Longform Links - Mixed Race, Free School, Grey Poupon
Vegans of Color - Mutt, Mulatto, Mule?
One of the most common hassles that mixed-folks have to deal with is a sense of “hybrid-vigor,” an idea that breeding across difference, as in the case with dogs, creates a stronger, and more attractive breed. Mules are said to have the strength of a horse with the intelligence of a donkey, inheriting each parent’s best characteristics. Even “America’s Next Top Model” tries to recruit models from “diverse backgrounds,” because of this idea of hybrid vigor and mixed-beauty.
Now, I understand that folks of color tend to be unwilling to identify with animals because of the intertwined legacies of racism and specieism in this world. I’ve spent some time thinking about what an anti-specieist analysis of the use of animal-derived terms to refer to mixed-folks would look like. I’m no biologist, but my conclusion has come to this:
Horses and donkeys are different species. Hell, dogs breeds are even called “species.” In the case of mules, their parents are different enough that together they can’t create a functional reproductive system; mules can’t bare offspring. Mixed-breed dogs might be able to reproduce, but a Chihuahua giving birth to a Great Dane’s offspring might not be so functional, if even possible. Humans, however, are Homo sapiens. Using animal names referring to mixed-SPECIES animals to refer to mixed-”race” people just becomes another example of the ways in which white supremacy functions to perpetuate a white-washed notion of worth and value. It’s you’re not human, you’re not valuable. If you’re not white, you’re not quite as human.
Just another instance of how specieism and racism operate in tandum, I suppose.
Alternet - Free College for Poorest Students Puts Ivy League to Shame
The college uses its nest egg to attract students who otherwise could not afford college and draws exclusively from the bottom of the economic pile. It is extremely selective, rejecting 75 per cent of applicants as it tries to find those with the most potential. Those who apply have often endured appallingly bad secondary education and come from dysfunctional homes.
Mr Gibson is one of those and he has thrived at Berea. He earned his savings working on-campus, a requirement of this unusually public-spirited university. Every student must put in at least 10 hours a week, whether helping on the college farm, working in the admissions department or making furniture in Berea’s crafts workshop.
Mr Gibson did community outreach. “It was great,” he said, “we organised anti-Iraq war demonstrations.”
Though not, by his own admission, a top scholar or the hardest worker, he also pulled in lots of academic scholarships.
“Every department has lots of money to give away. It’s a question of applying,” he said. The coup de grace was an award of $25,000 to finance his round the world trip starting in a week.
Mr Gibson, who is black, will spend his time studying biracialism, beginning in Tokyo next week. “I come from one of the poorest and most disturbed backgrounds you could imagine,” he said. “All my family were involved in violence and drugs and I was brought up by a single parent and then no parents when my mother died while I was 16.”
“Living in rural Appalachia, I suffered some extreme racism and it is only thanks to this college that I am now in this lucky situation.”
Friends of his at other universities are not so lucky. One is paying back $37,000 after a three-year degree. Next year, Mr Gibson will attend graduate school in Pennsylvania, where he hopes to qualify as a lawyer and possibly enter politics.
Dlisted - Not a Grey Poupon Fan
22-year-old Vitaly Kovtun was stopped at a red light in Salt Lake, Utah, when a car pulled up beside him. The passenger in the other car asked him to roll down his window. When Vitaly rolled down his window, the passenger asked, “Excuse me, sir, do you have any Grey Poupon?”
That’s when Vitaly reached in his glove compartment, pulled out a gun, cocked it, aimed it at the other car and said, “Here’s your Grey Poupon, roll your fucking windows up.” Hmmm…maybe he’s a French’s type of dude?
[Mod Note - Okay, that last one doesn’t really fit with our general theme, but that shit was too funny to let go and not share with y’all. Blame Fatemeh, she sent me the article. - LDP]
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
Cynthia wrote:
I don’t quite understand the “mixed” business being a “white thing” here. I thought that various cultures have always had some sort of division between ethnicities/tribes/groups/cultures?
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 8:14 am ¶
Bootsie wrote:
That dlisted.com item is hilarious!!! Thanks for posting it.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 8:35 am ¶
Black Politics wrote:
It’s a shame more schools cannot afford that model, but public colleges/universities struggle just to get by.
More importantly, I appreciate the mission at Berea. Community service is a small price to pay for free school and clearly it helps instill the value of work in all of its’ students.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 8:38 am ¶
Kali wrote:
Maybe invite someone with an education in genetics (there are many African American Scientists/Physicians you could ask) post an article here .
Then we wouldn’t have the same tired ill-informed misconceptions about species/race/tribe/mule/mulatto etc that is an insult to the intelligence of people of color and is more grist to the race-purity agenda that POC here seem to want as much as ‘Whites’.
Optimal treatment of TB or Diabetes is not a matter of public/blogger opinion. Neither are the principles of genetics.
Mod Note - No geneticists have posted articles here, but Carmen has interviewed a few on Addicted to Race. Having audio discussions tends to work a bit better than just a regular blog post on scientific matters. The Race: Are We So Different? exhibit at the Science Museum of Minnesota that Carmen provided commentary for also provides a succinct breakdown. - LDP
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 9:19 am ¶
Kali wrote:
“There are no human subspecies living today. So there’s no scientific support for human races in the biological sense.”
From your link to the MN Museum of Science.
It would improve the quality of this blog if you did request POC Scientists/Ethicists etc to write scholarly articles in an accessible way .
Did you hear about the (losing?) battle to combat racism in the American Med Association and that there is a smaller proportion of AfAm doctors today (2.2%) than there were at the beginning of the 20th century? Read Harriet Washington on “Apology shines light on racism in medicine” availible online at the NYT website today. This battle should be fought on every race-related front in this country. It is literally a life-and-death issue for persons of color.
Perhaps contact Ms Washington and ask her to recommend other contributors?
