Wednesday, July 19, 2006

About Lincoln, racism, and PERSPECTIVE


I got an email which confused me. Not being an American, my grasp of American history and geography is sketchy. (Though perhaps better than the average Americans, who knows.) So I asked my good friend, ace writer Del Miller, who seems to know ten times as much as me in most subjects. (How he finds the time I don't know.)

Disclaimer from Del: "I should point out that it was email response off the top of my head and not a researched essay. Still I think everything there is pretty accurate. I think that this kind of debate is healthy."

Disclaimer from me: to be honest I think any racism debate is, uh, pretty black and white. As such it does not hole my interest for long. What holds my interest though, is PERSPECTIVE, which is central to this debate. I think perspective is ESSENTIAL in all life's areas, and I post this as a comment on perspective rather than racism.

Eolake

---------------------

Dear Eolake,

I know you mean well, but your recent "Thought of the Day" was not good:

"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. As a peacemaker the lawyer has superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough. -- Abraham Lincoln"

Abe Lincoln is NOT a good source for quotes. He has been "developed" by some "americans" over the years as a "good man" - but in fact, he was much the opposite.

Consider this other quote from Abraham Lincoln:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." -- Abraham Lincoln

(Sorry if that bothers you. But that is Abe Lincoln's words, not mine!) If that statement does not DEFINE him as a white supremacist, I don't know what does.

There's many more examples of Lincoln's extreme bias written in the pages of history. I won't bother you with anymore of them in this message. I just wanted to educate you about the truth of the matter, and to respectfully discourage you from promoting the Lincoln lie on your website. However, if for any reason you are interested in reading any more of Lincoln's horrible racism, I will point you to the sources, so you can read them for yourself.

I enjoy your website greatly, and just don't want you to "cheer for the wrong side" (as it were).

Keep up the good work. And don't quote the racist Lincoln.

Bruce

--------------------

Eolake,

Thanks for forwarding that letter to me. As a long-time student of Lincoln I'm well aware of his statements about race that make our contemporary morals quiver; and yes, that Lincoln quote is true. There has been much debate about Lincoln's true feelings toward blacks and calls of racism have been made many times.

It is likely that Lincoln did consider the black race to be inferior to the white. Considering the times it's not that hard to imagine: Blacks were slaves for the most part, and as such were uneducated, illiterate, and without a cohesive social culture--that being taken from them by the slavemaster. In fact, there was really not much evidence contrary to the belief in negro inferiority in early nineteenth century America.

But Lincoln also believed that, inferiority in any of these ways did not matter when it came to the matter of dignity and happiness. His views on the cruelty of slavery are well documented and he abhorred it. He believed, as expressed in his personal writings, that all men should be free to live their lives without oppression-- and that included blacks. He considered negroes to be like children that should be protected and governed by their white betters or, as an option, be allowed to go back to Africa and live as an African.

Viewed from modern sensibilities this might not seem to be much of a cause for sainthood, but in those days it was a radical and dangerous view. The entire institution of slavery depended on the concept that the negro was not human; that he was an animal of sorts and this allowed Christian men to own them without compromising their eternal salvation. It was this presumption of non-humanity that justified the whip and lynching and all the other sins of slavery. The mere belief that negroes were fully human was enough to start a war.

Lincoln believed that it was terribly important for the Union to remain united as a single country and was willing to back off from his own beliefs to preserve that union. His 'racist' comment quoted in your letter was made during a political campaign against a rabid pro-slavery candidate and to make any comment even remotely anti-racist was a sure way to lose to the slavers. So there was an element of political expediency in many of his public comments at the time. His private statements, however, were much more anti-slavery and it is important to note that he was the head of the major abolitionist party in the country. During the 1860 campaign for president, uttering such beliefs openly would almost certainly have led to Southern seccession and civil war.

Many anti-slavery northerners favored letting the South secede rather than engage in a war. Lincoln was clearly of the opinion that war must come as long as the question of slavery existed. I say 'clearly' because his actions as president speak much more loudly than any campaign speech ever did. A willingness to go to war to end slavery is not typically the hallmark of a 'racist.'

It was only near the end of the civil war, when he had already signed the Emancipation Proclamation that ended slavery and when the outcome of the war was clear and only weeks away, that he felt free to make his own feeling widely public. In his Second Inaugural Address (One of the truly great speeches in human history, by the way) he makes his views of slavery quite clear:
"...if God wills that it [the war] continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

He made it clear that slavery was a sin for which the country was being punished and his writings toward the end of his life were far more anti-slavery than were his comments from his politician days. But his private statements never really changed that much.

