Can We End Racism by Ending the Idea of Race Itself?
Author Sheena Michele Mason offers an alternative vision for anti-racism.

The Raceless Antiracist: Why Ending Race Is the Future of Antiracism, by Sheena Michele Mason, Pitchstone Publishing, 256 pages, $17.95
Is race real? In The Raceless Antiracist, a follow-up to her 2022 book Theory of Racelessness, Sheena Michele Mason argues not only that it isn't, but that trying to stop racism while keeping the concept of race is like fighting "a flood by pouring water on it."
Mason, a literature professor at SUNY Oneonta, suggests that these futile approaches fall into two categories: "anti-racist resistance" and "color-blindness." While the first reifies race by making it the key to understanding most social phenomena, the second reifies it by treating it as a real thing that ought to be ignored, thus downplaying the reality of the racism that relies on it.
The Raceless Antiracist asks us to do something very uncomfortable: to adopt a new mental model, to think in a completely different set of categories. It doesn't deserve a snap judgment. It's a book for chewing on and wrestling with. It may puzzle or even disturb you.
Mason notes that our ancestors migrated at levels that most people grossly underestimate, leading to far more genetic mixing than people typically assume. She points out that our current understanding of DNA undermines a lot of assumptions that arose from observing external traits, such as skin color, nose shape, and eye shape, since such traits can arise from the same genetic allele but be inherited from entirely different people. Furthermore, thanks to the random genetic recombination that happens with every new generation, 75 percent of your genetic makeup is attributable to only 5 percent of your ancestors. A 23andMe test will tell you about only 8 percent of your ancestors, because they're the only ones left represented in your DNA today. In fact, it's possible that two dark South Africans can be more genetically divergent from one another than one of them is from a white Swede.
Even if race is a biological fiction—and I think Mason makes a strong case that it is—it could be real in the sense that money is real: constructed by us but constrained in its "nature" by the purpose it serves. People treat it as real, particularly the people who created the category as a rationale for dehumanizing those they oppress; and that, one might argue, makes it a social fact.
Mason rejects even this argument. We can build franchises, merchandise empires, and little girls' dreams out of princesses who create ice castles, but that does not mean those princesses themselves exist. So too, race is simply imaginary. It is racism that is the social construct: a social hierarchy based on an imagined category.
Mason sees this as an important difference, because she believes that people trapped in the ideology of race are fated never to actually end racism. We cannot beat the sin by embracing its core mistake.
The word trapped is instructive here. Think of how defining one's blackness as resistance to whiteness just prioritizes whiteness. What happens if the "whiteness" of Whiteness Studies programs—that is, the association of peach-colored people with legal and economic privilege—were actually to disappear? Would the meaning and purpose found in celebrating gospel music or soul food or the Civil Rights Movement disappear too? Obviously not! Those "black" things are not a celebration of race at all; they're a celebration of a culture shared by a particular ethnic group from a particular part of the U.S. who underwent a particular set of historical circumstances that shaped them in important ways.
Mason calls this "translation": Once one embraces racelessness, she says, one must translate what people really mean when they talk about "race" into actual insights about culture, ethnicity, class, or other categories. Consider Denzel Washington's comment when he was asked about why it mattered that the director of Malcolm X be a black man. "It's not about color," he replied: "It's about culture." He then went on to describe how a certain group of people know how the smell of a hot iron on their woolly hair makes them think of Sunday mornings and getting ready to go to a certain kind of church service. Martin Scorsese could make a great film out of the story of Malcolm X too. Just not that film.
By reifying race, thinkers like Ibram X. Kendi create a trap in which black Americans only matter as a group that's oppressed. By constantly referring to the disparate effects of this or that policy on "black and brown" people, when what we actually mean is poor people, we reinforce the false idea that black and brown people are all poor. By homing in on black men shot by police even though more white men are shot by police (here, Mason cites the work of Harvard economist Roland Fryer), the media reinforce a fear of being gunned down by police that far, far outstrips its statistical likelihood and could itself lead to dangerous consequences. Mason believes her framework will help people avoid such adverse outcomes without downplaying actual instances or effects of racism.
