How Americans are continuously confused by the use of race, a pseudo-scientific term.

May 16, 2023 at 4:00 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, American Racism, anglo saxons, Bigotry in America, biological races, black inferiority, blacks, Constitutional rights, discrimination, DNA, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European American, European Americans, Hispanic whites, Human Genome, identity, immigration, integregation, justice, language, Media and Race, minorities, race, Race in America, skin color, skin complexion, social conditioning, U. S. Census, UNESCO, white supremacy, whites | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , ,

All one has to do to understand the confusion presented by the U.S. Government and the Census Bureau is to look at the 2020 Census form for identifying race.

We have been told time and again that race is a social construct, an invention, and a myth. The Gnome Project results indicated that race does not exist since all human beings are 99.09% alike. So why does the Census Bureau continue to use an invalid and confusing term? The primary reasons, one might assume, are to maintain, protect, and promote the false concept of European (white) supremacy. The simple scientific fact is that all human beings belong to one species—Homo sapiens. The concept of European supremacy uses the word race to signify a sub species. Since the myth claim Europeans as representative of the species, all other peoples would be viewed as inferior and identified as races.

In 1942, an American scientists and scholar, Ashley Montagu, published a book entitled Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race where he warned America of the dangers involved in using the word race that suggests biological differences among human beings. He later suggested that the words ethnicity and ethnic group be used instead of the word race. He was ignored in part because the U.S. Census Bureau began using the word ethnicity to refer to both race and culture. Using the word race to indicate biological differences along with the colors black and white, the concept of identity became chaotic because no definition was ever offered for race, black, and white.

Adding to the confusion of identity, the Census Bureau allows individuals to choose the race to which they belong. What is lost in the confusion is the fact that the nationality of some individuals is the same as their culture. For example, French, German, Cuban, Haitian, etc. The Census Bureau looks at the nationalities and assigns a color to the geographical areas as black or white. When we examine the Census form above, we notice that the countries in Europe and North Africa are listed as white and the other countries as black or by their cultural names. Why? Again, one can assume it is to continue the confusion and the protection of European supremacy.

The identity confusion fostered by the Census Bureau has contributed to a plethora of problems focusing on individuals not knowing who or what they are. For example, while the common element among Hispanic people is the language, the Census bureau allows some Spanish speakers to identify as white while others are considered as black. Also, those Hispanics that identity their heritage as Spanish ae viewed differently from those with Mexican heritage. Nonetheless, the confusion might help explain the information published about the man that killed the people in Allen, Texas.

In an USA Today article by Will Carless entitled: “The Allen shooter was Hispanic. He was also a white supremacist. What’s the allure?” the focus seems to be on a supposed irony concerning Mauricio Garcia, the shooter, his ethnicity and his identify with white supremacist rather than the killing of eight people and the wounding of ten others. Carless writes that “White supremacist groups in the United States are usually clear on supporting northern European white identity, and rejecting all others, including Latinos. So why would Garcia, who identified as Hispanic, follow a philosophy that would consider his own identity inferior.”

Since the Census Bureau allows individuals to select their own race and ethnicity, Hispanics and Latinos get to choose whether they wany to be white or not. Many Hispanics identify with their European heritage from Spain, which places them in the Census Bureau’s category of white. Carless notes That “While Garcia’s specific family history has not been publicly detailed, the reality is that strains of white supremacy run through many different cultures. White supremacist sects exist across Latin America, a reflection of the complex nature of ‘whiteness’ in the Western Hemisphere.”

One obvious fact that continues to stand out is that the Census Bureau is at fault for not clearing up the matter of race. UNESCO in 1950 published a statement that race should no longer be considered an acceptable term relative to human beings. Again in 2001, it issued another statement on race: Science – modern genetics in particular – has constantly affirmed the unity of the human species and denied that the notion of `race’ has any foundation. In the words of Article 1 of the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, `the human genome underlies the fundamental unity of all members of the human family, as well as the recognition of their inherent dignity and diversity’.

Despite the continuous warnings and cautions about using the word race, the U.S. Government, the U.S. Census Bureau, and America in general, persist in using the pseudo-scientific word race. The primary reason for doing so is the retaining and promoting of the European supremacy myth. The fact that many individuals become involved in trying to find an identity based on their confusion of ethnicity, race, and nationality is no surprise. Once an identity is found a sense of tribalism can quickly follow and become a focus for the individual. Edward O. Wilson noted that “People must have a tribe. It gives them a name in addition to their own and social meaning in a chaotic world. It makes the environment less disorienting and dangerous.” However, if the individual feels his tribal environment is threatened or in some kind of danger, then he must protect it by any means necessary. Belonging to the tribe provides feelings of comfort, protection, security, and unity.

In answer to the question poised by Carless in his articles’ title: What’s the allure? The simple answer might just be the need to protect the tribe with which he identifies. The lengths to which an individual will go to protect the tribe defies logic and commons sense because neither are the individual’s immediate concern. A belief in the false concept of race and the myth of European supremacy can be found in the actions of Garcia. The government and society can help in addressing the problem of ethnic bias and ethnic bigotry by eliminating the word race and beginning using the two legitimate words—ethnicity and nationality. Neither word connotes a biological component.

Teaching race is not beneficial, teach, instead, ethnic, and cultural awareness and respect.

