Wednesday, 17 February 2010

"Can white people chemically straighten their hair?"

In my Site Meter, I discovered that someone had searched in Google for an answer to the question, "Can white people chemically straighten their hair?"

Many people whose skin color group would be considered "whites" in the United States, nonetheless have wavy, curly hair that may even suggest aspects of their ancestry of which they are unaware, but which DNA genetic testing could easily confirm.

Here in Brazil, and perhaps now more than ever before, white people and Black people--everyone--seems to be straightening hair. One television commercial even declares that, "You have a right to straight hair," and then of course suggests a product which can make that right a reality.

My step children play with a girl who would certainly be considered white in the United States, based on skin color and long wavy mousy-brown hair. But long and wavy isn't good enough anymore. She straightens her because she wants it to be as straight as that of the Japanese and Hawaiian women whom we see on television.

Based on my personal observations, the same caustic lye and formaldehyde that will straighten Black women's hair will also straighten the hair of white women. And many white women are taking the bait like bluefish swallowing hook, line and sinker.

The reader who posed this question found an American Journal of Color Arousal article entitled,
Do Some People Who Straighten Their Hair Need Psychiatric Treatment?

I think maybe they do, and I'll tell you why based on personal experience: Two or three months ago, my step-daughters began using chemicals to straighten their hair. Since then, they have both begun to sneeze constantly, but with no symptoms of cold or flue, no headaches, no change in apetite, no wait gain or loss. Why are these TWO girls sneezing constantly and does the correlation with hair perming prove causation?

In addition, my wife has begun going to the sink and blowing out of each nostril in turn as if she had an insect stuck in her nasal system. The sound is raucus and can be heard from neighboring houses. (I know because our neighbor does the same thing.)

If you became convinced that your two daughters constant sneezing was the result of perming their hair, would you forbid them repeatedly use of those chemicals? Or would you select constant coughing as the inevitable price of pretty hair?

If you believe that pretty hair today is more important than protecting your lungs for the lifetime you will need them, then maybe you should see a doctor. If your lung specialist says to stop using lye and formaldehyde, but you find this socially and politically impossible, then I suggest that you see a psychiatrist or a community activist who can help you to free your DNA-determined hair from the grips of cultural and economic insanity.

Beck’s UK broadcast runs without ads; over 100 companies have ditched Beck

16 Feb 2010 Author: James Rucker

Yesterday, for the fifth day in a row, the UK broadcast of Glenn Beck’s TV show was forced to run without any advertisements. This is thanks to efforts by to pressure companies advertising on Beck’s UK broadcast.

It’s an amazing milestone in the larger effort to push advertisers away from Glenn Beck, which started last July. And at the same time, we’ve reached another important milestone — over 100 companies have now stopped their ads from appearing on Beck’s show.

From our press release:

The U.K. broadcast of Glenn Beck’s eponymous television program was forced to air free of paid advertisements on four consecutive days last week. This according to, an extension of the anti-Beck campaign created by confirmed that, with the latest group of defections from Beck’s overseas broadcast, Fox News Channel was forced to fill commercial breaks with news headlines and local weather updates from its U.K.-based sister network, Sky News, instead of paid advertisements.

The news comes on the heels of a new group of U.S. companies who have asked Fox News Channel to stop their ads from running or pledged not to run ads on the show going forward. The latest U.S. defections — Allstate Insurance, Anheuser-Busch, Best Western International, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals (maker of Flomax), Brother International Corporation, Hear Music, Idaho Potato Commission, Intersections Inc., Le Cordon Bleu Culinary School, Marriott International, Nestlé USA, Republic of Macedonia, Starkist Co., United Healthcare, USFidelis, Volkswagen and Western Union — coupled with the international movement to bring the total number of companies distancing themselves from Beck to over one hundred.

“We’re incredibly thrilled that has taken our campaign and successfully executed it internationally,” said James Rucker, Executive Director of “This is a huge blow against Glenn Beck. As we continue our fight against those that support Beck domestically, we will use this victory as further proof that more and more companies are taking a stand against his racial demagoguery.”

