tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post6948501263529667168..comments2024-03-28T16:22:14.888-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: NYT: "The Myth of 'Race'"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger97125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-7750104714880455102013-09-30T13:41:54.777-07:002013-09-30T13:41:54.777-07:00Lol never mind all the bullshit you guys use as ev...Lol never mind all the bullshit you guys use as evidence for race. If liberals really want to bury you they can. They will just put a black woman with her blonde blue eyed white biological child right in front of every ones face. Yeah that happens because none of the genes for "race" are exclusive, IE it does not exist in any meaningful way other than to racists. Go check. A black person can give birth to somebody who is white, mixed people can be any a race. they cannot lose genes or traits. "whites" can't go extinct, the genes just get passed on. Mixed people are also more diverse genetically, because they have more genes in the pool to combine and make new kinds of people from. That is why mixed people have more rare versions of bone marrow. Which is why it is more likely they can not be cured and not pass any cancers or defects on to the next generation. That is literally hybrid vigor. <br /><br />Liberals are not even trying, just having fun, humping and partying while you waste your last bits of life away fighting over some temporary averages in horse shit.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-70831481699307233922013-07-19T14:53:52.754-07:002013-07-19T14:53:52.754-07:00* the British outlawed female infanticide (very co...* the British outlawed female infanticide (very common in some regions of India), suttee, and some other social cruelties. */<br /><br />Please read, http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/How-the-British-created-the-dowry-system-in-Punjab-1.aspx <br /><br />‘Dowry Murder, The Imperial Origins of a Cultural Crime’ By Veena Talwar Oldenburg.<br /><br />British changed wholesale a lot of established traditions & customs & then to prevent the unfortunate outcomes, like infanticide, they passed an Act.<br /><br />Sati: a totally voluntary act, committed only by a miniscule portion of women, inspite of relatives' opposition, is blown up into a big deal by the British.As usual. <br /><br />On top of it, due to their policies Hindus had to endure famine after famine. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2008/3517brit_imperial_famine.html<br /><br /> Elihu Yale,was responsible for Slave Trade in Chennai,formerly Madras. Now an Ivy is named after him.<br />"<br /><br />First: Sati, a totally voluntary act! Women were under extreme pressure to do this, and some were not even women, but little girls. In fact, the British were moved to take action because of several cases involving child widows under 10. Even adults were pressured and there are horror stories of burned women being thrown back on the pyres. Very, very few people would choose burning alive. <br />As for the British causing the dowry system, what a load of tripe. Their policies may have exacerbated it in some regions, though I don't know how, I'll take your word for it. But the dowry system has been a part of Middle Eastern-South Asian life for centuries. It was one reason for widespread female infanticide among Arab tribes (some of them) before Mohammed put an end to it.<br />As for the British ending traditions. Sometimes that's a shame, but sometimes some traditions should end and the only way to end them is outside influence. Inside they feed on themselves in a loop and no one knows how to end them. The Papua New Guinea headhunting tribes were in this dilemma. They were delighted when westerners finally outlawed headhunting. What a relief. (Sick Societies, 1993)English rectitude?noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-60013049671423884492013-07-19T05:12:27.613-07:002013-07-19T05:12:27.613-07:00/* the British outlawed female infanticide (very .../* the British outlawed female infanticide (very common in some regions of India), suttee, and some other social cruelties. */<br /><br />Please read, http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/How-the-British-created-the-dowry-system-in-Punjab-1.aspx <br /><br />‘Dowry Murder, The Imperial Origins of a Cultural Crime’ By Veena Talwar Oldenburg.<br /><br />British changed wholesale a lot of established traditions & customs & then to prevent the unfortunate outcomes, like infanticide, they passed an Act.<br /><br />Sati: a totally voluntary act, committed only by a miniscule portion of women, inspite of relatives' opposition, is blown up into a big deal by the British.As usual. <br /><br />On top of it, due to their policies Hindus had to endure famine after famine. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2008/3517brit_imperial_famine.html<br /><br /> Elihu Yale,was responsible for Slave Trade in Chennai,formerly Madras. Now an Ivy is named after him.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-21334541883796914172013-07-18T21:20:16.310-07:002013-07-18T21:20:16.310-07:00@David, nothing angry about it. Steve used the wor...