CHAPTER 1
Birth of the Racially Ambiguous
I made my first appearance November 27, 1988. Born the youngest of five children in a Colorado hospital, our family was complete. After years of birthing the boys she so loved, my mother finally had a girl. We were outnumbered, with my father and four boys, but we were a family nonetheless. The funny thing is what happened when my mother first saw me. After some extended time cleaning, and even losing me in the hospital, the nurses laid me in my mother's arms. Though to her surprise, I was as pale as ever, with blonde hair and blue eyes. Something wasn't right. An African American woman and her Middle Eastern-looking husband birthed a white baby. Was this their kid? Had it not been for the hospital bracelet on my ankle and the matching one on her wrist, this place would have had a lawsuit on its hands! My mom thought she was given the wrong baby. I think we're all familiar with those cases of kids being "accidentally" switched at birth. So where did my pale skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes come from?
The thing about DNA is that it is sort of complicated. Many beliefs exist about DNA, and about how a child inherits what from their parents. Science proves DNA and genetic inheritance to be more difficult to understand than we know. For example, if two parents, with two different blood types, have children, then the child may not inherit a blood type identical to either parent. If mom is O, dad is AB, the children may come out with either parent's blood type-or simply A or B. The greatest example of this is my own son. His father is AB, and I am O; our son is A. However, the confusion doesn't end there. Each of our parents gives us two genes. We get one from mom, and one from dad, who each inherited one gene from their mothers and one from their fathers. From this each pass one to their children. Quoted it can be explained this way, "Simply we get these genes from our parents, it is common to share traits with our parents, like blood type. But like I said at the start, that's not always the case. Because we have two copies of the blood type gene and there are three possible versions of this gene, there are six possible combinations. Officially complicated!" Danielle Dondanville, "Eye Color, Hair Color, Bloody Types, and Other Traits," The Tech Museum of Innovation. Web. 6 December 2016. All humans have the same 20,000 or more genes. We're uniquely separated by many versions of these genes. We all have the blood type ABO, and from this blood types A, B, and O. I know what you're thinking, oh, so simply put, all humans have one of the three blood types. No, that's not how it works, as Danielle Dondanville explained. The various versions of blood types can be anything from AA to AO, or AB to O, or anything in between. Sort of complicated, right? Our eye color, skin tone, hair color, and texture are all determined by DNA.
DNA determined that my eyes would be blue, although both of my parents have brown eyes. How is this? Summarized, a number of colors can "lurk" behind the eyes of brown eyed parents. Green, blue, hazel, gray, etc., all can exist in the gene pool of the two. However, in order for a blue eyed child, to come from brown eyed parents, the gene must show up at the "right" time, to produce blue, from brown. If only one parent has the "blue eye" gene, no child will directly inherit baby blues. Still, the children carry the gene to produce blue eyes, in their children. Stanford University's Dr. Barry Star explains further, "This is one way that blue eyes can stay hidden for hundreds of years before making a sudden, dramatic appearance. Only one parent in each generation has blue hidden behind his or her brown. Now, generation after generation, everyone will have brown eyes, and some will have those hidden blues. The blue eyes would keep getting passed down until finally one of the "carriers of blue eyes" had children with another parent that was a carrier, too. Now their children would have a chance at blue eyes." Dr. Barry Star, "Eye Color, Hair Color, Blood Types, and Other Traits" The Tech Museum of Innovations. Web. 3, Dec. 2014. Meaning, my parents, though both brown eyed, are "carriers" for the "blue eyes" gene. The gene showed up at the "right" time, when I was conceived, and thus the answer to my question. The gene was passed, I know, from my paternal grandmother to my father, and on to me. Still, an even more interesting discovery takes us deeper on our quest for the "blue eyes" gene. Que the OCA2! Formerly known as the "P" gene, the OCA2 is the gene that provides instructions for making the P protein. The OCA2 also is responsible for the production of melanin and gives us our hair, skin, and eye color. U.S. National Library of Medicine OCA2 Melanosomal Transmembrane Protein, Web. 19, July 2017. We further discuss the "P" gene in chapter 4.
While this information is amazing, it isn't what the book is about. We've come to understand (to a point) how genes work regarding personal features, but what about our ethnicity? What part does DNA play in our ethnic makeup? How have we come to see ourselves as a color on a social construct, but lost sight of who we are ethnically? All our lives we've been asked to identify ourselves under the banner of "race," but what is race? Is it biological, or a manmade idea? We'll answer this question in chapter 2, as we examine this thing called "race," and why I feel the need to break away from it.
