The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Anthropologists in Their Native Habitat: On Facebook, Holding Signs
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
U. of Cincinnati Anthropology Dept.

U. of Cincinnati Anthropology Dept.

I’m often told that nobody really believes anymore the Clinton Era dogma that “Anthropologists know that there is no biological basis for race, but that racism is real,” but it appears that politically correct dogmas are largely impervious to all the genome data of the last 15 years.

 
Hide 144 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Literally of the professors are white.

  2. I notice that they’re all white. There’s no “diversity” in their department.

    • Replies: @anowow
    Keep that in mind. The problem is not non-whites, it never has been.
    , @cwhatfuture
    In the comments section of their page, they respond to this as follows:

    "These photos are just the first step. Our department is coordinating more actions with the students and colleagues in other departments to agitate for real change at the university. With only two other departments (Sociology & WGSS) issuing statements and coming out in unified support of #theIRATE8 student activists and #BlackLivesMatter movement, we wanted to show our solidarity and lend our anthropological expertise to spread their message further. Stay tuned for more. This is not lip service."
     
    So ... they will be "coordinating", "agitating", "coming out" and "lending expertise". Just not hiring.
  3. As another commenter pointed out, some of these guys don’t look too happy to be there. (Don’t ever be the first to stop clapping!) Plus, they’re all white.

    Going from ‘black is bad’ in the 1950s to ‘white is bad’ in the 2010s strikes me as no progress at all, but hey, who ever asked me?

    Thing that always got me with statements like ‘the white race is the cancer of civilization’ is, well, you think if the Chinese had won the great civilizational sweepstakes (they still may!) they’d be going on about the evil of traditional Chinese civilization? Or, God forbid, if the Aztecs had developed ships and sailed to Europe to rip out a thousand hearts on a giant pyramid in the middle of London? Do you think an Arab or Persian Muslim empire would be any better? (Certainly not for the ladies.)

    It’s like the Yankees in baseball or Duke in college basketball. Everyone hates a winner. Until they’re not a winner anymore.

    • Replies: @meh

    Going from ‘black is bad’ in the 1950s
     
    Eh, I must have blinked and missed that 'black is bad' moment in the 1950s. All I can see looking back was 100% government, academic, media and cultural elite propaganda insisting that all races were equal, going back to at least the FDR administration. What some hicks in Alabama or Georgia thought about the subject didn't matter then any more than it matters now. It's only propaganda from TPTB insisting on a certain Narrative of the 1950s that makes things seem different; TPTB were not then yet totally triumphant as they are now, but the fix was in.
    , @International Jew

    some of these guys don’t look too happy to be there.
     
    They look like people who've been prosecuted for some kind of moral turpitude, and sentenced to humiliate themselves in public.
    , @Pat Casey
    I mean it's suppose to be a black parody of a mugshot conspectus, right? They are guilty of white privilege and they have turned themselves in, right? It's like a flogging tableau so they may rest their conscience easy.

    But then it might be a simple pose of protest uninspired by any interpretational design. Eh. Beats me.

    Which means the meta-point is that we don't really know when reality is imitating parody anymore, because those people live in an airtight bubble, and I imagine will only be turning a deeper hue of blue from here. Mugshots are meant to make you look raw, not uptight. Duh.

    , @DevilDocNowCiv
    SFG,

    All of your points are valid, but how can the University genetics section be so PC - blinded to not point out what we generally interested internet searchers know about DNA and skeletal differences between man, woman, black and white? The TV shows NCIS, CSI:Vegas, and Bones have all had the Bones chick or a Pathologist say "yeah, this was a male/female/pre or post adolescent/black or white person" due to looking at skull features, or some other aspect of the skeleton. As a medical tech in the Navy for 20 years, I know that more blacks than whites had needs for specific malarial meds, due to the incidence of the sickle cell trait.

    And the culture issue is one that Trump better push harder, or the mainline media and my party, the Repubs, will push Carson over him. I think Trump must have mainline Repubs advising him now, because he's laying off of the immigration issues almost completely.

    , @Anonymous
    The only guy who might get a pass is the one in the white polo shirt. The others all have major or minor liberal-idiot tells. Like the turquoise rings, psychedelic shirt prints, practiced male-model scowling, or fashionista-level dork wear.

    All of them believe it. All are cucked
  4. The definition of an anthropologist used to be someone who was interested in the variety of humanity. Now the definition is: a white person who pretends to believe that there is no difference between a Japanese and an Australian Aborigine.

    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    Academia is nothing but a brain dead echo chamber....and likely that has been the norm over the ages...
  5. It looks like all these people brought signs to their booking photos for public intoxication.

    I admire moral earnestness the only question is whether higher education is the place for it. I don’t think so, but I was involved in higher education for a number of years, so I know better. As a matter of fact, in most colleges the social sciences and humanities have long been mouthpieces for whatever the current reigning moral pieties.

    I also note that there doesn’t appear to be a single POC in the University of Cincinnati Anthro Department. Wassup with that.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    It looks like all these people brought signs to their booking photos for public intoxication.
     
    Good observation. That is what it looks like.
  6. for all their complaints against racism, this seems a pretty un diverse bunch

  7. OT

    Good column here: PAUL RYAN’S POLICIES KILL JOBS IN HIS DISTRICT

    You would be forgiven for thinking that a congressman’s job is to take the perspective of the American citizens who live in the district that elected him, or the perspective of what’s good of (sic) the American nation as a whole.

    • Replies: @Daniel H
    Now is the time to start drafting a primary challenger against this jackass. What was done to Cantor can be done to him.
  8. Greater iqs, but lack wisdom.

  9. Academic freedom, bro!

  10. @A truther
    I notice that they're all white. There's no "diversity" in their department.

    Keep that in mind. The problem is not non-whites, it never has been.

    • Replies: @thisisaknife
    I can hardly stand White people. Or "GoodWhites", which is most of us these days. The church of anti-racism. As a White I've found White people are the most full of s---, disingenuous, rude, a-holes with the status signalling and smug certainty they're on the side of the angels and the right side of history, while always making sure to be on the right side of the railroad tracks, lol, the right mostly White school districts. Come to think of it, I typically have better, more frank and honest conversations about race with Blacks, esp. lower income, and so-called Latinos...
  11. @SFG
    As another commenter pointed out, some of these guys don't look too happy to be there. (Don't ever be the first to stop clapping!) Plus, they're all white.

    Going from 'black is bad' in the 1950s to 'white is bad' in the 2010s strikes me as no progress at all, but hey, who ever asked me?

    Thing that always got me with statements like 'the white race is the cancer of civilization' is, well, you think if the Chinese had won the great civilizational sweepstakes (they still may!) they'd be going on about the evil of traditional Chinese civilization? Or, God forbid, if the Aztecs had developed ships and sailed to Europe to rip out a thousand hearts on a giant pyramid in the middle of London? Do you think an Arab or Persian Muslim empire would be any better? (Certainly not for the ladies.)

    It's like the Yankees in baseball or Duke in college basketball. Everyone hates a winner. Until they're not a winner anymore.

    Going from ‘black is bad’ in the 1950s

    Eh, I must have blinked and missed that ‘black is bad’ moment in the 1950s. All I can see looking back was 100% government, academic, media and cultural elite propaganda insisting that all races were equal, going back to at least the FDR administration. What some hicks in Alabama or Georgia thought about the subject didn’t matter then any more than it matters now. It’s only propaganda from TPTB insisting on a certain Narrative of the 1950s that makes things seem different; TPTB were not then yet totally triumphant as they are now, but the fix was in.

  12. The title for that photo collection should be “Eloi.”

    Along these lines, the New Yorker is taking things into new territory with a recent piece bemoaning the terrible, terrible racism of whites against… Asians.

    http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-two-asian-americas

    Here’s a taste of the bilgewater:

    There are now, in a sense, two Asian Americas: one formed by five centuries of systemic racism, and another, more genteel version, constituted in the aftermath of the 1965 law. These two Asian Americas float over and under each other like tectonic plates, often clanging discordantly.

    The author, one Karan Mahajan, “grew up in New Delhi, India, and currently lives in Austin, Texas.” They just love, love, love living amongst the racists.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    I read the article, and even listened to the tedious videos below.

    1. The "tectonic plate" metaphor is awful, and the author comes nowhere near proving it, all he shows at the end of the article is that some Asians are rich, and some Asians are poor.

    2. Talking about "Asians" in this way is useless. The author basically includes (as Asian) anyone from Afghanistan to the Philippines. Such a broad net guarantees vapid generalizations.

    3. For example, he wants to harp on the notion that "Asians" have an "almost 500 year history in America", which is suprising to me, since I knew of no large scale Asian input until Chinese immigrants around 1850. Sure enough, his history is keyed to a handful of Filipino sailors who were pressed into service by the Spaniards and who ended up in Mexico.

    4. As a matter of fact, there has been anti-Asian prejudice but it depends on where you were, at what time, and especially where you came from. The bias against Chinese was profound in the late 19th Century, but it was the Japanese who were put in camps. Filipinos, almost always Catholics, haven't faced either. Neither, as far as I know, have Koreans, Vietnamese, Indonesians, Hmong, Pakistanis, Thais, etc. etc.

    What's really going on here is that, as the "Asian" population of America increases, they will generate a certain percentage of writerly types with intellectual ambitions, those individuals will play the victim card, because it's easy to play, and easy to write about, and they will crank out stuff like this. One thing is certain: as our Asian population increases, we will have more public voices arguing for different approaches to our nation's history and the history of the world as well.
  13. The “that” you are asking about is signaling. Kind of like a male proclaiming to be a “feminist.”

    If there were a person of color among them, maybe they would not have to engage in it. Or maybe such a person would see them for who they are and would call them out on their efforts to be absolved of their guilt on the cheap .

  14. Don’t you know, guys? There are no Black people in Cincinnati.

    Also, could you imagine these guys holding signs with stuff like “White Power”? Would it fit the context?

    Also, they do have a “Judaic Studies”. How do you guess would it be different from, say, “English Studies” (which they don’t have)?

  15. As a followup, I recommend that anyone who is interested consult the page and read the comments (some of these need to be uncovered) starting with the long thread initiated by “Quanita Roberson” (guess!) calling out the “Irate 8″ (apparently the faculty is a gang of some sort) for not have any POC on the tenure track in the department of anthropology. Quanita, in turn, would be upbraided by a person of South Asian ancestry for culturally appropriating a Hindu god and calling it a “comic book character.” Of course the comment thread begins with the ubiquitous and brainless “This!!!”

    It’s hard to believe that academia has become so silly.

  16. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Looks like a collection of mug shots more suited for the Tuol Sleng photographic exhibit of past residents. Why do they claim that ‘racism is taught’? Anyone ever remember getting assigned to a class promoting it? It seems most people arrive at certain conclusions and views through personal experience despite the constant blaring of the megaphone telling them that up is down.

    • Replies: @Josh
    I suppose it is taught during the fleeting unsupervised moments wherein we are free to observe what is in front of our noses.
    , @iSteveFan

    Why do they claim that ‘racism is taught’? Anyone ever remember getting assigned to a class promoting it?
     
    If anything is being taught it is from the anti-racisim point of view. It's never ending.
  17. Leftist conservative [AKA "radical_centrist"] says: • Website

    sailer wrote:

    but it appears that politically correct dogmas are largely impervious to all the genome data of the last 15 years.

