Module 20: African Burial Ground Controversy II

Reading: LaRoche and Blakey, "Seizing Intellectual Power. . ."

A student last year observed on his reading notes that the African burial ground controversy demonstrates how white and black people see the world from different perspectives, or maybe demonstrates how citizens and bureaucrats see the world from different perspectives. What were some of the objections to the way the African burial ground was being handled?

•Bones handled improperly—why was this so upsetting to African Americans? [Issue of respect; also, history (of African Americans) was being lost. This is a very important site, and its importance was not being recognized. HCI personnel were not "qualified experts." Do you have to be black to do African American archaeology? No, but you should be familiar with the literature, with the issues].

•The bone analysis by the forensics team focused on determining the age, sex, race, and cause of death of the individual bodies—that's what forensic scientists do: they try to identify the individual victim and look for evidence of foul play. But this is pretty irrelevant since there was little hope of identification. These are not suitable research objectives for the analysis of a population of individuals who died several centuries ago. In this case, it would be more suitable to look for evidence of cultural beliefs, quality of life, activity pattern/labor, nutrition, disease, violence, and origins—African homelands?

•The use of racial classification is a particular hot issue—why? Before we answer this question we must traverse an Interlude on race: biological difference is not race.

Race is an effort to group people based on their biological inheritance, their genes. Biological anthropologists today recognize the existence of genetic differences between local populations, but they don’t think that races exist. I will try to explain why.

Why do populations with long histories of living in different parts of the world differ in some genetic traits? Because of past mutations and natural selection. Different environmental stresses in different parts of the world result in the survival and reproduction of individuals with different genetic traits. For example, skin color, body build (height, weight), hemoglobin structure (Hbs, Hba, sickle-cell anemia and protection against malarial parasites), etc. Actually, genetic differences between human populations are very minimal (85 percent of all genetic variation is found within human populations, and at most, 15 percent of all genetic variation is between them) and very superficial (literally) (see Lewontin 1972). They are minimal because humans mostly use culture to adapt to their surroundings. Instead of white fur and large feet like polar bears, humans have polar bear fur parkas and snowshoes. The capacity for culture is the major selective force on all human populations (even those living in tropics). Biological differences are superficial because our outsides are the interface between us and the environment, so it is our external aspects that are most likely to be selected for difference. Internal similarities are preserved by the universal human dependence on culture.

So biological anthropologists recognize the existence of genetic differences between local populations, but they don’t think that races exist. They maintain that there are no distinct groups of humans, just continuous gradation from one local population to the next. European and Euro-American scientists constructed races by taking the extreme ends of human variation, Swedes, Ibos, and Chinese, and setting these up as the three races of mankind, but these groups are no more valid as groups than Greeks, Ethiopians, or Pakistanis.

If races don’t exist, then why, in the United States, do we think that we see groups? Because we are taught to focus in on certain traits, which become our cultural definition of race. In the United States, any person with any African characteristics at all is classified as African American or Black. This is not good biology. Why should a person who has perhaps three grandparents of European ancestry and one grandparent of African ancestry be classified as African American instead of Anglo-American or White? Why do most people think that Tiger Woods is an African American, although his mother is Thai?

Biological difference between groups of people has sometimes been used to account for differences in behavior between groups of people. Have you heard some examples of this? In a 1994 book The Bell Curve, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray advanced the idea that blacks in this country have lower incomes than whites because, as a group, blacks are less intelligent than whites. On what basis do Herrnstein and Murray claim that blacks are less intelligent than whites? Because blacks, as a group, score lower on I.Q. tests than whites. There are other explanations for these scores. A whole array of factors beyond intelligence affects test performance. I.Q. tests are written by middle-class whites, and their questions assume little pieces of knowledge that might not be within the experience of a significant number of black children, thus causing lower overall averages for blacks as a group. Also, self-confidence plays a big role in test performance. Psychologist Claude Steele found that if black test-takers are asked to list their race before a test, they will score lower than if they are not asked to list their race. Because of a history of attacks on black intelligence, some blacks are very tense in test-taking situations.