@David, nothing angry about it. Steve used the word "damn-near," so I just echoed it. Steve likes alliteration and repetition. It sounds cool.<br /><br />I'd be happy to explain why Steve's race-as-a-family metaphor is wrong. Not in a comment thread that's already gone stale, though.Aaron Grosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07105500964362053569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-56535902303508754462013-07-18T17:57:05.910-07:002013-07-18T17:57:05.910-07:00Do you believe in race? 'Cause it believes in...Do you believe in race? 'Cause it believes in you.Vannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-65399215528985033722013-07-18T13:16:09.242-07:002013-07-18T13:16:09.242-07:00The denial of the reality of continuum comes from ...The denial of the reality of continuum comes from a deeply handicapping mind stricture proceeding from the idealism of Plato, with his Forms.<br /><br />This denial says that if a thing isn't eternally fixed and invariant, then it doesn't exist. Instead, that thing is merely a shadow on the wall; it's an arbitrary reflection or refraction deserving of no respect. Concepts like "yellow," "old," "evening," "race," etc. are nothing real because <i>Real</i> reality is the Forms, which are perfect, i.e., eternal and invariant.<br /><br />Such a view is more suited to math than to biology or anything else having to do with the real world. Of course, the neo-Neo-Platonists at the NYT would say that it's <i>their</i> world - where race does not exist - that's the <i>real</i> real one, whereas ours is the messy world of troglodytes.<br /><br />You can see the struggle they have in their attempts to "draw the line" in ethical questions. The NYT had (may still have, dunno) a Dear Dr. Ethics or Moral Ombudsman column, where a modern philosopher tried to advise readers on ethical dilemmas. The upshot of every article was that he didn't know shit. All he advised was basically, see what's socially acceptable at the time. For just as "Asian" or "orange" must be myths, i.e., arbitrarily determined, "imperfect," so morality is based upon nothing.<br /><br />How nicely this comports with Who-Whom. You can "raise a standard to which the wise and honest will repair" of scientific contextual thinking - or of Power - or of Religion. The elites choose Power. Their opponents mostly choose Religion. The mental stricture helps to prevent these groups from seeing or understanding the first standard; indeed, they're so blinded that they perennially try to equate scientific contextual thinking to Power (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Wars" rel="nofollow">science is rape</a>) or Religion (creation "science").<br /><br />Pragmatic and contextual thinkers are the true vanguard. The rest are intellectual plebs and enthusiasts, expressing their incapacity in the getting up of religions and ideologies which make a lot of noise, burn a lot of heretics, and roil the earth generally.Davidhttp://david-passingparade2.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-2014155517249704902013-07-18T12:00:32.792-07:002013-07-18T12:00:32.792-07:00>Race as an "inbred extended family" ...>Race as an "inbred extended family" is not damn-near tautological. It's not even damn-near right. It's damn wrong.<<br /><br />No explanation or argument, just a flat angry assertion. Only the rebbe's parsimony accounts for his use of the word "wrong" once instead three times in a series.<br /><br />>I love it!<<br /><br />Apparently Heartiste should have used "teh."<br /><br />>The claim that "race does not exist" is an attempt to change some social definitions - biologically speaking, it's nonsense.<<br /><br />Question-begging. Social categories are not picked right out of the blue. Much evidence exists that biological characteristics, which noticeably differ from race to race, are not unconnected to behavior. You would have to show, e.g., that behavior is unconnected to the formation of social categories.Davidhttp://david-passingparade2.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-30640053515102366362013-07-18T09:41:39.023-07:002013-07-18T09:41:39.023-07:00"That it's not fixed over time is irrelev..."That it's not fixed over time is irrelevant to most practical considerations e.g. medicine, education etc"<br /><br />But when we consider the difference between ashkenazi IQ and sephardim IQ that happened in the past few thousands or hundreds of yrs, evolution can work very fast. <br /><br />And domestication of animals has taken even less time. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-62278288706408298052013-07-18T09:39:52.029-07:002013-07-18T09:39:52.029-07:00"Also, to simply say "races change"..."Also, to simply say "races change" can be used to argue that racial interests therefore do not exist, which is exactly what lefties try to say. "What are you trying to 'preserve'? In three thousand years it won't make any difference anyway!"<br /><br />--------<br /><br />True, but then every point is a double-edged sword for it can used to support more than one view or agenda. <br />But, the thing is IF WE ARE TO DISCUSS RACE AS A SCIENTIFIC TRUTH, we should focus on the process for even liberals cannot refute the process of racieation. If you accept the process, then you must accept the product. <br /><br />Also, even if races are always changing, there is organic change and artificial change wrought by drastic events. Those on the Right prefer organic and gradual change. <br />And it is part of human nature for one bunch of organism to guard its own territory. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-66487568815170990072013-07-18T09:35:23.752-07:002013-07-18T09:35:23.752-07:00"Race is genetics so it is fixed at any singl..."Race is genetics so it is fixed at any single point in time.<br />That it's not fixed over time is irrelevant to most practical considerations e.g. medicine, education etc."<br /><br />It is stable but not fixed. <br /><br />It is relevant to theoretical discussion of race, and that's where we must start. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-86931957156102084982013-07-18T09:30:17.350-07:002013-07-18T09:30:17.350-07:00"op this nonsense. The British ended "sl..."op this nonsense. The British ended "slavery" of Africans but started "indentured servitude" of Indians around the same time. You think the Indians in Trinidad,Guyana,Mauritius and Fiji were tourists who stayed over?<br /><br />The morality of the British Empire is a load of horsemanure. And I will not let shameless apologists like you get away with perpetrating such hoaxes."<br /><br />There was indentured servitude of English in the 1600 & 1700s. There had been indentured servitude among European peasantry for many centuries until the social system changed slowly (and not completely) during the Renaissance.<br />There are always a relatively few people who instigate radical change. There were a few British politicians who agitated for the end of slavery vigorously. It was considered distasteful for moral reasons by educated English (don't know the %, but one gets that impression in reading histories and novels from the era.) Even as they de-legalized the slave trade, they "employed" young children in factories under such appalling conditions, no slave owner would have allowed it. Slaves are expensive--another reason for the wide-spread use of Irish laborers in the U.S., rather than blacks, free or slave. One Jewish-Corsican lady, intelligent & eccentric, was talking about how the English, compared to the Meds or Celts, were what she called "low context" (she blamed Germanics for this trait); which meant they considered themselves better than other races apparently, and defined themselves that way. I knew plenty of other peoples did this, like the Han Chinese, for example, and the Jews. This lady, however, had much the same thoughts on blacks as most of the commenters here. She thought different regions of Africa had produced different types of people, some nicer like the Yoruba, some fierce like the Zulu. But none were to be known for high intelligence. She got into quite an argument with a WASP SWPL guy about that. Really pretty funny. I am not English, but I played the Devil's Advocate and noted that the British outlawed female infanticide (very common in some regions of India), suttee, and some other social cruelties. Why would they bother with that? She said that was the "Celtic" missionary thread in the English and most wouldn't have bothered. Well, maybe. But enough did bother that at least some Indians owed their lives to those laws. Knowing Celts myself, I'm not so sure they're any kinder, but I think she meant they had more universal feelings. Again, I'm not so sure. The Germans were doing amazing things in the realm of the emotional arts. But I digress.<br /><br />So no, the English in general were hardly the angels of our better natures. But they did produce more that made a difference in forming moral opion than most other nations. All that said, we've come to the point where that particular moral trajectory has run its course. The English, like other whites, need to be worrying more about their own heritage. The others are well able to take care of themselves now.English rectitude?noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-66587467699188519572013-07-18T09:18:07.750-07:002013-07-18T09:18:07.750-07:00The left has been making war on language (and, by ...The left has been making war on language (and, by extension, thought) for, basically, ever.<br /><br />This childish sophistry can be easily dismissed, because the left needs race to parcel out political spoils, attack its enemies, etc. <br /><br />Hodge, in an unintentionally hilarious way, concedes as much. <br /><br />So instead of engaging in a pointless debate (which is akin to arguing over whether the color "yellow" exists), the answer is to give them a dose of their own medicine:<br /><br />if race doesn't exist, neither does racism. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-65872563479627252572013-07-18T07:57:45.597-07:002013-07-18T07:57:45.597-07:00To know and not to know, to be conscious of comple...<i>To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies,</i><br /><br />I'm wondering, Steve, has there been a more prescient or perspicacious author than Orwell? Spengler, perhaps? Nostradamus? :)heartistehttp://heartiste.