The Herald Sun’s most recent venture into colonialist race theory
An Aborigine with skin paler than Andrew Bolt would seem to prefer, has won a court battle following his abduction by the state. I’m not going to comment on the merits of the trial, rather Bolt’s response. In particular his ongoing efforts to deny the identity of Aborigines on the basis that they don’t match his presupposed notion of what it is to be Aboriginal.
Before delving into that though, we need to have a reasoned discussion about what race actually is.
Race isn’t a biological concept. It’s cultural in nature. The idea of race as a taxon was only ever at best a dubious presupposed truism adopted from philosophical prejudices such as integralism which saw characteristics as arising from a person’s origin.
Integralism in various forms has informed various texts from fiction to prescriptive non-fiction. It is blatantly obvious in the case of the Orcs in Tolkien’s Lord of The Rings and it formed a good part of the basis of the NAZI doctrine of “Blut und Boden” (Blood and Soil).
“The Genetic Fallacy” is the specific fallacy that is enacted by this philosophical prejudice; wrongly ascribing a trait as somehow determined by origins. Race being determined by genetics is no exception.
The human genome project has found that the human race is very much genetically homogeneous. Statistically, the level of difference between the variation in the genes of a Japanese and a Caucasian and the variation in the genes of a Japanese and a Japanese, is insignificant (a fact discussed brilliantly in the documentary ‘Race: The Power of an Illusion’). There are a few (and I mean few) genes that correlate with ethnicity, but these few genes are insufficient in determining all of the characteristics we ascribe to race and more to the point, not everyone ascribes the same alleles/loci to races.
Using genes for skin pigment as a determinant for race is from a biological standpoint, manifestly stupid. It’s no less absurd biologically speaking than saying that the Royal Family is half-British because it has a recessive gene for hemophilia floating around amongst its number. There is no sound biological reason to make this distinction. The distinction is cultural by way of cultures putting an emphasis on whatever particular allele/locus (if any) that they chose.
Albanians are a good example of the differing emphasis cultures place on alleles/loci. While some colonial Europeans fixate on skin colour, it’s not something that can easily (if at all) rob an Albanian of their ethnicity. There are a range of alleles for skin colour in the Albanian population and none of them more or less important than the others in determining status as an Albanian. It’s not for the English, French or Dutch (nor for that matter invading NAZIs) to tell Albanians what makes an Albanian by pointing to their skin colour.
Now as for Aboriginal Australia, I’m told by a reliable source that up north there are people in some communities where an emphasis on the loci for skin colour does influence opinion on racial identity. That’s their call (even if from a biological perspective I find the notion absurd). Being lucky enough to have had the benefit of reliable, informed Ngarrindjerri opinion (and from a Ngarrindjerri man most amenable to answering hard questions) on this very topic, I can tell you with some confidence that skin colour is no real biggy for them.
Being Ngarrindjerri has a whole host of defining factors (of which I’m not nearly qualified to list exhaustively) but what I am quite reasonably sure of is that skin colour doesn’t really rate in the minds of many. Again, their prerogative.
Put yourself in someone else’s shoes. Someone from a different ethnic/racial background decides to waltz on in and without even showing the most basic understanding of what it is to be of your ethnicity/race, suddenly starts pontificating about what it is to be of your people by making reference to criteria that are entirely irrelevant.
So it was a while back when Andrew Bolt whinged about pale skinned protesters in Melbournian parklands. There are all sorts of criticisms that could have been made about the protesters. But did Andrew ever establish that his genetic purity criteria was at all relevant to their claim to Aboriginality? Nope. He just asserted it.
With an audience predominantly made up of spiteful and uncritical fans, Andrew’s repetition of popular and invidious fallacies goes down a treat. Andrew only has to pretend to understand what he’s talking about, not actually understand which on so many occasions he has adequately demonstrated that he doesn’t.
Take his latest adventure into racial purity.
“Bruce Trevorrow, a part-Aboriginal…” (my emphasis).
(Andrew Bolt, 2007)
Part Aboriginal? Part? From a biological viewpoint, this is plain stupid but we aren’t just talking about biology, we are talking about race. So let’s talk about race!
Where in his vexatious little smear does Andrew establish the validity of the Mendelian race-pseudo-science criterion he’s using this time? Again he doesn’t.
