June 12, 2015

"Good question, overheard at brunch: why is it considered OK to emulate someone else's gender but not OK to emulate someone else's race or ethnicity?"

This is a question that my son John put up on Facebook last February, that's relevant to the big internet story of the day — that poor lady, Rachel Dolezal, who's suddenly way overfamous. (Already blogged 2 posts down.)

The discussion there is interesting, though it's not about the full-scale life transition that you see with transgender people or with what Dolezal seems to have done. It's about temporary performances, like drag shows and blackface routines.

Is our internalized rejection of blackface helpful in critiquing what Dolezal seeems to have done? Maybe not. I don't see any basis for accusing her of mocking or disparaging black people or trying to leverage any negative feelings other people have toward black people. And she might be genuinely identifying herself with black people, perhaps to the point of delusion, but perhaps in some lucid and enlightened way that we don't yet fully understand.

227 comments:

1 – 200 of 227   Newer›   Newest»
Big Mike said...

that poor lady, Rachel Dolezal

Authenticity doesn't count for much anymore?

Michael P said...

Yeah, amd why do people have a problem with Sabrina Rubin Erdely when she identifies with legitimate journalists?

Oh, right: Because her offense is self-aggrandizing deceit. The same applies to this woman.

Skeptical Voter said...

Ahh--well Ruthanne is going where Elizabeth Warren led the way. And by the way Fauxcahontas is not only Cherokee, she's also African. Because Ms. Dolezal has pointed out that all homo sapiens originally came from Arrica.

Warren better start looking at her feet. She might be a Blackfoot Indian instead of a Cherokee.

As for me I always wanted to be a Mongol, so I could be Genghis Khan.

chuck said...

but perhaps in some lucid and enlightened way that we don't yet fully understand.

Yeah, right.

Bay Area Guy said...

Simple answer -- it's not ok to emulate either.

The Left seeks to push 2 false and damaging ideas: (1) you are what you subjectively say you are and (2) anyone who won't play make-believe with you is a hater.

I'm not trying to be overly rigid, either. If a man wants to act feminine or vice versa, well, that may be a bit odd, but harmless. If white woman wants to slowly migrate towards and integrate into the black community, that seems ok to me.

But, this adult game of "Let's pretend! Look at me! But don't Judge!" obviously has its limits as Rachel is finding out.

Waiting for old Leftists to decry the rigid construct of "age" and insist that they are now 39 years old.......

Scott M said...

It's about temporary performances, like drag shows and blackface routines.

Look at how she spent the last 16 years. That's not quite "temporary". It's not irreversable like reassignment surgery, but it's not a drag show or a blackface routine.

Remember the bellydancer from last year bitching about white women co-opting her culture (without knowing where bellydancing actually came from, apparently)? What has she or those that agreed with her think about this?

Skip over the Jezebel, that bastion of WTF, and see that they're after her bigtime. My question for the Jezehordes would be...outright proof that someone has committed a fraud exists and you're okay with going after her, doubting her, questioning her...but outright proof of a false rape accusation exists and...? And? Well?

tim in vermont said...

Because her offense is self-aggrandizing deceit. The same applies to this woman.

Why? Because she made herself "high yellow"? I just don't see it.

I don't believe that you can expand on that any further. Why isn't Caitlyn Jenner guilty of the same?

Coupe said...

I hate emulators like I hate greasy pans.

Lem said...

My tweet on this story is not doing as well as I had hoped.

House of Games: "You can't bluff someone who's not paying attention". Did #RachelDolezal scam a scam?

The reason why is not ok is because it exposes it.

southcentralpa said...

"[P]erhaps in some lucid and enlightened way that we don't yet fully understand."

Thank you, Professor, I've needed a good laugh all week.

tim in vermont said...

Thank you Lem.

Imagine what would happen to the kid in the "Emperor's New Clothes" story on social media today.

tim maguire said...

I tend to think dishonesty is wrong. But otherwise, I think she is in a position to make an important point about the artificiality of racial categories and the inherent unfairness of race-based preferences.

Too bad it's not a point she'd care to make.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

The deeply insecure person seldom finds helpful the standard advice to "just be yourself."

Original Mike said...

"Waiting for old Leftists to decry the rigid construct of "age" and insist that they are now 39 years old......."

Actually, I insist that I am 66 y.o. Who is the Social Security Administration to say I'm not?

Rockport Conservative said...

If transgender is okay I cannot see a reason transrace is not. I see she has done a lot of really kooky things; accusations which are not true, a multiple offender; and maybe she was actually born in a teepee. I believe she probably does have mental issues.

Original Mike said...

I think this case highlights the ridiculousness of Bruce Jenner's case. If and when he actually has the surgery, fine. But until then, he's a man. It's nonsense for people to go around claiming to be something they're not.

Gusty Winds said...

perhaps in some lucid and enlightened way that we don't yet fully understand

She's put up a selfie tweet last year wearing her disguise stating,"Going with the natural look as I start my 36th year".

If deception is now some form of nuanced enlightenment than maybe she's on to something.

But for now, the only thing I can come up with to describe this woman is completely full of shit.

Peter said...

Dolezal's defense seems to be the paleoanthropological "out of Africa" theory, which postulates that Homo Sapiens evolved in Africa and only later migrated to other continents. And, therefore, she (and presumably all Americans) are African-Americans.

It seems a stretch to me for, although there's considerable evidence supporting the theory, the migration out of Africa took place at least 200,000 years ago. Which perhaps makes it less than relevant to contemporary American politics?

But who am I to say? If men can be women (just because they say they are), then why can't we all be whatever we say we are?

Free to be, you and me, whatever we say we be!

Scott M said...

But otherwise, I think she is in a position to make an important point about the artificiality of racial categories and the inherent unfairness of race-based preferences.

One of the first things I thought was, "wouldn't it just be great if this was akin to Mattress Girl? A extremely long art piece?

:)

PB said...

Soon that won't be OK, either. Then it won't be OK to exhibit unique traits as that would be a micro aggression against people who can't. We must all be the same.

Of course that's the outcome of Bulworths's Prescription:

"All we need is a voluntary, free-spirited, open-ended program of procreative racial deconstruction. Everybody just gotta keep fuckin' everybody 'til they're all the same color."

Virgil Hilts said...

I decided to watch all of the Fred Astaire movies a few years ago, and when I got to Holiday Inn with Bing Crosby (1942) I had no idea that the black face stuff was coming. I called in my young daughter and showed her. We had no idea that black face had survived and was considered mainstream so long. Would a post a link here to Bing Crosby doing Abraham, but its hard to find.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

. . . . but perhaps in some lucid and enlightened way that we don't yet fully understand.

Bawahahahaha.

Michael P said...

"I don't believe that you can expand on that any further. Why isn't Caitlyn Jenner guilty of the same?"

I don't think that Jenner has done many of the facially dishonest things that Dolezal has done. Easy examples include the latter's claim to have been born in a tipi, saying her family had to bowhunt for food when she was young, and more. Has Jenner claimed to have two X chromosomes all along, but needed to pass as male to compete in the Olympics, or anything like that?

It is one thing to work to change your identity, either by choice or because you feel like you were born "wrong". It's quite another to extensively lie about your past to further such a change.

AlbertAnonymous said...

Bay Area Guy said:

"Let's pretend! Look at me! But don't Judge!"

You may have left out "But I can judge you...Bigot!"

Just saying... All animals are equal, but some are more equal.

Gusty Winds said...

If perhaps she benefited in anyway via affirmative action can she now be sued? If you check the African American box on a University entrance application, and take the spot of a legitimate African American, that's basically fraud. Seems criminal.

This woman has taken advantage of the oppressed she claims to defend.

EDH said...

Analogy time.

Rachel Dolezal : Minstrel Show :: Caitlin Jenner : Menstrual Show

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Skeptical Voter said...

As for me I always wanted to be a Mongol, so I could be Genghis Khan.

There's about a 0.5% chance you're a direct descendant of his already.

Chris said...

So, BLackface is ok, as long as you identify as being black. We really should forgive Al Jolson. He just thought he was black.

Lyle said...

"that poor lady"? What? She's the leader of a community organization and all over facebook.

kcom said...

Ward Churchill was unavailable for comment.

Lyle said...

we just don't understand her? her way may be "enlightened"? she's got a personality disorder. i have compassion for her, but she's fooling herself and others for personal attention.

PB said...

Can I feel black some of the time, Latino other times, and white the rest of the time? Is it racist to force me to choose?

The Bergall said...

When does this stop?

Bobber Fleck said...

It's wrong to emulate another race or ethnicity if you are white, since it is an exercise of your white privilege.

On the other hand, it should be perfectly fine to call her an "oreo".

Ken B said...

It's an elaborate and deliberate deception that she benefits from. She gets to claim victim-hood, and to exploit white guilt. That she has done both is clear in the Daily Mail article. Her claimed ethnicity is obviously useful in advancing her career.

Rusty said...

And she might be genuinely identifying herself with black people, perhaps to the point of delusion, but perhaps in some lucid and enlightened way that we don't yet fully understand.

