Chapter 1 - Why the question? - Beyond There, There be Dragons

Beyond There, There be Dragons

At this point one has to ask how much of the aforementioned text is exercise in philosophical banter and how much provide substantive pragmatism

In 2000 a new census study was completed for the United States. The census study does more than provide fun trivia. The census is the basis for such things as financial allocation of tax dollars, the redistricting for voting purposes and ultimately the defining methodology used to create political influence within or our American Society. No matter what one thinks of the policies and political influence of the United States, one must ultimately accept that the United States is one of the most influential identities in the world. The United States has recently demonstrated during the second Gulf conflict, right, wrong or indifferent, that militarily and politically the United States can influence the lives and well beings of people throughout the world. Given this source of power, it only stands to reason that the policies of such a power should be created using the most accurate methods possible. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recognized the growing hybridization and variation of human phenotypes in the United States. Furthermore in an effort to optimize the census information an exhaustive study was conducted and detail procedures developed to classify individuals by race and ethnicity. The result is little more than laughable.

Old Standards. In response to legislative, programmatic, and administrative requirements of the federal government, the OMB in 1977 issued Statistical Policy Directive Number 15, "Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting." In these standards, four racial categories were established: American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, and White. In addition, two ethnicity categories were established: Hispanic origin and Not of Hispanic origin. Although the Census Bureau has traditionally used more categories for decennial censuses, those categories collapsed into the four minimum race categories identified by the OMB, plus the category Some Other Race.

Reason For Changing the Old Standards. The racial and ethnic makeup of the country has changed since 1977, giving rise to the question of whether those standards still reflected the diversity of the country's present population. In response to this criticism, the OMB initiated a review of the Directive. This review included (1) organizing a workshop to address the issues by the National Academy of Science, (2) convening four public hearings, and (3) appointing an Interagency Committee for the Review of Racial and Ethnic Standards, which later developed a research agenda and conducted several research studies. The result of the Committee's efforts was a report describing recommended changes to the Directive. The members of the Committee included representatives of more than 30 agencies that covered the many diverse federal requirements for data on race and ethnicity. In 1997, the OMB accepted almost all of the recommendations of the Interagency Committee, resulting in changes to the standards.

What Are The New Standards And When Do They Take Effect?
In October 1997, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced the revised standards for federal data on race and ethnicity. The minimum categories for race are now: American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African American; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; and White. Instead of allowing a multiracial category as was originally suggested in public and congressional hearings, the OMB adopted the Interagency Committee's recommendation to allow respondents to select one or more races when they self-identify. With the OMB's approval, the Census 2000 questionnaires also include a sixth racial category: Some Other Race. There are also two minimum categories for ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. Hispanics and Latinos may be of any race.

The new categories were used by the Census Bureau for the Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal in spring 1998, and will be used on the Census 2000 questionnaire. The new standards are effective immediately for new and revised data collections by federal agencies, and all federal agencies must implement the new standards by January 1, 2003.
-- Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Special Population Staff

The attentive reader notes in this portion of the OMB report a clear distinction is made between race and ethnicity. Furthermore in the more extended report one will note problems addressed in the old standards was that race and ethnicity could not be held in the same context but rather as two separate items of concern.

But what came of this new study? The OMB report states that input came from over 30 government agencies and that the National Academy of Science is singled out as the first reference providing a sense of scientific oversight to the classification process. I will argue either these scientist are the bastions of the old guards of segregation, professional idiots or their suggestions were not heeded by the OMB policy makers. In further review of the evaluation process one can only conclude that perhaps the most believable position was the National Academy of Science has recognized racial classification to be an inaccurate process. The National Academy of Science addressed the issue and the policy makers felt changing forms and mindsets was just too difficult. Just as it took from the mid 19th century till the mid 20th century for Relativity to be known by the masses, so may it take 100 years for the policy makers to recognize that humans can not be accurately separated through any biological and anthropological taxonomic process. Within the report, a set of principles were developed to govern the new review process and in the first principle we see the rationale leaking into the process.

The racial and ethnic categories set forth in the standards should not be interpreted as being primarily biological or genetic in reference. Race and ethnicity may be thought of in terms of social and cultural characteristics as well as ancestry
-- Directive No. 15, OMB

So given this first principle and the effect of new standards how do we now declare our race in accordance with a government agency. Well perhaps the new classifications created after the study is more laughable than the first. At least in the case of discussion of the classification process since 1977, the OMB recognized their ignorance of the situation. At this point, the OMB put together the 30 best members and agencies and produced a situation that is perhaps the most non-sensible determination process yet introduced into the classification process. While the United States Government is prepared to spend upwards to $100 billion to invade (or liberate depending on your point of view) people in other countries, the policy makers of the United States, such as those at the OMB, continue to classify and compartmentalize the people of the United States. What is the justification of for such actions?

If OMB were to revise the categories for data on race and ethnicity by modifying Directive No. 15, a sizeable number of Federal agencies and others would have to change data collection forms, computer programs, interviewers' and coders' manuals, and other related materials for their data systems
-- Directive No. 15, OMB

So which is it? Is racial classification important enough to make accurate or is it too expensive to concern ourselves with. I think a review of racial classification actually provides the answer to this question. Amazingly given the definition according to the OMB, the best decision they have made was to not spend the money on changing the databases. Racial Classification as of January of 2004 is defined in the following manner:

White refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicated their race or races as White or wrote in entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.

Black or African American refers to people having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicated their race or races as Black, African Am, or Negro, or wrote in entries such as African American, Afro American, Nigerian, or Haitian.

American Indian and Alaska Native refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America),and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment. It includes people who indicated their race or races by marking this category or writing in their principal or enrolled tribe, such as Rosebud Sioux, Chippewa, or Navajo.

Asian refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East ,Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent. It includes people who indicated their race or races as Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, or Other Asian,or wrote in entries such as Burmese, Hmong, Pakistani, or Thai.

