Log in

View Full Version : Affirmative action comes under fire



Conghaileach
15th February 2003, 19:14
-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the Feb. 6, 2003
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------

FROM BAKKE TO BUSH:
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION COMES UNDER FIRE

By Monica Moorehead

Twenty-five years ago, in 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court issued the
infamous Bakke decision. The court ruled, five to four, that using
racial quotas to help win some measure of equality in hiring and
education was unconstitutional. Quotas are the setting aside of a
certain number of openings, mainly for people of color and women, in the
areas of jobs and education.

The Bakke case was centered at the University of California at Davis
Medical School. Now the battleground has moved to the University of
Michigan.

On Jan. 21, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that on April 1 it will
hear one hour of oral arguments regarding another milestone case focused
on the same issue of affirmative action. This case--actually two
separate court cases combined into one--is known as Gratz and Grutter
vs. Bollinger.

Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter, both white, sued Lee Bollinger,
former president of U-M, in 1996. They charged "reverse discrimination."

Gratz and Grutter claimed they were denied entry into the undergraduate
program and law school, respectively, because of U-M's affirmative-
action program, which sets aside some openings for Black and Latino
students.

U-M's affirmative-action program has implemented racial quotas to help
create diversity by bringing students of color into its undergraduate
and graduate programs. U.S. colleges and universities, private and state-
run, that receive the most funding, remain predominantly white.

On Oct. 29, U-M filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the
court not to strike down its affirmative-action program that helps
achieve diversity. The U-M News and Information Services statement
stressed that a Supreme Court decision reaffirming Bakke "would produce
the immediate re-segregation of many--and perhaps most--of this nation's
finest and most selective institutions."

The statement continued, "A prohibition on the consideration of race in
admissions could, for example, cut the representation of African
American students at selective universities by more than two-thirds, and
at accredited law schools by more than three-fourths."

BUSH ADMINISTRATION INTERVENES

The Bush administration brazenly intervened in this legal battle when it
asked the Justice Department to submit its own briefs to the Supreme
Court supporting the abolition of the U-M racial quota programs.

In subtly racist remarks, President Bush said, "At the undergraduate
level, African American students and some Hispanic students and Native
American students receive 20 points out of a maximum of 150, not because
of any academic achievement, but solely because they are African
American, Hispanic or Native American."

The irony is that Bush himself is a product of a racial and class quota
that affirm ative action confronts head on. George W. got into Yale
University even though his verbal and math Scholastic Aptitude Test
scores did not meet Yale's academic standards.

His secret? He was the son and grandson of affluent alumni.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND ANTI-RACIST STRUGGLE

When Allen Bakke, a white medical student, sued the U-C at Davis for
"reverse discrimination," it was the first time that a great majority of
people in the United States had heard of affirmative action.

Even today many people are unaware that institutionalized racism has
been rooted in U.S. society for many centuries. Today, unfortunately,
its legacy is alive and well in housing, health care, criminal justice,
under- representation in Congress, and many other areas of the economy
and society.

The mass murders of Indigenous Native nations and the enslavement of
African people carried out by the government on behalf of the expansion
of the U.S. capitalist market are two vivid examples of
institutionalized racism. Today, Latino, Arab, Native and Asian peoples
are also victims of a U.S. policy of poverty, intense repression,
marginalization and super-exploitation.

In the case of people of African descent, there has been an ongoing
struggle for racial equality since the end of the Civil War almost 140
years ago. The revolutionary period known as Reconstruction was an
attempt by the freed people to win complete equality with whites.

That period ended tragically and abruptly in 1877 with the "Great
Compromise," when federal troops were ordered by governmental decree to
withdraw from the South, abandoning the freed slaves and rendering them
defenseless in a semi-enslaved existence that included sharecropping.

This betrayal ushered in an era of counter-revolution. Southern Black
people suffered unmitigated terror at the hands of ultra-racist, fascist
formations like the KKK and the White Citizens Council, led by former
Confederate officers and slave masters. Countless thousands of Black
people were lynched; none of their murderers was brought to justice.

