Race Realism Has a Past. Does Race Denialism Have a Future? By John Derbyshire.
Race realism is the point of view that:
- Like any other widely-distributed species, Homo sapiens is divided into local varieties — races — that differ in their biology.
- Where races show different statistical profiles on heritable traits — physiognomy, metabolism, disease susceptibility, and the BIP traits (Behavior, Intelligence, Personality) — it is reasonable to infer that biological differences are causal factors.
- Biological race differences work together with adscititious factors (history, geography, epidemiology) to shape social outcomes.
Race denialism is the [opposite] point of view [aka “blank slates”]:
- Observed group differences between local varieties of Homo sap. are superficial and inconsequential, like the hair color of individuals.
- The different statistical profiles of races on BIP traits and social outcomes are entirely caused by historical and social factors. Biology plays no part. …
The intellectual climate in the West today is one of guerilla race realism.
- The commanding heights of Western societies — media, schools, politics — are held by race denialists.
- Race denialism is a social dogma. All respectable people are required to affirm it. [It is politically correct.]
Meanwhile, in the maquis:
- The biological and human sciences (especially genetics, psychometry, paleoanthropology) uncover ever more race-realist facts — “hatefacts.”
- Ever more educated, thoughtful citizens observe persistent patterns in group social outcomes that contradict official dogma. (The thoughtcrime of Noticing.) They conclude that the race-denialist Emperor has no clothes.
The PC practice of denying certain realities is a western phenomenon:
So much for the Western world of today. What about the East? The advanced nations of East and South Asia are broadly race-realist. Race denialism is not a social dogma in China, India, Japan, or Korea. These nations are, however, monoracial (or in India’s case long, long accustomed to the racial mix they have), and apparently wish to remain so. Race realism and race denialism are therefore not salient topics in the current intellectual climate of Eastern Civ. …
Before the 17th-century scientific revolution, ideas about race were inchoate and unsystematic—“Folk anthropology.” To the degree they included notions we would now consider biological, those notions came from:
- The obsession, in aristocratic societies, with ancestry and lineage.
- Practical knowledge obtained from millennia of experience in selective breeding of crops and livestock.
From these, by the time methodical science arrived on the scene, civilized peoples had a fair, but unorganized, stock of knowledge about inheritance and genetic similarity. …
Pre-modern civilizations often had race-denialist themes. Most interpretations of Christianity have been race-denialist. Missionary endeavors by white Christians among other races were usually inspired by race-denialist ideas about the Brotherhood of Man. There were similar strains in the other big old religions. …
The European Enlightenment brought a new style of moral universalism that was implicitly race-denialist. …
The most important legacy of Enlightenment universalism today is found in college departments of Economics (in some ways the quintessential Enlightenment discipline), where human beings and human populations are treated as perfectly interchangeable units without biological essence. …
At the level of research into the rigorous sciences, race realism is established fact. The human genome and its many varieties are now the subject of massive, lavishly-funded research. A person’s self-identified race can be read off from the genome with 99 percent accuracy. …
Deeper understanding of the genetic architecture of BIP traits, and of race differences in that architecture, will inevitably emerge as a by-product of this research. Mapping that genetic architecture is, however, harder than we thought 20 years ago. Thousands of genes are involved, each with a tiny effect (and possible side-effects). …
It may well be that while race denialism disappears from the rigorous sciences, it maintains its grip on the social sciences, and on the liberal-arts elites who control the cultural heights of Western nations. Understandings from the rigorous sciences can take an awfully long time to be accepted outside the labs. …
Sex denialism — facts are no impediment to ideologues:
Here was Nicholas Matte, Lecturer in History at the University of Toronto; speaking on The Agenda (a Canadian TV program), October 2016:
“Basically, it’s not correct that there is such a thing as biological sex. And I’m a historian of medicine; I can unpack that for you accurately at length if you want, but in the interests of time I won’t. So that’s a very popular misconception.”
Once again: That is a licensed, credentialed academic in the Humanities speaking.
If we can deny the reality of sex, what aspect of human biology can we not deny?