Isn't that racist?

RichardGarfinkle · Jul 10, 2015

aruna said:
But I speaking specifically about people who are killed BECAUSE of their race. And people were enslaved BECAUSE of their race. ANd prevented from voting BECAUSE of their race. Pretending that race doesn't exist because it's "just a social construct", as I keep hearing mostly from white people, well, that just "isn't as simple as you're describing it." In all the above cases, whether historical or contemporary, it was the physical apperance alone that determined race. The more powerful race didn't/doesn't care about the cultural context.

.

I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here?

What I'm arguing is that there is a benefit in separating the social construct, the genetics, and the heritage.
Let me clarify.

Bear in mind that while I am not POC that is only because my ancestors did not have skin tone as one of the characteristics that was used to declare them a separate race. Indeed, I am as much on white supremacist hit lists as anyone else. Please remember that for the better part of two thousand years my ancestors were the punching bags of European Christian culture. And why, because they had the poor taste to not go along with a mythology that treated them as deicides and bearers of a sin passed down through blood.

The Cultural Construct of Jew was completely imposed from the outside and created for the convenience of that outside culture. Not only do I see no reason to go along with it, I find myself obliged to correct it, often for very well intentioned people who I respect and like. They don't even notice that their casual assertions about their holy book involves wiping out two thousand years of history of my ancestors. So, I point this out over and over again, but it it does not stick in many minds. They don't even notice that they're doing it. Fighting that social construct is, I think, part of my responsibility, even though (as I'll discuss below) I don't follow the ways of my ancestors. The social construct is toxic and needs separation and eradication from the matters of genetics and heritage.

I am conscious of the fact that less than a hundred years ago it would have been unlikely to the point of nearly impossible for me to have met my wife, let alone be allowed to marry her. And indeed, in certain places it would have been a capital offense for me to have been intimate with her at all. I see no bloody reason to allow social structures like that to exist.

Okay, on to genetics. I like to use the word mytho-genetics for the wildly inaccurate ideas people have about biological inheritance. People think that one keeps a great deal of the genetics of ones ancestors. But that's only true in highly endogamous societies. Here's a quick multi-generational break down.

Your biological children will have 1/2 of your chromosomes (barring non-disjunction). That's guaranteed. But one of your grandchildren might actually share no chromosomes with you. It's unlikely, and the expectation value is that they will have 1/4 of them. Your great grandchildren expect 1/8. Great-great 1/16, great-great-great grandchildren 1/32. great-great-great-great grandchildren 1/64. You only have 46 chromosomes. That means it's not unlikely that after only 6 generations a descendent of yours would have no genetics passed down from you at all. Exception: descendents in a complete female line will share mitochondrial DNA with their foremother.

In an endogamous culture more people share the same ancestors and therefore the same chromosomes will appear from multiple sources in the same generation. But regardless, it does not take long for ancestry to be less a matter of biology than it is a matter of cultural heritage. Furthermore, an oppressed people are often targets for rape. So while I know something of my ancestry in terms of families and marriages, I can't guarantee that I have no non-Jewish actual biological forebears.

That brings me to the third aspect of what is called race: cultural heritage. This is the one that I think is worth preserving. It isn't the invention of outsiders, it isn't a genetic myth, it is people choosing to look back and identify themselves as part of a people stretching back and hopefully forward in time. Part of that heritage can be one of oppression, it can involve a culture created by outside force and pressure (as African-American culture was created through the forces of the society around them, and Jewish culture was shaped by the Diaspora and Christian mythology). But it is the taking up of that culture that is worthwhile.

Note, however, that I did not do that. I largely walked away from my ancestry because I did not marry among the people and I do not follow the ways of Judaism. Thus I talk about my ancestors, not my people, because I made the choice not to keep up the ways of the culture. My decision was the opposite of kuwi's, but I respect his and hope that things work out for him. But I can't really shed all the culture (nor do I want to), there are aspects that are still present in my thinking and in the ways I brought up my children (respect for learning, argument as a good thing, certain kinds of cooking etc.).

So from my perspective, I am not Jewish because I don't follow the ways, but my ancestors were. The cultural construct Jew does not give a damn about my view. It defines and tries to force. I see no reason to let it. So, I will stand against it and point it out and try to tear it down. But the heritage, I support and for those who embrace it, I respect them (as long as they aren't being jerks about it. Argument is part of that heritage as I said). I also respect others who are trying to expand the inner idea of what being Jewish is, including the rabbi who tutored me years ago for my Bar Mitzvah who is trying to get the definition changed so that having a male Jewish parent counts. He wants people like my children and my nephews to be counted among the people if they wish to follow the ways.

That's why I see the heritage as what matters. I refuse to glorify the brutal actions of those who are murderously contemptuous by taking in their idea of who and what a people are.

