[Tom Rogers]

twc wrote:

Your exclusively racial vision appears when you question the political motives, and so the scientific integrity, of some of the great theoreticians of evolution and anthropology, and re-appears when you challenge a Position Statement of an anthropological society as not being a position statement of that society. This is another example of yours that I must learn from in order to deploy "race" conceptually.

This is another paragraph of TWC's that I do understand and so I will answer it.First, I think it would benefit TWC to remember what a "Position Statement" is (his term, not mine or the AAPA's).  It's simply statement of position, which tends to imply that there is at least one other position that the statement might be in opposition to or disagreement with.Second, TWC misrepresents my own position (something I am now getting used to).  TWC states that I have an "exclusively racial vision".  In fact, I have no such vision, as any fair reading of my contributions here will confirm.TWC then makes a rather extravagant claim that I, "…question the political motives, and so the scientific integrity, of some of the great theoreticians of evolution and anthropology,…"  I'm actually rather flattered by this, but sadly it's also untrue.  I have done nothing of the kind, again as any fair reading of my posts will show.  In fact, I have done the opposite.  To take an example, when discussing the "Position Statement" (as you call it) earlier, I pointed to the fact that the authorship of the "Position Statement" is not revealed.  I cannot possibly be questioning anyone's integrity if we do not even know who authored the statement or why it was done.  In any case, my inquiry concerning the Statement was as to its scientific credibility or otherwise.  Incidentally, I never said that the "Position Statement" is "…not the statement of positon of that society."  It may or may not be, but the allegation is your invention not mine.To suggest that the Statement is in fact political and not necessarily representative of the AAPA membership and that many scientists, in common with the general population, have political views that they may sometimes bring into their work (consciously or otherwise), is not a radical challenge to the integrity of the scientific community, rather it is to make a rather obvious and common-sensical observation that anyone can see to be generally true.  That is to say, scientists are human and will sometimes exhibit bias in their public representations, especially when those representations are explicitly designed to serve a political purpose in that they represent the views of a body of scientists, as opposed to a single scientist or a single research unit whose findings and summative conclusions would necessarily be more rigorous.   Now, if you wish, I can go and find a statement from another scientific association in a different field that, likewise, is not necessarily representative of the views of its professional membership, but I would rather not have to as I have better things to do, and I do think the point I make here is fairly obvious.TWC closes the paragraph with this statement: "This is another example of yours that I must learn from in order to deploy "race" conceptually."  This is clearly facetious and I am entitled to conclude tenatively that this is TWC's general aim in his post.  By wrapping most of his comments in academic jargon, he thinks he is being funny.  The truth, I think, is that TWC's position on this subject is an emotional rather than an intellectual one and his responses are emotional in that (in common with others here) he deliberately distorts my views (something I find quite sinister and creepy by the way) and has nothing coherent to say.  That's intellectually dishonest.  No-one on this thread has been able to state coherently what a 'racist' is if 'race' does not exist, nor how the subject can be debated intelligibly if race is purely a social construct, nor how a socialist society would address the evident fact that people appear to prefer to live within their own broad racial groups.  No-one has answered my repeated questions as to why we have an obvious racial apartheid and separatism in our society and in what way it can therefore be said that 'race' does not exist.

[Tom Rogers]

SocialistPunk wrote:

TomI thought you might have the decency to admit when you were beaten by a much better argument. It seems not .TWC had the decency to consider your arguments carefully and he came back with a reply. His reply is not to your liking, because he takes your argument apart.As for your claim not to be an academic. You seemed quite confident in your own knowledge, to be able to dismiss every other point put to you, while putting forward your own definition of "race". Now you claim TWC is too academic in his approach.Some people just don't like to admit when they are beaten. Sad really. 