CHAPTER 2
Race: Biological or Not? What Science Says
What is race? Scientists have argued this for quite some time. Is it a social construct, wherein groups of people are classified as having similar heritage (e.g. African Americans having ancestry throughout the continent of Africa)? Or is it a way of classifying people based on biological factors, such as how one may or may not react to some form of medical treatment or a drug. Does it have insight into one group of people's risk factors for contracting certain biological diseases? Dr. Ann Mornings addressed this in her article, "Does Genomes Challenge the Social Construct of Race?" Morning debates the findings of Shiao and his colleagues, regarding the beliefs of "constructionists." Such is described as not being "up to date", with an emphasis on an amendment. While Dr. Mornings does recognize the role of biology in "race", she also argues this is limited, but also gives way to discrimination of some, by others. "In contrast, I submit that the constructionist theory is not blind to the input that human biology can have in racial classification, but that it rejects as empirically unwarranted the genetic determination, or racial categories Shiao et. al.'s (2012) assertion of a "biological basis" (p.68) for race at time implies." Mornings, Ann "Does Genomes Challenge the Social Construction of Race," Sociological Theory 2014. DAI 32:189. Print. Such constructionist beliefs are summed up as follows: "Constructionist theories of race thus portray biological differences between different groups as a byproduct of social classification practices, not as their driver or even major contributor. In the constructionist perspective, categories are fashioned and meaning according to sociopolitical imperatives-for example, who is native to a territory and who is a settler; who can be enslaved and who cannot; who is a member of the faithful, ruling clan, or superior stock." Mornings, Ann "Does Genomes Challenge the Social Construction of Race," Sociological Theory 2014. DAI 32: 189. Print. From this we can understand the following to be true, those who fall into racial categories viewed as "superior" have free reign to particular regions, and all in their reach. On the flip side, those further down, and even living at the bottom of the hierarchy are beholden to the power of those "superior" to them. This gives way to racial supremacy groups such as the American Neo-Nazi Party, and the ICGC (Israel Church of God in Christ). Some of what I've learned while writing this book does point to a biological aspect of the human DNA and can be found in some races, more than others. The OCA2 and blue eyes, as studied by Dr. Hans Eiberg, for example. Still, Dr. Mornings further illustrates why the constructionists argue biology is limited in racial categorizing. "Racial constructionism offers several explanations for why a deterministic mapping of biology to race is indefensible. First, neither historical origins nor the malleability of racial categories supports the claim that they 'have a biological basis in statistically discernable clusters of alleles' (Shiao et. al. 2012: 68). The 'white' category, for example, has expanded and contracted so dramatically over time- to include or exclude Jews, Irish people, Laplanders, Hispanics, South Asians, Middle Easterners, and Ethiopians for example (Hanley-Lopez 1996; Jacobson 1998; Marks 1995; Samhan 1999; Sanders 1969) –that it is hard to discern the 'biological reality' at work." Mornings, Ann "Does Genomes Challenge the Social Construction of Race", Sociology Theory 2014. DAI 32:189 Print.
The "constructionist" view on "race" gives rise to an unfair classification system. This rings true to the treatment of some groups, by others, throughout American history. At one time, only "white" Anglo-Saxon males who owned land, could vote. That is, only those with the means, and who belonged to the "right race" and gender, were allotted these privileges. However, women were seen as inferior, less intelligent, and incapable of being part of the voting system. African Americans, male and female, were once viewed as sub-human, and they had been classified at the same level as animals. Still, the question remains whether or not there are biological factors that explain the notion of "race" and if so, why we abide by it? Mornings argues against this belief when she states: "Underscoring this point, the focus of this article will be on examining Shiao et al.'s (2012) main argument that current research in human genetics warrants a reformulation of constructivist race theory. As it turns out, review of the scientific literature they cite reveals how deeply social the production of this strand of biological knowledge is. There are myriad ways in which 'facts' about human genetic variation are shaped by analysts' assumptions and decisions: Choices about whose DNA to sample and which types of genetic data to analyze, as well as assumptions about how different populations are related to each other and decisions about what statistical techniques to employ, all bear on scientists' conclusions about the genetic "clusters" that ostensibly characterize our species. Moreover, they leave many openings for our widely shared beliefs about racial difference to filter in. Consequently, the examination of research reports in human genetics leads me to contest Shiao et al.'s claim that recent research has clearly demonstrated "that certain racial, and also ethnic, categories have a biological basis in statistically discernible clusters of alleles" (Shiao et al. 2012:68). Instead, statistically inferred human genetic clusters have a social basis that is entirely consistent with current constructivist thinking about race. Our depictions of the genetic structure of human populations are themselves so culturally conditioned that it would be a mistake to conclude that they represent objective biological measurements that are any less a human artifact than folk taxonomies." Morning, Ann "Does Genomes Challenge the Social Construction of Race," Sociology Theory 2014. DAI 32:189. In her own words, Morning argues that Shiao and colleagues' claims are unfounded and biased; she claims that the findings are based on particular practices, proceedings, and modes of exercise. So, does science prove there is no biology in "race"?
