Mixed Race Studies

Racializing Obama: The Enigma of Post-Black Politics and Leadership

Souls: A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture, and Society
Volume 11, Issue 1, 2009
pages 1-15
DOI: 10.1080/10999940902733202

Manning Marable (1950-2011), Professor of Public Affairs, Political Science, History and African-American Studies
Columbia University

In the 1990s, a new race-neutral, “post-black” leadership of African Americans emerged who favored political pragmatism and centrist public policies. Barack Obama, Newark Mayor Corey Booker, and Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick were representative of this group. During his successful 2008 presidential campaign, Obama minimized the issue of race, presenting a race-neutral politics that reached out to white Republicans and independents. Yet despite his post-racial orientation, critics repeatedly attempted to “racialize Obama,” questioning his racial authenticity, religious affiliations, and Americanism. Despite extremist attacks, Obama successfully won the election by building an unprecedented coalition of blacks, Latinos, Jews, Asian Americans, women, and youth. The question remains whether the pragmatic, centrist Obama will commit his government to oppose all forms of racial inequality and oppression.

The historical significance of the election of Illinois Senator Barack Obama as president of the United States was recognized literally by the entire world. For a nation that had, only a half century earlier, refused to enforce the voting rights and constitutional liberties of people of African descent, to elevate a black American as its chief executive, was a stunning reversal of history. On the night of his electoral victory, spontaneous crowds of joyful celebrants rushed into streets, parks, and public establishments, in thousands of venues across the country. In Harlem, over ten thousand people surrounded the Adam Clayton Powell State Office Building, cheering and crying in disbelief. To many, the impressive margin of Obama’s popular vote victory suggested the possibility that the United States had entered at long last an age of post-racial politics, in which leadership and major public policy debates would not be distorted by factors of race and ethnicity…

…Obama undoubtedly took most of these factors into account—the possibility of a “Bradley/Wilder effect” on whites’ support of black candidates, African-American grievances surrounding the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns, the recent debacle of the Katrina Crisis, and the rise of the postracial politics of a new generation of black leaders—to construct his own image and political narrative essential for a presidential campaign. Early on in their deliberation process, the Obama pre-campaign group recognized that most white Americans would never vote for a black presidential candidate. However, they were convinced that most whites would embrace, and vote for, a remarkable, qualified presidential candidate who happened to be black. “Race” could be muted into an adjective, a qualifier of minimal consequence. So ethnically, Obama did not deny the reality of his African heritage; it was blended into the multicultural narrative of his uniquely “American story,” which also featured white grandparents from Kansas, a white mother who studied anthropology in Hawaii, and an Indonesian stepfather. Unlike black conservatives, Obama openly acknowledged his personal debt to the sacrifices made by martyrs and activists of the Civil Rights Movement. Yet he also spoke frequently about the need to move beyond the divisions of the sixties, to seek common ground, and a post-partisan politics of hope and reconciliation. As the Obama campaign took shape in late 2006–early 2007, the basic strategic line about “race,” therefore, was to deny its enduring presence or relevance to contemporary politics. Volunteers often chanted, in Hari Krishna–fashion, “Race Doesn’t Matter! Race Doesn’t Matter!,” as if to ward off the evil spirits of America’s troubled past…

Read the entire essay here.

Perceived discrimination, group identification, and life satisfaction among multiracial people: A test of the rejection-identification model.

Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology
Volume 18, Number 4 (October 2012)
pages 319-328
DOI: 10.1037/a0029729

Lisa S. Giamo
Department of Psychology
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada

Michael T. Schmitt, Associate Professor of Psychology
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada

H. Robert Outten
Department of Psychology
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada

Like other racial minority groups, multiracial people face discrimination as a function of their racial identity, and this discrimination represents a threat to psychological well-being. Following the Rejection-Identification Model (RIM; Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999), we argue that perceived discrimination will encourage multiracial people to identify more strongly with other multiracials, and that multiracial identification, in turn, fosters psychological well-being. Thus, multiracial identification is conceptualized as a coping response that reduces the overall costs of discrimination on well-being. This study is the first to test the RIM in a sample of multiracial people. Multiracial participants’ perceptions of discrimination were negatively related to life satisfaction. Consistent with the RIM, perceived discrimination was positively related to three aspects of multiracial group identification: stereotyping the self as similar to other multiracial people, perceiving people within the multiracial category as more homogenous, and expressing solidarity with the multiracial category. Self-stereotyping was the only aspect of group identification that mediated a positive relationship between perceived discrimination and life satisfaction, suggesting that multiracial identification’s protective properties rest in the fact that it provides an collective identity where one “fits.”

