posted
Jonathan Marks in the American Behavioral Scientist wrote an interesting analysis of the "race" concept in western culture about 12 years ago. It's short summary of the history of the idea of race, its relationship with psuedo-science and folk-wisdom, and its actual practical value– which, as far as Marks is concerned, is non-existent.
I was assigned the text as part of an anthropology survey course I am taking. It addresses some of the ways that the science of macro-evolution and Darwinism has been distorted and sold to the public in successive generations as "proof" of the superiority of one group over another, while the real science has never really been there. Starting with the discovery of genes, chromosomes, then DNA, the folk-wisdom of race has distorted the actual scientific evidence regarding such questions as human potential, or a term coined in the 90's "cognitive potential," when most if not all "evidence" of shared racial traits are really shared ethnic traits, shared learning, shared lifestyle, and shared wealth, or lack thereof.
What's most interesting in the article for me is the refutation of the concept that I was taught in highschool, that there are three racially distinct populations on Earth- essentially one black, one white, and one pan-Asian and native American. Amazingly I was for some reason still taught the "multiple origins theory," in highschool as late as the year 2000- a theory that humans evolved to their present form(s) from different populations of a shared ancestor. This theory has been completely refuted by science today- we know for certain that all humans share one ancestor, two common parent individuals, one male and one female, in the recent (by geological history) past.
I thought this article might be of interest to people who are also following the hubub about Obama and Reverend Wright. One thing I'll add to that discussion is that the powerful shared folk-concepts that Wright and Obama are talking about are very real. They are based in very basic and understandable misconceptions of the world and its people formed by European explorers and colonizers centuries ago. These misconceptions grew to powerful distortions of reality over time. Today, Wright uses the power of racial alienation in his bully pulpit, rallying people of common experience to a belief that "racial power" or racial identity is real and endemic- he capitalizes on the misconceptions of the powerful from the past to claim that power for a black community. Obama recognizes where the power of the race concept originates, and I think he recognizes that as long as this myth perpetuates itself, racism and unrest will continue, because the ideology of race necessarily calls for division and inequity of power.
It's an interesting read, and an eye opening look, for me, at the folk-wisdom of genetics that continues today.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I love his discussion of clines. I think that's what we really mean when we get talking about race.
We think there are three races because most American immigration came from three areas? Sounds about right to me.
I like the warning about forensic anthropologists. It's neat to think that the attributes that define a racial group now may not have even existed 10,000 years ago.
I'm curious to see what patterns would emerge by laying skeletons from one area next to each other in chronological order. Would you be able to tell when a new ethnic group arrived and began interbreeding? Would you see "classic" features of the modern group emerge over the centuries? Or would you see something completely different?
I totally agree with him about most "racial" issues really being cultural or socio-economic, but does that really negate race as a cultural construct? I don't often hear about blacks, I hear about African-American corporate CEOs or inner city youth or (locally) south-side residents. At least in what I read, race is treated as a piece of the puzzle, one thread in the tapestry if you will. There is a certain amount of cultural assumption that can still be made from race, not from any biological reason but in the way that group is treated culturally. At least locally, a white person with a southern accent is loaded with a different set of cultural expectations than a black person with a southern accent. And neither of them are particularly positive, at least from the crowd with a standard American accent.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:we know for certain that all humans share one ancestor, two common parent individuals, one male and one female, in the recent (by geological history) past.
Where can you show this? Do you have a link that you can cite for this?
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Shawshank, the Wikipedia links steven provided link a mountain of resources on the subject. It's established pretty solidly that there are two common individual ancestors, one male and one female. This is part of the reason why, as Marks writes in his article, there is less genetic diversity among humans than most other species, including chimpanzees.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I expect that people have misunderstood what this implies though, myself included, at first. These aren't the first man or woman by any stretch of the word. What this means is that every bloodline since them is somehow connected to them. (suggesting that every other bloodline died out at some point, or merged with this one)
Also keep in mind the terminology. They are the MOST RECENT common ancestor. By definition, every single one of THEIR ancestors automatically qualify as a common ancestor to all modern humanity.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, as the wiki article says, the "Eve" isn't the most recent female common ancestor by a long shot - she's just the most recent female ancestor who is related to us all through the matriarchal line. That is, everyone is related to her through their mother's mother's mother's mother's ...(times a lot)... mother. There's almost certainly a more recent female who's an ancestor to us all, but a son broke up the line at some point or another.