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 9:41 am ¶
Ron wrote:
Kali -
Not to derail the thread. I think your point about the systematic exclusion of AA from medical profession is on point. The bigger issue that needs to be addressed honestly and without PC smothering the discussion is a deep analysis of the benefits/costs of integration for AA.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 9:56 am ¶
Kali wrote:
Integration in the AMA is what AfAm physicians have been fighting for, for decades- read the article. ‘Black’ medical schools have opened and closed again.
Look at the New England Journal of Medicine (try Goodle Scholar) for research articles on discrimination and poor medical care of AfAms by doctors who would otherwise have claimed they were unprejudiced.
Who was it who said “power is never given back - it has to be taken back” and more minority physicians whould go a long way towards bridging the absolutely unacceptable gap.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 10:05 am ¶
Mikey wrote:
Do “Mule” and “Mulatto” have the same root? That’s about as convincing as anything to demonstrate that the latter word is offensive.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 10:13 am ¶
Ismone wrote:
Here is a quote from a good SciAm piece confirming what I have said for years–”race” is not a valid genetic construct.
Consideration of the processes underlying human diversity sometimes moves beyond the dimensions of hair follicles and the ability to digest milk. Debate over what constitutes race and ethnicity can quickly enter the picture. What does it mean if a gene variant related to cognition is found more in Europeans than in Africans? Better public understanding of genetics—that a single gene does not act like a light switch that toggles between intelligence and doltishness—may quell misguided speculations.
Genetic literacy will let a term like “Asian” or “Chinese” be replaced by more subtle classifications based on the differences in ancestral genetic makeup found in recent genome-wide scans, such as the distinction between China’s southern and northern Han groups. “There is no race,” Quintana-Murci says. “What we see [from the standpoint of genetics] is geographical gradients. There are no sharp differences between Europeans and Asians. From Ireland to Japan, there is no sharp boundary where something has changed completely.”
The quote is from p. 5. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-migration-history-of-humans
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 11:00 am ¶
Sulyp wrote:
LOL @ Cynthia, your comment somehow struck my funny bone. How can someone make an honest statement about a background that she is not a part of? Funny stuff.
Point well made Mickey! And that’s where many dialogues I’ve had on this subject begin.
———
About AA doctors in the US, I found it interesting that even Fidel Castro noticed the need of black and latino doctors, and was willing to foot the bill to school and house them. I don’t think any effort of that sort has been in Washington D.C. of that magnitude. Now how sad is that. Senators and Reps can lobby for billions of dollars to complete petty “State beautification” projects, but we can’t scrap together less than a billion to send the brightest of the poor to medical school. Right.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 12:14 pm ¶
KW wrote:
The title to the middle link is a little misleading. Actually, most Ivy League schools offer a free education for students whose parents make below a certain income threshold. At my sister’s school they just bumped it up from less than $50,000 to less than $80,000, I think.
I’m not knocking Berea, though, because I think it’s a great thing that they can afford to do this.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 12:16 pm ¶
commiv wrote:
Harvard, Princeton and Yale, universities with incredibly large endowments, have stepped up their financial aid offerings to lower and middle income students in the past years. Larger grants and more generous financial aid packages mean that students from the lowest rung in the socioeconomic ladder pay next to nothing when attending these schools. I myself went to an ivy, at a time when my parent’s annual income was exceeded by my university’s annual costs for tuition, room and board, and I received a very generous financial aid package as well. I don’t get how this university “shames” the ivy league in any way. Drawing from both personal experience and the experience of similarly situated fellow students at other ivies, I can say that their financial aid packages are incredibly generous, so generous in fact that students from the poorest homes, the kind of students profiled in the article on Berea University, would actually be able to attend an Ivy while paying next to nothing. Anyway, the writer doesn’t really explain exactly why Berea’s admissions and financial aid system “shames” the Ivies at all. She refers to “middle class families” and their discontent at the university’s rapidly rising costs, but it appears to me that these middle class families are not only paying partial of full tuition, and thus not eligible for financial aid grants, but also make more money than the so-called “poorest students” that are benefiting from Berea’s tuition-free education, so their children do not fit the profile of Berea’s impoverished student body. I don’t get it. What’s the connection between the very poor students attending Berea for free and the middle class parents who are paying tuition for their Harvard-enrolled children?
Here’s a quote from a NYTimes article summarizing Harvard’s generous offer for admitted students from low income families:
“Three years ago, under Lawrence H. Summers, the president at the time, Harvard decided that families whose income was less than $40,000 would no longer have to pay for undergraduate education, although students would still have to make some contribution though programs like work-study. It then raised the income level eligible for the waiver to $60,000.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/education/11harvard.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=harvard%20financial%20aid&st=cse&oref=slogin
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 12:39 pm ¶
Fatemeh wrote:
lol
Latoya, I will gladly accept the blame for this ish. It’s HILARIOUS.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 12:52 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Commiv/KW -
I think the shame factor that the author was speaking up comes into play when comparing the endowments:
As compared to:
I don’t think the author is knocking the Ivies because they don’t have these programs at all - obviously, they do, as you both have pointed out.
I think what the author is getting at is that LaBrea has been doing this with a 1bn endowment each year. It bankrolls 1500 students with that endowment. This year’s entering class for Yale U. is about 1300 students, and they have got a 22bn endowment. So I think the question is why have these heavy tuition bills at all?
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 12:53 pm ¶
queerhapa wrote:
The Ivies are being put to shame because fully funding poor students has always been part of Berea’s mission, whereas Harvard, Yale et. al. have only recently altered their financial aid programs after being THREATENED with losing their non-profit status. They’ve basically been sitting on multibillion dollar endowments (and totally tax-exempt, too), which would be enough money several times over to fund every single student regardless of parents’ income.