Go with nutcase. 99.75% of the time you wont be wrong and won't waste time listening to some delusional windbag justify their idiocy.

Sebastian said...

"why is it considered OK to emulate someone else's gender but not OK to emulate someone else's race or ethnicity?"

It's not a matter of logic. It's about Prog power.

Transgenderism breaks down the bourgeois order based on sexual distinctions and the patriarchal morality associated with it. That's good.

Racial passing breaks down race distinctions that are essential to the pursuit of social justice. If the Man becomes a Brother, who are you going to shake down?

Caveat: a few drops of black blood count as black. Half white = black, if used to serve the cause. See O, Barry.

Of course, because the conditions for accumulating power change, so may the narratives. They are tools.

Gabriel said...

It's pretty clear that Dolezal pretends to be black so she can make a career out of being black: professor of Africana and officer of the local NAACP chapter. Like Ward Churchill made a career out of being an Indian.

In the days when a heavy social penalty was applied to anyone who even looked vaguely black--South Indians used to get refused service because they were "black"--some black people would try to "pass" as white, and the social penalties for exposure were high.

What does it say about today's society that there are now white people trying to "pass" as black, and that the social penalties for exposure are high?

Rocketeer said...

I don't see any basis for accusing her of mocking or disparaging black people or trying to leverage any negative feelings other people have toward black people.

The reason she was found out was because of faked hate mail, and she has a pattern of reporting herself or the organizations she supports and works for as being the victims of ginned up faked hate crimes. Perhaps there a meaningful difference in your mind between leveraging negative feelings, and leveraging the perception of negative feelings? I'd be genuinely curious to understand why you feel that way if that's the case.

Anonymous said...

In my mostly white European-American, Protestant, midwestern family there are instances of these things:

1. Closed adoptions where the medical records and family stories did not stay with the adopted infant, both in an out of my extended family.

2. Inter-racial marriages.

3. A first-generation black immigrant from Africa.

4. White immigrants who moved directly from Europe to the midwest, both before and after the Civil War.

5. Veterans of the northern army in the Civil War.

4. Conversions to Judaism, Catholicism, and Mormonism.

5. Homosexuals.

So I have these questions for society:

What is our ethnicity? What is our race? Can you be grandfathered into a group if you can't identify your grandfather? Which of us will pay reparations for slavery? Which will receive them?

Gabriel said...

@Sebastian:It's not a matter of logic. It's about Prog power.

Transgenderism breaks down the bourgeois order based on sexual distinctions and the patriarchal morality associated with it. That's good.

Racial passing breaks down race distinctions that are essential to the pursuit of social justice. If the Man becomes a Brother, who are you going to shake down?


This is exactly right. Progressives do not believe in rules or principles. Their rules for themselves are different from their rules for everyone else because they are they and you are you. It's purely tribalist will-to-power.

The Counterfactualist said...

Why is it inauthentic for her to claim this social identity? One's ancestry and skin color have nothing to do with your social identity. If you described her to a focus group - Howard University grad, President of the NAACP, adjunct professor of African Studies, complains about white cultural appropriation, watches civil rights/slave-related movies as entertainment - without any information about her ancestry, 9 out of 10 people in that focus group would think she sounded like 'an authentic black person'. And people obviously met her and thought she was 'a black person' - so that was the social identity she claimed. Why is it any more a performance than anyone else's social performance on a day-to-day basis? She does black things with black people in a black environment and everyone treats her like a black person - how is that not her social identity? How is she not functionally black? Would her social identity magically change if her paternal great grandfather was a black guy and she looked the same?

Bay Area Guy said...

I love the kidding and joking of this blog. Keep it up:)

There is one sad, destructive component of this phenomenon -- the accusation against ambitious black kids as "acting white." I'm pretty sure John McWhorter has written about this. It's awful. It's a false accusation, too. The kids aren't "acting white," but are trying to speak good English, act in good manners, and strive for achievement. For this, some knuckleheads in their own community seek to stifle their ambitions. I guess this is the inverse (or obverse) of what Rachel was doing.

To be clear, I don't fault Rachel for migrating towards the black community. I fault the leftwing push to distort reality and twist people up in knots with false, subjective standards.

Birches said...

Don't some of the hardcore feminists already take issue with drag queens and the like? Their portrayals are far too feminine and traditional.

dgstock said...

Where does transabled fall on the spectrum of identity disorders?
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/06/08/becoming-disabled-by-choice-not-chance-transabled-people-feel-like-impostors-in-their-fully-working-bodies

Terry said...

Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown.

David said...

In Dolezal's case the deception kind of hurts, aina? Same if you find out the woman who agreed to come home with you (or just go on a date, for that matter) is actually a man. The main taboos are about imitating oppressed (or formerly oppressed, depending on your pov) minorities.

Imitating someone of the opposite sex (without deception) is different because the opposite sex is not an oppressed minority. I know some women think they are oppressed, and look for these people to object, but much of the "oppression" of women was social convention which is now out of date. White American women have always had it pretty good, and most of their hardships were the same hardships that affected men. So perhaps we (including women) do not take the oppression of women quite as seriously as professed? Perhaps it is in many ways a tool for advancement for the gonadally deprived?

Anyway imitating people of the oppsex can be very funny. We need funny. Pretending to be of a different race was funny when Steve Martin did it in a move. Because he was Steve Martin. And because he didn't do blackface.

Then there is The Jeffersons.

rhhardin said...

When dealing with crazy people, talk to the non-crazy part.

This also works with girlfriends.

lemondog said...

"Pinky" is a 1949 Elia Kazan directed movie about a black women passing for white, who goes North to nursing school, falls in love with a white doctor, returns to the South and eventually reclaims her racial heritage.

Avant-garde for the time.

Scott said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott said...

Many white and black people consider it a bit fashionable, or even useful, to claim indigenous American ancestry. (Ask Elizabeth Warren.) And this has baffled me because so many native people live in poverty, and poverty isn't fun or cute. It reflects a level of involvement that glosses over the reality of living the life.

My first partner, who died in 1994, was/is Oglala Lakota. When he died, his family accepted me as their own. These days we talk a lot on Facebook, and I feel blessed to have such a strong relationship with such nice people. But I'm white, I will never be Sioux. A few family members say that I'm "ndn" but I think it's the same way that Maya Angelou said that Bill Clinton was black. (Yeah, but...)

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I have little sympathy for any person who trafficks their social identity for personal gain. It really is more about the content of a person's character; and I laugh when a whole range of people across the progressive spectrum wince when hearing non-progs quote Martin Luther King Jr pertaining to that.

Original Mike said...

"Why is it inauthentic for her to claim this social identity?"

"Inauthentic"? Try inaccurate.

Gahrie said...

This woman is obviously mentally ill.

Anonymous said...

One of two are the likely culprits here. Like Bruce Jenner, she is either crazy, or she is a fraud. On this one, I'm going with fraud.

I give you credit, Ann Althouse, for blogging about this. I cannot imagine the mental gymnastics you must be going through to try and justify this. I'm sure you're completely aware that this is exactly like Bruce Jenner, of which you approve. I'm sure you don't want to approve of people changing race though and making a complete sham of our quota system, so, congrats for being brave enough to blog about this, even though, you've really got no defense and nothing to say.

Roy Jacobsen said...

"...what Dolezal seems to have done..."

...is lie.

'fraid I'm not nuanced like some are.

The Counterfactualist said...

"Inauthentic"? Try inaccurate.

It's a social identity. If she was successfully living as 'a black person' in a social environment that accepted her as that, then functionally that's what she was. I'm not an idiot; I understand that people slap labels on skin color + ancestry, even if population geneticists say that races are a social construct, but no one knows your precise ancestry when they look at you, and she did this successfully, despite her deception. Putting aside her deception, why wasn't she functionally a black person before she was outed? That was in fact her social identity.

Bob Boyd said...

This woman reminds me of the storied pioneer child, sole survivor, alone in the wilderness, discovered and taken in by Indians who raise her as one of their own.

Her idyllic world is shattered when she is discovered by whites who "rescue" her and try to return her to civilization, but she cannot adjust. And there's no going back to the Indians either. She's trapped between two worlds.

I know, I know. It's not exactly the same and this woman made choices, but what will she do now?
Politicians will no doubt find a use for her.

Scott M said...

If you described her to a focus group - Howard University grad, President of the NAACP, adjunct professor of African Studies, complains about white cultural appropriation, watches civil rights/slave-related movies as entertainment - without any information about her ancestry, 9 out of 10 people in that focus group would think she sounded like 'an authentic black person'.

Gotcha. She's black and Clarence Thomas is white.

Terry said...

What if a trans-abled person identifies as missing both of their legs?
Okay, so you let them sit in a wheel chair all of the time, no harm done.
But then they are going to want disability benefits, etc. Also, maybe they don't identify as a legless person when they need to reach something on a high shelf, or when they go surfing.

n.n said...

Gender equivalence lead to the killing of millions of viable human lives and engendered the formation of dysfunctional human relationships.