In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court--dominated by Southern and Northern
racist judges--ruled that the policy of "separate but equal" was
constitutional, thus giving legal sanction to Jim Crow segregation.

After World War I, millions of Black people migrated to the North to
escape economic and physical repression. They hoped to find equal
opportunities there.

What they found was a different kind of racism: segregated housing,
police brutality and low-paying jobs. Many labor unions collaborated
with the bosses in denying Black workers training in better-paid, more
skilled jobs. Anti-racist solidarity with Black workers by union leaders
remained elusive.

When white workers went on strike, bosses often deliberately hired Black
workers, who ordinarily couldn't get the jobs, to cross the picket
lines. They hoped to inflame racial antagonisms and defeat the unions.
For the Black workers, as for many immigrant workers today, they had no
choice. It was either work or starve.

Only a vigorous organizing effort by the unions to incorporate workers
of color and a campaign of anti-racist solidarity can protect all
workers' jobs. But instead, conservative union officials like George
Meany, the late president of the AFL-CIO, resisted opening up
apprenticeship programs to Black workers as well as other workers of
color and women.

REBELLIONS PUSH OPEN SOME DOORS

The massive Civil Rights struggles in the South and righteous rebellions
of Black people against poverty and unemployment in the Northern
ghettoes, especially in 1965 in the Watts section of Los Angeles, forced
the U.S. government to give more than just lip service to the idea of
affirmative action.

Affirmative action in jobs had first been considered within the
Eisenhower administration in 1953. Various commissions and agencies were
later established under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Yet
none of them instituted any program to redress the systematic exclusion
of Black workers by racist employers.

Three years after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, African
Americans composed just 8 percent of union construction workers. The
electrical, asbestos, plumbing and elevator trades had an abominable
number of only 1, 400 Black members out of 330,000 total. (Equal Employment Opportunity News, Sept. 28, 1969)

It was during Richard Nixon's presidency that racial quotas were first
used as a concrete remedy on the federal level to address racist hiring
practices. Assistant Labor Secretary for Wages and Standards Arthur A.
Fletcher, who was Black, rewrote the Philadelphia Plan in June 1969. It
required contractors in projects that received more than $50,000 in
federal assistance to hire Black and other workers of color "in good
faith."

The Office of Federal Contract Com pli ance, in consultation with Phila
del phia contractors, was authorized to establish numerical ranges for
hiring African Americans. For instance, they were to hire 5 to 9 percent
Black iron workers, with additional increases each year after 1970.

Nixon, a right-wing, law-and-order, pro-war president, flip-flopped on
the issue of affirmative action. Certainly the thought of another
rebellion caused the government great consternation. Some believe Nixon
also used the issue to try to win over Black voters.

During this same period, students of color carried out heroic struggles
on campuses, including sit-ins and strikes. These battles won open
admissions, Black and Latino Studies, and full scholarships for students
who had faced doors shut tight because they were either poor or not
white.

EROSION OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Since the Bakke decision, there has been slow erosion of affirmative-
action programs for people of color.

In 1996, the University of Texas admissions program was temporarily
dismantled by a U.S. federal appeals court. As a result, the percentage
of Black first-year students dropped from a range of 4.1 to 5.6 percent
before the decision, down to 2.7 percent.

Affirmative action with quotas seems to become controversial only when
racist whites scream "reverse discrimination." It's a false argument
when you look at the sordid record of racist oppression in the United
States. The place where "racial quotas" play the biggest role is in the
prison population and on death row.

By the end of the 20th century, close to one-third more young Black men
were in prison than in college, according to the Institute of Justice
Policy. State spending for prison construction was six times higher than
state spending for higher education.

RACISM AND CAPITALISM GO HAND IN HAND

A recent New York Times poll showed that more than half the U.S.
population supports affirmative action. The truth is that affirmative
action is just one small remedy in what should be an overall effort to
overcome the centuries-old legacy of slavery and white-supremacist
ideology.