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It includes people who indicated their race or races as Native Hawaiian, Guamanian or Chamorro, Samoan, or Other Pacific Islander, or wrote in entries such as Tahitian, Mariana Islander, or Chuukese.

Some other race was included in Census 2000 for respondents who were unable to identify with the five Office of Management and Budget race categories. Respondents who provided write-in entries such as Moroccan, South African, Belizean, or a Hispanic origin (for example, Mexican, Puerto Rican, or Cuban)are included in the Some other race category.

In the US Census question and answer documentation the question is specifically put “How does the Census Bureau define race and ethnicity?” The answer is simple but not significant:

Census Bureau complies with the Office of Management and Budget's standards for maintaining, collecting, and presenting data on race, which were revised in October 1997. They generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country. They do not conform to any biological, anthropological or genetic criteria

Consider for a moment the ramifications of this tautology. Race is a reflection of the social definition and the social definition of the individual creates race and ethnicity. For instance, those living isolated in the South see the world in a much different perspective from those in the Cities of the Northeast. Since these two groups maintain different social norms and definitions they can only maintain the same definition of race when there is a common thread. Where there is a common thread, then they can no longer be uniquely separated. Hence I would argue in the stricter consideration of the term race in the South being black becomes much easier to delineate than in the North. This delineation has no other basis other than regional thought and therefore those within the locality maintain a distinct ethnic difference. So specifically when we look to resources such as the dictionary for the definition of race what we find further inflames the situation put forward by the OMB.

race:
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution.

3. A genealogical line; a lineage.

Since the OMB went to the specific process of excluding biological, anthropological and genetic conditions of determination we are forced to remove definition one and three from the social definition of race. This leaves us the only option of a group united on the basis of common history or nationality or geographic distribution. Given this one would assume that perhaps the forms should read North Westerner, South Westerner, Southerner… Or perhaps it could read American. Clearly this is inline with the definition implied. As each clarification statement reads “people having origins”. But what does it mean to have origins. This is the question at hand.

So already the US Government as indicated that there is really a need to pursue this information and in so attempting to pursue it they have created a definition that is ambiguous at best and ridiculously incorrect at worst. The OMB states in its report that this information is essential to insure compliance with Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the constitution and the Civil Rights act. Likewise for congressional reapportionment. However, this issue is so poorly handled at the present the reapportionment has led to such recent events as the debacle with the Texas legislature in 2003. In this case 53 Democratic State representatives held up in a series of hotel rooms out of the state. The cost to Texas was estimated in some cases to exceed $1 billion dollars to Texas residents. The costs were not limited to Texans either. To find the members a manhunt was launched using the assets of Homeland Defense and other federal law enforcement agencies. All because the census data indicated a need for reapportionment. What dictated this alteration? Hispanic population changes. The Census department reclassified Hispanic as not a race but rather a ethnicity. Furthermore the organization took the word race which was initially developed as a form of taxonomic classification based on biology and anthropology and altered its meaning to deal with ethnicity. At this point the whole process is more confusing than it was before 1977.

Why the question? The answer is simple. To date we the people of the United States allow our policy makers to create classifications that lack not only scientific basis but even clear definitions. Countless dollars and human time is wasted on a concept that was in the past scientifically inaccurate and to date has yet to be defined. Moreover, we allow this maligned concept to dictate our voting processes and eligibility to wages. In attempting to comply with the 14th amendment, we have created a society that is willing to create stratification based on points of origin. When does that origin start? Is it a hundred, or thousand or ten thousand or a million years back. Why does this origin weigh so heavily? I think even those in the OMB would agree it is more than just the origin. Furthermore, they state clearly it is an attempt to use local social definitions to satisfy the requirements. Yet the purpose of the definition is to demonstrate that no two social conditions are the same. Racial taxonomic classification must be addressed if we as Americans ever want a truly equal society. I know of no other way to demonstrate my origins except through Anthropology and the science behind it indicates my origins are from Africa. Perhaps, at this point we should review how we arrived at this conclusion. In the following chapters I attempt to do just that. Why am I black? Because the OMB definition states that I am. By the way, I am damn proud of it.

Chapter 1 - Why the question? - Generally Looks Good – Specifically Bad Science

Generally Looks Good – Specifically Bad Science

Perhaps of the most well know Physicists, Einstein stands out the most in recent history. Einstein is considered by almost all untrained Physicists as the father of the theory of Relativity. Few that have never studied Physics formally understand the theory, however, large portions of the population know that the theory exists. The facts behind Relativity and its discovery are a wonderful parallel to racial classification theories based on older Anthropology models.

Einstein, like Newton, was attempting to derive a theory for physical phenomena that could, with a high degree of precision, predict the natural laws of motion. It is commonly believed –incorrectly - that this eccentric scientist stood alone and derived a solution that significantly alters our physical and philosophical world around us. Just as it is a myth that an apple fell upon the head of Newton thus providing impetus to the classical model of Mechanics, Einstein had more than an epiphany about light and Relativistic theory.

In the mid 17th century Newton had provided a suggested set of laws in his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. The laws provided by Newton became the basis of Mechanics (using mathematics to model motion and gravitation). As technology advanced it became clear that Newton’s laws were best described not as the laws of Mechanics but rather the Classical Laws of Mechanics. Once his laws were formulated (largely on the basis of the mathematics done by the French Mathematician Decartes), other scientist began evaluating both the general and the specific application of his theoretical laws. In order for a scientific theory to hold true it must meet a rigorous set of conditions. First and foremost the theory must be repeatable. In the case of Newton’s laws this is largely true. Next the theory must be either confined for a specific condition (in which case it is more of a model) or it must hold true for all general conditions. For almost 200 years Newton’s laws of motion were considered to be correct for all general conditions. However, questions raised in the late 19th century regarding the transmission of light revealed some real problems with the generality of Newtonian Mechanics. When I teach Physics to beginning college students, I address this conditional understanding of generality versus specificity. The notion is simple. In the beginning stages of learning physics, the distance equation is a fundamental understanding of motion.

s = xo + vot + 1/2at2

In this equation s is the distance traveled.
The initial displacement from the reference plane origin is represented by xo.
The initial velocity of the object is represented by vo and its acceleration is a.
Time is expressed by t.

