April 27, 2007

Race vs. Skin Color - Guest Blogger

Francis L. Holland wrote a substantial and thought-provoking comment in my earlier post on Juneteenth. I thought it was fitting to make a separate blog entry for it. It turns out that PlezWorld had similiar experience earlier this week.

Francis pointed out an article in a recent issue of The Washington Post which said,
The contest for black support in South Carolina mirrors the national struggle Democratic candidates are waging to win black elected officials' support. Many have long-standing ties to the Clintons or Edwardses or others but are nonetheless tugged by racial solidarity with Obama and the excitement they see his campaign generating among their constituents. Moreover, Obama's early fundraising prowess has convinced observers that his campaign will be formidable to the end.
I'm not going to address Hillary v. Obama, because that's something everyone will decide for themselves. Here's my biggest gripe with that paragraph and with the whole article from which it's excerpted: the word "racial." The word race is a synonym for "species" and the Washington Post is saying that we will vote for Obama because he is the same species as us, just like dogs hang out in packs with other dogs because they are from the same species.

I'm not buying that. I'm not going to let anyone say that I am from any species other than the human species. Let's face it: There's no way we will ever win equality in America for so long as we concede that we are not even from the same species as whites. I don't think "separate but equal species" is our best argument for equality.

Let's face it: What we have in common with Barack Obama but that separates us from whites is not our "racial" species, but simply our skin color. Is that so hard to say and accept?

Of course whites like to exaggerate our difference so they can rationalize the exaggerated differences in the way we are treated. That's why the word "race," that appears no where else in the biological sciences, is applied to the difference in SKIN COLOR between Blacks and whites.
Now, someone will insist that the word "race" is essential to our efforts to gain equality and fight racism. That's like saying that the "N" word is essential to our efforts to fight against epithets! The word "race" is itself a badge and mark of inferiority and the word "racism" unless you accept that concept of "race."

I am never going to use the word "race" again without referring to it as "the disproved pseudo-scientific theory of race."

Nor will I use the word "racism," which is a word whose definition is premised upon the existence of the disproven pseudo-scientific concept of race.

Let's look at this linguistically and decode the word racism: Any argument about Marxism implicity accepts the fact that there was a man named "Marx," which is true. Any argument about "capitalism" implicity excepts as a premise the fact that "capital" exists, which is true. Likewise, any argument about "racism" - pro or con - is based on the premise that "race" exists, which is false. NO ONE anywhere can offer me even a half-baked argument that there is more than one species of human beings! Only "racists" believe in the color-animus motivated pseudo-scientific concept of "race." And so the literal meaning of the word "racist" has to be someone who believes in the concept of "race." To avoid being taken for a "racist," I'm not going to use the word "race" anymore, claiming or conceding to be from a different "race" from white people.

Just as black cats and spotted cats from the same family are all from one species - "cats," likewise, Black people and white people who all came from Africa originally, who interbreed, who have transfuseable blood, who organs can be transplanted one to the other, we are all from the same species. If the word race is superfluous in discussing differences between animal species, it is also superfluous in discussing differences between humans.

The word "race" serves only one purpose: to gloss over the fact that there is no evidence that we and whites are from different species and to gloss over the fact that we and whites MUST, by all evidence, be of the SAME species, that our only difference is skin-color.

So, what term will we use instead of "race"? How about simply "skin-color"? And what term will we use instead of "racism"? How about "skin-color aroused antagonistic behaviors of individuals, groups, organizations and societies." Yeah, it's a little longer than "racism" but has the advantage that it doesn't concede that we are, like dogs, being from a different species from whites.

If there is inherently, innately something more to the difference between Blacks and whites than skin-color, then what is that "something more"? "Inherently inferior intelligence?" "Inherently inferior values?" "Innately superior bongo playing?" "Genetically superior sexual drive and potency, but with less impulse control?"

All of the possibilities are both unproven, improvable and absurd as a matter of science but also profoundly insulting to us as a people, and intentionally so. The word "race" (and every word derived from it)is inherently and irremediably an insult wherever and whenever it is used. Unless you can tell me what innate characteristics make us inherently different from whites, you have to admit that the concept of "race" adds nothing that the phrase "skin-color" of "phenotype" doesn't. All "race" add is baggage and highly negatively charged linguistic discrimination.

For so long as we agree that we are from a separate species from whites, we will never, ever convince them that we are from an equal species. As the Supreme Court said in 1954, "separate but equal" is an unconstitutional fallacy that simply never, ever works.

