Is there really such a thing as "race"? - Article

[Lardlad95]

OXFORD, England -- I had my DNA examined by a prominent genetic specialist here, and what do you know! It turns out I'm African-American.

The mitochondria in my cells show that I'm descended from a matriarch who lived in Africa, possibly in present-day Ethiopia or Kenya.

O.K., this was 70,000 years ago, and she seems to be a common ancestor of all Asians as well as all Caucasians. Still, these kinds of DNA analyses illuminate the raging scientific debate about whether there is anything real to the notion of race.

"There's no genetic basis for any kind of rigid ethnic or racial classification at all," said Bryan Sykes, the Oxford geneticist and author of "The Seven Daughters of Eve." "I'm always asked is there Greek DNA or an Italian gene, but, of course, there isn't. . . . We're very closely related."

Likewise, The New England Journal of Medicine once editorialized bluntly that "race is biologically meaningless."

Take me. Dr. Sykes looked at a sequence of my mitochondrial DNA to place me on a kind of global family tree. It would have been nice to learn that my ancestors hailed from a village on Loch Ness, but ancestry can almost never be pegged that precisely, and I appear to be a mongrel. One of my variants, for example, is scattered among people in Finland, Poland, Armenia, the Netherlands, Scotland, Israel, Germany and Norway.

On the other hand, is race really "biologically meaningless"? Bigotry has been so destructive that it's tempting to dismiss race and ethnicity as artificial, but there are genuine differences among population groups.

Jews are more likely to carry mutations for Tay-Sachs, Africans for sickle cell anemia. It's hard to argue that ethnicity is an empty concept when one gene mutation for an iron storage disease, hemochromatosis, affects fewer than 1 percent of Armenians but 8 percent of Norwegians.

"There is great value in racial/ ethnic self-categorizations" for medicine, protested an article last year by a Stanford geneticist, Neil Risch, in Genome Biology. It warned against "ignoring our differences, even if with the best of intentions."

DNA does tend to differ, very slightly, with race. Profilers thought a recent serial killer in Louisiana was white until a DNA sample indicated he was probably black. (A black man has been arrested in the case.) As genetic science advances, the police may eventually be able to recover semen and put out an A.P.B. for a tall white rapist with red curly hair, blue eyes and perhaps a Scottish surname.

On the other hand, genetic markers associated with Africans can turn up in people who look entirely white. Indians and Pakistanis may have dark skin, but genetic markers show that they are Caucasians.

Another complication is that African-Americans are, on average, about 17 percent white: they have mitochondria (maternally inherited) that are African, but they often have European Y chromosomes. In other words, white men raped or seduced their maternal ancestors.

Among Jews, there are common genetic markers, including some found in about half the Jewish men named Cohen. But this isn't exactly a Jewish gene: the same marker is also found in Arabs.

"Genetics research is now about to end our long misadventure with the idea of race," Steve Olson writes in his new book, "Mapping Human History."

When I lived in Japan in the 1990's, my son Gregory had a play date with a classmate I hadn't met. I asked Gregory, then 5, whether the boy's mother was Japanese.

"I don't know," Gregory replied.

"Well," I asked sharply, "did she look Japanese or American?" Although he'd lived in Tokyo for years, Gregory replied blankly, "What does a Japanese person look like?"

He was ahead of his time. Genetics increasingly shows that racial and ethnic distinctions are real — but often fuzzy and greatly exaggerated. Genetics will increasingly show that most humans are mongrels, and it will make a mockery of racism.

"There are meaningful distinctions among groups that may have implications for disease susceptibility," said Harry Ostrer, a genetics expert at the New York University School of Medicine. "The right-wing version of this is `The Bell Curve,' and that's pseudoscience — that's not real. But there can be a middle ground between left-wing political correctness and right-wing meanness."

I'll be searching for that middle ground this year as I'm celebrating Kwanzaa.

* * *

Genetic Bazaar

Anyone can get a DNA analysis to try to shed light on genetic origins, but for now don't expect to be pegged too precisely. Bryan Sykes of Oxford University founded a company that offers analyses based on the rubric in his book "The Seven Daughters of Eve," and more information is available at www.Oxfordancestors.com. That's the company I used. An alternative is an American company offering DNA analyses with a genealogy focus, www.familytreedna.com.