Read or purchase the article here.

Event: Joe Bataan, the Afro-Filipino King of Latin Soul

Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Program
National Museum of Natural History
Baird Auditorium
10th & Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530

Friday, 2012-10-19, 18:30-21:00 EDT (Local Time)

“Latin soul comes straight from the streets of Harlem. It’s a cha-cha backbeat with English lyrics and a pulsating rhythm that makes your feet come alive.”
 — Joe Bataan

Come learn about the power of music to move people—to get us on our feet and across borders of race, geography, class, language, and culture. The intersecting lines of heritage in Joe Bataan’s music and identity offer a unique entry point into the lives and community commitments of the civil rights movement and a deeper understanding of the American experience. Born and raised in Spanish Harlem to a Filipino father and an African American mother, Joe Bataan symbolizes the dynamic intersections between Afro-Asian-Latino histories and cultural forms.
 
Join us for a public discussion featuring Joe Bataan, activist and performer Nobuko Miyamoto, and African American Studies scholar Dr. Jeffrey O.G. Ogbar. With them we revisit the political and cultural ferment and collaboration of the late 1960s and 1970s in New York City when groups such as the Black Panther Party, the Young Lords Party, Asian Americans for Action, and El Comité contributed to dynamic social justice movements, catalyzed largely by young people, which inspired cultural pride, creativity, and activism. Miguel “Mickey” Melendez, author and former member of the Young Lords, will moderate the discussion.

For more information, click here.

Miscegenation

Otago Witness
Dunedin, New Zealand
Issue 652, 1864-05-28
Page 1
Source: Papers Past, National Library of New Zealand Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa

From the “Saturday Review.”

Words being the signs of ideas, for a new notion a new term is necessary. The barbarous word “miscegenation” has been invented by the fanatics of Abolitionism to express a doctrine which it was for a time found convenient to wrap up in the term of “amalgamation,” but which, after a brief tribute to modesty, it is now found not an insult to American morality to disclose in all its indecency and immodesty. That doctrine is, that the white race in general, and the white of the Northern States in particular, is dying out, and that, to preserve it from utter destruction, it must be mixed with the richer, purer, and nobler blood of the negro. Physiologically, this very practical use of the slave is based on the fact that mixture of blood is necessary for the perfection of race—which is indisputable but here a slight difficulty occurs. How does it happen that if, as the writer owns, hitherto the white has almost universally mixed with the white, and only degenerates more and more, the very opposite result occurs with the black, who just as universally has hitherto only mixed with the black, and only improves by it The white breeds in and in, and nothing but a degenerate and puny posterity is the result the black breeds in and in, and he only becomes “richer,” “warmer,” “nobler,” and more emotional,” “vigorous,” and fresher.” We may, however, best state the facts of the case in the very graphic language of the author or authoress, as it is surmised.

“The white people of America are dying for want of flesh and blood. They are dry and shrivelled for lack of the healthful juice of life. In the white American are seen unmistakeably the indications of physical decay. The cheeks are shrunken, the lips are thin and bloodless, the under jaw is narrow and retreating, the teeth decayed, the nose sharp and cold, the eyes small and watery, the complexion of a blue and yellow hue, the head and shoulders bent forward, the hair dry and straggling upon the men, the waists of the women thin and pinched, telling of sterility and consumption, the general appearance gaunt and cadaverous from head to foot. You will see bald heads upon young men. You will see eye-glasses and spectacles, false teeth, artificial colour on the face, artificial plumpness to the form. The intercourse will be formal, ascetic, unemotional. Turn now to an assemblage of negroes. Every cheek is plump, the teeth are whiter than ivory, there are no bald heads, the eyes are large and bright. Our professional men show more than any of the lack of healthful association with their opposites’ of the other sex. They need contact with healthy, loving, warm-blooded natures to fill up the lean interstices of their anatomy.

