Friday, 26 May 2017

"Racism" vs. Extreme Color Arousal

The second part of the discussion of racism vs. extreme color arousal by Francis Holland.
But I’ve also got a different rap that I’ve been developing a book about for the past two years, and now I’ve decided to just write and post about it here in the AfroSpear/Afrosphere. I believe that Extreme Color Aroused Disorder (ECA) is a mental illness. Just as we would get no where trying to develop sociological solutions to the problem of schizophrenia without the help of psychiatrists, I believe we will not achieve the success we could fighting exteme color arousal until we insist that America acknowledge, diagnose and treat it as the mental illness that it obviously (to me) is.
Let’s see: Symptoms of Extreme Color Arousal include paranoia (the Black men are after my daughter); obsessive compulsive behaviors (separate bathrooms, redlining); hyper-vigilance (enforcement of segregation, even today in whites-only schools, movies casts and television shows); anti-social behavior and lack of empathy (genocide in Iraq, callous disregard for suffering in New Orleans); and delusions (Blacks are a separate “race). I’m sure the rest of you can come up with at least a hundred more symptoms that can be found as symptoms of other recognized mental illnesses listed in the DSM-IV.
Now, why do I call this Extreme Color Arousal (ECA) (EE-cah) instead of racism? Well, the word “racism” is based on the fallacious premise that we are from a different “race,” like dogs. Since I do not and will never accept the premise of separate and inevitably inequal “races,” I simply refuse ever again to use the fallacious and white supremacist words “race,” “racial,”, “racist,” and “racism.” Please visit plezWord and my blog and read my articles on the topic,to decide for yourselves.
I don’t need the fallacious words that are based on the premise that we are from another species, because I’ve spent the last two years developing more scientific and linguistically appropriate alternatives for myself. For example, when the police see me coming from half a mile and stop me and other blacks at a rate 2 to three times higher than whites, they are not responding to my “race.” The visual cue to which they are responding is simply my “skin-color.”
Since I know they are aroused to stop me as soon as they perceive my skin-color, I know their problem is that they have Extreme Skin-Color-Arousal. Now, something has to be going on in their heads and cognitive behavioral psycologists tell us that “something” is “thoughts” and “emotions” and these thoughts and emotions become manifest in behavior. Extreme behavior, in many cases. When thoughts and emotions manifest in extreme behavior over a period of time, that’s a “disorder.”
Let’s put those components of the problem together and see what we have descriptively: Extreme Color-Aroused Emotion, Ideation and Behavior, Disorder (ECEIBD). But if we abbreviate that to Extreme Color Arousal, everyone will eventually know what we are talking about, as long as we make reference to all of the elements that prove our case, which we should always do anyway, lest we be easily accused of imagining or exaggerating things.
When you think about it, this becomes a valid diagnosis, which is good. Because without diagnosis there can be no treatment and no cure.
I know that everyone says there can be no treatment for ECA. How do they know? Isn’t that simply a self-fulfilling and highly convenient profecy? How do we know empirically that ECA is any harder to treat than battered women’s syndrome, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Adult Children of Acoholics Families syndrome, alcoholism and drug addiction?
The simple answer is that since ECA is seen to be a disease whose victims are Black, it isn’t considered to be worth diagnosing and treating. That’s why we have to make it clear to whites that THEY are the victims of ECA as well.
The Federal Government says that, between hate crimes and discrimination complaints, about a million complaints are going through the US Government every years. Some of these complaints represent white people who will be dismissed from their jobs for discrimination, lose wages, be the subject of discrimination suits . . . Others of these complaints are white people becoming the VICTIMS of hate crimes. In both cases, it is in whites people’s best interests to have treatment for this illnesses so that they won’t get themselves into trouble by acting out extreme color-aroused emotion, ideation and behavior disorder.
White corporations are spending and inordinate amount of money defending themselves after workers commit acts of discrimination that add nothing to the bottom line. When workers “go off” and kill co-workers because they are color-aroused or have been the victims of color-aroused abuse, that too is expensive for US corporations.
If the only thing I accomplish in this lifetime is that Extreme Color-aroused Emotion Ideation and Behavior Disorder be recognized as a mental illness, so that workers can be screened for it and receive help before they kill their co-workers, be they Black or white, then I will have done something useful with my time.
Over the last couple of years, I think I have worked out conceptually a number of ways in which this screening could take place and be successful in helping employees and others to deal with this increasingly multicultural world in which we live.

