"The History of White People": What it means to be white

[MrScorpio]

How bad science and American culture shaped a racial identity -- and why America can't stop obsessing over it
BY THOMAS ROGERS

In 2000, the Human Genome Project finally answered one of the most fundamental questions about race: What, if anything, is the genetic difference between people of different skin colors -- black, white, Hispanic, Asian? The answer: nearly nothing. As it turns out, we all share 99.99 percent of the same genetic code -- no matter our race -- a fact that, geneticist J. Craig Venter claimed, proves that race is a "social concept, not a scientific one."

But as Nell Irvin Painter explains in "The History of White People,"her exhaustive and fascinating new look at the history of the idea of the white race, it's a social construct that goes back much further and is much more complicated than many people think. In the book, Painter, a professor of American history at Princeton, chronicles the evolution of the concept of whiteness from ancient Rome -- where, she points out, the slaves were largely white -- to the 21st century America and explains how, in the era of Obama, our once-narrow concept of whiteness has become at once far broader and less important than ever before.

The elevation of some ethnic groups -- Germans and Scandinavians -- as "whiter" than others can largely be tied to a small number of scientists who shared an obsession with both measuring people's skulls and pinpointing the world's "most beautiful" people. As Painter writes, a number of social and demographic upheavals (which she dubs "enlargements of whiteness") over the last two centuries have gradually thrown many of those assumptions into question.

Salon spoke to Painter over the phone, about the meaning of "Caucasian," America's obsession with racial difference, and the real meaning of Stuff White People Like.

Why write a history of whiteness?

We've spent so much time in this country on various racial issues. It's our national sport, in a way, and it's always as if there is only one side: nonwhite. But this is one of those binaries where you need both sides to make sense of it.

I want to point out that this book is not about white nationalism. It's not about how bad white people are. It's about how we have thought about people now considered white. I used to encounter reservations about the project, and people would ask, "Why are you doing this as a black person?" People hear it's a book called "The History of White People" and that it's by a black author, and make assumptions.

The Rest: http://www.salon.com/books/nonfiction/index.html?story=/books/feature/2010/03/22/history_of_white_people_nell_irvin_painter

[Solly Mack]

1. k/r

[intheflow]

2. Cool!

I just ordered this book for my boss. I'll have to read his copy when he's done. Thanks for posting, Mr. Scorpio! :hi:

[noiretextatique]

3. k&r

[Brewman_Jax]

4. Kick

:kick:

[soleiri]

5. K&R

You always bring the most interesting things to our attention, thank you.

[Fire1]

6. K&R n/t

[RedRoses323]

7. K/R

:kick:

[Iggo]

8. I found this interesting.

"And in writing about the tea parties, for example, journalists will now often note that the crowd is mostly white, whereas before I don't think that would have been pointed out; (it would have been assumed)."

Hadn't thought about that.

EDIT: (Brackets ate my text. I had to replace them with parentheses.)

[damntexdem]

9. Why write a history of whiteness? Because it's a history of racism.

Race is not just a social construct, it's a creation of racism: an ideology justifying exploitation on the basis of easily-identifiable characteristics common to those oppressors intend to exploit. Racism is an answer to the question: "who may we rob, kill, and/or enslave?" There is a reason that groups are characterized as 'races,' including 'white,' as opposed to blonde, or British, or short or tall.

[AngryAmish]

11. Gotta put religion in there too

Religion can be the basis of who may we rob, kill/enslave. Barbary Pirates, Ottoman Turks, etc.

[Number23]

10. Love how she inadvertently tackles the "it's not race, it's class" argument

that seems to be gaining steam in some circles for some reason.

"The first three are expansions of whiteness, because the assumption was that to be American you first had to be white. The first occurred in the Jacksonian era, in the first half of the 19th century, when citizenship criteria were changed from wealth to race. That's when adult males of any income were allowed to vote, as long as they were considered white."

And it's largely been that way ever since. I'm not sure how I feel about this book or the author's description of it, but this was an interesting read. Thanks for posting.

[MellowDem]

29. The reason it was changed had a lot to do with class...

the ruling elites were scared of the lower classes, so what better way to control them than to divide them and raise certain groups above others? Do you really think that wealthy white landowners wanted it changed to all whites? Hell no.

It has always been about wealth; race is just another tool to keep it. If it was all about race, Asians wouldn't have the highest average income, immigration would've been stopped long long ago, blacks would have been deported to Africa etc. etc. But we all know that those blacks, immigrants, and Asians were wanted to be exploited for very economic reasons.

