The Washington Post says,
The contest for black support in South Carolina mirrors the national struggle Democratic candidates are waging to win black elected officials' support. Many have long-standing ties to the Clintons or Edwardses or others but are nonetheless tugged by racial solidarity with Obama and the excitement they see his campaign generating among their constituents. Moreover, Obama's early fundraising prowess has convinced observers that his campaign will be formidable to the end.Here's my biggest gripe with that paragraph and with the whole article from which it's excerpted: the word "racial." The word race is a synonym for "species" and the Washington Post is saying that we will vote for Obama because he is the same species as us, just like dogs hang out in packs with other dogs because they are from the same species.
I'm not buying that. I'm not going to let anyone say that I am from any species other than the human species. Let's face it: There's no way we will ever win equality in America for so long as we concede that we are not even from the same species as whites. I don't think "separate but equal species" is our best argument for equality.
Let's face it: What we have in common with Barack Obama but that separates us from whites is not our "racial" species, but simply our skin color. Is that so hard to say and accept?
Of course whites like to exaggerate our difference so they can rationalize the exaggerated differences in the way we are treated. That's why the word "race," that appears no where else in the biological sciences, is applied to the difference in SKIN COLOR between Blacks and whites.
Now, someone will insist that the word "race" is essential to our efforts to gain equality and fight racism. That's like saying that the "N" word is essential to our efforts to fight against epithets! The word "race" is itself a badge and mark of inferiority and the word "racism" unless you accept that concept of "race."
I am never going to use the word "race" again without referring to it as "the disproved pseudo-scientific theory of race." Any argument about Marxism [implicitly] accepts the fact that there was a man named "Marx," which is true. Any argument about "capitalism" is based on the premise that capital exists, which is true. But any argument about racism is based on the premise that "race" exists, which is false. NO ONE anywhere can offer me even a half-baked argument that there is more than one species of human beings!
Just as black cats and spotted cats from the same family are all from one species - "cats," likewise, Black people and white people who all came from Africa originally, who interbreed, who have [blood transfusions], who[se] organs can be transplanted one to the other, we are all from the same species. If the word race is superfluous in discussing differences between animal species, it is also superfluous in discussing differences between humans.
The word "race" serves only one purpose: to gloss over the fact that there is no evidence that we and whites are from different species and to gloss over the fact that we and whites MUST, by all evidence, be of the SAME species, that our only difference is skin-color.
So, what term will we use instead of "race"? How about simply "skin-color"? And what term will we use instead of "racism"? How about "skin-color aroused antagonistic behaviors of individuals, groups, organizations and societies." Yeah, it's a little longer than "racism" but has the advantage that it doesn't concede that we are, like dogs, being from a different species from whites.
If someone asks me, Are you equal to whites?" it does require more letters to write "yes," than it requires to write the word "no," but I think it's worth the extra effort. Likewise, I think it worth taking the extra time to write skin-color instead of "race" because skin color preserves our humanness and equality white "race" negates it.
plez sez: this is a very interesting topic for discussion, since we have lived with "race" our entire lives. we've been defined by it, lauded for it, denigrated for it. i see the point of his argument that it is a ridiculous way of labeling people because the races aren't much different until you add artificial (man made) connotations to it.
it also brings to mind that slavery would have never been justified if there had not been a way to create a different species of man. Native Americans were here long before Africans were brought to these shores, first as indentured servants, and then as life-long servants (slaves). laws creating the Black race and the mis-use of the Bible lended a hand in creating a sub-species of humans that made us ripe for servitude of over 400 years. and the lasting effects of race can be felt to this day!
thanks to Francis L. Holland for his contribution to plezWorld.