I recently finished reading one of the most famous scientific works of the modern age, Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but I'll have to say it is a pretty impressive piece of scholarship. His prose is generally quite readable, though some parts are rather slow going, especially towards the beginning where he goes into fairly exhaustive detail about his and others research with pigeons and various plants. Still, the general reader (assuming a modicum of intelligence and education) will have no problem following the majority of it. His arguments are very well laid out, and I was particularly impressed by his effort to anticipate all the possible objections to his theory, and do so in a very modest way ("a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader..."; "objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume..."). He discusses his theory from almost every possible angle, and even given that we know far more now than we do then (he didn't know about genetics or DNA, for example), his arguments are still very much valid -- if anything, many have since been strengthened by later research.
Perhaps a brief recapitulation of Darwin's theory is in order. Briefly put, variations are common among individuals of all species, and all of these individuals engage in a struggle for existence, both with members of their own species and with other species. If some variations among individuals prove advantageous in the struggle for existence, they will tend to be preserved among later generations, and by a slow, gradual process will accumulate to the point that new species arise. Darwin called this "Natural Selection", in something of analogy with artificial selection used by humans in breeding dogs, horse, pigeons and other animals and plants (the term "survival of the fittest" did not originate with Darwin, though he did add an approving reference to it into later editions of The Origin of Species).
Darwin explains how, given sufficient time, natural selection (or evolution, as we would say now -- Darwin didn't use this word either, though the very last word in his book is the verb form of it, "evolve") can cause varieties to develop within a particular species, and how these varieties can eventually differentiate into separate species (he points out that in his day there were many cases where naturalists, i.e., biologists, couldn't agree whether a particular form was a variety or a species -- a situation that still arises often today -- illustrating that species are simply more clearly defined varieties). He shows that natural selection can even create such specialized organs as wings or eyes, though he acknowledges that this is counter-intuitive, saying "to suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances..., could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." But, as he explains, what seems impossible at a glance can be shown to be very much possible.
Darwin then goes on to discuss the geological record, which as he points out is very incomplete and therefore cannot be expected to show every step in the evolutionary process. What it does show, however, tends to support his theory. He also spends two chapters discussing geographic distribution, including issues such as how two widely separated areas can end up with the same species living in them, how various plants could have been transported to islands (he did a number of experiments with seeds showing that many of them can survive for long periods in salt water), and so forth.
Finally he talks about how groupings of different species and morphology provide evidence for evolution. For example, the reason different kinds of felines (lions, tigers, and other cats) are similar in many ways, having particular features in common, is because they are in fact related to each other. He makes the point that a given modern species will not be descended from any other related modern species, but the two will have a common ancestor, one which will be in a certain sense intermediate between the two, but not exactly intermediate, just as a grandparent of two cousins will have certain features that both cousins have inherited, some that were inherited by only one, and others that neither has. This is why people who think that evolution means humans "descended from apes" have clearly failed to grasp the concept. People are not descended from any of the modern apes; rather, we all have a common ancestor, one which in some ways resembled apes, in other ways resembled humans, but in yet others neither (it is worth noting, however, that in The Origin of Species Darwin does not talk about humans, simply leaving readers to draw their own conclusions about what his theory means for human origins -- though he did address the subject in a later book).
As mentioned above, Darwin does a good job of anticipating objections to his theory and explaining why they are not fatal to it, as well as showing that his theory is the best explanation for many of the things we observe in nature. He spends little time attacking the traditional view, except for a pointed passage in the final chapter, which he concludes by saying "although naturalists very properly demand a full explanation of every difficulty from those who believe in the mutability of species, on their own side they ignore the whole subject of the first appearance of species in what they consider reverent silence." As he says, this refusal to even discuss the details of their own ideas is not scientific: "it is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as the "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact." As The Origin of Species clearly shows, natural selection is the only theory that provides a real explanation for why life on Earth exists in the forms that it does, a fact that is if anything even more true today than it was in Darwin's time.
