What DNA Testing Cannot Do for Race Relations

I thought Penn State students were with me on the cusp of a new era. Even though most of us live (and too often die) by the “racial” group to which our appearances give us membership rights, I thought that DNA ancestry testing would inspire us to re-imagine how we identify ourselves—and how we relate to one another.

I was wrong.

It’s not that I don’t spend time pondering these issues. I have been sitting in circles with college students scaling the mountain of race relations for nearly fifteen years. When I do the math, it turns out that I have either facilitated or observed close to 1,000 small group conversations on the topic. Given all of the straight talk and sensitivity, breakdowns and breakthroughs that have occurred on my watch, I can say that there have been no topics too small or too large for us. We talk in earnest about everything from who can call their hair “nappy,” to the nature of historical trauma, to how different cultural groups bathe, raise their kids, and think about the future. I thought DNA ancestry testing would be a welcome addition to our conversational repertoire.

So when Sam offered the opportunity to take such a DNA test (www.ancestrybydna.com) as part of the SOC 119 curriculum, I expected the experience to catalyze the weekly discussion groups in ways that we had never seen. Each student received an estimate of the proportions of their heritage drawn from West African, West European, East Asian, and Native American population groups. Most were shocked to discover that at least two-thirds of them are some “mix” that they did not anticipate. I expected that this surprise would naturally begin the process of dismantling the unsophisticated views of race to which Americans hold so tightly in our politics, our policies, and our personal relationships.

Wrong again.

Instead of critiquing the way we categorize a person as “Asian” whose ancestry may include significant influences from other population groups, or someone as “black” when barely half of their ancestry originates from Africa, the vast majority of students focused on their own results. And they exhibited the gamut of emotion that occurs when individuals learn who was chosen to be on the team or to receive the first place prize. One dark-skinned woman excitedly posted the fact that she was “27 percent European” on her away message, while one light-skinned woman angrily destroyed the CD containing her results when she discovered her ancestry to be 100 percent West European. But this wasn’t meant to be a contest to see who was in and who was out.

So much for the lesson plans.

In almost every instance, my attempts to initiate a discussion of the test were met with unusually curt replies. “The test makes no difference,” I heard over and over again. “I know who I am; a blood test won’t change anything,” many huffed. “People won’t treat me any differently because of the results,” others insisted, “so what’s the point?” This was the tenor of comments I even heard from the teaching assistants who recognized the value in untamed conversations of all varieties and who had been willing to go with me into the wildest terrain. These were not individuals who participated on the margins; these were the ones who jumped in and got wet.

I didn’t get it. Genetic science seemed poised to tear down our accepted racial categories on a massive scale by revealing the false groupings that we follow like a religion—and everyone was acting uninterested. All I wanted was for us to ponder what it could mean if science was showing us that the way we classify our groups is inaccurate, or to explore what might happen if we realized that few of us wear our precise racial affiliations on our sleeves (as so many of us believe), or to picture how things would be different if we had to ask for this information when we met someone (as opposed to determining it haphazardly for ourselves in the time it takes to notice them rushing by to catch a train).

No one seemed to care about all of that.

But finally, I have begun to make sense of the collective malaise I encountered. One insight came last semester when a student posed an intriguing question to one of the discussion groups. He asked, “How would we treat each other if we came together without the baggage of our respective histories?” The consensus was that, without our histories, none of us would be who we are. So the thought experiment was impossible, the group concluded.

Click.

I got it. The ancestry testing did not even begin to discredit our concept of race simply because…it couldn’t. We don’t know how to live without the dividing lines that we have inherited to define us. We don’t know how to identify ourselves or how to recognize one another without them. So we have no choice but to side-step new information, dutifully fitting ourselves “into” the only available categories—even when we sense that those categories are wrong.

So it seems that DNA ancestry testing is a mirror. And if we dare to behold its reflection, we get to see how little imagination we have when it comes to race, and how much we resist living without our familiar fault lines. But genetic science has found its way to the surface and is now demanding that we respond to its challenges with something more substantial than our worn stories and stereotypes.

Unfortunately, what I see every day is that individuals of all colors share a propensity toward provincial views, overly simplified assessments of issues, and thinly veiled prejudices about other groups. That means we are walking together on the edge of a perilous cliff with few among us of any color prepared to truly assess the landscape we are facing. Many seem resigned to waiting for a lightening bolt for direction—like the student who poignantly stated, “It will probably take something a lot bigger than a DNA test to really change my outlook on race and racial issues.” All I could imagine was September 11th. That was the last time I thought something large enough had happened to begin to shift the dynamic of race relations in this culture. I thought it had to offer us a clearer vision of ourselves.