And just because poor and middle-class students can, in theory, attend an Ivy for free, that does not mean that they will be admitted, or that they are anywhere close to being the majority of students on those campuses.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 12:59 pm ¶
commiv wrote:
@queerhapa: I still don’t get it. Admissions at most Ivy League schools is need blind. This means that for the most part, students are not turned down for being poor. Financial qualifications are considered separately from academic matters, etc, for the purpose of admission. Students are only turned down on non-financial reasons, which can vary. Of course it goes without saying that Ivies are extremely selective, but for the most part, a student’s ability to pay full tuition is not considered as part of the admissions process. I think this is the key element missing from the original post on alternet. The Ivy League has long been a bastion of the nation’s elite, and attracts applicants from the best schools and the highest rungs in the socioenomic ladder. However, to say that they have only begun to admit poorer students as an attempt to salvage their non-profit status is misleading. I have only heard about this theory on alternet, and ivies have been offering financial aid and grants for a long time.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 2:00 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:
I am not familiar with the percentage of AfAm doctors in 1900 vs in 2008. However, the demographics of medical education changed abruptly after 1910 with the issuing of the Flexner Report. This report noted the variability in education of American vs German doctors, Germany being widely recognized as the world leader in the sciences at that time. The report recommended standardizing medical curricula to include a chunk of basic sciences knowledge, as well as the practical lectures and apprenticeships that were part of the existing American style of medical education. The effect of this was to place medical schools firmly within the university camp and to close those medical schools which were based on the trade school model and who wouldn’t or couldn’t develop university affiliation. It was no longer possible to run a medical college with 4 or 5 practicing physicians as faculty, and minimum costs other than lecture hall rental and clinic space rental. Medical education was made more expensive, and universities could impose their own restrictions on admittance. Consequently, the number of institutions admitting blacks and women, and to a lesser extent, Jews, plummeted to close to zero. For example, Johns Hopkins, the model “Flexner school”, admitted a few women only because it had been endowed with that requirement in place. Most blacks, women, and Jews who received medical training before WWII did so at medical schools that were affiliated with historically black, Jewish universities, and a medical college for women affiliated with one of the Philadelphia universities. Aside from these specialty institutions, medical colleges that admitted blacks, women, Jews admitted 0 to 5 each of these three categories per year, and many medical schools didn’t admit any. Admission policies began to change during WWII when there was a scarcity of white Christian male college graduates of sufficient intelligence and with sufficient funds to afford medical college. Real progress didn’t start until the early to mid 1970s for women and blacks.
Internship and residency opportunities also became increasingly available in the 1970s. 1920ish to 1965, one of the few graduate training programs for black doctors and nurses, outside of the HBCU medical schools, was in St. Louis, the Homer G. Phillips city hospital for blacks (city hospitals were segregated, there was another one for whites). People came from all over the country to train there. I know some of the old-time doctors who trained and/or taught there before it closed (many moved to university hospitals in town, the same ones whose universities restricted black admission by quota until 1960s). A few of these Homer G. docs are still keeping up practices in their 80s and early 90s. The Homer G. Phillips building was recently refurbished into nice-looking apartment complex for seniors, many of whom had been born there.
The genetics summary is : we humans are all outbred to a greater or lesser extent. “Race” is much too large and unrelated a population unit to consider intra-”race” reproduction “inbreeding”. Most genetic health problems arise when populations do many successive generations of first-cousin marriages, as can happen due to custom (bedouin and others, where inheritance laws make cousin marriages financially advantageous) or to isolation of an initially small population (fjords in Norway, some areas of Appalachia where travel was tough).
Specific animal breed characteristics are fixed by mother-child, sibling, or first cousin breeding in the first few generations, and typically take at least five, often up to 15 or 20, generations to reliably breed true. These are true inbreds.
Breed and “Race” are completely different objects from the genetic standpoint. The human equivalent of breed would be the 200 or so inhabitants of some isolated fjord which has had no significant population movement in or out for the past 150-200 years. In such a case, one could truly talk about “hybrid vigor” if individual from fjord A and individual from equally isolated fjord B had children. Otherwise, no. We are all outbred, for practical purposes.
anyone left reading this excessively long post
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 2:03 pm ¶
commiv wrote:
latoya: another thing. Berea is not a major research university. As far as I know, it’s an undergraduate school with a modest campus and low overhead costs. You cannot compare Harvard’s endowment with Berea’s endowment, and conclude that Harvard’s astronomically high endowment means it should just not charge tuition at all, ever. harvard is a very large university with many graduate and professional schools, a very large student body, and is a world-class center of research and scholarship. So are most other ivies. This comparison isn’t taking a number of important factors into consideration.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 2:10 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@commiv -
That’s not what I am arguing. Obviously, there are major differences - including brand name and what is being done.
But looking at the money and the per semester requests, it makes sense to ask where this money is going, and what else it could possibly be used for.
Obviously, the kind of speakers that Harvard attracts could command fees that would equal ten students monthly tuition. And those who attend Harvard do so for the access to these kinds of people and institutions.
However, from what I understand about the controversy over endowments is that they are being somewhat hoarded by Universities. This is not the same as the University’s operations fund or rainy day fund - it’s just money being banked up and played with by investors on Wall Street. (At least, that was the gist of the article I read a few years back, when I first heard about the endowment controversy.)
While Harvard may in fact be a world class center of research and scholarship, that does not prevent the university from being upfront about finances and possibly reexamining how money flows.
I recall a similar spark of controversy around the time Johns Hopkins University was found to be more expensive than Harvard. The question in all of my local papers was the same - what kind of money do you have, where does it come from, why is tuition so high, and where does the money go?
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 2:23 pm ¶
Kali wrote:
NancyP
1. Your history of medical education still does not explain why there is a smaller population of AfAm doctors now than there were in 1910. And why of that number so few reach the academic or hospitalist ranks.
Discrimination is the answer: however you try to cut it.
2. Genetics: I am glad you used well recognized genetic terminology such as ‘out-breeding’ and ‘in-breeding’- there are always commenters on this blog who fly into a rage at that.
However you also said:
“Most genetic health problems arise when populations do many successive generations of first-cousin marriages, as can happen due to custom (bedouin and others, where inheritance laws make cousin marriages financially advantageous) or to isolation of an initially small population (fjords in Norway, some areas of Appalachia where travel was tough).”
Not true. A minority of genetic disorders can be attributed to consanguineous matings and inbreeding. Most genetic disorders, autosomal and mitochondrial and even recessive arise in what we regard as an out-bred/regular/normal population.