*note thiswasn't written by me Ijust forgot to pastethe author

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Scientists have argued for some time now that there is only one race among the six billion hairless apes... the human race. There are minor physical differences... adaptations to an environment (eg: darkness of skin related to intensity of sunlight in environment). But the genetic difference between humans of different ethnicities is said to be negligible.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Marxist in Nebraska on 1:55 am on July 15, 2003
Scientists have argued for some time now that there is only one race among the six billion hairless apes... the human race. There are minor physical differences... adaptations to an environment (eg: darkness of skin related to intensity of sunlight in environment). But the genetic difference between humans of different ethnicities is said to be negligible.


pretty much

[sc4r]

No there is no such thing as race. You have failed to understand what the statement means.

What you have identified is that there is such thing as clades. No-one has ever doubted it. In fact if you were to doubt it you would be denying evolution and genetics.

The statement 'there is no such thing as race' is based upon the fact that there is nothing which tells us which particular clades have any special significance.

We can identify that this clade has inherrited characteristic A from the common ancestor, and this Clade Characteristic B, And this one both, and this one neither. But unfortunately there are more Clades than people; so why designate some particular clades as being 'races' except that we have already abitrarily decided to do so.

Its worse, because you wont in fact identify even a single characteristic which is shared by all the members of anything traditionally designated as a 'race' which is not also shared by some members of other 'races'.

Some of the apparent 'shared characteristics' (like sickle cell anaemia) are indeed Homologues (derived from a common ancestor) but others are analogues (independently evolved, like non black skin in various peoples).

The fact is that a member of say the 'negro race' willl share more characteristics with the average of 'white men' than he will with almost any randomly chosen 'negro'.

Put more dramatically Mohammed Ali is as likely to share genes with David Duke as with Nelson Mandela (though I would not care to tell him this).

Th error comes becomes we focus on those very few characteristics which are self evident and ignore the thousands more which are not. We abitrarily decide which genes are important and worthy of classifying as races. But this is doing nothing more than acknowlegeing that some people do indeed look different to others and that some of those differences are due to a shared ancestry in the individuals. No-one has ever doubted this. This is not the important factor. It is the abitrariness of deciding which clades should be called 'races' that is criticised. becuase it creates artificial divisions.

There is either one race, the human race, or several billion of them. anything in between is an abitrary decision about what to call 'race'.

Some abitrary decisions dont matter because they do no harm even if they do no real good, this one does harm and because it is abitrary (as also evidenced by the multiple different Schemas various racists have for deciding what the number and definitions of 'race are - frequently contradictory as well) we should reject it.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from sc4r on 7:13 am on July 15, 2003
No there is no such thing as race. You have failed to understand what the statement means.

What you have identified is that there is such thing as clades. No-one has ever doubted it. In fact if you were to doubt it you would be denying evolution and genetics.

The statement 'there is no such thing as race' is based upon the fact that there is nothing which tells us which particular clades have any special significance.

We can identify that this clade has inherrited characteristic A from the common ancestor, and this Clade Characteristic B, And this one both, and this one neither. But unfortunately there are more Clades than people; so why designate some particular clades as being 'races' except that we have already abitrarily decided to do so.

Its worse, because you wont in fact identify even a single characteristic which is shared by all the members of anything traditionally designated as a 'race' which is not also shared by some members of other 'races'.

Some of the apparent 'shared characteristics' (like sickle cell anaemia) are indeed Homologues (derived from a common ancestor) but others are analogues (independently evolved, like non black skin in various peoples).

The fact is that a member of say the 'negro race' willl share more characteristics with the average of 'white men' than he will with almost any randomly chosen 'negro'.

Put more dramatically Mohammed Ali is as likely to share genes with David Duke as with Nelson Mandela (though I would not care to tell him this).

