The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
More Reviews of Angela Saini's "Superior: The Return of Race Science"
🔊 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

Since I play a starring role as a Bad Guy in Angela Saini’s new book Superior: The Return of Race Science, I’m interested in reaction to it. Besides my review in Taki’s Magazine, here are more book reviews:

Pro-Saini:

From The Financial Times:

Superior by Angela Saini — are we all created equal?
Race science is undergoing a revival, after its horrific climax in the 20th century

Clive Cookson MAY 29, 2019

… As Angela Saini writes in Superior, her brilliant analysis of race science past and present, the acceptance of Neanderthals as “people like us” is a recent example of a centuries-old European attitude — “casting humanity in our own image”.

… Recent research into human diversity and mobility demolishes any scientific validity claimed by the old concept of “race”. DNA analysis of live people and ancient bones shows that, ever since Homo sapiens evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago, we have migrated — and exchanged genes — more actively than previous generations of anthropologists would have imagined possible.

Human identity has been smeared out geographically, making it hard to tell where someone came from by testing his or her DNA, even though consumer-oriented companies have made a fortune selling kits that purport to tell ancestral origins from genes. An African with dark skin and characteristic facial shape may look different to a European but few biological features are unambiguous identifiers of African origin.

From The Guardian:

Superior: The Return of Race Science by Angela Saini – review
This timely book looks at the toxic origins of racism, which science continues to embrace

Alok Jha

Mon 27 May 2019 06.00 EDT

This is an urgent, important book. It contains a warning: you thought racism might be on its way out of science? That the arc of society, bending towards more progressive, tolerant values, had long banished the scientific search for ways in which one grouping of people is inherently more talented, clever or physically able than another? You thought wrong.

From Slate:

Why Do So Many Researchers Still Treat Race as a Scientific Concept?

Angela Saini’s new book makes a compelling argument about how even scientists with good intentions end up perpetuating misleading ideas about race.
By TIM REQUARTH

MAY 30, 2019

From Smithsonian:

The Disturbing Resilience of Scientific Racism

A new book explores how racist biases continue to maintain a foothold in research today

By Ramin Skibba
SMITHSONIAN.COM
MAY 20, 2019

The post-war era saw scientists on the right-wing fringe find ways to cloak their racist views in more palatable language and concepts. And as Angela Saini convincingly argues in her new book, Superior: The Return of Race Science, published May 21 by Beacon Press, the “problem of the color line” still survives today in 21st-century science.

In her thoroughly researched book, Saini, a London-based science journalist, provides clear explanations of racist concepts while diving into the history of race science, from archaeology and anthropology to biology and genetics. Her work involved poring through technical papers, reports and books, and interviewing numerous scientists across various fields, sometimes asking uncomfortable questions about their research.

“Mainstream scientists, geneticists and medical researchers still invoke race and use these categories in their work, even though we have been told for 70 years that they have no biological meaning, that they have only social meaning,” Saini says.

Mixed:

From The Times of London:

Superior by Angela Saini review — is racist cod science really on the rise?

Science may have a chequered past — but it’s not racist to study differences between population groups, says Tom Chivers

Tom Chivers
May 24 2019, 12:00pm,

On one level, Angela Saini’s Superior is a very good book: informative and chilling.

Negative:

From the Unz Review:

Superior Ideology
JAMES THOMPSON • JUNE 4, 2019 • 3,500 WORDS • 103 COMMENTS •

Superior: the return of race science. Angela Saini. 4th Estate. London. 2019.

Excitedly promoted in national newspapers, glowingly reviewed in Sunday magazines, the author interviewed on national radio, this book is part of a mainstream narrative which promotes the ascendant public stance, which is that race does not exist as a useful category, and that those who perversely study it have reprehensible motives.

Saini dedicates the book to her parents “the only ancestors I need to know”. This is touching, though a bit hard on her grandparents. The Prologue (page 3) explains her stance: “The key to understanding the meaning of race is understanding power. When you see how power has shaped the idea of race, and continues to shape it, how it affects even the scientific facts, everything finally begins to make sense”.

As Lenin said in 1921: “The whole question is—who will overtake whom?”

