Ha Jin is one of few oversea Chinese who deserve my sincere admiration for their incomparable experience, hard work, and the celebrated achievements. Last week, his new book—“War Trash” won the PEN/Faulkner prize, which firmly established him as one of the most prominent writers. His novel “Waiting” also won this prize in addition to the National Book Award four years ago.

Similar to his previous works, Ha Jin successfully depicted a tragedy in the “War Trash”. This time it was POW life experienced by a Chinese in the Korea War. Yu Yuan, a graduate from the prestigious Huangpu Military Academy, participated in the Korea War without knowing much about Korea. Frozen dead bodies, regular bombs, and ruthless killings frightened the unwilling soldier. Yu Yuan was in the unfortunate 180 division which entered the war in later stage but was completely smashed by U.N. allies due to misleading commands from high-ups and also its incompetent commanders. He was wounded and captured by U.N. allies. Unlike most of his comrades who were illiterate, he was college educated and proficient in English. He developed a good relationship with a (female) doctor who saved his left leg. Even in the prisoner camp, both communists and pro-nationalists valued his abilities. He was treated relatively well during his POW life.

Under the illusion that he would reunite with his fiancée and take good care of his mother, Yu Yuan had a strong mind to return home. Therefore, he was tattooed by pro-nationalists and was enticed to go to Taiwan, while the communists instructed him to stay with them. Even though he involved in many fights in the communist-controlled camp, he was considered useful but not indispensable because he was not a party member and another communist prisoner also knew English. He was marginalized and eventually sacrificed by the communist party. Nevertheless, Yu Yuan managed to grasp the last opportunity to return China. As we all know, those who repatriated (about 7,000 out of 20,000 POW) were treated as “dregs of society”. Thanks to his education, Yu Yuan was able to live as a middle school teacher and uneventfully survived the following “revolutions”.

The story had a sense of reality due to its well mixed facts and imaginations. The conflictions between communists and pro-nationalists, the mistreatment of prisoners by guards, and the camp riots were heartbroken.For instance, for fear of being abandoned by the home country and to attract international attentions, the communist POWs hopeless organized many camp rebellions: the kidnap of a US general, the rise of national flag in National day, and many (not-so-) trivial conflictions between guards and prisoners. In this novel, Ha Jin did a marvelous job to make the story look real.

I was also impressed by the author’s treatment on issues such as the justification of the war itself. The author was apparently reluctant to show his opinion on the involvement of Chinese army during the Korea War.

Although this novel was intended to probe the weakness of human beings, unfortunately, the author opted not to reveal the mind of communist prisoners. From my point of view, it is more interesting to understand how a communist prisoner can manage to hold the communism ideology while struggling against the unfortunate reality. In this novel, there were ample opportunities to explore this issue. For example, in the episode of raising the national flag during the National Day, you may wonder why the communists wanted to organize this fruitless rebellion in the oppressive camp. Why was everybody so enthusiastic about raising flags? How did people maintain high spirits when facing unnecessary deaths? Many communists were brainwashed to such extent that they indeed believed that non-communists were bad people. Many had accepted that their lives were not important compared with the grand aim of liberating the whole world. Many communists and their followers were more than willing to sacrifice their lives for purposes beyond their comprehensions, as a famous slogan goes: “everybody is a nail in socialism revolution”. In this sense, the reflection by Yu Yuan was superficial and sometimes ridiculous. The author’s choice might reflect his dislike of communism (and China in general), as was evident in his writing.

Reality is crueler than petty thoughts. POW experience, particularly those in the foreign wars, is on top of most people’s heads. Ha Jin has provided us a compelling story in an unusual perspective.

It is said that the “War Trash” may be Ha Jin’s last novel about China. I hope this is not true, for his novels are apparently well received by western society.

Today, the Good Friday, in remembering the blood shed by Jesus Christ for saving us from no-one-knows-what sin, I pray to the God, for this desperate, chaotic, and corrupted world.

Florida and Federal judges are in the hand of Satan. God, please let them go. Please don’t cover your eyes pretending not seeing your beloved daughter, Terri, is dying of dehydration.