Th error comes becomes we focus on those very few characteristics which are self evident and ignore the thousands more which are not. We abitrarily decide which genes are important and worthy of classifying as races. But this is doing nothing more than acknowlegeing that some people do indeed look different to others and that some of those differences are due to a shared ancestry in the individuals. No-one has ever doubted this. This is not the important factor. It is the abitrariness of deciding which clades should be called 'races' that is criticised. becuase it creates artificial divisions.

There is either one race, the human race, or several billion of them. anything in between is an abitrary decision about what to call 'race'.

Some abitrary decisions dont matter because they do no harm even if they do no real good, this one does harm and because it is abitrary (as also evidenced by the multiple different Schemas various racists have for deciding what the number and definitions of 'race are - frequently contradictory as well) we should reject it.


for all that long winded rhetoric you have just pulled out u have made *a fatal error

don't say "you" (reffering to Me) have failed to indentify anything

I said I didn't write this, I said I found this article

I don't believe there is such thing as race, but this article does not reflect my views in anyway shape or form

IN the future attack the article without bringing me into this


I am but a subjective party I brought the article here to be disscussed not to put forth any opinions of mine


also the term "negro" is outdated and considered offensive

please use black *in the future

(Edited by Lardlad95 at 9:09 am on July 15, 2003)

[sc4r]

Hardly a fatal error m8; since your 'criticism' has flat nothing to do with substance.

However, If you dont believe in something, and react so viciously to being in any way associated with it, you'd probably be best off not posting articles in such a way that working out which parts of the text are article and which parts are you speaking for yourself is unclear.

As far as I can tell, even on re-reading it, this part is you "On the other hand, is race really "biologically meaningless"? Bigotry has been so destructive that it's tempting to dismiss race and ethnicity as artificial, but there are genuine differences among population groups. "

Which seems pretty clear that you do believe Race to be a valid concept. If it's only 'tempting to dismiss it' then you (or whoever actually is responsible for that thought) does not dismiss it.

I avoided any attack on you, unless you are so sensitive that you interpret someone saying you dont understand something as an attack. It would have been pleasant to think that you could have returned the favour.

Irrespective of whether Negro is offensive it is the correct word to use in that context since I was not talking of how I refer to people but of how racists classify. Most of them have a 'negro' race in their classification; few except the most dumb even by their dumb standards have a 'black' race.

Now did you have any actual criticism of what I actually said to add or were you just indulging yourself in a bit of empty but insulting rhetoric?

If you are such a very sensitive black person I'd suggest you steer clear of discusions on race. In me you happen to be talking to someone who (fairly clearly) denies that race is even a valid idea, let alone feels racist; but there are plenty who wont tread on such tippy toes around your feelings.

I'm tempted to add an insulting honorific since I can guess what motivated you to post that essentially empty mild personal attack on me but I'll forego the pleasure for now.

There are only two sorts of people who make a common practise of proclaiming that what I write is 'empty rhetoric' 'wordy' and so on. Far right conservatives and our supposedly intellectual anarchists. I'm tempted to think they share a common disregard for anything except getting their own way, are both devoid of the capacity to actually argue their case, and are both nasty, ego driven, little hypocrites. You may be one of them, you may not be, I dont know yet, but I suspect I'm about to find out.






(Edited by sc4r at 6:39 am on July 16, 2003)

[Ben Sir Amos]

Sorry, I'm trying to catch up.

Race is a social construction, isn't it? Does it have to have a genetic basis to be a 'real' thing, or is experience real enough?

[sc4r]

Hmmm I'll try but thats hard one to explain.

Race is a social construction in the sense that there is no definitive objective basis for defining which 'race' any particular person belongs in, or even what the 'races' are. At the most simplistic end you get people who will say 'Casucasians, Negros, Asians, Australians' at the most determined end they might list 30 or 40 'races'.

How does a racist decide to which a race any particular person belongs? In practise all he/she does is to observe a few steotypical traits which he has abitrarily decided define that race and choose a best fit. Even more reprehensibly the decison on 'which race' will be strongly influenced not by anything at all connected to the individual but on the classifiers knowlege of what 'race' the person 'should' belong in by virtue of where the invidual is (the exact same swarthy looking individual person may be classified as 'African' if observed in Harlem and 'greek' if observed in Athens.)

