Edit: this question has been answered now. Thank you to everyone who took the time to help me understand.
the premise that race is not a natural, biologically grounded feature of physically distinct subgroups of human beings but a socially constructed (culturally invented) category that is used to oppress and exploit people of colour.
Okay… But we can take a DNA test and get our ancestry, telling us what percentage of what races make up our overall ethnicity. So how is race a social construct and not a biological feature, when we have a scientific method to determine our race? This part of the philosophy has been bothering me ever since I read it, and I’ve been hesitant to ask because of how offensive people get when you question this system.
we impose meaning on the world. even the idea that each of us is an individual instead of one unit is a construct. so while we can distinguish between different biological markers, the meaning we impart to that distinction is a construct. we can draw the lines arbitrarily (and we do). the distinction of race is no more natural or meaningful than a distinction based on country of origin.
I’m not sure I follow. Our genetic markers determine how we will look, what types of diseases we’re predisposed to, and that sort of stuff. That is a very real and established reality. How is that not our race? It is more meaningful than our nationality, since it is literally our genetic makeup. I’m not more likely to have lactose intolerance if I’m born in Japan, but am a different ethnicity, but I am more likely if I’m born in the USA and have Japanese ancestry. Is it the historical oppression associated the word “race” that is the issue?
disease and lactose intolerance are also constructs. all meaning is constructed. without an observer, there cannot be meaning. you get to decide which constructs you uphold.