[PEN-L:3921] Re: Papa Doc and the Social ConstructionofRace

[Peter Dorman <dormanp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, it looks as though we have converged with at most small
differences in nuance.  The only clarification I want to add is that my
comment about racism as an "instinct" could be translated as "calling
something an instinct is just attaching a name to an assumption; it is
not really an explanation of anything."  I agree that a second line of
defense for racism is the claim that racial antagonism is natural or
instinctual and we must therefore adapt to it.  The existence of people
who fight racism basically blows that out of the water.

Peter Dorman

Charles Brown wrote:
>
> This is alright. I didn't take time to write out the anti-racist biological assertion that in looking at the "totality" of phenotypes and genotypes of the pseudobiological racial categories of based on skin color etc., there are greater ranges of differences within the socalled races than between them. Skin color, hair texture, facial features are not correlated with other physical characteristics either. I think this is your point below. No wait, your point is that they are not correlated with each other. I agree.
>
>  But the most pernicious history of biological racism has been to falsely correlate skin color with something like "virtue" or "intelligence" which has important social implications. In other words, I don't think the layers you distinguish are at all equal in their perniciousness.
>
>  Of course , skin color has also been stereotypically correlated with more specific behaviors like sex or dancing ("natural rhythm"). And futher, the correlation of "inferior" racial traits with ambiguously positive characteristics is another tricky wrinkle in this discussion. (Blacks alleged as superior athletes). When we consider that American slavemasters had the power and motivation to breed the physically strongest  Black slaves to get the most wealth,  this may not be a mystery or a racism in reverse, rather a residue of a specific historical circumstance. Maybe.
>
> Interjections below.
>
> >>> Peter Dorman <dormanp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 02/25/99 09:28AM >>>
> Charles, perhaps we can lower the heat a bit.  I may have misread your
> earlier post.  When you referred to the "modern concept of race" I
> thought it was something you endorsed.  I'm happy to find out it's not.
> Certainly "biology" in the "modern" period is pretty clear about the
> vacuousness of racism.  Unfortunately, as you say, millions of people
> are walking around with BS ideas about race that have been handed down
> from earlier generations of racist natural and social science.
>
> I would still insist, however, that there are layers to racism.  On one
> level are the judgments that some "races" are better or worse than
> others.  At a deeper level is the notion that such judgments can even be
> made in the first place--which they can't.  I believe there is a value
> to going beyond the surface level and rooting out the mythologies that
> make racist thinking possible in the first place.  I still feel I
> haven't communicated this, so let me try again.  You write:
>
> "You will not be able to fully fight racism if you do not understand
> that racist biology uses partially true hereditarily caused physical
> characteristics BUT MAKES A FALSE CORRELATION BETWEEN THOSE AND OTHER
> BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS. In other words, the error of racism is not
> that skin color, hair texture and facial features are not in part
> genetically  determined. The ERROR is to try to correlate these
> characteristics with somekind of genetic determination of general
> behaviors such as "intelligence", humanness!"
>
> Of course, skin color et al. are to a considerable extent inherited.
> But "race" in its common usage is based on the supposition that the
> human community can be divided into a few major groups, each of which
> shares a number of these characteristics.  Thus race X has this sort of
> skin color, this sort of hair, these facial features, this type of
> build, etc.  This is equivalent to saying that, within such a group,
> there is a far greater correlation of these characteristics than you
> would find between "races".  All of this is prior to any argument about
> behavior, better or worse, etc.  And, as I'm trying to convey, it is all
> myth.  The initial error is in thinking that there are racial groups
> that can be correlated with behaviors, not that such correlations
> exist.
> _________
>
> Charles: Your last two sentences are a little confusing. First you say "this is prior to any argument about behavior". Then you say " the initial error is in thinking that there are racial groups that can be correlated with behaviors. " But I thought you were going to point out an initial error that was prior to any argument about behavior.
>
> Maybe you are saying that skin color, hair texture and facial features are not caused by the same set of genes , so even these physical ,non-behavior correlates or complexes are false generalizations. East Indians have dark skin but straight hair. So, skin color and hair texture are not necessarily genetically linked. Your demolition of racist theory at that level is fine by me.