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-44503933162882228312013-07-18T06:21:26.838-07:002013-07-18T06:21:26.838-07:00The ironic thing is that white people can proclaim...The ironic thing is that white people can proclaim all they want that race does not exist but every other race knows exactly who they are and what race they belong to. Political correctness is very much a SWPL thing.Dahindanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-88164015456265776442013-07-18T04:43:09.312-07:002013-07-18T04:43:09.312-07:00The dude says, like so many others, that "rac...The dude says, like so many others, that "race" is an incoherent, non-objective concept.<br /><br />Then he argues for action to stop discrimination based on race. But of course, he doesn't bother to explain how people can discriminate on the basis of such an incoherent and non-objective concept.<br /><br />@Dr Van Nostrand ...<br /><br />You can't just discuss a complex entity such as "the British Empire" without making a few distinctions.<br /><br />Such as noting that the British legislature outlawed slavery and that various traders sought to get around this by "indentured servitude" and "blackbirding".<br /><br />Felix Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-27474761599668404302013-07-18T00:51:31.085-07:002013-07-18T00:51:31.085-07:00"Race isn't fixed."
Race is genetic..."Race isn't fixed."<br /><br />Race is genetics so it is fixed at any single point in time.<br /><br />That it's not fixed over time is irrelevant to most practical considerations e.g. medicine, education etcAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-4252419874547484592013-07-17T22:08:04.306-07:002013-07-17T22:08:04.306-07:00"To know and not to know, to be conscious of ..."To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.”<br /><br />"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-60327953880848040022013-07-17T21:02:18.550-07:002013-07-17T21:02:18.550-07:00"If we think of race as a noun or product, we..."If we think of race as a noun or product, we tend to think races are fixed. But they were not and are not. Different races developed through processes and are still changing. Thus, race is the process itself. <br />There is no fixed white race or fixed black race or fixed yellow race for all eternity. Each human group can change into something else as their genes make this possible"<br /><br />That's all very well, but then you should also recognize that some forms of change are drastic and alienating and can be accompanied with a great deal of physical harm. This sort of change could be termed "catastrophic." (If that sounds like I'm referring specifically to what's happening to whites in the 21st century it's unintentional. Extremely painful racial "change" happened to indios in the Americas too, for instance.)<br /><br />Other forms of change are very long-term, like the process of change that created the "original" or "pure" races that everyone can unfailingly recognize. If members of those races breed only among other members of those races then any long-term change that results could be considered "organic."<br /><br />So races may "change," but change ain't change.<br /><br />Also, to simply say "races change" can be used to argue that racial interests therefore do not exist, which is exactly what lefties try to say. "What are you trying to 'preserve'? In three thousand years it won't make any difference anyway!" But we're not only interested in race for race's sake; we're interested in it for the way it allows to live our one and only life on this earth. Any racialist worth his salt must agree that racial living is better living. So the what happens to our races while we're alive (and while our children and grandchildren are alive) matters very much to us. And the same will be true for our children and their children and their children's children and so on. So at no point does race actually stop mattering. The lefty race-deniers could not be more wrong.Silvernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-80348000600193101082013-07-17T21:00:30.111-07:002013-07-17T21:00:30.111-07:00aaron gross, foot solider [sic] of the lords [sic]...<i>aaron gross, foot solider [sic] of the lords [sic] of lies</i><br /><br />I love it! Thanks, Heartiste, you've made my day.Aaron Grosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07105500964362053569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-59503202362360430532013-07-17T20:51:15.171-07:002013-07-17T20:51:15.171-07:00"Should people of Central Asia be seen as whi..."Should people of Central Asia be seen as white, Asian, mixed race, or a race of its own?"<br /><br />Ancient blends are basically "stabilized" so it's reasonable to treat them as their own races. For example, the intense mixing that has occurred in latin America over the centuries justifies calling "mestizos" a separate race, even though the physical traits of members of that "race" can vary quite widely.<br /><br />Treating ancient blends as separate races is also politically useful because it goes to the heart of the purpose of political racialism, of what political racialism is "for," what it's "all about," which is to allow people to live in a certain kind of way and enjoy the benefits from living in that way, benefits which are today largely denied them under the race-denialist dispensation. <br /><br />That is, political racialism isn't about inventing flashy taxonomies, asserting value hierarchies, or somehow "tricking" people that they are better off living around people assigned the same racial classification - as though, for the sake of argument(or in some lefty's lurid fantasy), people had a natural aversion to being around those who are racially like themselves, their natural impulse being to break away and be around people radically different, but the nasty racialists were going to label people and then herd them together no matter the suffering it would cause.