POLITICS AND RACIAL CLASSIFICATION IN THE UNITED STATES

(First posted on okechukwuedwardokekespace.quora.com  November 12, 2024)

I’m not an American. So I’m not bound to adopts its definitions and classifications. On this matter of racial classification, I will follow my eyes and what I know about a person’s ancestry. My eyes do not tell me that Trump and Harris belong to two different races. What I see is that two of them should be classified as white. I’m not so advanced in my thinking to adopt the view that racial identity is a matter of choice. The one drop principle is political rather than scientific. I believe that if a person’s ancestry is equally mixed, she should be classified as a half caste (mestizo, mulatto, zambo, etc). I also believe that if a person’s race is unequally mixed, she may be classified as a member of one race by approximation. Science (the person’s DNA), rather than the feeling of racists a hundred year’s ago, should be the basis for the classification. If we follow the science, or simply follow what we know about her ancestry, Kamala Harris should be seen and treated as a white woman.

***

Response by

André Manuel C. Morais

(November 13, 2024)

Professor Edward, your thoughts on racial classification are certainly thought-provoking, but I believe there is a critical dimension that needs to be highlighted: the pseudoscientific nature of racial categorisations. Scientifically speaking, the only legitimate classification of human beings is Homo sapiens. Attempts to subdivide humanity based on phenotypical differences or ancestral background are rooted in historical, pseudoscientific eugenics, rather than grounded in biological or social constructs.

The notion of race, as it has been framed in modern and historical contexts, owes more to the legacy of eugenics than to any empirical or genetic science. Eugenics—a dangerous ideology that surged during the Gilded Age—was wielded as a tool to classify, control, and suppress populations deemed ‘inferior’ by a selective, prejudiced standard. Industrial giants and philanthropists like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller used their wealth and influence to propagate this belief system under the guise of scientific progress. The Carnegie Institution’s Eugenics Record Office, for example, became an epicenter for pseudo-academic work that lent an air of legitimacy to racially biased and scientifically unsound theories.

Your assertion that DNA should be the basis for racial classification reflects an intention to approach the topic scientifically. However, it is crucial to note that while genetic diversity among humans is vast, it does not support the notion of discrete racial categories. Modern genetic studies have shown that the variation within so-called racial groups is often greater than the variation between them. The idea of ‘race’ as a biological determinant is not only flawed but has been a vehicle for reinforcing hierarchies and perpetuating systemic racism.

When we impose racial classifications externally—whether through the outdated ‘one-drop’ rule or through DNA-based approximations—we are echoing the same reductionist and discriminatory practices that defined the eugenics era. Such classifications are not biological truths but constructs born out of a desire to create artificial divisions. These divisions were historically weaponized to justify exclusion and control, particularly in the United States and Third Reich, where racial hierarchies were codified into laws and societal norms.

Moreover, these classifications do not align with the contemporary understanding that race, as experienced and lived, is more an amalgamation of cultural, historical, and social factors. The belief that racial identity can be determined purely by genetic lineage overlooks the complex interplay between identity and societal perception. This is not to say that ancestry and heritage are irrelevant, but they cannot be simplistically distilled into rigid racial categories without invoking the shadows of eugenics-based classifications.

In summary, while it may seem objective to use DNA and ancestry as markers for classifying race, such practices remain entangled with the pseudoscientific constructs of eugenics. They should be viewed with a critical lens, recognizing that these classifications are not biological or social constructs—they are remnants of a pseudoscientific ideology that sought to divide and dehumanize. True scientific inquiry, grounded in genetic and anthropological research, acknowledges the profound diversity within our species while affirming that these differences do not delineate separate races.

 My reply to Morais comment (November 16, 2024)

Thanks for continuing to show interest in this topic. I assume contents of the next paragraph are not in doubt.

All human beings, as homo sapiens, belong to one species. In popular usage, homo sapiens belong to one race. But adaptation to different environments has produced differences in physical appearance and culture. In popular usage, too, different groups formed on the bases of differences in physical features and culture are also called races. Contacts between different races, in the latter sense, have produced new races and cultures. Thus, except for cultures that have remained isolated for millennia, lines of division between races are often blurred.

