When Malcolm X was in prison he heard the message of Elijah Muhammad. He wanted to know if it was true, so he went to the prison library and started seriously reading – particularly history and philosophy.
He often read deep into the night, sitting on the floor so he could read by the faint light that came into his cell – jumping back in bed when a guard walked by.
Elijah Muhammad said that whites had “whitened” history. When Malcolm X learned American history in seventh grade there was just one paragraph about blacks. So he had no idea how terrible slavery was – or how blacks had fought against it. He did not know that West Africa had civilizations of its own. He did not know that all of mankind came from blacks. He had been lied to his whole life:
It’s a crime, the lie that has been told to generations of black men and white men both. Little innocent black children, born of parents who believed that their race had no history. …. Innocent black children growing up, living out their lives, dying of old age – and all of their lives ashamed of being black.
Here are some of the books he read (from 1948 to 1952):
- “Wonders of the World”
- Will & Ariel Durant: “Story of Civilization”. By 1950 the Durants were up to Volume IV, “The Age of Faith”.
- H.G. Wells: “Outline of History” (1920)
- W.E.B. Du Bois: “Souls of Black Folk” (1903)
- Carter G. Woodson: “Negro History” – probably “The Negro in Our History” (1922).
- J.A. Rogers: “Sex and Race” (1944)
- Gregor Mendel: “Findings in Genetics”
- Frederick Olmsted: book about slavery, probably “Journeys and Explorations in the Cotton Kingdom” (1861)
- Fanny Kemble: “Journal of a Residence on a Georgian Plantation in 1838-1839” (1863)
- Harriet Beecher Stowe: “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” (1852)
- Abolitionist Anti-Slavery Society of New England: pamphlets
- read about Nat Turner
- read about Herodotus
- Mahatma Gandhi: his account of driving the British out of India
- histories of India, China and other nations
- Oriental philosophy
- Occidental philosophy
- Schopenhauer
- Kant
- Nietzsche
- Spinoza
He read everything about black and African history that he could get his hands on. He also read about Asian history, paying particular attention to the rise and fall of white power:
Book after book showed me how the white man had brought upon the world’s black, brown, red and yellow peoples every variety of the sufferings of exploitation.
He was interested in Schopenhauer, Kant and Nietzsche because he had heard they laid the groundwork for Fascist and Nazi philosophy. He did not think much of them.
He read Mendel over and over again:
[It] helped me to understand that if you started with a black man, a white man could be produced; but starting with a white man, you never could produce a black man – because the white gene is recessive.
He was glad he went to prison: it is unlikely he would have read all this stuff at university. First, because he would not have been as serious about his reading. Second, no one in those days would have made him read that much black history since few black professors back then knew much about it.
– Abagond, 2010, 2017.
See also:
He worked out that blacks had to come first because white skin is recessive.
But it isn’t. Several genes make up skin color and there’s a huge variety of skin colors.
Second, no one in those days would have made him read that much black history since even black professors knew little about it.
That’s an unfortunate presumption of Malcolm’s. It would have depended on which professors he’d study with. John Hope Franklin at Howard University and the University of Chicago would have set him straight, just to name one guy off the top of my head.
LikeLike
Black skin skin is dominant. When a white European and a Black African pairing produce children the experience shows that skin colour, along with certain other dominant traits – brown eye colour – etc…, will be predominately inherited from the Black African parent. This is a general observational rule we all know from experience to be true. As in anything general there are always exceptions to this.
However, from my own understanding, there is no such thing as a Race Gene which certain political ideological groups would love to be able to proclaim.
So to say white European skin is recessive is slightly misleading.
Melanin is primarily responsible for skin colouring and accounts for all the variations in skin colouring we find in all human beings. I also believe it may be responsible for other things as well but thats a separate digression.
@Thaddeus
I think it is more than a bit presumptuous of you to think you could come up with better options for which Black professors Malcolm X could have studied under.
For one thing the social, economic and political circumstances of the time (1948 to 1952) was very different then. Surely you of all people would know and be aware of this?
And secondly, your displaying either ignorance about your reading of the life of Malcolm X or blind arrogance. Or even, and I suspect this is probably the case, a combination of both!!!
The achievements of Malcolm X as a self educated African American of his time are truly unrivaled.
Thaddeus. I am sorry but that was some DUMB!!! statement to make….
LikeLike
@Kwamla
Hmm.. did you just initiate an intellectual feud with Thaddeus ?
Is that really ok ?
LikeLike
With regard to:
1. He worked out that blacks had to come first because white skin is recessive.
This is faulty reasoning. Blacks came first because tehy were born in Africa, not because Whites are recissive. there is an illogical flow here
2. Second, no one in those days would have made him read that much black history since even black professors knew little about it.
He read of his own free-will in prison. Furthermore there was a lot of Black history at the time of Malcom X.
Its a kind of ‘patronising’ thought to think otherwise, but understandable if you think ‘African centred thinking’ is a new phenomena, which is what the euro-centred academic world likes to project.
Abagond had already completed a post about ‘ American Black education’ (or a title something like that) where some of the earlier Black scholars have been alluded to like Carter G. Woodson
LikeLike
And with regard to Malcolm X, it shows the importance of reading, especially how our present world is constructed.
And on the same theme, I think it was Mao Tse Tsung who suggested that everyday try to read something new, even if it is only for a few minutes
LikeLike
@JGreyden
Hardly!! This is really more about awareness, insight and repsect. I just checked Agabond has another post on Malcolm X on which a number of highly insightful comments have been made on this man and his life. Clearly there is no excuse for such lack of thought.
LikeLike
Note: This post is mostly based on Chapter 11 of his autobiography. He does not say white skin but “the white gene”, which I take to mean skin colour, melanin, since that was the main difference in most people’s minds. But if Mendel talked about, say, eye colour, he might have meant that.
My own understanding has been that “black” genes are generally dominant – black, kinky hair, brown eyes, etc. But come to think of it, it might seem that way partly because of the One Drop Rule where you can be mostly European and STILL “seem black”.
LikeLike
Based on remarks and allusions in his speeches, evidently Malcolm read about John Brown too, particularly biographies of Brown by W. E. B. DuBois (1909), Oswald G. Villard (1910), and perhaps older works from the 19th century.
LikeLike
From what I know Malcolm X’s knowledge of black history was advanced for 1952. Very few Americans, black or white, knew more. There may have been a few professors who could have given him a better grounding, but not many.
Something that Malcolm X’s example makes clear is that the information is out there – even back then – but Americans are taught not to look for it.
LikeLike
This is what Malcolm X said in his autobiography about reading Mendel:
“I really studied this book by the Austrian monk. Reading it over and over, especially certain sections, helped me to understand that if you started with a black man, a white man could be produced; but starting with a white man, you never could produce a black man – because the white gene is recessive. And since no one disputes that there was but one Original Man, the conclusion is clear.”
LikeLike
Louis DeCaro Jr:
Wow, thanks! Did he read those in prison?
LikeLike
Most Black people – and definitely white people – from this time period (1950’s) where uncomfortable with the word “Black” and preferred the term “Negro” instead. Which is also still probably used in other countries today in 2010
So I doubt very much if any “Negro” professors around at the time would have been amenable to associating with someone like Malcolm Little. Notwithstanding his “questionable” lifestyle and social upbringing. Besides, and this already been mentioned. His whole prison experience was the catalyst that began his quest and search for knowledge.
LikeLike
Yes. You could produce a Black man with white skin. They are termed “albinos”
This are still classed as Black or African.
Incidentally. I don’t buy the common argument about climate, sun and geographical adaptation to account for proposed changes to a white or European type peoples. This clearly doesn’t make sense.
LikeLike
“My own understanding has been that “black” genes are generally dominant – black, kinky hair, brown eyes, etc. But come to think of it, it might seem that way partly because of the One Drop Rule where you can be mostly European and STILL “seem black”.”
I don’t think they are dominant. The children of a pure European and a pure African parent (like Obama) tend to be perceived as black by Americans. But that’s because we live in a society with a European majority and even slight deviations from European features are taken as indicating that a person is black. However, there are dark skinned countries (e.g. Dominican Republic, some parts of Africa) where Obama would be considered white.
LikeLike
Perceptions of race have alot to do with the composition of the general population. Thandie Newton is considered a black actress by many in Britain and the US, but was mistaken for white when she visited Mali:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168266/Thandie-Newton-How-feel-mixed-race.html
LikeLike
Cheers Abagond,
With regard to the Mendel quote
“….And since no one disputes that there was but one Original [Black] Man, the conclusion is clear”
This is what I was trying to get at, well in a round about way ha ha
The Original man that Malcolm X refers to, in all probability had to be a Black man, because of the connection to Africa.
