What is racial? What is cultural? What is political?

Since race doesn't exist biologically, isn't all talk about race not really about race at all but about culture?


No.
There are innumerable factors which explain why people behave as they do and in no case are any behaviors reducible to race. to assume that race causes something or that race is an internal influence is a racialist or possibly racist argument. What any particular group of people who could be considered a race might do is not determined by their 'racial essence'. Yet many Americans speak in racial terms and they mean precisely that.

There are, however, because of the forces of racism, ways that groups of people behave which can be consistently identified. yet despite the fact that a racial categorization of this group does not change, the behavior of that identifyable group will. of course you cannot have it both ways.

we shall use the term 'essentialism' in this discussion. essentialism is the racialist assumption that there are certain natural and fixed cultural expressions of racial groups. if for example i say that 'black people cannot swim', it can be interpreted two ways. the first, would be the 'jimmy the greek' interpretation which asserts that the biological negroid race is deficient in some physical or mental attribute necessary for swimming. The second interpretation would be the 'arthur ashe' interpretation which asserts that blacks have no access to swimming facilities and therefore don't learn.

The distinction between inate capability and social ability makes all the difference in such statments. it is the classic 'nature vs nurture' argument. the question which then clarifies the intent of the speaker is that which identifies the nature of the obstacle impeding progress. if the speaker asserts that the prospective black swimmer must overcome his own internal predispostion, that is a hint that they may be considering a racial essence.

over time, however, the fallacies of essentialism are revealed, often by the practice of racism itself. my two favorite examples are the cases of the trades and the sport of boxing. when southern blacks thrrough the aid of liberal whites established land grant and trade schools, the social status of tradesmen and technicians was considerably lower than it is today. essentialist arguments bolstered the confidence of supporters that ex-slaves would adopt well to fields such as plumbing and electrical work. it was never assumed that masters of such technologies would ever be considered as respectable as small farmers. today, of course the reverse is true, the small farmer is considered a relic and his plight raises little sympathy, yet the prospects for technical workers are bright as can be. and of course older generations can certainly recall when the sport of boxing was considered the penultimate expression of mental and physical skill, something for which the negro was considered singularly unqualified. the exercise of essentialist prejudices raises the question then, to what extent are the people on the receiving end of such mischaracterizations bound to internalize and thereby validate them. indeed, how often do such stigmata become a source of perverse pride?

Often the simple choice between racial identities is political.

the subject of race vs culture was relevent to the discussion of
'culture of poverty' arguments.

inevtiably, someone would remark that thier disgust with black people
wasn't because of their race, but because of their obvious inability
to get along in america. it was black people's retarded culture which
deserved blame, not themselves. if black people would simply *change*
somehow, and adapt to the ways and means of success, as demonstrated
by the majority, all of their complaints of racism would disappear.

it is not because white people are racist that blacks suffer in
society, goes the thesis. it is because they ignorantly and stubbornly
cling to an inferior culture.