I hope some of you caught the documentary on race that recently aired on PBS. I’m in the middle of watching it now and am finding it fascinating. I was surprised to learn that the concept of race didn’t even exist before the 17th century. The documentary shows why racial classifications were invented, and how they’ve been used throughout the centuries. Here’s some of what the executive producer of the show had to say about it:
Race is one topic where we all think we’re experts. Yet ask 10 people to define race or name “the races,” and you’re likely to get 10 different answers. Few issues are characterized by more contradictory assumptions and myths, each voiced with absolute certainty.
In producing this series, we felt it was important to go back to first principles and ask, What is this thing called “race?” – a question so basic it is rarely raised. What we discovered is that most of our common assumptions about race – for instance, that the world’s people can be divided biologically along racial lines – are wrong. Yet the consequences of racism are very real.
Even if you missed the airing of the show, you should check out the website. There is a lot of great background, and other related information there.
I caught some of it. Much of what is currently known as “race” is, in fact, a social construct largely created by ethnocentric “whites” to dehumanize, marginalize and stigmatize “non-whites”. Race has been used by whites as a mechanism of physical, psychological, social and economic control over “others” for several centuries. It is still used by the philosophical and cultural progeny of its founders for the same purposes today. Most modern “scholars” dismiss race as purely a social construct. However, I believe that the jury is still out on melanist theory as part of a possible biological/physiological explanation of the apparent differences between the “races”. At its root, melanist theory holds that their are certain characteristics derived from the presence of varying levels of melanin in human beings. Some melanists imply that melanin content makes those who have it “superior” in some respects than those who do not. I do not necessarily concur with that viewpoint but, like other areas of inquiry, I think that the role of melanin should be examined seriously and objectively. There is more to melanin than simply coloring. I am not an authority on melanis theory and realize that it has been widely attacked in some quarters. However, I find it difficult to believe that the significant cultural differences between those of African, European and Asian descent can simply be ascribed to environmental factors alone. Holla back!
Jef,
I have some of the same questions about the cultural, and physical differences between people of different “races”. Perhaps our good friend, Dr. Hotep, will stop by and enlighten us.
And I’m still waiting for you to start your own weblog…
Ah, the pressure mounts. Between work, school, homebuying and wedding plans, perhaps I will be able to make some time to raise my game to YOUR level…
Small things to a Jedi master like yourself!
I haven’t kept up on the latest melanin research. I am aware of some of the issues you touch on and can offer some factual tidbits…
firstly, skin is only one area in the human body where melanin is located. it’s also in the eye and the nervous system.
1- melanin contained in the retina of the eye has been associated with a decreased incidence of ‘macular degeneration’ in a cause of blindness
2- melanin has been shown to protect from damaging ultraviolet solar rays and offers protection from skin cancer
3- melanin and melanocyte stimulating hormone have been show to ‘oxidize’ and thereby neutralize cancer causing substances
4- melanin also neutralizes ‘free radicals’ damaging chemical formations involved in cellular metabolism
5- melanin in the brain, pineal gland, is thought to play a role in balance and coordination; for as it relates to Dopamine (a brain chemical that is deficient in elderly with Parkinson’s disease) a deficiency of it seems to make one’s movements jerky, awkward, and clumsy…this is a postulate, and i’m not sure if it’s been yet proven, at least in humans.
in short, everything is relative. Melanin is an advantage in certain contexts and a disadvantage in others. In Alaska, where the Hawks fly low, if you are an albino rabbit, you’re straight, whereas the black field mouse is breakfast every day.
Evidence suggests that melanin is a potent ‘anti-oxidant’ in general and offers protection from some cancers where that is a factor. Blacks still get some cancers, eg Prostate in higher numbers than non-Blacks, so it’s not a perfect science…that may relate to boning more, or less frequent visits to the doctor to have him stick his finger up your ass to check your prostate, or any number of theories.
Based on my reading and lab research I think melanin also plays a role in balance and coordination, (perhaps rhythm and agility as well), though this is more difficult to prove and it’s probably only one of many factors.
beyond that, chemically speaking, i can’t say too much. i don’t think it’s even 100% clear that one’s overall melanin content is directly related to one’s skin tone, which varies seasonally and geographically….ie. there is no way to definitively quantify who has more melanin than someone else…only relative assumptions can be made
as far as superiority vs inferiority go, one has to be more specific. those terms are too broad.
how does one measure it?
can you run faster when you are tanned?
My subjective opinion: I personally think melanin is advantageous environmentally, in most contexts, and helps prevent damaging rays from wrinkling the skin. It may also play a role in thermal conduction and the dissipation of heat – though less clear. I think it reduces the risk of certain cancers and probably helps balance and coordination.
but who really knows,….’me, I’m just me’
To the Doc – I find your commentary and theory about melanin somewhat intriguing, especially as it relates to cancer. Being a breast cancer survivor myself, I have to wonder how viable your theory is, considering the rise of this particular disease in Black women. I would say that my color characteristic is caramel-like, so does that mean that someone darker would have a better chance of combating those ‘free radicals’ simply based on her/his levels of melanin?
I wouldn’t say darker skinned sisters are more apt to fight or resist breast cancer. firstly, some cancers are started by free radicals (ie by radiation or chemical toxicity) and others are not. the causes of breast cancer are multifactorial and not always known….hormonal, environmental, genetic, familial, etc. as well, the Incidence (# of NEW cases) of breast cancer isn’t so much on the rise, whereas the Prevalence (# of total cases) is increasing…thought mainly due to increased awareness/education/surveillance screening/detection and reporting of data.
doc-izzo
ps. i’m no cancer specialist, but i have had some familiarity with the breast and breast related topics
I appreciate your insight. . .duly noted. Your theory is all too familiar to me, as I do work with cancer specialists who offer no conclusive evidence as to origination of this disease. It’s truly perplexing. I have to concur with your clarification about increased ‘awareness’, as opposed to increased affliction. It has been hypothesized that many women who posed for famous artists in former centuries were oblivious to the fact that they had breast cancer. New studies have shown that doctors were able to detect the disease in these women simply by looking at their portraits/sculptures, as many were in an advanced stages of the disease (large tumors, misshapen or severely dimpled breasts, inverted nipples – you know the signs).
P.S. I’m sure you’re well-acquainted with Dr. Susan Love (her Breast Book is my bible): http://www.susanlovemd.com
I’ve posted some related information on my other blog, Move the Crowd: The Fallacy of Race