Troy

Thanks for the mansplaintion Del. this was already covered

@Del, it is not about doubting everything it is about doubt everything except what you want to believe. The analogous question would be; Is there much difference in believing the words of others except what you want to believe or doubting everything except what you want to believe? The answer is no.

{sigh} OK. @zaji, how many races do you believe exist and why?

Race is fiction. Racism is real.

OK thanks I know the that Blogger author Marc Polite. I left a comment on the site, but I did not reveal the real reason for the event's decline -- and won't in a public forum.

I can't entertain stereotypes -- indeed they are racist. Hey @Mel Hopkins, can you make a graphic of a bald headed brown skinned man lying prostrate from exasperation. Like the woman you posted recently?

Hummm @zaji, you probably missed the numerous times I wrote that I used to believe in the concept of race. Just because i asked you to consider an alternative point of voice does nt mean I have not done it myself. I'm not sure why you would draw that conclusion, but to make it plain I have considered the your perspective, but have now abandoned it because the science tells us otherwise. Zaji, scientists are not "divided" over this issue. The science is quite clear. I'm not sure what you read in that article that suggest that there is a test for "race," but I read them: The skin color test article does not even use the word race. Obviously, and as discussed, skin color is insufficient to determine one's so called race The guy using DNA to predict a suspect's race is doing what ancestry and 23 and Me do: tell you where your ancestors came from most recently. But this speaks to geography does not tell you what one looks like. You know some people with African ancestry can actually pass for white? Sure one can made a prediction, but none of the articles said there was a gene for race. Why? Because there isn't one, other than the combinations of genes that make us part of the human race. It is also interesting when I relate a scientific fact that someone disagrees with they often say that it is 'my" position. Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just relating information. Again, my position is not based upon my research and experimentation, I believe what you believed once, but I became aware of the science and I have updated my perspective (i.e. I learned). I'm not sure why you say science has "fluctuated." The tools required to make a determination are relatively new. Shoot, the human genome was sequenced after I started AALBC.com. Scientists has learned a lot, unfortunately this knowledge continues to be rejected by so many people. But I get it; believing in multiple human races fits your world view and changing that is hard. Finally, you say you take the side of "truth." I find that statement confusing, because you have demonstrated a willingness to reject the truth. @Pioneer1, your reaction was predictable I guess you either did not read or comprehend what Leonce wrote. I shared volumes of information with you about the subject. Last year I shared a documentary. It is obvious you are not changing your view, I guess that would force to you dispense with all those racial stereotypes you've assembled over the years.

I swear to God I was just about to write I can't have the conversation anymore, then I read @leonceg reaction. Thanks for that. But I'm afraid it will not make a difference (I have never observed @Pioneer1 change his mind on any subject, but perhaps it will give @zaji, who is a bit more thoughtful something to consider. I'm glad that you presented the information in the manner that you have -- thanks again.

@Pioneer1 come on man there are Black people involved in all aspect of science. Man, Black people invented science! Are you actually trying to suggest that science is biased because Black people, in your opinion, do not dominate the fields?! You don't trust genetics or climate change because Black people are not dominating the fields?! You know Neil deGrasse Tyson believes in climate change and the fact that there is only one race. You know the continent of Africa is full of scientists who believe this too. I'm used to your use of racial stereotypes, but sometimes the things you say are really quite astonishing.

@Delano, I wonder if the Aborigines would agree with you?

{sigh} there is never a theory or finding that is accepted on the word of a single scientist. All findings are independently vetted by other scientists. It is common for a finding to be rejected because the experient can not be reproduced or others found flaws in the method. The Pilt Down man was always suspect, never universally accepted, and is exceptional because it too so long to disprove. If you don't trust so called "white science," that is fine. But science has no color, true scientists try to eliminate biases, unlike the vast majority of the rest of us. Cynique this is a good observation, but I would not use the word "limbo," I think "denial" would be better. In any case, much of what science tells us is beyond our ability to validate. So if you reject what science says, that is a personal decision and based upon nothing more than your opinion. I trust the scientific community over anyone's opinion including my own. We used to call it learning when someone more knowledgeable relates information to some less knowledgeable. I appreciate in the age of social media access to more information does not mean we are any better informed....

@Pioneer1, Restrictions and consequences are attempts to curtail freedom. We don't have to heed them. There are laws against murder and penalties if you are caught, but people feel free to commit murder everyday. Pioneer there are degrees to everything -- including marriage. People locked up in SuperMax prisons are less free than people who live in Australia. I agree there can't be a completely free society, but you can get pretty close which is makes the trade off worth it.

@Delano are you suggesting that people are more free in Australia, or that people can not be free in the United States?

The book club I have been working with The Tea actually selected Tayari's novel An American Marriage for the February Reading list, for which the topic was romance. The video below showed the selection process. The book club's discussion has taken place and I'm a guest participant. That video will be published later this month. I'm hoping the fantastic attention generated by being an Oprah selection will draw more attention to The Tea's Videos. The video below shows the selection process. Basically The Tea shoots three videos for each month's selection. The selection process (the video below), the get to know the author video (these videos are just about as good as they come. I find it amazing that they are not getting much more attention), and the book club's discussion (which will be published on Thursday). The photo below is from Tayari's book party which took place on Thursday, February 8th, in Brooklyn, New York. From left to right is; Rob Fields, who is the President & Executive Director of the Weeksville Heritage Center; Poet John Keene, who was one of the 1st people I put on AALBC.com; Tyehimba Jess, winner of the 2017 Pulitzer Prize for Poetry; Tarari; me; Mike Thompson, owner the Brooklyn Moon Cafe, which is well known for their poetry readings; Clarence V. Reynolds, is the Director of The Center for Black Literature, and runs the National Black Writers Conference; I actually don't know the brother on the far right. Finally, the dude kneeling is Ron Kavanaugh, who run the Literary Freedom Project and published Mosaic Literary Magazine (@Mel Hopkins, Ron was in our class at Tech).

