Randy: I assume from what you wrote that you have not picked up the book. 80 percent of its content is devoted to just what you suggest is the most interesting issue -- the origins of "race" and "race science" and the historical abuse and misuse of the concept of race. The reason the Taboo has stirred so much interest in sociological, historical and hard science circles (reviews in almost every major science journals, as an example) is because it addresses the relatively little we know about genetics IN SOCIAL and historical context. As for your statement that there is no "taboo" on the list about talking about human differences, the very fact that it's talked about does not indicate that forms of censorship and evasion are not at work. The continued misrepresentation of what I've written about the issue by some on this list and the disrespectful tone of many who offer their "opinions" reflects a kind of intellectual deafness that in fact reinforces the taboo. The taboo is defined as a "lack of honest discourse" -- that still exists, on this list and in society in general. The fact that the Louisiana legislature, in the last week, could pass a measure condemning Darwin for his "racist" views because he dared to use the word "race" in his writings and suggest there were patterned human differences is indicative of the continued existence of the taboo. It was even more intriguing that the attack on Darwin was the result of a coalition of anti-evolutionist right wingers and "liberals" who have widely misinterpreted the latest genetic findings that "the fact that humans share 99% of DNA" means that there are no patterned population differences. Some "liberals" have even gone so far to suggest that any disease-specific research that finds that one population has a proclivity to a certain disease more than others (northern European whites get cystic fibrosis, blacks get sickle cell and colo-rectal cancer, Ashkenazi Jews get Tay-Sachs, etc.) is racist BY DEFINITION. I find such illiberal righteousness and ignorance appalling. That's the Taboo that infects the general discourse on this issue, which is also apparent on this list. On 5/5/01 8:33 AM, "t-and-f-digest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 20:43:46 -0700 > From: Randy Treadway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: t-and-f: New thread regarding the Entine book > > While I may have feelings one way or another about the > likelihood that the theories espoused in this book > are correct, what is MUCH MORE intriguing is > the title of the book- TABOO. > > If I were just looking over titles in a bookstore, > this title would tell me that the subject of the > book is NOT whether or not there is any relevance > to genetic predetermination theory, but rather what causes > the social phenomenons which result in extreme > pressure on any individual who would even consider > suggesting research into a topic such as this. > Does 'blacklisting' by academia relegate any > researchers in this area to 'political correctness > hell' ? Does it mean that they can never get 'published' > by academic journals again on ANY topic? > > For example, the bashing that Dr. Bannister got > by the so-called 'liberal academia' through the media > a few years ago after his making a 'casual observation' > kind of statement about long/short twitch fibers > relating to East or West African origins, and saying > that it merits more study. > > At least we now know that the subject is anything > BUT taboo on this list- resulting in some of the > longest threads in list history. Don't know if > that's good or bad, but at least it means list > subscribers are willing to talk about it out in > the open. > > A few years ago on the list, when a similar idea > was tossed into the hat for discussion, a bunch > of coaches quickly jumped in and bashed the originator, > saying if there was even an iota of truth in the theory, > which they didn't believe for a second, they couldn't > POSSIBLY share such a reality with any of the athletes > they coach, for fear of them losing all motivation. > They argued that exposure of such facts, even if true, > serves no PRACTICAL purpose but to damage the 'everybody > has a chance' appeal of track & field as a sport. > Therefore, any investment in research into the topic > is not warranted, and should actually be discouraged. > Research funding could be better spent elsewhere, they said. > > Does that kind of coach still exist? Don't coaches > have any other kind of motivational techniques they > can draw on, even if genetic roots theories DO turn > out to be true? > Or is it just an example of "ostrich" behaviour (sticking > head in a hole in the ground to avoid seeing things > that are scary, which by the way, exposes the posterior > to open attack!) > Is there practical VALUE to our sport of getting the > answers to the genetics questions? If so, what? > Will "the truth set us free?" ..hmmmmm... > > To me, this kind of examination of the 'Taboo' phenomenon, > with it's political correctness and social bashing > symptoms, is an even MORE interesting topic than the > genetics topic behind it. > > What's the best way to get people to open their minds > and THINK in spite of political incorrectness, in > order to get truth out in the open? WhereEVER the truth > turns out to be... > Jon's approach sometimes seems to be in-the-face > confrontation...or maybe I'm confusing his discussion > technique with the responses he often stimulates... > ... is that the best way to get the dialogue on a 'taboo' > topic out in the open? I'm not sure I know the answer. > It seems to have succeeded in stimulating a lot of > discussion on this list, but how well does that approach > work elsewhere? > > RT -- Jon Entine RuffRun 6178 Grey Rock Rd. Agoura Hills, CA 91301 (818) 991-9803 [FAX] 991-9804 http://www.jonentine.com