Making Raciology: Myths and Methods

Making Raciology:  Myths and Methods

Raciology:  Why Nazi Germany Promoted Notions of “Race” and Why They Persist

"Raciology" is defined by Merriam Webster's dictionary as the "study of human races".  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/raciology

The Oxford Living Dictionaries denire “raciology” as “The characteristics of a race or races of humankind…”  https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/raciology

The term “raciology” derives from the Italian root word “razza”, meaning “race”, and the Greek suffix “logy”, meaning the study of a science.  http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=race




The earliest known use of the term raciology was in 1920s, in The Glasgow Herald.  https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/raciology  

Later, on April 5, 1938, New Zealand’s The Evening Post announced, on page 13, the formation of a “Colonialization Institute”, Germany’s “Hope for the Future”, where white male students would be prepared in the “theory and practice” of “raciology”.  https://www.google.com.do/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/imageserver-newspapers/EP19380405.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjap_OMudbTAhVKRyYKHTUNCis4ChAWCBkwAA&usg=AFQjCNGnFk5YbsENGuUJy7G93xpZ0FAung&sig2=td7omzp7ANqQwWThvgkUtQ

New Zealand’s “Evening Post” further reported in 1938, “The Third Reich’s concentrated propaganda has attracted general attention to the Deutsche Kolonial Schule. [German Colonization Institute], Germany’s only school for the training of future men colonialists…”  https://www.google.com.do/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/imageserver-newspapers/EP19380405.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjap_OMudbTAhVKRyYKHTUNCis4ChAWCBkwAA&usg=AFQjCNGnFk5YbsENGuUJy7G93xpZ0FAung&sig2=td7omzp7ANqQwWThvgkUtQ

“An expert or student in the study of raciology” is referred to as a “raciologist”, a term whose earliest known use was in the 1930s, during the Nazi Germany.  https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/raciologist

Raciology, ss the suffix “ology” denotes, was intended to be an area of scientific study.  One of the topics comprising “raciology” is the  debate over whether “race” exists at all as a matter of biological science.  https://www.google.com.do/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/imageserver-newspapers/EP19380405.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjap_OMudbTAhVKRyYKHTUNCis4ChAWCBkwAA&usg=AFQjCNGnFk5YbsENGuUJy7G93xpZ0FAung&sig2=td7omzp7ANqQwWThvgkUtQ  

The college sociology text, “Race in our Times:  The Essentials” says with regard to “race” that, based on the US Department of Energy’s Human Genome Project’s complete mapping of the human DNA genome, there is no basis in genetic science to believe that “race” exists at all.  https://books.google.com.do/books?id=d52aBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT286&lpg=PT286&dq=DNA+studies+do+not+indicate+that+separate+classifiable+subspecies+(races)+exist+within+modern+humans.+While+different+genes+for+physical+traits+such+as+skin+and+hair+color+can+be+identified+between+individuals,+no+consistent+patterns+of+genes+across+the+human+genome+exist+to+distinguish+one+race+from+another.+There+also+is+no+genetic+basis+for+divisions+of+human+ethnicity.+People+who+have+lived+in+the+same+geographic+region+for+many+generations+may+have+some+alleles+in+common,+but+no+allele+will+be+found+in+all+members+of+one+population+and+in+no+members+of+any+other.&source=bl&ots=04421UAkkB&sig=SLQYHXXjZ_jfkFcve226XAMu5wU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvrs3cqeDTAhWJ2SYKHWmbDXsQ6AEIJjAD

The Sociology text “Our Hatred: How We Raise Our Bullies” highlights the same Human Genome Project scientific findings when addressing raciology.  https://books.google.com.do/books?id=snpdDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT39&lpg=PT39&dq=DNA+studies+do+not+indicate+that+separate+classifiable+subspecies+(races)+exist+within+modern+humans.+While+different+genes+for+physical+traits+such+as+skin+and+hair+color+can+be+identified+between+individuals,+no+consistent+patterns+of+genes+across+the+human+genome+exist+to+distinguish+one+race+from+another.+There+also+is+no+genetic+basis+for+divisions+of+human+ethnicity.+People+who+have+lived+in+the+same+geographic+region+for+many+generations+may+have+some+alleles+in+common,+but+no+allele+will+be+found+in+all+members+of+one+population+and+in+no+members+of+any+other.&source=bl&ots=FnQQIajmHR&sig=iNkIKH5-zkvUD8FqIvTnSve6m0Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvrs3cqeDTAhWJ2SYKHWmbDXsQ6AEIIzAC


The text, “We the People, Servants of Deception: Reconsidering Social Reality”, quotes the US Department of Energy’s Genome Project in stating unequivocally that with respect to raciology, as a matter of biological science, “race does not exist.  https://books.google.com.do/books?id=ujUO2izROGYC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=DNA+studies+do+not+indicate+that+separate+classifiable+subspecies+(races)+exist+within+modern+humans.+While+different+genes+for+physical+traits+such+as+skin+and+hair+color+can+be+identified+between+individuals,+no+consistent+patterns+of+genes+across+the+human+genome+exist+to+distinguish+one+race+from+another.+There+also+is+no+genetic+basis+for+divisions+of+human+ethnicity.+People+who+have+lived+in+the+same+geographic+region+for+many+generations+may+have+some+alleles+in+common,+but+no+allele+will+be+found+in+all+members+of+one+population+and+in+no+members+of+any+other.&source=bl&ots=bYApJ5SFS4&sig=iUyXpJQkWXel8c-DrrE7TaJ498o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvrs3cqeDTAhWJ2SYKHWmbDXsQ6AEIIDAB