    ALL dogmas are propaganda-based and are thus largely impervious to logic–liberal, conservative, what have you….the followers just swallow whatever propaganda the tribal thought leaders hand down to them. As EO Wilson said, mankind is the primate that adopted the bee/ant/termite social model. And bees, ants and termites are not exactly big on independent thought. Neither are humans.

  18. Also, have a gander at the Irate 8′s demands:

    V. We demand that the University of Cincinnati allocate appointed voting student senate seats in Student Government from selected representatives from underrepresented communities (race, sexuality, and gender). Additionally, Student Government must report their composition each year including race, gender, sexual orientation, and other self-identifying information for each faction.

    VI. We demand that the University of Cincinnati hire at minimum 16 staff and senior Black faculty over the next 3 years, starting today, October 14th 2015.

    VII. We demand the University of Cincinnati doubles the amount of Black students on main campus over the next 3 years, starting today, October 14, 2015.

    Who? Whom? thinking at its finest.

    • Replies: @Joe Magarac
    As usual, the people who say there is no such thing as race favor public policies that make sense only if race is the most important thing in the whole world.
  19. @A truther
    I notice that they're all white. There's no "diversity" in their department.

    In the comments section of their page, they respond to this as follows:

    “These photos are just the first step. Our department is coordinating more actions with the students and colleagues in other departments to agitate for real change at the university. With only two other departments (Sociology & WGSS) issuing statements and coming out in unified support of #theIRATE8 student activists and #BlackLivesMatter movement, we wanted to show our solidarity and lend our anthropological expertise to spread their message further. Stay tuned for more. This is not lip service.”

    So … they will be “coordinating”, “agitating”, “coming out” and “lending expertise”. Just not hiring.

    • Replies: @Curle

    Just not hiring.
     
    Or teaching.
  20. @SFG
    As another commenter pointed out, some of these guys don't look too happy to be there. (Don't ever be the first to stop clapping!) Plus, they're all white.

    Going from 'black is bad' in the 1950s to 'white is bad' in the 2010s strikes me as no progress at all, but hey, who ever asked me?

    Thing that always got me with statements like 'the white race is the cancer of civilization' is, well, you think if the Chinese had won the great civilizational sweepstakes (they still may!) they'd be going on about the evil of traditional Chinese civilization? Or, God forbid, if the Aztecs had developed ships and sailed to Europe to rip out a thousand hearts on a giant pyramid in the middle of London? Do you think an Arab or Persian Muslim empire would be any better? (Certainly not for the ladies.)

    It's like the Yankees in baseball or Duke in college basketball. Everyone hates a winner. Until they're not a winner anymore.

    some of these guys don’t look too happy to be there.

    They look like people who’ve been prosecuted for some kind of moral turpitude, and sentenced to humiliate themselves in public.

    • Replies: @SFG
    I believe the Chinese did the same thing; maybe it's some sort of procedure necessary to empire?
    , @bomag
    Yeah, it looks like some kind of frat pledge humiliation.

    Or people trying to relive their kindergarten days.
  21. Spot the rebel in the necktie. His sign, which is obscured from view, reads: “I’m standing next to stupid”.

  22. @eah
    OT

    Good column here: PAUL RYAN'S POLICIES KILL JOBS IN HIS DISTRICT

    You would be forgiven for thinking that a congressman’s job is to take the perspective of the American citizens who live in the district that elected him, or the perspective of what’s good of (sic) the American nation as a whole.

    Now is the time to start drafting a primary challenger against this jackass. What was done to Cantor can be done to him.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    Cantor had barely cleared his desk on Capitol Hill when he was given a job in an investment bank at a "compensation" of $3.4m per annum. As John Derbyshire pointed out, if you piss off your voters, your donors can bail you out, but not vice versa. So it's best to keep faithful to the latter than to the former.
    , @Rob McX
    Sir James Frazer became something of a media celebrity in his later years, and what fascinated many journalists was the fact that he knew so much about exotic cultures and rituals without seeing any of them, as he had never travelled further than Greece. A typical headline about him would be "Expert On Savages, But Has Never Met One".
  23. The message on the sign being held by the guy in the blue polo is not exactly in agreement with the party line.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "The message on the sign being held by the guy in the blue polo is not exactly in agreement with the party line."

    Right.

    But only people with strong reading comprehension and conceptual sophistication will figure that out.
    , @jay-w

    The message on the sign being held by the guy in the blue polo is not exactly in agreement with the party line.
     
    Yeah, I noticed that too; is he a mole or something who doesn't care about tenure?

    Actually, he looks just a teeny little bit like a younger version of John Derbyshire. What's going on here???
    , @Hhsiii
    Isn't that Morrisey?

    Btw, the woman to his left has quite the come hither expression.
  24. @anonymous
    Looks like a collection of mug shots more suited for the Tuol Sleng photographic exhibit of past residents. Why do they claim that 'racism is taught'? Anyone ever remember getting assigned to a class promoting it? It seems most people arrive at certain conclusions and views through personal experience despite the constant blaring of the megaphone telling them that up is down.

    I suppose it is taught during the fleeting unsupervised moments wherein we are free to observe what is in front of our noses.

  25. @E. Harding
    Also, have a gander at the Irate 8's demands:

    V. We demand that the University of Cincinnati allocate appointed voting student senate seats in Student Government from selected representatives from underrepresented communities (race, sexuality, and gender). Additionally, Student Government must report their composition each year including race, gender, sexual orientation, and other self-identifying information for each faction.

    VI. We demand that the University of Cincinnati hire at minimum 16 staff and senior Black faculty over the next 3 years, starting today, October 14th 2015.

    VII. We demand the University of Cincinnati doubles the amount of Black students on main campus over the next 3 years, starting today, October 14, 2015.

    Who? Whom? thinking at its finest.

    As usual, the people who say there is no such thing as race favor public policies that make sense only if race is the most important thing in the whole world.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar


    As usual, the people who say there is no such thing as race favor public policies that make sense only if race is the most important thing in the whole world.

     

    Or that their own power is.

    You can't be cynical enough about this.
  26. all-white faculty department says race doesn’t exist

    this is like the new iteration of “IQ doesn’t exist but by the way ours is higher than yours”

    • Replies: @Bill B.
    They all have to think the same so that their can be diversity.
  27. It seems to me like these pathetic fools recognize that they’re trapped in the domain of a bloodthirsty pack of diversity orcs and think their smug little display will prevent them from being eaten alive.

  28. @iffen
    The message on the sign being held by the guy in the blue polo is not exactly in agreement with the party line.

    “The message on the sign being held by the guy in the blue polo is not exactly in agreement with the party line.”

    Right.

    But only people with strong reading comprehension and conceptual sophistication will figure that out.

    • Replies: @Pat Casey
    But, I don't need subtitles to hear Sherlock Holmes. Joyce introduced himself to Yeats by learning him that he was too old to be taught anything. From what I understand, a conglomerate called the white race is three or four steps removed from the human race, and there's like a hundred countries in the world. Or more. Science exacts precision, you might say it capitalizes punctuation. Why must the thing be so big? My problem is that I don't really understand what white people are like. But I understand what Germans and Brits and Italians and French are like, not to mention the Negroes and the Jews, and that's because I read Ethnic America in between meeting whole bunches of the common crowd over 28 circuitous years. And in an ideal America of the future, I would introduce as my friend when I would by starting in mind with the header that they must some way be a credit to their race if they are my friend, and that's how I shall tie together their introduction. But alas, Meet my friend John Blow, we go bowling together. Kidding. We went to college together, of course. Yep----Not bad, but something stronger is required to make causes effectually potent, no? The white race is a phantom that only appears to me when it is disintegrating in irony or radicalism. It is a thing that was confected fairly well by the largest war in planet-history, and has been increasingly getting bashed since JFK was murdered, thereabouts. I think it's a lost cause. When I'm Steve's age, the white conglomerate will be more like a relegated franchise under a rainbow of billionaires. Will it not? I think the otherwise hour is too late. And I think there are five or six or seven minds sharper than mine who agree the long haul needs a bit more energy than frat row war stories, who want a real identity back like a mother. For one, we would never call ourselves bloggers; we would call ourselves writers because that does not feel self-important but self-respecting. And we damn well would not mind saying what color this spirit-thing in us feels like if something really gooey came at us. Cause pale has been out, Steve. Now, it's time for some medz.
    , @Rob McX
    He's holding the sign too low for it to fit into the photo as it's shown in the group, that's all. Click on his individual photo and you'll see he's showing the same message as two of his colleagues.
    , @ChrisZ
    If you look him up on the university website, he appears to do research on the use of hunting dogs in (vaguely) pre-modern societies. Purely off the top of my head, that area of inquiry might touch on such Sailerian topics as the consequences of breeding, or "regression to the mean" in domesticated canines that revert to the wild. Maybe he's being pointedly heterodox after all?
  29. When I took anthropology in the 80′s at the local college, both professors were Marxists and Margaret Mead still occupied a exalted position in the field. I suppose the field hasn’t changed since then.

    It would though explain the current idiocy.

  30. @peterike
    The title for that photo collection should be "Eloi."

    Along these lines, the New Yorker is taking things into new territory with a recent piece bemoaning the terrible, terrible racism of whites against... Asians.

    http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-two-asian-americas

    Here's a taste of the bilgewater:

    There are now, in a sense, two Asian Americas: one formed by five centuries of systemic racism, and another, more genteel version, constituted in the aftermath of the 1965 law. These two Asian Americas float over and under each other like tectonic plates, often clanging discordantly.

    The author, one Karan Mahajan, "grew up in New Delhi, India, and currently lives in Austin, Texas." They just love, love, love living amongst the racists.

    I read the article, and even listened to the tedious videos below.

    1. The “tectonic plate” metaphor is awful, and the author comes nowhere near proving it, all he shows at the end of the article is that some Asians are rich, and some Asians are poor.

    2. Talking about “Asians” in this way is useless. The author basically includes (as Asian) anyone from Afghanistan to the Philippines. Such a broad net guarantees vapid generalizations.

    3. For example, he wants to harp on the notion that “Asians” have an “almost 500 year history in America”, which is suprising to me, since I knew of no large scale Asian input until Chinese immigrants around 1850. Sure enough, his history is keyed to a handful of Filipino sailors who were pressed into service by the Spaniards and who ended up in Mexico.

    4. As a matter of fact, there has been anti-Asian prejudice but it depends on where you were, at what time, and especially where you came from. The bias against Chinese was profound in the late 19th Century, but it was the Japanese who were put in camps. Filipinos, almost always Catholics, haven’t faced either. Neither, as far as I know, have Koreans, Vietnamese, Indonesians, Hmong, Pakistanis, Thais, etc. etc.

    What’s really going on here is that, as the “Asian” population of America increases, they will generate a certain percentage of writerly types with intellectual ambitions, those individuals will play the victim card, because it’s easy to play, and easy to write about, and they will crank out stuff like this. One thing is certain: as our Asian population increases, we will have more public voices arguing for different approaches to our nation’s history and the history of the world as well.

  31. @iffen
    The message on the sign being held by the guy in the blue polo is not exactly in agreement with the party line.

    The message on the sign being held by the guy in the blue polo is not exactly in agreement with the party line.

    Yeah, I noticed that too; is he a mole or something who doesn’t care about tenure?

    Actually, he looks just a teeny little bit like a younger version of John Derbyshire. What’s going on here???

  32. @International Jew

    some of these guys don’t look too happy to be there.
     
    They look like people who've been prosecuted for some kind of moral turpitude, and sentenced to humiliate themselves in public.

