The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Will AIG return the Allosaurus fossil?

Posted 23 June 2015 by Matt Young

Dan Phelps alerted us to the fact that AIG's Allosaurus fossil had been donated by an organization headed by Michael Peroutka, a man affiliated with "a white supremacist, neo-Confederate and pro-secessionist organization that has been named a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center." Mr. Phelps now writes,

Interesting that this press release didn't get any coverage when I sent out the information last year. The Creation Museum received an Allosaurus dinosaur fossil appraised at $1 million from a donor who was on the Board of Directors of the League of the South. Various politicians are returning donations from hate groups after the recent Charleston shooting. According to the Encyclopedia of Modern American Extremists and Extremist Groups (by Steven E. Atkins, 2002, Greenwood Press), "Close ties have been formed between the LOS [League of the South] and the Council of Conservative Citizens with a significant cross-membership" (p. 174). Horrifyingly, Dylann Roof received some of his inspiration from the Council of Conservative Citizens [a direct descendant of the White Citizens' Councils that were established in the 1950's, primarily to oppose school integration].

Answers in Genesis (the owners of the Creation Museum) admirably makes anti-racist statements at times, but has taken a valuable donation from Michael Peroutka, a former Board Member of the racist hate group known as the League of the South. Why doesn't the Creation Museum return the fossil or give it to a real science museum?

36 Comments

Just Bob · 23 June 2015

Will AIG return the Allosaurus fossil?

NO.

19/1 odds.

harold · 23 June 2015

Just Bob said: Will AIG return the Allosaurus fossil? NO. 19/1 odds.
Although I suspect that you are correct, those odds are too good for me to ignore. There actually are some authoritarian fundamentalists who aren't racist toward other same exact sect authoritarian fundamentalists. Among them, there is an even smaller subset that might part with something valuable out of principle. I don't think Ken Ham will, but your odds are too good for me to ignore. I wager one unit of internet prestige against you. If I win, you owe me 19 units of internet prestige.

FL · 23 June 2015

I see two rational problems with Dan Phelps' statement. (1) First, Phelps openly admits or concedes, that "Answers in Genesis (the owners of the Creation Museum) admirably makes anti-racist statements at times..." Indeed they do. Two clear examples should suffice.

"One Race" by Dr. Georgia Purdom on February 24, 2010: "The families that scattered from Babel brought different combinations of genes with them. But their physical differences were trivial. We all have the same basic brown pigment, and we belong to one race — the human race — descended from Adam." https://answersingenesis.org/racism/one-race/

"It's Not Just Black & White" by Ken Ham on February 13, 2008; last featured February 24, 2015: "The Singerl twins are a vivid reminder that we are all members of one race." https://answersingenesis.org/racism/its-not-just-black-and-white/

So if the idea is to make AIG prove that they aren't racist, then let's be honest: they have already proven that they are not. **** (2) Phelps also wrote, "Why doesn’t the Creation Museum return the fossil or give it to a real science museum?" Now that's an interesting demand, because as worded, it effectively compromises Phelps' entire position right off the bat. If the idea is that the million-dollar fossil should be returned forthwith to the original owner because the original owner happens to be a racist, then why does Dan Phelps consider it acceptable for ANY museum to keep that same fossil as long as said museum meets Phelps' subjective, personal -- and unspecified -- criteria for being a "real" science museum? After all, if it's wrong for a creationist museum to keep a donated fossil because its former owner turned out to be a racist, shouldn't that position likewise include the PRO-EVOLUTION museums (assuming that's what Phelps had in in mind) as well? IOW, why is Phelps giving pro-evolution museums a free pass on receiving a donated fossil whose original owner is white supremacist Michael Peroutka? Why the double standard if you're supposed to be opposing racism? So Phelps' statement sure looks like a compromised position already. **** Overall, then, you have two clear and rational problems with this statement of Phelps'. How will those problems get resolved? FL

Mike Elzinga · 23 June 2015

So, let me see if I can unpack another stupid taunt by FL.

If a Republican politician gets a donation from a racist group - such as the Council of Conservative Citizens - and, instead of returning it to the racist group as some Republican Presidential candidates already have, gives it to the AME Church in Charleston, SC, does that mean the AME Church is "compromised" by taking a "laundered" gift from a racist group by way of a Republican Presidential candidate?

I think Dan Phelps point is that an anti-science "museum" such as AiG might better "redeem" itself if it not only acknowledged is was mistaken in its association with such racist groups but also acknowledged that it does not have the scientific expertise to present the fossil properly. AiG should let the loss to the racist group stand and also stop pretending it does science.