Fard Muhammad/NOI took a different slant and suggested it was ‘Asia’ (Asiatic Black man).
So it is the fact that the Black skin came first, which led to the conclusion that the White skin is ‘recessive’
rather than the other way round
“He worked out that blacks had to come first because white skin is recessive”.
LikeLike
FG,
With regard to the issue of ‘dominant’ gene, it all depends on how one wishes to ‘play’ with the word…
Usually leaving aisde the word, and as I type this my mind goes back to the Cress Color of confrontation theory, be that as it may.
I think it is true to say generaolly that if POC, and Whites have children ‘usually’ the children turns out ‘darker’, and if you keep multiplying that process, then you get what those on the Far Right fear.
With regard to your point about Africa, its a very good one. There are many ‘light skin’ Blacks in certain parts of the Americas who would not be viewed as ‘Blacks’ even if they did not say a word, were put in African costume etc and were in Africa.
This is another topic in and off itself.
What do you think??
LikeLike
“I think it is true to say generaolly that if POC, and Whites have children ‘usually’ the children turns out ‘darker’, ”
Not true. If both parents are pure race, the kid will be of intermediate color (like Obama). If the parent “of color” is mixed with white, the kid may turn out intermediate or white. Some societies will view the intermediate color the child assumes as “black” while others will view it as “white.”
LikeLike
Comparing the behavior of plant genes to human ones is naive and dangerous. Of course, Malcolm did not live in our modern time, so he had to rely on materials available to an incarcerated black man at the time. Still, the determination to self-educate while in prison is what’s remarkable here, not quibbling over philosophical nonsense.
LikeLike
Cheers FG,
Permit me if I may,
There are two realities
1. What appears before the ‘objective eye’. In this instance Obama’s father and mother and the offspring Obama
and
2. How a particular society views Obama??
With regard to 2,
Just to say 2 may not necessarily be based on 1 ie ‘What is before the eyes’.
For instance in the Arab world because descent is derived from the ‘male’. And many Arabs males had Black African concubines etc. Any offspring, irrespective of colour was viewed as ‘Arab’.
This is/was the direction of my last post…
Hope this makes a little sense.
LikeLike
J,
You’re right that biracials born into majority white societies will in most cases be viewed as “darker” (i.e. non-white), if that’s what you’re getting at.
LikeLike
Yes…
However, and only in relation to another explanation of the word ‘dominant’, and even if we should get rid of that term and use any other, or any other of your choice, like the word ‘intermediary’
Cheers FG
LikeLike
FG,
The US isn’t a very good example, since the vast majority of White/Black biracial children with a parent who’s Black descendant of American slavery will be more “White” than “Black”, by blood. There’s no “pure race”, but even less so in the United States (vis-a-vis Blacks and Whites whose families have several generations in the US.
LikeLike
Black skin skin is dominant. When a white European and a Black African pairing produce children the experience shows that skin colour, along with certain other dominant traits – brown eye colour – etc…, will be predominately inherited from the Black African parent. This is a general observational rule we all know from experience to be true. As in anything general there are always exceptions to this.
Kwamla, most people who I know who have a white parent and a black parent have a skin color that’s somewhere in between the two. That, in and of itself, should tell you that skin color is not guaranteed by one gene alone (dominant or recessive) but by a series of genes. There are at least three different types of melanin, IIRC, and the quantity of each is controlled by a gene complex, again, IIRC.
Other traits may or may not be dominant. I’d have to look up eye color. I used to believe that it was controlled by one gene with blue being recessive, but I recently read something indicating that I color is like skin color: controled by a series of genes.
I think it is more than a bit presumptuous of you to think you could come up with better options for which Black professors Malcolm X could have studied under.
Yeah, well I’ve always been a presumptious bastard. It’s my lot in life.
But as for “better” profs? Malcolm was self taught. He had no profs at all. Abagond’s original point was that there were no people in academy, at the time, who could have given Malcolm a better or equivalernt education. Now THAT’S presumptious, because it ignores a lot of fine scholars like Franklin who could have indeed done just that. And this was my point: Abagond shouldn’t piss in the general direction of the black scholars who were doing fine work at the time just because it increases the romantic myth of a self-taught and genius Malcolm X.
What I find the most laudable about Malcolm X was that he NEVER stopped learning and changing. He started out a callow thief and pimp, broke out of his ignorance in jail, created a useful philosophy for himself and was beginning to move beyond THAT to a much more nuanced and informed view of race and the world when he was gunned down.
That, to me, is the true legacy of Malcolm X.
The achievements of Malcolm X as a self educated African American of his time are truly unrivaled.
Oh, I don’t know. There are other excellent examples of selg-taught black people in American history, some who went through worse fires than Malcolm. Abagind has written about many of them on this very site.
I think the difference between us, Kwamla, isn’t that I’m denigrating Malcolm and that you’re supporting him, but that you are a full-fledged supporter of the whole Malcolm cult of personality thing. It’s like listening to white American patriots rap about George Washington or something: the myths so much more important to them than the man.
I believe that actually studying the man is much more inspiring than studying the myth, in all cases, but we probably disagree there.
LikeLike
J sez:
Its a kind of ‘patronising’ thought to think otherwise, but understandable if you think ‘African centred thinking’ is a new phenomena, which is what the euro-centred academic world likes to project.
Who’da thunk it: something I actually agree with J about!
LikeLike
@Abagond
My own understanding has been that “black” genes are generally dominant – black, kinky hair, brown eyes, etc. But come to think of it, it might seem that way partly because of the One Drop Rule where you can be mostly European and STILL “seem black”.
Correct. It’s the idea that black is somehow “catching” than makes Americans think it’s dominant.
From what I know Malcolm X’s knowledge of black history was advanced for 1952. Very few Americans, black or white, knew more. There may have been a few professors who could have given him a better grounding, but not many.
On that we DEFINITELY agree. And let’s face it: Malcolm Little wasn’t going to get into the University of Chicago and if Franklin had ANY black students at all in 1964, I’d be very surprised indeed. Maybe he did, but they’d be rare.
So my comments shouldn’t be taken as a cut against Malcolm’s achievements but more as a reminder that he wasn’t opperating in a complete vacuum. Dubois’ work, for example, had been around for the better part of a half century when Malcom read it. This isn’t quite the “making something out of nothing” tale the Malcolm Cult of Personality myth would tell us.
Kwamla sez:
So I doubt very much if any “Negro” professors around at the time would have been amenable to associating with someone like Malcolm Little.
Hell, most black educators in the university system TODAY wouldn’t be comfortable. Tell the truth, now Kwamla: would you?
Up until last year I and my wife were routinely giving university classes to thugs and murderers from both sides of Rio de Janeiro’s low-key and perennial civil war. You’ve never taught in a real classroom until you’ve taught in a classroom where half the students hang their 9s on the coathooks before sitting down to study. I’m not ammenable to associating with folks like that, but it is indeed my job to teach them (or was) and I did it the best I could.
Professors don’t get to choose our students, Kwamla: we take whoever walks through the door, warts, bad hairdos, 9mm automatics and all. And we don’t have to LIKE our students. That’s their friends’ job, not ours. Malcolm’s real barrier wasn’t any presumptive snobishness on Professor Franklin’s part: it was the 16 bazillion class and race filters which would have seen to it that he NEVER would have walked through Franklin’s classroom door.
@Kwamla
Yes. You could produce a Black man with white skin. They are termed “albinos”.
Kwamla, Kwamla, Kwamla… [sigh].
Look, take a tip from Malcolm and actually READ some genetics. Modern genetics, OK? Not the 19th century version. If he could do it in jail SURELY you could sit your ass down in a library one fine afternoon and crack open a basic biology text?
Albinos have NO melanin at all. What you call “white” people have plenty. Albinos are not simply one pole on a melanin gradient: they’ve jumped off it entirely. By the way, this should be blindingly obvious if you’ve ever really looked at a so-called “white” person. The vast majority have a skin color that goes from beige to light brown. Completely unlike albinos, both genetically and in terms of appearance.
LikeLike
Anecdotally, the skin color gene is dominant only in the male.
White father, Black mother, the child is more likely to look white. Visa versa and the children look likes Obama. I am not sure if this is scientific, but just my observation.
LikeLike
Abagond,
Very good post, and very timely since I also have a post up at my blog that mentions the Nation of Islam:
http://theobsidianfiles.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/the-naacp-takes-on-the-tea-party-bad-move/
O.
