Sometimes it’s hard to imagine a time when society didn’t treat skin colour as if it were meaningful. But as Robert Baird points out, until a few centuries ago, it wouldn’t have occurred to most people to define themselves by this almost totally arbitrary quality: If you asked an Englishman in the early part of the 17th century what colour skin he had, he might very well have called it white. But the whiteness of his skin would have suggested no more suitable basis for a collective identity than the roundness of his nose or the baldness of his head.
The days of forms which had "Race (pick one)" used to irritate my daughters - "Which of my parents should I deny?" Now that question in places with a great deal of diversity like America have started to acknowledge multi-"racial" people. The one that now jumps out is "White, non-Hispanic". Why is that an important demographic?
It's questions like these that I hope will eventually break the fever. Our notions of race are so simplistic. As more of us have to ask questions like these, I hope more people will start to think clearly about what "race" even is.
Interestingly that thinking may return in the quest for reparations. I can't find the article again, but I saw an article about an in California effort to determine linage for eligibility. Will we see a return of "Mulatto, quadroon, octoroon and hexadecaroon"?
My daughter's recent interest in ancestry and DNA confirms that DNA does not divide equally in each generation. She was perplexed that one fractional trace in her mother's DNA didn't show up at all for her, rather than the 1/16 which even division would anticipate.
Next up, "family history". Senator Elizabeth Warren was ridiculed when DNA did not confirm her Native American ancestry. The thing is, DNA dilutes out and her family record keeping could have been correct. Rather than the "drop" fading from importance in people's minds, "I want money" might bring it back as something of potential value. A new controversy.
It just gets more confusing and irritating as it gets more complex, trying to "honor" people's heritage in a standardized form. I've taken to checking "other" when it's available as a sort of weak protest.
I choose "other" or "prefer not to answer" if they are offered. I try to feed as few demographic labels to the "beast" as I can. If for no other reason, to confuse algorithms.
I recall reading somewhere that many Hispanic immigrants tend to integrate/assimilate to the US very quickly and subsequent generations start identifying as white. This has the potential to mess up Census and/or EEO-1 reporting, since the legal category 'White' has historically just meant European- and Middle Eastern- or North African- Americans. So the qualifier was added to government surveys and it spread outwards from there.
A couple of censuses ago I didn't mail mine in. A man my age and a young lady appeared at my door inquiring. I said, "Two adult citizens live here. They sent the long form to me, and I threw it in the trash. How much is the fine, I'll get my checkbook?" The young lady seemed astonished; the man told me there was no fine and asked if I would answer the "important" underlined questions on the form the young lady poked in my direction. One of the important questions was, "Do you have indoor plumbing?" Now I was astonished. Unless you consider construction site porta-potties outhouses you would not find one within 50 miles. Governments are strange. I rate them one star and do not recommend.
"Governments are strange. I rate them one star and do not recommend."
"... except for all the others"
Please, never forget that the alternative to government, however obtrusive or whacky it may be, is control by despotic warlords. Or by corporations, which would be even worse.
I'm sure a lot of questions about sexual orientation would be answered hesitantly, and for a lot of good reasons; we all know what life would be like for gays and lesbians under the right-wing Christian sort of government the Boeberts of America are eager for. OTOH I'd wager that the gender identity questions would be answered with such eagerness and at such length that the questioners would end up fleeing.
I find them a refreshing alternative to much of the narrow, ideological thought and writing about race and related topics. If I knew a way to reach you directly, say on FB or Twitter, I'd write you there, but, alas, can't find another way other than this public forum.
Hi Greg, feel free to direct message me on Twitter. Once you’ve seen this message just delete your comment above so your email isn’t exposed to the internet😁
It is a fact that the word for the ancient Hindu caste system is *varna,* which literally means “color.” A four-tier social hierarchy placing light-skinned, northern Aryans (for whom the “Aryan race” was later named) at the top and dark-skinned, woolly-haired southern Dravidians at the bottom. Europe and America didn’t invent skin-color discrimination, though they certainly embraced it with enthusiasm.
"It is a fact that the word for the ancient Hindu caste system is *varna,* which literally means 'color.'"
Yes, the caste system is arguably the only other major example of this silliness. It's an interesting point of comparison. But it was also quite different to our concepts of "race" today.