I was wrong then too.

So I’ve learned that what really matters are the tiny epiphanies that happen off stage, one at a time, when one person comes to see what another person sees and they view the world with the same eyes for a moment. In that instant, all who are present feel the ground breaking beneath their feet because, when we have the opportunity to witness a change of heart live, we know something profound is happening.

Of course, these singular awakenings turn out to be more about effort and grace than about lesson plans. But I am convinced that they do more to undermine the tangles of our bigotry than the more dramatic events that we all keep mistaking for the cure. That is why I continue to sit in conversation circles, doing my part to unravel our knotty multicultural macramé, person-by-person, story-by-story—because, as my students and a DNA test have so convincingly demonstrated to me, there are just no shortcuts to undoing the breadth of our illusions.

I don’t think I’m wrong about that.

Laurie

A Side Note About "White Power" and Our Political System

I found a seven minute video that offers an interesting analysis of "power" as it is related to our political system. I think it is worth viewing; it will provoke some outside-the-box thinking.

As you watch, however, keep in mind the following:

Politics is all about how people manage the concentration of power in any system. Myriad decisions must be made in every large collectivity and it is impossible for all members to participate equally in each and every one of them. Consider the many collective resources that we all utilize: waste removal and clean-up, water purification and delivery, electrical generation, road construction and maintenance. This list is long and increasingly convoluted.

And because it is impossible for everyone to have a say in every aspect of collective (i.e., governmental) services, we must find ways for individuals and groups to "represent" the interests of the collectivity as a whole. Think about how EVERY organization has leaders who meet and make untold numbers of decisions on behalf of the that organization. There are always too many decisions to make for us to arrange an organization (or collectivity) in any other way.

But how do we select those representatives? How do we decide which individuals or groups will sit at the head of the table and think and act on everyone's behalf?

For most government positions in the U.S. we do this with elections. But how do we determine who has an opportunity to run for one of these positions? If they meet select criteria such as certain minimum age requirements or legal residency of a state or district, any citizen is eligible to run for any office. All they need to do is get their name out to the voting populace and convince those people to vote for them.

And that's the difficult part, of course, because that requires money--lots of money for major elections (i.e., positions of greater power). People who are wealthy can largely self-finance their elections on their own (e.g., Mayor Bloomberg in New York City who is a billionaire) while people without money can turn to other individuals and groups for help. Turning to masses of individuals is ideal--get everyone involved and expand the democratic base--but it takes a lot of effort and upfront money to convince isolated people to donate small amounts of cash. So what generally happens is that candidates turn to fewer numbers of wealthier individuals and groups who can contribute larger amounts. But here's the catch.

Few people give money with no strings attached. Would you donate to a campaign without concern for the specific policies that a candidate will pursue once elected? Probably not. And who could blame you for wanting something in return for your hard earned cash?

And so we have very well-organized and powerful groups contributing the bulk of the funds for political campaigns that each year are more and more expensive, and to the exclusive parties that each season are more and more lavish. It is not difficult to imagine that every one of these groups, let's say the "telecommunications industry," has legislation pending before Congress that could lead to millions or billions of dollars in profits or losses, depending on how bills are written. While this legislation may or may not be in the public's interest, it is always in the interest of the companies footing the bill for those campaigns and parties. Why else would they do it.

So what about race?

Take a look at the video at the end of this essay. Look at the people partying at the exclusive venues during the Democratic and Republican National Conventions. What's their racial background? They're nearly all white. It's a club that does not deliberately exclude black and brown people, but white people established the criteria for membership many years ago and seem to be inclined to reserve the few spaces that open to their friends and relatives--who more often than not are white.

This is not to say that there are no black and brown people with power. Far from it. half of all black Americans are middle class, after all. But the people who occupy those special seats of power, the people who make decisions that move millions and billions of dollars into and out of various private coffers, are mostly white. This is something that has not changed much over the years.

Is this going to change if Obama is working out of the Oval Office? You watch the video and respond to that question yourself.

For those who watched the conventions, compare your memories of the extremely "colorful" Democratic National Convention with the images (from the video) of the exclusive parties in downtown Denver where the DNC was held. All the darker skinned people seem to have been inside the convention and not at these parties where the "wheeling and dealing" was happening. That's odd for a party of "inclusion." The RNC in Minneapolis was almost entirely white, so the same contrast doesn't hold--they have no need to pretend.