 I think your post speaks volumes about you and I'm really glad you took the trouble, but just to amplify the matter: I didn't realise we are here to 'beat' each other.  I thought this was a debate.  I have raised what I consider to be quite reasonable issues and I have made what I consider to be reasonable and thoughtful points.  I have been accused of making personal attacks on certain people, but I have not relied on personal attacks to make my points, a subtle but important distinction.  You, however, seem to think you can make sneery and personal remarks in reply to my comments (even when I have not even addressed them to you) and you appear to believe that is enough to 'beat' me, or declare you have 'beaten' me – my, what a clever man you are.I know whose conduct here is ad hominen and it's certainly not mine, though I doubt I will find support here. It is not intellectually honest to twist your opponent's remarks, as you do above and elsewhere, and rely on that twisting in order to deflect attention, not that this bothers you in the slightest.    You say that I have dismissed every comment put to me.  That is not true.  In fact, the opposite is the case.  I have retained an open mind throughout this discussion – and I have stated as much.Now, do you want to tell any more lies about me, or are you done?  Well?You say TWC "had the decency to consider [my] arguments carefully…"  That could well be, but that does not mean I should thank him and stop thinking.  TWC's post is couched in jargon and largely unintelligible.  I have suggested that it would be helpful if he replied in language comprehensible to an intelligent layman.  Again, you might think that unreasonable, but I do not.  

[Tom Rogers]

twc wrote:

Tom Rogers wrote:

Right, so what is a racist [if race does not exist]? This still doesn't answer my question.In that respect [of my definition], race is both a social construct and a physical and material reality and can be deployed conceptually using various modes and means.

I have studied your definition of "race". It defines "race" in terms of itself. Your definition is either circular or recursive [which is fine if intended to be algorithmic, although no algorithmic targets and processes are specified, and the terminus is subjective]. Either way, your definition of "race" is preloaded with itself, and can be presumed to exemplify to others how you and they might deploy the concept.So I stand on  equal footing regarding what you mean by "race" and on how you deploy it conceptually, and am now able to answer in your  terms your unanswered question "what is a racist if race doesn't exist?".But first I must  teach myself how to emulate your conceptual deployment of "race".Your definition starts with "race" as an abstract concept that initially signifies nothing. It seeks determinations based on measurable human differences until the abstract human nothing becomes concrete human everything — for if any belong to "race" so do all. We are in this together. As outcome of your recursive definition we are now concretely racial.I now must become adept at wielding your algorithmic selector — "whatever is statistically different among humans is an expression of race", and must be popped into its own "racial box". This is how your definition teaches me to deploy "race" conceptually "using various modes and means".So your definition and your conceptual deployment are exclusively "racial" because you unquestioningly attribute "racial expression" to statistical difference. They are "racial" because they do not countenance any other explanation. No other explanation is possible because if one "racial" explanation of human difference is subverted by another kind of  explanation of it, then so might they all. Your project would be wrecked.So your necessarily exclusive combination of racial definition, racial selection and racial deployment provides a perfect instance of "racism" — seeing "race" circularly in appearance interpreted racially as "expression of race".Your definition is adequate to "racism" even if not to "race".Your exclusively racial vision appears when you question the political motives, and so the scientific integrity, of some of the great theoreticians of evolution and anthropology, and re-appears when you challenge a Position Statement of an anthropological society as not being a position statement of that society. This is another example of yours that I must learn from in order to deploy "race" conceptually.But to the pressing question:Your definition of "race" is far too imprecise to deliver anything conclusive. It is incapable of proving that "race" exists as a "physical reality". In that important sense your "race" doesn't exist.Your conceptual deployment of "race" resolves into seeing "expressions of race" in measurable human differences. In that important sense you are teaching and you are deploying racism.Your own exemplary definition and your own conceptual deployment of "race" supply the answer to your own pressing question "what is a racist if race doesn't exist?"

I confess I am little nonplussed by this post.  I like to think that I am a reasonably intelligent person, or at least thoughtful, but I am not an academic, nor do I puport to be and this is not an academic discourse.  I should certainly be in a better position to respond to you if you would convey your thoughts in clear English rather than wrapping yourself in academic terminology and…well…sesquipedalian rumination.  However I suspect  you're just being facetious here and I don't expect a reply, though I may be wrong.  It's hard to tell.Let's just take one point.  You start by asserting that my definition of race defines race "in terms of itself."  This could be true, but then it seems to me that much, perhaps most, definitional language is "recursive" as you put it.  Try defining something as simple as a 'chair' without falling into recursion.  Some people would reply that a 'chair' is simply a piece of furniture with  a seat, back and legs designed to accommodate one person, but that's a description, not a definition.The truth is that a valid definition can be recursive.  For instance, to take a different example, try defining a 'Jew' without being recursive.  I would suggest the very definition of a 'Jew' is recursive.  Of course, you might then tell me there is no such thing as a 'Jew', which is fine, but there is still an intelligible and accessible definition available.