If someone asks me, "Are you equal to whites?" it does require more letters for me to write "yes," (3 letters) than it requires to write the word "no," (2 letters) but I think it's worth the extra effort, considering how important it is. Likewise, I think it's worth taking the extra time to write "skin-color" instead of "race," because "skin color" preserves our humanness and equality while using the words "race" (and logically therefore also "racism") negates our humanness and equality.

Villager Note - Usually I turn my attention elsewhere when someone begins to discount the issue of 'race'. I'm a grown-azzed man ... and I figure that I've lived life long enough with 'race' as a defining factor here in America that I didn't need to hear some crackpot notion of 'race' being non-existent. However, Francis was kind enough to share his thesis on 'race' versus 'skin color' here on the Electronic Village ... so I couldn't ignore it. And I must admit -- there is some compelling logic in his message. Methinks that I will try to use "skin-color" instead of "race" when appropriate. I'll have to work harder to remember to use "skin-colored aroused antaganistic behaviors of individuals, groups, organizations and societies" in lieu of "racism" [smile].

In any case, Francis is an example of the powerful thought and opinions being expressed throughtout the AfroSphere. I list the AfroSphere blogs over on the left-hand side navigation bar. Check them out as you have time or inclination.

For now, I invite all 'villagers' of all skin colors to share your thoughts on Francis' message. What say u?


Keith said...

Hey Villager.

Interesting point of view, and I'm glad you allowed it to be posted on your site. I've heard this theory in various incarnations over the years and, as always, there are some good logical points in thne argument as you stated. But where I believe this argument completely jumps the tracks is that it essentially shrugs off the socio-cultural realities of history and its effects on those of us in thew real world. Are we all from the same species? Of course we are. Can we interbreed and share blood? Sure thing. But you cannot simply ignore the historial effects of slavery - or colonialism, or what the English did to Ireland - and sweep it all under the rug just by saying we are biologically compatible. It's a nice idea, and well-written. But it's wrong.

BTW, Villager, thanks much for placing the link to my piece on the 'N' word on your site. Much, much appreciated!

Villager said...

Keith - Accepting that we are of the same species doesn't mean that folks in the same species can't do damage and commit atrocities on each other. Colonialism and slavery are examples. Heck, cannibalism is another example!

I took from Francis that we should look at the reason for the damage and atrocities against Black people. Is it our race? or the higher level of melanin in our body?

Anyhow, it makes for interesting reading and thought ... and hopefully dialogue.

You earned the 'link love' with a timely post about the N-word. I was glad to do it. I think that I'm going to use that section of my blog to share some link-love with others in the AfroSphere or other blogs that are either nubian in nature or simply cool to read!

peace, Villager

Natalie said...

Francis left the same post on my blog and I'll respond here with the same thing I responded there because it is how I feel.

From my study of biology, I have learned that biological classification goes like this; Domain, Kingdom, Phylum/Division, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, and occasionally subspecies. Race is not included in this because race is not a synonym for species. Race, in anthropology, is defined as a group of persons [all same species] who share genetically transmitted traits such as skin color, hair texture, and eye shape or color. In biology race is rarely used (and almost never used in regard to humans) refers to a group within a species that has different physical characteristics but can interbreed.

Now, when it comes to terms that actually separate people of color into different species, such as mulatto which stems from mule, a sterile offspring of a horse and a donkey [which are different species] I am right with Francis in abolishing the term because people are obviously all the same species. However, race does not fall in that same category. While I would argue that ethnicity is sometimes a more applicable term than race when talking about shared experiences, ethnicity doesn’t necessarily include the genetic markers that correlate with racial designations.

As a dear friend put it, races of people are the same as breeds of dogs; they look different but they are still all dogs. They can mate and have mixed breed offspring that can have children. We just don't like to think of ourselves as a breed because people like to keep as far away from being associated with animals as possible. When things of different species mate, they either have no offspring or sterile offspring. Unless you are going to deny that people from different regions of the world have different genetics traits that are similar to other people from those regions and are not generally shared by people native to other parts of the world, you can either accept the designation of race, or call it breeds, or makeup some new term to say just the same thing.

Francis L. Holland Blog said...

Thank you so much for posting this article at your blog. I think a lot of people are asking, and quite correctly, whether I am proposing that we discard the societal analysis that has been built around words that, like slave names, we inherited from our oppressors? And so I've written a new article (somewhat long but then this is a complex topic) to address these valid and fundamental questions and propose positive and constructive linguistic solutions.