It's like the illegal immigration debate today. The Republican elite keep the border open for businesses to exploit while their constiutients froth at them mouth about lost American jobs and culture.

The only thing that may be changing is that the wealthy elite are losing their hold of the Republican Party to their pawns.

[Dappleganger]

12. Saw her on the Colbert Report, looking forward to reading this! nt

[paulsby]

13. what would entine say?

if it's a social construct, how come not a SINGLE white or asian male in the entire world has ever broken 10 seconds in the 100 meters.

and west-african origin blacks (from many many countries) have done it many many times.

granted, it's not "blacks" specifically that have done so (many many times).

it's west-african origin blacks.

east africans suck at sprinting (but own distance running).

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulsby]

15. ignore inconvenient facts harder nt

[sudopod]

17. Learn some biology, slowbro.

You're not being as clever as you think you are.

[paulsby]

18. learn some sports science sudopod

you're not being as dismissive as you think you are

[BlooInBloo]

19. Jimmy the Greek will never die, unfortunately.

[paulsby]

20. facts will never die, fortunately.

is it a racist plot that no white or asian man has ever broken 10 seconds and that 100 meter races WORLDWIDE are completely dominated by a racial minority?

who is behind this racist plot?

running is the most universal of all sports. it requires little to no equipment (some elite runners have run without shoes as abibe bekila did during the rome marathon), can be done in various climates, etc.

people from every nation on earth RUN

yet, when it comes to the elite of the elite, ONLY west african origin blacks have broken that benchmark (from numerous countries)

china can field elite athletes in lots of sports. but that sports powerhouse can't field a single sub 10 100 meters runner

even if and when they do, there is a still a huge disparity in terms of # of participants vs. the elite placers.

people like you want to ignore evidence that goes against your prejudices.

you remind me of those who claim homosexuality is a choice

no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise

[hunter]

21. So running ability is linked to skin color? Wow. Crazy.

There simply are no "races." Period. We're all drawing from the same genetic stew: blood types, skin color, hair color, tall, short, wide, thin, big, small, everything.

Certain characteristics are favored in certain environments, for example people with dark skin were more apt to survive in sunny environments, and people with light skin were more apt to survive in cloudier environments and long dark winters. But these are not linked to any discernible "race." It's the same with blood types and other immunological factors as they relate to disease and various local environments. It's the same with body size and shape. A body shape handy for covering long open distances on arid land is not so handy in dense wet forests. A body type that doesn't store much fat is not so handy in places of unstable climate and frequent food shortages.

People of this human race have been migrating all over the planet for 50,000 years and more. Other human races, for example the Neanderthals or the "hobbit people" are extinct, leaving only us, one race. The pot is thoroughly mixed even within populations that have been unusually isolated for long periods. There are no lines dividing us that are not entirely artificial and arbitrary.

Sports is perhaps the most arbitrary and capricious measure of human ability there is. There is no reason of race that some people from one place might run faster than other people from another place. It's just something that is.

If you were having a contest for "universal" red blood cell donors, the people with O negative blood would win.

If you were having a contest for blue eyes, then the people with blue eyes would win. And that's exactly what our racist society has been doing -- deciding what the contest is so that their own self-selected and entirely arbitrary group "wins."

I might just as well say I'm a race of my own and the rest of you are my inferiors...

You know, wow, it's pretty nice up here in my tower all by myself, a race unto my own, almost god-like in fact. I'm so fucking glad I'm not human!

For that reason you should send me money. :eyes:

[paulsby]

22. actua;lly, it's a bit more complex than that

like i said, elite sprinting ability is disproportionately seen in WEST AFRICAN origin african american males (fwiw, most of the slave trade involved west africans).

east africans have done very very well in marathons, etc. but are generally awful at sprinting.

so, it's more correctly a subset of a race that shows this proclivity.

whether it is because there is a fatter tail or wider distribution or displaced curve, nobody knows

we just know that one particular ethnicity happens to dominate a near universal sport in #'s that clearly evidence a genetic component.

last i checked, 484 out of the top 500 times in the 100 meters were from west african origin black males, from a # of countries to include canada, jamaica, the UK, the USA, etc.

[hunter]

23. But it doesn't *MEAN* anything.

All you are saying is people from this one place tend to run faster than other people.

You might speculate about why that is, but it's no more or less significant then, say, a freckle counting contest or a golf match.