[Tom Rogers]

He's not saying anything original, and while I can't fault his observations, he doesn't explain why we have this "identity politics" or why people might be so willing to accept it.  Attributing a philosophy or viewpoint to the priorities of capitalists doesn't explain why and how it exists and why it is so widely-accepted.

[Tom Rogers]

HollyHead wrote:

Tom Rogers wrote:

FULL TEXTThis is an unattributed statement consisting of various assertions.  It is not a scientific.  Who wrote this statement (i.e, who are the individual authors)?  What is the connection between 'Ed Hagen' and the statement and what are Ed Hagen's political affiliations, if any?  What peer-reviewed sources are cited in support of the assertions in the statement?  What are the authors' own academic reputations within anthropology?  Did the statement have the sanction of the executive organ of the AAPA?  Is there any evidence that the statement broadly reflects the views and opinions of the membership of the AAPA?  If no such evidence was collated, or if the evidence is not peer-reviewable, and if the membership has not raitified the statement, then what is the legal and scientific status of the statement itself?  Why has the statement been 'modified' and what were the modifications and what is the editorial history of the article?Well?…Would you care to comment?  Would you also like me to dissect the above statement while I'm at it?  I will, literally, take it to pieces.  I will be very glad to, it's just that I do have other things to do, but you do seem to think – bless you – that if a statement has a scientist as author and broadly supports your own prejudices, then it should be taken as gospel.

 TomPerhaps your response to my posting of the AAPA statement might have been more useful had you in fact "taken it to pieces" rather than indulge in an obvious bit of smoke screening.In an efort to keep down the temperature of this debate I shall ignore the ad hominem nature of  some of your comments.How can you say that it is "unattributed"? It is clearly an "official" statement by the AAPA which claims to be the world's leading professional organization for physical anthropologists. Formed by 83 charter members in 1930, the AAPA now has an international membership of over 1,700.Their Journal (American Journal of Physical Anthropology) is published by John Wiley (an academic publishing house) and is peer reviewed:The AAPA statement is a contribution to an ongoing debate. It appeared originally in their official journal. Ed Hagan is the journal editor.Hagan is Associate Professor at Washinton State University, Vancouver, and has published many (refereed) articles and contributions to collections of academic essays. Not being a qualified anthropologist I can only make a guess at his reputation. His position suggests to me that his views are at least worthy of consideration.His Home Page is here: http://anthro.vancouver.wsu.edu/faculty/hagen/   Are you suggesting that because the statement was posted on the internet it has no significance?I think as the editor his political views are irrelevant. Have you any evidence that they do in fact colour the findings in this case?The original statement (The Race Question) was drafted by UNESCO in 1950 by the following experts:Professor Ernest Beaglehole (New Zealand); Professor Juan Comas (Mexico); Professor L. A. Costa Pinto (Brazil); Professor Franklin Frazier (United States of America); Professor Morris Ginsberg (United Kingdom); Dr Humayun Kabir (India); Professor Claude Levi-Strauss (France); Professor Ashley Montagu (United States of America) .It was subsequently revised by Professor Ashley Montagu, after criticism submitted by Professors Hadley Cantril, E. G. Conklin, Gunnar Dahlberg, Theodosius Dobzhansky, L. C. Dunn, Donald Hager, Julian S. Huxley, Otto Klineberg, Wilbert Moore, H. J. Muller, Gunnar Myrdal, Joseph Needham, and Curt Stern.The revisions were made in order to emphasise the tentative, provisional, nature of the statement.

Thank you, but my questions were neither a smoke screen nor ad hominen.  They are highly-relevant to a proper review and evaluation of purportedly academic material.  You say that the statement is "clearly" an "official" statement of the AAPA.  I beg to differ.  In fact, the scientific value of the statement is unclear.  As far as I can tell, the statement has been published in the AAPA journal, but that does not confer on it official status as representative of the AAPA or its members.  In fact, it's apparent from your further information on the antecedence and editorial history of the statement that it has nothing to do with the AAPA other than its journal editor likes it and decided to publish it in the AAPA's journal.  That tells us nothing scientifically and it does not follow that the sentiments and (so far as they can be described as such) assertions in the statement are broadly accepted by AAPA members as reflective of physical anthropology.  Based on what I now know about the statement, I would say it cannot have been intended to be a definitive summary of the state of scientific knowledge, rather it is primarily a political statement having its origins in an explicitly political body (UNESCO).  That it was/is written by scientists does not detract from that conclusion; scientists have political and social views just like everyone else.  The wording of the statement is not unreasonable but it is of little or no probative value in this debate and in terms of your arguments about race as a purely social model. 