Workers World to Larry Holmes about the current assault on affirmative
action. In 1978 Holmes was co-founder of a national coalition to
overturn the Bakke decision and an organizer of a national demonstration
in Washington, D.C., that drew 35,000--predominantly Black youths --to
protest the Bakke ruling. He is also author of the pamphlet "Weber Was
Wrong; the Steelworkers Were Right: A Case for Affirmative Action,"
about a struggle between the Steel Workers union and a white worker who
charged the union with "reverse discrimination."

Holmes told WW: "What is happening at U-M is another round in the battle
that oppressed people have waged to win a measure of progress. But that
struggle has far greater potential today because people are mad as hell
about Trent Lott's racism, about the threat of war against Iraq, about
skyrocketing unemployment and poverty and the whole capitalist system.
And all of this anger will be brought to bear against those who want to
roll back affirmative action."

Capitalism is the root cause of racism today because this profits-first
system is based on divide and conquer, not unity and solidarity.

It is because of capitalism that, in this wealthy country, there are not
enough good schools for all students who apply. Racism is to the
advantage of the bosses, because it makes it easier for them to keep a
huge section of the workers super-exploited in low-paying jobs.

Everyone should have the right to a decent job and education, regardless
of their nationality, sex, gender, sexual preference, age and abilities.
These rights, now matter how much is won, will always be at risk under
capitalism.

The struggle for equality and justice can only be fully achieved under
socialism. It requires the kind of social education and solidarity that
come with an economic system that replaces big-business ownership and
its drive for profits with social ownership and the planning of
production to meet human needs.

- END -

(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not
allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY,
NY 10011; via e-mail: [email protected] Subscribe wwnews-
[email protected] Unsubscribe [email protected] Support the
voice of resistance http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)

Lefty
18th February 2003, 20:56
Whoever wrote this article is obviously biased in favor of affirmative action. It is my opinion that any form of rascism is morally wrong, and that admission to any university should not be based on the color of skin, but rather economic situation. I.E. Rich black people that have the same SAT score as poor white people shouldnt get in because they are black. However, Rich white people shouldn't get priority over poor people. Agh...What I'm trying to say is, base affirmative action on economic status, not skin color.

Umoja
19th February 2003, 02:42
Even so Lefty, even though I'm a very well off black male, I still don't have as much of a chance in being considered for most lines of work. The university of Michigan case is seriously messed up, but most cases of Affirmative Action have nothing to do with the same process.

Doshka
19th February 2003, 06:38
thank you for the article CiaranB, and i love the last part about capitalist pigs and their racist ways...i am against all of this though. why are we acting like its ok to seperate whites and blacks...universities should stop treating them different! thats all there is to it....whether they are excepting more whites than blacks or blacks than whites its both wrong...they are seperating the two and putting barriers between

Lefty
19th February 2003, 20:58
Really? I...erm...kinda wouldn't know, being a 14-year old white male. Can't you file suit if you feel that you were being discriminated against?

Totalitarian
20th February 2003, 09:42
Affirm. action is elitist ploy which increases racial hatred & will foster more support for white nationalism.

timbaly
21st February 2003, 04:38
Isn't it a crime to consider race when choosing someone for a job? why should school be any different? Affirmative action just puts an even bigger burden on the poor white man. Which is undoubtedly the hardest thing to be in the US. Racism is Racism, it's that simple. Affirmative action uses race to determine who gets in and who gets out, therefore it's a racist policy.

Lefty
21st February 2003, 05:08
But without it, would rascism be worse?

pay feo 2003
21st February 2003, 06:46
Quote: from Lefty on 5:08 am on Feb. 21, 2003
But without it, would rascism be worse?

wow everyone has brought up some short and sweet statements.

lefty, i wish i could answer. the only way to know is to get this thing off the books.

truthfully, the world has been setting itself up bit by bit and it comes down to two words...