    I believe the Chinese did the same thing; maybe it’s some sort of procedure necessary to empire?

    • Replies: @Hacienda
    Nice sinecure. Take "protest" photo, upload on Facebook. Blank looks of moral concern at all times. Take non-factual social justice position. Trip to India academic conference. Fleece undergrads the world over.

    These ain't fools. The gig is gonna end. But they ain't fools.

  33. @Lothar
    The definition of an anthropologist used to be someone who was interested in the variety of humanity. Now the definition is: a white person who pretends to believe that there is no difference between a Japanese and an Australian Aborigine.

    Academia is nothing but a brain dead echo chamber….and likely that has been the norm over the ages…

  34. Fascinating jouurnalistic-style article from Journal of the History of Biology that’s mostly about legendary physical anthropologist Carleton Coon’s war with the Boasians:

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.24.8715&rep=rep1&type=pdf

  35. Can you imagine the humiliation of being forced to do this? Looks like the guy with the necktie has tenure, at least.

  36. It’s a religious thing. As long as their religion is encouraged by the Establishment, they’ll remain dedicated.

    But if the Establishment ever starts defecating on their religion on a regular basis (as with Christianity), they’ll flee like rats from a sinking ship.

  37. Buzz Lightyear in the plaid– M or F?

    Then again, there’s no biological basis for “gender”. But genderism is real.

    • Replies: @jamie b.
    They're arranged in alternating M/F columns.
  38. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Anthropology a Science? Statement Deepens a Rift”, The New York Times, Nicholas Wade, December 9, 2010:

    “…Anthropologists have been thrown into turmoil about the nature and future of their profession after a decision by the American Anthropological Association at its recent annual meeting to strip the word “science” from a statement of its long-range plan. …

    …many science-based anthropologists were dismayed to learn last month that the long-range plan of the association would no longer be to advance anthropology as a science but rather to focus on “public understanding.” …

    • Agree: SPMoore8
  39. Where’s the attribution for the well-known Margaret Mead quote? Sorry, you earn an F for that sign!

  40. I wonder how many of them feel like they have been pressured into this photo op

  41. Who is teaching all this racism?

    Where did it all start?

    Liberals seem to believe in some kind of ‘Pandora’s Box’ about racism.
    They claim that people are teaching it, (never mention who), and cannot for the life of them explain where it comes from.

  42. Darwin and Disraeli would disagree with The Irate 8.
    Darwin wrote a book. Darwin’s work was titled “Origin of the Species” but the alternative title was “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”Wow!

    That was 1859 but back in 1847 Disraeli had his Semitic superman, Sidonia, say “All is race, there is no other truth.” Double Wowzer! Sacrilege!!!!

    https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=%2Fjournals%2Fshofar%2Fv023%2F23.4brantlinger.html

    They must be expunged from the curriculum. Bell,book and candle for them both.

  43. This looks like a joke to me. Many of your posts cause me to check whether it is April 1.

    If there is no such thing as race, then no one can criticize them for being all white. Or force them to hire blacks.

  44. Jeez. There are twelve people in that picture. Would it have been that hard for them to come up with twelve different slogans? Are there not twelve “intelligent” comments that could be made to support their side?

  45. WhatEvvs [AKA "Internet Addict"] says:
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    I'm astounded to see someone so cogently rebut the dominant narrative (in front of the Senate, no less), but I am not at all optimistic that her testimony will change in any significant way the legislation of the Senate. Maybe I'm just jaded, though. Hope isn't worth the probable letdown.
  46. Eh, I must have blinked and missed that ‘black is bad’ moment in the 1950s.

    It goes next to Hollywood’s supposed anti-black phase on the libtard retcon shelf. Hollywood has always whitewashed blacks, if you don’t count Birth of a Nation. Back in the day, this meant portraying them as harmless humble goofballs, which is now portrayed as “patronizing” or whatever. Like Hollywood doesn’t still patronize blacks, by refusing to portray them as fully human (and thus as flawed and capable of behavior x as any other group).

  47. @anonymous
    Looks like a collection of mug shots more suited for the Tuol Sleng photographic exhibit of past residents. Why do they claim that 'racism is taught'? Anyone ever remember getting assigned to a class promoting it? It seems most people arrive at certain conclusions and views through personal experience despite the constant blaring of the megaphone telling them that up is down.

    Why do they claim that ‘racism is taught’? Anyone ever remember getting assigned to a class promoting it?

    If anything is being taught it is from the anti-racisim point of view. It’s never ending.

  48. WGG [AKA "World\'s Greatest Grandson"] says:

    The buffoon in the “Jan Brady” spot is an archeologist. Right, because old bones and racism fit together like a hand in a glove. Not political at all, purely academic.

  49. @International Jew

    some of these guys don’t look too happy to be there.
     
    They look like people who've been prosecuted for some kind of moral turpitude, and sentenced to humiliate themselves in public.

    Yeah, it looks like some kind of frat pledge humiliation.

    Or people trying to relive their kindergarten days.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar


    Yeah, it looks like some kind of frat pledge humiliation.

     

    Maybe they just finished picking a grape up off a block of ice with their bare buttocks. That'd explain the expressions.
  50. I realize that politics can never be fully escaped in any human domain, but aren’t these supposed to be social scientists? Not only are they acting like deranged cult members, they’re explicitly stating falsehoods that even a cursory reading of the scientific data would render laughable.

    How many intelligent, non-dogmatic people will be turned away from pursuing a career in anthropology due to adolescent stunts like this?

  51. @WhatEvvs
    Gutsy lady:

    http://www.city-journal.org/2015/eon1022hm.html

    I’m astounded to see someone so cogently rebut the dominant narrative (in front of the Senate, no less), but I am not at all optimistic that her testimony will change in any significant way the legislation of the Senate. Maybe I’m just jaded, though. Hope isn’t worth the probable letdown.

    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    It won't have any immediate effect at all. I've given up on that. I've given up on the idea that rationality changes minds, and that rationality has anything to do with how we govern. I just am astounded that someone has the guts to say in public what McDonald said. I know who she is and I'm not surprised at the content, but even among realists her vocabulary is admirably blunt, especially in this insane, hysterical #blacklivesmatterized world.
  52. I like one of those signs.

    “Never believe that a few caring people [I'm looking at you, Steve] can’t change the world. For, indeed, that’s all that ever have.”

  53. @SFG
    As another commenter pointed out, some of these guys don't look too happy to be there. (Don't ever be the first to stop clapping!) Plus, they're all white.

    Going from 'black is bad' in the 1950s to 'white is bad' in the 2010s strikes me as no progress at all, but hey, who ever asked me?

    Thing that always got me with statements like 'the white race is the cancer of civilization' is, well, you think if the Chinese had won the great civilizational sweepstakes (they still may!) they'd be going on about the evil of traditional Chinese civilization? Or, God forbid, if the Aztecs had developed ships and sailed to Europe to rip out a thousand hearts on a giant pyramid in the middle of London? Do you think an Arab or Persian Muslim empire would be any better? (Certainly not for the ladies.)

    It's like the Yankees in baseball or Duke in college basketball. Everyone hates a winner. Until they're not a winner anymore.

    I mean it’s suppose to be a black parody of a mugshot conspectus, right? They are guilty of white privilege and they have turned themselves in, right? It’s like a flogging tableau so they may rest their conscience easy.

    But then it might be a simple pose of protest uninspired by any interpretational design. Eh. Beats me.

    Which means the meta-point is that we don’t really know when reality is imitating parody anymore, because those people live in an airtight bubble, and I imagine will only be turning a deeper hue of blue from here. Mugshots are meant to make you look raw, not uptight. Duh.

  54. These people look so happy with their lives. Being a 24/7 anti-white anti-racist must induce profound constipation.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar


    As usual, the people who say there is no such thing as race favor public policies that make sense only if race is the most important thing in the whole world.

     

    Don't dismiss the empowerment constipation can bring. Remember, Prince Ali in Alladin was as "strong as ten regular men".
    , @Reg Cæsar
    Oops, copy fail. I was responding to this:


    These people look so happy with their lives. Being a 24/7 anti-white anti-racist must induce profound constipation.

     

    Bring back "Edit"!
  55. @anowow
    Keep that in mind. The problem is not non-whites, it never has been.

    I can hardly stand White people. Or “GoodWhites”, which is most of us these days. The church of anti-racism. As a White I’ve found White people are the most full of s—, disingenuous, rude, a-holes with the status signalling and smug certainty they’re on the side of the angels and the right side of history, while always making sure to be on the right side of the railroad tracks, lol, the right mostly White school districts. Come to think of it, I typically have better, more frank and honest conversations about race with Blacks, esp. lower income, and so-called Latinos…

  56. @iffen
    The message on the sign being held by the guy in the blue polo is not exactly in agreement with the party line.

    Isn’t that Morrisey?

    Btw, the woman to his left has quite the come hither expression.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Blue polo shirt could have been messing with her hair and her message as well which is not exactly Little Red Book material either.
  57. Anthropology doesn’t have the scientific basis that things like Astrology has, which requires the following of the motions of planets. These people subscribe to a policy of non-discrimination, and since discrimination is the basis for reason are supporting ignorance and stupidity. If they wish to teach people how to be stupid, we should simply close down these fake academies, because kids can learn that on the street.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Astrology has no scientific basis...
  58. If race doesn’t exist how are they going to find all these blacks they demand the university hire?

  59. dog tag culture

  60. @bomag
    Yeah, it looks like some kind of frat pledge humiliation.

    Or people trying to relive their kindergarten days.

    Yeah, it looks like some kind of frat pledge humiliation.

    Maybe they just finished picking a grape up off a block of ice with their bare buttocks. That’d explain the expressions.

  61. @Steve Sailer
    "The message on the sign being held by the guy in the blue polo is not exactly in agreement with the party line."

    Right.

    But only people with strong reading comprehension and conceptual sophistication will figure that out.

    But, I don’t need subtitles to hear Sherlock Holmes. Joyce introduced himself to Yeats by learning him that he was too old to be taught anything. From what I understand, a conglomerate called the white race is three or four steps removed from the human race, and there’s like a hundred countries in the world. Or more. Science exacts precision, you might say it capitalizes punctuation. Why must the thing be so big? My problem is that I don’t really understand what white people are like. But I understand what Germans and Brits and Italians and French are like, not to mention the Negroes and the Jews, and that’s because I read Ethnic America in between meeting whole bunches of the common crowd over 28 circuitous years. And in an ideal America of the future, I would introduce as my friend when I would by starting in mind with the header that they must some way be a credit to their race if they are my friend, and that’s how I shall tie together their introduction. But alas, Meet my friend John Blow, we go bowling together. Kidding. We went to college together, of course. Yep—-Not bad, but something stronger is required to make causes effectually potent, no? The white race is a phantom that only appears to me when it is disintegrating in irony or radicalism. It is a thing that was confected fairly well by the largest war in planet-history, and has been increasingly getting bashed since JFK was murdered, thereabouts. I think it’s a lost cause. When I’m Steve’s age, the white conglomerate will be more like a relegated franchise under a rainbow of billionaires. Will it not? I think the otherwise hour is too late. And I think there are five or six or seven minds sharper than mine who agree the long haul needs a bit more energy than frat row war stories, who want a real identity back like a mother. For one, we would never call ourselves bloggers; we would call ourselves writers because that does not feel self-important but self-respecting. And we damn well would not mind saying what color this spirit-thing in us feels like if something really gooey came at us. Cause pale has been out, Steve. Now, it’s time for some medz.

