"The practice of racism (sic) constitutes a crime for which no bail will be permitted and which may not be authorized, punishable by prison as statutorily prescribed."- - Brazilian Constitution, Art. V, XLII.
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.
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.
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 StopBeck.com 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 StopBeck.com, an extension of the anti-Beck campaign created by ColorOfChange.org. StopBeck.com 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 StopBeck.com has taken our campaign and successfully executed it internationally,” said James Rucker, Executive Director of ColorOfChange.org. “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 StopBeck.com. ”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.
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 ColorOfChange.org. “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 ColorOfChange.org. “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 ColorOfChange.org. “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 ColorOfChange.org.
“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 ColorOfChange.org. “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 ColorOfChange.org. “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 ColorOfChange.org. “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 ColorOfChange.org. “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 ColorOfChange.org.
“We do not intend to have any additional ad placements during the program,” said Jeff Flaherty, spokesperson for Marriott International, in an email to ColorOfChange.org. “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 ColorOfChange.org. “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 ColorOfChange.org. “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 ColorOfChange.org.
“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 ColorOfChange.org.
“We are no longer advertising on this show or station,” said Elizabeth Kirkpatrick, marketing coordinator for US Fidelis, in an email to ColorOfChange.org. “Thank you for bringing this to our attention.”
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.
Haiti's 'Orphans' and the Transracial Adoption Dilemma by ANGIE CHUANG 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).
"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:
Would you adopt a child if you knew his/her skin color was different from your own?
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.
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.
The African American Political Pundit takes issue with US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's use of the word "Negro" to describe President Barack Obama, and with quotes in a new book that have Reid encouraging Senator Obama to run for president because Obama is a white-enough Black, in his skin color and speech, to be accepted by whites.
The top Democrat in the U.S. Senate apologized on Saturday for comments he made about Barack Obama’s race during the 2008 presidential bid. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada described then-Sen. Barack Obama as “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect.”
( . . . )
Reid’s comments are included in a book set to be published on Monday. “Game Change” was written by Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin and New York magazine’s John Heilemann; the pair describe the book in interviews during Sunday’s “60 Minutes” on CBS.Hot Air
The unfortunate reality is that Senator Barack Obama had a greater chance of being elected president than did e.g. Rep. John Lewis, who has much more experience, because Barack Obama is part white and looks and speaks like it. To ignore that reality is to endorse the "post-racial" view of American life while African Americans are still being metaphorically hung from posts because of our skin color.
I knew the 2010 US Census Form would be controversial in it's references to Blacks. Without having first seen the Form first, I predicted on December 3, 2009 that the form would be controversial because of the various terms used to refer to Black people, including the white-news media's favorite "black race", in which phrase they doggedly write the word "Black" with a lower-case "b".
Now, the New York Daily News says the word "Negro" on the Census Form is angering Black people. At least the US Census Form writes "Black" with a capital "B", just like "Filipino" and "Japanese".
I really don't care whether people think I'm a "Negro" or not, as long as they spell the word with a capital "N". "Negro" is a skin color as well as a well-identified national and international political group, if only in historical, socio-economic and cultural juxtaposition with the skin-color "white".
What annoys me about the Census Form is that it doesn't include "Black/brown/coffee/beige/vanilla, but not Latino/Hispanic" as one of the options, as I suggested on December 3 would be a way to reflect the panoply of skin colors among the nation's "Blacks". We Blacks know that we fit into one of these descriptors, and we know from the process of elimination that no other descriptor describes us as well as at least one of the above.
AfroSpear blogger Jose A. Vilson would certainly object at this point, and rightfully so, that "Black/brown/coffee/beige/vanilla, AND ALSO Latino/Hispanic" should be one of the category option.
I faintly object to the term "Negro" only because it is so out-dated and associated with America's Jim Crow that few people still alive will both identify with and want to be associated with the term. But, at least spelling it with a capital "N" on the Census Form shows considerably more respect for Blacks than newspapers do everyday when they insistently spell "black" with an inferior and lower-case "b".
So determined is the New York Post NOT to spell Black with a capital "B" that they actually misquote the actual Census Form when stating the categories, by turning the Census Forms "Black" into the New York Post's "black" with a lower-case "B", even in the context of a quote. This is not proper journalistic or writing practice. A quote says EXACTLY what the person being quoted said, and includes the term (sic) after a word that the quoter believes has been misspelled or misused.
The real crime of the 2010 US Census Form is in perpetuating America's believe in the existence of "race" on a grand national scale while hiding in an obscure page of the US Department of Energy the fact that the Human Genome Project has empirically proved and declared that "race" doesn't exist at all. Skin color exists, but "race" doesn't. So, having acknowledged this genetic reality, why does the 2010 US Census Form continue referring to "race"--the most-often-used biological term that has basis in biology?
"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."
