WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF RACE?
Blackman
Marisa Williams <ris...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>For all those interested in participating and helping me out, I am
>presently writing a paper on the history of Race and issues of
>Miscegenation for a class at UCLA. While a text book/dictionary
>definition of race is necessary, I'm more interested to know what real
>people's everday, functional definitions of race are. So, PLEASE E-MAIL
>ME AT LENGTH EXPLAINING YOUR PERCEPTION/DEFINITION OF "RACE".
>FURTHERMORE, HOW DO YOU, PERSONALLY, CATEGORIZE BI- OR MULTIRACIAL
>INDIVIDUALS? Thanks for your time and interest. It's greatly
>appreciated.
>
>--Marisa Williams
> <ris...@ucla.edu>
>
Risamay, how have you been doing? Haven't seen any posts from you in
quite a while. Hope everything is going your way.
I don't know if you peeked in on the Black Athena debate sponsored by
publisher HarperCollins recently, but there were several posts that may be
of intrest to you. I am going to include in this a communication a short
essay I submitted concerning the matter of race as it pertained to the
Black Athena debate. Can't promise but I will try to send/post other
pertinent info from that debate. The problem is that I have well over
2000 submissions that I will have to look through.
Just to give you perspective as to the atmosphere this essay was written
it appeared in the debate when the evidence mounted and many conceded the
ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians to be at least in part Negroid some
calmly proclaimed that race didn't matter, race didn't exist, so forth so
on. I guess those arguments could be made given the pseudoscientic
methods born out of Aryanism defining race. I contended that race does
exist, it does matter, and tried to articulate my observations and
thoughts on the matter. Here goes.
**********************
The issue of race and its very existence appears very problematic for this
discussion, as I am sure most have already ascertained. Topical
observation shows that most of the definitive markers that have been
assigned to determination of race are artificial at least and ambiguous at
most. Although it is difficult to obtain concensus from even
anthropologists, if I may, I would like to humbly submit my thoughts
concerning this matter.
In attempting to classify individuals according to race it appears futile
to search for quintessential specimens. Any given trait can be shown to
exist to a lesser or greater degree in all of the so-called racial groups.
I think it would be more appropriate to treat what we refer to as races
as groups or populations of individuals that exhibit with greater
incidence certain traits of heredity, moreso than other groups. Some
individuals will exhibit all the traits, while others only some, with
varying degrees, since each trait is transmitted independent of others.
There is no Negro, Caucasian, or Mongoloid gene that I know of. If there
is, I would greatly appreciate any information pertaining to such. The
presence or absence of a particular trait does not particularly include or
exclude an individual. The trait frequency in which it occurs within a
given population would determine if it is characteristic of a group.
Populations that procreate chiefly among themselves due to culture and
geographic boundaries tend to exhibit over time distinctive
characteristics which compromise a common genetic heritage. This is what
I consider a race to be. A relatively isolated and definitive breeding
population. There are surely factors of genetic drift, changing
environmental stresses, and of course migration that weigh in over time.
It appears that the concept of race has been bastardized, primarily for
political expediency in many instances, over the years. It is a concept
that most people have an intuitive notion but find difficult to
articulate. Language is so inadequate. I'm not so sure anthropologists
are in complete agreement. To espouse the "three race position" leaves
one's rear quite exposed.
The somewhat ancilliary issue of skin color is a trait that is most
commonly used in attempting to place individuals into racial categories.
However, this adaptable trait is somewhat unreliable since most groups
from equatorial regions have increased levels of melanin in response to
increased levels of UV radiation. Likewise, lighter skinned individuals
tend to be from dreary climes further away from the equator who evolved
lighter skin to most likely facilitate production of 1,25
dihydroxycholecalciferol (a form of vitamin D) necessary for the proper
metabolism of calcium. So you don't necessarily have to be a Negro
because you have dark skin nor a Caucasian, as these terms have been
applied, simply due to a lighter complection. I simply attempt to apply
Darwinian principles that basically state that individuals better suited
to their environment have a reproductive advantage. Conservative traits
that are not greatly impacted by environmental stresses such as hair type,
tooth architecture, RBC antigens, etc. are probably better race markers.