October 11, 2023 at 11:52 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, American Racism, anglo saxons, biological races, black inferiority, blacks, democracy, equality, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, Human Genome, identity, language, Media and Race, minorities, race, Race in America, racism, skin color, teaching race | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

An experience that, at times, causes disappointment is having to listen to someone fervently speaking on a topic of concern of which they lack the ability to show control. While the intention of the speaker is well-intended, the outcome fails to have value or is contrary. The subject of race falls into that category. What some people speaking or writing about race do not realize is that once the concept of race is accepted, everything that follows is counterproductive in fighting ethnic bigotry.

What people need to know about race is that the word represents a bias in that it signifies a sub-species. Any sub-species of a species is inferior to the species. The Homo Sapiens species has no sub-species. Europeans, Anglo-Saxons, and European Americans view themselves as representatives of the species-Homo sapiens and not a race. Based on the myth of European supremacy, all non-European people must identify as a race based on a variety of elements like race, color, religion, ethnicity, and others. The power to control the false concept of race and the myth is woven into the language. Every time the word race or any of its diversities are used, the myth of European (white) supremacy is protected, maintained, and promoted.

How does race manifest its power through language? Whenever the word race or any of its diversities are used, four things become apparent: unity, separation, manipulation, and discrimination. When individuals are identified by a color, that identity places them in a so-called minority group category and they are viewed as inferior. Also, because of the minority group identity, they lose any individuality/uniqueness; they become stereotypes associated with the characteristics of their group; they are treated by society in conjunction with the stereotypes of the group. The individual becomes less than a human being while experiencing unity with a group, separation for the family of human beings, viewed with stereotyped characteristics, and treated with less than human values.

How language and a lack of knowledge can turn good intentions into counterproductive results can be observed in the following example. An article in the SPLC magazine “Learning for Justice,” includes an interview with Angela Glover Blackwell on “Paving the Way to a Vibrant Multiracial Democracy.” In the interview Blackwell makes the statement relative to teaching and talking honestly about race: “Talking about race is in fact the only way democracy can succeed in a multiracial society.” Several concerns with her statement show the counterproductive elements.

The very first concern that appears in the statement is an acceptance of the false concept of race. Once race is introduced into the conversation the opportunity for truth and honesty is gone. For many years scientists, scholars, states people, and others have been asking the U.S. Government to stop using race in its literature because it is not a valid or acceptable word since it connotes a biological and genetic difference among human beings that does not exist. Yet, the government continues to confuse its citizens by using the word race along with the word ethnicity as though they were synonymous, which they are not. In any event, using the word race prevents the opportunity of a level playing field because a superior and inferior context has been established.

When the words multiracial and democracy are used in conjunction with each other a problem of perception is introduced. We know that any use of the word race brings with it four social conditions that do not comport with democracy. When the language uses a word like minority, the perception is usually not of European Americans, but on the contrary, of non-European people. The perception includes a superior and inferior understanding of people in the majority and those that are not. If education is as important as Blackwell states, then accurate and factual information must be the order of the day.

Another example of concern comes from the Blackwell statement that “Democracy is about shared responsibilities and processes for working together, as equals, to have a meaningful say in our lives and our community.” While her sentiments are positive and direct, we must question what is meant by the word “equal” in a society where people are viewed by their race? Who and what establishes what “equal” means? We know that equality pertains to mathematics, and not to humans because that is the only area where numbers are fixed.

One way to avoid the problems relative to race is to stop using it and its derivatives. Since we know that race means sub-species, how can we accept the concepts of biracial and multiracial without challenge? What we are saying by using those terms is that we accept the false concept of races. We do not refer to people as bi-species, or multi-species because we know that would be illogical. When two distinct species try to procreate, the result is a hybrid. A horse and a jackass, two distinct species, can produce a mule. A mule is neither a horse nor a jackass. A word used for so-called biracial people is mulatto, which comes from the word mule. Human beings belong to a species, not a race.

We can avoid the word race and its derivatives by using ethnic group or ethnicity. Rather than using racism, use bigotry or ethnic bigotry, for racist, use bigot. Americans, aside from their ethnic identity, have only two actual identities: state and national. Race and color are not included in either one, so why should we continue to use them?

If we look at the concept of race and democracy in the context of a worm being the concept of race and racism and an apple being democracy, then the worm in the apple represents the problem involved in saving democracy. Understanding the problem is necessary to save democracy. Presently, the focus has been on the worm and not the destruction it is experiencing in democracy. The article shows just how the worm of race is protected, maintained, and promoted. Once we begin to address the problem of race, we can also start to build a vibrant democracy.

Affirmative Action, never saying what it means, never meaning what it says.

October 5, 2023 at 5:00 pm | Posted in Affirmative Action, African American, Alan Bakke, American history, black inferiority, Brown v Topeka, Civil Right's Act 1964, democracy, discrimination, education, Equal Opportunity, equality, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, fairness, I have a dream, justice, language, Martin Luther King Jr., Race in America, social conditioning, U.S. Supreme Court | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

When Dr. Martin Luther King spoke during the March on Washington in 1963, his message was not a pep talk, but a protest of the government for not living up to its promise of civil rights for African Americans. Since that time, the shift away from the problems of the African Americans has been steady and deliberate. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act changed the focus away from the African Americans to any American feeling treated unfairly and as before, places the burden of proof on the victim. One of the changes made because of the 1964 Act was the introduction of Affirmative Action, a phrase that sounds positive, but promises nothing. In an article published recently, “Trickle-Down Diversity,” Nation writer, Adolph Reed Jr. discussed the effect of the Supreme Court’s action relative to Affirmative Action.

