There is a new book called “How to argue with a racist”, by Adam Rutherford.  Writing  at a time when genetic services such as 23 and Me are being used by huge numbers of people, Rutherford points out that the last common ancestor of all people with long-standing European ancestries lived only 600 years ago.  Indeed the experts say that nearly everyone with British ancestry is almost certainly descended from King Edward III.  And every person alive in 10th Century Europe, and who left descendants, is an ancestor of all Europeans alive today.

Ancestry studies show that we are all mongrels and that there is no such thing as “racial purity”.  Every white supremacist and racist has African, Indian, Chinese.,  Native American and even indigenous Australian ancestors of some sort. The idea that small genetic variations in between racial groups have an influence on behavior is totally discredited.  Skin color is the most visible difference between people who are otherwise all remarkably similar, born with a wide variety of capabilities and potential.  Race is a social construct, powerful still and a curse, but something that allows one person to feel superior to someone else.

As for this writer, he claims to be descended from, yes, Edward III, also King Louis XV of France and the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund 1368 – 1437. (a notorious fellow for the ladies, it is said).  This just shows how silly all this is, since is does me no good at all, and you probably don’t believe it anyway.

( A bit long, but very important)

In an essay for the Atlantic  – The Nuclear Family was a Mistake — New York Times columnist David Brooks argues that the family structure we’ve held up as the cultural ideal for the past half century has been a catastrophe for many.  By “nuclear family,” he means a married mother and father and some kids. The alternative arrangement was “the extended family,” which included not only Mom, Dad and the children but also close relatives — cousins, aunts, uncles and grandparents — as well as family friends.

The great defect of the nuclear family, Brooks asserts, is that if there’s a crisis — a death, divorce, job loss, poor school grades — there’s no backup team. Children are most vulnerable to these disruptions and often are left to fend for themselves. There’s a downward spiral. “In many sectors of society,” Brooks writes, “nuclear families fragmented into single-parent families, [and] single-parent families into chaotic families or no families.”

The advent of the birth-control pill encouraged people to have sex outside of marriage. Women’s entrance into the labor market made it easier for them to support themselves. Modern appliances (washing machines, dryers) made housework simpler.

As Brooks sees it, almost everyone loses under this system. The affluent can best cope with it, but children have it worst. Brooks cites an avalanche of statistics. In 1960, about 5 percent of children were born to unmarried women. Now that’s about 40 percent. In 1960, about 11 percent of children lived apart from their fathers; in 2010, the figure was 27 percent.

Adult men and women also have their share of troubles. There’s a vicious circle involved: “People who grow up in disrupted families have more trouble getting the education they need to have prosperous careers. People who don’t have prosperous careers  may have trouble building stable families. The children in those families become more isolated and more traumatized.”

There is little doubt that reversing the breakdown of families, and its consequences, is one of the urgent tasks of social policy in the 21st century. We have been struggling unsuccessfully with it since Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who later became a U.S. senator, warned in the Moynihan Report in  1965 that the breakdown of black marriage rates would have a devastating effect on African Americans’ well-being. The report proved highly controversial, and some branded Moynihan a racist.

But there is a problem.  The conditions needed to broach a debate over family policies strike at the heart of Americans’ political and cultural conflicts. Brooks writes:

“We value privacy and individual freedom too much. We want stability and rootedness, but also mobility, dynamic capitalism, and the liberty to adopt the lifestyle we choose.”

Brooks finds both liberals and conservatives unequal to the task of dealing candidly with family breakdown. “Social conservatives insist that we can bring the nuclear family back. But the conditions that made for stable nuclear families in the 1950s are never returning. Conservatives have nothing to say to the kid whose dad has split, whose mom has had three other kids with different dads; ‘go live in a nuclear family’ is really not relevant advice.  The majority [of households] are something else: single parents, never-married parents, blended families, grandparent-headed families.” He’s just as tough on progressives. They “still talk like self-expressive individualists of the 1970s: People should have the freedom to pick whatever family form works for them. But many of the new family forms do not work well for most people.”

The larger issue is how we judge our times. We are constantly deluged with economic studies and statistics, implying that economic outcomes are the only ones that matter. The national scorecard of well-being should take a much broader view. How well families do in preparing children for adulthood and how well they transmit important values is a much higher standard for success.  (David Brooks, The Atlantic, lightly edited)