In an environment like ours, where racial categories are ubiquitous, this constant work of translation will require a toolbox—something Mason calls the togetherness wayfinder. Here, Mason's tone shifts from a prominently philosophical one to a literary one. She leans heavily on writers, from the African-American novelist Toni Morrison to the Chinese-American author Maxine Hong Kingston, from the Jim Crow–era black conservative George Schuyler to the 19th century poet Walt Whitman, as she offers ways to break out of false dichotomies, to refuse assigned categories, and to remember how complex and storied our identities really are.
Mason also argues, I think rightly, that many of our struggles with questions of identity, uniqueness, and belonging are grounded in our ability to receive and give love. In a deeply moving section, she relates her experience of being beaten with a broomstick handle by her adoptive mother, as well as being rejected emotionally and called a devil, despite her constant attempts to please through perfect grades and acts of service to her parents. I found it interesting that Mason does not relate whether her adoptive parents are white or black (or, as she would say, "racialized as white or black"). The experience of being abused and rejected by one's parents is, sadly, found in every society, every class, and every ethnicity. But it can undermine one's ability to love oneself in ways that send one searching for something to identify with, to be proud of, and to fight for. Much of that comes out as hatred—from racists, from anti-racists, from anti-anti-racists. It can be conquered by love, but only through an internal healing that every person must pursue for themselves.
I can quibble with much in this book. While Mason is politically independent and draws on a number of heterodox thinkers, she is ultimately a leftist and I a classical liberal; when she calls for fighting hierarchical oppression, she isn't necessarily imagining the same hierarchies that I do. But she is vague enough in those concerns that they have little effect on how I respond to her theory of racelessness. If she's right about the ways the concept of race traps us into multiple iterations of the same boring, and ultimately despairing, conversations, then it's worth working together to "translate" that race talk into something more precise—into insights about economic circumstances, ethnic heritage, or culture—and to jettison the rest. After that, the arguments we might have about economics and public policy can look to what's actually happening rather than what we merely imagine.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "How To End Racism."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Trying to eliminate race as a concept is all well and good, but it will not solve the adjacent problem...that the West is embroiled in a new holy war and it doesn't even know it. Or refuses to accept it.
The crime rate of red SUVs would skyrocket.
Make cultural knife fights great again.
Straight outta Compton
A crazy mother fucker named ice cube
With a band called
Nondescript people with attitude
Eliminating the idea of "race" is all well and good, but there are physical differences between what we call "races" have developed from evolutionary pressures to adapt to the environments they came to be in. Completely dismissing "race" as mere social construct is going to ask people to dismiss the evidence of their senses in a ridiculous fashion (even if the visible differences are slight and not terribly meaningful).
But you refute yourself—the visible differences are slight and not terribly meaningful.
Skin color is the most important thing.
Different prevalence of disease, muscle structure, and other biological markers also exist. It isn't just skin color.
Also genetic differences react different to even metabolic inputs.
I disagree. The same variances exist within each race similarly, outside of very minor instances that can be indicated by race. And as the melting pot continues to grow and be stirred the differences will eventually be completely irrelevant.
Today, especially with the access to truth and knowledge, the proof that race and gender ultimately do not define capability is everywhere. Opportunity and desire are the two limiting factors for human equality. But this has been known and essentially ignored for many millennia to uphold Status Quo or maintain power.
I'd say all folks should watch the movie Hidden Figures to overcome the idea of inferiority of race or gender and understand that any human given the opportunity can thrive, achieve and excel with the individual being their only limit.
You can disagree, but you're wrong.
It isn't just a single standard deviation for some of these things. Reactions even to proteins are statistically significant between races. It isn't in uncertainty bounds.