So, race is not just a social construct, but the part of it that is a forced social construct should be erased.

Liosse de Velishaf · Jul 10, 2015

Race as a "social construct" to me refers to the use of race as a shorthand for a lot of stereotypes and mistaken ideas. Your skin color doesn't inherently signify anything about you except that you have that skin color. So when someone says "race is just a social construct" what I hear is not, "there is no race and people aren't killed because of race", because people quite clearly are killed because of their race. But rather, human beings created race as an artifact of their culture, and you can't assume with 100% certainty that someone belonging to a certain race is going to share what our social construct of race tells us are the prototypical features of that race.

ETA: Misquoted Richard, my bad.

aruna · Jul 10, 2015

What I'm saying is that all too often people (white mostly) shut down discussions on race with the "race is only a social construct" cliche, trying at the same time to sound incredibly intelligent and cryptic.
Of course there is more to race than skin colour! That has always been behind my contributions to these discussions.
But used in that way, this argument is to me exactly the same as "I'm colour-blind".

RichardGarfinkle · Jul 10, 2015

Liosse de Velishaf said:
Race as a "social construct" to me refers to the use of race as a shorthand for a lot of stereotypes and mistaken ideas. Your skin color doesn't inherently signify anything about you except that you have that skin color. So when Richard says "race is just a social construct" what I hear is not, "there is no race and people aren't killed because of race", because people quite clearly are killed because of their race. But rather, human beings created race as an artifact of their culture, and you can't assume with 100% certainty that someone belonging to a certain race is going to share what our social construct of race tells us are the prototypical features of that race.

Please note, that I very specifically did not say race is just a social construct. I said one of three aspects of race is a social construct and that aspect needs to be removed.

ETA: Liosse: Okay, we're cool.

Liosse de Velishaf · Jul 10, 2015

aruna said:
What I'm saying is that all too often people (white mostly) shut down discussions on race with the "race is only a social construct" cliche, trying at the same time to sound incredibly intelligent and cryptic.
Of course there is more to race than skin colour! That has always been behind my contributions to these discussions.
But used in that way, this argument is to me exactly the same as "I'm colour-blind".

That's not the way I meant it, but if it's been coming across that way then it's probably better for me to discontinue that line of argument. I think I'll be taking a listen and don't speak approach to this thread for awhile.

Roxxsmom · Jul 10, 2015

I know what Aruna is saying, and I cringed a bit. Because I teach biology, and the current genetic evidence is pretty clear--there are no alleles that are confined to just one race (in biology, race is defined by the existence of race-specific alleles within a population that is en-route, possibly, to becoming a new species), and the features we identify as racial differences (skin color, hair texture, eye and hair color facial shapes and so on) are very minor, superficial things that diverge rapidly in populations, due either to genetic drift, or as an adaptation to local conditions. Blue eyes and light skin, for instance, are very recent developments, less than 10,000 years old (according to some scientists).

So biologically speaking, we're all one race or subspecies, and race as it's usually understood is a social construct. However, this does not mean it doesn't exist or that it isn't important. With a highly social, intelligent species such as ours, social evolution has long since eclipsed biological in importance. I do try to emphasize that when we cover this topic in my classes, because I really don't want to come off as one of those "race doesn't matter and we should all just be color blind" white people who is telling a huge percentage of my students that their experiences and cultures aren't real.

In general, the notion that we should simply ignore race usually means (really) is that everyone should just be more like white people in terms of their values, norms, customs and so on, so white people can be more comfortable. Also, there's that belief many white people have that all the differences in prosperity, treatment, or achievement between races is due simply to poverty, or bad behavior, and if PoC would simply act like white people, then it would all go away.

This is a contrast with the more overt racism that maintains that there are genetic differences in competence between races. But it still refuses to take any responsibility for institutional and society-level racism.

I do understand the discomfort with a sweeping word for all people who aren't of European descent. Whether we're talking culture or biology, people from different parts of the world have no more in common with one another than they do with Europeans. Except via the historical situation they find themselves in--being relative outsiders in the culture that has dominated global development and recent history. There's a need for a word to describe that shared experience, since writing out "people who have ancestors from Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Australia, and the Americas" each and every time gets pretty tedious. And saying "non white" defines the circumstances in terms of a lack, rather than the possession of something. The term "minority" is also misleading, because PoC aren't minorities everywhere in the US, let alone the rest of the world. Racism can affect people, even when they aren't outnumbered.

So my feeling is that PoC may be an imperfect term, but it's useful. But it's entirely possible that a new word may replace it someday.

backslashbaby · Jul 10, 2015

Race is used for risk factors for certain diseases even, though, so I don't think we are at a (biological) point where it really is a social construct anyway.