From Quillette:

Superior: The Return of Race Science—A Review

written by Bo Winegard and Noah Carl
Published on June 5, 2019 comments 161

A review of Superior: The Return of Race Science by Angela Saini, Beacon Press, 256 pages (May, 2019)

The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatisation, and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct…
~Charles Darwin, 1871, The Descent of Man

Angela Saini’s new book, Superior, is a cautionary tale about the historical legacy, and putative return, of what she calls “race science.” As far as we can determine, there are four main theses running through the book:

– ‘Race’ is not a meaningful biological category
-Genes can only contribute to population differences on certain “superficial” traits
-Studying whether genes might contribute to population differences on non-superficial traits is tantamount to “scientific racism”
-Almost everyone interested in whether genes might contribute to population differences on these other traits is a “scientific racist”

To be blunt, we disagree with all four of Saini’s main theses, as we shall explain in this article. (Note that since the book is quite poorly structured, and in some places contradictory, it is not always easy to discern what Saini is or is not asserting. Nonetheless, we believe that the four propositions above comprise a fair summary of her main arguments.)

And my review in Taki’s Magazine:

Arguing Against Reality
by Steve Sailer

June 05, 2019

… Saini gets her story about me so wrong that’s it’s hard to have much confidence in the rest of her book.

 
Hide 36 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. South Asians galore.

    • Agree: Malcolm X-Lax
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Yeah, half the pro reviews look like ethnic backscratching.

    Colonizing the upper reaches of Western journalism: another job I don't recall anyone asking them to do.
  2. Say…..maybe you could post a rebuttal on YouTu-

    Oops.

  3. As seems to happen a lot recently, I double-posted versions of this post. I trashed the old one. Sorry.

    • Replies: @Anon
    There's a WordPress plugin that allows you to consolidate comments from multiple posts. If Ron were to install it you could delete multiple posts without losing comments.
  4. I used to be a regular reader of the FT. Clive Cookson was rubbish; I’m appalled to learn that they still employ him.

  5. Anonymous[421] • Disclaimer says:

    Recent research into human diversity and mobility demolishes any scientific validity claimed by the old concept of “race”. DNA analysis of live people and ancient bones shows that, ever since Homo sapiens evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago, we have migrated — and exchanged genes — more actively than previous generations of anthropologists would have imagined possible.

    Funny. I was told that until the modern era, your average person barely left 10 miles beyond the radius of where he was born. But now, it’s like everyone was flying all over the place as if they had wings.

    Actually, the reason why Race is valid is because of migrations and their ‘graduality’.

    Migrations + ‘Graduality’ = Different Races.

    If there had no been no migrations among the original human species, there would likely be one race. Suppose homo sapiens arose in some small part of Kenya and suppose everyone remained there and shared genes with one another. There would have been only one race with shared genes.

    If there had always been super-fast-massive migrations, there would likely be one race. Suppose all through human existence, all humans had the speed of Flash or Hermes. They would zip around the world at the speed of light. Then, peoples in Asia, Africa, Europe, Americas, Australia, and etc. would have been visiting one another and mating together.

    But most of human existence has been the story of migrations and gradualness. Certain groups did venture out from their core community. Some groups became permanently separated from other groups, even across mountains, continents, and oceans. These migrations separated the venturing group from the original group. As these venturing groups ended up in areas with new environments, different selective pressures came to mold them. Also, they underwent different mutations not shared by groups from which they separated. Also, in forming different cultures, there was another layer of selective pressures. A culture that values the hunter will favor hunter-warriors for breeding. A culture that values merchant or scholar will favor more cerebral types for breeding. Agriculture also affects evolution as more food means more people get to survive and pass down genes.

    Migrations are central to different races forming. As people flowed across and out of Africa, new races formed that was different from the core original group of homo sapiens. Also, until the modern era, migrations for most of humanity was exceedingly gradual. It took 10,000s of yrs for peoples who crossed the Bering Strait to colonize all of the Americas. Also, those who migrated to South America became different from those in the North. Also, most Indians in North America never knew of the existence of South America and vice versa. It was the arrival of Europeans that made South American Indians aware of North American Indians and vice versa. And if both groups know of Eskimos, it’s due to modern media.