One minor quibble I had with the book had nothing to do with the content, and may not even have been Darwin's fault, namely the excessive use of commas. There are many commas that obviously don't belong, particularly before restrictive clauses. I don't know if Darwin himself put them there (perhaps people tended to use more commas in his day?) or if it is a problem with the particular edition that I read. However, this takes nothing from the value of the work as a whole.
While I wouldn't necessary recommend The Origin of Species to anyone who is looking for an entertaining read, I would certainly recommend it to anyone who wants a fuller understanding of the theory of evolution, or to anyone who is interested reading a master work in the history of science. By all accounts, this is probably the most accessible of all the great, revolutionary science books, certainly more so than books like Isaac Newton's Prinicipia Mathematica, which is said to be almost unintelligible to all but a few. Certainly anyone who presumes to attack Darwin and his theory should at least make the effort to understand what he actually said, though as he himself stated, people with preconceived notions about such things are not likely to be swayed by any arguments, no matter how rational or how clearly in accordance with the facts they are.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
The Fate of Health Care Reform and Corporate Elections
The big political news in the past week was the Massachusetts special election for the US Senate. Because the loss of the seat held by Teddy Kennedy means the loss of the Democrats' supermajority, there has been endless analysis, discussion, spin, etc. on what the election means in terms of the electorate's attitude towards the Democrats, the Republicans, and Obama; the fate of Obama's agenda, and most particularly, the fate of health care reform. As far as the overall "meaning" of the election, as usual I think some people may be reading too much into it. Sure, it's not a particularly good sign when a Republican wins in a place like Massachusetts, but it's not like they never win state-wide races there (Mitt Romney was their governor), and Brown, while definitely to the right of the average person in Massachusetts, is not as conservative as most Republicans. Furthermore, the Democratic candidate ran a rather bad campaign, to put it mildly, not even bothering to do much campaigning until it was too late. And the economy probably had as much to do with the result as anything, though of course the Republicans are at least as much to blame for that as the Democrats (perhaps the ultimate problem was, as usual, a intellectually-challenged electorate -- though that's not to say that the Democrats are such a brilliant choice, particularly this one).
However, there is no question that this result is damaging as far as the President's agenda. As far as health care reform goes, things are looking fairly bleak. But the problems for health care reform didn't start with this election. In fact, though bills were passed by both the House and Senate, neither of them was a particularly good one. I am not entirely convinced that what has been passed so far would be better than nothing at all, especially in the case of the Senate bill, which lacks even a weak public option. As for the House bill, though it is clearly superior to the Senate bill, the restrictions on abortion spending are a bit much to swallow, and the public option is about as weak as it could be. Now things are even worse, as one of the few options open to the Democrats is for the House to pass the Senate bill as is, to eliminate the need for another Senate vote that the Republicans with the addition of Brown can block. Then Americans would be stuck with the Senate bill, under which people will be required to buy insurance from the monopolistic private insurance companies that have helped block more substantial reform, without even an expansion of Medicare. Another option might be to use reconciliation to pass a modified bill in the Senate, but that may involve some political risks. Yet another possibility that some have considered is to pass a scaled down reform bill containing only provisions that even Republicans will find it hard to oppose (though they might oppose such a bill just for the sake of obstructing Obama). Finally, the Democrats could just give up, though that's not really much of an option either, considering how much political capital they and Obama have already spent (wasted?) on this issue.
I'm still not sure what I'd prefer to see happen myself. As I said, I'm not sure that the current bills are better than nothing. If passing the Senate bill was the only choice, I'd be tempted to say forget the whole thing, except for the possible damage to other parts of Obama's agenda, particularly the even more vital climate change legislation. Perhaps the biggest mistake Obama and the Democrats made was trying to compromise too much in an effort to get even a small amount of Republican support. The problem with trying to be bipartisan is that it takes two to tango, so to speak. The Republicans are clearly not interested in compromise on health care or most other issues, so there's not much point in compromising. That's not to say that the Democrats should be openly partisan (for that matter, some in their own party have caused problems as well). But Obama sometimes needs to just come out and say what the bottom line is, explain why (not that many people will really listen to actual logic) and simply ask all like-minded legislators to support his ideas, regardless of party. If no Republicans go along, so be it.