DIS and ADVANTAGED= NO HOPE

dis=charge

advantage=a beneficial factor or combination of factors

my question is: who sed anyone who is non-white is at a disadvantage?

affirmative action is a decoy and its ties up the courts

i suspect that somehow in our cries for "equality" under a law that was created for anglo-saxons we (the people) set ourselves up.

we all know slavery was a common practice among all persons in the world yet no one speaks on the "abolishment movement" of slavery in america by president "adams". why? well, then we would be required to change our way of thinking, now wouldnt it?

right now, i am finally studying this man called Marx and hmm...

-"first, certain social laws that govern growth and decline of the capitalist system, as defined by Marxists, can be nullified by the conscious actions and cooperation of the people, or the various classes within the framework of a capitalist society" - marx

theres more only i need to cut out...

god, is there so much more...my head is spinning and its

disco time! :o

thanks for the article, very interesting

we face facts and we move on!

guerrillaradio
21st February 2003, 21:12
Quote: from Umoja on 2:42 am on Feb. 19, 2003
...though I'm a very well off black male, I still don't have as much of a chance in being considered for most lines of work.

Well the way I see it, the answer to subconcious racism is increased ethnic integration into society. And the way to increase integration is to attempt to play down the difference (such as it is) between races. Affirmative action merely separates races...

timbaly
22nd February 2003, 02:40
Can anyone seriously answer this question?

How does Racism against whites help minorities?

Umoja
22nd February 2003, 03:57
The same way fighting violent opressors with violence helps "the revolution".

timbaly
22nd February 2003, 04:35
But what about poor whites? It isn't fair to kick them down because they're white. It should go by privalege, that is if it must go by anything other than grades. So if you're poor and one student is rich and you have equal crudentials the tie breaker should go to the poorer person. discrimination based on skin color is NEVER justified. Racism is NEVER justified.

timbaly
22nd February 2003, 04:39
double post

(Edited by timbaly at 11:41 pm on Feb. 22, 2003)

Umoja
22nd February 2003, 13:54
But it's not racism to say, that although they are poor and white, they still are white, and as such white privelege still gives them huge advantages. If a white guy is born in Harlem, the reality is, our society still gives him a completely unfair chance at achievement. So it you want to look at leveling the playing field as wrong, that's fine. Races are classes.

timbaly
23rd February 2003, 04:20
I do see your point. But I think there is a much bigger class problem than race problem. I can't stand the fact that affirmative action discriminates against whites who are probaly not even racsits. Todays whites have to pay for the mistakes of their relatives. it's unustifiable. Why should someone pay for his forefathers mistakes? The upper class currently opresses the lower class. Most whites do not opress minorities. So there is a difference

Umoja
23rd February 2003, 04:58
Most rich don't willingly opress the poor either, but they'd have to give up their lifestyle to compensate. Although, white people can't be completely blamed for what their ancestors did, does that leave the burden of suffering up to women and minorities?

Lefty
23rd February 2003, 08:15
I don't think I should have to pay for the fact that my great-great grandpa was a slavemaster, if he was. I don't see how you can blame your troubles, as a black man, on todays white men. Rascism is bad. Right, Umoja?

Totalitarian
23rd February 2003, 10:54
Guerillaradio:

Well the way I see it, the answer to subconcious racism is increased ethnic integration into society. And the way to increase integration is to attempt to play down the difference (such as it is) between races. Affirmative action merely separates races...

What if "playing down the difference" doesn't manage to erase the subconscious effects of genetic racial differences?

If its unsucessful, the fruit will most likely be increased racial hatred and destruction

noone likes being a minority

synthesis
23rd February 2003, 11:02
My opposition to affirmative action is very simple...

When a white man discovers that he remains unemployed because of affirmative action, all too often he becomes a white nationalist.

This is counter-productive.

Affirmative action will never solve the problem of racism as long as capitalism remains the economic system of America! Capitalism is inherently racist, and until it is replaced, such divisive, moderate reforms only hinder its abolishment.