This is the most general case equation that represents the motion of the object as it moves through time when evaluated in a classical sense. It is easiest to apply a specific case in which the object has no acceleration and the initial displacement is at the origin.

In that case the xo and 1/2at2 equal zero and the equation becomes s = vot.

Although the general equation can be applied against a specific case, the specific equation can not be applied against the general case with any degree of accuracy. Any theory that is more than a specific case model must adhere to the most general case application. Newton’s attempt to model all forms of motion through his classical laws have done an excellent job specifically with classical motion. When pressed with the specific cases of very small measurements, very large velocities and very large accelerations, Newton’s laws fail to properly describe motion.

For almost 200 years Newton’s laws went unquestioned. This does not suggest that they were untested, but rather, in every test Newton’s mathematical representations were found to provide a significant level of accuracy. The breakdown of the model began in the late 19th century. It had been known for some time that sound required a medium for transport. It was assumed that light, like sound, would also need a medium of transport. This suggested medium was entitled ether and science began a search to determine its properties. Prompted by the mathematics completed in the 1850s and 1860s by James Clerk Maxwell, a host of physicists and mathematicians, namely Michelson, Morley, FitzGerald, Voigt and Lorentz led to the affirmation of Michelson’s statement:

The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous.

To this day this is a strong statement. What it concludes is that our understanding of physical measurements was incorrect. As Lorentz worked diligently to create a more general case to explain the lack of ether, FitzGerald published in 1889 a short non-technical discussion entitled The ether and the earth's atmosphere:

... the length of material bodies changes, according as they are moving through the ether or across it, by an amount depending on the square of the ratio of their velocities to that of light

By 1898 Lorentz finally published the more general mathematical expressions associated with these length transformations in a set of equations that we all now know as the Lorentz transformations. By 1905 Einstein began to present the physical meanings of the Lorentz transformations and the public began slowly to understand the ramifications of Relativity. When Einstein presented this information about the lack of existence of ether, it was clear to individuals like Plank that this was a special case of relativity. As the Lorentz equations were evaluated and presented in something called a Tensor form, it became more evident that a more general condition would arise that not only disproved the existence of ether but more importantly Newton’s entire explanation of gravity was in question. Today science maintains both a Special and General Theory of Relativity. Crudely stated, the Special Theory applies to velocities and the General Theory applies to acceleration.

I have spent a significant time discussing Relativity from the historical perspective of its development. The attentive reader may ask why such entries are warranted on a discussion of Anthropology and racial classification. Do not look at the discussion as an attempt to explain Relativity, but rather as a method to demonstrate scientific processes that result in developing more generalizations associated with modeling. There are several items to be learned from this discussion.

First, most individuals that have not studied Physics in great detail will quickly relate that Einstein is solely responsible for the leap to Relativity. A quick review of the historical facts clearly indicates Lorentz provided the mathematical transformations that determined the Physics of Relativity and it was the experiments of Michelson and Morley and the equations of Maxwell that propelled him. This is why the math that underpins Relativity is refereed to as the Lorentz transformations and not the Einstein equations. (It should also be noted here that much of Newton’s mathematics was obtained from Decartes. This is why the coordinate system used for classical representation is called Cartesian and not Newtonian). Hence, it is clear, those educated in a topic will often see a different perspective than the popular culture. Things such as racial classification can not be left to political popularity. The voting booth and political advertisements are not the place for scientific determination. If what were popular made for good science then the earth may still be considered to be the center of the Universe. Scientific perspective and methods must be employed to determine such things as taxonomic differences. To express more on this at this time propels me ahead of my story, and must wait for more discussion.

Secondly, we must return to evaluate the quote by Gary Zukav at the beginning of this chapter.

The first man to see an illusion by which men have flourished for centuries surely stands in a lonely place.

Lorentz spent years not publishing his mathematical model of transformation. In the beginning Lorentz disagreed with the outcomes of Michelson first experiments although his mathematics told him otherwise. It was not until, Michelson teamed with Morley to provide substantially more evidence, and FitzGerald teamed with Lorentz did Lorentz expose what he knew. Lorentz was in a delicate position. He knew the math behind Newton’s science was flawed. He knew that the Newtonian method by which people had lived for 200 years was sufficiently accurate for a specific case however, it was not accurate for the more general case. In order to explain the more general case Lorentz would create a notion that time was interconnected with space and matter. This leap was a difficult one even when others in his area of study were supporting him. The Lorentz transformations created a new philosophical understanding of our existence. Claiming this revelation is a dangerous action for any scientist. Crossing such an abyss is not easy for any person no matter how sure they are of the facts.

The third and final point of the discussion presents that any model must live to the rigors of testing for its generality. If the model can not maintain a general case review – in other words live up to all cases -, then the model is only accurate for the specific notions of applications. Something as complex and recently developed as Relativity maintains two distinct classifications, the General Theory and the Special Theory of Relativity. These laws of relativity in no way suggest that Newton was wrong. Rather they indicate that he was inaccurate when considering objects in motion at high speeds or when experiencing large accelerations. However, this inaccuracy led to the notion of the existence of something called ether. Searching for that ether consumed countless hours of science. Explaining the world with ether prevented mankind to see the connection between space and time. When Lorentz and others began to determine that there were such relations, it became dangerous to their careers to suggest what they knew. This has been true for Anthropology as well. Anthropologists like Dubois, Black, and Broom all stood on treacherous ground with the introduction of Homo Erectus. In some cases these geniuses, died lonely and misunderstood. In some cases they died consumed with their work. In all cases, they met significant resistances to their finds. Perhaps today Wolpoff with his position on Neanderthal and Walker on his position of speech place them on that same path. In any case one thing is certain, scientific classification will be tested to general evaluations and in many cases determined to be too specific a theory to meet all the criteria to be discovered afterwards.