The other big story in American politics recently is the Supreme Court ruling overturning restrictions on corporate spending in elections, a ruling that has been widely decried, with critics including Obama himself (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_campaign_finance). Like so many other important cases in recent times, the ruling came in a 5-4 split, with Anthony Kennedy casting the deciding vote (in this particular case on the conservative side). As pointed out in one article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100123/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_conservatives_vs_liberals), liberal critics have in this case complained of judicial activism, a common complaint made by conservative critics against liberal rulings. A more telling criticism of Scalia, Roberts, et al. would be blatant hypocrisy, as it is the conservative judges who talk so much about the need for judicial restraint, strict-constructionism, and so on. Roberts actually attempted to deflect such criticisms by asserting that a failure to rule as they did would have been "judicial abdication". So no doubt he believes that the so-called Founding Fathers that strict constructionists like himself hold in such high esteem would have whole-heartedly approved of his ruling giving corporations more power in elections. Perhaps we can get something of a clue from this quote from Thomas Jefferson: "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816
One of the biggest absurdities here is the assertion that corporations should be treated as persons and therefore their political speech should be protected. Granted, at least one commentator made some good points defending the ruling: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens_united/ . However, while I agree that corporations already have so much power in American "democracy" that this may not really add much to that power, that there are definite problems with the loopholes in the laws, and that there are some risks inherent in any restrictions on political speech, in the end I still think the ruling is indefensible. I am dubious about the idea that the laws in place substantially restricted groups like the ACLU or Planned Parenthood, if nothing else because these kinds of groups would never have the money to spend on advertising for or against individual candidates. Any money that they have for public relations is spent advocating their causes in a more general way (and not with television ads, generally, as they can't afford them). The groups most likely to benefit from this ruling are the ones mentioned in this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/ap_on_an/us_campaign_finance_analysis;_ylt=ArfHb.MZns4sneNX8XhtmGhH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTNoajBnNG1sBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTIyL3VzX2NhbXBhaWduX2ZpbmFuY2VfYW5hbHlzaXMEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDYW5hbHlzaXN3aWxs , with the NRA and the US Chamber of Commerce (which has spent much of its recent efforts in opposing climate change legislation, in defiance of many of its own members) being particularly menacing examples. Of course the point that under rule of law we can't argue the constitutionality of a law based on its perceived positive or negative effects remains valid. But the real problem, of course, is the idea of corporate personhood. The concept makes sense if we are discussing the ability to sue or be sued in court, but when it comes to rights which were obviously intended for individuals (i.e., actual people), such as the right to be tried a jury of their peers, the right to vote, freedom of religion, and the right to free speech, the idea that corporations should also freely enjoy such rights is absurd.
However, there is no question that this result is damaging as far as the President's agenda. As far as health care reform goes, things are looking fairly bleak. But the problems for health care reform didn't start with this election. In fact, though bills were passed by both the House and Senate, neither of them was a particularly good one. I am not entirely convinced that what has been passed so far would be better than nothing at all, especially in the case of the Senate bill, which lacks even a weak public option. As for the House bill, though it is clearly superior to the Senate bill, the restrictions on abortion spending are a bit much to swallow, and the public option is about as weak as it could be. Now things are even worse, as one of the few options open to the Democrats is for the House to pass the Senate bill as is, to eliminate the need for another Senate vote that the Republicans with the addition of Brown can block. Then Americans would be stuck with the Senate bill, under which people will be required to buy insurance from the monopolistic private insurance companies that have helped block more substantial reform, without even an expansion of Medicare. Another option might be to use reconciliation to pass a modified bill in the Senate, but that may involve some political risks. Yet another possibility that some have considered is to pass a scaled down reform bill containing only provisions that even Republicans will find it hard to oppose (though they might oppose such a bill just for the sake of obstructing Obama). Finally, the Democrats could just give up, though that's not really much of an option either, considering how much political capital they and Obama have already spent (wasted?) on this issue.
