Is It Better to Be Mixed Race - Monday night, C4

[Charlie]

I'm starting to worry now.

too late for worrying about yourself, Norman, but I suspect you have opened up a new direction for your progeny by not marrying your first cousin.

[Ted]

Something I've watched developing as my kids grow up is the idea of a "mixed race" identity. Its quite interesting because racial ideas of identity often carry a strong idea of "purity", whereas this is actually taking pride in hybridity - having access to multiple cultures and possible identities.

Its been a good few years for mixed race heroes - especially if you're an Arsenal supporter (which my kids are) - and regardless of Obama's politics the fact that the most powerful man in the world is mixed makes a huge difference. Watching the inauguration with the kids was a very emotional experience for all of us.

However you need to be cautious here - I mean what exactly are the links between somone who's congolese/polish and someone who's english/2nd generation jamaican?

[c hristian]

race really truly is an artificial construct, so the more you look into it, scratch the surface, the more confusing it is to draw lines, b/c after all, there is nothing there.

[Des]

race really truly is an artificial construct

That's not really true. Race is a biologically-determined and recognised reality, but I agree that it needn't be that important to us in terms of our relationships as human beings, unlike in the plant and animal world, where evolutionary pressure is exerted and races in discrete populations evolve into sub-species and eventually species.

[c hristian]

here's the relevant paragraph from Wikipedia. no time to go down a line of quibbling, as we may after all be saying something that is not mutually exclusive.


"Today many scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation". The academic consensus is that, while racial categories may be marked by sets of common phenotypic or genotypic traits, the popular idea of "race" is a social construct without base in scientific fact.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Nonetheless, when divorced from its popular connotations, the concept of race may be useful. According to forensic anthropologist George W. Gill, blanket "race denial" not only contradicts biological evidence, but may stem from "politically motivated censorship" in the belief that "race promotes racism".[4]"

[Des]

while racial categories may be marked by sets of common phenotypic or genotypic traits, the popular idea of "race" is a social construct without base in scientific fact

The very fact that racial categories are 'marked by common phenotypic or genotypic traits' means they are biologically distinct, therefore 'race' cannot be merely a 'social construct' any more than sex is. Again, this fact should have no bearing on equality issues in human societies so I am quibbling a bit.

[Chris P]

biologically distinct

but so blurred at the edges that ultimately an arbitary decision is used to define. It's a bit like saying all the different so-called genres or styles of music are utterly distinct from each other. The more knowledge you gain the more it can be seen this isn't true. The "isolation" of human populations from each other due to limitations of travel or cultural barriers is never complete, or usually long lasting. There is often more genetic difference between 2 Africans than there may be between an African & a 'white' European

[Hugh Weldon]

The idea of 'biologically distinct' is a convenient fiction usually, nature being so various and complex that taxonomies say about where one species ends and another begins are rules of thumb rather than exact measurements.

Though what people do to produce some 'pure' pedigree dogs for example seems another form of animal cruelty. (Plus any mongrel will take them in a fight.)

I was reminded of the John Agard poem which takes as it theme the old-fashioned word for mixed race. Maybe we've had it before, well no harm having it again:

Excuse me
standing on one leg
I’m half-caste.

Explain yuself
wha yu mean
when yu say half-caste?
yu mean when Picasso
mix red an green
is a half-caste canvas?
explain yuself
wha yu mean
when yu say half-caste?
yu mean when light an shadow
mix in de sky
is a half-caste weather?
well in dat case
england weather
nearly always half-caste
in fact some o dem cloud
half-caste till dem overcast
so spiteful dem don’t want de sun pass
ah rass?
explain yuself
wha yu mean
when yu say half-caste
yu mean tchaikovsky
sit down at dah piano
an mix a black key
wid a white key
is a half-caste symphony?

Explain yuself
wha yu mean
Ah listening to yu wid de keen
half of mih ear
Ah looking at yu wid de keen
half of mih eye
an when I’m introduced to yu
I’m sure you’ll understand
why I offer yu half-a-hand
an when I sleep at night
I close half-a-eye
consequently when I dream
I dream half-a-dream
an when moon begin to glow
I half-caste human being
cast half-a-shadow
but yu must come back tomorrow
wid de whole of yu eye
an de whole of yu ear
an de whole of yu mind.

an I will tell yu
de other half
of my story.

