One way liberals account for their ferocious emotions over race is to proclaim that the object of their obsession doesn't exist.
From the New York Times:
LETTER
Invitation to a Dialogue: The Myth of ‘Race’
Published: July 16, 2013
To the Editor:
What should we do about “race”?
Over many decades, those who study genetics have found no biological evidence to support the idea that humans consist of different “races.” Based on such scientific data, Ashley Montagu published “Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race” in 1942. New discoveries have confirmed what he said then. So why, over seven decades after his book, do we keep talking and living as though biological “races” exist?
Not only are certain “racial” classifications flawed, as suggested in “Has ‘Caucasian’ Lost Its Meaning?” (Sunday Review, July 7); all “racial” classifications are inherently flawed, because they are based on the false idea of “race.”
The myth of “race” has supported the horrors of slavery, apartheid, segregation, eugenics and the Holocaust. It continues to support racism. We cannot simply ignore the harm this myth has caused and pretend that the myth never existed.
The scientific, democratic and ethical goal should be to eliminate the false idea of “race” completely. But how do we both destroy the myth and remedy the harm it has caused?
We can begin by mentally changing how we see people. When we look at someone and automatically think about that person’s “race,” we must realize that we are not seeing “race” but instead seeing an arbitrary and harmful societal classification imposed on a continuum of physical differences.
When we want to ask how someone is classified by the myth, we should always put “race” or “racial” in quotation marks (as I have done here). Such questions still need to be asked, for example, on applications for college or a job, or for the census, for the answers provide the data needed to maintain diversity in education and the workplace and to monitor and remedy the harms the myth has caused and continues to cause. The long-term goal, however, is to make these questions obsolete.
JOHN L. HODGE
Boston, July 15, 2013
The writer is a retired lawyer, former professor of philosophy and the author of books, essays and a blog on democracy, ethics and human rights.
Editors’ Note: We invite readers to respond by Thursday for the Sunday Dialogue. We plan to publish responses and Mr. Hodge’s rejoinder in the Sunday Review. E-mail: letters@nytimes.com
You know the old joke about how "If Abraham Lincoln were alive today, he'd be spinning in his grave"? Well, the New York Times' genetics reporter Nicholas Wade must be spinning in his office chair.
By the way, a dozen years ago I laid out a simple, useful, damn-near tautological way to define "racial group" that largely fits the philosophy implicit in the federal government's racial categories. But, these days, being reasonable doesn't cut it.
Posts
97 comments:
Steve, it would be very cool if you sent in a response. We'd all support you in the comments if those are allowed. New people might check you out. It would be so worth it.
You can't define race, not the type of definition they want, you can only tell how they came about. Someone needs to come up with a name for the fallacy that argues from if you can't provide a definition, where a definition consists of exclusive necessary and sufficient conditions, then it doesn't exist. Leibniz used to have what he called a "causal definition" which involved describing how a thing came about. We need a revival of that idea.
I knew the neo-marxists would start shouting "race does not exist!!!" in response to this verdict. I'm only surprised it took them so long.
Let's just hope more people see through it this time.
I can't keep up. Are we 'diverse' or 'uniform?' If inherited traits are trivial, why have women evolved to be selective about breeding partners?
The author is an educated fool.
I'm confused. Wasn't it the new york times who said Trayvon was killed by a "white supremacist white hispanic"?
If there's no such thing as "race" then why do they keep crying " white racism" at every turn?
I might point out that John L. Hodge is a black man. (A light mulatto actually. You could understand if he wanted to distance himself from "black"). If your experience is that debating race with blacks is an exercise in futility you may want to reconsider responding here - especially since all he has done is recapitulate the myth that race is a myth (the "myth" myth), some version of which has been practiced for some fifty years now, greatly accelerating over the last twenty.
"Michael Hastings Cremated, Family Never Requested; Wife Has Hired Private Detective"
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/07/michael-hastings-cremated-family-never.html
"According to a San Dego 6 news reporter, Kimberly Dvorak, Hastings' body was cremated without the consent of the Hasting's family. Dvorak also reports that she was threatened for investigating the story and that Hastings' wife has hired a private detective."
The entire "race does not exist" trope is prima facie evidence of mass schizoid behavior on the part of its adherents. Mr. Hodge seems not even to grasp the internal contradiction in the neccesity to have what we'd call "racial" information available for the purpose of assuring "diversity."
So, Zimmerman isn't white after all?
So...carry on as we are now, but with scare quotes? That's the plan?
So if there is no race, then how does one measure diversity ?
Speaking as a race realist, I'd also be happy if everyone stopped talking about biological race, except for those biologists and medical doctors for whom it's actually relevant.
In almost every figh^H^H^H^H discussion where someone insists that biological race is real, the question of biological race is irrelevant to the topic, which is almost always about socially defined races.
One can talk about genetic differences between any socially defined groups. Socially defined groups do differ genetically, after all. Not even John L. Hodge could object to that.
"Someone needs to come up with a name for the fallacy that argues from if you can't provide a definition, where a definition consists of exclusive necessary and sufficient conditions, then it doesn't exist."