My God, I am sure you are still working and not leisurely fooling around with all sorts of other supernatural highhands. Your words through the book –“purpose drive life”– have empowered Ms. Ashley Smith to turn the cold-blood Atlanta killer Brian Nichols into a self-condemned brother who doesn’t need to be repented any more. What an amazing story!

God, I admire your ways of working, so sinuous and incomprehensible. The Red Lake killer Jeff Weise had been found love-deprived, depressed and paranoid. The blood in the high school may be your warning for the unutterable sin many innocent people never commit. But next time please explicitly let us know what you want.

Anyway, despite your rigid and revengeful behaviors testified in the Old Testimony, I appreciate your recent flexibility and generosity. The Pope didn’t have to preside in the Holy ceremony. Today very few people will fast anymore. However, even though I have enjoyed the breakfast, I decide to skip or postpone the lunch just to honor your flexibility.

Moreover, to save us (I believe your initial intention was only for Jews, please forgive me) from sin, you had sent your son to this earthly world. This whole weekend was once his final days on earth. Although his many miracles, including the greatest one, his resurrection, have intrigued billions of people for more than two thousand years, the world is now full of Easter bunnies and Easter eggs.

I believe people’s lunatic behaviors during this holy weekend have been allowed by you. No matter whether one has undergone a prolonged fasting or not, the Easter is a day to eat. More importantly, the colorful Easter eggs, laid by Easter Bunny who was possibly originated from the spring Goddess Eostre, remind people that it’s the time for mating. I thank your mercy for allowing this arrogance and pagan celebration.

The snow is thawing, the rain is dripping, and the birds are singing. In the air I smell a scent of green. Spring is coming!

Go celebrate because God permits. Move your ass around and let your mouth shout: I want to &^%$!

PS. An appropriate music is definitely in need during this sensual holiday. I would recommend the Le Sacre du Printemps (the Rite of Spring) composed by Igor Stravinsky. The dissonant melody, irregular rhythms, and rough feelings may motivate you to erupt. A good piece for spring.

Politicians (and many religious people) generally enjoy a self-claimed high morality. When facing controversial issues, they always boast to embrace moral values.

In the case of Terri’s fate (at the time of this writing, she is dying for sure), George W. Bush, speaking for those conservatives, pompously declared: “… it is wise to always err on the side of life.”Ironically, during Bush’s term as Texas governor, he signed a bill to take away a patient’s life even though families strongly wished to preserve it.

Cynic reviewers have already lambasted on the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of those politicians. They believed that the impromptu passage of the Terri’s bill was motivated by their own morality, not by the rationality.Furthermore, some also voiced their concern that the bill was based on religious value, not on the secular fairness.

Nevertheless, to err is human, and to err on the side of life is a good human. This is the view many people hold.

When reviewing the court materials and news reports, it won’t take a genius to notice that the dominant view was that given Terri’s current medical conditions, she would wish to die if she could express herself. Although I personally hold this view too, a little uneasiness slowly starts to crawl in my mind. Why should I believe that Terri would behave this way? Why should I trust her husband’s claims instead of her parents’? Obviously, parents know more and deeper about their daughter than her husband does (considering only a couple years together between Terri and her husband). What if Terri wished to stay as the way she was and entertain their parents?

As their parents stated, Terri is Catholic. She would not take her life without God’s consent. She loved their parents. She would like to stay with them as long as life permits. Furthermore, many examples have shown that some people in coma or even in “persistent vegetative state” can recover some brain functionalities. Even if she is in persistent vegetative state, as Larry King put it, keeping Terri alive won’t hurt anyone. The only thing Terri needs is no more than a feeding tube. There was no financial problem (surely it was true before the prolonged litigation). Why was her husband so eager to kill her? To make thing worse, the way Terri dies is so cruel—she is starving and dehydrating to death.

Most importantly, “killing” Terri makes parents sad. They will lose their deeply loved one forever. The bottomline is “we want to have Terri live with us till the end of the day”.

Therefore, from the parents’ point of view, current court rulings are merciless and inhuman. It is a “legalized murder”.

