Yesterday (Saturday) ran an editorial “Debunking The Concept of ‘Race.'” It discussed a recent experiment at Penn State,
where about 90 students took complex genetic screening tests that compared their samples with those of four regional groups. Many of these students thought of themselves as “100 percent” white or black or something else, but only a tiny fraction of them, as it turned out, actually fell into that category. Most learned instead that they shared genetic markers with people of different skin colors.
Ostensibly “black” subjects, for example, found that as much as half of their genetic material came from Europe, with some coming from Asia as well. One “white” student learned that 14 percent of his DNA came from Africa – and 6 percent from East Asia….
Prof. Samuel Richards, who teaches a course in race and ethnic relations at Penn State, uses the test results to shake students out of rigid and received notions about the biological basis of identity. By showing students that they aren’t what they think they are, he shows them that race and ethnicity are more fluid and complex than most of us think.
But if the students “aren’t what they think they are,” then they also aren’t what, say, university admissions committees think they are, either. If only “a tiny fraction” of, for lack of a better term, “black” applicants are “black,” then how can racial preferences be rationally (leave aside morally) distributed?
If even the New York Times now thinks race must be referred to as “race,” perhaps it, and others, should reconsider their support for the use of race — I mean “race” — as a factor in the distribution of burdens and benefits.
On The Other Hand…
Steve Sailer wrote an excellent article on UPI several years ago on the genetic studies of Penn State molecular anthropologist Mark Shriver that are behind, or underneath, the edit quoted above. As described by Sailer, Shriver’s finding are more complicated than the edit would lead one to believe.
For example:
Is mixed race ancestry fairly typical for an American? In two ways, it is. First, more than 50 million whites, according to [Prof. Shriver’s] analyses, have at least one black ancestor….
Yet, from another perspective, a sizable degree of racial mixing is highly unusual. There simply aren’t many African-Americans or European-Americans who are mostly white but also substantially black. Shriver pointed out, “There is a very small degree of overlap in the population distributions.” In America, most of the whites are extremely European and most of the blacks are quite African.
Despite the notorious arbitrariness of the “one drop” rule, the actual American population conforms to its strictures surprisingly closely.
If race is a socially constructed piece of subjectivity, what is to stop a group of white applicants from calling themselves black, and referencing each other as the social constructors of the racial classification? No doubt any liberal institution, such as the NYT, would prosecute them for racial fraud. The courts have upheld racial fraud cases, where white applicants decided to just feel black, and grab the quota positions. The lies thicken and multiply in support of an antimerit system, and a professoriate which is so well pleased by this, must be profoundly corrupted.
Maybe we should insist that DNA samples be collected from everyone, and demand that anyone with “one drop” of African blood deserves preferences…. Along the way we could change the description of Howard, Morehouse, et. al. from predominantly black colleges (colleges where most of the students are black) to predominantly predominantly black colleges (colleges where most of the students are mostly black)….
What’s to stop anyone from calling him/herself “Hispanic”?
The EEOC defines “Hispanics” as “a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.”
“REGARDLESS OF RACE” — No “racial fraud” here — race/ethnicity is self-defined per Congress’ revision of census data in 1997. The Spanish Empire ruled over half of Europe at one time, therefore most people of European origin meet this definition!
This needs to be tested in court — how about it, Center for Individual Rights?
John:
You’re on the right track — there was a “one drop” rule under “Jim Crow” — why not a one drop rule for the affirmative action spoils system as well?
The only way AA will end is if those who oppose it organize a massive civil disobedience campaign — everyone check the “Hispanic” box and bring the whole rotten AA preference system down. What do we have to lose? Race and ethnicity is now “self-defined.”
>>>Race and ethnicity is now “self-defined.”
I meant “Race and Ethnicity” as a singular grouping, hence “is” instead of “are”.
Oh, why stop at academia with this, John? The full flower of the African American experience should be rained upon these students. Not just in admissions, but in hiring, promotions, wages, government contracts, housing, lending, credit, law enforcement and medicine.
I think to truly APPRECIATE being “black”, one should not only be privy to scarce and fleeting racial preferences but the notable and documented racial deficits as well.
Wouldn’t that be a more balanced conceptual experiment?
–Cobra
Wouldn’t that be a more balanced conceptual experiment?
Absolutely. Let’s do it. If you’re right about the pervasiveness of discrimination in American society, then all those employers, etc., would no doubt be overjoyed to hire someone who looks “white” while still getting credit from the preference/quota mongers for hiring a “black.”
John writes:
>>>Absolutely. Let’s do it. If you’re right about the pervasiveness of discrimination in American society, then all those employers, etc., would no doubt be overjoyed to hire someone who looks “white” while still getting credit from the preference/quota mongers for hiring a “black.”