[Tom Rogers]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi TomUsing your above example of the Scottish "race".What "race" would I be if I were born in London, and my parents one Latvian the other Greek, moved to Scotland when I was five years old?Your idea of "race" includes a large element of social construct with a mix of biology. I would be interested to know where you got it from, as you have no hesitation in questioning the authenticity of HollyHead's post?The old timers, the scientists who coined the four "races" we generalise human kind with still today, thought of "race" in terms of biology, with varied mixes of religion, behaviour and technological ability.I would still be interested to know if you think there are only four "races" or rather were only four "races" as bequeathed to us by the originators of "racial science"? Go on give it a rough guess, using your definition.As for my definition of instinct it does not refer to reflexive behaviour. It refers to complex patterns of behaviour that are not taught.I would be interested to read a list of human instinct. But please do not dish out a list of biological reflexes such as yawning or shivering. It needs to be non learnt complex behaviour.

I have not given the example of a Scottish race.  I was referring to the idea that the term 'race' can be used colloquially in order to illustrate the problem inherent in definitions, that they do not confer a full understanding of a topic and have to be applied practically and usefully in order to make sense.  For instance, we could define 'National Socialism', let's say, as belief in racial communities.  On that basis, all sorts of peoples around the world could be accused of Nazism, but not usefully.  That is an absurdum, and perhaps even not a very good example, but hopefully it illustrates the point.I didn't get my definition of race from anywhere.  I just made it up.And I was not questioning the authenticity of HollyHead's post.  I already know the contents of the post are authentic because I followed the link and viewed the source.  However, I do look forward to HH's response to the questions posed, which are very relevant, no?I will get to the 'four races' question and the other points later. It's 4 a.m. and the only reason I am still up is that I have something to finish.  It's not a good time to think about a subject like this.One final word, though.  You say that your 'definition' of insinct does not refer to reflexive behaviour.  Well, I was not aware that you had provided us with a definition, as such, but maybe you did and I have just forgotten.  Whatever, in my view what you have written on the subject implies that you think instinctive behaviour is reflexive only, but if you are resiling from that then fine.  

[Tom Rogers]

twc wrote:

A few observations on your riposte.

Tom Rogers wrote:

[1] I have demonstrated this [race as a life-separating agency] in one or two posts above, but elementary social observation also reveals it.  You only have to pick up a history book to see it, too. [2] Christians are engaged in worship of Christ (regardless of his historicity or metaphysicality)[3] a 'racist' would not be engaged in any form of worship as a racist.  [4] we don't say that an alchemist worships alchemy … even though alchemy is largely discredited scientifically. 

[1] History shows tribe, class, nation, religion, politics as divisive agencies within the same popularly acknowledged racial group. History shows tribe, class, nation, religion, politics consciously forbidding inter-marriage between tribe, class, nation, religion, politics within the same popularly acknowledged racial group.History shows popularly acknowledged racial groups [relentlessly] out-lawing miscegenation on biologically racial grounds — not to pollute "racial purity" — which would presumably be unnecessary if the popularly assumed biological racial determinism held sway. [Although these "biologically unnecessary" prohibitions are framed and imposed in tribal, class, national, religious, political forms.]Whatever the biological determinism history shows biological determinism's subservience to social determinism. For me, whatever minute differences, they simply don't matter in the scale of things — in a society in which one class robs and rules another [namely, us — regardless of [popularly acknowledged] race].[2] Leave the sentient Christian the remaining comfort to worship his/her metaphysics…[3] History shows the reverse —  "Aryan supremacy", "chosen race", ancient superiority over the "barbarian". Ironically, the Empire came to worship the alien god of a barbarian people, and that has discomforted Christian racists down the ages.[4] Alchemy was driven by greed — the transmutation of base metal into gold — the worship of unbounded wealth.[For your interest, whatever reservations you still  hold out for the academic minutiae of "racial" distinction, alchemy is wholly discredited scientifically.]

