Reaction to Diamond's "Race Without Color"

Race without color? Is that possible?

Summary:
In his 1994 article in Discover Magazine, Jared Diamond argues that the traditional notion of "human races" (subspecies) based on visual features of skin, hair, eyes is not scientific. Furthermore, it is unnecessary and harmful to human society.

Race by Blood Type A?

Race by Fingerprint Type

 



























It may be true that different regions of the world have some notable characteristics such as dark skin in Africa, or narrower eyes in Asia. However, Diamond argues this does not mean that humans can be categorized into clear biological groups. Depending on what biological characteristic is used (skin, blood type, fingerprints, lactase digestion etc.) the groups come out differently. Based on sickle cell malaria gene catorizations, Swedish whites will be grouped with Xhosas in Africa. That is the problem of concordance. If the groupings vary according to the trait used, there is no concordance of variable traits, and therefore defining a subspecies of humans is not valid.

Today, DNA analysis is possible, and that will clarify how various populations migrated from Africa to other parts of the world. Obviously some groups are closer cousins, like Japanese are closer to Koreans and Tibetans. However, even within Japan, similar splitting is possible. Some people in Japan have more Mongolian genes, some have more Oceania genes. It is mixed and complex. That is the problem of hierarchy. Depending on how much difference in DNA you define as "different" (0.1%? 0.2%), the number of categories will change. The criteria is arbitrary and ultimately meaningless. Clear categories of human physical characteristics based on multiple traits cannot be defined. Categories with one or two traits are easy, of course, but which traits are used is arbitrary.

In race, traditionally, beauty traits were used because that is how humans like to subjectively and culturally separate themselves. As Diamond concludes, in primitive times, such 'us and them' distinctions may have been useful for protection. In the age of global interaction, such distinctions are unneeded and harmful.

Critical Reaction:
Does this argument make sense? It seems to. However, one thing that bothers me is that the definition of "concordance" (or any definition of subspecies) is hard to find on the Internet. Do other taxonomists agree with Diamond's view? I'm curious how solid the consensus of "no human races" is.

Also, assuming his argument is reasonable, what's the application? For one, scientists in any field should not use the word "races" in a biological sense. That seems clear. However, in society, people live from day to day based on their subjective, traditional notions. Whites think they are white, and Asians think they are Asian. The concept of race is subjective and cultural, but it IS something that people feel as a social category. Therefore, ignoring it or abandoning it is not a solution.

A proper understanding of both 1) the biological fallacy of race, and 2) the social reality of race is necessary.

My Reaction to Shreeve's "Terms of Estrangement"

James Shreeve, author of Terms of Estrangement, Discover magazine 1994 

Main Points:

Shreeve's main issue is whether the term "race" should be used in science and other professions such as police work or medical research. He interviews many experts to see what their opinions on it are. Most of his experts are anthropologists, and most of them (especially Armelagos, Marks, Smouse, Sauer, Lewontin and Brace) feel that the word "race" is NOT a scientific category that can be defined for humans. This follows the 1996 declaration by the American Association of Physical Anthropology (see via Moodle link). In other words, the categories are impossible to make because various geographical populations such as African, Asian, or European have not been isolated; they are all connected to each other and there are innumerable mixes. 

Thus, Shreeve's interview data seems to point to a consensus that race is a traditional socio-cultural perception of human categories based on sets of visual characteristics such as skin color, eyes, and shape of facial features. It is connected to geography and migration and genetic change, but there are no clear "bushel basket" categories. It is not scientifically definable. However, at the same time, it is undeniable that police find the word useful for finding identities of suspect with quick visual sets of traits, and medical researchers find that medicines can be developed for certain types of people within a country such as American Blacks, who have different genetic tendencies than American Whites. Those are just genetic tendencies or "sub-populations" or "sub-cultures", not "races". 

My Reactions:

My main question is "So what? What should we do with Shreeve's information?" Most of us are not anthropologists, so how is this connected to us? I understand that the term "race" comes from a European tradition from Linnaeus and Blumenbach and is not based on real science. People are different, but there are no clear categories that can be made. The genetic differences are mixed and complex based on human migration from Africa to other parts of the world. 

OK, if somebody asks me, "What is your race?", what will I say? Will I say "There are no races of humans, but my ancestors are mostly from Europe." 

Next, what will my children Michael and Mei say? The question "What is your race?" does not make sense to them at all. I guess they could say "We are biracial, with genes from a European father and Japanese/Asian mother, but that muddles the issue. Their best answer is probably "The word race should not be used, but our father's ancestors come from Europe and our mother's come from Japan."