“People now on both sides of the Atlantic are using Twitter and other social media to let companies know that by advertising on Beck’s program, they are subsidizing hate,” said Angelo S. Carusone, lead organizer of ”Fox News’ willingness to use filler from Sky News, rather than address Beck’s fear mongering, raises real questions about the network’s priorities.”

While Beck’s UK broadcast has been forced to run without ads, his US broadcast has been reduced to running promos for other shows on Fox, ads from direct marketers (think exercise equipment and gold coins) and a handful of private companies headed by right-wingers.

If you want to participate in StopBeck’s efforts, you can find them on the web at and, and follow them on twitter at @StopBeck and @StopGlennBeck.

Here are statements from the most recent group of U.S. advertisers distancing themselves from Beck:

“While we do purchase advertising on Fox News Channel, we did not intentionally purchase commercials in or around the show, ‘The Glen [sic] Beck Program,’ nor do we sponsor the program,” said Jennifer L. Egeland, director of integrated marketing communications for Allstate Insurance Company, in an email to “You should not expect to see Allstate advertising during this program in the future.”

“Our company has not agreed to advertise during the Glenn Beck show,” said Johnny Furr, vice president of community affairs for Anheuser-Busch, in an email to “We purchase advertising on the Fox News Channel for time slots other than this show, and the ad you saw inadvertently ran during that program.”

“Best Western ads will no longer run during the Glenn Beck show,” said Troy Rutman, director of external communications for Best Western International, in an email to “As a global, family-oriented brand with guests of all persuasions and viewpoints, we seek to avoid any controversial programming, regardless of political affiliation.”

“Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. does not intend to advertise during the Glen [sic] Beck Show and has communicated this to the FOX network,” said Susan Holz, Senior PR Specialist for the company, in an email to

“Moving forward, Brother won’t have it on there [Beck's show],” said Peggy Carlton, account executive for Brother International at MS&L Worldwide, in a voice mail message to “Moving forward there won’t be any specifically on Glenn Beck.”

“We in no way want to promote the hateful rhetoric of Mr. Glenn Beck, and therefore take this matter very seriously,” said Dino Balzano, director of advertising at Concord Music Group, parent company of Hear Music, in an email to “Although we did not specifically request the airing to take place on that show, we did buy time on Fox News, and the spot happened to air during Beck’s program. After we were made aware of the situation, we made the immediate decision to insist all further of our scheduled Fox airings were not on Glenn Beck.”

“It has been our long-standing policy to not advertise on any controversial programs,” said Frank Muir, President & CEO of the Idaho Potato Commission, in an email to “We have informed FOX that the Idaho Potato Commission will no longer advertise on the Glen [sic] Beck Show.”

“I first learned about this controversy [in November] and asked Fox to take his show out of our rotation,” said Steve Schwartz, executive vice president of consumer services for Intersections, Inc., in an email to “We no longer advertise on Glenn Beck’s show.”
Angela Loiacono, manager of corporate communications at Career Education Corporation (CEC), parent company of Le Cordon Bleu Culinary School, confirmed that CEC had asked Fox News not to allow its ads to run during Glenn Beck’s program. “Our commercials…should be off-air in mid-February,” said Loiacono in an email to

“We do not intend to have any additional ad placements during the program,” said Jeff Flaherty, spokesperson for Marriott International, in an email to “I’d like to point out that diversity and inclusion are core values at Marriott and an essential component of our success.”

“We do not advertise on the Glenn Beck radio or television show,” said Cathy Johnson, consumer services manager for Nestle USA, in an email to “Nestlé USA has family friendly programming guidelines in place that are routinely monitored and enforced. However, we are aware of a recent commercial that aired during the Glenn Beck show. Airing the spot on FOX and this program was an error that has been corrected.”

“Although we only have a few more spots left to air on Fox, we have requested that the remaining spots not be aired during Glenn Beck’s program,” said Natali Rancevic, a spokesperson for the Republic of Macedonia, Agency of Foreign Investments, in an email to “Fox has agreed to honor our request.”