Strategically, failing to transfer Terri’s guardianship from her husband to Terri parents is the most critical defeat. Losing the right of speak for Terri has many consequences.For example, Terri’s husband claimed that Terri once said she would not live on tube during a visit to their friends. However, people’s mind can change over time and in different situations. Law permits one can revise his/her living will as many times as he/she wishes. If the guardian is Terri’s parents, they can certainly provide many compelling evidence that Terri loves her family and her own life.She even cried on the death of her pets—a hearty story every kid has.

A major conclusion has been somewhat reached: there is no right answer in Terri’s case.

However, I still have two questions which seems there will be no definite answers.

First, what caused Terri’s husband, Mr. Shiavo to request the removal of feeding tube in the first place? Everybody said he is executing Terri’s will. How could he realize this?

Second, why does Mr. Shiavo stubbornly insist removing Terri’s feeding tube during the litigation? Is that more natural that if their parents want to preserve Terri, he just simply gives up his guardianship and lets it be? When Larry King asked Michael Shiavo why he did not divorce Terri to start a new life (since he indeed started a new life some years ago), he replied “I made a promise to Terri, …, I will stick by Terri.” Well, that says all.

To me, the Terri’s case is closed. Biologically she was dead more than ten years ago. However, the religious movement, the divided opinion on “right to die”, the constitutionality of Terri’s bill, and the balance of morality and legality will have immense implications in everybody’s life.

“To err on the side of life”. Yes, I agree. If Terri is my child, I will also fight for her life. Living in a nation of law, however, I endorse the court’s rulings.

It is said that our lives are given—by God. This is certainly true in the case of birth. We come to this world without our consent. In terms of death, however, we do have right to do something about it.

Literally, death is a status starting from the end of life, thus belonging to the opposite side of our earthly world. Some may go to the underground which is ruled by Hades or Satan, depending on your preference. Some believe they will go to heaven in which one can either enjoy seventy virgins or flirt with angels freely.

Nevertheless, since dying is a process through which a living human reaches the other world, it is one part of the life. The right to die (or precisely, the right to choose the way of dying) is consistent with the right to life. Everyone should be able to choose how he dies.

Ironically, despite many religious people sincerely and hysterically advocate the right to life, they fail to recognize the above subtle point on the right to die. Furthermore, they submit their lives to the God but they fail to acknowledge that for terminally ill patients, the call to die is also the God’s message to these patients. Again fortunately, CNN’s poll showed that more than half of religious Americans supported the right to die (in the Terri’s case).

Understandably, the decision to die is extremely hard to make and many even refuse to think about death. It is natural to avoid death because evolution makes us to do so. Fortunately, when the final time comes, human beings can learn to accept the death peacefully. Initially denying, then feeling depressed, and finally accepting the death are merely stages of learning to die. In fact, many old people explicitly refuse medical treatments and are sort of welcoming the death. The death is indeed a relief of pains and tries they have suffered for too long.

When it comes to those patients who have lost their consciousness for a long time and may suffer irreversible brain damage, things get complicated. The Terri case gives us an excellent example on how the court deals with this “right to die” issue.

From the very beginning, the court had identified four major conclusions on the “right to die” in Terri’s case. Quote from the earlier decision (quoted in June 6, 2003 opinion):

“the trial court’s rulings that (1) Mrs. Schiavo’s medical condition was the type of end-stage condition that permits the withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures, (2) she did not have a reasonable medical probability of recovering capacity so that she could make her own decision to maintain or withdraw life-prolonging procedures, (3) the trial court had the authority to make such a decision when a conflict within the family prevented a qualified person from effectively exercising the responsibilities of a proxy, and (4) clear and convincing evidence at the time of trial supported a determination that Mrs. Schiavo would have chosen in February 2000 to withdraw the life-prolonging procedures.”

The dispute on the Terri’s death has been centered on whether Terri would express the wish to die if she was given (by the God) one minute of chance to talk. The judge said Terri would choose to die to relieve her and her family.

“In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the trial court was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few weeks in a coma, but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives. After due consideration, we conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this question as he did.”