Nor is this a matter of theory only. The Southerners have shown a wonderful success in the civil war and it is all owing to their connection, licit and illicit, with the negro. “The emotional power, fervid, oratory, and intensity which distinguishes ail slaveholders is due to their intimate association with the most charming and intelligent of their slave girls.” It seems that “the mere presence of the African in large numbers infused into the air a sort of barbaric malaria” which, indeed, has been often noticed, and is commonly called by a coarser name, but which we are now told is a miasm of fierceness which has come to infect the white men and even the women too, and which accounts for the wild chivalrous spirit of the South, and its success in the field.” Nor are these the only benefits which the rebels derive from their privileged propinquity to the ideal man, the vigorous able-bodied negro. The sweet magnetism of association attracts the daughters of the South to the sable Apollos of the tropics.

“The mothers and daughters of the aristocratic slaveholders are thrilled with a strange delight by daily contact with their dusky male servitors. These relations, though intimate and full of a rare charm to the passionate and impressible daughters of the South, seldom if ever pass beyond the bounds of propriety. A platonic love, a union of sympathies, emotions, &c, &c. The white Southern girl, who matures early, is at her home surrounded by the brightest and most intelligent of the young colored men on the estate. Passionate, full of sensibility, without the cold, prudence of her Northern sister, who can wonder at the wild dreams of love which fix the hearts and fill the imagination of the impressible Southern maiden?… It is safe to say that the first heart experience of nearly every Southern maiden, the flowering sweetness and grace of her young life, is associated with a sad dream of some bondman lover. He may have been the waiter or coachman, or bright yellow lad who assisted the overseer but to her he is a hero, blazing with all the splendors of imperial manhood. She treasures the looks from those dark eyes which made her pulses bound.”

We are inclined to suspect that the North American man and woman may be something of the sort described by this indecent writer and we can well understand how it is that Mr. Hawthorne, after his experience of his sapless, dry, and bony brethren, and his angelic but angular countrywomen, is positively enraged at the sight of the wholesome flesh and blood of an Englishman and Englishwoman. We may be rather proud of being described as “bulbous,” and think it no affront that the “female Bull” may be described in Terence’s phrase as corpus validumn et succi plenum. Our juiciness and physical fulness and strength, and redundancy of muscle and blood, are certainly in strong contrast to what the writer of the pamphlet on Miscegenation describes as dryness and meagreness, the pallor and scranniness and leanness, of the American animal; and if the citizen and citizeness of the Northern States is this or anything like it, we can quite account for Northern failures in the field or any where else. The only absurdity is, that this wretched, sapless, shrivelled caricature of a man, this specimen of humanity in]its most contemptible form, should have the place which it has in the world’s estimate of nations. If this is the ideal American, we quite agree with the author of Miscegenation that the race cannot live to the third generation. If this is what “the Anglo-Saxon”—though plentifully mixed, by the by, with Germans and Irish immigrants and with most of the scum of Europe has come to, it is a comfort to think that we are near the end of it.

The sum and substance of the whole matter is, that this nasty doctrine of the physical necessity of absorbing the white race into the negro population or rather; of creating for the necessities of the American States a mixed and Creole race, is proclaimed not only by the author of this tract, but by the Rev. Beecher Stowe’s partner in the editorship of the Independent,” Mr. Theodore Tilton, by Mr. Horace Greeley, by Mr. Wendell Phillips, and by “the inspired maid of Philadelphia,” the lecturing woman, Miss Anna Dickenson. It is perhaps inconvenient to remember that some such experiment has been tried in Haiti with what success we all know. It is now to be repeated further North. How far these people carry out their views into actual life they do not inform us. If the gentlemen practice what they preach, the demand for coloured Abishags “to engraft upon our stock the rich treasure of negro blood,” and to fill up the lean interstices of the anatomy of editors, must be something more than nominal and as Miss Dickenson has lectured before the President and in many of the cities of the Union, and has not been tarred and feathered by the ladies of America, we are forced to the unpleasant conclusion that they are quite ready to play Tamora to any and every lusty negro who fulfils the “passional” and “emotional instinct” which is among the best cravings of the soul. “It is a mean pride,” we are told, unworthy of a Christian, which would lead any. one to deny that there are wants in the white nature which only the negro could fill, defects in physical organization that only the negro could supply, cravings towards fraternity that only the negro could comfort and satisfy.” Potiphar’s wife anticipated this argument, and in her plain-spoken language to the goodly Hebrew slave only put the doctrine of Miscegenation into practice and if the ladies of New England want another precedent for their “abandonment of an unwholesome prejudice,” the history of the Byzantine Court and the life of the Empress Theodosia may satisfy them that a negro-lover, though a solecism, is by no means an absolute novelty in female taste, A strong-bodied and strong-flavoured partner is perhaps the complement to that strong mind of which the Yankee female has furnished so many and such very unfeminine instances.