<br /><br />No, the entire point of it is to recognize that different races have different racial interests and that those racial interests invariably cross over into and combine with cultural interests and that it's high bloody time that this simple, fundamental fact of life became (or once again became) politically relevant. It's not to say there isn't any point of commonality whatsoever among different racial groupings (the way, for instance, a hardline nazi might have it). Clearly there is commonality. Indeed it's that commonality that gives me hope that different groupings can work together to find a mutually beneficial way forward. As I like to say, where there's a will there's a way, and where there's racial goodwill there's a way.Silvernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-41633502663514598532013-07-17T20:32:22.001-07:002013-07-17T20:32:22.001-07:00So, if we say races are a fixed fact, libs have a ...<br /><br />So, if we say races are a fixed fact, libs have a point in saying that's not scientific. Races were never fixed. They slowly came into being through adaptation in different climates and terrains. <br />But even if libs have a point in denying races as fixed facts, they are making a big mistake by saying race is a myth. That would mean we are fixed in our current state forever and cannot change anymore. But how can that be if evolution is true? Race, used as a verb, is a evolutionary process whereby members of a species change from other members of the same species. Over time, the changes can accumulate to such degree that they can branch off into different species. <br /><br />So, race is a process or ongoing process. We are all the products of this process but not the final product as there is no final product of racevolution. <br /><br />The mistake of the radical right was to say races are fixed and different forever. Ironically, the radical left disagrees with this, but in saying that 'race is a myth', end up agreeing with the radical right that races are fixed since it's just a myth. If race is a myth, it means changes brought by human adaptability is also a myth. It means changes cannot happen since it's a myth that humans can change and evolve in any significant way. It means that different races cannot keep evolving in ways where one becomes very different from the other. <br /><br />But we know that if races remain apart for the next million yrs, they may even grow into different species. Evolution allows it cuz evolution is a process. <br /><br />So, we should approach race as a process than as a product of evolution. <br /><br />Race is the process whereby different human communities keep changing by adaptation and addition. Surely, even libs cannot deny this mechanism or process.bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06607033974434672862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-89286740123591876382013-07-17T20:32:02.425-07:002013-07-17T20:32:02.425-07:00Maybe the concept of race confuses people--and eve...Maybe the concept of race confuses people--and even us--cuz we focus on race as a product than a process. <br /><br />We know that evolution is a fact, and things change. So, we are constantly evolving. Even without forces of natural selection, we are changing because more genetic variations are being allowed to develop as more members produce offsprings. Though Darwin pointed to natural selection as driver of evolution(change), natural selection is also the agent of genetic stability(constancy). For instance, suppose a species evolved on arid land over a long time, but heavy rains keep falling on a yearly basis. So, a whole bunch die out from constant flooding, but some survive and adapt and evolve. And so, the kind that can handle the water best survive and pass down their genes. Thus, profound genetic changes take place. Suppose there is yearly flooding every year. So, generation after generation, offsprings that can't handle water are weeded out. <br />After a while, such weeding process tends to favor genetic stability over genetic change. Since most of the members are now well-adapted to water, the new norm among the species is water-suitability. Suppose 99 are born water-suitable but 1 is not. So, every year, 99 survive but 1 that is not water-suitable is weeded out. So, natural selection maintains the new normal of water-suitability. It favors the new genetic norm. <br />But suppose the floods stop coming. Now, those that are water-suitable will continue to live(since they can survive in both arid and watery conditions) but even the few that are not water-suitable will live and have offsprings. And over time, their genes will spread out as more and more members that are not water-suitable will survive. Thus, natural addition drives genetic change just like natural selection. <br /><br />At