LikeLike
@Thaddeus.
As usual an interesting and detailed response some of which I would agree with some I wouldn’t and some bits which have been totally misconstrued.
So I’ll comment on them in that order:
You’ll find no disagreement with me here Thad. In fact, from the short time I’ve spent on this forum my own presumption would be thats a popular agreement!!!
Definitely agree with that assessment but I would also add he was a most brilliant speaker, orator and debater. If you have watched any of his debates then you would appreciate that for an African American during this overtly racist time to engage publicly in discussion with white America was no mean feat. However, to do it repeatedly and successfully, while remaining composed, showed rare skills that even today few people – Black or white can match. Obama even owes a lot to his style(And I would included any Black Professors you might care to name in that)
I am still in agreement with you here which by your own assertion you may find surprising!!
Ok. now lets look at where you, in my view, start to fall down.
LikeLike
You’ll find no disagreement with me here Thad. In fact, from the short time I’ve spent on this forum my own presumption would be thats a popular agreement!!!
Yeah, well, hey if you’re going to really speak about this stuff and you’re perceived as white, you’re going to have to be presumptious because 90% of your interlocutors are either going to be calling you a racist or a race traitor.
It ain’t a thing to do if you’re easily intimidated by people who scream abuse.
I wish I could be politer, but there it is.
Maybe I am not as informed as I believe here but Thaddeus you are welcome to suggest some.
Three self-educated blacks who had it as hard or harder than Malcolm (just off the top of my head):
Frederick Douglas
Phylis Wheatley
Lucy Parsons
I’m sure I could think of plenty more if I took an hour to think about it.
But I would expect a bit less assumed reading from a professed academic as yourself. Is that a fair comment?
Funny how I’m supposedly the presumptuous one on this board but commentators who (as far as I know) never put a foot in a class room are always quick to tell me my failings as an academic. I guess I’ll just have to live with the fact that if I want to be roundly praised by everyone as a teacher, I should never have any personal oppions at all, let alone express them in public. Teachers are not allowed to do that, you know. 😀
If it would be – by your own admission – a difficult option now.
Oh, no doubt. But my point was never “It would have been easy.” My point was, “Folks, let’s not go overboard on this idea that Malcolm actually had it BETTER in jail than he would have had it in a classroom”. If you recall, that was Malcolm’s take on it, but then again, what is an autodidact going to say?
Regarding albinos, I now see that you’re not claiming that albinos are “white”. Seeing as how I read your comment “Yes. You could produce a Black man with white skin. They are termed “albinos”” as a reaction to my comment that white skin is not a recessive trait – an idea that you were defending – I think we can agree why I’d take that comment the way I did. However, the evidence is pretty heavy that so-called white skin is an expression of a gene that’s common in several animals and that it expresses itself in humans precisely due to those environmental factors you are on about. And there is vanishingly little scientific proof that melanin is somehow responsible for human behaviors, if that’s what you’re implying with the comment “I also believe it may be responsible for other things as well”.
LikeLike
With regard to:
“Who’da thunk it: something I actually agree with J about!”
I think you agree with it because you were unable to follow my words. Sadly and once again you have faled to follow and understand the line of reasoning.
LikeLike
With regard to:
“Albinos have NO melanin at all”.
This statement needs qualifying – since it is not true.
LikeLike
One other book I remember him referring to in his autobiography but not in his prison years.
The Decline of the West, by Oswald Spengler
http://www.duke.edu/~aparks/Spengler.html
LikeLike
Near enough to no melanin to be no nevermind, J.
LikeLike
Thad you emphasised the no in bold capitals, as if it was unequivocal.
If this was any other commentator you would have picked up on this point. This is why I suggested elsewhere about being ‘consistent’ how one argues as it applies to yourself.
LikeLike
I stand corrected, J.
LikeLike
Not to worry my friend.
LikeLike
Knowing this is all quite some time ago but what Malcolm X read about the ‘recessive white skin’ is where real life genetics can hit back with a vengeance once again. It’s never really clear cut. Certain (if not all) traits have the strange habit to occasionally skip generations or get recombined in unexpected ways. That’s another reason why human genetics can be a bitch sometimes.
Once again just one personalised example but not even a particularly exceptional one. I was born as the third kid of 5 siblings, three boys two girls. Our mother is half Camerounaise and half European French and our father just ‘white’ – let’s leave it at that. In her younger days, my mother used to have resemblance to Amel Larrieux (without makeup) and my father used to look a bit like Ben Stiller. The kind of types, you get the gist.
Now, my baby sister has resemblance to the singer SoShy (you could say southern French look) whereas my older brother in his heyday looked like young Maxwell with the big fro. According to the theories this should not happen. (Well, according to certain people apparently, our family should never happen but that’s a different discussion). Anyway, if you just put their pictures side by side, certain people might spontaneously see a white female and a black male.
Myself I’m sometimes mistaken for a maghrébin – middle eastern/ mediterranean. My eldest brother and my other sister look about like me. Us three look quite average, not exactly the lookers like our baby sister and ‘Maxwell’ brother. So you’ve got quite a range here in one family with “only” a half African mother. Some people think only three of us are siblings and the other two are cousins or not even related to us and each other. However when they see us together with our parents they make the connection quite easily. Basic facial features, morphology, the “melody” in our voices, the way we walk and move and a few other details in all of us siblings are from either one or both our parents.
Just to counteract any sort of condescending thoughts up front, there was no extramarital nonsense or adoption. Us siblings all have a rare genetic cartilage disorder passed on from my father’s side. We all had to go through the same corrective surgery.
** If I bored anyone with this, sorry about that. **
LikeLike
Femi,
The last paragraph I think says it all, people who think skin color, texture of hair is so determinate about what makes race or a group, that is just a few genes, that have to do with family.
My family has many variations of eye and skin color, hair and such, but the most important genetic and dominate markers are the ones for a genetic disease, Polycystic Kidney Disease, which all of the descendants my great-grandmother have or had a fifty percent chance of having the disease. Even though there is a fifty-fifty chance of having the disease, my sibling and 80 percent of my first cousins have the disease.
Malcolm X, one blamed his Redness on his white ancestor, not knowing that in all groups their are a certain percentage of Redheads. It is a genetic mutation than can be passed down through the generations, it is also accompanied by the same skin sensitivity, whether you skin is fair or dark. His Redness did not have to come from his white ancestor. Hazel eyes are another type mutation.
This is why when most get into the argument that race is scientific, it gets under my skin, because genes do so much more and we only know what a few do out of the thousands. While most people fret about how skin color is going to fall, those with inherited diseases wonder when they will find the genes that produce their diseases and understand how they work. BTW they have found the set that cause my disease, but still don’t know how the combinations effect the severeness of the disease.
LikeLike
With regard to:
“Malcolm X, one blamed his Redness on his white ancestor, not knowing that in all groups their are a certain percentage of Redheads”
With regard to his mother Louise(??) Little it has been shown that either her father or grandfather was White, I cannot remember but I would go for the former, and furthermore, if my memory serves me correctly, she was of Grenadian (West Indian) descent
LikeLike
In fact that would be an interesting post ‘Louise Little’ considering she does not get a lot of limelight. However, she was an activist and a member of the UNIA of Marcus Garvey.
I am not sure how easy it will be too find information though.
LikeLike
Hathor,
I’ve never heard of that kidney disorder. I hope there’s therapy and you’re in good health. For us it was really just surgery and after several months of rehab the joints were more or less back to fully functional.
I keep reading that there are efforts being made to find genetic correlations between certain diseases and “race”. Now this is of course presented as fully benign and potentially beneficial when it comes to diagnostics. Who knows, it might even work in a few parts of this world where you have very homogeneous populations.
I’m seriously wondering though for whom it will be beneficial. The patient or the MD who has to make (possibly quick and dirty) diagnostics? Apart from the fact that I find it quite cynical, it could be potentially dangerous. To me it almost sounds like car diagnostics sheets with multiple choice check boxes and branching out. A bit like – if “Race” = black, skip 12-28 and go straight to 29. If “Race”= white, go only up to 28 and ignore the rest. If “Race”= other, throw the sheet in the bin immediately and send the patient home…
Why the hell can’t they just give this nonsense up and reallocate the money and time in research that gets to the genetic root of diseases? End of. There’s still lots of funding needed on that end, I’m sure.
If there was a method available in form of a genetic probability for all diseases and if an individual needed a diagnosis, he would want to know if there is a probability of x% to have a certain disease or allergy or whatever disorder, full stop. It’s not beneficial for the individual if you know that x% of millions of others *might* have that certain disorder according to their “race”. To be quite honest, I’d be very scared if I was profiled that way.