Furthermore, the judge also stated that

“this case is not about the aspirations that loving parents have for their children. It is about Theresa Schiavo’s right to make her own decision, independent of her parents and independent of her husband. In circumstances such as these, when families cannot agree, the law has opened the doors of the circuit courts to permit trial judges to serve as surrogates or proxies to make decisions about life prolonging procedures.”

Therefore, although protestors against the removal Terri’s feeding tube are motivated mostly by religious belief and sympathy, Terri’s parents can’t resort to judges’ passions to restore Terri’s feeding tube. Instead, they have to show that Terri’s cortex is not completely damaged, that is, she is not in “persistent vegetative state”. This proves much harder than they thought.

The above court rulings have also been endorsed by the Federal judges in Florida and Atlanta who ruled against Terri’s parents. Now their last hope is the Supreme Court. However, a good chance is that the Supreme Court may turn down their request, thus ending a litigation which has lasted for more than ten years.

Meanwhile, Terri is dying, in a much cruel way.

At the end of Million Dollar Baby, Maggie was completely paralyzed due to a spinal cord injury at higher position (C1 and C2). After some moral struggling, Frankie disconnected the artificial respiratory tube and injected a lethal dose of poison into Maggie’s body to make her rest forever. The scene was very touching indeed. However, legally speaking, Frankie committed a murder. If Maggie lived in Oregon, she might sign a living will explicitly stating that she wanted to die. Physician could help her achieve that ultimate goal.

Nowadays the case of Terri Schiavo is boiling down the whole countries on issues such as life, human rights, and legalization. Briefly, Terri’s brain was accidentally damaged during a cardiac arrhythmia arrest 15 years ago. After the settlement of malpractice lawsuit which awarded Terri and her husband about $1 million, Mr. Schiavo filled a petition to remove Terri’s feeding tube, thus ending Terri’s life. However, this proved to be controversial both morally and legally. Terri’s parents fought back ferociously, claiming that they (and Terri herself) wanted Terri alive. The feeding tube was ordered to be removed by court but under the intervention of Governor Bush, the tube was eventually restored. Last weekend, the tube was removed again which provoked another wave of heated discussion over the media and the legislators. George W. Bush also signed an urgent law requiring a Federal court to re-adjudicate the Terri’s case.

Unfortunately, the Federal court denied the petition of tube restoration by claiming that the plaintiffs (Terri’s parents) failed to show the “substantial likelihood of success” in the merits of their arguments. Terri was still on her way of dying. The lawsuit will surely go on and on until everything is exhausted—money, energy, and legal possibilities.

Let’s first put aside controversial legalization and human right issues. Think about the similarity and difference between Maggie and Terri for a second. Apparently, both of them are in the process of leaving this noisy world no matter what point of views you may hold.

Then what can you do with terminally ill patients? If they wish to die, or have stated so in a living will before becoming unconscious, “Physician assisted suicide (PAS)” and “euthanasia” are two ways to help patients accomplish their final missions. PAS is what physicians have the least moral and legal guilty because it is essentially patients who kill themselves. On the other hand, euthanasia requires physicians to inject a lethal dose of poison to “kill” patients. Physicians who performed this kind of duty were once called “murderers” by many pro-life conservatives. Now people are gradually accepting the fact that many people indeed don’t want to live in tries.

However, the law requires that patients should clearly state their decisions beforehand. This divides Maggie and Terri’s fates. Because Maggie can think and talk, she can make her own decision of killing herself, while Terri is in “persistent vegetative state”—a state that one can’t think, talk, or voluntarily move herself due to severely brain damage but still have breath and heat beating. Therefore, according the Oregon’s Death with Dignity law, Maggie can commit suicide with the help of doctors, while Terri can do nothing about herself.

Despite that many protesters plead for preserving Terri’s life, biologically, Terri is dead. It may be astonishing that human death is not a clear-cut definition. Before the invention of techniques such as cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and artificial respiratory system, the stop of heart beating and breathing was considered as “dead”. Modern definition of death relies more on “brain death”. Because neo-cortex of brain controls brain activities such as thinking, talking and voluntary moving which are characteristics of living human beings, some have proposed the death as “death of neo-cortex”. However, the US chooses a conservative definition(Uniform Definition of Death Act ). Specifically, death refers to the status of “an individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.”The brain stem is the nerve center which controls heart beating and breath. Based on the US definition of death, Terri is not legally dead even though her neo-cortex has been shown severely and irreversibly damaged.

