Racism

[Cackalacky]

Maybe this will clear up my POV on your posts Bishop:
http://www.livinganthropologically.com/biological-anthropology/how-race-becomes-biology/

Applying Anthropology - Race Becomes Biology
Race Becomes Biology, Inequality Embodied



Update 2017: See Dr. Dhruv Khullar’s article How Prejudice Can Harm Your Health for a great overview and update. Unfortunately the article discussed here on “How race becomes biology: Embodiment of social inequality” (Gravlee 2009) went unacknowledged, even though the findings are very similar. But thanks to Dr. Khullar for a quick response!


Using traditional notions of race to understand human variation is not accurate or productive. The findings of Race Reconciled enable anthropology to reiterate how Race is a Social Construction. It is a human idea about biology that does not correspond very well to the biology. But anthropology also demonstrates how race becomes biology, or the embodiment of racist inequalities.

Even as anthropology reiterates how race is a social construction, three things need emphasis. First, as discussed in the previous section Race Reconciled Re-Debunks Race, this does not mean there is no such thing as human biological variation or this variation is unimportant.

Second, to say race is a social construction does not mean it is not real. Ideas can be very real. Money is a social construction. Money is just scraps of paper or electronic digits. But we agree that those scraps have value, that they can be exchanged and have effects in the world. (For more, see the post on Gender is a Social Construction.)

Finally, we need to do more to close the loop, revealing how the power of race as a social reality has economic and political implications and

the social organization of race becomes biology.

This is the point of a fantastic article by Clarence Gravlee in the “Race Reconciled” volume. Gravlee’s article, “How race becomes biology: Embodiment of social inequality,” won the 2010 Rudolf Virchow Award as a best article in Medical Anthropology, and was the most downloaded article for the year in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Since 2012, it appears in the four field Applying Anthropology: An Introductory Reader. For additional resources see Teaching Race Anthropologically. See also the 2013 edited volume Anthropology of Race: Genes, Biology, and Culture for some of the latest research, featuring an article by Gravlee.

Gravlee begins by identifying the problem of race revival. He explicitly identifies the 2005 Armand Marie Leroi Op-Ed, A Family Tree in Every Gene, as a key element of this revival. He also understands the need to go beyond the classroom and beyond anthropology. “If anthropologists want to reconcile race for anyone other than ourselves, we have to engage the debate over racial inequalities in health” (2009:47).

Gravlee makes his points clearly, spelling out his headlines with the does-not-equal sign. The section “Race ≠ Human genetic variation” (2009:50) makes similar points to the articles discussed in Race Reconciled, showing how genetic clustering does not confirm traditional race ideas. The section “Biology ≠ Genetics” (2009:51) takes back the turf of reducing biology to genes. Biology is about organisms and environments, always about specific creatures in specific places, and not simply looking for a mythical code of life. [See note 1]

Gravlee then discusses how “Race ≠ Myth” (2009:53). Social ideas of race are very real, and have political, economic, and health consequences in the present. Health consequences are biological. Black Americans have higher infant mortality rates and lower life expectancy, and the relative gap between white and black Americans–just like the wealth gap discussed in the section Racism and Biological Anthropology–has not significantly improved since the 1950s (2009:48). Race becomes biology.

These health inequalities, in tandem with economic inequalities, influence the life course and chances of the next generation:

The toxic effects of exposure to racism in one’s own lifetime include a higher risk of hypertension, diabetes, stroke, and other conditions. These conditions, in turn, affect the health of the next generation, because they alter the quality of the fetal and early postnatal environment. The immediate consequence of this intergenerational effect is a higher risk of adverse birth outcomes, but there is also a lingering effect into adulthood, as adult chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes can be traced in part to prenatal and early life conditions. Thus, the cycle begins again. (2009:52)

Race and racism, as social inequality, become biology.

Gravlee’s article is fantastic–he writes well and sets an agenda for anthropological research, teaching, and public intervention. “The specific challenge is to explain how race becomes biology. Our response to this challenge must deal with two senses in which race becomes biology: Systemic racism becomes embodied in the biology of racialized groups and individuals, and embodied inequalities reinforce a racialized understanding of human biology” (Gravlee 2009:54).

One incredible example Gravlee uses is of Arab American birth weights before and after the September 11, 2001 attacks:

There is also evidence that structures and events at even higher levels of analysis reverberate to the individual level. A recent study of birth outcomes before and after September 11, 2001, provides a dramatic example. Lauderdale (2006) examined birth certificate data for all California births during the 6 months after September 2001, compared to the same period 1 year earlier. They found that women with Arabic names–and only women with Arabic names–experienced a 34% increase in the likelihood of having a low birth weight infant after 9/11. Moreover, the effect appeared to be moderated by parents’ strength of ethnic identification: Infants who were given ethnically distinctive Arabic names had twice the risk of low birth weight after the attacks of September 2001, compared to 1 year earlier. This finding hints at how events structured by global political-economic forces may have embodied consequences that are often hidden from view. (2009:52)

Remembering that low birth weight infants can have lifelong health implications makes it clear how social categories and even apparently distant events become biologically important.