The wonderful and horrible thing is that this filthy nonsense is not only not hooted down, but that it represents the more advanced, and indeed the more logical, adherents of that political party which, if the smallest, is undoubtedly the most vigorous in America. All Abolitionists are perhaps not, or perhaps not as yet, avowed adherents of the doctrine of Miscegenation, but all Abolitionists with the very least regard to consistency must render the jus connubii to those who are in every respect their equals. The Miscegenation writers of course go further, and exalt the relative superiority of the nigger, and expatiate on his necessity in the great economy of things for renovating with his fiery energies the cold and languid circulation of the North. Yet even this might do comparatively little harm, for the women who will listen to and applaud Miss Anna Dickenson lecturing on these nauseous subjects are far beyond any other corrupting influences. The shamelessnes which sees “all the splendours of imperial manhood” in a woolly-headed coachman, may be left to that natural indignation which is due to the sight of Messalina vindicating her life on philosophical principles. But the evil does not end here…

Read the entire article here.

Why Obama is Black: Language, Law and Structures of Power

Columbia Journal of Race and Law
Volume 1, Issue 3
pages 468-481

SpearIt, Assistant Professor of Law
Saint Louis University

[W]ords are our tools, and, as a minimum we should use clean tools: we should know what we mean and what we do not, and we must forearm ourselves against the traps that language sets us. –J. L. Austin

When he filled out the race section of the 2010 U.S. Census survey, President Barack Obama checked the “Black, African Am., or Negro” box despite the fact that Obama is of both European-American and African ancestry. This simple fact raises a number of complicated questions and challenges the idea that race, or more properly, racism, is a thing of the past or “post” as used in “post-racial.” “Post-racial” is rhetoric for an ideology that promotes “a larger national and legal consensus that ignores the bulk of racial disparities, inequities, and imbalances in society, and pursues race-neutral remedies as a fundamental, a priori value.” Ironically, the ideology garners support from Obama’s presidential election in 2008, which launched widespread reports that the country elected its first “black” president. For many, the election provided concrete proof of improved race relations. Such believers epitomized Obama’s election as fulfilling the American promise; for others, however, he symbolized a formidable challenge to the “post-racial” posture. Hence, although the term “post” intends to point to the past, it is really about the future, a destination that has yet to be achieved. It is a way of wishing away the present and supplanting it with an idealized future. Under such pretentions, “post-racial” reflects a desire to identify with something more sublime than the status quo.

Framing Obama as a poster for “post-racial” suffers from various defects. The most fundamental is the assumption that he is “black” in the first place. Although the decision that the president indeed is “black” is practically unanimous, such a conclusion neglects his “white” heritage. President Obama could have checked black and white on the census survey, but he passed on the option. This decision raises unsettling questions for post-racial ideologues. Rather than signal arrival into the post-racial age, however, his choice on the survey could be read as a denial of whiteness or an unfair response given the survey’s purposes, which imply an obligation to represent oneself based on parental lineage as opposed to racial ideology. But what if Obama’s logic led him to identify as “white”? For many this proposition would not ring true. Yet Obama’s self-identification as “black” raises no protest. Why the double standard? Of course the question itself is rhetorical—because a rigorous baseline logic is already at play.

Although Obama’s story is not the only forceful challenge to the “post racial” concept, it affords a solid frame to consider the merits and myths. A sober read of Tea Party rhetoric and the Henry Louis Gates episode indicate that talk of “post-racial” is premature, a point further exclaimed by the resignation of Shirley Sherrod. Far from relegating racism to the back burner, events since Obama’s election have stoked racial flames and revealed that race still matters. His presidential victory might have ignited widespread faith in a “post-racial” era, but a more pessimistic read would render it a backlash from the country’s collective guilt over the Bush regime that moved voters to “reject the party of an unpopular president.” The election may have helped herald in an era of wishful thinking called “post-racial,” yet its logic, paradoxically enough, was governed by the rule of hypodescent, which can drown an oceanic man in the tide of one drop.

