Nooses alive and well

Racism alive and well indeed. Recently, since mid 2006, there have been a rash of nooses springing up all over the nation. Not lynchings per se, but the a noose hanging ready in an area frequented by the supposed black targets is a very powerful symbol of hate and oppression.

Frankly, I only read about these nooses recently and it boggles my mind that in the 21st century, this is still a problem. DiversityInc has a good noose wrap-up article and “Noose Watch,” complete with an interactive map of recent reports.

Ten Mistakes in Talking About Race

Heather Wood, reprinted in The Huffington Post, has a great article about the 10 Mistakes White People Make When Talking About Race. I would like to extend her list to include pretty much anyone talking about race, but unfortunately, whites tend to make the most mistakes here.

I like her number 1: Thinking It’s Not OK to Talk About It and her number 4. Thinking Race Is Only an Issue for Minorities the best.

James Watson, DNA decoder, is an idiot

James Watson, of the Watson-Crick fame, the folks known for discovery the double-helix structure of DNA, must have just joined a country club where the requirements dictate you must be white, old as dirt and racist.

I can’t believe I’m reading this, but he is quoted in the Sunday Times of London as saying Africans are genetically less intelligent than others. Watson’s apparent lack of interest in the genetic research that followed his receipt of the Nobel Prize in 1962 has cost him a lecture spot to promote his new book at the Science Museum of London.

Way to go James.

Hat-tip to RaceWire.

Colorlines tackles race science

Colorlines magazine has a great article on genetics, science and race called Genetic Drift by Ziba Kashef. Go read it now!

Not only is the article good in both accepting that biological sciences have disproved race but also drawing out those stalwarts who are still so certain of racial difference. I often do not see race policy publications tackle this tenuous subject and I applaud Colorlines for doing so. Here are a couple of my favorite bits:

On forensics use of racial markers:

Such racialized forensics presents multiple problems for people of color. It blurs the line between DNA tests that can definitively rule out suspects (as in the Innocence Project) and less certain analyses that “predict” or state the probability of a match. It gives scientific legitimacy to the widespread but still controversial notion that certain genetic differences, or markers, correlate precisely with geographic regions and modern racial categories. Further, it makes acceptable manhunts for “ancestry informative markers,” a euphemism for racial identifiers in genes despite the many pitfalls of old-fashioned racial profiling. Worse still, it creates a market for a growing list of genetic services that may, at best, be good guesses but not definitive.

On medical science’s recent trend in ignoring other environmental and biological factors:

[This] is illustrated by the controversial race drug BiDil. Developed to address the greater mortality from heart failure among African Americans, the drug has been met with both celebration and skepticism. While it is true that Blacks ages 45 to 64 are more than twice as likely to die from heart failure than whites, Duster points out that the disparity narrows after age 65. The disparity may have less to do with biology and race than other documented factors in heart disease, such as diet, stress and lifestyle. Evidence outside of the U.S. also undermines the rationale for a race-based approach to the condition. Citing the data of epidemiologist Richard S. Cooper, who compared hypertension rates worldwide, Duster explains, “Germany has the highest rate of hypertension, and Nigeria has the lowest rate. It doesn’t take a Ph.D. in epidemiology to figure out what might be the issue there. It can’t be race and genetics.”

A lot of the issues touched on in this article, I plan to expose at greater length in this blog. Namely, an explanation of what “race” markers are and how they are abused. And as an extension, an attack on those ancestry websites that collect your DNA and spit back at you a neat little pie chart of your racial make-up. Stay tuned…

Caucasian is a Dirty Word.

I read it on forms. I hear it conversation. And most annoying of all, people refer to me as such. I’m talking about the word Caucasian.

Sure we’re all trying to be PC when we invoke the formal racial title for a group of people we absolutely must designate. African American for blacks, Asian American for Asians, etc. But a history of struggle and racism called for such designators and more importantly, such designators as chosen by the people in question. It only follows that when making racial proclamations where you wish to include white folks, your brain will pause a moment to search for the nice formal self-designated word for whitey. Unfortunately, the word that comes up is Caucasian.

But where did that word come from and how did it rise to the lofty position of designated the white race as a whole? Some might be surprised to know, that like most racial designators, the history of the word Caucasian is racist, inaccurate and flawed. I’m writing this in order to bring light to this dirty word and hopefully work to remove it from our politically correct vocabulary.