Hybrid “Vigor’ is not a term applied to human genetics except in a hypothetical way. Vigor does not imply simply lack of disease but a more positive endowment with respect to mental or physical well-being.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 3:11 pm ¶
Jennifer wrote:
I want to back up Latoya’s comments (#19). It is absolutely AMAZING what Berea is doing considering the size of its endowment and the founding principle of the college. If you go to their website, you will see that the college was founded in 1855 as the first co-educational and interracial college in the South–this was long before similar liberal arts schools like Sewanee and Vanderbilt were admitting African American and women.
I also think that while Ivy League colleges and many public ivies (UC system, Michigan, UNC, UMass, etc…) have also been dedicated to admit students need-blind, the truth is, the atmosphere of most universities and small liberal arts colleges if one of privilege. And THAT can be very intimidating to someone who didn’t grow up white or middle class (or both).
What is amazing about Berea is that they are ranked #75 for SLAC in the nation and that they have a dedication to diversity in their history and their ongoing mission statement. And that they are doing all of this for a population that would normally not be admitted into ivies, public or private, and if students were admitted into these places they may just feel too daunted by the culture of a place like Brown or Swarthmore or Amherst, where there are all sorts of assumptions about the kinds of families you come from–and I don’t just mean trust fund or summer camp–I mean assumptions like this is a family that never used food stamps. Or where both parents are somehow in the picture. Or where the electricity wasn’t turned off.
I grew up pretty middle-class in CA and found myself like a fish out of water when I hit my UC campus simply because I wasn’t white. I’ve worked with students in Upward Bound programs and they are really intimidated by college, in part, because of all the assumptions they have about who gets to go to college. I think it’s easy for us to be on the other side (those of us who went) and think it wasn’t a big deal to go, but for others of us, making that leap was huge, and for students who are from poorer and rural backgrounds (which is the population that Berea is specifically targeting) that can be even more daunting (seriously, imagine going from rural Appalachia to urban Chicago/NYC/Boston–that, alone, is intimidating).
I’m not knocking the ivies, public or private, but I think we should give credit where credit is due–and I wish there were MORE schools like Berea whose commitment to poor, rural communities, especially communities of color, has been a fact of life for over a century.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 3:13 pm ¶
commiv wrote:
A lot of universities have tuition and room and board costs that exceed those of the ivy league. The most expensive universities in the nation are not ivy league at all. Sarah Lawrence College, for example, is one of the most expensive colleges in the nation, charging over 50,000 per year for tuition and room and board, etc. Tuition cost does not seem to be tied so closely to endowment. This article in the NYTimes, about Berea college, discussues all of your concerns: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/education/21endowments.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&sq=tax%20exempt&st=cse&scp=2.
I was going to post a long comment here, but I’ll get right down to the nitty-gritty: This whole discussion is rooted on the fact that people feel excluded from prestigious ivy league institutions for reasons that are totally illegitimate. Hence the push for tuition-free admissions and the like. Making harvard free or charge is not going to make it any less selective, I’m afraid. They’ll have the same open spots as before, if not less. Ability to pay is not taken into consideration during the admissions process, and there is a plethora of financial aid choices for those admitted, ranging from scholarships to grants to a variety of student loans. The issue here is that people feel excluded, specially when it comes to money and the cost of things. What will be accomplished, exactly, by opening up Harvard’s endowment for funding students’ tuition and fees? Most people that need financial aid are already offered financial aid by the university to an incredibly generous extent. The university’s endowment comes mostly from private sources. The school’s many research centers and graduate programs produce a number of advances and inventions and generally beneficial contributions to society, and isn’t that the point? I see how the non-profit designation can be quite problematic when their endowment is being invested and growing, but those investments are used to fund educational endeavors and research projects, and exist as the accumulated wealth of the university, an wealth that exists to fund educational pursuits.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 3:38 pm ¶
Jennifer wrote:
I fear that if I submit this question I am really going to derail the comment section in a way that already seems like it may be derailed (so Latoya or others, feel free not to post) but I read through Commiv’s comments and have a comment for him/her:
I don’t quite understand what you feel upset about.
Maybe I’m misreading your comments and misunderstanding your points, but in your original comment you seem troubled by the author’s use of the word “shame” with respect to Berea “shaming” the Ivy League colleges.
I think, in the context of both the article and where it was published, saying that Berea is “shaming” the ivies isn’t totally inaccurate–Berea’s committment to educating students of a rural, poor community–it’s commitment to diversity–it’s long history of doing this, seems more than commendable and the ivy leagues should be ashamed of their record in comparison to Berea’s. And given the huge endowments at the Ivies, they could well afford to charge less if they wanted to–but part of the allure of Harvard and other places has to do with selection and elitism. That’s what distinguishes the Ivy Leagues from other colleges–Stanford and Duke joke that Harvard is the “Stanford” or “Duke” of the East coast, but the truth is, Harvard is the measuring stick (for bad or worse) that most colleges and most people (around the world) use as the gold standard for higher education.
Berea does “shame” the ivies with its commitment to diversity, a culture that strives to accept students from a wide arrange of backgrounds (especially one that accepts students from poor rural communities) and above all its free tuition.
I just don’t understand, Commiv, what you seem upset by. Certainly Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Amherst and a host of elite SLAC and research I schools are doing amazing work and trying, in their own way, to make education affordable (UNC and other schools like UT Austin now have an agreement to fund students of a certain income bracket, debt free for 4 years, so in their own way they are trying to do what Berea is doing). I think there’s enough praise and criticism to go around to all places of higher education–but what’s wrong in simply praising a less-well known school for doing something that certainly is commendable–and that potentially does shame richer and bigger and more powerful institutions? If anything, this should spur Brown and Dartmouth and others to step up to the plate and do more. Which is really what colleges and universities should be doing (and that many are doing).
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 4:14 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
@Kali: ” I am glad you used well recognized genetic terminology such as ‘out-breeding’ and ‘in-breeding’- there are always commenters on this blog who fly into a rage at that.”