Apart from that, I do think that this kind of research is really just another attempt to find evidence of the genetic validity of “race”, camouflaged with so-called humanitarian benefits. To me it actually reads like “Now we have the genetic pointers for skin colour, hair structure, lips, shape of nose and skull. Hmm, serious scientists say that’s not enough so let’s find something else. How about diseases? Isn’t it true that a lot of black people have diabetes and cardiovascular disorders? Great, let’s add diseases to the list of “racial” characteristics. Plus it’s less work for the doctors later…”
LikeLike
This is why when most get into the argument that race is scientific, it gets under my skin, because genes do so much more and we only know what a few do out of the thousands.
Right on, Hathor! Make that “millions”, though.
@Femi
I keep reading that there are efforts being made to find genetic correlations between certain diseases and “race”. Now this is of course presented as fully benign and potentially beneficial when it comes to diagnostics. Who knows, it might even work in a few parts of this world where you have very homogeneous populations.
I’m seriously wondering though for whom it will be beneficial. The patient or the MD who has to make (possibly quick and dirty) diagnostics?
Got it in one: it’s a quick and dirty form of diagnosis that only work within a given population which needs to be relatively homogenous. One day, some jackass doctor is going to make a diagnosis based on race of, say, some little kid from Brazil and is going to get their ass sued off for malpractice.
And that will be the end of these so-called “race medicines”.
What a REAL doctor would do is discuss ancestry, not race. A person who looks “white” might actually have a huge number of African ancestors and vice-versa. So if all a doctro does is give someone the eyeball and ask them “What’s your race?” s/he’s not being very scientific at all.
LikeLike
Femi,
The end result of PKD can end in reduced or total kidney failure, which either you have dialysis and/or transplant, Each person is slightly different, some in my family have never had problems, but me and several others have had transplants.
I agree about what you said about diagnosis. I just heard the other day that there is some correlation of a 70% chance of type 2 diabetes of people that have gray hair, while their eyebrows remain dark.This study was done with Europeans.
LikeLike
To get back to the reading list, I only read one of Nietzsche works, Thus Spoke Zarathustra which was suppose to be the basis of the Superman. I didn’t see it unless the reader was predisposed to the notion of a superior race.
I thought that this Nietzsche work was very much like Khalil Gibran’s The Prophet.
The other works I couldn’t say, because I could never get engaged in reading their essays.
LikeLike
Nietzsche gets something of a bad rap because his sister was a Nazi and the Nazis reinterpreted his books in that direction.
LikeLike
And some interpret Nietzsche as being a forerunner to Nazism also.
LikeLike
That is like saying “we will know at some point in your life that you might have a 70% chance to get type 2 diabetes but unfortunately only when it’s already too late.” How cynical is that…
LikeLike
I dunno. I haven’t read much Nietzsche, so I couldn’t say. People who have and whose opinions I trust on the matter say that it would take a very warped reading of Nietzsche to presume that his paean to ultra-individualism was, in fact, an invitation to a mass political movement that sought to repress all individual dissent in the name of forming a more perfect corporate mass called “the nation” or “the race”.
Nietzshe’s “last man” would have found Nazi Germany very uncomfortable, I wager.
Fascism is corporativist, J, not individualist.
LikeLike
With regard to Nietzsche thinking these academics are alluding to Nazism as in Germany, as opposed to Fascism within Italy.
I alluded to the former NOT the latter.
LikeLike
Well, J, I would say that Nazism and Fascism are both variants of the same general corporativist, authoritarian and totalitarian philosophy which most political scientists label “fascism”.
Nazism was no more an expression of Nietzche’s “superman” than was fascism. It was, however, a fairly good example of the sort of degeneration in human nature that Nietzsche was talking about. Again, as far as I understand the “Big N”.
But I do happen to know quite alot about fascism and nazism and the distinction, in this case, seems specious. Unless you’ve got something specific in mind that you’d like to share…?
LikeLike
I remember “God is dead” and was inundated with the surround theology, although I could not tell you any thing about it now. I looked it up in Wikipedia and they have a quote of Nietzsche’s from his an early mention of it.
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
—Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, tr. Walter Kaufmann
I can see where some who are predisposed to seeing themselves as superior would find a philosophical justification, but this is also true now. as their are certain folk who think they are evolving into Angles. There is a comment in my link which references The Ascent of Man, which we have discussed here.
LikeLike
Kwamla,
Incidentally. I don’t buy the common argument about climate, sun and geographical adaptation to account for proposed changes to a white or European type peoples. This clearly doesn’t make sense.
It has to do with the adsorption of Vitamin D and the amount of Ultra- Violet rays man has been exposed to. Human’s other adaptations in shelter and clothing has enabled certain groups to live in places that humans wouldn’t ordinarily have been able to survive.
There is a common cautionary tale about man having the ability to select children with fair skin, blue eyes and blond hair, with evidence that UV radiation will become more severe in the future. Skin cancer may become epidemic in that population and their many not have enough of them left with the gene for darker skin to enable future generations to survive.
Of course if you don’t believe in any process of evolution, these points I’ve made are moot.
LikeLike
Cheers Thad,
I am going to break this down into a number of posts
1. “The purification of the race.— There are probably no pure races but only races that have become pure, even these being extremely rare. What is normal is crossed races, in which, together with a disharmony of physical features (when eye and mouth do not correspond with one another, for example), there must always go a disharmony of habits and value-concepts. (Livingstone heard someone say: “God created white and black men but the Devil created the half-breeds.”)
Crossed races always mean at the same time crossed cultures, crossed moralities: they are usually more evil, crueller, more restless. Purity is the final result of countless adaptations, absorptions and secretions, and progress towards purity is evidenced in the fact that the energy available to a race is increasingly restricted to individual selected functions, while previously it was applied to too many and often contradictory things: such a restriction will always seem to be an impoverishment and should be assessed with consideration and caution. In the end, however, if the process of purification is successful, all that energy formerly expended in the struggle of the dissonant qualities with one another will stand at the command of the total organism: which is why races that have become pure have always also become stronger and more beautiful. —
The Greeks offer us the model of a race and culture that has become pure: and hopefully we shall one day also achieve a pure European race and culture”.
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/nietzsche-the-racist-35488.html
LikeLike
2. “In fact, a form of biological racism is detectable in Nietzsche’s work from the very beginning. We have already drawn attention to Nietzsche’s treatment of the Greek philosopher Socrates in The Birth of Tragedy. In an additional essay “The Problem of Socrates”, Nietzsche addresses the issue of Socrates’ alleged ugliness and poses the question of whether this characteristic was not the product of “racial cross-breeding”: “Was Socrates a Greek at all? Ugliness is often enough the expression of a development that has been crossed, thwarted by crossing.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/oct2000/niet-o21.shtml
LikeLike
3. “Here we have an unmistakable racism: the good, noble, and blond Aryans, contrasted with the dark and primitive indigenes of Europe”
http://www.friesian.com/nietzsch.htm
LikeLike
J, did I ever argue that Nietzsche wasn’t racist?
LikeLike
Cheers,
You wrote:
“Nietzsche gets something of a bad rap because his sister was a Nazi and the Nazis reinterpreted his books in that direction”.
I replied:
“And some interpret Nietzsche as being a forerunner to Nazism also”
And with regard to the language used by Nietzsche one can see why some scholar suggest he was a precursor to ‘Nazism’.
I was trying to point out that irrespective of his sister. Nietzsche ideas speaks for itself and does not need enhancing by his sister (even though as you correctly point out she did use it for her own political end, when Nietzsche had become senile toward the latter end of his life).
LikeLike
I understand racism and nazi-fascism to be two seperate but often interlinked phenomena, J.
Your beliefs, for example, border on the fascist, but are certainly not white supremacist and thus not racist in the historical sense (though they are racist in the strictly scientific sense).
Gobineau was an ardent aryanist, racist and white supremacist, but he would have also turned his nose up at fascism because he was, above all else, an elitist.
So I was under the impression that we were talking about N. and nazi-fascism, not racism. I think Z was definitely a racist. I don’t think he was advocating, however, a corporativist, totalitarian state.
LikeLike
J,
The thing about Nazism is that it espoused extermination to rid the world of the mongrel and “dark and primitive indigenes of Europe.” I do feel there is a difference between racism and Nazism. The racist sees the advantage of the slave, which Socrates may have been. The so-called lesser race can be exploited. In Hitler’s mind the Jews had too much power, they could not be exploited, so they had to go. The mentally disabled, gays and Gypsies, because of a warped view of Christianity and a fear they would dilute the race.