Reed stated at the beginning of the article that “I’ve long been a supporter of affirmative action, but it has never been a means of reducing actual inequality.” He sights statistics indicating the effect affirmative action has had on African Americans: “By 2018, 7 percent of Black Americans earned more than $150,000. Similarly, more than three-quarters of so-called wealth is held by the richest 10 percent of Black people.” From this information he concluded that “Over the course of a half-century of widening national inequality, the goal of affirmative action has not been to combat that inequality but to diversify its beneficiaries.” So, the promise of the government to focus on relieving many of the problems experienced by African Americans are still not addressed. If we examine the language used by the government, we find that while it appears to address the issues, it is like cotton candy, sweet to the taste but lacking substance.

What does “affirmative action” mean when we try to get a fixed meaning? Reed offered his own definition: “At is core, affirmative action is a technique in the implementation of antidiscrimination law, based on an understanding that overt prejudice is too limited a standard for identifying redressable discrimination.” In other words, affirmative was never intended to address the real problems facing African Americans. So, what about the programs dealing with diversity, equity, and inclusion? Do they make an impact on the discrimination problems facing African Americans? The simple answer is no.

The problem with diversity programs begins with the word diversity. If diversity training is geared to orienting new employees to a company or organization, then the meaning and intent of the program is fixed and has nothing to do with ethnic identities. However, if the program and training is to address the concern of ethnic variety in the workplace, then it fails. The fact that diversity training is offered by a company or organization indicates that a superiority and inferiority context has been established with the agent instituting the program claiming the superiority identify.

The same is true with the word diversity. How does one define a diverse individual without including self? If all Homo sapiens belong to the same species, what constitutes a diverse individual? The word diverse carries the connotation of biological or genetic differences that indicates an ethnic bias. The effect is that when individuals are identified by any of the social elements that make them different, that identity places them in a so-called minority category and they are viewed as inferior. Also, they lose any individuality/uniqueness; they become stereotypes associated with the characteristics of their group; they are treated by society in conjunction with the stereotypes of the group. The individual, in essence, becomes less than a human being. A better approach to diversity training would be ethnic or cultural awareness education.

The word equity suggests that inequality exists from the start. So, how does one identify the inequality, own it, and reckon with it? How does one eliminate inequalities through training that does not underscore inferiority? Many articles focusing on diversity training programs indicated that many of the non-European American participants felt more isolated from the group at the end of the training than at the start. What is the goal of the diversity program and training focusing on equity? What does equity mean and how is it acquired? Those questions must be addressed for the program to have any value.

Again, if the subject of inclusion is directed at a company or organization, then the goal is fixed. But if the objective is to blend individuals of various ethnic cultures, then the inclusion must be larger than the company or organization because one size does not fit all. The contrast between superior and inferior is established by the word inclusion because it suggests that there is an idea of inclusiveness, and some people are not included. Those not included must be inferior to those included. So, how does that get fixed?

Another program developed from affirmative action was the “Equal opportunity” program which was without value from the beginning. If we examine the language of the phrase, we find nothing with a fixed definition. Equal is a mathematical word and has no meaning with reference to human beings. First, what is equal and who determines whether its administration is fair? What is the model for equality?

Likewise, the word opportunity is the same as a crapshoot, no fixed value except chance. We all have the same opportunity to bet on a horse, but the only value comes with the chance to pick a horse and bet. So, what assurances comes with equal opportunity that would benefit the majority of African Americans? We know that language has the power to control society and that language is a powerful tool that can influence our thoughts, actions, and even our worldview. 

When we consider the language and effects of affirmative action and its programs involving diversity and equal opportunity, we can conclude, along with Reed, that 90 percent of African Americans have not benefited from affirmative action. On the contrary, African Americans have lost ground in trying to obtain their civil rights. The language of civil rights changed in 1963 and so did the focus on African American injustice.

Princeton’s educational challenge regarding the language of race

August 26, 2023 at 12:14 am | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, American Racism, anglo saxons, Bigotry in America, biological races, blacks, Civil Rights Ats, desegregation, discrimination, DNA, education, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, European Americans, identity, interpretations, language, minorities, Negro, public education, Race in America, racism, skin color, skin complexion, Slavery, teaching race, white supremacy, whites | 4 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , ,

When I write and speak about how the language of race enslaves Americans and constantly present African Americans and other non-European people as inferior, the following example should suffice to make the point. In an article “Being Black Means You’re Disabled – People Are Up in Arms Over What This Ivy League School Is Teaching,” story by Emily Valadez •2h 8/25/2023, the following sentence is offered.

“Systemic racism refers to the systems in place in society that create racial inequality for people of color.” 

Since we have not and do not challenge the truth and facts about the language we use, we fail to understand and appreciate the predicament in which we are placed. For example, the reference to “Systemic racism” should be challenged because race is not a valid word relating to identity since it has no biological or genetic basis. Certainly, a system of ethnic bigotry exists, and has existed since before the founding of this nation. The language should avoid using the word race and its derivative, racial because those words protect and promote European supremacy. The word race is a bigoted word in that it was developed to signify a sub-species of the Homo sapiens. Homo sapiens have no sub-species except in the word race. The objective in developing the word as a reference to sub-species was to render all peoples not European inferior to them. In essence, only Europeans represent the Homo Sapien species.