Trans equivalence is founded on the principle of selective exclusion, presumably to create another minority class (i.e. "labels"), defeat a majority class, and to obfuscate the consequences of other pro-choice policies.

Viva la Sexual Revolucion!

Racial equivalence is only an issue for people who denigrate individual dignity on principle and for profit. The social complex, especially the civil rights sector, will be hardest hit. There is no objective basis for discriminating among "races", unless there is a violation of moral axioms: dignity and value, or the physical standard: fitness.

Louis said...

As an undergrad I called myself "racialqueer." Later I subsumed that part of my identity under the label of my internalized anti-black racism.

Bob Ellison said...

I play blues on keyboard. Bix Beiderbecke played blues on trumpet.

Bob Boyd, I recommend the movie Little Big Man to you.

The Counterfactualist said...

Gotcha. She's black and Clarence Thomas is white.

I wouldn't say that, actually. My point was that people don't process race by consulting your family tree. They look at you, assess your behavior, your context, and what you do. If she looked black to people, she fit into 'black' social contexts as a black person (we're talking Howard University, the NAACP, and an African Studies Department!), then that is what her social identity was. It may not be the label you ascribe to someone with her ancestry and skin color, but that's kind of the point - that isn't how people actually make those social judgments in reality. And people do call Clarence Thomas 'white' - though I wouldn't say that, because he grew up in the South as a Gullah person - but their statements have cognizable meaning, and they aren't referring to his ancestry and his skin color, but we all know exactly what they mean, even if we deplore their nastiness, because race is a social construct in people's minds, not an objective analysis of skin color + ancestry.

Gahrie said...

if population geneticists say that races are a social construct

Then why does sickle cell anemia hit Black people so much harder?

Why does Tay Sachs prey on Jewish people?

Why do Black people dominate professional sports?

I predict that as we make advances in genetics we will discover race genetics plays a key role in health.

Fen said...

Because you are appropriating... oh fuck I don't really know. These people are batshit crazy to begin with and whatever principles they have are situational.

Because Racism!

So there.

Bob Boyd said...

@ Bob Ellison

Saw it. Loved it.
Have you read the book by Thomas Berger? Even better.

lgv said...

And she might be genuinely identifying herself with black people, perhaps to the point of delusion, but perhaps in some lucid and enlightened way that we don't yet fully understand.

That would be more believable if not for all her claims of hate crimes, many of which are quite suspect.

I'll go for attention whore playing a false victimhood in order to gain social status. A status she couldn't attain as a white person.

As mentioned in the article, it isn't necessary to be black to get the job, but without being black, she'd probably have a retail job at the mall.

Jim in St Louis said...

In our part of town high performing blacks who work hard and succeed are accused of ‘acting white’ by their peers. Or they are made fun of and told that they ‘talk white’.

Sammy Finkelman said...

"Why is it considered OK to emulate someone else's gender but not OK to emulate someone else's race or ethnicity?" Changing your gender would not involve changing your parents, while the sexes are, to many people's way of thinking, supposed to be absolutely equal and therefore this would not, in theory, change anything about your background before you were born.

Purporting to change your race or ethnicity, even if no advantage is supposed to accrue or be lost, is obviously a lie.

Cynicus said...

Elizabeth Warren could not be reached for comment.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Bruce Jenner also changed his age, and reduced it by about 25 years at least, as you can tell by the picture that was released. He didn't just say he changed into a woman - its clearly actually a young woman.

But that is too ridiculous to say. It can only be hinted at. It' clear that Bruce Jenner's idea of a woman is pre-menopausal.

Cynicus said...

The story seems more complicated. She married a black man and has a biracial child. Her parents adopted or fostered four black children. Maybe she found it easier than dealing with interracial conversations.

The Counterfactualist said...

Then why does sickle cell anemia hit Black people so much harder?

See Kwateng, Margaret, "Repackaging Racism: The Role of Sickle Cell Anemia in the Construction of Race as Biological" (2014). Senior Capstone Projects. Paper 331.

Bob Ellison said...

Bob Boyd, I have not read the book. I've just ordered it for my Kindle. Thanks for the tip!

Sammy Finkelman said...

According to the Census Bureau, the biggest category of mixed race ancestry in the United States is of people who both some white and Indian (native American) ancestry, but almost all such people invariably classify themselves as white.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/us/pew-survey-mixed-race-multiracial-america.html?_r=0

In particular, people of both white and American Indian backgrounds were overwhelmingly likely to call themselves white. That is the most common racial mix in the country, but other combinations, like white and black, and white and Asian, are growing much faster, and people in those categories are much more likely to call themselves multiracial.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/11/american-indian-and-white-but-not-multiracial/

What Elizabeth Warren did, even if true, almost certainly was done to gain some kind of an advantage. First, maybe a Harvard professorship, and then a fake Indian cookbook.

Paul Ciotti said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob Ellison said...

Sammy Finkelman, I have a hard copy of that fake Amerindian cookbook. It's worse than most people might believe. Might be the main reason she's not running for the Presidency.

Gahrie said...

See Kwateng, Margaret

What medical school did she go to?

When I google or wiki, all I get is some SJW.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Gabriel said...6/12/15 @, 1:45 PM

It's pretty clear that Dolezal pretends to be black so she can make a career out of being black: professor of Africana and officer of the local NAACP chapter. Like Ward Churchill made a career out of being an Indian.

Don't forget Congressman and later Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, who probably wasn't really any kind of an Indian, except later by tribal adoption.

He also changed from a Democrat to a Republican when the Republicans won control of Congress in 1994, but that's allowed.

Paul Ciotti said...

Original Mike:"I think this case highlights the ridiculousness of Bruce Jenner's case. If and when he actually has the surgery, fine. But until then, he's a man."

Mike, after the surgery Jenner will still be a man. He'll just be a man without a penis.

The Counterfactualist said...

I predict that as we make advances in genetics we will discover race genetics plays a key role in health.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150316113327.htm

Gahrie said...

Whoops...that was her.

So, your refutation amounts to a paper from a college student?

Bay Area Guy said...

Recent stuff:

1. Pretending you're a woman: Bruce Jenner
2. Pretending you're Chief Justice: Shirley Abrahamson
3. Pretending you're black: Rachel Dolezal
4. Pretending you're Native American: Elizabeth Warren
5. Pretending you're an unbiased journalist re Israel: Diane Rehm
6. Pretending you can thwart a majority vote: Wisc Dems re public sector union fees

Any pattern or trend emerging?

Gahrie said...

From the Journal of the National Medical Association:

This article reviews the genetic factors that underlie varying responses to medicines observed among different ethnic and racial groups. Pharmacogenetic research in the past few decades has uncovered significant differences among racial and ethnic groups in the metabolism, clinical effectiveness, and side-effect profiles of many clinically important drugs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2594139/

MayBee said...

We can't make it both something you can self-identify AND something you can get government benefits/protection for.

The Counterfactualist said...

So, your refutation amounts to a paper from a college student?


http://www.understandingrace.org/humvar/sickle_01.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajhb.20822/pdf
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449495/
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/15/33
http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/why-your-race-isnt-genetic-82475
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/busting-myths-about-human-nature/201204/race-is-real-not-in-the-way-many-people-think
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/looking-in-the-cultural-mirror/201303/sickle-cell-anemia-isn-t-evidence-the-existence-races

DanTheMan said...


Albert nails the anthem of a new generation:
"Don't judge me, you bigot!"

Zeb Quinn said...

I'll take Enabling Munchausen Syndrome for $20, Alex.

Jim in St Louis said...

Bruce Jenner says that he is a woman named Katlin.
Rachel Dozier says that she is African American.
Al Jolson put on shoe polish and sang “Mammy from Alabamy”
Orson Wells put on shoe polish and played Othello.
Elmer Fudd got blasted with a cannon and the smoke made him black with pigtail braids and big lips.
Jack Benny tells the IRS that Rochester is his brother to avoid paying income tax.
Ru Paul puts on fake boobs and a 10 inch high wig and performs lip sync.
Ruth Goldstein takes belly dancing lessons, and performs wearing Persian type veils.
My German Grandmother made fantastic Kung-Pao pork.
A former man competes in MMW and beats the holy shit out of the women opponents.
Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany’s played a Japanese stereotype.
George Clooney in Oh Brother Where Art Thou plays a hillbilly stereotype.
Elizabeth Warren tells her employer she is a Native American.
Obama’s mama had some serious jungle fever her entire life.
Billy Chrystal used to do a killer Sammy Davis Jr impersonation.
Sammy Davis Jr used to do a killer Dean Martin impersonation.
Dean Martin used to do a killer wop impersonation.
Sam Giancano was a killer wop.
LBJ used to brag about his good record on hiring minorities- like Italians.


No conclusion or comment- just once I got going I could not stop..

Fernandinande said...

The Counterfactualist said...
Someone: Then why does sickle cell anemia hit Black people so much harder?

See Kwateng, Margaret, "Repackaging Racism: The Role of Sickle Cell Anemia in the Construction of Race as Biological" (2014). Senior Capstone Projects. Paper 331.


