D'Souza's definition of racism is typically American & typically wrong (only Americans speak of "slavery" as something specifically meaning "North American chattel slavery"). Then again, D'Souza the migrant gives us the whole package: somebody from India blaming Westerners for inventing racism, the whole basis of Indian society for three millennia, is a special kind of wrongness that must be savored, like a highly elaborated ice cream.
Agreed. I don't know much about D'Souza, but good lord, he packs so much foolishness into that quote that it would take nearly ten times as many words to describe it all. The phrase "fractal wrongness" seems to apply.
When Linneus made the first classification of species that gained widespread acceptance he gave different scientific names to different human races. Noticing is not a new thing.
One problem is that the majority of people today are not intellectually or ethically responsible enough to make good use of whatever findings are established.
And that is assuming academia could even find a way to research these topics without violating basic principles of humanity.
To not use it for anything other than the collective benefit of those involved? Because consumers of the research most likely won’t be able to not use it for personal gain at the expense of another person or group of people. But I understand this is a utopian dream …
Define "collective benefit". You see the problem you immediately run into. Even among members of a specific 'community', you will have *wildly* differing visions of what "good use" means, or what "collective benefit" means. For some it might mean "give us money, evenly distributed". For some, it might mean, "give our selected leaders money and they will decide how to distribute it". For some it might mean "giving us money destroys communities and causes generational dependence, so go away and let us sort it out for ourselves".
That's why facts are better just being facts, rather than social tools. Make the measurements. Publish the results.
The meaning of the word 'racism' has been bastardized to the point of having no meaning.
It has long been little more than a shame word to prevent peoples of the west from realising that they have a group identity that matters
Interesting post.
If we were talking about the genetic basis for trait variations in other animal species, it would not be controversial.
Clearly, it is impossible to even approach this subject regarding human beings in today's climate.
D'Souza's definition of racism is typically American & typically wrong (only Americans speak of "slavery" as something specifically meaning "North American chattel slavery"). Then again, D'Souza the migrant gives us the whole package: somebody from India blaming Westerners for inventing racism, the whole basis of Indian society for three millennia, is a special kind of wrongness that must be savored, like a highly elaborated ice cream.
Agreed. I don't know much about D'Souza, but good lord, he packs so much foolishness into that quote that it would take nearly ten times as many words to describe it all. The phrase "fractal wrongness" seems to apply.
Dickie Lynn wouldn’t know about it
When Linneus made the first classification of species that gained widespread acceptance he gave different scientific names to different human races. Noticing is not a new thing.
One problem is that the majority of people today are not intellectually or ethically responsible enough to make good use of whatever findings are established.
And that is assuming academia could even find a way to research these topics without violating basic principles of humanity.
Define "good use".
To not use it for anything other than the collective benefit of those involved? Because consumers of the research most likely won’t be able to not use it for personal gain at the expense of another person or group of people. But I understand this is a utopian dream …
Define "collective benefit". You see the problem you immediately run into. Even among members of a specific 'community', you will have *wildly* differing visions of what "good use" means, or what "collective benefit" means. For some it might mean "give us money, evenly distributed". For some, it might mean, "give our selected leaders money and they will decide how to distribute it". For some it might mean "giving us money destroys communities and causes generational dependence, so go away and let us sort it out for ourselves".
That's why facts are better just being facts, rather than social tools. Make the measurements. Publish the results.
To the benefit of both parties (genetically preferred vs unpreferred)