Likewise even skeletal structure or cartilage structure leads to different ailments, and this can be seen in graveyards and bones.
They may be relevant to superficial characteristics like sex appeal; it has no relevance to honor, decency, and integrity.
No, and it's pointless to try.
Humans chose division, so trying to unite them in some kind of a blob of blandness will only ever cause those within to hate each other.
It's far better to live divided (for whatever reason).
Humans choose tribalism. Even if we all had identical outer appearances, we would find ways to band together, and then fight other bands. Our monkey (and pre-monkey) brains will not let us do anything else.
Humans choose both division and (sexual) interaction. The canonical example was Sun City,.Bophuthatswana. where hordes of Afrikaaners would go to have sex with black prostitutes
I've said it many times: go back far enough and we're all brothers and sisters...
Reminds me of the title of the Ted Sturgeon story, "if all men were brothjers, would you let one marry your sister?"
Depends. My good sister, or the fucking hippie who can't hold down a job?
The vast majority of racism in America during the past 50 years has been manufactured, deployed and fueled by angry Democrats (the same political party that created and deployed the KKK a century ago) and their left wing GOP hating BLM/DEI activists and media propagandists.
The 2020 race riots in many US cities (following George Floyds fatal drug overdose, the false claim it was caused by racism, and the framing of Minneapolis police for murder) were caused by left wing militants nationwide who hated/hate Donald Trump, Republicans and police and falsely claimed they/we were all white racists who hate blacks and other racial minorities.
^THIS +1000000000000000.
The [WE] Identify-as (enter race, sex, religion) RULES and STEALS from everyone else cause [WE] identify-as 'poor' or 'oppressed'.
When really it boils down to the difference between the "conquer and consume" mentality versus the "create, earn and ensure justice" mentality.
Democrats demand segregation even to this day.
That explains replacement theory and Trump’s purging the country of brown people without papers.
Do you know who really liked to deport people?
In summary, the claim that immigration authorities deported more than 3 million people during the Obama administration (2009-2017) is accurate based on "formal removal" figures reported by the DHS. When including "returns," however, the total exceeds 5 million. Over the eight-year period of the Obama administration, the percentage of removals carried out without a hearing before an immigration judge ranged from approximately 58% to 84%, averaging roughly 74%.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-us-deported-more-130000074.html
And another MSNBC leftist talking point straight from the mouth of a not a leftist. Amazing.
Do you know 60% of Mexican Americans are also for deportations? Probably not as you choose to live in a 97% white community and choose ignorance.
Ah, sticking up for the migrant.
you people argued that because the land was "stolen" from Native Americans, its wrong to exclude illegals.
Does that mean Europe gets to exclude migrants.
Do the indigenous Europeans get to gun down invaders en masse?
you people say no.
you people say its racist to object to crimes committed by these migrants against white people.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/xamkwq/left_bad/
The Cologne Sex Attacks was a precursor to the 10/7 attacks.
Support for migrants is based on anti-white animus.
You people cheeer the deaths of Rachel Moron and Laken Riley, because they were killed by migrants who wanted to rape their pussies.
Of course, if young black boys like AJ Wise are killed by migrants, your kind considers that as only collateral damage!
You win a Jesse Prize for making a comment entirely composed of arguments against things I never said nor did! Bravo!
*slow clap*
You use the leftist narratives all the time. Just like in your initial comment.
Sorry you are too dumb to realize what you are saying.
Yes. I actually agree with the author mostly. I don't find the concept of race a useful descriptor of human beings. Sure there are cultures and common physical attributes but those attributes become less prominent with every generation. It is progressives who are desperate to maintain the concept of race from from the Klan to Margaret Sanger, to Jesse Jackson to segregated graduations at Ivy League universities. At this point it's a profitable business model that's likely to endure until the gravy train is somehow derailed.
Sad but true
It is progressives who are desperate to maintain the concept of race from from the Klan
In what bizarro world are the Klan progressive?
