"It doesn't matter what you call it, there are differences between us"
Of course! But there are *lots* of differences between us. Again, no serious person is pretending there are no differences based on geographical ancestry. I'm certainly not. My issue is, and always has been, that too many people think that skin colour is some kind of s…
"It doesn't matter what you call it, there are differences between us"
Of course! But there are *lots* of differences between us. Again, no serious person is pretending there are no differences based on geographical ancestry. I'm certainly not. My issue is, and always has been, that too many people think that skin colour is some kind of special, unique and defining difference.
Also, I don't understand why you describe the traits you identified as limitations. They're just inherited traits, no? What's limiting about them? Many black people don't have broad noses. Look at a typical Somali or Ethiopian nose. Some white people have huge noses. Look at some Geek or Italian noses. Again, geographical ancestry. Not "race." I think people get so fixated on skin colour sometimes that they don't actually look at people's faces. There's huge diversity in how black or Asian or European faces look.
UV protection is literally the only reliable trait all black people have in common.
p.s. Chinese people produce Chinese babies in the same way that German people produce German babies. That's a nationality issue, not a genetic one, right? If a white Belgian and a white Australian have a baby in Australia, that child isn't Belgian.
They're 'limitations' in the sense that one skin colour is good for facilitating Vitamin D, which means the darker-skinned folks might have to take supplements, and the lighter-skinned folks have to use more sunscreen since white skin isn't conducive to skin cancer prevention. They're minor inconveniences. They don't limit who we are as human beings, or our value, just certain things we can and can't do, because of biology. It's just more dramatic when you compare male to female, because men clearly are much stronger and historically far more of a threat to women (and also other men).
Noses evolved to suit the environment, as did eyes & other features. It only makes you 'better' at living in that environment. Look, dude, I put on sunscreen when I go to the beach because I'd be an idiot not to. Have you ever had your D levels checked? From what I found the other day when I got to wondering, "Are black people at risk for Vitamin D deficiency?" it was yes, although I couldn't be arsed to find out if that meant you got anemic, or grew a second head out of your shoulder, or what.
Why is it such a big deal to accept that there are certain differences between people with The Element Formerly Known As Race Before It Became A Political Clusterfuck? Call it whatever you like, it's evolutionary differences that exist between people and they're clearly an obsession for some and engage Sudden Visual Blindness in others. "What? What? the guy in the red shirt! The guy with the poufy hair! The guy in the red shirt and the poufy hair! That guy there! By the water fountain! That's the guy who can help you!"
'Race' differences are clearly a thing, one side wants to talk about them and the other side doesn't...and I say, why not just acknowledge it and move on. Why argue about whether 'race' is a social construct or not when in fact what we call 'race' is surficial differences that will only stop being a big deal when we stop making it a big deal. But let's not pretend those differences aren't there because they clearly are. Maybe we'd all care more if Josh Hawley tried to join the Nation of Islam and Kanye West tried to join the Klan. (Well, they'd find common ground on Jews anyway, I guess.)
Pretending 'race' doesn't exist strikes me as bizarre as claiming 'sex' doesn't exist or isn't real.
There's nothing wrong with saying "the black guy." I've never even hinted at the idea that there is. Black, in this case, is a descriptor. Like 'tall" or "blond." I'm not being touchy about being called black.
We've had this same conversation numerous times over the months, and I'm not sure how to be any clearer. I don't deny that there are differences between black people and white people. I never have. My point is that there are also differences between black people and black people. And between white people and white people.
My issue with the race is nothing to do with the politics, it's not the word, it's that the entire concept is simplistic and reductive. Or better yet, flat out wrong and scientifically debunked.
When people talk about race, generally speaking (maybe you're not doing this and we're talking past each other), they mean White, Black, Asian, Native American and what? Maybe South East Asian?
My point is that there is no meaningful sense in which white people are a "race." There is huge diversity across the different ancestries of white people. Same for black people. Same for Asians. Are you the same "race" as somebody from Iceland just because you both have white skin? I don't think the makes any sense.
The point you make about the nation of Islam and the KKK is salient. The reason Kanye and Josh would have a hard time joining these groups is that they're both *virulently racist groups*! They too believe, incorrectly, that race is meaningful concept. I don't think we can use them as support for the idea.
