Saturday, 10 September 2011

Forensic Psychology Writer Seeks to Publish Article on Blacks and Violence

AMJCA has received an offer and request from Allison Gamble, of, to write and publish here an article discussing:

why is there so much violence in the black community? The article will include: statistics on crime in impoverished neighborhoods, explain why violence is more prevalent, and explain how Its not just because one race is more violent than another but because the way people are oppressed and through oppression comes coping mechanisms to get through life.
This Journal's response is as follows (but is subject to public comment from all quarters):

I believe that one of the reasons there is so much crime in some Black communities is that whites hate Blacks and Blacks have turned that anger inward.  Take, for example, your use of the word "race."  What do you mean when you use the word "race"?  Are you suggesting that people with white skin and people with brown skin are from different species?  If you are, then I think that insults Blacks more than the "N" word does.
Whether it comes from Black or white people, I believe the assertion that "race" exists at all is a profound insult to Blacks that can only be based in malice or ignorance.  I, quite frankly, am sick and tired of the "R" word.  It is, in my opinion anachronistic and anti-science.

If you would like to write an article explaining why you still use the "R" word, even though the US Government's Human Genome Project has declared conclusively that "race" simply does NOT exist, then I would be very interested in reading and publishing your article on that topic.  I think we all will learn something, no matter what you say about what you mean when you use the "R" word.

When you use the "R" word, are you talking about the Black "skin color group" or are you asserting that we are from a different species?  If you are not asserting that we are from a different species, then why do you use the word "race"?

Having said that, if you want to write about Black people and crime, and you demonstrate that you have something new and original to bring to the topic, then I'll gladly publish what you write.  I would just request that you either define "race" as a factor in your research or find a way to describe what you mean to say without asserting that I and other people with brown skin belong to a species that is separate and distinct from that comprising the white skin-color-group.
If you insist that you cannot discuss this topic without using the word and the concept of "race," then I insist that you explain and support your definition of the "R" word in light of the findings of the US Government's Human Genome Project and the following articles:
'Race' and the human genome ppS1 - S2
Ari Patrinos
doi:10.1038/ng2150Full text | PDF (103K)
Editorial Top
The unexamined population pS3
doi:10.1038/ng2151Full text | PDF (50K)
Commentaries Top
Changing the paradigm from 'race' to human genome variation ppS5 - S7
Charmaine D M Royal & Georgia M Dunston
Published online: 26 October 2004 | doi:10.1038/ng1454Abstract | Full text | PDF (95K)
Forensic genetics and ethical, legal and social implications beyond the clinic ppS8 - S12
Mildred K Cho & Pamela Sankar
Published online: 26 October 2004 | doi:10.1038/ng1594Abstract | Full text | PDF (104K)
What we do and don't know about 'race', 'ethnicity', genetics and health at the dawn of the genome era ppS13 - S15
Francis S Collins
Published online: 26 October 2004 | doi:10.1038/ng1436Abstract | Full text | PDF (330K)
Perspectives Top
Conceptualizing human variation ppS17 - S20
S O Y Keita, R A Kittles, C D M Royal, G E Bonney, P Furbert-Harris, G M Dunston & C N Rotimi
Published online: 26 October 2004 | doi:10.1038/ng1455Abstract | Full text | PDF (102K)
Implications of biogeography of human populations for 'race' and medicine ppS21 - S27
Sarah A Tishkoff & Kenneth K Kidd
Published online: 26 October 2004 | doi:10.1038/ng1438Abstract | Full text | PDF (270K)
Genetic variation, classification and 'race' ppS28 - S33
Lynn B Jorde & Stephen P Wooding
Published online: 26 October 2004 | doi:10.1038/ng1435Abstract | Full text | PDF (850K)
Will tomorrow's medicines work for everyone? ppS34 - S42
Sarah K Tate & David B Goldstein
Published online: 26 October 2004 | doi:10.1038/ng1437Abstract | Full text | PDF (161K)
Are medical and nonmedical uses of large-scale genomic markers conflating genetics and 'race'? ppS43 - S47
Charles N Rotimi
Published online: 26 October 2004 | doi:10.1038/ng1439Abstract | Full text | PDF (118K)
Assessing genetic contributions to phenotypic differences among 'racial' and 'ethnic' groups ppS48 - S53
Joanna L Mountain & Neil Risch
Published online: 26 October 2004 | doi:10.1038/ng1456Abstract | Full text | PDF (226K)
Implications of correlations between skin color and genetic ancestry for biomedical research ppS54 - S60
E J Parra, R A Kittles & M D Shriver
Published online: 26 October 2004 | doi:10.1038/ng1440Abstract | Full text | PDF (1,666K)  | Supplementary Information

Wednesday, 7 September 2011

"The Help" Movie Perpetuates Lousy Roles for Black Actors

Like Granny Standing for Truth, I wouldn't pay to see "The Help" for two reasons:

(1) It won't show up in Brazilian movie theatres anytime soon;

(2) Brazilian television is full of all-white 70-member casts in which one of only two Black actors happens to be a maid. I'm tired of white-centric movies.  They almost always show color-aroused discrimination against Blacks in casting (no Blacks in a movie about New York?) and so they are offensive as well as boring.

I'm tired of seeing Black women as maids and Black men "Driving Miss Daisy (sp?)," and I'm not going to encourage Hollywood or Brazilian television by watching that crap.