Where does Andrew, in his attempt to take away half of Bruce Trevorrow’s Aboriginal identity, identify the missing parts of Trevorrow’s Aboriginality? He doesn’t and he doesn’t because he can’t. In order to identify these supposedly missing bits of Bruce Trevorrow’s identity, Andrew would have to know what makes up Ngarrindjerri Aboriginality in the first place.
Andrew doesn’t know a damn thing about what it is to be Ngarrindjerri. He’s just repeating junk from a well-past-its-use-by-date European fairy tale about racial purity that appeals to his own particular tribal prejudices and the worst nature in his readership.
Knowing how well Andrew plays to the memes in circulation amongst his mostly sociopathic audience, Andrew is probably playing the “genes from parents” (especially the loci for skin colour) meme again. I say this based on his past form using said meme and his past form for repeating himself like a broken record.
Heck, this time he even has a picture of Bruce Trevorrow (conspicuous given that none of the other individuals written about on the front of his page at the time of writing get a photo) conveniently showing his audience how his skin is paler than the European stereotype of a black fella, and past form tells us how Andrew uses pictures to whip up his audience.
Whoop-de-friggin’-do. Like this (or any other aspect of Andrew’s meme) has anything to do with Trevorrow’s status as a Ngarrindjerri man. You want criteria for what makes a Ngarrindjerri? Ask a Ngarrindjerri!
Getting your facts about people’s identity from others who are so prejudiced to the point of not bothering to check what makes up a given person’s identity is a recipe for virulent ignorance and avoidable bigotry.
Now I’ve reasoned things somewhat inductively when stating how Andrew stimulates his audience and how they respond. Maybe this time Andrew isn’t playing the dog-whistle and his audience isn’t by and large dancing to the tune of a European racial fairy-tale. At least that’s what the problem of induction would suggest and I do recognise the problem of induction when trying to be fair to people who’s work I criticise.
My hypothesis about Andrew’s latest adventure needs to be tested deductively. I’m going to let you do the test this time.
The response of Andrew’s audience to the article in question can be found here.
If you have any serious, honest doubts about my criticisms of Andrew’s work and the way it massages his crowd, read the comments. Read them, come back and tell me honestly that I’m wrong and why I’m wrong.
Update: More here and here. Oh and here (Cripes! I even managed to lose my link to Legal Eagle’s blog on my sidebar).
~ Bruce
I think that we can all agree that Andrew Bolt is an arrogant, pompous man who is nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is.
Bolt is a throwback, to use a racist term he would understand, to a time when his version of defining Aboriginality held sway. The fact is that in Australia today, and this has been true for decades, Aboriginality is legally defined as 1) being of Aboriginal descent — the percentage is irrelevant 2) identifying as Aboriginal and 3) being accepted as Aboriginal by the Aboriginal community. My nephew is Aboriginal because he is all three of the above. I am not because I only go with 1) though now and again I have experienced 3).
Trevorrow is Aboriginal, end of story. The court has decided on the relevant issues. Bolt should just accept it, and the implications that flow from it.
Great post. The fallacy of the biological race myth was the central thesis in Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza’s book, Genes, peoples and languages.
Also, I’d like to point out (not to you, Bruce) that aboriginal is an adjective. The noun is aborigine. People who are overly sensitive to political correctness tend to opt for aboriginal in all instances, thinking that aborigine sounds so… colonial(?).
Matt,
On this topic I think it would be sensible for Andrew to cease pontification and admit to himself that he knows naught. He won’t learn anything until then.
Ninglun,
I seem to remember it being a four point test. For the life of me I can’t remember the fourth point at the moment. Incidentally, the Ngarrindjerri man who has informed me on the topic is a lawyer and he was quick to point out that the 4 point test is an artifice of a colonial/western/eurocentric court system, not an Aboriginal way of defining Aboriginality.
Still though, Trevorrow is Aboriginal by either standard, but not Bolt’s. Of course, Bolt’s standard doesn’t matter and is utterly irrational.
Jangari,
In South Australia (more so the further south you go in the state), using the term Aborigine (with a capital “A”) is considered in-offensive but calling an Aborigine Indigenous is considered offensive. Calling an Aborigine an Aboriginal (ie using the adjective where a noun is appropriate) is also considered offensive.
I’m not sure exactly why (although adjective substitution in other cases is also generally perjorative) but I suspect that it has something to do with the local etymology of the term being one where a term has been used to de-humanize.