Here's the nonsensical answer from that nonsensical - as can be deduced from its title - paper (pg 4):
"The fact that sickle cell happens to affect a majority of people considered black is simply coincidence, not inherent, as illustrated through the fact that it affects a people of a variety of races and is strongly suggested to have a geographic origin based on positive selection for malaria resistance."


It is estimated that nearly 1 in 2 Ashkenazi Jews in the United States is a carrier of at least one of 38 Jewish genetic diseases.

It's surely just a coincidence that Jews with Jewish genes have Jewish genetic diseases.

MayBee said...

I don't see how you can embrace Transgenderism and criticize this.

Trangenderism just gets more approval because it's about sex.

Gahrie said...

OK, let's pretend race doesn't exist.

Let's pretend that sex doesn't exist.

Now what?

Can we we finally get rid of all this identity politics bullshit?

Because I'll play along if we can.

See the problem is, you keep insisting that race doesn't exist, at the same time you insist that race matters.

William said...

I don't think she became black to disparage blacks, rather the opposite. She became black to disparage whites and express her alienation from that culture. Alienation from white culture is a marker of authenticity for a true black. That's why Obama is so much blacker than Judge Thomas.........The American Adam. Our forebears all pressed the reset button when they moved to America. We invent ourselves.......I've never had much confusion about my racial or sexual identity, but there are all kinds of cross currents in my ethnic and class background. Throughout my life I've frequently felt that I was playing a role whose lines I didn't quite know in a costume that didn't quite fit. You muddle through and hope no one notices.

Gahrie said...

How do you account for the recent finding that there are at least three distinct genetic populations of humans?

You have a population that is nearly pure Homo Sapiens, with very little genetic markers from other hominids. This population is African.

You have a second population that shows significant inbreeding with Neanderthals. This population is European.

You have a third population that shows significant inbreeding with a different hominid. (The name starts with Deso-) This population is Eurasian.

Michael K said...

""why is it considered OK to emulate someone else's gender but not OK to emulate someone else's race or ethnicity?"


It depends on how much tuition you saved by claiming to be black. The movie Soul Man should be up for a revival about now.

AReasonableMan said...

William said...
but there are all kinds of cross currents in my ethnic and class background.


This is a very thoughtful comment. I also have antecedents who vary widely on one of these scales. To some extent you do choose who you are by choosing which ones you identify with and emulate.

Bob Boyd said...

So was Dolezal racially disadvantaged by choice?

Should she benefit from affirmative action?

Will she get a cut of the reparations?

Is she allowed to use the N word?

Anonymous said...

because race is a social construct in people's minds

Oh dear. Next he'll be saying

not an objective analysis of skin color + ancestry.

Oh wait, nevermind.

It's not like there are any inherent differences between the races. No objective facts that could be weighed. For example, there is no telling what color skin a baby between two African American's will have, could be white, red, yellow or black. It's just a coincidence that black people tend to have black babies.

And their hair? Also a coincidence.

Or the fact that Asians turn red when they drink alcohol, Native Americans do too, and they seem to be the same race? More coincidence!

mccullough said...

I'm not much of a Philip Roth fan, but his novel The Human Stain addressed aspects of the theme of passing yourself off as another race pretty well. It does create a different type of "invisibility" from the protagonist of An Invisible Man

William said...

Sometimes the outsider becomes more authentic than the insider. Napoleon didn't become French, he became France. Hitler tried to pull off the same trick in Germany. Stalin was viewed as a true Russian patriot, even by those he condemned to the gulags. .........DeValera was born in Brooklyn to a Cuban father. He was the dominant force in Irish politics for two generations. Obama was born at the very outermost edge of the United States and then fell off that edge. If anyone suggests that Obama's experiences as an American or as a black aren't quite the real thing,then he will be quickly dismissed as un-American and racist. Obama's deficits make him more black and more American than the rest of us.

David said...

將…歸入,把…納入…

Browndog said...

In today's society, there are few, yet influential, positions you can hold and yet succeed/excel with a severe mental disorder.

I cannot think of any that does not draw a paycheck from some sort of public treasury-

tim in vermont said...

It's pretty clear that Dolezal pretends to be black so she can make a career out of being black: professor of Africana and officer of the local NAACP chapter.

No it is not. Is it clear that Caitlyn is pretending to be a woman for the publicity and the money?

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

(1) I apologize in advance if I am repeating something that's been said before on this thread but time is short. The intoxication is kicking in and I need to get down to the basement to start with the deadlifts to get it all in before dinner.

(2) Some years ago I read something in The New Yorker; a point made merely in passing but it made a deep impression: "Not too many people like to feel as though they can be easily had." (From memory).

I think that goes a long way to explain the difference between the umbrage at faked gender versus the umbrage at faked race or ethnicity, taking the premise as given.

From what I know about evolutionary psychology, we invest much in spotting cheaters.

Those faking gender aren't much of a danger.

And I apologize, yet again, except this time I apologize for posting a comment that might just be sincere. I'm not sure.

tim in vermont said...

even if population geneticists say that races are a social construct,

ROTFLMAO

You do know that the above is a subjective conclusion, not a scientific deduction, don't you?

One often reads scientific papers where the paper itself is unassailable, but the conclusions are flights of fancy.

Browndog said...

So, Ann links Buzzfeed. Really. I usually only go there to find out which State prefers orange Popsicles over grape.

Here's a bit more:

According to Dolezal, "Jesus Christ" is the witness on her birth certificate. Her mother believed in living off the land; they lived in the middle of nowhere.

As a child, Dolezal and her family hunted their food with bows and arrows.

tim in vermont said...

The goal is never to end identity politics, the goal is to win identity politics.

Bob Boyd said...

Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. – Neils Bohr

Craig Landon said...

Bob Boyd said...

This woman reminds me of the storied pioneer child, sole survivor, alone in the wilderness, discovered and taken in by Indians who raise her as one of their own.


This may be the story you are thinking of. The book is quite good, and spans more than her story.

Will Cate said...

"... but perhaps in some lucid and enlightened way that we don't yet fully understand."

No; if that was the case, she would not have adopted that terrified "oh shit, the jig is up" look when confronted by the TV reporter.

MayBee said...

As far as I know, Doleful didn't require any classes to learn how to speak, dress, and make the gestures of the person she has identified herself to be.

tim in vermont said...

Browndog,
Obviously she is crazy and delusional. It doesn't change the central question of whether she can legitimately identify as black or not and whether we should care.


The fake hate crimes should have gotten her kicked out of the NAACP, not "passing" for black.

Life imitating art

Watch: Awkward white man Louis C.K. forced to talk like a black woman for 5 years in hilarious SNL skit

MayBee said...

Her transition seems to have been quite simple, actually.

Carol said...

Mezz Mezzrow wrote a book about how he decided he was black, because it sucked to be white. That was 70 years ago. He was the prototype White Hipster.

William said...

I wonder who will be more condemning of her fraud--blacks or whites?......Home is the place where when you go there, they have to take you in. I think her friends in the NAACP will be more forgiving and accepting of her fraud than her birth parents........Hispanics didn't rally to the defense of George Zmmerman. Perhaps, as the Times stated, he truly was a white Hispanic.

tim in vermont said...

Perhaps, as the Times stated, he truly was a white Hispanic.

With a black grandfather.

Browndog said...

In her defense, she said something to the effect 'we're all of African descent'-

This is good news, because since the Age of Obama this black/white thing was getting out of control.

At least now we can cross them off the list.

Now, we just have to drill a little deeper, and get the rest on board with this whole brotherhood thingy;

The WASPs, hillbillies, rednecks, gooks, Dago's, krauts, wetbacks, chinks, knucks, WOP's, towel heads, beaners, and camel jockeys.

Fernandinande said...

The Counterfactualist said...

Someone else: So, your refutation amounts to a paper from a college student?


I hope you posted the links (below) to show that race is genetic, because that's what they say.

http://www.understandingrace.org/humvar/sickle_01.html
"The gene variant for sickle cell disease is related to malaria, not skin color." (IOW, it's a genetic difference).

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajhb.20822/pdf
"Evidence to support this model has recently come from genetic studies of population substructure, in which the analysis of thousands of loci simultaneously has produced clusters of genetic information that can be used to correctly identify individuals self-identified geographic ancestry [= race]."

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
"Therefore, ancestry, or even race, may in some cases prove useful in the biomedical setting, but direct assessment of disease-related genetic variation will ultimately yield more accurate and beneficial information."
(IOW, an individual's actual genes are more accurate predictors than just using the person's race, which is more accurate than ignoring the person's race)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449495/
"Recent population genetics studies have revealed large genetic variations across the 5 racial subpopulations that map to continental ancestry; researchers have found delineation of genetic clusters by racial group and race specificity of rare genetic variants."

