The American Cancer Society Study on Black Women and Cancer

May 10, 2024 at 9:00 am | Posted in African American, American history, anglo saxons, Bigotry in America, biological races, blacks, CNN, DNA, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, identity, language, Media and Race, Medical Aparteid, skin color, skin complexion | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

One of the continuing challenges in America today is the refusal to change when change is necessary. One glaring example is the use of certain words that continue to promote the concept of Anglo-Saxon, European American, and European supremacy. A reason for the lack of change is our conditioning to not challenge words that carry social weight in a negative context. In a recent CNN article by Jen Christensen, that announced the start of a new study by the American Cancer Society that is seeking participants and may be the largest study of its kind because the study “aims to solve the mystery of why Black women have the lowest survival rate of any racial or ethnic group in the US for most cancers.” We will take a closer look at what is said.

On the surface, the study is legit and worthy of the effort to solve the mystery involving Black women and cancer. The problem with this study is by using the words Black and racial it is destined to fail. Why? Because the word Black is a label, not an identity and it has no fixed qualities that allow for measurement. How are Black women defined? They are not defined, because no fixed criteria exist to ascribe to all so-called Black women. When people are identified by a color, any color, they automatically lose all individuality and become part of a group with stereotyped characteristics. Color cannot be one of those characteristics because of the span of skin complexions that exist in the world.

The other word used was “racial,” which is a derivative of the word race. What is the status of the word race as far as science is concerned? According to Wolfgang Umek, MD. And Barbara Fisher, PhD. in an article entitled “We Should Abandon “Race” as a Biological Category in Biomedical Research,” PMC (nih.gov) stated that “In 2019, the American Association of Physical Anthropologists issued a statement on biological aspects of race, concluding that ‘pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous population, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.’” They commented more specifically by asserting that “The only living species in the human family, Homo sapiens, has become a highly diversified global array of populations. The geographic pattern of genetic variation within this array is complex and presents no major discontinuity. Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries.”

The reference to “genetic variations” is where the word “ethnic” comes into play. Rather than using the word race in referring to different human groups, the word ethnic or phrase ethnic group is preferred because they carry no biological or genetic implications with their use.

In another statement from the CNN article, we are told that “The racial differences are especially stark with certain types of cancer, research shows. For example, Black and White women are equally likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer, but Black women are almost 40% more likely to die from it.” Again, we have the problem of color with white. Who are the white women spoken of in the data? White is not defined, the same as black is not defined. In fact, white is more complex to deal with since the 2020 Census Bureau allowed a broad range of exceptions for identifying as white: “A person having origins in any on the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.” Confusion would not be unusual for an individual in trying to decide how to answer the question of race when no specific definition exists. How can someone prove their ancestry from people of original origin? What does original origin mean since we were told earlier that “Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries?”

We know that no such groups identified as Black women and White women exist and that those terms are used as labels to try and present an idea of ethnic unity among each group of women. We also know that unless and until a more specific and clearly defined data groups of African Americans and European Americans are established that the findings of this study will be meaningless. For example, we know that within the African American women and European American women communities’ differences exist based on education, income, housing, employment, health care, and family. In order for the study to have any significant value, each of these elements must be considered in both groups.

The article commented to previous data collected and made the statement that “The data we’ve uncovered through previous population studies has been critical in reducing the unacceptably high burden of cancer, but the reduction has sadly not been equal.” What does that statement mean? If the previous studies focused only on the medical history of the women suffering from cancer and not the other social elements, then how can equal or fairness even be considered? What the study seems to suggest is that cancer in African American women is purely medical. We know or should know that medical history and social history go hand in hand. One cannot be isolated from the other when talking about prevention.

The CNN article noted that the American Cancer Society said, “it was mindful of the long history of ‘mistreatment and abuse’ of Black women’s bodies used to benefit science, ‘yet Black women have received the fewest benefits compared to their male and white counterparts.’” While we agree with the statement and applaud the American Cancer Society’s decision to start this study, we would hope that the mistakes of the past studies do not reduce the value of this new study. The study should take the time to identify the participants by ethnic or cultural groups, and not by color—black and white. When those words are used the identity of the participants and their ethnicity is unknown and therefore serves no purpose for the study. These changes can only improve the study.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Paul R. Lehman, The time for talking about race and racism is now

February 6, 2021 at 4:18 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American Dream, American history, American Racism, anglo saxons, Bigotry in America, biological races, black inferiority, Community relationships, Congress, democracy, DNA, DNA programs, education, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European American, Genealogy,, identity, justice system, language, Media and Race, Prejudice, race, Race in America, skin color, skin complexion, social justice system, white supremacy, whites | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In view of the recent incidents involving hate groups and people storming Congress wanting to take back their country based on their conception of America being and belonging to “white people,” now is an opportune time to try and clear the air of the myth and misinformation we have lived with for almost four centuries. Ask almost anyone to define race and their answer will probably include something like groups of people with common physical differences like skin color, facial features, hair texture, eye color and shape; their definition might also include some geographical areas like Africa, Japan, China, etc. None of these elements, however, define race; they merely describe what race might look like. In reality, race cannot be defined because it is not fixed. Unfortunately, many Americans have been living under the notion that races exist and America belongs to the white one. Now is the time to correct this misinformation.