Totalitarian
23rd February 2003, 11:07
DyerMaker:


Capitalism is inherently racist, and until it is replaced, such divisive, moderate reforms only hinder its abolishment.

What is your definition of race and racist?

My opinion is that races are tribelike social constructs which differ genetically; massive extended families

In my opinion, forced racial integration is unnatural, may reduce human biodiversity while increasing stress & resource competition (leading to violence, abnormal behaviour) and is thus ecologically unsound

As for capitalism, the idea of "property" is laughable, for nothing can be owned

guerrillaradio
23rd February 2003, 12:21
Quote: from Totalitarian on 10:54 am on Feb. 23, 2003
What if "playing down the difference" doesn't manage to erase the subconscious effects of genetic racial differences?

Well, in time, it will. The effects of which you speak are much less of an issue than they were, say, 40 years ago, when blacks couldn't get a seat on buses in the southern States. Why?? Cos of increased integration and the realisation by society that the genetic racial differences of which you speak are both minimal and inconsequential.


If its unsucessful, the fruit will most likely be increased racial hatred and destruction

noone likes being a minority

But it hasn't been unsuccessful, and it is very unlikely to fail. And how exactly would you constitute a failure?? The way I see it, a necessary condition for it to fail would be increased racial hatred...

(Edited by guerrillaradio at 12:23 pm on Feb. 23, 2003)

synthesis
23rd February 2003, 20:22
What is your definition of race and racist?

By racist, I mean that the capitalist class must create divisions between the working class on racial grounds to prevent them from unity for a socialist cause.

Totalitarian
24th February 2003, 02:53
GuerillaRadio:


Well, in time, it will. The effects of which you speak are much less of an issue than they were, say, 40 years ago, when blacks couldn't get a seat on buses in the southern States. Why?? Cos of increased integration and the realisation by society that the genetic racial differences of which you speak are both minimal and inconsequential.

Yes, mind you the picture is exactly all rosy. Negroes are still in a bad state, there is lots of racial crime and even a huge number of "hate crimes" against whites happening

I'm not sure what you mean by saying racial differences are unconsequential. Obviously a child of a certain "race" being born is a "consequence" of the parents having the same "race". How major these genetic differences are is a subjective opinion, some will make a bigger deal out of race than others but it's not like it isn't there


But it hasn't been unsuccessful, and it is very unlikely to fail. And how exactly would you constitute a failure?? The way I see it, a necessary condition for it to fail would be increased racial hatred...

America is a unique example of where racial integration has been relatively peaceful & progressive. Even so, now that some arabs flew planes into american buildings, i think the situation is likely to become worse.

People in america will have become a lot more race consciouss now, looking out for semitic-looking people who might be terrorists, also a lot of negroes are turning to militant islam as a way out of "the white man's sytem", this in turn deepens suspicion and hatred.

Then there are all the chicano immigrants in the south, with separatist mexican groups wanting to break away and other americans feeling resentful about this. Then there are the jewish zionists and their plans to drag america into tribal warfare with their current enemies the arab semites

It looks like a big mess emerging...i really don't think humans have evolved enough to live in a "melting pot" in peace for very long...as soon as you apply a stress like war or terrorism, it falls to pieces, people start operating on a tribal/racial basis again and within a multi-racial state that can be hella dangerous

I wish there was some way to harness the race instinct for progressive purposes

timbaly
24th February 2003, 03:02
If we are to destroy racism we must start by educating the youngest people. Through school, it's the only answer. As the more racist older generation dies of we're left with people educated to treat race as a non issue. The way i see it race doesn't exist.

Humans are all humas the same. Their skelatal structure is the same, their body sytems are the same. The only difference is color. goldfish can be black or gold, does the color make them a different kind of fish? It doesn't, so humans are all humans just like goldfish are all goldfish.