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/15/33
"In this age of genomics, differences between populations are often reported as having genetic bases [26]. "

http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/why-your-race-isnt-genetic-82475
"Many of those physical differences reflect genetic differences, and over the past two decades, researchers have used those genetic differences to pinpoint the geographical origins of people's ancestry with ever-increasing precision."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/
"However, significant scholarly debate persists regarding whether reproductive isolation, either during human evolution or through modern practices barring miscegenation, may have generated sufficient genetic isolation as to justify using the term race to signify the existence of non-discrete human groups that share not only physical phenotypes but also clusters of genetic material"

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/busting-myths-about-human-nature/201204/race-is-real-not-in-the-way-many-people-think
"There is more genetic variation in the diverse populations from the continent of Africa (who some would lump into a “black” category) than exists in ALL populations from outside of Africa (the rest of the world) combined!"
[That large genetic variation in Africa is between the Bushmen, etc., and everyone else:
"The Bushmen (and probably African Pygmies as well) apparently split off earlier than any other human population, something like 200,000 years ago. Some Bushmen among the Ju’/hoansi, show low or even zero admixture with other groups. How they managed to have so little gene flow with other Africans for such a long time is a mystery to me, but that’s what the stats say. There is more genetic distance between the Bushmen and Bantu than there is between Bantu and Koreans."]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/looking-in-the-cultural-mirror/201303/sickle-cell-anemia-isn-t-evidence-the-existence-races
Rather rambling, but it says: sickle cell anemia is genetic, and some non-blacks have that gene, but mostly blacks do.

You might was well suggest that short and tall people don't exist because there are medium people as well.

Steve Uhr said...

She has four black siblings, a black husband, and good intentions. She lied though and that was a dumb thing to do.

Basil said...

Because none of it is "ok"? While one should not hate anyone, that does not mean that everything is normal. Duh.

n.n said...

Fernandinande:

There is genetic diversification through sexual reproduction, but also through environmental and cultural influences. Race is a product of both natural and social constructs that either emerged with migration or was inherent to the original humans. Race is principally defined by biological, geographical, and cultural (i.e. orientations and behaviors) proximity; but also other criteria for political, economic, and social purposes. It is a frame-based classification.

clint said...

"Gahrie said...
How do you account for the recent finding that there are at least three distinct genetic populations of humans?

You have a population that is nearly pure Homo Sapiens, with very little genetic markers from other hominids. This population is African.

You have a second population that shows significant inbreeding with Neanderthals. This population is European.

You have a third population that shows significant inbreeding with a different hominid. (The name starts with Deso-) This population is Eurasian."

I'm okay with using these definitions.

The problem is, you'll discover there are almost no Africans among so-called African-Americans. They're all white people pretending, like Barack Obama.

Anonymous said...

There would no notice of this if there was no affirmative action, set asides, or special victim status accorded to some groups.

David said...

"And she might be genuinely identifying herself with black people, perhaps to the point of delusion, but perhaps in some lucid and enlightened way that we don't yet fully understand."

A generous thought but any lucidity and enlightenment is undercut by her self centered deception. She was nearly certain to be found out at some point, and the revelation was certain to undercut the cause she professes to cherish.

cold pizza said...

When you say "race," I think "culture." Are Swedes the same culture as Franks? As Greeks? Is your culture creative or destructive? Productive or parasitic? Race is but one component making up the culture (or tribe) you choose to identify with.

I was 28 years old before I found out my maternal grandmother was Puerto Rican. My maternal grandfather was of Swedish descent. My paternal grandmother 1/2 Cherokee, my paternal grandfather of English descent.

My kids are 1/2 Pacific Islander (or Asian, depending on your point of view). Race, unlike gender, is analog, not binary. Race is the culmination of all the strands of DNA, not just end tags on a couple chromosomes.

But the culture I choose to identify with, my tribe (so to speak), is creative and productive and lawful good. Parasites and frauds offend my moral sensibility. I couldn't care less if Ms Dolazai wants to adopt "black" culture. She's not a victim here--she's a volunteer.

Fake. Fraud. Liar.

Pathetic. (In the literal sense of the word). -CP

Fen said...

In her defense, she said something to the effect 'we're all of African descent'-

Except that recent studies indicate otherwise. There is credible evidence that we evolved simultaneously in different parts of the world. And the "out of Africa" theory originated during a time Africa was being romanticized with PCBS.

This may also be an uncomfortable truth in some circles... because RACISM! or somesuch.

Bob Boyd said...

Thanks Craig. I'll check it out.

There have been numerous fictional variations of this story on television westerns and in the movies. I'd like to know the true story.

Bob Ellison said...

Wikipedia: Main article: Prevention of Tay–Sachs disease

Three main approaches have been used to prevent or reduce the incidence of Tay–Sachs:

Prenatal diagnosis. If both parents are identified as carriers, prenatal genetic testing can determine whether the fetus has inherited a defective gene copy from both parents. [22] Chorionic villus sampling (CVS), the most common form of prenatal diagnosis, can be performed between 10 and 14 weeks of gestation. Amniocentesis is usually performed at 15–18 weeks. These procedures have risks of miscarriage of 1% or less.[23][24]
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. By retrieving the mother's eggs for in vitro fertilization, it is possible to test the embryo for the disorder prior to implantation. Healthy embryos are then selected and transferred into the mother's womb, while unhealthy embryos are discarded. In addition to Tay–Sachs disease, preimplantation genetic diagnosis has been used to prevent cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia among other genetic disorders.[25]
Mate selection. In Orthodox Jewish circles, the organization Dor Yeshorim carries out an anonymous screening program so that couples with Tay–Sachs or another genetic disorder can avoid conception.[26]


Note the missing word: abortion. That's the "approach" of avoiding Tay-Sachs in the first two examples.

Bay Area Guy said...

@ Cold Pizza

Very good points, about race and culture. Race doesn't matter so much, in this increasingly mixed world, but culture matters immensely. And there are some cultures that thrive and some that don't.

David said...

Biaggio Ali-Walsh is the son of Muhammad Ali's daughter Rasheeda and Peter Walsh, a white man. He is also a strong college football prospect, and would be an elite prospect if he were a little bigger. Biaggio and his brother Nico are amazingly handsome. (Their mother is very beautiful.) They are also white to anyone who looks at them. This is surprising to some, but should not be given the fact that Ali also had considerable white ancestry.

Biaggio and Nico have lots of advantages. A famous name, some family wealth, two well educated parents who are interested in their welfare, a good education of their own and a crazy old grandpa who they can love and admire.

With any luck, Biaggio and Nico are part of the wave of the future, the day when we will be past this racial madness. Some day, but likely not soon.

n.n said...

The only reason her orientation and behavior are newsworthy, is because she is in a business that creates leverage through exploitation of real and perceived class diversity, in order to capture private and public capital, elevate social status through discrimination, and suppress competing interests. Another equivalence movement run amuck.

Browndog said...

Blogger Fen said...

In her defense, she said something to the effect 'we're all of African descent'-

Except that recent studies indicate otherwise. There is credible evidence that we evolved simultaneously in different parts of the world. And the "out of Africa" theory originated during a time Africa was being romanticized with PCBS.


Yea, I know-you know--scientists "know", but the narrative will never be defeated (ignorance, apathy, or both)

It appears to me that the oldest "civilizations" hail from the eastern Mediterranian (modern Syria, Jordan, Israel)

The Roller said...

Delusion. Clearly it's a prog-blue pill type of thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bo-70Mm4oI

Fernandinande said...

n.n said...
There is genetic diversification through sexual reproduction, but also through environmental and cultural influences.


Not really.

Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.
These numbers match the results in the Cell article cited below.

Clint said ...
The problem is, you'll discover there are almost no Africans among so-called African-Americans. They're all white people pretending, like Barack Obama.


The average US black is about 20-25% genetically European. US whites are about 98.6% European, with the remainder evenly split between African and Amerindian. 95% of US whites have zero African ancestry.

Lydia said...

I guess Dolezal missed the pertinent Seinfeld episode, and the "damn fool" Kramer .

etbass said...

Is this not a truly tiresome subject? How agonizing to have to tip toe around so many pretended sensitivities and sensibilities. Is it any wonder than our nation is descending in so many ways when so much energy is expended on such nonsense?

Big Mike said...

Questions for Dolezal: When you were in grade school or high school did you ever get an A on a test and was shunned by her black classmates for "acting too white"? Did you ever deliberately get test questions wrong so as to not have to hear that you were "acting too white"? Have any of your friends been killed by gang members?

Questions for Jenner: What was it like to get your first period? Did it hurt to lose your virginity?

This is why we want authenticity, folks.

Anglelyne said...

Steve Uhr: She has four black siblings, a black husband, and good intentions.

At this point I'd say the nature of her intentions was still open to question.

She lied though and that was a dumb thing to do.

Technically correct statement, I suppose, but rather an odd way of describing a pathological liar.

But don't mind me, I lack the ability to perceive the lucidity and enlightenment motivating serial hate-hoaxing and chronic fabulism.

Anglelyne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

"some non-blacks have that gene, but mostly blacks do."