And as for sex vs race, I already explained why they're different. When a man and a woman have a baby, it will be immediately obvious that it's a boy or a girl 99.98% of the time. Not a mixture, one or the other. The only exception is when something goes wrong.
If people of two "races" have a baby (and as I think we've agreed, there's no such thing as a racial pure person anyway), their baby will be a mixture of these two races 100% of the time. No exceptions. It's immediately impossible (and simplistic) to racially categorise that child as simply one or the other.
I guess some would argue that the baby is a new hybrid race? Which I think would be silly. But even here, how many races are there then? Is this making sense? I really don't understand how I'm not being clear. Race is nothing like sex.
"I guess some would argue that the baby is a new hybrid race?"
Interestingly, to those who make such distinctions, my daughters would be Eurasian (a mixture of European and Asian stock). In Saudi Arabia a Saudi man asked me if my daughters were Saudi, thinking that I was their martial arts teacher rather that their father. They were 2nd Poom in Taekwondo with a box full of medals and popular in the expat martial arts tournament community. I sometimes taught rich kids, including little Prince Turky at the Ritz Carlton in Al Khobar.
Of course, due to politics and the shame of the children GIs left behind there was another name, Amerasian. I hated that word. I suppose Chris could say a bit about those children's fate. I only heard stories perhaps not reliable.
I get why you don't like differentiating between people, but it sort of sounds a little like the folks who deny sex is real. What's important is not that we come in a lot of colours that are sure, yeah, really mixed but you look black and i look white and Dave's wife looks Asian. Isn't that interesting, but not a good argument for enslaving, bombing, or genociding anyone. I say the differences are there and you can call it race or not, but the diffs are there, the groups are there, and why is it such a clusterfuck to find the language for that?
I mean yeah, we can talk about the diversity within what we 'look' like - hey, let's have a 23andMe Reveal Party where we all get together, open our envelopes and reveal our genetic ancestry for the first time. We'll have some laughs, esp about what we 'think' we are or what we 'think' others look like, and then we'll go home and watch Netflix. The diffs are visual, and all I'm arguing for is saying that we're going to classify people in groups (just like we classify birds as flying, swimming, flying/swimming, strictly land/useless wings, etc. Ostriches aren't 'better' than songbirds, they're both different but but they're still birds. It's what we *do*. We sort stuff, critters and people. 'Race' differences aren't as obvious as sex differences but they're still there and we can talk about 'race' stuff, but we can't call it anything? How about 'The Concept Formerly Known As Race'?
"I get why you don't like differentiating between people"
This is so crazy!! 😅 My whole point is that we *need* to differentiate between people more precisely. And that race does a horrible job of this. I must be doing a horrible job of explaining myself and I'm not sure why.
I'm saying that calling everybody with black skin or white skin or whatever skin a particular "race" is the failure to differentiate. It's like saying that everybody with blond or brown hair is the same race. No! They're not! It would be incredibly simplistic to claim this.
I have ancestry form Sierra Leone. If you lumped me in with all other Sierra Leoninans, I'd understand where you were coming from. It still wouldn't quite be accurate, but much more sensibly differentiated than simply saying, "oh, his skin is black, so we can just lump him in with every other human being on the entire continent of Africa and anywhere in the Caribbean and the Aboriginies in Australia."
Again, I have no issue with the notion of differences Of course there are differences. But "race" is far too blunt a concept to understand these differences.
Speaking of 23andMe, I just shared this link with Chris. Maybe it will do a better job of explaining than I have.😅
Thanks for the article, good one. I've saved it for future reference. I understand why scientists think 'race' is just a social construct and it surely is; when I was a little kid we didn't even come from 'five' different races; it was down to three: Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid (that last was particularly contentious as mentally retarded people were sometimes called 'mongoloids' due to having slanted eyes similar to Asians).
So yes, we know all about how genetically diverse we are, but then how do you want to refer to the problems we have in America and elsewhere? Because 'black' and 'white' in America really mean more than just what you look like; they come with a lot of cultural baggage too, about slave legacy and responsibility, experiences, worries, concerns. My black friend a few years ago used to worry about taking out the garbage while black when some poor schmuck somewhere in America got shot by police for doing exactly that.
