Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unc.unc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!unc!oliver From: oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: Viral infections: Really CBW Message-ID: <167@unc.unc.UUCP> Date: Sun, 18-Aug-85 17:33:43 EDT Article-I.D.: unc.167 Posted: Sun Aug 18 17:33:43 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 21:47:47 EDT References: <800@abnji.UUCP> <593@hou2b.UUCP> Reply-To: oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver) Organization: CS Dept, U. of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill Lines: 54 Summary: In article <593@hou2b.UUCP> halle@hou2b.UUCP (J.HALLE) writes: >The author of the original article shows his paranoia, ignorance, >and lack of credibility when he talks about "racial specific diseases." >In particular, he mentioned sickle cell anemia and Tay-Sachs. Neither >of these is racial specific, although they are concentrated among certain >ethnic groups. Sickle cell anemia is occasionally found in non-blacks. >Tay-Sachs is sometimes found among non-Jews, particularly in eastern >Europeans. (I will not address the blatently anti-Semitic implied remark >about Jews being a race rather than an ethnic group or religion. I will >assume it was inadvertent.) In particular, the chance of a non-Jew of eastern >European heritage being a Tay-Sachs carrier is about one in five hundred. I`m sorry, folks, but I really gotta reply to this; it`s something I really get tired of hearing. Look, if you want to talk about just about anything, and you want to be able to make any statement at all, you have to make generalizations. Of course, non-blacks can sickle, but if you are going to talk about sickle cell disease, especially sickle cell disease in the US, then you generalize to blacks. When you talk about breast cancer, you at least implicity are talking about women (though of course, rare men get breast cancer too). When you talk about women, you talk about people with XX chromosomes (though of course, there are women with XY chromosomes - even without surgery due to testicular feminization). Whenever I make a statement about women, I don`t add the disclaimer "And, you know, by a woman I mean a person of XX genotype, though I don`t want to offend those of XY genotype who might be reading or listening to this. I would not like to imply that all I am about to say should, or could, apply to every woman in the world when I speak of an XX genotype, and I hope that no one will assume I am making any sweeping generalizations about gender identity here." The bottom line is that if a person is cut down for making any generalization, then it is simply impossible to make any statement about anything. All statements are statements of probability, and few statements can boast 100%. It is neither ignorance nor paranoia to make such statements. It only means that the speaker assumes that the listener has some basic critical faculties. It is a revelation to me to find that referring to Semitic peoples as a "race" is anti-Semitic. I think I see a chip on a shoulder here. The word race is by no means a perjorative in and of itself. I happen to belong to a number of them, and they are all fun when it comes time to party. Bill Oliver - Your basic (in order of appearance) Oklahoman-Irish-Cherokee-Welsh-Chickasaw-Seminole-Black-French, you know, U.S. of American.