None of this rant answers my question. And when have I claimed adherence to biological-determinism (or any form of determinism, for that matter)?

[Tom Rogers]

twc wrote:

For honest Christians, Christ does exist as a [divinely determined— sacred-text revealed] life-eternalising agency.For honest Racists, Race does exist as a [biologically determined] life-separating agency.Such conviction is circumstantially faith and/or prejudice, but is real for those who hold it.

Right, so what is a racist?  This still doesn't answer my question.  It might be clearer if you just drop the comparison with Christianity, which is silly and doesn't work (apart from anything else, 'faith' is not the same as 'prejudice').

[Tom Rogers]

ALB wrote:

South Africa is not a good example for you. For a start, the "blank majority" does not dominate over the others. The vast majority of "blacks" in South Africa are dominated by an elite drawn from all the groups you consider to be "races". And the "blacks" do not compose a homogenuous bloc, but are divided into cultural groups with which they identify with more than with the rest of their "race". Finally, what "race" do you place the "Coloureds" in? Or do you think they are a separate "race".Assuming that you still consider yourself to be socialist (perhaps you no longer do; it doesn't sound like it) how do you reconcile your views on "race-mixing" with the fact that socialism will be, in your terms, a "multi-racial" society, probably more so than today? If, as you claim, "races" have difficulty in getting on with each other how will socialism deal with this "problem" supposed by you?

To the contrary, South Africa is an excellent example both for you and for me.  The political system of South Africa is dominated by blacks while economic wealth is still mainly in the hands of whites.  You can add whatever nuances you like, but the facts are the facts.  South Africa highlights an important element of the socialist case, but it also betrays another aspect of human nature.  Turning to your other point, given that a socialist society is very far into our future and no-one reading or participating in this thread will ever see it, and given that the Socialist Party – quite rightly – declines to enumerate how a socialist society will deal with its problems, I too decline to speculate along those lines.  If you will not (and you are right not to), then why should I?  More to the point, how can you expect me to?However, what I would say – and this is purely a matter of generalities  – is that even in a socialist society, there may be 'national' groups.  Without states and borders, those groups will not be able to claim territorial exclusivity, but they would probably not need to, since the underlying social relationships that drove territorial and cultural acquisitiveness under capitalism will disappear in socialism.  I liken it to the example of the Amish (though I admit this is a crude example).  Groups that wish to maintain their own social and religious values, culture and racial and ethnic integrity would be 'territorially-' respected.  That is why, in the socialist context, I see the 'national' problem as largely of an epistemological nature.  

[Tom Rogers]

twc wrote:

Tom Rogers wrote:

Incidentally, what is a 'racist' if race does not exist?

Like a 'Christian', even though Christ doesn't exist as a life-eternalising agency.So a 'Racist', even if Race doesn't exist as a life-separating agency.Social being determines consciousness — ideology is pervasive. 

The comparison you make is unclear, and you don't say what a racist is, which is what I am asking.  Whether or not race is only a social construct and nothing else, it still exists as "a life-separating agency" [your phrase].  I have demonstrated this in one or two posts above, but elementary social observation also reveals it.  You only have to pick up a history book to see it, too.  But then, you use the wording [my emphasis]: "EVEN IF Race doesn't exist as a life-separating agency."  Are you implying here an acceptance that it might?  If so, then the comparison becomes meaningless, doesn't it?  After all, Christians are engaged in worship of Christ (regardless of his historicity or metaphysicality), whereas a 'racist' would not be engaged in any form of worship as a racist.  To take another example, even though alchemy is discredited, we don't say that an alchemist worships alchemy.  On the other hand, I could accept that an alchemist is still an alchemist even though alchemy is largely discredited scientifically.  The epithet is still accurate.  The question I am asking is whether SocialistPunk is using the term in that latter sense.Specifically, the question is, what is a 'racist' if 'race' does not exist?  Just to be clear, the position of my opponents on here is not the standard one.  Most researchers and commentators on this subject do not deny that race exists necessarily, they merely state that race as it is conceptually deployed is a social construct and consequently of little genomic value.  That is not the same as stating that race does not exist at all, but my question is, if we accept that race does not exist at all, then what is a racist?  It is for you to answer this question, since you have adopted the position, not I.  The question is asked in the context of a discussion in which the word 'racist' is used to describe people who affirm the existence of race.  Perhaps that is the intended definition – in which case, fine – but the words used by SocialistPunk suggest a quite different, more pejorative, definition: i.e. the looser political meaning of someone who vaguely hates or dislikes other races (a definition that infers a belief in the existence of races). 