“We have chosen to not air our commercial during Glenn Beck’s program going forward given a number of alternatives that meet our advertising plan’s criteria,” said Mary Sestric, a corporate affairs staffer for Starkist Co., in an email to

“Back in August of this year United Healthcare instructed FOX News to not run any of our ads during the Glenn Beck show,” said Lynne High, director of media relations, in an email to

“We are no longer advertising on this show or station,” said Elizabeth Kirkpatrick, marketing coordinator for US Fidelis, in an email to “Thank you for bringing this to our attention.”

Harvard's Pouissant Says Color Aroused Disorder is a Mental Illness

The following is reprinted from the address above.

The American Psychiatric Association has never officially recognized extreme racism (as opposed to ordinary prejudice) as a mental health problem, although the issue was raised more than 30 years ago. After several racist killings in the civil rights era, a group of black psychiatrists sought to have extreme bigotry classified as a mental disorder. The association's officials rejected the recommendation, arguing that because so many Americans are racist, even extreme racism in this country is normative—a cultural problem rather than an indication of psychopathology.

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.

To continue perceiving extreme racism as normative and not pathologic is to lend it legitimacy. Clearly, anyone who scapegoats a whole group of people and seeks to eliminate them to resolve his or her internal conflicts meets criteria for a delusional disorder, a major psychiatric illness.
Extreme racists' violence should be considered in the context of behavior described by Allport in The Nature of Prejudice.2 Allport's 5-point scale categorizes increasingly dangerous acts. It begins with verbal expression of antagonism, progresses to avoidance of members of disliked groups, then to active discrimination against them, to physical attack, and finally to extermination (lynchings, massacres, genocide). That fifth point on the scale, the acting out of extermination fantasies, is readily classifiable as delusional behavior.

More recently, Sullaway and Dunbar used a prejudice rating scale to assess and describe levels of prejudice.3 They found associations between highly prejudiced people and other indicators of psychopathology. The subtype at the extreme end of their scale is a paranoid/delusional prejudice disorder.

Using the DSM's structure of diagnostic criteria for delusional disorder,4(p329) I suggest the following subtype:
Prejudice type: A delusion whose theme is that a group of individuals, who share a defining characteristic, in one's environment have a particular and unusual significance. These delusions are usually of a negative or pejorative nature, but also may be grandiose in content. When these delusions are extreme, the person may act out by attempting to harm, and even murder, members of the despised group(s).
Extreme racist delusions can also occur as a major symptom in other psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Persons suffering delusions usually have serious social dysfunction that impairs their ability to work with others and maintain employment.

As a clinical psychiatrist, I have treated several patients who projected their own unacceptable behavior and fears onto ethnic minorities, scapegoating them for society's problems. Their strong racist feelings, which were tied to fixed belief systems impervious to reality checks, were symptoms of serious mental dysfunction. When these patients became more aware of their own problems, they grew less paranoid—and less prejudiced.

It is time for the American Psychiatric Association to designate extreme racism as a mental health problem by recognizing it as a delusional psychotic symptom. Persons afflicted with such psychopathology represent an immediate danger to themselves and others. Clinicians need guidelines for recognizing delusional racism in all its forms so that they can provide appropriate treatment. Otherwise, extreme delusional racists will continue to fall through the cracks of the mental health system, and we can expect more of them to explode and act out their deadly delusions.

Thursday, 11 February 2010

The "Race" Word and the War of the Races

The Root says,
Haiti's 'Orphans' and the Transracial Adoption Dilemma

Bring up race and adoption, and watch people squirm. But the reality remains that African-American children remain on the bottom rung of the adoption ladder.
I'm not even going to read the article because it would only make me angry to see the anachronistic word "race" used so many times by an article author who thinks he trying to help Blacks while instead he just stigmatizes us (and himself).

First of all:
According to the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Human Genome Program,

"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. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Human Genome Program.

In other words, the Human Genome Project has proven that, as a matter of scientific fact, that which we call "race" does not exist as a matter of biology, and so all references to "race" are references to a fallacy.

