What’s race got to do with it?

“They tell us race is an invention, that there is more genetic variation between two black people than there is between a Black person and a White person. Then they tell us black people have a worse kind of breast cancer and get more fibroids. And White folk get cystic fibrosis and osteoporosis. So what’s the deal… Is race an invention or not?”– Americanah, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

Dorothy  Roberts  is  one of  my  intellectual heroes. I first came across her my senior year of undergrad when  an anthropology class I took on “Race and Power” introduced  me to Fatal Intervention. What I’m most struck by, is Roberts’ calm and unwavering confidence and ability to counteract and combat racist and classist arguments time and time again using rational and logic and by  drawing upon the history to contextualize a given situation.

I’ve been thinking deeply recently about  race  & medicine or race & genetics research. And, I’ve been thinking about the relationship between race and  ancestry, how these two terms are often conflated, how one (ancestry) is a valid measure in genetics research and the other (race) is a socio-political construct. Yet, there are arguments that race is worthy of consideration in biomedicine (1). How do we disentangle the history that gave rise to  race and our understandings of it from efforts to advance the field of precision medicine? Is it even possible?

Screenshot 2017-10-23 10.14.41
Full article here

“Using race is a bad proxy for genetic ancestry” (2). So what is ancestry?  And, what is race?

In the beginning, race was used in zoology as a taxonomic category for categorizing the organizational structure of animal species. When it came to be applied to human  populations in the 18th century, race was used to biologically and  culturally separate human groups. This separation, then, was used to justify slavery, validate imperialism and colonialism, and assert White supremacy.

The history of how “race”as a term was born is important. History is important. Context matters. Science is  “a series of nested layers of institutions: economic  and political systems…which become an intermediate layer  of social and  material conditions within  which scientists and other intellectuals operate” (3). Scientists carry  their own conflicts and perceptions. Science is not socially neutral (4).

With all this muddying of the waters, I use intersectionality theory  in my  own research to understand how and why history  and context matter. It helps increase clarity on why a field like science is not socially neutral. It shows us why certain communities  are relegated to the peripheries, cast as threats or lost causes. And, in understanding the layering of oppression and inequality we can begin to understand why “race-based” medicine could doubly harm those already affected by ideologies that tell them and others they are different or inferior.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s