The Punning Pundit

Race is not a social construct. Simply because it is only skin deep doe not make it less 'real', as long as one accepts it as a skin-dep thing.
Children can tell the diff between a Swede, an Arab, a Vietnamese, and a Bushman. It's real, it simply is not that important. PC Elitists will never win this argument, just like the anti-abs will never convince most folks a fetus is a person, nor will the anti-cap puns convince people killing a murderer is wrong.
Denying reality does nothing but deny reality. On a more practical level, the query should be about the consequences- are you pro- or anti-aff action?
I'm pro because w/o it there'd be zero blacks in any corporate power structures- save the few they create.

A quote from a book on race & racism I wrote:

Race is determined morphologically, by surface traits. Things such as DNA, predisposition to diseases, blood types, and the like, are things that cross ethnic boundaries. Race, like beauty, is a thing that is not dependent upon a single gene, but a multiplicity of converging factors. Just as there is no way to say, from merely looking at, say, actresses Halle Berry’s nor Catherine Zeta-Jones’ genomes, that they are drop dead gorgeous women, there is similarly no mere genetic way to say that one woman is ‘black’ and the other ‘white’. Yet the statements that both women are gorgeous and one is black and the other white are doubtlessly true. Why? Naysayers would state that beauty, like race, is only a cultural phenomenon, as if that were a non-scientific property in itself, yet many studies have shown that weeks old infants are more consistently drawn to beautiful, i.e.- symmetric, faces. Beauty exists, and although certain cultural affects can predominate here or there, the underlying rationale for beauty’s existence is a genetic predisposition to seek mates who are ‘beautiful’- i.e.- symmetric, for they are likelier to be healthy, and produce healthy offspring- the lone thing that separates all life from non-life. Similarly, a plenum of factors goes into determining the race of a person- and these are clearly hereditary. Two Chinese do not produce a Greek! Yet it’s been the historical conflation of race with scientific certainty, rather than its looser real world fuzzy morphological basis that has led to many PC Elitists determining that race does not exist, on a strictly political level, with some disingenuous help from scientists- many from the same ilk that declare alcoholism a ‘disease’ or homosexuality ‘normal’, rather than their truer definitions as a genetic predisposition or a statistically normally recurring anomaly. Race is not merely a social construct for if that were true mere social forces would have to be invoked and proven to explain skin color, eye shape, hair type etc. Black people do not have ‘nappy’ hair merely because you, nor I, will it so, nor just to be able to say that they are ‘not like us’. That is absurd on its face. Race is very much a macro-ethnic concept that works astonishingly well in the macro-world, at least in terms of allowing human beings to easily ‘sort each other out’. It may well be that since we are far more dependent on our visual senses than others that this is something that was selectively bred into us by groups of our ancestors who preferred one trait over another, as well as natural selection. In short, race may be to human populations what songs are to certain whale species, or pods within those species, or serve the same role as scent, or other identity markers, in other species. That race has little truck in the micro-world does not negate its macro-relevance. The problem has always been focusing too much on those macro-differences, and one does not deal with that reality by simply denying it, but rather recognizing it as a difference, not one that is necessarily better nor worse.

I forgot how I've found your blog, but this is exactly the way I think about racism. I love the last paragraph.