Dorothy Roberts Debunks Race as Biological in "Fatal Invention"

Dorothy Roberts is author of the new book Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-create Race in the Twenty-First Century (New Press, 2011). She is also the Kirkland & Ellis Professor at Northwestern University School of Law and a faculty fellow at the Institute for Policy Research, with appointments in the departments of Sociology and African American Studies. Here she discusses the rise in identifying race as biological.

YLW: Why did you write Fatal Invention?YLW: There is this increasing push, fueled by profit, looking at race as a biological structure instead of as political.

DR: I decided to write it because I have noticed resurgence in the use of the term race as a biological category. And also [I noticed] a growing acceptance among colleagues and speakers that race really is biological and somehow genomic science will soon discover the biological truths about race. The more I looked into it, I saw there were more scientists that said they discovered race in the genes, more products coming out showing that race is a natural division.

YLW: But race is not biological, it’s purely a political creation.

DR: I thought this trend [of race as biological] was supporting a false concept of race. But also, I was alarmed that knowing history; the biological construct of race has been used to obscure the political origin of racial inequality, to make it seem as if the reason people of color are disadvantaged in society is natural, as opposed to political and institutional.

It’s a very frightening development. We would accomplish so much more, if all the money that was going into race based genes were going into cleaning up the toxins in black neighborhoods that cause black people to get cancer and die, cleaning up education or basic health care for everybody.

YLW: Many people have a hard time accepting that race is a political creation and not biological, despite the years of proving otherwise.

DR: There are some people who understand this- using economic theory and research showing you that you cannot divide the human race into species. Scientist have known this and proved it definitively for decades. So it’s alarming when you see scientist promoting race as genetic.

YLW: Can you give me examples of the false notion of race as biology that’s popping up in science that your reference in your book?

DR: There are ancestry groups testing customers that say with a cheek swab they can trace your ancestry. Then you have federal and state authorities that are amassing DNA databases that compel people to give up their DNA if they are arrested. As a result these databases are disproportionately made up of black and Latino profiles. Pharmaceuticals targeted people according to race. The food and drug administration has already targeted a heart therapy for black patients. It was only turned into a race specific drug when the original patent ran out.





DR: There are studies to explain racial divisions in health that are actually caused by social inequalities. Yet you have researchers studying high blood pressure, asthma among blacks, etc. and looking for a genetic cause. However, research shows these [illnesses] are the effects of racial inequality and the stress of racial inequality.


YLW: So race based medicines, like a heart medicine for African Americans, are illogical, because since race isn’t biological, you can’t have a medicine targeting this group?


DR: Correct. Of those who say [race is biological], they usually point to sickle cell anemia, as proof that illnesses are race-based. Even if you look at these genetic diseases that seem to run along with race, it’s actually caused by environment. Sickle cell is an adaptation in areas with high rates of malaria. You find it in some areas of Africa, Asia and Europe. It’s not about race at all.

DR: To me it’s so obvious that race is not a political category. Who is considered black, Asian, Indian, all these things changes depending on political circumstances and are determined by political markers. Yet people hold on to this idea that if scientist keep searching and searching they will find the divisions of a human species, and we’ve found it is a false pursuit.

YLW: You argue that the scientific inquiry in looking to genetics to create health remedies has led to an interest in looking to genetics to explain a host of social ills and challenges including race.


DR: Genes can never tell you anything without looking at the environment that they are expressed because of the very cells of our bodies. There is not a gene that causes cancer. That is false. After spending millions and millions of dollars they have not come up with the genes that cause cancer or diabetes or any of these diseases. It’s been a false hope, now they are looking to race as a way to make money off of this failed attempt to make money off of a gene map. Race is a bad way to prescribe drugs. I don’t want some doctor to look at me and say you’re black so you should take this drug. I want it to be based on an examination of me.

YLW: What are the dangers of viewing race biologically?


DR: It’s not just a matter of being wrong. It’s the disastrous consequences, because it sends the message that all the inequalities in who dies earlier and who bears suffering from disease, who gets poorly educated, who fills prison cells- it makes it seem like it’s some biological difference, when it’s the power of advantage and disadvantage. But instead of looking at those implications, they’d rather look at false proof written in our genes.


DR: There is a history of tracing race to a biological pathology. And there is a counter tradition of saying no, we have innate superiority. I don’t think talking about innate superiority or otherwise is the way to go. I think looking at the success in spite of the disadvantages, looking at doing it in spite of the social constraints, makes sense.

DR: I also got resistance from black friends, relatives and colleagues to this idea that race is a political system. I think there are people who realize there is racism in America and the political nature, but they also want to hold on to a biological concept of race. There are conservatives who want to hold on to the fact that there is a biological concept of race to explain inequality. But there are also black people in America who believe this.