Still, raciology -- the study of “race” and and theories of “race” -- clearly does exist and has, with this name -- raciology -- since at least the 1920s and during Germany’s Third Reich. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/raciology  https://www.google.com.do/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/imageserver-newspapers/EP19380405.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjap_OMudbTAhVKRyYKHTUNCis4ChAWCBkwAA&usg=AFQjCNGnFk5YbsENGuUJy7G93xpZ0FAung&sig2=td7omzp7ANqQwWThvgkUtQ

Raciology is the branch of science that studies concepts of “race”, “racial” and “racism”, whether premised on the existence of studying “race”; or premised on the need or desirability of studying concepts of “racism”; or premised on both belief in biological “race” and sociological “racism”.  

Some texts and popular media distinguish between these two distinct concepts -- biological and “social construct “race” -- when discussing them, but most do not.  https://books.google.com.do/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mHoVCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=critical+race+studies&ots=YnFmJus-SC&sig=be0azgQlDrUuOQ21C0yTzhcViNk#v=onepage&q=critical%20race%20studies&f=false

They seem either unaware of or unwilling to acknowledge any distinction between the two, using “race” and “racial” as synonymous with “skin color”. https://gspp.berkeley.edu/news/news-center/suspect-race-causes-and-consequences-of-racial-profiling

Raciology since its beginnings has suffered from a defect of terminology that renders statements about and studies of “race” inherently ambiguous:  The term “race” is used referring to the belief that their are inherent and dramatic biological and other fundamental differences between humans that can be inferred based on skin color and other superficial characteristics visible to the human eye.  https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1093763/  This is called “biological race”.

The term “race” is also variously used to refer to the study of beliefs in and the consequences and ramifications of beliefs in biological “race”, but while not necessarily endorsing belief biological “race” itself. https://web.archive.org/web/20131203053337/http://www.cgu.edu/PDFFiles/ses/TEIP/Tara%20J.%20Yosso%20culturalwealth.pdf

The term “race” is also claimed by those -- of various and oppositional political ideologies -- who believe that biological race exists and has sociopolitical ramifications in society for the past, present and future.

Raciology’s first and perhaps insurmountable challenge is to disambiguate the scientifically disproved and scientifically discredited biological “race” from the sociologically documented “social construct of ‘race’ “, all while using the same, identical word to refer to at least three distinct, opposing and variously mutually exclusive concepts and underlying ideologies.

All schools of raciologist thought -- the racists and the “anti-racists” -- insist that the continued use of the term “race” is essential and indispensable to socio-political progress with respect to “race”.  https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1093763

In “The Social Construct of Race”, raciologist Ian F. Haney López says, “Despite the pervasive influence of race in our lives and in US law, a review of articles by judges and legal academics reveals a startling fact:  few seem to know what “race” is and is not.”

Despite that declaration that “race”, whatever it be, is inherently confused and confusing, Haney López goes on to define “race” in his own way and use the term throughout his discussion:

He says, “In this essay, I define “race” as a vast group of people loosely bound together by historically contingent, socially significant elements of their morphology and/or ancestry...Race is neither an essence nor an illusion but rather an ongoing, contradictory, self-reinforcing, plastic process subject to macro-forces of social and political struggle and micro-effects of daily decisions.  As used here, the referents of terms like Black and White are social groups, not genetically distinct branches of humankind.  (Emphasis added.)  http://scholar.google.com.do/scholar_url?url=https://sites.oxy.edu/ron/msi/05/texts/HaneyLopez-SocialConstructionOfRace.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm3hMws4SoXD8mW0vTSAWUMkTrWAWA&nossl=1&oi=scholarr&ved=0ahUKEwjwwOCxrvfTAhXBSiYKHUCbB_MQgAMIGigAMAA


Layman raciologists at the white supremacist website Stormfront, in a discussion of “What Defines Race?”, by contrast, say biological “race” does exist and can be identified by “nose” and “lips”, “skull shape, “ancestral origins”, “nostrils”, “6 shaped noses”, “Jews hunched over” and “I know it when I see it.”  https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1093763/

The tome “Racing Research, Researching Race:  Methodological Dilemmas in Critical Race Studies”, authored by dozens of prominent Critical Race Studies scholars, says, “There are those who argue that just to acknowledge “race” is to perpetuate the biological myth of “race.  But this is to confuse the biological with the social.”  https://books.google.com.do/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mHoVCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=critical+race+studies&ots=YnFmJus-SC&sig=be0azgQlDrUuOQ21C0yTzhcViNk#v=onepage&q=critical%20race%20studies&f=false

