It is certain that debates within the scientific community about whether the historic descriptors of race or ethnicity are valid anymore, or indeed ever were, and whether they should be replaced with more robust information about genetic ancestry will continue. My own view is that attempts to stop the progress of science have been remarkably unsuccessful over time, and the benefits of understanding the impact of human variation outweigh the risks. But I say this with the specter in the back of my mind of someone speaking from this stage in a hundred years time, castigating the scientists of my era for their blindness to the ways in which their scientific findings were used to sustain prejudice and discrimination.Keep in mind, Tilghman delivered this speech to an audience of Afro-American studies scholars. Some might see in her stated view a note of optimism for "HBD".
How we proceed in this new era, and whether for good or ill, are now up to all of us, scientist and non-scientist alike. In this regard the Center for African American Studies is poised to play a critical role in the ongoing debate we must have about the meaning of race in the post-genome era. As a University that prides itself in being in the nation's service and the service of all nations, we need to be a leading voice in this debate, through the scholarship that we produce, the conversations that we stimulate and the future leaders whom we educate. As a community in which scientists, social scientists and humanists work and study in close proximity to one another, we can ensure that this discussion be as broad as possible. As the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. observed, "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that." At Princeton we are in the business of generating light.What I'm getting from this is Tilghman fully grasps that current leftist dogma will be unable to withstand the onslaught of genomic fact and is warning her audience they'll need adopt newer and more effective varieties of sophistry (a number of which she illustrates in her speech).
I'll close with two quotes I find it amusing to juxtapose. I don't think I need to point out the irony. At one point in her speech, Tilghman writes:
What Linnaeus, Gall, Galton and Davenport have in common – and recall that several of them were considered scientific giants in their time – was deep-seated racial prejudice that biased the way in which they framed their questions, designed their studies and analyzed their data. It would be imprudent for us to think that such biases cannot creep into our thinking about race in the post-genome era.Followed later by (discussing the announcement of the completion of the human genome project):
It was a euphoric moment for all who had participated in the project, but even at that moment of celebration, there was a sense that the genome could potentially open up a proverbial Pandora's Box of issues, particularly surrounding the issue of race.
7 comments:
i'm thinking it's only a pandora's box if it supports/evidences/proves/elaborates on some inferiority for a group other than white/males/euro descent.
I don't think that's a nauseating speech. Considering who is speaking and who the audience is, it's remarkably well informed and free of BS. More than a few people in the audience must have been shocked when she presented the picture where blacks, whites, and Asians cluster into distinct groups, because liberal conventional wisdom claims that something like that is not possible.
Anonymous,
I found the opening few paragraphs to have the most strongly emetic effect. I agree that by the standards of speeches prepared by college presidents for ethnic studies audiences, Tilghman's lecture was quite bold.
The speech might be good within the current framework of academic Stalinism.
Consider three hypotheses:
A. Statistically speaking, black Africans are somewhat more ape-like than white Europeans, who in turn are somewhat more ape-like than East Asians.
B. Darwinian selection involving cold weather and rice farming explain hypothesis A.
C. Without political correctness, hypotheses A and B would have been generally accepted thirty years ago.
What Linnaeus, Gall, Galton and Davenport have in common – and recall that several of them were considered scientific giants in their time – was deep-seated racial prejudice that biased the way in which they framed their questions, designed their studies and analyzed their data.
No. Liberals and blacks always get this ass-backward. The common racial opinions of those days were based on prior observation of reality followed by postconceptions based on the observations. Empiricism is alien to them.
"A. Statistically speaking, black Africans are somewhat more ape-like than white Europeans, who in turn are somewhat more ape-like than East Asians."
Nope. Asians are more ape-like than Whites. Notice how they all have snub-noses and brown eyes...like apes.
“Statistically speaking, black Africans are somewhat more ape-like than white Europeans, who in turn are somewhat more ape-like than East Asians.”
See here and here.
Post a Comment