I see you’re still leaving passive-agressive insults about us uppity multiracial people who dare to demand respectful terminology. Didn’t you promise to leave and never come back over that?
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 4:19 pm ¶
Kali wrote:
@altasien
If Science Museums and geneticists are going to be used to bolster arguments on a race blog then we have to follow well-researched scientific rules.
Human beings follow the same genetic rules as the rest of living beings and a race-related blog should be very careful not to misinform people about genetics and give in to the ones who shout loudest. That would not be doing them a service at all.
In-breeding and out-breeding have no racial connotations. Not biracial, not multiracial. It is to do with the study of populations. As I said a better education in Genetics, Biology and Evolution in High School would really help.
As for my not posting here: I recall other commenters asking me not to leave. When everyone is thinking alike no one is thinking at all.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 5:22 pm ¶
Kali wrote:
@altasien
Did you even read NancyP’s comments before dashing off a comment?
She explained it so well that anyone who really read it would have understood that she was arguing *against* hybrid vigor. Again an unproven theory- but no one would fund such sensitive research to prove or disprove it.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 5:49 pm ¶
Brian wrote:
Woo! I’m glad to see Vegans of Color made it on here. It’s one of my favorite blogs.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 6:03 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Kali - Science, while important, is not the focus of this blog. Why? Because we aren’t dealing with scientific facts - we are engaging with race as a social construct; one that changes based on environment and cultural norms.
As such, we use different language and we explore ideas using news, pop culture, and personal narratives.
If something scientific comes up and it is relevant, we put it into the mix. But this is not a science blog, or a genetics blog, and the terminology we use will be different.
Hope that clarifies things.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 6:26 pm ¶
Torontonian wrote:
Somebody help me out here. I don’t understand how Cynthia’s comment is related to the post.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 6:41 pm ¶
Kali wrote:
Latoya,
I am not talking about Science in general - not physics or calculus.
Evolution teaches us about genetics and the linkage between genes of every species so that people would not still believe that humans are somehow completely different genetically from other living organisms.
There would be no racism if people did not believe that being born into a particular race ie genetics - made one superior or inferior. So genetics is inextricably bound up with the concept of race both in the scientific sense and in the way people percieve race.
More importantly my response was prompted by the Vegans of color link which uses outrageous *genetic*/scientific misinformation and is written in a way that only drums up more hate and ‘racism’ (against white people this time).
In fact I see this blog getting more and more polarized which is hardly the way to address racism and intolerance. That attitude actually reduces the credibility of us persons of color even more and is damaging.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 6:46 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Kali -
Thank you for perfectly illustrating why I don’t really want to discuss science on this blog. People can know and understand something rationally and still twist the truth to suit their purposes. James Watson helped to decipher the double helix coding in DNA and *still* holds racist beliefs.
Science is not the magic bullet for ending racism. People can have all kinds of facts in front of them and still not believe them; or spend time trying to twist science back to their own ideals. (See: The Bell Curve)
The Vegans of Color link gave me much to think about, but I am afraid I missed where there is hatred and racism against white people. They are discussing white supremacy, and how that factors into issues within the Animal Rights movement (namely, *why* some humans take such offense at being compared to animals.) I can see the term “Euromutts” being highly questionable, but that’s about it. Care to elaborate?
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 7:05 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:
Outbreeding v inbreeding - these are animal genetics terms that are commonly understood by the lay population. There is nothing comparable in the human population. In fact “inbreeding” is of variable possible intensity in different species: mice can withstand 20+ generations of brother-sister mating (one of several protocols for producing inbred strains) , with the end product being effectively syngeneic, mice able to tolerate transplantation of cells from any other member of that particular strain. Rats can only tolerate lesser degrees of inbreeding. Rabbits and dogs, even less.
I suppose I was thinking about the rate of a single disease entity caused by a single autosomal recessive, wholy deleterious mutation. The incidence of a *particular gene mutation* in an endogamous population derived from a very small starter population, one member of which is heterozygous for the deleterious mutation, is likely to be much higher than the incidence in an exogamous population after a few generations.
My historical summary of medical education before and after the Flexner Report does indicate that discrimination became more effective when medical education became regulated and the small schools (not affiliated with universities) went out of business. Those small schools trained the majority of blacks and women in medicine before 1910, in an unregulated education market where costs were low enough and class sizes small enough that schools could admit all-minority classes or admit a mixed class without worrying about being able to attract enough white men to fill a class. In other words, I am explaining the *greater* access before 1910 despite a discriminatory environment: the unregulated free market small business model of medical education in operation before 1910. In no way did I imply that there wasn’t discrimination in medical education over the last century and a half.
There is still societal discrimination at work in the number of black doctors trained. I can’t cite off the top of my head the stats for rate of acceptance for black v white applicants above a certain “adequate” (base) GPA/MCAT . My impression (admittedly based on local observations and not a national review) is that more efforts are made to consider non-GPA/MCAT factors in applications from blacks than from whites, in an attempt to locate lower-scoring but academically capable candidates with extra-academic strengths. My guess is that the bulk (not necessarily all) of the discrimination occurs before application to medical school, and that class exacerbates underlying racial discrimination. Contributing factors could include a mix of
1. type of schooling (tracking, middle and high school career advising, college advising, percentage of students with appropriate number and quality of high school math and science courses to be able to survive the college curricula without massive catch-up).
2. finances (want or need a job ASAP (eg, has kids already), fear of immense student loans, lack of advice on how financial aid works, small number of scholarships available)
3. psychology of aspiration - children of manual laborers usually feel pleased to get skilled labor jobs, children of skilled laborers may aspire to get college degrees and white collar jobs, children of post office branch supervisors aspire to medical school or law school. Regardless of racial status, most people settle to aspire to do a little better than their parents , and a few aspire to go from manual labor to M.D., J.D., etc in a single generation.
4. excess of young population in juvie or adult prison - a few of these might have had the intelligence to be doctors, given a different life course involving better schools and fewer gangs in the neighborhood.
