution from Islamophobia to full-blown racism and anti-semitism in North America, and the evolution from both of those in France to a generalized anti-government demonstrations and violence does suggest an escalation towards something.

I suspect in most cases the root causes are economic, and when hating Muslims or Jews didn't address the root causes of their "anxiety," they had to move on to harder drugs. The political elite in North America and Europe - including liberals and the center-left - would probably embrace fascism before they acquiesced to a socialist redistribution of wealth. But the status quo can't continue indefinitely.

Actually its a good sign of the usual distractions of racism and antisemitism are wearing off so soon. If you're really that mad because the elite are hoarding all the wealth then throw your Molotov at a bank and not some minority community center.

[Parodite]

Sadly enough, not many racists are honest and open about their racism, or about any other "I am/we are better than you" ideology one can subscribe to. But it is nearly impossible not to judge others one way or other once you have something of a value system.

A knuckle head libertarian individualist who hates government and sees all taxes as theft, and argues that in the end the individual is the measure of all things... will still look down on people "who don't get it", like those who are a victim of "group-think". Do they really respect the person and only hate their socialist delusional ideas? Or, more likely, is it actually impossible not to look down on such people together with their inferior ideas?

There are the shameless extroverts who want a white ethno state or a sharia governed theocracy and scream their desires from the roof tops proudly. But most of all of us prefer to stay under the radar, also due to self-censoring. Any hint from the outside, or thought from the inside that we, the grey self-censoring masses, are like those shameless extroverts must be rejected if not censored!

And a good chance that what we fear we are or could become... we will project with a passion on others. As a way to keep the thief and murderer at bay. Exorcising your demons forcing them to live in your neighbors house. You racist! Better not tell that neighbor; he might one day believe you did the right thing once he started loving his new guests and form a gang. Or maybe he decided to throw them out too, into the house of the next neighbor. Until all demons are too boring to keep and made homeless.

[Simple Minded]

the only problem with that analysis is that all sorts gets blurred into the worst of historical racism, which hasnt always been my experience.

plenty of Chinese just prefer the cultural comforts of hanging with other Chinese, you know all the little rules, life is just simpler and easier and they live in China towns and dont leave their comfort zones much and nobody cares.

because of history, and an education system with a rather one eyed view of that history (do irish and other poor europeans get lumped into white people ? they came to the new world as barely above slaves) any group of grumpy whites who just want a "normal" life of living by the rules you were raised with - is considered the second coming of hitler.

very well said. I worked for a year in a factory doing production line work (horrors of Industrial Age oppression). 80% of my co-workers were off-the-boat immigrants. Italians, Yougoslavs, Turks, Iranians, Mexicans, Pureto Ricans, etc.

We all go along great, most only knew 50-100 words of English, even though many had lived in the US in their ethnic neighborhoods for several decades. They were as American as anyone else, they worked for what they wanted, raised their families, and left everyone else alone. One of the ways to break the production line monotony was to do was to learn how to insult your co-worker in their native language. The look of shock followed by shared laughter was priceless. Voluntary multiculturalism at its finest.

Only time things got bizarre was when the assembly line sh*t the bed and in a state of excitement every reverted to speaking their native language. Now I wish I had video taped those moments.

Weird how different the concept of "them" is when you are looking one of them in the eye. Or trying to solve a common goal.

Today's snowflakes don't understand self-segregation as a voluntary choice, and a yuge part of human nature, unless it has to do with which operating system they use, or which table to sit at while in Starbucks.

[Simple Minded]

My original question - which was somewhat rhetorical since I don't think anyone here would answer affirmatively - was whether or not anyone thought that another person was inferior to them because they belonged to a different ethnic or cultural group. Even people who professionally flog the "blacks have a lower average IQ than whites" books probably don't assume that a every black person they meet is less intelligent than they are. Some people on this forum have written (moreso on the original forum) some pretty hateful things about certain groups, but would probably be polite to a member of that group they met face to face in a social situation. This was the distinction I was trying to focus on.

Ibrahim, I think you have accurately described pretty much every human being I have ever met. Some though morph into monsters when visiting cyber-space.

My own father would not hesitate to use the n-word in describing a black person that he did not know, but would help a black neighbor or treat a black co-worker no differently than he would a white person. Often better than he treated his family members. Maybe he liked them better?

At same time he would advise you "Joe Smith is a n*gger, I don't mean he is a black man, I mean he is a n*gger." Same evaluations were given about white trash that he knew.

Everything is different when you look someone in the eye. One on one is very different from mob on mob.

What I find amusing are the "experts" who sort the data by race, age, IQ, region, nationality, height, weight, religion, etc. Then find self-confirmation when the data shows differentiation by race, age, IQ, region, nationality, height, weight, religion, etc. And oddly enough, the traits they ignored and filtered out, never seem to be of significant influence.

Statistics never lie!