As you know, I don't use the word "racist" because it comes from the word "race," and "race" doesn't exist as a matter of science. I prefer the terms "color-aroused antagonism" and "color-aroused marginalization" and "color-aroused discrimination in hiring" because these terms are based on the scientific fact of the existence of skin color.  We all agree that skin color DOES exist, although we may disagree on its meaning and import in our societies

The word "racist" is too facile, too easy, too general. The term "Color-aroused" forces you to think about what negative behavior is based on the color arousal, such as "discrimination" or "humiliation," or both and more. This teaches us to be more precise and teaches our readers (including our children) the various forms that color-arousal takes and the harms that color-arousal creates, like color-aroused "red-lining" in the housing market, and color-aroused loan denials and/or higher interest rates.

Whites are right to be sick of hearing the word "racism," because it is so general and ambiguous as to be nearly meaningless and always semantically wrong.

"Social-ism" is the belief in and propagation of joint societal social control and use of property, right? So, logically "rac-ism" is the belief in "race" and the propagation of arrangements based on that belief. If we believe that racism exists then we must believe that race exists, and if we believe that "race" exists, then we are "racists."

If YOU or I say that two people are of different "races," then doesn't that make us "racists?" Of course it does, because we are implicitly saying and explicitly implying that we believe in and propagate the belief in the existence of "races."

Since we are propagating the belief in the existence of races, we really ought to ask ourselves, 'Do we believe there are separate biological "races"?'

If so, then let's just acknowledge that, like the Stormfront white supremacist blog, we are "racists."  We believe that skin color means "race" and the words can be used interchangeably.

Now, someone will stand forth indignantly and insist that "racism" exists, and it does. "Racism" is a compendium of beliefs and behaviors based on the belief in the existence of "race."  Using the word "racism" is one of the behaviors based on the belief in the existence of separate "races." 

How can you discriminate against others on the basis of "race" if "race" itself does not exist?  The answer is that you can discriminate against others on the basis of "imputed race."  Race does not exist, but others im-"put"-e a racial tag on you and then treat you accordingly.

The term "racism" also has another meaning: "color-aroused subjugation and marginalization."  But this certainly is confusing to use one word to denote two different and contradictory beliefs systems.  Why not say what we mean, instead of using the same word that white supremacists at the Stormfront blog use, while hoping that our readers, Black and white, will understand the difference?

Because Stormfront uses the word "race" in a way that predates our sociology and power-based usage by about 400 years, we are compelled to disambiguate by leaving the words "race" and "racism" to the white supremacists.  They used those words first and they have a preexisting claim on them.

As such, it simply far too easy to confuse our readers when we use the same word to mean something entirely different. It's like using the word "sugar" to mean both and "sugar" and "salt."  That linguistic practice would cause confusion, chaos and ruined food in the kitchen, just as it presently causes confusion, chaos and ruined interactions in our society, between people of different skin colors and between people of the same skin colors.

Such confusion is to be expected when one root word has been given different and largely contradictory meanings.  Our human ability to vocalize sounds and words is far too great for us to allow ourselves be bogged down, and perpetuate confusion, by using one vocalization to mean two different and contradictory things.

Friday, 2 September 2011

SCLC and Tarrant County, TX Chastized for Use of the "R" Word

In FORT WORTH, TEXAS, "The Southern Christian Leadership Conference cordially invite leaders to lunch with Sister Joyce James, Associate Deputy Executive Commissioner for the Center for Elimination of Disproportionality and Disparities at the Texas Health and Human Service Commission."  The invitation to the meeting asks the question, "Can We Undo Racism?"  The meeting is also intended to "increase efforts to improve racial disproportionality in Texas."

One way to overcome "racism" in Texas is by no longer using a word that insinuates that whites and Blacks and Latinos are from separate and different "races."  We are not from separate "races."  We are all members of the same human species. 

Therefore it is not possible for people to discriminate against us on the basis of "race" because "race," itself, as a matter of genomic science, simply does not exist, according to the US Department of Energy's Human Genome Project.

Anti-discrimination laws have long recognized that we can be discriminated against on the basis of "imputed race.  In these cases, people believe the victim is of another race when, in fact, all humans are from the same species.  It is insulting to use vocabulary that implies otherwise.

Skin color and skin color groups obviously exist and have been the basis for discrimination and the deprivation of rights and liberty.  But differences in skin color do not create separate "races" in the realm of biology.  It is time we allowed the anachronistic and humiliating word "race" fall into the garbage bin of historical misconceptions.  Ironically, the more you use the word "racism," the more you lend support to the unscientific and offensive belief that we are from separate "races."

There are no separate "races."  When we accept that we are all of the same species, then we will be intellectually much closer to overcoming discrimination on the basis of skin color and skin color group. 

Unquestionably, the ubiquitous use of the terms "race" and "racism" and "racist" underscore and lend credence to the preposterous idea that separate races ever existed in the first place.  The belief that there are separate "races" helps to perpetuate systemic and individual color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior. 

In 2008, we did not elect a President of a different "race."  We did not elect a "biracial" President.  We elected a president of a different skin color when compared to the skin color of the Presidents who precede him.  We elected a president whose parents were a hetero-chromatic couple, of different skin colors.  Where the word "race" tries to separate us into different species, with no basis in science, the alternative term "skin color" acknowledges the obvious.  America and the entire world have populations with a broad array of skin colors.  But, "race" does not exist on the basis of skin color or on any other basis.