The dichotomy between biological “race” and sociological “race” is, perhaps, an inherent and potentially insuperable stumbling block in the study of raciology.  The same term, “race”, is used to refer to both biological race (which DNA scientists say does not exist) and the sociological study and practice of color and origin-based differentiation and discrimination, which do exist.  https://books.google.com.do/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mHoVCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=critical+race+studies&ots=YnFmJus-SC&sig=be0azgQlDrUuOQ21C0yTzhcViNk#v=onepage&q=critical%20race%20studies&f=false  


The use of the same term, “race”, to signify something that scientifically does not exist and something entirely different but related that sociologically does exist creates perpetual terminological ambiguity and dialectical confusion.  

When the word “race” is used, the great care and knowledge of the work of raciologists is required to determine whether the user of the word refers to biological “race” or its near opposite, “sociological race”, or both simultaneously.  

Although this ambiguity is, at times, resolved by using other terminology to denote “race” in its sociological sense, many scholars of sociological raciology steadfastly refuse to utilize disambiguating terminological alternatives to the words “race”, “racism” and “racist” such as
‘group of people loosely bound together by skin color, and/or morphology and/or skin-color-associated ideology and/or ancestry’, which is Haney López definition of “race”, paraphrased for concision.  http://scholar.google.com.do/scholar_url?url=http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/1661/1/Gillborn2006critical11.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm15ea5-6awOK1VZU79-ww35Xcqr0w&nossl=1&oi=scholarr&ved=0ahUKEwj3u47FxuDTAhUDTSYKHSAFAsgQgAMIGigAMAA


Raciology has been field of study for very nearly a century, biological race was disproved over a decade ago, yet a growing debate builds as to whether the “racial” ideation, emotion and behavior that comprise “racism”, when extreme enough to be debilitating, can constitute an illness.

Atty. Francis Lloyd Holland, a USA-born African American lawyer and political activist who has observed color-associated phenomena in twenty-two countries, has studied raciology in e.g. the United States, France, Brazil, Haiti, and now the Dominican Republic.  

“Controversial African American blogger”
http://prospect.org/article/what-edwards-doesnt-get-about-poverty

Atty. Francis Lloyd Holland argues that “...although the sociological “race” concept can stay, still the word “race” itself must be conclusively abandoned.”
Is “Racism” a Mental Ilness?

Atty. Holland, who conceived the term “Afrosphere” and was a founding member of the 1990’s international Afrospear group of Black bloggers, proposes that “color arousal” (otherwise known “racism”) is actually a potentially debilitating psychiatric illness as well as a sociopolitical scourge.  https://www.google.com.do/amp/s/afrospear.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/extreme-color-aroused-emotion-ideation-and-behavior-disorder-eceibd/amp/

Atty. Holland proposes that an entirely new terminology is needed to disambiguate the belief in biological “race” from the study of sociological ”race” before e.g. medical screening, diagnosis and treatment for what he calls Extreme Color Aroused Disorder (ECAD) can commence.  https://www.google.com.do/amp/s/afrospear.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/extreme-color-aroused-emotion-ideation-and-behavior-disorder-eceibd/amp/

The concept has growing support in the medical community, anecdotal examples and scholarly studies demonstrating that people of all skin colors can develop extreme color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior.  http://query.nytimes.com/gst/health/article-page.html?res=9405E5D6133DF933A25754C0A9659C8B63

Employees’ and corporate systemic color aroused ideation, emotion and behavior cost US corporations hundreds of millions of dollars each year in civil discrimination judgments, litigation, lost clients and lost productivity.

Harvard Medical School Professor of Psychiatry Alvin F. Poussaint, M.D. and Chicago Bell have come to the same conclusion.  They urge the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to include this illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-V) of the APA.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071634/#!po=3.33333

In a 2002 article published in the Western Journal of Medicine, entitled “Is Extreme Racism a Mental Illness?”,  Poussaint argues that:  “The psychiatric profession's primary index for diagnosing psychiatric symptoms, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), does not include racism, prejudice, or bigotry in its text or index.1 Therefore, there is currently no support for including extreme racism under any diagnostic category. This leads psychiatrists to think that it cannot and should not be treated in their patients.”  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071634/#!po=3.33333

Supporting Dr. Poussaint’s case is the reality that until and unless “racism” is considered to be a mental illness, medical insurers will not pay for screening, diagnosis or treatment for a condition that many believe is pervasive.  https://www.google.com.do/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.psychiatry.org/File%2520Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/DSM/APA_DSM_Insurance-Implications-of-DSM-5.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjdmprktOzTAhVDVyYKHQ2kDOIQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNHYBGiNXutw650K0JFukQ3PaoImoQ&sig2=v-BDpJmjRMY8t3yTBEC-tA




