At first I was confused about the discussion on race taking place on WSN,
since I was much more interested in the historical postings (Silk Road and
all that stuff), and it seemed ridiculous that anyone would seriously
advance the argument that genetic differences were a significant cause for
some societies (temporarily) dominating others. I honestly thought that
the original postings on that subject were a sarcastic joke, meant to be
ironic. But when the postings continued, it became clear that some people
on WSN actually believed that.
In my posting on the complexity of biology and the fallacy of making
superficial assumptions based on folklore and cursory "estimates" of the
biological make-up of people, a number of pointed critiques were made. In
conclusion, it was suggested that it is a racist error to hold so
tightly to biological-racialist explanations in the absence of any
serious biological evidence. The word "racist" can be an adjective as well
as a noun, and to say that someone is making a "racist" error does not mean
that one is being condemned as "a racist" (noun). Anyone can make a racist
error; it is not a sin. It is, however, an error. Shortly thereafter came
the cries of persecution--that anti-racists were name-callers. But of
course, calling someone a "NAME-CALLER" without answering the substance of
the arguments is ANOTHER kind of "name calling." In all the "name
calling", none of the racialists have yet offered any serious biological
evidence to support their folklore conceptions of biological race. They
just keep repeating their conclusions over and over again. Tell, us,
please, which genes are specific to which races, and how do those genes
manifest themselves in human behavior. If you can't, then you should
seriously examine your own ideas and ask yourself why you hold so tightly
to those views in the absence of evidence.
Alan Spector