What follows is a critique of the “post-racial” ideology. It begins with “Language and Law,” which provides a theoretical backdrop to map how law influences common language, and more importantly, how concepts rooted in racism maintain in the American lexicon through the force of law. The next section, “White by Law,” analyzes the legal and social constructions of whiteness, a historical survey that arrives at constructions in the American context. Building from the previous parts, “Structures of Racism,” outlines how racial language and ideals of white superiority work in tandem to produce structural racism, that is, racism beyond individual bigotry. Today’s racism is not simply the aggregate of individual interactions; rather, the discrimination resides in the institutions and polity of American society, particularly in the language of law. The last section, “Beyond Binaries and Reinscribed Racism,” is a normative venture that offers ideas for stemming the force of these linguistic and conceptual burdens. Centuries of racial sedimentation have made some aspects of racism invisible to the eye, yet an analysis of the post-racial concept shows that debates on race and color are fundamentally flawed. This Essay exposes the concept as a type of wishful thinking, and more critically, how the law prevents this wish from being fulfilled.

Read the entire article here.

Signifying on Passing: (Post) Post-Racialism, (Post) Post-Modernism, and (Post) Post-Marxism

Columbia Journal of Race and Law
Volume 1, Issue 3 (July 2012)
pages 482-489

Christian B. Sundquist, Associate Professor of Law
Albany Law School

The social and legal relevance of racial passing appears to be fading as we ostensibly enter a color-blind, post-race era. During the “Age of Obama,” the notion of passing in our multi-racial society seems to many to be antiquated and unnecessary. As the nation has moved beyond state-sanctioned racial discrimination, many believe that the country also has moved beyond the need for a legal dialogue on racial passing and ambiguity. This “retreat from race,” exemplified in part by the apparent declining significance of racial passing, proclaims that the state no longer should consider race when interpreting the law or incorporating democratic values of equality and opportunity. This Essay, however, argues that the continued phenomenon of racial passing can be utilized as a conceptual vehicle to destabilize and de-legitimatize the post-racial agenda.

The continuing relevance of racial passing also underscores the significance of the lessons of Marxism. After all, the concept of “race,” and therefore the existence of racial passing, traces its lineage to the capitalist condition of racialized class distinctions and cultural hegemony (e.g., the white cultural norm). The post-racial agenda seeks to mask the commodification of persons, obscuring the salience of race and discrimination. Thus, the cry for a post-racial America is the latest attempt to lure society into a false sense of class and racial transformation. The continued presence of racial passing may lift the veil from our eyes to the conditions of racial and class exploitation that govern everyday life.

This Essay will proceed in three parts. The first section argues that the particular weltanschauung of post-racialism has obfuscated the continuing relevance of racial difference and conflict. The post-racial model seeks to skew the proletariat perception of social reality by imposing a false-consciousness that conceals existing relations of racial subordination and exploitation. In so doing, post-racialism strives to reject its theoretical Other: Marxism. However, the failings of post-racialism as a worldview are traced directly to its inability to refute the continuing salience of class and racial conflict. The second part of the Essay explores the similarities and differences between the post-racial model and the classic liberal colorblind model. The third part of the Essay concludes that the continuing relevance of racial passing should be utilized to reveal and disrupt the post-racial agenda…

Read the entire article here.

The Meaning of Race in the DNA Era: Science, History and the Law

The Temple Journal of Science, Technology & Environmental Law
Volume 27, Number 2 (Fall 2008)
pages 231-265

Christian B. Sundquist, Associate Professor of Law
Albany Law School

INTRODUCTION

What is “race”? Does the concept of race represent a natural and inevitable understanding of human difference? Does race have any biological meaning, or is it merely an artificial construct employed by society and political bodies? If race is the former, then how can modern society avoid a rebirth of racial eugenics? And yet if race is an arbitrary tool of social organization without genetic content, then how should we interpret purported forensic racial determinations based on DNA analyses?

Race is biology. Race is ancestry. Race is genetic.