Finally, keep in mind that this video was produced by ABC which is owned by Disney and is a massive media conglomerate. You might wonder why it is that they would show something that so clearly appears to undermine that corporation's ability to shape the decision-making of our political leadership. I'll let you answer it for yourself.

VIDEO

To My Students:

I’m going to write about Obama in these blogs (just as I will discuss him in my race class) because of the sheer historical significance of his candidacy with regard to race relations. But in order to do so freely, without parts of my discussion being misread as a political endorsement, let me explain some things about the way I vote.

I have never missed casting my ballot in a presidential election in my thirty years of legal adulthood. And as a student of political sociology for nearly all of that time, I do the research and I take my vote very seriously.

This year, as we have candidates who are not white and male running in both major parties, we are clearly faced with an opportunity to advance this nation culturally, keeping us in step with most of the world’s more industrialized countries (and many less developed ones) that have already elected racial minorities or women to their highest seats of power. Furthermore, whether we put Barack Obama or Sarah Palin into office, this election will influence how we see all women or all people of color in both subtle and not so subtle ways. Speaking as a sociologist, this is fascinating to contemplate. Speaking as a person whose work involves building bridges between balkanized racial and ethnic groups, it is groundbreaking.

And yet, as I examine the gravity of all of the issues we face, I am left to conclude that the value of cracking one of these twin glass ceilings cannot alone determine the way I cast my ballot. In my view, we need a party that is willing to truly tackle the issues of terrorism and war, depletion of natural resources, the explosion of the world’s population and the deepening of global poverty—and to do so in radically different ways. I don’t mean spinning words to attract constituents. I’m talking about actually encouraging and carrying out system transformation.

Unfortunately, the differences between our two major parties on all of the issues are mostly cosmetic and rhetorical. It might appear as though their differences are significant—why else would their respective members be arguing with one another so vociferously? But I see two parties that are sponsored by and answerable to the same power base—and, for me, that adds up to little expectation for change when we most need it. The following are two broad issues that are of particular concern to me. But there are others:

Natural Resources. I’m not talking about the prices of gas or heating fuel or the sudden spike in airfares. I’m talking about sustaining life on this planet. I think the data we have about global climate change is sobering. Most of it does not appear to be hysterical exaggeration. And I think we are foolish not to genuinely heed this warning. We need to begin by severing the ties between corporations and politicians who are bought and sold in the basements and back rooms of congressional buildings, the White House, and K Street. Because I think this is so essential to making decisions that have the people and the planet in mind, I have never voted for a candidate who is not committed to and capable of putting natural resources ahead of short-term profits.

War and Terrorism. The United States produces and sells more military weapons than the next eight top weapons manufacturing nations combined, and we spend more money on our military than the militaries of the twenty-five next most powerful countries in the world. War will always occur and there will always be threats to our national security. But we can only avert these threats if we cease supporting a military industrial complex whose profits are unfortunately rooted in waging war (and threatening the national security of other nations). In other words, we must stop ourselves before it is too late. Imagine a nuclear bomb in New York City. This doesn’t have to happen. But it is the outcome we are likely to witness if our leaders do not shrink the size of the military industrial complex and curtail the proliferation of weapons. I have never voted for a candidate who does not see this as crucial for our protection and survival.

For my entire voting life, I have observed that neither of the major parties has substantively addressed these (and other) critical issues. And once again in 2008, neither party has made history with their platforms because they are still beholden to vested and powerful interests that maintain the perilous status quo. They have only made history with the faces of their candidates. This is not insignificant, to be sure, but I have to cast my vote for more than that, for a future, for a sustainable world that we can actually live in.

Sam

An Account of Hope

Do I think Barack Obama is going to change Washington if he gets elected? No. Do I think he will bring America to greatness? No. Do I think that his entrance onto the national stage has a kind of power to transform race relations? Possibly.

My mother just called. She waited until she was sure I would be awake to tell me that she has been “crying all morning,” evidently still hung over from the elevation she experienced last night.

“This is one of the best experiences I’ve had in my life,” she said. “I could die tomorrow knowing I have seen this happen…I feel so glad to be alive to experience this.” Those are her words about listening to Barack Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention. I was scribbling them down as she spoke because I sensed what was happening was big. Her voice broke into tears even in the telling.

