A recent story in the New York Times about Merle Oberon, an actress who was nominated for an Oscar in 1936, promotes a version of biological racism that is more severe than the anti-Semitic Nazi Nuremberg Laws enacted in 1935.
Is sickle cell anemia a myth? Tay-Sachs? Lactose intolerance? To say different groups of humans have differences is not to claim the examples you cite, which are meant to support notions of one group being superior to another. Whether someone calls those differences races or ethnic groups is not the issue; it's discrimination. The science that supports that differences exist is not the problem; it's the sociology that claims one is superior to another. This denial of differences is also part of an effort to suppress the cultural pride that oppressed groups express as part of their claim to their identity, too often suppressed by those groups of European descent, or whites. You may claim that acknowledging differences between us are an intellectual gateway to justifying discrimination, but some of the oppressed claim your denial of those differences is a backhanded justification of what was done to the indigenous peoples of the western hemisphere in the suppression of their culture, to cite an obvious example of cultural suppression. As a white person I grasp that it is right for me to acknowledge that cultural suppression is part of the denial of the right to self identification, and it is best for me to not make judgments on how people define themselves. Instead we should leave that choice of how to identify to those who felt oppression from the denial of that choice.
But all Black people don't have sickle cell anemia. Nor do all Jewish women have Tay-Sachs? So what does that really tell us about biological differences? It certainly doesn't justify the existence of a biological race. We can protect cultural pride and celebrate differences without biology. All we need is to recognize ethnicity. thx for your comments.
Your citation is true, but avoids the point: There is a higher incidence of those diseases in those groups. My understanding is that sickle cell anemia is almost non existent in non-African peoples. Scientists understand that when large groups are studied and the pattern is consistent, there is an association that can be presumed. That is a basic part of epidemiology and statistical analysis. Medical authorities have declared the prevalence of those disease in those ethnic groups; absent something that indicates a bias driving their conclusions, it is reasonable to assume a biological difference between ethnic groups exists. You have taken the logic and reversed it, which is invalid. The point is not that all people of a group have this predisposition to a disease, which they don't. The point is that only the members of that group have that predisposition.
It's difficult to recognize cultural pride without biology. If I were to celebrate being black I would be regarded as unhinged, and rightly so. I've seen white hippies try to claim affinity with American Indians (to use the term AIM does), and it's insulting to those who actually are. I understand that membership in an indigenous nation is a complicated issue that goes beyond biology; but the principle stands, and it is for them to make the decisions about how they identify.
Les, I know you are attuned to the sensitivity of the issues involved here, even if we disagree about it. So I will recommend a book I'm reading: "1491". I expect you've heard of it or even read it. Near the end, under Appendix A, is a discussion of the issue of terminology that is instructive. It assumes the right of indigenous people to define themselves and discusses that honestly. I recommend it.
Thanks for your reply. You certainly do better than those in that other publication.
You act like there is no birth lotto or that white workers don't start way ahead of everyone else.
Are you a Bernie Bro who thought that Kamala was not smart enough for the working class.
Is sickle cell anemia a myth? Tay-Sachs? Lactose intolerance? To say different groups of humans have differences is not to claim the examples you cite, which are meant to support notions of one group being superior to another. Whether someone calls those differences races or ethnic groups is not the issue; it's discrimination. The science that supports that differences exist is not the problem; it's the sociology that claims one is superior to another. This denial of differences is also part of an effort to suppress the cultural pride that oppressed groups express as part of their claim to their identity, too often suppressed by those groups of European descent, or whites. You may claim that acknowledging differences between us are an intellectual gateway to justifying discrimination, but some of the oppressed claim your denial of those differences is a backhanded justification of what was done to the indigenous peoples of the western hemisphere in the suppression of their culture, to cite an obvious example of cultural suppression. As a white person I grasp that it is right for me to acknowledge that cultural suppression is part of the denial of the right to self identification, and it is best for me to not make judgments on how people define themselves. Instead we should leave that choice of how to identify to those who felt oppression from the denial of that choice.
Hi Peter,
But all Black people don't have sickle cell anemia. Nor do all Jewish women have Tay-Sachs? So what does that really tell us about biological differences? It certainly doesn't justify the existence of a biological race. We can protect cultural pride and celebrate differences without biology. All we need is to recognize ethnicity. thx for your comments.
Your citation is true, but avoids the point: There is a higher incidence of those diseases in those groups. My understanding is that sickle cell anemia is almost non existent in non-African peoples. Scientists understand that when large groups are studied and the pattern is consistent, there is an association that can be presumed. That is a basic part of epidemiology and statistical analysis. Medical authorities have declared the prevalence of those disease in those ethnic groups; absent something that indicates a bias driving their conclusions, it is reasonable to assume a biological difference between ethnic groups exists. You have taken the logic and reversed it, which is invalid. The point is not that all people of a group have this predisposition to a disease, which they don't. The point is that only the members of that group have that predisposition.
It's difficult to recognize cultural pride without biology. If I were to celebrate being black I would be regarded as unhinged, and rightly so. I've seen white hippies try to claim affinity with American Indians (to use the term AIM does), and it's insulting to those who actually are. I understand that membership in an indigenous nation is a complicated issue that goes beyond biology; but the principle stands, and it is for them to make the decisions about how they identify.
Les, I know you are attuned to the sensitivity of the issues involved here, even if we disagree about it. So I will recommend a book I'm reading: "1491". I expect you've heard of it or even read it. Near the end, under Appendix A, is a discussion of the issue of terminology that is instructive. It assumes the right of indigenous people to define themselves and discusses that honestly. I recommend it.
Thanks for your reply. You certainly do better than those in that other publication.
Excellent and helpful!
good points!