As I said, volumes have been written about the subject, mainly because Lincoln was killed only weeks after the war was over. Lincoln, at that time, seemed totally dedicated to the reconstruction of the south with the black man as a free and enfranchised member of society and I suspect that letters such as you received would not be written had Lincoln been given the chance to do what he wanted.

History makes an unforgiving biographer. We judge men by standards that were foreign then and apply labels that wouldn't make sense to the people of that time. Lincoln was no saint, and he compromised mightily his beliefs in his early career. True, his attitude toward negroes was paternalistic and condescending by our standards, but for that time and place also radically humanistic. But what he actually accomplished--amid a culture of incredible racism-- and what he seemed intent on securing before he died would, to me, insure his place as one of the greatest people in history.

Del

8 comments:

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

You said it.

---
"It would seem that the price of that peace, stability and growth was the lives of those two boys."

I am sure many would be horrified at the thought of sacrificing lives for... anything. But we do it every day. How many lives are sacrificed every year so we can have automobiles?

Anonymous said...

Perspective is indeed the key word. The cumulated generation gap between mentalities over time can take the proportions of a cosmic abyss, and History litterally sounds like Science-Fiction at times. Remember, until the Holocaust, it was social norm to be anti-semite. Then we realized how far this could lead...
I myself was taught about "primitive type" races [Pygmies, australian Aboriginals] in Geography class as late as 1983. But in 1997, a university course told me that anthropology and genetics had definitely proved the absence of races in the human species. It has become an official, undisputable, established fact.
The world is INDEED getting better, and before our very eyes, albeit slowly and painfully. There are still many things wrong in it, yes. And the principles are trampled over daily. But now we HAVE these principles. It's always the right beginning : ideas to lead us forward. Not long ago, we didn't. We are on the right track, people.

Anonymous said...

How dare you, Wonko, speak ill of our royalty? Or simply speak, for that matter? Back to the asylum with him! OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!
(One hopes you doth have a head on thine shoulders.)
And hurry with that execution, we are scheduled for tea at Four with her Majesty of Hearts and a charming young lady named Alice.
Ha! Little does she know she's ending up in court for the theft of the cakes we ate!

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

"anthropology and genetics had definitely proved the absence of races in the human species."

How's that? Some people are black as the night, others are pale as sand. Have they redefined "race" or what?

Anonymous said...

Allright E.S., you asked for it. ;-)

This is a rather lengthy issue to explain, but oh so worthy. And, by some miracle, in the middle of the Lebanon situation, I have electricity, so let's take it as a sign from "Above".

First, a word about "race". It is defined as a sub-category of a species, in which certain particular traits remain constant between the individuals from one generation to the next. For instance, if all the kittens of your persian couple are long-haired and white with a flattened nose, and so are all their descendants when mated with other white persians etc., then you have bred a "fixed race". But they'll still be mouse-chasing carnivores. A reminder of the basics.
Notice, however, that raceless cats may display up to four simultaneous fur colors in irregular patches. And one of the four colors (I think male cats are limited to three) may be tabby, which comes from dual-colored HAIRS, as I have verified first-hand. On the length of a single of these hairs, there may be up to three colour zones... Cats pigmentation is not like humans.

Now for a true anecdote (from my biology books). A Norwegian couple consulted a genetics specialist for a very delicate matter. These two blonde-haired, blue-eyed "vikings" had a brown-haired, brown-eyed baby girl. Naturally, it tore the couple apart, because instantly people and so-called family "friends" started saying she couldn't be her father's child, "all genetics books will assert it". But the mother was confident about her honesty, and they made more "serious" DNA tests, that indeed confirmed the baby was her parents' child. Genetics books are simplistic, when they present eye and hair color as single, dominant-recessive genes with black-and-white rules for example's sake. Human genetics is very complicated, and most traits are multi-factorial, with their expression also depending on yet undetermined environmental factors (it's called "gene penetration"). Many genes are NOT purely "dominant" or "recessive", when they involve appearance instead of a single protein. Reversely, genes for enzymes, blood group, rhesus, or HLA "genetic ID" are "yes-or-no" type. Unless the protein has several sub-groups (four for Haemoglobin, the stuff that colours your blood cells red). There are also regulation genes that may affect the quantity of the protein expressed. [Cancer is nothing more than the dramatic mutation of genes that regulate a cell's growth and multiplication. Enough of these in the same cell, and it becomes cancerous...]

