Race

"Now, I don't see race. People tell me I'm white and I believe

them, because I belong to an all-white country club."

- Stephan Colbert

The war on racism often manifests itself as a war on race. This is evidenced by slogans like "there is only one race - the human race". And the often-expressed hope that the 2008 election of Barack Obama would usher in a "post-racial" era suggests the complete abolishment of the idea of race is seen as a kind of Utopian ideal. The spice of life - variety - apparently goes with people like cayenne pepper goes with bubble gum ice-cream.

The argument against race comes in three primary flavors:

1. It is an artificial concept, that does not exist outside our minds.
2. It is a useless concept from which no good has - or will - ever come.
3. "Race" always has and will continue to do more harm than good: it is a destructive and divisive concept that can do - and has done - great harm to humanity.

Is "race" really nothing more than a destructive human construct? Have I finally bitten off more than I can chew? (hehe)


"An artificial concept"




"Race" is absolutely an artificial concept, and one that will likely forever defy precise definition. I say this bearing in mind that we still can't properly define the word "species" (the distinctions used to separate me from a chimpanzee are very different from those used to separate two asexual organisms or two species of bacteria) - or even "life" (what about viruses? or Lieutenant Commander Data?) Biological systems seem to love to challenge classification. And so we are forced to resort to rather vague terms that have been invented to help us describe them: we use these terms because they are useful, not because they are necessarily accurate.

But don't take that to mean that these concepts are completely made-up, or that they exist only in our minds. The fact that there is no universally agreed-upon way to describe "species" or "life" in no way means that these concepts are illusions: we may struggle to define "life", but we all agree that life exists. Why should we not take the same view of "race"? After all, people do tend to vary - however slightly - from region to region, and we could use a way to describe this.

"A useless concept"


But the belief that every human is essentially the same, and that the only possible differences between us are literally skin-deep, can be a very heartfelt one. Even apparently positive stereotypes like "Asians are good at math", or "Kenyans are fast sprinters" - which might appear to be relatively unoffensive - are often condemned for being not just technically incorrect (which they almost certainly are), but also for being morally wrong. And this conviction is well fortified: according to Wikipedia, all one has to do to be legitimately accused of "scientific racism" is "investigate differences between races" (emphasis my own).

The problem is, it is obvious that not everyone is the same, even if we do ignore skin, hair and eye color. And while they may not necessarily follow the classifications we have dreamed up (for instance there is no biological basis for terms like "black" or  "white" beyond coloration), we are increasingly being faced with the apparently horrifying fact that what are best described as "racial differences" both can, and do, exist.

In fact, your race can sometimes even be medically relevant, just as your family medical history can be. As a possible example, consider the the H1N1 pandemic. The virus seems to have hit First Nations communities harder than it has the rest of the Canadian population. This has caused great controversy here in Canada, with many charging the federal and provincial governments with criminal negligence, if not direct responsibility for the deteriorating situation on many reserves.

Amidst all this, I wondered if some native Canadians might be, on average, biologically more susceptable to the virus. At first I recoiled from this idea as I do from many racial stereotypes. But then I remembered that it was only a few short hundred years ago that European-born diseases devastated the native populations. I suddenly realized that it was actually reasonable to conclude that they might well be more vulnerable to the virus. And if this was true - should this possibility be ignored? Wouldn't it be best to recognize the fact that First Nations communities might have unique needs the case of such outbreaks? As is, I have rarely heard this possibility mentioned, and the best explanation the Canadian government seems to be offering for H1N1's unfortunate success in these frequently remotely situated communities is "severe overcrowding". I don't in the least mean to discount possible social factors, but this seems a bit silly.

But wild speculation aside, here are some of the best known examples of medically relevant racial differences:

• The unique metabolic and circulatory adaptations of many Arctic-dwelling peoples that help them to better cope with the cold.
• The gene associated with the deadly sickle cell disease is often carried by people of African origin, almost certainly because it also provides resistance to a disease that is deadlier still - namely, malaria. This gene, for obvious reasons, is rarely seen in other groups of people for whom malaria was historically less of a concern.
• Many Asian peoples cease to produce useful amounts the enzyme necessary to properly digest most dairy products past the age of four, as most Europeans continue to do. Because of this, many Asian adults are lactose intolerant.
• Of course, even skin color can be medically relevant: as fair skin can invite sunburn; and dark skin can invite vitamin D deficiency.

I think the biological diversity of humans is fascinating. Why do we so wish it would go away, when the loss of human diversity in other areas - like language and culture - is so widely lamented?

"A destructive concept"

The best answer, of course, is history. So much of it is filled with atrocities that were justified by various racist ideologies, and racial differences were (and are) frequently wildly exaggerated, if not fabricated, to further these purposes. Small wonder we should look to transcend "race" altogether: we don't trust ourselves, and we have apparently good reasons not to.

But I would argue that in fact it is our ignorance of these differences is the real root of our sad historical track record: it's because we didn't understand "race" that we failed so spectacularly to come to grips with it. I'm not convinced that it is necessarily human nature to fear and loath people who are different than ourselves, and I think this position often betrays a general lack of faith in human nature. But we certainly seem to fear and loath what we do not understand. I would argue that the better we have come to understand why and how people are different, the better we have come to appreciate just how similar we all are.

And sure, race divides us; but so do families, which (it has been pointed out) is really what the word "race" indicates: "very large and partly inbred" families.

***

By attacking or denying the existence of these families, it seems to me that the war against racism has gone a bridge too far, and unnecessarily risks having it's worthy ideals discredited by scientific progress. Alternatively, by coming to terms with the existence of racial differences - by letting reality inform our convictions - we can avoid this battle, and simultaneously free ourselves to better understand and deal with the world around us in a more rational - and thus humane - way. The light of science can sometimes illuminate intimidating visages. But to flee is to rush into darkness.