Seems it is a three-part definition: see Australian Law Reform Commission. On difficulties with that see Limits On Aboriginal Descent by Tyson Yunkaporta, with more of interest on that site. I guess Indigenous Australians in the first place would have not defined themselves at all beyond (here in NSW) such generic terms as “Koori” — “In numerous languages across South-Eastern Australia, Koori means man or people.” Further definition would have been in terms of nation, clan and kinship. Here where I live they were the Cadigal people of the Eora nation.
“Nunga” is the equivalent of “Koori” in the bottom half of SA and generally tolerated towards the top end of the state.
Oh… and I’m trying to re-find a map of Australia set out in language groups…
Judging people by looks is just rubbish particularly where parents have mixed indigenous-settler backgrounds!
A student of mine had a brother and two sisters were very “Aboriginal” looking but she was much paler and had freckles – looked like she was Mediterranean. Didn’t make her any less Aboriginal. I’ve also known of an indigenous family where one child was blonde and blue eyed, one child was dark haired and dark skinned and the middle child was somewhere in the middle. Again, the parents had mixed indigenous-settler backgrounds.
Andrew Bolt’s comments remind me of vile racist propaganda from the early 1920s showing how Aboriginality can be bred out.
The idea of indigenous identity is a complicated one, as indeed is identity politics generally. Silly comments like Bolt’s don’t help anything.
Bruce: Here’s that map you’re looking for, except don’t take it as gospel, a lot of thouse boundaries aren’t completely agreed upon. Also, it’s unfortunately cut up into some 20 parts. Sorry about that, the full-sized map is available through AIATSIS, but not downloadable. In case you’re interested, the language I’m working on is in map C-1, somewhere in the middle there, called ‘Wagiman’.
There’s no generally accepted term in the territory for aboriginal person, since there are around a hundred languages here, each of them with their own terms for aboriginal person versus white person. In Wagiman, the terms are lagiban and mamin. Mamin also means ‘devil’, incidentally, because traditionally, devils were believed to have no colour to their skin, and therefore be white all over.
In general, people will use ‘blackfella/blekbala’ and ‘whitefella/waitbala’, but a quick perusal of my Kriol Dikshenri tells me that ‘neidib’ (native) is also used, but this isn’t a heavily kriolised area and I haven’t heard it before.
Hence my use of the term;
“Mendelian race-pseudo-science criterion”.
We really need a population geneticist in this discussion to point out just how vapid these supposedly-supported-by-biology criteria are. Specifically, the skin colour criterion is a shockingly bad one because the phenotype doesn’t reflect the genotype; you can have 31 out of 32 great-great-great grandparents who are “pre-colonial” Aboriginies and still have a pasty skin tone. Matters not a bit.
Add to that the fact that overwhelmingly most of the genetic makeup of any given settler is the same as any given Aborigine. Heck, 40% of the genetic makeup of any given settler is the same as the genetic makeup of any given earthworm for crying out loud.
Singling people out by skin colour is not based on any rational supposition, rather it is a kind of magical thinking used to de-humanize and disenfranchise.
I suspect that by far the majority of people consider that there is such a thing as a racial phenotype (not just skin colour). I include myself in that category.
How much weight is given this factor as a racial determinant* probably differs according to cultural values.
*The post itself seems to highly minimise it.
It’s not just my post that highly minimises it lol.
Incidentally John, could you give us an example of a locus/loci that make up a “racial phenotype”. While it would help to refer to commonly known traits, said example can be more or less hypothetical. I just want to pose a problem, but first I just need to know how you define “racial phenotype”.
Hi Bruce.
How do I define it? Isn’t it obvious? That set of physical characteristics that typify a named ethnic group.
Here’s an apposite and concrete example of this:
“His name is David Gulpilil.
His image might come to mind if someone asked you to name an Australian Aboriginal actor, [...]“
(ahem)
http://www.gulpilil.com/
You’ve done nothing to link this to any loci (actual or realistic hypothetical) John. Until then you’ve got “typical characteristics”, not a phenotype.
(nor a hypothetical phenotype).
Bruce, I perhaps used the term “phenotype” a little loosely, but are you really asking me to enumerate specific genes in specific chromosomes? Sheesh.
I’d rather not get hung up on the pedantries of terminology. You may pose your problem assuming I meant “typical characteristics”, as alluded to in the next paragraph.
Were I to use Google to select a set of physiognomies typifying, say, an “indian” from North America, one from South America and one from India, could you not fairly easily determine which is which?
How about images of a korean, a japanese and a chinese? Italian, Turk, Moroccan? Pygmy and Maasai?
