> Doesn't there have to bne some further condition that
> the beliefs that are core to the identification can't
> be based on manifestly and provably false assumptions
> for the group to be "real"?
Most people in our society conceptualize racial groups in the U. S. as genetically distinct subgroups. This is is manifestly and provably false (ask any population geneticist!). Does this mean that racial groups in the U. S. are not "real"?
The existence of social groups is not contingent upon scientific logic and evidence; we need only have a social consensus that group X exists for that consensus to have real social consequences (discrimination, legal rights, access to resources).
Miles
^^^^^^
CB: Yes, race is an invalid biological category. The traditional physical markers of race - skin color, hair texture and shape of facial features - do not correlate or reciprocally determine "morality" , "intelligence", "character", "criminality", "humanity", et al.
Race is a valid socio-historical category. ( This "validity" does rely on _social_ scientific logic and evidence in this regard, but I don't think Miles is disagreeing with that). In other words, because the idea of race has gripped masses, it has real/material social force.