any rate, when we think of race, we think in terms of nouns. It would be better to think of race as a verb. To Race. Nothing is fixed about race. Race means genetic variation but variations are produced through an ongoing process. Thus, race is a process, a process of adaptability or additionality. In adaptability, ones most suited to survive harsh conditions are favored and rest are weeded out. In additionality, environmental conditions are mild, and so, even weaker and odder members of the group survive and have offsprings and their genes spread throughout the community. Either way, the genetic norm of the group is changed. <br /><br />If we think of race as a noun or product, we tend to think races are fixed. But they were not and are not. Different races developed through processes and are still changing. Thus, race is the process itself. <br />There is no fixed white race or fixed black race or fixed yellow race for all eternity. Each human group can change into something else as their genes make this possible. <br />Also, if race is a 'myth', it means that human evolution is a myth. It means early humans couldn't have changed in any significant way over time(since the process of race-ization is just a myth. But if race-ization is a myth, how did apes evolve into early humans and how did early humans develop and change into later humans?). It means that evolution has ended for mankind. It means that we cannot evolve into yet another species. OF course, we can. Maybe in a million yrs, we will evolve into a different species. If race is a myth, such change can't happen. WE must remain what we are in the present forever and ever. But if evolution is real and race is the process by which humans are evolving and adapting and changing, then race is true and real. <br /><br />bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06607033974434672862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-74483129659002102432013-07-17T19:55:03.881-07:002013-07-17T19:55:03.881-07:00Wittgenstein argued that, say, "games" d...Wittgenstein argued that, say, "games" don't necessarily have any one thing in common, they have family resemblances: Game A shares something with Game B which shares a different trait with Game C and so on. <br /><br />My central point is that race isn't just like family like Wittgenstein's games are like family; instead, race is family.Steve Sailerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11920109042402850214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-52887757486490371342013-07-17T19:47:41.222-07:002013-07-17T19:47:41.222-07:00"You are aware that "species" isn&#..."You are aware that "species" isn't a perfectly clear-cut distinction either, aren't you? This used to be (maybe still, for all I know) one of the favorite arguments of creationists against evolutionists, if I recall."<br /><br />True by the way it is used. But it CAN BE a clear-cut scientific category if we define it as organisms that can breed and produce fertile offsprings. <br /><br />Thus, I would say wolves, dogs, and coyotes all belong to one species, especially since some breeds of dogs look closer to wolves than to other breeds of dogs. <br />Also, polar bears and brown bears seem to be of the same species since they can produce fertile offsprings. <br /><br />But race is murkier, especially if we take mixed race into account. <br /><br />It's like there's coke and there's rum. But you can also mix the two. Just because the two can be mixed doesn't mean there is no coke and there is no rum. But the mixing can confuse matters. <br /><br />Should people of Central Asia be seen as white, Asian, mixed race, or a race of its own? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-35390351161885836172013-07-17T19:46:15.974-07:002013-07-17T19:46:15.974-07:00"'For example, saying "age groups do..."'For example, saying "age groups do not exist" has the same exact problems as "race does not exist.'<br /><br />'The color spectrum can be used here too. Where does yellow end and green begin?"<br /><br />It works for mental illness as well. Psychology works on a 'family resemblance model' that the more someone exhibits traits of a given mental illness, the more likely they are to have it. No one, or virtually no one will have all the traits, yet the mentally ill will have a certain quantity/severity high enough to clear an agreed upon hurdle. Many 'normals' will exhibit some of the traits at some time or another, but will tend to be noticeably under that hurdle.<br /><br />Maybe the same holds for an understanding of race. I know a white woman when I see one. She may not have blonde hair and blue eyes, but I know she is white, just like I can recognize that a certain kink to the hair, or tinge to the skin signals she's not.<br /><br />It makes perfect sense to be adapted to instantly recognize those in the same group as you.<br /><br />Sociologists tell us we're all Nobel Laureates when it comes to being able to distinguish different faces. The pink elephant of the Modern Age is that we're inherently Nobel Laureates when it comes to recognizing race and all its associated stereotypes but are supposed to pretend that these concepts that are about as useful as facial recognition, are complete fantasy.Malvernnoreply@blogger.com