Dismantling PBS's "What Is Race?" (This will not be pretty)

In the past I have encountered the occasional person that would make the assertion that there is no such thing as race. The common reasoning given: "We're all human."

"Yes but that doesn't prove your assertion." After that they are usually lost because generally the statement is based on what a professor told them, or an article they read somewhere (usually nothing more weighty than the NY Times).

Of late though I've run across people with more specific, if not as faulty arguments in regards to the assertion there is no race. Those assertions would be things like blood type and toe length. pretty assinine reasoning but there it was. My mistake was in thinking that such ideas were original with the speaker. It was not until today that I became aware that there is actually a source of "information" that is at the core of the "no race" ideology that is rapidly spreading around the world. This source is PBS.

PBS has apparently become the source of "authoritative" evidence of " no race" evidence on the web. I remember when they first came out with their "race" series which made the cover of TIME magazine. I didn't pay it much attention because I knew it would be the same ol' same ol' targeted at people who either hadn't taken biology since High School or if they went to college, did not go past the general bio requirement. In other words the piece was targeted at the uninformed who wouldn't know what questions to ask. And since the overall mission is supposedly admirable: The elimination of racism, a bit of misrepresentation is OK with them. So let's get at this PBS "Power of an Illusion": Sorting People.

The website begins with a question: Can you tell a persons race by looking at them?

The "desired" answer is "no" but in fact the answer is "mostly yes" of course you have to know what "race" is to begin with to make such a statement. But what is important here is what PBS is setting the view up for. They want to sew seeds of doubt about what your eyes are telling you. It wants to frame the discussion in terms of what you can see. This is very important.

If you click on the "explore traits" you get a pop up that asks:

" Do any physical traits follow "racial" lines? Let's look at some inherited traits and see if our race groupings make sense".

Let's stop here. "Our racial groupings"? Who is "our"? Where is "our" racial grouping defined? Who got to define "Our" racial groupings? for this we get:

Click below to see how people organized by the U.S. race categories actually "sort out" according to these traits.

Oh I see, the US government gets to define "our" racial groupings. Check that for a minute. Not the people who belong to the supposed "racial groups". Not any other govermental body. Not an international scientific body. No the U.S. Just think on that for a minute because we already know that using the US "definition" that this is headed into very very wrong territory.

So we click the "Skin color category" And are presented with a box of quadrants for different people representing what is supposedly "different races"

First off lets examine the pictures:

1) The pictures are small as hell so you can't see any details on the individuals who have been "assigned" to each group.

2) The "Black" column ( my interest) includes people who are clearly not black. Why are they there? Oh that's right because we are using the U.S. definition of race.

3) We have a "HIspanic/Latino" column which makes absolutely no sense because anyone with even a bit more than a peripheral knowledge of history will tell you that Hispanic cannot be a race since the "Hispanic" areas of the globe are a mixture of Europeans, Native Americans and Africans. And so it cannot be a racial group.

So in the end this little "skin color" experiment by PBS only goes to re-inforce that the U.S. definition of "race" is faulty. But remember I already agree with that.

Next we can click on the "Fingerprint" section where we find that "Blacks" are the only group that has "Tented Archs" in their fingerprints. Interesting. the different "races" show up as you move from right to left. This proves nothing except that if you are a black crook you best wear gloves (OJ had it right). In either case it doesn't matter to me who has what fingerprint pattern because it's not relevant. But it's a cute example and could be used against the "no race" argument but I'll leave it alone for now.

The last category would be blood type. Again an "interesting" pattern appears. You'll note that "American Indians and Asians are claimed to have Type AB. Again anyone with a bit of historical knowledge knows that American Indians are in fact descended from Asians so that they would share this trait is entirely expected

Even more damning for this particular study is that going on appearances alone the "white looking" black woman, the "hispanic" and the two white women all share type O and that too would be expected given that the "white looking" black woman is clearly mixed, the "hispanic" male, given the history of Latin America would have a 3/4 chance of having such a blood type just by knowing history and the white folk, well If they say so.

In fact going though Type A and Type B the same exact analysis can be made.

So again, this little "game" that PBS has given hasn't proven anything in the way of "no race.' In fact to the informed and critical minded the results play out exactly as is expected. In other words, there is nothing new here.

