Ustwo, I appreciate all the quotes... you actually illustrated more of my side of the argument. That is where my training lies, of course, being an anthropologist.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
But that being said there ARE real racial differences, they ARE able to be quantified, they are a clear as the faces of a native of Britain next to a native of Australian (not of criminal descent) yet because everyone is so worried about racism we are being TOLD by scientists to pretend they don't exist, lest a racist public use it for nefarious purposes.
|
No one is telling you to pretend that human genetic variation doesn't exist. Quite the contrary. I have not said that, none of those other anthropologists that you quoted said that, no one on TFP has said that. We have all said that it's very clear that such variation exists... that's not the problem. Repeat: biological evidence of human genetic variation (with clinal distribution) is a very clear fact, and no one is arguing about that.
The problem is when people start assigning
meaning to those genetic variations... intelligence, morals, values, abilities, etc. I think you'd even agree with me that this is stretching things. Phenotype has nothing to do with intelligence, morals, values, abilities... and yet, the historical idea of "race" purported to assign these meanings to otherwise meaningless phenotypes. And that is where "race" becomes troublesome, as the AAA position paper points out most clearly. Race is a very heavily loaded word, going back to colonial times and earlier, when classification was used to denigrate particular groups based on their phenotypes, which were assumed to be linked directly to their intelligence, etc. And that is just scientifically untrue, as social scientists and biologists since Boas have proven (although again, the Nazis tried to use the old definition to justify their extermination of "lesser" races); do you have any argument with that?
So unless you have an argument with that, I think the fundamental problem we have in this discussion is YOUR definition of "race," Ustwo... and others who have taken your position. Are you really talking *only* about human genetic variation, phenotypically expressed, when you say "race?" Or are you talking about race in the traditional sense, which is to assess intelligence and moral values based on whether or not a person has dark skin, shovel-shaped teeth, etc? (My impression is that it's the former, but I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong.)
The thing is, any random person who hears you use the word "race" wouldn't know what you really meant, unless they asked you. That's why the word itself is so problematic... it means so many different things to different people, which means it doesn't have much use as a valid, reliable descriptor. Using the more accurate, biological term of clinal variation, or human genetic variation, or ancestral DNA, etc... clarifies that you are not assigning meaning that isn't there.
It doesn't mean you're ignoring human variation, quite the contrary. It means you are recognizing that there is more human variation under the sun than can possibly be described using the old Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negroid labels. And I think you've already admitted that you recognize that fact, a few posts back when I quoted you earlier.
So, in light of all that, why are you so attached to the word "race?" I'm genuinely curious.