But I think we all know why neither to those things will ever happen. The mentality of AiG isn't all that different from the mentality of those racist groups when it comes to living within a secular, cosmopolitan society.

phhht · 23 June 2015

FL said: I see two rational problems...
So Flawd, just checkin' in: any empirical evidence for the existence of gods yet? No, I thought not.

Matt Young · 23 June 2015

... any empirical evidence for the existence of gods yet?

Please do not taunt other commenters.

phhht · 23 June 2015

FL said: We all have the same basic brown pigment, and we belong to one race — the human race — descended from Adam."
Of course, we now know that this claim of descent from Adam cannot be true.

Matt Young · 23 June 2015

... we now know that this claim of descent from Adam cannot be true.

I am sorry, but I will send future comments along this line to the BW. What to do with donations received from known racists is an important matter. I do not want to trivialize it (and by extension the murders of 9 innocent people by a racist under the influence of White Citizens' Councils) by permitting such bickering on this thread.

Michael Sternberg · 23 June 2015

I think the allosaur has an interesting history, prior to its donation to AIG. See http://www.raisingthetruth.com/ for a blow by blow account of its contentious discovery and disposition

DS · 23 June 2015

Sure, by all means, let them keep it. Then everyone will be able to see their racist affiliations. The very existence of the skeleton is antithetical to everything they believe. Everyone who sees it will know that they are lying about it. Everyone will see that they have learned absolutely nothing from it, they haven't even tried. Perhaps it will sow the seeds of doubt in the faithful. Perhaps someone will ask, why they are accepting gifts from someone who advocates hatred and bigotry. Perhaps the black people who see it will be offended if they know where it came from.

David MacMillan · 23 June 2015

FL said: First, Phelps openly admits or concedes, that "Answers in Genesis (the owners of the Creation Museum) admirably makes anti-racist statements at times..." Indeed they do. Two clear examples should suffice.

"One Race" by Dr. Georgia Purdom on February 24, 2010: "The families that scattered from Babel brought different combinations of genes with them. But their physical differences were trivial. We all have the same basic brown pigment, and we belong to one race — the human race — descended from Adam." https://answersingenesis.org/racism/one-race/

"It's Not Just Black & White" by Ken Ham on February 13, 2008; last featured February 24, 2015: "The Singerl twins are a vivid reminder that we are all members of one race." https://answersingenesis.org/racism/its-not-just-black-and-white/

So if the idea is to make AIG prove that they aren't racist, then let's be honest: they have already proven that they are not.
It should be appreciated by anyone who has actually dealt with or observed racism in any significant degree that racism is not a specific set of philosophical beliefs, but rather a set of attitudes, behaviors, and prejudices which have direct consequences in the real world. You can quite earnestly believe that treating people differently on the basis of ethnicity is wrong...but if you persist in treating people differently on the basis of ethnicity (or excuse such persistent behavior) then you're still just as racist.
If the idea is that the million-dollar fossil should be returned forthwith to the original owner because the original owner happens to be a racist...
Nah, the idea is that a donation from a suspect individual should be treated with suspicion. Nothing to do with the original owner. If I purchase a pistol once owned by Hitler at an auction for my private collection of WWII memorabilia, that's okay. Even though Hitler was a horrible human being. Now, if a Neo-Nazi group of anti-Semitic holocaust deniers purchases that pistol at auction and donates it to me, saying they appreciate my love for WWII memorabilia and hope I will help further their cause, that's a problem. If I turn around and donate it to the Smithsonian, then I'm distancing myself from the Neo-Nazis and the "taint" is removed, and the Smithsonian should be happy to accept it. Of course, the real problem is that AiG won't accept the nastiness of Peroutka's background. Peroutka is a homeschooler, a radical paleoconservative, and hyper-religious creationism supporter. There's nothing AiG loves more.

DS · 24 June 2015

Let them keep it on display. Then they will have to explain how it got on the magic ark and how it fit on the magic ark. They will have to explain what it ate on the magic ark and what it ate after it got off the magic ark. They will have to explain how it is just one of thousands of species of dinosaurs that had to all fit on the magic ark and how they all went extinct anyway. They will have to explain how it lived 100 million years ago, before the earth was magically created. They will have to explain why it has all of the adaptations of a predator when it did't eat any meat before the magic fall. I can just hear all of the questions that curious young visitors will ask that they will have absolutely no answers for. It can be nothing but a big embarrassment for them. It is proof that everything the believe is a lie. And of course they will also have to explain why a racist wanted them to have it and why they accepted a gift from such a person, so it is also proof that everything they say they believe is a lie as well. It's like a bunch of flat earthers displaying a Neil Armstrong journal donated to them by a Nazi war criminal. Priceless.