Something like that? In any case, I think it is very valuable for us to EXAMINE where "terms of estrangement" come from. The word race is responsible for a LOT of suffering around the world. If it has no scientific basis, we should abandon it, and look for other words that more accurately describe our differences. Perhaps ethnicity is a better word?

My Reaction to Gould's "The Geometer of Race"

Main Ideas:
In his 1994 article in Discover magazine "The Geometer of Race" (link to article), Stephen Jay Gould (link to profile) mainly seems to argue three main points using the historical example of Blumenbach's (link to Wikipedia) theory of human racial classification published in 1795.

 
 

1. Main Idea 1: Gould writes that scientists' theories can never be completely objective, and that it is important for scientists to realize that their personal and cultural biases are imposed to some extent on their theories. Blumenbach's hierarchical theory of race based on perceived beauty of physical characteristics of white Europeans (especially Georgians) shows how subjective ideas can influence theories.
2. Main Idea 2: Secondly, scientists must also realize that their scientific theories can have a powerful ideological impact on society. Gould believes that Blumenbach's theory of racial classification had a "practical impact...almost entirely negative, upon our collective lives" similar to the level of the impact of nuclear bombs (p.4 in our Reader).
   
   Gould believes this negative impact in terms of supporting racism, slavery etc. in the 18th to 20th centuries was due to Blumenbach's theory. He writes "Where would Hiter have been without without racism, Jefferson without liberty. Blumenbach lived as a cloistered professor all his life, but his ideas have reverberated in ways that he never could have anticipated, through our wars, our social upheavals, our sufferings...." (p.9). This is highly ironic, according to Gould, because Blumenbach was a promoter of equality among races, and was NOT a racist compared to other people of his time.
3. Main Idea 3: Relating to the key word Geometer in the title, Gould seems to want to argue that scientific theories form a "mental geometry" that remains in people's minds. Blumenbach's theory is an example of "redrawing the mental diagram of human groups" and the impact of the theoretical shift was "broad and portentous in scope" because people now had a visual representation of the hierarchy of race in definable geometric terms. I think he means a sort of triangle, with Causasians at the top, and Africans and Asians at the bottom, which is one way to interpret the theory.

My Critique
----------------
So, are those three points reasonable and persuasive?

I feel that the first point is strongly supported by the Blumenbach example. It is clear that Blumenbach, in spite of his best efforts to be scientific and to support the moral and mental equality of all humans, was influenced by a bias toward superiority of Europeans.

The second and third points, however, are not fully persuasive. Gould fails to show what kind of effect Blumenbach's theory had on European society. He suggests that Hitler was influenced, but no connection between Blumenbach and Hitler is explained. It is left to our imagination, and I am skeptical out this. He also fails to show that people really interpreted Blumenbach's theory in a geometric way. Many questions remain. Who read Blumenbach's theory, and what kind of ideas did they get from them? How widespread was this knowledge of the theory? Also, didn't racism already exist anyway, even without his book saying that Caucasians came first? What effect did he exactly have outside of the ivory tower? Gould needs to explain these points further if he wants to convince a critical reader.

Extra:
Here's a PDF of an exchange between a critic and Gould regarding this article. In this exchange, I think Gould is persuasive, although he apologizes for the alteration of Blumenbach's original illustrations from flat to a triangle, which was done by the publishing company to show what Gould was trying to say. Gould didn't do it, but he takes responsibility for the visual representation done by the book editor. Blumenbach never made a clear image of a hierarchy in his treatise, which was almost all text in Latin, but I agree with Gould (I think, assuming that his translations of the Latin are accurate), that a hierarchy of beauty is being argued in the treatise.

Gakkou Koukai: Visiting my son's primary school and English Activities

Last Saturday was a Open House (gakkou koukai) for Michael's primary school, a public school in Mitaka. He's in the 2nd grade this year and loves his school life very much.

Open House is a day where the kids have school all day on a Saturday, and the parents and other guests can roam the halls and visit classes freely.

I wanted to see my son's classes, of course, but also wanted to peek in on some English Activities (eigo katsudo) classes which were being held in classrooms of 4th graders and 6th graders.

