What Is It About Skin Color?

A top expert on the evolution of our pigmentation explains how we all became so color-struck. By: Nina G. Jablonski | Posted: February 6, 2013 at 12:55 AM

 

Digital Vision/Thinkstock

- Skin color is one of our most important biological traits. Its many shades evolved as humans moved far and wide into regions with different intensities of sunlight. Skin color is also a trait that has come to have deep cultural meanings -- developed over many centuries -- that influence our social interactions and societies in profound and complex ways.

We notice one another's skin because we are visually oriented animals, but there is no genetically programmed bias to favor one color over another. Over time, however, we have developed beliefs and biases about skin color that have been transmitted over decades and centuries and across vast oceans and continents.

The first scientific classification of humans, published by Carl Linnaeus in 1735, was simple and separated people into four varieties by skin color and continent. Later, Linnaeus not only added more physical traits to his descriptions but also changed them to include information that he had surmised about temperament. Europeans were white and "sanguine," Asians were brown and "melancholic," Native Americans were red and "choleric" and Africans were black and "phlegmatic."

This analysis was the first authoritative classification that combined physical traits with folk beliefs about dispositions and character. The folk beliefs had little to do with fact or observation but were mostly just fables -- racist pronouncements that were personal and emotional expressions of, at best, discomfort and, mostly, prejudice. From this point on, debasing associations of physical appearance with temperament and culture became commonplace and were considered scientific. Racism had found its intellectual foundation.

The first person to formally define "races" was the noted philosopher Immanuel Kant, who in 1785 classified people into four fixed races, which were arrayed in a hierarchy according to color and talent. Kant had scant personal knowledge of human diversity but opined freely about the tastes and finer feelings of groups about which he knew nothing. For Kant and his many followers, the rank-ordering of races by skin color and character created a self-evident order of nature that implied that light-colored races were superior and destined to be served by the innately inferior, darker-colored ones.

Despite the strong objections of many of his contemporaries, Kant's ideas about a fixed natural hierarchy of human races, graded in value from light to dark, gained tremendous support because they reinforced popular misconceptions about dark skin being more than a physical trait. The preference for light over dark -- strictly speaking, white over black -- was derived from premedieval associations of white with purity and virtue, and of black with impurity and evil.

The light-dark polarity was extended to the human sphere with the establishment of the slave trade and hereditary slavery in the Americas. Negative associations of dark skin and human worth were now profitable. As the transatlantic slave trade became more lucrative, the moral polarity of skin colors was accentuated to the extent that light and dark were respectively associated with human and animal, creating one of the most sinister and long-lived patterns of unfairness that the world has ever known.

The notion that the superiority of the white race was part of the natural order was deviously reinforced by the rise of modern "scientific" racism in the late 19th century. Certain "stocks" of humanity were considered to be more highly evolved and civilized because of their color, superior "fitness" and "adaptations." "Racial souls" were seen as mapping onto unique suites of physical traits, creating crazy ideas of ranked human types and civilizations. The association of color with character and the consequent ranking of people according to color stands as humanity's most momentous logical fallacy.

Today one of the biggest concerns is the reinvention of clinical concepts of race, based on inaccurate generalizations about the susceptibility of people to certain disease risks. If clinical constituencies redefine and repackage the races as real biological entities, then we face a new era of scientific racism no less frightening than the first. Clinical authorities hold a sanctified place in American society and are capable of creating a new reality of labeled races that will be widely believed and promulgated because it is "for the good."

The idea that race is a social construct is becoming more widespread, but that doesn't diminish scientific racism as a real concept in the minds of many people who want to believe in it. Nor does it lessen the lived experience of racism today. Racist beliefs, anchored in the scientific racism of a bygone era, persist today but are mostly hidden because it is socially and politically unacceptable to air them. 

Indeed, the bankrupt concept of fixed and immutable human "races" -- packages of physical and behavioral traits -- ranked by color has led to the creation of potent and persistent racial stereotypes. When these stereotypes are propagated widely by revered authorities and transmitted faithfully from person to person and generation to generation, they can last and last.

