[lbo-talk] Rwandan massacres not racist?

[John Thornton]

The US also had/has a graduated racial scale where Native Americans are 
concerned. Unlike the "one-drop" for African Americans rule, for "Indians" 
you were measured and listed as 1/8th or 1/32 or 1/64 of such and such 
tribe. There was a cut-off point, generally 1/64, after which you were no 
longer "Indian" but "White". The tribes kept the records themselves but 
using the US imposed racial standards. I think most tribes no longer keep 
track fractionally in their registers. If you have one ancestor on a tribal 
registry you may be included in the registry yourself. I wouldn't take that 
last part as gospel for all tribes, however it is true for the ones I am 
familiar with.

John Thornton


>Chris Doss:
>
> > race is a _biological_ category
>
>No, it is not. There is no biological definition of "race," anywhere. 
>Biologically, it doesn't exist. It is entirely socially constructed.
>
>You can't consider superficial biological characteristics (skin color, the 
>size of lips, the shape or color of the eyes, etc.) as "biological" 
>definitions of race, because there's social differentiation in the way 
>"race" is defined from country to country. The classic example is the 
>existence of the "one-drop" rule in the US as compared to the fine 
>gradations of race in much of Latin America. Light-skinned black people in 
>the US are still black.
>- - - - -
>John Lacny
>
>People of the US, unite and defeat the Bush regime and all its running dogs!