I'm still not sure what I'd prefer to see happen myself. As I said, I'm not sure that the current bills are better than nothing. If passing the Senate bill was the only choice, I'd be tempted to say forget the whole thing, except for the possible damage to other parts of Obama's agenda, particularly the even more vital climate change legislation. Perhaps the biggest mistake Obama and the Democrats made was trying to compromise too much in an effort to get even a small amount of Republican support. The problem with trying to be bipartisan is that it takes two to tango, so to speak. The Republicans are clearly not interested in compromise on health care or most other issues, so there's not much point in compromising. That's not to say that the Democrats should be openly partisan (for that matter, some in their own party have caused problems as well). But Obama sometimes needs to just come out and say what the bottom line is, explain why (not that many people will really listen to actual logic) and simply ask all like-minded legislators to support his ideas, regardless of party. If no Republicans go along, so be it.
The other big story in American politics recently is the Supreme Court ruling overturning restrictions on corporate spending in elections, a ruling that has been widely decried, with critics including Obama himself (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_campaign_finance). Like so many other important cases in recent times, the ruling came in a 5-4 split, with Anthony Kennedy casting the deciding vote (in this particular case on the conservative side). As pointed out in one article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100123/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_conservatives_vs_liberals), liberal critics have in this case complained of judicial activism, a common complaint made by conservative critics against liberal rulings. A more telling criticism of Scalia, Roberts, et al. would be blatant hypocrisy, as it is the conservative judges who talk so much about the need for judicial restraint, strict-constructionism, and so on. Roberts actually attempted to deflect such criticisms by asserting that a failure to rule as they did would have been "judicial abdication". So no doubt he believes that the so-called Founding Fathers that strict constructionists like himself hold in such high esteem would have whole-heartedly approved of his ruling giving corporations more power in elections. Perhaps we can get something of a clue from this quote from Thomas Jefferson: "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816
One of the biggest absurdities here is the assertion that corporations should be treated as persons and therefore their political speech should be protected. Granted, at least one commentator made some good points defending the ruling: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens_united/ . However, while I agree that corporations already have so much power in American "democracy" that this may not really add much to that power, that there are definite problems with the loopholes in the laws, and that there are some risks inherent in any restrictions on political speech, in the end I still think the ruling is indefensible. I am dubious about the idea that the laws in place substantially restricted groups like the ACLU or Planned Parenthood, if nothing else because these kinds of groups would never have the money to spend on advertising for or against individual candidates. Any money that they have for public relations is spent advocating their causes in a more general way (and not with television ads, generally, as they can't afford them). The groups most likely to benefit from this ruling are the ones mentioned in this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/ap_on_an/us_campaign_finance_analysis;_ylt=ArfHb.MZns4sneNX8XhtmGhH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTNoajBnNG1sBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTIyL3VzX2NhbXBhaWduX2ZpbmFuY2VfYW5hbHlzaXMEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDYW5hbHlzaXN3aWxs , with the NRA and the US Chamber of Commerce (which has spent much of its recent efforts in opposing climate change legislation, in defiance of many of its own members) being particularly menacing examples. Of course the point that under rule of law we can't argue the constitutionality of a law based on its perceived positive or negative effects remains valid. But the real problem, of course, is the idea of corporate personhood. The concept makes sense if we are discussing the ability to sue or be sued in court, but when it comes to rights which were obviously intended for individuals (i.e., actual people), such as the right to be tried a jury of their peers, the right to vote, freedom of religion, and the right to free speech, the idea that corporations should also freely enjoy such rights is absurd.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Haiti and Google
The big news of the week, of course, is the earthquake in Haiti. A big earthquake is always a terrible thing, but when it happens in a place like Haiti, it is even worse. Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world, and the poorest in the Western Hemisphere. Its people have high illiteracy rates and low life expectancies, and there is a high level of infant mortality. The country has poor infrastructure and suffers from political instability. How its people are going to be able to cope with a disaster like this, I have no idea.
Of course the rest of the world has to do what it can. I have to admit that I haven't made any contributions yet myself, but I hope to do so soon, after I decide where it will do the most good. This is a tricky question, as there are lots of organizations taking donations, but it's hard to be sure which will make the most efficient use of them. This is is especially important in a place like Haiti, where all sorts of difficulties stand in the way of using money efficiently. A good local organization might be best, or else an international one with a long-time presence in the country, as they will have a clearer idea of what people need.