Concerning student retention, I don’t think that is much of an issue in medical school, given a skillful admissions committee. All students are given second chances if they flunk out of a course or two. If a student wants to pass, is willing to work, is honest, and does not suffer from debilitating mental illness, they generally pass this second chance. Those with mental illness (depression, bipolar disorder, OCD are the common ones) get treated so they have a realistic chance of passing the second chance. If needed they can go away for a year before repeating the failed course(s). It really is pretty hard to get kicked out of medical school. It is more common, but still rare, for people to leave on their own - often because family was pushing the student to become a doctor when he/she wanted to be an “X”.
I am not addressing the health care discrepancies at this time. Yes, they are there, no question. I don’t remember enough details to provide good citations off the top of my head, and it merits a long discussion on its own.
Am I boring for America yet?
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 7:39 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:
If it’s any consolation, 99% of Ph.D. and M.D. geneticists think Watson is a racist jerk. No one was surprised at his public eruption that resulted in him getting booted from Cold Spring Harbor Labs. despite his stellar record as a fundraiser for the institution.
There’s a notable underepresentation of American-born blacks in the basic sciences at the Ph.D. level. (Heck, there’s a notable underrepresentation of Americans in general in these fields!) As noted in the last post, a good deal of the problem may be in the supply side of applications to Ph.D. programs. Frankly, the length of time it takes to get a permanent university position is offputting to most people of any race - people are in their early to mid 30s when they get an assistant prof. appointment, and then they have no life for about 7 years while they attempt to get grants and tenure.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 7:49 pm ¶
Kali wrote:
Did you really read NancyP’s explanation? I have no intention of repeating everything she said.
I have never heard ‘mulatto’ used in the US. So why whip up all this hate? There are enough real problems such as the lack of AfAm doctors to care for sick people.
You are *far* from discussing science on this blog but NancyP’s response as mine was provoked by the junky Vegans article. My response was analogous to POC speaking up against racists in the street or in a bar even though they may not be inclined to.
In any case it is wrong to generalize from two or three people and we dismiss science to our peril. Science is part of everything we do: from sunrise to the internet- it’s a good idea to be well-informed.
Watson was racist- but he was removed from his post and eloquently cut down to size by *other scientists*. So also with the Bell Curve. My favorite “Mismeasure of Man” by Stephen Jay Gould( also a scientist and a white one ) was very effective in combating the misinformation in Bell Curve.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 7:53 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@NancyP - Thanks for all the insight. I know the tenure topic was explored over on Feministe not too long ago - I can understand why many people want to opt out of academia, especially when the wait isn’t a guaranteed result.
Now, if I may ask a favor - can you pinpoint exactly what is incorrect information in the VoC post? I’m sure the author would like to know.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 7:56 pm ¶
Kali wrote:
@NancyP
Genetics, Vol. 163, 1011-1021, March 2003, Copyright © 2003
Inbreeding and the Genetic Complexity of Human Hypertension
The first article I pulled up after googling ‘inbreeding’. No misnformation please.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 7:59 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Kali -
Nancy P’s response was in reference to items you raised, initially.
And do I really have to say this? Just because you’ve never heard the term used doesn’t mean it isn’t in play. One of my friends has been negatively called a “mulata” - though black/white isn’t her mix. And, interestingly enough, they even through the “tragic” in there for good measure. And some mixed people are attempting to reappropriate the term “mulatto” for their own uses.
This article by the Root is one:
http://www.theroot.com/id/47429
Mat Johnson also discusses the term on ATR:
http://www.addictedtorace.com/?p=193
So, the term is very much in effect.
And we are not dismissing science, but what you are asking for and the aims of this blog are different. And one of the reasons, Kali, that you run afoul of some of the other commenters is you insist on trying to browbeat your points home using clinical, scientific language - something that some mixed people would not agree with, as it is dehumanizing.
Carmen is on vacation - when she gets back, I will ask her more about the work she did with Jen Chau and Swirl. That is one of the reasons we don’t use terms like “hybrid vigor” on this site. While they may have a scientific definition, they also have a connotation that may be interpreted negatively.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 8:06 pm ¶
magda wrote:
Re: need blind admissions
From my experience working at an Ivy League (Columbia U.) and what I’ve read about college admissions offices is that many students are admitted to these colleges based not on their merit but because of their family connections. So if there are students that are being admitted _because_ their family has given money to to the university, I think this negates any pretense the school might have of need-blind admissions.
Also, when I worked in the housing department, we were told to give the connected kids the nicest apartments but they paid the same amount as everyone else.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 8:41 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:
Latoya P. , re: the VoC page, all breeds of dogs are considered to be the same species, Canis familiaris, by the conventional definition of species. She’s right, there are practical problems involving natural breeding of Danes and Chihuahuas, but it is assumed that in vitro fertilization and implantation into an appropriate sized host (ie, not the Chihuahua) would be possible and the offspring would be likely to be fertile. So, by the standards of modern stock breeding practice (where artificial insemination and other IVF techniques are used), Chihuahua and Dane are same species.
Otherwise she seems on course. I don’t know anything about etymology of “mulatto”.
Kali: re inbreeding and hypertension article - and your point is what, exactly? That word usage differs between American-born speakers and Croatian-born ESL speakers likely schooled in the Queen’s English and not colloquial British English or American English? Are you inferring that Croats using the English word “inbreeding” think of themselves as livestock when they discuss genetics of isolated Croatian populations? The paper struck me, by the abstract at least, to be a fairly standard quantitative trait locus analysis.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 10:11 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:
Magda, our current President is an example of Ivy League college admissions on the basis of connections. Much to their credit, the U. Texas Austin Law School turned gentleman C student GWBush down.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 10:13 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
I’m a big fan of Stephen J. Gould, have read about 20 books by him and once wrote a paper on the Mismeasure of Man for a philosophy of science course. And I have no problem with anything NancyP is saying. I do have a problem with Kali’s smug attitude toward multiracial people; you’re not dropping science, you’re just using it as a blunt object to beat other people over the head with. All you’re really doing is braying how much smarter you are than anyone else, how irrational we are and how our education is inferior. Your “shut up about terminology because there are more important REAL problems out there” perfectly mirrors the attitude of white concern trolls.
