I’m not a fan of Madonna but I am the first to support celebrities who use their fame to give voices to the voiceless. In this case, to one of the most discriminated against group of people in Europe. The Roma. It is sad but entirely unsurprising that she was booed for condemning that discrimination. The Roma remain the least understood, least known about, least cared about people in Europe. They are regarded with suspicion by almost everyone and very few people are interested in their plight. It’s not a popular issue so little is written about it.
As most people here know, I have written extensively about the Roma in Greece and received both praise and my “fair share” of criticism for doing so. I am glad that stars such as Madonna are speaking out because its the only way that people take any notice of this “acceptable” prejudice. My blog reaches a few hundred and occasionally (very occasionally) gets the attention of the mainstream media. Madonna can reach millions in an instant. I hope she continues to speak out about the Roma and responds to the what took place at her concert although her publicist has said that she will not make another statement on the issue. That would be a shame and would indicate to me that she cares more about publicity than what she said. That wouldn’t be surprising but it would be sad, especially since she is touring with a group of Roma musicians. The acceptable face of the Roma.
BUCHAREST, Romania – At first, fans politely applauded the Roma performers sharing a stage with Madonna. Then the pop star condemned widespread discrimination against Roma, or Gypsies — and the cheers gave way to jeers.
The sharp mood change that swept the crowd of 60,000, who had packed a park for Wednesday night’s concert, underscores how prejudice against Gypsies remains deeply entrenched across Eastern Europe.
Despite long-standing efforts to stamp out rampant bias, human rights advocates say Roma probably suffer more humiliation and endure more discrimination than any other people group on the continent.
Sometimes, it can be deadly: In neighboring Hungary, six Roma have been killed and several wounded in a recent series of apparently racially motivated attacks targeting small countryside villages predominantly settled by Gypsies.
“There is generally widespread resentment against Gypsies in Eastern Europe. They have historically been the underdog,” Radu Motoc, an official with the Soros Foundation Romania, said Thursday.
Roma, or Gypsies, are a nomadic ethnic group believed to have their roots in the Indian subcontinent. They live mostly in southern and eastern Europe, but hundreds of thousands have migrated west over the past few decades in search of jobs and better living conditions.
Romania has the largest number of Roma in the region. Some say the population could be as high as 2 million, although official data put it at 500,000.
Until the 19th century, Romanian Gypsies were slaves, and they’ve gotten a mixed response ever since: While discrimination is widespread, many East Europeans are enthusiastic about Gypsy music and dance, which they embrace as part of the region’s cultural heritage.
That explains why the Roma musicians and a dancer who had briefly joined Madonna onstage got enthusiastic applause. And it also may explain why some in the crowd turned on Madonna when she paused during the two-hour show — a stop on her worldwide “Sticky and Sweet” tour — to touch on their plight.
“It has been brought to my attention … that there is a lot of discrimination against Romanies and Gypsies in general in Eastern Europe,” she said. “It made me feel very sad.”
Thousands booed and jeered her.
A few cheered when she added: “We don’t believe in discrimination … we believe in freedom and equal rights for everyone.” But she got more boos when she mentioned discrimination against homosexuals and others.
“I jeered her because it seemed false what she was telling us. What business does she have telling us these things?” said Ionut Dinu, 23.
Madonna did not react and carried on with her concert, held near the hulking palace of the late communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu.
Her publicist, Liz Rosenberg, said Madonna and other had told her there were cheers as well as jeers.
“Madonna has been touring with a phenomenal troupe of Roma musicians who made her aware of the discrimination toward them in several countries so she felt compelled to make a brief statement,” Rosenberg said in an e-mail. “She will not be issuing a further statement.”
One Roma musician said the attitude toward Gypsies is contradictory.
“Romanians watch Gypsy soap operas, they like Gypsy music and go to Gypsy concerts,” said Damian Draghici, a Grammy Award-winner who has performed with James Brown and Joe Cocker.