YLW: Can you give me an example?


DR: For one, ancestry testing and another in the first race specific drugs targeted to African American patients with heart failure. In both cases these are African Americans who are promoting products to some extent that use the idea that we are biologically different and saying that is important to our identity.

YLW: You’re saying that genetic ancestry testing, say finding the African tribe you descended from is impossible to find genetically?


DR: We cannot, in most cases, trace our ancestry back to Africa. My position is that you’re basing it on an illusion that there is a biological demarcation.

YLW: Ancestry testing is very popular and many people take great pride in being able to identify the African ethnic group they derived from. But you’re saying that genetically, you can’t trace this ancestry. Why not?


DR: The science of it is matching the customers DNA profile and specific genetic base to a genetic base that was collected in Africa. Each company has a different database. It’s proprietary and based on collections that they did themselves and collected, or publicly available ones they collected. You’re talking about matching a customer’s traits to a database that was collected recently, obviously not collecting those people who were around during the slave trade. They didn’t test anyone 300 years ago.


DR: The most they can tell you is that your traits are the closest to a group they sampled recently, but that group might be different. They might not be in the same location. There have been migrations in Africa sense then. You just don’t know if it’s a match to an ancestor. And because different companies have different samples and different ways of matching, you can go to four ancestry companies and get different results. It is not the definitive answer that many people think it is. It involves a lot of guess work. At the end a lot of people who have results say they came from the Mendi tribe, others say Yoruba or Zulu. Then the customer who has all these results has to pick one. Then we’re back to a political affinity. Which one do I like better? Which one do I want to align with?

DR: I say just pick one. Why take the test? Maybe you like the artwork of that group, or maybe you met someone of that group, or maybe you like the politics. Yes we have ancestors from Africa and from other countries as well, but that does not have to be spliced down


DR: Africa has more genetic diversity than any other continent in the world. We are genetically extremely diverse, but we also know that African Americans are products of mixtures of all kinds of ancestries. There is no biological essence to being African American. We’re extremely mixed. But I believe there is a political solidarity that we can have, not based on our biology, but based on our commitment to fight racism and to have a better world that is rid of political injustice.

For more information on Dorothy Roberts go to http://www.dorothy-roberts.com/

Toastmakers: Happy New Year Fizz Lovers

Happy New Year! Happy New You!


While New Year circles around at the dawn of every Winter Solstice, this time when the clock struck 12 and I was zipping through the street honking my car and bobbing my head to a hot radio mix of the moment in search of that golden parking spot for my party of choice, I felt new. It wasn't some empty promise of great things to come, but rather a refreshing acceptance of living life to the fullest now.

Just moments earlier, I was bumming around in the silence of the bat girl cave, trying to trick myself into believing I of all people could celebrate the New Year in reflection. But as the clock ticked away, I said "What the heck are you doing? Get out there and move something." I grabbed those fur boots I keep closeted away for fab affairs and hit the fast track highway.

Yes, I've been dedicating the last three months to this refabbed me, and I've gotten back to who I really am, who I thought I was striving to be, only to realize I was already there.

A new me, means a new Solpop. Cultural nuances, political foibles, artistic inspirations and some personal insights, too are all here for the taking.

Truly peachy. But why be all brand new by yourself? Take this life and shake it. Solpop can provide fizzy insights to make that 360 a little bubblier.

So drink up, my friends.

One Love,

Ytasha
Solpop Penmiester

Lip Plumper - Shopping Tale of the Exploding Lips

I thought my favorite lipstick had been discontinued three years ago. So imagine my sheer glee when a Sax make up guy with an uncanny resemblance to Brad Pitt found a handful in the samples section. But like any woman who's about to spend an unusually high amount for a tube of gloss, I decided to survey the counter to make sure this was in fact the best bang for my buck. And that's when I ran across The Plumper.

"That's a plumper," Brad remarked, very bright eyed and bushy tailed as I surveyed the rival shimmery bronze. "It gives you full fantastic lips. It's so hot right now."

"What do you mean it gives you full fantastic lips?" Surely, Brad must have found something ironic about sharing the virtues of full lips to an African American woman, but he proceeded to explain anyway.

According to Brad, the plumper had ingredients that made your lips fuller, sexier, hotter to which I responded to myself "Yeah, right."

"Is that safe?" I asked Brad, recollections from killer beauty doc American the Beautiful still haunting me. He smiled that "I guess we'll know in ten years" kind of smile and I agreed.