DS · 24 June 2015

By the way, we know that we are all "one race" because of genetic data. The same genetic data that conclusively falsifies the Adam and Eve myth. The genetic evidence is clear, humans and chimps shared a common ancestor about seven million years ago and modern humans came out of Africa in waves over one hundred thousand years ago. THe evidence also indicates that the human population size was at least in the thousands ever since. AIG cannot explain this evidence. It is ironic that they seem to accept the conclusions of science when it seems to suit their purposes. Just like they will deny that they are racist but crawl into bed with a racist whenever it is convenient.

I wonder why they are so afraid to have the fossils examined by real experts? Could it be that they are not really interested in science, despite what they might claim?

paulc_mv · 24 June 2015

FL said: So if the idea is to make AIG prove that they aren't racist, then let's be honest: they have already proven that they are not.
The point is to show that that they are not willing to derive benefit from association with racists, nor to give a racist organization the reciprocal benefit of appearing charitable. Whether AIG is racist is besides the point. Let's take a specific example. In the 1980s, when I was in college, there was a boycott on Coca Cola products to get them to divest from South Africa. I don't remember how seriously I took it, if at all. I may have drunk Coke just because I liked it and was too lazy to change my habits, not because I was racist or supported apartheid South Africa. There were some divestment activists on campus. When they asked me to stop drinking Coke, it was not to prove I wasn't racist. The point was to pressure the Coca Cola company to divest. The point of this was not to make the board of Coca Cola prove that they weren't racist. Nobody really cared about that either. Even then I would assume at least some board members were not racist, and not all (if any) of them really supported apartheid in South Africa. They had clear business motives for their investment, and the idea was to deny a mutually beneficial business relationship that supported racism. The analogy breaks down only because white supremacists aren't likely to change their practices because a fossil is returned. This is more of a symbolic act. In fact, I agree that just giving them back a valuable asset that they can use some other way is not a useful tactic. There should still be some disclosure, and every effort should be taken to insure that this fossil is not giving tacit support to the donor. To be honest, I am not sure this is as significant as AIG's scientific misuse of the fossil, but I want make it clear that the idea was never to make them prove AIG aren't racist.

paulc_mv · 24 June 2015

DS said: By the way, we know that we are all "one race" because of genetic data.
On that note, let me add that I am always dumbfounded by claims that "Darwinism" supports racism. Whereas many far-fetched interpretations of Genesis have been put forth to claim that groups of humans have fundamentally different ancestries (with their requisites curses and marks), the best science makes it clear that we are all the same species and left Africa very recently in evolutionary terms. Science pulls the support out from under ridiculous concepts like "miscegenation" and shows the whole idea of race to be meaningless except at a cultural level. While I don't believe in developing a phony narrative to further a cultural goal, science has already provided an accurate narrative that refutes the most extreme examples of racism and provides a clear basis for accepting the unity of the human species as the most obvious and natural conclusion.

harold · 24 June 2015

David MacMillan said -
You can quite earnestly believe that treating people differently on the basis of ethnicity is wrong…but if you persist in treating people differently on the basis of ethnicity (or excuse such persistent behavior) then you’re still just as racist.
This is true, and it is also important to note that the best way to be as little of a racist as possible is to treat all people with equal respect and kindness. That includes not making hurtful comments that negatively stereotype all members of a particular ethnic group, of course. Even if you think the comment is "statistically accurate". Doing this creates the impression that you are judging individuals by the acts of others, who happen to be of the same ethnic group. For example, I saw some comments generalizing the attitudes of racism-motivated hate criminal/terrorist Dylan Roof to "all white people". I thought this was very unfair. Objectively, it is obviously true that the United States has a history of ethnic violence by white people against black people, and thus someone could defend such a generalization by reference to such statistics, but I don' think it's fair to imply that my behavior can be predicted by the behavior of those other white people. Just as "not considering yourself a racist" is worthless if you treat people unfairly or unkindly, a conscious effort not to allow biases to cause you to do so is valuable. Actions, and spoken words, not inner states that others can never perceive, are what counts. And of course, it's never too late to change behavior and words. I realize how painfully obvious this sounds, but I bother to mention it because the US media and public tend to focus, in fact, on whether individuals are "really racist". Rather than apologize for unfair or unkind behavior, people tend to declare themselves "not really racist". They may or may not be, but if a particular action or statement obviously is, the best thing to do, and the only real way to show that you're "not really racist", is to apologize, reverse the effects as much as possible, and move on, not repeating the same or committing a similar offense in the future.