What eugenics has done, especially when conclusions are based on inadequate evidence or are meant to serve other interests, is not dissimilar to what ordinary persons have done all through history: to believe that other groups are naturally inferior in cognitive and other desirable abilities and/or, to put it simply, that other groups are naturally evil. On the basis of these beliefs, which may be sincere (though wrong) or contrived, there is racism in the world. For our purpose, racism is defined simply as discrimination on the basis of differences in physical characteristics and culture.

It does not seem likely that ignorance about other groups will be completely wiped out in the world. It does not seem, either, that there will be any time when persons or groups that are wont to discriminate against other persons or groups will not exist in the world. Thus, the challenge for those that are not racists is not to try to abolish human nature. Rather, it is to try to minimize the evils of racism. To do that, activists have to acknowledge the reality of races and racism, and find ways to promote unity. There will be no one-size-fits-all approach to minimizing the effects of racism; and there will hardly be any solution that will not become dysfunctional with the passage of time. Thus, to illustrate, desegregation may be a reasonable policy to adopt in a given situation, and segregation in another situation. Federalism may be the solution to racial tensions in a country today. Tomorrow, the relations among races may be such that it makes sense to adopt a unitary system of government.

Finally, activists will be more successful if, in a manner of speaking, they seek to create a better world rather than seek to create an ideal world.

Morais responds again (November 17, 2004)

Professor Edward, thank you for your thoughtful and nuanced response. I appreciate the points you have raised and the perspective you have provided on this complex issue. Allow me to address each of the key points you have brought up.

Regarding the acknowledgment that all human beings belong to a single species, Homo sapiens, and that the concept of race in popular usage refers to both the entire human species and various subgroups formed based on physical and cultural differences, I agree that this dual usage of the term can lead to confusion and ambiguity. It is essential to recognize that while adaptation to different environments has indeed produced a diverse array of physical and cultural characteristics among human populations, these differences do not constitute biologically distinct races in the scientific sense.

You astutely point out that the actions and beliefs perpetuated by eugenics proponents are not entirely dissimilar from the discriminatory attitudes and practices that have existed throughout human history, wherein certain groups are perceived as naturally inferior or inherently evil based on their physical or cultural differences. This observation underscores the deeply rooted nature of racism and the challenges we face in combating it.

I concur that the complete eradication of ignorance and discriminatory attitudes may be an unrealistic goal, given the complexities of human nature and the persistence of racism throughout history. However, I maintain that the most effective approach to minimizing the evils of racism is to actively challenge and dismantle the very concept of race as a valid biological or social construct, rather than simply acknowledging its existence and attempting to navigate its consequences.

By focusing our efforts on promoting a scientific understanding of human diversity, emphasizing our common humanity, and fostering a culture of respect, empathy, and equal treatment under the law, we can work towards creating a society in which the arbitrary categorization of individuals based on physical or cultural characteristics becomes increasingly irrelevant. This approach does not deny the reality of racism or the lived experiences of those who have been subjected to discrimination; rather, it seeks to address the root cause of these issues by challenging the very foundations upon which racist ideologies are built.

I agree that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to addressing racial tensions and that the most effective strategies may vary depending on the specific social, historical, and political contexts in which they are applied. However, I believe that any approach that relies on the continued recognition and perpetuation of racial categories, whether through segregation, federalism, or other means, risks reinforcing the very structures and belief systems that underpin racism.

Instead, I advocate for a holistic, adaptable, and context-sensitive approach that prioritizes the promotion of equality, justice, and individual merit, while actively working to dismantle systemic barriers and discriminatory practices. By fostering a culture that values diversity, encourages empathy and understanding, and provides equal opportunities for all individuals to thrive and succeed based on their unique talents and contributions, we can create a society that is more resilient, harmonious, and just.

It is crucial, Professor Edward, to be cautious not to conflate the unscientific appearance of phenotypic differences with the actual genetic diversity among human populations. While phenotypic variations, such as skin color, hair texture, and facial features, are often used as the basis for racial categorizations, these superficial characteristics do not accurately reflect the complex patterns of genetic variation within and between human populations. Genetic studies have consistently demonstrated that the vast majority of genetic diversity occurs within so-called racial groups, rather than between them, and that there is no scientific basis for dividing humanity into distinct biological races based on phenotypic differences alone.