Zaji I understand what you are saying (I've have heard from Pioneer and others). There is no gene for race. Now if you do not believe this, all of the opinions you form will be flawed, and nothing I say will make sense to you. Saying there are numerous physical characteristics is no better than saying rce is a function of skin color. Humanity is so diverse you will always find people who are Black but would fail your more complex "brown bag" test. Of course there are genes (and environmental causes), which explain the differences in the way people look. But people are not cats, unless you want to talk about humanity in terms of different breeds. Lion are as different from tigers and cats as humans are from bonobos and chimps, because all "Black" people and "white" people are all Homo spaiens. Now, if we want to continue to use the word race to describe phenotypic differences between people fine. I do it in the course of informal conversation myself, but I also have no problem acknowledging someone who presents as "white" as a Black person, because because given the history of rape in this country "Black: people are all colors of the spectrum. This is perhaps one reason why "Afro-American" is a better term than "Black" to describe the so called Black American, particular ones descendant from enslaved Africans. Leonce and Pioneer use this term as well; I think for similar reasons.

Are you saying that skin color determines one's race? You are darker than me, so are you a "purer" Black person? My biological sister (we have the same parents), is much lighter than I. Is she "less" Black? What shade of skin color do you draw the line, and no longer consider someone part of the Black "race?" It will take me a moment to review the links to see the evidence for a genetic test for race.

Race is subjective; a recently created construct that has been abandoned by the scientific community, but firmly held onto by lay people. The amount of melanin one has is, of course, based upon their genetics and one's genotype is objective -- about as subjective as you can get. However, @zaji, @Pioneer1, why is there no genetic test for race?

Pioneer there are always restrictions and consequences, these issues do not take away from our freedom. I'm free to skydive, but the chute might not open. For some the possibility is enough to prevent them from engaging in the activity, but they are free to do it. Now if they do it and the chute does indeed fail to deploy the consequence is death, but still they exercised their freedom. Freedom includes one's ability to exercise caution, judgement, restraint. Now a child may be prevented from skydiving, because a parent or the law may not permit it. That child is less free than the adult.

..but you need to do experience to get to the point where you can sequence gene, tear atoms apart, and to observe the cosmos. And don't be so confident about what you see. The you remember the Blue/Gold dress image even everyday optical illusions should cause to question everything you see. Of course we all know how unreliable eyewitness testimony is. We, all people, MUST rely on the knowledge of others. This is the very thing that has allowed humanity to advance.

I don't think I have an emotion response to Pioneers posts. When I agree with him it is not begrudging either. In fact I often feel, as I've said before, I can relate to Pioneer because I've shared many of the opinion he hold -- even the one on race. @Delano I think you may be projecting your relationship with Pioneer onto others. At least in my case you are not seeing it the way I do.

Getting closer. So we concur on the social aspect however we still diverge on the genetic side. Yes it is true that lip thickness, hair texture, the amount of melanin in our skin, and all the rest is described in our genes. However the combination of these things is not enough to accurately and consistently describe the categories we use to describe each race. On some level this should be somewhat obvious as we can't look at someone and accurately describe the racial bucket they belong in. There is more genetic variability within a so-called race than there is between them. You may have more in common with Kim Kardashian genetically than you do with me. This is why the scientific community has abandoned the of notion of a genetic basis for race, and why I have too.

See this is what I mean: 1. Information I KNOW to be true based on experience or observation. Experiences and observations are what we call anecdotes and you have a long history of using this method to argue. What you know using the method can be utterly wrong. Is this how you know there is a genetic basis for race? 2. Information I don't actually know but just BELIEVE based on the evidence. This seems reasonable (assuming by "evidence" you mean your own experience or observations). 3. Information that I don't know nor have enough information to have an opinion on Information you don't know would just be called ignorance. Most of us, I suspect, don't realize how much we don't know about a given subject. 4. Information that I don't actually know and DON'T BELIEVE based on the evidence. How can you not believe something you don't know? 5. Information that I KNOW NOT to be true based on experience or observation Again you can't know anything based upon your experiences. Unless you are suggesting that you've been conducting experiment in lab and have had others have replicated your findings. I simply read, watch documentaries, consume information on the web and a variety of other places to draw conclusions -- I HAVE to rely others. I believe our own personal observations and experiences are just the beginning of acquiring knowledge -- not the end.

Hands don't make babies... smarty pants.

LOL @Pioneer1, no need to be insulted man. I just think Zaji articulated what I think you believe -- but she is a professional writer and she, like Leonce, have obviously put a great deal of thought into the subject and have written a lot about it. Still you don't recognize the fact that there is no genetic basis for the racial categories you hold so dearly, which leads to faulty conclusions. Again I think Zaji articulated the spirit of what you believe. Am I right or wrong? I didn't know anything about the colorism people around the world faced when I was a kid. All I knew was that Puerto Ricans, like Black people, were every color under the sun and that we were all in the same ghetto boat -- and not white. I think we also need a national daily newspaper that people actually read. We will NEVER be able to define ourselves if we have no media -- which we don't. What little we do have is largely concerned with mimicking what white media do. Which is largely concerned with making as much money as possible -- which has never served Black people, or the Afro American, as a whole.