However, a possible counterattack might be: Does this mean race is biologically real since people have made it so? Gravlee anticipates this issue:

Some observers may be uneasy with talk of biological differences among racially defined groups. They may worry–with good cause–that such talk reinforces the perception of intrinsic, genetic differences between alleged races. This well-founded concern is important, because it reveals how deeply entrenched the twin assumptions of reductionism and genetic determinism are in our understanding of race. (2009:51)

The belief that race is now real, in the sense of an inherited determinism, because the biocultural approach demonstrates the intertwining of culture and biology, is a potential problem. The answer needs to be very clear:

No. Race becomes biology, but is not immutable.

Social categories like race can become biology because of biological plasticity and constant interaction with a specific environment. The biological plasticity remains, even after the toxic effects of racism. There are intergenerational effects, but these can change quite rapidly under different conditions. The intergenerational component of health effects from racism can actually be an opportunity to improve care and outcomes (see Braveman and Barclay 2009).

The other possible counterattack is that this biocultural combination has resulted in a profound and intractable group difference, and that this group difference, seen as ability by IQ scores, is so intractable that it is a waste of money and effort to strive for equality. This goes back to the section on Anthropology and Human Nature, as some people trumpet profound human group difference, without caring much if this is a natural or social phenomenon. Those who are bent on establishing a correlation between IQ and skull size can have it either way. If people say skull size is genetic and ancestral, they will say, a-ha, this proves that different ancestral groups have different natural IQ. Or, if people say skull size exhibits environmental plasticity, they will say, a-ha, this proves that different environments lead to different natural IQ (no surprise here, always cold-climate Europe, with some now allowing Asians into the mix). Or, if people say social practices become biology, they will say, a-ha, this proves that such-and-such ethnic groups have such deeply embedded problems, leading to different natural IQ.

Charles Murray, famed co-author of The Bell Curve, proves how adaptable this race-based reasoning can be:

Some group differences are intractable. I shift from “innate” to “intractable” to acknowledge how complex is the interaction of genes, their expression in behavior, and the environment. “Intractable” means that, whatever the precise partitioning of causation may be (we seldom know), policy interventions can only tweak the difference at the margins. (The Inequality Taboo 2005:14 and see note 2)

There it is–Murray hardly cares about complexity as long as he gets his “intractable” group difference. Murray’s essay, of course, goes on to talk about group differences between blacks and whites, and between men and women. And, of course, Murray will eventually start discussing IQ and the difference between black and white scores on “digits-backward” versus “digits-forward” to say that there are fundamental genetically-rooted IQ differences.

In his discussion of digits-backward, Murray is trying to get around the enormous literature on the social and cultural content of test-taking, test design, educational attainment, and socio-economic status. One incredibly interesting result that has emerged is that when people are told a test is to measure something–and they know that there are stereotypes about that something–they will do worse on the test than if they are not told. When elderly test-takers are told a test is to “measure memory,” they will do worse on the test than if they are not told, even if there is no explicit statement that the test is to “measure memory loss among the elderly” (see Levy 2009 on Stereotype Embodiment; for a critique of the IQ peddlers, although it is becoming dated, see the 2002 Race in Mind: Race, IQ, and Other Racisms by Alexander Alland, Jr.).

So too with IQ tests–given the long history of stereotypes about race and IQ in the U.S., just saying “this is an IQ test” sets the stage for stereotype embodiment. Or, “simply reminding blacks of their race before they take an exam leads them to perform worse” (Nisbett 2009).

Murray makes a lot of noise about the discovery of differences in digits-backward versus digits-forward, since this is simply the more challenging sub-section of the test, which according to Murray could not have a cultural component. Murray is actually wrong on this point, as studies are beginning to explore the social and cultural components of numeracy. Moreover, the overall statement-effect of “this is an IQ test” could be revealed differentially. Stereotype embodiment may emerge most clearly in the more challenging sections of the test, which become more discouraging in the context of references to IQ stereotypes. Moreover–and this is something that seems to hardly be shaking the diehard IQ enthusiasts–studies in 2013 indicate how Scientists Debunk the IQ Myth: Notion of Measuring One’s Intelligence Quotient by Singular, Standardized Test Is Highly Misleading: “The results showed that when a wide range of cognitive abilities are explored, the observed variations in performance can only be explained with at least three distinct components: short-term memory, reasoning and a verbal component.”

With Gravlee’s analysis of how race becomes biology, it also seems the earlier literature on IQ test issues, mostly making connections to what was called culture and then decrying cultural bias in testing, needs some serious updating. One approach is a more fine-grained analysis, focusing on subtle expectations and how these play out not just at the testing level but also at the sub-test level.

There is certainly cause for looking into more aspects of how race becomes biology, even in test taking. Intriguing studies include:

a) Birth weight and intergenerational health effects. As Gravlee reports, hypertension, diabetes, and strokes play out over a lifetime and influence prenatal health. IQ scores may also be influenced by birth weight differentials. This would follow up on economists studying data on Norwegian twins, From the cradle to the labor market finding a long-term correlation between birth-weight differentials and things like earnings and IQ (Black et al. 2007).

b) Lead levels. We now understand even low levels of lead-contamination can lead to cognitive modification. Black and low-income families are more likely to be exposed to these kinds of environmental hazards. IQ scores are influenced by lead levels and other environmental hazards. Lawrence Schell and Melinda Denham document lead and lower IQ scores in Environmental Pollution in Urban Environments and Human Biology(2003:119).

c) Vitamin D. We are beginning to understand the importance of Vitamin D and the adverse effects from Vitamin D deficiency. People with darker skin phenotypes tend to have more difficulties absorbing Vitamin D. To what extent does Vitamin D deficiency play out in measures like IQ scores?