The next part of the sentence, the word inequality has no fixed or specific meaning except in mathematics. Equal cannot apply to human beings, just fixed entities like numbers. The word is used to suggest “fairness” which sounds pleasing but is also a relative word with no fixed meaning. When the word is challenged, confusion sets in because no definite parameters are established from which to judge and make a balanced decision.

The last part of the sentence refers to “people of color” and continues to add confusion to be objective of the sentence in a reasonable manner. Who and what are people of color? The reference to any person or group of people using color is a form of bigotry. What makes it bigotry is the implied reference to race that is associated with people and a color. Since black and white are colors, what distinguishes the people of color from people without color, if they exist?

The title of the article states that “Being Black means you are disabled,” suggests that something is inherently wrong with blacks that render them disabled. The problems visited on the African American population is a direct result of actions taken against them by European Americans. The situations in which African Americans find themselves can be directed attributed to their treatment in America. The language is misleading and confusing.

What happens when we fail to challenge the language of race was explained by John H. Stanfield II, “Race as a myth is a distorting variable that convolutes and in other ways distracts attention from the variables that really matter in understanding how and why human beings think, act, and develop as they do. The extent to which race does exist, it is an experience, it is not phenotype real or imagined.” (Montagu, Man’s Most Dangerous Myth, the fallacy of race.) The myth of European supremacy continues because we are complacent relative to the language and fail to realize the damage it contributes to our society.

What is disheartening about the article is the fact that Princton University, one of the prime institutions of American Education, did not recognize what the language they employed was doing. Rather than using the opportunity as a teachable opportunity, they instead, whether knowingly or not, protected and promoted European supremacy. When color is used to identify a person or a group of people that is a form of bigotry and discrimination. The history, culture, language, religion, food, and all the things that pertain to an ethnic group’s uniqueness are lost when the group is turned into a monolith by being referred to as a color. The very word “black” is used as an adjective preceding the noun race. Any time race is used, it protects and promotes the myth of European supremacy. Of course, many African Americans and non-European Americans do not question the use of the word black, but that does not make it acceptable and not historically demeaning. Maya Angelou once stated that “when we (people) know better, we do better.”

What Princton could have done in providing information about the course was to make the point that no one comes to America using color as an identity. When the Africans that were enslaved were brought to America, one of the first things to happen was the taking away of any identity and replacing it with words like negro, black, colored, slave, and others. The language used in identifying the enslaved changed over the years until present day usage includes black, African American, non-European American.  African Americans did not choose to be identified as blacks but were socialized to accept and use it without challenge until the 1970’s civil rights era. Rather than recognizing the permanent stigma associated with its usage, many decided to retain it. Even today, many will try to defend it, not realizing that each usage protects and promotes European (white) supremacy.

Since the foundation of America numerous voices have attempted to inform society relative to the use of the word race. A few scientists and scholars have challenged the governments and society’s continued use of the word race. Many anthropologists have noted regarding the concept of race: “(1) it was artificial, (2) it did not correspond to the facts, (3) it led to confusion and the perpetuation of error, and finally, (4) for all these reasons it was scientifically unsound, or rather, more accurately, that is was false and misleading.” They also concluded that “based as it was om unexamined facts and unjustifiable generalizations, it were better that the term ‘race,’ corrupted as it is with so many deceptive and dangerous meanings, be dropped altogether from the vocabulary.” (Montagu, p.107.)

A common belief is that everything we know, we acquired from our socialization in society. From day one, we began the socialization process, and it continues throughout our lives. However, just because we learned something that proved to be incorrect does not mean we cannot correct it. Educational institutions like Princeton must help to educate society out of its ignorance and theirs.

Protesters should direct their focus on changing the criminal justice laws.

August 5, 2023 at 3:08 pm | Posted in criminal justice, justice, justice system, law, law enforcement agencies, Police, police education & training, police force, police unions, protest, social justice system, The New York Times | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , ,

A small group of civic-minded protesters gathered in front of the Oklahoma County jail recently and registered their protest of the District Attorney for her part in not charging six police officers in the death of three citizens. The protesters believed the decision to not charge any of the officers showed a disregard for the law and the lives of the dead citizens. The protest will produce no action relative to the District Attorney nor will it bring about any changes to the criminal justice system. The reason for any lack of action or change is because the District Attorney did not make the law and has no authority to change it. If the protesters want changes, they must go to the people that make the laws, not the ones that enforce or use the laws.

The law that provides the law enforcers the right to use deadly force against a citizen is part of the problem because it does not establish any parameters from which to judge the actions of the police. The statement that refers to officers in fear for their lives for any circumstances is open to interpretation, as well as the potential harm to others being harmed. Since police officers involved in any alleged criminal action are reviewed and judged by members of the criminal justice community, they usually get the benefit of the doubt regarding their actions, with the law and their training serving as justification. The concept of the Blue Line holds a lot of influence.

Although the protesters have a legitimate concern regarding the rights of the citizens, they need to seek changes in the laws and their interpretation relative to the treatment of the citizens. After all, the law states that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. Unfortunately, because of the power and influence given to law enforcers, the rights of any citizen can be lost simply by a police officer stopping them. In addition, regarding the reason for the citizen being stopped, the officer can escalate the situation with no regard for the citizens’ fear for their lives based on the history of the treatment by some police videos relative to the citizens. The fact that videos show citizens running away from officers and being shot in the back or citizens showing empty hands and still being shot and killed can and probably does have an impact on the citizens’ behavior.