Can the Term Extreme Color Arousal (ECA) Replace the Anachronistic and Misleading Term "Racism"?

"I use the term "Extreme Color Arousal," whose acronym is ("ECA"), which is pronounced "EE-cah" or "EH-cah," instead of the conceptually faulty and denigrating term "racism." "EE-cah" sounds bad, right? And it should, because this is a very destructive illness, particularly in its most extreme forms. "

Now that many of us are acknowledging that the term "race" is a pseudo-scientific white supremacists' fantasy word that stigmatizes Black people and other people of color every time is is used, we are also coming to accept that all words that are based upon and that presuppose the fallacious existence of "race" are equally damaging to our struggle for equality in America. This is so precisely because they teach us and white people, every day, that we from a separate "species" than white people. The US Supreme Court declared in Brown v. Board of Education that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal. Now, we are coming to realize that for so long as we concede that we are from a separate "race" we will continue to receive separate and unequal treatment in America.

And so the question immediately and anxiously arises, "If we don't call our difference "race" and we don't call antagonism against our difference "racism" then how WILL we refer linguistically to these fundamental facts of our existence? Won't we necessarily discard our analysis of the problem if we discard this fallacious word? Will we have to trade our hard-won deconstructive understanding of our position for denial and childishly simplistic solutions like "color-blindness"?

Absolutely not! We need a new vocabulary that accurately describes and helps us and others to deconstruct, what actually exists in the sciences of biology, sociology and politics, using the renaming process and our new understandings as a starting point for powerful social change.

Today, a reader e-mailed me, saying, "With human nature being what it is, I think a new terminology to replace the words "race," "racist," "racism," etc. would catch on faster if it were concise and catchy. Maybe we could ask for suggestions. Something along the lines of "colorist," "colorism." It's just a thought."

Below, I explain why "colorist" and "colorism," although well-intentioned suggestions, are terrible alternative terms scientifically, linguistically, politically and strategically, and I propose alternative solutions. We do not need a new synonym for an old and false concept. We need a new understanding that can lead to positive and even revolutionary change in America's thoughts and its social order. What we need, in my humble but insistent opinion, is not merely to change the fallacious words but also to change our entire way of thinking and analyzing the problem. We need not just a new word but a new solution.

The reader may be right that a simpler terminology would catch on faster, but I'm not sure that would be better, particularly if it - once again - leads to a misunderstanding of the nature of the problem, or if it relies on the simplistic solutions and denial implicit in proposals such as "color-blindness" (which, thankfully, the reader did not propose). So below, after sorting through this problem scientifically, linguistically, sociologically and politically, I propose some linguistic solutions that are both catchy as well as scientifically, sociologically and linguistically accurate.

The easiest part of this linguistic and analytical problem is naming the visual cue that elicits the negative response in what we used to call "racism." When Blacks are on the highway and are stopped by police at a rate two or three times that of whites, the police cannot see our "ethnicity" and have no access to sublime genetic analysis that would allow them to target a fallacious "race." From sixty or one hundred yards away, the police cannot even distinguish our African facial morphology very well, if at all. And many of us, like Barack Obama, don't even really have strictly African facial morphology.

So, what police perceive visually and what arouses the negative behavioral response in them is, quite simply and uniquely, our "skin color." In this case, there is no need to embellish or complicate a phenomenon which is really quite simple. When police perceive that a person's skin is darker than white skin, be the victims Latino or Black, there often occurs within police officers' brains a series of thoughts and feelings which are then manifested in behavior, like stopping us, searching us, beating us and/or arresting us.

Although white people would like to insist that they are responding to our "race" in such instances, partly because it allows them to imply that there are a series of important but imperceptible qualities that they are targeting beyond our skin color, the hard fact is that it is simply our skin-color that that arouses their attention. When aroused by perceiving the color of our skin, they then often also are aroused to dislike anything in us that is associated with our skin color, even if these cues would be acceptable in others who do not have our skin color. (For example, if the Irish, Jewish or Russians were Black, every aspect of their culture and their persons would come under sustained attack in America, regardless of their "ethnicity.") Therefore we should replace the insulting misnomer of "race" and simply use the more accurate and relevant term "skin-color" instead.