Of course since I went and did the 'blood test" thing I went back and did the "put the people in the box" test. I had a problem though. I couldn't put people where I wanted to put them. In my opinion there were only two people who I would nominally call "black." This meant I was unable to finish the "game." So I had to assign people to places that I would not have simply to get to the next screen. Bad bad bad. Of course the point was to point out the flaws of the US system but again I'm in total agreement with the condemnation of the US system. I just want to point out to the reader though that there wasn't a single picture that was reflective of my dark skinned, thick lipped, nappy headed self. There also wasn't a blond headed, pale skinned and blue eyed person on there either. We should ask why that was missing. It simply cannot be an accident that such a sophisticated website made with foundation cash could miss that. There must be some reason why the obvious candidates were missing. Don't count on the "no race" people to answer that question though.

So having played the games, let's move on to the rest of the presentation.

Apparently I skipped the "What Is Race" section so I went back to that one. We are presented with a question:

Is Race for Real?







We all know that people look different. Anone can tell a Czech from a Chinese. But are these differences racial? What does race mean? Fidn the answers to these and other questions by exploring different interactivities within this site.

PBS has set up the game. They start off trying to confuse the audience. You know the difference between a Czecj and Chinese. But really you don't. See the game? The game is to confuse you. So we check the "quick facts"

1) Race is a modern idea? Ancient societies did not divide people according to physical differences, but according to religion, status, class, even language?

Bullshit. And we smash this one quickly. Turn to Page 66 of Dr. Diop's work Civilization or Barbarism and behold figure 17. Of course most of the people reading the PBS site has not even heard of Civilization or Barbarism or even of Dr. Diop himself. So they are unable to challenge this massive lie. If that is not enough one must understand that the Sudan is literally the "Black Land" as in land of the blacks. How can anyone write with any seriousness the above knowing these things? Oh maybe such things as physical differences didn't matter much beyond identification, but the fact that it was clearly known and noted by ancient people completely refutes this lie.

2) Race has not genetic basis: Not one Characteristic, trait or gene distinguishes all members of one "so called race from all members of another so-called race"

This is the heart of the issue. Note the way this statement is made the operative words here are "all" and "so-called". You see PBS is setting up the audience. They will present the US definition of race which mixes and matches people in the most horribly unscientific means as the "so-called race" and by that it will discredit it because by that definition "all members" cannot have traits completely absent in any other. So the site will be accurate so far as it presents it's info but it will not prove the hypothesis (Race has no genetic basis). Please keep this in mind because we will return to this argument by piece's end.

3) Slavery predates race

I won't go into the text here. Needless to say that slavery has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of genetic races. This is a distraction from the point. It wants to gain the audiences sympathy by conflating the Maafa with race. It will work for most but it is mostly irrelevant to the issue at hand.

4) Race and freedom were born together

Won't waste time on this text either since it too is irrelevant to the discussion. This section and the previous one is a discussion of social policy which is not of interest here. Next!

5) Race justified social inequalities as natural.

Are we seeing a pattern here? Another sociological issue. Nice to see it addressed but again it is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. At best this particular issue ties in with Eugenics and in discussing why people are so afraid to discuss race as a subject but again it does nothing to address the core question posed by the site: What is race?

6 ) Human subspecies don't exist. Unlike many animals, modern humans have not been around long enough, nor have populations been isolated enough, to evolve into separate subspecies or races. Despite surface differences, we are among the most similar of species.

Question for the reader: Do you know what a subspecies is? current US demographics would make the odds of the answer being in the affirmative at about 20% so odds are you don't know what it is. This is important because this is where PBS is going to attempt to prove the assertion made in point 2. So we must address this point.

What is a subspecies. The easiest and fairest way to deal with this issue is to point the reader to a definition that everyone can access: Wikipedia. No not always the best source but at least if there is dispute anyone with more knowledge than either of us is free to edit the page and add their two cents.

Wikipedia opens with:

In zoology, as in other branches of biology, subspecies is the rank immediately subordinate to a species. A subspecies is a taxonomic group which is less distinct than the primary stock or species from which it originates. The characteristics attributed to subspecies are generally derived from changes that have taken place or evolved as a result of geographical distribution or isolation from the primary species or nominate form, also called nominate subspecies. In layman's terms, a subspecies may also be described as a diversification of the primary species since a subspecies always has the nominate form or primary species as its common ancestor, i.e. it always originates from a common ancestral stock.