Unlike the disciplines of Physics and Mathematics, which have been around for millennia, the scientific pursuit of human origins, Anthropology, has only been an official discipline since the middle of the 19th century. Until the middle of the 20th century, anti-evolutionary laws and mindsets thwarted formal education of the matter. One might assume that if Anthropology is a discipline as difficult to understand as Physics or Mathematics, it has a long road of development to match the accuracy obtained in other areas of study. Although Anthropology has made tremendous strides in the last 100 years, it is not difficult to show that there are limited understandings of our origins and subsequently the methods used to taxonomically differentiate people. This statement is not a disparaging remark against the fundamentals of Anthropology, but rather an assumption based on the relative newness of the science. One only needs look at the alterations of scientific notions based on relatively recent mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) research. More substantially, notions of Neanderthal, origins from Asia versus Africa, Homo erectus speech and even understanding of consciousness have changed drastically in the past 50 years alone. Today we maintain a taxonomic racial classification process patterned after old and largely incomplete knowledge of Anthropologic study. These processes were developed under the influence of limited anthropologic fossil record, and political and religious influence. Today our understanding of this science shakes the foundations of these classification methods. To continue with our present popular definitions is little different than to propound the existence of ether and the flatness of the earth.

Chapter 1 - Why the question? - Discreet Scientific Measures

Discreet Scientific Measures

Moving outside of the consideration for race we know that humanity has long attempted to classify the physical world around us. As we attempt to pigeonhole the actions and processes of nature, we seemingly find that each new pigeonhole has more classifications within its relative grouping. The results of centuries of scientific research have shown in many fields that discreet classification of phenomenon is problematic. I choose the words “many fields” to mitigate the confusion. Consider for instance quantum theory. In this case science has shown, and it is well accepted that energy transmissions at the sub-atomic levels are conducted in discreet quanta. To the attentive reader, this example seems to suggest the notion of discreet classification is a possible solution to the processes of nature. However, the more adroit review of the collective discussion presents still a problem with discreet classification. Erwin Schrodinger provides perhaps the best resolution to the conundrum. Even though energy is transmitted in discreet quanta one can never really know the exactness of its location for any given time. The simple thought experiment presented by Schrodinger represents this concept on a level that our physical perceptions allow us to understand. The thought experiment essentially goes as follows: A cat is placed in an opaque box. Within the box is a poison that will kill the cat if it eats it. The only way to measure if the cat is alive or dead is to open the box and look in. The cat may or may not eat the pill in question. In the case that it eats it, the cat is dead. In the case that it does not eat it, the cat is alive. While the box is closed there is a probability that the cat consumed the poison. However, once the box is opened and the cat is viewed, the distributed probability no longer exists. The morbidity of the cat is determined to a discreet value. This thought experiment is an expansion on the idea of the Heisenburg uncertainty principle, that you can know the momentum of an object with exactness but not for a discreet time. Or you can know the exact time of the measurement but not the discreet value of momentum for the object. Therefore, although the discreet quanta of energy transmissions suggest that we can describe nature through a method of discreet classification, what we find is that nature maintains a probability of existence. Only after the measurement has been made can the “wave form be collapsed”. This is true for sub-atomic measurements. So we must now ask what about larger manifestations of physical models. The gradation only grows as we increase in size.

First let us define discreet. When classifying something we make a determination about its physical characteristics. When the two objects appear to be different we have two objects and not one. This is a discreet measurement. Scientifically the opposite of discreet is a continuum. Within a continuum there can be discreet values. For instance visible light is seen as a continuum in a rainbow. However, there are the discreet colors of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. If you ever looked at a rainbow you will see there is no separation or void between the colors. They blend together in certain regions and the discreetness is seen somewhere between the blending. When there is no void between values such as colors in a rainbow, a value is set as to the exact location of its discreetness. Determining the location for the jump or discreetness requires significant research and understanding of the phenomena. For centuries perhaps millennia we as mankind have attempted to place values one these points of discreetness.

The first well-recorded discussions of these issues began during the Socratic philosophies of the Classical period. The word atom obtains its meaning from that great time in Greek society as meaning no longer divisible. At the time it was thought that the world consisted of four basic elements – Earth, Air, Fire and Water. Since then we have determined that there may be as many as 118 different elements. Not to mention these elements come in many different isotopic forms. With these elements alone or when in combination there are different phases of matter. A child in school as little as 20 years ago would have learned there is only three phases of this matter. Today a child may learn that there are as many as five different phases: Liquid, Solid, Gas, Plasma, and Bose Condensate. One could argue that this is a demonstration of discreetness. All we see here is that the resolution of the discreetness has not been completed. However, lets place our evaluation in the context of the topic of this paper – the human body – to consider this information we must look at the object on a macro level. On the macro level let us assume we have a contained volume of something as simple as water. In our case we may assume at 0 Celsius the water maintains a series of phases. It is gaseous, liquid and solid. Looking at the object from a distance it is easy to detect the large volume of solid phase. However, close classical inspection of the surface reveals that some liquid exists. Furthermore, additional test will demonstrate through sublimation that the water is converting to a gaseous form. This being said, at what point, spatially, can we denote the separation of vapor, liquid and solid? In the classical understanding of the water, we take an estimate and quickly determine the point of separation. In our physical world the point of separation can be qualified. However, from a pure discreetness perspective the question becomes much more difficult. To determine this seemingly innocuous question with a degree of accuracy that completely satisfies discreetness, we must look at the water on an atomic level. At that point, we must return to our understanding of Schrodinger’s wave equation. Thus we only know probability of where the particles for the liquid water exist and the vapor or solid water begins. Furthermore, we determine there is no separation. The liquid, solid and gaseous phase all occupy the same space. This demonstrates two items of concern with our topic of classification. First, science has repeatedly demonstrated that classical discreetness continues to increase. Secondly, at what level of review do we assign some objective value or criteria to separate the gradation. This is true for Physics, Chemistry, Biology or Anthropology. Yes, we can create classifications and points of separation, but can we call these differences discreet? Or are the classifications nothing more than capriciously arbitrary.