History showed that the concept of a race began to evolve in the late 17th century by the Anglo-Saxons and expanded along with the beginning of European exploration and colonization. For many years the English had fostered the myth of their nation as being superior to all other nations, but the myth was ignored until Linnaeus gave them an idea based on his taxonomy classifications and the human species. To justify their myth of superiority and dominance over all other nations, the Anglo-Saxons claimed that their nation represented the Homo sapiens species and that all the other nations were represented as sub-species. In order to protect, promote, and perpetuate the myth, they invented the word race which does just that any time and anyway the word is used. That is, whenever the word race or any of its derivatives are used, the myth of Anglo-Saxon superiority is protected, promoted, and perpetuated. The references to the other nations as races indicated their inferiority was secondary to the myth because they are all viewed as sub-species.

The myth of the Anglo-Saxons being superior to all the other nations (called races) have been debunked many times, but persist because of the constant usage and protection. The myth does not question the Anglo-Saxons but focuses on the differences of the other groups and that is part of the problem. Why would anyone believe that one nation out of all the nations on the planet was singled out to represent an entire species? We have learned that “… DNA analyses have proved that all humans have much more in common, genetically, than they have differences. The genetic difference between any two humans is less than 1 percent.” We also learned that “… geographically widely separated populations vary from one another in only about 6 to 8 percent of their genes.”So, the need to continue using the word race does nothing but support the myth.

The word race and the myth it supports has been so much a part of our consciousness that we find it hard to replace. But replace it we must. The myth of one ethnic group being superior to all the other groups is akin to someone believing that chocolate milk comes from brown cows. Yet, we have people and organizations that want to fight and destroy race and racism when the myth offers nothing to fight or destroy. In order to debunk the chocolate milk myth one only has to milk a brown cow and see the color of milk that comes out. To stop race and racism, one must stop accepting and believing in them; that will replace them with facts and truth because they are simply concepts. The damage that has occurred because of the acceptance of and belief in race and racism is another matter.

America must do a better job of educating its citizens because the plethora of ignorance regarding the use of race and racism will continue to be a problem. Recently, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives made a statement that urged all non-white people to go back to their homes and leave America to its rightful white owners. One would have found these comments laughable had they not been offered seriously. The case seems to be that people believe in what they want to believe in and facts and truth be dammed. Nonetheless, the truth and the facts regarding race and racism must be made. The fact is that “Because of the overlapping of traits that bears no relationship to one another (such as skin colour and hair texture) and the inability of scientists to cluster peoples into discrete racial packages, modern researchers have concluded that the concept of race has no biological validity.” (Britannica/The Many Meanings of “Race”) More facts and evidence, scientific and historical, are available to support that conclusion.

As stated earlier, because race and racism are concepts they can be replaced with appropriate language that does not include race. For example, the phrase “human race” is inaccurate and should be the human species; the word races should be ethnic groups. Rather than using the word “racism”, the word bigotry better represents the experience. In addition to the word race protecting, promoting, and perpetuating itself, race and all of its derivatives when used cause four simultaneous actions to occur: unity, separation, discrimination, and control. These actions occur because race focuses only on sub-species and not the representative of the species, the Anglo-Saxons.

The primary mistake made by the many individuals and organizations in their efforts to address the problems caused by belief in race and racism is the use of these words. For example, one cannot define antiracism unless the concept of racism is acknowledged. We know that racism comes from a belief in race and that race is a social invention, not valid in any sense. So, why spend time talking about antiracism that cannot produce a positive outcome when by simply debunking the myth one can move  closer to reality—the fact that we are one species. How can we love our neighbor as ourselves if we do no see ourselves in our neighbor? �������

Paul R. Lehman, Many Diversity Programs are misused to avoid confronting Bigotry

December 26, 2020 at 3:38 pm | Posted in Affirmative Action, African American, American Bigotry, American history, American Racism, Bigotry in America, biological races, blacks, Constitutional rights, democracy, discrimination, Disrespect, DNA, entitlements, equality, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European Americans, Human Genome, identity, integregation, justice, language, law, Media and Race, public education, race, Race in America, racism, representation, respect, social conditioning, socioeconomics | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The primary reason diversity programs are unsuccessful is because the element of race is not debunked,  but accepted and used as criteria to separate one ethnic group from another. The objective of any diversity program should be to underscore the similarities among all human beings regardless of their ethnic differences. Many diversity program focus primarily on the differences and stereotypical ethnic characteristics which readily separate the group’s one from another rather than characteristics than unify them. The programs attempt to justify the ethnic differences while not exposing the falseness and myth of the concept of race. Thereby maintaining and promoting the Anglo-Saxon myth of superiority. Let us take a closer look at how the concept works its magic using diversity.