“But there has been a wave of aggression against Roma people in Italy, Hungary and Romania, which shows me something is not OK,” he told the AP in an interview. “The politicians have to do something about it. People have to be educated not to be prejudiced. All people are equal, and that is the message politicians must give.”
Nearly one in two of Europe’s estimated 12 million Roma claimed to have suffered an act of discrimination over the past 12 months, according to a recent report by the Vienna-based EU Fundamental Rights Agency. The group says Roma face “overt discrimination” in housing, health care and education.
Many do not have official identification, which means they cannot get social benefits, are undereducated and struggle to find decent jobs.
Roma children are more likely to drop out of school than their peers from other ethnic groups. Many Romanians label Gypsies as thieves, and many are outraged by those who beg or commit petty crimes in Western Europe, believing they spoil Romania’s image abroad.
In May 2007, Romanian President Traian Basescu was heard to call a Romanian journalist a “stinky Gypsy” during a conversation with his wife. Romania’s anti-discrimination board criticized Basescu, who later apologized.
Human rights activists say the attacks in Hungary, which began in July 2008, may be tied to that country’s economic crisis and the rising popularity of far-right vigilantes angered by a rash of petty thefts and other so-called “Gypsy crime.” Last week, police arrested four suspects in a nightclub in the eastern city of Debrecen.
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia also have been criticized for widespread bias against Roma.
Madonna’s outrage touched a nerve in Romania, but it seems doubtful it will change anything, said the Soros Foundation’s Motoc.
“Madonna is a pop star. She is not an expert on interethnic relations,” he said.
Technorati Tags: madonna, roma, discrimination, racism, gypsy, prejudice
Rejected Europeans on January 12th, 2010
Make Some Noise on December 21st, 2009
The Mandra Settlement on December 17th, 2009
Asproprygos Revisited on December 9th, 2009
Urgent Action: Forced Evictions on August 13th, 2009
Loading...
On one of my trips to Romania, I was in Timisoara and saw some Roma children begging and obviously in very bad health. One of them, a boy aged about 10, came up to me and asked for money. My university “minder” shooed him away, although I wanted to help. The boy had the face of an old man — looking much older than me — despite being about 10. I was traumatised, and refused to leave the area. The kid started going into the Orthodox Church nearby, where they had security guards who threw him down the steps…
I asked my guide to tell me about these children — who they are, where they live, what happens to them. I was told that they are usually orphans, or they fled abusive homes, that they live in public areas (usually ventilation tunnels, where they cannot be easily found) and that they get through life by sniffing glue. In fact, this one kid had a paper bag and was sniffing from it.
I then asked: “what happens to them, when they reach adulthood?” The answer: “They don’t: they usually they die by 14.”
Given that the Roma are some 20% of the Romanian population, it is no surprise that Madonna was jeered. The question is, as with Greece. how did this country get into the EU without essential reforms on human rights? I suppose the answer is that nobody in the EU knew what the f*c* they were doing, and for that matter still have no idea what to do.
“Given that the Roma are some 20% of the Romanian population, it is no surprise that Madonna was jeered.”
I doubt this is true. It would put the Roma population at 4+ million and even the most maximalist sources mention a 2 million figure.
OK, perhaps I mis-remembered the actual %. Checking it, I found that there is no official figure, because of the institutionalised racism against Roma. Here is a quote from a ERRC report:
These data are old, and I cannot find anything more recent. However, we do know that few of the Roma were able to leave, unlike the main population, so their % is likely to have increased considerably since, taking into account the unrecorded mass emigration of Romanians. It may even approach 15% of actual population.
More recent data regarding the Romani speakers/ethnics may be found at: http://www.recensamant.ro/ (the website is in Romanian, I know). There are however some synopses in English that can be easily downloaded.