But, if we discard the word "race," then what term which will use for that which we historically but incorrectly referred to as "racism"? Obviously, once we agree that "race" does not exist as between human beings who are all of the same species, we cannot logically continue to use words which depend for their meaning of the fallacious existence of "race."

The alternative term "color-arousal" properly and appropriately focuses on what happens inside the color-aroused person's head at the moment when s/he perceives the color of another, in combination with an awareness of the person's own color, identity, beliefs, ideation, emotions and behavior. And in the head is precisely where the focus of our analysis should be: on what happens inside the head.

Consider this analogy: No "eating problem" like anorexia nervosa or bulimia can be resolved until we consider what goes on in the brain (thoughts, emotions) and mouth (behavior) of the ill person, because those physical areas within the body are the locus of the eating "problem." Over-eating and under-eating involve a decisional process that occurs in the brain and is manifested in the behavior of the mouth. So, to help a patient, doctors study the emotions, thoughts and behavior of the patient. While overeating also involves food, the locus of the problem is not the supermarket; the locus of the problem is in the persons mind, and so it is a "mental problem," not a "food problem."

If you call bulimia a "food problem" (analogous to a "color problem"), then your focus will eternally be on the outside stimuli (food) rather than on what occurs in the head of the person who chooses to binge and purge. When people binge and purge, the locus of the problem is not in the food itself, but in their minds. Ask yourselves this: Could we ever solve the problems of bulimia or anorexia nervosa if we defined the problem as a "food problem" and went looking for the causes and solutions in the supermarket?

We can only discover the causes of anorexia and bulimia by studying the ideation, emotion and behavior of those who refuse to eat or who binge and purge. Likewise, the problem of color-arousal is not in our "race" but in other people's perceptual arousal in response to perception of our skin-color, and then the emotions, ideation and behavior that follow within those subjects heads.

Some few psychiatrists are now studying "racism" (sic) and we should read what they say, as well as the new and revolutionary Position Statement of the American Psychiatric Association. studyingIn the problem of what we used to call "racism," the locus of the problem is actually "color-arousal." So, "color-arousal" is the preferred term because it focuses our attention precisely on what happens when the perception of skin-color arouses extreme emotions, ideation and behavior in sufferers of extreme color arousal disorder (ECA).

To begin to identify, diagnose and treat cases of Extreme Color-Arousal (ECA), "color arousal" or "ECA" is also the preferable term scientifically, because we need to begin to measure quantitatively the level of arousal, the particular circumstances in which it occurs and the ideation, emotion and behavior that follow.

It is impossible to identify or measure "racism" in any individual with any even minimal degree of scientific agreement. However, it is actually quite easy to measure "skin-color-arousal" and many studies are based on this successful measurement. Unfortunately, until recently the psychiatric profession and other professionals had almost completely ignored and discounted Extreme Color-Aroused Emotions, Ideation and Behavior Disorder (ECEIBD) as an area in which patients are in need of diagnosis and treatment.

It is important to note that not all thoughts and behaviors aroused by the perception of skin-color are antagonistic thoughts or are necessarily dysfunctional or negative. When we see someone with exactly our mother's skin color, we may feel good inside without knowing why. The problem occurs when subjects perceive the color of another and this arouses unrealistic thoughts, powerfully negative emotions and dysfunctionally antagonistic behaviors. I call this Extreme Color-aroused Emotion, Ideation and Behavior Disorder (ECEIBD). But this term can easily be shorted without losing anything to Extreme Color Arousal (ECA), which is pronounced EE-Cah.

Here's another reason why the term "colorist" is a poor substitute for Extreme Color Arousal (ECA): When you add the suffix "ist "to a noun in the English language, the meaning becomes “a person who does or specializes in a certain area,” for example a “biologist,” a “gynecologist,” a “therapist.” The BBC. Are people who experience extreme color-arousal the “specialists” in the disease that ails them or are they people in need of specialists? Isn’t extreme color-arousal characterized by the subject’s extreme denial and ignorance of what is going on within his head and why?

Do we really want to exalt the status of people who are extremely color-aroused, and create a new linguistic and conceptual fallacy, by calling them “specialists in color-arousal”? To the contrary, the specialists in color-arousal ought to be the “psychiatrists” who examine what goes on in the heads of people who experience extreme and dysfunctional color-arousal.