Jason Mitchell · 24 June 2015

Donations received by public officials/ politicians running for office and donations received by private institutions are very different classes of things. A politician that accepts a donation from the CCC for sons of the confederacy or whatever is tacitly saying to his/her constituents that the values/policy positions espoused by that organization are compatible with what that politician endorses in his/her role as a representative etc. OR that the politician will act favorably regarding a policy position (relative to) that organization making the donation. Transparency in government IMHO is a good thing - the voting public should know where the money a politician receives is coming from - after all, money often = influence. That being said - what influence does the donation buy? does the donation by the reprehensible group really change the message/mission of AiG, or just reaffirm that the 2 groups (AiG and League of the South) are like minded? - if the question is will AiG somehow distance themselves from this donation?(They could keep the specimen and make an offsetting donation to some charity like The Southern Poverty Law Center, along with a press release stating their reasons) The answer is probably not- AiG has made no statements that they disagree with the League of the South, they may see such a statement as damaging to business - after all, I suspect that many of the same people that support/ hold the same beliefs as the League are potential Creation Museum patrons

paulc_mv · 24 June 2015

Not to get all bleeding heart... but I am strongly of the view that people, Americans at all, can be partitioned into racist and recovering racist. I count myself among the latter. My parents raised me to treat everyone equally, but I cannot ignore the cultural context in which I was raised and how much of it I might have accepted at one time. The idea that anyone has "proven that they are not racist" strikes me as ludicrous. I don't think AIG is a white supremacist group, but this is a far cry from saying they're not racist. Racist assumptions are deeply embedded in cultural.

I try to raise my kids not to be racist at all. We live in one of the most diverse places on earth, though African Americans are underrepresented. I think it's a great place to grow up, but the human mind will always generalize whether it is about race, accent, choice of occupation. The philosophical ideal of treating all people equally is something that requires continual maintenance in practice.

paulc_mv · 24 June 2015

Should have previewed first "Americans at all" should be "Americans at least". "embedded in cultural" should be "embedded in culture".

Just Bob · 24 June 2015

See, the problem is that they COVET that fossil, even though it involves them with a racist agenda that they disavow, at least on paper.

They COVET the allosaur more than they covet not being tarred with the epithet racist.

(Sorry, phhht.)

stevaroni · 24 June 2015

Just Bob said: Will AIG return the Allosaurus fossil? NO.
Um... what allosaurus fossil? The supposed allosaurs lived 70 million years ago, a supposed time that, to belabor the point, never existed. Ergo AIG does not - indeed they can not have a fossilized allosaur. I'm not sure what it is, perhaps it's a giant, vegetarian, pre-deluvian chicken. They were really big in those days because they had to contain all the complex specified information to make any kind of bird, so it could all leak out over the years and leave the normal sized chickens we have today. Geeze! Don't you guys know anything about biology? It's like you learned all your science from a public school that couldn't afford one of the fine, fine, home-school curriculums. Perhaps a school outside of Louisiana, for example. However it happened, it's apparent that your understanding of science is abysmal if you get this excited at a big chicken. One generously donated by a civic-minded group who only wants to demonstrate just how devious the ol' devil can be. Now, what's so wrong with that?

David MacMillan · 25 June 2015

paulc_mv said: I am always dumbfounded by claims that "Darwinism" supports racism. Whereas many far-fetched interpretations of Genesis have been put forth to claim that groups of humans have fundamentally different ancestries (with their requisites curses and marks), the best science makes it clear that we are all the same species and left Africa very recently...
(Emphasis added to show contrast.) Science has an agreed-upon mechanism of action which allows crackpots to be easily identified and distanced from the body of real scientific inquiry. Religion, on the other hand, has no such agreed-upon standard, and so the interpretation of religious texts is, for the most part, an open game. Unfortunately, laypeople don't always recognize this. In fact, I think it seems much the opposite in the popular eye; science is viewed as free market in which anybody's ideas have equal validity, while established denominations and mainstream churches are seen as "more valid" and more trustworthy than the crackpot on the street insisting he can use the book of Malachi to predict the outcome of the next presidential election. If a white supremacist misquotes a study on the evolution of cranial volume and claims it proves African-Americans are "less-evolved", most laypeople lack the scientific knowledge to recognize that for the tripe it is. To them, it seems just as scientifically legitimate as the climatologist explaining how anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing a runaway departure from Milankovitch fluctuations. Yet if the same white supremacist quotes Leviticus to defend racial division, the same layperson has a huge range of teachings at their disposal from pastors and other church leaders disputing this. They'll see the religious claim as far-fetched and fringe but think the scientific claim is a legitimate one.