In zoology, the scientific name of a subspecies is the binomen followed immediately by a subspecific name, e.g. Homo sapiens sapiens.

So what we get here is that we humans are Homo sapiens sapiens. We are the "Subspecies" in question. So it would appear that PBS is on the money.

Not so fast. Lets look at that opening paragraph there:

The characteristics attributed to subspecies are generally derived from changes that have taken place or evolved as a result of geographical distribution or isolation from the primary species or nominate form, also called nominate subspecies

So lets go over a bit of history here. It is agreed upon that modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) arose in Africa and spread out world wide. So the original man and woman was what we find the oldest genotypic human to look like, Black skinned, "nappy headed" , "Broad nosed" and "thick lipped" We also know that all those funky groups PBS asked us to categorize arose from that primary species and we also know that those characteristics arose from changes that have taken place or evolved as a result of geographical distribution or isolation from the primary species.

So on the one hand PBS is asserting that there are no human subspecies of human beings and yet the very means by which all these differences showed up world wide fits the exact definition of subspecies. Seems like PBS either didn't do its research OR they have a specific ideology they want to push.

Ok let's continue with the examination of subspecies. Wikipedia continues:

Members of one subspecies differ morphologically from members of other subspecies of the species. Subspecies are defined in relation to species. It is not possible to understand the concept of a subspecies without first grasping what a species is. In the context of large living organisms like trees, flowers, birds, fish and humans, a species can be defined as a distinct and recognisable group that satisfies two conditions:







1. Members of the group are reliably distinguishable from members of other groups. The distinction can be made in any of a wide number of ways, such as: differently shaped leaves, a different number of primary wing feathers, a particular ritual breeding behaviour, relative size of certain bones, different DNA sequences, and so on. There is no set minimum 'amount of difference': the only criterion is that the difference be reliably discernable. In practice, however, very small differences tend to be ignored.





2. The flow of genetic material between the group and other groups is small and can be expected to remain so because even if the two groups were to be placed together they would not interbreed to any great extent.







Note the key qualifier above: to be regarded as different groups rather than as a single varied group, the difference must be distinct, not simply a matter of continuously varying degree. If, for example, the population in question is a type of frog and the distinction between two groups is that individuals living upstream are generally white, while those found in the lowlands are black, then they are classified as different groups if the frogs in the intermediate area tend to be either black or white, but a single, varied group if the intermediate population becomes gradually darker as one moves downstream.







This is not an arbitrary condition. A gradual change, called a cline, is clear evidence of substantial gene flow between two populations. A sharp boundary between black and white, or a relatively small and stable hybrid zone, on the other hand, shows that the two populations do not interbreed to any great extent and are indeed separate species. Their classification as separate species or as subspecies, however, depends on why they do not interbreed.







If the two groups do not interbreed because of something intrinsic to their genetic make-up (perhaps black frogs do not find white frogs sexually attractive, or they breed at different times of year) then they are different species.







If, on the other hand, the two groups would interbreed freely provided only that some external barrier was removed (perhaps there is a waterfall too high for frogs to scale, or the populations are far distant from one another) then they are subspecies. Other factors include differences in mating behavior or time and ecological preferences such as soil content.







Note that the distinction between a species and a subspecies depends only on the likelihood that in the absence of external barriers the two populations would merge back into a single, genetically unified population. It has nothing to do with 'how different' the two groups appear to be to the human observer.

Got that? Ok let me discuss this a bit. For our race discussion the following points are important:

1) 1. Members of the group are reliably distinguishable from members of other groups. The distinction can be made in any of a wide number of ways, such as: differently shaped leaves, a different number of primary wing feathers, a particular ritual breeding behaviour, relative size of certain bones, different DNA sequences, and so on. There is no set minimum 'amount of difference': the only criterion is that the difference be reliably discernable. In practice, however, very small differences tend to be ignored.