  62. @SFG
    I believe the Chinese did the same thing; maybe it's some sort of procedure necessary to empire?

    Nice sinecure. Take “protest” photo, upload on Facebook. Blank looks of moral concern at all times. Take non-factual social justice position. Trip to India academic conference. Fleece undergrads the world over.

    These ain’t fools. The gig is gonna end. But they ain’t fools.

  63. I wonder what an old-school anthropologist of religion would say about the ritual being enacted in that photo.

  64. I still think this is just anthropologists and race realists misunderstanding and talking past each other.

    I asked JayMan what’s the difference between what race realists call “race” and what anthropologists (and others) call “population”—and if they’re different, to give examples of groups that are one but not the other. He replied that the words are exact synonyms; when race realists say “race,” they mean “population,” period.

    The rest of the world doesn’t know that. You all certainly don’t bother telling them very often, if at all. (I remember an old post here about the cover of Cavalli-Sforza’s book, which just added to the misunderstanding.) Lots of anthropologists think you all are talking about some 19th-century concept of race. Remember that debate between Nicholas Wade and that anthropologist? The anthropologist was practically begging Wade to give a clear definition of what he meant by “race,” but Wade wouldn’t do it.

    Of course anthropologists believe that “race” is real, if by “race” you mean what they call population. But that’s not what they mean by “race” when they say it’s not real.

    All this confusion could be fixed overnight. If you all mean “population,” then spell it p-o-p-u-l-a-t-i-o-n, not r-a-c-e. Then you could still fight with anthropologists and others, like about whether there’s a genetic influence on between-population variation in intelligence, etc. But at least then you’d be arguing about a real disagreement.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I've been offering a precise definition of a racial group since the late 1990s: a partly inbred extended family.

    The word "population" is a very confusing euphemism for "racial group" since it implies a total count of everybody within some boundaries -- e.g., the population of the United States is 320 million -- but doesn't normally imply anything about genealogical relationship.

    , @anon

    Of course anthropologists believe that “race” is real, if by “race” you mean what they call population. But that’s not what they mean by “race” when they say it’s not real.
     
    But I have a feeling that most of these anthropologists realize that what we mean by race is what basically everyone means by "race".

    So am I actually expected to believe that they're not being deliberately obfuscatory by digging up an old definition of "race" that nobody else really uses and then telling people that that is what they mean when they say that "race" has no biological basis?

    , @Santoculto
    Population is a generalized concept, race is a biologically-taxonomically-geographically specialized concept.

    Every group of reasonable number of individuals can be considered as ''population''.

    If i have a crowd of people in Colony Karnevale with may ethnic backgrounds, i have a population (crowd).

    If i have a hitlerist youth of blonde teutonic adolescents marching in Berlin i have a race.

    population applied in a biological context can be or not related with race, specie, population of species who live in a forest.
    , @iffen
    If they can make you say white is black and black is white then you can turn out the lights. There are a few people left who don't want to jump off the high dive into the dark unknown.
  65. @Aaron Gross
    I still think this is just anthropologists and race realists misunderstanding and talking past each other.

    I asked JayMan what's the difference between what race realists call "race" and what anthropologists (and others) call "population"—and if they're different, to give examples of groups that are one but not the other. He replied that the words are exact synonyms; when race realists say "race," they mean "population," period.

    The rest of the world doesn't know that. You all certainly don't bother telling them very often, if at all. (I remember an old post here about the cover of Cavalli-Sforza's book, which just added to the misunderstanding.) Lots of anthropologists think you all are talking about some 19th-century concept of race. Remember that debate between Nicholas Wade and that anthropologist? The anthropologist was practically begging Wade to give a clear definition of what he meant by "race," but Wade wouldn't do it.

    Of course anthropologists believe that "race" is real, if by "race" you mean what they call population. But that's not what they mean by "race" when they say it's not real.

    All this confusion could be fixed overnight. If you all mean "population," then spell it p-o-p-u-l-a-t-i-o-n, not r-a-c-e. Then you could still fight with anthropologists and others, like about whether there's a genetic influence on between-population variation in intelligence, etc. But at least then you'd be arguing about a real disagreement.

    I’ve been offering a precise definition of a racial group since the late 1990s: a partly inbred extended family.

    The word “population” is a very confusing euphemism for “racial group” since it implies a total count of everybody within some boundaries — e.g., the population of the United States is 320 million — but doesn’t normally imply anything about genealogical relationship.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    The word “population” is a very confusing euphemism for “racial group”
     
    Some years ago at a cocktail party I ran into a sociologist who railed against "the pernicious idea that race was a biologically valid concept." I listened to him for a while and then asked whether he believed there were large, regional groups of human beings who were genetically closely clustered.

    He agreed that there were. I just nonchalantly retorted that, if we scaled the clusters at the continental level, we'd have what people casually call race.

    Everyone was quiet for a while. Then he launched into how the genetic clustering was non-discrete and ran on a spectrum, and that race was a discrete category, and therefore invalid. So I told him that my children did not belong to a "discrete" category - that they were half East Asian and half Western European in genetic origin, but that did not negate the fact that their parents were almost exclusively East Asian (me) and Western European (my wife).

    He got very frustrated, and he changed the tack and talked about how being "black" in this country, for example, is cultural, and how I didn't really understand what people mean when they talk about race in this country, because I wasn't really from here (at which point there was a bit of an audible gasp from some of the others in the conversation).

    Others broke up the conversation for the sake of the harmony of the evening. My last words were, "I see, you believe continental-level genetically clustered groups of human beings do exist, but you are saying that's not race. I think it is." As he was being dragged back to his table by one of his friends, I heard him yell, "See, HE doesn't get it, because he doesn't understand the history of racism in this country..."

    I thought that was rather amusing since I grew up tussling with black youths who preyed upon my white and Asian friends (seemingly, to me, out of racial animus).
    , @Aaron Gross
    I’ve been offering a precise definition of a racial group since the late 1990s: a partly inbred extended family.

    Right, and I've been pointing out for years, in comment sections here and there, what's wrong with it. As have others.

    If read charitably, your definition is really just the same as "population."
  66. Oh, man, Roissy could have a field day with these mugshots.

    The womyn are mostly short haired, lots of small eyes and thin lips.

    Most of the guys are crisis-level low testosterone.

  67. anon • Disclaimer says:

    “Anthropologists know that there is no biological basis for race, but racism is real.”

    I know that, when I want to know something about biology, the first person I ask is an anthropologist.

    I f*cking love science, so I figure that asking one scientist about something is as good as asking another.

  68. @Reg Cæsar
    Buzz Lightyear in the plaid-- M or F?

    Then again, there's no biological basis for "gender". But genderism is real.

    They’re arranged in alternating M/F columns.

  69. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Aaron Gross
    I still think this is just anthropologists and race realists misunderstanding and talking past each other.

    I asked JayMan what's the difference between what race realists call "race" and what anthropologists (and others) call "population"—and if they're different, to give examples of groups that are one but not the other. He replied that the words are exact synonyms; when race realists say "race," they mean "population," period.

    The rest of the world doesn't know that. You all certainly don't bother telling them very often, if at all. (I remember an old post here about the cover of Cavalli-Sforza's book, which just added to the misunderstanding.) Lots of anthropologists think you all are talking about some 19th-century concept of race. Remember that debate between Nicholas Wade and that anthropologist? The anthropologist was practically begging Wade to give a clear definition of what he meant by "race," but Wade wouldn't do it.

    Of course anthropologists believe that "race" is real, if by "race" you mean what they call population. But that's not what they mean by "race" when they say it's not real.

    All this confusion could be fixed overnight. If you all mean "population," then spell it p-o-p-u-l-a-t-i-o-n, not r-a-c-e. Then you could still fight with anthropologists and others, like about whether there's a genetic influence on between-population variation in intelligence, etc. But at least then you'd be arguing about a real disagreement.

    Of course anthropologists believe that “race” is real, if by “race” you mean what they call population. But that’s not what they mean by “race” when they say it’s not real.

    But I have a feeling that most of these anthropologists realize that what we mean by race is what basically everyone means by “race”.

    So am I actually expected to believe that they’re not being deliberately obfuscatory by digging up an old definition of “race” that nobody else really uses and then telling people that that is what they mean when they say that “race” has no biological basis?

    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
    No, what you mean by biologically real race is not what other people mean by just "race." The folk concept of race is in fact a social construct (constructed using biological facts).
  70. @Steve Sailer
    I've been offering a precise definition of a racial group since the late 1990s: a partly inbred extended family.

    The word "population" is a very confusing euphemism for "racial group" since it implies a total count of everybody within some boundaries -- e.g., the population of the United States is 320 million -- but doesn't normally imply anything about genealogical relationship.

    The word “population” is a very confusing euphemism for “racial group”

    Some years ago at a cocktail party I ran into a sociologist who railed against “the pernicious idea that race was a biologically valid concept.” I listened to him for a while and then asked whether he believed there were large, regional groups of human beings who were genetically closely clustered.

    He agreed that there were. I just nonchalantly retorted that, if we scaled the clusters at the continental level, we’d have what people casually call race.

    Everyone was quiet for a while. Then he launched into how the genetic clustering was non-discrete and ran on a spectrum, and that race was a discrete category, and therefore invalid. So I told him that my children did not belong to a “discrete” category – that they were half East Asian and half Western European in genetic origin, but that did not negate the fact that their parents were almost exclusively East Asian (me) and Western European (my wife).

    He got very frustrated, and he changed the tack and talked about how being “black” in this country, for example, is cultural, and how I didn’t really understand what people mean when they talk about race in this country, because I wasn’t really from here (at which point there was a bit of an audible gasp from some of the others in the conversation).

    Others broke up the conversation for the sake of the harmony of the evening. My last words were, “I see, you believe continental-level genetically clustered groups of human beings do exist, but you are saying that’s not race. I think it is.” As he was being dragged back to his table by one of his friends, I heard him yell, “See, HE doesn’t get it, because he doesn’t understand the history of racism in this country…”

    I thought that was rather amusing since I grew up tussling with black youths who preyed upon my white and Asian friends (seemingly, to me, out of racial animus).

    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
    That's exactly what I meant. You and this guy were arguing about words, not about what the words refer to.

    What if you had said, "These large regional groups of people - you presumably call them populations, and I call them races, though not in the 18th- and 19th-century meaning of the word. We're using different words to mean exactly the same thing."

    Or better yet, what if you had just used the current, universally accepted, scientific word for these groups: "populations"?

  71. @27 year old
    all-white faculty department says race doesn't exist

    this is like the new iteration of "IQ doesn't exist but by the way ours is higher than yours"

    They all have to think the same so that their can be diversity.

  72. @Daniel H
    Now is the time to start drafting a primary challenger against this jackass. What was done to Cantor can be done to him.

    Cantor had barely cleared his desk on Capitol Hill when he was given a job in an investment bank at a “compensation” of $3.4m per annum. As John Derbyshire pointed out, if you piss off your voters, your donors can bail you out, but not vice versa. So it’s best to keep faithful to the latter than to the former.

  73. @Daniel H
    Now is the time to start drafting a primary challenger against this jackass. What was done to Cantor can be done to him.

    Sir James Frazer became something of a media celebrity in his later years, and what fascinated many journalists was the fact that he knew so much about exotic cultures and rituals without seeing any of them, as he had never travelled further than Greece. A typical headline about him would be “Expert On Savages, But Has Never Met One”.