> But the most pernicious historical dimension of modern ( since Europeans started conquering the whole globe; as opposed to the races of the ancient Roman world , for example) racism is the link between physical characteristics ( really most especially and specifically SKIN COLOR) and humanness or subhumanness or some major total being category like that. It is Europeans who designated themselves as "WHITE" vs "COLOREDS" , making skin color the main emblem of "race".
>
> ____________
>
> If a, b, and c are not correlated with one another, you can't
> even ask whether some composite ("race") of them is correlated with x,
> y, or z.  (Note: racist authors like the Bell Curve crowd don't argue
> that skin color, hair texture, or some other physical feature is
> correlated with intelligence, but that "race" is.  Even before they have
> abused their data, their very use of race in this context reveals their
> racist mode of thought.)
> __________
>
> Charles: Yes, the demolition of the a, b, c correlation is alright, but just one of the three (skin color) correlated with 1 through 1000 as a total being complex is pernicious. So the demolition of correlation at the next level is more important.
>
> Exactly, my question to the Bell Curve authors is how are they choosing who goes in what group ? How do they decide who is white and who is black, what is their criteria ? This is a true question. Do they go by self-designation ?  Do they have phenotypical test ? a genotypical test ? Their argument can be defeated right at this point.
>
> __________
>
> I apologize for using the term "racism" in conjunction with your name--a
> very bad move on my part.  Nevertheless, I think you are still
> formulating the critique of racism in a way that remains problematic.
> _________
>
> Charles: Apology accepted. My geno and phenotypes are not evident over e-mail.
>
> You have my whole argument now. I don't think it is problematic. First because I have been thinking about it for a long time. Secondly, because I just thought it through again based on your criticism. Remember my initial argument was why race is socially constructed and not a correct biological category, exactly your position. The part that stuck in your craw was that I said skin color etc. are hereditary in part. I did say skin color, hair texture and facial features because those were the historical pseudobiological main three; but note , I never said they were truly genetically linked themselves to each other (a, b and c).
>
> In the end, it is good that you are militant and a stickler to demolish "race" at every level. However, it is important to say that skin color is genetically determined in part, because that is true and fairly obvious, so if you don't say that, someone might use it to confound or confuse your argument against their racism. Secondly, the linking skin color, hair texture and
> facial features is truly benign. If that was all that was done without any link to socially meaningful behaviors or total beings, there would be no special problem. In other words, linking a, b and c by itself is not the problem. It is linking even just "a" to 1,2,3.....that is the problem. If the Europeans had arrived in Africa and said, "Look, they all have dark skin and curly hair. But they are our brothers and sisters, our total equals" and then treated Africans with love and respect, the error of linking skin color and hair texture would truly be benign.
>
> ____________
>
> As for the question of whether racism is instinctual, I don't know how
> one would test this.  It is extremely widespread but fortunately not
> universal.  As with most of us on pen-l, I would embrace some sort of
> explanation of the nature and extent of racism that includes both
> cultural history and ideology (the role of material interests).  I don't
> know where you found any other position in my earlier writing, but in
> any event I'm happy to clarify this.
> __________
>
> Charles: You didn't oppose this position, but you didn't address it. Racists maintain that it is NATURAL for people to want to be with their own race. Of course, real racists are mulivariate confused and wrong, even more than the hypothetical racist thinking we have been discussing in this exchange. So, what they mean by "natural" is not identical with a scientific biological concept of instinct. Many racists are probably "creationists" , and don't even believe in scientific biology. Nonetheless, as you do have a high level of anti-racist consciousness, you might want to think about this dimension, because it is part of the reality of actually existing racists' consciousness. You might say this aspect logically falls based on your critique of "race" period. But the real world struggle against racism is not always that logical.
>
> Think of it this way. One could think , falsely, that there are different races in some sense, but not think that they shouldn't live together.  Many hardcore racists think segregation of races derives directly from their concept of race.
>
> It might be tested, by the way, by "whites" who live in a "black" household from birth, or the reverse. The trouble is the social causes of racism are widespread.
>
> Regards,
>
> Charles Brown