The desire to eliminate law enforcers is not a concern with respect to those wanting change in the criminal justice system, but the fact that members of law enforcement are treated as more valuable than any other citizen is apparent in the ways their deaths are handles by the media regardless of how the death occurred in the line of duty or not. In some instances, the tribute to the fallen officer goes on for weeks and outshines the death of some heads of state. The public realizes that officers put their lives on the line every day for the citizens, but more and more of their actions recorded on video indicate that they are more concerned with their own safety than that of the citizen. We certainly want the officers to be safe and avoid being in harm’s way, but being in harm’s way is part of the job they signed up to do. So, why glorify them for doing what they were hired to do?

The media treatment of the law enforcers in some communities shows them to be above the average citizen and viewed as a special group of select people treated with respect and honor far and above ordinary folk. The media often reminds the public of the anniversary of the death of some of the fallen officers to underscore the idea that their lives are more important than our because they were officers. We do not begrudge the recognition given officers, just the attempt to place them in a special category above the average individual. A 2017, article in the New York Times, by Blake Fleetwood noted that the police officers on the street can experience a life and death situation on a daily basis, but added that: “However, the misconception that police work is dangerous, propagated by the media and police unions, could become a self-fulfilling prophecy—especially if police believe that they are going into deadly battle when they head out on patrol.” He stated that “They are likely to be nervous and trigger-happy and might affect their decision-making in a stressful situation.”

Fleetwood continued to address the subject of the dangers of police work in the statement: “The fact is: being a policeman is not one of the most dangerous jobs you can have, according to statistic from the Bureau of Labor.” Some statistics showed that “In five years, 2008 to 2012, only one policeman was killed by a firearm in the line of duty in New York City. Police officers are many times more likely to commit suicide than be killed by a criminal.” Fleetwood, who taught Political Science at NYU, offered the advice that “If police want to protect themselves, a wise move might be to invest in psychiatric counseling rather than increased firepower.”

The protester questioning the criminal justice system question why citizens can be shot and killed by police when other reasonable approaches could have been taken. However, the law, apparently, does not hold the officers accountable for their actions if they feared for their lives or followed their training. For whatever reason, the idea of a law being inadequate, and training is not sufficient to meet the needs of the day seem to be absent from any consideration by law enforcement. Laws should reflect concern for the citizens’ lives and not leave the consequences of police action resulting in death to interpretations by members of the law enforcement establishment.

If the protesters want to see changes in the criminal justice system, they should get together with their lawmakers, other concerned representatives and citizens and work on making the changes they want to see.

Why we cannot move forward being enslaved by language.

June 27, 2023 at 1:41 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, anglo saxons, Bigotry in America, biological races, black inferiority, discrimination, Disrespect, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European American, identity, justice, language, Prejudice, public education, racism, Slavery, social conditioning, U. S. Census, white supremacy | 6 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One of the challenging questions that has long plagued people working to overcome ethic bigotry in America is how long will the organizations like the NAACP, ACLU, SPLC and others that are in the forefront of fighting for justice will come to the realization that what they have been doing for all these years is not fighting the cause of what is called racism, but the effects of it. Every day we can see, read, and hear about some non-European ethnic citizen being discriminated against or abused in America and often we hear about some civil rights organization taking the case to court and winning a judgment on that case. We might say that the win is a small victory, but the battle has not been touched because nothing has been done to eliminate the so-called racism.

Organizations like those mentioned above have been fighting what they consider a battle against racism. Yet, what do they have to show for their efforts? Yes, some small battles have been won, but those victories did not interrupt the continuance of racism because the battles were focused on the effects of racism, not racism itself. Also, racism cannot be eliminated using the language of the enslavers.

One of the primary reasons for the continued existence of racism is our acceptance of the language of race without challenge or question. Our language was developed to insure the protection and promotion of the myth of European (white) supremacy. Because we have been conditioned to accept the language without question, we continue to enslave ourselves to the deliberate confusion caused by it. The cause of the confusion began with the invention of the word race to represent a subspecies of Homo sapiens. No subspecies of Homo sapiens exist and the word race has no fixed definition, so why are we still using it in our everyday language along with all its derivatives when we have no idea of its meaning? We know what its intended interpretations are, yet we do not question them.

Concerning the removal of the word race, John H. Stanfield II, noted that “…adjectives such as black and white would no longer be used. Race as a myth is a distorting variable that convolutes and in other ways distracts attention from the variables that really matter in understanding how and why human beings think, act, and develop as they do.” Unfortunately, the words black and white have become so acceptable and common that no one seems to realize that they are pejorative and demeaning to both groups. When colors are used to identify ethnic groups, a disservice is done to the integrity and character of the groups. Yet, we hear them employed daily with no regard to the negative implications contained in the usage.

Our language allows us to use race and its derivatives as though no harm is being done to our sense of identity as part of the human family. Every time the words black and white are used, they establish a sense of unity, and separation, discrimination, and manipulation of one group towards the other. Society has been conditioned to view white as superior to black, so whenever either word is used to identify a people, the social conditioning automatically surfaces. The language will not permit race and the myth of European supremacy to lose its prevalence because society does not realize that the language is the glue that keeps the citizens in the dark.