Another very brief anecdote. I know of a French celebrity (a writer, his name eludes me). He is from the overseas French territories. He's quarter Black from one of his grand-parents, and three-quarters pure White French. Well, his whole life has been plagued by one stupid but very real detail : you look at him, you'd swear from his face and complexion he's a typical North-African arab! Me, I am 50% pure Lebanese, and 25% French. I go completely unnoticed in France. Not in Lebanon, no Sir I don't! And of three brothers, I'm the only one who resembling our Lebanese father... Race? What's race? A very blurry notion, and contemplated through London's fog. Its criteria are as changing as a soap bubble's hues.

Human appearance depends on a great number of multifactorial traits, interlinked genes, and variable expression genes. The concentration of these appearance genes is merely a geographic variant, and their combination in good part random. Science, once finally free from the bias of racism theories, has made tremendous progress in this domain, specially in genetic biology. Blood groups, for instance. The Nazis relied upon the B subtype to make up a "blood purity chart" of the Germans, and point the finger at the jews for "soiling the blood", because officially, A was Aryan, and B was semitic. They never bothered to counter-check! From Spain to Kamchatka, the genetic blood group chart has been established throughout Eurasia and the Mediterranean region. You'd expect the different A-to-B proportions to follow the frontier lines, or at least the ethnic zones. No cigar, not even close! The geographic picture displays a gradient, going from West to East, sneering at any political/geographic human boundaries, with roughly regular vertical limits between numbers (say, 0-5%, 5.1-10%, etc...) There IS a difference, but it is purely geographic, and geographic as in the planet, NOT the countries. Complicated Central Europe is no more divided than Russia on this chart. The Jews simply had more frequent B-type because they come from further East, and don't marry locals so their gene pool remains similar. You CANNOT tell two nationalities apart by studying an individual's genes. It's official.

Because genes HAVE been thoroughly studied, oh yes. Looks can be very deceiving. Here in Lebanon, we've had hordes of ancestors from the various conquerors of our continental crossroad. Well, we can tell the "lebanese" type from the "syrian" type, but it's far from a precise science. Specially inside a single ethnic group (Sunni muslims, for instance). Some of my classmates had extremely dark skin, as if they came from southern Egypt, or Sudan. While they were born in a rather isolated mountain village. I was stunned the day I heard US actor Sinbad say he was Black. He barely looks Lebanese by type (I even thought he was!!! With a name like that.), and his skin is whiter than mine, even pale I'd dare say! So, why "Black"? He simply comes from the American community having at least one "coloured" ancestor, and the rest came exclusively from social segregation reflexes along the decades. Black is not his skin color, just his culture and heart. (No lame jokes on "black heart" here, the man's extremely nice.)

"Types" are that kind of geographic variant, which are only reliable if the population has remained isolated for many centuries. (This is how the biologically neutral trait of slanted eyes has appeared in Asia : a long period of isolation, and fortuitous geographic drift.) Now, what did the SERIOUS genetic studies show us, when made without the initial bias of subjective "race" theories? Lots of extremely interesting things. Skulls of "modern" man and our hominid ancestors were thoroughly compared, measured, etc... with all kinds of anatomical criteria. Our closest relative in time, Neanderthal, displays very specific skeletal and skull differences (although subtle to the untrained eye), that prove he was a close relative, but a distinct species. Still, it remains unclear whether he became extinct, or disappeared by genetic dilution through mating with Homo sapiens. Sometimes, the species barrier isn't hermetic or well defined. (Example : the mule.)
Now, for "modern" man, Homo sapiens, came the first surprise. Race theoricians, deliberately or unconsciously, picked specific individuals for their "race charts". By far, not all Europeans were as sexy-looking as their "samples", and Africa (for instance) has given birth to many fashion models displaying the same "perfect" body proportions that the fashion designers so carefully seek in their fair-skinned couterparts (and that are very far from the average). The former so-called scientific body charts are embarrassing fakes, mere disorted views of twisted minds.
[I'd like to seize this occasion to recommend the very fine movie "Man to Man", telling a pertinent historical episode. In the beginning, Pygmies are considered "animals", like mere apes. Not just a race, but an inferior species! In the beginning... Very interesting example of "perspective", Eolake.]