For example, a 2015 New York Times article reports, “In a 2013 Psychology Today article, Williams wrote that “much research has been conducted on the social, economic and political effects of racism, but little research recognizes the psychological effects of racism on people of color.” Williams now studies the link between racism and post-traumatic stress disorder, which is known as race-based traumatic stress injury, or the emotional distress a person may feel after encountering racial harassment or hostility.”  https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/magazine/racisms-psychological-toll.html

Atty. Holland proposes that human beings can be conditioned by their culture to have ideation, emotion and behavior that are aroused by the knowledge and perception of their and others’ skin color.  Atty. Holland has proposed that this phenomenon be conceived of and studied as sociological, political and psychiatric “color arousal”.    

The scientific study of human response to color (and in many contexts unrelated to skin color) offer a wide variety of scientific terms, such as “color”, that are relevant to raciology.  For example, one color arousal text explains that: “Color is light and light is energy. Scientists have found that actual physiological changes take place in human beings when they are exposed to certain colors. Colors can stimulate, excite, depress, tranquilize, increase appetite and create a feeling of warmth or coolness. This is known as chromodynamics.”  https://www.pantone.com/color-psychology-how-does-color-affect-us

It is undeniable that raciology cannot exist without color and human  chromodynamic emotion, ideation and behavior.  Theories of “race: and :”racism” are theories of human chromodynamics.  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000270

In spite of alternatives to the words “race” and “racism” within raciology, persistent ambiguity and confusion between divergent and mutually exclusive meanings of the term “race” challenge professional raciologists to distinguish in their use of the word “race” between biological “race and “social construct” race and both combined.  

One word with multiple opposite meanings cannot practicably be disambiguated in the same field of endeavor, even with immense effort.  https://books.google.com.do/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mHoVCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=critical+race+studies&ots=YnFmJus-SC&sig=be0azgQlDrUuOQ21C0yTzhcViNk#v=onepage&q=critical%20race%20studies&f=false

The advent of computer science and advances in physics have made it possible for the general public to refer to colors (including skin colors) with scientific precision, based in “quantum chromodynamics” -- the study by physicists of the color spectrum.  https://www.olcf.ornl.gov/2015/07/07/the-ins-and-outs-of-qcd/

Many raciologists, nonetheless reject the word “color”, instead remaining committed to the term “race” as a virtual synonym for color, while scientists studying the perception of skin color in humans refer to “color” simply as “color”.  

https://www.google.com.do/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://htmlcolorcodes.com/&ved=0ahUKEwjZr9bcu_fTAhUK7CYKHQGeC8wQFggnMAI&usg=AFQjCNEzfOdwrgKQluwbK0MiHbd9hZc7XQ&sig2=WVX6Hvl3KEp98pEPfOU4cQ


This rather obvious but intensely controversial solution resolves the ambiguity between disproved biological “race” and the psychiatric, cultural and socio-political ramifications of differences in skin color and associated color arousal.  
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/66014

Raciology as a scientific and sociological field has expanded beyond concepts of uniquely (and discredited) biological race to include skin color-associated discoveries in behavioral, medical and genetic science, involving the biological processes of perception of color and color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior aroused by perception of skin color.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1224904  


Political organizations practicing political color-associated politics and cited by national newspapers are increasingly disambiguating biological “race” by using the term “color” in the names of their organizations, for example “The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), “Color of Change”

Meanwhile, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which studies race and raciology in the USA, identifies two new political groups explicitly focused on skin color:  “White Lives Matter, a racist response to the civil rights movement Black Lives Matter, is a neo-Nazi group that is growing into a movement as more and more white supremacist groups take up its slogans and tactics.”  

https://www.colorofchange.org/&ved=0ahUKEwj999u91uDTAhXISyYKHaoeC3wQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNGYpta-OMcKZwxNYnZsgNoPy4pX3Q&sig2=ePKGTYw2rDF9PB2ETxf3YA

Raciology includes but is not limited to "the study of human races" and the study of concepts of race and racism and their effects in and upon individuals, groups and society.  http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-02-09.htm

Raciology is, further, the study of "racism" and the study of any ideation, emotion or behavior that is aroused by or elicited by race or racism.  

Raciology is, still further, the scientific study of the societal ramifications, results and consequences that can be scientifically associated with race and racism.

Raciology includes the precise and data-driven meta analysis of the ramifications of the use, usage and linguistic salience of the terms "race" and "racism" in media, academia and government as well as for-profit and nonprofit corporations, popular culture and transnational dialectics.

Raciology further includes the study of societal, transcultural and transnational vocabulary and concepts used to describe, study and "unpack" race and racism, whether in scholarly, erudite, popular or slang usage.