Unfortunately, a few people on the lunatic fringe have already managed to make absurd, insensitive and downright warped comments on the disaster. Of course I'm referring here to Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh. If we are going to drag history into things, Pat, why not talk about how when the slaves revolted in Haiti and actually succeeded (the Haitian Revolution is often cited as the only successful slave rebellion in history), the US reacted by restricting trade with the new nation, partly because of racism and a fear among Southerners that their slaves might try to emulate the Haitians, thus helping ensure that Haiti got off to a bad start from which it never really recovered? Of course it had many other problems ("a pact with the devil", despite Robertson's absurd claims, was not one of them), but an unfriendly US certainly did not help, so the US has in some ways a special obligation to help. As for Limbaugh, his cynicism and insensitivity is just disgusting. What does he expect Obama to do, ignore the Haitians because he's afraid he might be seen as trying to score political points? He certainly can't do anything that's likely to please Limbaugh and his ilk. The suggestion (made either by Limbaugh or some other nutcase) that there was something wrong with Obama immediately holding a press conference about Haiti (where tens of thousands may have died, and hundreds of thousands will be in need of help) when he waited a few days to make a statement on the failed terrorist attack (which killed nobody) is absurd and shows a completely lack of any sense of proportion, or indeed any sense at all (and it's worth mentioning that it took Bush several days to comment on the shoe bomber whose failed attack was quite similar to this one). Even worse than his own politicization of the disaster, Limbaugh seemed to discourage donations to Haiti with his comment that Americans already gave money to Haiti by means of their income tax (presumably referring to US foreign aid to Haiti, which in fact is a tiny part of the federal budget). Fortunately, the only people likely to actually listen to Limbaugh are the selfish, xenophobic and racist types who wouldn't be willing to do anything for the Haitians anyway.
Another interesting piece of news recently was Google's threat to quit China. While some have pointed out that they should have stood up against Chinese censorship a long time ago, I'd say it's better late than never. Of course now they've got to follow through on the threat (unless the Chinese government backs down -- a very unlikely scenario). It is unfortunate for the Chinese that if Google pulls out they will be even more completely at the mercy of the government censors, but given the degree to which companies like Google were being forced to compromise in order to operate in China, I don't think their presence was really doing much good. It remains to be seen if other companies with more complicated investments in China will follow Google's lead (Yahoo issued a statement indicating support for Google's position without actually committing to act in the same way, and even that was criticized by their Chinese partner Alibaba).
Of course the rest of the world has to do what it can. I have to admit that I haven't made any contributions yet myself, but I hope to do so soon, after I decide where it will do the most good. This is a tricky question, as there are lots of organizations taking donations, but it's hard to be sure which will make the most efficient use of them. This is is especially important in a place like Haiti, where all sorts of difficulties stand in the way of using money efficiently. A good local organization might be best, or else an international one with a long-time presence in the country, as they will have a clearer idea of what people need.
Unfortunately, a few people on the lunatic fringe have already managed to make absurd, insensitive and downright warped comments on the disaster. Of course I'm referring here to Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh. If we are going to drag history into things, Pat, why not talk about how when the slaves revolted in Haiti and actually succeeded (the Haitian Revolution is often cited as the only successful slave rebellion in history), the US reacted by restricting trade with the new nation, partly because of racism and a fear among Southerners that their slaves might try to emulate the Haitians, thus helping ensure that Haiti got off to a bad start from which it never really recovered? Of course it had many other problems ("a pact with the devil", despite Robertson's absurd claims, was not one of them), but an unfriendly US certainly did not help, so the US has in some ways a special obligation to help. As for Limbaugh, his cynicism and insensitivity is just disgusting. What does he expect Obama to do, ignore the Haitians because he's afraid he might be seen as trying to score political points? He certainly can't do anything that's likely to please Limbaugh and his ilk. The suggestion (made either by Limbaugh or some other nutcase) that there was something wrong with Obama immediately holding a press conference about Haiti (where tens of thousands may have died, and hundreds of thousands will be in need of help) when he waited a few days to make a statement on the failed terrorist attack (which killed nobody) is absurd and shows a completely lack of any sense of proportion, or indeed any sense at all (and it's worth mentioning that it took Bush several days to comment on the shoe bomber whose failed attack was quite similar to this one). Even worse than his own politicization of the disaster, Limbaugh seemed to discourage donations to Haiti with his comment that Americans already gave money to Haiti by means of their income tax (presumably referring to US foreign aid to Haiti, which in fact is a tiny part of the federal budget). Fortunately, the only people likely to actually listen to Limbaugh are the selfish, xenophobic and racist types who wouldn't be willing to do anything for the Haitians anyway.