Leave or don’t leave as you like, but please don’t expect not to be called out for being so contemptuous of multiracial people.
Posted 30 Jul 2008 at 6:54 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Atlasien hit it out of the park. This biologist cosigns.
Let it be said again and then said no more: dog “breeds” have been intensely manipulated for literally millenia, since the first wolves and African hunting dogs were domesticated in the Paleolithic/Neolithic eras. It got more intense in the last 500 years or so.
THERE IS NO COMPARISON to human phenotypic diversity and ancestral geographic trends. “Race” is a shorthand for “phenotypic majorities/tendencies/dominances based loosely on global ancestral location and historical migration and subsequent reproductive trends.” The definitions used are so broad and changeable as to be nonsensical; any “traits” listed for a “Race” are not static, stable, or uniform. They are not breeds. They have not been genetically manipulated by outsiders (unless that’s what all those UFO sightings are really about). People of mixed ethnicity are not mutts.
There is no such thing as outbreeding enhancement (hybrid vigor) or outbreeding depression (the opposite) when it comes to “racial” groups. Anything that seems that way on the surface can be attributed to specific traits in the subpopulations, and are usually repeated and repeatable in other populations that are NOT of the same ethnic background or specific geographic location.
Posted 30 Jul 2008 at 8:43 am ¶
Persia wrote:
From my experience working at an Ivy League (Columbia U.) and what I’ve read about college admissions offices is that many students are admitted to these colleges based not on their merit but because of their family connections. So if there are students that are being admitted _because_ their family has given money to to the university, I think this negates any pretense the school might have of need-blind admissions.
Magda, thank you for finally saying this! You cannot have a truly superior student population when you give a free pass to the children of alumni and big donors– you’re just perpetuating the system of elitism.
I wasn’t aware of the decrease of African-American doctors in this country– that’s depressing.
Posted 30 Jul 2008 at 9:34 am ¶
goc wrote:
@Kali: “In any case it is wrong to generalize from two or three people and we dismiss science to our peril. Science is part of everything we do: from sunrise to the internet- it’s a good idea to be well-informed.”
Criticism of “the scientific method” which includes scientific language, methodology etc. i s not a dismissal of science. It is an extremely valid and important discussion that NEEDS to take place, especially within communties of color. I have been trained as a scientist and know first hand the extent to which the idea that “science is objective and above the social fray ” is drilled into us. The scientific method is not to be questioned. However, as a woman of color this dogma asks me to ignore the past and present racist, sexist and classist practices science has enabled and continues to enable. If I had a dime for every “scientific” survey that claims to have found the gene that cause [insert flaw] in [insert group of people of color/woman/queer people] … I could pay of college loans.
So just like you are asking this blog to “open up” to scientific discussions I ask that you open up to the idea that science is as much of a human construction as most other institutions.
Posted 30 Jul 2008 at 9:45 am ¶
Kali wrote:
In-breeding and Out-breeding has NOTHING to do with ‘breeds’ either . Breeding is a term similar to ‘mating’ used about animals as well as Humans. There are NO human breeds/subspecies/races etc for the last time.
This is not supposed to be a ’science’ discussion and now we have people wanting to discuss ’scientific method’ as if it was cast in stone. If it wasn’t for the same we would still believe that the earth moved round the sun and our average life-span would be around 50. Why even bother with more AfAm doctors since they all use this terrible ’scientific method’.
@ Altassien
You had no problem with NancyP’s explanation? I doubt you understood it and the fact that she seems to be a laboratory animal geneticist not a human geneticist. Any discussion of the Human Hypertension and Inbreeding article that I posted from a very well-regarded journal. Know anything about Hemophilia or Cystic Fibrosis.
Perhaps I make you feel as if you are out of your comfort zone?? Well, it is not my job to exit the discussion or dumb it down for your comfort.
And lastly I am myself multiracial as are my children but I have chosen not to exploit that fact to shut down the discussion and claim the more moral high ground.
Posted 30 Jul 2008 at 10:18 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Kali,
The bottom line is this:
1. Yes, we can discuss issues with AfAm doctors.
2. No, we will not change how we discuss mixed race individuals.
As far as I am concerned, this part of the discussion is over. If you have further concerns about how we present information from and by mixed race individuals, email carmen@newdemographic.com and she will break it down.
Posted 30 Jul 2008 at 10:32 am ¶
Kali wrote:
@NancyP
My point is that the word inbreeding is very much part of Human Genetics terminology and it is misinformation (the last thing we need) to say that when you clearly have not looked at textbooks and journals of Human genetics.
As for the racism in that article- Cynthia said it first and if no one else has the courage to it is not because of ’scientific terminology’ but because of the intolerant lean to this blog and there isn’t anyone left who cares to point it out.
The articles and the comments are getting more and more intolerant and strident - and I thought this blog was different.
Posted 30 Jul 2008 at 10:37 am ¶
Kali wrote:
Can you explain then why it was you taht posted a link containing the words ‘hybrid vigor’, species, breed etc etc ?
Posted 30 Jul 2008 at 10:51 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Yes, because the link is DEBUNKING that idea. That’s why it is referred to as a “HASSLE.”
And the piece provides an interesting parallel that we generally do not discuss here - the aims of some parts of the animal rights movement potentially clashing with anti-racist action.
AR wants people to realize animals are not beneath humans. Problem is, often, humans (mixed race and monoracial) have been compared negatively to animals, with the intent of being dehumanized. Which makes for an interesting conundrum.
But you didn’t see that part at all, did you? Not the interplay between two movements, with two different goals that may be misaligned, all you saw what what you wanted to see.
As I said before, no longer interested in continuing this conversation.
Posted 30 Jul 2008 at 10:58 am ¶
Kali wrote:
@latoya
If I wrote a comment/article using a bunch of misinformation and half-understood half-truths to make my point (however laudable) it should not receive amplification in a respected blog.