Interestingly, with realignments in some of the race and social class issues, even the usual racialist position on IQ is showing signs of fracture. For example, Ron Unz, well-known for supporting conservative and racialist approaches, in 2012 moved toward “publicly endorsing the conclusion that ethnic/racial IQ differences are probably not nearly as wide or intractable as is generally believed in certain quarters” (Unz on Race/IQ). Or, as Unz writes in a follow-up, “essentially, I am proposing that the enormously large differences in population IQ . . . are primarily due to factors of social environment–poverty, education, rural deprivation” (Unz on Race/IQ: Response to Lynn and Nyborg; see also my assessment, Race IQ – Game Over).

Ultimately the issues Gravlee raises in “How Race Becomes Biology” go beyond these kinds of studies and the messages delivered in the classroom and to the public. These issues are about having the political will to develop effective intervention so race does not become biology in such pernicious ways. But this is a difficult task at a time when positing that race is a social construction benefits the conservative position.

Updates on How Race Becomes Biology

2017: See DeMoss, Lessye Joy. 2017. “Misconceptions about Health Disparities in the US.” Anthropology News website, April 19, 2017. doi: 10.1111/AN.407.
2013: Yes, let’s talk about race and IQ by sociologist Lisa Wade provides an update on many of these issues, with specific reference to Jason Richwine’s suggestion of an irremediable IQ gap. Wade’s discussion of cultural factors in IQ tests but reverberating through issues of social inequality closely parallels this outline.

Next: 1.8 – So Many Primates for Primatology.
Previous: 1.6 – Race Reconciled Re-Debunks Race
1. For more on genetics, see the section on Human Nature and Anthropology and also Lily Kay, Who Wrote the Book of Life? One curious note about Gravlee’s article is there is almost no reference to other anthropologists who had already been fighting against reducing biology to genetics. Much of Tim Ingold’s work since the late 1990s has been warning anthropologists about this issue. Ingold’s essay ’People Like Us’: The Concept of the Anatomically Modern Human is a particularly trenchant example:


It is the cellular machinery that “reads” the DNA, and that reading is part and parcel of the very development of the organism in its environment. Hence there is no “decoding” of the genome that is not itself a process of development (Ingold 2000:382).

Gravlee also misses others who talk about how race becomes biology, such as Peter Wade’s Human Nature and Race (2004).

2. It is very bothersome that Charles Murray continues to appear as a purveyor of social policy advice. Murray argued class structure was directly related to intelligence and so there is little that social policy can do to remedy inequality. “The real and consistent message of The Bell Curve is that the rich and powerful in American society have risen to the top on the basis of merit, and that merit itself can be measured in points of IQ” (Alland 2002:156). The Bell Curve was part of the Race Revival, Attacking Anthropology, and is such an abject denial of the obvious social engineering that went into creating social inequality, that it is amazing Murray carries any weight in social policy discussions. For example, in the article Plan B: Skip College Murray is one of the “small but influential group of economists and educators” who would steer some students into other programs (Steinberg 2010). The fact that Murray–who is always arguing inequality cannot be addressed through social programs, always chiming in to tell us how many people are just not cut out for college–is one of those influential people certainly should give us pause. Every time Murray writes an article, post a disclaimer: “Charles Murray wrote The Bell Curve and continues to insist IQ determines social outcome.”
Note: I first wrote this in 2011 before Charles Murray published his latest–and hopefully last–book concerning social policy.

To cite: Antrosio, Jason, 2013. Race Becomes Biology, Inequality Embodied. Living Anthropologically, http://www.livinganthropologically.com/biological-anthropology/how-race-becomes-biology/. Last updated 3 June 2017.

 

[Bishop2b5]

The connection is this:

• Some of the behaviors typically classified as "xenophobia" have a rational basis;
• "Racism", strictly speaking, is never rational; and
• Arguing that racism is a subset of xenophobic behavior imputes a rational basis to the former that doesn't really exist.

If there were a genetic component to racism, we should expect to find it all throughout human history; but we don't. The ancient Greeks, Romans, and medievals really didn't care much about the color of your skin. That's why racism, and the "science" of eugenics that attempts to give it empirical respectability, are a modern phenomenon.

I think we're definitely talking about two completely different things here. As I mentioned earlier, when I speak of racism, I'm not limiting it to Black vs White or even a prejudice or bigotry against someone or some group based primarily on skin color. I specifically said I meant it in a larger sense where it was any such prejudice or bigotry towards those of different cultures, religions, races, nationalities, etc. I don't see any fundamental difference between "I hate Blacks" and "I hate Jews" or "I hate Catholics" or "I hate Southerners." It's all an irrational, blanket condemnation of all the members of a group because they differ from you. I also said that I agreed that xenophobia is often rational and racism isn't, but racism is rooted in a misapplication of xenophobia. Many of our unacceptable behaviors are irrational or even pathological applications of normal behavior.

