Obama Should Boycott Anti-"Racism" Conference, Theory of "Races"

I just want to comment on a point you made that is a bit off the track some what.  Living in Israel certainly one does NOT get the feeling that Israelis see Arabs as THEM. In fact, so many Israelis come from Arab countries that the cultures are intertwined in so many ways.

Race is the least of the issues here. There are Jews and Arab-Israelis of so many different backgrounds and cultures living side by side. I follow your general premise and respect your views but your sense of the truth regarding Israel needs some improvement. Not on the mark. The issue here is the willingness to accept a Jewish State in this region.

This is a great post.  Thank you for writing it. 

I agree with tikun.s comment on Israel.  Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe both Arabs and Hebrews orginate from Abraham according to scriptures.

I agree that all humans are the same species.  I feel if Obama were to boycott the UN World Conference on race that it would be a mistake.  Regardless of definition, racism exists and the conference gives a forum to bring the issue to the forefront.  Although strides have been made in the last half century, the issue is still a delicate one.  Only through education and tolerance will we learn to live in harmony with one another. 

Pre-disposed to bias, many humans pass pre-judgments on others.

The world has lots of issues, discrimination and mass massacres based on racism.

In todays world, Obama should engage and lead the conference rather than letting country's have no regard to human rights take over the leadership.

If Obama, the leader of the free nations, gives up the fight to lead the conference, then how an oppressed community supposed to do the fighting for long?

This all assumes of course that the conference is really interested in the issues Tamiya so clearly stated. The belief that the conference was stacked to be nothing more then a hate-fest makes one wonder if it is a good reason to encourage that kind of racism. Maybe a better and a less bias climate would be more appropriate and effective.

Nice work with this. (readers should also see BPB1's related article)

I have heard so much about this issue that I just felt compelled to say something because I think it is getting out of hand.  Here is why.  We discussed this topic when I studied Anthropology for my degree since the American Anthropological Association came out with the statement that race doesn't exist according to some studies some geneticists came up with.   Here is my argument. 

SO, if we are only 1 % different from a chimpanzee than why separate us as a species different from them?  (see http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2003/D/20031949.html).    I mean if you are going to go so far as to say the difference between us humans is not worth commenting on at the group level genetically speaking at the 6%-1% difference or less that DOES exist (otherwise why do DNA testing for crimes and such) then why say anything about species at all either?   If the difference of 6% down to 1% difference is not worth noting in people than neither is the 1% difference between us and other apes.   I mean really!   I wish people would stop blaming a concept for THEIR issues.  RACE is real, it is not unreal.  What is wrong with race is not that it exists but what has been done with the concept by people with an agenda.  Race, as is the concept of species, is just a way of marking out how a group of beings have adapted to their environment of origin PHYSICALLY within their realm of being.   It doesn't, and shouldn't, place one race OR even SPECIES ABOVE another.  It just notes the physical differences which a species has used to adapt to a particular environment to survive - THAT IS IT; that is its limit.   For all those "lesser species" (note I am dripping with sarcasm here as I am a determined animal rights activist ) than ourselves (humans), we call races among them subspecies.   Would the term "subspecies" make you happier than the term "race?"  I don't think so.   There are many types (or subspecies or races if you will) of finches as Darwin noted.  Basically the argument that race doesn't exist negates ANY differences AT ALL - which is EQUALLY untrue as the theory of races was.   To me to say there is no race because you don't want their to be any because you don't want to acknowledge ANY difference is just as racist as to say that one race is better than another (those who say no race exists have their own agenda whether they think so or not as did those who use(d) race to place themselves above others) .  To not acknowledge our differences not just on an individual level but also on a group level is to not acknowledge the extraordinary adaptability and creativity of the species itself.   WE ARE DIFFERENT from one another for good reason - enough that it affects the kind of diseases we all get amongst other things.  These same geneticists who come out with studies people keep touting to say race is insignificant or doesn't exist also come out with studies saying one group type (insert word "RACE" here) is more predisposed to one illness or disorder or another compared to other group types.   So which is it?   You can't use genetics to say race doesn't exist then on the other side of the coin say that group A (however you group them) has a genetic predisposition to some disorder or another.  You can't steal from Peter to pay Paul and call it good.    Which is what is happening with this "race does not exist" argument that is going on.    So when is the difference worth noting?  When you WANT it to be noted is the answer.   When it serves your purposes whatever they might be.  So race does exist - our physical differences are real and necessary for ALL OF us - the human species as a whole - to survive.   We need to be different on a group and an individual level within a group, for the species to keep going.  Those differences SAVE us - ALL of us.  But it seems there are many people who don't want there to be any difference NOT because there isn't any difference but because difference frightens them at some level, makes them feel bad at some level.  JUST like the people who created the theory of races.  The differences frightened them too - enough to come up with their own version of things that made them feel better about it - just like you out there who say race doesn't exist.   I don't agree with either of you.  I acknowledge the differences because they are important - even the .005678943038% difference is important to me.  I value it tremendously.   It wouldn't be there at ALL if nature didn't value it enough to maintain. 

So that leads us to the question of WHY do our differences have to be either insignificant or conversely hugely significant (so much as to put other people down for them) for people to cope with the differences.  The REAL issue here is not whether or not there are differences.  The REAL issue here is why you are afraid of the possibility that there might be or that there are differences - so much so that you want to negate them.  The REAL issue here is YOU!  Not the reality or unreality of race at all.     I think the whole argument against race is another form of racism - or rather a reverse racism.   What it really all boils down to is that difference scares us - however it comes to us.  That is what we TRULY need to deal with.    So I think that Obama should send representatives to the conference solely on the reality that we need to start dealing with this constructively.     We need to confront our real fears which have nothing to do with the reality of things as much as they have to do with our own irrational imaginings - whether it be to deny that the boogie man exists or to prove it.