Looking very quickly at the data one can easily notice the discrepancy between people declaring themselves as having Romani language as their mother tongue: 241,617(http://www.recensamant.ro/datepr/tbl5.html ); and those declaring of being of Romani ethnicity: 535,250 (http://www.recensamant.ro/datepr/tbl4.html ). In other words those who speak Romani represent almost half of those who identify themselves with being Romani ethnics. This may be telling of the assimilation pressure, in the sense that more and more opt not to learn their children Romani language, so as to assure them an (easier?!) assimilation.
That would be because the EU judges whether a country merits membership based primarily on the country’s financial clout and not its human rights record- otherwise the UK, France, Italy etc could not have been members (besides, France, with its own apalling human rights record, is a founding member). But I think you’re confusing the EU with the European Council and Brussels with Strasburg, a common misconception. Plus, you seem to think that human rights are some kind of moral yardstick by which to judge a nation’s fitness to be considered part of “civilised world”. Too much misconception and ignorance to adress in a single post, I fear.
Stassa: you are the confused one here. The jurisprudence of the Council of Europe is now part of the Acquis Communautaire of the European Union, so all of the case law of the CoE applies across the EU amd will be upheld by the ECJ.
The last few accessions to the EU (not, alas, that of Greece in 1981) have required full conformity with the Acquis. The problem is that foolish lawyers across Europe cannot tell the difference between a legal statute and a law which is actually enforced. Greece is a typical case of such stupidity.
I advise you to think a little more before accusing me of ignorance and misconceptions. This simply shows your own spiteful nature, especially in responding to a post which was about humanitarian issues.
… which you diverted to an issue about who should be part of the EU and who not. But of course, the Roma of Romania are now enjoying their country’s membership of the EU, which they wouldn’t if the country had not been admitted.
Too much complexity there maybe?
Btw, that:
Stassa: you are the confused one here etc etc
Is incorrect. Figure it out yourself, my comment is crystal clear.
Crystal clear and utterly wrong. Maybe not confused, just wrong.
And yes, I do consider a country’s record on human rights to be a key issue in its “civilised” status. I don’t know a single educated person who doesn’t.
“how did this country get into the EU without essential reforms on human rights? I suppose the answer is that nobody in the EU knew what the f*c* they were doing, and for that matter still have no idea what to do.”
Or because it would be hypocritical for countries like the UK(discriminating against Catholics in Northern Ireland), France (discriminating against Algerians), Germany (against it’s quest workers), Italy (against it own Roma) etc. to block Greece and others on the same criteria they fail.
Sorry northman to burst your bubble, but your own countries weren’t that much better then ours in there human rights when Greece entered the EU.
Also since you have read on the matter of ascensions you should be aware that the Greek-Spanish-Portuguese and Eastern European accessions were not made on economic criteria, but for valid political reasons- to solidify the fragile democratic reforms. Unlike you, the EC leaders had to rule, and make choices between equally valid options.
They could had kept all the Southerners and Easterners out (sure many Northerners would have liked it) extorting human right legislation in return for membership with the large risk of the fragile democracies of those states breaking down and leading back to authoritarian rule. Or tolerate serious problems with the hope that EC-EU ascension would help solve them by solidifying the requirement for such change, democracy.
You wanna bet how worst the situation for minorities would be if Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Eastern Europe were under authoritarian or fascist regimes still? Can you prove that without EC-EU ascension that wouldn’t have happened. Most serious political scientists are agreed on why these states were inducted in the EC-EU (if you want citations I will be happy to provide them).
As for the Roma, there is a situation, it is bad, and it requires hard work to fix it. IMHO as far as Greece is concerned a start should be by making High School mandatory for all and finding ways to ensure attendance. Of course a reform of the educational curriculum would be required.
Travle, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I know this style of US low-quality social science concerning Europe, and it’s just wrong. The situation of Catholics in Northern Ireland is not comparable with Roma in Romania, nor are Gastarbeiter in Germany. Possibly Algerians in France bear some analogy, but the best analogy actually is of Roma in Greece. It was not until the 1950s that they even had any nationality (they were refused Greek citizenship from 1832 until then) and they still suffer terribly. Unlike the situations in Germany, France and the UK, the western Balkan countries do not have complex structural reasons why they exclude Roma: it is pure racial hatred. The same occurs with their perception of Jews and Muslims.