Another example of biological difference being used to account for behavioral differences: there is a theory that blacks dominate professional basketball because they have more quick-twitch muscles. I don’t know what to think about quick-twitch muscles, but I don’t think that’s why blacks dominate professional basketball. I think blacks dominate professional basketball because it has been so difficult for poor blacks to enter other areas of American life, so black basketball players are one of the few models for how to be successful as an African American man. So African American boys spend hours and hours learning to be successful basketball players. And by now, there is considerable expertise about basketball in the black community. The level of competition is very high, so players develop their skills. One reason that I'm suspicious of the quick-twitch muscle explanation is that back in the 1920s and 1930s, Jewish players dominated professional basketball, and people back then also gave a biological explanation: Jews were said to be innately cunning and deceptive, so they could fake defenders out.

Biological explanations for behavioral differences are dangerous. Every time you hear someone give a biological explanation for behavioral differences between groups, you should be suspicious. In societies with large differences in wealth, power, and opportunities between people, biology is used to justify inequality and exploitation. Biology is seen as natural and unchangeable, and it gives members of the advantaged group the opportunity to say, “Well, it’s too bad that some people are much better off than others, but that’s just the way it is. There’s really nothing we can do about it.” Be suspicious.

Social inequality is created by the way things are organized in our country and our world. Right now, people do not have equal opportunity to succeed: people of color in this country don’t have equal education, they don’t have equal health care, and they don’t have an equal chance of being hired, despite all the talk about affirmative action. (In Chicago, blacks and whites submitted exactly the same resumes for job openings, and whites were hired for the jobs significantly more frequently than blacks).

If biological variation results from the basically healthy process of adaptation to varied environments, why did New Yorkers object to the Metropolitan Forensic Anthropology Teams’ effort to classify African Burial Ground remains by race? Because, in American society, race, grouping people based on their biological inheritance, has consistently had as its goal justifying and naturalizing social inequality. America has a long history of using racial types as a justification for slavery, segregation, denial of equal education, equal voting rights, etc. Having public employees speak in terms of race seems to legitimate the whole concept. Besides, there were questions of greater historical and cultural interest that were being ignored by the MFAT. What were some of the questions that the Blakey team tried to answer, and what data did they use?

DNA studies trace historical relations to specific African populations, of genealogical interest and also of historical interest (slave trade patterning), and important for archaeological interpretation (identification and interpretation of African practices).

Bone chemistry: origins, diet, nursing and weaning patterns.
Bone lesions: disease patterns, use of force
Bone morphology: levels of work stress
Population: demography/family life.

LaRoche and Blakey argue that the research carried out by the MFAT did not actively pursue the vindicationist value of the African Burial Ground. What is the vindicationist agenda? “To correct the demeaning distortions of the culture, biology, and history of the Africana world” (90). How could excavations of the African Burial Ground contribute to a vindicationist effort? [Establish the presence of African Americans in New York City from the very beginning, acknowledge their contribution to building the city, document the oppressive conditions of slavery]. This is why the African American community demanded some type of public commemoration of the place. [Pass out pamphlets on African Burial Ground memorials].

LaRoche and Blakey argue that the research carried out by the MFAT did not actively exploit the educational value of the African Burial Ground. It could provide opportunities to stimulate interest and provide training in African American history, archaeology, biological anthropology, and history.

Then there were the semantic issues associated with the excavations. What were some of these? Negro Burial Ground vs. African Burial Ground. Which did the African American community prefer? Why? Planter or master vs. slave holder. Which does the African American community prefer? Why? Enslaved African American or African Americans residing on the plantation vs. slave. Which does the African American community prefer? Why? Dependencies (at Williamsburg) vs. outbuildings. Which does the African American community prefer? Why? Are these words important? Does political correctness matter?

All of this provides a powerful argument for Black control of Black history—do you agree? Is Leland Ferguson out? [No, but White scholars should definitely receive proper training in African American history and archaeology if they are going to undertake the excavation of African American sites. And they should collaborate with members of the descendent community. Otherwise, there will be trouble, for sure].