Therefore, one can’t eliminate Terri simply by claiming she is dead. The other way around to get ride of her is to let her commit suicide. However, Terri can’t think and talk; she didn’t have any living will either. Fortunately, from the very beginning, a guardian was assigned to her. It is her husband, Mr. Schiavo.

Legally, “a guardian is someone who is appointed by a court to make personal and/or financial decisions on behalf of another person”. The incapacitated person losehis/her most if not all civil rights: “the right to marry, the right to vote, the right to hold a driver’s license, the right to make a will, the right to enter into a contract, and other rights”.

According to the guardian definition, Mr. Schiavo is able to make health decision for Terri. His decision on eliminating all treatments except feeding tube is legally protected. However, is that legal for a guardian to decide one’s life? The law on guardian requires the guardian’s decision to be appropriate. It is up to the court whether removing tube is appropriate or not. After spending considerable efforts on medical examinations and legal hearings, Judge Greer determined that the removal of feeding tube was legal and appropriate. Petition was granted.

To Terri’s parents, this is outrageous. How could a Judge determine an innocent people’s life based on a rascal’s evil desire? Speculations are widely circulating about the greediness of Mr. Schiavo, his de facto remarriage, his abuse on Terri, and his lies on stating Terri’s willingness to die. Nevertheless, Mr. Schiavo seems to have survived these accuses.

Overall, the ethical issue in Terri’s case is centered on whether Terri is “alive” and has the “right to die”. HOWEVER, how do you know Terri wants to die? In fact, she even doesn’t know whether she exists or not. But one thing is for certain, this conundrum will give ethicists and legislators enough work to entertain themselves for years.

To be continued…

Race is sort of a cliché in social science. There are numerous readings on race. In fact, many journals are so overwhelmed by race research that a report focusing on racial issue will have difficulty to get published unless it is from influential studies or bears big names. Interestingly, despite the consensus of the existence of racial disparity, the draft of 2004 National Health Disparity report bluntly hinted that there were little if any racial disparities in health. This certainly disappointed many people working on race issues. For example, Jack Geiger sent a comment to NYT alluring that the national health disparity report was altered to favor (or under the pressure of) the Bush’s government. The Committee reluctantly retracted many statements and vowed to reconsider them. Last month, the report was finally sneaked into the public. No media exposure.

However, recently race research is stirred up again by a new form of racism—associating (again) race with genetic patterns.

The linkage between genes and race was not new. Eugenicism and Nazism are earlier infamous forms. The modern debate on genes and race can also be traced back to decades ago. For example, Wilson had a wild idea (in 1991) about why Blacks were more prone to hypertension. By studying slave trade, he proposed that those who survived during the transportation from west Africa to the US (Middle Passage) might be able to more efficiently retain salt than those deceased (due to genetic difference). Wilson’s hypothesis was widely criticized. Curtin pointed out that Wilson had cited some irrelevant and even wrong historical evidence. Some authors refuted the salt hypothesis based on evolution possibility. Nevertheless, a few days ago, a Harvard economist claimed (again, and as a new idea!) that genetic factors such as salt retention contributed to the higher risk of hypertension in Blacks. What a bummer!

Two years ago, when the draft of human genome was completed, population geneticist Neil Risch from Stanford bravely declared that race indeed had genetic basis. Genetic journals such as the Nature Genetics, online Genomic biology, and others apparently endorsed similar views. This definitely upsets many people who hold the social view of race. Finally, these two schools of thoughts confronted each other in the New England Journal of Medicine in March 2003. Cooper and Kaufman firmly stated that race was a social construct. Any attempt to associate genes with race was a form of new racism. On the other hand, while acknowledging that race was a social construct, Neil asserted that due to evolution process, endogamy, and human immigration patterns, there was genetic basis for race. Race was an important biological concept in this sense. Many genetic analyses flooded into publication to support this view.