I don't know of any non-blacks without black genetic history with S hemoglobin. The Mediterranean population that was subjected to evolutionary pressure by malaria evolved another hemoglobin abnormality called Thalassemia.

S Hemoglobin, as far as I know, evolved below the Sahara and was the response to falciparum malaria, which is caused by Plasmodium falciparum.

A previous form of the disease, was caused by Plasmodium vivax and the red cell Duffy antigen was needed for it to infect red cells.

The sub-Saharan population lost that red cell antigen and became immune to P. vivax.

The Duffy negative phenotype occurs at low frequency among whites (~3.5%) and is due to a third mutation that results in an unstable protein (Arg89Cys: cytosine -> thymidine at position 265).[6]

The silent allele has evolved at least twice in the black population of Africa and evidence for selection for this allele has been found.[7] The selection pressure involved here appears to be more complex than many text books might suggest.[8] An independent evolution of this phenotype occurred in Papua New Guinea has also been documented.


Both the S hemoglobin and Duffy antigen are characteristic of blacks, not whites.

Rhythm and Balls said...

It's only NOT a stupid question if you think racial segregation should still be encouraged.

But as long as there are separate bathrooms for women, different social spaces and graces for them, and different neurophysiology as well, then it will be acceptable to determine separate social categories - including for biological males who, as far as the best medical science can determine, exhibit that differing female neurophysiology also.

Anglelyne said...

Fernandinande (to Counterfactualist): I hope you posted the links (below) to show that race is genetic, because that's what they say.

Yeah, I wasted some time reading the links. They said what I thought they'd say. They didn't say what CF thinks they say. To be fair, maybe CF hasn't learned to read around the CYA that often accompanies such articles.

Word of advice, Counterfactualist? At least stick to articles in pubs like Nature. They'll likely be of interest, even if they don't prove what you claim they prove. Give the brain-dead meanderings of Psychology Today a pass. I doubt even the people who wrote that first article have any idea what their point was. And raise your arms and back away slowly from any article that combines the words "Department of Anthropology" and "epigenetics" in the title and author list. That way lies madness.

tim in vermont said...

Except that recent studies indicate otherwise. There is credible evidence that we evolved simultaneously in different parts of the world.

That's absurd. To suggest there is no common ancestor, anyway.

Seeing Red said...

More women are mentally ill than men.

Anglelyne said...

Pedantic aside:

Gahrie: How do you account for the recent finding that there are at least three distinct genetic populations of humans?

You have a population that is nearly pure Homo Sapiens, with very little genetic markers from other hominids. This population is African.


Sub-Saharan Africans also have some (African) archaic hominim admixture.

You have a second population that shows significant inbreeding with Neanderthals. This population is European.

All non-SSA humans appear to have some Neanderthal in 'em. East Asians have more Neanderthal DNA than Europeans.

You have a third population that shows significant inbreeding with a different hominid. (The name starts with Deso-) This population is Eurasian.

Denisovans. Denisovan DNA got around, too.

Anglelyne said...

tim in vermont to Fen: "Except that recent studies indicate otherwise. There is credible evidence that we evolved simultaneously in different parts of the world."

That's absurd. To suggest there is no common ancestor, anyway.


Yes, it's misleading. But human groups that had separated after leaving Africa did indeed go right on evolving differentially (and interbreeding with the local type of archaic hominins whose ancestors had migrated from Africa into Eurasia separately.)

Ambrose said...

Because in our society race is really important, and gender is not...

Rhythm and Balls said...

"if population geneticists say that races are a social construct"

Then why does sickle cell anemia hit Black people so much harder?

Why does Tay Sachs prey on Jewish people?

Why do Black people dominate professional sports?

I predict that as we make advances in genetics we will discover race genetics plays a key role in health.


Someone decided which and into how many categories to divide humans into "races". The fact that it was done on skin color and some rudimentary facial features was entirely arbitrary. In the past, people thought phrenology was legitimate science, but that was bunk, too.

Different populations have different frequencies of genetic polymorphism. There's no end to how fine a set of categories into which you can break this down. You can even do it by small families, and that would be just as legitimate. But no one has the fucking time for that.

What's obvious is that when you obsess on the traditional categories, you'll find some specific characteristics. But you'll also find a lot of "cross-pollination". Thomas Jefferson for instance had a Y chromosome that's rarely found in Europe, but found very widely across Africa. What does that mean? Who the fuck knows.

And half of African American males have almost exclusively European Y chromosomes, which shows the prevalence of slave-owner-on-slave rape among them. So there goes that theory of the usefulness of seeing African Americans as a very separately "distinct" population.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Denisovans contributed solely to Asian populations, if I'm not mistaken.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Technically, all that is meant by "evolution" is the change in genetics over time. This happens regardless of whether anyone has found a useful explanation for those changes or not.

As such, it is to be expected that all human populations and people as a whole will continue to "evolve". Whether that means any change in form or function however is beside the point. As interesting as it is to find out.

Browndog said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

Someone decided which and into how many categories to divide humans into "races"


Yes, you'll need to name that person, list the categories, and label them as to "which"...as that "someone" deemed for all of humanity to follow-

Or, just say "I'm full of shit, which is why I'm just blowing smoke out of my ass."

Unknown said...

"And she might be genuinely identifying herself with black people, perhaps to the point of delusion, but perhaps in some lucid and enlightened way that we don't yet fully understand," now THAT's funny.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Well, no one sniffs more asses and eats more shit than a Browndog, so his frame of reference makes sense.

Although it's good to know he finds the classic, continent-based racial categories as obsolete as his otherwise stupid comment suggests.

I didn't know that misinformation required only one person to be spread. I'll keep that in mind though, next time his buddies put their collective empty heads together and start another one of their dunderheaded Chinese whispers and whisper campaigns.

Michael K said...

The nonsense about white Y Chromosomes is not accompanied by a link, of course.

" There is credible evidence that we evolved simultaneously in different parts of the world."

No, there is evidence that there was near extinction by the volcanic event called The Toba Event but there are doubts about that theory as well.

Other research has cast doubt on the genetic bottleneck theory. For example, ancient stone tools in southern India were found above and below a thick layer of ash from the Toba eruption and were very similar across these layers, suggesting that the dust clouds from the eruption did not wipe out this local population.[37][38][39] Additional archaeological evidence from Southern and Northern India also suggests a lack of evidence for effects of the eruption on local populations, leading the authors of the study to conclude, "many forms of life survived the supereruption, contrary to other research which has suggested significant animal extinctions and genetic bottlenecks".[40] However, evidence from pollen analysis has suggested prolonged deforestation in South Asia, and some researchers have suggested that the Toba eruption may have forced humans to adopt new adaptive strategies, which may have permitted them to replace Neanderthals and "other archaic human species".[41] This has been challenged by evidence for the presence of Neanderthals in Europe and Homo floresiensis in Southeastern Asia who survived the eruption by 50,000 and 60,000 years, respectively.

Anyway, this may have affected evolution in different areas but not individual simultaneous evolution.

Browndog said...

Someone decided Rhythm and balls is full of shit, and her insults are found wanting.

Guess who?

Julie C said...

I doubt her hair just ended up that way through no effort on her part. I mean, seriously, that is some Angela Davis realness going on there.

Emil Blatz said...

How about Black Like Me? Must be available on the Althouse Amazon Porthole, I mean Portal.

Fernandinande said...

Blogger Anglelyne said...
And raise your arms and back away slowly from any article that combines the words "Department of Anthropology" and "epigenetics" in the title and author list. That way lies madness.


I was going to skip the Psych-Today links, but would've been accused of avoiding something...

Anyway, you're quite right.

Anthropologist (and scientist) John Hawks: "How have we reached the point that a substantial fraction of anthropologists are hostile to idea that anthropology itself is a science?"

Complete with Trofim Lysenko's portrait:"One of the interesting things about the growing enthusiasm for transgenerational epigenetics – the kind where your grandfather was poor or discriminated against which somehow makes you terrible at algebra today, except not if you’re Korean – is that has been bottom-up. It has not been driven by convincing experimental results – of course there haven’t been any."

Also here.

Fernandinande said...

With HREF spelled correctly...Also here.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Lo and behold! A Republican claims that unless one's knowledge is accompanied by a link and/or is known to the person reading it, it must be questionable knowledge! And thus explains the mindset of the consistently ignorant, low-information voter.

Brian Sykes gave the 50% figure. Here Slate cites work by NatGeo's National Genographic Project, AfricanDNA, Ancestry.com, 23andme, etc., to arrive at a figure of 35%. Still pretty significant.

Of course, it's not as if a moderately curious person couldn't use GOOGLE to find something like that out for themselves. But since when are American conservative Republicans curious about anything? All knowledge for them derives from what some authority figure in their childhood told them to believe. They are happy to account for the 50% of the American public that knows next to nothing, other than for conspiracy theories about President Obama's allegedly Kenyan birth, or his collusion with The Muslim Brotherhood, etc., etc., etc. Conspiracies find fertile fields in minds suspicious of how actual knowledge accrues.

n.n said...