What language do *you* propose we use to distinguish between the surficial differences that are oh-so-important in identity-infested America?
As to what to call "the concept formerly know as race" other than "wrong" or "simplistic" I'm not really sure. It's not easy being a race writer and knowing that the concept of race is completely wrong.😄
It's such a commonly understood term that I just say "race" usually with scare quotes. But whenever possible, I avoid it. I talk about skin colour because really, that's what people usually mean when they mention it.
Then maybe it's time to start thinking about a better way of referring to it. Because the problem associated with skin differences isn't going away soon, and we *do* discriminate between (not necessarily against, although we can do that too) based on what we look like. "Look for Steve, he's the black guy with the Mets cap on." "Nicole's a white woman with blonde hair."
'Color' maybe? Since that's what it really comes down to. Black, white, brown, olive?
I've sometimes jokingly referred to 'flavours'...chocolate, vanilla, caramel, and teriyaki (can't think of a good sweet colour for Asians...open to suggestions :) )
That continuum from poles to equator directly reflects equilibria established by the balance between promoting ergosterol to vitamin D and insulation from melanoma.
Slightly tangential. Years ago, my melanated wife who could tolerate the sun laughed when I got a sunburn and "peeled like a snake." A strange thing to her. Now, with age and less collagen in her skin (thinning skin comes with age) she wears long sleeves and a brimmed hat in the Arizona sun. She can burn now. Has little to do with adaptive racial traits except that they give tendencies rather than gold plated imperviousness.
About ten years ago I went to the Pride Parade with a very black-skinned friend and I offered him some of my sunscreen, which he refused. And I said, "Doctors think *everyone* should be wearing it now, even black people, even really black black people, they're not 100% impervious to skin cancer either." He refused. It was a bright, hot day that day. I do wish they'd come up with sunscreen that doesn't make you feel dirty while it's on.
"It doesn't matter what you call it, there are differences between us"
Of course! But there are *lots* of differences between us. Again, no serious person is pretending there are no differences based on geographical ancestry. I'm certainly not. My issue is, and always has been, that too many people think that skin colour is some kind of special, unique and defining difference.
Also, I don't understand why you describe the traits you identified as limitations. They're just inherited traits, no? What's limiting about them? Many black people don't have broad noses. Look at a typical Somali or Ethiopian nose. Some white people have huge noses. Look at some Geek or Italian noses. Again, geographical ancestry. Not "race." I think people get so fixated on skin colour sometimes that they don't actually look at people's faces. There's huge diversity in how black or Asian or European faces look.
UV protection is literally the only reliable trait all black people have in common.
p.s. Chinese people produce Chinese babies in the same way that German people produce German babies. That's a nationality issue, not a genetic one, right? If a white Belgian and a white Australian have a baby in Australia, that child isn't Belgian.
I think you're a little fixated on race.
They're 'limitations' in the sense that one skin colour is good for facilitating Vitamin D, which means the darker-skinned folks might have to take supplements, and the lighter-skinned folks have to use more sunscreen since white skin isn't conducive to skin cancer prevention. They're minor inconveniences. They don't limit who we are as human beings, or our value, just certain things we can and can't do, because of biology. It's just more dramatic when you compare male to female, because men clearly are much stronger and historically far more of a threat to women (and also other men).
Noses evolved to suit the environment, as did eyes & other features. It only makes you 'better' at living in that environment. Look, dude, I put on sunscreen when I go to the beach because I'd be an idiot not to. Have you ever had your D levels checked? From what I found the other day when I got to wondering, "Are black people at risk for Vitamin D deficiency?" it was yes, although I couldn't be arsed to find out if that meant you got anemic, or grew a second head out of your shoulder, or what.
Why is it such a big deal to accept that there are certain differences between people with The Element Formerly Known As Race Before It Became A Political Clusterfuck? Call it whatever you like, it's evolutionary differences that exist between people and they're clearly an obsession for some and engage Sudden Visual Blindness in others. "What? What? the guy in the red shirt! The guy with the poufy hair! The guy in the red shirt and the poufy hair! That guy there! By the water fountain! That's the guy who can help you!"
"You mean the BLACK GUY?"
<muttering> "Well...uh.............................yeah."
