What the NYT and RFK Jr. Have in Common: Biological Racism

A recent story in the New York Times about Merle Oberon, an actress who was nominated for an Oscar in 1936, promotes a version of biological racism that is more severe than the anti-Semitic Nazi Nuremberg Laws enacted in 1935.

The article points out that Oberon, whose mother was Sri Lankan, became a star because “she decided to pass as white, hiding her South Asian identity to make it in an industry that was resistant to anything else.” But she really was “of color,” a term the Times uses without explanation.

We get it. Oberon was the child of a mother who we assume had darker skin color because of her ethnic heritage, and an Anglo father, who was definitionally “white.” So, even though Merle looked “white,” according to the newspaper, the article implies there was some kind “of color” trait in her blood.

The Nazis of the 1930s would not have accepted this “of color” definition, which is so casually used in the article. If Oberon’s mother had been Jewish, for example, Oberon would not have been classified as a Jew under the Nuremberg Laws, which required that three out of four grandparents be Jewish. Oberon would only have had two.

So why does the paper make such a big deal about Oberon “passing?” Why is it important that we consider her to be “of color?”

In the 1930s, the U.S. may have been even more racist than Germany. The U.S. then adhered to a very strict notion of biological racism. In the South, the “one drop rule” held that if you had any Black ancestry at all you were considered Black, no matter your skin color.

American “race scientists,” who were an inspiration to the Nazis, had determined that the hierarchy of biological races included country of origin and religion, as well as skin color. Each race was endowed with traits that could be ranked from best to worst, with Anglo White at the very top, of course. For the Nazis, make that Aryan on top. (See Wall Street’s War on Workers for a closer look at race hierarchies.)

To be sure, the New York Times today rejects that hierarchy. Yet it still runs stories that expect us to believe that there is something that defines “of color,” even if that “color” doesn’t meet the eye test. And they’re not talking about cultural traits or ethnic customs.

If Oberon is “of color” but has no “color,” doesn’t that imply some kind of biological difference that runs deeper than skin color, the one-drop kind that so obsesses biological racists?

This isn’t new for the New York Times. They continually use the word “race,” instead of “ethnic group.” for example, even though the word “race” conjures up a biological cause for difference. But after nearly two centuries of fruitless attempts, “race scientists” old and new have found no biological races.

The New York Times should stop using the word “race,” and instead point out that race is a sociological category, not the biological one which originally was devised to maintain hierarchies of power. How hard is it to say, ‘there is only one race, the human race?”

(By the way, that’s a quote from one of our worker-trainers, who doesn’t find it hard to say at all)

Bobby Kennedy Jr. Carries On the Torch of Biological Racism

Pseudo race science is alive and well in the head of the head of the Health and Human Services Department. In a 2023 New York Post video tape, Kennedy reveals that he, like the race scientists of old, believes that ethnic groups are races, and that races are biologically different.

Just watch how, in July 2023, he slides unselfconsciously between ethnicities, races, and biology:

Covid-19. There is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. Covid-19 attacks certain races disproportionately. Covid-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black People. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.

During his confirmation hearings he denied that he said this, and instead, claimed he was simply quoting NIH studies. But that wasn’t true either.

But the senators grilling him missed the big point. They never asked if Kennedy believes that Jews, Chinese, Blacks, and Caucasians are biologically distinct races.

Wait! Did I join the Woke Word Police?

It’s true that I want people to stop using the word “race,” unless they make clear they are not talking about biology in any shape of form. (Falling into that biology rabbit hole, we are more susceptible to believing in phony—indeed, racist—differences in intelligence, athleticism, pain thresholds, violence, lust, and even penis size.)

But my point here is radically different from those focusing on the proper words we should use to show respect to different identities.

Working people with similar interests and goals have often been divided by bosses and a corporate power structure using language, religion, and ethnicity. Our goal should be to build solidarity and overcome those artificial distinctions, so that we can fight together for our best interests. Workers are only hurt by the idea of biological races, which reinforce the fictitious existence of a white race and a white identity. Who wants that?

As my colleague and friend, Tom McQuiston, pointed out to me, labor unions have a better idea – solidarity. By promoting and believing that “an injury to one is an injury to all,” any form of discrimination is a violation of the basic solidarity needed for working people to get a fair shake against corporate power. We fight all forms of discrimination because they are wrong and because they weaken our collective power, no matter who our ancestors are.

In a worker’s movement based on solidarity, Merle Oberon’s Sri Lankan ancestry would be an interesting story but nothing special, unless it had been used to discriminate against her. She, along with her fellow artists, should have been much more worried about how best to band together to get a fair shake from the movie moguls.

It’s almost understandable that biological racism would infest Bobby Jr.’s worm-addled brain. But 90 years after the Nuremberg Laws, shouldn’t the “Paper of Record” know better?