But with one swab of the plumper, my lips started to tingle and burn, like I'd painted them with liquid Tic-Tacs and acetone. Brad said I'd get used to it and as I waited for the icy fire to a wane I looked in the mirror noticed this plumper had one heck of a gleam. Tingle aside, the plumper gave my favorite gloss a run for it's money in pure shine factor, and after having a bevy of sales guys do a cross cultural lipstick comparison, I said to heck with my discontinued favorite and bought the plumper.

Let me remind you, the plumper was not made for me, my family or any one totally unconcerned with lip size. The whole culture of collagen injected lips is stamped with a does not apply sign in my life world and affairs. So why buy the plumper? Well, I didn't expect it to work. I figured it was another cosmetic industry scheme like at home teeth whiteners or hair growth stimulators, some new product who's effectiveness is hard to measure.

Well, it took all of five minutes for me to walk from the across Michigan Ave. to my car before I realized this Plumper stuff was potent. My lips were ice cubes, stinging into numbness. It felt like the Black Hawks were playing ice hockey on my pucker. My heart started racing like I'd ran a marathon and I could feel the icy hot sheets formerly known as my lips expanding like glaciers. By the time I got to the car and checked the rearview mirror, I looked like a bee had stung me in the kisser. To which I said "I'm taking this crap off."

I ran back to Sax, testing the limits of the 15 minute parking breaks zone, found Brad and made a switcheroo before scrubbed that plumper crap off.

"Dude, that tingly feel never goes away," I said. "And my heart was pounding."

"Yeah, that's what the other customers say. Not everyone likes it"

"No kidding."

I did some reading on the phenomenon, and apparently the plumper is the rage in make up circles. There are a host of review and product sites. Some formulas use a traditional lip-plumping ingredient that stimulates collagen and boosts hydration. Others use ingredients that help retain moisture, which gives lips the appearance of being fuller. Some work, some don't.

But don't expect any more plumper updates from me. I'm done with the icy hot bee sting.

A Voters Headache: Terrorists, Bradley Effects and McCain's Defense

All these rumblings regarding Sen. Barack Obama and his mythical terrorist ties now have Sen. John McCain nervous. After launching a Republican lead smear campaign with Gov. Sarah Palin tying Obama to radicals and rumer mills falsifying a Obama Muslim upbringing, it appears that the nastiness of it all and the increased racially cloaked remarks from audiences at McCain affairs caused McCain to defend his opponent.

If Obama does win, McCain said, reassuring a voter, you have nothing to fear. "He's a decent man, a family man."

Gee, thanks.

I can't commend someone for taking an action they're supposed to take, but there is an irony in that the McCain campaign stoked these fears intensely over the past week and after some disturbing commentary with news cameras in attendance, had a change of heart and decided to back off.

I'm not sure if this was sincere or just another ploy to win voters. But I can say that the fear tactics are highly aggravating. And they're not working.

When people are worried about their retirement savings, keeping their jobs, and trying to figure out how to keep up with mortgage payments, they could care less about a connect the dots affiliation between a presidential candidate and a former radical.

Speaking of being annoyed, I'm also bothered with the new found media infatuation with the Bradley Effect, a phrase coined after the former L.A mayor was predicted to win as governor of California. Pollsters later found that many white Americans reported they would vote for Bradley but changed their minds in voting booths due to Bradley's race. Some argue that the Bradley effect could play a role in Obama's race and that his slim lead in the polls is not due say an upswing in Obama voters tired of the economic downturn, but rather a result of some indiscernable number of white voters lying to pollsters.

But the Bradley race was 20 years ago. While I get that their aren't many high level races with African American candidates to compare Obama's campaign, too, I think the analysis of the Bradley Effect is totally misleading and that the same elements aren't applicable in the Obama race. While a casual debate on the matter may be entertaining to some, there is no quantifiable data to substantiate or explain its relevance in this election.

Frankly, between these terrorist charges and Bradley effects fears, I've been highly annoyed by recent campaign tactics and coverage. Rehashing old news to fan fears is a strategy we were all familiar with in the primaries.

The real issue is the economy. Obama's position on the economy was strong before the current market flip flop and it's ironic that his knowledge on this matter may be the key to victory.

VP Debates- The Non Answer to Your Own Question

Expectations for Gov. Sarah Palin's debate performance were so low, that short of her collapsing on stage, she'd be applauded by her supporters.

Really, is she supposed to get points because she can pronounce Ahmadinejad?

However with debate strategy now topping the headlines, I too have a question.

When did not answering the question become a suitable debate strategy?

Palin was incredulous in her decision to answer what she wanted to answer and in some cases not addressing the question at all.