Perhaps capricious decisions are a method of policy and procedure development. Consider for a moment relatively recent changes to the drinking laws in the United States. An individual must be 21 years of age to consume alcohol. To comply with this law, identification is presented when trying to purchase an adult drink. Assume for a moment that it is 10pm the day before your 21st birthday. By the letter of the law you can not and in most establishments will not be allowed to purchase the drink. However, wait two hours and one second and you can purchase. Did some cataclysmic event occur in that two-hour period? Furthermore, what if you were born late or born premature? Consider a premature baby born at 6 months. This individual effectively gets a 3-month head start over a person that was carried to full term. This example seems ludicrous. One would assume that any court that reviewed the case aforementioned of the 2 hour discrepancy would use the judicial power to insure a fair and equitable outcome. However, one really never knows.

But, in the case of this discussion we are not considering drinking laws or molecular separation of water on a sub-atomic level. We are considering people. We are considering the sanctity of how we address, group, quantify and qualify fellow human beings. Certainly any method of classification of those people can not be left to a capriciously arbitrary method of assignment. So we turn to Science. Already we have seen that our review of science in the past has shown us the discreetness to be ever changing as we learn. More so over, as we learn more, our resolution of evaluation becomes closer. However, just as we do with Particle Physics, let us assume there is a classical, quantum and perhaps relativistic level of measurement. Let us assume, and I think with relative certainty, that the taxonomic method of biological and anthropological classification is at least functional on a macro level. Clearly, fish swimming in the ocean differ outwardly from a heard animal grazing in a pasture. Although they both may have circulatory systems, skeletal structures and so forth, there is a clear distinction between the physical morphologies of the groups. At the same time, there are differences even within the same heard animal. It is well known that no two giraffes have the same pattern on their coat. Although to the untrained eye, it may be difficult to see the distinction, the well-trained biologists can detect this nuance at a glance. These pattern differences allow biologist some insight into specific allele frequency or habits of the giraffe in question. To the common visitor at the zoo, the pattern differences mean little more than image mirages.

Chapter 1 - Why the question? - The Groups in Question

Chapter 1 - Why the question?

"The first man to see an illusion by which men have flourished for centuries surely stands in a lonely place. In that moment of insight he, and he alone, see the obvious which to the uninitiated yet appears as nonsense or worse, as madness or heresy. This confidence is not the obstinance of the fool, but the surety of him who knows what he knows..."

- The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav


The Groups in Question

The question became obvious to me during a meeting with a local group of civic leaders. At the time my wife, children and I were living in a small Southern town in South Carolina. Census information about the town indicated its population distribution was reverse of most of the rest of the nation. More than 70% of the people within the surrounding community classify themselves as black. Roughly 30% classify themselves as white. Asian, Native American, Hispanic, Inuit and Samoan populations are virtually zero. To many Americans it may seem odd to have a whole community almost completely composed of two racial groups. Especially in a case in which the racial group is dominated by the minority classification of black. However, in smaller Southern towns this population distribution is very common. Subsequently (and personally I think luckily for those who get to experience it), Southern culture maintains a difference from other cultural mannerisms throughout the United States.

When I was a child I was raised in a community that appeared to me to be largely white but with a significant black population. The reality was the population was predominately black, however, because of the confines placed on the society, cross-racial exposure limited interactions. It seemed during the late 1900s that although these racial populations were near each other their interaction maintained a sense of separation that was as real as the walls of a sandbox that stops the white granules from entering in to the green blades of grass. Many people who lack the Southern experience think the division is enforced by some set of written laws combined with clandestine groups committing horrific acts of terrorism. In the more distant past some of this is true. Slavery, and Jim Crow laws were established on the basis of the anthropological science and Christian interpretations of mankind's entrance into the world. However, by the late 1970's the anthropological interpretations of evolution were changing. The strict dogma of Christian creationism was loosing strength as a factual understanding and became seen more as an analogous myth that represented some unknown science. But the barriers remained. Even today anyone in the area will tell you, churches, funeral homes, doctors, bars, and in some enclaves even stores remain classified as black or white. There is no law, rule, or even methods of intimidation that keep these locations separate. There are no signs in the windows and few if anyone would challenge you for entering one that is different from your racial classification, yet casual inspection of the populations clearly show that integration has not yet occurred.

On a farm in the south, I worked side by side with blacks in the field. As a twelve-year-old boy a black man that spoke unintelligible English to anyone not from the area taught me to drive. I competed with and against blacks in sports and on any given Saturday it was common to find me walking into the swamp with a fishing pole on my shoulder, while I talked and laughed with these same black men about how many fish we would catch. However, Sunday was different. We never considered attending church together. My church was slow, methodical, almost sleepy. My church was full of liturgy, booming pipe organs that played the hymns of John Wesley from the 19th century. My church started at 12:00 and was over punctually at 1:00. I remember Charlie (one of my work and fishing partners) would say he didn't get out of church until 3:00 or 4:00. They hadn't collected enough money and they kept the doors locked in the stifling heat until they had. Charlie would smartly hide his money in his sock. When you drove by Charlie's church you could hear the load speakers, the screaming, the yelling mixed with the sound of drums, guitars and clapping hands. Never did you hear the melodic thunder of a pipe organs. But their hands clapped. They danced and sweat and repeated phrases first spoken by the pastor then by the congregation. They didn't need hymnals as they either knew the music and or it was repeated verse by verse. If you ask anyone, to include myself, today, why blacks and whites in our community don't worship together, we will tell you it has to do with the method of worship not that one group is white and the other is black.
This however, did not explain the educational process. Church service is a personal decision but what about school. School is standardized. Today, Federal and State laws regulate everything from the first day of football practice to the quantifying of math standards. So why in these rural communities have schools remained virtually segregated by choice? To answer this now without further introspection into racial classification will seem contrite. It is only significant expansion of the thought process that we can begin to open the doors to this answer. On this point is what I have been propelled to research.