"Varna," topically enough for modern conversations about race, meant class, tribe, type, *or* colour (https://www.shabdkosh.com/dictionary/hindi-english/वर्ण/वर्ण-meaning-in-english). To say that it simply means "colour" is to misrepresent the nuance in that concept. While we don't do so explicitly, many people subconsciously treat skin colour the same way today.
Just as colour was a proxy for "local"/"foreigner" in the example above, it was a proxy for class in the caste system. The people who worked in the sun all day obviously ended up with darker skin, and nobles lightened their skin and avoided exposing it to the sun to maintain their differentiation. It's similar to the way some cultures view being fat as a sign of high social status.
Also, the caste system as many know it today was an invention of British colonialism that mimicked the strictly enforced class systems of 19th Century England. Originally caste was built around tribalism and later social role. But it wasn't until after the British arrived in India that the modern conception of a "racial" caste system came about.
The British didn't invent skin colour discrimination per se, but they pretty much did invent "racial" discrimination. The article I linked by Robert Baird goes into the topic in detail.
That irony strikes me as maybe having a slightly optimistic aspect to it. It suggests that political tribalism is actually more fundamental than supposed ethnic/racial social divisions. Addressing and working through political differences might be more straightforward than reducing every social problem to identity based inequity.
Interesting links. The Meaningness discussion of pattern recognition makes an interesting juxtaposition to the Ronfeldt essay on social evolution. From the modern evolutionary perspective we reject the creationist/intelligent design explanation, only to replace it with a teleological view of evolution. As if evolution has humanity on a trajectory of “progress.” Pascal Boyer calls this anthropomorphizing the human condition:
“our evolved capacities and dispositions do explain the way we live in societies, and many important differences between times and places. But we cannot, and should not try to, demonstrate that in theoretical terms.”
“We should not expect the new scientific convergence I describe here to yield a general theory of human societies. But it can produce something vastly more useful and plausible, a series of clear explanations for the many different properties of human minds involved in building human societies.”
Boyer, Pascal. Minds Make Societies: How Cognition Explains the World Humans Create
The days of forms which had "Race (pick one)" used to irritate my daughters - "Which of my parents should I deny?" Now that question in places with a great deal of diversity like America have started to acknowledge multi-"racial" people. The one that now jumps out is "White, non-Hispanic". Why is that an important demographic?
"Which of my parents should I deny?"
It's questions like these that I hope will eventually break the fever. Our notions of race are so simplistic. As more of us have to ask questions like these, I hope more people will start to think clearly about what "race" even is.
Before the Emancipation Proclamation 1/16 black was black.
Interestingly that thinking may return in the quest for reparations. I can't find the article again, but I saw an article about an in California effort to determine linage for eligibility. Will we see a return of "Mulatto, quadroon, octoroon and hexadecaroon"?
My daughter's recent interest in ancestry and DNA confirms that DNA does not divide equally in each generation. She was perplexed that one fractional trace in her mother's DNA didn't show up at all for her, rather than the 1/16 which even division would anticipate.
Next up, "family history". Senator Elizabeth Warren was ridiculed when DNA did not confirm her Native American ancestry. The thing is, DNA dilutes out and her family record keeping could have been correct. Rather than the "drop" fading from importance in people's minds, "I want money" might bring it back as something of potential value. A new controversy.
It just gets more confusing and irritating as it gets more complex, trying to "honor" people's heritage in a standardized form. I've taken to checking "other" when it's available as a sort of weak protest.
I choose "other" or "prefer not to answer" if they are offered. I try to feed as few demographic labels to the "beast" as I can. If for no other reason, to confuse algorithms.
I recall reading somewhere that many Hispanic immigrants tend to integrate/assimilate to the US very quickly and subsequent generations start identifying as white. This has the potential to mess up Census and/or EEO-1 reporting, since the legal category 'White' has historically just meant European- and Middle Eastern- or North African- Americans. So the qualifier was added to government surveys and it spread outwards from there.
Some countries track ethnicity, some nationality, some a hybrid, but they just about all want to track something. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/ethnic-groups/
I wonder when they will track "racial" 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘆 since this has become a thing https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/household-pulse-survey-updates-sex-question-now-asks-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity.html I wonder how many people resist answering.