I'm a thin diabetic. Want to take a guess which side of my family has a lot of that going on (not so much the thin part -- that's more my dad's side). And I am no longer lactose tolerant, either! That's one white mutation I especially enjoyed there for a while, damnit. Now I have to take those pills when I eat, because there's no way I'm giving up dairy

The social part matters more, probably, but population differences can be very real in important biological ways, too. Back when they used to assume that everything was basically the same, folks didn't get warned of important risk factors (and many still may not).

kuwisdelu · Jul 10, 2015

All models are wrong, but some are useful.

Roxxsmom · Jul 10, 2015

backslashbaby said:
Race is used for risk factors for certain diseases even, though, so I don't think we are at a (biological) point where it really is a social construct anyway.

Yes, but as far as I know, there's no one disease that is ubiquitous to an entire race or confined to one. Sickle cell, for instance, does not affect all populations of people considered black/African, nor does it entirely exclude people who aren't considered black/African. And while cystic fibrosis is most common in people of northern European descent, it doesn't affect all white people to the same extent (and it occasionally crops up in other races too).

Knowing one's ancestry can indeed inform relative risk of genetic diseases. But there are cases where someone had classic symptoms of a disease that's associated strongly with a given race and it was missed because they didn't have the superficial physical traits associated with such. We tend to focus very strongly on things like skin color when we define race, yet these are extremely malleable traits that don't tell us much about ancestry. There's more genetic diversity on the continent of Africa than in the rest of the human race combined.

On a different note than disease, as far as I know, my ancestry is overwhelmingly western European--British and German mostly. Yet my blood type is AB positive (my mother is B positive, my father A positive). The B allele is more strongly associated with Asia than it is Europe, but people have been mixing and mingling throughout our long history.

nighttimer · Jul 10, 2015

nighttimer said:
If you don't know you'd better ask somebody. And shut up and listen when you do. You're the one seeking information and knowledge. How you gonna hear if you're busy bumping your gums saying dumb shit you don't even know is dumb?

UnluckyClover77 said:
I'm not sure if this is even about me or someone else, because that's exactly what I did; I dropped by and asked a question, and I specifically asked it to people who have to deal with racism (American or not), but I don't see a problem with others who just want to share their opinion, even if I didn't ask them.

And, yeah...considering that I spent all morning reading your posts, and not saying anything, I'd say I'm a pretty good listener.

No, it wasn't directed at you or anyone else, UnluckyClover. It's simply general advice for anyone attempting to navigate a culture or group they are not part of. When I used to go to gay bars with a friend, I had to park my hetero-paranoia where I was too scared to go to the restroom. It was my own ignorance and nothing more than that. Eventually, I did learn the only thing to fear in going to the men's room in the gay club is you might miss out on a hot jam being played while you're using the facilities.

What I've learned I've learned by watching, listening and observing and speaking once I'm sure it isn't a dumb-ass question. This approach has proven to be more successful than not.

JimmyB27 said:
I say this with the full understanding that I'm a white guy with no clue, but it seems to me like the first two of those are clumsy and inelegant ways of saying "I don't judge you based on the colour of your skin". Actually, now I think of it, even that's pretty clumsy and inelegant because the best way of showing you don't judge someone based on the colour of their skin is to not judge them based on the colour of their skin...

As for "You're very intelligent and speak so well", people really say that? I think I get this one - there's an implied 'for a black guy' in there, right? (You did say there's no such thing as a stupid question, right...? )

I did and there is not and you are right. "For a Black guy/gal" is always annoying. My experience is Black people can be every bit as intelligent and articulate as anybody else and when we're regarded with surprise or disbelief you feel like you're being treated like a talking dog; the fact you can speak matters more than what you are actually saying.

aruna said:
I recently wrote a post about this.

It's something white people like to say to "prove" how non-racist they are. Along with the "enlightened" cliche, which I'm hearing a lot these days: "Race is a social construct. It doesn't exist." Yeeees. Tell that to black kids who get shot down by white policemen.

Agreed and seconded. The people who say stuff like that are usually the ones most unaware of how significantly race factors into how those whom experience it as a fact of life and not an abstract intellectual construct.

Being a person of color in a place where your color is seen as a problem to be solved is not the least bit abstract.

kuwisdelu · Jul 10, 2015

And I think dumb-ass questions are totally okay as long as you're open to the answers.

Ken · Jul 11, 2015

Crazed as it may seem, I believe it is possible to not be aware of a person's race when interacting with them and still not be dismissive of their race and heritage and culture in any sense of the term. It's like you are just not focusing in on that at the time because it is not relevant at the moment. E.g. If I am speaking with a PoC and discussing (I dunno) botany, say, our respective races is rather irrelevant. But if the subject becomes more personal then race may become a factor. And certainly if the person wants to share their culture and treat me to a meal in line with their heritage I am all for that

Another thing I guess is just exposure. If you are around PoC a lot as I am then after awhile you just forget your differences. Okay, that seems pretty kumbaya but that's my experience for what it is worth. (two cents to be precise.)