The previous accessions of Spain and Portugal – made for political reasons – have not been the same disaster as the Greek accession. On the whole, those two countries have made real progress economically and in terms of human rights. Nevertheless, HR are now a central component of evaluation of socio-economic development and a clear requirement of EU accession countries. Look at the UNDP Human Development reports to see some empirical measures.
So why is the UK still in the EU, when it condones (OK, outsources) torture, it imprisons asylum seekers and it sends them back to countries where they face execution? Not to speak about it track on climate and workers’ rights and so on and so forth?
So human rights is a convenient tool to exclude some people and nations from some resources? Thank the gods Europe does not actually treat them as such…
What is wrong? That Spain, Portugal, Greece and the Eastern European states were inducted primarily for political reasons? Can you point me to authors that claim that. This isn’t just claimed by American, but also European scholars. I would love to read someone who made the opposite claim.
So German, French and British institutionalized racism and discrimination is the result of innocent structural problems but not of nationalist hatred or racism. Are you serious? Are you seriously making the claim that Protestants in Northern Ireland and in Ireland did not hate and do not hate Catholics? Are you telling me that the French don’t despise Algerians, or Germans show distaste to the Gastarbeiter?
And the best thing is that those reactions are the result of structural problems while those of Greeks or Southern and Eastern Europeans are because of naked hatred. I mean if you take the hate away everything will be fine. I am not sure trying to adapt a semi-nomadic culture like the Roma to a sedentary society, and adding the dislocations a society faces when it enters the world capitalist system does not create a tiny, small structural problem. But don’t listen to me. Obviously you are omni-sentient.
There is no question that the Roma see discrimination in Greece. No question that people dislike them. But to throw that all to hate is naive and simplistic. Roma culture has a hard time adapting to modernity, any semi-nomadic culture does. The hardening of borders in the 1950s dislocated them completely, and together with discrimination brought them to the place they are. But to say that there is no structural problem that becomes more exasperated by racism, and that just racism is the spring of it is naive. And naivety doesn’t solve problems.
Bringing the Roma into modernity will require educational reform, anti-discrimination measures,and a lot more, but also a realization that post-1950s Roma culture will not survive such a process.
Stassa: there is a substantial literature on the UK and the EU (including a few things involving me) which says that the UK doesn’t really fit into Europe. The leading text is by Stephen George: “An Awkward Partner”. The Blair-Bush alliance was a disaster for the UK, and you are mainly referring to that…
Travle: at no point did I use the word “innocent” wrt to UK, Germany etc. By structural, we are talking about historical forces that are difficult to change — namely, the annexation of Ireland in the British Empire and its partial independence in the 20th century. Most UK governments would have dearly loved to give NI to the Irish, but they had an obligation to protect the Scottish Protestants whom they had located there, and this protection was enforced through democratic representation. I can tell you, as I lived there, that the Protestants were always afraid of the Catholic power of the South — it was not racial hatred.
In the case of Germany, the failed temporary worker policy was a mistake that Germany is still trying to work out. OK, there is some racism towards Turks, but the real issue is structural in the sense that Germany never expected them to stay.
THe history of the Roma in the Balkans/Eastern Europe is complex, uncertain, and goes back many centuries. Yet one thing is clear: it’s about race as well as culture. As I mentioned previously, these countries also despise Jews and Muslims. The issue of human rights is not consistent with societies where equality before the law is absent. Greece, for example, has no such provision (although pretends to have!) and it is completely absent from Romania, although it has followed the Greek path of pretence. This is the faultt of the EU, and I am not optimistic that better days are ahead. Far from it, I expect the situation to worsen as European economies take a lower profile in the global context.
“it’s about race as well as culture.”
Culture absolutely — since you mention their “long history in Eastern Europe” wasn’t medieval discrimination directed towards them because they were “heretic” non-Christians? — but “race”, how so?