A counter argument has been offered by Nicholas Wade in his article, "What Science Says About Race and Genetics," published in Time Magazine. While Mornings argues there are flaws in the method by which we classify specific races, Wade offers an explanation. He states, "Analysis of genomes from around the world establishes that there is a biological basis for race, despite the official statements to the contrary of leading social science organizations. An illustration of the point is the fact that with mixed race populations, such as African Americans, geneticists can now track along an individual's genome, and assign each segment to an African or European ancestor, an exercise that would be impossible if race did not have some biological reality." Wade, Nicholas "What Science Says About Race and Genetics," Time.com. 09, May 2014. Web.
Jacqueline Howard, senior science editor for the Huffington Post, wrote on this issue, in her article "What Scientists Mean When They Say Race Is Not Genetic." According to her research, scientist feel, "the problem of race in such research is 'problematic at best and harmful at worst.'" Howard, Jacqueline What Scientists Mean When They Say Race Is Not Genetic. Huffington Post, 09, Feb. 2016. Web. What does this mean? For more than a century, race has been used as a method to biologically classify groups of people. However, scientists like Francis Collins, the head of the National Genome Research Institute, calls these practices "flawed." She goes so far as to call race a "weak" concept, and suggest science move beyond it. W.E.B. Dubois joined the debate 100 years ago, arguing against the concept of classifying people as "black," or "white." Still, classification of people, by "race" continues. If Nicholas Wade is correct, in his assessment, then anthropologist in the Kennewick Man's case should've been able to label the skull, by race, and show the remains to belong to someone white, black, etc. The 1996 discovery of an ancient skeleton, in the Pacific Northwest, sparked controversy, as scientists set out to discover the "race" of the remains. Native residents of the area sued anthropologist for the head of an unidentified human, one the tribe claimed belonged to their people. The courts agreed, in accordance with the Department of Interior under federal law that provides Natives the right to claim all pre-European remains, if cultural affiliation can be established. Determined anthropologists filed suit, asking to be allowed to study the head. Why? According to forensic anthropologist George W. Gill, this type of study can often be used to determine the race of skeleton. "We produce as much accuracy in race as we do in sex and age." Lawson, William "Anthropologists Disagree About Race and Bones" ABCNews.com. Cable News Network, 06 Oct. 2000.Web. Gill is one of only 60 certified forensic anthropologists in the United States and Canada that assist in crime detection, using evidence found on dead bodies. George Gill seems very proud of his work, and sure of his capabilities, but others disagree with his claims. Michigan State University professor Norman Saucer couldn't be sold on the concept of race. Saucer explained "race" to be a human invention, with which we've endured as a societal concept, but one that cannot be defined. He goes further to state, "If you were to walk from Europe to Africa, where do you put the line? All change is gradual. The lines are historical and political. It's in people's minds." Lawson, William "Anthropologist Disagree About Race and Bones," ABCNews.com. Cable News Network, 06 Oct. 2000. Web. If "race" is a human invention, a classification system, we may better understand the claims of "trans-racialism" made by infamous Rachel Dolezal.
Former NAACP Civil Rights activist and Africana Studies instructor Rachel Dolezal, became a household name when outed by parents, Ruthanne and Lawrence Dolezal. Their "white" born daughter had been living a lie. Rachel fooled everyone she'd come in contact with into believing she was "black." Dolezal explained she identified as "black" and argued "race" is a social construct, not a biological feature. When asked if she was African American, Rachel responded, "No." However, in 2017 she adopted an African name. What did Ms. Dolezal mean when she called "race" a construct?
Michael Omi and Howard Winant explore "race" and how it shaped American society in their book, "Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s." Omi et. al. introduce the three approaches to "race"; nationality, ethnicity, and class. From each of these came new ideals, and even questions against Social Darwinism. One argument stated that ethnic minorities could be introduced into society, the same way white had been. Of course, no belief is developed without a counter. On the subject of ethnicity I quote, "The ethnicity-based paradigm arose in the 1920s and 1930s as an explicit challenge to the prevailing racial views of the period. The pre-existing biologistic paradigm had evolved since the downfall of racial slavery to explain racial inferiority as a part of a natural order of humankind. Whites were considered a superior race; white skin was the norm while other skin colors were exotic mutations which had to be explained. Race was equated with distinct hereditary characteristics. Differences in intelligence, temperament, and sexuality (among other traits) were deemed to be racial in character. Racial intermixing was seen as a sin against nature which would lead to the creation of 'biological throwbacks.' These were some of the assumptions in social Darwinists, Spencerists, and eugenicists thinking about race and race relations." (p.14) Omi, Michael, Howard Winant, "Race Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s," 2nd Ed. New York; Routledge, 1994. Print. Ideas like this give way to racism and discrimination. We've seen it with the introduction of segregation, the Jim Crow laws, and miscegenation laws that forbade intermixed marriage.