For my son, I had a chance to see him doing a language arts class and a crafts class. In the language arts class, which was supposed to be a PE class outside but changed suddenly to language arts due to the rain, the teacher read a story to the second graders in a whispered voice (she had a cold in her throat that day), with the 30 or so second graders crowded toward the teacher's chair to listen carefully. After the story, they got some comprehension and discussion questions on cards that they discussed with their neighbors. Then students took turns reading the questions and the students who knew the answer raised their hands. Interestingly, the teacher only asked the students to raise their hands, and did not actually call on anybody to answer. Perhaps she was keeping things safe to avoid loss of face by students with so many parents watching to see what the kids would say? A very low key lesson, but very impressive to see that the kids' ability to focus was high and they stayed quiet and controlled for 45 minutes sitting on the floor in front of the teacher. Was the good behavior because of the parents visiting? Or does the teacher have good control of the class from day to day? I'm curious to ask, but I would guess that my son's teacher has done a good job with the crew over the past year and a half, inspite of being fresh out of her college and certification program and getting a cohort of wild untrained first graders last year. I remember that in last year's classes in Open House, around this time 12 months ago, a few members of the class couldn't keep still and had to pull stunts to draw attention to themselves every few minutes. Those guys were well under control.

Craft class was also very nice. I didn't stay for the whole time, but the lesson had a nice flow of one group of students teaching another group of students how to make a moving toy. Good practice of communication skills and collaboration. My son taught one of his classmates how to make a dancing cup out of a paper cup, rubber band, sheet of paper and tape. Very patient and friendly teaching!

In addition to my son's 2nd grade, I visited one 4th grade class and 6th grade class to see their English Activities, and stayed about half an hour in each one.

Both were doing Halloween theme activities.

My notes/observations

• The teachers were Japanese home room teachers only. No ALTs. I'm not sure why this happened because using ALTs more is an explicit goal of Mitaka education for English in primary school. Anyway, what impressed me was that both of the Japanese home room teachers who taught the lessons were VERY GOOD English speakers. Very capable with basic communication and classroom management English. Pretty good pronunciation, too. At least one had obviously studied abroad for a while.
• The flow of the lesson seemed to be 1) picture flash cards for Halloween vocabulary, combined with a short explanation of the meaning of Halloween in Japan, at least for the sixth graders. The flash card sequence seemed routine. First, after choral repetition, the teacher prompted the students for the Japanese equivalent expression to confirm understanding. The prompting was done in English "What's xx in Japanese? Do you know?" and volunteers answered in Japanese, all correctly. Then students repeated and were quizzed on them a little. 2) Games: For the 4th graders, Janken (Paper Scissors Rock 123...) + "Do you have witch?" for the 4th graders + winner gets one of the other person's picture cards. For the 6th graders, vocabulary bingo. In both games, the usage of spoken English by the students was very low. Most group work or free work included a lot of Japanese interaction. Some use of the English vocabulary may have been included, but I couldn't hear it. So...through the lesson, the students only seem to have heard and repeated 6~9 Halloween words such as bat, witch, Jack-o-Lantern (a mouthful), vampire, mummy, ghost. Input also included classroom English from the teachers, who seemed to speak only English...which is quite commendable for a non-English teaching specialist.
• There was no review of basics, and there seemed to be very little accumulation of functional language that the students could use except for "What's this?", which the students only used when required. No spontaneous use was seen. 
• Since Mitaka started English activities in September 2007, the six graders have so far had a total accumulated school English Activities hours of...let's see...in 3rd grade 25 hours, 4th grade 25 hours, 5th grade 35 hours, and now in October of 6th grade, about 17 hours. Almost 100 periods of 45 minutes. That's the equivalent of about a bit less than a year of junior high? 
• I think a specialist with a continuous, accumulating curriculum could have built a foundation of English by 100 hours, but this is very difficult in Mitaka schools because 1) English activities are NOT for English. They are for, as the national curriculum stipulates, experiencing the fun and curiosity of learning about foreign cultures and languages. However, that balance is very hard to strike. You either do cultural experiences with many languages and cultures with a little English thrown in, or you do English mainly with a little intercultural experience thrown in to show the context of why they are learning English and where English comes from. 
• It would be very interesting to interview the teachers to see what their thoughts are about the current use of time in the English Activities hours. My feeling was that the teachers were not really sure which way the class should go, and as a result, the time ends up being spent with fun and games to ensure, at the very least, that no child will end up disliking English before going to junior high...
• ...But I think it is difficult for kids to like English, especially in the higher primary grades, when they are only liking the games and the lack of pressure. 
• My stance on English in Japanese public primary schools continues to be: If you are going to do it, do it WElL. Do it systematically and with dedication of trained teachers. Communicate with the junior high school and agree on what foundation the children will be given in elementary school. Including basic phonics for pronunciation practice and sound-letter association should be completely within a reasonable reach with 100 hours even if the pace is 45 minutes per week. Give the children a sense of accomplishment--build in a lot of repetition of basics (numbers, alphabet, greetings, exchanges, reactions, chunks of phrases) that are repeated in every class.
• Or...if not done with organization and dedication, perhaps it is better to not do it and to leave it alone until junior high school??
• I'm curious what other primary schools in Mitaka are doing, and how the education committee is coordinating the efforts between them. My experience with the education committee shows that they may not have any personal qualifications or experience with language teaching, and their efforts to coordinate language teaching probably need help. 
• I'm willing to help if they are willing to listen...