Mike Elzinga · 25 June 2015

David MacMillan said: Unfortunately, laypeople don't always recognize this. In fact, I think it seems much the opposite in the popular eye; science is viewed as free market in which anybody's ideas have equal validity, while established denominations and mainstream churches are seen as "more valid" and more trustworthy than the crackpot on the street insisting he can use the book of Malachi to predict the outcome of the next presidential election.
This seems to be true of a subset of sectarians who have some vested interest in a literal interpretation of their bible and also have a tendency to get involved in politics to push their dogmas. There are certainly many churches that push for social justice and get involved in political action. These churches appear to have a more selfless and empathetic response to the real injustices and tribulations suffered by others. And the people in these churches often risk their lives for the benefit of others. On the other hand, those proselytizing fundamentalist churches that are constantly meddling in education strike me as being more selfish and self-centered; and they apparently see everything in secular society as persecution being directed at them. These are the sectarians we see on the religion channels on TV constantly demonizing others and begging for money. They are the ones constantly complaining about evolution while bending and breaking scientific concepts to fit their sectarian beliefs. In many respects, these attitudes are expressed through organizations like the Discovery Institute, AiG, and the ICR; the public faces of these organizations are pretty much a reflection of the internal psyches of the people who run them. These people come across as self-pitying whiners who have developed the habit of taking gratuitous offense at everything in secular society in order to get what they want. Their religion provides them with no reason to grow up, mature, and direct their attention away from themselves and onto issues of the general welfare of all; rather it keeps them in a state of spoiled, dependent childhood that stopped learning at about the age of 10. These are the sectarians who also welcome every charlatan into their midst just because these charlatans quote scripture, pretend to perform healing, appear to have big vocabularies, and do "etymologies" from other languages in a big show of fake erudition. It's an old scam that fools these sectarians every time because they stopped learning very early on. Religion is a mixed bag. Some religions help people grow; and even grow out of religion as though they take people from where they are to a more mature state that can question the existence of deities without fear or guilt. These religions are willing to love enough to let go. Other religions enslave and demand obeisance and dependency; and it is these religions that reflect most vividly the projections of human characteristics onto imagined deities.

Eric Finn · 25 June 2015

David MacMillan said: It should be appreciated by anyone who has actually dealt with or observed racism in any significant degree that racism is not a specific set of philosophical beliefs, but rather a set of attitudes, behaviors, and prejudices which have direct consequences in the real world.
I would very much agree with this statement. Racism is a social construction. I don't think the Panda's Thumb is doing very well in stating that. A usual comment is that ethnic groups do not differ biologically. It is common knowledge that they do differ (biologically). In many cases, medication needs to be adjusted according to the ethnic group. I would like to quote Theodosius Dobzhansky

Another trouble with the pure primary races is that a pure race makes no sense at all from the standpoint of genetics, except in asexually reproducing organisms.

paulc_mv · 25 June 2015

Eric Finn said: A usual comment is that ethnic groups do not differ biologically.
I'm not sure where it is usual, but I haven't seen the comment here in this thread. I have seen the comment that humans are all the same species, which is certainly correct. The concept of an ethnic group is also a social construction and only loosely based on genetics. There are genetically similar populations with significant cultural differences that do not belong to the same ethnic group, and there are cohesive ethnic groups that resulted from recent unions of genetically distinct populations.

harold · 26 June 2015

Eric Finn said:
David MacMillan said: It should be appreciated by anyone who has actually dealt with or observed racism in any significant degree that racism is not a specific set of philosophical beliefs, but rather a set of attitudes, behaviors, and prejudices which have direct consequences in the real world.
I would very much agree with this statement. Racism is a social construction. I don't think the Panda's Thumb is doing very well in stating that. A usual comment is that ethnic groups do not differ biologically. It is common knowledge that they do differ (biologically). In many cases, medication needs to be adjusted according to the ethnic group. I would like to quote Theodosius Dobzhansky

Another trouble with the pure primary races is that a pure race makes no sense at all from the standpoint of genetics, except in asexually reproducing organisms.