Thanks Bill G for putting things in perspective. Race relations have been poisoned for decades by the media. A commenter here once tried to gloss over the issue of media bias as a chicken vs egg thing. Shamelessly re-posted below is my response to that. (Note this was during the Harris/Walz campaign):
Well, I've been around awhile and I've seen a few chickens and I've seen a few eggs and I remember when one big fat white TV anchor chicken laid an egg and out hatched one big fat black chicken named Al Sharpton and from there on all the big fat white virtue-signaling chickens in da coop made a big fuss over the big fat black chicken and without a second thought they had elevated big old Al Sharpton to be the go-to expert on all the race problems facing the country. Now this was after the Civil Rights legislation was passed and there were signs that things were improving here and there but you'd never have know'd it for all the squawkin' going on because all of the big fat white chickens in the news media were hatching virtue eggs left and right... oh... make that just left because none of the big fat white chickens wanted to be associated with anyone who questioned their proscriptions about fairness and equity and we got LBJ and all the democrats lined up in a row and before you knew it chickens and eggs was flying out all over the place and we ended up where we are now with everybody blamin' all the white chickens for all the ills of the world, except the big fat high falutin' virtue-signaling ones think they gettin' away with it.
Need I say more? Well, I also remember what happened during the Carter administration, when the big fat media chickens still knew enough not to put all they eggs in one basket and so they would report some of the stupid things Jimmy Carter was doing to the detriment of the country and the economy and all and before you knew it old Ronald Reagan tossed his ass out in a landslide. I believe that was when these old white chickens figured out they'd better put they eggs in one basket after all or else folks would be knowing both sides of the story and they might not get they buddies into they high places.
But of course all of this was preceded by a bunch of mockingbirds - that's right, motherfuckin' mockingbirds started playin' around with psyops and all that shit and they got in they heads that they could kinda control the whole population if they worked it a bit and they still at it don't ya know cause now they got this brown-ass cackling chicken-puppet thing, stupid as a rock, but they figure they know how to foist this shit upon us now so there it is. I told you I know'd a thing or two about chickens and eggs.
And I thank God Almighty for the ability of folks to discern what's really goin' on because you see, a mockingbird might be able to imitate a chicken but the motherfucker can't lay no chicken egg no matter how hard they try.
Great rant Juliana.
Aren’t Democrats amazing? They’re like “climate change” for Trump defenders and the like in that there’s nothing that can’t be blamed on them.
There are literally no bad things in this world that dumbass leftists can’t blame on climate change, and there are literally no bad things in this world that dumbass Trumpians can’t blame on Democrats.
I’ll add that to my long list of things you dumbasses have in common with the dumbasses you hate. You both have a dumbass scapegoat that you blame for all the world’s ills.
No your party isn't amazing.
But what is amazing is you saying you aren't one. Bookmarked.
You are a dumbass leftist.
Speaking of dumbasses, my guess is that the dumbass behind the grey box, so desperate for my attention that attacks me for things I never said nor did in order to goad me into defending myself, accused me of blaming Trump for everything. What a dumbass.
Why is he “muted”? Are you afraid?
OK, now tell that to forensic anthropologists. They can tell not only the sex of the individual from the bones, but also the race of the individual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_anthropology
It's always funny watching white supremacists debating afrocentrists on ancient Egypt.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nie_LASiZJ0
Didn’t someone in Britain get arrested for saying such things?
Brazil was the latest.
There are medication that have different reactions based on race. Iq scores also have a racial component. As does impulse control. Look at societies from around the world. There is a reason Japan is like Japan, and the Congo is like the Congo.
Is it race or heredity?
Compare the behavior of people of Japanese descent in present-day Los Angeles with the behavior of people of Japanese descent in 1930's Nanking.
I disagree. Any individual no matter race or gender given the identical opportunity will turn out the same, save for the capabilities and desire of the individual, not race or gender.
