Calling Oboma black is racist. He had one light skinned parent and one dark skinned parent.
* “The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin.” (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994, p. 19).
Many other factors nourish racist sentiments. One of the most important is the desire to project one’s unhappiness onto another Everyone knows that self-alienation in modem society is often a very serious cause of irritation and angst. These feelings can arise from the fear of unemployment, being forced to perform inhumane work, the reality and experience of poverty and injustice, and the feeling of powerlessness which often results from the jealous observation that vast wealth is possible only for the very few. Everyone, even those who feel victimized by their superiors, can assume authority over those lower on the social ladder. The poor can always find somebody poorer.

Because of all these factors, racism is widespread. It is less apparent during times of peace and civil order. But hostilities about mass immigration from poor countries exacerbate it.

Copyright © 2000 Cavalli-Sforza

I really like the new On Point website. On Point is the best and most relevant news show on the web, radio, or television. Keep up the great work!

I can only add that the new site is great.
I love how we can respond with comments that relate directly to the topics.

Just a quick note here: As Tom alluded in his post, he’s on vacation for a couple weeks, so he probably won’t have a chance to reply here.

It occurs to me, in light of the first comment above, that it’s worth listening back to our interview with Obama in October 2006, and hear how he defines himself.

Keep the comments coming!

Wen: You need a “latest comment” feed on the sidebar on all pages so that any comment made on any story, even old ones, shows up so that others can see it and respond. Otherwise, how would anyone know that anyone else commented on that Interview with Obama unless they dug?

Great work, have a nice vacation Tom. By the way, Jane is a great show host too, three cheers for Jane (and Tom and Wen too of course).

Couple of points to add to the debate about the existence of race:

- Maps are a quick, useful tool to organize geographical data. That does not mean the world is flat. Likewise, it is sometimes useful to say, “Did you see that Asian guy?” That does not mean that biology or DNA support the 18th century of race, i.e. “A homogeneous group of people clearly separated from other groups.” Unfortunately, because maps and race can be so useful, we frequently forget that the world is round and genes spread around without regard to obsolete mental frameworks.

- Let’s not confuse the debate over race with a debate over semantics. If the question is, “Are certain genes more commonly found among people with a particular geographic heritage?” the answer is “Yes”. However, if the question is properly asked, “Are the homogeneous groups that are clearly divided from other groups” the answer is an emphatic “No!” The news media do a terrible job of relating these truths. (Do they even know themselves?)

I agree with the commenter above: we do not need tribal politics. There’s no reason to keep discussing “black” this or “white” that, as if race were a biological fact.

I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you down the road!

I would like to address a comment and request to Jack Beatty. In numerous conversations I have heard regarding the 2008 Presidential election, never have I heard Mr. Beatty utter a single positive comment about John McCain and he seems to go out of his way to praise Barack Obama. While he always backs up his comments with facts, my observation is he seems to choose his facts and the way he presents them.

My request is for Mr Beatty to be sensitive to this appearance of bias and at least attempt present his comments in a more more objective manner. Here is an example of a particular show where I thought his bias was blatant. On Friday Mr. Blankley and Ms. Freeland both (particularly Ms. Freeland) corrected Mr. Beatty several times in his criticism of McCain and his praise or Obama citing facts which backed up their contentions.

This has gotten to the point where I listen carefully to Mr. Beatty’s comments hoping he will say something positive about McCain or negative about Obama-even one thing-but it has not happened during the time I’ve been listening (maybe it has happened when I have not been listening).

I am not a supporter of either McCain or Obama (I have not made up my mind yet) but I enjoy listening to unbiased reporting and discussions. Thank-you.

I love the site and all you’ve done with it.

But I do wish they’d replace Tom Ashbrook. I loved the show with the previous host because he’d let the guests and callers talk. I also adore Warren Olney, who asks good questions and lets the experts talk.

But Tom Ashbrook seems enamored of the sound of his own voice, and for some reason feels the need to constantly rephrase what every guest/caller says to the point where 70% of the show is Tom blathering and 30% is relevant material contributed by guests or callers.

I find I just can’t listen anymore. Perhaps something can be done?