That's what I copied from the US Goverment's Genome Information Project page and pasted in the sidebar of the American Journal of Color Arousal. Most people don't seem to have gotten the memo yet that:

And so they continue to use and propagate a word and an underlying belief system that stigmatizes Black people and Asians daily and everyone else who is not "white" daily.

What would happen if you did a telephone "push-pole" and asked Americans two questions:
  1. Would you adopt a child if you knew his/her skin color was different from your own?
  2. Would you adopt a child if you knew his/her "race" was different from your own?
I would have to answer the above questions with a "yes" and "no" respectively. A child's skin color would not necessarily prevent me from adopting him or her. After all, problems of skin color are only ideationally, emotionally, and behaviorally deep, and they only become so because people have been socialized to believe that "race" exists as a matter of biology and sociology. If I taught the child that we had different skin color and were all part of the same species, I think that might make our challenges easier.

However, when you ask me to adopt a child from a different "race," which is synonymous with "species," I think you might be asking me to adopt ET. Is there any way I could know that you're not asking me to adopt E.T.? Doesn't the mere fact that you have used the word "race" require me to ask additional questions in order to assure myself that the proposed adoptee is human and not from a different species? If I accept a child from a different "race," you might show up with a monkey, an orangutan, or a boa-constrictor, or an other-wordly creature from "War of the Worlds." You might well be asking me to adopt a chicken or a chicken-eating wolf.

If all I know is that the child is from a "different race" irgo "species" and, therefore, might be,for example, the poisonous child of a poisonous snake, what person in his right mind could make that decision without more information? However, many people can make the decision in the affirmative if the question is merely referring to skin color and superficial morphological facial and hair differences, potentially.

The word "race" stigmatizes everyone who is not white and from Northern Europe by insinuating that there is something fundamentally different about us that people must know more about before they can take the risk of hiring us, adopting us, befriending us, lending to us, selling a house to us in a neighborhood where one's neighbors will now have to live with us, or permitting their daughter or son to marry us . . .

The word "race" takes the term "skin-color" and multiplies its importance ten or fifty-fold. In fact, one of the primary reasons that we can't "bridge the gap between the races" is that the word "race" itself contains within its very definition that premise that we are radically different from one another, even between people of different colors who get along perfectly well.

You don't have to be a genius to know that if you tell a group of even thirty white children that they consist of two groups--the red shirts and the blue shirts--that are radically different from one another in significant ways, then they will begin to treat one another differently, not because their shirts are different, which occurs in all classrooms, but because you have asserted to these children that the difference in shirt colors is a marker for profound other differences. The children will predictably gather into groups by shirt color and treat one another differently on that basis.

How do I know? Ask Dr. Charles Bell this question, and I am sure that he will provide you with numerous studies affirming the above. Dr. Bell is President/CEO of the Community Mental Health Council in Chicagoand Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at the University of Illinois School of Medicine. He might not agree with me that about "Why the 'Race' Word is Wrong," but he will surely cite numerous studies in people who are told that they are fundamentally different from each proceed to treat each other in fundamentally different ways.

That's why I'm not going to read the article above. The premise that, between people with brown skin and people with pink skin, skin color and superficial facial and hair morphology can and should be used to distinguish the "white species" from the "brown species" is a premise to laughable that I believe it was the subject of an old Star Trek episode.

This may be a problem that will only be resolved over several generations. Just as there were arguments over whether Blacks should be called African American, there are arguments going on now as to whether Blacks constitute a biologically different "race". As the Human Genome Project (cited above) has proved, there is no reason to believe that Blacks (or Chinese people) constitute a different species as a matter of biology. We are capable of successfully reproducing with each other and all of our bodily organs are interchangeable as long as medically significant criteria such as blood type (which cannot be predicted by skin color) are respected.

Since the article above is clearly perpetuates a biological premise that has no basis in biology, I'm not going to bother to read it. However, if any of my readers do look at the article and discover that it does not perpetuate the belief in "race", please inform me in the comments.

When it comes to perpetuating the use of and premises of the "race" word, our friends are unfortunately hurting us as much as our enemies.