[Ted]

All fine and good. But race is a fact as life is lived, regardless of whether it is a meaningful biological term or not.

Its a fact to all those African musicians who have been denied entry to the UK, its a fact to the cops who stop and search IC3s at a rate 8 times that at which they search IC1s and its a fact to the kids they harass. I could go on but you get the picture.

[Des]

The idea of 'biologically distinct' is a convenient fiction usually, nature being so various and complex that taxonomies say about where one species ends and another begins are rules of thumb rather than exact measurements.

Again, not entirely true. Apart from genetic factors, most decisions about taxonomy are based on physiological, ecological and behavioural characters which, when aggregated, give an indication of specific status.

True that there are 'splitters' and 'lumpers' who argue about such things (and as a keen birder I try and keep up with the debate so that I can get some armchair ticks!) but usually there is a consensus arrived at.

I'm waiting for Pied and White Wagtails to be split - must happen soon......

Having said all that, in human terms, race shouldn't be an issue, although racial difference is always more interesting and stimulating than homogeneity and is to be celebrated. On that basis Ted is absolutely right - biology means very little!

[Con Murphy]

while racial categories may be marked by sets of common phenotypic or genotypic traits, the popular idea of "race" is a social construct without base in scientific fact

The very fact that racial categories are 'marked by common phenotypic or genotypic traits' means they are biologically distinct, therefore 'race' cannot be merely a 'social construct' any more than sex is. Again, this fact should have no bearing on equality issues in human societies so I am quibbling a bit.

I think what that quote from Christian is trying to say is that our notion of racial differences are a social construct, ie leading us to making the scientifically preposterous assumption that the Congolese/Polish person and the English/2nd generation Jamaican in Ted's example are the same race because their skin happens to contain a similar level of melanin. To use his other scenario (sorry Ted!) the bigoted cop might actually be genetically closer to one of the IC3s than they are to each other (assuming they are from different families!).

Des, pardon my ignorance but I'm not sure I understand your explanation of taxonomies - surely these are used to divide species, and we are all one species.

[Con Murphy]

I think I'm going to have to re-read The Ancestor's Tale again - amazing how much of it leaks away over time...

[Des]

Des, pardon my ignorance but I'm not sure I understand your explanation of taxonomies - surely these are used to divide species, and we are all one species.

Yep, I was taking the long (i.e. evolutionary) view in reply to Hugh's point about taxonomy. In plants and animals 'races' have distinct characteristics which then may evolve into sub-species and then species (as per my Pied/White Wagtail example, which were once races, then became sub-species and will soon no doubt be split into species). Another example is the

It follows that although humans are all one species, races are biologically dissimilar, but as Ted says this is not important for humans.

[Chris P]

races are biologically dissimilar

there is more biological dissimilarity within 'races' often, than between them

[Con Murphy]

Des, pardon my ignorance but I'm not sure I understand your explanation of taxonomies - surely these are used to divide species, and we are all one species.

Yep, I was taking the long (i.e. evolutionary) view in reply to Hugh's point about taxonomy. In plants and animals 'races' have distinct characteristics which then may evolve into sub-species and then species (as per my Pied/White Wagtail example, which were once races, then became sub-species and will soon no doubt be split into species). Another example is the

It follows that although humans are all one species, races are biologically dissimilar, but as Ted says this is not important for humans.

I thought Ted was saying that biological similarity* is unimportant because race as we know it exists on a completely different, and all too obvious, level in everyday reality.

I think this all very relevant to the programme, which only briefly touched on the key point that environment still overrides perceived advantages in interracial mixing. It's all very well having legs like Alesha Dixon, but if you're from the east end of Glasgow you are still far more likely to die early of heart disease than some pasty squirt from Hampstead.



* Dug the book out - race (or "the regional grouping that we call race" as Dawkins describes it) accounts for just 6-15% of genetic variance.