<p>Decades of proper education pontificating on sameness of everyone; untold $$$$ spent on legislation and litigation enforcing the sameness principle; efforts resulting in…more sub groups by which to identify oneself as per color/ethnicity/origin/orientation/ability/inability/SES/more and more bubble groups on ‘self identifying’ surveys …as they say…PRICELESS</p>
<p>I think I’ve said this elsewhere by on the history of eugenics project I’m working on now, the races from the 1920s, 30s CA state hospitals classify race in the following ways: White, Negro, Mexican-Indian, Yellow. </p>
<p>On a side note, I sincerely wish we could do away with the Hispanic label and change it to Latino(a)/South American/etc. Just in my perfect world.</p>
<p>Why, though?</p>
<p>Because I don’t think Hispanic, of Spain, should be distinct from non-Hispanic Europeans. It just doesn’t make any sense to me.</p>
<p>It is weird that people from Spain can be included in the Hispanic category–but Portuguese-speaking Brazilians are excluded.</p>
<p>But all these terms have definitions–the most standard ones are probably the US Census definitions (which make it clear, for example, that Chalize Theron can’t be an African-American).</p>
<p>Technically, it’s not inconsistent to be a white supremacist as a non-white person. That said, “supremacy” of any kind is sort of a trivial and uninteresting notion, in my opinion at least.</p>
<p>I will say that I find it unfortunate that scientific racism has become the taboo that it is. It seems plausible, if not likely, that society as a whole could benefit from understanding racial differences (if any) and implementing systems that take these into account. On the other hand, I suppose humanity has already - and fairly recently, at that - proven that it’s not quite up to the challenge of being responsible when it comes to questions of race and social policy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not if you ask Elizabeth Warren. Or Harvard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Would you elaborate upon what you mean by the term “scientific racism” aegrisomnia? Do you mean like the “science” which “proves” that blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites, who by turn are less intelligent than Asians? Or that blacks are better short distance runners than whites, who conversely are better long distance runners owing to the phenomenons of “fast twitch” versus “slow twitch” muscles? Or are you thinking of differences within certain racial groups that often make them more (or less) prone to certain diseases or drug reactions. I for instance, am African American, and true to a long observed racial correlation, cannot tolerate Ace Inhibitors (a drug often prescribed to treat high blood pressure). My PMC physician warned me to be on the look out for certain signs of anaphylaxis, which African American patients were much more likely to experience than those of other races. I indeed experienced some of the warning signs, and had to stop taking the drug. Of course, it has also been long known that certain racial groups are at greater risk for passing on certain gene dependent diseases (Tay-Sachs and Sickle Cell for instance). I wouldn’t say these medical phenomena fall under the category of “scientific racism” though.</p>
<p>
I can give it a shot.</p>
<p>
I think that understanding how basic intelligence differs among different racial categories could be very useful. The difficulty isn’t so much the differences themselves as the validity of the framework used to determine them and the ways in which they’re used to affect public policy.</p>
<p>
Generally speaking, yes, this is the category of thing I’m referring to. Anything that acknowledges the existence of racial categories as real and makes testable claims about them would fall under the umbrella.</p>
<p>
Sure they do. They both acknowledge the existence of racial categories and make testable (statistically) claims that there are real measurable differences between different races. If those differences exist, others might as well - and if society were responsible enough to be trusted with the information, it might benefit from seeking it out.</p>
<p>However, as I point out above, one wonders whether the potential benefits of knowing about these things is worth the risk that results would be used in damaging ways.</p>
<p>Examples of scientific racism for good would be sickle cell anemia research, genetic testing for Tay-Sachs among Ashkenazi Jews and other specific medical conditions with genetic components because those tend to be within ethnic and racial categories.</p>
<p>Less real are ideas like greater genetic variance is an explanation for black African success at track and field. That’s an idea many steps removed from actual explanation, meaning they haven’t identified the actual genes involved so they can’t identify why this not that, how it expresses here or there, etc. </p>
<p>More idiotic are notions of intelligence because one only has to look back 100 years to see that the highest testing groups now were considered sub-intelligent then. I mean Jews and “Asians”, which I put in quotes because it used to mean Chinese with some Japanese and now means more. Who knows what 100 years will tell us? I also think the issues with “g” as a general measure are silly; it’s an abstraction, a metric of some use but can’t be exact because it’s an abstraction. </p>
<p>There are clear differences in how racial groups - meaning genetic make-up - process various medicines. Some groups can suffer worse side effects. Others can get too much of a response. So that is actively studied and that work is important.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The definition of “Asians” changes depending on time and place. For instance, in some East African countries, Asians in popular usage means South Asians. This was made especially clear to a cousin and his wife on one business/vacation trip to an East African country where his local hosts exhibited a vehement hatred of “Asians” due to longstanding historical bad business/personal dealings which caused my cousin and his wife to become a bit concerned. </p>
<p>When the hosts noticed their worried looks, they realized clarification was needed so they explained that they didn’t mean “East Asians” or American descendants of the same. Instead, they really meant South Asians. When I asked a few friends from that part of the world, they confirmed my cousin and his wife’s accounts as they said the South Asian and local East Africans have had conflicts caused by business differences and “divide & rule” tactics implemented by colonizers during the heyday of the British Empire.</p>