1) Ethnicity is a social construct. It sometimes correlates imperfectly but significantly with genetics. When it does, in medicine, in order to provide best care, we may use ethnicity as a sort of low cost surrogate screen for potential genetic issues. For example, the Ashkenazi Jewish population has a well known cluster of special medical issues. African-Americans are more likely to have certain genetic disorders and tendencies. 2) BUT these groups are social constructs nevertheless. It has recently been noted in the news that a white woman with no African-American genetics to speak of lived as African-American. Certain physical features are required for that identity but the definition is loose and social, to put it mildly. Bluntly, those physical traits may be present even when genetic relationship to West Africa is non-existent. A native person from Papua New Guinea, a population about as removed genetically from most recent African ancestry as possible, would be seen as "black" in US society. A person like Derek Jeter, with substantial recent West African ancestry, may look less "black" than a person from Papua New Guinea. People from Samoa and other completely non-African places often identify with the African-American community. The Ashkenazi Jewish identity is purely cultural and genetic clustering merely reflects voluntary cultural affiliation. A patient is identified as Ashkenazi Jewish solely on the basis of self-identification. Many ethnic groups are based solely on linguistic and cultural considerations and have no genetic basis. 3) It's individual genetics that matter; to provide best care we note ethnic group. But it's like a "family history of heart disease". It's essentially a surrogate for possible genetic risk. It is not, not, not a strong way to examine individual genetics. 4) Noting ethnicity in a sensitive way, as part of providing best medical care, is valid, whereas unfairly applying negative stereotypes to an individual, based on perceived ethnic group, is not.

FL · 26 June 2015

Harold wrote,

"It has recently been noted in the news that a white woman with no African-American genetics to speak of lived as African-American. Certain physical features are required for that identity but the definition is loose and social, to put it mildly."

But that same lady wound up having to resign her post at the Spokane NAACP, once her white parents spilled the beans on her. "Weaves", skin-darkenings, and black advocacy aren't quite enough, it would seem. Gotta have that biology. Incidentally, I remember meeting a young black lady in a grocery store line a few years ago. She was briefly talking to her friend (who knew me) and also speaking to me. The topic was poverty and race, and she just happened to say in passing, "You've got to support your national color." There was no time to discuss or debate that statement, but I never forgot that sentiment. Right or wrong, it's VERY strong among the black teenagers and youth, whether inside or outside the black church. Obviously that "national color" sentiment explains why Obama was re-elected in 2012 despite some broken promises and foreign-policy missteps. (And to be truthful, it also explains why blacks overwhelming gave Obama their votes despite knowing that he was about to SERIOUSLY betray, corrode, and erode the black church via his crusade to legalize gay marriage.) So what do you think, Pandas? Is what that lady said, a racist sentiment? Is it an appropriate sentiment? How does one promote the position of "one race" (which we all seem to agree on, by whatever approach), when "ya-better-choose-one-side-or-the-other" racial controversies pop up? FL

DS · 26 June 2015

FL said: So what do you think, Pandas? Is what that lady said, a racist sentiment? Is it an appropriate sentiment? How does one promote the position of "one race" (which we all seem to agree on, by whatever approach), when "ya-better-choose-one-side-or-the-other" racial controversies pop up? FL
The way that you promote the reality of "one race" is to educate people about the genetic evidence. You seem to be reluctant to do that Floyd. Why exactly would that be? You are familiar with the genetic evidence aren't you? By the way, there was an excellent documentary on ancient DNA and human evolution on PBS recently. It had to do with human origins in Africa and migration to the Americas. This is the one of the best ways to educate people about human origins and what the latest genetic data is telling us. It seems that simplistic religious notions have been a serious impediment to progress in the field for many years. Now, with the availability of whole genome sequencing, we are beginning to understand that the genetic story is much more complex than previously thought. We can continue this discussion of the bathroom wall, since it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. That's usually what happens when Floyd shows up.

harold · 26 June 2015

FL said: Harold wrote,

"It has recently been noted in the news that a white woman with no African-American genetics to speak of lived as African-American. Certain physical features are required for that identity but the definition is loose and social, to put it mildly."