For example, many African Americans love the word black because of the meaning and significance it has to them and their experience in America. However, what they do not realize is that the use of the word black reinforces the myth of European supremacy. Black is an adjective that proceeds race, as in black race, and therefore, supports the concept of white superiority which protects and promotes European supremacy. Proponents of European supremacy enjoy using and observing African Americans use and clinging to the word black because they know that the system of mentally enslaving the non-European ethnic groups is working. They also view the use of black as a social game in which they demean the proposed African American value of the word by interjecting colors of white, and blue to counter phrases like “Black Lives Matter,” with “White Lives Matter,” and “Blue Lives Matter.”

The fact that the government and society persist in using race as a legitimate word even through they know it is bogus is underscored by Ashley Montagu when he stated that “The idea of race was, in fact, the deliberate creation of an exploiting class seeking to maintain and defend its privileges against what was profitably regarded as an inferior social caste.” He added that “Ever since the commencement of the slave trade there had been those who had attempted to justify their conduct in it [race] by denying the slave the status of humanity.” What we know is that the word race and all its derivatives are biased terms that view the people belonging to a so-called race as inferior and even less than human for the purpose of exploiting them.

If the organizations and individuals fighting the battle of ethnic bigotry want to have a positive effect in eliminating the element of race, they can begin by avoiding the use of the language of race. How does one go about avoiding the language of race? Julian Huxley in 1941, offered the suggestion that “it would be highly desirable if we could banish the question-begging term ‘race’ from all discussions of human affairs and substitute the noncommittal phrase ‘ethnic group.’” The term ‘ethnic group’ retains the culturally diverse uniqueness of the variety of Homo sapiens while dismissing any concept of biological and genetic differences. When the term “race” is eliminated from the language all its derivatives will force a change in how we think, talk, and act about ourselves and others. For example, we will recognize the challenge in biased phrases like “mixed races,” as well as the popular, but erroneous, phrase “human race.”

Once we realize the positive effects of these small changes in the language, we will also begin to understand how the language is used to keep us enslaved, and how we are able to free ourselves from the devastating effects it has had on us and our society. Who knows, we might even get the government to release its hold on stupidity regarding “race.”

Note: If you enjoy my blogs, please check out my latest book: It’s About Time: Losing Control of European Supremacy (amazon.com)

Ethnic bigotry always in plain sight

June 16, 2023 at 3:52 am | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, American Racism, ashley Montagu, C. Loring Brace,, biological races, black inferiority, discrimination, Disrespect, DNA, education, equality, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, Human Genome, identity, interpretations, language, minorities, minority, Race in America, racism, respect, skin color, U. S. Census, whites | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Many of us sometimes experience remembering placing our keys down somewhere, but when we try to retrieve them, they are nowhere in sight. After we have looked in all the places, we think they could be, low and behold we spot them in front of us right in plain sight. They were not hidden from us; we just did not see them at first. That experience can serve as an example of what happens daily in America and the Western World relative to ethnic bigotry. Ethnic bigotry is present, but just not seen because we have become conditioned to not questioning its presence, but it is present in the language. One reason we do not challenge the language is because we have been conditioned to accept it on face value. That acceptance, however, represents the problem of our not seeing the ethnic bigotry.

We have been told for several hundred years that that the word “race” is socially constructed to represent a particular meaning and as C. Loring Brace has noted that…” despite almost universal belief to the contrary, the concept of ‘race’ as applied to the picture of human biological diversity had absolutely no scientific justification.” The word “race” was developed to represent a subspecies, inferior to the species Homo sapiens, and to promote, to protect, and to preserve the myth of European supremacy and domination. So, how does a society go about making the myth a reality? Stephen Ullmann stated that “Words [language] certainly are the vehicles of our thoughts, but they may be far more than that: they may acquire an influence of their own, shaping and pre-determining our processes of thinking and our whole outlook.” America and the Western World wanted to ensure that the myth remains current, so they ignored the facts regarding race.

In 1997, Ashley Montagu, stated in an introduction to the 6th edition of his book Man’s Most Dangerous Myth, the fallacy of Race, that the purpose of his book was…:

 to make use of the scientifically established facts to show that the term “race” is a socially constructed artifact—that there is no such thing in reality as “race,” that the very word is racist: that the idea of “race,” implying the existence of significant biologically determined mental differences rendering some populations inferior to others, is wholly false; and that the space between as idea and reality can be very great and misleading.

Regardless of the many appeals made by many Americans of note, the government and society continue to use the word race as acceptable when we know that its purpose is to support ethnic bigotry. The fact that the word “race” and many of its diversities are used daily and that they are meant to denigrate their target, fails to register on the sender and the receiver. For example, like the word “race,” the words of color black, red, brown, and yellow are not used as compliments to the groups, but as a sign of their inferiority. The obvious exception of color in this group is the color white because it is usually used as a compliment.  When only an ethnic group’s color is used rather than the phrase that is intended: black race, red race, brown race, and yellow race, it is a form of bigotry. If race is included in any form, the message shows disrespect because it signifies inferiority. Unfortunately, when an explanation is offered to some individuals and groups that use a color as an ethnic group identity in their business or organizations, they are quick to show their innocence by defending their use of the color. The fact that they do not recognize the disrespect of the group is due to the power of the language and the failure to question it.

