Print

Print


There have been laws, but of course rather backward ones. Generally
speaking, anyone possessing even an eighth of 'black' genetic background was
to legally be considered black in some states. Only in the 1980s was that
redressed. How this fractional amount works in terms of logic and in terms
of a nation where 'majority' rules is beyond me. How the 7/8 non-black,
non-African, wouldn't count is flat out stupid. Aside from that, ethnicity
has more to do with the culture we're raised in and what we take on as our
own.

For diseases and such that are genetically tied to groups of people by where
their ancestors originated, that is much more specific anyway than this
'race' issue...aside from the fact that the term 'race' is applied
incorrectly when speaking of different races of people. Literally there is
only one race - the human race. We're all the same species, as much as some
people might fight that fact. Our species itself is 99% identical to chimps.
None of us are that different biologically, wherever our relatives were
born. If someone is concerned about disease and illness risks s-/he runs due
to ethnic background, that can be tested genetically. It would seem the less
a person belongs - in terms of percentages - to a group, the less their risk
is for carrying or being susceptible. Of course, it wouldn't always work
this way by any means.

I missed if there was any reason given for wanting the Racial Identity
testing, but that sounds a little B.S. Bell Curve-ish to me personally. If a
individual seeks this, a test is going to give the needed answer or help; if
an observer is seeking these measures, I think asking a person works rather
most effectively.



Daria N. Mammel
Blessing Health Professions Library