Within raciology is the scientific study of the discipline of Critical Race Studies as an academic area, yet raciology is the macro research and analysis of all schools of all human thought, cognition, emotion and behavior associated with race and racism.

A dictionary of raciology would include all of the terms, scholarly, academic, colloquial and slang used to define, describe, conceptualize and analyze race and racism

Encyclopedias of applied linguistics that address raciology include The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics.  


Such encyclopedias address all human thought and conceptions regarding race and racism, including the origins of the concept of race, the etymology of the word "race", and all intellectual currents, concepts and schools of thought about race and racism in the context of societies past and present.

Wednesday, 3 May 2017

Defining "Raciology"

"Raciology" is defined by Merriam Webster's dictionary as the "study of human races".  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/raciology

The term derives from the Italian root word “raza”, meaning “race”, and the Greek suffix “ology”, meaning the study of a science.

The study of "race" and "racism" is referred to as “raciology” because it is the study of race and concepts of racism.  

Raciology is a social science -- a branch of sociology -- as well as a physical, behavioral and medical and genetic science, involving the biological perception of skin color and difference; ideation, emotion and behavior aroused by perceptions of skin color; and other color associated biological differences.

Raciology is "the study of human races" and the study of concepts of race and racism.

Raciology is, further, the study of "racism" and the study of any ideation, emotion or behavior that is aroused by or elicited by race or racism.  

Raciology is, still further, the scientific study of the societal ramifications, results and consequences that can be scientifically associated with race and racism.

Raciology includes the precise and data-driven meta analysis of the ramifications of the use, usage and linguistic salience of the terms "race" and "racism" in media, academia and government as well as for-profit and nonprofit corporations, popular culture and transnational dialectics.

Raciology further includes the study of societal, transcultural and transnational vocabulary and concepts used to describe, study and "unpack" race and racism, whether in scholarly, erudite, popular or slang usage.

Within raciology is the scientific study of the discipline of Critical Race Studies as an academic area, yet raciology is the macro research and analysis of all schools of all human thought, cognition, emotion and behavior associated with race and racism.

A dictionary of raciology would include all of the terms, scholarly, academic, colloquial and slang used to define, describe, conceptualize and analyze race and racism

Encyclopedias of applied linguistics that address raciology include The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics.  

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0992/abstract

Such encyclopedias address all human thought and conceptions regarding race and racism, including the origins of the concept of race, the etymology of the word "race", and all intellectual currents, concepts and schools of thought about race and racism in the context of societies past and present.

Monday, 12 November 2012

Washington Post Cites Weaknesses of "Monochromatic" Republican Party


Examine the following paragraph from today's Washington Post and you can see a fundamental North American white supremacist paradigm shifting and giving way:



What many Republican leaders fail to understand is that the party is leaving votes on the table that could be theirs. Votes they once were able to attract before they became viewed as a collection of mean, monochromatic and reactionary people clinging to Ronald Reagan’s America instead of coming to terms with, if not embracing, the vibrant nation we live in today.  (Emphasis added.)

On the pages of the Washington Post, at least one younger African-American writer has begun to realize that America is heterochromatic, the Republican Party is "monochromatic," and "race" (which was once considered the only appropriate term for "skin color") is actually a fallacious fantasy concept with no basis in science or relevance in analytic social studies.  

In fact, in the above paragraph, Johnathan Capehart demonstrates that it is entirely possible and, yes, preferable to discuss skin chromaticity, and monochromaticity, without every using the term "race."

In a feat that many Black and white writers still believe to be impossible, Mr. Capehart writes his entire article, explaining every proposition about skin color without ever using or relying upon the anachronistic and unscientific "race" fallacy.  It's instructive to read the comments to the article as well, since the word "race" is used twenty-nine times in the comments to an article that never mentions "race" at all.  Apparently, many misinformed readers still believe that they cannot discuss skin color without reference to "race," and so that pejorative epithet persists in the conversation.

I first began to use the term bi-chromatic in, perhaps, 2007, when I realized that (1) continuing to use the "race" word inevitably perpetuates the false belief that "races" exist in the first place, and (2) chromaticity is a scientific word referring to a quality that can be measured in a scientific way, while "race" is a white supremacist term referring to centuries-long propaganda effort aimed at convincing Blacks and whites that science existed where it didn't.  

To see how revolutionary is the reference to chromaticity instead of "race," consider how often the word "race" is used in an opening paragraph of a 1896 ex-slave autobiography, Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl Written by Herself, by Harriet A. Jacobsand how much the term defined and circumscribed the writer's sense of who she was and what that meant:
We, as the Negro Race, are a free people, and God be praised for it. We as the Negro Race, need to feel proud of the race, and I for one do with all my heart and soul and mind, knowing as I do, for I have labored for the good of the race, that their children might be the bright and shining lights. And we can see the progress that we are making in an educational way in a short time, and I think that we should feel very grateful to God and those who are trying to help us forward. God bless such with their health, and heart full of that same love, that this world can not give nor taketh away.

