'Human Races' are socially defined constructs

[Jerry Russell]

GVs (races in the old terminology)

But, 'race' is not exactly the same concept as 'geographical variant'. As I will further explain below...

The correlations between GVs are NOT vague but do vary on a continuum, demonstrating the falsehood of the modern claim that "human races are [reducible merely to] cultural constructs." But even if I accept this lie, why are Black IQs in the USA 15 points lower than White IQs?

Bingo! 'Geographical variances' occur on a continuum, whereas 'race' is a discrete concept. That is, if a census questionnaire or housing assistance application asks for my 'race', I am expected to provide a self-evaluation. The options are usually white, black or hispanic: choose one. Where's the continuum?

For people somewhere in the gray area between these options, how do they decide which box to check? Based on their cultural affinities, not based on some genetic test.

And so now we come to your favorite Leftist, the most quoted living intellectual of our day, Noam Chomsky. What does he think of racial differences?

When did I say that Noam Chomsky is "my favorite Leftist"? I'm my own favorite Leftist, to the extent that I'm even a "Leftist" at all.

Why don't you go ahead and tell us what Noam Chomsky thinks about racial differences, such as the oft quoted but hotly disputed IQ difference between black and white?

 

[Claude Badley]

But, 'race' is not exactly the same concept as 'geographical variant'. As I will further explain below...

There is certainly a continuum of variation...

Bingo! 'Geographical variances' occur on a continuum, whereas 'race' is a discrete concept. That is, if a census questionnaire or housing assistance application asks for my 'race', I am expected to provide a self-evaluation. The options are usually white, black or hispanic: choose one. Where's the continuum?

Your parody reduces 'race' to a label - though people do label themselves. As I have also explained here on the website, the word 'race' traditionally also refers to culture as is true of the German word for 'race' too.

So despite a continuum of interbreeding between people, GVs still emerged, revealing the limitation of gene flow between people over large geographic areas - though nearby GV physical differences are much greater in South East Asia and Australasia than in Africa and Europe. And interbreeding among GVs in animals and plants also occurs - but does NOT nullify the GV (races) classifications among such animals, even though such classifications have a subjective element in them.

For people somewhere in the gray area between these options, how do they decide which box to check? Based on their cultural affinities, not based on some genetic test.

Quite so, since so many of us are "mixed race". The IQ difference between Whites and Blacks in the USA correlates with the "race label" not with physical features.

When did I say that Noam Chomsky is "my favorite Leftist"? I'm my own favorite Leftist, to the extent that I'm even a "Leftist" at all.

I merely presumed that since Chompo is the leading quoted Leftist in the USA, and like you, he loves complaining about Fascism.

Why don't you go ahead and tell us what Noam Chomsky thinks about racial differences, such as the oft quoted but hotly disputed IQ difference between black and white?

OK! But I have to explain the history of the 15-point Black/White IQ differences first - in order to put Chumpsky in context.

Yours faithfully
Claude

 

[Jerry Russell]

Your parody reduces 'race' to a label...

Claude, I'm confused. Is "race" a classification system, or a continuum? Now you're saying that many people are "mixed race". Isn't "mixed race" just another classification; i.e. you are making a distinction between the "pure bloods" and the "mongrels"? If a person is of "mixed race", how are they supposed to decide what race they belong to, culturally speaking?

 

[Claude Badley]

Claude, I'm confused. Is "race" a classification system, or a continuum?

GVs (races) are both. You are creating an artificial distinction in claiming otherwise. The evolution of plants and animals does NOT mean that different species arose by one sudden leap since long separation of two GVs will eventually lead to species separation due to mutation buildup and loss of interfertility. Horses (Eurasian origin) and donkeys (West Africa) are just at this point - hence hinnies and mules and their sterility.

This is a terminological quibble on your part...

Now you're saying that many people are "mixed race". Isn't "mixed race" just another classification; i.e. you are making a distinction between the "pure bloods" and the "mongrels"? If a person is of "mixed race", how are they supposed to decide what race they belong to, culturally speaking?

...since the IQ question depends on the social labelling of Black & White, the difference in said IQs, and the fact of physical characteristics sorting along a continuum but generally consistent with the labels.

The question is whether differential IQ is hereditary (as is usually claimed between families) - and thus the Black-White difference was the easiest way to test it, extensive research on this matter thru the 1920s and 1930s not showing any correlation between various anthropometric physical differences and IQ (apart from a minor skin-color correlation explicable through most Blacks being poorer and ill-educated), hence an inability to locate postulated positive IQ genes in the human genome through linkage disequilibrium. DNA's function was not known then, but researchers did know that genes were strung along in a sequence like a series of beads on a string - the string and beads being DNA itself.

The fact of many people, perhaps most, being of mixed ancestry is beside the point, given the clustering of racial features enabling differentiation of Black and White among most of the labelled population (i.e. forced or chosen race-mixing has not diluted the original GV distinctions into unrecognizability). The people of the USA can be slotted along such a continuum though you will get more "falling" into intermediate categories than if you combined Nigerians and Norwegians into one test population! The classification of intermediate-appearing or truly intermediate people is thus irrelevant for assessing the differential IQ question.

What matters here then is what Noam Chomsky thinks, given the multiple claims for Black intellectual inferiority made and promoted during the time Chomsky wrote on the subject - and the fact of Chomsky being the traditional daaaaaaaarling of the Left in the USA.

Yours faithfully
Claude

 

[Jerry Russell]

GVs (races) are both. You are creating an artificial distinction in claiming otherwise.

Artificial or not, the distinction is widely recognized in the modern literature about the topic. But, I suppose I was being facetious or ironic, when I claimed to be confused. I'm saying that your interchangeable use of 'GV' and 'race' as if these are synonymous terms, is very confusing.

...since the IQ question depends on the social labelling of Black & White, the difference in said IQs, and the fact of physical characteristics sorting along a continuum but generally consistent with the labels.... The fact of many people, perhaps most, being of mixed ancestry is beside the point, given the clustering of racial features enabling differentiation of Black and White among most of the labelled population (i.e. forced or chosen race-mixing has not diluted the original GV distinctions into unrecognizability).... The classification of intermediate-appearing or truly intermediate people is thus irrelevant for assessing the differential IQ question.

Those are factual propositions that need to be supported with evidence, rather than axioms to be postulated.

What matters here then is what Noam Chomsky thinks, given the multiple claims for Black intellectual inferiority made and promoted during the time Chomsky wrote on the subject - and the fact of Chomsky being the traditional daaaaaaaarling of the Left in the USA.

Why did Chomsky become the "traditional darling of the Left"? During the 1960's, he was prominently featured on the national mass media. And, perhaps this was because he could be reliably trusted to deny that JFK's assassination involved any government conspiracy? Perhaps it was because he was safely on the government payroll?

Now, I'm not saying that there was ever any expressly stated quid pro quo. And I appreciate Chomsky's principled antiwar stance. But, he's not MY "darling", not by any means.

What matters here then is what Noam Chomsky thinks...

What Noam Chomsky thinks, may be of some historical interest. If he was involved in muddying the waters, I suppose it could be another piece of evidence that Chomsky was/is a "lifetime actor" and not a true Leftist at all.

What matters more to me, is the results of legitimate scientific studies and analysis.