This is important because the "no race" people attempt to use the blood type and such to confuse the notion of race. We can now reliably dismiss such notions because they are not "readily discernable" Furthermore we don't need to have a whole mess of diffferences only discernable differences. This is important because most racial categorization that goes on in the laymans world is based entirely on skin color. However; we see here that we are certainly allowed to use a matrix of characteristics to discern "races" or "subspecies". You will find that my definition of race is dependent upon a set of "readily discernable" markers and is therefore scientific and not "social." You'll note that the above point (and my next one) refer to species but it is important for our discussion of subspecies.











2. The flow of genetic material between the group and other groups is small and can be expected to remain so because even if the two groups were to be placed together they would not interbreed to any great extent.

This is an important point that needs to be made. The old school "white mans" version of race was an attempt at showing that "negroes" were an entirely different species of human that would fit the above definition. Race by no means fits into the above point. Therefore anyone who attempts to use race to prove the above point is full of shit.

Continuing:

Note the key qualifier above: to be regarded as different groups rather than as a single varied group, the difference must be distinct, not simply a matter of continuously varying degree. If, for example, the population in question is a type of frog and the distinction between two groups is that individuals living upstream are generally white, while those found in the lowlands are black, then they are classified as different groups if the frogs in the intermediate area tend to be either black or white, but a single, varied group if the intermediate population becomes gradually darker as one moves downstream.

This is not an arbitrary condition. A gradual change, called a cline, is clear evidence of substantial gene flow between two populations. A sharp boundary between black and white, or a relatively small and stable hybrid zone, on the other hand, shows that the two populations do not interbreed to any great extent and are indeed separate species. Their classification as separate species or as subspecies, however, depends on why they do not interbreed.

Now we have some meat here. Lets replace the frog with humans. In humans we know that we see a "cline." Since we don't see either or situations in the observable world but rather clear varieties in human morphology we know this to be the case. We know we are dealing with the same species. So we are forced the answer the question posed: Do we interbreed or not? By wait!!! did we say "breed?" Yes we did. Recall in my previous postings on the subject I told the audience that we can interchange breed with race. OK? Good.

If, on the other hand, the two groups would interbreed freely provided only that some external barrier was removed (perhaps there is a waterfall too high for frogs to scale, or the populations are far distant from one another) then they are subspecies. Other factors include differences in mating behavior or time and ecological preferences such as soil content.







Note that the distinction between a species and a subspecies depends only on the likelihood that in the absence of external barriers the two populations would merge back into a single, genetically unified population. It has nothing to do with 'how different' the two groups appear to be to the human observer.

So we know full well that there were environmental barriers preventing Africans from breeding with Europeans and Asians. We know that given the opportunity all these groups will willingly get their freak on. Oh there are definite social barriers here or there but by and large humans will mix it up (especially the males). So by the requirements outlined above and noting the breeding history of humans it is clear that varied human morphological groupings (races) are in fact subspecies. So how did PBS get this wrong? Seriously? All that grant money and stuff and they completely missed that? I don't think so. They knew what they were doing and it is working perfectly.

Lastly we find:

A polytypic species has two or more races or subspecies. These are separate groups that are clearly distinct from one another and do not generally interbreed (although there may be a relatively narrow hybridization zone), but which would interbreed freely if given the chance to do so. Note that groups which would not interbreed freely, even if brought together such that they had the opportunity to do so, are not races: they are separate species.

Umm. Does this need explaining? Well actually I think this would be a restatement of my earlier statement.

So on point number 6 of the PBS special we find PBS to be presenting a flat out lie. We are soooo shocked </sarcasm>. Continuing:

7) Skin color is only skin deep. Most traits are inherited independently of one another. The genes for skin color have nothing to do with genes for hair texture, eye shape, blood type, musical talent, or athletic ability.

Really? Well on the blood type thing well maybe (see our previous slide dissection). Musical talent and athletic ability? I'm not even going to go there. Hair texture and eye shape..umm I don't know who they have been looking at but its pretty clear to me that certain eye colors are generally absent from certain populations. That certain hair types follow certain skin types and eye color types in combination. Like these people haven't heard of gene linking, independent assortment, gene association and other genetic phenomena that is readily observable.. So to make up for the poor research here I'll again point the reader to Wikipedia:

Genetic linkage occurs when particular genetic loci or alleles for genes are inherited jointly. Genetic loci on the same chromosome are physically connected and tend to segregate together during meiosis, and are thus genetically linked. Alleles for genes on different chromosomes are usually not linked, due to independent assortment of chromosomes during meiosis.

