DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**MinisuipGaicai** · 06-12-2012, 08:59 PM

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06...a-stunned.html
Condoleezza Rice, former US Secretary of State and national security adviser, ought to be a tough woman to surprise. Yet when Henry Louis Gates Jr, host of a US television series called Finding Your Roots, revealed that nearly half of her genetic ancestry could be traced to Europe, Rice, an African American, told Gates, â€œIâ€™m stunned.â€I am not particularly surprised that Condoleezza is stunned. Years ago, I wrote that persons of mixed ancestry often have three reactions:

Acceptance ("multiple ancestries, and love'em all")
Seeking the lowest common denominator ("we're all human; race doesn't exist")
Denying or minimizing one type of ancestry

Reaction #3 seems to be commonplace in the Americas. Of course, the identification of African Americans with the "African" part of their ancestry is the most famous case of this, but a different example is that of various types of "indigenous" activists who are often more European, or even African, but somehow identify with their "Native American" ancestry, even if they lack both genetic and cultural (language, religion) links with that ancestry.

I can't claim to have any experience on African Americans, but it seems to me that their frequent surprise in programs such as "Finding Your Roots" is a consequence of two things:

Their cultural identification with the African part of their ancestry, because it is what separates them -quite visibly- from the rest of society: i.e., African Americans differ from other Americans because of their African ancestry
The misapplication (understandable, due to a lack of experience) of theirown identity to Africa itself. This is rather an empirical bias: the most African-looking African Americans still have substantial European ancestry, and the average one has ~20%. To give a color analogy, a shade of grey looks lighter compared against black, and darker compared against a darker shade of grey.

In any case, the utility of ancestry analysis is that it provides people with relatively objective data about their genetic origins. How they (choose) to react to this data may be a function of their own psychology and the society they live in. Hopefully, as knowledge about genetics spreads, society as a whole will become more enlightened about its members. Yes, what Condolezza had is the Ancestry vs Identity conflict.Opinions about this issue?

06-12-2012, 08:59 PM	#1
MinisuipGaicai Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 464 Senior Member	Why is Condoleezza stunned? http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06...a-stunned.html Condoleezza Rice, former US Secretary of State and national security adviser, ought to be a tough woman to surprise. Yet when Henry Louis Gates Jr, host of a US television series called Finding Your Roots, revealed that nearly half of her genetic ancestry could be traced to Europe, Rice, an African American, told Gates, â€œIâ€™m stunned.â€I am not particularly surprised that Condoleezza is stunned. Years ago, I wrote that persons of mixed ancestry often have three reactions: Acceptance ("multiple ancestries, and love'em all") Seeking the lowest common denominator ("we're all human; race doesn't exist") Denying or minimizing one type of ancestry Reaction #3 seems to be commonplace in the Americas. Of course, the identification of African Americans with the "African" part of their ancestry is the most famous case of this, but a different example is that of various types of "indigenous" activists who are often more European, or even African, but somehow identify with their "Native American" ancestry, even if they lack both genetic and cultural (language, religion) links with that ancestry. I can't claim to have any experience on African Americans, but it seems to me that their frequent surprise in programs such as "Finding Your Roots" is a consequence of two things: Their cultural identification with the African part of their ancestry, because it is what separates them -quite visibly- from the rest of society: i.e., African Americans differ from other Americans because of their African ancestry The misapplication (understandable, due to a lack of experience) of theirown identity to Africa itself. This is rather an empirical bias: the most African-looking African Americans still have substantial European ancestry, and the average one has ~20%. To give a color analogy, a shade of grey looks lighter compared against black, and darker compared against a darker shade of grey. In any case, the utility of ancestry analysis is that it provides people with relatively objective data about their genetic origins. How they (choose) to react to this data may be a function of their own psychology and the society they live in. Hopefully, as knowledge about genetics spreads, society as a whole will become more enlightened about its members. Yes, what Condolezza had is the Ancestry vs Identity conflict.Opinions about this issue?
	Quote