We need that mentality to be stuck inside people. Learning is the only way possible. School must pave the way. Not colleges who discriminate against people based on skin color. Elementary schools must educate the youth.

We can't let parents corrupt kids into thinking that racism is ok either. Now that is a much harder problem to correct especially if your dad is a klansmen. Reforming the very way amilies are created could be the answer, but lets not get into that and it would never happen under the current US gov't.

synthesis
24th February 2003, 04:21
Their skelatal structure is the same

Actually, no, phrenologists (people who study skulls) can easily tell a person's race by looking at their skull.

A more truthful claim is that the differences are merely physical.

Umoja
24th February 2003, 11:58
Well if the differences are "only" physical, and most of you are atheist, that only leaves mental, and that means a huge percent of our self, is different then the selves of others.

noon
24th February 2003, 20:40
yo, you guys really need to read up on some very basic stuff.

no one is even able to discuss affirmative action because you don't even have the most elementary understanding of how race and racism operate. here is a quick lesson, but please also do some more reading on your own.

1. race is a socially constructed concept, not an anthropological one. essentialism was the belief that humans were essentially different from another based on race. this belief fueled the slave trade, the concept of blood difference and white supremacy. it has since been disproven by every respected scientific institution.

2. racism, classism and patriachy are all intertwining axis of oppression. that is to say, it is useless to oppose systemic and institutional classism (as most of you must by nature of this forum) without opposing systemic and institutional racism. and vis versa.

3. racism is a power inbalance based on race, not simply a personal prejudice. an easy way to remember: racism = prejudice + power.

4. by defining racism as a personal prejudice, you employ a very limited definition of racism and are not able to see institutionalized racism or understand the nature of power.

Totalitarian
25th February 2003, 04:05
noon:

1. race is a socially constructed concept, not an anthropological one. essentialism was the belief that humans were essentially different from another based on race. this belief fueled the slave trade, the concept of blood difference and white supremacy. it has since been disproven by every respected scientific institution.


That doesn't change the fact that racial variation exists (that's how evolution occurs, otherwise new species would never form) and that human races, however socially constructed they are, differ in average physical traits because of genetics

2. racism, classism and patriachy are all intertwining axis of oppression. that is to say, it is useless to oppose systemic and institutional classism (as most of you must by nature of this forum) without opposing systemic and institutional racism. and vis versa.

i'm not sure what classism is exactly, but i guess any form of oppression has a negative effect on the species

3. racism is a power inbalance based on race, not simply a personal prejudice. an easy way to remember: racism = prejudice + power.

Let me just pose a suggestion: if different, self-defined "racial" groups decided to separate, then wouldn't this restore a balance, because no race would be affected by the power of any other, and their prejudices would become ineffectual?


4. by defining racism as a personal prejudice, you employ a very limited definition of racism and are not able to see institutionalized racism or understand the nature of power.

The mind is where the power of these institutions derive, so racism must originate in the mind due to genetic & environmental influences. Are you applying a more organic definition?



(Edited by Totalitarian at 4:07 am on Feb. 25, 2003)


(Edited by Totalitarian at 4:09 am on Feb. 25, 2003)

noon
25th February 2003, 18:33
Totalitarian:

you don't know what classism is and you are posting on a marxist board? you think there are essential differences based on "race"? you think mass segragation is the solution to racism?

as i said, it would be best if you do some reading on racism and classism before you post again.

Totalitarian
25th February 2003, 22:10
Noon:

Totalitarian:
you don't know what classism is and you are posting on a marxist board?

Well, i can guess it has something to do with exploitation of lower socio-economic (working) classes by the capital-owing class

you think there are essential differences based on "race"?

Of course. Races (however they are defined) are genetically different, isn't that an "essential" difference?

you think mass segragation is the solution to racism?

No. I don't think people should be forced to associate with those they don't wish to, nor should they be forced apart.

(Edited by Totalitarian at 10:12 pm on Feb. 25, 2003)

Conghaileach
26th February 2003, 16:35
What are the physical, genetic differences between races?