Inside Job (2010) A "must see" documentary

I'm not an expert on financial regulation, but I felt "Inside Job" was a very skillfully produced documentary on an immensely important issue. I had some general knowledge about the Subprime Loan crisis and how it happened, but this documentary seems to explain the weaknesses in our current regulatory system more clearly than anything I have seen so far.

The issue here is how financial greed (and, I would argue, a disregard of their responsibility toward society) among a wealthy elite is allowed to be protected by a web of arrangements between financial institutions, the government that is supposed to regulate them, and academic institutions that are supposed to analyze and point out the dangers for society.

The documentary implicates the investment bankers such as Goldman Sachs, the government regulators such as the Federal Reserve's Greenspan/Bernanke, and academics such as the economics professors at Harvard and Columbia who advise the government. It seems clear that those involved knew what was happening, and did not take steps to stop the greedy risk taking which the documentary calls the Heist, an inside bank robbery job.

After watching this, you just wonder, how could a group of immensely wealthy people (owning millions of dollars in assets) who knew that these careless risks could end up affecting the lives of millions of people who will have trouble eating, living, and getting basic medical care and education from day to day, just gamble with the high risks, lose billions of dollars of people's money, crash their companies and cause economic difficulties around the world, and yet get billions of dollars of taxes (from us) to save their money, and walk away still being millionaires.

The documentary producer Charles Ferguson in his interview at the end of the film states that he believes many of these con men running a gigantic legal Ponzi scheme should spend several decades in prison. Maybe so.

I would say that they should at least have to start over from zero. They should forfeit their personal assets to pay back their debts, become one of the jobless persons (like the millions they affected), and be banned from ever having a job in financial services again.

Of course, there is a very small chance of that type of regulation or penalization ever happening because the government bodies that are supposed to create such penalties are run by advisers and academics who they used to work with (or who they will hire and work with in the future). In principle, I am sure that Obama is for punishing the greedy industry more, but he has been unable to pass legislation with teeth. Obviously, it is very difficult to penalize rich powerful cliques of people. They protect each other. Money talks in democratic politics. People will shut their mouths of if given a bonus of a million dollars to keep working in the greedy system.

So, what can break the system and cycle? Politicians who are not afraid to oppose money, academics who are not afraid to criticize the system even if their universities (like Harvard, for example) are run by people who created and maintain the system, and do I dare dream...members of the financial industry who believe that they should only earn a honest wage for their work, and see a million dollars as money that is completely unnecessary to have a personal income...I mean how much do you really need?

I hope the education that I provide to my students helps them realize the social responsibility that talented, privileged people like them have toward creating a fair, caring world where members of powerful institutions avoid pursuing wealth beyond need.

Finished a very sweaty, dangerous Turtle Half Marathon

Yesterday I successfully finished a half marathon in unbearably high October heat and humidity.

Marathons are not made to be run when the sun is burning at 30 degree centigrade.

As the news article below reports, 23 runners were hospitalized due to heat stroke, some in critical condition. I saw a few of these guys convulsing in the heat on the side of the road. Scary. Fortunately, the race was well-staffed with doctors and emergency personnel.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20111016/t10013298241000.html

Somehow I finished. My time was about 2 hours 6 minutes on my watch. The official time will come in the mail in a few weeks.

If it weren't for the heat, I was hoping to run around 1hr 55 min, but I slowed down a lot to take extra water and to get under showers volunteers were giving with chilled water.

Finally, I want to thank my friends Toshi and Kazumi for inviting me after the run to his house nearby by for a badly needed shower and cold beer and good food. It was nice seeing their daughters Haruka and Honoko there and meeting friend Mr. Shimakura.

Why Boys Need Parents - LOL!

This came around from, of all people, my own dear father. Yes, I did a few of these things when I was a kid.

http://izismile.com/2009/04/07/why_boys_need_parents_39_pics.html