But, anyways, go read the articles steven so kindly linked. They're pretty awesome.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, sylverdragon. The articles indicate not that we are each descended from a common couple, but that human heredity involves the interbreeding of bloodlines that will eventually select out a single common ancestor for all living people. The actual MOST RECENT common ancestor is much closer to us than these people, only these people are the originators of a shared genetic heritage- one of the Y chromosome, and one of the mitochondria. The advantage in looking at these two pieces of genetic information is that the mitochondria is passed only from the mother, and the Y occurs only in males, and from the father.
The reason the mitochondrial "eve" is farther back in history is that birthrates slightly favor females historically. Direct male blood lines have a tendency to die out over time, while female blood lines last longer. However, because all humans mate with distant cousins of some common lineage, "direct" ties to the same ancestors are always preserved. Therefore eventually, the most recent common ancestor of all humans will be someone who is living today. Unless we colonize other worlds and diverge into seperate species, which seems possible.
Marks points out that the state of phenotypical diversity among humans is such that distinct "racial" differences are maintained despite the fact that humans may be descended from a single common ancestor as recently as several thousand years ago. This state arises because human populations trade amongst their neighbors almost universally, and share genetic heritage multilaterally, so that descendency can be established across the globe in a relatively short time without total mixing of populations.
Marks also points out the flaws in the idea that eventually all humans will share a similar "racial" aspect, commonly held to be similar to that of Filipinos. The actual evidence suggests that societal conditions and environment play much larger roles in quantifiable feature differences than most people think. He points out that Asian American populations, even without interracial mixing, noticeably converge in typical features within a few generations. Which means that a Korean American family and a Chinese American family will be more identifiably similar in features after 2 or 3 generations here.
The same goes for European whites like myself. I'm actually very interested to learn why I pass for a native of virtually any European country and have been commonly mistaken as such, anywhere from Spain and Italy to Scotland. The reason is that the "identifiable" differences between races are actually vanishingly small in such a small geographic area as Europe. Because my features are not distinctly racial, (among europeans) preconceptions about my appearance are dropped, and I am assumed to be part of the in-group, a native.
posted
I read an article once after the Davinci code came out that if Jesus had producd children and the line survived until today, pretty much everyone would be in some distant way related to him. They did a bunch of math and there are of course assumptions made but it was still interesting.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's also probably true, although it would take longer than 2,000 years for the lineage to reach all the remote human populations outside of eurasia, Europe, East Asia and Africa. For instance, Australia was isolated genetically for most of modern human history, and there are probably still people born there who are not descendant from other existing ethnic groups.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought that this (as the latest race based thread) would be a good place to expand on and comment on a few thoughts on race that have been rattling around my brain.
While race (in the sense of the useage of say Caucasian, Africa, and Mongoloid) is most certainly outdated. It is useful to note that race today (at least in Canada) has morphed into a shorthand to describe an unwieldly collection of ethnic, cultural, and socio-economic factors.
For example, here the term "Asian" is regularly used to denote a collection of immigrants from China, Japan, Korea, etc. and their associated Canadian born counterparts. The South Asian is usually split out and handled seperately.
But while these terms may only have a loose correlation with biological factors (albeit enough to identify ethnic background with pretty good accuracy via a cluster of SNPs), they still have utility in the fact that most people know what you mean.
The more troubling aspect of these discussions is that sometimes people will say something like, we should treat each other as if we are colour-blind, or that they do not see race. I wasn't entirely sure why this was troubling until I read this article:
quote: So what’s the problem with colorblindness? A lot of people will offer “I’m colorblind” as a symbol of good faith; they’re trying to express that they aren’t actively thinking racist things, and that they don’t see the race of others as a problem. And, as far as that goes, it’s a sweet thought. Really. But it functions for PoC in much the same way as “you’re just one of the guys” and “I don’t think of you as a girl” functions for women. It’s a nice thought, but it misses the point entirely.