  74. @Steve Sailer
    "The message on the sign being held by the guy in the blue polo is not exactly in agreement with the party line."

    Right.

    But only people with strong reading comprehension and conceptual sophistication will figure that out.

    He’s holding the sign too low for it to fit into the photo as it’s shown in the group, that’s all. Click on his individual photo and you’ll see he’s showing the same message as two of his colleagues.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    Mistake - I was thinking of the guy in the necktie someone else commented on. These guys seem so hypnotised that they can't see the heretic in their midst, i.e. second left, bottom row.
  75. @Rob McX
    He's holding the sign too low for it to fit into the photo as it's shown in the group, that's all. Click on his individual photo and you'll see he's showing the same message as two of his colleagues.

    Mistake – I was thinking of the guy in the necktie someone else commented on. These guys seem so hypnotised that they can’t see the heretic in their midst, i.e. second left, bottom row.

  76. @Steve Sailer
    I've been offering a precise definition of a racial group since the late 1990s: a partly inbred extended family.

    The word "population" is a very confusing euphemism for "racial group" since it implies a total count of everybody within some boundaries -- e.g., the population of the United States is 320 million -- but doesn't normally imply anything about genealogical relationship.

    I’ve been offering a precise definition of a racial group since the late 1990s: a partly inbred extended family.

    Right, and I’ve been pointing out for years, in comment sections here and there, what’s wrong with it. As have others.

    If read charitably, your definition is really just the same as “population.”

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The way 99.9% of Americans use the word "population," it has geographic / quantitative rather than genetic / genealogical implications. For example, the Census Bureau uses the words "population" and "race" to mean very different things. The Census Bureau has been careful, for instance, to explain the difference between "race" and "ethnicity," but it never bothers to do the same for "race" and "population" because nobody ever gets them confused.
  77. @Twinkie

    The word “population” is a very confusing euphemism for “racial group”
     
    Some years ago at a cocktail party I ran into a sociologist who railed against "the pernicious idea that race was a biologically valid concept." I listened to him for a while and then asked whether he believed there were large, regional groups of human beings who were genetically closely clustered.

    He agreed that there were. I just nonchalantly retorted that, if we scaled the clusters at the continental level, we'd have what people casually call race.

    Everyone was quiet for a while. Then he launched into how the genetic clustering was non-discrete and ran on a spectrum, and that race was a discrete category, and therefore invalid. So I told him that my children did not belong to a "discrete" category - that they were half East Asian and half Western European in genetic origin, but that did not negate the fact that their parents were almost exclusively East Asian (me) and Western European (my wife).

    He got very frustrated, and he changed the tack and talked about how being "black" in this country, for example, is cultural, and how I didn't really understand what people mean when they talk about race in this country, because I wasn't really from here (at which point there was a bit of an audible gasp from some of the others in the conversation).

    Others broke up the conversation for the sake of the harmony of the evening. My last words were, "I see, you believe continental-level genetically clustered groups of human beings do exist, but you are saying that's not race. I think it is." As he was being dragged back to his table by one of his friends, I heard him yell, "See, HE doesn't get it, because he doesn't understand the history of racism in this country..."

    I thought that was rather amusing since I grew up tussling with black youths who preyed upon my white and Asian friends (seemingly, to me, out of racial animus).

    That’s exactly what I meant. You and this guy were arguing about words, not about what the words refer to.

    What if you had said, “These large regional groups of people – you presumably call them populations, and I call them races, though not in the 18th- and 19th-century meaning of the word. We’re using different words to mean exactly the same thing.”

    Or better yet, what if you had just used the current, universally accepted, scientific word for these groups: “populations”?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "Or better yet, what if you had just used the current, universally accepted, scientific word for these groups: “populations”?"

    Almost nobody outside of race genetics uses "population" as a euphemism for "race." The New York Times, for example, doesn't have headlines about "Population Riot in Baltimore."

    The reason Cavalli-Sforza used the world "population" was to confuse and bore people so they wouldn't stop him from doing genetic research on race.

    I generally follow the terminology of the U.S. government; and the U.S. government uses the word "race" all the time and it uses the world "population" all the time, but it uses the two words to mean different things.

    , @anon
    What if you had said, “These large regional groups of people – you presumably call them populations, and I call them races, though not in the 18th- and 19th-century meaning of the word. We’re using different words to mean exactly the same thing.”

    See, this is what I mean. The anthropologists know that I'm not using the 18th-century meaning of the word "race". They would have no reason to suspect that I, or anyone else, would be using the 18th-century meaning of the word "race".

    Nobody else that I'm aware of pretends to believe that I am using the 18th-century definition of anything. I guess anthropologists are just weird like that, huh?
    , @Twinkie

    That’s exactly what I meant. You and this guy were arguing about words, not about what the words refer to.
     
    No. I was being commonsensical. The sociologist was desperately trying not to legitimize the word "race," because he was in self-righteous mode ("Look at me! I'm such a champion of the downtrodden!"). For people like that, no matter what the IQ or the scientific substance of the matter, legitimizing "race" leads to "racism," which is the greatest evil ever perpetrated in human history. But apparently population-ism is completely valid scientifically.

    That's just playing games with words, pure and simple, in order to avoid the truth of an uncomfortable (to him and his ilk) topic.
  78. @Aaron Gross
    I’ve been offering a precise definition of a racial group since the late 1990s: a partly inbred extended family.

    Right, and I've been pointing out for years, in comment sections here and there, what's wrong with it. As have others.

    If read charitably, your definition is really just the same as "population."

    The way 99.9% of Americans use the word “population,” it has geographic / quantitative rather than genetic / genealogical implications. For example, the Census Bureau uses the words “population” and “race” to mean very different things. The Census Bureau has been careful, for instance, to explain the difference between “race” and “ethnicity,” but it never bothers to do the same for “race” and “population” because nobody ever gets them confused.

  79. @Joe Magarac
    As usual, the people who say there is no such thing as race favor public policies that make sense only if race is the most important thing in the whole world.

    As usual, the people who say there is no such thing as race favor public policies that make sense only if race is the most important thing in the whole world.

    Or that their own power is.

    You can’t be cynical enough about this.

  80. @Aaron Gross
    That's exactly what I meant. You and this guy were arguing about words, not about what the words refer to.

    What if you had said, "These large regional groups of people - you presumably call them populations, and I call them races, though not in the 18th- and 19th-century meaning of the word. We're using different words to mean exactly the same thing."

    Or better yet, what if you had just used the current, universally accepted, scientific word for these groups: "populations"?

    “Or better yet, what if you had just used the current, universally accepted, scientific word for these groups: “populations”?”

    Almost nobody outside of race genetics uses “population” as a euphemism for “race.” The New York Times, for example, doesn’t have headlines about “Population Riot in Baltimore.”

    The reason Cavalli-Sforza used the world “population” was to confuse and bore people so they wouldn’t stop him from doing genetic research on race.

    I generally follow the terminology of the U.S. government; and the U.S. government uses the word “race” all the time and it uses the world “population” all the time, but it uses the two words to mean different things.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    The reason Cavalli-Sforza used the world “population” was to confuse and bore people so they wouldn’t stop him from doing genetic research on race.

    He realized that being labeled a racist would have a deleterious effect on his career, while being labeled a populationist would not.
  81. @dumpstersquirrel
    These people look so happy with their lives. Being a 24/7 anti-white anti-racist must induce profound constipation.

    As usual, the people who say there is no such thing as race favor public policies that make sense only if race is the most important thing in the whole world.

    Don’t dismiss the empowerment constipation can bring. Remember, Prince Ali in Alladin was as “strong as ten regular men”.

    • Replies: @5371
    Could constipation be a metaphor for the restraining of another kind of bodily emission?
  82. @dumpstersquirrel
    These people look so happy with their lives. Being a 24/7 anti-white anti-racist must induce profound constipation.

    Oops, copy fail. I was responding to this:

    These people look so happy with their lives. Being a 24/7 anti-white anti-racist must induce profound constipation.

    Bring back “Edit”!

  83. @Dr. Doom
    Anthropology doesn't have the scientific basis that things like Astrology has, which requires the following of the motions of planets. These people subscribe to a policy of non-discrimination, and since discrimination is the basis for reason are supporting ignorance and stupidity. If they wish to teach people how to be stupid, we should simply close down these fake academies, because kids can learn that on the street.

    Astrology has no scientific basis…

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Not true. Astrology was invented by scientists.

    Read Steven Goldberg on this. He argues that there's a critical distinction to be made between bad science, which astrology comes under, and non- or pseudo-science.
  84. @anon

    Of course anthropologists believe that “race” is real, if by “race” you mean what they call population. But that’s not what they mean by “race” when they say it’s not real.
     
    But I have a feeling that most of these anthropologists realize that what we mean by race is what basically everyone means by "race".

    So am I actually expected to believe that they're not being deliberately obfuscatory by digging up an old definition of "race" that nobody else really uses and then telling people that that is what they mean when they say that "race" has no biological basis?

    No, what you mean by biologically real race is not what other people mean by just “race.” The folk concept of race is in fact a social construct (constructed using biological facts).

    • Replies: @anon
    The folk concept of race is in fact a social construct (constructed using biological facts).

    Ah. So it's actually worse than I thought. The anthropologists are simply lying when they say there's no biological basis for "race".

    Got it. Thanks.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    A Aron (Love Key and Peele)...help me out please, so is a Gender just a social construct, as in the folk concept of gender, constructed using biological facts.
  85. @Reg Cæsar


    As usual, the people who say there is no such thing as race favor public policies that make sense only if race is the most important thing in the whole world.

     

    Don't dismiss the empowerment constipation can bring. Remember, Prince Ali in Alladin was as "strong as ten regular men".

    Could constipation be a metaphor for the restraining of another kind of bodily emission?

  86. True, people don’t commonly use the word population in that genetic sense, because they don’t talk about that concept of biological race/population at all!

    There’s a biological concept of population, and there’s a non-biological, folk concept of race, for instance where Barack Obama is black.

    If you’re talking about the folk concept, like in a NYT article on racial profiling, then it’s appropriate to say “race.” Almost all social questions, like profiling and everything else the media talk about, concern socially constructed race, not biological race (population).

    If you’re talking about the biological concept—which, again, hardly anyone outside of these blogs ever does—then it’s appropriate to say “population,” because that’s what most scientists use. If you’re afraid people will confuse that biological concept with the population of Boise, Idaho or whatever, then you can specify “biological population.”

    There are two problems with using your own private language. By using the word “race” in a biological way that no one outside of the racialist right uses it—in the sense where Barack Obama is not black, for example—you’re just misleading people.

    But worse, people on the racialist right are hardly ever able to keep those two concepts straight. They’ll say that black and white are biologically real races, and then in the same breath they’ll refer to Barack Obama as black. Even Kevin MacDonald uses race to mean some weird mixture of a group’s biological and social-political properties. If you all used two different words for these two different concepts, you might not get them mixed up all the time.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Aaron, you need to take your complaint up with the United States government. I use the words "race," "ethnicity," and "population" the way the Census Bureau and other government agencies use them.

    And you need to take your complaint up with President Barack Obama, who self-identified as black and only as black on the 2010 Census form.

    I've actually thought about these things harder than you have.

  87. @Aaron Gross
    True, people don't commonly use the word population in that genetic sense, because they don't talk about that concept of biological race/population at all!