To Anonymous above. The closest I can come to this is the continuum fallacy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy
And fallacies of definition - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition
I think Steve has already pretty much addressed these fallacies in his old race articles without actually naming them.
For example, saying "age groups do not exist" has the same exact problems as "race does not exist". When does someone actually get "old"? 50? 60? But then there are people in their 70s who run marathons at a faster pace than some 40 year olds, so that must mean that age doesn't exist!
Pretty much all the regulars know this already, but I just threw this out there for the benefit of anyone new.
Race as an "inbred extended family" is not damn-near tautological. It's not even damn-near right. It's damn wrong.
I do agree that it's simple and useful, though.
My favorite philosopher Ruth Millikan discusses what she calls "historical kinds." These are things which have features in common due to a common history. This can be anything from McDonalds restaurants, Romanesque churches, the 1969 Plymouth Valiant, biological species, ethnic or cultural groups, and, yes, races. John Hodge is not a good philosopher.
"The myth of “race” has supported the horrors of slavery, apartheid, segregation, eugenics and the Holocaust. It continues to support racism."
Funny. Slavery long predated the concept of race, and anti-'racist' communism practiced massive statist slavery.
And it was 'racist' British--indeed far more 'racist' than the Spanish and French--who ended the slave trade and banned slavery in their imperialist holdings.
And it was 'racism', or racial consciousness, that was at the center of many anti-imperialist third world struggles. Vietnamese wanted Vietnam for Vietnamese, Algerians wanted Algeria for Algerians.
To the letter writer:
Move to Detroit. If not, you're a racist.
I don't know what Wade is doing, but I'll bet Gould is pulling his pud in his grave.
There has been discussion on what is a "Cracker", especially at Lion's.
There is the white definition and black one. I'll just give the white. Cracker specifically refers to Floridians who arrived from the South in the 1800s and turn of the century. "Cracker Country", a recreated 1900 village in Tampa, says the name came from the cracks from their whips when herding cattle as this was their main enterprise. So, broadly, they're mostly Scots-Irish and specifically, Floridians.
If we get rid of the 'myth of race', can we get rid of affirmative action too?
To paraphrase Voltaire: "If race did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it."
For example, saying "age groups do not exist" has the same exact problems as "race does not exist".
The color spectrum can be used here too. Where does yellow end and green begin? Any dividing line would be arbitrary. Therefore, colors are a myth. Also, any dividing line between an accent, a dialect and a language must necessarily be arbitrary. Therefore, language doesn't exist. And is a myth. When does afternoon end and evening begin? Etc.
If races don't exist, affirmative action programs shouldn't either. Please tell the President that race is a myth. He is reported to have checked the "black" box on his Census form. And on and on.
You should look into Wittgenstein's Family ressemblance concept.
Just checked out the wiki page on origins of the term cracker and I'm inclined to believe that over the other one from the museum which sounds made up.
For example, saying "age groups do not exist" has the same exact problems as "race does not exist".
The color spectrum can be used here too. Where does yellow end and green begin? Any dividing line would be arbitrary. Therefore, colors are a myth. Also, any dividing line between an accent, a dialect and a language must necessarily be arbitrary. Therefore, language doesn't exist. And is a myth. When does afternoon end and evening begin? Etc.
If races don't exist, affirmative action programs shouldn't either. Please tell the President that race is a myth. He is reported to have checked the "black" box on his Census form. And on and on.
OT:
On the Chicks Dig Chechens front, mainstream media is reporting that there is outrage(!) over a Rolling Stone magazine cover featuring a glam photo of Joker Tsarnaev.
In almost every figh^H^H^H^H discussion where someone insists that biological race is real, the question of biological race is irrelevant to the topic, which is almost always about socially defined races.
Things which are "socially defined" are still real. Israel is "socially defined". Most things humans do are "socially defined". The claim that "race does not exist" is an attempt to change some social definitions - biologically speaking, it's nonsense.
As long as we're using associative guilt, what about the horrors caused by anti-racism?
Communism was anti-racist and killed 80 million to 100 million in the 20th century. Using Hodge's associative logic, anti-racism must be evil since an anti-racist ideology caused so much harm, indeed killed even more than Nazism did.
South Africa AFTER apartheid is turning into a hellhole. It's murder nation in the world with almost no rule of law.
Rhodesia under 'racist' rule was self-sufficient, well-governed, and no one starved. Under anti-racist black rule, it has 80% unemployment and 10000% inflation rate every year. Blacks under Mugabe are desperate and some are even hankering for the 'bad ole racist days'.
So, maybe we should associate 'anti-racism' with breakdown of rule of law and mass crime.
Anti-racists say there's no racial differences, but everyone with eyes knows that blacks are generally stronger than non-white races. Pretending that racial differences are a myth makes us turn a blind eye to the fact that most interracial violence is black on non-black, be it white, Hispanic, Arab, Asian, etc.
It's like saying that sex is a myth and there is no sexual difference between men and women. But we know that men are generally stronger than women, which is why most sexual violence is male on female.