Some how we need to make saving the world a less lucrative profession or a less entertaining hobby.

[Simple Minded]

So you could argue that more often than not these are conventional political questions - who gets what, how we divide up resources and responsibilities - that end up getting framed in racial terms.

I feel like the majority of people framing things in racial terms aren't themselves true believers, but only frame the issue that way because it doesn't seem to get results, especially lately. But the occasionally someone will take things too far and actually act on some of the more extreme rhetoric. What I can't decide is where the responsibility lies, and on a personal level I can't decide what I find more objectionable, the true believers or the cynics.

bingo you nailed it. Subtle threats are too difficult to sell, en masse, even if real. In addition to it being less effort, it just feels "more comfortable" to judge the strangers when they are still several hundred yards away.

Kinda like the bumper sticker approach to life. Who has the time and/or energy to actually talk to all those people and get to know them?

If it don't fit on a bumper sticker, it's a tough sell as a political rallying cry.

[Doc]

While I think these identities are social constructs, I would point out that they aren't always constructed by the groups in question for their own benefit, and are just as often applied externally for the benefit of others. "You belong to group X, therefore I can own you/kill you/take your property" as the crudest example. Suddenly your group affiliation becomes extremely important to your quality of life, and it had nothing to do with you.

The run on "identity politics" today is a direct result of the swift and near-total success of the Gay Rights movement in the Western world. Can we really argue that gays and lesbians didn't need such a movement? Or that it was not rational for them to pursue these political goals? And why wouldn't other people try to emulate them?

Noam Chomsky predicted in 2002 that what he called "reactionary" groups would appropriate the language and tactics of identity politics and use them for to defend the status quo and majority interests. Whatever you think of his body of work as a whole, clearly he got that one right. This is exactly what the "alt-right" is.

The idea of different races of humans is literally a social construct right out of the eugenics movement. There is no genetic basis to support it. "Race" as a word is meant to divide people as is all identity politics. "race" like gayness or other things is defended as an identity people are born too. When in fact it is really meant as a statement of what culture they belong to.

Genetically we are 9 times more individuals than anything to do with "race" Therefore anyone acknowledging a belief in different "races" believes in the group over the individual

[Parodite]

tQeBRMp4S7s

[Nonc Hilaire]

While I think these identities are social constructs, I would point out that they aren't always constructed by the groups in question for their own benefit, and are just as often applied externally for the benefit of others. "You belong to group X, therefore I can own you/kill you/take your property" as the crudest example. Suddenly your group affiliation becomes extremely important to your quality of life, and it had nothing to do with you.

The run on "identity politics" today is a direct result of the swift and near-total success of the Gay Rights movement in the Western world. Can we really argue that gays and lesbians didn't need such a movement? Or that it was not rational for them to pursue these political goals? And why wouldn't other people try to emulate them?

Noam Chomsky predicted in 2002 that what he called "reactionary" groups would appropriate the language and tactics of identity politics and use them for to defend the status quo and majority interests. Whatever you think of his body of work as a whole, clearly he got that one right. This is exactly what the "alt-right" is.

The idea of different races of humans is literally a social construct right out of the eugenics movement. There is no genetic basis to support it. "Race" as a word is meant to divide people as is all identity politics. "race" like gayness or other things is defended as an identity people are born too. When in fact it is really meant as a statement of what culture they belong to.

Genetically we are 9 times more individuals than anything to do with "race" Therefore anyone acknowledging a belief in different "races" believes in the group over the individual

I don't think so. I think we are naturally attracted to people who resemble us and avoid people who differ. Belief is a mental construct which develops to justify the biological fact.

[Doc]

People shouldn't equate race to cultural bigotry. IE fear of the stranger from the other side of the hill. Joe Biden claimed a few years ago that if Mitt Romney was elected POTUS he would put black people back in chains.

How is Biden's statement not a racist statement? Clearly he was using Identity Politics to win an election. SO who else in history used "race" to win an election?

https://phdn.org/archives/www.ess.uwe.a ... ements.htm

Speech delivered by Hitler in Salzburg, 7 or 8 August 1920. (NSDAP meeting)

The following quotation is from a shorthand transcript.

"This is the first demand we must raise and do [reversal of the Versailles Treaty provisions]: that our people be set free, that these chains be burst asunder, that Germany be once again captain of her soul and master of her destinies, together with all those who want to join Germany. (Applause)

And the fulfillment of this first demand will then open up the way for all the other reforms. And here is one thing that perhaps distinguishes us from you [Austrians] as far as our programme is concerned, although it is very much in the spirit of things: our attitude to the Jewish problem.

For us, this is not a problem you can turn a blind eye to-one to be solved by small concessions. For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever really be eradicated. Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst. (Applause)

Source: D Irving, The War Path: Hitler's Germany 1933-1939. Papermac, 1978, p.xxi

[Ibrahim]

People shouldn't equate race to cultural bigotry. IE fear of the stranger from the other side of the hill. Joe Biden claimed a few years ago that if Mitt Romney was elected POTUS he would put black people back in chains.

