The NY Times posted an article entitled "In DNA Era, New Worries About Prejudice" in which we find this little tidbit:
Race, many sociologists and anthropologists have argued for decades, is a social invention historically used to justify prejudice and persecution. But when Samuel M. Richards gave his students at Pennsylvania State University genetic ancestry tests to establish the imprecision of socially constructed racial categories, he found the exercise reinforced them instead.
I've been telling people this stuff for years now but most people, most of whom are black, insist on keeping their heads in the sand on the subject.
What is unfortunate is that the author didn't see fit to discuss this subject with black bloggers who have written on the subject while quoting numerous white people on the subject. So while the article appears to wish to challenge the use or abuse of DNA as it involves race, the Times ends up re-enforcing the same junk by finding only white folk to comment "intelligently" on the subject and no, Henry Louis Gates, a writer, does not count regardless of his Academic standing because no, he's not a scientist.
Same ol', same ol'.
12 comments:
You see who are arguing this point - anthropologists and sociologists. These people don't know genetic.
On Fish's site, our views were called childish because they refuse to accept real scientific data.
They should have asked Rick Kittles. He is a geneticist that has a company that determines what part of Africa that African Americans come from. I had my DNA tested and found that I am from the Mende tribe in Sierra Leone and the Kru people of Liberia. This could never happen if we are all the same.
Many Black people refuse to think and they are hell bent on being ignorant about this subject.
P.S. - White people already know that most of the Black bloggers are clueless. If you don't know, they are not going to discuss anything with you. If we've learn anything about White people, if you have it wrong, they will look at you like you're crazy and walk away. They will not correct you.
Many of our thoughts are too infantile even for me - and I'm Black.
Many Black people refuse to think and they are hell bent on being ignorant about this subject.
There is a vested interest in the status quo. In terms of Assault. I asked a question in public and put money behind it. No takers. With the number of hits that particular issue got from around the world, any clear minded individual saw the truth in front of them. That's all I need to know.
So, Sis. Cynthia. Which race are you a member off, the Kru race or the Mende race? Or does that mean that you are a mixed race Kru race/Mende race?
Personally I am of the Ibgbo race, though I have a bit of the Fanti race mixed in. And then of course there's some of the Hannoveranian race mixed in (this race of people are mostly found in the region around Hannover, Germany).
Oh, and let's not forget the Cherokee race that my great-great grandfather was a member of.
By the way. I don't mean for you guys to take that last comment as if I'm making fun of anyone.
But thibk about what I'm tryin' to say.
HTP
Michael, your ignorance astounds me!
Well, in that case, Cynthia, please explain to me why the concept of race can not be reduced to a Kru race. Isn't it all about genetics, and didn't you identify your membership in that group via genetics?
So explain please. Is their a Kru rac or not?
Kru is no more a different race than a white lab is a different sub species of dog.
THere are no racial differences between the Fanti and Ashanti, the Kru or the Dan or the Fulani, Yoruba or Igbo, as there are no racial differences betwen your average Brit and your average Frenchie.
Just as there is no racial difference between a North and South Korean.
It's what you can reproduce not what random cultural group one chooses to identify with.
"THere are no racial differences between the Fanti and Ashanti, the Kru or the Dan or the Fulani, Yoruba or Igbo"
How, then was cynthia's gene detective identify her as having descended from a Kru or a Malinke or both?
By the way, Cynthia. I never called you childish nor did I call you views childish.
I said they were not logical.
I suppose you missed the report on the genetic ancestry business.
I wont speak for Cynthia but what these people do is one of two things:
a) use mtDAN (DNA in mitochondria) that is inherited from the mother only and trace that back to it's ancestor. mtDNA changes have been mapped to various groups around the world an can be used to determine ancestry. Note that mtDNA has absolutely no bearing on "race" be it socially or genetically constructed.
b) Like CSI shows everyone has a set of genes that is common through their family. Certain groups, due to regional isolation are found to have specific markers.
Personally I find such things as telling a AA that they ARE Kru, Dan or what-have -you very troubling given the amount of inter-ethnic breeding that has gone on in the US. Overall the socially contructed group "African-Americans" is a poor group to use as a basis of population genetics vis-a-vis Africa. For example I find it highly doubtfull that Oprah Winfery is related to any Zulu in any real genetic terms though should she mate with a Zulu I am sure the children will all be dark skinned, thick lipped and "nappy headed." No different than had she layed up with a Yoruba.
Michael: First of all, I never said you said I was childish.
Sondjata, Oprah is not a Zulu. She knows that. This was something she felt and it was proven to be false. I don't remember where her MtDNA traced back to, but it wasn't a Zulu.
Every group of people has markers that are unique to them. Contrary to what people believe, the average person marries people within their own groups. When this happen, the same mutations will be shared by each member in the group. We haven't been out of Africa long enough for us to develop mutations that are independent of the groups we originated from.
Contrary to what you are saying Sondjata - they have already done migrational studies on African Americans and it has been shown that where we entered the U.S. during slavery, we stayed together during the great migration. There are at least three distinct groups of African Americans in the U.S.
If you are interested, I talked about this earlier on The Assault.
http://assaultonblacksanity.blogspot.com/2007/09/black-geographical-america-to-better.html
http://assaultonblacksanity.blogspot.com/2007/09/black-geographical-america-to-better_12.html
I don't think those posts contradict my point. I read them when you first put them up and I thought that it was in relation to "biracial" and "multiracial" persons.
However; my underlying point is that if you are from say the Senegambia, that includes a great deal of different ethnic groups. So it is near impossible to say that a specific African-American can trace his or her roots to a specific ethnic group in the Senegambia region unless you can determine that they ONLY married and bred with other people from that specific group. Since we know that a great deal of amalgamation of ethnic groups occured be it between regions or within them, I find it pretty hard to accept that an individual who does not know their exact lineage can be said to be of ONLY a specific group. I will readily accept that one can trace roots back to an area or even have markers from different groups though. perhaps you can put up a post on your blog further discussing the issue. I would be interested.
And I'm glad that whole Oprah as Zulu thing has been dealt with. Though that PBS special still airs with it.
Post a Comment