Diversity programs, training, workshops, institutes, and other initiatives, from the beginning to the present day have one thing in common—they fail to debunk the false concept of race and by doing so maintain, support, and promote the Anglo-Saxon /European American system of supremacy. The very word diversity when used relative to human beings implies that some human beings represent a standard that other groups do not meet and so they are different and less than the standard group. For whom and to what objective are diversity programs instituted? Bigotry comes to the front the moment so-called target groups are identified. The group that decides who represents the target groups apparently, maintain a position of dominance over all the target groups. Since the nature of the group differences is not stated, according to the race myth, only the Anglo-Saxon can represent the normal human being. Any diversity program that begins with an Us versus Them perspective implies that some biological component accompanies the difference. That being the case, regardless of the format that diversity takes the results will naturally involve a feeling of inferiority by the target group.

Lisa Leslie in a Greater Good Magazine article, “What Makes a Workplace Diversity Program Successful?” (01/21/2020) underscores the fact that many of these programs do not succeed: “…research suggests that these initiatives often don’t work like they’re supposed to.” She added that “For example, studies have found that a variety of diversity initiatives—including evaluating managers based on diversity and inclusion metrics, and diversity networking and affinity groups—can lead to either more or less representation of target groups.”Again, the primary reason many of these programs do not succeed is bigotry is not addressed: the initiatives never debunk race or the false concept of sub-species. If everyone involved in a diversity program is not seen and accepted as belonging to the same species, the program cannot succeed. Leslie offered three reasons why some initiatives do not succeed.

She listed the 1st as Backfiring: “This is when a diversity initiative has an undesirable effect on the intended outcome, like when the program decreases representation or increases discrimination. A likely cause of backfiring is the implicit signal that target groups need help to succeed.”She added: “Because diversity initiatives are supposed to help target group members, some people infer that target group members might not be able to succeed on their own. And this is problematic because it can lead to stereotyping and discrimination.”

Next, she listed Negative spillover: “This is when diversity initiatives have an undesirable effect on something other than the intended outcome. For example, diversity initiatives may result in negative attitudes among non-target group members. The root cause of this reaction may be the signal that targets are likely to succeed in the organization.”

Finally, she listed false progress: “This is when a diversity initiative has the desired effect on the intended outcome—when the diversity numbers improve, so it looks like things are getting better—but that improvement is not accompanied by true underlying change.”

To address these problems, Leslie’s study suggested that the diversity initiative leaders use language and specific messages to influence the attitudes of the initiative participants. Three messages were given: Diversity is good, Diversity is bad, and Diversity is good but also really hard. After employing these messages the participants were surveyed, and the outcome generally mirrored the messages. When the message was positive, some improvement occurred. When it was negative, no improvement occurred. The results of the last message were mixed as expected. So, what is the problem?

When diversity initiatives are introduced regardless of the targeted groups the primary implication is that this group is inferior to the majority group and needs special attention. If and when that special attention is given it can be viewed as an effort to level the playing field. Since Anglo-Saxons and European Americans are conditioned to view themselves as superior to other groups, leveling the playing field would mean destroying their superiority.

 Diversity programs for people with obvious physical and mental challenges are generally accepted because they do not represent a threat to the status quo. However, when people that are not identified with the majority are the focus of the program, their success can and often is viewed as a threat to the superiority of the majority. In other words, they are viewed as receiving advantages that come at the expense of the majority. If the disparity between the Us versus Them attitude is not resolved at the start of an initiative, then failure is assured.

Diversity came with the species of Homo sapiens and was not considered a problem until the invention of false sub-species, first called nations and later called races. The myth of Anglo-Saxon/European American supremacy is dependant on that myth. Without the myth, all human beings naturally belong to the same species which our DNA indicates is 99.9%. If any diversity initiative is to be conducted, it should not focus on the ethnic differences that are not biological but the similarities all humans possess. In essence, the biases against targeted people are a matter of choice, not genetics and that should be the first concern addressed or the initiative will fail. Most people prefer to be seen as a part of the group rather than being seen as apart from the group which diversity presently underscores. ������99�S�w