It is ironic that the Jews had gained power and wealth by filling a niche during the early formation of mercantilism, since Christians could not make loans with interest. It was considered a form of usury.
I think that those philosophers that Malcolm X read, theological views, differed from their social views. During the early sixties their philosophy of the relationship of man to god was very popular. I don’t know how many sermons I heard, that referenced them. If you were Methodist or Presbyterian you probably heard these sermons. I was Presbyterian at that time and they were very liberal, pushing for human and civil rights. This was the first time I heard of liberation theology.
LikeLike
White people really do hate r-words. Say “racism” and they have a heart attack. Say “recessive” and their heads explode.
And yet…I’ve noticed in conversation, however, white people can’t wait to make comments about POC genetics, always in the negative, and usually off-topic. Like they just have to plug that inaccurate information just to remind themselves of colored folks’ supposed inferiority. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve listened to white folks talk about the fragility of black skin, the hereditary sight problems (and various other innate health deficiencies) of Asians, and so on and so forth.
LikeLike
Cheers Thad,
All I would say,
Nazism is ‘racism’ and both are derivatives of ‘White Supremacy’.
Furthermore ‘fascism’ is also an expression of this ‘White Supremacy.’
These are the historical facts that are before us.
LikeLike
Hathor,
At first there was no ideology regarding White people with regard to ‘race’. It was more or less POC were inferior (Irish being the excepton to the rule)
Then with Gobineau et al Whites per se began to be classified like POC
Jumping forward, when Hitler came into power, he did not have a program to exterminate the Jews, Gypsies. This came subsequently.
With regard to European philosophers, you can go through the record and see Hume, Kant etc, most of them were racist in one way or another.
I brought up Nietzsche racism, because Thad would have left us believing that it was his sister that turned him into a racist (and then later subsequent post the suggestion his work was reinterpreted by the Nazi regime) – when obviously this is not the case.
It is clear who Nietzsche is and represented, and his probable impact
This is how and the why we are discussing this issue.
I hope this has clarified rather than ‘muddied the waters’ even further
LikeLike
Recondite.
LikeLike
J,
It was not much of a stretch in the German Zeitgeist. I think it more than just racism, I think it had to do with a strong ethnocentric attitude that produced the Nazi’s.
If it was just racist writing that would have been a major influence, then Hitler would have had many more allies.
LikeLike
Cheers Hathor,
If you read history from a non-euro-centred perspective, you get a totally different picture.
Hitler did have ‘allies’, nor was he viewed as this evil man neither, as today. One must not forget German Imperialism in Nambia had committed genocide against the Harares.
As I have stated before quoting by reference to WEB DuBois and Aime Cesaire.
Hitler’s was following the ‘path’ of White Supremacy. However, because of the constrictions of World War I and the Versaille Treaty. Germany lost its former colonies.
As a result when they became a military force again. It practiced the philosophy of ‘White Supremacy’ for the first time.
So in other words as DuBois and Cesaire have pointed out .the system of genocide which had been a regular occurence on the basis of ‘race’, inferiority, religion etc for POC, would be used against White Europeans for the first time in history.
This is what made it a dangerous philosophy in the end.
And this is the perspective or tool that I use to analyse Nazism, which was ‘normal’ Western cultural behavioural trait until it self-imploded on itself. Or in the words of Malcolm X (since this post is about him). ‘The chickens had come home to roost’.
LikeLike
When it became genocide against White Europeans, I would describe that as ethnocentrism gone amok.
LikeLike
And yes, I used a euro-centric word.
LikeLike
@J
If you read history from a non-euro-centred perspective, you get a totally different picture.
Is this Bradley`s warmed over Aryanism which will give us another perspective, J? Or is there another specific theory you`d like to put up which states that racism and nazism are the same exact thing?
By the way, Nazism was not an expression of “white supremacy”. White supremacy, as far as I can make it out, is a U.S. American philosophy. Nazism was a clear expression of ARYAN supremacy and Aryan supremacists most certainly didn’t see all white people as superior.
At first there was no ideology regarding White people with regard to ‘race’. It was more or less POC were inferior (Irish being the excepton to the rule)
Then with Gobineau et al Whites per se began to be classified like POC
Sorry, J. I can find you plenty of white people classifying this or that group of white people as congenitally inferior, prior to Gobineau. the Irish were hardly the only ones to suffer in this respectr, a fact you`d know if you`d bother to read anything other than english-language history.
Spain and Portugal had very clear ideologies of “blood purity” prior to the Conquest and these were clearly directed at people who were understood to be what we’d today call white. The original cut here was religious and one’s blod was “tainted” if it had non-Catholoc ancestry. Mostly, this meant Jew and Muslim, but not exclusively so. Gypsies were in there as were descendants of certain heresies.
Africans and Americans originally were warped into this system based on religion. Over three hundred years of increasing African slavery, however, meaning shifted from religion to color in the definition of “pure” blood. This didn’t all of sudden purify the “bad” whites, however.
When Gobineau started in with his classifications, it was nothing radically new. It was more of synthesis of already existing prejudices. Aryanism allowed Gobineau and people like him to set all those people whom they considered inferior off in a convenient simple classificatory system. It did not create the notion of white groups’ inferiority: it simply classified it within a greater system of distinction.
And no, before you repeat your old saw, in this system blacks and other non-white groups were not necessarily seen as inferior to all white groups. DEGENERATE white groups were seen as worse as groups like blacks who were presumably on their way up the evolutionary ladder. And who were the worst degenerates? Semitics.
This is ONE of the historical roots of Nazism, J, and not the belief that all whites are superior to all non-whites. Others are a romantic belief in the supremacy of the People over the Individual and the view that the People must be led by a supreme Leader and governed as if they were a family.
But I`m hip to why it`s important for you to distinguish fascism as an outgrowth of white supremacy alone. After all, if we were to describe fascism as a corporativist, totalitarian form of politics which is generally based upon the notion of a biologically distinct “chosen people… Well, gee, that would pretty much describe your views on ” the politically correct form of afrocentrist” politics, wouldn’t it?
Much, much more comfortable to believe that the fires of Auschwitz were something that only the White Man could or would do.
LikeLike
Kwamla,
“Black skin is dominant. When a white European and a Black African pairing produce children the experience shows that skin colour, along with certain other dominant traits – brown eye colour – etc…, will be predominately inherited from the Black African parent. This is a general observational rule we all know from experience to be true. As in anything general there are always exceptions to this.”
Sorry, but this is just not true, in any way shape or form. Black skin or genes is not dominant. There is no dominant gene for skin color. Skin color is additive — the result depends on the random assortment which is received. By chance, a person can receive all alleles for skin color from their European parent or all alleles for skin color from their African parent, but statistically speaking, they will probably receive a near equal share of both.
A good portion of European people have brown eyes. Brown eye color is more common than any other eye color, period, except in the most northern regions of Europe. So I’m unsure why brown eyes are being seen as a “black” trait.
——————-
abagond,
“My own understanding has been that “black” genes are generally dominant – black, kinky hair, brown eyes, etc. But come to think of it, it might seem that way partly because of the One Drop Rule where you can be mostly European and STILL “seem black”.’
See above.
——————
FG,
“I don’t think they are dominant. The children of a pure European and a pure African parent (like Obama) tend to be perceived as black by Americans…
Not true. If both parents are pure race, the kid will be of intermediate color (like Obama). If the parent “of color” is mixed with white, the kid may turn out intermediate or white.”
Who told you this? Someone lied to you.
I guess Jaye Davidson (black Ghanaian father/white English mother) would be perceived as black by Americans?
or maybe Rozalla Miller (black Zambian mother/white English father) would be perceived as black?
If you know anything about human genetics, know that its never so cut and dried.
—————–
Hathor,
“Anecdotally, the skin color gene is dominant only in the male.
White father, Black mother, the child is more likely to look white. Visa versa and the children look likes Obama. I am not sure if this is scientific, but just my observation.”
I haven’t noticed this, but since females tend to be lighter than males in most populations (due to female neoteny), it might be prove to be the case.
LikeLike
That is from me, Natasha.
LikeLike
@ Everyone for Genetics and gene expression
Thoughts ? ? ?
