"His executive order faulted an exhibit which 'promotes the view that race is not a biological reality but a social construct,” a widely held position in the scientific community.'"
Neither, but extremely political and ideological. The question is why? I’m guessing it’s some sort of need to conform, which of course leads to the next question as to why „race is a myth“ became the standard to conform to? I could go on.
The 'race is a social construct' nonsense is just another contrivance to denigrate whitey. It's pure gibberish, but that's not important. What's important is "whitey bad" - even if he is just a social construct and not an actual skin color.
I think you should take people at face value. You are making the classic mistake to think that all people think like you or will behave like you. Liberals suffer from this state of mind more than anyone and helps explains the stupidity of our immigration policies.
In the white leftist's mind, whitey is always bad except for a few noble whites like themselves. That's why they are stuck on slavery or The Trail of Tears. They don't like to mention that Africans sold the enslaved Africans to the white man or that all African societies were violent and that most American Indian societies were violent.
The consensus of science. What an absolute disgrace to the very concept of science which, at its most constructive attacks the consensus with new ideas and points of contention and debate.
OK, but the president should not be getting involved in this kind of thing. Put the shoe on the other foot- if the Smithsonian were putting on a show that was pushing an ill-informed right-wing view and a Democratic president issued an order like this attacking it, who here would see it as anything other than an attack on conservatives in general?
> ... who here would see it [a Democratic president attacking an ill-informed right-wing view] as anything other than an attack on conservatives in general?
As I understand it, you are asking me to provide examples of you approving when Democratic presidents have called on right-wing intellectuals to up their game. That would seem to be something you ought to do yourself.
So as I now understand it, your original comment ("OK, but the president should not be...") was posing a hypothetical, nothing more. You won't provide an illustration of a Democratic president attacking an institution pushing an ill-informed right-wing view, because you don't have such a case in mind.
So please take my reply (I would not see see that as an attack on conservatives in general) as equally hypothetical. We can leave it there.
From the NYT article: “The quotation about race as a human invention appears to come from the wall text in the show, which notes that humans are “99.9 percent genetically the same” and introduces part of a statement on race and racism by the American Association of Biological Anthropologists.”
Sounds impressive. However the overlap between humans and chimpanzees in 98.8%
NYT readers and Smithsonian visitors are invited to believe that two people whose ancestors lived for centuries on distant continents are as closely related to one another as first cousins.
Because Science. Trumping genetics. Which shares two syllables with "eugenics"! And three letters with "Hitler"!
Goebbels, the Bolsheviks, and P.T. Barnum would all tip their hats to the accomplishment of these latter-day fabulists.
One of my hobby horses is that every tight in-group requires at least one belief they hold dearly, so dearly one hardly considers questioning it, end yet to outsiders is obviously bonkers.
Race is a human construct is perfect for them. I can think of a dozen ways to show an outsider it makes no sense (see that black guy over there. If we met his parents what are the odds they would also be black?) but none of them would penetrate a true believer's brainpan.
And yes those sculptures are beautiful. Some non-natural history museum should display them. They could even leave off the text explaining the races of man crap.
I have heard it argued (to me) that before the 19th century no one had any concept of race. That may be true, that people didn't bother to describe something that wasn't obvious in their daily lives, until it was. But that hardly means it's made up. No one obsessed over Plutonium until the 20th century but that doesn't mean it's a creation of man...okay, bad example...um time dilation, no one ever mentioned that until the 20th century. Naming something isn't the same as inventing it.
People had concepts of race going back thousands of years, but before the Age of Exploration they tended to be directional rather than territorial. E.g., the further south you went, the more Moorish people got. Thus, is Othello a white Moor or a black Moor? Well, Shakespeare could leave that up in the air more easily in 1600 than in 1800.
For modern audiences, it is more titillating for Othello to be a South of the Saharan African and Desdemona to be beautiful, slight and as white as a fresh snow.
When people of different races were far away they were categorized by direction and distance. When they became mixed in with the locals, they were categorized by appearance. It's almost as if people come up with words to suit their situations and experience.
> I have heard it argued that before the 19th century no one had any concept of race.
I'd argue that every person who engaged in the breeding of domestic animals had a biology-based concept of race. And that the vast majority of them -- any culture, any era -- could apply their concept to humans.
Sadly for consensus academics and their fellow travelers, Lysenko was the exception, not the rule.
True, but the average Roman horse breeder might have reflected on inherited traits that distinguish people of Italia, from those he encountered from Germania, Scythia, Persia, and the like. Ethnies not races, but the same general idea.
Speaking of Trump, what is going on with his hyper-bizarre war on all things “diversity”?
I understand that he has scrubbed references to the Enola Gay, because it has “gay“ in it, as well as references to the Tuskegee Airmen, and Jackie Robinson (because, well, you know) from the Department of Defense’s website. Is that what things have come down to??? Not mentioning any references or distinctions at all between servicemen?