    If we squeeze 10,000 yrs into a new chapters in a book or magazine article, it may seem like humans were racing all over the world, but it wasn’t so. It was exceedingly difficult for people for most of human existence to trek across great distances. How many Westerners prior to the modernity made it to the Far East? If not for modernity, Eskimos never would have known of black people or Amazonian Indians. If not for modernity, most blacks in Africa would have know little of the world outside their tribal village.

    Things may change now with airplane travel and ease of transportation. Also with promotion of Diversity and race-mixing that has elites all over trying to turn their nation into Peru or Venezuela.

    Anyway, what is the PC line based on its loopy logic? The brown natives of South America did NOT constitute a unique and special genetic group because Europeans migrated over there and ‘shared genes’ with them? Australian Aborigines didn’t constitute a special group because Anglos moved there and ‘shared genes’ with them?
    Now, the notion of ‘racial purity’ may be problematic because all races arose from other races and were mixed with other groups along the way. But for most of human existence, this happened gradually. So, there developed certain distinctness among races. How many natural blondes among black Africans or American Indians? How many Eskimos have nappy hair? Distinct features developed among races.
    Furthermore, most groups existed for longer durations in separation than migration. So, while the ancestors of South American browns may have clashed and mixed with other tribes in North America before their descendants migrated and settled in the South, once they found their niche in some part of South America, they spent many centuries and millenniums in relative isolation with others genetically similar to them.

    Same with Aryan Invasions into India. The fact that the invasive migrations happened doesn’t nullify that there existed a distinct(if not pure) darker-skinned people in the sub-continent. And even though the Aryan invasions did fundamentally change the gene pool of the sub-continent, it’s not like the invasions happened forever. At some point, the invasions stopped, and the once-migratory Aryans spent centuries upon centuries melding with the native folks and in the process, producing a new distinct racial type. Again, migration and gradualness followed by long periods of separation and isolation.

    Furthermore, race-mixing doesn’t negate racial reality. Surely, a white-Asian mix will be different from white-African mix. These globalists speak in terms of ‘purity’ vs ‘mixed’, but the differences are also between ‘one kind of mix’ vs ‘another kind of mix’. Jews mixed with whites are different from Jews mixed with blacks. A Mexican and a Moroccan are both mixed but also distinct from one another. Also, some people are surely more mixed than others.

    Also, if ‘pure race’ is a myth and if all of us are so mixed to begin with, why do we need more mixing? If mixing is good and if we’re already mixed, why not just leave us alone? Why do we need more of what we have already?

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Is that you, Priss?

    https://youtu.be/O3TXwWANFbM

    Thank you.
  6. @Anon
    South Asians galore.

    Yeah, half the pro reviews look like ethnic backscratching.

    Colonizing the upper reaches of Western journalism: another job I don’t recall anyone asking them to do.

    • Replies: @CrunchybutRealistCon
    It's fascinating and disturbing to see how many Hindus are simply projecting their envy & animus at the superior state of European civilization over the past couple centuries. When people leave the 3rd World for the 1st, an awareness of the sharp contrast in social capital & complexity may fill them with resentment rather than gratitude. Perhaps Saini's animus is also another form of Barack Obama's Anti-Colonial worldview: if darker skinned people are less advanced, it must be the result of White racism, eugenics, diabolical Nazi scientists & blonde haired Aryan villains. A cartoonish worldview but totally plausible.
  7. Lot says:

    Clive Crookson of the Financial Times: “we have migrated — and exchanged genes — more actively than previous generations of anthropologists would have imagined possible.”

    Nope.

    “Previous generations” of awful white-bodied anthropologists thought the Aborigines of Australia and Asian negritos might be relatively recent African migrations. They are not.

    They also thought the Ainu might be partly the result of an old European migration to Japan. Also now disproved.

    The degree that the Normans and Anglo-Saxons replaced the old Britons is less than initially thought.

    Ashkenazi were thought to have come from the old Khazer Kingdom, whose heart is now Southern Russia and SE Ukraine. Turns out… mostly Northern Italian.

    Even within England, there was little enough mixing between regions that a genetic test can make a decent guess at which county a rural Englishman’s ancestors came from.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The important aspect seldom mentioned is just how tiny populations were before the agrarian and industrial revolution.