In the March 14 issue of New York Time, the British biologist Armand Marie Leroi reiterated the genetic basis of race. He agreed that human genetic variations within population were much greater than between populations (90% vs. 10%). However, he pointed out that it was not the variations that mattered, but the correlation between genes mattered, i.e., the pattern of gene combination in each population determined the race. The gene pattern was an analogy of taking skin color, noses, eyes, and body shapes together to distinguish different races.

Most studies on genes and race are based on gene variation among population. For example, Microsatellites, nonfunctional single nucleic polymorphisms (SNPs), or Alu patterns don’t have functional meanings (junk DNAs). Thus, they don’t suffer from natural selection pressure. These junk DNAs serve as an excellent evolutionary record for human immigration and for comparison with other species.

All racial groups have similar frequencies of common SNPs, while Blacks have significantly more rare SNPs than other racial groups. Rare SNPs are thought to be relatively new mutations than common SNPs. Therefore, Blacks are considered “older” than other groups because they have longer time to develop many rare mutations.

Furthermore, by clustering these junk DNAs–hundreds of genetic markers are sufficient, one can divide the human population into five groups which are parallel to five continental groups. Using more gene markers, the grouping scheme becomes more precise and eventually reaches individual fingerprint by sequencing a large number of SNPs.

The coincidence between race and genetic clusters won’t surprise anyone. The distinctive genetic patterns are formed by sex selection, endogamy and founder effects. The physical characteristics, geographic barriers, and culture differences among racial (and more broadly ethnic) groups ensure endogamy and founder effects. The genetic differences are by-products of the separations. In other words, race and genes indeed say the same thing.

Based on this, the new racism suggested that race was a good “shorthand” to represent the genetic topography. There was nothing wrong to associate race with genes because they were highly correlated. They were just there.

They are wrong. The danger lies exactly in borrowing race to serve the genetic purpose.

Race, from the very beginning, was used on social class profiling. Genes was a posteriori explanation for race. The obnoxious history of race is fraught with pseudoscience such as human eugenicism. The 21st century genetic racism is no exception. They both try to attach genes to race.

The five genetic groups generated by genetic clustering are way too broad. There are hundreds of ethnic groups whose genetic differences are of more clinical importance than those of race. Bipolar in Amish is one example. Another example is about racial mixed groups such as Hispanics. Some Hispanics are racially classified as Whites in some countries while they will be grouped into Blacks in other countries. The race may have no biological meaning for many Hispanics.

It is also well established that common diseases such as hypertension and diabetes are polygenic. If there are polymorphisms associated with these diseases, they may be common polymorphisms. As have been indicated before, there is little difference in frequencies of common polymorphisms among races. Even considering the popular thrifty genes hypothesis in obesity and diabetes, they may work on all populations till recent due to the fact that human beings were still in constant hunger 200 years ago.

One point often cited by the new genetic racism deserves careful explanation. Blacks don’t response well to many hypertension drugs such as ACE inhibitors. A new drug Bidil has been shown a greater effect in Blacks than in Whites. Does this support genetic idea of race? No. The different drug effects among racial groups just pinpoint the fact that there are possible group differences in some polymorphism frequencies. If we have delineated the polymorphisms, there is no need of involving race concept. The drug can be provided to those having the polymorphisms among any races. The concept of race may serve as a “surrogate” of genetic polymorphisms because we don’t know the genetic profiles for now. It should not be viewed as race REPRESENTING genetic polymorphisms.

On the other hand, race is highly related to socioeconomic status. It is well known that Blacks are poor, undereducated, and live in crowed and hazardous neighborhood. The higher incidences of almost all diseases are more likely due to environment factors rather than genetic factors. Ironically, President Bush recently made an ignorant comment on social security. He stated that Blacks benefit less from social security than Whites because Blacks die young. In fact, it is not Blacks who die young; it is the poor who die young. Blacks are unfortunately poorer than Whites.

In addition, people have already associated race with many negative factors. Destructive behaviors, lower intelligence, irresponsible personality, and even unusual sexuality have been associated with some racial groups. However, they can occur in all racial groups. These factors can be attributed to lower education, family and community influence, and cultural difference. Anyone under similar environment will develop these disadvantages. There is nothing related to genes.

