Talk:Racism/Archive 5

message: P0M 16:40, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fray, part N + 2

message: P0M: Right after the "external links" section begins, there is quoted text that begins: "who study the concept". It should presumably begin: "Those who study..." Moreover, since the line begins with a space, it appears on-screen as a single line that marches off the screen to the right. Could somebody who knows what is going on with that quotation (?) please fix it appropriately? Thanks.
P0M 15:00, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple Editing Problems 

message: I'm working on this for something else, but I think it adresses a number of items raised above by everyone. Specifically, I think this speaks to VV's comment on my race not being really about biology.
Although there are dissenters, nearly all scientists agree that there is no single trait, characteristic, or gene that distinguishes all members of one race from all the members of another race. And most scientists reject the common perception that these differences are grouped around clearly defined characteristics that can be identified as races.
:P0M: The question that one faces in this "fray" is how to adopt a NPOV to those who maintain that "race is real" and yet not end up using the word "race" in such a way as to assume its validity.
In spite of the surface appearances that we tend to be very attuned to, humans are one of the most similar of species. In fact, most genetic variation occurs within -- not between -- races. Of the remaining genetic variation in humans, 85 percent exists within any given local population -- Russian, Inuit, Kenyan, Thai, or Canadian. Approximately 94 percent of that genetic variation can be found on any continent – so that two random Japanese people may be as genetically different as a Japanese and an Brazilian.
:P0M: I think nobody here (or on the Race:talk page) would deny that, but there are those that try to argue that there are clusters of genetic characteristic the possession of which selects groups that "closely correspond" to traditional racial characteristics -- as though we didn't already know that, e.g., the Chinese population has a high level of agenesis, shovel-shaped incisors, epicanthic folds, lactose intolerance, etc. And they seem to me to avoid talking about whether the occasional Chinese person without shovel-shaped incisors is "not really Chinese". I think you are preaching both to the choir and also to the incorrigible free thinkers. 
So in short, the visual differences which tell how to perceive someone's race – and which we are attuned to -- do not tell us anything significant about a person's biological makeup or intellect, as variation between humans is highly non-concordant. Most human traits are influenced by different genes, and are therefore inherited independently. They are not bundled into the same groupings that are defined as races -- which one would expect if they were concordant – and the presence of one trait does not guarantee or suggest the presence of another. 
:P0M: Of course that is true. But you will find people arguing that a high percentage of people who are around two meters tall are either from somewhere in northern Europe or are from among the Tutsi, Nuer, and Shilluks of Africa, and that "therefore" Africans and Lithuanians are genetically privileged when it comes to playing basketball. The trick is to separate prediction in probabalistic terms ("If I'm only given a one hour window in which to find fifteen people over 6' 6" tall, I've got a better shot at it in Lithuania than in Okinawa.") from statements about [races]. -- and do it all in a way that does not make a POV characterization regarding anyone who might claim that, e.g., "All Estonians are over 6 feet tall."
For example, few would argue that you can identify or even guess a person's eye color from their height, or their blood type from the size of their head -- or from the color of their skin. And when examining more complex and subtle and issues – for example, how someone's mathematical skills or their athletic ability are related to their facial features or skin color, most scientists agree that one cannot talk about that racial characteristics, whether internal or external.
:P0M: I think what you say is true. (You may need to define "few". ;-) Again, is there a way that one can talk about the fact that racism is a reality, that people look at a little kid's skin color and decide on that basis whether to follow him around their store to prevent shoplifting, without departing from an entirely objective point of view? When we are talking about racism, our focus is not likely to be on people who systematically avoid subjective biases.
While there are indeed genetic differences between people, a more accurate description is ancestry, as opposed to "race," when looking at the roots of inherited diseases or conditions. Obviously, not everyone who appears to look alike or who lives in the same nation or region shares a common ancestry, so more often than not, using race as shorthand for ancestry is also misleading.
:P0M: I would prefer "genetic heritage". It would seem good policy to me that if you have a grant for a few million to be spent on skin cancer in Africa, and an equivalent amount to be spent on skin cancer in Europe and North America, you probably will want to direct most of the African money toward treatment of the rare courses of skin cancer that turn up, and part of the Europe/NA money toward educational efforts aimed at teaching high risk (light-skinned)people to recognize the signs of skin cancer and get themselves to their family doctor if they see something suspicious-looking, while reserving some money for treatment of individuals not covered by health insurance. But the problem in an article on racism is to show how what you are saying, and what I am agreeing with, does not make sense to people who practice racism.
For example, sickle-cell disease is often thought of as a racial disease that afflicts Africans and African-Americans. But it is one result of a gene that increases resistance to malaria, and sickle-cell disease is found in areas where malaria is or was endemic -- such as western and central western Africa, around the Mediterranean, and in Arabia -- and not in southern Africa. And while most people agree that racial profiling is wrong when done by the police, doctors are still trained to immediately categorize all patients by age, race, and gender: "a 62-year-old Hispanic woman is complaining of..." or "the patient is a eight-year-old Caucasian male with a fever of 102. These deeply rooted ideas and practices concerning race are generally considered "a given," "obvious," or "just common sense," and are part of everyday life in many societies.
:P0M: Again, you are correctly characterizing realities. The question that needs to be addressed is how people are influenced to jump from what makes sense to what doesn't make sense.
At the same time, the societal effects of race -- and the reality of living one's life as a member of a given race in society -- do have actual biological consequences. For example, African American males die of heart disease at a rate five times higher than white American men, and Native Americans have the highest rates of diabetes in the United States.  
:P0M: The fear that one will be pistol-whipped for "driving while black" must have health consequences. I suspect that lab animals raised in trick cages, the bottoms of which would drop out from under them on a random schedule, would display blood pressure abnormalities, immune system dysfunction, etc. And if a certain human population has a high incidence of inability to clear the body of alcohol in an efficient way, and alcoholism is viewed as a moral failing and therefore not treated by public health authorities, then I would expect high mortality in that population due to the sequelae of alcoholism. The failures of reason, the lack of objectivity, the hatreds, etc., behind these ills all need to be explicated.
And while it is important to look at whether this is a result of genetic makeup or social conditions, it is difficult to identify how to measure this relationship. How would a scientific experiment determine who is Native American or African American on a "genetic level?" So while access to medical care, health insurance, and living conditions affect individuals' overall, so does the stress that comes from living with racism -- but these items are not determined by a person's genetic makeup.
:P0M: It is ironic that what were originally adaptations become problematical due to the deficiencies of other people. Occasionally useful adaptations protect some people against certain hazards, and those who do not share the adaptations are demonized for being morally lax when they can't handle the alcohol (or whatever) that the well-adapted ones have made a part of their daily lives and even urge on other people. ("Come on, have a drink. Why won't you drink with me, you uppity SOB?")
That's it for now... -- BCorr € Брайен  04:43, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race as a social -- not genetic -- construct