1.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00508/SNN1621TWINS-280_508524a.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1295476.ece&h=390&w=280&sz=49&tbnid=wKuSJHHpqCmKTM:&tbnh=123&tbnw=88&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dblack%2Btwin%2Bwhite%2Btwin&hl=pt-BR&usg=__UJfHIUK4U3DvOrwUC_iPWsP_HxA=&sa=X&ei=PG5ETL-RNIKC8gb_ta0L&ved=0CC0Q9QEwBA
2.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/mixedtwins.asp
LikeLike
@Color,
Those stories don’t report anything surprising. It’s just basic genetics. With regard to the first, I wouldn’t describe the darker girl or her dad as “black.” The only way the lighter daughter could look completely white is that her dad is actually mixed.
LikeLike
ColorofLuv,
With regard to:
“Those stories don’t report anything surprising”
What is suprising is how did you manage to find this story, from what is one of our most ‘trashiest’ but most popular newspaper??
Sun readers are usually viewed with ‘suspicion’…I always thought there was something about you, but yet coud not put my finger on it……………………………….. until now.
LikeLike
FG,
Not taking away from your own perception, but just to say with regard to cross-cultural differences, the father you refer to in the first link, would be considered ‘Black’
in the Caribbean and the UK…
LikeLike
@ J …
c’mon now. I don’t know anything about ‘trash’ papers from the UK. I’m just finding stories and pictures to help ‘illustrate’ that genetics is not simple, and that some of the ‘myths’ being portrayed as true withing this thread are actually ‘not true.’
If you go back to my earlier posts: (you know the one, where I posted a photo of myself) You will find these same links. I’m familiar with these because I am interested in the concept of just exactly who is “Black” and “White”, and why we find the need to ‘support’ these divisions. I do this based on my Brazilian background, personal experiences, and my own beliefs. I think the examples I provide show just how fallacious the idea of dominant race genes are. The story of Sandra Laing is also equally fascinating.
These sorts of things happen in Brazil. Immediate famil, first/second generation having black, white, brown siblings. This isn’t as infrequent as people think.
Heck, look at Eartha Kitt, her daugther, and grand daughter.
That is all I’m trying to say.
LikeLike
“Not taking away from your own perception, but just to say with regard to cross-cultural differences, the father you refer to in the first link, would be considered ‘Black’
in the Caribbean and the UK…”
Definitely not in the Spanish-speaking Caribbean. Even in the British West Indies, there are intermediate categories like “coloured” and “browning.”
LikeLike
Cheers FG,
Agreed about about ‘Spanish Caribbean’.
Thebguy reported in the paper is probably from teh British West indies (BWI)
Coloured is what I would describe as an antiquated term in BWI??
And isn’t the term ‘browning’ a new term, or a at least a term re-popularised??
I first heard it in a Reggae song by Buju Banton which is discussion about ‘complexion’ of the skin per se. And back then it was applied solely to women.
Browning is not a racial category used in Jamaica today in the sense you have such a division like: Whites, ‘Browning’ and Blacks
LikeLike
ha ha ColorofLuv,
There is nothing wrong with reading ‘trashy’ papers.
As for the issue of ‘dominant’ genes, in actuality there is no such thing. Humans have constructed that term to describe what they see when certain ‘races’ and/or plants etc inter-mix.
When things happen in the world, and/or humans see things they have to ‘construct’ an understanding of that process mentally, culturally, and also according to teh use of language.
In a world where race is NOT an issue there would be no need to refer to a ‘dominant’ gene.
So its just how the language is conceptualised in a given culture vis-a-vis ‘an objective reality’
LikeLike
“FEAR OF A WHITE PLANET” Don’t let the title scare you! I simply think this gives us a chance to really pause and reflect on phenotype, genetics, and our socially conditioned nature of PERCEPTION.
Here is an interesting “blog” I found on Discover Magazine.com by Razib Khan. Very interesting in his explanation of gene expression and how it is expressed.
Quote: The norms of reference were socially conditioned, so the scaling of phenotype did not have a linearly proportional effect on perception in identity.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/05/fear-of-a-white-planet/
Have a good night,
C H E E R S ! ! !
LikeLike
Cheers ColorofLuv
An interesting link and also what it is suggesting ie the ability to lighten makes White genes dominant)
As I said in my previous post, it all depends on perspective, and what one wishes to prove by the use of word ‘dominant’.
With regard to the link I have my reservations, from an African centred perspective, but from Khan’s own perspective it makes sense and it is valid.
One thing about race, although it is a construct.
What you observe is Whites seemed to have classified and constructed race ‘indirectly’ on the basis off the propensity to produce melanin (ie ‘colour’ viz. POC) vis-a-vis those who have ‘less’ melanin (Whites). And this is the case for other ‘Whites’ like Persians, some Arabs but who in the scheme of things were considered to actually be more ‘mixed’ and hence could not be viewed as ‘White’ but rather as ‘POC’
Goodnight to you.
LikeLike
Whist having a quick glance at the book ‘Malcolm X on Afro-American History’. The 1998 edition has excerpted from ‘The Autobiography of Malcolm X’. The books that Mailcolm X read in prison.
Therein he states after reading thse books he realised
“History has been so ‘whitened’ by the white man”
And this is something that is also forgotten.
When you look at subjects, whether it be history, science etc, these are all ‘constructs’, created by people
WIth regard to ‘African centred’ thinking. There are many who suggest that it makes things up, is not ‘objective’ etc. However, these individuals will never suggest that it is merely a diferent perspective to looking at the world and a ‘critique’ of euro-centred thinking/philosophy which arose as as part of the justification for world domination (ie White is right and best).
Moving it slightly, if women were to become the dominant group in the world, They could ‘(re-)write’ the history books so you get a ‘different perspective’ on how cultures/society etc develop, from the one constructed at present which usually involves the ‘upper classes’ ie leaders who are by and large male .
Usually this type of thinking is found within the realm of subject called ‘Philosophy of Science’
Finally coming full circle, Malcolm X would use his new found knowledge to argue and debate with others in the prison and thus hone his reasoning skills.
LikeLike
ColorofLuv,
I told you there is nothing wrong in reading ‘trashy’ UK papers.
Here we go again, with a story today
From an African centred perspective, this should not be in the least surprising.
Its strange this story should come out today as we were dialoguing this very topic.
Black Parents…White Baby
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3060907/Black-parents-give-birth-to-white-baby.html
LikeLike
@J,
“Browning is not a racial category used in Jamaica today in the sense you have such a division like: Whites, ‘Browning’ and Blacks”
Myself and the Jamaicans I know still use the term “Brown”…when we speak to each other and are being descriptive, we say “the brown girl/boy” (like Sean Paul) but it still more or less carries the same meaning…
Browning was a description that my moms generation used to describe colour and class (such as Michael Manley)… The only word I know of that would replace the term “browning/brown” in Jamaica is “uptown”…of course, when in US, everyone becomes “black”…
LikeLike
http://stunner101.blogspot.com/2006/03/browning-complex-i-i-call-it.html
LikeLike
Cheers for the clarification Linda.
With regard to Manley, I had thought he was loosely cartegorised as ‘White’ rather than ‘browning’.
Can you provide us with some further insights into the former racial categories??
LikeLike
I’ll try but most of my knowledge is from my experiences, my family and friends. I’ve always heard and used this term but I can research and see.
As for Manley, for true, my parents did call him “white” and Edward Seaga “Syrian”…I think Manley himself described himself as “Brown” a few times, probably to show solidarity …but yes, his family is one of our “Aristocrats” who in Jamaica are classified as white but of course in US, they would be mixed-race.
LikeLike
Linda, what would my Jamaican classification be (see avatar)?
LikeLike
Natasha, you would be called “yankee gal” no matter what you look like 😉
LikeLike
Lol! They call me a yankee in the South (U.S.) too. I think I ooze too much New England.
LikeLike
@ J —
Thanks for the link. You and MerriMay (via Sandra Laing thread) beat me to it !!! LOL Very very interesting and coincidental to say the least.
Well, just so you know I wrote a fairly long post earlier and it didn’t make it in. (Operator error) I must not have entered my email address correctly. (How frustrating) It will be interesting to follow the ‘dna/gene expression’ story of this lovely little girl as she matures. Gathering how complex the nature of DNA is, and the forms with which it is expressed, I wouldn’t be surprised if this is some form of weak albinism at work where ability to produce melanin might not fully be inhibited. It would be even rarer (in my humble and novice opinion) that this child has no markers of albinism of any kind: Which currently does seem to be the case!!! One misconception is that albinism often exhibits pink (lack of pigment) or very light blue eyes. There are albino individuals with Dark Brown eyes.
