Lewis Gordon holds that only “ONE race exists, and that race is ‘Negro’.”
I’m going to explain why Gordon’s conclusion is a non sequitur, and in the process explain why one can’t correlate ANCESTRY with RACE.
Gordon is right that the study of human genome shows all humans originated in Africa.
“From a genetic point of view, there is indeed one human species that originated in a single region.”
So how does he get that these ancestral humans were NEGROS?
Because they were from Africa, of course.
Everyone knows that Negros come from Africa.
Africa has a special Negro-making property.
I’ll assume you aren’t stupid enough to believe that Africa does actually have a special Negro-making property.
The point here is, of course, “originated in Africa” says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the traits that people typically assume to be racial: skin color, hair texture, what have you.
“Can’t we check the ancestral DNA to see if it contains the racial trait genes?”
Here’s the rub: NO, WE CAN’T.
Ancestry is genetically traced via genetic material THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EXPRESSION OF RACIAL (OR ANY) TRAITS.
Let's say that group B is descended form group A, which is shown by genetic ancestry tracking, and that group B expresses traits R, deemed to be racial. Does this mean that group A, the ancestral group of B, express traits R?
Answer: Maybe. Maybe not. We don’t know.
Why don’t we know?
Because we don’t have any of the genetic material from A that could possibly tell us. We do *have* genetic material from A (that’s how we can prove their relation to B) but it doesn’t code for any proteins and hence no biological traits.
In other words, there’s a line of descent leading from A to B, but nothing whatever to tell us how “close” or “far” B has wandered from A vis a vis their “racial” traits.
Our first ancestors in Africa *may* have been dark-skinned, like (some) negroes. Or they may have been light-skinned, in the way hairless chimpanzees are.
To put it shortly, to use ancestral tracking genetics to “predict” race or worse, to “establish” race doesn’t work. There’s no connection between “having ancestors from region X” and “being of race R.”
So, again, we know that all human beings ancestrally come from Africa.
This tells us exactly that, that all human beings come from Africa.
It tells us exactly nothing about “race.”
Unless you want to posit that the land mass Africa has a special “Negro producing property."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It is a highly complex matter to sort out John Locke’s political arguments, especially in dialogue with Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, etc. It is graduate level work.
BUT — it is not hard to teach children that democracy is good and all men are created equal and have equal rights.
That is to say, one *can* (and we have traditionally done) teach children the PRINCIPLES and CONSEQUENCES of a broadly Lockean theory of political right. That is basically Americanism.
It's not necessary to teach the most difficult Lockean arguments re: representative democracy.
When I say “race isn’t real” what I mean is this: If an alien biologist came to earth, knowing nothing of humans, and set out to learn about our biological and genetic make up, it would not discover “races.” There is no natural fact of the matter that human beings are so divided.
An alien anthropologist who studied our history and customs would discover that we have, in recent centuries, taken to dividing ourselves up in such social categories, but he would also be aware that this habit of ours has no foundation in nature.
After all, whether there are “races” is an empirical question, and one that has been answered: No, there aren’t.
We thought for millennia that Euclid’s Parallel Postulate was really a Theorem, until it was finally proven not to be a Theorem. It’s a Postulate.
Just had a dispiriting conversation (sort of) with a friend who, I learn, has a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I cannot fathom how otherwise linguistically competent people can impute such insane and malicious meanings to Trump’s otherwise reasonably plain words.
There is something opposite to the Principle of Charity at play here—call it the Principle of Malice: when it is Trump, his words are *always* to be taken in the worst possible light, no matter how *wildly implausible*, no matter how much language must be tortured to get there.
My friend is (apparently) absolutely convinced that Trump told people to INJECT DISINFECTANT to cure COVID.
Let’s talk about this bit of dishonesty from Dr. Jillian Ford of Kennesaw State University.
She says
1 Critical Race Theory says that racism is an everyday occurrence for people of color
2 Critical Race Theory does not say that white people are inherently oppressive
3 Critical Race Theory is “not about individual behavior” but “about systems and policies”
Contra 1: This is an EQUIVOCATION designed to hide what CRT teaches. CRT doesn’t say that racism is an “everyday occurrence” AS PER individual experience, but that racism is EVERYWHERE AT ALL TIMES. You know, in the SYSTEMS and POLICIES.