Interesting essay. Thanks for posting it. The issue of "racism" cannot be solved despite all the good intentions. Racism is a symbolic term standing in for many of the dysfunctions of our civilized social structure.
For the past 200K years, Homo sapiens evolved in small, kin-related groups of ~ 10 to 25 members (band-level society) sharing the same phenotype, language, customs and traditions while utilizing a sharing economy and governed by trusted elders. Of course, our ancestral bands interacted with neighboring bands that were very, very similar to themselves. Generally, human beings can remember the names and meaningfully interact with up to ~ 250 people (our friends and acquaintances). That's it. Everyone else is a stranger and potential threat to ourselves and our little group.
The civilized social structure creates most of humanity's problems. Human beings are not emotionally equipped to live amongst hordes of strangers in filthy, non-productive habitats while utilizing a market economy based in lack and (often) governed by non-kin related psychopaths. Instinctively, we all know this is true. No sane person wants Donald Trump or Joe Biden or Kamala Harris or Hillary Clinton to lead their community, their band or extended family.
Recently, through DNA analysis, scientists found that the residents of sub Saharan Africa are pure Homo sapiens, while everyone else has a hint of Neanderthal. All of a sudden Neanderthals stopped being talked about as slow and stupid, and instead became quick and clever.
How much stupid retarded shit do you read on reddit?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080825203924.htm
Not so sure about the clever part. Neanderthals did pick up some human tech, but no evidence yet that it ever went the other way.
But the funny part there is that the reigning theory about their (Neanderthals) demise is that they were not as adept at communications, and did not live as densely as humans could and did. While being bigger, stronger, and probably faster, they were also fewer whenever the two clashed. But what is funny is that those pure sub Saharan humans turn out to be bigger, stronger, and faster, but lived the last tens of millennia less cooperatively. Most cooperative are those who settled in NE Asia, who also have Denisovan genes, another strand of humans who apparently branched from Neanderthals most of a hundred thousand years ago (?). Moving from Africa apparently forced humans to become more cooperative to survive, as they turned to agriculture, as the environment they lived in became colder. Being bigger, stronger, and faster was important if the biggest danger is natural predators, but being more cooperative is more important if the biggest danger is starving or freezing to death in the cold winter. One of the interesting evolutionary results of this is that sexual dimorphism is statistically greatest in those from NE Asia, and smallest in those whose ancestors remained in central Africa until relatively recently.
My point was that when white scientists discovered that they were part Neanderthal and that blacks are not, those white scientists stopped talking about Neanderthals as dumb and oafish. Why? Because racism is alive and well, even in the scientific community. Not sure if it's conscious or not, but it's there.
This looks even dumber after a posted study showing you what changed, the narrative youre pushing on claims of racism is wrong based on actual evidence. Not racism.
Another race first leftist narratives from sarc. Dude. Stop reading reddit for your information.
What you're too dumb to notice is the issue is protection of "what is known." People holding onto truths based on what they were taught, not developed from critical thinking or study. Oddly it sounds like you on economics. This behavior is in all social or lower sciences. Again. You're too dumb for this topic.
My point was that when white scientists discovered that they were part Neanderthal and that blacks are not
Sarcasmic is an idiot, part 2,356,851:
DNA from ancient human remains—ranging from about 8,000 to 1,300 years ago—shows that some West African populations, like the Yoruba of Nigeria and the Mende of Sierra Leone, have a small but significant amount of genetic material that seems to come from a ancient human group, like, but not, the Neanderthals.
This mysterious genetic input isn’t found in ancient Eastern or Southern African hunter-gatherers, and it doesn’t fit with the gradual blending of genes seen between those groups either. That suggests it came from a separate population—one that likely split off from other humans even earlier than the ancestors of the San people, who themselves are thought to have branched off 200,000 to 300,000 years ago.