[Tom Rogers]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi TomYou keep referring to human instinct, yet when I challenge it you fail to provide any answer.Instinct has a meaning, it describes fixed behaviour in animals, behavour that can not be controlled. If what you call instinct can be overridden then it is not instinct. It is not rocket science, just a bit of basic scientific description.As for "race" the early "racial scientists" thought they were recording actual biological "races" of humans. If you now say a biological definition of "race" is irrelevant, then what basis for "race" do you have?All you give is the fact we can see physical differences of skin colour.Again I ask you to define the number of "races" of humanity and perhaps show how we can explain the classification?If you fail to do so all you are left with is a vague idea that skin colour etc makes us a specific "race" and is therefore a social construct.

I would define instinct simply as an inherent inclination towards a particular type of behaviour.  Instinct might manifest itself in reflexive or volitional behaviour.  The problem with your writings about instinct in this thread is that you seem to be confining your application of instinct to reflexive behaviour only, hence your assertion that instinct cannot be overriden.  I dispute that assertion and I can very easily and quickly produce examples of human behaviour which demonstrate the untruth of the assertion.  Turning to the definition of 'race', my tentative thoughts are that 'race' is less than a sub-speciecal classfication but more than a mere social construct of science and academe.  I would define race specifically as a biological, sociological and physiological expression of local variation within a human population which aggregates into sufficient discrete commonalities among the sub-population that it can be distinguished to a greater or lesser extent from other human populations, near and far, but with sufficient plasticity that the subject population shall remain, above all, human and still able to breed within other human populations and otherwise share the universal human experience.  The local variations should be measurable so that the expressions of race can be classified, recognised and falsified using accepted scientific methodologies.  In that respect, race is both a social construct and a physical and material reality and can be deployed conceptually using various modes and means.  Now, I am not an anthropologist, and this being my own definition, it should be treated as provisional as I am sure it reflects an imperfect understanding of the subject.  I am not going to use this home-brewed definition to enumerate the different races for you, but I do think the definition above is testable.  As with any test, the definition has to be applied with a degree of practical nous.  For instance, sometimes nationalities and sub-nationalities are referred to, colloquially, as 'races' – for e.g. we could say that Scots are a 'race' by the above definition, but in practical terms they are more accurately seen as a sub-racial ethnic group.  

[Tom Rogers]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Well done HH.I think that just about puts the "race" issue to bed on this thread.Only an outright racist would try to put up some defence of "race" theory based solely on what our eyes show us.Or perhaps genuine scientists and us socialists are not living in the real world, lol.But as for Tom's insistence in ignoring the definition of instinct, I would welcome a bit of further entertainment.We shall see.

Yes, well done HH for copying and pasting a statement from somewhere on the internet.Incidentally, what is a 'racist' if race does not exist?

[Tom Rogers]

HollyHead wrote:

Tom Rogers wrote:

HollyHead wrote:

Are we not all of "African origin"?

Are we?  And if we are, does it follow that race does not exist and is a mere social construct?  