Finally, intelligence, behavior, and almost all diseases can find root in genes. If one believes that race has genetic basis, one may wonder if race is also related to those genes. This is the worst scenario that will lead to prejudice and discrimination against certain racial groups.

Let’s save race as a social term. If geneticists want to describe genetic typography, please invent something new.

As I have said in my previous post, the so-called “good will” definition of race was soon infested with eugenics and Nazism. Blacks, for example, were stupid, lazy, and irresponsible, while Mongolians (yellow Asians) were lazy, stealthy, and physically weak. The history of race is fraught with blood shedding and malevolent discriminations.

Well, human beings are different, hierarchically, claimed by racists.

Yes, people are different. Walking on the street, one can’t help thinking that there must be some major differences among Blacks, Whites, and yellows. They all have distinctive skin colors, noses, eyes, and body shapes. Then, what other things can they differ besides physical characteristics? The English that Blacks speak is somewhat different from what you hear from Whites. In many downtowns, jobless Blacks hang around idly and look dangerous. In an individualistic society where everything is on one’s own, one may wonder what happens to them. Are they just lazy? At least they seem so.

Psychologically speaking, when one evaluates himself, he may tend to attribute his failure to environmental factors such as bad boss, depressing work environment, or even miserable marriage. When one evaluates others, he may simply attribute other’s failure to their personalities. Everybody has this attribution bias. It is not surprising that one thinks the unemployed person must have bad personality such as lazy, bad tempered, or irresponsible.

Most researchers will discard the view that one’s personality causes his unemployment (although in some cases it may be true). Individual education and skills, overall economics, and even luck, are main culprits. So why do people believe that the unemployment in Blacks but not in Whites is due to their personalities?

A dangerous word emerges—stereotype!

Scientifically, stereotyping is a natural way of thinking. Human beings comprehend the world by classifying it. Simplification is the most efficient way to understand the complicate environment. When the whole world was opened up to westerns, human beings from five continents looked and behaved so different. There was a definite need to group human beings into different “species”.

Stereotype leads to prejudice. The “civilized” westerns (and even easterns) would certainly look down on those Blacks who were still living in huts, mostly naked, and hunting with rudimental tools. The Blacks are primitives, all explorers concluded. Slave trade was initiated. Even some American founding fathers concluded that Black slaves should be counted as a fraction of Whites in census, and not be included in the umbrella of federal constitution.

Similarly, when westerns encountered east or south Asians in 16^th centuries, they saw a physically smaller human beings living in agricultural society. Without sophisticated weapons, those Asians were defeated. The large socioeconomic gaps between western and eastern countries made Asians socially lower than westerns. It is interesting that before then, eastern Asians (esp. Chinese) thought that people in the rest of worlds were uncivilized (and it was also based on socioeconomic standard).

Another factor that many scholars ignored also made earlier westerns more prone to prejudice. The religion, esp. Christianity, sows much prejudice in the minds of western people. You may argue that Jesus told us to love our neighbors, how come I accuse Christianity as a prejudice religion? My conclusion is based on history of Christianity, not on the bible. The persecuting of pagans, the killing of many witches, and the hundreds of years of crusade to central Asia, are some well known examples for religious prejudice. Even now, the perceived higher morality in Christians makes many of them think atheists have looser morality.Furthermore, the eager to convert everyone and the wish to live in heaven while curse nonbelievers to be stuck in the hell clearly establish a hierarchy between believers and nonbelievers. The Christian hypocrisy of “love” is just for believers, not for nonbelievers. Unfortunately, modern wars are still having religious elements in them.

Belief leads to action. Prejudice causes discrimination. Along the way were racism, slavery, wars, Holocaust, KKK, racial segregation, and so forth. Fortunately, in modern society, overt racism is rare. Thanks for the great efforts and sacrifices of earlier human right fighters. However, subtle prejudice (or not-so-subtle in the eyes of disadvantaged groups) are still pervasive. That unemployed Blacks are lazy is one of such examples.

Seeing is believing. When one observes some differences among human beings, he is eager to find answers. The simplest answer (or “parsimonious answer”, to be scientific) is because they are different in their bloods. Their genes are different.