"Races" are not just labels, because they can determine fate. Race labels that are associated with negative or positive depictions and narratives can have powerful effects by planting in people's minds the idea that their own group is superior, inferior, smarter, stupider, stronger or weaker than another.

Stereotypes are not realities, and the behaviors they engender are not inevitabilities. Human attitudes are constantly subject to revision through experience and, more importantly, through conscious choice. Biases can be modified and eradicated on the basis of experience and motivation, and stereotypes can be changed when people are motivated to think about someone, in any way, as a member of their own group. Educating our children and youths about the evolution of skin color, the history of race and the dangers of stereotyping may have remarkable and positive results for humanity.

Nina G. Jablonski is Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at Pennsylvania State University. This essay is based on her new book, Living Color: The Biological and Social Meaning of Skin Color.

2013!

Happy New Year!!!

There's been so much going on that I haven't had the same amount of time to devote to my blog as of late. At the very least, I wanted to wish you all a very Happy New Year after such a busy holiday season. I'll be back soon after MLK Jr./Inauguration Day with pics. I'm very excited about attending the Presidential Inauguration for the second time in a row. See you soon! I wish you great blessings of health and happiness in 2013!

-Elijah

What Became of the Hip-Hop Politicians?

They were supposed to be the new breed. What happened to elected officials of the hip-hop generation? By: Lottie Joiner | Posted: December 19, 2012 at 12:47 AM

Harold Ford (David Goldman); Artur Davis (Chip Somodevilla/Getty); Jesse Jackson Jr. (Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty)

-- During the Congressional Black Caucus legislative week in 2004, there was a fundraising reception held for a young black politician from Chicago who hoped to represent his state in the U.S. Senate. The honorary chairs of the fundraiser were Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.), Artur Davis (D-Ala.) and Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.). They helped raise money for Barack Obama, who went on to win the Illinois Senate seat. We all know how the story ends. In 2008 Obama became the first black president of the United States and in November was elected for a second term.

The young black politicians who helped raise funds for Obama were known as the "the New Breed." They arrived in Washington during the mid- to late 1990s and early 2000s and were part of the hip-hop generation, the generation born between 1965 and 1984. Jackson became a member of Congress in 1995. Ford joined him in the House two years later. In January 2003, Meek and Davis were sworn in. And just two years earlier, in 2001, Kwame Kilpatrick became the youngest mayor of Detroit when he was elected at age 31.

"I think it's exciting anytime young people of color emerge in an elected office," James Peterson, director of Africana studies and associate professor of English at Lehigh University, told The Root. "It's doubly exciting when those folks come from the hip-hop generation and identify with the constituents of hip-hop culture."

Indeed. This cohort of young black politicians was smart, driven, dynamic and energetic. They hadn't marched on Washington, but they had come to take Washington by storm.

"The younger generation really tried to position themselves as being part of the new breed that didn't wear race on their sleeve, that was committed to reform and good government ... and to do better than previous generations of black politicians had done and actually be able to address inequality in the community," said Andra Gillespie, an associate professor of political science at Emory University and author of The New Black Politician: Cory Booker, Newark, and Post-Racial America.

One of the most ambitious was Ford. When he entered Congress in 1997, he was selected as the Democrats' freshman class president. He was only 30 years old in 2000 when he gave the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. Two years later, he boldly ran for the position Democratic leader, ultimately losing to veteran lawmaker Nancy Pelosi, who became the first woman to lead a party in Congress.

But what happened to these young men who came into office with such ambition? Unfortunately, their aspirations met reality, Gillespie said.

Ford and Meek, both from political families, ran for Senate in their respective states and lost. Davis, a Harvard graduate and former assistant U.S. attorney, wanted to be the first black governor of Alabama but failed to secure the Democratic nomination in his state.

"The younger generation actually thought that there were greater opportunities for them to be able to act upon their ambition, and because of that they took risks that older black politicians and earlier cohorts of black politicians didn't take. Unfortunately they [the risks] didn't pay off," said Gillespie. "In Artur Davis' case he miscalculated. He took the Obama moment and hoped that it would transfer to success in the Deep South."