Late in 1997, a brilliant young white woman named Michelle approached me. Michelle had been tasked with the job of Economic Development Coordinator under a Federal grant process. Her job seemed to be Herculean in nature. Our county had been declared an Enterprise Community. Enterprise Community is a euphemistic name given to any county, city or small location that had terrible levels of unemployment, negative population and economic growth during the 1980s, and 1990s. Michelle had taken a realistic look at our community's situation. Our infrastructure was reasonable. Land prices and tax rates were low. Crime rates were low. Commute miles to available office buildings were in the single digits. There is water, there is recreation, we are located reasonable distances to large urban areas, but the economic situation is dismal. When the rest of the United States was experiencing 4 and 5% unemployment, our community had 14%. When the places like the suburbs of Atlanta, Mobile, Charleston and Savannah were experiencing unprecedented growth, we were actually seeing population declines. Furthermore, the population declines are found in the key tax base age range. Effectively, our community had all the standards of living to propel it into a significant growth region, yet our population continues to decline and economic situations are similar to third world conditions.



Many local authorities dismissed the census report as inaccurate sampling, but not Michelle. She saw a real problem with the economic health of the community. Although, she determined the problem to be multi-faceted, she recognized a major reason for the population loss in the key tax base age group could be attributed to the education system. The Federal and State Government threw empty dollar after dollar trying to chase the woes from the school system. Despite the many programs, SAT scores slumped and violence in the public school system grew. Not amazingly young productive adults raced to find another solution. To many the answer was simple, join the ranks of people that were already fleeing to the burgeoning suburbs of the more metropolitan areas. But the community and local area has not always been this way. In one of the least populated largest land mass counties in the State, the community can lay claim to: A key negotiator of the SALT II treaties; A Nobel prize winning Chemist; the first black Astronaut; the most successful football coach ever and one of the wealthiest Americans to ever live.

In order to see the correlation of this to racial policies, we have to return to the time of desegregation. In 1954 the well-known case of Brown versus the Board of Education stated separate but equal was not equal. By the 1960s Southern schools had begun to integrate. By the 1970s the integration was complete and with its completion came the establishment of non-parochial private schools throughout the South. Our community was no different than any other. The white community banded together and established an all white non-parochial yet Christian oriented school. Some 30 years later this is still true for rural Southern American towns. The public school system in my community is 90 percent black and roughly 10 percent white. The white children that attend the public system typically have two strikes against them. One they are socio-economically on the lower end of the scale. This suggest they have had limited exposure to a diverse and positive life experiences outside of the local environment. Secondly parental involvement is limited with these children. Perhaps this is not true in all cases but consider the rationale. Racial overtones control what restaurant you visit. It controls church functions, social gatherings, weddings and funerals. If a white child attends the school predominately composed of black children when so much else is governed by the racial separation, one must only conclude either the parent has no other option financially and/or no concern to the social pretexts and/or no consideration of the welfare of the child. What this suggests and what one will find through inspection, the white children in the school system lack significant parental involvement.

Furthermore, the University of South Carolina so recognized cultural differences in the area that they sent a team to conduct research on the local black population. The research focused on black single female parenthood and the effects on the children in a rural poverty stricken community. The attentive parent of white and black children have chosen in large numbers, to either place their children in the private school, incurring significant financial burden; home school the child, incurring significant personal burden; purchase property in adjacent counties to legitimize the transfer of their child to the other school system; or to remove themselves from the area completely. Despite the many financial incentives for businesses and high quality of living conditions in the area, it is extremely difficult to attract development to the community. All this is not to suggest that the State of South Carolina had not already recognized schools in certain communities were not providing the needed solution desired by the members of the community. The State had recognized the problem and implemented a solution entitled Charter Schools. This is why Michelle approached me. Given the problems aforementioned she knew that some solution needed to be addressed in our county. Knowing she needed both white and black community support to make it successful Michelle approached me to inquire of my interest. I was in favor of it and fought diligent with her and others to see it happen.

Michelle and I coordinated a meeting of community leaders. I began to talk to my peers about the beauty of the opportunity. The envisionment was that a charter school of 100 elementary school children would be created. In order for the children to be admitted to the school, parents would be required to provide service to the school. This service process suggested to us that the children enrolled would have strong familial support and parents that took an active involvement in their child’s well being. To my wife, myself and others this was a criteria that best defined where my children should be educated. We felt that parental involvement in an impressionable child resulted in better judgement of the children as a collective group and individual regardless of the skin color, or osteomorphology (bone differences). The school creation process took significant work. Michelle located facilities, she coordinated with the US Department of Agriculture, which is chartered for Rural Economic Development. She sought out financial support from local industry, and the Chamber of Commerce, and the Economic Development Board. I questioned and suggested to my peers on their level of interest. I presented the option of reducing morning drive times to distant county schools, the reduction in personal expenses for private school tuition, and the relieving of personal effort incurred through home schooling. The last pieces of the puzzle were to obtain school board concurrence and begin the enrollment process. A meeting was called of all the key players less the members of the school board.

Believing there may be some feeling of usurpation of power from the public school system our group felt a collective planning session was needed. We felt, with key industry leaders, the local technical college, established economic development groups and the local Chamber support would enable us to convince the school board to grant the need for the charter school and asage them of any usurption of the job they do. We had no idea of the real trouble that lay ahead. In the meeting a discussion arose regarding a neighboring county's effort to create a Charter School. They had successfully created a Charter School and were now being investigated by the Federal Government for circumventing desegregation laws. Unlike the Northern Communities like Boston, there had never needed to be a substantial formal bussing program in South Carolina. Distribution of black and white populations allowed the schools to send the children closest to their homes. In many cases this caused schools to maintain unbalanced levels of diversity, however, the diversity remains. In a community it is common to see a school that is 75% white and 25% black. While on the other side of the county a school is 30% white and 70% black. In the case of Georgetown, the building of a new High School due to population growth was going to create a situation in which the old school would become significantly black while the new high school would become significantly white. This created an investigation that uncovered the crux of the problem we were to experience.

