There is so much wonderful potential inherent in these concepts. They make me hopeful that there is a workable way forward and most importantly, a way to heal and move away from the dehumanization of the past.
Also, I love the new name for your vision. The Togetherness Wayfinder is evocative and hopeful.
How do we abolish race while retaining the ability to talk about physical issues that predominantly affect certain groups of people? For example, sickle cell anaemia and the low rates of donation of suitable blood subgroups to treat it?
Race and human biology are not synonymous. For more information, read "The Raceless Antiracist". Chapter Three focuses on common genetic misconceptions. I cowrote it with a geneticist. Additionally, review the Further Resources section of the book where I list full-length books that deal with the matter. Of course, there is a wealth of information that I do not cite, too, that a Google search would produce. Barbara and Karen Fields' "Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in American Life" comes to mind as one that thoroughly debunks "race" and blood type myths. "Ordering the Human" and "Fatal Invention" are two others vital books.
Thanks for your reply, I would like to know more about your work. Are you suggesting that blood subtypes are not based on genetic lineage, and if so, why does Britain's National Health Service appeal for ethnic minorities to donate more blood with certain subtypes for the treatment of specific illnesses that only affect people of certain lineages? Can you provide any examples of people without recent African heritage who experience illnesses such as sickle cell anaemia?
If you want to know more, feel free to read either of my books. I address SCD in the chapter and book I referenced. I also have a podcast on YouTube, which I frequently link in my Substack posts.
"However, when operationalizing ERCs in SCD research, there exists a risk of reification of already marginalized populations as both a social and a biological group."
This sounds like "We know that sickle cell disease falsifies our assertion that race is a social construct, but we're really unhappy about that so we're going to carry on pretending it doesn't."
What is the relevance of the social marginalisation of a group of people to the validity of facts about their distinct biology? How does pretending that lineage has nothing to do with disease susceptibility help target treatment to the people that need it?
This race-is-a-social-construct argument has echoes of "there are no differences between men and women" about it, and we know how that ended up. The implication is that race is 'performed', which will be news to a lot of people.
Beautiful. Unteaching racism by unteaching the idea of race is the way to progress.
There is so much wonderful potential inherent in these concepts. They make me hopeful that there is a workable way forward and most importantly, a way to heal and move away from the dehumanization of the past.
Also, I love the new name for your vision. The Togetherness Wayfinder is evocative and hopeful.
How do we abolish race while retaining the ability to talk about physical issues that predominantly affect certain groups of people? For example, sickle cell anaemia and the low rates of donation of suitable blood subgroups to treat it?
Race and human biology are not synonymous. For more information, read "The Raceless Antiracist". Chapter Three focuses on common genetic misconceptions. I cowrote it with a geneticist. Additionally, review the Further Resources section of the book where I list full-length books that deal with the matter. Of course, there is a wealth of information that I do not cite, too, that a Google search would produce. Barbara and Karen Fields' "Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in American Life" comes to mind as one that thoroughly debunks "race" and blood type myths. "Ordering the Human" and "Fatal Invention" are two others vital books.
Thanks for your reply, I would like to know more about your work. Are you suggesting that blood subtypes are not based on genetic lineage, and if so, why does Britain's National Health Service appeal for ethnic minorities to donate more blood with certain subtypes for the treatment of specific illnesses that only affect people of certain lineages? Can you provide any examples of people without recent African heritage who experience illnesses such as sickle cell anaemia?
If you want to know more, feel free to read either of my books. I address SCD in the chapter and book I referenced. I also have a podcast on YouTube, which I frequently link in my Substack posts.
From https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2023-179743 regarding 'ethno-racial categories':
"However, when operationalizing ERCs in SCD research, there exists a risk of reification of already marginalized populations as both a social and a biological group."
This sounds like "We know that sickle cell disease falsifies our assertion that race is a social construct, but we're really unhappy about that so we're going to carry on pretending it doesn't."
What is the relevance of the social marginalisation of a group of people to the validity of facts about their distinct biology? How does pretending that lineage has nothing to do with disease susceptibility help target treatment to the people that need it?
This race-is-a-social-construct argument has echoes of "there are no differences between men and women" about it, and we know how that ended up. The implication is that race is 'performed', which will be news to a lot of people.
Great. Take a look.
And just as an FYI, I do not argue that race is a social construct. I contend that it is entirely imaginary.
Cheers!
Is there any social construct which is not imaginary? If a construct is manifested in the physical world, it is not merely a construct.
Thanks, I'll take a look.