Concerning the Article on Gene Expression and Complexion:
I really do believe it is human and social conditioning that causes these perceptions to be made – as illustrated in the author’s anecdotal comments. This also explains why we’re talking about “browning”, etc… Or in the case of Brazil, additional ‘descriptors’ that are bound to no set rules. Which is why “moreno/a” can be used to describe anybody Black to White. (Literally by U.S. standards) Keep in mind that ‘moreno’ is used a bit more definitively in the Spanish speaking countries of Latin America. But again, it is all about perception.
Had Malcolm X spent his formative years in Brazil, I wonder if his views (racially) would have been different. It is hard dealing in “what ifs”, but suffice it to say that we are all “perceptionally challenged” based on those subconcious rules ingrained in us as a byproduct of whatever society reinforces ‘said’ rules of perception. (i.e. Jim Crow, One Drop, Quadroon, Browning, Mulatto, Moreno…)
This is why, as in a past post on Brazil, Thad mentioned an upper class “White Brazilian” being subjected to laws of segregation while visiting Texas. (circa 1950’s I believe???) The perception, he may not have been Black, but according to most ‘folk’ in that area, he wasn’t White ! Hmmmmm
LikeLike
Ok – that is just weird! I posted and none of my text appeared. This time I’m not blaming operator errror. Instead, I’m calling Ghostbusters. This doggone computer needs sort of ghost extermination because it is surely possessed!!! lol
LikeLike
Cheers ColorofLuv,
It is culture that determines these processes regarding ‘race’. And also history too, for 700 years or so the Spanish had been mixing with Arabs/Africans/Berbers.
So for this reason their classification would need to take a different ‘slant’, since they were already a very mixed nation, if you follow.
As for PC worries, yes tell me about it…
LikeLike
…As a ‘browning’ Natasha W.
I do not really like the term, since it denotes ‘superioirity’ ie Black is ugly, whether implicitly or explicitly..
And as a result of the fuss of the ‘Browning’ record by Buju Banton he was ‘forced’ to do a version of ‘Browning’
LikeLike
@ J –
Looks like my blank post was deleted so i’ll try and recap really quckily what I said.
Interesting about the whole Southern European area regarding “phenotype”, perceptions and historical intermingling. I had read somewhere (though cannot recall) that some gene expression in this area rarely – but sometimes – sufarces as a “White” couple having a darker more stereotypically “African” looking child.
In more early post that disappeared, (Ghostbusters anyone?) I will re-iterate what apparently disappeared into the phantom realm of cyber space: Thad had mentioned White people in general with pigmentation of beige & brown. I would go as so far to say that there are White people (and not in rare instances but quite frequently) who get extremely dark if working in the sun or hanging at the beach. I’m talking NOT being able to pass a paper bag test.
LikeLike
ColorofLuv,
Personally, and this is my own view and opinion.
Many Whites who may have ‘Black features’ I would ascribe it to ‘Black ancestors’.
The way the history books are taught we do not ‘know’ much off the Black people presence across the world.
In a conversation with one other here, I made mention of the historical Black presence as far afield as the former Yugoslavia.
With regard to Blacks who have ‘Caucasian features’, sometimes you can attribute it to Whites, especially, if you know the history of a region.
At other times, like with regard to the issue of ‘blondism’, where the history does not reveal a Caucasian presence. Then you have to attribute that to Black skinned as being ‘parent’ to all what we see today.
Finally, I decided to have a look at the Sun newspaper (hard copy). One medic was suggesting given all the available evidence thus far he would attribute this phenomenon to one of the parents having a White ancestor somehere.
LikeLike
Color:
You posted a comment that was completely blank, so I deleted it. It seemed to be a mistake.
LikeLike
no worries Abagond. I realized that. thx….
LikeLike
@J and Color ‘O love.
These are some interests comments and articles you’ve both come up with on the dominance of genes and hereditary traits.
In the light of this evidence it has now made me want to revise my original statement:
The exceptions may be more general than I was aware of which tends to suggest to me that the whole concept of dominate groups or clustering of genes may actually be false or highly misleading.
The particular example which J provided from the, admittedly trashy newspaper – The Sun – of a Nigerian couple producing a blonde white skinned baby discredits this idea. And this was not an Albino
There are definitely other influencing factors involved here than the present studying of genes can account for.
For me it shows the futility of trying to account for anything solely from the basis of a material perspective
LikeLike
With regard to:
“For me it shows the futility of trying to account for anything solely from the basis of a material perspective”
However. for many hundred of years, until ‘quantam physics’ this was the definition of ‘science’.
Although it was one of ‘science’ successes with regard to ‘predictability’ it also was one of its shortcoming since anything ‘metaphysical’ had to be ignored or rejected and/or considered not measurable
With regard to the issue of ‘race’ history reveals that ‘Whites’ created and attached significance to this term, more than had previously known in history, which obviously is a ‘construct’ on how they perceived the world.
As I have said previously there are a number of differing theories to explain the phenomena.
LikeLike
@ Kwamla –
I’ve been enjoying your comments and input. You said, The exceptions may be more general than I was aware of which tends to suggest to me that the whole concept of dominate groups or clustering of genes may actually be false or highly misleading.
I agree. I realize I’m reiterating what I already said, but what I find so brilliant about Razib Khan’s article, is that he places emphasis on “perception”. In general, how one defines or perceives – “said concept/idea” – will influence the outcome. Regarding race, it is quite apparent given American history just how this plays both historically & present day with racial categorization. In contrast, Brazil is not bound by the same rules that play out the way one would expect in America. The concepts are similar, but the perceptions are ultimately different.
Now factor in the way ‘science’ is measuring this on more of a pure scale in terms of gene expression:
Perception: light dark
Gene Exprs: light <———–*—-med—————>dark
U.S. Perception says said individual is Dark and dark is dominant.
Gene expression based on scaled measurment of light-dark says lighter is carrying more weight. (genetically speaking) Irregardless, I think we know based on world history that unless one’s complexion leans to the far light side, “dark” even if lighter, is still dark. So in a general sense, what Malcolm X observed is true – even if he inadvertantly was only talking about “Perceptions”. (Especially perceptions in that era, which still linger in today’s society.)
I think the interesting thing is that science is helping us better understand ourselves, our history and our future.
LikeLike
With regard to:
“J and Color ‘O love.
These are some interests comments and articles you’ve both come up with on the dominance of genes and hereditary traits.
In the light of this evidence it has now made me want to revise my original statement”
You are to be commended here Kwmala, since most of us who post on blogs merely wish to hear ‘our own voices’
irrespective of the ‘facts’.
That you can change your opinions so quickly says everything…and everything ‘good’
LikeLike
ColorofLuv,
Forgive me here,
With regard to:
” but what I find so brilliant about Razib Khan’s article, is that he places emphasis on “’perception'”.
I think you are being very generous here. From my reading – and I am about to re-read the link again, and at a slower pace too.
From what I read he, he seems to buy into the concept of the ‘dominant gene’, and even the title seems to support the contention.
Hopefully, I will be proved wrong. I am about to re-read the link, and I will tell you whetehr this view is correct or not.
Back in a few minutes.
LikeLike
With regard to the article:
Khan’s link is about establishing ‘White dominant genes’ irrespective of whatever ‘nice’ words he may use.
Forgive me, I think it is a case of reading’s one’s own personality into a text and/or extracting from a piece of text what one wants to according to the personality type of the reader. This is NOT the same as conveying an ‘accurate’ representation of what an author actually means.
LikeLike
ColrofLuv,
And still on this perception of race and placing all the variables in context.
Yet another important variable is the definition of the colonisers for a ‘mixed’ group within a given society.
In the process of colonisatioion it is imperative for the coloniser to place and classify ‘mixed’ groups within a given society, especially as it relates to how the coloniser maintain its power.
Much of the definition we are using today with regard to ‘mixed groups’ is derived from the process of ‘colonistaion’
So the issues we have thus far are:
1. Cultural perception
2. Current racial perception – of the dominant group doing the categorisation
3. Definitions today are based and derived from colonisation, whose aim back then was to maintan the coloniser’s status quo.
LikeLike
agreed…..
However, concerning point # 2 of yours Current racial perception – of the dominant group doing the categorisation
I believe that it is a collaborative effort by all members of society. Granted, the rules were put in place by the “dominant” (or controlling) group (point # 3 of yours), but perceptions continue not because of “present day”, but because of “past day” influence. The rules set in place are not ‘concrete’, rather they are ‘fluid’. The foundation of the past still carries over today, but the rules are changing. The game is not the same as it was. We need to challenge those rules (at the same time understanding why they are there). I think we are evolving in this regard. (Just look at the links here in this very thread. Examine the science. Examine the status quo. I think we’re moving in the right direction, but people need to pull their heads out of the sand.