Ultimately, while I agree that seeking to create an ideal world may be an unattainable goal, I believe that striving for a better world – one in which the concept of race is recognized as a pseudoscientific construct and individuals are treated with dignity and respect regardless of their

physical or cultural characteristics – is a noble and necessary endeavor. By engaging in open and honest dialogue, challenging discriminatory attitudes and practices, and working towards a more equitable and just society, we can make meaningful progress in reducing the harms caused by racism and fostering a more united and harmonious world.

 

And my response (November 18, 2024)

I appreciate your comment and share your ideals. Let’s agree to disagree on emphases and approaches. Regards. 

 

ON VINICIUS JNR AND THE BALLON D'OR AWARD 2024

 

To determine the best player of a season is not like determining the winner of a 100-metre race. The latter is so plain that the responsibility of identifying the winner is often left to a computer.

To determine the best player of a season is like determining the winner of an essay competition. It is not strictly an objective assessment: To some extent, it is a subjective assessment. Indeed, there is a subjective element in contests whose winners are chosen through voting.

2024 is not the first year that the choice of the best male soccer player in the world has been controversial. What is different this year is that Vinicius and his club were afflicted with a simple-minded sense of entitlement, and, thus, could not handle their disappointment with grace. Thus, despite the age of the club, it needs to be told to GROW UP.

Sent from: https://okechukwuedwardokekesspace.quora.com/ 

POLITICAL UNITS OF IGBOLAND: STATES, DIVISIONS, SENATORIAL ZONES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, SINCE 1970 (PDF VERSION)

 

 Since 1970, Igboland has, at different times, been divided into states, divisions, senatorial zones and local government areas. This post gives the background and the lists of these political units. Here is the link:

 https://us.docworkspace.com/d/sIAKbjIRcp7HeuAY

To open, copy this link, post on a browser, and press ENTER.

Okechukwu Edward Okeke

 

 

POLITICAL UNITS OF IGBOLAND: STATES, DIVISIONS, SENATORIAL ZONES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS, SINCE 1970

New states, divisions, senatorial zones and local government areas have been created in Nigeria since 1970.  The article below contains the lists of these political units in Igboland during this period (from 1970 till date). Igboland is defined here as the states of the South-East geopolitical zone of Nigeria and the Igbo-speaking senatorial zone of today's Delta State since 1970. 

 Here's the link to the file:

https://us.docworkspace.com/d/sIHKbjIRcwOPAuAY

To access the article, copy the link and, then, paste and open it in a browser.

I am convinced that you will find it useful.

Okechukwu Edward Okeke

NO FEDERAL RANCHES IN IMO STATE

 

ON THE NEW MINISTRY OF LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT 

 

Non-Partisan Question

 

Do you support the establishment of federal (Fulani-run) ranches in your state for the purpose of stopping herders v farmers conflicts? 

 

My answer

 

I oppose the establishment of federal ranches in Imo State.

 

Consider these:

 

1) Each of the eleven largest states in Northern Nigeria -- Niger, Borno, Taraba, Bauchi, Yobe, Kaduna, Adamawa, Zamfara, Kebbi, Kwara, Benue and Nasarawa -- is bigger than the entire South-East geopolitical zone of Nigeria.

 

2) The population density of the SE zone is the highest among the six geopolitical zones in Nigeria.

 

Permit me to add

 

* In the context of Nigeria, Imo State lacks adequate land for ranching.

 

* In the context of Nigeria, there is adequate land for livestock development in the states where the Fulani are indigenes. 

 

What about you?

 

* Is your own state among the territorially largest states in the country?

 

* If it is not, are you willing to permit your state government to allocate land to the federal government to establish ranches to appease the Fulani? In other words, are you willing to permit your state government to give the little you have to those that have more than enough?

Book Summary: Political Thought: Sketches in Western and African Political Philosophy

 

Political Thought is written for non-Philosophy majors in the Humanities and Social Sciences, especially for undergraduates that take Western Political Thought and African Political Thought as a one-semester course each. Each of its sixteen chapters, except one, focuses on the works of a single author. Each section is arranged in chronological order: the work of an author that wrote earlier is treated before the work of another that wrote later. The book gives the reader the basic concepts in political thought in both regions of the world. It also tries to establish the context in which each author or set of authors wrote. Besides, there is a concluding chapter where the author attempts to show how political thought has influenced political policy all through the ages.  Written in plain language, this book will also be found readable by the general reader.

 

Okechukwu Edward Okeke is a Professor of History at Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State, NIGERIA.