    There's a biological concept of population, and there's a non-biological, folk concept of race, for instance where Barack Obama is black.

    If you're talking about the folk concept, like in a NYT article on racial profiling, then it's appropriate to say "race." Almost all social questions, like profiling and everything else the media talk about, concern socially constructed race, not biological race (population).

    If you're talking about the biological concept—which, again, hardly anyone outside of these blogs ever does—then it's appropriate to say "population," because that's what most scientists use. If you're afraid people will confuse that biological concept with the population of Boise, Idaho or whatever, then you can specify "biological population."

    There are two problems with using your own private language. By using the word "race" in a biological way that no one outside of the racialist right uses it—in the sense where Barack Obama is not black, for example—you're just misleading people.

    But worse, people on the racialist right are hardly ever able to keep those two concepts straight. They'll say that black and white are biologically real races, and then in the same breath they'll refer to Barack Obama as black. Even Kevin MacDonald uses race to mean some weird mixture of a group's biological and social-political properties. If you all used two different words for these two different concepts, you might not get them mixed up all the time.

    Aaron, you need to take your complaint up with the United States government. I use the words “race,” “ethnicity,” and “population” the way the Census Bureau and other government agencies use them.

    And you need to take your complaint up with President Barack Obama, who self-identified as black and only as black on the 2010 Census form.

    I’ve actually thought about these things harder than you have.

    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
    But I've thought about them more clearly.
  88. @Hhsiii
    Isn't that Morrisey?

    Btw, the woman to his left has quite the come hither expression.

    Blue polo shirt could have been messing with her hair and her message as well which is not exactly Little Red Book material either.

  89. [Anthropology is] “the most pathetic college major” [whose name] “doesn’t end in the word ‘studies.’”
    – Eric Owens of the Daily Caller

  90. @AndrewR
    Astrology has no scientific basis...

    Not true. Astrology was invented by scientists.

    Read Steven Goldberg on this. He argues that there’s a critical distinction to be made between bad science, which astrology comes under, and non- or pseudo-science.

  91. @Steve Sailer
    "Or better yet, what if you had just used the current, universally accepted, scientific word for these groups: “populations”?"

    Almost nobody outside of race genetics uses "population" as a euphemism for "race." The New York Times, for example, doesn't have headlines about "Population Riot in Baltimore."

    The reason Cavalli-Sforza used the world "population" was to confuse and bore people so they wouldn't stop him from doing genetic research on race.

    I generally follow the terminology of the U.S. government; and the U.S. government uses the word "race" all the time and it uses the world "population" all the time, but it uses the two words to mean different things.

    The reason Cavalli-Sforza used the world “population” was to confuse and bore people so they wouldn’t stop him from doing genetic research on race.

    He realized that being labeled a racist would have a deleterious effect on his career, while being labeled a populationist would not.

    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
    How do you guys read the minds of people you've never met?

    And you're always right! You're never falsified!
  92. You’ve got to be taught
    To hate and fear,
    You’ve got to be taught
    From year to year,
    It’s got to be drummed
    In your dear little ear
    You’ve got to be carefully taught.

    You’ve got to be taught to be afraid
    Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
    And people whose skin is a diff’rent shade,
    You’ve got to be carefully taught.

    You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late,
    Before you are six or seven or eight,
    To hate all the people your relatives hate,
    You’ve got to be carefully taught!

    There you have it. The wrongest song ever written, and also the theme music for the University of Cincinnati Anthropology Dept.

  93. @Aaron Gross
    No, what you mean by biologically real race is not what other people mean by just "race." The folk concept of race is in fact a social construct (constructed using biological facts).

    The folk concept of race is in fact a social construct (constructed using biological facts).

    Ah. So it’s actually worse than I thought. The anthropologists are simply lying when they say there’s no biological basis for “race”.

    Got it. Thanks.

  94. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Aaron Gross
    That's exactly what I meant. You and this guy were arguing about words, not about what the words refer to.

    What if you had said, "These large regional groups of people - you presumably call them populations, and I call them races, though not in the 18th- and 19th-century meaning of the word. We're using different words to mean exactly the same thing."

    Or better yet, what if you had just used the current, universally accepted, scientific word for these groups: "populations"?

    What if you had said, “These large regional groups of people – you presumably call them populations, and I call them races, though not in the 18th- and 19th-century meaning of the word. We’re using different words to mean exactly the same thing.”

    See, this is what I mean. The anthropologists know that I’m not using the 18th-century meaning of the word “race”. They would have no reason to suspect that I, or anyone else, would be using the 18th-century meaning of the word “race”.

    Nobody else that I’m aware of pretends to believe that I am using the 18th-century definition of anything. I guess anthropologists are just weird like that, huh?

  95. If Liberalism is a religion, these are the proverbial reformed whores in church.

  96. I’m laughing my ass off at the postmodern gobbledygook of jean jacket lady.

  97. @Aaron Gross
    I still think this is just anthropologists and race realists misunderstanding and talking past each other.

    I asked JayMan what's the difference between what race realists call "race" and what anthropologists (and others) call "population"—and if they're different, to give examples of groups that are one but not the other. He replied that the words are exact synonyms; when race realists say "race," they mean "population," period.

    The rest of the world doesn't know that. You all certainly don't bother telling them very often, if at all. (I remember an old post here about the cover of Cavalli-Sforza's book, which just added to the misunderstanding.) Lots of anthropologists think you all are talking about some 19th-century concept of race. Remember that debate between Nicholas Wade and that anthropologist? The anthropologist was practically begging Wade to give a clear definition of what he meant by "race," but Wade wouldn't do it.

    Of course anthropologists believe that "race" is real, if by "race" you mean what they call population. But that's not what they mean by "race" when they say it's not real.

    All this confusion could be fixed overnight. If you all mean "population," then spell it p-o-p-u-l-a-t-i-o-n, not r-a-c-e. Then you could still fight with anthropologists and others, like about whether there's a genetic influence on between-population variation in intelligence, etc. But at least then you'd be arguing about a real disagreement.

    Population is a generalized concept, race is a biologically-taxonomically-geographically specialized concept.

    Every group of reasonable number of individuals can be considered as ”population”.

    If i have a crowd of people in Colony Karnevale with may ethnic backgrounds, i have a population (crowd).

    If i have a hitlerist youth of blonde teutonic adolescents marching in Berlin i have a race.

    population applied in a biological context can be or not related with race, specie, population of species who live in a forest.

  98. @SPMoore8
    It looks like all these people brought signs to their booking photos for public intoxication.

    I admire moral earnestness the only question is whether higher education is the place for it. I don't think so, but I was involved in higher education for a number of years, so I know better. As a matter of fact, in most colleges the social sciences and humanities have long been mouthpieces for whatever the current reigning moral pieties.

    I also note that there doesn't appear to be a single POC in the University of Cincinnati Anthro Department. Wassup with that.

    It looks like all these people brought signs to their booking photos for public intoxication.

    Good observation. That is what it looks like.

  99. I have to laugh. These all look like mug shots.

  100. @Steve Sailer
    Aaron, you need to take your complaint up with the United States government. I use the words "race," "ethnicity," and "population" the way the Census Bureau and other government agencies use them.

    And you need to take your complaint up with President Barack Obama, who self-identified as black and only as black on the 2010 Census form.

    I've actually thought about these things harder than you have.

    But I’ve thought about them more clearly.

    • Replies: @5371
    You give no sign of having thought about them or anything else, or of understanding what thinking would entail.
  101. […] little story was highlighted by Steve Sailer at the Unz Review. You should read the comments to get the general drift of the […]

  102. Is it not clear that a US Census form is a social construct? (Or a political construct if you want to be pedantic?) And that Obama’s self-identification as black is identification with the socially-constructed race “black”?

    US Census forms and presidential declarations do not define biological categories. When the US governments talks about blacks or whites or whatever, they’re talking about socially constructed races. They are not genetic populations, i.e., biological races.

    Two categories: biological and social.

    Biological: “population” or (if you insist) “race.”
    Social: “race.”

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I thought long and hard about this 14 years ago trying to reduce the government's race categories to farce. But I failed. My eventual conclusion: they were good enough for government work.
  103. @Harry Baldwin
    The reason Cavalli-Sforza used the world “population” was to confuse and bore people so they wouldn’t stop him from doing genetic research on race.

    He realized that being labeled a racist would have a deleterious effect on his career, while being labeled a populationist would not.

    How do you guys read the minds of people you’ve never met?

    And you’re always right! You’re never falsified!

    • Replies: @neutral
    It could be falsified if the winners of the 100m sprints would come from random backgrounds across the world, however the winners in the last decades all have West African descent.
  104. They should wear their placards on strings around their necks to promote a dialogue, similar to the Starbucks…”Let’s talk about race.” That proved to be very helpful.

  105. @Steve Sailer
    "The message on the sign being held by the guy in the blue polo is not exactly in agreement with the party line."

    Right.

    But only people with strong reading comprehension and conceptual sophistication will figure that out.

    If you look him up on the university website, he appears to do research on the use of hunting dogs in (vaguely) pre-modern societies. Purely off the top of my head, that area of inquiry might touch on such Sailerian topics as the consequences of breeding, or “regression to the mean” in domesticated canines that revert to the wild. Maybe he’s being pointedly heterodox after all?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    A Chagnonian?
    , @Steve Sailer
    A Chagnonian?

    The anthropologists I know of who are big into hunting are Henry Harpending, Napoleon Chagnon, and Robin Fox.

    , @iffen
    Thanks for locating the source of that statement. You are correct that within the context of the article it is not a call for empirical research as it is usually understood but rather it is a call to help develop a replacement model for the failed notion that race is cultural and not biological.

    The article has a suggestion that I have not seen before. The author says that since the idea that race is not biological has failed on most levels then maybe the concept of biology could be re-arranged so as to not discredit the social construct idea. He says, “This shift in emphasis suggests that we may need to devote as much attention to revising our conception of biology as we do to our conception of race.” I admire tenacity and resourcefulness.

    It would be great if someone could come up with a good method to help mis-guided scholars disabuse themselves of the idea that the denial of the existence of races is the only way to combat racism.

    The shiny bright bauble, empirical research, caught my eye as I diverted my gaze from the pleas for the teaching and un-teaching of dogma.
  106. Bottom line: I didn’t expect to convince anyone to change their “scientific” terminology, and I haven’t.

    But if you’re trying to be clear—a very big if—then you could clarify things a lot by mentioning, prominently, that when you say “biological race exists,” you mean the exact same thing as an anthropologist means by “genetic populations exist.” In that sense, everyone is a race/population realist.

    This is just some stupid bogus semantic disagreement, where both sides are too stubborn to acknowledge that they’re both saying the same thing.

    • Replies: @anon
    But if you’re trying to be clear—a very big if—then you could clarify things a lot by mentioning, prominently, that when you say “biological race exists,” you mean the exact same thing as an anthropologist means by “genetic populations exist.”

    Well, since the anthropologists are the ones making public statements, then if THEY wanted to be clear, they should point out that, when they say "race", they mean something that nobody ELSE means when they say race.

    But they DON'T want to be clear. They want to obfuscate things. Which you know perfectly well and just refuse to be honest about.
    , @peterike
    Aaron Gross, you pretty much define the word "pedant." Stop already, for the love of god, just stop. We all got your point the first ten times you made it.
    , @gregor
    Oh, please. You think these pointy-headed twits are trying to be clear when they parrot these "race doesn't exist" slogans? On facebook? Their intent is to promote leftist propaganda, and they are counting on the lay audience misunderstanding their particular use of language and drawing the desired conclusions.
  107. @Aaron Gross
    I still think this is just anthropologists and race realists misunderstanding and talking past each other.