While one could possibly get away with changing the subject on a question or two, to design an entire game plan around avoiding the question and instead raising your own questions to answer is perplexing. Knowing how confusing her non answers would be she remarked and 'that she might not answer the questions the way Biden or the moderator may want her too but will speak directly to the American people.' Yeah, well, the moderator is there because the American people can't exactly get their questions answered by yelling at their flatscreen.

But in an attempt to take control, Palin decided to ask her own questions, which she didn't bother to answer either.

Furthermore, when did winking at the camera become acceptable in a debate format? Call me observant, but Gov. Palin winked at the camera at least three times. Coy flirtatiousness may work fabulously for actresses on Leno, but to inject the wink in a vice presidential debate is absurd.

Sen. Joe Biden proved himself to be knowledgeable, wise and passionate on foreign and domestic affairs. Some feared that his style might be too overbearing for Palin, another backhanded smack to the progress of women (implying a that a woman can debate a man 'aggressively.') However, Biden was incredibly diplomatic, flipped McCain's 'Maverick' monitor on it's head, and linked McCain's policies to President Bush's. Palin, oddly didn't rebut any of Biden's attacks on McCain, seeming to stick to tried and true info she'd memorized instead. She also made some very odd remarks regarding the expansion of the Vice President's role that were diametrically opposed to the U.S constitution.

I don't want to be a Palin basher. I would hope that despite differences in ideology, she would at least prove herself to be a capable leader on the world stage. I too am a woman. But while she may have guts and drive, that alone is not enough to lead our nation.

Don't Take My Debate TV

I thought my ears were deceiving me when I heard that John McCain aimed to cancel the presidential debate and suspend his campaign.

I flipped to WVON, caught a snippet and ran to my laptop to verify. There is was, confirmed on the New York Times website.

McCain wants out.

So much for those ballroom, bar and hall rentals. I have received more emails for debate parties and viewings in the past two weeks than I can count. News radio, tv and web banners are hyping the debate like it's a heavyweight champion fight.

I guess it is, well, if it happens.

Supposedly, McCain wants to take these precious two days to work on the economy. Wisely, Barack Obama stated that with just 40 days left until the leader of the free world takes the reigns, the American people deserve to know the candidates' views on the matter and wants the debate to go on.

The story goes that Obama initiated the call to McCain, suggesting that they make a joint statement regarding the economy. Six hours later, McCain jumped the gun and made his crash and rash announcement, taking Obama's good intentioned jesture a step further and recommended ending the debates.

It's this assumption that the American people are idiots that I take issue with. Obama's numbers are up, McCain has repeated frequently that the economy is his weak point, he's not the most intriguing speaker in the world and the haste to cancel the debate makes McCain look like he's running scaird.

There is no spin to make this action look lofty. Citizens deserve to see their presidential candidates debate during this unique time.

The debate should go on.

Economy Matters- Dumb it Down

With the economy being the talk of the town, I've found myself either talking to people who are de facto economy experts or explaining to people just what the heck is going on.

I've probably done a little more of the later than the former. In fact, I found myself in a circuitous explanation on the whole affair with my mom for like an hour. In my attempt to be as simple and thorough as possible, I realized that I had a hard time explaining it in part because the concept of a mortgage backed security doesn't really make any sense. How can you create an industry that people invest in backed by a debt bundle with no actual or liquid value? But that's another conversation.

At any rate, while watching political pundits on TV turned economic experts, I've discovered something else.

Explaining the mortgage backed security fiasco cannot be done in a sound-bite.

There's no condensing this stuff. Forget making the whole matter neat and easy for the common man. There are no winning sports analogy, no bare knuckle moose wrestling metaphors, and no patriotic slogans to explain this mess.

While I've heard a few commentators manage to at least de economize the language, I still hear people tossing in peanut gallery remarks that have nothing to do with the matter at all.

Politicians with any savvy know that if you can't say it in a soundbite, you might as well not say it at all. That's in part what's happening. People are trying to spoon feed an elephant. If you're talking to an audience who get skittish when explaining stocks, well you still owe them a hearty expression on the matter. Pull out some charts, make some graphics, anything but don't act like a few cowboy quips will put those who don't know at ease.

There are so many misguided catch phrases tossed around to sway the masses on the government Wall Street bail out blaming "overcompensated Wall Street CEOs" or "they're giving money to the people who got us in this mess and not the people who lost their homes." There's even a proposed march planned on Wall Street, which I don't understand either.

Oddly, Pat Buchanan was one of a handful of political pundits turned economist who explained the whole deal in a comprehensive three sentences. I was impressed. Barack Obama proposing that American citizens be viewed as investors and should benefit from the upside of their tax dollars in a bail out. A smartly worded statement as well.

While, the television medium is not typically the home for complex brain activity, when it comes to explaining the economy in this day and age, it has to be.