It is indeed the physical “difference” quotient of race that is the sharpest knife in the draw of racism. I’ve discussed on the blog in the past the history of “passing”. The vast majority of the American people aren’t geneticists, so their observances are usually shaped by face value…what they see, and the interpretation of that sight based upon their own experience. So if a person “looks white”, to most Americans, then he or she is given the privileges and courtesies extended to that group. This still does nothing positive for people who “don’t look white”, who have, unfortunately, a documented historical record of inferior treatment in America that continues to this day.
–Cobra
I know a young Spanish woman, as in from Spain, the country in Europe, who came over here a few years ago. She wants to stay here. She has decided she is “Hispanic” even though she looks quite white, and alleges it is because she might suffer discrimination. She is quite open about her intent to use Affirmative Action. It is clearly naked self-interest, but she cloaks it up as something noble. There is a rich Arab woman (really rich) who thinks she deserves Affirmative Action, and the half Hispanic white looking guy married to a very white woman who intends to get AA for their future 1/4 Hispanic children.
I think white people should start the civil disobedience plan of marking Hispanic (or black, if they have genetic tests like the 14% guy, though couldn’t that 14% be Arab or something?), but I’m beginning to think the scammers like those above will help do it in all on their own.
I do think it would be an interesting experiment if any white person with a drop of African American blood could suddenly be made to appear white. I actually think it could be helpful to race relations. Let’s say there are now 1 million or so new adult blacks who were raised white. They would relate well to whites and whites would relate well to them. It would be an interesting experiment at least.
Lisa writes:
>>>I do think it would be an interesting experiment if any white person with a drop of African American blood could suddenly be made to appear white. I actually think it could be helpful to race relations. Let’s say there are now 1 million or so new adult blacks who were raised white. They would relate well to whites and whites would relate well to them. It would be an interesting experiment at least.”
I agree with you that it would seem interesting, but that “one drop” rule would also carry the stigma of difference with it. There is a status and privilege that goes along with being white in America, despite denials of some who post here. Your examples are interesting. A woman from Spain is indeed Spanish, and by definition, as Hispanic as any Cuban, Puerto Rican, Mexican or Guatamalan (who can also appear to look “white”, referencing Andy Garcia, Alexis Bledel, etc.) Don’t forget that the Spanish language was introduced by conquerers from Spain whose genes are indelibly coursing through the veins of the above groups and others. Your Spanish friend could be the distant cousin of a Peruvian night club waitress, a cop from El Salvador, or a farmer from Nicaraqua.
Take for example the MLB steroid scandal lineup. No one questions the status of Barry Bonds’ blackness, but if you ask Sammy Sosa, he’ll tell you he is Hispanic (proudly Dominican) even though his skin tone is darker than Bonds. Rafael Palmero and Jose Canseco are both Hispanics who are lighter in skin tone than Jason Giambi, who is unquestionably white. It’s all in perception, and unfortunately in America, there is a price that goes with it.
–Cobra
Lisa:
>>>I think white people should start the civil disobedience plan of marking Hispanic (or black, if they have genetic tests like the 14% guy, though couldn’t that 14% be Arab or something?), but I’m beginning to think the scammers like those above will help do it in all on their own.
>>>So let’s exploit this loophole in the law — check the “Hispanic” box today!
For more on this topic, click on the “Cicero” link after “posted by”.
Actually, I recall some years ago that a federal court decided a California firefighter who was a native of Spain did not qualify as “Hispanic” for purposes of participation in his city’s affirmative action program.
Cobra, you’re right: it is all in perception. The Spanish woman I mentioned looks white, is white, and considers herself white, though she has decided to call herself Hispanic here. She freely admits this. I have little doubt others consider her white, even with her accent. Surely you can agree that it is appearance that would cause this woman disadvantage. So, why should she, as a white woman, recently arrived from Europe, get Affirmative Action? The U.S. never discriminated against her or her ancestors who lived and died in Spain. Her excuse of “potential discrimination” is a joke. And what diversity is she contributing? That she knows Spanish? A Swede would contribute more linguistic diversity. Though I’m against Affirmative Action, I’d rather it go to someone who has at least been here for awhile and isn’t pretending to be noble in her self-interest.
On a side note, I doubt any Mexican or Mexican-American who worked in a low wage job or whose parents worked in a low wage job, would be really thrilled with the thought of a Spanish woman trying to act like she was just like them so she could get their benefits.
Cicero. Yes, I agree Hispanic would be easier to pass, but who is going to check if someone is black anyway? Though I’m guessing universities will catch on and start interviewing.
Rhymes with Right:
>>>Actually, I recall some years ago that a federal court decided a California firefighter who was a native of Spain did not qualify as “Hispanic” for purposes of participation in his city’s affirmative action program.
What Cicero refuses to acknowledge is the historical significance of white skin, and Anglo-Saxon heritage in America. The record of European Immigration, including ITALIAN AMERICANS is full of accounts of anglicizing ethnic names in order to fight discrimination (from WASPs in charge, austensibly) and more easily assimilate (with the same group causing the most discrimination, albeit). Strangely, Cicero does not include this major portion of America’s historical legacy when he bashes Affirmative Action or minority outreach.