He will ignore the thouands of traits which he has abitrarily decided play no part in determining 'race' and of course will often find some traits in an individual that supposedly are defining characteristic of a different race. He will ignore these too.

Which leaves him able to perform his classification alright and be at least reasonably consistent about it (not entirely). And then what can he do with it ? almost nothing. He has classified but the classification tells you almost nothing which was not already known directly from the observations he used to do the classification.There are a very few traits which may not be directly observed and which have a statistical significance - for example if one of your 'races' is defined by dark skin, muscular build, a flattish nose and frizzy hair you have an increased chance of finding that the person has the 'sickle cell gene*, but its by no means a certainty and there will be people who do not fit your stereotype who also have the gene.

This is because, pretty obviously, expressed traits often do have some genetic basis and shared genetic lineages (clades) often will have a slightly disproprortionate number of unobvious genes which are also shared to some extent.

But all this says is that Clades exist and that you can give yourself a slightly better chance of spotting people who belong in the same clade by looking at anything which clades tend to share than by not looking at all.

But if you look at the genes of people even whom you absolutely know are from the same clade then unless it is a very very recently derived one (like two brothers or maybe cousins) you will find that they have virtually no greater chance of sharing almost any 'gene' than two randomly chosen people.

Add to this the fact that 99.9% of all genes are identical in all of us anyway and you see how little use the distinction is and how little it expresses (nothing absolutely and almost nothing even statistically).

So what we have is a classification system which serves no real purpose; is abitrarily defined and you ask well why the heck have it. The answer I'm afraid is that it exists in order that a few bigots can make use not of anything real but of the fact of classification to oppress some people.

You have a system which does nothing useful of any note (because it is abitrary and error prone) and which causes harm...So deny it existence. It only exists in the first place because we have decided to say it does.

The other often confused and related social construct of 'culture' has more use (because if I see a woman wearing the veil and the (I forget what its called.. the dress thing) I can be pretty sure that perosn is a moslem and that may tell me something useful (like dont offer them pork for dinner). Likewise if I see someone with the cultural symbol of a red spot on their forehead I can fairly guess that the person is a married Hindu (and again this may tell me how to behave).

The distinction is that culture may be adopted and is real, whereas 'race' cannot be and is not.

I dount this has cleared everything up. The subject is difficult precisely because we are so conditioned to look for ways to make 'race' seem real and so conditioned to look for those characteristics which are used to 'define' race. It is quite amazing how many ways there are to 'prove' race is a real thing which on inspection turn out to be just a confused notion of what it is that is being proved and are merely self justifying.

best wishes. Feel free to question me further and pick at the bits where I am unclear. I'm sure we would get there in the end.

P.S. Stephen Jay Gould explains this whole thing much better than I can in one of his essays, unfortunately I cannot remember which collection it appears in, or the title of the essay, so you will have to buy all 2 dozen of his books and read all of them to find it (which is an experience I can recommend for its own sake).

Again best wishes.

* Sicle cell research is an often quoted 'valid purpose' for race. But actually you dont need the 'race' concept at all. All you do is look for dark, muscular people with frizzy hair and voila.

Likewise if youwere doing research into freckles in the winter you dont need to ask 'hmmm is he celtic' all you do is ask 'does he have red hair' its a more reliable indicator than anything else anyway.


(Edited by sc4r at 12:00 am on July 17, 2003)


(Edited by sc4r at 12:30 am on July 17, 2003)

[Ben Sir Amos]

Can we go back to the beginning just for a minute? The thread title is "Is there really such a thing as 'race'?"

My problem with the posts here is that, if we examine 'race' just in biological/genetic terms, then we can argue convincingly that 'race' does not exist. That is very convenient for some right-wingers and racists because, if there is no such thing as 'race', how can anyone be racist? Then they can carry on as before and not address the very real effects of racism.