Chrissy · Jul 11, 2015

I came across this blog post today and it reminded me of what Aruna was saying about White people needing to show they're not racist. It seems apparent that primarily concerning oneself with proving one's own lack of racism is yet another aspect of the privilege of being White.

To understand, you have to know that Black people think in terms of Black people. We don’t see a shooting of an innocent Black child in another state as something separate from us because we know viscerally that it could be our child, our parent, or us, that is shot.

The shooting of Walter Scott in North Charleston resonated with me because Walter Scott was portrayed in the media as a deadbeat and a criminal– but when you look at the facts about the actual man, he was nearly indistinguishable from my own father.

Racism affects us directly because the fact that it happened at a geographically remote location or to another Black person is only a coincidence, an accident. It could just as easily happen to us- right here, right now.

Black people think in terms of we because we live in a society where the social and political structures interact with us as Black people.

White people do not think in terms of we. White people have the privilege to interact with the social and political structures of our society as individuals. You are “you,” I am “one of them.” Whites are often not directly affected by racial oppression even in their own community, so what does not affect them locally has little chance of affecting them regionally or nationally. They have no need, nor often any real desire, to think in terms of a group. They are supported by the system, and so are mostly unaffected by it.

What they are affected by are attacks on their own character. To my aunt, the suggestion that “people in The North are racist” is an attack on her as a racist. She is unable to differentiate her participation within a racist system (upwardly mobile, not racially profiled, able to move to White suburbs, etc.) from an accusation that she, individually, is a racist. Without being able to make that differentiation, White people in general decide to vigorously defend their own personal non-racism, or point out that it doesn’t exist because they don’t see it.

The result of this is an incessantly repeating argument where a Black person says “Racism still exists. It is real,” and a white person argues “You’re wrong, I’m not racist at all. I don’t even see any racism.” My aunt’s immediate response is not “that is wrong, we should do better.” No, her response is self-protection: “That’s not my fault, I didn’t do anything. You are wrong.”

Roxxsmom · Jul 11, 2015

I certainly don't mean to be dismissive of lived experiences when I stated what the biological definition of race is (very similar to subspecies) and it doesn't appear to apply to humans. And whether or not race is a social construct or there really are immutable genetic or physical traits that are shared by each member of a race (traditionally defined as Caucasian, African, Asian, Native American) and that set each apart from all the other traditional races, I don't think (and I didn't mean to imply) that there's anything "only" or "just" about race as a cultural or social definition that has arisen as a consequence of history. It's real, it's important, and it's something people live and experience.

I'm brought to mind the fraternal twins--one blond haired and blue eyed and very European looking, and one who most people in the US would identify as black. These two girls share 50% of their gene alleles, and the ones responsible for their coloring are only a tiny portion of their entire genome. They share parents and have the same socioeconomic start in life, but they will have very different experiences growing up and living in America.

I do want to know if there's a better way to go about teaching this in a biology class, where the biological meaning of the word "race" means something very specific that doesn't seem (as per current genetic evidence) to apply to the traditional definition of human races as biological entities. I thought that emphasizing the difference between the social meaning of the word would make it clear that race as shared experience, identity and cultural heritage that people with ancestry from specific regions share is very important and real, but I'm worried now that I might have been offending some of my students without meaning to.

kuwisdelu · Jul 11, 2015

Your approach sounds fine to me.

backslashbaby · Jul 11, 2015

Roxxsmom said:
...I do want to know if there's a better way to go about teaching this in a biology class, where the biological meaning of the word "race" means something very specific that doesn't seem (as per current genetic evidence) to apply to the traditional definition of human races as biological entities. I thought that emphasizing the difference between the social meaning of the word would make it clear that race as shared experience, identity and cultural heritage that people with ancestry from specific regions share is very important and real, but I'm worried now that I might have been offending some of my students without meaning to.

The bolded is the part that I'd emphasize a lot, maybe? I think science students understand when definitions are very strict compared to the same terms used in a less rigorous way. But I don't really like my word 'rigorous' there, because people just love being the most correct, and that's not what I mean by that, exactly

I mean they mean different things and that's fine and good, because they are both useful in different environments.

Ken · Jul 11, 2015

"Fine to me," too.

Isn't that racist?

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes

Liosse de Velishaf

aruna

On a wing and a prayer

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes

Liosse de Velishaf

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido

backslashbaby

*

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World

Ken

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World

backslashbaby

*

Ken

Isn't that racist?

Nurture Phoenixes

On a wing and a prayer

Nurture Phoenixes

Beastly Fido

~~~~*~~~~

Revolutionize the World

Beastly Fido

No Gods No Masters

Revolutionize the World

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

Beastly Fido

Revolutionize the World

~~~~*~~~~

*

*