There are also important political and psychological reasons NOT to use the term colorist. The suffix “ist,” when added to a noun in the English language, becomes an adjective that modifies the description of the person being referred to, for the purpose of signifying that that person advocates or approves of the noun to which “ist” is applied. For example, “Marxist,” “Leninist,” “monopolist,” “capitalist” e “leftist” are examples of placing "ist" at the end of a word to signify that the person referred to propounds and advocates these theories.

A person who feels extreme color-aroused animus is clearly not someone who "advocates or approves of color" in the way that a "capitalist" approves of the aggregation of capital. The truth is exactly the opposite. People who have extreme color-aroused disorder often hate others’ skin-color (or their own) and feel intense phobia, fear and anxiety when they perceive skin-color and their feelings are aroused.

Linguistically, to simply add the suffix “ist” to the word "color" would denote precisely the opposite of what is intended, by implying that "colorists" are either experts in or advocates of color, when the exact opposite is true. This would have the effect of further confusing and retarding efforts to better understand, diagnose and treat extreme color-arousal. The same is true of the word "rac-ist."

"I use the term "Extreme Color Arousal," whose acronym is ("ECA"), which is pronounced "EE-cah" or "EH-cah," instead of the conceptually faulty and denigrating term "racism." "EE-cah" sounds bad, right? And it should, because this is a very destructive illness, particularly in its most extreme forms."

I refer to people who experience extreme color arousal and who engage in extreme behaviors as a result as “ECA sufferers,” “ECA patients,” and, when they commit crimes or civil offenses, “ECA perpetrators.” There you go! This is a simple two-syllable term that is also descriptive and accurate and that can serve as the basis of empirically-based studies, diagnosis and treatment.

The "ECA" acronym, when pronounced "EE-cah" or "EH-cah" also has the advantage of sounding very undesirable. Meanwhile, it would be politically and linguistically ruinous to use a word like "colorist," which sounds like it could easily refer to a desirable art-form, like "cubism."

The term "ECA” ("Extreme Color Arousal") directs us in the right direction linguistically, politically and scientifically for our efforts to define, diagnose, and treat the disease and it societal manifestations and sequelae.

Once you agree that conditions that affect and impair the emotions, ideation and behavior are “mental” illnesses, then you must logically accept and embrace the fact that Extreme Color-Arousal is, indeed, a "mental illness." Like other mental illnesses, ECA necessarily has some serious and pejorative effects in society, but those effects are manifestations and sequelae of the mental illness. You cannot have a problem of alcohol fetal syndrome in society unless you also concede that you have a problem of alcoholism within individual patients. Likewise, you cannot have Extreme Color-Aroused Injustice in society unless you have Extreme Color-Arousal disorder (ECA) in individual members of society.

Everyone perceives color, at least having the ability to distinguish between Black and white. People who cannot distinguish between Black and white are not "color-blind," they are entirely "blind." So, color-blindness is no solution to the problem we face, even if it were surgically feasible and advisable. Surgically disabling our ability to perceive the difference between Black and white (making people blind) is unlikely to be a feasible or politically tenable solution to extreme color-arousal.

Once you acknowledge that ECA is a mental illness, you must begin to use the analogy of other mental illnesses to understand what societal approaches will advance and retard the treatment of the disease. One of the strongest deterrents to treatment both in patients and clinicians is “stigma.”

"From the moment scientists identified HIV and AIDS, social responses of fear, denial, stigma and discrimination have accompanied the epidemic. Discrimination has spread rapidly, fueling anxiety and prejudice against the groups most affected, as well as those living with HIV or AIDS. It goes without saying that HIV and AIDS are as much about social phenomena as they are about biological and medical concerns.

Across the world the global epidemic of HIV/AIDS has shown itself capable of triggering responses of compassion, solidarity and support, bringing out the best in people, their families and communities. But the disease is also associated with stigma, repression and discrimination, as individuals affected (or believed to be affected) by HIV have been rejected by their families, their loved ones and their communities. This rejection holds as true in the rich countries of the north as it does in the poorer countries of the south.
. . . By blaming certain individuals or groups [instead of taking officials steps to diagnose and treat the illness], society can excuse itself from the responsibility of caring for and looking after such populations. This is seen not only in the manner in which 'outsider' groups are often blamed for bringing HIV into a country, but also in how such groups are denied access to the services and treatment they need. Avert.Org

If the first step to making progress with the AIDS illness was reducing the stigma and increasing accurate public information to encourage sufferers to seek diagnosis and medical treatment. Although complex and difficult, any realistic solution to the problem of Extreme Color Arousal in individuals and society will require the same mindset.