The meaning of “race” is constantly questioned yet rarely understood. Early theories of race assigned social, intellectual, and moral values to perceived differences among groups of people. The perception that race should be defined in terms of genetic and biologic difference fueled the “race science” of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, during which time geneticists, physiognomists, eugenicists, anthropologists and others purported to find scientific justification for denying equal treatment to non-“white” persons.

Part I of this article thus examines the provenance of the “race” concept. The categorization of humans into “racial” groups was neither natural nor inevitable. The initial separation of humans into “racial” categories was understood to simply reflect inherent biological differences between groups of people. These differences supposedly accounted for natural variances in intelligence, morality, and physical and sexual prowess. As such, these pseudo-biological differences were used to justify and explain power differentials between “races” of people.

Race is constructed. Race is biologically meaningless. Race is power.

The pseudo-scientific understandings of race supplied by nineteenth-century geneticists and biologists were applied by Nazi Germany in a manner that shocked the world. As a result, the concept of race following World War II increasingly was understood as a socio-political construction with no biological meaning. Modern sociological theories thus uniformly understand race as a social grouping of persons necessary to preserve unbalanced relationships of power. Part II of this article examines this post-war refutation of nineteenth-century “race science,” as well as the core assumptions underlying modern racial theory.

Race is phenotype. Race is color. Race is language. Race is citizenship. Race is class. Race is culture. Race is assimilation. Race is law.

Reducing race to a single critical “essence” is an impossible endeavor. While one’s phenotype and color may contribute to racial categorization, so can one’s national origin, social class and language. As a result, race has a complex social meaning that depends in part on the prevailing “common understanding and meaning” of society. Not-so-antiquated notions of race once deemed Italian, Irish and Southern European immigrants and their descendants as “non-white” and cursed with inferior genetic stock. These groups eventually obtained “Whiteness” based on changing social understandings of their assimilatory potential, and the formation of a racial identity defined in opposition to “Blackness.” The elusive nature of race is similarly illustrated by the conflict between the legal racialization of Middle Eastern and Mexican persons as “white” during certain historical periods, and the social racialization of these persons as “non-white” and racially distinct during other times.

Race is subjective. Race is objective. Race is whiteness. Race is blackness. Race is fixed. Race is malleable. Race is performance.

Race is constantly in flux depending on one’s baseline understanding of the nature of race. I am black according to certain understandings of race, while other interpretations may render me white. I am Latino, Creole, Egyptian, and “other” according to some outsider interpretations of race, yet I can also be reduced to “mixed” by utilizing an alternative understanding of race. Outsider perceptions of race in turn may change according to my performance of race, and how race is performed around me.
Race is biology.

Race is ancestry. Race is genetic.

Notwithstanding the post-war rejection of a biological interpretation of race, modern genetic science has increasingly claimed the ability to identify “race” through the biological analysis of DNA samples. Law enforcement agencies in the United States and elsewhere analyze individual DNA samples to identify the likely “race” of a criminal suspect, while courts in the United States increasingly admit expert testimony stating the statistical probability that a criminal suspect belongs to a specific race based on such DNA analyses. Such a re-biologicalization of race clearly contradicts the classical post-war theory of race as a social construct. Part III of this article examines the contemporary re-interpretation of race as having some biologically traceable genetic essence.

Race is constructed. Race is biologically meaningless. Race is power.

The claims of modern genetics notwithstanding, race remains a biologically meaningless concept of human categorization. Race simply has no traceable genetic essence, and the proliferation of racial DNA testing represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of race rather than the neutral application of scientific principles. Part IV of this article argues that contemporary genetics has misapprehended the elusive nature of race in a manner strikingly similar to that of the nineteenth-century race science…

Read the entire article here.