Another interesting piece of news recently was Google's threat to quit China. While some have pointed out that they should have stood up against Chinese censorship a long time ago, I'd say it's better late than never. Of course now they've got to follow through on the threat (unless the Chinese government backs down -- a very unlikely scenario). It is unfortunate for the Chinese that if Google pulls out they will be even more completely at the mercy of the government censors, but given the degree to which companies like Google were being forced to compromise in order to operate in China, I don't think their presence was really doing much good. It remains to be seen if other companies with more complicated investments in China will follow Google's lead (Yahoo issued a statement indicating support for Google's position without actually committing to act in the same way, and even that was criticized by their Chinese partner Alibaba).
Update - Here's a recent article that talks about France's historical responsibility for Haiti's poverty and also mentions the US's role in making Haiti the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100216/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_haiti_earthquake
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Reid, Obama and Race
Once again, I'd like to briefly address a should-be-a-non-issue issue, in this case the revelation that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid once referred to Obama as "light-skinned" and said he didn't have a "Negro dialect", with the further implication that these facts made him more electable. Republicans and other public figures have denounced Reid's comments as racist and though Reid has apologized and Obama himself has dismissed the matter, some have called for Reid to resign. Republicans have accused the Democrats of hypocrisy, comparing their muted reaction to Reid's remarks to their strong criticism of former Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott's praise of Strom Thurmond.
I can't say that I'm a huge fan of Reid myself. For one thing, his efforts on behalf of the public option as part of health care reform were half-hearted at best. But while some might object to his use of the old-fashioned term Negro, all of what he said was true. What is worth discussing is why it is true, and what can be done to change it. While racism against African-Americans in general has not disappeared, despite Obama's election, it is also clearly the case that darker-skinned African-Americans with a more pronounced dialect (though it seems some dislike this term too, it is the correct one linguistically speaking) are more likely to be discriminated against. This is not by any means a new phenomenon, either, ultimately going back to the days of slavery. Back in the 1950s, blues singer Big Bill Broonzy commented on it in his song "Get Back - Black, Brown, and White", with the lines "If you's white, it's alright, if you's brown, stick around, but if you's black, oh, brother, get back, get back, get back."
The comparison to the Trent Lott case is far-fetched. In Lott's case, he expressed regret that South Carolina's long-term Senator Strom Thurmond failed in his 1948 presidential bid. This was an issue because Thurmond ran specifically as a segregationist, so Lott's comments were naturally interpreted as condoning segregation (a side note: the Daily Show's America textbook has a picture of Thurmond in the midst of his record-length filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, with the caption "The leading segregationist of his day, Thrumond's racist rhetoric so appalled the state of South Carolina that it reelected him to the Senate seven times"). Lott denied this, stating that, to his knowledge, Thurmond had renounced his segregationist views (though not all would accept that claim) and that he only said that Thurmond should have been president to make the old man happy (the occasion was Thurmond's 100th birthday party). In fairness to Lott, it is certainly possible that he really did not intend to condone segregation (though he is on record as making indisputably homophobic remarks), but nevertheless his remarks did (even if unintentionally) imply as much, so there can be no comparison with Reid's remarks, which did not in any way imply support for racism, just an acknowledgement of its existence.
