The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Gene Expression BlogTeasers
Open Thread, 6/28/2015
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

What_Hath_God_Wrought_-_The_Transformation_of_AmericaSectionalism is derived from what I term the “Dark Matter” of American history. These are deep social-cultural norms and values which predate the American Founding, and differentiate disparate regions of our nation. In fact, some of the norms likely predate the discovery of the Americas, and are rooted in ways of life which differentiated British regions by the late medieval period (e.g., independent agro-pastoralists vs. serfs). The books Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America, American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America, and The Cousins’ Wars: Religion, Politics, Civil Warfare, And The Triumph Of Anglo-America, are good primers on the deep structure in an American context of what I’m referring to. I hadn’t totally realized how important these folkways were in determining one’s world view until I’d read Dianne Purkiss’ The English Civil War: Papists, Gentlewomen, Soldiers, and Witchfinders in the Birth of Modern Britain, as I had a very difficult time not seeing the Puritans in this long forgotten (in the United States) conflict as the “good” side. Why? I had to admit it had a lot to do with the fact that I was American, and in particular, grew up in my formative years in a part of America which was in the shadow of the Puritan legacy. Similarly, when we learned about the Civil War there was no doubt which side was the good side, not just because that’s what seems on the “right side of history” today, but because so many young men left the local area to fight battles far away from their family

903564 But what about after the Founding? Two books which are really influential in my thinking about the antebellum republic are The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln and What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848. These works take slightly different perspectives. The author of the first, Sean Wilentz, seems to be broadly sympathetic to the transformation of the American republic, whose democratic pretensions were far more understated and disputed in 1800, to a full fledged democratic republic under Andrew Jackson (The Rise of American Democracy can be thought of as an homage to earlier The Age of Jackson). Daniel Walker Howe’s What God Hath Wrought is a more equivocal work, insofar as it seems to tell more the story of the era’s political losers and underdogs, the Whigs and the Northeast. The irony here is that ultimately the Whig views on American political economy arguably won after the Civil War, or were at least dominant. And culturally the industrious and technological society of the North, with roots in Greater New England, but eventually to wash over the Mid-Atlantic, emerged victorious by the end of the 19th century (the failure of the Populists confirms this).

It goes without saying that the Civil War was the great watershed of American history. After this event the idea of the United States as a singular and unitary nation, despite its federal structure, was ascendant. The older model of the United States as a loose federation of states, went into decline (I have heard it stated that the Civil War marked the period when the United States superseded the phrase these United States). To a great extent the arc of history before the Civil War is surprising and alien to moderns. Many college educated Americans are aware of the nadir of American race relations in the late 19th century. But despite the importance of Dred Scott, they are less cognizant of the fact that the 1850s was arguably the first nadir of race relations. Over at Scholars Gate there is a post, There Is No “Right Side” of History that highlights the fact that it was between the Founding and the Civil War that the “Slave Power,” and a fully elaborated formal system of white racial supremacy, emerged in these United States. It was not there at the Founding, though it was already present in chrysalis in many regions of the South with black demographic majorities.

Most educated Americans are aware that there was a hardening of attitudes toward racial slavery in the American South across this period. In the earlier decades the fact of white supremacy was clear and understood, but its implementation was rather fluid. In the 1830s Richard Mentor Johnson was the Vice President of the more avowedly white supremacist party of the time, the Democrats. He also happened to be a man who was well known to have had a common-law marriage with a mixed-race slave, whose daughters he acknowledged as his own. The point in illustrating this anecdote is that it seems likely a man with his biography could not get nominated for high office in the 1930s, but could in the 1830s! Second, along with the rise of white supremacism in the South, the rise of Democratic party populism across much of the North, especially outside Greater New England, produced the concurrent phenomena of dropping of property qualifications from white men along with the abolition or curtailment of voting rights from blacks who had earlier had suffrage (and in some cases women as well!).

Nonzero_-_The_Logic_of_Human_Destiny_cover This is all relevant because it is rather common today to assert that “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” A cursory examination of American history tells us that this is often not true on the 100 year scale. I would agree with the broader thesis outlined by Robert Wright in Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny, that non-zero sum interactions result in increased human flourishing over the long term. But, that is on the scale of 1,000 years, not 100 years. You can ask the Romans of St. Augustine’s day, or those who watched Argentina’s decline in prosperity across the 20th century. A little history would help, because it keeps our “theory” in check. Unfortunately our social and political elites are history-poor, let alone the average person on the street.