Bruce, I perhaps used the term “phenotype” a little loosely, but are you really asking me to enumerate specific genes in specific chromosomes? Sheesh.
No I’m not. I’m just asking you to to pick a selection of specific traits that can conceivably be linked to specific genes (hence my use of the term “hypothetical”).
[Warning: long response. Skip if bored already]
Bruce, I am not a geneticist, or even a biologist. It seems to me you are asking me to tell you what genes are responsible for, say, hair colour. Do I need to do that merely because I opine that certain traits are biologically determined?
Curious, I had a quick look at Wikipedia, searching for “hair colour”, I was redirected to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_color#Genetics, the first sentence of which reads “The genetics of hair color are not yet firmly established.”
Incidentally, a little further down in the article it reads: “Blond hair | Naturally blond hair (young Northern European male). [...] Blond hair is a relatively rare human phenotype due to its association with recessive genes, occurring in approximately 2% of the world population”.
I guess I was using “phenotype” in the manner of the writer of that section… which appears to be intelligible (you may wish to redact his contribution). You may consider that as “an example of a locus/loci that make up a “racial phenotype”” which you requested.
To cut to the chase, the sentiment that motivated me to make my initial posting was engendered by your viewpoint in the post, exemplified in this quote: “Race isn’t a biological concept. It’s cultural in nature.” – I agree with the first sentence, but the second seems absolutist, and connotes a dismissal of the biological component of whatever “race” is. Am I mistaken?
I wonder, do you consider [natural] blondeness to be less biologically determined than, say, lactose intolerance? Or is that cultural too? Can I become racially Asian since race is cultural? Does it make no sense to say that I am Mediterranean in appearance?
Okay, an example of a phenotype. We are getting somewhere.
Blonde hair. Irish. Scandinavian. Etc. etc. Incidentally, and I’m sorry I can’t grab the reference any time soon, but being coded by recessive gene as your reference states, it floats around without arising in a phenotype for some time; blondes often being children of generations a darker haired people. This includes Australian Aborigines (ie the gene was in their population before colonisation).
To be a meaningful biological catagory/taxon, race has to be discreet. Clearly you can’t use hair colour because it exists in more than one race.
Next trait… (I’ll give you a hint how this is going to work out; shared morphology between some Australian Aborigines and East Timorese; shared morphology between the Japanese and everyone native to North and South America.)
And that’s before asking the question “why these traits and not others?”
I wonder, do you consider [natural] blondeness to be less biologically determined than, say, lactose intolerance?
Now you’re starting to straw man me (albeit probably unintentionally). I said race was a cultural concept, I said nothing about blondeness (or any physical traits for that matter) being determined by anything other than biology.
Blondeness is a physical trait. Race isn’t.
Incidentally, for when I say “biological concept”, I mean a concept of the biological sciences. I probably should have clarified on this point although it was alluded to when I called biological race concepts “pseudo-science”.
Ahah! That was easy. One of the articles that the wiki article you linked to had the reference!
Abbie, A.A., and W.R. Adey. 1953. Pigmentation in a central Australian tribe with special reference to fair-headedness. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 11:339-359.
Awesome. You did my homework for me John! I was going to look for that reference well before you raised hair colour and I thought it was going to take ages. Good read as well that Frost article.
[likewise long and boring]
Is it really a straw man fallacy to quote the first two sentences (the declarative part) of the third paragraph of your post, saying what I think of those sentences, then asking if I’m wrong? I fail to see where I misrepresent you.
Since you agree that physical traits are determined by biology, all we appear to disagree on is my consideration that that a sufficient set of such characteristics can narrow down ethnicity to some significant degree. You seem to be implying this is somehow an unlikely proposition.
“Blondeness is a physical trait. Race isn’t.”
That declaration, by your standards would be considered a “straw man”, inasmuch as I have not asserted that position (that race is a physical trait). You must by now know that by phenotype I mean many such characteristics: hair, skin and eye colour, subcutaneous fat distribution etc. etc.
I am glad for your pleasure in the article you found. In it, were the less pigmented people otherwise unlike their kin? You said nothing of its contents.
But this is digressing…
After my first posting, you alluded to wishing to pose me a problem. I have dutifully attempted to fulfil your requests over a number of posts, and now wonder if I am entitled to this problem.
Is it really a straw man fallacy to quote the first two sentences (the declarative part) of the third paragraph of your post, saying what I think of those sentences, then asking if I’m wrong? I fail to see where I misrepresent you.