<p>Incidentally, the past now un-PC use of the term “Oriental” which often connotated East Asians in past US popular usage was much more expansive in the British/European usage. </p>
<p>To the latter, that term also covered South Asia and the Middle East. A factor in why Edward Said wrote a whole book about the phenomenon known as “Orientalism”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I personally wouldn’t categorize research into gene dependent diseases such as Sickle Cell and Tay-Sachs as “scientific racism”. These genetic mutations are very specifically hard-wired to express very predictable and measurable outcomes. There aren’t many variables that might effect these outcomes. It’s very very much a+b=ab. It’s pure science, devoid of social and political agenda. It’s medical research in the service of humankind, very altruistically driven.</p>
<p>“Science” which claims to explain racial correlations in IQ or athletic performance, on the other hand, is almost invariably driven by social and/or political agendas, usually by those who have the most to gain from the outcomes they advance. There are countless variables that come into play when determining things such as intelligence or athleticism. Parsing out which environmental and genetic variables ultimately determine any given trait are almost impossible to isolate, much less test in true scientific fashion. But those who continue to doggedly conflate correlation with causation in these circumstances are usually highly invested in research outcomes which service themselves in some fashion. </p>
<p>I remember a time when the fast-twitch/slow-twitch theory was in vogue. It was to service the idea that blacks were “natural sprinters” due to a racially determined inheritance of fast-twitching muscles in the legs. It made white track and field enthusiasts feel better about the rising dominance of black sprinters in the sport. But it was okay though, because “whites were better distance runners” owing to the “slow-twitch” muscles necessary for running sustained distances. Then Kenyans and Ethiopians started dominating the Boston and New York Marathons… You don’t hear much talk of fast or slow twitch muscles as being either a white or black genetic trait anymore. Instead, we are simply back to the “blacks have the brawn”, while “we whites have the brains” hypothesis; short on real science, and long on astounding simple-mindedness. I am convinced that this belief (for the most part tacitly agreed upon by those in the position to drive social policy) underpins the conviction that early childhood education programs in inner-cities are “a waste of tax payer dollars”. Why waste money on children whose genetic deficits offer them not even the slightest hope of catching up?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is this a recent occurence?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However, it is important to note that such differences based on genetic heritage may not necessarily align with the socially defined racial or ethnic groups.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If he considers himself African-American then he is African American regardless of what others think. Self identification is the final determination of race.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If Charlize Theron says she is African American then she is African American despite what you or anyone else thinks.</p>
<p>
This is true in some contexts, but not all. But even when this is the standard, the term has a definition; if the person does not fit the definition, they are simply wrong about their self-determination. I could decide to begin identifying myself as an Asian, for example, but I’d either be lying or mistaken if I did so. It might be that legally nobody could prevent me from saying that I’m an Asian–but I wouldn’t actually be one.</p>
<p>Of course, Charlize Theron might actually be black, or part black, for all I know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, that’s silly. I could call myself Asian or African-American, but I’m not. I’m just … not. I could call myself a redhead or a really tall person too, but I’m not either of those things.</p>
<p>You could become a redhead, though. Only your hairdresser would know for sure.</p>
<p>I think more is being said to prove my point that scientific racism is crippled by social taboos than not. Forget about examples. How would you define scientific racism in such a way as not to include science about race?</p>
<p>It seems like the closest we’ve come is that scientific racism only includes bad or questionable science; proven and useful theories are just science. This may be a bit disingenuous.</p>
<p>General intelligence and IQ seem to have some problems as far as scientific theories go. That’s alright, though; science is all about testing theories to make them better, and it’s worked out remarkably well for the last few hundred years. Taboos are unfortunate because they hold back legitimate advances due to failures. The point of science is to try new things, fail, learn from your mistakes and try again.</p>
<p>Of course, I’d argue the situation with scientific racism is a bit different, since it wasn’t necessarily the science that caused problems, but the social policies people used it to justify. Theories that one race is statistically bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, more social, healthier, etc. than some other shouldn’t really be all that offensive to anyone. That they are is evidence that society is damaged, and I find that unfortunate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it’s true in all contexts all the time. If you wish to adopt the federal rules about the definitions of race, then you are stuck with all the federal rules not just the ones you agree with. The federal standards include:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Race</a> - FAQ - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau](<a href=“http://www.census.gov/population/race/about/faq.html]Race”>http://www.census.gov/population/race/about/faq.html)</p>
<p>The reality is that it is easier to change your race than it is to change your hair color. You just have to call yourself a different race and you are that race.</p>