Of course, there are still a few fuzzy bits around the edges, but they can redefine them in terms of the 'confused' social construction of 'culture' - without fear of being accused of being culturalist (because I've only just made that word up - I think). If you try to address cultural racism (there, that's a better way of putting it) you get accused of political correctness.

What I'm saying is that the no doubt well intentioned attempts to prove that 'race' doesn't exist provide a handy let-out for racists as long as we insist on conducting the debate only in terms of biology / genetics / clades.

If we let the enemy determine the terrain of the battle, we are not helping ourselves.

[sc4r]

O! I see what you mean.

I'd resolve it pretty straightforwardly - Racism does exist, it is a real phenomena. But it is based on a false premise; that 'race' actually means anything.

Just as religion exists but is based on a false premise (IMHO); that God exists.

Any bigot who tried to argue that he could not be 'racist' because 'you just said races did not exist' would frankly be being merely disingenous. Theres no point arguing with someone like that. Ignore him as being beneath contempt or kick his ghoolies whichever seems most appropriate and practical.

After all if he is not clearly either supporting racism or practising it, even if he is denying it then why would the subject ever arise?

Almost every Racist denies that they are, even when its as plain as mud; whether you do or dont explain that race itself is a meaningless concept. The purpose in getting it across that it is meaningless is to prevent anyone even starting on the slippery slope that quite a few racists will encourage (a fairly common 'starter' is to say 'I'm not saying that any race is better, just different...In fact [insert bad word of your choice] are better at many things'...followed by a list of attributes nobody would really care about....followed by a suggestion that [whoever] is better off somewhere nobody want to be, or something nobody wants to do).

The problem is compounded because many of us are encouraged to 'be proud of our race' as an antidote to others denigrating us as people, and because you do have to use the word to be clear about the effects of Racism.

I'm not pretending it's an easy mess to sort out in all sorts of ways. That is the problem with meaningless concepts which become established as real in peoples minds.


(Edited by sc4r at 3:01 am on July 17, 2003)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from sc4r on 6:29 am on July 16, 2003
Hardly a fatal error m8; since your 'criticism' has flat nothing to do with substance.

However, If you dont believe in something, and react so viciously to being in any way associated with it, you'd probably be best off not posting articles in such a way that working out which parts of the text are article and which parts are you speaking for yourself is unclear.

As far as I can tell, even on re-reading it, this part is you "On the other hand, is race really "biologically meaningless"? Bigotry has been so destructive that it's tempting to dismiss race and ethnicity as artificial, but there are genuine differences among population groups. "

Which seems pretty clear that you do believe Race to be a valid concept. If it's only 'tempting to dismiss it' then you (or whoever actually is responsible for that thought) does not dismiss it.

I avoided any attack on you, unless you are so sensitive that you interpret someone saying you dont understand something as an attack. It would have been pleasant to think that you could have returned the favour.

Irrespective of whether Negro is offensive it is the correct word to use in that context since I was not talking of how I refer to people but of how racists classify. Most of them have a 'negro' race in their classification; few except the most dumb even by their dumb standards have a 'black' race.

Now did you have any actual criticism of what I actually said to add or were you just indulging yourself in a bit of empty but insulting rhetoric?

If you are such a very sensitive black person I'd suggest you steer clear of discusions on race. In me you happen to be talking to someone who (fairly clearly) denies that race is even a valid idea, let alone feels racist; but there are plenty who wont tread on such tippy toes around your feelings.

I'm tempted to add an insulting honorific since I can guess what motivated you to post that essentially empty mild personal attack on me but I'll forego the pleasure for now.

There are only two sorts of people who make a common practise of proclaiming that what I write is 'empty rhetoric' 'wordy' and so on. Far right conservatives and our supposedly intellectual anarchists. I'm tempted to think they share a common disregard for anything except getting their own way, are both devoid of the capacity to actually argue their case, and are both nasty, ego driven, little hypocrites. You may be one of them, you may not be, I dont know yet, but I suspect I'm about to find out.






(Edited by sc4r at 6:39 am on July 16, 2003)



I reacted Viciously? Granted my post was not exactley peaceful but I doubt it was vicious.

THe point is in your original post u did associate me with the article as if it reflected my views.