This ancient genetic contribution in West Africans is similar in concept to how Eurasians have a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA. In both cases, a now-extinct group of archaic humans interbred with the ancestors of modern populations. However, unlike Neanderthals—who lived outside Africa and whose DNA is well-documented—this archaic African lineage is still unknown, as we have no fossils or direct DNA from the group itself. Its existence is only inferred from subtle genetic signals in modern people.
In short, just as Neanderthals left a genetic legacy in Europeans and Asians, this unidentified archaic group left a small but measurable genetic imprint in West Africans—likely long before farming began and possibly before the start of the Holocene, over 11,000 years ago.
Furthermore, recent discoveries, especially through ancient DNA analysis, are the reason why scientists have fundamentally changed how view Neanderthals. Not racism.
Recent archaeological findings have shown that Neanderthals engaged in behaviors once thought to be uniquely "anatomically modern human". They made art, sophisticated tools, controlled fire, built shelters, and buried their dead—sometimes with possible symbolic meaning. Genetics demonstrates that they had the capacity for speech and communicated in complex ways.
The bigotry was pretending that we were fundamentally different when we had no evidence for or against that view at the time.
So much unknown and assumed. Sorry but just because the evidence hasn't been found doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Current understand changes, as witnessed, with each generation and what we were told was wrong and what we now know is also wrong but it is considered current understanding because we have not found the evidence yet to change it. Homo Sapiens essentially fought and fucked the other humanoid species that were in existence for 100ks of years. An we did not evolve from apes, we evolved alongside them.
Ignore race? Sure, let's try it. Write a short review of the book.
"She leans heavily on writers, from the African-American novelist Toni Morrison to the Chinese-American author Maxine Hong Kingston, from the Jim Crow–era black conservative George Schuyler..."
Great experiment. It lasted six paragraphs. NEXT.
LOL
Hardly an original argument -- see, for example, How to Talk to a Racist by Adam Rutherford. The argument is always the same -- they reduce race to the simplest possible element (e.g., skin color), and then say The Science(tm) sez there ain't no race, but of course there are ethnicities, nationalities, and populations. But any gene mixing that went on 50000 years ago doesn't mean that there aren't any differences today. All these arguments are like saying that all cars have tires, but tires come in a range of diameters, widths, and aspect ratios, so there's no way to distinguish a Rolls Royce from a Yugo.
Just another Saturday afternoon in Seattle,
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/christian-rally-seattle-park-attacked-violent-woke-mob
By mid-day the mob engaged in a series of violent actions on the Christian rally, forcing police to intervene. At least 23 activists were arrested on charges of assault and obstruction.
Far left Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell warned against violence but also defended the mob. He called for an investigation into the permit process that allowed the Christian group to meet at Cal Anderson Park, as if Mayday USA was to blame, and suggested that the attacks were caused by "anarchists infiltrating the protest".
We must end violence by giving in to the violent left. Sit down and shut up.
The attacks were caused by anarchists infiltrating Seattle's entire power decades ago. This kind of shit has been going on in Washington with scant coverage and negligible prosecution since W was in office. San Francisco and Minneapolis like to think they're edgy and progressive, but Seattle is the fully realized dream of the Marxist, race-warrior class.
Leftists believe they own all public spaces.
Religious bigotry by progressives who will not tolerate a competing faith. Chemjeff smiles with approval.
But remember its never the progressives and Democrats who are prone to deadly violence. It's the white-supremacist-Christian-right-wing-extreme-right-wing-populist-conservatives who might start to fight back who are the real danger.
This was accomplished a long time ago
Over 10 years ago, very well received , Harvard University Press. I posted it on here many times
The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea
by Robert Wald Sussman (Author)
4.8 out of 5 stars (1,347)
White racism as an influential philosophy has ended, so we needn't be concerned about ending it. The only white racists left are just a handful of weirdos writing blogs to each other in Mom's basement.
How about keeping race, but abolishing bigotry? It’d create the same result, and be about as easy.