I pointed out what you attributed to me. I pointed out how I never said anything of the sort. It’s that simple.
Point out how I said anything to infer any phenotype (eg lactose intolerance) were derived from culture. Otherwise it’s a straw man.
That declaration, by your standards would be considered a “straw man”, inasmuch as I have not asserted that position (that race is a physical trait).
Tu quoque. Also; pish.
“That set of physical characteristics that typify a named ethnic group.”
Or if you want me to re-clarify in the name of pedantry; blondeness, skin colour etc are collectively physical traits. Race isn’t.
“Does it make no sense to say that I am Mediterranean in appearance?”
Incidentally, in answer to this question; in terms of biology it’s nonsensical, in terms of cultural norms it has some meaning. For example, I could dress in a Mediterranean style and qualify. Mediterranean appearance is a cultural norm, not a biological trait.
and now wonder if I am entitled to this problem.
And I’ve actually already stated leaking the problem out. You seem to be waking up to it as well.
all we appear to disagree on is my consideration that that a sufficient set of such characteristics can narrow down ethnicity to some significant degree.
Appear being the operative word; there is another issue after the problem. Like I said, “And that’s before asking the question “why these traits and not others?”
But I’ll get to that clincher later.
The problem (put more explicitly).
Taking your statement “That set of physical characteristics that typify a named ethnic group.”;
Two aborigines who have no colonial ancestors fall in love and have a child.
The child is blonde. The child has much paler skin than it’s parents (note: before settlement, there were a range of skin colours in Australian Aboriginies). The child has blue eyes. These, and other possible traits don’t match the “set of physical characteristics that typify” his parents ethnic group.
Is the child less racially Aboriginal than its parents and why/why not?
I suspect that you won’t claim the child is less Aboriginal (as most people wouldn’t) and I suspect that either you don’t know how to justify their equivalent Aboriginality or you will use a means that I predict will illustrate an important point in this discussion.
It is as well that it’s my day off, since my comment appears to have led me down the road to endless discourse.
Bruce, you are apparently operating on some cognitive level so above me that, when I ask a sincere question (“I wonder, […]”), it denotes a restatement of your claim which I then argue. It was a question. I did not argue from it. It was, in fact, a throwaway addendum, with admittedly mild sardonic overtones.
The reference to lactose intolerance was an analogy, it being a physical trait such as is blond hair, merely not visible. Note at one point you asked “why these traits and not others?”, and the answer is obviously that these are the visually perceptible traits.
As to misrepresenting your position, the one thing I have asserted is that you seem to minimise the relevance of physical traits in determining racial identity. I’m sure readers can judge for themselves.
Tempted though I am to respond to each of your points, in the interest of brevity I shan’t; I confine myself to your question.
You ask me “Is the child less racially Aboriginal than its parents and why/why not?”
You’ve already stated that “Two aborigines who have no colonial ancestors* fall in love and have a child.” Of course the child is no less racially Aboriginal, since it’s that’s one of your premises. It seems a strange question to ask me at this point.
A better question would have been: “would you need a trial to determine if David Gulpilil was of Australian Aboriginal descent? If not, why not?”. That would have required a somewhat lengthier answer, although of course asking it would have been an admission that you understand my point of view.
*Note that somewhere along the line, there must have been colonials in Aboriginal ancestry, by definition.
It was a question. I did not argue from it. It was, in fact, a throwaway addendum, with admittedly mild sardonic overtones.
And I treated it as such. Incidentally, your analogy doesn’t give an adequate answer to the question; you failed to point out why non-visible traits are somehow more important. Or if I have to be overly specific; why visible traits and not non-visible traits? Where does this priority (or any priority for traits) come from?
You’ve already stated that “Two aborigines who have no colonial ancestors* fall in love and have a child.” Of course the child is no less racially Aboriginal, since it’s that’s one of your premises. It seems a strange question to ask me at this point.
It’s not at all a strange question. If race is a “set of physical characteristics that typify a named ethnic group”, and we use skin/hair/colour etc as criteria, then clearly the child is not of the same race as the parents because he doesn’t have the same “set of physical characteristics that typify” his parents’ ethnic group.
This is of course quite silly which is what I’m beginning to suspect is your reason for not attempting to answer the question.
Oh and incidentally, I don’t mind if the discussion slows down to an intermittent dribble and goes on a while. I’m not harping on so as to consumer your off-work time.
Would be nice for a few other people to join in though.
I think the discussion is approaching a natural end, and I doubt it’s of much interest at this point to any but you and I, which might explain the lack of joiners-in.