    Then things are more easily assimilated. Small isolated groups of interelated extended families, most often living and dying within a small radius of their birth before 40 years of age.
  8. It really is the heliocentric controversy of our current age. The church is apoplectic and determined to stamp out heresy. Hard science, rife with sycophants, bows and prostrates to the church, but nevertheless pushes forward one inch at a time.

    Who/whom will be burned at the stake before the clerics and their fire, are washed away by history.

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
  9. So, if someone from anywhere, say Somalia, moves to India (the “Geek nation” according to Saini) they too can become geeks and dominate science. Let’s try it.

  10. “An African with dark skin and characteristic facial shape may look different to a European but few biological features are unambiguous identifiers of African origin.”
    I’m going to hazard a guess that this Financial Times is a magazine for economics scholars discussing the theories of the semi-science of economics.
    Surely they can’t be a practical guide for entrepreneurs and investors because no sane person would be staking their own money based on advice from an organ pumping out opinions that are absolutely 180 degrees out from hard scientific evidence. i.e. reality biological features are used to identify people’s origin with astonishing precision.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    The Financial Times is a newspaper for the investor class. For that reason, it is in its best interest to promote whatever scientific theories will help maintain social order while mass immigration continues.
  11. @Alfa158
    "An African with dark skin and characteristic facial shape may look different to a European but few biological features are unambiguous identifiers of African origin."
    I'm going to hazard a guess that this Financial Times is a magazine for economics scholars discussing the theories of the semi-science of economics.
    Surely they can't be a practical guide for entrepreneurs and investors because no sane person would be staking their own money based on advice from an organ pumping out opinions that are absolutely 180 degrees out from hard scientific evidence. i.e. reality biological features are used to identify people's origin with astonishing precision.

    The Financial Times is a newspaper for the investor class. For that reason, it is in its best interest to promote whatever scientific theories will help maintain social order while mass immigration continues.

  12. Have Neanderthals been accepted as people like us ?
    if so , Caucasians have been living in Europe for 500,000 years.

    It seems the media outlets initially pushed the narrative that Caucasians were all part Neanderthal to make caucasians appear less pure , a hybrid between homo sapiens and an archaic hominid….This led some people to quip that only Africans are pure Homo sapiens…but at the same time they keep pushing the narrative that we left Africa 60,000 years ago and did not arrive in Europe until 40,000 years ago. Since Caucasians are a hybrid species, and all caucasians have neanderthal ancestors, why does the narrative still insist that we did not arrive in Europe until 40,000 hers ago ? Clearly Europeans did not arrive in Europe, they were created in Europe via breeding with Neanderthals.

    But now they have discovered that Sub-saharan Africans are also a hybrid of 2 species. Homo Sapiens and another archaic hominid. Thus the difference between the races are partly due to Negroids breeding with a different archaic hominoid than the other races. Sub-Saharan Africans are no longer considered pure Homo Sapiens.

    While the narrative keeps claiming that race does not exist we keep discovering more and more differences between Blacks and the other races. Much of this is due to inter-species mating. Thus the 3 main races can be identified as 3 unique hybrids. Caucasoids are 3% Neanderthal, Mongoloids have 4% Denisovan, while Negroids obtain 9% of their DNA from a different archaic hominid. Instead of categorizing us by race , we could categorize humans as belonging to one of the 3 types of inter-species Hybrid populations of humans.

  13. I feel like dear old Ange would be much happier trying to give Sunny Leone a run for her money:

    Just sayin’

  14. Doing the same nagging that caused the Yamnaya to charge out of the steppes…..

  15. Lots to dissect here. Great comments. Couple minor corrections. Europeans have up to 6% Neanderthal DNA, not just 3%. Some Sub-Saharan Africans are considered pure Homo Sapiens – the Khoie-San (bushmen).

    You are absolutely correct. Europeans did not arrive in Europe. Europeans were created in Europe by hybridization.

  16. Anonymous[420] • Disclaimer says:

    Reading Angela Saini’s book is a considerable investment of time and mental energy. Since she has nothing insightful to say, I can’t be bothered. However, if she poses nude, I will be happy to judge her attractiveness relative to females of other ethnicities.

  17. The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatisation, and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct…
    ~Charles Darwin, 1871, The Descent of Man

    I think they are going to be coming for Charles Darwin soon, even though they fucking love science and evolution because religion is so fucking dogmatic and anti-Scientific …

  18. @Steve Sailer
    As seems to happen a lot recently, I double-posted versions of this post. I trashed the old one. Sorry.