In the case of ECA, we must never condone, excuse or rationalize the harmful behavior of those who suffer from ECA. But, we must recognize that their behavior, emotions and thoughts are symptomatic of an illness and our society must seek to diagnose and treat that illness in individuals while applying epidemiological approaches to the societal problem.

With ECA as with AIDS, we need more information, more destigmatization, more diagnosis, more treatment and, eventually, a cure. We need social support for those seeking to confront their illness, not reject or ridicule. But, when you refer to Extreme Color-Arousal using a misnomer such as “racism” or colorism,” you create precisely the sort of stigma that has dissuaded the American Psychiatric Association from wanting to acknowledge and treat this mental illness. Resolution Against Racism and
POSITION STATEMENT of the American Psychiatric Association: Racial [sic] Discrimination and Their
Adverse Impacts on Mental Health.

Villager said...

Natalie - Asante sana! I appreciate your insights and your analogies. It is wonderful to see such thoughtful analysis here in the Village!

Francis - U obviously have taken some deep thought into this subject. I'm going to need to re-read your post a few times to get the flavor. In the meantime, please accept my appreciation for the time, talent and energy that you've expended with us on this subject matter.

peace, Villager

Francis L. Holland Blog said...

Thanks, Villager and Natalie as well!

katrina said...

Accutane Info: Information on the development, history and legacy of accutane.

Accutane Info: Learn about Accutane, its dangerous side effects and the alternative treatments available. Information on the development, history and legacy of accutane. Read more on development, history and legacy of accutane.

Accutane Info:

Provide information on Accutane. Isotretinoin (the generic name for accutane) is used to treat the most severe and disfiguring cases of nodular acne. Most Doctors would only recommend this treatment only after all other forms of acne medication have been tried and proved unsuccessful.

Accutane Information and History

Villager said...

Katrina - Thanks for the information on acne treatments. I'm not sure that the skin color issues discussed in this point can be cured by acne medicine ... but, the thought is appreciated.

peace, Villager

Anonymous said...

This is a very healthy conversation. I am proud that men are drawn to discuss such delicate issues and also ashamed to see it quickly deteriorate into a hypersensitive debate of semantics and politically correct one-ups. It seems the exploration has diluted the issue.

I propose that we consider another angle.

Science will soon map the human genome and the elementary explanation that race pertains only to skin color will be akin to storks delivering babies.

We underestimate the affect of genetics because we are enamored of equality. But we are not created equally. I can't slam dunk a basketball, and Shaq will most likely never win an Oscar.

Why does your doctor ask if your family has a history of disease? Because he's an ignorant racist?

Racism and stereotype will soon be rooted in facts. How will we respond to this news when it breaks? Will it be the spark that ignites the powder keg of man's inherent evil, leading to further "Final Solutions?" Or will we embrace our differences and stop provoking suspicion by trying to hide them?

Villager said...

Anon - I must admit that this is a topic that I'm not to confident about speaking about. However, I did want to thank you for sharing your village voice. Perhaps others can respond to your queries with more confidence...

The Urban Scientist said...

race is an artificial construct -- but it is not equivalent to the term SPECIES. It's more like subspecies or pedigree.

But even thinking about the so-called "races" or etnicities as subspecies isn't accurate either.
Our skin color (and some of the other phenotypic traits that accompany it - like nose shape and size, hair texture, lips, etc) are only just that - skin deep. At the genetic level, these superficial differences in people (based on a historical biogeographical relationship) are not even linked. Human groups really are the same - but we have an amazing amount of diversity in appearance.

Villager said...

Urban Scientist - I appreciate you droppin' knowledge for us! Amazing that this post from over a year ago contains such power still...

Shelia said...

Hi Villager, you know it's funny how this conversation is being had in so many places in some form or another. For the most part I've been listening and laughing, especially at some of my white associates. And this is primarily because of a number of them calling the election of President Obama throwing America into a "post racial society." Hilarious!

The fact that President Obama is seen as a Black man shows you just how deeply entrenched in racism/skin color before and after the election.

President Obama is as much of Caucasian heritage as he is African heritage...how come he can't he be a White man, or any other biracial person - why MUST they be Black. Because we know the value system of this country, the 'one drop rule,' and the fact that if your skin does not look like the majority you are considered inferior by the majority.

All of this 'post racial era' conversation is a joke. And as long as skin hues come as they do, so will the mindset of the unevolved.

This post is a great read!