The Disparity in the word game of desegregation, Integration, and Diversity

December 18, 2020 at 2:19 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, American Racism, anglo saxons, Bigotry in America, biological races, black inferiority, Brown v Topeka, Civil Right's Act 1964, desegregation, discrimination, education, entitlements, equality, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European American, identity, integregation, language, Martin Luther King Jr., Media and Race, Oklahoma, Prejudice, public education, race, Race in America, segregation, social conditioning, socioeconomics, teaching race, whites | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , ,

January 20, 1986, my son came home from school (mid-high) and after we exchanged greetings, I asked how his day was at school? He said that it was okay, as usual. I asked if there were any announcements about the specialness of the day. He said no. Any remarks made by the principal or any of your teachers? He said no. So, I called the school and asked to speak to the principal. He was not available to answer my call at the time, so I asked if he would be available for a brief meeting before he left school for the day. He agreed to meet with me shortly before 4:00 PM. When I arrived at the school, I could see the principal was alone in his office. He had foreknowledge of who I was because my son and one other student, a young man, were the only two people of color in this public school. From his unrefined and defensive attitude and demeanor when he exited his office to meet me, he must have thought I was there to do battle with him.

Extending my hand to introduce myself to the principal seemed to calm him down somewhat. I explained to him that my son and I were very disappointed with him and the school for ignoring the first national celebration of Martin Luther King, Jr. day. He was surprised to learn the significance of the day and offered an apology for his ignorance. I informed him that his apology was not accepted because he was responsible for all the students in his school and that not recognizing the importance of the day sent a negative message to the entire school and community, not just the students. I informed him that he and his teaching staff missed an excellent teaching opportunity and as a citizen of the community I expected more from him and the school. He acknowledged his faults and promised it would not happen again. I am certain he was relieved to see me leave.

In 1954 when the public schools were desegregated, people of color made some progress relative to education but suffered a tremendous loss in self-worth and knowledge of the African American experience in America. Contrary to what many people believe, African Americans did not want to attend school with European Americans because of their skin complexion, they were interested in getting a quality education that was not available in the separate but equal system. The loss for African Americans in the desegregated schools was a loss of self and history. In an environment when everything European American was normal, being of color simply compounded the challenges. The students of color were not only viewed as inferior by the European Americans, but the curriculum totally ignored them as well.

For the public school in America, desegregation meant only opening the doors to the African Americans but making no changes in the order of business in how education was presented. The standard curriculum was then and to some degree now focused totally on Western history and culture. Little if any attempt was made to humanize the African Americans to nothing but the status quo. The education of the European American teachers experienced little change other than an underscoring of stereotypes associated with African Americans and other ethnic American groups. What was obvious to society was that desegregation was a catch-word used in education to indicate some progress in the direction of equity when, in fact, nothing had changed in the curriculum. However, in the classrooms remained a majority of European Americans, especially females.

In an effort to show some improvement in education in society, the word integration came into use. Of course, the word was a misrepresentation of what was happening. No signs of combining, amalgamating, or unifying the curriculum to reflect the existence and contributions of other American ethnic groups were present. The myth of European American supremacy continued to be maintained and promoted through the educational system.

After the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, some pressure was placed on the educational institutions to address the issue of inclusion of African Americans and the other ethnic groups in American education as well as in society in general. Once again, a slight- of- hand trick was performed to give the illusion of progress towards equity; this time it went by the name of diversity. What diversity does, in effect, is separate each of the ethnic groups from one another and then focus on the elements of each group that distinguishes it from the others, that is, with the exception of the European Americans. Since the European Americans are considered normal, no special attention should be given to them because they represent the standard for which the other groups aspire.

One of the problems that stand in the way of real progress in education has to do with teacher training and education in particular and education in general. What qualifies an educator to teach prospective teachers about diversity? According to statistics, most diversity programs do more harm than good because they separate rather than unify.  Pamela Newkirk, writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, (11/6/2019) noted that “During more than 30 years of my professional life, diversity has been a national preoccupation. Yet despite decades of hand-wringing, costly initiatives, and uncomfortable conversations, progress in most elite American universities has been negligible.”Many other educators share this same opinion but do little to effect a positive change.

Diversity in America and education has been an escape hatch for avoiding the real problem of bigotry in America. During this year, 2020, the toxic traditions of inequality and injustice have been blatantly exposed because of a number of tragic events that caught the attention of many European Americans trapped in their residences due to covid-19. What became vividly apparent was the fact that America has yet to acknowledge the existence of a system of ethnic bigotry that has plagued society since its founding. Any educational theories, studies, and research based on an invented, undefined, and monolithic racial such as blacks and whites have to be academically and scientifically unsound. Rather than acknowledging the false concept of race, many educators simply accept it as valid and go forward expanding pseudo science, but the clock will not be reset to accommodate hurt feelings or weak hearts.

Consequently, American education must experience a reckoning and it is coming soon. k�8�^�

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.