3 ms·

Setting aside the centuries of oppression, the experimentation and the complete dehumanization of people based on their ethnicity that still goes on to this day

by dpwm 8y ago

Setting aside the centuries of oppression, the experimentation and the complete dehumanization of people based on their ethnicity that still goes on to this day, I find Rush's hypothesis and the thinking that led to it interesting. If we take a step back from the disease idea, the leprosy and the idea that it could be cured (and I shudder at the implications of that) then the model had the following properties: - The darkening of the skin is non contagious - That it is hereditary - That aside from this darkening, non-white people are (fundamentally) the same as whites. It seems so close and yet so far away. I understand it was in the 19th Century that Melanocytes were discovered, but I can't ascertain when or who discovered them. The thing that I find interesting is that surely things like Melanocytic Nevi (moles) were just as prevalent then as today and could have led to a significantly better model with some thought. Does anybody have any ideas where more information can be found on the history of the scientific ideas surrounding Melanin and pigmentation? A cursory search doesn't bring much up.

gizmo686 8y ago
>It seems so close and yet so far away. In what sense is it even wrong? Dark skin is a non-contagious, hereditary trait. The only thing that distinguishes it from a genetic disease is the lack of negative symptoms, which Rush acknowledged. I would say that the population size of "infected" individuals would also be an arguement for considering it a natural variate instead of a disease. However, we seem to have no problem calling lactose intolerance a disease, even though it applies to 65% of the populations (and, historically speaking, lactose tolorence is the mutation).
- dpwm 8y ago
  > In what sense is it even wrong? In that it is not hereditary leprosy that causes the differences between whites and non-whites but natural genetic variations. There is no "white" skin underneath. There is no cure, nor should there be any medical reason to seek a "cure." Disease is a very stigmatizing word that implies defectiveness. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#Benjamin_Rush https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#Benjamin_Rus...
  - gizmo686 8y ago
    So, is your factual complaint that dark skin is not literally a strain of leprosy? Because that seems like a relativly minor disagreement, and certainly would not qualify as being "so far away" from reality. Further, my interpretation of the quote is that "leprosy" was intended to refer to a specific disease, but rather a syndrome, (which could be caused by multiple diseases presenting simmilar symptoms). Keep in mind that we did not actually identify the leprosy bacteria until 1873 [0], while Rush died in 1813. >Disease is a very stigmatizing word that implies defectiveness. This is a reason that we might not want to call it a disease. It does not represent any factual dispute. >There is no "white" skin underneath. That depends on how you define "underneath". If you remove the melonin, I believe you will get white skin; so "underneath" seems to me to be a reasonable description. Further, my understanding is that real leprosy does not literally create a new layer of "skin", so "underneath" cannot have the most literal meaning here in the first place. >There is no cure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_whitening#Whitening_agents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_whitening#Whitening_agent... As far as medical conditions go, dark skin seems far more curable then many other things that we have cured. For reference, to a first approximation, we have "cured" the condition of being male/female in transfolks. I suspect that that is a far more difficuly problem then changing skin color. >nor should there be any medical reason to seek a "cure." This is a value judgement, not a factual judgement. Facts matter. It is important to distinguish between disagreeing on the facts and disagreeing on the interpretation of the facts. [0] The first bateria identified as the cause of a human disease.
    - AstralStorm 8y ago
      Most importantly, dark skin is adaptive at low latitudes. Which is why calling it a disease is completely wrong, though understandable from 19th century point of view. It is a hereditary adaptation. That it is malpractice at high latitudes means little. Much like sickle cell trait is adaptive where malaria is endemic. This is why even Caucasians there, especially ones who lived there for generations, are quite brown. (Say, Arabs.) People who aren't dark skinned enough tend to get sunburnt.

by dpwm 8y ago

gizmo686 8y ago

>It seems so close and yet so far away. In what sense is it even wrong? Dark skin is a non-contagious, hereditary trait. The only thing that distinguishes it from a genetic disease is the lack of negative symptoms, which Rush acknowledged. I would say that the population size of "infected" individuals would also be an arguement for considering it a natural variate instead of a disease. However, we seem to have no problem calling lactose intolerance a disease, even though it applies to 65% of the populations (and, historically speaking, lactose tolorence is the mutation).

dpwm 8y ago
> In what sense is it even wrong? In that it is not hereditary leprosy that causes the differences between whites and non-whites but natural genetic variations. There is no "white" skin underneath. There is no cure, nor should there be any medical reason to seek a "cure." Disease is a very stigmatizing word that implies defectiveness. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#Benjamin_Rush https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#Benjamin_Rus...
- gizmo686 8y ago
  So, is your factual complaint that dark skin is not literally a strain of leprosy? Because that seems like a relativly minor disagreement, and certainly would not qualify as being "so far away" from reality. Further, my interpretation of the quote is that "leprosy" was intended to refer to a specific disease, but rather a syndrome, (which could be caused by multiple diseases presenting simmilar symptoms). Keep in mind that we did not actually identify the leprosy bacteria until 1873 [0], while Rush died in 1813. >Disease is a very stigmatizing word that implies defectiveness. This is a reason that we might not want to call it a disease. It does not represent any factual dispute. >There is no "white" skin underneath. That depends on how you define "underneath". If you remove the melonin, I believe you will get white skin; so "underneath" seems to me to be a reasonable description. Further, my understanding is that real leprosy does not literally create a new layer of "skin", so "underneath" cannot have the most literal meaning here in the first place. >There is no cure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_whitening#Whitening_agents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_whitening#Whitening_agent... As far as medical conditions go, dark skin seems far more curable then many other things that we have cured. For reference, to a first approximation, we have "cured" the condition of being male/female in transfolks. I suspect that that is a far more difficuly problem then changing skin color. >nor should there be any medical reason to seek a "cure." This is a value judgement, not a factual judgement. Facts matter. It is important to distinguish between disagreeing on the facts and disagreeing on the interpretation of the facts. [0] The first bateria identified as the cause of a human disease.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    Most importantly, dark skin is adaptive at low latitudes. Which is why calling it a disease is completely wrong, though understandable from 19th century point of view. It is a hereditary adaptation. That it is malpractice at high latitudes means little. Much like sickle cell trait is adaptive where malaria is endemic. This is why even Caucasians there, especially ones who lived there for generations, are quite brown. (Say, Arabs.) People who aren't dark skinned enough tend to get sunburnt.