We most certainly DO see mistreatment of, fear of, or wariness towards outsiders or those not of "our" group throughout history. Very few cultures have ever been free from bigotry or prejudice against one group or another. Might not have been based on skin color, but they looked down on and despised some group or another. They saw them as animals or subhuman, or at the very least saw them as beneath them and not worthy of fully equal rights and treatment. You think the Romans thought their slaves or non-citizens or the inhabitants of the uncivilized lands beyond their empire were fully their equal?

Eugenics, as applied for political purposes, uses racist ideology to justify mistreatment and even genocide of those from "other" groups. I'm neither suggesting nor implying its value or even its relevance to my point. I'm simply pointing out that much of what is assumed to be a learned behavior taught to them by society probably has an underlying genetic component that contributes to such behavior.

Hopefully the following clears up my stance. Does a rapist learn much of his behavior (or not learn to control himself)? Of course. Nobody is born a rapist and there's no rapist gene. Is some of his behavior genetically driven though? Absolutely. His sex drive is certainly programmed into him from birth, as it is in all of us. His behavior as a rapist is caused by his experiences in life, but the underlying normal sex drive that's genetically programmed into him is also a factor. His rapist behavior is a misapplication of what is supposed to be a normal drive.

Any of us who have raised children know that they aren't born being nice, kind, patient, full of self control, or particularly willing to share. They're impetuous, selfish, impatient, want what they want, lash out when angry, etc., etc. We as parents and society in general have to teach them to control their impulses, learn patience, how to be kind and put themselves in others' shoes, control their temper, learn they can't just take what they want when they want it, etc. (if you don't believe this, go look at a daycare full of preschoolers and watch how badly behaved they often are). Without such guidance and training and education, they tend to grow up to be horrible adults, and we've all probably known a few of these types. I think our normal xenophobic tendencies are hardwired into us and have served us well for some very obvious and rational reasons, but if our upbringing doesn't teach us how to be more civilized and not look at all "not us" then we end up being racist, much as someone who isn't taught as a child to control their impulses will tend to be a violent person as an adult.

 

[Old Man Mike]

I just don't see he pre-eminence of genetics in this --- at some VERY generic (limbic) level of response to threat, of course, and that threat is sometimes generally embedded in survival genetics, but what we're talking about is a different level of specificity that (in my opinion and my reading) must be LEARNED by the individual brain.

So, OK on response to threat as a "wired" limbic or hypothalamic thing, but that's just the general predisposition of the species which then "refers" to learned threats (or assumed threats/prejudices.) We apparently fundamentally differ about this. ... but OK.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I think we're definitely talking about two completely different things here. As I mentioned earlier, when I speak of racism, I'm not limiting it to Black vs White or even a prejudice or bigotry against someone or some group based primarily on skin color.

Then you're not talking about racism.

I specifically said I meant it in a larger sense where it was any such prejudice or bigotry towards those of different cultures, religions, races, nationalities, etc. I don't see any fundamental difference between "I hate Blacks" and "I hate Jews" or "I hate Catholics" or "I hate Southerners."

I'll happily stipulate that it's irrational to hate whole groups of people, but it's important to remember that we must discriminate between ideas. Hating every German solider who fought in WWII is not rational, but hating Nazism is. Hating every poor sap sucked into Scientology is irrational, but hating the Church of Scientology is not, etc.

I also said that I agreed that xenophobia is often rational and racism isn't, but racism is rooted in a misapplication of xenophobia. Many of our unacceptable behaviors are irrational or even pathological applications of normal behavior.

More on this below, but this is where we differ.

We most certainly DO see mistreatment of, fear of, or wariness towards outsiders or those not of "our" group throughout history. Very few cultures have ever been free from bigotry or prejudice against one group or another.

I'm comfortable asserting that the actual number here is zero.

Might not have been based on skin color, but they looked down on and despised some group or another.

This is a truism, and if you had made this argument initially, no one would have objected. The question is whether the out-group is discriminated against for rational or irrational reasons. And if race isn't the distinguishing factor, why are we talking about it in this thread?

You think the Romans thought their slaves or non-citizens or the inhabitants of the uncivilized lands beyond their empire were fully their equal?

I'll be the last to argue that the Roman empire was a paragon of moral rectitude. But for all their faults, they weren't racist, which seriously undermines any sort of genetic argument in favor of racism.

Eugenics, as applied for political purposes, uses racist ideology to justify mistreatment and even genocide of those from "other" groups.

That's a very accurate description of racism. Chattel slavery was not meaningfully different in that respect from the Holocaust or abortion.

I'm neither suggesting nor implying its value or even its relevance to my point. I'm simply pointing out that much of what is assumed to be a learned behavior taught to them by society probably has an underlying genetic component that contributes to such behavior.

That's the contention here--whether or not racism is a "natural" instinct that needs to be trained out of people, or whether it's pure ideology that persists solely through particular traditions.

Hopefully the following clears up my stance. Does a rapist learn much of his behavior (or not learn to control himself)? Of course. Nobody is born a rapist and there's no rapist gene. Is some of his behavior genetically driven though? Absolutely. His sex drive is certainly programmed into him from birth, as it is in all of us. His behavior as a rapist is caused by his experiences in life, but the underlying normal sex drive that's genetically programmed into him is also a factor. His rapist behavior is a misapplication of what is supposed to be a normal drive.