 Color is not a part of any human being’s identity regardless of their ethnicity and nationality. How is it that the government, and especially the U.S. Census Bureau continue to use the term “race” considering all the facts and evidence to its being bogus? Could that be a sign of ethnic bigotry? The word “race” is just a small part of the language used by the government and society to protect the myth of European supremacy.

Another word that is frequently used by government and society relative to population is “minority.” Like the word race, minority is a biased term. Most dictionaries offer at least two different usages of the word, but both involve numbers. The first states that minority is “the smaller number or part, especially a number that is less than half the whole number.” The second states that minority is “a relatively small group of people, especially one commonly discriminated against in a community, society, or nation, differing from others in race, religion, language, or political persuasion.” If we notice carefully in the second example, we find the evidence to support the disrespect and bigotry associated in referring to a group of people as a minority. Yet, we hear it daily.

The word “minority” while used in America to describe non-European people shows its selective use. If we applied the word minority to the world population, the people of non-European heritage would represent the majority. We know that eighty percent of the world’s population is brown. That fact is seldom referenced in topics focusing on minorities. Although the word is biased, hardly anyone underscores that fact. What lies inside the use of the word is the suggestion that different races are included and therefore they are inferior to the majority. The use of the word minority as an indicator of race is a form of bigotry, but we find it being used at every level of society without regard to the negative implications it carries.

The use of language as a vehicle for promoting the concept of race and the myth of European supremacy has always been dangerous. Again, Montagu pointed out, …” the very word “race is itself a racist [bigoted] term not simply because it represents a congeries of errors, or that it is a spurious ‘reality’ with no objective existence, but in addition, and most importantly, because its baleful influence constitutes a threat to the very existence of humanity.” When we are ignorant of the power of language and never think to question its use, we become complicit in the damage it causes and the negative impact on the lives it affects. Yet, if we look close enough, we will find it in plain sight.

Affirmative action is the Supreme Court’s Pandora Box

June 8, 2023 at 12:23 am | Posted in Affirmative Action, African American, American Bigotry, American history, American Indian, anglo saxons, Bigotry in America, black inferiority, college admission, Constitutional rights, discrimination, education, EEOC, employment, equality, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, fairness, language, race, Race in America, The U.S. Constitution, U. S. Census | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , ,

Subscribe to continue reading

Subscribe to get access to the rest of this post and other subscriber-only content.

The Growing Problems with An Incompetent Media

January 4, 2023 at 9:29 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The headlines of a recent OK Magazine read “The View’ Fans Demand ABC Fires ‘Raging Antisemite” Whoopi Goldberg After Latest Slur on Jewish People.” Headlines like this one are dangerous in several ways—promoting ethnic bigotry and lies. Why would a publication print such a headline that is sure to create some consternation at a time when ethnic fear is present in society? Writer for The Nation, Kali Holloway, places the responsibility on the media: “We are deep in the throes of a white grievance movement, inflamed by fear that white dominance is decreasing. The media’s coddling of white isn’t helping. As long as the story continues to privilege white fearmongering, the press should be considered a contributor to the problem of white supremacy in education.” (1-10-2022)

The article focuses on two concerns that are considered slurs on the Jewish people: the reference to the Jewish not being a race; and the Holocaust being about racism and genocide. Both concerns are not slurs or antisemitic. To be clear, let us accept the fact that the center of both statements in question rests on the word race. Angela Saini, National Geographics, noted that“The scientific facts remained the same Race was as much a social construct as it ever was.” (09-2021) In other words, race has neither biological nor historical support as an accepted term. The word race was invented to suggest a biological difference among the various ethnic groups, no such biological difference exists.

Saini records that “The history of race is a reminder that science isn’t just about theories and data; it’s also about which facts are recruited into the stories we tell about human variation. European Enlightenment naturalists and scientists once decided that humans might be divided into discrete groups in the same way as some other animal species, before arbitrarily setting the boundaries for these categories.” She continued noting that “They [the European group] attached meaning to skin color, using sweeping cultural stereotypes about temperament, intelligence, and behavior. These pseudoscientific ideas went on to inform Western medicine for centuries. They formed the basis for the Nazi eugenic program of racial cleansing and the Holocaust.”

The use of race as a reference to a subspecies the Europeans developed to underscore the superiority of one group over another except for the Europeans, they represented the species. Since we know that race is not a valid term except to demean an ethnic group as being a subspecies or an inferior group, why would any ethnic group want to be viewed as a race? David Reich, a Harvard University paleogeneticist, stated in his book, Who We Are and How We Got Here, that “There are no fixed traits associated with specific geographic locations…because as often as isolation has created differences among populations, migration and mixing have blurred or erased them.”

Based on the information relative to race, Ms. Goldberg’s comments were in keeping with what society considers factual. The people that complained about a racial slur did not say what offended them or how they were offended. The fact that the Jewish people are not a race is a fact, not a slur. The one element of the Holocaust involving genocide is factual, but not it being racial. The reference to the Jewish people as a race should be considered an insult because that reference places them in a subspecies category and identified as an inferior ethnic group.

The importance of Ms. Goldberg’s comments about the Holocaust being about man’s inhumanity to man is factual. The conflict did not involve race from a biological standpoint, but ethnicity from a cultural perspective. So, how does one characterize the comments as being antisemitic, controversial, and offensive to the Jewish people? The magazine and its writer show a lack of knowledge concerning race and an ignorance is journalism by not researching and reporting factual information.