So again PBS is caught passing off lies. This is not really looking good. Next.

8) Most variation is within, not between "races."

Well that depends. If you are using the now discredited US "standard" then the statement is true. If you use a scientific standard you may not find the amount of variation to be that great and even if you do they will pale in comparison to the morphological differences between "races." I mean me and a Dinka may have serious differences but neither one of us will ever be confused with a Czech. So well chalk this up as a PBS half truth or conditional truth.

9) Race is not biological, but racism is still real. Race is still a powerful social idea that given people different access to opportunities and resources. Our government and society have created advantages to being white. This affects everyone, whether we are aware of it or not.

An unfortunate mix of unproven declaration and social science. We've already smashed two of PBS's "scientific" statements so at this point the reader ought to be highly suspicious of the "race is not biological" statement. And yet again we are assaulted with social science with has nothing to do with genetics.

10) Colorblindness will not end racism

Again I won't waste time on the social science angle here.

What we have here are 5 statements that have nothing to do with science. and another two that are completely contradicted by the facts and scientific definition. therefore in their opening slide we have a 75% rate of a combination of irrelevant info or flat out incorrect statements. Yet this is passing as "authoritative" information. It's amazing what some grant money can do.

The next set of slides is the "Race Timeline". A brief..well not too brief overview of racial theory in America (and occasionally elsewhere). But the same problem exists here as it exists elsewhere: It is a practice in social history At best it serves to discredit such persons such as Johann Blumenbach and Samuel Morton Which is fine in my book but still doen't disprove race itself. All it does is disprove previous thoughts about it. The difference is important. Just because you can disprove someone's thinking on a particular subject does not make the subject itself disappear. You've only destroyed a particular argument that's all. Overall this section provides no evidence or documentation that supports PBS's hypothesis though it is an interesting historical read.

The next section is "Human diversity" Which is perhaps the best attempt at providing evidence for the hypothesis of "there is no race." When you hit this section and hit the "Explore Diversity" section, you are in for a real treat. First let's click on the "Physical Appearance" section.

What Do You Look Like? We have an idea that certain physical traits - like those listed on the right - go together and that these can be mapped geographically along "racial' lines. It turns out that we have a distorted impression of how people around the world actually look.

Whoah... Full stop. Not that PBS is again trying to confuse the reader by placing "geography" and "racial" in the same sentence. This will bite them in the ass shortly. Secondly you'll note that they separate out three traits. This is an attempt to confuse the reader by implying that race must be a product of a single trait. but we dealt with this in our discussion of subspecies so we already know that PBS has this wrong. So the entire presentation is faulty on those bases alone. If this were a court of law this "evidence" would be in-admissable. But let's entertain PBS and go through this.

First we click on the "Our Idea of Race" (I already went into the whole "our" thing didn't I?)

Where does our idea come from?





In the U.S., immigration patterns give us the false impression of distinct "races." Most people have migrated here from very specific places [bloggers note: can they come from anyplace other than a specific place?] If we looked at the world, we would see that people are much more varied, and different populations blent gradually into one another.









Oh wait, did I read that right? "Different population blend gradually into one another." Wait I saw this before. Yes. Yes I did.

A gradual change, called a cline, is clear evidence of substantial gene flow between two populations...If, on the other hand, the two groups would interbreed freely provided only that some external barrier was removed (perhaps there is a waterfall too high for frogs to scale, or the populations are far distant from one another) then they are subspecies.

No shit? Word I do believe that PBS just provided us with evidence of....gasp...human sub-species. So with one slide the whote "no race" argument that PBS is attempting to foist on the world falls to the ground. Done. Finished. Everyone can go home now. There's nothing left to see here. The fire is out. Seriously folks, there is nothing else to see here. Do they have fact checkers and editors at PBS? Didn't anyone see this? Seriously to have stuff that completely contradicts the entire point of the website is pretty bad.