    There’s a WordPress plugin that allows you to consolidate comments from multiple posts. If Ron were to install it you could delete multiple posts without losing comments.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.
  19. The University of North Carolina Charlotte?

    Is that Triple- or Double-A?

  20. Problem with facts regarding this issue is that they hurt feelings, and in our Feminismo Age, hurt feelings trump facts. They trump science. If push comes to shove, and it will, they will trump lives, especially if lives at issue are white.

  21. @Anon
    There's a WordPress plugin that allows you to consolidate comments from multiple posts. If Ron were to install it you could delete multiple posts without losing comments.

    Thanks.

  22. If race is not a viable concept, from whither springs AA and even diversity itself? Are they not fruit of a poisoned and poisonous tree?

    • Replies: @Semperluctor
    I have the same question; if race is simply a construct, and there is no such thing as an European white (for example), then there is also no such thing as a black, or an Hispanic. That being the case, there can be no race based A.A. spoils system. The NAACP and La Raza should disband, as they are pushing a false narrative, of categories that do not actually exist.

    That will never happen of course. However, imagine A.A. which is based on need, on financial need, and which is skin color blind, as it should be given that race does not exist. That would be a fair, and equitable, and unifying, result.
  23. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot
    Clive Crookson of the Financial Times: “we have migrated — and exchanged genes — more actively than previous generations of anthropologists would have imagined possible.”

    Nope.

    “Previous generations” of awful white-bodied anthropologists thought the Aborigines of Australia and Asian negritos might be relatively recent African migrations. They are not.

    They also thought the Ainu might be partly the result of an old European migration to Japan. Also now disproved.

    The degree that the Normans and Anglo-Saxons replaced the old Britons is less than initially thought.

    Ashkenazi were thought to have come from the old Khazer Kingdom, whose heart is now Southern Russia and SE Ukraine. Turns out... mostly Northern Italian.

    Even within England, there was little enough mixing between regions that a genetic test can make a decent guess at which county a rural Englishman’s ancestors came from.

    The important aspect seldom mentioned is just how tiny populations were before the agrarian and industrial revolution.

    Then things are more easily assimilated. Small isolated groups of interelated extended families, most often living and dying within a small radius of their birth before 40 years of age.

  24. @Anonymous

    Recent research into human diversity and mobility demolishes any scientific validity claimed by the old concept of “race”. DNA analysis of live people and ancient bones shows that, ever since Homo sapiens evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago, we have migrated — and exchanged genes — more actively than previous generations of anthropologists would have imagined possible.
     
    Funny. I was told that until the modern era, your average person barely left 10 miles beyond the radius of where he was born. But now, it's like everyone was flying all over the place as if they had wings.

    Actually, the reason why Race is valid is because of migrations and their 'graduality'.

    Migrations + 'Graduality' = Different Races.

    If there had no been no migrations among the original human species, there would likely be one race. Suppose homo sapiens arose in some small part of Kenya and suppose everyone remained there and shared genes with one another. There would have been only one race with shared genes.

    If there had always been super-fast-massive migrations, there would likely be one race. Suppose all through human existence, all humans had the speed of Flash or Hermes. They would zip around the world at the speed of light. Then, peoples in Asia, Africa, Europe, Americas, Australia, and etc. would have been visiting one another and mating together.

    But most of human existence has been the story of migrations and gradualness. Certain groups did venture out from their core community. Some groups became permanently separated from other groups, even across mountains, continents, and oceans. These migrations separated the venturing group from the original group. As these venturing groups ended up in areas with new environments, different selective pressures came to mold them. Also, they underwent different mutations not shared by groups from which they separated. Also, in forming different cultures, there was another layer of selective pressures. A culture that values the hunter will favor hunter-warriors for breeding. A culture that values merchant or scholar will favor more cerebral types for breeding. Agriculture also affects evolution as more food means more people get to survive and pass down genes.