I offer two clarifications – where you imply I stated that “race is a ‘set of physical characteristics […]”, that definition was addressed to your request to “define ‘racial phenotype’”. Should you have instead asked me to define ‘race’, I would have responded differently; also, not only did I attempt to answer the question, but I believe I succeeded in so doing, and also provided the reason for my (affirmative) answer.
I suppose you are confused because I answered literally (that the answer to the question is implicit in one of the premises to the question).
You’re asking me to answer specifically to vague hypotheticals, but I’ll answer a (visual) specific instance of what I perceive your implicit (rather than literal) question to be:
Refer to http://www.ozoutback.com.au/postcards/postcards_forms/abor_children_3/Image/au377271.jpg
and note it depicts two aboriginal children, very likely from the same community, whose hair differs. Now, if your question to me is “does one seem less Aboriginal than the other?” then my answer is no. Note further that they are dissimilar in other ways than hair colour, which was considered in my answer.
To expedite matters, and for the sake of using a neutral referent we can share I’ve just looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race
Here are the first two paragraphs:
“The term race refers to the concept of dividing people into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of characteristics and beliefs about common ancestry.[1] The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, facial features and hair texture), and self-identification.[2]
Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial for scientific as well as social and political reasons. The controversy ultimately revolves around whether or not races are natural kinds or socially constructed, and the degree to which observed differences in ability and achievement, categorised on the basis of race, are a product of inherited (i.e. genetic) traits or environmental, social and cultural factors.”
I think it sums our argument up rather neatly.
My contention is that my admittedly inchoate conception of race differs from yours in that you don’t consider visible traits as partial determinants, as I and I suspect most people do.
Can we agree that there’s some kind of bounded continuum where one extreme represents [races are natural kinds] and the other represents [races are socially constructed]?
Because if so, we can then perhaps our relative positions.
[correction]
Because if so, we can then perhaps determine our relative positions.
My contention is that my admittedly inchoate conception of race differs from yours in that you don’t consider visible traits as partial determinants, as I and I suspect most people do.
Ah! But that’s not quite my position. I recognise that some cultures use visible traits as partial determinants, I’ve said as much when I talked about aboriginal communities up north valuing skin color more than down south. I just don’t think it’s necessarily a good idea.
Eventually, as more is understood about the human genome, I suspect that at least in those cultures that become widely aware of the project they will gradually slough-off the biological components of their race definitions and race will conflate with “nationality” or something else like that.
As for race as a biological concept, specifically a scientific one, parsimony cuts of what of race was once a part of science. Genetic drift gives an explanation of whatever race may ever hope to in a biological sense, without needing to invoke race. It’s also far more acurate (nor prone to the shifting goal posts that seem inate to the debate).
I’ll answer one of my own questions though, seeing as you won’t. The alleles/loci that a people choose/cherry pick to detail part of a race/race concept are chosen according to what they want to emphasise; it’s an entirely subjective process informed by cultural norms, not genetics. This is understandable considering that race is a concept that predates any nuanced understanding of hereditary traits by thousands of years.
Hence race, despite if it choses to reference biological traits, is still a cultural construct. This is also compounded by that fact that many notions of race include non-biological traits such as spirituality, nationality etc. In fact I’d argue that these extra-biological traits are neccesary due to matters of genetic drift which break discreet race definitions (eg racial traits popping up in other races).
Hope that details my position a little more.
I’m pleased to say that it indeed does. Let me see if I can adumbrate it.
When you speak of the concept of race, you do so from a point of view that considers it virtually completely socially determined. You cede minimal validity to race as a biological concept, but consider that due to genetic drift this validity will decrease further.
Let me straight up state that as far as that goes, I think you’re quite right. You don’t need to convince me that it’s valid or scientifically accurate.
Unfortunately, I consider that not to be the commonly held concept of race, and that a polemic directed at the general public should acknowledge this.
I feel that “some cultures use visible traits as partial determinants” is a very cautious way to acquiesce to reality. I would put it stronger; saying that for the bulk of human history, most people judged races using mostly visible traits. You only need to read historical texts, or consider the likely fraction of pre-20th century cultures that would not have done so.
So, basically, though your working definition may be entirely correct, it is not the one commonly used outside academic circles. This is reflected in the English language, and to deny it seems to be pandering to political correctness.