Georgetown had created a Charter School. The State mandate for the creation of such schools require that any school created must mirror the demographics of the established public school population within 10 percent. As I see it, there is two problems with this requirement. First the established public school population does not include those children that had moved to private school, out of county schools, nor home schools. This policy therefore does not consider the community as a whole but rather only those enrolled in the school process. Second and much more importantly what were the conditions for classification? In Georgetown the parents recognized this stipulation to be a bureaucratic billet to fill. The Georgetown parents recognized that claiming heritage was not an easy process. Children that had in their lineage Native American heredity could claim that lineage. The same was true if the child could claim Asian or Hispanic or any other form other than white. In turn children that were fair skin, with light eyes who for most of their life had classified as white could now join the school without lottery processes. Inevitably the Georgetown school district succumbed to the legal pressure applied to it by the Federal Government. This was a loss for the children, the parents and the community.

In our case the solution would not get as far as Georgetown. During our final meeting the US Department of Agriculture representative brought forward the need to comply with the racial make up for the school. Since our public school district was 90% black and 10% white no more than 20 white children at most would be allowed to attend the school. It was theorized that if 100 black children applied then 100 would be granted admission. In the case that 30 white children applied, they would be faced with a lottery based acceptance, provided there were slots available, not already taken by black children. This policy seemed to be counterproductive to me. Here we were attempting to create a solution to further integrate the local schools in a method that parental involvement would create a further sense of diversity in our community only to find that the laws of the State were biasing the makeup of our decision. I could no longer sit back and quietly watch this process. The solution was simple from my perspective. All we needed to do was claim that we were all black. It was my position that neither the State nor the Federal Government maintains proper guidelines for what constitutes black, white or any other racial division. Therefore any person can claim whatever racial group that they feel is appropriate for any given condition. Since the classification process is seemingly established at random, we as people can claim whatever solution is best for us for the condition at hand. This was unacceptable to the USDA member. She retorted that I was not black and thus could not willfully apply a mistruth. My response was quick, “What makes me black. Is it skin color? Then tell me the monochromic value!” Allow the State down here with a meter that measures that value and tell use all which cross sectional area will be measured and at what time of year since people maintain different variations of color at different times and in different locations on the body.

The members agreed it was not merely skin tone that created the races. So I asked about bone density, bone morphology, blood alleles. What was it physically that determined our race and who kept the secret number to those values? Moreover, who is in charge of measuring it to insure compliance, and what was the value of the measurements resolution? To this the response was that it was ancestral and cultural. I find two problems with this to which I will expand on in great detail later. In short, the present theory of evolution suggests that we all trace back to common ancestors out of Africa. We all have common ancestors at some point. Although, at sometime it is clear populations were separated and today we maintain phenotypes (physical forms) from that isolation, but where do we stop in our ancestral quest.

Cultural discussions further incensed me. This problem alone opens a Pandora’s box that few want to open. First cultural differences suggest ethnicity rather than race. Race is a taxonomic (process of classifying based on phenotype variation) measure. Ethnicity suggests cultural differences. So let as suppose it is ethnicity in question. In this case I would argue my children’s upbringing closer resembles the ethnicity of black Americans from the Southeast, than white Americans from the Southwest. Although phenotypically whites look different from blacks, white Southerners eat the same food as black Southerners. White Southerners have much of the same speech. White Southerners have experienced many of the same life struggles. White and Black Southerners interact and support each other. Culturally many of these groups are separated little more than siblings or cousins would be after marriage. As to the Pandora’s box, racial and ethnic divisions recognize significant differences. Sufficient enough differences that our political system is created based on them. No one quote is more eloquent to this effect than that of the famed 19th century Vice President and long time Senator from the state of South Carolina:

No Group of people so sovereign to be considered a State shall ever be liable
for any law of a Federal Government” –- John C. Calhoun

Calhoun was misunderstood as being a power hungry politician. Adroitly, he was saying when a group of people come together and thereby declare themselves part of a group such as with a State, those people take on an identity compsed of acceptable social norms. Those norms must only be applicable to that group. To apply the norms to other groups will create conflict. When the government identifies groups within a locality as being from separate ethnic backgrounds, it has recognized a need for special recognition of each cultural identity. How can a government that enables this recognition return to say that the two groups must meld their identities and come together for standardized processes? This suggestion imposed on truely different ethnic groups supplants the seeds for confict. In Chapter 2, I address this quagmire and the resultant conflicting court rulings and scientific biases that emerge from it.

Our charter school never made. Michelle completed many economic development programs for the community but was never able to change the schools. Today, the school still remains separated and no policy seems to change that. The community is still confined to its financial depression. I am convinced that I learned from the situation. I learned that racial classification needed significant research and the public in large needed the exact information behind the policies. I will present more evidence that I am not the only one perplexed by these policies and when agencies are questioned about the “correct answer”, there never seems to be one. Racial division has long been a component of American society and has served to fuel conflicts for many years. But before we can even begin to classify each other let us ask what we need to do to separate the groups. This classification and separation is dangerous business that will only serve to further burden our efforts to create a stable society. We must be very exact in this process if wish to produce successful results. I believe Science provides us the insight needed, however, current policies will have to change.