Aren't the lessons of the last 100 years showing the reduction of "bigotry" as a whole? Despite the media and left telling us the opposite. Though I believe the progress had been further along by year 2000 and the elites and power influencers have been trying to cause it to regress since then. Essentially by 2000, people were getting along better, living together more peacefully more happily together and with less hate and that was noticed by the elite. The realization of the biggest, and only real difference, in society was becoming economic, especially with occupy wall street, there's been a massive agenda pushed into re dividing us in any way possible. Sadly this has been paid for by the enemies of the west who will do anything to destroy liberty and individualism and the recipients of this support justifying and rationalizing through the idea of the ends justify the means have done deals with the devil itself.
dem·a·gogue
/ˈdeməˌɡäɡ/
noun
a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.
Does that make you think of anyone in particular?
Yes.
You.
Obama!
Oddly when racist whites decided in the majority to elect a "black" president in hopes of entering a post racial era the "black" dude found it politically beneficial to stab them in the back. And nobody noticed.
Map of the world's manufacturing output
https://www.isabelnet.com/map-of-the-worlds-manufacturing-output/
Must be a leftist outfit since they disagree with the assertion that we don't manufacture anything in this country. /s
Who’s to say we can’t do better?
"Mason notes that our ancestors migrated at levels that most people grossly underestimate, leading to far more genetic mixing than people typically assume. She points out that our current understanding of DNA undermines a lot of assumptions that arose from observing external traits, such as skin color, nose shape, and eye shape, since such traits can arise from the same genetic allele but be inherited from entirely different people. Furthermore, thanks to the random genetic recombination that happens with every new generation, 75 percent of your genetic makeup is attributable to only 5 percent of your ancestors. A 23andMe test will tell you about only 8 percent of your ancestors, because they're the only ones left represented in your DNA today. In fact, it's possible that two dark South Africans can be more genetically divergent from one another than one of them is from a white Swede."
This is all true, but said in a misleading manner.
She is limiting the concept of "race" to a narrow, Southern US ideology-based definition—one largely shaped during the Jim Crow era—and is disregarding broader historical and anthropological usages.
In some contexts, "the English" have been called a race, despite being a known mixture of Celt, Anglo-Saxon, Dane, and Norman peoples by the people using the term. This usage is one of culture and ethnicity.
Others have categorized "races" such as Brünn, Borreby, Faelid, and West Baltid based on phenotypic traits and regional clustering—essentially using the term the way one might refer to dog breeds.
If one were to define "race" by current genetic divergence, one would delineate four major groups: Southern African Hunter-Gatherers (SAHG), West Africans, Central African Foragers, and East African-Eurasians. These groups are genetically distinct, with the San of Southern Africa (SAHG) being more genetically divergent from a Nigerian Yoruba than the Yoruba are from an Estonian. The SAHG split from all other human populations roughly 200,000 years ago.
Furthermore, due to high levels of Denisovan admixture, Papuans are as genetically divergent from SAHG as a coyote is from a grey wolf. A Papuan and San are both definitely H.sapiens, but that's almost a "species" level genetic divergence there. They are definitely races if nothing else. (Species is another term with a million different meanings, some conflicting).
"Mason notes that our ancestors migrated at levels that most people grossly underestimate, leading to far more genetic mixing than people typically assume."
Within roughly 5,000 years of end of the Neanderthal admixture (60kya to 50kya), the ancestors of modern Eurasians split into two major groups: East Eurasians and West Eurasians (several other lineages also emerged but did not survive). Over the next 45,000 years, the West Eurasian branch further divided and diversified into several genetically distinct populations.
By the end of the Last Glacial Maximum, around 19,000 years ago, Europe and the Middle East were home to a patchwork of hunter-gatherer groups, including the Magdalenians, Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHG, a mix of ANE and WHG), Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers (SHG, a mix of WHG and EHG), Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers, Anatolian Hunter-Gatherers, Levant Hunter-Gatherers/Natufians, and others. Some of these groups were as genetically distinct from each other as a modern Chinese person is from a modern German.