Plenty of Roma could easily pass for dark Greeks, for example. Race is, in the end, socially constructed as we all know but when there’s a lack of distinguishing marks — “indicia” — what does the concept of “a race” amount to?
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you.
I think that Muslims and Jews are “despised” — strong word there — because of the traditionally Christian component in Greek culture — yes, there are plenty of explanations about anti-semitism, see e.g. Adorno, but I think this is important in the specific case. The Muslims are also seen as the “former masters who had the Christian poimnion-rayah under Sharia”.
For another news story on Roma in Hungary — it also endorses the “race” angle.
One thing I have learned from 22 years of research on Greece is that Greeks don’t understand themselves or their country very well. It is then left to the few serious intellectuals in Greece to theorise, which usually gets no publicity or debate.
Why am I saying this? Because I think that Greeks are going through some sort of revolution in racial attitudes, without being aware of it. The traditional modern enemy was the Ottoman (Turkish) oppressor, mythologised and hated. This was also transferred into an illogical hatred of Albanians and other Muslims. Skin colour just didn’t come into the equation — and rightly so, as so many Greeks are very dark skinned.
In the last few years, something has changed. Greeks have started to despise Pakistanis and Bangladeshi — partly because of religion and also partly because of skin colour. The previous hatred of Albanians has moderated into mild dislike or distrust: the real hatred is now directed against Asians, and blames Turkey for letting them into Greece.
This is all bad news for the Roma, who have always been identified and despised for their skin colour, lifestyle and poverty. Now, Greeks can “kill two birds with one stone”: by using skin colour, they can marginalise both Roma and Asian immigrants.
Welcome to the club of Western racism, Greece: but this is one area of western culture I would prefer you didn’t pick up. Couldn’t you start with the effective rule of law? or equal opportunities? or meritocratic employment rules? or…. anything else, really
The link was missed out…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/pro.....227099.stm
“Skin colour just didn’t come into the equation — and rightly so, as so many Greeks are very dark skinned..
In the last few years, something has changed. Greeks have started to despise Pakistanis and Bangladeshi[...]partly because of skin colour.”
You’re contradicting yourself here.
The target is the “non-European Muslim illegal immigrant” that the media blame. So I see a perceived “barbarism” of the immigrant but nothing about his “race”.
“Why am I saying this? Because I think that Greeks are going through some sort of revolution in racial attitudes, without being aware of it.”
You are not the first to theorize that Greeks might be picking up on the colour prejudice of “The West” so all your gloating about your being a serious researcher etc. etc. is meaningless. Substantiation is more important.
“without being aware of it”
How so? The very few that talk of the “subhuman” immigrants in terms of colour, for example, or the others who have to listen to them aren’t aware of this attitude?
Dorian: “so all your gloating about your being a serious researcher etc.”
You are a typical insulting Greek. Why should I hold a polite conversation with you? You have no respect for others, and in the end the rest of the world has no respect for Greeks.
Stassa: there is a substantial literature on the UK and the EU (including a few things involving me) which says that the UK doesn’t really fit into Europe. The leading text is by Stephen George: “An Awkward Partner”. The Blair-Bush alliance was a disaster for the UK, and you are mainly referring to that…
No Xenos. I’m referring to news items like the following:
More from the Guardian.
Also, of course, to the tendency of unscrupulous asshats to use human rights to advance their own agendas, personal or otherwise. As exemplified by you.
So, er. Greece is not yet as racist as The West. You mean that’s why it shouldn’t ‘ve been allowed in the EU? Oh but we’re getting there, you say. So then, what’s your problem? That we’re racists or that we’re not racist enough to play with the big boys?
As has been repeatedly explained to you and others, DD and I happen to possess UK nationality. This does not make us apologists for the UK management of immigration or asylum processes.
My point has always been that racism in Greece was not about skin colour, and my major complaint anyway has always been that the Greek state acts in a criminal fashion. It is incapable of granting basic human rights to both Greeks and immigrants, but especially to the latter and to Roma.