But who am I to say. I'll leave that to the experts.
Anthropology is not my area of expertise. However, I do believe this is a
reasonable approach to the issue of race.
A dimension of this so-called debate that distrurbs me are the implicit
and sometimes explicit assertions by some that race is a non-issue, that
it doesn't matter. I have to wonder if these individuals practice what
they preach. Sure race matters. It matters for all of us.
On the related topic of racism I believe is not monolithic but
multi-faceted and very natural if viewed within the context of obtaining
some real or perceived benefit that allows a particular group or
individual to thrive or have advantage over others. A one Mr. Howard
Schwartz articulated well the phenomena of racism as it pertains to the
individual and I quote:
"From a psychoanalytic point of view, racism is a form of projective
identification. Roughly that means that certain ways of seeing ourselves
that are unacceptable to us are projected outward onto others where we can
try to control them. It is a way of preserving our fantasy of our own
perfection. In the case of racism, unacceptable ideas about the self are
projected onto members of another race, which is then hated and attacked,
as if we could destroy those hated parts of ourselves by destroying the
members of the other race. An individual who structures his or her life
on the basis of this projective identification is a racist.
It's important to note, though, that the basic psychological process
has nothing to do with race. Anything outside the self will do: people who
believe differently than we do, another nation, indeed, even our own
nation, seen as a malevolent force outside ourselves. Our parents can
suffice, or our students, or our spouses. For that matter, racists
themselves can serve as a focus for our projective identification, which
may magnify their power and their malevolence and cause us to see them
where they are not.
The point here is that projective identification is basically an
intra-psychic process which comes to look like a relationship to others
because we cannot accept it as an intra-psychic process. It is, moreover,
something which, if we are honest with ourselves about ourselves, we can
all find ourselves engaging in. Fact is, the capacity to be honest with
oneself about oneself is the best and maybe the only means of
relinquishing projective identification. It can also help us greatly in
appreciating the substratum of our common, flawed humanity."
Racism appears to be a collection of behaviors and not a single entity.
Now back to Bernal's charge that racism was a contributing factor in the
Ancient Model of Greek history being discarded for the Aryan Model. Has
the jury reached a verdict?
Charles Curtis a.k.a. Blackman
*********************************
AUSAR (LORD OF THE PERFECT BLACK)
In <4spsjk$r...@news.cheetah.net> ra...@cheetah.net (rare) writes:
>
>Blackman <blac...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Marisa Williams <ris...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>>
**stuff deleted
**
**HUMAN. Everything else is paranoia and ignorance. One day we will
**HAVE to learn because we will be shown...
**AUSAR (LORD OF THE PERFECT BLACK)
rare
rare
Blackman <blac...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Very impressive response to the question - what is the definition of
race Blackman. Seems as though there is no real definition of race
anymore. It is difficult to disect race into specific traits etc. We
may have to conclude that there is the human. The concept will then
embrace all the qualities that are characteristic of human -
intellect, will etc. Beyond those characteristics, there can be
distinctions made about cultural or ethnic groups.
The concept of racism is a political. This concept matters because it
forces us to take note of where the power structure lies. It then
becomes an issue of how power can be used to either construct or
destroy.
Another perspective.
rare
Blackman <blac...@earthlink.net> wrote:
While race is important, as Blackman has noted, it is difficult to
define. Human race can be deifined readily by identifying those
charactics that are distinguishable human: intellect, will, etc. It
is clearer to define humans according to ethnic and/or cultural
groups.
The real definition is racism. This is a political concept which has
to do with power. It is important because it forces us to examine who
has the power, and whether the power is being used to contruct or
destroy.