I asked u not to nothing more.

So because I asked u to refrain from including me in the article I reacted viciously?

and I quote "No there is no such thing as race. You have failed to understand what the statement means.

What you have identified is that there is such thing as clades. No-one has ever doubted it. In fact if you were to doubt it you would be denying evolution and genetics. "

Now if you were reffering to the article u would have said "the article fails to" or "it fails to" you would not have said "you have failed to"

Plain and simple u associated it with me. I asked u not to end of disscussion.

I'm not sure why you are so quick to anger but I don't see any need for it.





now I don't see why you are so angry with teh exception of the long winded rhetoric crack which I apologize for.

Other than that if you have a problem keeping me seperate from the post then don't post.

Although I don't see how this would hinder you in any way


(Edited by Lardlad95 at 11:28 pm on July 17, 2003)

[Lardlad95]

Looking back on everything I am still shocked at the fact that you are so upset that I asked u not to pin me as the author or sponsor of this article especially after I made a note of me in no way having anything to do with the writing of the article.

It's obvious that I wasn't trying to attack your arguement.

I just would preffer that I wasn't thought of as adopting the thread word for word.

I was not insulted by you saying i didn't understand(even though if you think about it that could be takin as an insult) because I didn't write the damn thing.

I'm sure if you were just posting an article and someone was attacking it by saying what you did wrong when you went about writing it you would tell the person that you are not the author of the article

as far as the negro thing, while I"m not believing you when you say you were showing how the racists classify race 100% I wont make a thing of it anymore.

(Edited by Lardlad95 at 11:33 pm on July 17, 2003)

[sc4r]

Ok 'vicious' was way over the top no matter what. Its a ludicrous term to have used..

I reacted much nastier than I should have because I wrongly assumed it likely that you were part of a particular clique I have had a particularly acrimonious realationship with recently (your closing words co-incidentally rang all too familiar too me). But it was still utterly stupid of me to react as I did .

But you see I still cannot see (this is genuine not a pop at you) how I was to know that it was an article you were posting, not your statements about an article. Nor could I honestly see why you would react as you did merely because I said you did not understand clades even if it was the article speaking not you.

Many (most) people dont. Very few people do grasp the reason why 'Race is illusory' at all easily (I sat up for 3 nights running going back and forwards over a 10 page explanation before it finally really clicked, and I still have to think carefully in order to express the idea halfway intelligibly - it is extremely counter intuitive; and I am pretty good on genetics and evolution).

I got wound up partly because nobody likes being accused of wordy dogma (there is nothing dogmatic about a 15 paragraph essay dedicated throughout to explanation and without even a single recourse to a 'just is' phrase - the worst it can be is wrong or badly expressed) and partly because I did not think that the comment was unrelated to totally separate affairs.

I would prefer that you did believe the N word thing. Because its the flat total honest truth and I dont get why you would think it was not. You surely cannot believe that I am in the slightest bit sympathetic to anyone in the racist camp. Racists do use the word as part of their pathetic schemas.

***added I did put the N word inside quotes BTW, this quite conventionally indicates that the writer feels there is something dodgy about the word or its meaning ***

You want the truth about how much I reject either race or racism ? For years I described all people as biege(despite feeling very silly about it) on the grounds that that is actually what all people are. I stopped because a good friend of mine told me that he wanted to be called black (Pack on fixit, I'll give you his ICQ if you like, he will confirm in no uncertain terms and on the basis of knowing me for years how I feel about racism and how I behave).

I dont pretend to understand the black experience. I'm white. But I do underatnd very clearly, intellectually if not emotionally, that their are many many sly digs and unpleasantnesses that I probably would not even be aware were going on; as well as the more obvious crap.

I'm also uncomfortably aware that I do have a residual 'racist awareness' lodged rather nastily in my brain. I would dearly love to pull the bastard out but I cannot. all I can do is refuse ever to let it have its way.

Why? because when I grew up it was all around and 'normal' (Love thy neighbour was mainstream TV for gods sake). I wont deny that that unpleasant thing is there but I honestly doubt that unless I told them anyone would ever know (or maybe they do, thats even more horrible to contemplate).