Here's a piece on the web which makes essentially the same points: http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/1985462,CST-NWS-mitch12.article , and another which discusses the accuracy of Reid's remarks: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-harry-reids-racial-remarks-truth-studies-critics/story?id=9535416&page=2
I can't say that I'm a huge fan of Reid myself. For one thing, his efforts on behalf of the public option as part of health care reform were half-hearted at best. But while some might object to his use of the old-fashioned term Negro, all of what he said was true. What is worth discussing is why it is true, and what can be done to change it. While racism against African-Americans in general has not disappeared, despite Obama's election, it is also clearly the case that darker-skinned African-Americans with a more pronounced dialect (though it seems some dislike this term too, it is the correct one linguistically speaking) are more likely to be discriminated against. This is not by any means a new phenomenon, either, ultimately going back to the days of slavery. Back in the 1950s, blues singer Big Bill Broonzy commented on it in his song "Get Back - Black, Brown, and White", with the lines "If you's white, it's alright, if you's brown, stick around, but if you's black, oh, brother, get back, get back, get back."
The comparison to the Trent Lott case is far-fetched. In Lott's case, he expressed regret that South Carolina's long-term Senator Strom Thurmond failed in his 1948 presidential bid. This was an issue because Thurmond ran specifically as a segregationist, so Lott's comments were naturally interpreted as condoning segregation (a side note: the Daily Show's America textbook has a picture of Thurmond in the midst of his record-length filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, with the caption "The leading segregationist of his day, Thrumond's racist rhetoric so appalled the state of South Carolina that it reelected him to the Senate seven times"). Lott denied this, stating that, to his knowledge, Thurmond had renounced his segregationist views (though not all would accept that claim) and that he only said that Thurmond should have been president to make the old man happy (the occasion was Thurmond's 100th birthday party). In fairness to Lott, it is certainly possible that he really did not intend to condone segregation (though he is on record as making indisputably homophobic remarks), but nevertheless his remarks did (even if unintentionally) imply as much, so there can be no comparison with Reid's remarks, which did not in any way imply support for racism, just an acknowledgement of its existence.
Here's a piece on the web which makes essentially the same points: http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/1985462,CST-NWS-mitch12.article , and another which discusses the accuracy of Reid's remarks: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-harry-reids-racial-remarks-truth-studies-critics/story?id=9535416&page=2
This whole brouhaha does remind me of a problem that has bugged me a little in the past, though in some ways I'm afraid even mentioning it might be taken by some the wrong way. That problem is how we define people as African-American. As most people know, the majority of African-Americans don't have purely African ancestry. Most of them have at least some European (white) ancestry as well. My question is, why do we still define people who evidently are no more than half African in ancestry as African-American or as "black"? Should Colin Powell, for instance, be considered African-American or European-American? In truth, he is clearly both, but generally he is labelled as African-American. Obama, of course, is biracial, being the son of a European-American (white) mother and an African father. His racial identity is often accurately given as biracial, but if he is identified as belonging to either race, he is always identified as African-American or black, never as European-American or white. Tiger Woods, who is also biracial, though in his case his other primary ancestry is Asian, was even criticized by some in the black community for emphasizing that he didn't consider himself exclusively African-American but also Asian-American.
This is all a bit ironic, given that it was the racist whites in the 19th century who established the "rule" that a person who had even a discernible amount of black ancestry should be considered black. While I'm certainly not saying that white people should attempt to "claim" Obama or Colin Powell or Douglas Wilder as one of their own, it doesn't seem logical to categorically label them as exclusively African-American either. They are biracial or of mixed race. Of course, to some degree, everyone is of mixed race. I recently learned that one of my own distant ancestors was probably partly of African descent, though that is so far back that if it is true I would still be less than 1% black. For that matter, though, if you go far enough back, everyone is of African ancestry, as that's where the human race came from. This all goes to prove that race shouldn't really matter, except as a neutral way to describe someone, like tall or short. Unfortunately, it still does matter, and until all African-Americans and other minorities can get completely equal treatment, we still have work to do.
While racism remains an important issue (as is discrimination in general, the problem at issue in the current Prop 8 trial), Reid's remarks in and of themselves don't deserve all the attention they are getting. For an issue that is not getting as much attention but is ultimately much more important, the following opinion piece is informative: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-youn10-2010jan10,0,1203910.story . Hopefully people will start paying more attention to this issue rather than what Reid said, so maybe something can be done to prevent the US from becoming even more of a pawn of big business than it already is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