That's sort of like arguing that obesity is partly caused by a man's need for nutrition. It tells us nothing useful about the problem itself, and obscures much more than it clarifies. Lust and gluttony both involve a failure to moderate otherwise healthy and natural appetites. I don't see any way to helpfully analogize that to a vicious ideology like racism.

Any of us who have raised children know that they aren't born being nice, kind, patient, full of self control, or particularly willing to share. They're impetuous, selfish, impatient, want what they want, lash out when angry, etc., etc. We as parents and society in general have to teach them to control their impulses, learn patience, how to be kind and put themselves in others' shoes, control their temper, learn they can't just take what they want when they want it, etc. (if you don't believe this, go look at a daycare full of preschoolers and watch how badly behaved they often are). Without such guidance and training and education, they tend to grow up to be horrible adults, and we've all probably known a few of these types. I think our normal xenophobic tendencies are hardwired into us and have served us well for some very obvious and rational reasons, but if our upbringing doesn't teach us how to be more civilized and not look at all "not us" then we end up being racist, much as someone who isn't taught as a child to control their impulses will tend to be a violent person as an adult.

I'd be more inclined to describe this in terms of Original Sin and the importance of building virtue, but we're mostly in agreement. Where we disagree is whether racism, the belief that certain groups of human beings are genetically inferior to others, is a "natural" inclination or not. I haven't seen any good evidence in support of the theory, whereas the history of modern racism makes it pretty clear that it was an ideological invention which conveniently served as a post-hoc justification for the economic subjugation of certain vulnerable minorities.

 

[Irishize]

don't think he said anything about being born racist... did he?

No, he did not. That response was all misguided emotion IMO.

 

[wizards8507]

I mentioned this to Cackalacky in the Trump thread, but I think we're using the wrong language to talk about racism. I think the idea of superiority of one's own race is too high a hurdle. Someone who believes that all races are equal but still hates races other than his own is still a racist. I think this is where tribalism-feeds-xenophobia-feeds-racism argument plays in. The idea of racial superiority and inferiority is culturally ingrained but I can see the argument that racism as defined as hatred towards those who are different is rooted in something more inherent.

 

[Cackalacky]

I mentioned this to Cackalacky in the Trump thread, but I think we're using the wrong language to talk about racism. I think the idea of superiority of one's own race is too high a hurdle. Someone who believes that all races are equal but still hates races other than his own is still a racist. I think this is where tribalism-feeds-xenophobia-feeds-racism argument plays in. The idea of racial superiority and inferiority is culturally ingrained but I can see the argument that racism as defined as hatred towards those who are different is rooted in something more inherent.

Textbook racisim definition is the belief that one race is superior over another typically based on irrational reasons. One of the defining characteristics is that it is demeaning to the subject. When most people use it, that is what they mean. I do think we are in danger of using it so much that it loses its sting. It iis different from xenophobia IMO.

I have to admit, I have never heard of the secular humanist approach to racism. Color me intrigued.

 

[woolybug25]

ndgrad is sitting somewhere, peacefully reading Fountainhead, and an odd breeze flows through his hair...

"something is amiss" he whispers...

Can y'all imagine this week with ndgradstudent here? Wowzas.

 

[Legacy]

Lexington Council votes unanimously to move Confederate statues from downtown

The Lexington council voted unanimously Thursday to move two Confederate statues that have stood in Lexington’s downtown for more than 100 years.

Mayor Jim Gray must return to the council in 30 days with a potential site for the statues of Confederate Secretary of War John C. Breckinridge and Confederate general John Hunt Morgan.

After a new home for the statues is found, the city will ask a state military history commission for its permission to move the statues from the lawn of the former Fayette County courthouse. There is no guarantee the Kentucky Military Heritage Commission will approve the city’s request.

Gray announced during Thursday’s meeting that Prometheus Bronze Foundry and Duncan Machinery Movers have offered to move the statues for free. Prometheus and Duncan have restored other notable sculptures, including ones in Gratz Park. In addition, a fund has been established at the Blue Grass Community Foundation to raise money for any additional costs.

Here are the Confederate memorials that will be removed after Charlottesville

 

[MJ12666]

Two interesting articles on this topic.

USC mascot squabble: Trojan horse for political correctness? | Fox News

Charles Barkley: Most Black People Haven't Thought a Day in Their Lives About Confederate Statues | Fox News Insider

 

[IrishLax]

https://www.leoweekly.com/2017/08/white-people/

-These are real solutions from a real BLM leader run in a real publication. Unreal.

-They suggest white people give their money away because they will "make it back in some white privileged way."

-And that real estate developers let black and brown people live in their buildings for free. And white people should literally give their homes to black people for free.

-Get white people fired because they're racist (said ironically in a comment stereotyping white women). Or if you can't get them fired just assault them physically.

It's honestly absurd that it has become orthodoxy to accept this movement no questions asked. Some of the stuff supported by their leaders is batshit crazy. But you can't criticize them without being labeled racist, so no one is willing to discerningly comment on the batshit parts... and the sensible things in the movement get drowned out by the crazy.