The tragic disappointment of Jackson and Kilpatrick is another story. After 17 years in Congress, Jackson resigned from his seat on Nov. 21 to "focus on restoring" his health. Jackson was diagnosed with bipolar II depression this summer. The former congressman remains under federal investigation for misuse of campaign funds. Kilpatrick resigned as mayor of Detroit in 2008 after a corruption trial that included a sexting scandal. He served jail time and is currently in court again facing more corruption charges.

"Jesse Jackson, he wanted to break into the higher level offices that African Americans seldom win -- governor, senator," said David Bositis, senior research associate at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. Kwame, he said, "was a young man who didn't view the world as a potentially dangerous place. I think to some degree, he thought he could pretty much do what he wanted."

But for all their faults, the public still rooted for these young black men from the hip-hop generation. They wanted to see them succeed. "The reason why the downfall of these two men in particular was so disheartening was because this cohort did a really good job of presenting themselves as technocratic do-gooders. People believed the hype and I think assumed that they were not susceptible to the same sort of challenges and vulnerabilities that a lot of people are susceptible to," said Gillespie. "And so it's more shocking because they had always framed themselves as being very, very different from their predecessors who, sometimes, had ethics issues."

The young black politicians of the hip-hop generation have now moved on from Capitol Hill. Ford found his place in corporate America and is a popular television commentator. Meek continues to work on education issues with his family's foundation. Davis, who abandoned the Democratic Party and spoke at the Republican National Convention, worked at a law firm after leaving office and was a fellow at Harvard's Institute of Politics this spring. Kilpatrick continues to deal with his corruption charges.

Bositis believes that most of these young black politicians who entered Congress with great fanfare can still have a career in politics, if not elected office.

Though the new breed may not have accomplished all that they would have liked or reached their own personal goals, Peterson notes that their time in office was important in the bigger scheme of things.

"It really spoke back to older generations -- that suggestion that our generation was disengaged, that our generation was apathetic," said Peterson. "These leaders, successful or not, as they emerged, they really helped to sort of construct a counter-narrative to the political-apathy identity that some of these people try to hang around the hip-hop culture."

Inspiration

So, I think the rest of this year I'll focus all of my posts on things that I happen to find "inspirational" in one form or another. Sometimes I marvel at the sheer beauty of some of the things that God has created. Many of these things we take for granted. Here are a few of my favorite places to be in the continental United States, especially early in the morning when people are barely waking up...





Lyndon B. Johnson Memorial Grove here in D.C. is where you'll more than likely find me on a summer or fall Saturday morning after Judo practice lets out. You essentially enter from the south parking lot of the Pentagon and cross a bridge over the Potomac. You emerge on the other side eerily close to GW parkway with a grand view of the District. It's truly a sight to see, and one of my favorite places to take time out to think and meditate.





Twin Peaks, San Francisco. This place is perhaps my favorite on the West Coast. I admit I'm more of a "NorCal" person than "SoCal". San Francisco is beautiful, and after climbing to the top of a very windy(I suppose that's nothing new as San Fran is famous for these roads) Twin Peaks Blvd, you'll reach the top with an exhilarating view of the bustling city. I have to say however, this is more breathtaking than anything. If the winds are high that day, you will be in store for a scare as you actually see clouds whip past directly overhead!

Both sights are amazing at night as well! So the next time you're in either area, check them out! It will amaze you, I promise!

What Happened?

I've been super-busy, that's what happened. I had no time to post a blog, but some major events took place in the last month while I was away. Here they are in the form of pictures:



President Obama was re-elected!!! What an amazing thing, and I am truly blessed to have been alive and of sound mind to be able to experience, take part in(by voting) and witness(I went to inauguration in 2009) this historic time!



This is an illustration of what happened to me in late October. I hit a HUGE deer on GW Memorial Parkway on the way to work one Friday morning. I could have been killed! It was the biggest deer I had ever seen and it all happened so fast. Sorry that the deer had to die, but thankful that I'm alive.