One could look at some dictionary definition and note that race is normally defined in physical not cultural terms. Three examples I have at hand:
OED (1993 edition) – Race
I 1. A group or set, esp. of people, having a common feature or features.
II A group of living things connected by common descent or origin.
Wordweb on my desktop.
1. Any competition
2. People who are believed to belong to the same genetic stock
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/race
1. A large group of people distinguished from others on the basis of a common heritage.
2. A large group of people distinguished from others on the basis of common, genetically linked, physical characteristics, such as skin color or hair type.
I must say, in passing, that I consider this somewhat disingenuous: “I’ll answer one of my own questions though, seeing as you won’t”.
Actually, I did answer it. I was, alas, too obtuse to realise you were seeking to elicit a particular class of answer – I now realise you expected me to select some given subset of characteristics, rather than giving a general answer, which then you could say I chose on a cultural basis.
When you speak of the concept of race, you do so from a point of view that considers it virtually completely socially determined.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. And this is probably at least partially my fault here.
I’ve allowed my use of the phrase “determinant” to be used without context. What a culture uses as a determinant (criteria) as to if an individual is of a given race is different to what is a determinant in how a culture choses its criteria. I should have stuck with the word “criteria” for the former because it presents a problem of conflation with the later.
The role of biological traits in a race definition are entirely socially determined. This is why hair colour may matter in one ethnic group, but not in another (ie the traits are cherry picked). This robs biological traits of any deterministic role in defining what a race is (but in a practical sense they may still be used to determine what race a person is of).
Ultimately, the cultural norm that selects the criteria remains a priori to any selected biological criteria that in turn determines categories of people. This renders all determinations ultimately cultural in nature.
This is why I don’t attribute a deterministic role to biology (even though I have carelessly called the traits determinants above). Someone can jump up and down as much as they like claiming biology determines their race (eg Victorian race scientists through to 1950s eugenicists, through NAZI race science, through all sorts), there will always be deterministic cultural presuppositions placed before biology.
Incidentally, I defy any popular definitions that claim to place biology a priori to the cultural norms that select the traits. There is no acquiescence. You may be right in my need to acknowledge the more popular definitions though, and I would add to make the nature of my defiance more explicit.
I must say, in passing, that I consider this somewhat disingenuous: “I’ll answer one of my own questions though, seeing as you won’t” Actually, I did answer it. I was, alas, too obtuse to realise you were seeking to elicit a particular class of answer – I now realise you expected me to select some given subset of characteristics, rather than giving a general answer, which then you could say I chose on a cultural basis.
Wrong question. My own question that I answered was “why these traits and not others?” which you didn’t really answer at the time.
I said “one of my own questions”. I probably should have said which one.
Was out for lunch and coffee when considering the term “determine” (and my above conflation), this analogy popped into my head;
Svetlana, a citizen of the Soviet Republic* lives in a rubbishy little hovel in a mining town. She works in a factory, her husband works in the mines. One day her husband is killed in an accident, and while small, her hovel (owned by the state) is designed for couples. She can also potentially move to the city and work in one of the factories there.
So the Party determines that she will work in a factory in the city and determines that she will live in a block of rather nice flats for singles. Svetlana moves to the city, moves into her new flat, looks around, gets to know the neighbors and “determines” indeed she is living in a nice flat.
Svetlana can “determine” in as far as she can opine, but she’s not deterministic.
She can’t choose. The State is a priori to her residential status.
“Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.” – Ouch! Also, I was wrong about which question you believed I had not answered.
I think we’ve nearly at the end of this discussion. I could further argue whether I was triply wrong, but I shan’t. I grant it to you.
As to not answering your question, have you forgotten I wrote “you asked “why these traits and not others?”, and the answer is obviously that these are the visually perceptible traits.”? That was an answer. Yes, you then went on to ask “why visible traits and not non-visible traits? Where does this priority (or any priority for traits) come from?”, to which I did not directly respond. Note however that I did say there were points which, for brevity, I did not address; I did not recognise this as one of the crucial questions. I considered the answer to be obvious: generally, only visible traits are available to people without medical technology.
I’m not an anthropologist or sociologist, so I shan’t speculate on whether it is true that “The role of biological traits in a race definition are entirely socially determined.”, inasmuch as the set of traits (prior to diagnostic techniques) that was available to choose from was limited to those amenable to visual and morphological examination. Nor whether, of these traits, those which had greatest divergence between one group and its neighbours would be a natural choice. Or on the relation between these potential speculations and your Svetlana analogy.
