You know those news headlines that grace the beginnings of chapters in books like SIASL, IFWNE? Like, "A hermaphrodite entered and won the men's and women's marathons in the Pittsburgh Olympic games"?

Sounds like RAH, more like real life: http://www.timescolonist.com/health/Sou ... story.html

It would have been a good headline for one of the chapter starts in <i>Stranger</i>.

I'm continually amazed by the apparent need of the vast majority of people to see both race and gender as simple ways to easily pigeon-hole people. I went to a lecture decades ago at Rice University that talked about the complexity of gender in world cultures. In the lecture they told us that, in Muslim countries, there are entire courts convened to decide the gender of ambiguous individuals, because it is so critically important in those cultures to definitively determine whether someone is male or female. In searching online now I can't find any corroboration of that, but I clearly remember that part of the lecture.

Dan, I think you're bending over backwards to make a claim that race is of no consequence in human affairs.

Certainly it is not a primary indicator of ability, intelligence, limitation, or potential - which is the extreme to which racial classification has been taken in history, both modern and ancient. "Those people are differerent, therefore they must be _____" is a universal POV extending back to the earliest scratchings of historical record. (The blank is almost always something negative - but only almost. But then, look at tribal names - self cognomens are always "us, the real people" while second parties are always "them strange barbarians.")

Certainly racial classification can be arbitrary and slippery. Sally Hemings was at least 50% Caucasian, since Jefferson's father-in-law was her father. The other examples you cite are equally elusive - but in the end, the composite racial history can be determined and does have an influence on the individual's history from a genetic viewpoint.

But to say that race has no consequence for individuals and somehow doesn't exist is carrying the argument too far. You're confusing an idealized position with a de facto and not unfactual one.

I'm no scientist but I DO watch Discovery Science a lot. There was a program recently that involved testing various individuals of different (apparent) racial groups for gene markers that indicate the geographical origins of their ancestors. The results were surprising to say the least. Some apparent African Americans had genetic markers of Western Europeans, while some apparent Caucasians have genetic markers indicating East African origins. The point of the testing was to show that race is a social construct; that in biology and genetics it may as well not exist at all.

which means most of us are mutts !

arf arf as long as i am not the poodle with an inbred belief that, in actuality, i am a great dane

back to the kennel

Nick

This seems like something of a storm in a teacup. We know about genetics, which affects certain factors both visible (appearance) and less visible (requiring testing, e.g. high blood pressure). We know that genetic combinations sometimes result in blending of characteristics, notably skin tone. I have a child on the way whom I expect to emerge with a halfway epicanthic fold. Some genetic factors may be all or nothing. Many aspects of genetics are understood poorly (how can there possibly be a single marker for frizzy hair when mating with a straight-haired person produces something in between?)

"Race" is a term invented prior to any understanding of genetics for covering the most visible external aspects. It's conveniently labeled by geographical terms, but ever since ocean-going vessels were invented the correlation between the original geographical origins (anyone here hail from the Caucasus?) and the visible genetic aspects has been eroded vastly.

I'm not sure that the term "race" has any useful meaning any longer and certainly the head-scratching that the census question on same causes for some people is an indication of this. There's also much evidence that today's youth are much more inclined to consider visible distinctions in the race category irrelevant and find the whole racism thing faintly perplexing.

Sure there are correlations between genetic factors that produce certain appearances and other factors. The more melatonin in the skin, the stronger the fast-twitch muscles tend to be, the more likely the person is to excel at sprinting and basketball. And to have hypertension. These are scientifically established facts.

There are plenty of genetic factors that don't have associated visible differences, but we don't speak of the "predisposed to prostate cancer race," right? And plenty of genetically visible differences that don't correlate to any known "race". I've flown between the US and the UK many times, and I've amused myself at times by guessing which side a passenger belongs to before they open their mouth and lay all doubt to rest. I'm batting at least .950. I bet you I can look at a hundred pictures of male USAians and Canadians and discriminate just as accurately (harder to do for the women). But, hey, vive la difference.

So "race" seems to me to be an artificial term invented for segregating people by appearance and rendered obsolete in any melting pot country in the world today. But that doesn't invalidate genetics.

Actually, Jim, it's Jefferson's brother who is the other suspect; he was in all the wrong places at the right times too...

The scant evidence reassembles itself every few years. I tend to disbelieve that TJ was the principal scoundrel for many reasons.

I have the same difficulty.

On the other hand, she was apparently a dead-ringer, except for the shade, for her half-sister, jefferson's dead wife. If there was a draw, it must have been that.

Not to get into the debate because my recollections are fuzzy and the "map" has shifted a couple of times since the last serious reading I did on the topic, but I find TJ's absolute failure to ever mention her, to anyone, over 27+ years and in some 15,000 letters, telling.

I do see the point, but then, we forget the tremendous divide between public and private back then, as well as my gut feeling that NO slaveowner ever mentioned the slaves he was "involved" with....

Possible, but that's one HELL of a firewall.

I don't mean that he never mentioned the specifics, or the nature of the relationship, but never once, in all that time and exposition, did he slip and mention her in some context? Not a passing reference to a household event or situation? When she was supposedly an important and central part of his life for much of that time? That kind of compartmentalization would be superhuman.

I don't know. There are people in my life that are very important that I have never written about publicly or even privately. I could name names but that would negate my 2nd sentence.

The social pressure of the time may have made keeping that aspect of his life compartmentalized such a high priority that he was over kill on the topic.

I still see Jim's point, but we forget that NOBODY talked about this stuff in the South. It was a compartmentalization that was reinforced by social taboos. But I do think she is mentioned in Jefferson's letters from Paris, if I'm not mistaken -- mostly, that she was there for his daughter.