Second, I have a piece in USA Today: Dolezal’s delusion, with Alex Berezow. It’s short & sweet, and I doubt regular readers will be illuminated by novel insights. Our basic contention is that race is both biological and social, and you can’t reduce it to either. This strikes me as common sense, but it does have to be restated in our day and age. Despite the fact that we are a young and relatively homogeneous species, genetic variation apportioned by geography and shaped by history is real, important, and non-arbitrary.

People keep asking me if there is an update to History and Geography of Human Genes. I keep saying wait until next year, because there’s a prominent geneticist working on such a book. But, the “problem” is that there are so many results right now that it might be more advised to simply wait five years or so until the rate of change has leveled off.

Also, re: gay marriage. At the secular humanism conference a few years ago I made the case that rather than focus on gay marriage as a route purely to individual happiness and autonomy, it was important to focus on the issue of what we want a flourishing society to be. That is, evaluate utility as more than the sum of its parts. With less than ten percent of the population being gay, and legal monogamy being the aim, unlike many social conservatives I don’t see this as the End Times for Western civilization. Contra Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, I also think Christians will quickly make peace with gay marriage.

Something which has cropped up on Facebook among some of my more culturally radical friends is the idea that the problem with gay marriage is that it is a victory for a particular vision of straight monogamous fidelity and the nuclear family. Anyone who is familiar with the most radical currents of sexual liberation of the 60s and 70s knows where this is coming from. Freddie deBoer elaborates a more straightforward liberal individualist argument in favor of polygamy, which is actually a traditional form of marriage in much of the world. The key point to emphasize is that love doesn’t, and shouldn’t, win always. To give a currently non-controversial example, sexual relations between people with differing levels of powers, or radically different ages, was more acceptable among cultural liberals than gay sex in the 1970s. Today gay sex between adults is not that controversial, but sex between minors and adults is even more controversial. Similarly, despite more toleration of premarital sex among younger generations, they have fewer partners than in the past. I suspect social conservatives are going to be happily disappointed with how little impact on cultural mores the legalization of gay marriage is going to have, while sexual radicals will also observe that the co-option of “queer culture” will proceed rapidly over the next generation.

Sorry I haven’t been very engaged in comments recently. I was traveling up the California coast, and was monitoring comments mostly through my phone. I haven’t been able to even fully digest some of the comments, so that’s why I haven’t responded.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Open Thread 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Language Log on the shift on referring to the US as singular vs plural:

    http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4979

    The short version is that it was a long process beginning before and culminating decades after the civil war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/open-thread-6282015/#comment-990432
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. I’ve just finish reading an excellent book by David Todd, Free Trade and its Enemies in France, 1814-1851. It shows how the 1789 Revolution boosted both the antithetic ideas of (commercial) freedom and of (economic) nationalism into the political debate and how the latter finally won the day (at very time when, in England, the Corn Laws were repelled).
    What is particularly instructive in this book is how much the composition of the interest groups that backed both ideas evolved over time. Big Industry, Big Trade, labour unions, large landholders each backed one than the other, than the other again, etc. Depending on their immediate interest and how confident they felt regarding their respective ability to face foreign competition. As a consequence, political alliances were always ad-hoc, with the young Marx for instance finding himself supporting ideas floated by aristocrats. At the end the successes of the English industrial sector boosted the French opposition to free trade.
    For the 21st century reader, the book puts today’s political debate under an interesting light, reminding us of how totally artificial party discipline is as well as the opposition between two apparently unchanging sides. It is also an reminder of the ever-present conundrum of the left which has to pick between free-trade that keeps prices down (thus favouring the consumer, most of whom are low-paid workers) and defending the producer whose present job may be threatened by free-trade.
    Unfortunately, the price of the English translation is absurdly high. Buy the French version, if you can read it, it’s well worth it.

    Read More
  3. It will be interesting to see how the trajectory of same-sex marriage in the USA compares to Canada, which is about 10-11 years ahead in the process (and instituted same-sex marriage nationwide by legislation rather than a court decision, though court rulings at the provincial level had already legalized it in much of the country).