I think even the name "Cro-Magnon" had become obsolete today. An honest comparison between "early" Homo sapiens and today's average individuals shows no other differences that these of environmental effect, like scarceness of food that caused them to grow shorter than in 2006. Once our species had appeared, it practically remained unchanged per se. You take a time machine, and switch two newborns between today and Cro-Magnon, they'll grow up with absolutely no difference that Science could honestly detect. It seems wisdom teeth are not, after all, disppearing, and changes in our fifth toe are only due to footwear. As for "modern man" variations... well, if you haven't already, take a seat, trust me. Differences have been thoroughly catalogued by DNA sequencing. The normal variations of non-clinically significant genes have been made into a list. (For instance, mucoviscidosis and sickle-cell anaemia are pathological mutations, the latter being favorised by Paludism in some areas. Not race : strictly environmental bias.) Examples of normal variations from harmless mutations over time : HLA genes, C-hemoglobin (doesn't cause an illness), and of course melanin-regulation genes. The whole nine yards. Guess what were the results?

Between any two random individuals (i.e., not family related), there is a certain amount of variable "genetic distance". If the race theory was correct, you'd expect to find a very significant difference, between the mean distance separating, say two Germans, and the distance separating a German from a Mongolian. Let's take the latter as a reference. The AVERAGE genetic distance between a German and a Mongolian. For instance, because Herr Deutschbrüdder needs a kidney transplant, and we're seeking a compatible donor. We compare this figure with the distance between Herr Deutschbrüdder und Herr Grössbize, ya? What ratio would you expect, if there are indeed distinct races? 3 to 1? 2 to 1? 10 to 1? Guess what : the average distance 1 to 0.9! Which means, roughly, that you have ONLY 10% more chance of finding a compatible kidney with Herr Grössbize than with Honorable Mr Yao-Ling. And, that if you search donors in both countries every time, you'll find compatible donors (not an easy task) in Germany 52.5% of the time, and 47.5% of the time in Mongolia.

Animals found in the wild (for instance, mice) are called the "wild phenotype", the standard race if you like. Human-bred races differ in appearance, because life in the wild counter-selects differences that wouldn't be viable in "wild" conditions (white color, for example, it kills your camouflage), and breeders maintain these differences by careful selective breeding. Well, Man has removed nearly all the "wild" conditions ever since civilization begun, by adapting his environment, instead of adapting TO his environment. As a result, genetic anthropology has established it, there are no races in the Homo sapiens species. Or, if you prefer, there exists only the equivalent of the "wild" phenotype, but accepting much more freedom. You'll see some racy looking specimens in alley cats (I had one myself), but they'll only be randomly recurring variants of a "wild phenotype" that diverges more freely in an urban environment than in the jungles. Mankind has always practiced cross-wedding, between villages, across nearby borders, during travels, etc... but, even before that, varying human groups were not races, just local variants with no relevant signification.
"Ethnic type" is nothing more than the visible part of those 10% geographic differences, sometimes maintained by closed communities. If they were truly the mark of a race, they would give everybody practically the very same face. We are unconsciously trained from birth to better see these facial feature differences in our own group(s). [Typical movie joke : "Bah, says the Asian wise man, you White folks all look the same anyway!"] But look at chinese kung-fu movies : even though they're fellow countrymen, the hero and the villain are never similar, right? Not by far! No race.

If, by "race", you mean there are more differences than what meets the eye (AKA smarter, more honest, etc...), you're dreaming. Take a "pure blood" Native American baby, or an Australian Aborigine, or a Zulu, or an Italian, or a Kazakh. Place each of them in an adoptive American yuppie family of the same neighborhood, and have them grow up like the others (I fantasize on a childhood with no social racism...). At 18, send them to the same college. Repeat many, many times, with several babies, for instance orphans for various reasons (to take a realistic scenario). Their grades will be strictly equivalent. In average, of course. They have the same innate intellectual abilities, that will develop similarly in the same conditions, period. What's the difference between my blonde, blue-eyed big brother (okay, so he doesn't have blue eyes, I'm just embellishing the picture for example's sake), who's half Lebanese and 100% European-looking, and another guy born in London or Copenhague? If you're a coroner trying to identify an anonymous corpse, I wish you the best of luck, because there's IS no guaranteed way.

There are no real body differences between fortuitous similar phenotypes (visible traits). The biological differences are 90% random, and only 10% origin-related. The minds depend on each individual's innate personnality (is there ANY country without criminals and geniuses?) and education. So, what's a race?