I got engaged! I asked the love of my life to marry me and she said yes(just pretend those hands are Black in the picture). We're sorting out all of the details now. I'm blessed that someone I love, loves me too and is willing to deal with me for the rest of my natural life. God is Good!



This has nothing to do with anything-I just thought that these pics of Kobe "modeling" from awhile back were hilarious! LOL

The Great Affirmative Action Lie

The Abigail Fishers and George Wills think that minorities have unfair advantages. Not by a long shot. By: Edward Wyckoff Williams | Posted: October 11, 2012 at 12:01 AM

 

Abigail Fisher and attorney Bert Rein (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

- Four decades after legalized discrimination was still codified in law, racial disparities persist at nearly every level of American society. From criminal justice to education, employment to housing, minorities in general and African Americans in particular continue to face an uphill battle toward social and economic equity.

Affirmative action policies -- originally designed to redress problems created by centuries of slavery and Jim Crow -- are being derided by some as racial discrimination against white people. The fundamental ideology is being challenged this week in a U.S. Supreme Court case, Fisher v. University of Texas, in which a white woman claims she was disadvantaged in college admissions. A similar argument failed in 2003, but today's more conservative court may be more apt to side with the plaintiff, since the white-victim mentality has recently gained mainstream momentum -- both in education and politics.

George Will, the renowned conservative Washington Post columnist, echoed these sentiments when he claimed that President Obama's recent success in polls against his Republican challenger is solely due to his being black. Will argued that voters are reluctant to fire Obama -- suggesting that African Americans not only are living in a postracial era that requires no affirmative government policy but are also actually enjoying some kind of benefit by virtue of their blackness. Herein lies the cognitive dissonance of white privilege and the fundamental conundrum of trying to explain the need for affirmative policy to a white majority that sees nothing wrong with the status quo.

Welcome to the land of make-believe.

Abigail Noel Fisher, the white woman who claimed that the University of Texas policy discriminated against her on the basis of race, has since graduated from Louisiana State University. The facts of her original case reveal that she failed to meet the threshold of being in the top 10 percent of her graduating high school class -- which would have automatically guaranteed admission to UT. Instead Fisher competed in a general-applicant pool that, along with merit-based variables, considers race, athletics, community service and other factors.

According to UT, this method ensures a diverse class and enriches the educational experience. Fisher, however, concluded that being white somehow disadvantaged her and, as such, any policy that considered race was a violation of her constitutional equal-protection rights.

But Fisher needs a brief civics lessons.

Joan Walsh, in her new book, What's the Matter With White People?, posits that too many whites incorrectly believe that minorities have benefited from affirmative action at their expense. Walsh takes a historic view, showing that most white Americans enjoyed the benefits of the Great Society social welfare programs, in particular the postwar GI Bill, expansion of public universities, FHA mortgage-lending guarantees and union jobs.

Together, these benefits created upward mobility for a strong middle class. They were social welfare programs -- amounting to affirmative action government policies for poor and low-income whites -- and often, almost explicitly, excluded African Americans and other people of color.

After the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, access to these programs expanded slowly for minorities. And in 1972, Title IX was passed to guarantee women equal access to higher education, but even that mostly assisted white women, since the gains of the civil rights era were embryonic, at best, and still being negotiated.

The results speak for themselves, since many women -- mostly white -- now enjoy positions of privilege and power from the classroom to the boardroom. Fisher's claims aside, the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics report, released last week, reveals that for most white Americans, discrimination is the least of barriers.

The unemployment rate for white women and white men over the age of 20 stood at 6.3 percent and 6.2 percent respectively, well below the national average of 7.8 percent and just shy of what is considered full employment -- this even in tough economic times. In contrast, although the overall African-American unemployment rate has improved significantly from its peak of 16.7 percent, it remained well above the national average at 13.4 percent.

Fisher's own story ignores the most crucial fact -- namely, the original need for affirmative action. For descendants of African-American slaves, the combination of brown skin and state-sanctioned discrimination left no alternative option or recourse.