There are many doors that are shut to keep us back as a race, but some are opened to us, and God be praised for those that are opened to the race, and I hope that they will be true to their trust and be of the greatest help to those that have given them a chance.
So profound is the concept of race, as opposed to mere skin-color, embedded in her understand of herself and her world that she uses the term "race" five times in two paragraphs, without ever mentioning skin-color, which was the specious basis upon which the existence of fallacious "race" was proposed.

Clearly that slave narrative reflects a fundamental acceptance of the difference and otherness that the term "race" implies, with separate aspirations based on skin color as a fact of life, but which paradigm a substantial number of white-skinned American voters rejected in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, when they decided that brown-skinned Barack Obama was more similar to them and their aspirations than was white-skinned John McCain and Mitt Romney, while rejecting the paradigm in which skin-color = race = fundamental and over-arching difference.  
Johnathan Capehart's use of the word "monochromatic" is, I predict, a sign of a fundamental reordering of this nation's and the world's understanding of what skin chromaticity means and doesn't mean as a matter of science.  As a matter of genetics, skin color means skin color and cannot be relied upon to mean anything else at all, according to the US Department of Energy's Human Genome Project findings, based on mapping the entire human genome.

Friday, 21 September 2012

The Fallacy of "Race" and the Continuing Apartheid In Hollywood Casting


The Inbetweeners: Review By Francislholland

Anyone not white in this movie?
  • OVERALL
    5.0
    SUPERB
  • Story
  • Acting
  • Directing
  • Visuals
Hmm. Is the cast of this movie all-white? Was it made during apartheid, or was it made by people whose minds are still living in apartheid.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the all-white movie post isn't indicative of an all-white film. Maybe it just seems that way.

Do you like this review?


  1. Unabomber, I think you're right. People have been obsessed with this "race" thing ever since they invented the word to embody all of their color-aroused antagonistic attitudes associated with skin color. Once the concept was invented, it became like an open source code to which everyone with a color-aroused feeling, a color-aroused thought and/or a color-aroused behavior could add something. Like apps for Android, over the last 400 years many people and institutions have conceived of reasons to add to this open source code and many of them have developed killer applications that have dominated the human mind. They have created a virtual world that seems so real that it has become virtually impossible for us to remember and recognize that this virtual world is entirely of "our" (humans') own creation.

    Every time any of us uses the word "race," we contribute something to the open source code of "race."

    "Race" is actually the furthest thing there is from science. Skin color, like any other color, such as a paint chip from our house, can be measured scientifically and can even be designated with reference to numbers in the Internet Color Chart -- the one that HTML coders use to make colors appear in web pages. Skin color is knowable. The only way that most of us can change the reality of a skin color is by mating with someone of a different skin color.

    However, any one of us can contribute to the open source code of "race," and to perceptions about what "race is," just by sharing and promoting ideas about it, e.g. on the Internet. "Race" is and "race" becomes whatever most people, or people most in power, believe it to be, subject to how it is used. In that sense, concepts of "race" are the furthest thing there is from a science, because "race" exists only in our minds. People who study "race" are not studying the natural world; they are studying human emotions and beliefs and the behaviors that result from these emotions and beliefs.

    Like Pokemon characters, the content of "race" is ever-changing and is as variable as the human imagination.
    seconds agoby @francislhollandDelete
  2. @francislholland I think I understand where you are heading, however, I think that maybe officially, "race" may not exist, seeing as though we are all the same on the inside, having the same organs, and the power to think and move. But, at the same time, I think people came up with the word "race" more to decipher the difference in skin color, perhaps. I feel that this was started back in the days when people were more "racist" than they are now.
    7 hours ago
  3. Thank you, Unabomber, in most respects.

    You say that "race does exist until all skin colors are the same." You also say that you know that "race" exists because your own skin is white.

    But, how does the fact that skin color exists prove that "race" exists? It seems to me that your proof of the existence of skin color only proves the existence of skin color.

    If I say that I know the Easter bunny exists because I have owned a bunny and I have seen many bunnies, then you might rightfully respond that the existence of bunnies does not prove the existence of Easter bunnies. That's true.

    Likewise, the existence of women not prove the existence of mermaids or Mary Poppins.

    The existence of skin color does not prove the existence of "race" anymore than the existence of tall people proves the existence of a "tall race." The existence of short people does not prove the existence of a short "race," and the existence of brown people does not prove the existence of a brown "race."