 

[NDPhilly]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-protests-poll-idUSKCN1B12EG

Only 27% of Americans say that Confederate statues should be torn down. I don't have a strong opinion either way but it amazes me how hastily municipalities are rushing to take these monuments down when only 1/4 of the country supports the cause.

More troubling is the greater trend of revisionism outside of Confederate monuments. In the last week multiple Columbus monuments have been defaced or destroyed. In Philly BLM "activists" are pushing for the current mayor to remove a statue of former Mayor Frank Rizzo near city hall and he's actually listening to them. Uber-liberal De Blasio in NYC just announced that the city is currently reviewing all possible symbols of hate on city property.

How long until Columbus, OH is forced to changed it's name? Twelve US Presidents owned slaves. Should everything memorializing them be eradicated? Why stop there? MLK jr was a homophobe and an adulterer. Clearly needs any statue of him removed. We are opening Pandora's box by attempting to appease the far left. There's no way this can end well.

 

[ACamp1900]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-protests-poll-idUSKCN1B12EG

Only 27% of Americans say that Confederate statues should be torn down. I don't have a strong opinion either way but it amazes me how hastily municipalities are rushing to take these monuments down when only 1/4 of the country supports the cause.

More troubling is the greater trend of revisionism outside of Confederate monuments. In the last week multiple Columbus monuments have been defaced or destroyed. In Philly BLM "activists" are pushing for the current mayor to remove a statue of former Mayor Frank Rizzo near city hall and he's actually listening to them. Uber-liberal De Blasio in NYC just announced that the city is currently reviewing all possible symbols of hate on city property.

How long until Columbus, OH is forced to changed it's name? Twelve US Presidents owned slaves. Should everything memorializing them be eradicated? Why stop there? MLK jr was a homophobe and an adulterer. Clearly needs any statue of him removed. We are opening Pandora's box by attempting to appease the far left. There's no way this can end well.

And there's no appeasing them untilmately no matter what steps are taken... there's always more 'progress' to get enraged about somewhere.

 

[phgreek]

I know of no genetic component regarding racism so I am not sure what you are getting at. This post reeks of eugenics and made up BS. I know of no anthropologists or studies that show people are inherently even quasi racist at conception.

Racism is typically introduced in cultures and subsequent cultural upbringing as a learned behavior. Though not all cultures as OMM stated many have cultural practices that promote cooperation and altruism. To go further, racism is but one aspect of cultural actions taken by a majority to suppress a minority. It has zip to do with genetics, it isnt a biological trait but a cultural one and it isnt passed on by sexual or assexual reproduction. Babies dont leave the womb as racists or predisposed to be except into the family unit's cultural rearing they are raised in.

...as we know it...sure...racism is a social/cultural construct. But I don't think you can simply dismiss any genetic component which triggered negative responses which grow into things justified and adhered to...ie culture...read about biological adaptation as relates to color preference and then ecological valence theory of human color preference...and therein is at least a plausible pathway for cultural normalization of very basic responses to color at last. And I almost always hate saying anything because then we jump to...well you must think X or Y...so lets just take what I said, and not presume I think anything about it other than ...it is out there to be considered.

 

[Cackalacky]

...as we know it...sure...racism is a social/cultural construct. But I don't think you can simply dismiss any genetic component which triggered negative responses which grow into things justified and adhered to...ie culture...read about biological adaptation as relates to color preference and then ecological valence theory of human color preference...and therein is at least a plausible pathway for cultural normalization of very basic responses to color at last. And I almost always hate saying anything because then we jump to...well you must think X or Y...so lets just take what I said, and not presume I think anything about it other than ...it is out there to be considered.

How does this theory relate to racism? The idea that one person is superior to another which was the original claim?

 

[Rogue219]

I find it interesting the people defending the tiki torch crowd are the same people calling some Cleveland football players "disgraces."

VERY interesting.

 

[phgreek]

How does this theory relate to racism? The idea that one person is superior to another which was the original claim?

...busy....sorry....short answer is I thought it was not entirely about presumption of superiority...but rather irrational behavior based on seemingly superficial characteristics

 

[Cackalacky]

...busy....sorry....short answer is I thought it was not entirely about presumption of superiority...but rather irrational behavior based on seemingly superficial characteristics

I guess Whiskeyjack already drilled down on this throughly with Bishop. I tend to use the textbook definition of racism as the belief in surperiorty based on race. Race is a social construct. Racism is a social construct. The belief one is superior based on this is irrational. Bishop was trying to take this, change the definition of racism to fit some unknown usage and make a point that racism has a genetic component.

 

[phgreek]

I guess Whiskeyjack already drilled down on this throughly with Bishop. I tend to use the textbook definition of racism as the belief in surperiorty based on race. Race is a social construct. Racism is a social construct. The belief one is superior based on this is irrational. Bishop was trying to take this, change the definition of racism to fit some unknown usage and make a point that racism has a genetic component.

Ok...my .2 is that limits the experience of minorities to only the ugliest of offenses and offenders. Ie distrust of other races is NOT necessarily derived from a self concept that has someone believing their race is better...
That kind of bias seems common...but it isn't racist?

 

[Bluto]

Ok...my .2 is that limits the experience of minorities to only the ugliest of offenses and offenders. Ie distrust of other races is NOT necessarily derived from a self concept that has someone believing their race is better...
That kind of bias seems common...but it isn't racist?

Put a bunch of 2-4 year old kids together and watch how they organize their social structures, hierarchy, etc... . It has zero to do with "race". From a cognitive standpoint kids that young can't even grasp something as abstract as race unless it is drilled into them by the parents. Bias and or distrust is something that generally arises from conflicts between self identified groups (usually based on long established tribal social norms) based on limited resources and also has much more to do with nurture than nature in my opinion. The Jutu and Tootsies are a prime example of how this works. All that being the case I think linking "racism" to genetics is a complete crock.

 

[Buster Bluth]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-protests-poll-idUSKCN1B12EG

Only 27% of Americans say that Confederate statues should be torn down. I don't have a strong opinion either way but it amazes me how hastily municipalities are rushing to take these monuments down when only 1/4 of the country supports the cause.

Municipalities with statues are usually cities, as they were erected before suburbia got into full swing. The cities are full of the people who don't want the statues up. Pretty simple IMO. One look around Baltimore or New Orleans explains it.

If the 62% of Americans who support building Confederate monuments want 'em, build one. It's not illegal.

More troubling is the greater trend of revisionism outside of Confederate monuments. In the last week multiple Columbus monuments have been defaced or destroyed. In Philly BLM "activists" are pushing for the current mayor to remove a statue of former Mayor Frank Rizzo near city hall and he's actually listening to them. Uber-liberal De Blasio in NYC just announced that the city is currently reviewing all possible symbols of hate on city property.

Look no further than "the Civil War was about states' rights" for a healthy scoop of revisionism.

How long until Columbus, OH is forced to changed it's name? Twelve US Presidents owned slaves. Should everything memorializing them be eradicated? Why stop there? MLK jr was a homophobe and an adulterer. Clearly needs any statue of him removed. We are opening Pandora's box by attempting to appease the far left. There's no way this can end well.

Taking down statues of people who fought a war against the United States for the purpose of continuing a society built on our nation's greatest moral shortcoming is not the slippery slope you think it is.

Twelve US Presidents were products of their environment, there's a difference. People in Columbus--home of the Columbus Blue Jackets should remember how little patience they once had for Southern bullshit.

I do think we should stop celebrating Columbus Day. It's not a centuries-old holiday. It was started to ward off anti-Catholic/anti-Italian hate (liberals!) by saying "See, an Italian Catholic did something noteworthy for America!" But he was a disgusting genocidal maniac who just happened to get lucky that the world wasn't the pear shape he thought it was. I would gladly support a federal law moving the Columbus Day federal holiday to Election Day.

Side note, whenever OSU friends would yell "Ann Arbor is a whore!" on Saturdays the easy response was "...oh but Columbus was a real stand up guy." ahhhh college.

 

[Buster Bluth]

https://www.leoweekly.com/2017/08/white-people/

-These are real solutions from a real BLM leader run in a real publication. Unreal.

-They suggest white people give their money away because they will "make it back in some white privileged way."

-And that real estate developers let black and brown people live in their buildings for free. And white people should literally give their homes to black people for free.

-Get white people fired because they're racist (said ironically in a comment stereotyping white women). Or if you can't get them fired just assault them physically.

It's honestly absurd that it has become orthodoxy to accept this movement no questions asked. Some of the stuff supported by their leaders is batshit crazy. But you can't criticize them without being labeled racist, so no one is willing to discerningly comment on the batshit parts... and the sensible things in the movement get drowned out by the crazy.

Absolutely bananas. But I don't see anything there that is accepted widespread. Groups within the otherwise tame BLM movement are radical. And when you group a bunch of radicals together, the most radical rise. This happens in all groups really. No one is running to the left of a BLM leader, just as no one is running to the right of your local libertarian organization (oxymoron?) leader. In reality, most libertarians just want weed and low taxes and most BLMers just support greater equality IMO.

Just the way she says this:

"3. If you are a developer or realty owner of multi-family housing, build a sustainable complex in a black or brown blighted neighborhood and let black and brown people live in it for free."

pisses me off. Lady, there's actual reform you could back for Section 8 programs that are (IMO) effective and just...and don't sound as bad as demanding a race of people let you "live in it for free." Ughhh.

 

[Cackalacky]

Ok...my .2 is that limits the experience of minorities to only the ugliest of offenses and offenders. Ie distrust of other races is NOT necessarily derived from a self concept that has someone believing their race is better...
That kind of bias seems common...but it isn't racist?

I disagree with your first statement. Racism isn't always in your face and it certainly isn't even aggressive all the time. It has subtlety which many people don't consider racism which there in lies the problem. I mean we are still arguing over whether these Confederate Monuments even should be displayed. It's crazy... to many people they are racist AF. They were erected in times of segrationist revival and they were placed in the center of the towns so all black people would have to pass by them. They put them in front of courthouses so that a black person would know who was about to decide their fate. This was all done to illicit superiority and demean black people in the south. By definition these monuments were erected by racists and for racist reasons. This whole heritage argument s bunk. It is literally hate put on a pedestal.