Review of Fatal Invention, by Professor Dorothy Roberts

Race and the Law: A Critical Examination of Science, Law and the Construction of Race
2011-12-07

Christian B. Sundquist, Associate Professor of Law
Albany Law School

Professor Dorothy Roberts has recently released a vitally important book on issues of race and genetics, entitled Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-Create Race in the Twenty-First Century (2011). Professor Roberts thoughtfully engages the modern legal and scientific preoccupation with genetic theories of race. Examining the “new racial science” in a variety of contexts, including pharmacology, biomedical research, immigration screening, criminal justice, ancestry testing, and genetic surveillance, Professor Roberts deconstructs the myth of intrinsic racial difference through a lively use of historical and scientific sources. While the entire book is a massive achievement in the burgeoning field of genetics and race, a few insights stand out as particularly compelling. First, Professor Roberts makes a convincing argument that it is problematic to label the racial science of yore “pseudoscience.” It is quite tempting to ridicule both the old and new forms of racial science as ignorant and biased attempts to valorize racial hierarchy. Professor Roberts notes, however, that doing so allows modern scientists to distinguish their “objective” study of biological racial difference from the ridiculous “pseudoscience” of the past. Professor Roberts observes that “what we call racial pseudoscience today was considered the vanguard of scientific progress at the time it was practiced.” (27-28). In other words, we must be careful to briskly dismiss the “racial science” of the 19^th Century as pseudoscience, lest we fall into the trap (comforting to some) of believing that current genetic examinations of racial difference are somehow distinctly free from unsound empirical assumptions and implicit bias. As Professor Roberts argues, “[t]he burning scientific questions of each period have been framed and answered in terms of race not because rational scientific inquiry compelled it, but because race was presumed to be an essential biological category.” (28)…

Read the entire review here.

The “Brown Tinge”

Evening Post, Wellington, New Zealand
Volume CVI, Issue 46
1928-08-31
page 11
Source: Papers Past, National Library of New Zealand Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa

Future New Zealanders

“Science and history will both some day demand an explanation of the brown tinge in the future New Zealander,” said Sir Apirana Ngata in his address to the Wellington branch of the New Zealand Historical Association last evening. The present offered a unique opportunity for the study of miscegenation by means of genealogical data. The extent to which the mixture of blood had proceeded during the past four or five generations might be gauged with almost mathematical accuracy, if the genealogical method were applied to the problem. For the present and the last generation or two, other interesting problems might be elucidated by the study of the charts where the mixture of breeds was shown.

Thus the effect of miscegenation on virility, constitution, longevity, intellectuality, and morality might be gauged at first hand. Some loose generalisations, as, for instance, that the half-caste partook of the vices of the two races without the virtues of either, might be checked with the facts. Light might even be cast on aspects of Mendelism. The Scotch-Māori, the Irish-Māori, the English-Māori, the German-Māori, the Danish-Māori, the Dalmatian-Māori, the Negro-Māori, the Portuguese-Māori, and, in the present generation, the Hindu-Māori and the Chinese-Māori marriages might all be found on record. In the generation following the first crossing of pure-bloods (it that term could be used) bewildering inter-mixtures of half-breeds with half-breeds of any ot these stocks, of half-breeds with purebloods on either side, of half with quarter, or other fractional breeds might still be patiently pursued by the research student. Dr. Condliffe had expressed the hope that through the mixture of blood the Māori would add another element of romance and daring and poetry that would make the people of New Zealand different even from their kindred peoples in other parts of the Empire. If history should come to register such a result it should not miss the opportunity now offered or tracing the steps towards its attainment.

Millionaire to Use Money Against Racial Inetermingling

The Natchez News and Courier
Natchez, Mississippi
1949-11-13

James McLean

NATCHEZ. Miss, Nov. 12. Bald, rugged George W. Armstrong is determined to make his money talk loud and long against “racial mongrelization”.

That’s a term the 84-year-old millionaire uses often in voicing opposition to intermingling of Jews, Gentiles and negroes In the same schools.

Armstrong, who says he isn’t sure how much money he has, splashed into headlines when money-poor Jefferson Military College spurned his $50,000,000 endowment offer (in mineral land rights) to teach “superiority of the Anglo-Saxon and Latin American races”.

Later he dismissed the furore his offer created as a “tempest in a teapot”, said the value of his holdings had been exaggerated, and that although he approves the doctrine of white supremacy, he had not made a formal request that the college teach it…

…Governor J. Strom Thurmond, the states rights candidate, repudiated his support, he explained. “I’m not anti-Semitic,” Armstrong said, in his slow, lip-pursing way of talking. “We’ve got some awfully good Jews here in Natchez and I like them.” But he assails Jews, whites and negroes going to school together because it “mongrelizes the American race.”…

Read the entire article here.