    Migrations are central to different races forming. As people flowed across and out of Africa, new races formed that was different from the core original group of homo sapiens. Also, until the modern era, migrations for most of humanity was exceedingly gradual. It took 10,000s of yrs for peoples who crossed the Bering Strait to colonize all of the Americas. Also, those who migrated to South America became different from those in the North. Also, most Indians in North America never knew of the existence of South America and vice versa. It was the arrival of Europeans that made South American Indians aware of North American Indians and vice versa. And if both groups know of Eskimos, it's due to modern media.

    If we squeeze 10,000 yrs into a new chapters in a book or magazine article, it may seem like humans were racing all over the world, but it wasn't so. It was exceedingly difficult for people for most of human existence to trek across great distances. How many Westerners prior to the modernity made it to the Far East? If not for modernity, Eskimos never would have known of black people or Amazonian Indians. If not for modernity, most blacks in Africa would have know little of the world outside their tribal village.

    Things may change now with airplane travel and ease of transportation. Also with promotion of Diversity and race-mixing that has elites all over trying to turn their nation into Peru or Venezuela.

    Anyway, what is the PC line based on its loopy logic? The brown natives of South America did NOT constitute a unique and special genetic group because Europeans migrated over there and 'shared genes' with them? Australian Aborigines didn't constitute a special group because Anglos moved there and 'shared genes' with them?
    Now, the notion of 'racial purity' may be problematic because all races arose from other races and were mixed with other groups along the way. But for most of human existence, this happened gradually. So, there developed certain distinctness among races. How many natural blondes among black Africans or American Indians? How many Eskimos have nappy hair? Distinct features developed among races.
    Furthermore, most groups existed for longer durations in separation than migration. So, while the ancestors of South American browns may have clashed and mixed with other tribes in North America before their descendants migrated and settled in the South, once they found their niche in some part of South America, they spent many centuries and millenniums in relative isolation with others genetically similar to them.

    Same with Aryan Invasions into India. The fact that the invasive migrations happened doesn't nullify that there existed a distinct(if not pure) darker-skinned people in the sub-continent. And even though the Aryan invasions did fundamentally change the gene pool of the sub-continent, it's not like the invasions happened forever. At some point, the invasions stopped, and the once-migratory Aryans spent centuries upon centuries melding with the native folks and in the process, producing a new distinct racial type. Again, migration and gradualness followed by long periods of separation and isolation.

    Furthermore, race-mixing doesn't negate racial reality. Surely, a white-Asian mix will be different from white-African mix. These globalists speak in terms of 'purity' vs 'mixed', but the differences are also between 'one kind of mix' vs 'another kind of mix'. Jews mixed with whites are different from Jews mixed with blacks. A Mexican and a Moroccan are both mixed but also distinct from one another. Also, some people are surely more mixed than others.

    Also, if 'pure race' is a myth and if all of us are so mixed to begin with, why do we need more mixing? If mixing is good and if we're already mixed, why not just leave us alone? Why do we need more of what we have already?

    Is that you, Priss?

    Thank you.

  25. The following website provided me with great insight into the topic, should anyone be interested.

    http://rafonda.com/

    In regards to the book, well, the usual propaganda, I suppose.

  26. @Almost Missouri
    Yeah, half the pro reviews look like ethnic backscratching.

    Colonizing the upper reaches of Western journalism: another job I don't recall anyone asking them to do.

    It’s fascinating and disturbing to see how many Hindus are simply projecting their envy & animus at the superior state of European civilization over the past couple centuries. When people leave the 3rd World for the 1st, an awareness of the sharp contrast in social capital & complexity may fill them with resentment rather than gratitude. Perhaps Saini’s animus is also another form of Barack Obama’s Anti-Colonial worldview: if darker skinned people are less advanced, it must be the result of White racism, eugenics, diabolical Nazi scientists & blonde haired Aryan villains. A cartoonish worldview but totally plausible.

    • Agree: 95Theses
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Right. My impression is that Angela Saini isn't really a progressive cosmopolitan, she's an Indian loyalist who like her parents, husband, and son. She comes from the leftist cosmopolitan side of Indian culture -- it sounds like her dad is a Sikh and her mom a Hindu, or something like that, so she hates the Hindu Nationalists. But growing up in England, she resented the English for feeling at home in their own country.
  27. @CrunchybutRealistCon
    It's fascinating and disturbing to see how many Hindus are simply projecting their envy & animus at the superior state of European civilization over the past couple centuries. When people leave the 3rd World for the 1st, an awareness of the sharp contrast in social capital & complexity may fill them with resentment rather than gratitude. Perhaps Saini's animus is also another form of Barack Obama's Anti-Colonial worldview: if darker skinned people are less advanced, it must be the result of White racism, eugenics, diabolical Nazi scientists & blonde haired Aryan villains. A cartoonish worldview but totally plausible.