Anyway - My sincere apologies for bieng rude to you. My apologies for any offence any term I used caused and I hope we can repair the rift.

Go n-eiri an bothar leat

(Edited by sc4r at 1:47 am on July 18, 2003)


(Edited by sc4r at 1:53 am on July 18, 2003)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from sc4r on 1:37 am on July 18, 2003
Ok 'vicious' was way over the top no matter what. Its a ludicrous term to have used..

I reacted much nastier than I should have because I wrongly assumed it likely that you were part of a particular clique I have had a particularly acrimonious realationship with recently (your closing words co-incidentally rang all too familiar too me). But it was still utterly stupid of me to react as I did .

But you see I still cannot see (this is genuine not a pop at you) how I was to know that it was an article you were posting, not your statements about an article. Nor could I honestly see why you would react as you did merely because I said you did not understand clades even if it was the article speaking not you.

Many (most) people dont. Very few people do grasp the reason why 'Race is illusory' at all easily (I sat up for 3 nights running going back and forwards over a 10 page explanation before it finally really clicked, and I still have to think carefully in order to express the idea halfway intelligibly - it is extremely counter intuitive; and I am pretty good on genetics and evolution).

I got wound up partly because nobody likes being accused of wordy dogma (there is nothing dogmatic about a 15 paragraph essay dedicated throughout to explanation and without even a single recourse to a 'just is' phrase - the worst it can be is wrong or badly expressed) and partly because I did not think that the comment was unrelated to totally separate affairs.

I would prefer that you did believe the N word thing. Because its the flat total honest truth and I dont get why you would think it was not. You surely cannot believe that I am in the slightest bit sympathetic to anyone in the racist camp. Racists do use the word as part of their pathetic schemas.

***added I did put the N word inside quotes BTW, this quite conventionally indicates that the writer feels there is something dodgy about the word or its meaning ***

You want the truth about how much I reject either race or racism ? For years I described all people as biege(despite feeling very silly about it) on the grounds that that is actually what all people are. I stopped because a good friend of mine told me that he wanted to be called black (Pack on fixit, I'll give you his ICQ if you like, he will confirm in no uncertain terms and on the basis of knowing me for years how I feel about racism and how I behave).

I dont pretend to understand the black experience. I'm white. But I do underatnd very clearly, intellectually if not emotionally, that their are many many sly digs and unpleasantnesses that I probably would not even be aware were going on; as well as the more obvious crap.

I'm also uncomfortably aware that I do have a residual 'racist awareness' lodged rather nastily in my brain. I would dearly love to pull the bastard out but I cannot. all I can do is refuse ever to let it have its way.

Why? because when I grew up it was all around and 'normal' (Love thy neighbour was mainstream TV for gods sake). I wont deny that that unpleasant thing is there but I honestly doubt that unless I told them anyone would ever know (or maybe they do, thats even more horrible to contemplate).

Anyway - My sincere apologies for bieng rude to you. My apologies for any offence any term I used caused and I hope we can repair the rift.

Go n-eiri an bothar leat

(Edited by sc4r at 1:47 am on July 18, 2003)


(Edited by sc4r at 1:53 am on July 18, 2003)



no need to apologize, rereading my post I did go over the top for just wanting to be distanced from the article.

And no need to try and prove that you aren't racist, I know you aren't.

The only reason i didn't believe you was because I've spoken to people on here before who "weren't racist" but enjoyed using racial epithets and racist jokes

my apologies

[FabFabian]

Race is an 18th century construct. Before this time, people were defined and found their bonds in cultural communities. One was judged by where they were from rather than how broad their nose was or how light their skin was. From what I have read on the subject, sociologists and anthropologists have found that people who grow up in the same town or country have more in common with each rather than their racial classification.

BTW, can anyone tell me when exactly did the racial group of Hispanic was created? I have a hard time getting my head around it as the word hispanic means someone from Spain according to the Oxford Dictionary, and the people who fall under this category are either Mexican, Puerto Rican, Nicaraguan etc. What gives???