At this point, I’m satisfied that I’ve gained a greater understanding on the issue of race, and that you acknowledge that you might have written your post slightly differently bearing in mind the concept of race that less educated people hold.
I’ll be happy if you can now re-read my original comment and not laugh out loud.
I’ll, of course, allow you the last word (it’s your post and your blog).
PS I should have included my revised summary of what I consider your position to be:
When you speak of the concept of race, you do so from a point of view that considers the very concept of it as a cultural creation. You cede minimal validity to physical characteristics as a racial determinant (because those of cultural significance were selected over others), and consider that due to genetic drift this determinant will become functionally if not culturally less significant over time.
Please feel free to critique it in your response – I may learn yet more.
That’s pretty close. Although broaden “physical characteristics” to biological traits, because they are all subject to genetic drift. Also, the selection of physical over non-physical (say for example the prevalence of “the crime gene”* in various populations) traits is also a cultural prejudice that is not universal (a culture may be exclusively, partially or not at all bound to morphology when selecting it’s criteria for race).
The only significant problem I (kind of) have with your description (and probably my problem with articulation as well) is avoiding placing the role of biology on a continuum of importance along with cultural influence.
It’s almost like making pizzas. Ham taking the place of a morphological biological trait, pineapple being a physical biological trait and say mushrooms and garlic being purely cultural traits (things like spirituality, manifest destinies, “how best to be governed” and other non-biological traits people have attributed to race). A mushroom and garlic pizza is no less a pizza (Dangerous Mushroom if you go to an “Australian Pizza House”) than say Hawaiian.
Say you take away the world’s supply of ham and pineapple (or made it unusable in pizza). This may be important to people who like Hawaiian pizzas, but it isn’t at all important to the existence of pizzas. Nor can the importance of ham and pineapple be measured against the presupposed notions of what makes pizzas, pizzas.
Biological traits are like non-necessary pizza toppings. You can take them away and still have pizza, but if you take away the concept of pizza you can’t have pizza.
Hmmmm…. that was still a bad analogy.
* A mutation in the gene that codes for Mono-Amine-Oxidase is statistically and causally associated with increases in violent behaviour (with important qualifications). The gene exists in higher levels in populations native to New Zealand, which has led some people to speculate on the violence in Maori culture being “racial” in origin. This is despite the fact that the mutation in question is present pretty much everywhere else in the human population and that perfectly ordinary “nurture” influences can completely counter the influence of the gene.
No worries, Bruce. Think of it a tasty metaphor rather than a bad analogy.
I’m not quibbling the validity of your definition, nor that there isn’t plenty of supporting evidence* for your claims.
I do have one last but complex question, after which I hope you agree this thread has run out of relevance, and it would satisfy me (and hopefully others) if you can find the time to sum up.
The question is: do you consider it theoretically possible (given the validity of your definition) to write a post about race that is phrased so that any likely reader, regardless of their own perception, are not misled and misread your content (and intent)? Even if not, is this something you strive towards when posting?
* here’s 3 of my bookmarks from trawling Wikipedia early in the piece. Note I do not consider it a definitive source, but one way I use it is as a sophisticated search engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_perception#Race_and_face_perception
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Scientific_racism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_terminology_for_race
Finally, I wish you to know that I do appreciate the time you have taken to converse with me.
Addendum.
1. It appears three links trigger your moderation filter.
2. Before you dismiss the question, please consider that racist people somehow live in the real world, yet their conceptual filters manage to reduce their perceptions to those compatible with their beliefs.
I posted in haste.
Yep… Three links does trigger the filter, but also so does a lot of spam which I’ve also been getting a lot of lately (makes the filter more aggressive). I’ll come back to what you have written later in the piece as I’m going to bed after dealing with said spam (need to generate some filtration policies).
Busy day tomorrow
Bruce, I hope you don’t mind if I clarify a little more to fill in the current hiatus.
I note that among your interests you list enlightenment philosophy, so occurs to me I can probably state what nagged at me when I read your post in terms familiar to you.
Reading the post, I felt you were blurring the fact/value divide. Various paragraphs used short declarative sentences which I considered (perfectly valid) opinions but were easy to misread and so misinterpret as facts.
“I’ll come back to what you have written later in the piece [...]“
I’m going to continue this on a new thread with a new post.
why are settler colonialists so hung up on percentages and purity?
australia, new zeeland, south africa, usa,canada,israel
It’s so they can include or disqualify people from a group depending on what they want to attribute to the person (usually to put the boot in).