    Right. My impression is that Angela Saini isn’t really a progressive cosmopolitan, she’s an Indian loyalist who like her parents, husband, and son. She comes from the leftist cosmopolitan side of Indian culture — it sounds like her dad is a Sikh and her mom a Hindu, or something like that, so she hates the Hindu Nationalists. But growing up in England, she resented the English for feeling at home in their own country.

  28. @Oleaginous Outrager
    If race is not a viable concept, from whither springs AA and even diversity itself? Are they not fruit of a poisoned and poisonous tree?

    I have the same question; if race is simply a construct, and there is no such thing as an European white (for example), then there is also no such thing as a black, or an Hispanic. That being the case, there can be no race based A.A. spoils system. The NAACP and La Raza should disband, as they are pushing a false narrative, of categories that do not actually exist.

    That will never happen of course. However, imagine A.A. which is based on need, on financial need, and which is skin color blind, as it should be given that race does not exist. That would be a fair, and equitable, and unifying, result.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  29. Some things about contrasting ethnicity and race, and much more.

    “That is, children pick as a friend someone of a different race who speaks their dialect over someone of the same race who speaks a different dialect.”

    https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/05/list-of-passages-i-highlighted-in-my-copy-of-the-secret-of-our-success/

  30. The entry from Slate is especially humorous considering that it wasn’t all that long ago the very liberal William Saletan wrote,

    The New York Times told readers that when [James] Watson implied “that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn’t a scientific leg to stand on.”

    I wish these assurances were true. They aren’t. Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there’s strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It’s time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true.

    https://slate.com/technology/2007/11/liberal-creationism.html

    Whoops!

  31. “That the arc of society, bending towards more progressive, tolerant values, had long banished the scientific search for ways in which one grouping of people is inherently more talented … ”

    Ok, who is this “arc of society” hombre who gets to “banish” the “scientific search”? I guess The Guardian is assigning their reviews of the science books to wannabe poets. The style is reminiscent of the stuff that came out of Pravda in the 1930s/1940s when Stalin gave Trofim Lysenko the green light to destroy genetics. The real researchers got shipped to the Gulag in order to keep the Soviet Union bending on its “progressive, tolerant arc.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    ... Stalin gave Trofim Lysenko the green light to destroy genetics
     
    Ironically, old Trofim was not entirely wrong in saying that a parent generation organism can pass on acquired environmental adaptations at least to the next generation (and perhaps beyond). Look up "epigenetics."
  32. If race isn’t real then there are no whites to blame or extract reparations from.

  33. If there’s no such thing as race, there’s no such thing as racism.

  34. Anonymous[576] • Disclaimer says:

    In her thoroughly researched book, Saini, a London-based science journalist, provides clear explanations of racist concepts while diving into the history of race science, from archaeology and anthropology to biology and genetics.

    Could it be that the Quillette authors are slyly criticizing Saini’s book by damning it with faint praise? Her book presumably purports to explain scientific concepts, but the review only acknowledges her “clear explanations of racist concepts.

  35. Anonymous[576] • Disclaimer says:
    @Stephen Paul Foster
    "That the arc of society, bending towards more progressive, tolerant values, had long banished the scientific search for ways in which one grouping of people is inherently more talented ... "

    Ok, who is this "arc of society" hombre who gets to "banish" the "scientific search"? I guess The Guardian is assigning their reviews of the science books to wannabe poets. The style is reminiscent of the stuff that came out of Pravda in the 1930s/1940s when Stalin gave Trofim Lysenko the green light to destroy genetics. The real researchers got shipped to the Gulag in order to keep the Soviet Union bending on its "progressive, tolerant arc."

    … Stalin gave Trofim Lysenko the green light to destroy genetics

    Ironically, old Trofim was not entirely wrong in saying that a parent generation organism can pass on acquired environmental adaptations at least to the next generation (and perhaps beyond). Look up “epigenetics.”

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?