Ward Connerly, Multiracist
SFGate.com: UC Regent Ward Connerly wants to add 'multiracial' box
University of California Regent Ward Connerly is proposing that the 10-campus system add a "multiracial" box to application forms to give students more options in defining themselves.
"There's a view among many people who are multiracial that, look, we represent a growing segment of the population in this state, in this country," he said. "And yet there are many who believe that we're just irrelevant, that we don't count."
The proposal, which was to be voted on Wednesday afternoon, has drawn criticism from students and others who say the box could make it harder to collect data on minorities.
Meanwhile, UC administrators also oppose the change, saying that adding a box would go against federal requirements.
The fact that Connerly has chosen "multiracial" instead of multi-ethnic brings up a a few issues.
First of all, race is a cultural identification. As we know, a person can have a large percentage of white genes and still consider themselves 100% Black. From this example we see that notions of race are often based on cultural identification, rather than genetic ancestry.
Second, one of the reasons why the term "race" is used instead of "ethnicity" is that race has more political import. By identifying with a racial group, you are identifying with a powerful political affiliation. Instead of being merely Irish, you become part of the white race. Instead of being a mestizo, you become a Latino. Instead of being a half-European/half-African, you become Black. I am simply pointing out that one of the aspects of racial identification is political power (or lack of).
Third, not only are all people "ethnic"... most people are multiethnic. How often we hear people say "Let's get some ethnic food". Last time I checked, ALL food was ethnic. The vast majority of Americans are products of ethnic assimilation. And, in a sense, this is probably true for most people around the world. It is simply a matter of how far back you want to trace it. For many of us, the tracing doesn't need to go far back. Most African-Americans, European-Americans and Latinos have relatively recent multiethnic ancestry.
Fourth, on the issue of checking Ward Connerly's dubious "multiracial" category, we are faced with several issues:
- How far back does one trace? 100 years? 200 years? 2000 years?
- Are all mestizos multiracial?
- What race are Arabs?
- What percentage of "White" genes makes a Black person multiracial?
- Could eskimos be considered Asian?
- Can a person be culturally multiracial, but not genetically?
The bottom line is this. It can be very helpful and instructive for people to identify their cultural and genetic background. I don't argue this. I support the collection of accurate statistics on the origins and status of our people. But if we are going to do this with statistics -- a scientific process -- let's sort out political affiliations, cultural identifications, genetic lineage, and biological truths.
People generally know where they are from and what their culture is. True, more and more people are stuck in the middle. But most people still identify with a particular group. We can do this.
I believe a major part of the problem is that many people/groups have a political interest in maintaining the widely held belief that race is a valid organizing principle. And it's not just "White" people doing this. There is great political power in lumping people together into large, gene-based affiliations. I, personally, reject being lumped into a group based on my genes, especially when I believe that very affiliation is ruining our country.
Let me show you how simple it is.
Eric Nord
Race: none
Ethnicity: multiethnic Northern European
Culture: Southern California urban
Posted by Eric on November 18, 2004 02:25 PM
>There is great political power in lumping people together into large, gene-based affiliations. I, personally, reject being lumped into a group based on my genes, especially when I believe that very affiliation is ruining our country.
That seems to be Connerly's motivation.
From the article :
"His latest campaign, Proposition 54, which would have stopped the state from asking people about race in a number of settings, including college admissions, failed last year"
Students are already being asked their race, the proposed "multiracial" box on application forms seems to be an effort to de-emphasize race.
I agree. I think it is an attempt to "level the playing field" as he probably sees it. Clearly it is a political move.
Personally, I don't support Affirmative Action. But for me, this isn't about Affirmative Action. Personally, I think Affirmative Action is a distraction and it makes people think we can somehow help people get into college, and yet not put any extra effort into improving the educational system which prepares students for higher education. It's too little, too late. But I certainly don't campaign against Affirmative Action, and I'm not big on debating it because it's all intended to help people. I got wars to protest, you know?
But there is another issue here. It's about whether we use the term "race", when we should use the term "ethnicity". The terms are not synonymous. I am simply using this controversy to point out the fact that we can use this opportunity to help change people's views on race, and how it is not this biological truth (or even anthropological).