Does this mean that it is impossible to capture the diversity in America? Absolutely not. When whites look at Blacks, they know who is Black and who is not by their skin color. When they encounter Latinos, they also use such cues as name, native language and native county, as well as native country of ancestors. As you can see from this paragraph, it is entirely possibe to gather the same information without resort to the disproved word referring to the disproved hypotheses of "race and ethnicity. Yes, "race" is also the term used to refer to a social construct, and "bitch" is also the word used to refer to a female dog. Both terms are inextricably linked to their origins and cannot, (let's be honest) be used without stigmatizing those against whom the words are used.
The US Census has always stigmatized Blacks. The original Article I, Section II of the Constitution provided that Blacks would be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of the census and Congressional representation.
With the Fourteenth Amendment, the three-fifths language was removed, but the Census still counted Americans according to their "race", which was also the primary difference between those who had been slaves and free just a generation earlier.
Now, that the US Government U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Human Genome Program has announced that biological "race" does not exist, does the US Constitution's Equal Protection Clause require the Government to remove the word "race" from Census forms, because the word "race" stigmatizes Blacks, refers to stereotypes about Blacks, a hypothesis about skin color that has been scientifically disproved (the stereotype that we Blacks are fundamentally biologically different from whites)?
Laws referring to "race" and separating people on that basis must pass the US Supreme Court's strict scrutiny test. Not only does the Census refer to "race" but it stigmatizes Blacks, Latinos and Asians by telling us and whites that we are fundamentally biologically and substantively different because our skin color, facial morphology, hair color and hence "race" are not the same.
Isn't the argument against the word "race" just a question of semantics? No, it's not. The unemployment rate among Blacks is typically twice that of whites. When we minorities are seeking employment, how can we ever overcome employers' sense that minorities "don't fit the company culture" while the US Government, the media and the Constitutionally mandated US Census are telling the nation that minorities are from a different subspecies? It's almost laughable, if it didn't contribute so greatly to the controversial nature of skin color in America and Blacks' inability to find our place here.
Can people who are not from the same subspecies ever "fit in" at a corporation as well as people who are from the same white subspecies? If I were a white-skinned employer, following the Government guidance that minorities are from a separate subspecies, then I might consider it my OBLIGATION not to hire minorities, in order to avoid bringing in employees who could never fit into the company culture.
Would you feel entirely comfortable hiring someone if you were told that they were from a different subspecies? It sounds like a push-poll question, doesn't it?
And yet it is the conundrum posed by the US government that quietly announces that race and ethnicity do not exist, while continuing to use the words ubiquitously, even in the Census, as if the nation were full of people from distinct subspecies of humanity, like multi-colored aliens from various planets walking the streets.
At best, the US Government is giving mixed and scientifically unsupported messages on the issue of minority hiring. On the one hand, the Government seeks to require employers to hire applicants without discriminating on the basis that some applicants are from a different subspecies. Do you perceive any internal contradiction in that? I do.
To hear the US Census tell it, it's like telling people that Blacks and whites are as biologically different as poodles and German shepherds. Different racial subspecies. And then the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that, even though Blacks are from a different "race" (subspecies), and Jews from a different "ethnic group, nonetheless, people from distinct subspecies must be given equal access to employment opportunities, just like poodles and German shepherds should be given equal access to police dog jobs. The exaggeration of the difference makes the law itself seem unreasonable.
The words "race" and "ethnicity" in the 1964 Civil Rights Act greatly and unscientifically exaggerate the differences between whites and skin color groups and sociological ethnic groups, because the science available when the law was written had not disproved the hypotheses of "race" and "ethnicity".
Since race doesn't exist, and since any use of the word is as offensive as the word "bitch," which has a perfectly valid and unoffensive meaning that will inevitably be confused with it's outrageously offensive meanings, I propose that we excise the word "race" from the language of each of us, just as the Human Genome Project has excised the words "race" and "ethnicity" from our understanding of who we are as human beings and all that does not separate us.
I've prepared the chart below to show how we can get more information from the census by avoiding stigmatizing and overgeneralizing people with the word "race" and instead asking questions about those biologically obvious characteristics that do exist:
Please check your skin color/ethnic identity group below:
Whitish, but not Latino. (people know if they identify as "white"
Whitish and Latino
Black/brown/coffee/beige/vanilla, but not Latino/Hispanic. (Only people who are from what once was called the "black race" are going to choose this alternative, and yet the alternative includes and implies that various colors are present within the "Black" sociological group. This resolves the problem of those who want to state that they are bi-racial, which science has rendered biologically meaningless. And people who believe they are bi-racial would probably discover through DNA testing that they have poly-chromatic and poly-ethnic heritage. DNA has taken the guess-work out of this.)
Black/brown/coffee/beige/vanilla, AND Latino/Hispanic.
etc.
If anyone can help me to understand and correct why I cannot make the CorelDraw graphic below appear larger, without losing definition, I would very much appreciate it. I think you'll find it very interesting once you can read it.