But to your last....Yeah we are not talking about the same thing at all it seems. Distrust of an out group isn't racism.

 

[IrishLax]

Absolutely bananas. But I don't see anything there that is accepted widespread. Groups with the otherwise tame BLM movement are radical. And when you group a bunch of radicals together, the most radical rise. This happens in all groups really. No one is running to the left of a BLM leader, just as no one is running to the right of your local libertarian organization (oxymoron?) leader. In reality, most libertarians just want weed and low taxes and most BLMers just support greater equality IMO.

Just the way she says this:

"3. If you are a developer or realty owner of multi-family housing, build a sustainable complex in a black or brown blighted neighborhood and let black and brown people live in it for free."

pisses me off. Lady, there's actual reform you could back for Section 8 programs that are (IMO) effective and just...and don't sound as bad as demanding a race of people let you "live in it for free." Ughhh.

Exactly! I feel like we could find tons of common ground and start accomplishing shit if people like her weren't the "leaders". Need more visionaries, less antagonists on both sides.

 

[phgreek]

Put a bunch of 2-4 year old kids together and watch how they organize their social structures, hierarchy, etc... . It has zero to do with "race". From a cognitive standpoint kids that young can't even grasp something as abstract as race unless it is drilled into them by the parents. Bias and or distrust is something that generally arises from conflicts between self identified groups (usually based on long established tribal social norms) based on limited resources and also has much more to do with nurture than nature in my opinion. The Jutu and Tootsies are a prime example of how this works. All that being the case I think linking "racism" to genetics is a complete crock.

I've seen studies that suggest they indeed notice the difference and match according to characteristics like skin color. In this case I think skin color is a suitable surrogate for race. So...to the extent they can see it, they use it to make sense of things. To me that is the genetic part...the propensity to seek and match "like" things. No judgement or hatred...

As well, no one is walking out an a limb to say people generally have distrust and fear toward "different"...rather people, places, or things. Some part of that is likely very old and hard-wired through natural selection. Not saying we don't push those impulses aside in a healthy environment...but that stuff is there.

The kind of hatred described in this thread is certainly not "genetic"...but there are biases we are born with...they may well be vestigial (for lack of a better term) in our current existence...but they are there. Given our propensity to either seek "same" or repel "different"...I think the point is pretty clear about having open discussions about race and diversity...

You can disagree...you can approach racism/bias, and strategize how best to deal with it. I believe understanding genetic pieces generally referred to as human nature are pretty important to that endeavor... especially as relates to children. You can deny those exist I suppose...

 

[phgreek]

I disagree with your first statement. Racism isn't always in your face and it certainly isn't even aggressive all the time. It has subtlety which many people don't consider racism which there in lies the problem. I mean we are still arguing over whether these Confederate Monuments even should be displayed. It's crazy... to many people they are racist AF. They were erected in times of segrationist revival and they were placed in the center of the towns so all black people would have to pass by them. They put them in front of courthouses so that a black person would know who was about to decide their fate. This was all done to illicit superiority and demean black people in the south. By definition these monuments were erected by racists and for racist reasons. This whole heritage argument s bunk. It is literally hate put on a pedestal.

But to your last....Yeah we are not talking about the same thing at all it seems. Distrust of an out group isn't racism.

Yea...when we define racism only in the realm of some superiority complex...something seems to be missing. I don't think we disagree...but maybe. So let me ask you... Is racism (as you define it) in the intent of the actor alone? Or in the action? Or in the perception of the receiver?

 

[Wild Bill]

Racial groupings match genetic profiles, study finds

What makes the current study, published in the February issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, more conclusive is its size. The study is by far the largest, consisting of 3,636 people who all identified themselves as either white, African-American, East Asian or Hispanic. Of these, only five individuals had DNA that matched an ethnic group different than the box they checked at the beginning of the study. That's an error rate of 0.14 percent....

"This shows that people's self-identified race/ethnicity is a nearly perfect indicator of their genetic background," Risch said.

This study suggests it's not merely a social construct.

Study after study suggests there are biological differences.

Race being abstract doesn't require a study. It only requires common sense and a shred of honesty to understand people can recognize race almost instantaneously when looking at one another.

 

[NDFAN420]

.

 

[Cackalacky]

Racial groupings match genetic profiles, study finds



This study suggests it's not merely a social construct.

Study after study suggests there are biological differences.

Race being abstract doesn't require a study. It only requires common sense and a shred of honesty to understand people can recognize race almost instantaneously when looking at one another.

Hmmm... There isnt any discussion about why people checked the box. That bix wasnt checked at birth or conception. The culture/ family they grew up in would most certainly impact the box they check. Mixed races are certainly prone to that. Like what would Obama classiy himself as? White/black? What about tiger woods ? Other. We have white and black and Indian hispanics. There are multiple east asian races. What about the innumerable middle east races? But hey.... genetic diversity does have geograhical components but on a genetic level there is less than 1 percent different btw humans of all races. Take for example all the multiracial kids in America right now, there are mexian asians, white hispanics, black hispanics, asian indians..... wonder what they self identify as. I would be interested in say how ACamps family identifies their race.

I dont think this shows what you think it shows.

 

[Cackalacky]

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/what-we-mean-when-we-say-race-is-a-social-construct/275872/