    Sorry to repeat myself, but evidence of the existence of white skin simply proves the existence of white skin.
    8 hours ago
  4. @mcleve02 haha check this out... @francislholland I was totally being sarcastic. However, race does exist until all skin colors are the same. Ok, according to the US Department of Energy's Human Race Genome Project, or whatever, race does not exist. However, I am white, therefore not of the "African American" "race". At least it looks like you've done your homework, and are not just some moron. Anyways, as for the review, I would explain a little more than just the "race" the movie has. You seem to be a decent writer, seeing as how that comment below is longer than your review.
    8 hours ago
  5. I never said the movie was "racist." "Race" doesn't even exist, as the US Department of Energy's Human Genome Project has proved.

    "Race" is actually the most discussed scientific concept that has no basis whatsoever in science. And since "race" has been proved not to exist, therefore we have to accept the necessity of giving up the word "racist," since "racism" can only exist if "race," itself did.

    Now, were the people who made the movie aroused in favor of white male actors and against other skin colors when they were choosing the actors? If you look at virtually all of the comedies that you find when looking for "comedies of 2012" and "comedies of 2011," a stunning number of them simply don't have a single person who is not white in the publicity poster.

    I wouldn't ban movies such as this. But, I think that those who produced it ought to be liable for employment discrimination if it can be shown (e.g. by the fact of having an all-white cast in a country that is 35% beige and brown) that they engaged in discrimination on the basis of skin color when selecting the cast.

    The solution is not to ban the movie. The solution is to toughen laws against color-based discrimination and apartheid while absolutely refusing to see movies that have all-white casts.
    15 hours ago
  6. @The-Unabomber He isn't right... have you noticed how all his f*cking reviews have been based on race...

    Yes I agree this is a sh*tty movie, but it's not racist... seriously why the f*ck is everything about race with you... seriously knock it the f*ck off... People are not being racist don't bring that bullsh*t to this damn site... No one here wants to hear it!
    21 hours ago
  7. If you are right, then this movie is obviously racist and should be banned.
The following comments, pasted here in no particular order, are from a MovieWeb conversation that ensued when I asserted that the movie to the left seems to be an apartheid flick, since apparent, from the movie poster, all of the main characters are white in a nation where 35% of the populace is not white.  For that matter, it seems also to be misogynist, since the only people shown in full on the poster are white men, while only the women's legs are fully show, making them only incidental to the white men's experiences.

Francislholland Thank you, Unabomber, in most respects. You say that "race does exist until all skin colors are the same." You also say that you know that "race" exists because your own skin is white. But, how does the fact that skin color exists prove that "race" exists? It seems to me that your proof of the existence of skin color only proves the existence of skin color. If I say that I know the Easter bunny exists because I have owned a bunny and I have seen many bunnies, then you might rightfully respond that the existence of bunnies does not prove the existence of Easter bunnies. That's true. Likewise, the existence of women not prove the existence of mermaids or Mary Poppins. The existence of skin color does not prove the existence of "race" anymore than the existence of tall people proves the existence of a "tall race." The existence of short people does not prove the existence of a short "race," and the existence of brown people does not prove the existence of a brown "race." Sorry to repeat myself, but evidence of the existence of white skin simply proves the existence of white skin. seconds ago The Unabomber @mcleve02 haha check this out... @francislholland I was totally being sarcastic. However, race does exist until all skin colors are the same. Ok, according to the US Department of Energy's Human Race Genome Project, or whatever, race does not exist. However, I am white, therefore not of the "African American" "race". At least it looks like you've done your homework, and are not just some moron. Anyways, as for the review, I would explain a little more than just the "race" the movie has. You seem to be a decent writer, seeing as how that comment below is longer than your review. 44 minutes ago Francislholland I never said the movie was "racist." "Race" doesn't even exist, as the US Department of Energy's Human Genome Project has proved. "Race" is actually the most discussed scientific concept that has no basis whatsoever in science. And since "race" has been proved not to exist, therefore we have to accept the necessity of giving up the word "racist," since "racism" can only exist if "race," itself did. Now, were the people who made the movie aroused in favor of white male actors and against other skin colors when they were choosing the actors? If you look at virtually all of the comedies that you find when looking for "comedies of 2012" and "comedies of 2011," a stunning number of them simply don't have a single person who is not white in the publicity poster. I wouldn't ban movies such as this. But, I think that those who produced it ought to be liable for employment discrimination if it can be shown (e.g. by the fact of having an all-white cast in a country that is 35% beige and brown) that they engaged in discrimination on the basis of skin color when selecting the cast. The solution is not to ban the movie. The solution is to toughen laws against color-based discrimination and apartheid while absolutely refusing to see movies that have all-white casts. 8 hours ago THE JOKER @The-Unabomber He isn't right... have you noticed how all his f*cking reviews have been based on race... Yes I agree this is a sh*tty movie, but it's not racist... seriously why the f*ck is everything about race with you... seriously knock it the f*ck off... People are not being racist don't bring that bullsh*t to this damn site... No one here wants to hear it! 13 hours agoby @mcleve02Flag The Unabomber If you are right, then this movie is obviously racist and should be banned. 24 hours ago