    I asked JayMan what's the difference between what race realists call "race" and what anthropologists (and others) call "population"—and if they're different, to give examples of groups that are one but not the other. He replied that the words are exact synonyms; when race realists say "race," they mean "population," period.

    The rest of the world doesn't know that. You all certainly don't bother telling them very often, if at all. (I remember an old post here about the cover of Cavalli-Sforza's book, which just added to the misunderstanding.) Lots of anthropologists think you all are talking about some 19th-century concept of race. Remember that debate between Nicholas Wade and that anthropologist? The anthropologist was practically begging Wade to give a clear definition of what he meant by "race," but Wade wouldn't do it.

    Of course anthropologists believe that "race" is real, if by "race" you mean what they call population. But that's not what they mean by "race" when they say it's not real.

    All this confusion could be fixed overnight. If you all mean "population," then spell it p-o-p-u-l-a-t-i-o-n, not r-a-c-e. Then you could still fight with anthropologists and others, like about whether there's a genetic influence on between-population variation in intelligence, etc. But at least then you'd be arguing about a real disagreement.

    If they can make you say white is black and black is white then you can turn out the lights. There are a few people left who don’t want to jump off the high dive into the dark unknown.

  108. @Aaron Gross
    No, what you mean by biologically real race is not what other people mean by just "race." The folk concept of race is in fact a social construct (constructed using biological facts).

    A Aron (Love Key and Peele)…help me out please, so is a Gender just a social construct, as in the folk concept of gender, constructed using biological facts.

  109. @ChrisZ
    If you look him up on the university website, he appears to do research on the use of hunting dogs in (vaguely) pre-modern societies. Purely off the top of my head, that area of inquiry might touch on such Sailerian topics as the consequences of breeding, or "regression to the mean" in domesticated canines that revert to the wild. Maybe he's being pointedly heterodox after all?

    A Chagnonian?

  110. @ChrisZ
    If you look him up on the university website, he appears to do research on the use of hunting dogs in (vaguely) pre-modern societies. Purely off the top of my head, that area of inquiry might touch on such Sailerian topics as the consequences of breeding, or "regression to the mean" in domesticated canines that revert to the wild. Maybe he's being pointedly heterodox after all?

    A Chagnonian?

    The anthropologists I know of who are big into hunting are Henry Harpending, Napoleon Chagnon, and Robin Fox.

    • Replies: @ChrisZ
    If you click through the grid of academics to the individual photo of Prof. Blue Polo, you can see that his card is quoting a fellow anthropologist (out of U. of Fla.) from a paper titled "How race becomes biology: Embodiment of social inequality"--which sounds like a curious inversion of ideas current around here.

    The pictured fellow from Cincinnati earned his doctorate at Penn State, but I couldn't tell you whether that marked him as a Chagnonian, Foxian, or Harpendingite.
  111. @Aaron Gross
    Is it not clear that a US Census form is a social construct? (Or a political construct if you want to be pedantic?) And that Obama's self-identification as black is identification with the socially-constructed race "black"?

    US Census forms and presidential declarations do not define biological categories. When the US governments talks about blacks or whites or whatever, they're talking about socially constructed races. They are not genetic populations, i.e., biological races.

    Two categories: biological and social.

    Biological: "population" or (if you insist) "race."
    Social: "race."

    I thought long and hard about this 14 years ago trying to reduce the government’s race categories to farce. But I failed. My eventual conclusion: they were good enough for government work.

  112. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Aaron Gross
    Bottom line: I didn't expect to convince anyone to change their "scientific" terminology, and I haven't.

    But if you're trying to be clear—a very big if—then you could clarify things a lot by mentioning, prominently, that when you say "biological race exists," you mean the exact same thing as an anthropologist means by "genetic populations exist." In that sense, everyone is a race/population realist.

    This is just some stupid bogus semantic disagreement, where both sides are too stubborn to acknowledge that they're both saying the same thing.

    But if you’re trying to be clear—a very big if—then you could clarify things a lot by mentioning, prominently, that when you say “biological race exists,” you mean the exact same thing as an anthropologist means by “genetic populations exist.”

    Well, since the anthropologists are the ones making public statements, then if THEY wanted to be clear, they should point out that, when they say “race”, they mean something that nobody ELSE means when they say race.

    But they DON’T want to be clear. They want to obfuscate things. Which you know perfectly well and just refuse to be honest about.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Well, since the anthropologists are the ones making public statements, then if THEY wanted to be clear, they should point out that, when they say “race”, they mean something that nobody ELSE means when they say race.

    But they DON’T want to be clear. They want to obfuscate things. Which you know perfectly well and just refuse to be honest about.
     
    Well said!
  113. @Steve Sailer
    A Chagnonian?

    The anthropologists I know of who are big into hunting are Henry Harpending, Napoleon Chagnon, and Robin Fox.

    If you click through the grid of academics to the individual photo of Prof. Blue Polo, you can see that his card is quoting a fellow anthropologist (out of U. of Fla.) from a paper titled “How race becomes biology: Embodiment of social inequality”–which sounds like a curious inversion of ideas current around here.

    The pictured fellow from Cincinnati earned his doctorate at Penn State, but I couldn’t tell you whether that marked him as a Chagnonian, Foxian, or Harpendingite.

  114. @Aaron Gross
    Bottom line: I didn't expect to convince anyone to change their "scientific" terminology, and I haven't.

    But if you're trying to be clear—a very big if—then you could clarify things a lot by mentioning, prominently, that when you say "biological race exists," you mean the exact same thing as an anthropologist means by "genetic populations exist." In that sense, everyone is a race/population realist.

    This is just some stupid bogus semantic disagreement, where both sides are too stubborn to acknowledge that they're both saying the same thing.

    Aaron Gross, you pretty much define the word “pedant.” Stop already, for the love of god, just stop. We all got your point the first ten times you made it.

    • Replies: @Jimi
    You're misusing the word "pedant." A pedant is a person overly concerned with minor details while a didact is someone over-inclined to instruct others. I think you mean to call Aaron Gross a didact.

    I urge you to use "didact" from now on instead of "pedant." You could clarify a lot if you stick to usage as determined by me and backed up by the lexicographical community.

  115. @Aaron Gross
    But I've thought about them more clearly.

    You give no sign of having thought about them or anything else, or of understanding what thinking would entail.

  116. @Aaron Gross
    How do you guys read the minds of people you've never met?

    And you're always right! You're never falsified!

    It could be falsified if the winners of the 100m sprints would come from random backgrounds across the world, however the winners in the last decades all have West African descent.

  117. @Aaron Gross
    Bottom line: I didn't expect to convince anyone to change their "scientific" terminology, and I haven't.

    But if you're trying to be clear—a very big if—then you could clarify things a lot by mentioning, prominently, that when you say "biological race exists," you mean the exact same thing as an anthropologist means by "genetic populations exist." In that sense, everyone is a race/population realist.

    This is just some stupid bogus semantic disagreement, where both sides are too stubborn to acknowledge that they're both saying the same thing.

    Oh, please. You think these pointy-headed twits are trying to be clear when they parrot these “race doesn’t exist” slogans? On facebook? Their intent is to promote leftist propaganda, and they are counting on the lay audience misunderstanding their particular use of language and drawing the desired conclusions.

  118. War is Peace and Ignorance is Strength.
    I think the evident falseness of the statement is what gives it its power as an in-group/out-group marker.

  119. Are pictures like this posted on Facebook, like a preemptive inoculation against a “Black Live’s Matter” sit in? Sorta like the Obama bumper sticker on a late model Volvo in the parking lot of Whole Paycheck, I mean “Whole Foods” will hopefully prevent the car from getting vandalized…….

    • Replies: @Marty
    You got it. Cincinnati is 46% black. Can't believe it took so long for somebody to mention the obvious motive.
  120. @peterike
    Aaron Gross, you pretty much define the word "pedant." Stop already, for the love of god, just stop. We all got your point the first ten times you made it.

    You’re misusing the word “pedant.” A pedant is a person overly concerned with minor details while a didact is someone over-inclined to instruct others. I think you mean to call Aaron Gross a didact.

    I urge you to use “didact” from now on instead of “pedant.” You could clarify a lot if you stick to usage as determined by me and backed up by the lexicographical community.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    Thank you for making me laugh.
  121. @George Taylor
    Are pictures like this posted on Facebook, like a preemptive inoculation against a "Black Live's Matter" sit in? Sorta like the Obama bumper sticker on a late model Volvo in the parking lot of Whole Paycheck, I mean "Whole Foods" will hopefully prevent the car from getting vandalized.......

    You got it. Cincinnati is 46% black. Can’t believe it took so long for somebody to mention the obvious motive.

  122. @Jimi
    You're misusing the word "pedant." A pedant is a person overly concerned with minor details while a didact is someone over-inclined to instruct others. I think you mean to call Aaron Gross a didact.

    I urge you to use "didact" from now on instead of "pedant." You could clarify a lot if you stick to usage as determined by me and backed up by the lexicographical community.

    Thank you for making me laugh.

  123. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Have you seen this befuddled response by an anthropologist to Brown’s ongoing saga of denial of race as a biological category?

    http://www.browndailyherald.com/2015/10/19/letter-race-does-not-cause-cultural-and-social-variation/

    People make fun of social science for attracting weak students, but you’d be surprised by the demanding scientific inquiry of anthropology, that is, as the discipline was intended. At some point, social/cultural anthropology excised all its ties to biology and despite, or maybe because of, being the most politicized and least scientific subdivision, gained control of anthropology departments. Still, the father of anthropology is Darwin. All the classic anthropology textbooks begin with original texts from The Origin of Species. I could understand a tenured sociology or even psychology professor having no background in hard science. But an anthropology professor retired in good standing? It’s really surprising and sad.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Anthropology was once extremely ambitious. I use the term "human sciences," and some early anthropologists intended anthropology to be the summit of the sciences, working up from the underlying math and physics to chemistry, biology, etc.
  124. @SFG
    As another commenter pointed out, some of these guys don't look too happy to be there. (Don't ever be the first to stop clapping!) Plus, they're all white.

    Going from 'black is bad' in the 1950s to 'white is bad' in the 2010s strikes me as no progress at all, but hey, who ever asked me?

    Thing that always got me with statements like 'the white race is the cancer of civilization' is, well, you think if the Chinese had won the great civilizational sweepstakes (they still may!) they'd be going on about the evil of traditional Chinese civilization? Or, God forbid, if the Aztecs had developed ships and sailed to Europe to rip out a thousand hearts on a giant pyramid in the middle of London? Do you think an Arab or Persian Muslim empire would be any better? (Certainly not for the ladies.)

    It's like the Yankees in baseball or Duke in college basketball. Everyone hates a winner. Until they're not a winner anymore.

    SFG,

    All of your points are valid, but how can the University genetics section be so PC – blinded to not point out what we generally interested internet searchers know about DNA and skeletal differences between man, woman, black and white? The TV shows NCIS, CSI:Vegas, and Bones have all had the Bones chick or a Pathologist say “yeah, this was a male/female/pre or post adolescent/black or white person” due to looking at skull features, or some other aspect of the skeleton. As a medical tech in the Navy for 20 years, I know that more blacks than whites had needs for specific malarial meds, due to the incidence of the sickle cell trait.