The ignorance concerning race in American and Western society is often exacerbated by the media’s failing to perform their jobs in a responsible way. The article here in question does nothing to further our understanding of antisemitism and ethnic slurs. The article’s primary focus seems to be to instigate negative energy concerning Ms. Goldberg’s tenure on “The View,” rather than addressing the nature of the antisemitisms.

The Fight Against Race and Racism–Wasted Time

September 14, 2022 at 12:26 am | Posted in African American, American Racism, Bigotry in America, blacks, DNA, education, European Americans, identity, justice, Race in America, racism, skin complexion, social conditioning, whites | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , ,

What is the difference between the questions: What size shoe does the Tooth Fairy wear? And how do we fight racism? Regardless of the various arguments that can be made concerning the two questions one fact stands out above all others—the questions are both based on myths. The primary difference between the two questions is that the Tooth Fairy myth is accepted as a myth and treated in like manner, but the concepts of race and racism is recognized being based on a myth but treated as reality. Common knowledge concerning race and racism is that they are the results of social constructions—made up to serve a purpose. The primary purpose that race serves is to represent the concept of a subspecies of Homo sapiens. Science and history have told us from the invention of taxonomy and the development of DNA that no such subspecies exists. Yet, America and the Western World continue to promote and foster the false concept of race. If the only concern of the race myth is its acceptance, no major problem would exist, but the fact that it is viewed as reality and instructs behavior represents a huge challenge.

What has taken place in the Western World for over two-hundred and fifty years is a behavior and belief in the myth of race that views Europeans and European Americans as superior to all other peoples in the world. What is even more disheartening is the fact that despite over-whelming facts and evidence to the contrary, the belief and behavior continues. The term race does four things besides supporting European supremacy: unite, separate, discriminate, and manipulate all other people. Regardless of how the term is used relative to identity, these four characteristics exist. No serious attempt has been made to rectify this situation, so ethnic bigotry has been alive and well in America for over two-hundred-and fifty years and it will continue until the people realize that race and racism is not the problem, nor can they be destroyed.

The plethora of people that write on or about race and racism all make the same mistake that causes their efforts to go for naught. If one starts off with a flawed concept, regardless of the developments and inventions attributed to that concept, the results will be flawed. Various writers of books and articles attempt to make clear at the beginning of their work that race is considered a social construction—a statement that should disqualify its use. However, the works proceeds in employing the term race and many of its derivatives as if they were legitimate and acceptable. For example, when writers use the terms black and white for human groups identities, they commit two major errors: one, they associate a person’s ethic identity with a color complexion and two, they invent so-called racial groups as monoliths. Both errors should automatically be seen as disqualifiers because they have no scientific basis in fact.

The most important part of any work is the clear understanding of what is being addressed and that should begin with a definition of terms. Any confusion relative to the subject or topic will result in even more confusion. An interesting situation currently in America is the efforts of a number of states to outlaw the teaching of race and related subjects that might cause the children hurtful feelings. The problem with these laws is that they never define race. The word race is used as though the reader already knows the meaning, but that is a false assumption. If these laws were to be challenged in courts that required a clear definition of terms, the laws would be thrown out or Western History could not be taught.

Another problem that arises from the law preventing the teaching of race is the obvious one of identity. If race is not to be taught or used how will children that have been conditioned to view themselves as black or white, be identified? The terms black and white when used singly refers to a color, but if the intent is for the use as identity, then they represent adjectives that proceed race. In other words, black race, and white race. Some European American and African American families do not inform their children of their ethnic identities, so as society has conditioned then, they say black and white. Since this term refer to so-called races, how is the teacher supposed to manage this situation without getting into trouble with the law? When a term is not defined or meaning fixed, it invents unforeseen problems when made the principal focus of a law. An uncomplicated way to resolve the problem of race is to discontinue use of the word. However, that would cause even more problems because that would eliminate the privileges and power associated with the phrase “white race.”

What is disturbing relative to works that attempt to offer something of value concerning race and racism is that they do not realize that while they are trying to make an argument against race and racism, they are promoting the concepts as legitimate. What is missing from many works on race and racism is the understanding that before one can proceed to address the issues involving race, it must first be debunked. Once race has been debunked then one can proceed to show the inaccuracies and misinformation associated with it. Unfortunately, many writers continue to use the language of race and the references that support the myth as part of their research and studies. For example, notice the language in the following quote that continues to promote as factual research material:

Twenty years after Bonilla-Silva developed the analytic components of a structural race perspective and called for “comparative work on racialization in various societies,” U.S.-centric race theory continues to be mostly rooted in a U.S. focus. What is missing is a framework that explores race and racism as a modern global project that takes shape differently in diverse structural and ideological forms across all geographies but is based in global white supremacy.” (A Global Critical Race and Racism Framework: Racial Entanglements and Deep and Malleable Whiteness,” Michelle Christian, 2018, Sociology of Race and Ethnicity)

Why not forgo all the analysis and inventions relative to race when we know that it is a myth. Whatever came out of this study was flawed because what went into it was flawed. The problem is not race or racism; it is the belief in the myth.

Okay, the Tooth Fairy does not wear shoes, but the fight against race continues. Why?

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.