Over at Pam's House Blend, we have been discussing the relatively new Department of Energy Human Genome Project declaration that the "black race" does not exist, the "white race" does not exist and, in fact, the biological hypothesis of "race" itself has been disproved by the total mapping of the human genome, showing that there is no genetic difference between Blacks and whites sufficient to constitute separate subspecies ('races') within in the human species.
As a matter of biological science, biological science has disproved the age-old hypothesis of race which, we must remember, was never anything more than a hypothesis developed long before DNA was discovered. And so "race" was a hypothesis in search of proof rather than the result of an empirical search for truth. We have to remember that the hypothesis of race was born before doctors became aware of bacteria and began washing their hands before conduction surgical operations. So, it ought to be no surprise that a theory of genetics developed before genes could be seen and identified turned out to be, quite simply wrong. As the march of science progresses, we develop new tools for ever more minute analysis of human matter and these new tools have demonstrated the falsity of an old hypothesis.
That really ought not surprise anyone, since we all know that a guess as to the length and width of a piece of wood is rarely as good as measuring the wood with modern tools. And a guess as to the age of a statue is not quite as good as carbon dating. As our tools become better our knowledge increases.
Rarely, however, has a scientific discovery had so many important ramifications for the United States of America. For example, the US Constitution requires that a census be conducted every ten years. As the following citations show, the Census is an integral part of determining the representation that each state will have in the US House of Representatives, and the Fourteenth Amendment modified the Constitution to make it clear that Blacks could participate more fully in US electoral rights.
(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)(The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
You discover that the house you own was built before the Civil War, by slaves who received no pay for their labor. How should/would you respond, if at all?
"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."
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.
"Francis L. Holland, one of the vocal black bloggers, sent e-mails to DNC officials asking that 15 black-operated blogs be added to the State Corps. "There is nothing 'Democratic' about an all-white Democratic National Convention floor blogging corps," he wrote in an e-mail. Holland is also asking for the inclusion of 15 Latino-operated blogs."
"Or, as Obama supporter Francis L. Holland puts it: "So, it shows tremendous courage, foresight and solidarity that Edwards has endorsed Obama after the media declared Hillary's campaign to be as good as dead, right? Oh, well! Better late than never!"
"Of the blogs covering the convention, black blogs will be 7.2% of the blogs present,” says Francis L. Holland of the Afrosphere Action Coalition. According to Holland, many states with a strong black Democratic presence and population are either underrepresented or not represented at all, even though black bloggers from these states did apply. “The state of Tennessee, which often has over 25% blacks among its Democratic primary voters, will not have a single black blogger at the Democratic National Convention, for example. The District of Columbia, which is 60% black, will be left out. Louisiana, which is 32.4% black, will be left out. Illinois, the presidential nominee’s home state, which is 15% black, will be left out.”
"We are tired of Hillary Clinton telling America that we are less than American simply because we refuse to vote for her," said Francis L. Holland, an African American blogger." Ironically, the Clintons embraced us, and even embraced Pastor Jeremiah Wright for support during their impeachment scandal." Holland was speaking of the congressional trial that followed former president Bill Clinton's liaison with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. "She has forfeited the black vote for the foreseeable future with her color aroused appeals."
“November’s voter turnout depends on August’s blogger outreach,” said Mr. Holland of the Afrosphere Action Coalition., a member of a national and international black bloggers’ coalition called “The AfroSpear.” “Blogs address constituencies, and it simply is not possible for blogs that are all-white to effectively reach diverse Democratic constituencies.”
"Of the blogs covering the convention, black blogs will be 7.2% of the blogs present," says Francis L. Holland of the Afrosphere Action Coalition. According to Holland, many states with a strong black Democratic presence and population are either underrepresented or not represented at all, even though black bloggers from these states did apply. “The state of Tennessee, which often has over 25% blacks among its Democratic primary voters, will not have a single black blogger at the Democratic National Convention, for example. The District of Columbia, which is 60% black, will be left out. Louisiana, which is 32.4% black, will be left out. Illinois, the presidential nominee's home state, which is 15% black, will be left out."
"Francis Holland is a blogger from Afrospear, a national group of bloggers that advocates for African-Americans. When he looked at the list of State Bloggers, he saw no black blogs among them. Holland explains that the process the Democratic Convention planners used to choose the State Blogger Corps was bound to lead to this result. And he argues that the Democratic Party can scarcely afford to alienate black voters in this election year." (The original link no longer works, which is becoming a growing documentation problem on the Internet.)
"Electing Edwards to challenge the status quo is like supporting a queen to challenge the monarchy or integrating an all-white club by adding more all-white club members. It is possible that electing yet another white man to the Presidency will end the poverty of the historically disenfranchised, with John Edwards serving as a "pass through" for those who have historically been disincluded legally and by custom. But this is a very convoluted way of achieving what could be achieved much more directly by electing Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. ..."
Disclaimer:
Although I am a trained attorney, I am retired and am not an active member of any state Bar. Therefore, I advocate in all matters on my own behalf and not as the legal representative of any person, group or organization.