But that same lady wound up having to resign her post at the Spokane NAACP, once her white parents spilled the beans on her. "Weaves", skin-darkenings, and black advocacy aren't quite enough, it would seem. Gotta have that biology. Incidentally, I remember meeting a young black lady in a grocery store line a few years ago. She was briefly talking to her friend (who knew me) and also speaking to me. The topic was poverty and race, and she just happened to say in passing, "You've got to support your national color." There was no time to discuss or debate that statement, but I never forgot that sentiment. Right or wrong, it's VERY strong among the black teenagers and youth, whether inside or outside the black church. Obviously that "national color" sentiment explains why Obama was re-elected in 2012 despite some broken promises and foreign-policy missteps. (And to be truthful, it also explains why blacks overwhelming gave Obama their votes despite knowing that he was about to SERIOUSLY betray, corrode, and erode the black church via his crusade to legalize gay marriage.) So what do you think, Pandas? Is what that lady said, a racist sentiment? Is it an appropriate sentiment? How does one promote the position of "one race" (which we all seem to agree on, by whatever approach), when "ya-better-choose-one-side-or-the-other" racial controversies pop up? FL
I actually think it's relevant to note a few things here. The concept of "black" or "African-American" in the US is a social construct which is moderately but imperfectly associated with recent ancestry from West Africa. It exists because people from West Africa were enslaved, and then their descendants were subjected to official, and eventually unofficial but ongoing, discrimination. The way people to be discriminated against are identified is, in this context, that they "look like" people who currently live in West Africa. But as I noted, some people with substantial West African ancestry, like Derek Jeter, look fairly European, and many people with no West African ancestry look black. A good example is actually President Obama. As a half-East African, half-White American, he is not particularly genetically related to the average African-American of mainly relatively recent West African descent. Obama didn't get many votes for being black, African-Americans overwhelmingly voted for Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry, and have repeatedly rejected "black conservative" candidates. In fact when Obama ran for senate, his opponent, Alan Keyes, was also black, but got almost none of the African-American vote. Likewise, we all know that if Herman Caine had managed to hang in there and become the Republican nominee, he would not have split the African-American vote. Obama may have lost some votes for being black, although overall, he did better among white voters than many Democratic candidates have. To receive the discrimination, all you have to do is have the look. No biology is necessary. If a native of Papua New Guinea had visited Mississippi in 1960, they would certainly have been assumed to be "colored". Anyone can join the NAACP; the issue with Rachel whatever-her-name-is was that she was deceptive about her background. She attended "historically black" Howard University, but as a white person, and like all "historically black" universities, Howard has always been open to all races. It is true, of course, that in the rare case where overt benefits are offered specifically to African-Americans, some documentation of ancestry would be required. To experience the racism and discrimination, though, no such rigor is necessary.

paulc_mv · 26 June 2015

I can't argue with anything harold said. President Obama is notable for adopting a cultural identity that he was not born into. But it is not a completely voluntary choice. As harold says: "To receive the discrimination, all you have to do is have the look." First lady Michelle Obama is African American in every conventional sense, and has some European ancestors, as one would expect. These categories are still social constructed an malleable.

Rachel Dolezal's situation is different, but biology has little to do with it. If she had been raised in an African American household, she would have every right to claim that identity. So would Gwyneth Paltrow for that matter. But I admit it's not so similar, because the way you look influences how you get treated.

What about Iron Eyes Cody (the crying chief of the Keep America Beautiful campaign)? All the information I have says that his genetic background was Italian, and he adopted Native American culture. He was serious about it, practiced what he considered to be Native American traditions, and had a plausible enough look (at least to most of the American public). Maybe I'm not in a position to say, but I don't think he was a fraud. He was carrying out the American tradition of self-reinvention. Do I see Dolezal that way? I'll stay out of it. But anyway biology has nothing to do with it.

Just Bob · 26 June 2015

I have always been puzzled by why Barack Obama is ALWAYS called black, and NEVER called white, even though genetically he is every bit as much white as black (and his actual skin color is very far from black). That is, my logic is puzzled, but my American cultural sense is not. As Harold says, it's how you look. Apparently, any "touch of the tarbrush" does the trick.

harold · 27 June 2015

Just Bob said: I have always been puzzled by why Barack Obama is ALWAYS called black, and NEVER called white, even though genetically he is every bit as much white as black (and his actual skin color is very far from black). That is, my logic is puzzled, but my American cultural sense is not. As Harold says, it's how you look. Apparently, any "touch of the tarbrush" does the trick.
Lest anyone be confused Just Bob is using an old-fashioned and intensely racist figure of speech in an ironic sense, noting how, while the expression may sound shocking, the method of determining who is "black" in America is still the same. The brush includes certain aspects of physical appearance but I must emphasize that the ultimate connection to genetics is very weak. It is not so weak as to be ignored when the intention is to provide best medical care. A person socially defined as black in the US is, certainly, more likely than a person socially defined as white, Asian, or with the purely cultural designation "Hispanic", to carry a sickle cell anemia allele, for example. At the same time, though, the correlation of socially constructed ethnic groups with genetics should not be exaggerated. To repeat and emphasize a point, as an East African, President Obama's father was point blank unequivocally black by American standards, but is almost certainly genetically less related to the West Africans affected by the Atlantic slave trade than many extremely European-looking white Americans. (Note - he could be more related than expected if he is descended from recent Ghanian immigrants to Kenya or some such thing, but probably wasn't.) People from Pacific islands are about as far from recent African ancestry as possible, yet some such people are considered black in American society.