I totally get it that the DIE racket over-reached and there had to be a counter measure, but at some point when is enough, enough??? It seems like Trump and his people are trying to create a counter narrative where there were no non-diverse people, which is totally not the accurate history of these United States. Just sayin’ . . .
The Times' writer of this piece, Zachary Small, is listed elsewhere on the web as "a New York-based genderqueer theatremaker." It seems straightforward that the Times can be assured of fielding a writer who believes race is a social construct by hiring one who believes gender is a social construct. Judging from his profile photo used by the Times, Mr. Small's actual race looks to have been socially constructed to ideally play rhythm guitar in Bread circa 1971.
What’s Steve Bannon’s famous line? “Politics is downstream of culture”? I think Trump’s most enduring achievements will be cultural changes— which is to say perceptual ones.
I vividly remember the first black person I saw. She was a four-year-old like me and it was at a playground on a family holiday. I recall that I just could not stop staring at her as I had never seen a human as different from me.
I remarked upon it years later and my parents recalled it totally differently. They said I’d played with her for ages.
The white kid getting pummeled by the black kid in Tarrant County, Texas last week would probably disagree that the black kid and he had similar genetics.
“Instead, the Western concept of race must be understood as a classification system that emerged from, and in support of, European colonialism, oppression, and discrimination.”
Right, nobody else ever thought that way before Columbus. That’s why Zheng He’s reports to the Emperor said Africa was full of funny looking Chinese guys.
After reviewing available sources, I couldn't find a specific example in public writing—such as newspapers, magazines, or books—where a sentence contains both the words "nimble" and "marble." However, these words are often used together in literature and poetry, given their rhythmic and phonetic compatibility. If you're interested in crafting such a sentence, you might consider:
Your discouraging last word lends credence to Cofnas’s view that shaking the PMC’s commitment to egalitarianism requires going beyond Rufo and Hanania’s legal reforms to promoting knowledge of the genetic cause of race differences.
I don’t know if these people are stupid or liars. Probably both.
Neither, but extremely political and ideological. The question is why? I’m guessing it’s some sort of need to conform, which of course leads to the next question as to why „race is a myth“ became the standard to conform to? I could go on.
They are liars. The reason is cowardice.
The 'race is a social construct' nonsense is just another contrivance to denigrate whitey. It's pure gibberish, but that's not important. What's important is "whitey bad" - even if he is just a social construct and not an actual skin color.
I think you should take people at face value. You are making the classic mistake to think that all people think like you or will behave like you. Liberals suffer from this state of mind more than anyone and helps explains the stupidity of our immigration policies.
No, they don't think like me at all. As it happens, I am quite fond of whitey!
I think you missed my point.
In the white leftist's mind, whitey is always bad except for a few noble whites like themselves. That's why they are stuck on slavery or The Trail of Tears. They don't like to mention that Africans sold the enslaved Africans to the white man or that all African societies were violent and that most American Indian societies were violent.
"Interrogate" They can't help exposing their affinity with the not so secret police. (OIC, Sailer was already there).
The word “interrogate” is common in post-modern blathering.
The consensus of science. What an absolute disgrace to the very concept of science which, at its most constructive attacks the consensus with new ideas and points of contention and debate.
The executive order should have just made everyone at the Smithsonian read David Reich’s book.
More likely the Smithsonian, rather than requiring reading the book, would put it on a list of do not read.
OK, but the president should not be getting involved in this kind of thing. Put the shoe on the other foot- if the Smithsonian were putting on a show that was pushing an ill-informed right-wing view and a Democratic president issued an order like this attacking it, who here would see it as anything other than an attack on conservatives in general?
> ... who here would see it [a Democratic president attacking an ill-informed right-wing view] as anything other than an attack on conservatives in general?
Me.
There's no shortage of Democratic presidents getting involved in this kind of thing. Provide the example(s) you have in mind.
On which of those occasions did you approve of what the president did?
Provide the examples you have in mind.
As I understand it, you are asking me to provide examples of you approving when Democratic presidents have called on right-wing intellectuals to up their game. That would seem to be something you ought to do yourself.
So as I now understand it, your original comment ("OK, but the president should not be...") was posing a hypothetical, nothing more. You won't provide an illustration of a Democratic president attacking an institution pushing an ill-informed right-wing view, because you don't have such a case in mind.
So please take my reply (I would not see see that as an attack on conservatives in general) as equally hypothetical. We can leave it there.
From the NYT article: “The quotation about race as a human invention appears to come from the wall text in the show, which notes that humans are “99.9 percent genetically the same” and introduces part of a statement on race and racism by the American Association of Biological Anthropologists.”
Sounds impressive. However the overlap between humans and chimpanzees in 98.8%
Yes, it is embarrassing for any biologist to claim that 99.9% is a lot of similarity between humans.
NYT readers and Smithsonian visitors are invited to believe that two people whose ancestors lived for centuries on distant continents are as closely related to one another as first cousins.