Ponder this : between the average human genome (counting variations) and the genome of the Chimpanzee, there are only 2% of genes that are really different. Inter-human variation is between SIMILAR genes, of course, it's not the same kind of differences. But still, the number gets you thinking. Only 2% genes between us and an official animal. So close, and yet so different... It is believed that, were it not for obvious ethical restraints, it would be very easy to create a human/chimp hybrid. As easy as lion/tiger or goat/sheep hybrids, and these have been made. So, culture aside, are we really different from our species brothers, who are just as human as us? Just think of the generation gap : how different was your grand-parents' culture? And yet you are "the same race", by definition. But you're closer from your classmate buddy, who has these 90%...

The Japanese Macaque (a sort of baboon, very widespread) is the subject of lots of studies. It has been found that the sound frequencies of their voices differ between regions. New races? Nope. It has also been found they just adapt to the effect of their surroundings on their voice's transmission : forest, plain, city... not at all the same. It's just a regional accent!
The counter-proof of racism has been made in human societies. When segregationist systems were abolished, the only remaining difference between various ethnic origins is social discrimination and unequal starting chances. I was extremely surprised, a few years ago, when I found out about Alexandre Dumas. The author of world-famous best-seller "The Three Musketeers", a french litterature classic. When I first saw the guy's portrait, the guy was creole! (Black man from the Islands. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Dumas) I never even had the hint of a suspicion from his works. He was simply educated, just as noble Frenchmen. In France, he was TREATED differently. But his writing talent, and fashion style, were identical. What's a race? Blonde jokes were originally aimed at fake blonde bimboes. Official airheads. By collective reflex, they now target REAL, natural-born blondes. Are they stupid? No. They just influenced sometimes by social standards to use their more appreciated looks instead of their mind. Blondes are not born dumb, society encourages them to become so because men fear smart women.

What's a race? I'd say, nothing more than a prejudice. How many of us can certify they're pure-breds? It will always depend on how strictly you define "pure". Pushed to the extreme, you'd end up with cretinistic incest children. (P.S.: Consanguinity doesn't guarantee mental retardation, it just makes it much more frequent when you "race"basis carries risky genes.)
Even if you believe you are of pure origin, remember this : it is estimated that up to 20% of people are not truly their father's children, and sometimes even the mother isn't aware of it. Is where you come from so important when you can never be sure? Is there a US American race? One of my school teachers used to sneer at them (that ugly runt), calling them "a people of bastards with no race, and no culture". Well, these alleged "nothings" rule the world today... They would be more at ease with it if it weren't for their below-average President... born from a racist milieu! What's a race? Just a useless, and ultimately dangerous illusion.

We are all brothers and sisters, unless the clichés in our minds convince us otherwise. It's not simply philosophy. It's not a religious Adam-and-Eve belief. It's cold, hard science.

But my heart knew that all along!

Eolake Stobblehouse said...

I actually did think Sinbad was black. But how about Jennifer Beals? (Flashdance and The L-Word). Her father is black, but she is whiter than Jennifer Aniston. On the L-Word much is made of her mixed race, and I kept wondering why they had not used an actual biracial actor. Finally I looked her up and found out. Not only that, but she herself insisted on having a black father in the show too.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Adam. But you tell me : would I be smart to just fixate on a gloomy situation I'm totally helpless about? I think not. No use looking down the dark well an thinking of the eventual fall. I love noticing silver linings.

Besides, I'm outside Beirut (and the main risky zone there is the Southern Suburb, Hezbollah's area of influence). I may be in the safest place one can find inside Lebanon. Whatever this safety may be worth against future developments. :-(

Being of mixed origins, I faced discrimination and narrow-mindedness very early. And very early, I promised myself to wage "my own little war", not against the people, but against the ideas that make them bad people. Nobody can tell hom much time he is allotted in this world. I simply try to do something usefule with mine. This musn't be some target-date project, but every day's task.

The project novel I'm writing is precisely aimed at expressing and spreading that same spirit. In a way appealing to the reader.

Israel certainly did, and is still doing, a lot of harm to many innocents. Lord knows they're not the only ones! Me, my true enemy is war. If forgiveness is the price to pay for peace, it's not expensive. All it really costs you is some of your pride and primitive revenge instincts. In return, you gain the fraternal spirit that should be this world's only ruler.

Thank you, all of you, for your support and thoughts. Just knowing this already helps us.

Peace on Earth to men -and women- of goodwill. :-)

Anonymous said...

That's good news for me, I'm no rich man. In money, I mean.

But I realize the preciousness of some things I have. Like the sunshine of a small child in my house. :-)

Anyway, why on Earth would I want to pass through the eye of a needle? Sounds uncomfortable...