Eric Finn · 27 June 2015

harold said: 1) Ethnicity is a social construct. It sometimes correlates imperfectly but significantly with genetics. When it does, in medicine, in order to provide best care, we may use ethnicity as a sort of low cost surrogate screen for potential genetic issues. [...]
Dear harold, I find your reply clear and informative (and also polite). Just one quibble. To what extent do you think the concept of species is a social construct, and to what extent it is an entity in a scientific theory ? (I do not intend go on with word games. Certainly not in this thread.) I nowadays browse the PT only occationally, but I never skip your comments, no matter what the subject is. Regards, Eric (Finn)

shebardigan · 27 June 2015

I always told folks that I was voting for my fellow Irishman, O'Bama.

harold · 27 June 2015

Eric Finn said:
harold said: 1) Ethnicity is a social construct. It sometimes correlates imperfectly but significantly with genetics. When it does, in medicine, in order to provide best care, we may use ethnicity as a sort of low cost surrogate screen for potential genetic issues. [...]
Dear harold, I find your reply clear and informative (and also polite). Just one quibble. To what extent do you think the concept of species is a social construct, and to what extent it is an entity in a scientific theory ? (I do not intend go on with word games. Certainly not in this thread.) I nowadays browse the PT only occationally, but I never skip your comments, no matter what the subject is. Regards, Eric (Finn)
That is more of a question for the professional biologists, but I will give a an answer that I think will be uncontroversial (I may be wrong). In the world of multi-cellular animals it is a social construct, but one which is much, much more grounded in actual biology, and which generates much more reproducible results, than the division of humans into "ethnic groups". It is a useful social construct which scientists have made more useful by increasing its rigor. However, there is actually no universally accepted standard as to when two closely related populations become separate species. In the world of microbes it is a social construct purely constructed by scientists (there are no popular, pre-scientific names of microbes and viruses, although there sometimes are for the diseases they produce). Thus microbe classifications tend to rely purely on scientific data. Nevertheless, the whole concept of "species" fits less well for organisms that can reproduce asexually, pick up genetic material from other cells with relative ease, and so on. (Microbes have been making themselves "GMO" for presumably billions of years.) Microbiologists tend to change names and classifications fairly often, which is occasionally relevant in the clinical lab, when pathogens are involved. As for multicellular plants, it seems to be a bit intermediate, but I'm painfully weak in botany. Many thanks for the kind words.

harold · 27 June 2015

harold said:
Eric Finn said:
harold said: 1) Ethnicity is a social construct. It sometimes correlates imperfectly but significantly with genetics. When it does, in medicine, in order to provide best care, we may use ethnicity as a sort of low cost surrogate screen for potential genetic issues. [...]
Dear harold, I find your reply clear and informative (and also polite). Just one quibble. To what extent do you think the concept of species is a social construct, and to what extent it is an entity in a scientific theory ? (I do not intend go on with word games. Certainly not in this thread.) I nowadays browse the PT only occationally, but I never skip your comments, no matter what the subject is. Regards, Eric (Finn)
That is more of a question for the professional biologists, but I will give a an answer that I think will be uncontroversial (I may be wrong). In the world of multi-cellular animals it is a social construct, but one which is much, much more grounded in actual biology, and which generates much more reproducible results, than the division of humans into "ethnic groups". It is a useful social construct which scientists have made more useful by increasing its rigor. However, there is actually no universally accepted standard as to when two closely related populations become separate species. In the world of microbes it is a social construct purely constructed by scientists (there are no popular, pre-scientific names of microbes and viruses, although there sometimes are for the diseases they produce). Thus microbe classifications tend to rely purely on scientific data. Nevertheless, the whole concept of "species" fits less well for organisms that can reproduce asexually, pick up genetic material from other cells with relative ease, and so on. (Microbes have been making themselves "GMO" for presumably billions of years.) Microbiologists tend to change names and classifications fairly often, which is occasionally relevant in the clinical lab, when pathogens are involved. As for multicellular plants, it seems to be a bit intermediate, but I'm painfully weak in botany. Many thanks for the kind words.
I quickly add, the classification of microbes is an extremely useful, important and scientific process. With undoubted exceptions, the concept of a genetically isolated population whose offspring get their genetic material from members of that population may apply less. That's what I meant when I said the concept of "species" may apply less. Of course, viruses have made humans "GMO" for hundreds of thousands of years, and some placental mammals, including humans (but not all placental mammals), use some genes of viral origin in the formation of the placenta. So all genetic isolation is relative, in a sense.