Some will say blacks commit lots of crime cuz they're poor, but even among the poor of all races, the interracial violence is overwhelmingly black on white, brown, yellow, Muslim, and etc. Blacks have more fast-twitch muscles, which makes them stronger and more aggressive. So very often, blacks kick white butt and crack jokes about 'slow, faggoty ass white boys'. Blacks talk like that ALL THE TIME.
China and India have a combined population of 2.4 billion people, but tiny Jamaica produces more faster and stronger runners. Why is that? If racial differences are a myth, then how come blacks routinely beat up people of other races, and how come even liberals like Hodge move and settle in areas with relatively few blacks(except well-behaved nice token ones)? I'll bet Hodge is a privileged white guy who lives in mostly sheltered white community with low crime. Thus, he can entertain the fancy notion that race is just a myth. But if you're a poor white, yellow, or brown person, you can't help but to see stronger blacks kick butt all the time.
Btw, why didn't Hodge mention the 'racist' state of Israel that uses Jewish nationalism to keep the Palestinians down? Was it because he knows that NY TIMES is owned and operated by Zionist Jews who, while bitching about 'white racism', use tribal Zionism to employ apartheid tactics against Palestinians?
Deep down inside, surely Hodge knows that Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQ than non-Jews.
Even Jewish Steven Pinker has written on this likelihood:
http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2006_06_17_thenewrepublic.html
Hodge is also falling for a fallacy, i.e. because radical racism of Nazism was wrong, therefore ALL ideas about race must be wrong and evil. That is like saying, because Stalinism and Pol-Pot-ism were evil and murderous, therefore ALL forms of socialism are evil and murderous. But social-democracy isn't Stalinism, and it's possible to have rational race-ist views that are not evil.
Is it 'white supremacist' to say that blacks are physically stronger? Is it 'white supremacist' to say that Jews generally have higher IQ? Of course not. But people like Hodge always associate 'racism' with 'white supremacism'. In fact, Charles Darwin believed in races and racial differences. And liberals like John Maynard Keynes believe in eugenics. Eugenics doesn't necessarily mean KILLING UNDESIRABLES. It can mean favoring the breeding of most intelligent and healthiest members of society,and this can happen within the people of the same race. Surely, Hodge knows that some people are smarter and some people are dumb. Would it be to society's benefit if smart people have more kids than dumb people do? Of course.
So, this is a complex issue, but Hodge is too much of a supremacist and narcissist. He may not be a racial supremacist or narcissist, but he sure is a moral supremacist and narcissist. He loves to pontificate about how better he is than other people. He preaches us a secular sermon as a form of patting himself on the back. His letter could be summarized simply as "I'm soooooo good, indeed so much better than most people of the left or right who still discuss the world in terms of race." Hodge has a supremacist and narcissist personality. In an earlier time, he might have been a tribal, racial, national, or spiritual narcissist/supremacist, but since political correctness of the secular liberal age forbids supremacism on such grounds--at least for white folks--, Hodge pontificates morally and acts like he's better than everyone else. It's so embarrassing that a man needs to hug himself and make an exhibition out of it.
One can talk about genetic differences between any socially defined groups. Socially defined groups do differ genetically, after all.
This is just the "race doesn't exist" idea. That it's just a "social construct".
The entire "race does not exist" trope is prima facie evidence of mass schizoid behavior on the part of its adherents. Mr. Hodge seems not even to grasp the internal contradiction in the neccesity to have what we'd call "racial" information available for the purpose of assuring "diversity."
Of course he does. Can we do what we demand from our adversaries? Read something before commenting on it?
FTA:
When we want to ask how someone is classified by the myth, we should always put “race” or “racial” in quotation marks (as I have done here). Such questions still need to be asked, for example, on applications for college or a job, or for the census, for the answers provide the data needed to maintain diversity in education and the workplace and to monitor and remedy the harms the myth has caused and continues to cause. The long-term goal, however, is to make these questions obsolete.
It's like the myth of sisyphus.
No matter how much we struggle to roll the boulder of truth to the top, the elites knock it down again. And again and again.
And it was 'racist' British--indeed far more 'racist' than the Spanish and French--who ended the slave trade and banned slavery in their imperialist holdings. "
Stop 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?
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.
If race doesn't exist, then blacks and white Hispanics can't exist either.
In my opinion the NYT gives philosophy professors space to make the same assumption about the human species that they castigate the Western world for making about races. (IE assume there are necessarily qualities that all members of the class share). See NYT article by Justin E. H. Smith here. It so happens that species like Homo habilis that could be fertile with modern humans and apes died out, but if they were still around those extinct species would constitute an unbroken chain of fertility between apes and humans, and what are now regarded as separate species would be in a single species that included modern humans, even though the extremes of the species (apes and humans) would not be fertile with each other.
The argument about the lack of scientific validity to any concept of human races would then apply to Homo habilis and even chimps. If you doubt that, Steven Jay Gould seized on reports that chimps had 'culture' and wrote in the NYT about how it showed there was no ‘golden barrier’ of achievement that put humans on a separate higher level.
It is not true that racial concepts were in any way important in US slavery. Slavers took Africans because they were available. There were many white slaves in the 16th century Americas, and they were just as subject to abuses, with the exception that a white baby would not be born a slave. The slaveowners got round that by having selected black slaves impregnate white women or girl slaves, and even white non-slaves such as female indentured servants were used as breeders of black slaves in this way.
People got to be transported as slaves simply through being on the wrong side (like the Irish aristocracy displaced by Cromwell) or just being unable to support themselves and becoming a profitable resource. Abolitionists did not base their case on Africans being identical with Europeans and not constituting a race. I think formal theories of race that rationalized slavery had only worsened the position of African slaves in a relative sense by removing the rationale for white slavery, which was already long gone. Africans continued to be hereditary slaves because of their hereditary qualities; they were significantly more resistant to a number of tropical diseases. It was profit rather than prejudice that the system ran on. In the part of the US where slavery died out Africans were thought of as being of another race, but there was no longer a way to make a big profit from it. Abolitionists in the North, (almost all of whom were out and out racists by today’s standards) got traction under those circumstances I think there is far too much being laid at the door of supposed cognitive errors that validate racial categories. Slavery survived in the South because those controlling the society got very rich off it.
Where would Hitler have been without racism? Well he would still have the heroes of Wagner which almost all writers agree were his main inspiration. Moreover, he would still have had the concept of the Volk, which came from extreme egalitarian and cultural relativist Herder. The Romantic ideas originated as a reaction against the scientific ideas of the Enlightenment that included race. Wilhelmine Germany fought WW1 for the same reasons Nazi Germany fought WW2. Hitler's strategic calculations and objectives were in no way original still have have had the realist rationale for aggression:-
"Mearsheimer presents full-bore rationales for the aggression of Wilhelmine Germany, Nazi Germany, and imperial Japan. The German decision to push for war in 1914 was not a case of wacky strategic ideas pushing a state to start a war it was sure to lose. It was … a calculated risk motivated in large part by Germany’s desire to break its encirclement by the Triple Entente, prevent the growth of Russian power, and become Europe’s hegemon."
As for the Holocaust, was the WW1 genocide of Armenians by Turks because of a racial theory?
Steve, you've said it before--you have to repeat yourself ad nauseum to make any headway in this new Dark Age. I second the first commenter's proposal. Reply to NYT and let us know so we can plague the comment section with reason, fact, and evidence.
I heard clouds don't exist; they're merely a social construct. Museum of Natural History did an investigation...
http://angrywhitedude.com/2011/07/are-clouds-a-social-construct-the-natural-history-museum-investigates/
"His letter could be summarized simply as "I'm soooooo good, indeed so much better than most people of the left or right who still discuss the world in terms of race.""
I might believe that if he were white. But he's black. Read his letter again. He says racial categories are still necessary (even though "race" is a myth) in order to make sure there is diversity (by which he means "racial" diversity) in education and employment. In other words, it's all about gibsmedat for blacks. And throw in higher social standing among the whites this hustler probably prefers to live around. That's a much simpler interpretation of what he's all about.
Of course, he'll probably get away it, because white Americans are the dumbest, most gullible "race" of suckers that ever existed. They wouldn't know how to take their own race's side if their race's life depended on it - obviously true because their race's life does depend on it, and they clearly have no idea how to stand up for it.
If that's how whites feel, then I don't think I should have to wait fifty years to begin treating them as irrelevant nobodies. I may as well start treating whites' opinions as totally irrelevant to what goes on in society as of right now. So, for example, if whites want to con me into treating the black race's interests as more important than my own, I'll just ignore them and tell them, "You're white. You're not long for this world. Your opinion is of no interest to me. Get lost." On the other hand, if they want to treat their racial existence as seriously as I think they should then I would be happy to work with them. That's my modus operandi.
"Over many decades, those who study genetics have found no biological evidence to support the idea that humans consist of different “races.”"
Plain lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isosorbide_dinitrate/hydralazine
"The study by Taylor et al., based on which the FDA approved the medication demonstrated that isosorbide dinitrate with hydralazine reduced mortality by 43%, reduced hospitalizations by 39%, and improved quality of life markers in African-American patients with CHF"
And 1000s more examples of race and ethnicity based medications already found or waiting to be found.
The blank slate is a total lie and always was.
Race seems to exists when anti-white liberals want to attack white people.
I think we should divide the world by those who are scientifically, mathematically, and technologically literate, regardless of race, and then do a number count. Since this will leave out all the humanities and law students, we can forget about all the sophistry and bullshit and see what we end up with percentage-wise by race. I think this will be a good proxie as to who advances the material well being of the earth the most.
If we have to write "race" instead of race, then shouldn't we write "diversity" instead of diversity?
http://johnlhodge.blogspot.com/2013/07/florida-wild-west-law-gives-freedom-to.html
Typical.
aaron gross, foot solider of the lords of lies:
Speaking as a race realist, I'd also be happy if everyone stopped talking about biological race, except for those biologists and medical doctors for whom it's actually relevant.
"speaking as a geology realist, I'd also be happy if everyone stopped talking about physical earth forms, except for those geologists and oil companies for whom it's actually relevant."
In almost every figh^H^H^H^H discussion where someone insists that biological race is real, the question of biological race is irrelevant to the topic, which is almost always about socially defined races.
"in almost every heresy where someone insists that temperature is real, the question of temperature is irrelevant to the topic, which is almost always about socially defined units of measurement."
One can talk about genetic differences between any socially defined groups. Socially defined groups do differ genetically, after all. Not even John L. Hodge could object to that.
"One can talk about flora differences between any botanically defined habitats. Botanically defined habitats do differ ecologically, after all. Not even clever sillies claiming that habitats don't exist because there's no bright line separating, for example, deserts and short grass plains, could object to that."
I've noticed that as the truth about race and other impolite topics (*cough* female nature) becomes harder to avoid, ignore, wish away, whitewash, or dissemble about and regurgitate as bite-sized Narrative-congenial chunks, the more ferociously good liberal automatons like aaron gross will cleave to weaker and weaker sophistic arguments in opposition. It's a last gasp, kitchen-sink approach to stemming the tide of unhelpful hatefacts that give the lie to sixty years of leftoid ideology. I can't imagine this knowledge tsunami feels very refreshing washing over their bunker hardened egos.
I think the dam will burst soon in spectacular fashion among the ruling cognoscenti, and how they'll grapple with the implosion of their carefully manicured universe is anyone's guess. I wouldn't rule out clinical insanity or 180 about-faces.
One way liberals account for their ferocious emotions over race is to proclaim that the object of their obsession doesn't exist.
They can claim that they're obsessed with it because others are obsessed with their delusional belief in race.
Thus justifying others' obsession with the reality of race.
Over many decades, those who study genetics have found no biological evidence to support the idea that humans consist of different “races.”
Lie/wrong.
Based on such scientific data, Ashley Montagu published “Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race” in 1942.
1942. Break out the Carleton Coon. Ashley Montagu was in the same HOA as Moses. Btw, he was born Israel Ehrenberg, but changed his name to Ashley Montagu after relocating to the US; I suppose the latter was more suited to his chosen role of carney barker to the rubes.
New discoveries have confirmed what he said then.
Many more new discoveries have proven the reality of race.
So why, over seven decades after his book, do we keep talking and living as though biological “races” exist?
Because they do, and it's pretty obvious. A better question is, why do you keep talking (if not living) as though they don't?
Not only are certain “racial” classifications flawed,
I.e., the ones the obscurantists use for their straw men.
as suggested in “Has ‘Caucasian’ Lost Its Meaning?” (Sunday Review, July 7); all “racial” classifications are inherently flawed, because they are based on the false idea of “race.”
Whatever.
Racial groupings match genetic profiles, Stanford study finds
For Sale: A DNA Test to Measure Racial Mix
The myth of “race” has supported the horrors of slavery, apartheid, segregation, eugenics and the Holocaust.
The myth of "equality" has supported the horrors of liberalism, socialism, communism, the Stasi, Cheka, NKVD, and KGB, the Holodomor, blank-slatism, Stalin and Mao, the Red Terror, concentration camps, and the forced slavery, imprisonment, torture, and murder of a hundred million (or so - but who's counting?) people.
Most right wing excess has been precipitated by left-wing excess; without the horrors of soviet communism and the manifest (and intended) threat of their spreading westward, Hitler could not have risen to power.
It continues to support racism.
The myth of "equality" continues to support the excesses of the left and foment war all across the globe. "Racist!" is the arrow at the center of the quiver of every leftist, every gov't stooge, from sea to shining sea, and beyond.
We cannot simply ignore the harm this myth has caused and pretend that the myth never existed.
The myth of "equality" has been used to justify and excuse far more death and destruction than the reality of race. America's most devastating war is still being "justified" with it, today.
The scientific, democratic and ethical goal should be to eliminate the false idea of “race” completely.
The free market of ideas has no need to "eliminate" anything; bad ideas die on their own. Central planners, on the other hand, always find all sorts of popular, useful ideas that "must" or "should" be stamped out or "eliminated." The commies were always trying to "eliminate" someone, or something, or some idea.
But how do we both destroy the myth and remedy the harm it has caused?
You can't. You can only cause more misery with "equality" as your excuse. You can only burn the village to save it. You can only cause the very thing you want to "eliminate."
We can begin by mentally changing how we see people. When we look at someone and automatically think about that person’s “race,” we must realize that we are not seeing “race” but instead seeing an arbitrary and harmful societal classification imposed on a continuum of physical differences.
The truth shall set you free; I prefer that as a mental discipline. But I do confess I like the idea of the author policing his own thoughts. I just think he should start with refraining from giving out bad advice.
Most things humans do are "socially defined".
Right. The key is to avoid trying to meet idiotic lib standards of "proof" for race, and to start holding other things everyone believes in to those same idiotic standards, until libs admit they're being disingenuous. It's absurd how people just accept these impossibly "rigorous" standards from libs when libs don't apply them to anything else.
They sure as hell aren't so rigorous about anything they believe in. Make them define every term they use, every assumption they've built public policy on, just as rigorously. Make them define any of the terms they use, any of the assumptions they hold dear and build public policy upon, just as rigorously.
Share this with your kids - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/home
There are so many fallacies being used by the left right now when it comes to race issue it can be difficult to keep track of them all. That website lists some of the most frequently used.
The writer is a retired lawyer...
Noted, thanks.
The author has it backwards. Awareness and proclamation of the reality of race isn't immoral, or unethical, or destructive. It's moral, ethical, constructive. In fact, a moral imperative.
The left have themselves to thank for that. If they'd just let sleeping dogs lie, and been satisfied with equality under the law, with the sort of "color-blind" a-racism that Republicans and conservatives are fond of, then they'd have been in the clear. Instead, they chose to invest themselves so thoroughly in the Holy Grail of human group equality, that they had to find a scapegoat to blame for "black failure" (that idea is wholly of leftist construction); they decided to blame whitey. And in blaming whitey, they destroyed the only legitimate cover for the myth of equality that they had: whites' sense of noblesse oblige, courtesy, magnanimity, mercy toward the weak, etc. It's one thing when a man has a limp and he says he can run just as fast as you can. You can afford to be charitable, to indulge him and pretend he's not kidding himself.
It's quite another when he takes you to court, blames you for breaking his leg, and demands you pay him compensation. Noblesse oblige, courtesy, magnanimity, mercy, that all goes out the window once he's trying to get into your pocket; now it's time to start calling witnesses who grew up with him, who know he was born with a bum leg, who know he had that bum leg before you met him, etc.
Crying "racism" at that point is like calling the defendant unkind for defending himself against the false accusations; the plaintiff should've thought of that before he brought false charges.
And like our witnesses, people who know the reality of race have a duty to tell the truth; whites have been falsely accused, and the only decent thing to do is defend them from those false charges.
Here is the author John Lodge.
'Over many decades, those who study genetics have found no biological evidence to support the idea that humans consist of different “races.”'
why do liberal lawyer idiots get away with insisting that this is accurate. i understand why they do it, but they're so dead wrong, in a technical field outside their own realm of knowledge, why is it allowed?
joe biden and his get a shotgun speech was a recent example i can think of, where a prominent democrat politician at the national level gives, several times, information which is incorrect in a technical way. in a way that goes beyond politics. and swears up and down, they are right about this, something which they are, in any other situation, proudly ignorant about. i hate guns, don't like guns, spend no time with guns, and know nothing about guns...until it's time to explain why i need to take your guns, then i'm an expert on guns.
it would be like telling a newcomer to the US that all of their electronic devices will work fine, just plug them into the wall, there is NO difference between 50 hertz or 60 hertz designed equipment. volts don't matter either, and hey, direct current and alternating current are the same thing, no adapters or switching power supplies required there.
whenever i hear that liberals are "smarter" and the democrat party is the part of "science", i think about how scientifically illiterate almost all democrat politicians are, ESPECIALLY lawyers, who appear to know almost nothing about science, medicine, or engineering, let alone economics.
'There has been discussion on what is a "Cracker", especially at Lion's.'
i prefer saltines myself, but will make due with clubs or ritz if that's all they have. unless i definitely need oyster crackers, then no substitute will do.
"Here is the author John Lodge."
Is he a tanned white or a very light-skinned mulatto?
Hard to tell.
Race is a myth, but just in case, we need to keep all race-based preferences in place.
"When we look at someone and automatically think about that person’s 'race,'..."
What an odd adaptation we all have, to automatically notice and think about something that doesn't exist!
"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."
That the British ended the slave trade is fact, not a hoax, idiot.
As for Indians, you weren't slaves. End of discussion.
"why do liberal lawyer idiots get away with insisting that this is accurate. i understand why they do it, but they're so dead wrong, in a technical field outside their own realm of knowledge, why is it allowed?"
It's "allowed" because you're powerless to stop them. Totally powerless. One reason, I'm certain, that you remain powerless is that you think "facts and reason" are the only way to combat it. That's like bring a knife to a nuclear showdown.
Look at what guile and wiliness and won the Jews: the entire USA delivered on a platter by the very people who once owned it lock, stock and barrel, with an implied promise attached to provide any further aid the minute it's requested. Not half bad eh?
If this were any other blog the Aaron Gross's would have long ago shamed the owner into banning comments like mine. Testament to Sailer's testicular fortitude that he hasn't shown me the door. That's rare for a white guy. May he be among the first of many yet to come. As for you, jody, we'll see. For now it seems you're more concerned about staying in the good books of Carl Weathers. That's much more typical for a white guy.
Based on such scientific data, Ashley Montagu published “Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race” in 1942.
Mr. "Montagu" came to the States, changed his name. His inherited intelligence encouraged him, a la Freud, to repaint reality with a weird brush.
Many propaganda tracts were written during that world war. Another popular paperback was You Can't Do Business with Hitler (my copy is always at hand!), for obvious reasons. Not sure if the Kennedy bunch read that one, though, or endorsed it outside of their official pronouncements ;)
"Race as an 'inbred extended family' is not damn-near tautological. It's not even damn-near right. It's damn wrong. I do agree that it's simple and useful, though."
Races are essentially variations within the species.
So, there is species, then races, then sub-races, then clans, then families, then individuals.
But race isn't as clear-cut as species due to too many overlapping factors.
Related to race is reproduction since reproduction of set of genes under certain conditions and with certain mutations define one race from another. But since races still exist within the same species, there isn't as clear-cut way to define one race from another as there is to define one species from another.
At the extremes, we can Eskimos and Bantus of southern Africa are two different races.
But it's more difficult in a place like Egypt which is all mixed.
When two people of different races mix, we say the child is of mixed race. But if such mixtures go on for 100s or 1000s of yrs, should we just designate it as different race altogether?
Northern Europeans, especially Scandies, seem to be very white. Bantu Africans seem to be very black.
But there are whole bunch of people of North Africa and even Near East and southern Europe whose racial characteristics are more 'confused'. Jews are also an interesting case as most Jews have common genetics but there are Anglo Jews, Franco Jews, Russian Jews, Middle Eastern Jews, etc.
So, even though we can speak of a relatively pure blooded European(especially in the North) and pure blooded Asian(in Mongolia or Japan) or pure blooded black(in sub saharan Africa), it's impossible to speak of pure blooded Jews or Mexicans or southern Italians.
h/t hbdchick
"Ethnic background influences immune response to TB...For example, he found that most infections in Europeans are in the lungs, for example, while Asians and Africans get most TB infections in other organs.”
The blank slate theory was invented by marxists in the 1920s for the purpose of influencing US immigration policy.
It's never made sense that
- dog breeding
- cattle breeding
- horse breeding
- sheep breeding
should be different from humans.
It's always been a lie.
The reason it's going to crumble finally after all these years of inquisition enforced nonsense is medicine.
Treatments tailored to race and ethnicity are going to transform medicine and make the early adopters vast amounts of money.
"Steve, it would be very cool if you sent in a response. We'd all support you in the comments if those are allowed."
Dooon't start that shit. Then we'd eventually wind up being as screwy as they are. Avoid mob mentality and excursions. It makes everyone dumber.
"It's never made sense that
- dog breeding
- cattle breeding
- horse breeding
- sheep breeding
should be different from humans.
It's always been a lie."
Don't leave out one of the more striking offerings of racial disparities related to behavior and intelligence: the common vs the bonobo chimp.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/l_073_03.html
Purdy darned freaky, ain't it? I mean besides the fact that PBS hosts the page...
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?
And they probably did both of those things to further their economic interests.
Speaking as an anti-racist-realist, race can't be real, because that would be bad for my people.
Antioco Dascalon said...
"If we have to write "race" instead of race, then shouldn't we write "diversity" instead of diversity?"
Ha!
I saw what you did, there!
"But race isn't as clear-cut as species due to too many overlapping factors."
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.
"Related to race is reproduction since reproduction of set of genes under certain conditions and with certain mutations define one race from another. But since races still exist within the same species, there isn't as clear-cut way to define one race from another as there is to define one species from another."
Same thing applies to species with respect to genus and genus with respect to family.
"At the extremes, we can Eskimos and Bantus of southern Africa are two different races.
But it's more difficult in a place like Egypt which is all mixed.
When two people of different races mix, we say the child is of mixed race. But if such mixtures go on for 100s or 1000s of yrs, should we just designate it as different race altogether? "
This misses the point that it's racial relatedness that makes race socially important, not racial "purity." So that particular schema employed doesn't make a great deal of difference so long as it maintains distinctions of racial relatedness or "distance."
"So, even though we can speak of a relatively pure blooded European(especially in the North) and pure blooded Asian(in Mongolia or Japan) or pure blooded black(in sub saharan Africa), it's impossible to speak of pure blooded Jews or Mexicans or southern Italians. "
True, but Jews, Mexicans and southern Italians still have racial interests. Not being "pure" just means they'd be capable of absorbing a relatively greater degree of racial admixture before it began to seriously compromise their racial interests. It's important to recognize this else the door is wide open for leftwing race deniers to claim hah, you're already mixed so you can't possibly have any good reason to resist further admixture (ie you can't have any good reason to resist being completely racially wiped out). Total nonsense, but good grief, they have used it to devastating effect so far.
"Dooon't start that shit. Then we'd eventually wind up being as screwy as they are. Avoid mob mentality and excursions. It makes everyone dumber."
Are you being sarcastic?
Or do you actually think race-denial nonsense magically shoved itself down everyone's throat without the concerted efforts of leftist fanatics?
Races are human groups in the process of speciation.
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.
As long as you recognize the distinction between the British empire and the British peoples (and the empire's other subjects), I can agree with you.
'Over many decades, those who study genetics have found no biological evidence to support the idea that humans consist of different “races.”'
Biological evidence? Biological evidence is a *substitute* for the best evidence, which is our own direct knowledge of our relatedness.
We know who has common ancestry; we don't need "biological evidence", which is just something we use to infer relatedness in other species.
published july 9, in the new york times itself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/health/rare-mutation-prompts-race-for-cholesterol-drug.html
note the research is extremely race specific. the experts, with PHDs in their fields, are deliberately looking at the races differently, because their mutations pertinent to cholesterol reduction are real, divergent, and correspond to layman's terms group distinctions for "race". which aren't supposed to exist in real science, according to liberal lawyers.
usually in studies like these, it's found that the europeans have some helpful mutation that few if any of the other groups on earth have. but here, it's africans, out of all the groups in the world, who have the most effective, rare mutation. although, europeans do also have their own version of it. it's not clear whether these cholesterol reducing mutations even appear in any other groups.