At the heart of Fisher's argument is the misguided view that African Americans and Hispanics are given preferential treatment on race alone and, as such, are undeserving. Yet historical data show that white American women have been the biggest benefactors of affirmative action policies -- undermining Fisher's own argument.

George Will, in his misguided op-ed, reveals the cognitive dissonance at the heart of so many attacks on any success achieved by blacks -- dismissing them as affirmative action babies. Yet he willfully ignores (pun intended) any privilege he himself experienced as a Princeton- and Oxford-educated white male, born into an America that legally deprived blacks of any opportunity to compete with him.

Though Will claims to be postracial, it is only the success of African Americans that he overtly racializes. As such, Will -- whose career of covering American presidents extends over 30 years -- has never once suggested that the re-elections of Reagan, Bush or Clinton hinged, in part or entirely, on their whiteness.

So why, in Will's opinion, is race the sole factor of Obama's potential return to the White House? Likewise, could it be that Fisher simply didn't impress the UT admissions officers as much as another white candidate? Why must it have been a black or brown person who received the spot she is convinced belonged to her?

America's original sin created a de facto affirmative action for white people that still plagues the broader sociopolitical consciousness. This malignant disease leads some white Americans to believe that they deserve something that, in an increasingly minority-majority nation, is being taken by someone who looks different from them.

The result? Hispanics and Asians are stealing their jobs. Blacks are taking their seats at university. Their Oval Office is occupied by a foreign-born, illegitimate president.

The line between white privilege and the status quo has become so blurred it's invisible. It is time to redraw the line in black and white.

Being a Teen's Dad

So, my son Jaylen turned 13 years old last week. I woke up the morning of his 13th birthday filled with both excitement and tons of apprehension. What does it mean to be the parent of a teenager? Well, when I think of a 13 year-old Elijah I think of the awkwardness, the changes the body experiences(puberty), the inquisitive nature about things(girls), etc. While I feel like I had great teen years, I'm not sure how my parents dealt with it, especially with me being their first child and all. I heard someone say the other day that kids are different these days. I don't believe that one iota. I think times have changed, but kids are still the same. Yes, they have more technology at their fingertips, are exposed to a lot more on TV than we were, but kids are kids in my opinion. Kids listen to rap music filled with violence and misogyny today. I grew up listening to Tupac, Biggie, Snoop Dogg and a cast of others during Hip-Hop's heyday. Kids watch TV that can be considered violent and chock-full of sexually suggestive situations. We had those shows too, they were always on cable back then, but you can find them on "regular" TV now. Not much difference there. Kids are more prone to violence now, people will say. Actually, violent crime has decreased over the past decade. Kids may have more access to weapons now, but if we had had them as accessible, I'm quite sure more people would have been shot at. I think that speaks to less of a willingness to fight and the cowardice of children raised without decent male role models-but that's for another blog! Kids today are dealing with the epidemic of 'bullying' and the attention it has garnered. We had bullies, but we also were raised to stand-up for ourselves and never felt ostracized like I guess some of the victims of incessant bullying feel. We also weren't subject to bullying via social-media and other forms of technological outlets. I feel like the topic of sex isn't taboo being that I've been talking to my son about it for a few years now. I'd like for him to be equipped with knowledge that I didn't have at that age(not like I needed it) being that sex seems to be everywhere.

All in all, I guess my worries are common place. I worry about his education, college affordability and the fact that college loans are the largest area of debt for people these days, surpassing medical bills (hopefully Obamacare will rectify some of that,Yay Obamacare!). He's 4 years away from his college freshman year, and I know I can't afford that currently. I worry about how he views the world and how the surrounding world views him. I know he'll have a lot a questions as he grows and matures-at least until he hits the phase where he thinks he "knows it all". Gosh, I remember going through that phase too. How did my parents ever deal? Not looking forward to that. All in all, I hope I'm prepared to help guide my son through these upcoming teen years. It can be a tough road to slog. So, what does it mean to be the parent of a teenager I still wonder? I guess I could always pick up the phone and give my parents a call, after all-I think they may have some expertise in this area.