    And the culture issue is one that Trump better push harder, or the mainline media and my party, the Repubs, will push Carson over him. I think Trump must have mainline Repubs advising him now, because he’s laying off of the immigration issues almost completely.

  125. @Anonymous
    Have you seen this befuddled response by an anthropologist to Brown's ongoing saga of denial of race as a biological category?

    http://www.browndailyherald.com/2015/10/19/letter-race-does-not-cause-cultural-and-social-variation/


    People make fun of social science for attracting weak students, but you'd be surprised by the demanding scientific inquiry of anthropology, that is, as the discipline was intended. At some point, social/cultural anthropology excised all its ties to biology and despite, or maybe because of, being the most politicized and least scientific subdivision, gained control of anthropology departments. Still, the father of anthropology is Darwin. All the classic anthropology textbooks begin with original texts from The Origin of Species. I could understand a tenured sociology or even psychology professor having no background in hard science. But an anthropology professor retired in good standing? It's really surprising and sad.

    Anthropology was once extremely ambitious. I use the term “human sciences,” and some early anthropologists intended anthropology to be the summit of the sciences, working up from the underlying math and physics to chemistry, biology, etc.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Why can't they just study anthros and report their findings?
  126. @cwhatfuture
    In the comments section of their page, they respond to this as follows:

    "These photos are just the first step. Our department is coordinating more actions with the students and colleagues in other departments to agitate for real change at the university. With only two other departments (Sociology & WGSS) issuing statements and coming out in unified support of #theIRATE8 student activists and #BlackLivesMatter movement, we wanted to show our solidarity and lend our anthropological expertise to spread their message further. Stay tuned for more. This is not lip service."
     
    So ... they will be "coordinating", "agitating", "coming out" and "lending expertise". Just not hiring.

    Just not hiring.

    Or teaching.

  127. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “This is just some stupid bogus semantic disagreement, where both sides are too stubborn to acknowledge that they’re both saying the same thing.”

    Sometimes you have to see and understand what’s going down, not just focus on the trees.

    Argument by claim of bogus semantic disagreement is usually a red herring.

  128. @Aaron Gross
    That's exactly what I meant. You and this guy were arguing about words, not about what the words refer to.

    What if you had said, "These large regional groups of people - you presumably call them populations, and I call them races, though not in the 18th- and 19th-century meaning of the word. We're using different words to mean exactly the same thing."

    Or better yet, what if you had just used the current, universally accepted, scientific word for these groups: "populations"?

    That’s exactly what I meant. You and this guy were arguing about words, not about what the words refer to.

    No. I was being commonsensical. The sociologist was desperately trying not to legitimize the word “race,” because he was in self-righteous mode (“Look at me! I’m such a champion of the downtrodden!”). For people like that, no matter what the IQ or the scientific substance of the matter, legitimizing “race” leads to “racism,” which is the greatest evil ever perpetrated in human history. But apparently population-ism is completely valid scientifically.

    That’s just playing games with words, pure and simple, in order to avoid the truth of an uncomfortable (to him and his ilk) topic.

  129. @SFG
    As another commenter pointed out, some of these guys don't look too happy to be there. (Don't ever be the first to stop clapping!) Plus, they're all white.

    Going from 'black is bad' in the 1950s to 'white is bad' in the 2010s strikes me as no progress at all, but hey, who ever asked me?

    Thing that always got me with statements like 'the white race is the cancer of civilization' is, well, you think if the Chinese had won the great civilizational sweepstakes (they still may!) they'd be going on about the evil of traditional Chinese civilization? Or, God forbid, if the Aztecs had developed ships and sailed to Europe to rip out a thousand hearts on a giant pyramid in the middle of London? Do you think an Arab or Persian Muslim empire would be any better? (Certainly not for the ladies.)

    It's like the Yankees in baseball or Duke in college basketball. Everyone hates a winner. Until they're not a winner anymore.

    The only guy who might get a pass is the one in the white polo shirt. The others all have major or minor liberal-idiot tells. Like the turquoise rings, psychedelic shirt prints, practiced male-model scowling, or fashionista-level dork wear.

    All of them believe it. All are cucked

  130. @ChrisZ
    If you look him up on the university website, he appears to do research on the use of hunting dogs in (vaguely) pre-modern societies. Purely off the top of my head, that area of inquiry might touch on such Sailerian topics as the consequences of breeding, or "regression to the mean" in domesticated canines that revert to the wild. Maybe he's being pointedly heterodox after all?

    Thanks for locating the source of that statement. You are correct that within the context of the article it is not a call for empirical research as it is usually understood but rather it is a call to help develop a replacement model for the failed notion that race is cultural and not biological.

    The article has a suggestion that I have not seen before. The author says that since the idea that race is not biological has failed on most levels then maybe the concept of biology could be re-arranged so as to not discredit the social construct idea. He says, “This shift in emphasis suggests that we may need to devote as much attention to revising our conception of biology as we do to our conception of race.” I admire tenacity and resourcefulness.

    It would be great if someone could come up with a good method to help mis-guided scholars disabuse themselves of the idea that the denial of the existence of races is the only way to combat racism.

    The shiny bright bauble, empirical research, caught my eye as I diverted my gaze from the pleas for the teaching and un-teaching of dogma.

  131. @anon
    But if you’re trying to be clear—a very big if—then you could clarify things a lot by mentioning, prominently, that when you say “biological race exists,” you mean the exact same thing as an anthropologist means by “genetic populations exist.”

    Well, since the anthropologists are the ones making public statements, then if THEY wanted to be clear, they should point out that, when they say "race", they mean something that nobody ELSE means when they say race.

    But they DON'T want to be clear. They want to obfuscate things. Which you know perfectly well and just refuse to be honest about.

    Well, since the anthropologists are the ones making public statements, then if THEY wanted to be clear, they should point out that, when they say “race”, they mean something that nobody ELSE means when they say race.

    But they DON’T want to be clear. They want to obfuscate things. Which you know perfectly well and just refuse to be honest about.

    Well said!

  132. As I was just typing a comment on the facebook page, a popup informed me that I cannot comment on a POST THAT HAD BEEN DELETED. Liberals have zero principles and their irrational thoughs cannot stand rational criticism. The won’t allow it. H8ers!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    And the anthros gonna anthro, anthro, anthro, anthro, anthro
    'Cause the players gonna play, play, play, play, play
    And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate
    Baby, I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake
  133. When Nobel Prize winning poet Tony Morrison, who is African-American, can write an October 1988 New Yorker article titled “Clinton as the first black president”, then what is “black”? When Time magazine’s Jack White calls Supreme Court Justice Thomas, “the scariest of all the hobgoblins”, saying “Washington seems to be filled with white men who make black people uneasy”, than what is “black”? And when Obama, a man whose mother is Caucasian, and whose father is only part African Negro and and part Arab, can tell us his autobiography that in his youth he struggled with his racial identity before *deciding* to be black, what is “black”?

    References to race, and especially to “black”, in all these diverse contexts, is clearly not about “race”. They are about ideology, or more exactly, about socialist ideology. It is the rebuke that these black people refuse to be red.

    Liberals are clearly using “race” as a proxy for ideology and not informing us. They are then clubbing anyone who objects to this transformation and manipulation for being “racisss”, and they have found this to be an effective tool to silence any contrary opinion. Well I AM DONE PLAYING THAT GAME.

  134. It is time to ask why these people hate themselves and hate our culture? My personal opinion is because they reject God and even reject the idea there is a God. They thus reject the idea that God defines right and wrong. They don’t know how to live a life in harmony with God’s eternal spiritual truth. They reject the very idea.

    They are after all, very learned people. So learned that in fact they would not give academic credentials to anyone who believed that God has a Law that defines right and wrong. After all, who are we to say some behavior is wrong?

    God tells us in many ways that the consequence of violating His Law is that people will come to loath themselves. This appears to be coming true with this group.

    God can and will forgive a person’s sins, but they have to ask first, and they have to ask with an attitude that they will stop committing them. Otherwise, people will reap what they are sewing, as we can clearly see.

  135. @Steve Sailer
    Anthropology was once extremely ambitious. I use the term "human sciences," and some early anthropologists intended anthropology to be the summit of the sciences, working up from the underlying math and physics to chemistry, biology, etc.

    Why can’t they just study anthros and report their findings?

  136. I thought exactly the same way until I was maybe 22. Although I had had some questions throughout the years before I really stopped that crime thinking before. I guess those people are still in this state

  137. Surreal. The assistant professor in the top-left corner of the photo has co-authored:

    “Distribution of an allele associated with blond hair color across northern Island Melanesia”

    “Genetic evidence for the convergent evolution of light skin in Europeans and East Asians”

    “SLC24A5, a putative cation exchanger, affects pigmentation in zebrafish and humans”

    “Skin and hair pigmentation variation in Island Melanesia”

    “Pigmentation and candidate gene variation in Northern Island Melanesia”

    “Association study confirms the role of two OCA2 polymorphisms in normal skin pigmentation variation in East Asian populations”

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Surreal. The assistant professor in the top-left corner of the photo has co-authored:
     
    Yes, but you see, that's not "racist research," that's genetically-clustered population group research. Completely legitimate and valid, and totally not in anyway racist at all.

    Amusingly, I think she is the whitest-looking one in the bunch (yes, I know, I am being colloquial, okay, she is the most phenotypically Northwestern European one in the sampling).
  138. WhatEvvs [AKA "Internet Addict"] says:
    @AndrewR
    I'm astounded to see someone so cogently rebut the dominant narrative (in front of the Senate, no less), but I am not at all optimistic that her testimony will change in any significant way the legislation of the Senate. Maybe I'm just jaded, though. Hope isn't worth the probable letdown.

    It won’t have any immediate effect at all. I’ve given up on that. I’ve given up on the idea that rationality changes minds, and that rationality has anything to do with how we govern. I just am astounded that someone has the guts to say in public what McDonald said. I know who she is and I’m not surprised at the content, but even among realists her vocabulary is admirably blunt, especially in this insane, hysterical #blacklivesmatterized world.

  139. @Grumpy
    Surreal. The assistant professor in the top-left corner of the photo has co-authored:

    "Distribution of an allele associated with blond hair color across northern Island Melanesia"

    "Genetic evidence for the convergent evolution of light skin in Europeans and East Asians"

    "SLC24A5, a putative cation exchanger, affects pigmentation in zebrafish and humans"

    "Skin and hair pigmentation variation in Island Melanesia"

    "Pigmentation and candidate gene variation in Northern Island Melanesia"

    "Association study confirms the role of two OCA2 polymorphisms in normal skin pigmentation variation in East Asian populations"

    Surreal. The assistant professor in the top-left corner of the photo has co-authored:

    Yes, but you see, that’s not “racist research,” that’s genetically-clustered population group research. Completely legitimate and valid, and totally not in anyway racist at all.

    Amusingly, I think she is the whitest-looking one in the bunch (yes, I know, I am being colloquial, okay, she is the most phenotypically Northwestern European one in the sampling).

  140. @theBuckWheat
    As I was just typing a comment on the facebook page, a popup informed me that I cannot comment on a POST THAT HAD BEEN DELETED. Liberals have zero principles and their irrational thoughs cannot stand rational criticism. The won't allow it. H8ers!

    And the anthros gonna anthro, anthro, anthro, anthro, anthro
    ‘Cause the players gonna play, play, play, play, play
    And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate
    Baby, I’m just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.