I don’t want [my race] to not be a problem for you; I don’t want race to be problematic.
The distinction may seem subtle, but it really isn’t. When a person says “I don’t see color” as a way of saying “your race is not a problem for me,” it casts the problem as race. Race is not the problem, racism is.
While I personally would not be that aggressive as some of the blog, it is however, an interesting read.
However, my experiences with racism are couched in the relatively less harmful environment of Canadian racism against Asians rather than the American context. However, the article does make a interesting point, there is a distinction between treating people equally (in the sense of them having equal rights) and treating people the same (with the common assumption of treating them like you would treat yourself).
Here are a few more interesting snippets:
quote: Color-blind refers in this case to the philosophy that, in order to eliminate racism, one must (simply) ignore race entirely. It emphasizes treating everyone equally, and not judging based on skin tone or percieved ethnic features. It relies heavily on the (erroneous) assuption that it is the ability to (linguistically) mark people as “other” that facilitates the hatred directed to out-group members, and, much like in 1984, strives to simply eliminate the ‘bad’ words/concepts from the lexicon.
It’s sibling, race-neutral philosophy, is what I generally call the “charitable” reading of color-blind philosophy. Where colorblindness depends on near-literal “blindness” to racial characteristics, often to the tune of “I don’t think of you as black” statements, race-neutrality instead emphasizes the relative weight of percieved race or ethnicity in various situations. Under this philosophy, race is often likened to eye color; a real, visible marker that nonetheless has no legitimate bearing on hiring decisions, relationship matters, or other decisions.
quote: For people who are invested in their identity markers, it’s really uncomfortable to interact with a person who steadfastly refuses to admit those markers exist.
Going back to the gender parallel, as I said in my short original reply, it’s as if someone decided “I’m going to be gender blind; I’m going to treat everyone like they were men, just like me,” and proceeded to then hold everyone to masculine gender norms, regardless of their preferred, professed, or represented gender.
...
Atheists - you know how your hackles rise every time someone assumes you’re Christian? And ignores your statements to the contrary? That’s what it feels like to have someone pretend you don’t have a race. It’s awkward at best, and tooth-gnashingly frustrating at worst.
posted
What about the racism of being recognized because of your race?
My husband and I have been nomadic in the two years since he left the Air Force; I've ended up on a lot of real estate fora discussing this city or that--Boulder, CO, or Aurora, or Boise, ID.
I noticed a trend, that people kept expressing a preference for "diversity". Usually in the same breath as expressing a desire for good restaurants and nearby hiking.
Some expressed frustration at the lack of "diversity" in some more elite Colorado towns. Somebody gingerly pointed out that those towns were very expensive to live in, with few family-wage jobs, and that might account for the perceived lack of "diversity".
I started wondering if what some of the potential pro-diversity move-ins wanted was a sort of race-oriented DiversityWorld theme park. Like, a local Epcot Center, where Indians dress in henna and saris, and Native Americans in squash blossom necklaces and feathers, and provide a nice racial scenery to the (white, I'm guessing) residents living there.
I can't think of any other way to increase the apparent diversity of a town, short of trucking brown people in for the day from a nearby affordable community.
Most of the brown people I know, though, are kind of busy having their own lives and living where they want to already, thank you.
What's the racism quotient on that?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sachiko, I think you may be assuming too much about the motivations of people who seek "diversity."
I will say that Pen and Teller BS did a fantastic episode on the bogus concept of diversity, and how it is as a movement, though good spirited, basically flawed.
I'll jump back to the initial problem of motivation. I would wager that the people seeking "diversity" associate mixed race living with a couple of different things. First, communities that are ethnically diverse offer more cultural opportunities, which might be as simple as offering multiple alternative social groupings to set off from whatever the dominant local culture is.