You could have a freckle counting contest, and offer prizes to the person with the most freckles, and attribute the results to some imagined race of celts, but still it wouldn't mean anything more than that you were setting up a contest and someone would win with "the most" freckles.

The underlying genetics of freckles or running could be studied but those have nothing to do with this arbitrary quality "race" or the contest you set up.

What's the question you are trying to answer? If you don't know the question, how is this term "race" useful in your answer?

"Race" has always been one of those "I know it when I see it" things that reinforces existing prejudices and fear of outsiders. When you try to pin the word down it becomes useless. Either we are all one race, the human race, or the concept of "race" itself was pretense.

Historically this pretense of different "races" has been used to justify the oppression, conquest, and even genocide of one culture by another.

[paulsby]

24. what it "means" is that

there are some sort of significant genetic differences, in groups with different genetic origins.

those differences aren't necessarily by "race" since west african origin blacks are not a different race than east origin black males.

there is something significant enough in their genetic gifts such that morphology is affected to the extent that it SIGNIFICANTLY affects performance

is it fiber composition (type IIx fibers etc)?
relative lever lengths?
some have suggested it's achilles tendon lengths (black bodybuilders for decades have noticed they tend to have "higher" calves (iow the muscle bellies of the gastrocnemus and soleus don't travel as far down the length of the lower leg)))?

i have NO idea. nor has any sports scientist i am aware of come up with a definitive answer.

[ismnotwasm]

27. You're leaving out cultural and political influences

As well as historical ones. Genetics as the one and only answer to physical ability is simply tarzan darwinism at it's worst and seems a lot like bell-curve pseudo-science.

Genetics play a part in everything of course, no argument from me there. How much and when is still a question. Perhaps white men really can't jump.

[paulsby]

28. you are leaving out logic in regards to culture

like i said, these are west african males from countries ALL OVER THE WORLD.

there is little if anything culturally similar between a west african origin male from the UK vs. one from the US vs one from canada vs. one from jamaica.

the similarity is the racial origin.

the country, culture, etc. are DISPARATE. that's what makes it so compelling

iirc, the UK has less than 5% population west african origin males. yet their elite sprinters are - west african origin males.

etc. etc.

considering that no matter WHAT the country, if you are looking at elite sprinters that are competitive on a world level, they are disproportionately by a GROSS margin west african origin black males.

the US has about 12% west african origin black males. i can't recall the last elite male 100 m sprinter that was not west african origin. ditto for canada (ben jonson ) or the UK (linford christie) etc.

the #'s are just phenomenally compelling.

cultural factors are obviously relevant when we are talking a sport like hockey (not a lot of elite hockey players are going to come from panama or hawaii), or ice skating, or skiing, or swimming, etc.

running is a near universal activity, and the cream rises to the top

trust me. there are MILLIONS of whites and asians TRYING to be elite sprinters.

[hunter]

30. It's not a "racial origin." It's just an origin.

That's all there is to it.

There's a huge amount of information we miss when we see things in terms of "race."

The only valid application of race is as it is used in the original post. How do you look at the culture of people who identified themselves as "white" or even those who identified themselves as "more white than black?" And it's ALL cultural with little relationship to the actual underlying genetics. I'll bet there's plenty of people here on DU who consciously or unconsciously attribute President Obama's success to the "white" in him. One long time and prolific poster here got tombstoned for his rank expression of that sort of prejudice.

In the early days of blood typing many people were utterly shocked that the ABO system didn't sift out neatly according to "race." They'd expected there would be something like black, white, and Asian blood. When I was working in a blood bank there were still people who wanted "white only" blood. It was always astonishing to us, here you've got someone who needs a transfusion, the sort of procedure that is only done if your life is depending on it, and you and your family members are so worried that the blood might not be "white" that they figure out how to make a direct call to the blood bank?!!

Maps of blood type frequencies here:

http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_3.htm

[paulsby]

31. that's a valid point

one can look at west african origin blacks as a subset of black males (thus implicitly accepting the concept of race), or just as a group of people who happen to "look black" so to speak, but have significant morphological differences from (for example) blacks who are from east africa.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

26. There are many reasons why some people would want to run faster

than the people chasing them.... the crusades most likely produced a prodigious amount of people who could run quite well.... then there were the native Americans... who didn't run fast or far enough.

[okieinpain]

16. seems interesting. n/t.

[Scurrilous]

25. K & R

:thumbsup: