Disappointing to see both Lewontin's fallacy and the continuum fallacy repeated. I think that progress on racial matters begins with accepting the reality of racial differences.
According to biologists, the reality of racial differences is that there aren't many - the intra group variations are larger than the inter-group variations.
Perhaps that is your point: if we must judge others judge them as individuals rather than as members of a group.
Yes, I'm a father of five mixed-race children who believes in biological reality. I'm also a socialist, ex military, a retired lab tech, a mathematical monist, a conlanger, and a redhead. And I'm one who would never dismiss a claim or characterize a person simply based on what 'side' I believe they're on, least of all based on a single datum of evidence. Yeah, I'm one of those...
"People of color" & all the other terms like it are the updated terms of the old racist term "Colored". They're racist terms masqueraded as progressive/non-racist terms. As a left-winger I'm not the least bit ashamed to admit that I never ever use any of those disgusting terms for anyone or anything.
I do not mean to imply any sort of moral equivalency here, just to note a commonality, but that being said:
The modern race-obsessed Left has set up a system of totalizing racial classification that I don't think I've seen anywhere since the antebellum/Jim Crow South.
If you read about the South in those times a person's race was the most important thing about them, and you needed to know their race before you could decide what they were allowed to say or do, what was their social and moral value, where they were allowed to live and who they were allowed to date, which schools they went to, and this was on top of classifications by blood: the one-drop rule, octoroons and quadroons, etc.
Now of course I'd prefer to live in a society dedicated to antiracism rather than its opposite, but both societies/ideologies make it impossible to get past the idea of racial categories and racial divisions, both foment division and suspicion, and both deny the idea of a human as individual and not defined by their race. And both slap a racial label on every aspect of existence and then add a moral judgment, whereby your race makes you inherently Good or Bad depending upon the ideological lens applied. (Modern Left academia has poisoned our society with racial hatred as much as any supposed group of "white supremacists"—but they will never admit or confront this, because their brand of race hatred is good for their careers and because in all "Left spaces" hating Whitey is just proper etiquette.)
And both also have this last commonality: the people most dedicated to racial classification and racial policing claim higher social and moral motives, but really use race as a way to divide and conquer, as a way to accrue power and set people against each other for their personal benefit.
Good article, but not sure about your comments on the genetics of race. First, you seem to regurgitate "Lewontin's Fallacy" about inter vs intra group variability. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy). Second, it seems clear that genetically defined races do exist, but our semantic categories that define them are partly socially constructed. For example, Italians were not considered "white" at certain points in history. There should be more than the current number of racial categories, but that doesn't mean race -- perhaps defined as genetic clusters that correspond to geography -- don't exist. Good short overview here: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/07/19/once-again-are-races-social-constructs-without-scientific-or-biological-meaning/
"For example, Italians were not considered 'white' at certain points in history."
Seems pretty hard to believe that anyone actually believed eg. the Irish or Italians weren't "really" white. There might have been strong motives for excluding them that were then rationalized with "not really white" arguments, but nobody could tell an Italian "wasn't really white" just by appearance.
Recognizing the existence of five major races delineated by major geographic boundaries goes all the way back to Johann Blumenbach’s 1781 classification. Yes, you can have as few as three races, as well as far more than five, but modern genetic analysis (eg. cluster analysis) consistently builds around, or subdivides, the five classical races. IOW, increasing K (the number of clusters) will invariably *augment* previously determined clusters, rather than form a new pattern. Seems like pretty solid evidence for their objective reality.
And this was a reality that European's could discern as soon as they explored enough of the world to see the full range of extant human diversity.
Good comment, thanks. However races are combined and subdivided, the fact remains that race has a biological/genetic basis and is not a social construction, no matter how unfashionable that conclusion is in the woke media.
America's obsession with race often leaves me sick to death of the topic. I find it hard to believe that anyone would have difficulty finding authors willing to write about the subject.
Authors who have published articles on race, CRT, DEI and related topics during the past few months include Wai Wah Chin, Teodore Dalrymple, Roland Fryer, Coleman Hughes, Charles Fain Lehman,
Carole Hornsby Haynes, Glenn Loury, Heather Mac Donald, John McWhorter, John Murawski,
Michael Rectenwald, Wilfred Reilly, Jason Riley, Christopher F. Rufo, John Sailer, Robert VerBruggen,
Kenny Xu, Bob Zeidman, and many others.
You probably didn't ask any of the above authors to contribute to your magazine, since they might have criticized CRT or the Democratic Party -- which you arduously avoid. Maybe it's for the best. I would love to see a day when nobody writes or talks about race anymore.
to eliminate all racism let's blend all together... we'll need to make a complete uniform man.... then to avoid racism against the plant kingdom... blend man back with plant life..... then to avoid racism against the mineral kingdom we'll have to go one step further
One thing I rarely see addressed is how much cultural differences drive racial animosity. Skin color or other minor physical characteristics come to be signifiers for someone's membership in a different subculture, so that my grandparents drew a distinction between, say, the "good" blacks and the rest. I suspect many Trump voters see it the same way (since many also voted for Obama), but I rarely see this discussed. Rather, they are all lumped into broadly "racist" categories themselves and say it's all about skin color, so of course they resent that those on the Left can't see the distinction. I just don't see how we bridge this gap without acknowledging that that conversation happens on the right and address their arguments instead of running from them.
Cavari =Sfortza’s book, as well as many others, tell me that there’s no such thing as “race”. But then, in the next section, he claims that there are “population groups” that share various characteristics, that are based on genetic diffs. For a lay person, THAT is race. And his whole book is about the lineage and distro of that race/pop group. So no-race argument is really difficult to understand.
Yup, they're clearly talking about 'race' as commonly understood. The denial is clearly motivated by politics, which has been all but admitted...
“…we need boundaries, since we need clusters both to achieve group-oriented diagnostics and therapeutics, and to grasp the evolution of Homo sapiens. Of course these clusters must be named in some way. To be honest nothing prevents us from continuing to use the word ‘race’ for them, especially now that we have understood the real epistemological status of this notion and the methodological path used to determine its content. Unfortunately ‘race’ is a too ideologically and historically committed term, and it would be wise not to use it.” (L. Lorusso and G. Boniolo, Clustering humans: on biological boundaries, Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 2008)
…and here…
“The final question is one of semantics. In cases where broad geographic groups are used, should we refer to these groups as 'races' or should we use more politically correct terms such as 'geographic regions' or 'geographic clusters?' ” (J.H. Relethford, Race and global patterns of phenotypic variation, Am J Phys Anthropol 2009)
Indeed, outside the Woke West, the reality of race is mostly accepted. For example, from the concluding statements of a Moscow conference in 1998 on race:
“(1) According to the old anthropological tradition big human morphological variations which are the result of polymorphism united by common origin in certain geographical areas had been given the name »races.« (2) Reality of the racial subdivisions of Homo sapiens are supported by the totality of the scientific data investigated on the different levels of human organism: morphological, physiological and genetical. Racial classification created with regard for morphological criteria clearly enough reflect the phylogeny of the separate populations and groups of populations.” (Race: Myth or Reality)
Thank you for tackling this, Dr. Mike. It is a difficult and dangerous topic. I am a STEM professor and have been troubled by the lack of rigor in these fields. I had a frustrating discussion with a colleague over the difference between a 'fact' and an 'interpretation.' Specifically, it is a 'fact' that the earliest record of African slaves arriving in the Americas was in 1619. In contrast, the role slavery and race played in the founding of the United States is 'interpretation.' Alas, too many seem not to see the difference between a documented event and personal motivations of members of a group of people.
Even when academia is done well, academia should stay out of this fight - we are ill equipped to communicate with the general public from our self-engrossed, ivory tower existence and when we try we tend to just make things worse. (There is a reason that we see the same scholarly communicators, like NdGT, over and over - most in academia cannot talk to 'muggles' )
Disappointing to see both Lewontin's fallacy and the continuum fallacy repeated. I think that progress on racial matters begins with accepting the reality of racial differences.
According to biologists, the reality of racial differences is that there aren't many - the intra group variations are larger than the inter-group variations.
Perhaps that is your point: if we must judge others judge them as individuals rather than as members of a group.
"...the intra group variations are larger than the inter-group variations."
Lewontin's fallacy, just mentioned.
Ah. So you are one of those!
Nice to know ;)
"...one of those!"
Yes, I'm a father of five mixed-race children who believes in biological reality. I'm also a socialist, ex military, a retired lab tech, a mathematical monist, a conlanger, and a redhead. And I'm one who would never dismiss a claim or characterize a person simply based on what 'side' I believe they're on, least of all based on a single datum of evidence. Yeah, I'm one of those...
Thanks for the article. I look forward to reading the new edition of the magazine.
Your comment on unconsciously harbouring a pastry prejudice reminded me of this joke:
Why are there Poptarts, but no Momtarts?
Because of the Pastryarchy.
"People of color" & all the other terms like it are the updated terms of the old racist term "Colored". They're racist terms masqueraded as progressive/non-racist terms. As a left-winger I'm not the least bit ashamed to admit that I never ever use any of those disgusting terms for anyone or anything.
I do not mean to imply any sort of moral equivalency here, just to note a commonality, but that being said:
The modern race-obsessed Left has set up a system of totalizing racial classification that I don't think I've seen anywhere since the antebellum/Jim Crow South.
If you read about the South in those times a person's race was the most important thing about them, and you needed to know their race before you could decide what they were allowed to say or do, what was their social and moral value, where they were allowed to live and who they were allowed to date, which schools they went to, and this was on top of classifications by blood: the one-drop rule, octoroons and quadroons, etc.
Now of course I'd prefer to live in a society dedicated to antiracism rather than its opposite, but both societies/ideologies make it impossible to get past the idea of racial categories and racial divisions, both foment division and suspicion, and both deny the idea of a human as individual and not defined by their race. And both slap a racial label on every aspect of existence and then add a moral judgment, whereby your race makes you inherently Good or Bad depending upon the ideological lens applied. (Modern Left academia has poisoned our society with racial hatred as much as any supposed group of "white supremacists"—but they will never admit or confront this, because their brand of race hatred is good for their careers and because in all "Left spaces" hating Whitey is just proper etiquette.)
And both also have this last commonality: the people most dedicated to racial classification and racial policing claim higher social and moral motives, but really use race as a way to divide and conquer, as a way to accrue power and set people against each other for their personal benefit.
Good article, but not sure about your comments on the genetics of race. First, you seem to regurgitate "Lewontin's Fallacy" about inter vs intra group variability. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy). Second, it seems clear that genetically defined races do exist, but our semantic categories that define them are partly socially constructed. For example, Italians were not considered "white" at certain points in history. There should be more than the current number of racial categories, but that doesn't mean race -- perhaps defined as genetic clusters that correspond to geography -- don't exist. Good short overview here: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/07/19/once-again-are-races-social-constructs-without-scientific-or-biological-meaning/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/22/sorry-but-the-irish-were-always-white-and-so-were-the-italians-jews-and-so-on/
"For example, Italians were not considered 'white' at certain points in history."
Seems pretty hard to believe that anyone actually believed eg. the Irish or Italians weren't "really" white. There might have been strong motives for excluding them that were then rationalized with "not really white" arguments, but nobody could tell an Italian "wasn't really white" just by appearance.
Recognizing the existence of five major races delineated by major geographic boundaries goes all the way back to Johann Blumenbach’s 1781 classification. Yes, you can have as few as three races, as well as far more than five, but modern genetic analysis (eg. cluster analysis) consistently builds around, or subdivides, the five classical races. IOW, increasing K (the number of clusters) will invariably *augment* previously determined clusters, rather than form a new pattern. Seems like pretty solid evidence for their objective reality.
And this was a reality that European's could discern as soon as they explored enough of the world to see the full range of extant human diversity.
Good comment, thanks. However races are combined and subdivided, the fact remains that race has a biological/genetic basis and is not a social construction, no matter how unfashionable that conclusion is in the woke media.
America's obsession with race often leaves me sick to death of the topic. I find it hard to believe that anyone would have difficulty finding authors willing to write about the subject.
Authors who have published articles on race, CRT, DEI and related topics during the past few months include Wai Wah Chin, Teodore Dalrymple, Roland Fryer, Coleman Hughes, Charles Fain Lehman,
Carole Hornsby Haynes, Glenn Loury, Heather Mac Donald, John McWhorter, John Murawski,
Michael Rectenwald, Wilfred Reilly, Jason Riley, Christopher F. Rufo, John Sailer, Robert VerBruggen,
Kenny Xu, Bob Zeidman, and many others.
You probably didn't ask any of the above authors to contribute to your magazine, since they might have criticized CRT or the Democratic Party -- which you arduously avoid. Maybe it's for the best. I would love to see a day when nobody writes or talks about race anymore.
to eliminate all racism let's blend all together... we'll need to make a complete uniform man.... then to avoid racism against the plant kingdom... blend man back with plant life..... then to avoid racism against the mineral kingdom we'll have to go one step further
check out this extremely informative website right away: donoharmmedicine.org
One thing I rarely see addressed is how much cultural differences drive racial animosity. Skin color or other minor physical characteristics come to be signifiers for someone's membership in a different subculture, so that my grandparents drew a distinction between, say, the "good" blacks and the rest. I suspect many Trump voters see it the same way (since many also voted for Obama), but I rarely see this discussed. Rather, they are all lumped into broadly "racist" categories themselves and say it's all about skin color, so of course they resent that those on the Left can't see the distinction. I just don't see how we bridge this gap without acknowledging that that conversation happens on the right and address their arguments instead of running from them.
Cavari =Sfortza’s book, as well as many others, tell me that there’s no such thing as “race”. But then, in the next section, he claims that there are “population groups” that share various characteristics, that are based on genetic diffs. For a lay person, THAT is race. And his whole book is about the lineage and distro of that race/pop group. So no-race argument is really difficult to understand.
"For a lay person, THAT is race."
Yup, they're clearly talking about 'race' as commonly understood. The denial is clearly motivated by politics, which has been all but admitted...
“…we need boundaries, since we need clusters both to achieve group-oriented diagnostics and therapeutics, and to grasp the evolution of Homo sapiens. Of course these clusters must be named in some way. To be honest nothing prevents us from continuing to use the word ‘race’ for them, especially now that we have understood the real epistemological status of this notion and the methodological path used to determine its content. Unfortunately ‘race’ is a too ideologically and historically committed term, and it would be wise not to use it.” (L. Lorusso and G. Boniolo, Clustering humans: on biological boundaries, Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 2008)
…and here…
“The final question is one of semantics. In cases where broad geographic groups are used, should we refer to these groups as 'races' or should we use more politically correct terms such as 'geographic regions' or 'geographic clusters?' ” (J.H. Relethford, Race and global patterns of phenotypic variation, Am J Phys Anthropol 2009)
Indeed, outside the Woke West, the reality of race is mostly accepted. For example, from the concluding statements of a Moscow conference in 1998 on race:
“(1) According to the old anthropological tradition big human morphological variations which are the result of polymorphism united by common origin in certain geographical areas had been given the name »races.« (2) Reality of the racial subdivisions of Homo sapiens are supported by the totality of the scientific data investigated on the different levels of human organism: morphological, physiological and genetical. Racial classification created with regard for morphological criteria clearly enough reflect the phylogeny of the separate populations and groups of populations.” (Race: Myth or Reality)
Thank you for tackling this, Dr. Mike. It is a difficult and dangerous topic. I am a STEM professor and have been troubled by the lack of rigor in these fields. I had a frustrating discussion with a colleague over the difference between a 'fact' and an 'interpretation.' Specifically, it is a 'fact' that the earliest record of African slaves arriving in the Americas was in 1619. In contrast, the role slavery and race played in the founding of the United States is 'interpretation.' Alas, too many seem not to see the difference between a documented event and personal motivations of members of a group of people.
Even when academia is done well, academia should stay out of this fight - we are ill equipped to communicate with the general public from our self-engrossed, ivory tower existence and when we try we tend to just make things worse. (There is a reason that we see the same scholarly communicators, like NdGT, over and over - most in academia cannot talk to 'muggles' )