It is very important to get the facts right: otherwise you are doing a disservice to your readership who trust you.
I could have talked about Sickle Cell Disease : the commonest and most awful of genetic disorders in the US and occurs only in AfAms in the US (Other types occur elsewhere in the world). This disease actually protects against Malaria and that is why there is so much of it, It once provided a survival advantage.
AfAm babies are tested for it soon after birth so that treatment can reduce the pain and disability - but that cannot cure the condition. It is a neglected disease with very little research money being directed towards it. Guess why?
The only way to summon up the muscle to reverse this is to educate people about genetics not shy away from it.Many AfAms opt to be tested for carrier status (not all of them carry it obviously) - although this is not widely publicised or discussed because it smacks of eugenics.
The Jewish people are probably more open and more willing to be tested for many terrible conditions that they have because of ‘inbreeding’ which occurs in an effort to marry within one’s religion or community. One of them called Tay Sachs disease is on it’s way out because couples at risk choose to adopt rather than take the risk.
Why didn’t I mention Sickle Cell Disease rather than Cystic Fibrosis (a ‘white’ disease as is Hemophilia) ? because it could be used as racist fodder.
Mod Note - You are discussing two different things. Calling attention to medical issues in communities is one thing; discussions of mixed race identity is another. As long as you keep conflating the two, we are going to have problems. Your first point has been noted. Your second point I have already responded to. No further comments in this vein will be approved. - LDP
Posted 30 Jul 2008 at 11:30 am ¶
Winn wrote:
Sorry Latoya…
@ Kali,
Perhaps you should spend less time with your head in “the textbooks and journals of Human genetics” and more time actually interacting with humans. Browbeating people with your superior education in one specific area of intellectual pursuit does not make you more intelligent or more insightful about all other areas, and some serious work in the “soft” sciences like sociology and psychology might help enhance your communication skills. There are larger social issues at work here, and those are the mission of this blog. There are numerous scientifically oriented and genetics-specific blogs you can visit where I’m sure the terms “inbreeding”, “outbreeding” and “hybrid vigor” are used with frequency. Those blogs have a very different focus and point from Racialicious, a point that has seemed to escape you.
In addition, however much you bow at the altar of holy “science”, it too is a product of human social construction, particularly of Eurocentric, male-dominated construction. Science is not devoid of history, and to pretend that it is and its precepts should never be challenged, is both arrogant and short-sighted. And while commenters here are certainly capable of speaking for themselves, I as a non-mixed race person am incredibly offended at your reference to “exploiting” multiracial identity to shut down discussion. Your tangent on “breeding” and “hybrid vigor” derailed the important discussion we should have been having about the larger point of human/animal conflation and how animal comparisons have been used to dehumanize people. Some of this dehumanization has led to the torture, exploitation, exhibition and experimentation on and of human beings, and this legacy is as much a part of science as “well-recognized genetic terminology”. This was part of the point of the OP, but here we are talking about “dumbing down” discussions and people “claiming the moral high ground”. Haven’t you tried to claim the “intellectual” or “scientific” high ground here? And personal insults to valuable contributors like atlasien are no way to win friends and influence people, no matter how valuable the ultimate point you are trying to make is. I find it hilarious that you accuse this blog of intolerance and stridency. Do you read back what you write before you post?
Posted 30 Jul 2008 at 12:38 pm ¶
Jen* wrote:
fyi - the definition & etymology of mulatto:
mu·lat·to adjective; noun
1. the offspring of one white parent and one black parent: not in technical use.
2. a person whose ancestry is a mixture of Negro and Caucasian.
–adjective
3. of a light-brown color.
[Origin: 1585–95; < Sp mulato young mule, equiv. to mul(o) mule1 + -ato of unclear orig.]
So yes, the root of mule and mulatto are the same, coming from the Spanish.
As to whether it’s still in use, a couple years ago a guy on the street asked what my sister was [more common than not] and she said black&white. He argued that there was a specific word for it, but he couldn’t think of it. Finally, he came up with it and starts shouting at us [as we had kindly kept walking, thank you very much], “It’s Milano! You’re Milano!!! Milanoooo!”
Posted 30 Jul 2008 at 2:35 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:
goc @ #44 hits the nail on the head. Scientific theories, methodologies / study designs, language, interpretation of experiments or of epidemiologic studies are ALL produced by humans with blind spots, ideologies mandating language and category use and affecting experimental design and interpretation, a need to prove “conventional wisdom”, etc. Racism, sexism, heterosexism, and so on all play a role in deciding which studies are done, how they are designed and interpreted, and who does what sort of work. This is a huge topic in the sociology / history / philosophy of science. There has been a boomlet in books on the history of eugenics and on the control of reproduction, for instance. One of these days I may track down moderated academic or independent scholar web sites discussing these matters (unfortunately, a lot of unmoderated discussions start getting trolled by Stormfront types).
Re: confusing encounter with Kali
I am not a medical geneticist. I don’t see pediatric patients and evaluate findings for possible congruence with one of the recognized monogenic genetic diseases of Mendelian inheritance pattern. Nevertheless, I do read some of the heritable adult solid tumor literature and have a passing awareness of some common genetic diseases affecting adults. My interest is somatic cell genetics of certain cancers.
Consanguinity is the most common word formally used to indicate close relation of parents of a proband patient. Inbreeding is not a very common formal term in the human genetics literature. At least that’s my impression over about 15 years of at least scanning the TOC of Am. J. Human Genetics.
I do know a bit about mouse genetics over the years - mice are model animals used in immunology, cancer research, many many applications of transgenic technology.
Posted 30 Jul 2008 at 8:59 pm ¶
Liam K. Connor wrote:
Why didn’t I mention Sickle Cell Disease rather than Cystic Fibrosis (a ‘white’ disease as is Hemophilia) ?
I would simply like to point out whilst I am a white, Irish chap with hemophilia, ’tis not a ‘white’ disease. Hemophilia affects persons across all racial, ethnic, religious, and socio-economic groups equally.
Posted 30 Jul 2008 at 11:23 pm ¶