    In Canada’s case the loudest criticism seemed to come from the Roman Catholic church hierarchy (Canada is a plurality Roman Catholic country). The RC Church criticized the nominally Catholic politicians who spearheaded the legislation, and a prominent Bishop appeared to advocate for the re-criminalization of homosexuality. There wasn’t much for opponents to hold on to in this case.

    There was a brief attempt to re-open the debate when the current Conservative government took power in 2006, but it basically fizzled. Since then, same-sex marriage has pretty much been a non-issue, to the extent that Ontario now has an openly gay Premier who is married to her partner — a fact that was rarely mentioned or discussed during the campaign, even by social conservatives.

    Read More
  4. Your piece on Dolezal was a good primer for those not informed on the subject. However, I’ve encountered far more people in recent weeks who have simultaneously asserted that “race is a social construct” along with attacking the idea that any white person could identify as black – which honestly confuses me, because it’s such obvious doublethink.

    If you actually presume there is no quasi-objective way race can be defined – if it doesn’t come down to the raw percentage of your DNA which comes from a given continent – than the claims of at least some who are “trans-racial” are valid. Logically speaking, after all, there are only two ways a race could be assigned – based upon individual preference (I demand to be considered as black, and you must accept this) and/or the social role society slots you into (I “pass” as black, everyone treats me as black, hence I am black). I suppose one could quibble that since our internal identity is set in childhood and adolescence, if one isn’t socialized as a given race by that time they will never really have internalized the identity as being part of that race. However, that’s pretty weak tea, and it might also lead one to conclude that a black person brought up in an isolated rural area by white parents isn’t really “black” themselves.

    Regardless, I think as long as “social construct” language regarding race remains dominant, we are going to see more and more people with trans-racial claims. They are the logical outcome of America’s extreme elevation of the self over group norms – the paradigm that ones own internal conception of self trumps any and all broader social expectations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    i can't parse it. but i'm not a liberal who takes this stuff seriously. it does strike me that at some point people are going to have to admit transracialism is a real thing, though the white => black transition is always going to be the hardest to pull off.
  5. Social conservatives fighting gay marriage were fighting a battle that they’d already lost 40 years ago, even though many didn’t know it.

    Gay marriage, in and of itself, isn’t that big an issue; it’s part of a larger debate over the purpose of marriage. The two views are roughly that marriage is a means of reinforcing the commitment of men to the mother(s) of their children, and ensuring the children a share of the resources of their fathers; or that marriage is an expression of commitment between two (or more) adults. Both views of marriage expect that government will mandate some benefits not available to the unmarried, though what those benefits are will be different depending on the view. Gay marriage is the pinnacle of the “marriage is for adults” view, while it’s nonsensical under the “marriage is about kids” view.

    The problem with the social conservative opposition to gay marriage is that the “marriage is for adults” view prevailed 40-some years ago, with the widespread adoption of no-fault divorce and the social normalization of divorce. Preventing gay marriage would do nothing to restore the idea that marriage is about providing for children. Worse, in the conservative view, a secondary purpose of marriage is regulating sexuality to limit social disorder; though, as Andrew Sullivan has been arguing for a while now, gay marriage will actually serve that purpose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    reminds me of the real issue with marriage, not to be cliche:

    http://theaquilareport.com/what-the-apostle-peter-says-about-doug-phillips-the-false-teacher-and-false-prophet/
  6. Hi Razib,
    Two questions for you,

    1. Out of curiosity, who is the “prominent geneticist” who is working on the new book? It sounds promising.

    2. I don’t know how much experience you have with Gedmatch, but what do you think about the ancient DNA matches run by Felix Immanuel? Are they valid? For example, I have a 3.9 cM match with the ust’-ishim man.

    Thanks

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    1. Out of curiosity, who is the “prominent geneticist” who is working on the new book? It sounds promising.


    His last name is the reverse of Hcier.