Part of undermining racism is pointing out that we are all parts of a big rainbow, not four skin colors. Even if we want to break it down to something as insignificant as skin color... skin color comes in all shades, not just four.
i see you've been doin' some readin'...but your take on Affirmative Action is a lil' fuzzy; let me explain. Affirmative Action's primary goal was to be a method of redress for Black people ONLY...it was to secure equal access/opportunity to individuals that had met every objective standard for employment who were being rejected because they were Black...now because white society agressively resists any attempt by Black folk to obtain any equity, it wasn't long before A.A was "redefined"...it became an issue where unqualified individuals were "taking" jobs/college placement slots from more qualified white men. Now you've got a climate where Black adults/youth who have been given access through A.A. have to bear this artifical burden of having got "something for nothing", being perceived as underqualified...the "merit" arguement only raises it's head when white people are forced to share the pot. A.A. was NEVER meant to foster workplace "diversity"...If the system gives all people an equal opportunity, diversity is a natural by-product...
Lastly, your personal breakdown...let's just free ourselves from the use of euphemisms alltogether, shall we?
Eric Nord
race: none (you've been doin' some reading!)
Ethnicity: multi ethnic Northern European...cool. which europeans, by the way?
Culture: Southern California urban...what?...urban is the code word for Black...does that mean you're part of a multi ethnic population that enjoys the music, art, style and overall cultural contributions of Black people???...if so, then say it like you mean it, son!...we just may be able to build...shoot me an e-mail.
No matter what people like Connerly say, the fact is 'races' and racism is a fact of life. Usually, those people who come talking about there is no 'race' are mixed-race and confused people who think that their denial of the dominant Black/Negro gene and the predominant Black/Negro phenotype can simply be wished away.
Have these people tried going into certain resturants or certain stores or applying for certain loans, or walking in certain places and neighborhoods?
RACES DO EXIST: THEY ARE NEGROID-AFRICOID, CAUCASOID AND MONGOLOID
Races do exist. There are indeed 'races' and the term 'race' in this case refers to unique physical traits that makes people notice another without difficulty. Again, it is the mixed folk who are confused of their identity who are always trying to deny the fact of race.
Race exists, but all races came from the original Black African race, whether they are Caucasians, American Indians, Chinese, Ainu, Australian Aborigine, East Indians, Nordics. All have the original African gene.
In fact, one very important African gene is found in Chinese and other Asian people as well as Australian Aborigines. It is called 'Cde' and it is high in the Navajo Indians. It is highest in the Kong-San of South Africa whose facial appearance is identical to that of Mongoloid Asians, but who are 100 percent pure Negroes/Blacks.
So, why would people as far as North East Asia have a gene that is dominant in Africans by over 99 percent in some groups of Africans? It is because in prehistoric times, Africans migrated globally and as times changed and climates changed, their outward appearance changed but their genes remained intact.
Ever wondered why many Chinese and East Indians have features found among Blacks? Or why East Indians have the prehistoric genes found in East Africans? In fact the East Indians are the closest to Black people and cluster with Black Africans by about 95 percent.
Years ago, Scientific American found that Europeans are 75 percent Black African genes; Asians are 60 percent Black African genes; South Asian 'Indo-Negroids' are 98 percent African genes; Andaman islanders are 100 percent African/Black genes ( see www.andaman.org ). Andaman Islanders and Negritoes are the original people of Asia and the Black Negroids were also the original people of the Sudran (South China) region before they were driven towards the Pacific, Hawaiian Islands and Polynesia by the migrations of the very lightskinned (yellowish-pinkish) northern Mongoloid nomads beginning around the Chou Dynasty ( see www.cwo.com also see community.webtv.net )
blackmalepower.proboards106.com (INFORMATION IS POWER)
So, the time has come to stop denying the fact of race and accept there are 'races' on this planet just as there are different types of bears, horses, dogs and cats. We are all of the homosapien species that originated from the ORIGINAL BLACK HOMOSAPIEN SAPIENS, but due to environment, we have developed outward characteristics that give us different outward appearances.
Still, all people have the African gene. Africans of all people are the PUREST OF ALL RACES. Blacks are 95 percent of genes that are found only in Blacks and no one else.
Europeans are 75 percent Black/African genes.
Asians are 60 percent Black/African genes.
Blacks are 5 percent non-African genes.
This may sound puzzling, but when a Black who is already predominantly Black genes mixes with white or any other race who has large amounts of black genes, chromosomes and 'alu' the child comes out Black, no matter how light the skin or 'mixed' the hair. A pure Black baby and all the other generations of children will have Black features.
One only has to look at Chinese from South and East China, Indians from Northern India and Pakistan or Philipinos and Malays to see people whose ancestors included the very Blacks we see in the Andaman Islands, West Papua, Melanesia and such places. Asians are lightskinned, but the have facial features found among a large number of Africans from Southern Africa (like the cricket player for the South African cricket team) and Asians have the Cde gene which is found predominantly in African Bantus.
take a look at these faces:
community.webtv.net
nubianem@webtv.net