I would imagine that if you're talking about somewhere like, say Aspen, there are plenty of whites, including myself, who would be exasperated at the prospect of being involved in that monochrome culture of wealth. There may be many "races" of people in Aspen, but I would bet there are few different cultural piers. For someone like myself, that would be interminable- I grew up around a mix of Hispanic people, Asians and working class whites- in fact in the neighborhood in SF where I grew up, the Asian families were often the wealthiest.
Now I go to a predominantly Asian university in California, and have to laugh and shrug when people are surprised that I can use chopsticks. Even though the university considers itself highly "diverse," it is really just composed of more large groups that are more recognizable.
Shoving people together in a single setting doesn't, in fact, create diversity, but rather options. What sociologists and admissions specialists are finding out is that no matter where students come from or what their ethnic background is, they select for themselves social groups that reflect their upbringing. People don't come together unless they have something in common- so "diversity" actually works against you, and commonality is what binds people. It so happens that in many parts of America, racial groups are still being born and raised in the same areas, and are establishing stronger ties within their races. There is nothing inherently negative about that trend, and it is changing all the time.
Not surprisingly for me, I became a music major, and became friends with a large group of people, most of whom come from racially mixed parts of the Bay Area. Amazingly, like my neighborhood, we were about a third of us white, the rest Asian American or of mixed race, and a few of other backgrounds. It was not difficult for that group to get along, because we had the common bond of music, and we were all of a similar life experience- we knew how to deal with each other, and we understood our common culture.
quote: I started wondering if what some of the potential pro-diversity move-ins wanted was a sort of race-oriented DiversityWorld theme park. Like, a local Epcot Center, where Indians dress in henna and saris, and Native Americans in squash blossom necklaces and feathers, and provide a nice racial scenery to the (white, I'm guessing) residents living there.
Are you white? I ask because I find that this is a common stereotype of whites that, in my experience, is not held by many white people themselves.
I think the whites who seek alternatives to white cultural hegemony are not themselves completely comfortable with the history of their own ethnicities- or they are not comfortable with the "uber-white" or perhaps rich and seemingly culture less inhabitants of "exclusive" cities in Colorado. I do find it bothersome that there is this perception that white culture is a kind of a vampiric racial succubus, feeding off of the "scenery" as you call it. That is actually quite racist I think- especially since no one seems to ever characterize members of other races in America looking for "white scenery." The implications is that we are cultureless or deficient- but this is bred from a simple lack of understanding, just as the percieved "inferiority" of other cultures among some whites is born of simple ignorance.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm mostly white, somewhat brown. But my brownness is Asian, which is "as good as white", take that as you will.
And I also lived in the Bay Area for years. Which, actually, is the first place I noticed this kind of "ethnicity spotting".
I noticed that the teachers at my school, and the parents of the other white/white-ish children I knew, who talked about diversity in the same way.
I concede that much of it may have simply wanting "options"--though, options like what, I wonder, culinary ones?--
--but for the most part, most of the people who spoke loudly about "diversity" usually only saw non-whites when they drove in from outside Marin County to come work in their houses and on their lawns.
The Hispanic and black kids I went to school with there lived in tiny, barely affordable places, made more expensive by the development moratoriums the richer white (nominally pro-diversity) residents supported.
I am musing on Mucus' comments about the racism inherent in pretending not to notice race; I am musing on the racism inherent in valuing people because of their race first, and their personal qualities second.
Isn't it racist to assume that because one doesn't see people in African or Indian dress walking down the street in one's town, that that town lacks diversity?
For some people, like those at the real estate fora, "diversity" is a visual concept, not a societal one, and it is one to be enjoyed through ogling. I find that, if not offensive, at least amusing.
I suppose I take this personally, since I look fairly white-bread, but was raised strongly Japanese (by a parent born in Japan). I've met a lot of pro-diversity people who dismissed me for being "too white". (I'm not; I pink nicely after a day at the pool. )
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, what exactly would exasperate you about living in Aspen? That the people around you are rich, or that they're white?