All in all – I pretty much agree with you.
LikeLike
Much appreciative of your comments J & Color ‘O love.
I also enjoy most of your contributions too…
Whether we agree or not!!!
LikeLike
@J,
“Can you provide us with some further insights into the former racial categories??”
Well, according to sources that used the Kingston, Jamaica Department of Statistics of 1963, there were 4 racial categories: Black (Africans), Brown (Afro-European, Afro-Chinese, Afro-East Indian, and Other mixtures), White (European), and Asian (East Indian & Chinese)
“the browning of Jamaican white society” is a term I found while researching this term…Brown is a category that was used to describe the children of the British slave holders, who acknowledged their mixed children and typically educated them (in England)…
this group became Jamaica’s “middle-class”…land and money was passed on to the next generation, so that’s why even today, the ‘Brown” class still has the majority of political power and economic power.
There’s a saying that “Brown people are born, not made”
Back in my mom’s generation, to be “Brown” was about your ancestry and features as well as your families economic status…everyone more or less knew each other.
Todays meaning of “Brown” remains more or less the same but now it includes any one who has a mixed ancestry and it shows (call it like we see it); and the term “Browning” has been added which means “any girl that is considered “light-skinned” no matter what her features (like hair) looks like.
Over the years, our beauty contests have been catching h*ll for not having enough dark-skinned winners but I’ve posted a few links to showcase what the majority of our beauty queens have typically looked like.
–this is what Jamaicans call “Brown” (with some brownings thrown in): (guys, don’t enjoy too much!)
http://www.missjamaicauniverse.com/2009/09/carolyn-yapp-featured-in-panache-jamaica-magazine/
http://forum.fashionsjamaica.com/index.php?topic=180.0
http://www.soulrebelproductions.com/cms/culture/3521.html
White Jamaican: Butch Stewart (Jamaica’s “Donald Trump”)
http://guardian.co.tt/business/business/2010/02/06/air-jamaica-drop-more-planes-routes
LikeLike
Great links Linda… Thanks.
LikeLike
ColorofLuv,
Which part is specifically great, the info or the Miss World bits, or all of it ha ha??
…Cheers Linda
LikeLike
You’re summing it up really wisely and reasonably there, Kwamla. Respect.
There are still more seemingly obvious things in nature that we humans don’t know than things that we know. And there are more unobvious things we humans know than we want to admit. Perhaps we have too much of a tendency to put things into order, classify, neatly stowed away for easy retrieval. Nature doesn’t care about those things. It’s fundamentally chaotic and just does what works, if it fits into human perception or not.
LikeLike
@ J
you got me! 😉 Unashamedly, I say “all of it”. It was definitely interesting all the way round. I was actually going through and checking some of the last names for that dibble dabble o’ the Irish.
Cheers
LikeLike
ColorofLuv,
Here we go again:
White toddler – black parents
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3063827/White-toddler-Emmanuel-Ofor-has-black-parents.html
LikeLike
@ J –
Wow…
very VERY V E R Y interesting for sure. I will not be surprised if more and more of these types of ocurrences come to be made public.
I guess I’m most intrigued by the fact that both parents have relatives with similar occurrences on each side of the family.
LikeLike
^That child is most definitely NOT white.
Fair-skinned != white. That child is the same complexion as many people in my immediate family, and maybe a shade lighter than myself. I never knew that it was anything newsworthy, or I would have been cashing in on this a long time ago… Why some feel the need to designate fair-skinned African or African-descended people as “white” or “near white,” I will never understand. They are nothing of the sort.
LikeLike
@ Natasha
if you get the chance, read the link I posted a little earlier regarding ‘gene expression’ and white/black. As I had mentioned ealier, and as you will often find throughout Abagond’s blog: What one defines as White, another may define as Black Once again, we fall into the trap of categorization, separatism, segregationism – for surely than can only be Black or White, but never Black AND White. Sense the sarcasm? 😉
I was going to say (after J) posted that article on the second family, that this is nothing new in “America”. I was hoping you would say something. As for your opinion that “ some feel the need to designate fair-skinned African or African-descended people as “white” or “near white,” I will never understand.
Based on the one drop rule and all other forms societal pressures, dark is dominant seems to be the prevailing prejudicial thought pattern, ingrained in us by racial segregation, hate, and taboo. Genetics are showing us otherwise…
LikeLike
ColorofLuv,
You must have seen this story before. Once again reported in a UK paper, Daily Mail, slightly better than The Sun, but not by much though ha ha
Meet the black Brazilian mother who has three white children
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 8:00 AM on 3rd September 2009
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1210632/Meet-black-Brazilian-mother-albino-children.html#ixzz0uSLiae2m
LikeLike
Natasha,
Agreed. The little boy resembles his father quite a lot.
I was always under the assumption that most American Black people had immediate families like mine (and yours, I’m assuming, from your comment), in which people come in a variety of shades. That doesn’t stop us from looking alike, and makes skin color a poor judge of “Blackness”.
CoL,
It’s not that simple when power dynamics in the US have historically made “anything but Black” (or faking it until you make it) a desirable option, both personally and professionally. We all know that labelling someone “White” carries very different connotations than labelling someone “Black”, so they can’t be discussed as separate but equal. And I’m not going to lie, it comes off as patronizing to talk about “we do this, we do that” when it comes to racial separation and categorization when plenty of folks never had a say in the matter (I think you know whom I’m talking about).
LikeLike
@ J –
quite familiar with the case. The most interesting thing about the Brazilian children is their hair texture being so “stereotypically” Scandinavian. (straight/fine) (Perhaps that is simply attributed to the already diverse ancestry of the parents. Such is the case for the majority of Brazil in terms of immediate family members and differing phenotypes.)
Have you heard of any other results regarding dna test for Nmachi?
LikeLike
No DNA test as yet mate.
This is the latest update that I am aware off:
Baby Nmachi: Only DNA will solve riddle – Experts
Saturday, July 24, 2010
http://www.sunnewsonline.com/webpages/features/living/2010/july/24/living-24-07-2010-002.htm
LikeLike
The Great Nat Turner……The slave who killed 56 white people in 1831
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Turner
The only problem is that he didn’t kill the uncle toms, the sell outs, the black snitches, the yess massa ..black people too.
“If you can’t turn them around put them in the ground”
Khalid Muhammad.
LikeLike
wait if it was 60 years ago if your dad was black you was black, so now it chages? better go back to slave times when the master knew if the child wasn’t his. They either swept it under the rug or tried to find the slave thaat had an affair with his wife . black can never evolve from white because it is dominant. and what are ya’ll talking about obama had a dam regular nappy afro in high school your obviously blind if you think he’s not black
LikeLike
[…] in the Age of Show Business, the possibility of this tradition continuing is in jeopardy. Could we have gotten a Malcolm X when there is a TV room right beside the library? A Sam Sharpe when the slavemaster realizes that Carnival is greater allure the church sermons? I […]
LikeLike
“He worked out that blacks had to come first because white skin is recessive”.
Thaddeus – But it isn’t. Several genes make up skin color and there’s a huge variety of skin colors.
My Reaction: Lol white people
LikeLike
oops, my little brother wrote that
LikeLike
why did he read in total isolation?
LikeLike
[…] What malcolm x read in prison – abagond | 500 words a day When malcolm x was in prison he heard the message of elijah muhammad. he wanted to know if it was true, so he went to the prison library and started. […]
LikeLike
[…] What Malcolm X read in prison – Abagond | 500 words a day …> When malcolm x was in prison he heard the message of elijah muhammad. he wanted to know if it was true, so he went to the prison library and started. Source : What malcolm x read in prison – abagond | 500 words a day […]
LikeLike
[…] to know this. All those who follow brother Malcolm and praise his intelligence should remember the extensive reading he did while […]
LikeLike
[…] say he truly embodied transformation and authenticity, at each stage of his life. Just examine the extensive reading he did while in […]
LikeLike
Reblogged this on welcome to aswin's blogs..
LikeLike
[…] What Malcolm X read in prison […]
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Project ENGAGE.
LikeLike
[…] Last year for Book Blogger Appreciation Week in my post Five Books that Represent Me I listed five books I felt represented me in some way or another. One of those books, Alex Haley’s The Autobiography of Malcolm X inspired me with its passages of Malcolm X spending many an evening in his prison cell devouring books on history, colonialism and philosophy. If you wanna see what he read, check out the post on the blog Abagond. […]
LikeLike