To add to Greece’s existing problems with skin-based racism is a disaster.
“You are a typical insulting Greek. Why should I hold a polite conversation with you? You have no respect for others, and in the end the rest of the world has no respect for Greeks.”
You have shown no respect for any of your interlocutors in the past yet I was being extremely polite until you started bringing up your usual shit about “being a grade A++ fucking researcher”, the actual questions being completely ignored in favor of some posturing that no one gives a toss about.
So, please, spare me your bullcrap.
How do you know I’m Greek anyway? Is your usual “typical insulting Greek” excuse a way to avoid firing up those neurons?
I still don’t understand how the imposition of second class citizen status for 300-400 years on the basis of a religion’s commands, sometimes heavily misinterpreted (Dervisme) by the ruling class is not a structural, but not excusing, reason for hatred of modern muslims?
Also how is being the mainstay of Ottoman forces send to destroy the Greek revolution, as in the case of Muslim Albanians, not a structural reason for the hatred-distaste, again not an excuse, Greeks feel to them? The bad thing for Albanian Muslims is that most Albanian Christians fought on the Greek side and where assimilated in time in the new Christian state, so positive images of Greek-Albanian relations are rare.
I think our difference is that you see cultural explanations independent of structural, while I see cultural emeshed in structural explanations.
Again the solution to Greek discrimination towards Roma is a complex one that will demand a change of attitude and politics on the Greek side, and an understanding that Roma culture will not survive the de-marginalization process of the people who held that culture. Some elements will (like language, music, and artifacts), but the lifestyle (semi-nomadic, semi-indiscreet of the laws of sedentary society, and a different conception of justice) will not.
It is the same thing with African-Americans in the US. To de-marginalize the people of the ghetto discriminatory politics must end, the education system reformed, and attitudes by people outside the ghetto change, but also the ghetto culture, as a lifestyle, must die.
PULLEEZ, Greeks accusing me of posturing!! This is the problem with you people. double standards, no respect for expertise, full of your own self-importance…
And DD: maybe not 100^ of Greeks are like this, but this is the Greek standard shit. I have been dealing with it for two decades, so don’t tell me not to generalise. It is also the reason why ignorant buffoons are placed in top positions in state institutions. In Greece, bullshit and corruption are all that counts.
Travle: the Greek experience of Islam was not as bad as the propaganda makes out, as you well know. The dislike of Islam in the Ottoman history has nothing to do with the racism emerging against Pakistanis. There were plenty of Pakistanis in Greece 10 years ago, and nobody bothered about them. There was also no racism against Africans even 5 years ago, and this is now visible. I agree that it is linked with anti-Islamic feelings, but this is not structural. It is simply a transference of hatred onto another group.
We know from the European literature that racism in any society tends to be directed against one immigrant group/nationality, which is not necessarily the largest one, and it can change over time. Greece has changed its racial hatred away from Albanians and onto Asians. This is the reality.
One qualification to my last comment: i witnessed extreme racial intolerance directed against Kenyans in Athens, in 1994. I was personally caught up in it, and all Greeks who heard of it were genuinely shocked.
What was significant about the racist is that she owned a 5 star hotel on a Greek island, and wanted to look modern, sophisticated and European. (She was none of these, of course.) Presumably, she thought that Europeans dislike Africans (even though Greeks had no problems at that time) and it was part of her social status to be a racist.
I don’t disagree with you on that most racism against new immigrants has no hisotrical or structural foundations. I am afraid that you are right and we are just joining the European wide”hate the xenos” fest, started with the whole War on Terror and etc (and beyond Europeans, there are Muslims that bear responsibility for it as well).
But concerning Roma, and Islam there are structural foundations.
Race is, in the end, socially constructed as we all know but when there’s a lack of distinguishing marks — “indicia” — what does the concept of “a race” amount to?