Please forgive my double posting.
I think class is a more important determiner of success than race. Poverty affects educational outcomes more than race does; however, more minorities are poor.
So would it be more accurate for me to take issue with the financial/class snobbery of rich people bemoaning the lack of (poorer) ethnicities in elite, expensive cities like Aspen or Boulder?
*edited to add* I think most racial/ethnic identity issues boil down to what language you speak to your friends in, and what you eat for breakfast.
I think the article you linked to above is very interesting.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ... That is actually quite racist I think- especially since no one seems to ever characterize members of other races in America looking for "white scenery." The implications is that we are cultureless or deficient- but this is bred from a simple lack of understanding, just as the percieved "inferiority" of other cultures among some whites is born of simple ignorance.
I may point out that the equivalent of a white person living in America looking for token pro-diversity is not (except in some exceptional cases) a member of another race looking for "white scenery." The equivalent is actually a member of one of these races living in another country where they are the majority, looking for "white scenery."
In this case, I have directly heard from a number of former Japanese ex-pats and from a few Chinese ex-pats that this does in fact happen. There is an element of Japanese and Chinese sub-culture that values having a token "white" friend as a sign of social value and a marker of being cosmopolitan.
This is not to say that this is as common an attitude as it may be here, but your use of the word "never" is a strong one. It does in fact happen and in both cases, it is unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your POV) does happen, quite frequently in fact.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny that you directly quote me using a word that isn't in the quote, I specifically used "no one seems to ever," because it is not as strong as "never."
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: Orincoro, what exactly would exasperate you about living in Aspen? That the people around you are rich, or that they're white?
I think class is a more important determiner of success than race. Poverty affects educational outcomes more than race does; however, more minorities are poor.
I am sure living in Aspen would be tolerable, but I also know that I am not culturally attuned to the Boulder/Aspen white-flight population. I'm over-generalizing, but the people I have met from those towns, (or more often who have moved there from some other great place to live), are superficially interested in the "artistic," and "interesting." If you can't find a stimulating environment help you be creative anywhere you are, then you aren't any good at what you want to be doing. I tend to think that Aspen and Boulder are full of people who want to have it easy, and be creative, which are two things that are hard to fit together. I think they probably spend too much of their time "getting inspired," and maybe, as you say, treating the world as window shopping.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Sorry, "no one seems to ever." But honestly, I fail to see the distinction.
"Seems to." It's a qualifier. It helps me avoid being accused of saying "never" when I don't mean "never." That you fail to see the distinction doesn't concern me very much, only that you know what it is I have not said, and that word is "never."
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't understand. When I say that I don't see the distinction I really don't see what you're trying to point out. I don't see how that helps the original statement.
Whats the *effective* difference between saying that something "never" happens and saying that something "never seems to" happen? Especially in the context when you're complaining about a double standard that you're claiming to exist, not in just your imagination but in real life?
i.e. If I said "people never eat curry," I'm obviously wrong. But if I said "no one seems to ever eat curry," its still wrong. In both cases, it still only requires one counter-example to prove it wrong.
Edit to add: I understand your frustration in being misquoted, which is why I said "sorry." However, I do not understand why you seem to think that it makes a difference in terms of the logic
posted
Before I started defending my misquotation, I would stop and make sure I didn't continue to misquote... I mean that's the easy part.
If you want me to clarify then I will: If say that something doesn't seem to be, then I mean that from my perspective (hence qualifying) this thing is not observed to happen. The statement doesn't dismiss the possibility. The word "never" without the qualifier "seems to," (even though I didn't use the word never, and you still think I did...), is a different statement- it indicates that I am talking about assumptions I am making outside of my experience. I was not doing that, in that particular instance.
Ultimately, arguing with me about how your misquotation means the same thing as my actual words is kind of pointless. If I agreed with you, I wouldn't correct you. And it's not like this particular case even boils down to an issue of interpretation. Feel free to interpret what I actually say, but what I don't say... well that is something else entirely.
The point may seem silly, but my words are all I have here.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
