Mine. You still haven't answered Brad's point. S.R. either tells a deliberate
lie or he doesn't know what he is talking about. Wilson did not "remake himself"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Doyle,I agree! you too are getting the heart of the matter..
> actually, check out the articles in _Mankind Quartely_, a journal edited
> by Roger Pearson, and its liberal co-associate JCPES. see especially the
> one called _Virtues in Racism_. the man is implying that it is not racist
> to say that people differ because they differ genetically. It is somewhat
> treathening to see how the liberal rhetoric of "individual differences"
> relies on geneticist arguments to justify a morality of ethics of
> difference! another one published by a Washington policy analyst "boldly"
> says that affirmative action has erased our differences, and created a
> society of equals and conformity. See how equality is equated
> there with "confirmity and sameness" and genetics is praised for
> celebrating difference. Basically, you will find this as an interesting
> example on post-modern version of right wing and neo-liberalism, which
> approves my claim that socio-biology is inherently a reactionary science.
>
> Mine
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 11:02:54 -0700
> From: Doyle Saylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:17884] Re: genome news (fwd)
>
> Greetings Economists,
> JKS writes in reply to Mines,
>
> JKS,
> No it's not. It would be racist (and genetically illiterate, for the most
> part) to say that some groups of people are inferior to another because of
> their genes, but it is not racist to say, for example, that Black people are
> different in the color of their skin from whites in large part because of
> their genes. That is just true. Genes are causally efficaous; they do
> account for some of the variation in differences between groups and
> individuals, and anyone who denies that has no idea what he is talking
> about.
>
> Doyle
> The theory of sociobiology is that genes control behavior. In other words
> any social group are the way they are because of their genes. Is that true?
> Well you say above that is not true (falsifiable in the traditional sense of
> the words in science).
>
> Let's look at Mine's comment again,
>
> Mine
> << the socio-biological claim that
> people differ because they differ genetically is called RACISM, >>
>
> Doyle
> JKS says anyone who claims sociobiology does not assert control over the
> human social behavior has no idea what he is talking about. And I have no
> idea from JKS what exactly makes him different from Sociobiology. If I
> pick up a book on evolutionary psychology is that not the whole thrust of
> their theory? See "The Adapted Mind, Evolutionary Psychology and the
> Generation of Culture", Jerome H. Barkow Leda Cosmides, John Tooby, Oxford
> University Press, 1992.
>
> In replying to M. Forstater, JKS writes,
>
> JKS
> Don't assume any such thing. Of course I am aware of the social contruction
> of race, and I don't uncritically assume anything. I also don't need to do
> the dance every time I use a loaded word,a t least, I hope, in this
> context.
> Among people to whom the social construction of race might bea new thought,
> I'd emphasize it. Here, I might have hoped that I could take it for granted.
> How very foolish of me.
>
> I might have said, I briefly contemplated it, that malinin content avrirs
> with geographic origin; that genetics explains why people from subSaharan
> Africa have darker skins, because of higher melanin content, on average,
> than
> people fron Northern Europe. But it is tiresome, particularly when one is
> talking about race, to pretend that one is not. Political correctness is
> very
> boring.
>
> Doyle
> Your comments do not explain "black" skin, because you don't understand
> genetics or you wouldn't so loosely assert something about black skins.
> When groups are relatively isolated from each other there are directions to
> that in changes arising or falling in a pool in relation to other pools
> otherwise related to the isolate, selection may make dark skin arise, and it
> may not according to a climate, because the source of change is contingent.
> Color vision in primates is interesting in that sense. But not in the crude
> way you articulate your views. That is why arguments such as yours fade
> away in time in the sciences because they are not sufficiently accurate and
> practical in understanding reality. In current times when all the human
> community intermarries there is not going to be a geographic origin to skin
> color and your point seems just plain Eurocentric to others. Which comes
> first, light or dark in skin? What about a Baboon's blue ass, why aren't
> humans blue skinned, since they are our relatives too. And your point is
> just how you insert yourself into this argument when you have no sense
> what
> so ever that Mine's outrage is justified and important about the re-rise of
> socio-biology under the name evolutionary psychology. Your remarks are as
> sloppy as you accuse Mine of being.
> thanks,
> Doyle Saylor
--
Rod Hay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The History of Economic Thought Archive
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Batoche Books
http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
52 Eby Street South
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 3L1
Canada