How is Biden's statement not a racist statement? Clearly he was using Identity Politics to win an election. SO who else in history used "race" to win an election?

I think we may have talked about this before, maybe even on the old forum, but racism and cultural bigotry are the same thing. Nobody hates a certain skin colour for purely aesthetic reasons. They aren't scared of or hateful towards melanin. People attribute behaviors to people that look a certain way. They make cultural assumptions, and this is what they fear/hate. True of race, religion, or just the people from two towns over who put ketchup on their hot dogs.


Re: Joe Biden, that comment was stupid as hell, and he's one of the worst Democrats with enough stature to actually be nominated. Maybe the worst.

[Ibrahim]

I don't think so. I think we are naturally attracted to people who resemble us and avoid people who differ.

I hear this quite often, and it baffles me as a totalizing claim. Certainly some people are like this, but other people are quite the opposite.

[Nonc Hilaire]

I don't think so. I think we are naturally attracted to people who resemble us and avoid people who differ.

I hear this quite often, and it baffles me as a totalizing claim. Certainly some people are like this, but other people are quite the opposite.

There is a lot of research behind it. It is such a powerful phenomenon that you can influence people's opinion of you in a conversation by mimicing their body language.

The phenomenon in general is called attribution. Your reactions to physical stimuli are attributed to psychological constructs, but the thinking is only how you conceptualize the experience.

The imitative nature of people plays into this as well.

[Doc]

People shouldn't equate race to cultural bigotry. IE fear of the stranger from the other side of the hill. Joe Biden claimed a few years ago that if Mitt Romney was elected POTUS he would put black people back in chains.

How is Biden's statement not a racist statement? Clearly he was using Identity Politics to win an election. SO who else in history used "race" to win an election?

I think we may have talked about this before, maybe even on the old forum, but racism and cultural bigotry are the same thing. Nobody hates a certain skin colour for purely aesthetic reasons. They aren't scared of or hateful towards melanin. People attribute behaviors to people that look a certain way. They make cultural assumptions, and this is what they fear/hate. True of race, religion, or just the people from two towns over who put ketchup on their hot dogs.


Re: Joe Biden, that comment was stupid as hell, and he's one of the worst Democrats with enough stature to actually be nominated. Maybe the worst.

I am saying the idea of different "races" of humans do not exist. That is not to say that "racists" don't exist, just they self identify as such by treating "race" as a real thing rather than a word meant to divide people based on the pseudo science of eugenics. As such, it is the most base form of Identity Politics. It is exclusion of people based on labels rather than inclusion of people based on their character.

[Parodite]

Racism fetishizes a difference into a marker of identity. The marker can be skin color alone, but usually more differences (or claims of difference) are part of it. More often than not evolving into a sturdy stereotype.

Our brains are hard-wired to categorize the world into distinguishable units of similar differences and different similarities so it is impossible to perceive the world without differences. Truly egalitarian eyes wouldn't see anything. But it is possible to guard against the obsessive fetishizing of differences.

Also the tribal-territorial drive has deep roots in our biology. Different skin color is in fact rarely needed for tribes and territorial competitors to be at each other's throat. Your biggest threat/competitor might even be your own look-alike.

[Ibrahim]

People shouldn't equate race to cultural bigotry. IE fear of the stranger from the other side of the hill. Joe Biden claimed a few years ago that if Mitt Romney was elected POTUS he would put black people back in chains.

How is Biden's statement not a racist statement? Clearly he was using Identity Politics to win an election. SO who else in history used "race" to win an election?

I think we may have talked about this before, maybe even on the old forum, but racism and cultural bigotry are the same thing. Nobody hates a certain skin colour for purely aesthetic reasons. They aren't scared of or hateful towards melanin. People attribute behaviors to people that look a certain way. They make cultural assumptions, and this is what they fear/hate. True of race, religion, or just the people from two towns over who put ketchup on their hot dogs.


Re: Joe Biden, that comment was stupid as hell, and he's one of the worst Democrats with enough stature to actually be nominated. Maybe the worst.

I am saying the idea of different "races" of humans do not exist. That is not to say that "racists" don't exist, just they self identify as such by treating "race" as a real thing rather than a word meant to divide people based on the pseudo science of eugenics. As such, it is the most base form of Identity Politics. It is exclusion of people based on labels rather than inclusion of people based on their character.

"Races" exist but as a construct, not a biological reality or some kind of eternal reality independent of human culture and language. I think of it as analogous to nationality. "Americans" and "Canadians" are entirely human-created ideas, but they also become very real in practical terms when you are going through customs.

"Race" is made up, but it can also seriously effect your life in the real world.