Friday, May 16, 2014

Leftists Literally Don't Know What They're Talking About.

It's as simple as that. Let's take "race" for example. Leftists keep bleating the mantra "race doesn't exist." (It DOES, of course.) But when you keep them talking, you soon learn that they have no idea what race is, and have a really weird conception of the subject. For example, one race denier, who describes himself as an "evolutionary paleontologist," came up with this observation:

Genetically, a Sicilian has more in common with a Persian than with a Swede. A Japanese person has genetically less in common with a Tibetan than he does with an Inuit.

I replied:

You weren't aware that Persians are Caucasoids? And that Eskimos are Mongoloids? And that races vary genetically within themselves? Carleton Coon explained all that decades ago.


And of course he didn't know that, despite what he suggests is his education on the subject. He evidently thinks that "race" is something else entirely. His argument against the existence of race is actually a description, in part, of what race is.  Like I replied, the rough division of mankind into the five basic races, Mongoloid, Australoid, Capoid, Congoid, and Caucasoid was established by Coon a long time ago. Some material on that HERE.

Elsewhere, the same fellow said:

...as an evolutionary paleontologist, I can say "race" is just family resemblance writ large.

And a diverse genetic background is the key to health.


Well, certainly that's a good nuts-and-bolts definition of race, and there's nothing "just" about it. I can't imagine what else he thinks it could be. Of course, "family resemblance" is a result of being related, and a race is defined as a very extended family. Steve Sailer has been pushing that concept for years. His essay on the subject is HERE. Now, his use of the term "resemblance" is probably an attempt to indicate that such resemblance is trivial, somehow, and of course some resemblance is trivial, but some most definitely is not, when it entails intelligence, temperament, and other intellectual and physical attributes that relate to fitness.  And his remark about "diverse," a word dear to the left, is misleading. Some diversity is good, some not so good. It is not a good thing at all to have genes that make you vulnerable to many diseases in your makeup, for example. But that's obvious to anybody but a liberal.

So from now on, when somebody tells you that "race doesn't exist," it might be worthwhile to ask them what they think race is. I expect that, in most cases, you'll find that the speaker really doesn't have a concept in mind, but is just repeating a liberal mantra.

Such an attitude, naturally, is not scientific, but ideological, and it goes back many years to the earliest of race deniers, Franz Boas, and his disciple, Ashley Montague, who poisoned the well of anthropology long before our young "evolutionary paleontologist" was born. Vox Day explains:

Anti-race is anti-science

It should be interesting to see the likes of Jared Diamond attempt to explain away the undeniable genetic differences between the various human subspecies; his reference to the Flat Earth Society is as clear a case of emotional projection as one could hope to find. In a chapter entitled "The Human Experiment", Nicholas Wade observes that criticism-averse biologists are playing a shell game that provides sociologists who don't understand the relevant science with sufficient cover to deny the scientifically undeniable:
Many scholars like to make safe nods to multicultural orthodoxy by implying that human races do not exist. Race? Debunking a Scientific Myth is the title of a recent book by a physical anthropologist and a geneticist, though their text is not nearly so specific. “The concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis,” writes Craig Venter, who was the leading decoder of the human genome but has no known expertise in the relevant discipline of population genetics.

Only people capable of thinking the Earth is flat believe in the existence of human races, according to the geographer Jared Diamond. “The reality of human races is another commonsense ‘truth’ destined to follow the flat Earth into oblivion,” he asserts. For a subtler position, consider the following statement, which seems to say the same thing. “It is increasingly clear that there is no scientific basis for defining precise ethnic or racial boundaries,” writes Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute in a review of the project’s implications. This form of words, commonly used by biologists to imply that they accept the orthodox political take on the nonexistence of race, means rather less than meets the eye. When a distinct boundary develops between races, they are no longer races but separate species. So to say there are no precise boundaries between races is like saying there are no square circles.

A few biologists have begun to agree that there are human races, but they hasten to add that the fact means very little. Races exist, but the implications are “not much,” says the evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne. Too bad—nature has performed this grand 50,000 year experiment, generating scores of fascinating variations on the human theme, only to have evolutionary biologists express disappointment at her efforts.

From biologists’ obfuscations on the subject of race, sociologists have incorrectly inferred that there is no biological basis for race, confirming their preference for regarding race as just a social construct. How did the academic world contrive to reach a position on race so far removed from reality and commonsense observation?

The politically driven distortion of scientific views about race can be traced to a sustained campaign from the 1950s onward by the anthropologist Ashley Montagu, who sought to make the word race taboo, at least when referring to people. Montagu, who was Jewish, grew up in the East End district of London, where he experienced considerable anti-Semitism. He was trained as a social anthropologist in London and New York, where he studied under Franz Boas, a champion of racial equality and the belief that culture alone shapes human behavior. He began to promote Boas’s ideas with more zeal than their author. Montagu developed passionate views on the evils of race. “Race is the witchcraft, the demonology of our time, the means by which we exorcise the imagined demoniacal powers among us,” he wrote. “It is the contemporary myth, humankind’s most dangerous myth, America’s Original Sin.”

In the postwar years, with the horror of the Holocaust weighing on people’s minds, Montagu found ready acceptance of his views. These were prominent in the influential UNESCO statement on race, first issued in 1950, which he helped draft. He believed that imperialism, racism and anti-Semitism were driven by notions of race and could be undermined by showing that races did not exist. However much one may sympathize with Montagu’s motives, it is perhaps simplistic to believe that an evil can be eliminated by banning the words that conceptualize it. But suppression of the word was Montagu’s goal, and to a remarkable extent he succeeded.

“The very word race is itself racist,” he wrote in his book Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race. Many scholars who understood human races very well began to drop the use of the term rather than risk being ostracized as racists. In a survey taken in 1987, only 50% of physical anthropologists (researchers who deal with human bones) agreed that human races exist, and among social anthropologists (who deal with people) just 29% did so.
How unfortunate for the self-styled anti-racists that scientody is bound, in the end, punch right through the most firmly lodged dogmas of scientistry. It's a bit ironic that a member of the most tribal people in human history, (and one of the most scientifically accomplished, for that matter), the Jews, should be responsible for this profoundly anti-scientific triumph of propaganda; imagine if Montagu had instead waged a similarly successful campaign against the fundamental evils of a belief in gravity.

Instead of marveling at the amazing coincidence of people being beaten to death in the wrong part of town, we would be wondering how it was possible that so many people were being mysteriously found dead on the floor of the Grand Canyon.

But the scientific fact is that race exists, it is a concept based on observable genetic differences that are the result of human microevolution, and those differences have a significant impact on human behavior. The Collins position, which is that while race exists, it does not matter, is weaselly, incorrect, and scientifically outdated.
(Read the whole thing HERE.)
-------
Quibcag: Yep it's Rika Shiguma (志熊 理科) again, from Haganai (はがない). She seems to be the ideal illustration for any science-oriented quibcag. If anybody has a better idea, do let me know!

4 comments:

  1. I don't know if these are 'better' but they do offer some variety.

    Urd from Ah My Goddess!
    http://eroticmadscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/hot-scientist.jpg

    Ritsuko from Evangelion
    http://nerve.evangelion.co.uk:2010/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/0ritsuko199.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here is an article that describes people like Jared Diamond:

    http://occidentinvicta.com/2014/05/15/on-the-moral-superiority-and-collective-stupidity-of-whites/

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Ashley Montagu" was not his real name. It was Israel Ehrenberg.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Could always use Washu from Tenchi Muyo.

    ReplyDelete