    2. I don’t know how much experience you have with Gedmatch, but what do you think about the ancient DNA matches run by Felix Immanuel? Are they valid? For example, I have a 3.9 cM match with the ust’-ishim man.


    haven't used it. skeptical. 3.9 cM seems too long to be preserved against recombination, unless it's an inversion or something super weird.
  7. Listening to an interview with Colin Woodard, the author of “American Nations” a few years ago, I was struck by the fact that, by his account, the founders of the Deep South seemed to be all but demons come straight from hell on earth, viz Barbados, which, at the time, had perhaps the most inhumane slave economy in human history. These were people that I would never want for neighbors. I did not get the impression that Woodard was being purposefully vindictive toward the Deep South, and yet his account seemed to have the same perverse drama as the Bible’s shameful incestuous origin of Moab.

    This goes against my conscious counter-prejudices … I mean, I am a northerner and I try to be conscientious about my and my neighbors’ habitual anti-Southern prejudices, which are, to be honest, abundant. It’s worth noting that Woodard’s Barbadian origin is not the origin of “the South”, which of course also includes the classy upper South of R. E. Lee and the fiercely independent “Greater Appalachia”. I still just don’t quite feel like I know what to make of the singular and striking historical background of the Deep South.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    the weird thing is that economically the northeast was the strange colonial settlement for the british. it ended up competing with the metropole, while the south, canada, oceania, india, etc. all produced raw inputs. so the southerners were not that strange, and probably it was quantitative. the australian attitude toward aboriginals was quite brutal until recently.
  8. Razib, your piece in USA Today: Dolezal’s delusion, has been commented upon by Prof. Alan Templeton in the comment section. I think you may want to respond. Here is the entire comment:

    This article refers to my own work on race, but misrepresents it and science in general. Immediately after referring to my work, they imply that the clustering of genetic diseases among “races and ethnicities” undermines my conclusions. However, the common genetic diseases in humans also tend to represent local adaptations to specific environmental factors, including also traits such as skin color. These traits do not have concordant distributions and do not identify races. Interestingly, their first example of such clustering is sickle-cell anemia. Sickle cell is an adaptation to malaria. It is found in high frequency only in “black” populations from malarial regions of Africa, and not “blacks” in general. It is also found in Europeans from certain malarial Mediterranean areas, malarial regions in India, and swampy areas in the Arabian peninsula. Indeed, the highest frequency of sickle cell is found in Arab populations on the Arabian Peninsula, and more people bearing the sickle-cell allele are found in India than in Africa. The statement that it is “found primarily among blacks” is factually incorrect whether you use “primarily” to refer to numbers or to frequency.

    I completely agree with their statement “that human populations exhibit significant structure, which is a record of our history as a species.” My entire argument is based on an analysis of human population structure and history, so these are factors that go against the inference of race and do not support it. They confuse the issue of race with the issue of population structure and local genetic differentiation. I make clear in my article that local genetic differentiation is necessary but not sufficient for race.

    The rest of their article misrepresents science by appealing only to popularity and authority rather than hypothesis testing. They state that “it is widely accepted that” many human populations separated from one another in the past. I am not aware of any poll taken on this issue, and certainly most of the scientists that I know do not accept this proposition. Even if there was a poll, it is irrelevant to science. In my paper, I took a rigorous hypothesis testing approach to all these issues. Interestingly, they refer to Cavalli-Sforza as an authority on this issue by referring to an outdated text of his, but I point out in my article a paper that implemented a statistical test first proposed by Cavalli-Sforza (but not implemented by him because of the computer technology at the time) to test the hypothesis about human populations separating. When actually implemented, the Cavalli-Sforza test overwhelmingly rejects the hypothesis of population separation. As I state in the last section of my paper, “Simply invoking conclusions without testing them is scientifically indefensible.”

    This article misses an excellent opportunity to teach the general public about what science is all about on an important and timely issue. Instead, it misrepresents science by ignoring the role of hypothesis testing, which does not support the concept of race in humans even though human populations do show some genetic differences.

    Read More
  9. @maharbbal
    I've just finish reading an excellent book by David Todd, Free Trade and its Enemies in France, 1814-1851. It shows how the 1789 Revolution boosted both the antithetic ideas of (commercial) freedom and of (economic) nationalism into the political debate and how the latter finally won the day (at very time when, in England, the Corn Laws were repelled).
    What is particularly instructive in this book is how much the composition of the interest groups that backed both ideas evolved over time. Big Industry, Big Trade, labour unions, large landholders each backed one than the other, than the other again, etc. Depending on their immediate interest and how confident they felt regarding their respective ability to face foreign competition. As a consequence, political alliances were always ad-hoc, with the young Marx for instance finding himself supporting ideas floated by aristocrats. At the end the successes of the English industrial sector boosted the French opposition to free trade.
    For the 21st century reader, the book puts today's political debate under an interesting light, reminding us of how totally artificial party discipline is as well as the opposition between two apparently unchanging sides. It is also an reminder of the ever-present conundrum of the left which has to pick between free-trade that keeps prices down (thus favouring the consumer, most of whom are low-paid workers) and defending the producer whose present job may be threatened by free-trade.
    Unfortunately, the price of the English translation is absurdly high. Buy the French version, if you can read it, it's well worth it.

    an argument for knowing french? ;-)

    Read More
  10. @Insightful
    Razib, your piece in USA Today: Dolezal’s delusion, has been commented upon by Prof. Alan Templeton in the comment section. I think you may want to respond. Here is the entire comment:

    This article refers to my own work on race, but misrepresents it and science in general. Immediately after referring to my work, they imply that the clustering of genetic diseases among "races and ethnicities" undermines my conclusions. However, the common genetic diseases in humans also tend to represent local adaptations to specific environmental factors, including also traits such as skin color. These traits do not have concordant distributions and do not identify races. Interestingly, their first example of such clustering is sickle-cell anemia. Sickle cell is an adaptation to malaria. It is found in high frequency only in "black" populations from malarial regions of Africa, and not "blacks" in general. It is also found in Europeans from certain malarial Mediterranean areas, malarial regions in India, and swampy areas in the Arabian peninsula. Indeed, the highest frequency of sickle cell is found in Arab populations on the Arabian Peninsula, and more people bearing the sickle-cell allele are found in India than in Africa. The statement that it is "found primarily among blacks" is factually incorrect whether you use "primarily" to refer to numbers or to frequency.

    I completely agree with their statement "that human populations exhibit significant structure, which is a record of our history as a species." My entire argument is based on an analysis of human population structure and history, so these are factors that go against the inference of race and do not support it. They confuse the issue of race with the issue of population structure and local genetic differentiation. I make clear in my article that local genetic differentiation is necessary but not sufficient for race.

    The rest of their article misrepresents science by appealing only to popularity and authority rather than hypothesis testing. They state that "it is widely accepted that" many human populations separated from one another in the past. I am not aware of any poll taken on this issue, and certainly most of the scientists that I know do not accept this proposition. Even if there was a poll, it is irrelevant to science. In my paper, I took a rigorous hypothesis testing approach to all these issues. Interestingly, they refer to Cavalli-Sforza as an authority on this issue by referring to an outdated text of his, but I point out in my article a paper that implemented a statistical test first proposed by Cavalli-Sforza (but not implemented by him because of the computer technology at the time) to test the hypothesis about human populations separating. When actually implemented, the Cavalli-Sforza test overwhelmingly rejects the hypothesis of population separation. As I state in the last section of my paper, "Simply invoking conclusions without testing them is scientifically indefensible."

    This article misses an excellent opportunity to teach the general public about what science is all about on an important and timely issue. Instead, it misrepresents science by ignoring the role of hypothesis testing, which does not support the concept of race in humans even though human populations do show some genetic differences.
     

    he emailed me.

    Read More
  11. @Greg Pandatshang
    Listening to an interview with Colin Woodard, the author of "American Nations" a few years ago, I was struck by the fact that, by his account, the founders of the Deep South seemed to be all but demons come straight from hell on earth, viz Barbados, which, at the time, had perhaps the most inhumane slave economy in human history. These were people that I would never want for neighbors. I did not get the impression that Woodard was being purposefully vindictive toward the Deep South, and yet his account seemed to have the same perverse drama as the Bible's shameful incestuous origin of Moab.

    This goes against my conscious counter-prejudices ... I mean, I am a northerner and I try to be conscientious about my and my neighbors' habitual anti-Southern prejudices, which are, to be honest, abundant. It's worth noting that Woodard's Barbadian origin is not the origin of "the South", which of course also includes the classy upper South of R. E. Lee and the fiercely independent "Greater Appalachia". I still just don't quite feel like I know what to make of the singular and striking historical background of the Deep South.

    the weird thing is that economically the northeast was the strange colonial settlement for the british. it ended up competing with the metropole, while the south, canada, oceania, india, etc. all produced raw inputs. so the southerners were not that strange, and probably it was quantitative. the australian attitude toward aboriginals was quite brutal until recently.

    Read More
  12. @Beowulf
    Hi Razib,
    Two questions for you,

    1. Out of curiosity, who is the "prominent geneticist" who is working on the new book? It sounds promising.

    2. I don't know how much experience you have with Gedmatch, but what do you think about the ancient DNA matches run by Felix Immanuel? Are they valid? For example, I have a 3.9 cM match with the ust'-ishim man.

    Thanks

    1. Out of curiosity, who is the “prominent geneticist” who is working on the new book? It sounds promising.

    His last name is the reverse of Hcier.

    2. I don’t know how much experience you have with Gedmatch, but what do you think about the ancient DNA matches run by Felix Immanuel? Are they valid? For example, I have a 3.9 cM match with the ust’-ishim man.

    haven’t used it. skeptical. 3.9 cM seems too long to be preserved against recombination, unless it’s an inversion or something super weird.

    Read More
  13. @Anthony
    Social conservatives fighting gay marriage were fighting a battle that they'd already lost 40 years ago, even though many didn't know it.

    Gay marriage, in and of itself, isn't that big an issue; it's part of a larger debate over the purpose of marriage. The two views are roughly that marriage is a means of reinforcing the commitment of men to the mother(s) of their children, and ensuring the children a share of the resources of their fathers; or that marriage is an expression of commitment between two (or more) adults. Both views of marriage expect that government will mandate some benefits not available to the unmarried, though what those benefits are will be different depending on the view. Gay marriage is the pinnacle of the "marriage is for adults" view, while it's nonsensical under the "marriage is about kids" view.

    The problem with the social conservative opposition to gay marriage is that the "marriage is for adults" view prevailed 40-some years ago, with the widespread adoption of no-fault divorce and the social normalization of divorce. Preventing gay marriage would do nothing to restore the idea that marriage is about providing for children. Worse, in the conservative view, a secondary purpose of marriage is regulating sexuality to limit social disorder; though, as Andrew Sullivan has been arguing for a while now, gay marriage will actually serve that purpose.
    Read More
  14. @Karl Zimmerman
    Your piece on Dolezal was a good primer for those not informed on the subject. However, I've encountered far more people in recent weeks who have simultaneously asserted that "race is a social construct" along with attacking the idea that any white person could identify as black - which honestly confuses me, because it's such obvious doublethink.

    If you actually presume there is no quasi-objective way race can be defined - if it doesn't come down to the raw percentage of your DNA which comes from a given continent - than the claims of at least some who are "trans-racial" are valid. Logically speaking, after all, there are only two ways a race could be assigned - based upon individual preference (I demand to be considered as black, and you must accept this) and/or the social role society slots you into (I "pass" as black, everyone treats me as black, hence I am black). I suppose one could quibble that since our internal identity is set in childhood and adolescence, if one isn't socialized as a given race by that time they will never really have internalized the identity as being part of that race. However, that's pretty weak tea, and it might also lead one to conclude that a black person brought up in an isolated rural area by white parents isn't really "black" themselves.

    Regardless, I think as long as "social construct" language regarding race remains dominant, we are going to see more and more people with trans-racial claims. They are the logical outcome of America's extreme elevation of the self over group norms - the paradigm that ones own internal conception of self trumps any and all broader social expectations.

    i can’t parse it. but i’m not a liberal who takes this stuff seriously. it does strike me that at some point people are going to have to admit transracialism is a real thing, though the white => black transition is always going to be the hardest to pull off.

    Read More
  15. Conservatives have good cause to be concerned about the state of marriage. Working class white families have seen the institution collapse in a generation, mostly because stagnating economic opportunities for working class men, and improved economic opportunities for working class women, have removed the glue of economic dependency that had held married couples together for so long.

    But, conservative leaders are prone to see the world with moral, rather than economic glasses, and looked to cultural change as the source of their people’s seeming inability to hold marriages together they way that their parents and grandparents generations did. Gay right had the unfortunately right of being made a scapegoat because it coincided with the economic forces that dissolved the glue that had been holding working class families together.

    Read More

Comments are closed.