I always find it hilarious that the enlightened airheads who go about repeating the 'race does not exist' mantra fail to recognize the insane hypocrisy of finishing their great decree with statements to the effect of,"nevertheless race is very useful and necessary for ensuring diversity, affirmative action...".
"'For example, saying "age groups do not exist" has the same exact problems as "race does not exist.'
'The color spectrum can be used here too. Where does yellow end and green begin?"
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.
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.
It makes perfect sense to be adapted to instantly recognize those in the same group as you.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
Also, polar bears and brown bears seem to be of the same species since they can produce fertile offsprings.
But race is murkier, especially if we take mixed race into account.
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.
Should people of Central Asia be seen as white, Asian, mixed race, or a race of its own?
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.
My central point is that race isn't just like family like Wittgenstein's games are like family; instead, race is family.
Maybe the concept of race confuses people--and even us--cuz we focus on race as a product than a process.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, we should approach race as a process than as a product of evolution.
Race is the process whereby different human communities keep changing by adaptation and addition. Surely, even libs cannot deny this mechanism or process.
"Should people of Central Asia be seen as white, Asian, mixed race, or a race of its own?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
aaron gross, foot solider [sic] of the lords [sic] of lies
I love it! Thanks, Heartiste, you've made my day.
"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.
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"
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.)
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."
So races may "change," but change ain't 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!" 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.
"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.”
"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."
"Race isn't fixed."
Race is genetics so it is fixed at any single point in time.
That it's not fixed over time is irrelevant to most practical considerations e.g. medicine, education etc
The dude says, like so many others, that "race" is an incoherent, non-objective concept.
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.
@Dr Van Nostrand ...
You can't just discuss a complex entity such as "the British Empire" without making a few distinctions.
Such as noting that the British legislature outlawed slavery and that various traders sought to get around this by "indentured servitude" and "blackbirding".
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.
To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies,
I'm wondering, Steve, has there been a more prescient or perspicacious author than Orwell? Spengler, perhaps? Nostradamus? :)
The left has been making war on language (and, by extension, thought) for, basically, ever.
This childish sophistry can be easily dismissed, because the left needs race to parcel out political spoils, attack its enemies, etc.
Hodge, in an unintentionally hilarious way, concedes as much.
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:
if race doesn't exist, neither does racism.
"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?
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."
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.
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.
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.
"Race is genetics so it is fixed at any single point in time.
That it's not fixed over time is irrelevant to most practical considerations e.g. medicine, education etc."
It is stable but not fixed.
It is relevant to theoretical discussion of race, and that's where we must start.
"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!"
--------
True, but then every point is a double-edged sword for it can used to support more than one view or agenda.
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.
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.
And it is part of human nature for one bunch of organism to guard its own territory.
"That it's not fixed over time is irrelevant to most practical considerations e.g. medicine, education etc"
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.
And domestication of animals has taken even less time.
>Race as an "inbred extended family" is not damn-near tautological. It's not even damn-near right. It's damn wrong.<
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.
>I love it!<
Apparently Heartiste should have used "teh."
>The claim that "race does not exist" is an attempt to change some social definitions - biologically speaking, it's nonsense.<
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.
The denial of the reality of continuum comes from a deeply handicapping mind stricture proceeding from the idealism of Plato, with his Forms.
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 Real reality is the Forms, which are perfect, i.e., eternal and invariant.
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 their world - where race does not exist - that's the real real one, whereas ours is the messy world of troglodytes.
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.
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 (science is rape) or Religion (creation "science").
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.
Do you believe in race? 'Cause it believes in you.
@David, nothing angry about it. Steve used the word "damn-near," so I just echoed it. Steve likes alliteration and repetition. It sounds cool.
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.
/* the British outlawed female infanticide (very common in some regions of India), suttee, and some other social cruelties. */
Please read, http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/How-the-British-created-the-dowry-system-in-Punjab-1.aspx
‘Dowry Murder, The Imperial Origins of a Cultural Crime’ By Veena Talwar Oldenburg.
British changed wholesale a lot of established traditions & customs & then to prevent the unfortunate outcomes, like infanticide, they passed an Act.
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.
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
Elihu Yale,was responsible for Slave Trade in Chennai,formerly Madras. Now an Ivy is named after him.
* the British outlawed female infanticide (very common in some regions of India), suttee, and some other social cruelties. */
Please read, http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/How-the-British-created-the-dowry-system-in-Punjab-1.aspx
‘Dowry Murder, The Imperial Origins of a Cultural Crime’ By Veena Talwar Oldenburg.
British changed wholesale a lot of established traditions & customs & then to prevent the unfortunate outcomes, like infanticide, they passed an Act.
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.
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
Elihu Yale,was responsible for Slave Trade in Chennai,formerly Madras. Now an Ivy is named after him.
"
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
Post a Comment