I wonder why that is?
–Cobra
COBRA >>>”The record of European Immigration, including ITALIAN AMERICANS is full of accounts of anglicizing ethnic names in order to fight discrimination (from WASPs in charge, austensibly) and more easily assimilate (with the same group causing the most discrimination, albeit).”
That’s exactly why I bash AA — it’s intellectually dishonest.
Yes, Italians did have to change their names, but what about the ones who were too dark to “assimilate” regardless of name changes?
And COBRA conveniently leaves out the fact that Sicilians were deemed “non-white” by courts in the early 20th Century — one case that comes to mind was Rollins v. Alabama (1922). This court held that the fact that a woman was a Sicilian “can in no sense be taken as conclusive that she was therefore a white woman, or that she was not a negro or a descendant of a negro.”
There you go. But Cobra must see the world through simplistic eyes – all “whites” are oppressors. Now he’s turned victims of oppression into the oppressors themselves — just as is done by AA.
Cicero writes:
>>>And COBRA conveniently leaves out the fact that Sicilians were deemed “non-white” by courts in the early 20th Century — one case that comes to mind was Rollins v. Alabama (1922). This court held that the fact that a woman was a Sicilian “can in no sense be taken as conclusive that she was therefore a white woman, or that she was not a negro or a descendant of a negro.”
Cicero, welcome to the party! By all means–please CONTINUE to document the historical attrocities perpetrated by the American Courts against people who were not white anglo saxon protestants. I appreciate your taking some of the responsibility for enlightening the anti-affirmative action types about the reality of white skin privilege in American history.
Keep up the good work!
–Cobra
Cobra:
Once again you’ve missed the point — Italians, Sicilians, Jews, Irish Catholics and others are PENALIZED by AA (through preferences granted to other ‘minorities’), in spite of the legacy of PAST DISCRIMINATION against them. That’s why AA is intellectually dishonest — it’s a one-size-fits-all approach to social policy.
Do you get it now? I don’t know how to get through to you.
Cobra,
Two of your responses almost seem as if they recognize that historical discrimination was a multiple direction street, and would seemingly undercut current preferences that are more targeted. One is the discrimination by and against Italians (I’d add the Irish or Polish or any number of other groups). One problem with preferences is that they encourage the tallying of past indiscretions and Balkanization – almost every ancestry can find oppression in its background. When do we stop counting the sins of past?
Your comments about skin color and visual force being the primary driver of the negative effects of racism (this is largely true) suggest that your preferred preferences system would be based on physical observations (or maybe a more intrusive genetic test for everyone?) rather defined ancestry. Exactly how much melanin would be required for the preference to kick in?
Chetly:
“Exactly how much melanin would be required for the preference to kick in?”
Excellent point — what about some Greeks, Sicilians and other southern European “whites” who are in many cases much darker than certain Puerto Ricans, South Americans, and other ‘Hispanics’?
Are we moving toward a Sherwin-Williams color chart of skin color in order to determine who get AA and who doesn’t?
Even this wouldn’t satisfy Cobra — he the wants skin color AND ethnicity to be politically correct.
How does this make sense, when both Michael Powell (Colin’s son) and Alice Walton (the richest woman in the world) both qualify for AA over a dirt-poor kid from the Ozarks with no connections??
Cicero and Chetly,
This is not “Cobraland.” This is America. The abominable history on race in this country was not designed by me.
I assure you, Cicero, that you do not open YOUR wallet and see the graven images of owners of Italian or Polish slaves.
To be honest, we are all sugar-coating the bitter reality: that this nation had an insidious racial caste system for centuries, and some belief, as do I to an extent that it still exists today. Oh, sure, there are exceptions, and Chetly, I will again give you credit for acknowledging the TRUTH about America’s attrocious past concerning African Americans. But Cicero, if you are implying that somehow, being Italian in America puts you at a worse social stratification level than being black…I really don’t see the sense in continuing this discussion on this thread, because we’re breathing different air.
–Cobra
Looking forward, looking to somehow put America’s historical indiscretions with slavery and white supremacy behind, I don’t see how promoting Affirmative Action (AA) helps anymore. AA is the chief government maintenance now of a color caste system –and “caste,” to me, is a repugnant acknowledgment. I think it should be anathema to Americans on principle.
No longer are any of us (“Cobra” included) entitled to defend racial classifications (aka: “the different races”) on some “scientistic” theory that our species breaks in incipient species (e.g., of G.G. Simpson, et al.) or ancient “natural differences” (e.g., of C.S. Coon). The social construction of “the races” is even more insidious, because its circular perpetuation stands essentially unchanged –ineffectively resisted –the same as it has the past few centuries. Slavery we abolished long ago. Isn’t it high time that its “badges and incidents” disappear, too?