Because Science. Trumping genetics. Which shares two syllables with "eugenics"! And three letters with "Hitler"!
Goebbels, the Bolsheviks, and P.T. Barnum would all tip their hats to the accomplishment of these latter-day fabulists.
Genomics fixes the Hitler problem.
One of my hobby horses is that every tight in-group requires at least one belief they hold dearly, so dearly one hardly considers questioning it, end yet to outsiders is obviously bonkers.
Race is a human construct is perfect for them. I can think of a dozen ways to show an outsider it makes no sense (see that black guy over there. If we met his parents what are the odds they would also be black?) but none of them would penetrate a true believer's brainpan.
And yes those sculptures are beautiful. Some non-natural history museum should display them. They could even leave off the text explaining the races of man crap.
I have heard it argued (to me) that before the 19th century no one had any concept of race. That may be true, that people didn't bother to describe something that wasn't obvious in their daily lives, until it was. But that hardly means it's made up. No one obsessed over Plutonium until the 20th century but that doesn't mean it's a creation of man...okay, bad example...um time dilation, no one ever mentioned that until the 20th century. Naming something isn't the same as inventing it.
People had concepts of race going back thousands of years, but before the Age of Exploration they tended to be directional rather than territorial. E.g., the further south you went, the more Moorish people got. Thus, is Othello a white Moor or a black Moor? Well, Shakespeare could leave that up in the air more easily in 1600 than in 1800.
For modern audiences, it is more titillating for Othello to be a South of the Saharan African and Desdemona to be beautiful, slight and as white as a fresh snow.
When people of different races were far away they were categorized by direction and distance. When they became mixed in with the locals, they were categorized by appearance. It's almost as if people come up with words to suit their situations and experience.
> I have heard it argued that before the 19th century no one had any concept of race.
I'd argue that every person who engaged in the breeding of domestic animals had a biology-based concept of race. And that the vast majority of them -- any culture, any era -- could apply their concept to humans.
Sadly for consensus academics and their fellow travelers, Lysenko was the exception, not the rule.
Except the further back you go the less likely the average horse breeder was to encounter people of another race.
True, but the average Roman horse breeder might have reflected on inherited traits that distinguish people of Italia, from those he encountered from Germania, Scythia, Persia, and the like. Ethnies not races, but the same general idea.
Speaking of Trump, what is going on with his hyper-bizarre war on all things “diversity”?
I understand that he has scrubbed references to the Enola Gay, because it has “gay“ in it, as well as references to the Tuskegee Airmen, and Jackie Robinson (because, well, you know) from the Department of Defense’s website. Is that what things have come down to??? Not mentioning any references or distinctions at all between servicemen?
I totally get it that the DIE racket over-reached and there had to be a counter measure, but at some point when is enough, enough??? It seems like Trump and his people are trying to create a counter narrative where there were no non-diverse people, which is totally not the accurate history of these United States. Just sayin’ . . .
It's malicious compliance by the leftist bureaucracy. Get used to it, there'll be plenty more.
The Times' writer of this piece, Zachary Small, is listed elsewhere on the web as "a New York-based genderqueer theatremaker." It seems straightforward that the Times can be assured of fielding a writer who believes race is a social construct by hiring one who believes gender is a social construct. Judging from his profile photo used by the Times, Mr. Small's actual race looks to have been socially constructed to ideally play rhythm guitar in Bread circa 1971.
OK, that's funny.
What’s Steve Bannon’s famous line? “Politics is downstream of culture”? I think Trump’s most enduring achievements will be cultural changes— which is to say perceptual ones.
Breitbart, actually.
I vividly remember the first black person I saw. She was a four-year-old like me and it was at a playground on a family holiday. I recall that I just could not stop staring at her as I had never seen a human as different from me.
I remarked upon it years later and my parents recalled it totally differently. They said I’d played with her for ages.
The white kid getting pummeled by the black kid in Tarrant County, Texas last week would probably disagree that the black kid and he had similar genetics.
“Instead, the Western concept of race must be understood as a classification system that emerged from, and in support of, European colonialism, oppression, and discrimination.”
Right, nobody else ever thought that way before Columbus. That’s why Zheng He’s reports to the Emperor said Africa was full of funny looking Chinese guys.
Diversity is good until it isn't.
Also, why is Lenin in that Soviet cheat sheet?
Chat GPT:
After reviewing available sources, I couldn't find a specific example in public writing—such as newspapers, magazines, or books—where a sentence contains both the words "nimble" and "marble." However, these words are often used together in literature and poetry, given their rhythmic and phonetic compatibility. If you're interested in crafting such a sentence, you might consider:
Your discouraging last word lends credence to Cofnas’s view that shaking the PMC’s commitment to egalitarianism requires going beyond Rufo and Hanania’s legal reforms to promoting knowledge of the genetic cause of race differences.