Fernandinande said...

n.n said...
There is genetic diversification through sexual reproduction, but also through environmental and cultural influences.

Not really.

Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.


This remarks on the correlation between perception and expression. The limited genetic diversity can be attributed to tribalism within a localized population. It actually confirms the principles of evolution (i.e. physical process), that characterize a chaotic process (e.g. nonlinear, bounded) but with significant causal influences.

John Althouse Cohen said...

The discussion there is interesting, though it's not about the full-scale life transition that you see with transgender people or with what Dolezal seems to have done. It's about temporary performances, like drag shows and blackface routines.

Well, we're talking about all those things.

SGT Ted said...

"And she might be genuinely identifying herself with black people, perhaps to the point of delusion, but perhaps in some lucid and enlightened way that we don't yet fully understand. "

The woman is mentally ill. All the high falutin $50.00 words excusing her actions are just a bullshit screen to hide the obvious mental illness in her IDing herself as black, when she isn't black.

She's a fucking kook and agonizing over why she did it is stupid and avoids the obvious.

Browndog said...

Rhythm and balls only needed 3 paragraphs this time to step on them-

That's evolutionary in and of itself.

Bravo.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Browndog must be mistaking me for either his tail or his penis, because he seems to keep chasing me in circles and/or licking me.

In a human, that would be called "obsession".

Browndog said...

Kinda lame at personal insults-

Don't find them the least bit insulting, but I almost squeaked out a mental giggle-

try harder-

Let me know when you can name the person that decided to categorize Mankind into races...when, and a list of the categories.

Terry said...

"But since when are American conservative Republicans curious about anything?"
You seem to have made a mistake, R&B. It's American Democrats that claim to have all the answers.

Gahrie said...

Let me know when you can name the person that decided to categorize Mankind into races


OOOGH, somewhere around 6,000 B.C. The names were us and them.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I'll do that when you can tell me the name of the person who invented fire.

You really are about as annoying, pointless and stupid as they come, aren't you? Talk about amphiboly to the extreme.

If you even had a point, what would it be? That the categorization of people into 4 "races" by continent of origin wasn't arbitrary? That its grounding support in common prejudices, rather than in any directed scientific observation, made it accurate and useful?

That you play games with knowledge instead of just plainly stating what you're getting at indicates why your political tribe is so poorly educated and poorly compensated.

You don't even know what question you're trying to ask. So you just harass people.

Rhythm and Balls said...

"But since when are American conservative Republicans curious about anything?"
You seem to have made a mistake, R&B. It's American Democrats that claim to have all the answers.


The curious ones are closer to having more accurate answers than the incurious ones. It's Republicans who think it's wrong to seek scientific knowledge because that only gives you answers more accurate than before, rather than perfect answers. And they think anything less than perfect knowledge is blasphemy.

The comment before this one was directed at the lunatic who needs a rabies shot, not Terry - who at least knows what he's asking.

Rusty said...

It's Republicans who think it's wrong to seek scientific knowledge because that only gives you answers more accurate than before, rather than perfect answers. And they think anything less than perfect knowledge is blasphemy.

That's one hell of a cartoon.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Cartoons, like any form of humor, are funny because they contain a crucial element of truth.

Browndog said...

Not harassing-

Anybody can come to this blog and spout whatever they wish-

You, it seems, in the most condescending and obtuse way, habitually spout your 'facts' when the discussion requires only viewpoint and perspective.

Tired of it just sitting there like it's etched in stone, unchallenged.

how do you respond? My dog sniffs asses and eats shit.

fuck you.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Oh, I see. So you're pissed at using facts to inform one's viewpoint and perspective. Which Anglelyne seemed to have used a few of, also. So make sure to, in your very polite, non-condescending manner, throw vulgarities her way, also.

And correct anyone who makes the grievous error of pointing out that your dog probably has the same sort of common, dog-like habits that you seem intent on emulating.

Nice list of epithets you vomited onto the page earlier, also. I won't even begin to speculate what the hell purpose that served. Other than to show how acute a regular Joe you must be.

Hating knowledge must really work for you. Don't change a thing.

Terry said...

http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_2.htm
The roots of this model for classifying people go back at least to the 18th century Swedish naturalist, Carolus Linnaeus. He proposed the existence of four biological subspecies or races of humans corresponding to geographic regions:
Homo sapiens Eoropeus albescens ("white" people from Europe)
Homo sapiens Africanus negreus ("black" people from Africa)
Homo sapiens Asiaticus fucus ("dark" people from Asia)
Homo sapiens Americanus rubescens ("red" people from the Americas)

The typological model is based on what is now known to be a false assumption concerning the nature of human variation--that is that we can be unambiguously assigned to a "race" on the basis of selected anatomical traits. In fact, when we look at specific individuals, we often run into difficulty trying to categorize them. For example, on the basis of skin color, we might put them into one "race" and on the basis of nose shape, body form, or blood type, they might go into others.


The nastiest racism in American lit was published between about 1880 and the second world war. It was a progressive thing; before Darwin there wasn't a scientific explanation for the perceived differences between the races. Darwin and Mendel allowed people (white people, of course), to say that certain traits were congenital. People could be born thieves, or savages, or servants. It was in their blood, there was nothing that could change them. The racism in Huckleberry Finn is disturbing. In Conrad's "The Nigger of the Narcissus" (and any of Robt. Howard's pulp stories) it is vile.

Rhythm and Balls said...

That's all very interesting to know, Terry. But beware "Browndog". He believes using factual background like that to inform one's viewpoint and perspective is wrong. And he'll probably even curse at you to illustrate the point.

Browndog said...

Rhythm and Balls said...

Proud, I am.

You've stepped up your game. For the record, I've never questioned your character--that is apparent. I question your "facts".

Anyone, everyone, should question "facts".

science...

Terry said...

"The curious ones are closer to having more accurate answers than the incurious ones."
Unproven. And who says Democrats (or liberals) are more curious? There is far more discussion about values, for examples, and where values come from, and what they should be, on the right than on the left. Which atheist, anti-Iraq war pundit has a column that appears in editorial pages of almost every American newspaper? George Will. I suspect that there are more boundaries in liberal conversation than in conservative conversation.
Liberal opinion columnists are really bad. They don't make arguments. They load their columns down with adjectives, instead. Richard Cohen occasionally writes an interesting opinion piece for WaPo. The rest of the lot just parrot whatever liberal talking points they've been pointed at by Josh Marshall or Media Matters for America. The conservative columnist whose style is the closest to Krugman isn't George Will, it's Michael Savage.

Terry said...

The whole "red man" idea is funny. I attended a high school in Minneapolis with a very large population of native Americans. Even as a teen I thought it was weird that they were called "red" in popular culture. They weren't any "redder" than I was. Short and squat seemed more of a racial characteristic than "red". The drinking thing bothered me. It's not racial, but cultural, or at least it was for poor Indian kids living in Minneapolis in the '70s. Fifteen year old kids showing up for class so drunk they couldn't stand up. Jeez. More than once I went behind the school to grab a smoke and saw a couple of Indian kids passing a bottle of listerine back and forth.

Anonymous said...

Rhythm and Balls said...
Cartoons, like any form of humor, are funny because they contain a crucial element of truth.
**************

No. **Funny** cartoons are funny because they contain a crucial element of truth, in the eyes of their beholders. [think of Nazi cartoons mocking Jews].

Sometimes they are funny because their caricatures of public figures are...funny...to those who find them so. [think of "liberal" cartoons mocking Condoleeza Rice].

Nor does your "crucial element of truth" hold up in re: Humor. The story of the Englishmen taunting an Irishman in a bar "works" because it turns the tables on the Brits, NOT on whether St. Patrick was this-or-that.

The elementary lesson endeth.

Fen said...

that's absurd

"Received wisdom that modern humans emerged in Africa then dispersed across the rest of the globe is being challenged by skulls found in Dmanisi, a site in Georgia to the south of Russia."

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/09/did-early-humans-evolve-in-eur.html

Fen said...

"It's Republicans who think it's wrong to seek scientific knowledge because that only gives you answers more accurate than before, rather than perfect answers."

Wow.

Hey man, I will deprogram you for $5k. Will take a week tops.

Fen said...

Sophist says: Of course, it's not as if a moderately curious person couldn't use GOOGLE to find something like that out for themselves. But since when are American conservative Republicans curious about anything? All knowledge for them derives from what some authority figure in their childhood told them to believe. They are happy to account for the 50% of the American public that knows next to nothing, other than for conspiracy theories about President Obama's allegedly Kenyan birth

Ooopsie. The birthers originated on the left. Very kind of you to provide us with the irony - you could have googled your way out of such an ignorant and embarrassing mistake, but "your knowledge derives from what some authority figure blah blah blah"


"the Birther conspiracy theory was first concocted by renegade members of the original Obama haters, Party Unity My Ass, known more commonly by their acronym, the PUMAs. They were a splinter group of hard-core Hillary Clinton supporters who did not want to give up the ghost after the bitter 50-state Bataan Death March to the 2008 Democratic nomination."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/02/08/the-secret-history-of-the-birthers.html

Fen said...