We all know this? I’m afraid this is profoundly incorrect. One scientific field, that being forensic pathology, is capable of identifying the race of deceased individuals from single hair fragments or mere cells from any tissue. That does not sound socially constructed to me. If you are going to now go into the “categories” of race are what is socially constructed, do not bother. We can call these races “A”, “B”, “C”, and so on and still be correct that they are based on reproducible scientific fact. Hope this helps.
That is not correct. There is no scientific conception of races, although there are genetically similar groups. The important point is that what people think of as “race” — e.g. skin colour, hair colour and type, facial structure, etc — is highly imperfectly related to the genetic material. This is why race is socially constructed: the visible markers are not well correlated with genetics, and we make assumptions about a person based on superficial appeareances.
Those who engage in genetic investigation find that their genetic makeup is often very complex, with white people finding a lot of African genetic markers, etc. Although genetics can indicate to some extent an idea of “race” , it is complex and poorly related to social conceptions. It is therefore better to avoid the idea completely, which is what intelligent scientists do.
Both of your paragraphs are 100% wrong. You are reciting Lewontin’s fallacies and other social Marxist theories that have been thoroughly debunked, especially with the astronomic advances in genetic studies of late.
For your perusal. Enjoy.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/
Again you’re missing the point. You keep saying Greece should not be in the EU because of its human rights records. We are all telling you that other EU member states have worse human rights records. You’re not calling for the UK, France or Germany to be kicked out of the EU for the way they treat their minorities or their asylum seekers. So don’t ask it for Greece, Romania, Italy, Spain, etc.
Or just get what Konstantinos is telling you, that the situation with human rights is complex and it doesn’t help anyone to make absolute statements. And that it’s certainly no solution to exclude a country from the EU on the basis of its human rights record when this is a clear indication that its population needs the protection of human rights legislation.
Oh and btw, your analysis of how racism is racism when Greeks or Romanians practice it, but “structural” when the UK or France do it, goes a long way to legitimise racism itself. “It’s not our fault we pack the ‘beurres in their ghettoes, it’s a complex structural problem. But Romanians are racists because they’re Romanians”. Your logic is so twisted it’s biting itself in the arse.
Cyd,
That race is a social construct is easy to figure out if you’ve lived in Western or Northern Europe, where Mediterrannean people are considered “brown” by the locals. I’ve recounted before how, although I’m deathly pale after years of living in the UK, friends of mine have recommended chocolate-hued make-up to me, because “that should match your skin tone”. People learn I’m Greek and somehow perceive me, with my fair hues, as “olive-skinned”.
Besides that, it’s impossible to classify people of mixed race accurately, using any genotypic or phenotypic characteristics, without making a political statement about what set of characteristics constitutes which race. For example, it’s often remarked about the current USA president that he’s considered “black” although he’s half white. This social construction of race is particularly problematic when you try to define “race” in terms of ethnicity (ie, “the Greek race” or “the Italian race” or whatever). And moreso when you work with populations that have historically blended and shared a good deal of their gene pools.
To make it crystal clear: the “science” you refer to, is mostly research that begins with the assumption that there is such a thing as human races and that it’s possible to tell them apart by looking at a) phenotype and b) genotype. The races however are classified using phenotype alone- ie, colour of skin, shape of hair, craniofacial structure and so on. Then, individuals of a certain race are checked for genotypic characteristics that may define their race, to prove or disprove the assumption that people of same race share common genotype.
Red flag goes up here: the sample is extremely biased; black people are checked to see if they share genetic characteristics. We call this, in Greek “λήψη του ζητουμένου”. We start with the assumption that some people share common characteristics because of their race and we define their race by looking at their common characteristics. We’ve proved that people share common characteristics because they share common characteristics.
Furthermore, the vast majority of those brilliant scientists that work to convince us all that there are racial differences between populations that “genetics” can prove (though usually it is statistcis that is used and not actually genetics) never stop on the statement that “there are different races of humans”. They go ahead and try to explain social conditions or anything else that may strike them as “different” between populations or even cultures, by those purported “genetic” differences that are supposed to constitute race. In short, they don’t just say “there are white people and black people”, they say “black people are lazy and that’s why they’re poorer than white people” and so on. The same thing happens with research on “gender differences” incidentally.
