NOTE: This article was once part of one excessively long unpublished article that has since been divided into multiple small articles. Check the “Debunking Race Denialism” post tag for the other articles in this series.
- Continuum Fallacy
- Social Constructionism
1. Continuum Fallacy
This is by far the most idiotic race-denialist argument. Other race-denialist deceptions at least took a degree of intellect and deviousness to conjure up. The continuum fallacy, on the other hand, is the sort of “argument” that you would expect from a five-year-old child, not so-called “academics” and “scientists.” In fact, that’s probably an insult to five-year-old children.
Continuum fallacy is as follows: X and Y are two extremes on a spectrum. There is no clear point at which X becomes Y, therefore, X and Y do not exist.
You could think of this in terms of color: There is no discernable point at which black or white begin or end on the spectrum below, therefore black and white do not exist. This fallacy is also known as the “fallacy of gray,” though it applies to any spectrum.
This is a perfect color spectrum. Can you see green? No, you can’t because colors don’t exist.
The diagram below demonstrates that although definitive yellow and red exist on both sides, the blocks in-between could be described as yellow, orange, or red (though most people would call them deep yellow and orange).
Consider the electromagnetic spectrum; perfectly continuous, yet certain wavelength ranges have certain characteristics; some characteristics are shared by multiple wavelength ranges, while some are exclusive to certain wavelength ranges.
It would be wrong to describe the races of humanity as a continual perfect spectrum with no distinct genetic or phenotypic breaks, but even if this was the case, we would still be able to identify definitive regions or groups within that perfectly continuous spectrum.
There’s no obvious point at which the Sahara Desert begins or ends, therefore it doesn’t exist.
A cline is a gradation in one measurable physical or genetic characteristic, within or between biological groups.
Some misinformed people, and a lot of disingenuous academics, argue that because certain global populations are of mixed race (such as those inhabiting Central Asia or South America), or because certain physical or genetic characteristics are expressed on a gradient throughout the entire human population (e.g., hair or skin color), then the classic major racial groups cannot exist. Thus, they argue, that “there are no races, only clines” (Frank Livingstone, 1962).
Using the term ‘cline’ to replace the term ‘race,’ as if ‘cline’ is a taxonomic category, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, but that won’t stop race-denialists from trying to do so.
Would you deny that men and women exist because their shared characteristics, such as vocal pitch, hairiness, height, and hand-size, exist on a spectrum? Of course, not. Arguing that clines should replace races makes as much sense as arguing that a “brown hair race” exists.
The originator of the term cline, Julian Huxley, explicitly stated that “it is in no way intended that specification by clines should replace any of the current taxonomic methods,” but why listen to the man who invented the term when you have a political agenda to push?
Huxley himself was not a good guy. He was a race-denier, an employee of the United Nations, and very much a part of the globalist elite; he certainly wasn’t “on our side.” However, that doesn’t mean that this very specific term should be misused.
For all practical social purposes ‘race’ is not so much a biological phenomenon as a social myth […] The unity of mankind from both the biological and social viewpoint is the main thing. To recognize this and to act accordingly is the first requirement of modern man.Julian Huxley, et al. – The Race Question (1950)
While some race-denialists nonsensically attempt to replace the word ‘race’ with ‘cline,’ the main race-denialist agenda is to flat out deny the existence of any biologically distinct human subpopulations whatsoever. The below extract from the American Anthropology Association’s “Races or Clines?” couldn’t be clearer:
If you read the passage above and think “wow, that makes no sense whatsoever” — good! That’s the reaction of a normal person. This twisted gobbledygook is part of the Western Marxist ‘Critical Race Theory’ lineage, which consists almost exclusively of wordgames and lies, designed to bamboozle their audience and obfuscate their true intentions.
3. Social Constructionism
The above arguments are part of the wider “social constructionist” narrative, that claims because “race” is a “made-up label,” it cannot possibly describe biological reality — which is obviously completely insane, considering that racial labels were created by scientists in response to observing biological reality.
Important biologists of the past, such as Johan Blumenbach (1752 – 1840), simultaneously regarded race as an unquestionably valid biological concept, while also acknowledging that “race” was a man-made categorization.
Our entire perception of reality is based on so-called “social constructs” — language, math, color, etc. However, you will never find a Leftoid or Globalist attempting to deconstruct any of these concepts. Race and gender are the only two that they seem to have a problem with.
The argument that “social construct = invalid” logically concludes to “nothing in life is valid.”