COLUMN: Social construction

From Dave Crystal's, "Crystal Clear," Fall '96 From Dave Crystal's, "Crystal Clear," Fall '96The question of whetherFrom Dave Crystal's, "Crystal Clear," Fall '96The question of whether'race' exists creates moreFrom Dave Crystal's, "Crystal Clear," Fall '96The question of whether'race' exists creates moredivision than pure prejudice. From Dave Crystal's, "Crystal Clear," Fall '96The question of whether'race' exists creates moredivision than pure prejudice.Want a lesson in counter-racism? Then take Sociology 6, Race and Ethnic Relations, with Professor (or so he's called) Antonio McDaniel. This is not your ordinary sociology course endorsing affirmative action; this course reaches a higher intellectual plateau. For example, did you know that there's really no such thing as "race?" That's right. All "race" is "socially constructed." If that revelation doesn't enlighten you, Professor McDaniel's next lesson will: Even though there's no such thing as "race," we still need affirmative action so that the black "race" is not discriminated against economically. Furthermore, Professor McDaniel preached that "race" is a social construct created by Europeans in 1492 to marginalize black people and keep them in the the lowest socio-economic bracket. If you need anyone to dispel this fallacious historic revisionism, find a history professor. Just in case you lack the time to do so, I'll take the initiative in doing history justice. Professor McDaniel is correct in saying that "white," "black," and "Hispanic" are not true races, but rather social constructs. However, to jump from this point to the conclusion that "all race is socially constructed" is a social construct within itself. Biogenetics irrefutably proves that there are three broad racial groupings within the human race. These, of course, are the Caucasoids, Negroids and Mongoloids. Any man who suggests that these races don't exist is either uneducated or has an odious hidden agenda. Both may be the case for Professor McDaniel. Racial differentiation, strictly from a biological and historical standpoint, is not limited to these three classifications. Anyone can see that not all Caucasoids look alike. Arabs, Jews, Indians, Italians, Anglo-Saxons and Nordics are all members of the Caucasian race, yet they look remarkably different from one another. Social construction? I think not. As for the notion that race was created by "white" Europeans in 1492, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the first known racial split occurred between the Semites and the Hamites nearly five thousand years ago. So even if Professor McDaniel had suggested that the existence of race was recognized in 1492 B.C., he still would have been off base. As far as marginalization is concerned, Negroes were not the first group to be marginalized or mistreated because of their race. Jews were enslaved by Ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans largely because of their race. The Slav was the Roman slave of choice for 800 years. And Asians (Mongoloids) were viewed as primitive and inferior before Negroes were. All this and more occurred prior to 1492. Interestingly enough, Professor McDaniel mentioned 1492 on a daily basis in our class last semester to prove his fictitious point about race being a "white" social construct. But he failed to mention that that year also marked the zenith of the Spanish Inquisition. Though Professor McDaniel touched upon the fact that 1492 marked the beginning of Spanish imperialism in the New World, he trivialized that fact by relating it directly and strictly to the triangular trade and the African slave trade as a whole. Little did Professor McDaniel mention that Spanish colonialization was primarily an excuse for the exploitation of the Amerindian and Aztec peoples. As brutally treated as the African American slave was, he was not subject to the type of exploitation, deprivation and slaughter that the Amerindian slave was. The black slave was valued as a commodity, and therefore anything his owner did to endanger his life was considered irrational and counterproductive. The same cannot be said for Amerindian and Aztec slaves. As illustrated in detail in Hans Koning's Columbus, His Enterprise: Exploding the Myth, the Spanish conquerors set up an intricate system in Mexico whereby all natives that did not bring in their weekly quota of gold had their hands chopped off and were left to bleed to death. Such brutal methods of torture and genocide were indeed a direct result of the historic events of 1492 and Spanish racialization, yet they were never substantially mentioned in Professor McDaniel's class, merely brushed over. McDaniel's implication that "whites" went into Africa and enslaved blacks is also a historical injustice. In truth, "whites" bought slaves from North African Arab slave traders. It is ironic that it took a class at an Ivy League institution to prove to me that one must take his teacher's lessons with a grain of salt. As for Professor McDaniel, his lessons should be taken elsewhere -- Howard University would be a great place to start. I hear they have a great major in Farrakhanism. It is an inside joke among historians that the 11th Commandment is "Thou shalt not profess sociology." Thanks to Professor McDaniel, I now know what they mean.