When Martin Luther King stood in Washington and talked about his dream, my mom was not there. She was a twenty-one year old newlywed, living in an apartment in New Jersey, working at an insurance company. She probably had no idea it was happening. She is one who remembers vividly the assassination of John F. Kennedy, but little else on the national stage. She was never part of a movement, hardly even paid attention to political campaigns. Her focus was kids and caretaking. Only this past spring did we discuss how frightened she was in 1967 during the racial uprising in Newark—the worst of the devastation having occurred only a few miles from where we lived. But forty-five years, four children, six grandchildren and one day after Martin Luther King’s historic speech, my mom has been moved to heights of enthusiasm and commitment that I’ve never seen in her. And frankly, I think her hyperbole of passion may not be hyperbole at all.

As she watched Obama’s acceptance speech alone, jumping up and down, screaming, with tears running down her face, she was reacting to an image of multiculturalism that genuinely moved her, a spirit of partnership and possibility between people that captivated her—and many like her. “You have to be a stone not to feel it,” she declared this morning. And though I am more restrained in my view of the Obama phenomenon because of its foundation in a political horse race, I am still left wondering where this deep chord of hope struck in my mom—and other people like her—might actually lead us, and what these heights of emotion are saying about the relationships we aspire to create.


Laurie

What’s Happening to the Neighborhood?

Michelle Obama made history this week with her appearance at the Democratic National Convention. By sharing an intimate portrait of her life as a member of the Robinson family, her birth family, she solidified just how momentous this election is for race relations in the United States. Aside from the fact that the video montage that helped her to accomplish this was checkered with photos that did not include a single white person, those photos were essentially the same images that most every Middle American white family has in their own albums. You know the kind of photos—a little girl riding her first bike, eating an ice cream cone while it melts down her hand, hugging her elderly grandparent and smiling into the camera. One could almost hear the delight and the affection and the laughter pouring forth from the images of Michelle and her family. It was classic Americana, the “dream” unfolding right before our eyes. The Robinsons, it turns out, lived and loved one another just like millions of white families do. And Michelle even epitomized the ultimate in Americana—she watched the Brady Bunch religiously.

Why is all of this momentous? Because Americans still suffer from not really knowing one another. And because most white Americans still have no close friends or family members who are black or brown, and most have never stepped inside of a household of black or brown people. Although many will protest this characterization, it is sadly true. So we have not seen firsthand the parallels in our intimate worlds. We live like aliens in the same land. And though we might assume a modicum of commonality in our respective communities, most of us have not confirmed this for ourselves. The Cosby Family was a classic fictional attempt to make the point for us. But the Robinsons are real. The Obamas are even more real. And now, as white Americans are peering inside the intimate space of black and brown America through the unparalleled media presence of the almost-first Obama family, we are encountering the ultimate “look who’s moving into the neighborhood” moment for this country. And something novel is bound to result. In fact, this nation will never be the same if it occurs.

Even though television can only show us the surface of things in the Obama family, white America is likely to apply this new perspective to other black families living just down the street or across town or in an adjacent community. And as they do, we will all become participants in the most far-reaching “contact theory” experiment ever undertaken. Social scientists know that prejudice diminishes when the degree of contact increases between members of groups that fear or dislike or simply do not know one another. So this closer view of the Obamas—and black and brown America by extension—will surely assist in breaking down some of the barriers to affiliation, understanding, and alliance-building that still define us. How could this NOT happen? And, more importantly, where will we find ourselves as a people when it does?

Sam and Laurie

To My Fellow Ordinary Americans

We’ve been bombarded by our fair share of stump speeches these days. I’ve heard so many that I’m starting to get the form down. Most fascinating—and most abrasive to me—is the part where I think we are supposed to imagine music coming up softly in the background while a candidate speaks about the "ordinary Americans” they’ve met along the campaign trail. This is the moment when they share their fireside stories of the unstaged encounters they’ve enjoyed with regular folks all across the nation—like Ben from Minnesota who got divorced and lost his job, but gave the last $5 he had in his pocket to the campaign, or 17-year old Jillian from Delaware who was on the list for a heart transplant and whose parents just lost their health insurance, but who is busy telling all of her friends to vote.

I’m sure these authentic moments momentarily revive the ailing heartbeats of these extra-ordinary individuals whose precious hours are spent stumping and sound-byting and strategizing—and, in stolen moments of quiet, wondering who are their true allies and who is just looking to be on the gravy train. It’s not surprising that us velveteen people could bring some overdue fresh air to their increasingly re-circulated oxygen interactions.