Potential Chapters and Introduction

CHAPTER 1 - WHY THE QUESTION?
THE GROUPS IN QUESTION
DISCREET SCIENTIFIC MEASURES
CHAPTER 2 – THE HISTORY OF THE CLASSIFICATION
CHAPTER 3 – OSTEOMETRICS TODAY
CHAPTER 4 – OSTEOMETRICS OF THE PAST
CHAPTER 5 – ALLELE DIFFERENCES
CHAPTER 6 – SO IS IT SOCIAL NORMS?
CHAPTER 7 – LET’S CLIMB THAT TREE
CHAPTER 8 – SO WHERE IS THE DIFFERENCE?
CHAPTER 9 – ARE WE SURE WE WANT TO GO THERE?
CHAPTER 10 – MAYBE A BETTER ANSWER

Introduction

The 20th Century saw a dramatic change in the way humanity viewed itself and the subtle differences between groups of the homo sapien classification. When we review the timing and facts of history, we see that the end of World War II ushered in the time of this change of understanding. No longer could we continue with the thought that different races were groups that had been divided in some far ancient past that would be forever unknown to researchers. No longer could the different races prove to be inextricably separated by an act of some divine being or through some migration of the bipedal hominid standing upright with voice and abstractions. Rather the fossil record was increasingly indicating that the link between the races was osteomorphologically closer to the same speciation record that biologist had long known.

Despite the information that was burgeoning from the rapidly growing fossil record, Adolf Hitler and his brown shirt Reichstag developed a national political force in Germany that attempted to show tremendous gradation between the races. This policy used surprisingly sophisticated science for the time in a process to advance its political desires. Although simple genetic traits such as sickle cell anemia were not recognized to be geneticly related disorders until the late 1920s and early 1930s already Hitler and Nazi Germany were using terms like eugenics. The political machine of the early Riechstag recognized that people were ready to understand that differences existed between the races. These differences were explained through a new concept of genetics, and policies were put in place to produce the perfect Aryan. Adopting Darwin's concepts on evolution through the survival of the fittest, the propaganda minster, Joseph Goebbels, set into motion what would in time be a counter response of humanity that is heard and seen in policies of today. These policies are adaptive to the science of anthropology, and likewise the science of anthropology is seemingly swayed by the practice of the governments that fund the research from which these policies are created.

Today race-based programs penetrate every facet of the American lifestyle. Government applications for employment ask for racial information. Government contracts require the racial makeup of the company ownership be provided. Laws provide for stiffer penalties when race serves as the impudence for the act. Although quota systems are not in place, point systems have been developed that provide certain races greater consideration for such things as contract awarding, college entrance and funding patterns. Numerous lawsuits have been tried and I am sure more will come testing if race can be considered for college entrance, job admission, and or improper termination. The question at this point is not whether these injustices exist. I think any cognizant individual is well aware that they do. In the cases where they do we note that they are truly a sad situation. However, the question really is what does it mean to be of a particular race. My daughter – 6 years old at the time – phrased it best at the dinner table. “Daddy, why do they call us white? I'm kind of a peachy brown if anything.” What makes us who we are? How can we, as members of the great American melting pot correctly fill out required documents asking our race? What does the question really mean? The answer on the surface may seem simple. Biologically and anthropologically the answer may be more complex than one might image. After 10 years of study, I would argue, there is no guideline. There is no precedent.

In 1925, a Biology teacher, John Scopes, was teaching from a Tennessee state approved text book called Hunter's Civic Biology. Scopes had assigned reading material associated with evolution. At the time, that act was in violation with Tennessee law. Dayton Tennessee became the center of what today is referred to the Monkey Trial. William Jennings Bryan attempted to prove that the only acceptable education regarding the development of man was centered on the Christian view of creationism. At the time 14 states were considering adopting the same form of anti-evolution laws. Clarence Darrow attempted to have the case moved to a higher federal court on the basis that the education of mans origins centered on Darwin's premise that man evolved from a lower order of animal and to stifle that teaching violated the freedom of speech. Scopes was found guilty in Dayton of violating the state code and was fined by the judge $100. However, this outcome achieved the desires of Darrow to get the trial heard in a Tennessee State Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did overturn the $100 fine but only on the basis that it was technically the responsibility of the jury to dictate the fine and not the judge. Of the 14 states that were considering adopting the anti-evolutionary laws at the time only 2 did – Arkansas and Mississippi.

Some 43 years later Susan Epperson was met with a similar dilemma. As an Arkansas school teacher, Epperson was faced with the situation of a textbook that discussed mans origins as evolution from low order animals. At the same time the State of Arkansas maintained strict adherence to the anti-evolutionary dogma. The point in question was an assured dismissal from her position if she taught the prescribed material within the 10th grade Biology book provided by the State. In this case the United States Supreme Court ruled that no State may pass any statute that would impinge on the Right of Free Speech guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Thirty-six years later we are confronted with a similar situation. However, our problem is perhaps not as simple as that faced by Epperson and Scopes. Forms, practices and policies of our Government demand truth in reporting of our race. However, our Government provides no effective guidelines to determine our race. As our society becomes more open and more diverse the question only becomes more challenging. Set forth in this book is a discussion on the criteria of race and the ill advised ideology of any form of typation within the species of Homo Sapien Sapiens. Only a detailed look at the osteomorphology, genetic diversity , physical variation and arbitrary assignment of type will yield a successful definition of racial classification as required in the simpleton requests set forth by our historic ignorance.

Why am I black? Prove I am not. The chapters herein may not prove that I am or am not, however, it does at least ask what the criteria might be.

Thoughts on our Beginning

Over the next few weeks I will begin to post the development on my research regarding taxonomic typation of Homo Sapiens. Specifically the posts will pertain to race classification and my quest to determine the discreet objective osteometric, genomic and/or cultural measures used to classify people. This work serves to demonstrate that there are no defining discreet (or even published gradation) objective measurements for the classifications of race as established by any Federal or State Agency. However, the US Federal and most State governments insist that the information be provided on everything from Census forms to job applications. It is the position of my research both theoretically and empirically measured that these requests for delineation only cause consternation for the people it is attempting to serve.