 TomYes, and yes.Here is a statement of current scientific thinking on the subject of race from the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. (The passages in bold type have been emphasised by me):Statement on Biological Aspects of Race  Published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1996 vol. 101, pp 569-570:As scientists who study human evolution and variation, we believe that we have an obligation to share with other scientists and the general public our current understanding of the structure of human variation from a biological perspective.Popular conceptualizations of race are derived from 19th and early 20th century scientific formulations. These old racial categories were based on externally visible traits, primarily skin color, features of the face, and the shape and size of the head and body, and the underlying skeleton. They were often imbued with non-biological attributes, based on social constructions of race.These categories of race are rooted in the scientific traditions of the 19th century, and in even earlier philosophical traditions which presumed that immutable visible traits can predict the measure of all other traits in an individual or a population. …1. All humans living today belong to a single species, Homo sapiens, and share a common descent. Although there are differences of opinion regarding how and where different human groups diverged or fused to form new ones from a common ancestral group, all living populations in each of the earth's geographic areas have evolved from that ancestral group over the same amount of time.Much of the biological variation among populations involves modest degrees of variation in the frequency of shared traits. Human populations have at times been isolated, but have never genetically diverged enough to produce any biological barriers to mating between members of different populations….3. There is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.4. There are obvious physical differences between populations living in different geographic areas of the world. Some of these differences are strongly inherited and others, such as body size and shape, are strongly influenced by nutrition, way of life, and other aspects of the environment. Genetic differences between populations commonly consist of differences in the frequencies of all inherited traits, including those that are environmentally malleable.5. For centuries, scholars have sought to comprehend patterns in nature by classifying living things. … Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries. Furthermore, the complexities of human history make it difficult to determine the position of certain groups in classifications. Multiplying subcategories cannot correct the inadequacies of these classifications.Generally, the traits used to characterize a population are either independently inherited or show only varying degrees of association with one another within each population. Therefore, the combination of these traits in an individual very commonly deviates from the average combination in the population. This fact renders untenable the idea of discrete races made up chiefly of typical representatives.6. In humankind as well as in other animals, the genetic composition of each population is subject over time to the modifying influence of diverse factors…. The human features which have universal biological value for the survival of the species are not known to occur more frequently in one population than in any other. Therefore it is meaningless from the biological point of view to attribute a general inferiority or superiority to this or to that race.7. …Mating between members of different human groups tends to diminish differences between groups, and has played a very important role in human history. Wherever different human populations have come in contact, such matings have taken place. Obstacles to such interaction have been social and cultural, not biological. …8. Partly as a result of gene flow, the hereditary characteristics of human populations are in a state of perpetual flux. Distinctive local populations are continually coming into and passing out of existence. Such populations do not correspond to breeds of domestic animals, which have been produced by artificial selection over many generations for specific human purposes. FULL TEXT

This is an unattributed statement consisting of various assertions.  It is not a scientific.  Who wrote this statement (i.e, who are the individual authors)?  What is the connection between 'Ed Hagen' and the statement and what are Ed Hagen's political affiliations, if any?  What peer-reviewed sources are cited in support of the assertions in the statement?  What are the authors' own academic reputations within anthropology?  Did the statement have the sanction of the executive organ of the AAPA?  Is there any evidence that the statement broadly reflects the views and opinions of the membership of the AAPA?  If no such evidence was collated, or if the evidence is not peer-reviewable, and if the membership has not raitified the statement, then what is the legal and scientific status of the statement itself?  Why has the statement been 'modified' and what were the modifications and what is the editorial history of the article?Well?Furthermore, you clearly haven't read the statement very carefully, have you?  The statement itself is worded so contingently, with so many caveats and qualifications, that it is practically worthless in scientific terms.  I would venture to suggest that this is a political statement, not a scientific statement.  Even the most rigorous scientists (including anthropologists – in fact, come to think of it, especially anthrpologists) have a tendency to shape their interpretations and conclusions according to their own social outlook.  Would you care to comment?  Would you also like me to dissect the above statement while I'm at it?  I will, literally, take it to pieces.  I will be very glad to, it's just that I do have other things to do, but you do seem to think – bless you – that if a statement has a scientist as author and broadly supports your own prejudices, then it should be taken as gospel.

[Tom Rogers]

ALB wrote:

Tom Rogers wrote:

Can I take it, then, that you do not consider race to be a social construct afterall?  Otherwise, I think your position is self-contradictory.

No you can't. That's why I put the word "race", "racial" (but not racist) in inverted commas.

Quote:

I agree that the evidence for miscegenation is all around us, but this does not help you establish that race is only a social construct, it just indicates that some people will breed outside their own wider kin group under the influence of propaganda and a particular consciousness that is accepting and encouraging of race-mixing.

and

Tom Rogers wrote:

The truth is that multiculturalism is simply part of the ideological justification for capitalism.  Societies of mixed race suit those who have rootless utilitarian attitudes.  I would say that the working population in Britain is politically-weaker than ever today and this is partly (though not wholly) due to multiculturalism (i.e. the acceptance that the population of the country should not be racially-homogenous).