I guess that in the same way that the races are different, so are the sexes. It doesn't make one inferior to another.

Totalitarian
27th February 2003, 06:30
Race exists objectively, races exist subjectively.

In all species, there is some degree of geographic variation, as populations separate from each other and become isolated. Once they are reproductively isolated, certain mutations occur more frequently in some populations than in others. Over a long period of time, what we see emerging are racial differences, and this a way in which new species are eventually formed.

Racial variation in humans is ridiculously small when compared to dogs or baboons for example, but it still exists. For example: Negroes have darker skin, frizzier hair, even different skeletons than the White (or European) people who have adapted to a different set of living conditions in the north and thus are characterised by light skin, flatter faces, higher frequency of blonde & red hair etc.

No scientist agrees on how many races exist: it simply depends on what criteria you use. I think there is supposed to be 4 main races (negro, european/caucasian, east asian and south asian) and these have been proven to differ in terms of DNA as well as average physical traits.

Different "races" however are not nescessarily distinct groups with arbitrary and objective cut-off points to separate them from other races. Instead membership of a race is based not only on physical features which are seen as being typical of that lineage, but also social/cultural reasons.

Questions of "superiority" or "inferiority" are also, entirely subjective.

Its interesting to note that the genetic part of racial differences is quite small, about 6% of all genetic variation within an individual is defined as having occured through racial variation.

Conghaileach
27th February 2003, 16:48
If a human's DNA is 99.9% the same as that of an orangutan, then how similar are these different races?

Also, would the black people taken northwards to America as slaves have evolved differently from those still in Africa over the past few hundred years? Even if just a little bit?

Totalitarian
27th February 2003, 19:25
Quote: from CiaranB on 4:48 pm on Feb. 27, 2003
If a human's DNA is 99.9% the same as that of an orangutan, then how similar are these different races?

To my knowledge, humans closest relative is the chimpanzee which we share 99% of our DNA with . Between the major human races, its more like 99.99%. However, our knowledge of the genome is so small; it seems like a tiny genetic difference can cause a large physical difference.


Also, would the black people taken northwards to America as slaves have evolved differently from those still in Africa over the past few hundred years? Even if just a little bit?

Not in a significant way, the time period is way too short. Although american blacks differ genetically from sub-saharan blacks, and this is because of interbreeding with europeans.

synthesis
28th February 2003, 01:12
The four main racial groupings scientists use are:

Negroid (natives of sub-Saharan Africa, various areas in South Pacific/Indian ocean)
Caucasoid (natives of Europe, Middle East, North Africa)
Mongoloid (natives of North/South America, the Arctic, Asian Russia, Oceanics, and East/Central Asians)
Australoid (natives of Australia)

http://www.geocities.com/racial_myths/races.html

The root site is very interesting as well. He's an avowed moderate.

Totalitarian
3rd March 2003, 03:35
Some scientists use different classifications; it simply depends on your criteria and how exact you want the divisions to be.

Umoja
3rd March 2003, 21:02
Like aren't Australoids, technically Negroid?

Totalitarian
5th March 2003, 08:33
According to results of the Human Genome Diversity Project, australoids are much more closely related to south asians than to negros.

Umoja
5th March 2003, 21:14
I thought South Asians (As in India) had a negro population (Orissa), or and a huged mixed group (untouchables).

Totalitarian
6th March 2003, 03:37
Quote: from Umoja on 9:14 pm on Mar. 5, 2003
I thought South Asians (As in India) had a negro population (Orissa), or and a huged mixed group (untouchables).

The south asians consist mainly of groups like the vietnamese, thais, malays, polynesians and melanesians.

The asian indians have a huge amount of racial diversity: ranging from the untouchables & orissa who more closely resemble negros, to the lighter-skinned castes who have the most european ancestry (as genetic studies have confirmed). As a whole, the asian indians are usually grouped as Caucasoid probably because of the large european influence i suspect.