radiojake wrote:john9blue wrote:the scientific classification of animals is also a human construct. that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or make it less valid as a scientific field of study.
It has all to do with 'who' makes the classifications, and for what purpose. Animals do not name themselves - We project a name onto them. In many circumstances, the classifications of animals has stemmed from our interpretation of which animals are to be exploited, eaten, or left alone, all of which is based on a heirarchy created to fulfil the needs and wants of the dominant hegemon.
In many ways, different 'races' did not name themselves, they had the classification projected onto them, also based on the hierarchy created to fulfil the needs and wants of the dominant hegemon.
Yes, the two disciplines are similar - Just because I am pointing out the fallacy in the classification of human 'races' does not mean that there is not inherent domination involved in our classification of other living things (It's just that this domination is harder to be seen and heard, because we are no longer equipped with those sensory abilities)
why does the identity of the person making the classification, and their purpose, matter?
and why do you think that all classification has to be about a hierarchy of domination? we recently reclassified pluto as a satellite instead of a planet; did we do that because of some selfish motivation?
maybe i'm misunderstanding your point... are you saying that racial categories have no basis in reality, and are entirely abstract?