'Race' differences are clearly a thing, one side wants to talk about them and the other side doesn't...and I say, why not just acknowledge it and move on. Why argue about whether 'race' is a social construct or not when in fact what we call 'race' is surficial differences that will only stop being a big deal when we stop making it a big deal. But let's not pretend those differences aren't there because they clearly are. Maybe we'd all care more if Josh Hawley tried to join the Nation of Islam and Kanye West tried to join the Klan. (Well, they'd find common ground on Jews anyway, I guess.)
Pretending 'race' doesn't exist strikes me as bizarre as claiming 'sex' doesn't exist or isn't real.
"I think you're a little fixated on race."
You think *I'm* fixated on race?😅
There's nothing wrong with saying "the black guy." I've never even hinted at the idea that there is. Black, in this case, is a descriptor. Like 'tall" or "blond." I'm not being touchy about being called black.
We've had this same conversation numerous times over the months, and I'm not sure how to be any clearer. I don't deny that there are differences between black people and white people. I never have. My point is that there are also differences between black people and black people. And between white people and white people.
My issue with the race is nothing to do with the politics, it's not the word, it's that the entire concept is simplistic and reductive. Or better yet, flat out wrong and scientifically debunked.
When people talk about race, generally speaking (maybe you're not doing this and we're talking past each other), they mean White, Black, Asian, Native American and what? Maybe South East Asian?
My point is that there is no meaningful sense in which white people are a "race." There is huge diversity across the different ancestries of white people. Same for black people. Same for Asians. Are you the same "race" as somebody from Iceland just because you both have white skin? I don't think the makes any sense.
The point you make about the nation of Islam and the KKK is salient. The reason Kanye and Josh would have a hard time joining these groups is that they're both *virulently racist groups*! They too believe, incorrectly, that race is meaningful concept. I don't think we can use them as support for the idea.
And as for sex vs race, I already explained why they're different. When a man and a woman have a baby, it will be immediately obvious that it's a boy or a girl 99.98% of the time. Not a mixture, one or the other. The only exception is when something goes wrong.
If people of two "races" have a baby (and as I think we've agreed, there's no such thing as a racial pure person anyway), their baby will be a mixture of these two races 100% of the time. No exceptions. It's immediately impossible (and simplistic) to racially categorise that child as simply one or the other.
I guess some would argue that the baby is a new hybrid race? Which I think would be silly. But even here, how many races are there then? Is this making sense? I really don't understand how I'm not being clear. Race is nothing like sex.
"I guess some would argue that the baby is a new hybrid race?"
Interestingly, to those who make such distinctions, my daughters would be Eurasian (a mixture of European and Asian stock). In Saudi Arabia a Saudi man asked me if my daughters were Saudi, thinking that I was their martial arts teacher rather that their father. They were 2nd Poom in Taekwondo with a box full of medals and popular in the expat martial arts tournament community. I sometimes taught rich kids, including little Prince Turky at the Ritz Carlton in Al Khobar.
Of course, due to politics and the shame of the children GIs left behind there was another name, Amerasian. I hated that word. I suppose Chris could say a bit about those children's fate. I only heard stories perhaps not reliable.
Now that I think about it, I'm actually beginning to think a 23andMe party is actually a cool idea....
I get why you don't like differentiating between people, but it sort of sounds a little like the folks who deny sex is real. What's important is not that we come in a lot of colours that are sure, yeah, really mixed but you look black and i look white and Dave's wife looks Asian. Isn't that interesting, but not a good argument for enslaving, bombing, or genociding anyone. I say the differences are there and you can call it race or not, but the diffs are there, the groups are there, and why is it such a clusterfuck to find the language for that?
I mean yeah, we can talk about the diversity within what we 'look' like - hey, let's have a 23andMe Reveal Party where we all get together, open our envelopes and reveal our genetic ancestry for the first time. We'll have some laughs, esp about what we 'think' we are or what we 'think' others look like, and then we'll go home and watch Netflix. The diffs are visual, and all I'm arguing for is saying that we're going to classify people in groups (just like we classify birds as flying, swimming, flying/swimming, strictly land/useless wings, etc. Ostriches aren't 'better' than songbirds, they're both different but but they're still birds. It's what we *do*. We sort stuff, critters and people. 'Race' differences aren't as obvious as sex differences but they're still there and we can talk about 'race' stuff, but we can't call it anything? How about 'The Concept Formerly Known As Race'?