A couple of censuses ago I didn't mail mine in. A man my age and a young lady appeared at my door inquiring. I said, "Two adult citizens live here. They sent the long form to me, and I threw it in the trash. How much is the fine, I'll get my checkbook?" The young lady seemed astonished; the man told me there was no fine and asked if I would answer the "important" underlined questions on the form the young lady poked in my direction. One of the important questions was, "Do you have indoor plumbing?" Now I was astonished. Unless you consider construction site porta-potties outhouses you would not find one within 50 miles. Governments are strange. I rate them one star and do not recommend.
"Governments are strange. I rate them one star and do not recommend."
"... except for all the others"
Please, never forget that the alternative to government, however obtrusive or whacky it may be, is control by despotic warlords. Or by corporations, which would be even worse.
I'm sure a lot of questions about sexual orientation would be answered hesitantly, and for a lot of good reasons; we all know what life would be like for gays and lesbians under the right-wing Christian sort of government the Boeberts of America are eager for. OTOH I'd wager that the gender identity questions would be answered with such eagerness and at such length that the questioners would end up fleeing.
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your commentaries.
I find them a refreshing alternative to much of the narrow, ideological thought and writing about race and related topics. If I knew a way to reach you directly, say on FB or Twitter, I'd write you there, but, alas, can't find another way other than this public forum.
Here's an event that I'm co-organizing and co-facilitating that, based on reading your essays, will likely be of interest: https://www.eventcreate.com/e/resolvingracism.
Keep up the thoughtful work.
Greg
Hey Greg! Thanks for this. The event looks fascinating! You can find me on Twitter at @steevqj. I'm a terrible social media user though😅
Hi Greg, feel free to direct message me on Twitter. Once you’ve seen this message just delete your comment above so your email isn’t exposed to the internet😁
Will do! Thanks.
It is a fact that the word for the ancient Hindu caste system is *varna,* which literally means “color.” A four-tier social hierarchy placing light-skinned, northern Aryans (for whom the “Aryan race” was later named) at the top and dark-skinned, woolly-haired southern Dravidians at the bottom. Europe and America didn’t invent skin-color discrimination, though they certainly embraced it with enthusiasm.
"It is a fact that the word for the ancient Hindu caste system is *varna,* which literally means 'color.'"
Yes, the caste system is arguably the only other major example of this silliness. It's an interesting point of comparison. But it was also quite different to our concepts of "race" today.
"Varna," topically enough for modern conversations about race, meant class, tribe, type, *or* colour (https://www.shabdkosh.com/dictionary/hindi-english/वर्ण/वर्ण-meaning-in-english). To say that it simply means "colour" is to misrepresent the nuance in that concept. While we don't do so explicitly, many people subconsciously treat skin colour the same way today.
Just as colour was a proxy for "local"/"foreigner" in the example above, it was a proxy for class in the caste system. The people who worked in the sun all day obviously ended up with darker skin, and nobles lightened their skin and avoided exposing it to the sun to maintain their differentiation. It's similar to the way some cultures view being fat as a sign of high social status.
Also, the caste system as many know it today was an invention of British colonialism that mimicked the strictly enforced class systems of 19th Century England. Originally caste was built around tribalism and later social role. But it wasn't until after the British arrived in India that the modern conception of a "racial" caste system came about.
The British didn't invent skin colour discrimination per se, but they pretty much did invent "racial" discrimination. The article I linked by Robert Baird goes into the topic in detail.
That irony strikes me as maybe having a slightly optimistic aspect to it. It suggests that political tribalism is actually more fundamental than supposed ethnic/racial social divisions. Addressing and working through political differences might be more straightforward than reducing every social problem to identity based inequity.
Interesting links. The Meaningness discussion of pattern recognition makes an interesting juxtaposition to the Ronfeldt essay on social evolution. From the modern evolutionary perspective we reject the creationist/intelligent design explanation, only to replace it with a teleological view of evolution. As if evolution has humanity on a trajectory of “progress.” Pascal Boyer calls this anthropomorphizing the human condition:
“our evolved capacities and dispositions do explain the way we live in societies, and many important differences between times and places. But we cannot, and should not try to, demonstrate that in theoretical terms.”
“We should not expect the new scientific convergence I describe here to yield a general theory of human societies. But it can produce something vastly more useful and plausible, a series of clear explanations for the many different properties of human minds involved in building human societies.”
Boyer, Pascal. Minds Make Societies: How Cognition Explains the World Humans Create