**TL; DR: Upon first glance, race may appear to be a 'fact' as it is often associated with science and biology, but after careful consideration it is clear that racial categories are merely constructed by and dependent on society.** Race aligns with the definition of 'construct' as ‘an idea or theory containing various conceptual elements, typically one considered to be subjective and not based on empirical evidence.’ Contrastingly, it does not fulfil the requirements of the term 'fact' as: 1. Scientific 2. Objective 3. Permanent 4. Logical The only reason that race has a biological element is because we have assigned the term to have such element. In reality, [‘there is not gene or cluster of genes common to all blacks or all whites’](https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs). Instead, racial categories are based on [‘geography, language and vague impressions’](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/what-we-mean-when-we-say-race-is-a-social-construct/275872/), as well as social, political and economic associations. Boundaries are arbitrarily based on skin colour, however, even within groups this will vary greatly. Race is not 'real', as such, because classifications of individuals do not remain objective and constant. For example, in America, Greeks and Italians are only just beginning to be consider as ‘white’. Moreover, debate concerns Barack Obama’s race is hugely varied and controversial. This nature of debate proves that race cannot be an undisputed fact but, instead, a subjective construct. Moreover, the fluidity of racial identity is shown by the fact that people can change their own race. [Angela Onwuachi-Willig](https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs), points out that ‘how one perceives their racial identity can shift with experience and time’. Finally, the illogicality of race as a fact is made apparent when siblings are deemed different races. Normal genetic variation can cause difference in complexion yet society believes that it is acceptable [‘to declare that two infants born of the same mother and father are actually different races’](https://www.vox.com/2014/10/10/6943461/race-social-construct-origins-census). Therefore, clearly a person’s biological heritage cannot be deciphered by merely looking at them, meaning their identified race should not be either. Overall, notions of ‘white’ and ‘black’ are simply a product of social context. Race is tied up with history causing the attachment of certain associations. And so, the ever-changing nature of history explains why race is not a fact but a social construct that was embraced and sped up by the practice of slavery.

**TL;DR – The debate over whether race is a social or biological construct is ongoing. Particularly, since it’s mostly examined within the context of the former. This is misleading and not entirely true.** It makes sense that race is viewed as a predominantly [social construct]( https://www.verywellmind.com/definition-of-social-construct-1448922), as it exists in a biased reality because race was born from racism. However, even though the American Anthropological Association clearly states that: “race’s primary importance is social rather than biological,” it’s important to note that race is not just about the differences in the color of one’s skin, hair, eyes, etc. [Race also includes other factors]( https://alexsheremet.com/war-and-words-why-race-is-not-a-social-construct/). [Further evidence that race is not only to be viewed as a social construct]( https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/health-general-science/are-you-there-race-its-me-dna) can be found when looking at our DNA. I mean, if biology can be used to report on one’s ancestry, then that is already some proof that race exists and can be perceived at the biological level too – and not just as a social construct. Additionally, when participants to a focus group in 2004 were asked what exactly race is, factors such as, for example, physical appearance – especially skin colour, was often mentioned. However, this was not a satisfactory result since when examining a definition of race we get: “a race is a group of people who are perceived as sharing biological features.” So since this type of feature (skin color) is different from culture to culture, it’s not a straightforward matter. What’s more, if factors such as skin colour, hair colour, eye colour and other physical traits are all under the control of genes, doesn’t our DNA then have something to do, at least in part, with race as well? For example, Pakistanis and Indians are thought of as belonging to the Asian race (an idea perhaps more common in Britain than in North America). Although, according to the level of their DNA, they are more similar to Europeans than they are to East Asians. As a result, racial categories do not reflect our underlying biological reality. From here then, we can conclude that race is predominantly a social construct and that racial categories can and do change over time – since evidence of this can be seen in how we as social beings use it to interact. However, it should be noted that while there is no agreed upon consensus as to whether race is a biological construct (as well), biological ancestry (which is distinct from race) is real. So from here then, a new sort of biological reality can follow. Consequently, since our perception and understanding of race is quite heavily influenced by our ideas (social constructs) of it, the concept itself depends on the context within which it occurs. So ultimately, whether or not race is viewed as a social or biological construct is more of a semantic question, as it is based on conceptual categories the world calls to mind.

**Is race social construct or biological fact?** • The widely used phrase ‘race is a construct’ refers to the theory that race is a _social_ construct. This argument is often included in debates about the causes of racism, which is chiefly a societal issue. • The position that race is a social construct is founded on the principle that race is not a biological category but a social category, based more upon language, geography, politics, and economic factors than skin colour. It is a classification system. Proponents argue that race is not ‘real’ because it is [subjective](https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/posts/a-social-construct-the-subjective-nature-of-race); they cite cases where a person’s ethnicity is not physically obvious, causing others to misinterpret their race. • Some scientists disagree with this idea, arguing that race is determined by biological factors. Some group races not by skin colour, such as black and white, but by [geographical location](https://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/) – one science writer splits the three primary races into Africans, East Asians, and Caucasians. Scientists have found certain genetic differences between people from different geographical locations; therefore, those who understand race as dictated by geography may argue that race is a biological fact.

It may sound like a trite cliche, but it's true: We are all one race, the human race. "[God] has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth." (Acts 17:26a NKJV) The tragicomic irony is the lack of public outcry over the Darwinian supposition that Negros are less evolved than White folks.

Race is not a social construct not a dirty word or what we should be ashamed over as common today. Our genes and DNA from our ancestors play a part of who we are and isn't a social construct and we are not “one race” and I can guarantee that the person who said this is white, as I am but we've been indoctrinated that we should be ashamed for out Aryan race and that is perhaps a social construct I doesn't subscribe on. There is a difference on me from the far north of Sweden and a girl from Senegal, Bangladesh or Kazakhstan. There is nothing wrong with this but the natural God given diversity.

We’re all the same animal, we just come in different colour.

The concept of race is widely regarded by scholars as a social construct rather than a biological reality. For: Scientific Consensus: Genetic research has demonstrated that the genetic differences among humans are minimal and do not align with the traditional racial categories. The Human Genome Project found that humans share 99.9% of their DNA, indicating that the concept of distinct races has no significant genetic basis. Historical Context: The idea of race has evolved over time and has been shaped by historical, political, and social contexts. The classification of humans into different races emerged during European colonialism to justify the subjugation and exploitation of non-European peoples. Sociological Perspective: Sociologists argue that race is a social construct created to categorize and differentiate people based on physical characteristics and to establish social hierarchies. This construct has been used to justify discrimination and unequal treatment. Anthropological View: Anthropologists emphasize that the variations in physical traits among humans are a result of adaptations to different environmental conditions and do not correspond to distinct racial groups. Race, as used in society, reflects cultural and societal meanings rather than biological differences. Against: Cultural Identity: Some argue that race, while a social construct, plays a significant role in cultural identity and social experiences. It influences individuals' lived experiences and how they navigate society. However, acknowledging race as a social construct does not diminish its impact on people's lives; rather, it highlights the need to address the social inequalities associated with it.