Since then, these ancient populations have recombined in varying proportions to form the modern peoples of Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa.
Yet despite all this ancient divergence and subsequent remixing, they all remain within the broader West Eurasian genetic cluster. Europeans, for instance, have little to no ancestry from Southern African Hunter-Gatherers (SAHG) or Papuans, while Yemenis show no appreciable levels of ancestry from Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers or Ancient North Eurasians.
There's mixing in the middle and with Native Americans but 45,000 ya split between East and West still stands in Europe and Han China.
"Furthermore, thanks to the random genetic recombination that happens with every new generation, 75 percent of your genetic makeup is attributable to only 5 percent of your ancestors."
This is true, but if 100% of that 5% is Udmurt, you're an Udmurt.
"In fact, it's possible that two dark South Africans can be more genetically divergent from one another than one of them is from a white Swede."
She (or Rachel Ferguson) is once again being misleading here, as only one of the groups in question is truly indigenous—and the San are not particularly dark-skinned. Their complexion tends to be a light golden tone rather than a deep brown.
The indigenous people of South Africa are the Southern African Hunter-Gatherers (SAHG), the earliest known branch of modern humans to split off from the rest of humanity roughly 200,000 years ago. The San are among the best-known representatives of this ancient lineage today.
The other two groups—Dutch-descended Boers and various Bantu-speaking peoples—are comparatively recent arrivals. The Boers began migrating from the Netherlands to South Africa between 1652 and 1795. The Bantu migrations into South Africa occurred mainly during the 1800s, well after the arrival of the Boers. Both groups trace their origins to regions thousands of kilometers to the north, with the Bantu peoples originating in West Africa.
As noted earlier, West Africans and Europeans are genetically closer to each other than either is to the SAHG, though all three are highly distinct lineages. Since arriving in the region, both the Boers and the Bantu have acquired some San admixture, with that ancestry being particularly notable in the Boer population.
Importantly, the calls to “kill the Boer” come from radical elements within Bantu-descended political movements—not from the indigenous San
As a thought experiment this all well and good, but it has almost no connection to the real world. Creating franchises around little girls fantasizing about princesses making magic ice castles is not even remotely enabling for the elimination of a completely different imaginary construct with totally different roots in evolution, both social and genetic. Racism has deep roots in genetic "survival of the fittest" which is adjacent to xenophobia. Racism has never just been about skin color, it is simply the most obvious trait that xenophobia can latch on to. When people are comfortable, happy, productive and without fear, xenophobia tends to approach a nadir with tolerance prevailing. Politicians do not like happy people because they are difficult to control, but when they can stir up fear, racism starts to become a convenient button to push utilizing xenophobia to gain power.
How absurd.
Notably the people who have a problem with race aren't going to read this book.
So how do they suggest that we force racists to stop being racist? Logic and reason obviously don't work, so...camps or something?
Also, from a purely scientific point of view, there are real differences between what we call 'races'. Pretending they don't exist, or just relabeling them, doesn't change that fact. I'm not claiming those differences are really all that meaningful the vast majority of the time, but to simply pretend hundreds of thousands of years of differing evolutionary pressures never happened is anti-science.
Also, from a purely scientific point of view, there are real differences between what we call 'races'. Pretending they don't exist, or just relabeling them, doesn't change that fact.
True. However saying that will inevitably result in you being accused of racism by people who claim that the mere act of recognizing differences between races entails judgement, and judging different races is racist. That's why I don't say that anymore. I just don't want to get into that stupid argument with those stupid people.
Okay but what is a person who is 50% white and 50% Black. WE have a gamut, a spectrum, ever growing because intermarriage of races is quite on the rise
"In 2020, 11% of married couples in the U.S. were interracial or interethnic, a significant increase from just 3% in 1967. This number is projected to rise further, with about 20% of newly married couples potentially being interracial by 2050"
Yes, color is color, but how Black you are is going to be so difficulut to assess that racism will be noticeable more than it is now.