Whoopi Goldberg's comments on the Holocaust

[Cmaier]

That is a big nose? You are no Cyrano de Bergerac. Not even close to a Jimmy Durante. On the scale of goofy-looking-ness, you are barely in the upper half of the first tenth-percentile.

You can’t see the full length and the hook from the front.

 

[Alli]

Consider brassica oleracea, which is called "cabbage". The species is also called "broccoli", "kale", "kohlrabi", "cauliflower" and a few other things. That is quite a lot of diversity in one species.

That’s not a good comparison. There’s a difference between genus and species. We are all one species, we are many races.

Well, we do have a higher propensity for Tay-Sachs (ashkenazis at least). And I do have a big nose. Can’t explain my blue eyes, though.

The reason I am so pro-choice is my cousins had a baby with Tay-Sachs. It was a horrible experience that no one should have to go through. My son has blue eyes and my daughter’s are hazel. Their father’s eyes are blue. My side is more stereotypical Ashkenazi.

 

[Yoused]

That’s not a good comparison. There’s a difference between genus and species. We are all one species, we are many races.

brassica is the genus, like homo. Unlike homo, brassica is not a monotypic genus. There is only one extant species in homo, that of sapiens. brassica contains many species, including several mustards, turnips, rutabagas, canola and some other things. oleracea is just one species in the brassica genus, which is all that diversity of plants previously mentioned (and we better hope that there is no pandemic that affects brassica species, as they are a huge food source for us).

In fact, we are not even a species, we are considered a subspecies, homo sapiens sapiens. As different as we all are, we are a narrow band of life, our differences being much more trivial than most species and not well served by othering.

 

[User.45]

brassica is the genus, like homo. Unlike homo, brassica is not a monotypic genus. There is only one extant species in homo, that of sapiens. brassica contains many species, including several mustards, turnips, rutabagas, canola and some other things. oleracea is just one species in the brassica genus, which is all that diversity of plants previously mentioned (and we better hope that there is no pandemic that affects brassica species, as they are a huge food source for us).

In fact, we are not even a species, we are considered a subspecies, homo sapiens sapiens. As different as we all are, we are a narrow band of life, our differences being much more trivial than most species and not well served by othering.

species

spē′shēz, -sēz

noun​

1. A group of closely related organisms that are very similar to each other and are usually capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. The species is the fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus. Species names are represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.

-----
Binomial taxonomy is barely OK until you look under the hood (genome) and you see a lot of continuity and then it becomes sorta unacceptable. Considering ourselves subspecies is pretty funny if you think about how our species killed off everything (more properly everybody) with whom we could interbreed outside our species. Homo sapiens sapiens, "The thinking and wise Man." Not sure if this was originally meant to be a joke, but I couldn't stop laughing about this since high school.

To cite a colleague, dividing humanity into races is like splicing soup. Whoopi was correct about one thing, color coding has been a key "perk" in slavery in the new world. Where she failed miserably is understanding that just because it's perceived real, it doesn't mean race isn't a societal construct and racism without color coding is less real. America's history on the one drop rule makes this even laughable. One of my daughters has blue eyes and pale skin and curly blond hair, the other is tan, has green eyes, light brown curly hair. Only their noses tell about their Subsaharan African heritage. Yet, per the Southern Anti-Miscegenation Laws they would be called "Quadroons" and even their children would be labeled "black." I teach them to be proud of their heritage and to be "woke" (yeah I sad it) in the actual classical meaning of the term. But can we take these classifications seriously at all? If you look at any population genetics study, it actually shows huge a confluence. Just look at the Lemba people of Southern Africa who for long were thought to be a lost Jewish Tribe of Israel and the more you read about the debate the more fascinating the story their genes tell.

 

[Nycturne]

Where she failed miserably is understanding that just because it's perceived real, it doesn't mean race isn't a societal construct and racism without color coding is less real.

So much this.

I think a lot of folks forget that all our classification systems are social constructs, and confuses them with something objective. While what it classifies can certainly be real, or have elements you can measure, and the classification can even have utility, it's still based on a social agreement to define it and how it is to be used. And that social agreement can include all sorts of baggage that comes along for the ride, prone to abuse by people in power who get to define it, and ultimately shapes how people think about the group being classified.

With your post, I just keep thinking about how Irish Americans seemed to be either split off into their own ethnic group or lumped into "white" in the US, depending on the political desires of the time. How they got classified was wholly dependent on wether the group in power wanted to exclude them from the hegemony, or needed their support to maintain the hegemony.

 

[User.45]

So much this.

I think a lot of folks forget that all our classification systems are social constructs, and confuses them with something objective. While what it classifies can certainly be real, or have elements you can measure, and the classification can even have utility, it's still based on a social agreement to define it and how it is to be used. And that social agreement can include all sorts of baggage that comes along for the ride, prone to abuse by people in power who get to define it, and ultimately shapes how people think about the group being classified.

Honestly, the whole genetic racism thing against African Americans relies on the premise of having Subsaharan African genes carry such dominant traits of inferiority that are more robust than any Mendelian inheritance pattern. In the meantime, many African Americans do 23 and Me to realize they have more "European" alleles than "African." The premise itself is illogical.

With your post, I just keep thinking about how Irish Americans seemed to be either split off into their own ethnic group or lumped into "white" in the US, depending on the political desires of the time. How they got classified was wholly dependent on wether the group in power wanted to exclude them from the hegemony, or needed their support to maintain the hegemony.

Yes, the Irish are a perfect example of this very approach.

 

[mac_in_tosh]

What would Guinan say about all this?

Guinan (Star Trek)