It is more prevalent in those areas that are subject to malaria and it is pretty much absent from those areas that are not subject to malaria. So, how is this a “racial” characteristic? It is not useful information, in any way, since any reputable doctor would be better off actually doing a blood test than treating a person based on their skin color.
It appears to be little more than a poor argument to buttress claims of some “reality” of biological race by simply claiming that a lot of people have a certain trait, (even though far more people do not have the same trait).
On the one hand, you want to assert that our genes are our destiny, and on the other hand, you want to create artificial “genetic” groups based on the idea that some people in a group have a genetic condition even though the majority do not while people you would excluide from that group do have the same condition.
I am not sure why you feel the need to hold to your “group” belief so strongly. It would seem, to me, that you might have a case for your “genes=destiny” thesis, but by insisting on tacking on your “group identity” claims, you muddle the issue. Why make a big deal about “blacks” having Hemoglobin S rather than simply addressing all the people who have the genetic condition of Hemoglobin S, regardless of the socially defined group into which other people might place them? That would support your “genetics=destiny” program in an unassailable way. Simply find a genetic trait, test for that, and you have your group with no inconvenient facts to mess up the schema.
I think your original definition was OK, to begin with.
I would tend to downplay the “conscious” aspect, simply because it treats racism in the same way that we address sin. While I would agree that racism is capable of inflicting harm and I would also agree that a person who revels in their racism is probably engaging in moral evil, I am not sure that every person who holds racist beliefs is actually “sinful” (in the Western/Catholic/Protestant notion of sin, although the Orthodox notion of sin described as hamartia–missing the mark–might well describe all cases).
Personally, I don’t feel all racism is bad, such as the race-based scientific studies mentioned earlier.
The personal example I use is: in what type of restaurant would you get chow mein and you should ask for a fork? If you answered “Chinese,” does that make you a racist?
So, my definition of racism would be: “beliefs about a particular race.”
However, racism is bad when it leads to actions that would harm another, such as racially biased hiring practices, race profiling, or racial violence.
I think “racism” has become a dirty word, when we all do it, all the time. It’s when it is used to negatively affect others is when we need to look at our own beliefs.
Why would that be racist? I know of no definition of racism that simply acknowledges that there are culturally recognized groups in the world–and a group identified by its nationality and cuisine hardly makes it into the realm of “race,” anyway.
The problem is that even in legal matters, the standard is one of reasonable doubt, not solid proof. And mistakes are often made, OJ Simpson and Rodney King both spring to mind. And courts, at least, have a final verdict and ultimate arbiter to settle matters as well as they can. No such figures or procedures exist in the court of public opinion. And the answers you receive change depending on your company. If you’re speaking to a ‘jury’ who insists that David Duke’s ideology about Jewish Treachery is simply sound political analysis, does that mean he’s not a racist?
Why, after all, he says “I am not anti-Semitic, disguised or otherwise, simply because I expose elements of Jewish extremism and supremacism. Am I supposed to be anti-Semitic because I dare to raise the question of the loyalty of many of the major Jewish organizations, lobbies, media bosses and Zionist government bureaucrats?”
Some people will take him at his word, right? I mean, here he is, honestly and selfless in his desire to protect America from the Jewish Menace, and some would dare accuse him of racism. I mean, sure he says racist stuff, but maybe he doesn’t really consciously believe he’s a racist. After all, he says he’s not…
Or what about Charles Lindbergh? He says the same things as Duke just toned down a bit and, in point if fact, his views have quite a bit of support among certain dark corners of our society where Jews who have the audacity to have differing ideas about Middle Eastern foreign policy are automatically put under suspicion of active treachery or, at least, being blinded by their ethnic loyalty to Global Jewry. It’s echoed all over the place today, can we not say that it’s racist because a ‘jury of peers’ would champion it as Political Realism?
Well, damn, Lindbergh too says he’s not a racist, just that Jews are placing their commitment to Global Jewry above the good of the nation and are going to sacrifice America for their ends on the pyre of WWII. Sure he’s okay with Jews as long as they don’t hold political opinions that differ too much from his or hold a different political calculus than he does, but he too says he’s not a racist.
Or maybe other hunters of Dual Loyalty who can’t ever seem to mention James Carville while talking about the evils of any Americans who have had interactions with the Israeli political parties, but who hunt for any American Jew who has shown ‘improper’ political leanings to the ‘wrong’ side of the spectrum, and therefore must be suspected of Dual Loyalty (or as the phrase has been repacked, Conflict of Interest)? They too say they’re not racist. Or those who point to the PNAC as a dangerous hotbed of traitorous Zionist influence which tricked men like Cheney and Rumsfel and subverted the United States for Zionist ends…while ignoring that Cheney and Rumsfeld were members of that same PNAC. Sure, they see Jews and gentiles who hold the exact same views and engage in the exact same actions and assume potential dark motives (or ethnic taint) on the part of just one group, but they too claim they’re not racist. How about those who worry about the influence of the “Jewish Lobby” and AIPAC’s dastardly unbreakable control over the US government (except when they can’t get what they want) and who say that American Jews whose politics are in line with it are de facto betrayers of America… but who applaud George Soros’ plans to create a counterweight lobby to argue the ‘correct’ political viewpoint thereby showing that he’s a true, patriotic American? They too say that they’re not racists and the fact that they accuse anybody of a certain ethnicity of potential treachery if they disagree politically is just a coincidence.
And so on, and so on, and so on.
It invalidates the claim that we must be able to verify the mindset rather than making an informed judgment based on available facts in a manner less formalized than a legal proceeding.
It makes it hard enough as to be virtually useless as a definition. Even in legal proceedings, one is not existentially guilty, but found guilty by a jury of their peers. One is not existentially innocent before trial, one is presumed innocent until a jury of their peers deems them to be guilty.
What standards would you, in specific, use to determine mindset from actions? Honest question, I’m curious where along the continuum you’d place “obviously a racist”. Does a woman who instinctively but subconsciously clutches at her purse every time a black man walks by her qualify? Lindbergh’s concern about a cabal of Jews, eternal foreigners and guests of real Americans, who are willing to sacrifice those real American lives on behalf of global Jewry? Does David Duke trip the scales? If Hitler claimed that he didn’t hate Jews and it was possible for some of them to not be evil, but he was concerned with the massive percent of evil Jews, would we not be able to say Hitler was a racist?
I’m not Godwininzing the discussion, but I think a bright line tipping point would be helpful here. At what point do statements or actions become so clear that we can say “even if we can’t verify this person’s mindset, they act/talk like a big enough racist that we can be safe stating that they can be counted among the ranks of the racists?”
Malaria does not exist in the US, but HbS does, mostly among blacks. It is unlikely a competent physician would track down HbS as readily in an archetypically white Scandinavian baby as she would an archetypically black Nigerian baby, and I don’t think she would be criticized for making that initial assumption. In general we weigh pertinent factors in our differential diagnosis and frankly the idea that there is no difference in HbS gene prevalence among races is not entertained.
To reiterate (for the zillionth time): I have no interest in trying to define race biologically, and I don’t care if you are a lumper or a splitter.
I hold the following position: it is incorrect to state–or imply–that the category known as “black” (see above variations) does not contain disparate prevalences of certain genes. It is true (as with pretty much all biologic variation) that there are evolutionary reasons for this disparate prevalence; it’s not clear to me that your point about malaria as the environmental evolutionary driver for this particular gene prevalence is germane to the discussion at all, other than proposing a reason for why Hemoglobin S is more prevalent in blacks.
The reason HbS prevalence is germane to a discussion of race is simply that it is a good proof case that gene prevalence can, and does, vary within what are commonly called “races.” Now if you want to point out that “race” is a broad, or inefficient or loose categorization, I won’t particularly argue the point. But it is going too far to pretend that there is no biologic basis for it or to argue that it cannot be the case that average genetically-based phenotypic differences exist among “races.” Gene prevalence does vary among races even if those races are otherwise composed of diverse populations. It’s as simple as that. And yes, like all differences, there presumably are environmental reasons driving those differences. I believe that’s the “modification” part of the core idea “descent with modification” that underlies all evolutionary adaptation.
I too, prefer a world in which “races” do not exist. They are not useful at all to me, and as I have said earlier, I suspect the largest hue and cry in eliminating them would come from those who self-categorize; not from folks like me who don’t care, and whose self-identification is not with race but with purely social constructs such as interests and work and so on.
But at issue is this: if you are determined to self-categorize and if you then generate a charge of “racism” as your only explanation for differing outcomes, you must accept the concomitant baggage of have genetic prevalence differences for race examined. If such differences exist, it significantly undermines any genetic egalitarianism.
It’s a straw-man to pretend that, in order for race to be a reasonable category, there must be a genetic test specific for race. At issue is not how to rigorously define race biologically. At issue is this question: Given the categories of “race”–even one as loosely-deifned as “self-described race”–can it be shown that gene prevalences vary within those categories?
Yes, yes; the ole “race-realist,” dismissive hand-wave of the scientific consensus in favour for fringe conspiracy/collusion theories; however you seem to be missing the standard cries of “The future will absolve me; just wait and see!”
“lumpers and splitters?” No. Your 18th century “race model” of humanity is inadequate, misleading, and simply out of date. It was developed in a time where people categorized the world by saying “ah… Africans kinda look similar…so…black race, yeah…uh…Chinese?..Yellow! The rest? Red/White/etc…” Now, that’s all-n-good for the 18th century scientific community; however, it’s the 21st century! Science moves forward. We discover genetics. We learn about “Out of Africa.” We get better scientific models. Ones that fully and completely depict humanity through our historical journey of world colonization: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13; and our current state of genetic variation. Read my above quote/paper/link again! [
More hand-waving a dismissals. You can’t justify your continued conceptual use of “the blacks” as a coherent “racial population” so you dismiss that there was any need to do so. “I’m just comparing two groups. Whether it makes sense to group/use/compare them is irrelevant.” It’s pathetic that Race realists depend on phantom genes (‘we just haven’t discovered them yet’), phantom populations (‘the black race’), and a genetic deterministic/essentialist view (‘Our phantom genes determines the intelligence of our phantom population’); all to justify their “blecks iz teh stooopid” hypothesis.
You believe whatever the hell you want; just don’t expect me to follow, or fail to point out the bull in your racist logic/theories. I, however, do tire from the repetition.
Your die-hard adherence to 18th century “race science” makes me remember when I first read “The bible code” in middle school. I couldn’t believe that there was a segment of the population who believed that a 4th century BCE text could be technological relevant in today’s world.
Get over these “race theories.” Move on. Most people have done this already.
Pipe down, would you, particularly in your anxiety to vent over whether or not I am promoting “race” as a coherent biologic category. That’s a definitional issue, and I’ve already said that when the genome is defined more explicitly I expect both lumpers and splitters to declare victory.
I have no race model. I do believe that it’s silly to pretend that sub-saharan Africans have less in common with one another than with Europeans in phenotypic appearance; for those of us who hold to the out-of-Africa theory, it’s not unreasonable to consider Europeans a neolithic subset of Africans. I don’t really care about all that.
Focus for me: If you find differences between two groups exposed to reasonably equal nurture, the difference is genetic. It makes no difference whether the rest of that group is otherwise biologically related. The putative biologic unrelatedness of blacks to one another has no bearing on the argument that observed disparate outcomes are genetic.
All tall people are genetically different from all short people in the gene which codes for that, even if tall people are otherwise tremendously diverse and should not be lumped into any other reasonable biologically-defined category.
It’s as simple as that.
If we find a difference in the performance of blacks and whites on the basketball field or the SAT, and we normalize for their nurture, the difference is genetic, regardless of whether or not they are otherwise biologically related within that group. The same would be true if both groups are white, or black, or pink.
It’s annoying that you keep attacking a straw man I am not creating. I’m totally fine with the notion that blacks, as a group, contain the most diverse number of assorted populations of all traditonal “races.” That is not evidence of any kind that disparities in the performance of blacks, as an entity, is not genetic. The way to demonstrate performance disparities are not genetic is to normalize nurture and observe an elimination of performance disparities. To date this has not been accomplished, in any situation, any culture, any history, on earth.
It is completely irrelevant whether or not “black,” or “race” are reasonable categories of any kind other than self-descriptions, and I am unconcerned with promoting those categories.
Stop attacking a straw man about me insisting that race is important as a genetically-defined category, and feel free to defend why observed differences between self-categorized races are not genetic. To reiterate: there is no a priori criterion that a group must be interally related in order for disparities between that group and another to be ascribed to genetics. A group of three white children who ace the SAT are genetically smarter than a group of three white children who perform poorly on it, even if all six come from the same parents, or even if the three smart ones were all adopted from different families. Does that help clarify the concept?
We are our genes.
If you want to argue that there are no races, fine. I suppose that would mean there are no racists. If there are races–even if the categories are self-defined–then we can get back to talking about whether or not those who believe any differences between those races are genetic, are racists or not.
I note that you carefully ignore the scenario where the baby is of Greek or Southern Italian ancestry. Why is that? Why make this a “racial” issue rather than a population issue?
So, you continue to insist on a “black” correlation (rather than a more accurate West African or North American black correlation, yet you want to claim that you have no interest in “defining” race? Then why not simply use more accurate language and stop re-introducing the aspect of “race” in the discussion?
Since I am not an egalitarian, nothing you have posted undermines any point I have made.
The rest of your points are, at best, murky. You appear to be saying We cannot actually identify a group, genetically, but if we can find some people who look alike and some of them have a trait, we are then free to generalize about the group as a whole based on the notion that genetics are destiny.
That there are people who attribute all unequal outcomes to “racism” should not lead us to make corresponding errors in attacking their position. If there is a genetic aspect to the differing outcomes, then find it and the discussion is settled. If you cannot find it, then you have no basis for holding it out as some sort of truth.
This says, to me, that you are not even interested in discovering the source of any differences. You have already declared that unrelated people still share some sort of genetic influence–even when they do not share genes.
You are welcome to that belief, I suppose, but it is not a very persuasive argument.
All tall people are not related, but all tall people share some sort of genetic influence. Exactly how is that an unpersuasive argument?
The source of our differences lies in our genes and in our nurturing. If we normalize nurturing, the residual difference is genetic. Tom, you’re a splitter when it comes to populations and races. Nothing wrong with that, and I do not disagree with that general approach to categorization.
You continue to miss the point at hand, though.
There is, already, unrelated to any view of mine, a self-categorization–a self-identification–of “race.” Regardless of whether or not there is any biologic/evolutionary underpinning at all (and I would argue there is), it is a grouping. But it is not necessary for racial groups to be internally related to the point I am making. An alternate grouping might be “all humans who wear white shoes.” The question at hand is not how categories are made. It’s whether difference found can be genetically based.
Now if we look around, we notice a marked disparity in outcomes among these self-identified “races.” We seek to account for those disparities and we settle on two possibilities: nurture and nature.
I hold simply that nature–genetic makeup in particular–is a predominant contributor for disparate outcomes, where they are found, even for the categories of self-identified races.
If I understand you correctly, you are lobbying for an end to the category of “race.” Good on you. I have noted that in my opinion, the ones opposing your position to eliminate races are those who self-identify, and in particular, those who self-identify with “black,” actually. I may be wrong; it is simply my perception.
Propogation of racial categories permits a charge of “racism” to be leveled as an explanation for disparate outcomes. I hold that this charge of “racism” (nurture)as an explanation mandates an examination of the alternate explanation–nature. The distribution of HbS serves as an example of how various races can have disproportionate gene prevalences, even if some members of alternate groups have the same genes.
Ah, so whiteys have had 6,000 years of recorded history to arrive at this heightened state of consciousness whereby we recognise the futility of “race” as a descriptor, but the “darkies”, who were second-class citizens and less up until the last 50 years or so, have to “get with the program” immediately?
Actually, I challenge the notion that “race” is truly based on self-identification. Such identification only occurs after an external source has created the category and then told a person to make a choice. Left to his own devices, I suspect that an Ibo or a Maasai would first identify as Ibo or Maasai, (just as an Irishman or a Swede would first identify as Irish or Swedish), until confronted with a requirement to identify with a larger group. (Note that when the issue of “Indian” vs “Native American” arises from time to time, a very frequently heard response from members of that supergroup is that they would wish to be identified as Lakota or Creek or whatever, but that they settle for one of the terms being argued.)
So, from the get go, we are working under a misapprehension that arises from a case of nurture. (language choice).
Taking two of your other points and mixing them haphazardly: tall people are tall because of genetics. Tall people tend to find it much easier to earn (or even be given) positions of more power and better income. From that we must conclude that there are no social pressures or phenomena that lead to tall people being richer and wealthier–it is just genetics.
Actually, the way I understand it, the most phenotypically “white” Nordic European has a lot more in common genetically with, say, an Australian Aborigine phenotype or a Patagonian one, than a West African phenotype has with a Khoi-San. In fact, AFAIK, the West African and the Nordic are more in common than either with the Khoi. But the West African won’t have Neanderthal markers, and all the Out Of Africa types will. Lumping all SSA people by some commonality won’t work. Nor would this work by phenotypes.
We’ll probably have to wait a bit to see who has Neanderthal markers and who doesn’t, and to what degree; that research is both over my head and fairly nascent. If (as the cite I’ve just given seems to suggest) the markers are from paleontologic mixings, and more recent (or non-neanderthal-mixed) migrations are the ones that populated Australia, then Australian aboriginees would be more “lumpable” with sub-saharan Africans from the Neanderthal-gene standpoint than Europeans and Asians (assuming, as this cite does, that Neanderthal mixing occurred before European/Asian population splits).
According to the article I cited, “The nature of the genes in humans that differ from those of Neanderthals is of particular interest because they bear on what it means to be human, or at least not Neanderthal. Some of the genes seem to be involved in cognitive function and others in bone structure.” We already have some research showing a difference in bone density between “black” and “white” groups in the US: http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/2/429 It seems to me it’s not unreasonable to suppose there is something more than pure self-description at play in those two particular divisions…
If you are a lumper, you might argue that one type of lumping is the category we ordinarily consider “race” and that it is not unreasonable to propose we may find some historic/evolutionarybiologic/genetic underpinnings for those categories. Perhaps it will turn out that “whites” are a lump with more Neanderthal genes than “blacks.” If you are a splitter you might argue that said lumping is arbitrary, ridiculous and useless; no more appropriate than lumping by how curly the third toe is.
As I’ve said, I’m not lobbying for races, for lumping or for splitting. I simply make the observation that if any two groups differ (be they lumped because of self-identified race or curly toes), among the possibilities that should be entertained as accounting for differences is a genetic difference. We may all be out of Africa but we are not monogenetic.