We’re just so real in our little lives, aren’t we?

But I'd be more convinced of any candidate’s sincerity if we were given a few anecdotes about other equally ordinary people who just happened to be a few rungs higher up on the ladder of wealth—like Chuck from the Upper West Side of Manhattan who is so inspired for change that he is donating his recent inheritance to urban youth programs around the country that will help to get out the vote, or Reni the Hollywood mogul who just gave $10 million to rural campaign efforts because Obama inspired her desire for unity. Somehow, these equal opportunity anecdotes would be less patronizing.

But this will never happen—because there is a ruling class, and then there are all the rest of us. Every once in a while, the ruling class just needs us little guys to highlight their moral uprightness as they battle for position and power among themselves. But after things are in place again, we become a lot less interesting—and they act less like “public servants” and more like royalty.

As long as the term “ordinary people” continues to be the euphemism for poor schleps like us who happen to be the voting masses, I know that we are heading for more business as usual. Obama’s candidacy may look to be equalizing our racial caste system, but what about the just-as-real class hierarchy—you know, that one that keeps poor people poor by keeping rich people rich. We’d much rather talk about race, wouldn’t we? That way, we don’t come close to threatening the real power brokers—who actually come in all colors. Their positions remain unthreatened. Ironic, given all this talk of “change we can believe in.”

When us ordinary Americans start to examine class as a preeminent national division, making more of us “fellow citizens” than we otherwise think, then the real revolution is here. Until that time, I’d rather skip the rhetoric. And if they really thought about it, I’ll bet Bob and Jillian would feel the same way.

Laurie

To the Adopted Husseins

Bravo. We were both electrified when we learned that you are stretching beyond the oppressive reach of our cultural fear-mongers, and creatively taking action to stand up for the kind of world that makes more sense to you. In the tiny act of symbolically assuming the middle name “Hussein” (in solidarity with Barack Obama), you are daring the rest of us to question our assumptions about Muslims, about Arabs, about many things that we define as “foreign.” However, there is something important that you may be missing, that lots of people seem to be missing these days.

In the New York Times article about the bold step each of you has taken, Ashley “Hussein” Holmes was quoted as saying that she has “such a vanilla, white-girl American name.” That comment troubled us because these days it is fairly typical to make derogatory comments about white people. And we notice that such comments play in an alluringly hip kind of a way. In fact, if you identify as white and anti-racist, it is actually fashionable to offhandedly hate on white people and white culture—and to not blink while doing so. In fact, no one blinks. We think this has nearly become a rite of passage to achieving anti-racist status if you’re white. But this seems to be throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. Yes, the name “Ashley Holmes” may reveal something of your white cultural background—just like “Hussein” provides insight into Barack Obama’s heritage. But if you are going to stand up against hatred and bigotry and small-mindedness, then stand up for everyone—and without backhandedly putting some group down. (And by the way, Ashley, one of us writing this actually assumed that you were black by the sound of your name. Interesting, huh?)

So, it’s our turn to dare you. We dare you to think about the subtle ways white culture and white people are becoming something like the new minstrels. Sure, many think that white people have it coming to them—so they should just “suck it up” and accept the lampooning. But we’re not talking about comedy. We’re referring to the deep dis-identification that white people are being asked to make with themselves in order to take on a position that seeks and supports social justice. That is not social justice. That is just another form of ignorance. After all, social justice is not a zero sum game. We don’t have to lift up one culture, any culture, at the expense of another. Those kinds of approaches always fail—with terrible misery in their wake (think: Israel and Palestine).

All of you who have become honorary Husseins are in the vanguard of a new generation of Americans who are poised to make new demands on this culture and its people, challenging us to define ourselves based on something other than our deeply polarized, historical divisions. In fact, this is what rests at the core of your symbolic act.

We’re not asking you to “respect your heritage” in a Dinesh D’Souza sort of way. But we think that making fun of your culture is not going to truly bring you closer to other cultures. It will just keep you in denial of who you are—and eventually that will get old. Besides, it’s not going to make you any more cool. The coolest white people we know have figured out how to support the humanity and interesting cultural customs of all people—without denying or downplaying the fact that they are white. From what we’ve seen, we think you all are smart and creative enough—and cool enough—to do that.

Laurie and Sam