Ok just to be charitable I will waste more time on this PBS site cause I promised to do it. If we click on the "skin color" button we get a nice colored graph of skin coloring around the world. They state:

How skin color is distributed geographically. This map shows a lot more diversity than we might expect. Africa for instance, has the widest range and greatest diversity of skin color. People in Spain, Algeria and Chiina have similar skin tone, yet we traditionally think of them as different "races." People in southern India are as dark as many Africans. Skin color tends to correlate with sunlight and lattitude, not "race."

This particular passage suffers from what we call "the pull of the recent"(2). In laymen's terms the people at PBS have presumed that what we see now is how it has always been. They are projecting the present into the past. Bad, bad science. Let's briefly discuss Spain and Algeria. Spain has a darker population because of sunlight or because of the Moors that were running up in there for a couple of centuries and the same with Algeria. But all that aside, Since we already know that these populations arose from the Black African founding population All of those different complexions are a direct result of changes due to changes in geography which we did discuss earlier didn't we? Oh yes we did. So again the map itself again destroys the "no subspecies" and "no races" argument. but it gets worse. If you merge the Skin color maps and the nose shape maps, you find that black skinned and broad nosed people are isolated in Africa and Austrailia. Narrow noses and light skin are isolated to northwestern Europe. Asia contains a median of skin tones and nose structures and the Middle East, as expected has a variety of types. Exactly what you expect from the existence of subspecies.

So PBS is done in by it's own evidence yet again.

As far as skin color is concerned had that map been created to reflect the populations circa 4000 BCE there would be no light skinned people on the map at all. So It is of interest that PBS decided not to raise the question of hair type with a little map. I have no doubt that by merging that map as well we would find the "no race" and "no subspecies" argument further damaged. But recall that we've already established that PBS's argument is invalid, all of this is merely extra dirt on the grave.

The next section of interest is the "Genetic Similarity" where PBS asks:

Who are you related to? Most of us can trace our ancestry back at least a few generation. Genealogical researchers can go back further - sometimes as much as 10 or 20 generations, or about 200-400 years. What does that mean for us in biological terms?

Well That depends again on who "us" is. If I'm in Ghana I can pretty much know who my ancestors are for the past 200 years. If I'm in China or Japan I can again know with quite a bit of certainty who my ancestors are going back 200 years. But I won't play dumb any longer. I know they mean "US" as in folk in the US who under the silly US "race rules" has a bunch of people misclassified based on silly "one drop rules" and "hispanic as race" categorizations. So this little exercise they have the reader go through only goes to re-inforce that the US system is silly, but we know that already. What is the overall effect of this situation though? Why is PBS invested in this? That is a social issue and beyond the scope of this post so I'm not going into it now

The section concludes with:

We Can't possibly know our entire genetic history. Our DNA is made up of bits and pieces of DNA from millions of ancestors. dating back thousands of generations -all the way to Africa.

We all share most of the same ancestry. Humans are 99.9% identical genetically. Of the tiny amount of difference that exists, 85% is found in any local group such as Poles or Hmong. We are far more alike than we are different. Genetic differences do exist between individuals and between groups, but those differences don't follow racial lines.

More unsupported statements by PBS. We already know that the 99.9% identical DNA is wrong.

We know that the whole "don't follow racial lines is wrong and proven so in our map overlay and having proven race or subspecies back when we discussed the "opening points", this statement is also provably wrong. We know the old logic rules that show that if any of the premises are false in an "and" statement that the entire statement is false. More dirt on the grave.

The next section is "Me, My Race and I" which is a presentation of slide shows and transcripts which do absolutely nothing to prove or disprove the existence of race at all. It is mere sociology. Sociology is not biology so it is entirely useless in determining the existence of race. Verdict: Waste of time.

The last section is "Where Race Lives" in which they discuss racial "segregation" and such. Again this is sociology and not biology.

So in conclusion, we find that more than 30% of the PBS website is sociology which is entirely useless at discussing a biological phenomenon. Of the rest of the website we find that the information is either outright incorrect or presents information that invalidates the overall argument. But most of the population that this website is to be read by is completely unequipped to see the lies. Yet because this is PBS they think they have authoritative information. Sad. The fact of the matter is that this PBS "documentation" is about as authoritative as Intelligent Design. Not so much.

Technorati Tags: critique, science