What is this? A party political broadcast on behalf of the BNP?I'm against "multiculturalism" too, but for the opposite reason to you. But, first, multiculturalism is not to be equated with ""acceptance that the population of the country should not be racially-homogenous". Nor is it to be equated with the simple existence of different cultures and cultural traditions, which anyone (whatever the "race" you would put them in) can share. Different food, different music, etc. That's a good thing which I'm sure will still exist and flourish in a socialist society. I imagine you don't eat in Indian restaurants or listen to reggae music."Multiculturalism" is the government policy of encouraging historically-evolved cultural groups to identify with that group and to construct and teach them a concocted history to that end. I'm opposed to it on the ground that it encourages identity politics instead of class politics. As was well explained in an article from Class War in 2007 which can be found by typing "cowley club" + "class war" + "multiculturalism" into a search engine (perhaps someone can find an easier way of accessing it. It's from the Summer 2007 and entitled "Multiculturalism — The Newspeak of the Left Cop".)You appear to share the concern of some pro-capitalist apologists that multiculturalism is proving couter-productive from their own point of view in that it encourages members of cultural groups to identify with their group rather than with "the nation" or "the country" and are beginning to think that the French government's policy of assimilation would be better. But that might not be good enough for you as it still accepts that the population of Britain would still be what you call "racially-homogenous" and would not discourage "race-mixing".

It's not a party political broadcast on behalf of anyone.  In fact, as far as I know, my views on this subject bear no relation to those of the BNP.  But you're obviously very angry about it all.  I just hope you're not getting too upset.You state that "multiculturalism is not be equated with "acceptance that the population of the country should not be racially-homogenous".  I think this is naive in that you cannot rely on an academic or theoretical definition of multi-culturalism to explain how it works in society, which is what I am talking about here.  In practice, the evidence from multi-cultural societies is that one racial group tends to dominate another.  Of course, because you do not recognise 'race' as a valid term at all, to you multi-culturalism is simply the co-existence of different cultural groups, whereas to my mind, multi-culturalism is simply a code word for race-mixing.  You then state, ""Multiculturalism" is the government policy of encouraging historically-evolvd cultural groups to identify with that group and to construct and teach them a concocted history to that end." It follows from what I have just stated that this is also wrong in that multiculturalism is not just 'multi-cultural', it is also multi-racial, with different racial groups existing within the same geo-political space.  All the evidence from where this is tried is that one racial group tends to dominate over the other – South Africa is one example, though of course you would deny this and say that South Africa is not under black majority rule because race is a social construct.  Your views might have more practical currency in a place like Brazil, but even there the white majority remains dominant and controls the wealthier regions and cities. Of course, a sizeable minority of white people in Brazil have black or Amerindian ancestry as well as European, but that in itself does not discount my contentions given that the way Brazilian society works economically and socially is still favourable to whites, suggesting an informal racial apartheid.  Obviously much of this intersects with the socialist argument, but I also think it lends credence to the idea that race (regardless of whether it is a social construct or not) remains a significant delimiter in society and therefore of deep, possibly primordial, significance to human beings.

[Tom Rogers]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Tom Rogers wrote:

I agree that the evidence for miscegenation is all around us, but this does not help you establish that race is only a social construct, it just indicates that some people will breed outside their own wider kin group under the influence of propaganda and a particular consciousness that is accepting and encouraging of race-mixing.  This is likely to happen under a more globalised system of capitalism which relies on the migration of cheap labour.  Explain why so much effort needs to be put into propagandising the benefits of multiculturalism ('race-mixing'), if not because it suits an agenda.  Isn't this an effort to overcome and discourage instinct-level behaviours, drives and inclinations that would otherwise see people develop relationships mainly among those with whom they self-identify? 

You cannot get animals to act against instinct, instinctive behaviours are automatic and ingrained, all you can do is get a stronger instinct (self preservation) to supervene.However, since you are unable to substantiate your claims about the "observable fact of race", how in the name of snut can instinct do it?  How, for instance, can instinct tell an African from an Australian?

So can instinct be overriden or not?  You seem to be confused on the point.  I would say that just because instinct is ingrained, it need not follow that it is insurmountable.

[Author]

Posts