Rhythm and Balls said: [more crap]

What I don't get is why you have such a hate on. You try to come across as so smug and intelligent and superior to those Others, but you spend most your time here slinging mud a people you deem Others. And never really contribute anything of value.

Maybe you can show us on the doll where the evil conservative touched you?

You still carry the shame of it, don't you?

richard mcenroe said...

You know, a REAL black woman could have had that job if Rachel hadn't lied to get it, right? So that's someone this harms right there.

richard mcenroe said...

Fen: he can't. He's got the doll's head stuck there too...

Char Char Binks said...

"You are what you is." -- Frank Zappa

Gahrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gahrie said...

Char Char has inspired me. I denounce myself in advance.

A very devout man dies and goes to Heaven. As he approaches the Pearly Gates, St. Peter welcomes him in a booming voice:

"Welcome thou good and holy man. Because you have lived such an exemplary life, you have earned the right to ask me a question. Is there anything about your Earthly life that is puzzling you?"

"Well," the man said after thinking for a while, "I've always been curious. Is a zebra a white horse with black stripes, or a black horse with white stripes?"

"Huh", Peter exclaimed, "You've stumped me, that's a first!. I'm sure Jesus would know though, I'm sure you'll run into him."

The man wandered around Heaven for a few decades, and finally found Jesus on the golf course.

"Jesus", the man asked, "Do you have a minute?"

"Sure", Jesus replied. "Francis takes forever to line up his putt".

" I've always been curious", he started. "Is a zebra a white horse with black stripes, or a black horse with white stripes?"

"It is what it is" replied Jesus. He then marched off to line up his putt.

The confused man wandered off. He eventually found his way back to the Pearly Gates and St. Peter.

"So did you ever get your answer?" Peter asked.

"Yes, but I don't understand it."

"Well what did Jesus say?" Peter asked.

"He said it is what it is."

"Well there's your answer" Peter replied.

"What?"

Peter said" A zebra must be a white horse with black stripes."

"How did you figure that out?" the man asked.

Well if it had been a black horse, he would have said "It be what it be"

Fen said...

That's absurd. To suggest there is no common ancestor, anyway.

Pond scum was certainly common ancestor, as were single-celled organisms. I'm not suggesting we don't have common ancestors, just wondering where they diverged. Our theory of human origins is based on what? A few digs? That's like finding a penny at the ruins of Texas Stadium and theorizing the Dallas Cowboys invented Currency.


"According to the recent African origin of modern humans theory, modern humans evolved in Africa possibly from Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis or Homo antecessor and migrated out of the continent some 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, gradually replacing local populations of Homo erectus, Denisova hominins, Homo floresiensis and Homo neanderthalensis."

Are we certain that Homo Heidelbergensis, Homo Rhodesiensis and Homo Antecessor were limited only to Africa? And their ancestors too? If you believe in evolution, why is it such a leap to wonder if humans evolved simultaneously in different parts of the world?

And I think there is a hushed concern that any "simultaneous evolution" theory would spark uncomfortable discussions about some races evolving quicker than others, which would be used by haters to support their superior race nonsense. I also don't think a scientist in his right mind would risk such a career-destroying hypothesis in the current PCBS climate, regardless of the evidence.

Angelyne is more knowledgeable than me on this, so I'll defer to her. But after all my experiences with PCBS "scientists" revising history, I am skeptical of the "out of Africa" theory and wonder if it was tainted by political influences of the day. Maybe they just wanted to throw Africans a bone by granting them "Motherland" status?

Fen said...

"The researchers are adamant that their extensive study “offers evidence to re-examine the validity of the Out-of-Africa concept”. They see no genetic proof substantiating an African precedence in the Homo sapien tree, and maintain that “a more plausible interpretation might have been that both current Africans and non-Africans descended separately from a more ancient common ancestor, thus forming a proverbial fork”.

http://wakeup-world.com/2013/12/16/dna-evidence-debunks-the-out-of-africa-theory-of-human-evolution/


BudBrown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rusty said...

Rhythm and Balls said...
Cartoons, like any form of humor, are funny because they contain a crucial element of truth.


Or in your case the absurdity of the lack thereof.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

John Nolte retweeted
Ξ BLACK REPUBLICAN Ξ ‏@blackrepublican 16h16 hours ago
A WHITE liberal, pretending to be BLACK has a much greater chance of being
hired at #NAACP, than an actual BLACK conservative.#RachelDolezal

hoyden said...

I can only speak for myself when answering. I embrace my history/herstory; I choose with whom to share it. For folks I count as close friends or some potential partner, I share my whole story. For others I share what is appropriate for the occasion.

TMI is not your friend.

sinz52 said...

Her case is a simple case of fraud.

She lied about her background to join the exciting world of civil rights protests.

She's no different than those con artists throughout history who engaged in long cons, not for the money, but for the excitement of their new personas.

She can't hold a candle to Ferdinand Demara. He impersonated dozens of career men, just for the heck of it. He successfully impersonated a monk, a lawyer, an engineer, a sheriff's deputy, and even a surgeon. With no prior medical training, just studying medical textbooks, he successfully operated on half a dozen patients. He had a photographic memory and so he could actually be a successful lawyer or a successful surgeon just from studying books.





Anglelyne said...

Fen: Angelyne is more knowledgeable than me on this, so I'll defer to her.

Surely not, Fen! Ritmo et al bloviating on at length and with such confidence indicates that they're the ones who know what they're talking about. (My knowledge is likely as patchy as the next layman's, but I do flatter myself that I'm not as full of it as these guys.)

But after all my experiences with PCBS "scientists" revising history, I am skeptical of the "out of Africa" theory and wonder if it was tainted by political influences of the day. Maybe they just wanted to throw Africans a bone by granting them "Motherland" status?

You should be skeptical about popular expositions. They are politicized, and aside from that, popular science journalism is in a woeful state. Add to that the fact that new evidence, requiring revision, is coming up all the time, and confusion is bound to result.

Quick and dirty summary: The genus Homo arose in Africa. No dispute about that, to the best of my knowledge. So lower-case "out of Africa" is true. The upper-case "Out of Africa" thesis came out of new genetic research in the '90s and had its heyday then. It seemed to indicate a common descent of all modern humans from a quite recent migration from Africa. In addition, there was then little or no evidence of inbreeding of sapiens with other species of Homo in Eurasia. Note also that in the '90s it was still received wisdom among a lot of people that nothing of evolutionary import could happen in so brief a period as 50-150,000 years.

Since then, of course, upper-case "Out of Africa" has been superseded by a much more complicated picture. One can see why the original thesis was very popular with the "no such thing as race" crowd. Newer info, not so much, because, as you correctly believe, wandering human groups went right on evolving in the new environments in which those groups found themselves, resulting in identifiable genetic clusters (which by sheer coincidence correspond with your grandmother's and Joe Blow's entirely arbitrary and socially constructed conception of continental races).

I wonder if some popular confusion arises from a hangover of earlier disputes. Back in the day, the great debate raged between "multiregionalists", who believed that the modern races of Homo sapiens evolved separately from different Homo erectus populations, and earlier versions of "out of Africa" proponents, who argued for a single lineage of Homo sapiens from Homo erectus. The former were routed and the latter carried the day - well, for a time, anyway, since we now know that the ancestry of modern humans is a lot more complicated and "multiregional" than is accounted for in the simple "Out of Africa" model.

jr565 said...

Lately the left has two competing arguments at work. On one hand it's all identity politics all the time 24/7. If it's not gays, it's blacks. If it's not blacks it's women. On the other hand they are having this "who's to say what things really are" argument to Justify trqnsgenderism. And the two are clashing. So, who is really the identity they are? And if so, what does it say about identity politics.
How can you be racist or sexist, for example if the very thing you are racist/sexist about is just a social contstruct.
It also undermines the idea of civil rights laws, since now, you can be a woman despite being a man. So when they say women aren't adequately represented in certain fields, well, define women.
This is a godsend to me. Best story of the year. It would only be better if she was also transgendered.

Anglelyne said...

Terry quoting: The typological model is based on what is now known to be a false assumption concerning the nature of human variation--that is that we can be unambiguously assigned to a "race" on the basis of selected anatomical traits. In fact, when we look at specific individuals, we often run into difficulty trying to categorize them. For example, on the basis of skin color, we might put them into one "race" and on the basis of nose shape, body form, or blood type, they might go into others.

I always say, that if you want good examples of the Straw Man fallacy, you can't do better than to find somebody in an anthropology department somewhere explaining to you why "there's no such thing as race".

This link doesn't disappoint.

Darwin and Mendel allowed people (white people, of course), to say that certain traits were congenital.

Oh, so it was Darwin and Mendel who gave white people permission to think certain traits were hereditary? I could've sworn people were thinking things like that before the 19th century. Guess they were just doing it without permission. BTW, who allowed all the non-white people to do it? Or are they still doing it without proper permissions?

Jason said...

Damn cisracial bigots.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 227   Newer› Newest»