"I get why you don't like differentiating between people"
This is so crazy!! 😅 My whole point is that we *need* to differentiate between people more precisely. And that race does a horrible job of this. I must be doing a horrible job of explaining myself and I'm not sure why.
I'm saying that calling everybody with black skin or white skin or whatever skin a particular "race" is the failure to differentiate. It's like saying that everybody with blond or brown hair is the same race. No! They're not! It would be incredibly simplistic to claim this.
I have ancestry form Sierra Leone. If you lumped me in with all other Sierra Leoninans, I'd understand where you were coming from. It still wouldn't quite be accurate, but much more sensibly differentiated than simply saying, "oh, his skin is black, so we can just lump him in with every other human being on the entire continent of Africa and anywhere in the Caribbean and the Aboriginies in Australia."
Again, I have no issue with the notion of differences Of course there are differences. But "race" is far too blunt a concept to understand these differences.
Speaking of 23andMe, I just shared this link with Chris. Maybe it will do a better job of explaining than I have.😅
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
Thanks for the article, good one. I've saved it for future reference. I understand why scientists think 'race' is just a social construct and it surely is; when I was a little kid we didn't even come from 'five' different races; it was down to three: Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid (that last was particularly contentious as mentally retarded people were sometimes called 'mongoloids' due to having slanted eyes similar to Asians).
So yes, we know all about how genetically diverse we are, but then how do you want to refer to the problems we have in America and elsewhere? Because 'black' and 'white' in America really mean more than just what you look like; they come with a lot of cultural baggage too, about slave legacy and responsibility, experiences, worries, concerns. My black friend a few years ago used to worry about taking out the garbage while black when some poor schmuck somewhere in America got shot by police for doing exactly that.
What language do *you* propose we use to distinguish between the surficial differences that are oh-so-important in identity-infested America?
"The Concept Formerly Known As Race"
As to what to call "the concept formerly know as race" other than "wrong" or "simplistic" I'm not really sure. It's not easy being a race writer and knowing that the concept of race is completely wrong.😄
It's such a commonly understood term that I just say "race" usually with scare quotes. But whenever possible, I avoid it. I talk about skin colour because really, that's what people usually mean when they mention it.
Then maybe it's time to start thinking about a better way of referring to it. Because the problem associated with skin differences isn't going away soon, and we *do* discriminate between (not necessarily against, although we can do that too) based on what we look like. "Look for Steve, he's the black guy with the Mets cap on." "Nicole's a white woman with blonde hair."
'Color' maybe? Since that's what it really comes down to. Black, white, brown, olive?
I've sometimes jokingly referred to 'flavours'...chocolate, vanilla, caramel, and teriyaki (can't think of a good sweet colour for Asians...open to suggestions :) )
That continuum from poles to equator directly reflects equilibria established by the balance between promoting ergosterol to vitamin D and insulation from melanoma.
Slightly tangential. Years ago, my melanated wife who could tolerate the sun laughed when I got a sunburn and "peeled like a snake." A strange thing to her. Now, with age and less collagen in her skin (thinning skin comes with age) she wears long sleeves and a brimmed hat in the Arizona sun. She can burn now. Has little to do with adaptive racial traits except that they give tendencies rather than gold plated imperviousness.
Yeah, i think the moral of the story is we're all dumbasses when we're young and immortal :) Actually, *everyone* is encouraged to use sunscreen now, regardless of how dark your skin is, because *everyone* is susceptible to the effects of the sun: https://www.winchesterhospital.org/health-library/article?id=157004#:~:text=Health%20experts%20advise%20everyone%2C%20regardless,spots%20and%20wrinkles%E2%80%94and%20cancer%20.
About ten years ago I went to the Pride Parade with a very black-skinned friend and I offered him some of my sunscreen, which he refused. And I said, "Doctors think *everyone* should be wearing it now, even black people, even really black black people, they're not 100% impervious to skin cancer either." He refused. It was a bright, hot day that day. I do wish they'd come up with sunscreen that doesn't make you feel dirty while it's on.