Bottom line, all this “science” of race is obviously, blatantly biased. Not in the sense of political bias: in the sense of research bias. So it’s so much bunkum, ‘mafraid.
Cyd: I am not reciting anything. I have read the major genetics literature on race, since I encountered in an editorial capacity an engineer who thought the same as you. The evidence from genetics is the same as in social science — to the extent that scientists are shamefaced about their past acceptance of race as a scientific idea.
“Over the last three centuries, scientific and ‘folk’ conceptions of race have been inextricably intertwined. Because of this interweaving, scientists tend to look back over the history of their respective fields and conclude that previous generations erred by being caught up in the social maelstrom of their times (slavery, eugenics…”
Pilar Ossorio and Troy Duster (2005): ‘Race and Genetics’, American Psychologist, 60/1, p. 115
Stassa: you completely fail to understand what is the difference between policies in Greece or Romania and what is happening in the UK, France, Germany etc. I realise that you cannot understand what structural means (we teach it in social science courses) but it does not mean that I am condoning racism. What it means is that states with structural problems CANNOT easily escape them, no matter how much they try. Greece has economic structural problems, for example.
My point previously was that Romania does not (in my view) have a structural explanation for its racism, nor does all of Eastern Europe. Across this region, there is a real problem of discrimination and racism against members of their own societies. In Germany it is against recent (post 1945) immigrants; in France against post-colonial French from North Africa; in UK against post-colonial dark skinned people.
In terms of government policies, northern Europe tends to obey the law. At least, with evidence of racial discrimination you will get redress in the courts. In Romania, Greece etc you will not. That is A BIG DIFFERENCE. The Balkan states do not support the rights of minorities or the weaker members of society: in fact, they are vehicles for the corruption of the rich and politicians. ANOTHER BIG DIFFERENCE.
Xenos, I am tempted to remind you that only maths (which I study) and physics are science and the rest is stamp collecting. Anyway, Konstantinos, whose field is also
stamp collectingthe social sciences if I’m not mistaken, seems to be convinced by the evidence that racism in the South and Eastern Europe is entirely a structural matter. And, frankly, I don’t see how it could be any other way.You claim that, although race is socially constructed, racism, in particular that of Eastern and South Europeans is not. But that is absurd- you are stating that there is a relation, in a system, that is not part of the system, even though it is between units of the system. Unless you mean that the concept of race in South and Eastern Europe is not socially constructed, or that, say, the prejudice against the Roma is not racial prejudice?
In fact, what you mean is that Southern and Eastern Europeans are not racist because our societies force us to, but out of individual choice. So we’re all a bunch of evil racists by choice- and it just so happens that all of us are born in Southern or Eastern Europe, while the good people who have a structural excuse for their racism are all in the North-West. At the same time, those good people just happen to live in a racist society which happened to be that way through no agency of their own. And that does not condone racism at all. I guess it simply outsources it, huh?
Btw, better not lecture me about the situation of marginalised minorities in Greece. Just saying.
And I will remind/tell you that good social scientists are trained in maths and I have also studied the natural sciences. Now after 20 years of teaching serious difficult subjects (including economics) I am not going to be lectured to by students.
This arrogance of people that they are expert in complex issues like immigration is one of the reasons why the world goes nowhere. Far from applauding serious study of these problems, people like Stassa (a student, for Christ’s sake) actually have the gall to describe my professional involvement in immigration and discrimination issues as “self-interest”.
What I was telling you in the previous post is that all societies are inherently racist: what makes a difference is how social norms are imposed either through education or legal form (often both). Balkan countries make little effort to educate their population about racism, or to pass/enforce laws relating to it.
BTW, I can do without your defensive rhetoric. I have already told you that I am not an apologist for northern Europe. And I have no idea who Konstantinos is, but if he is of the usual standard of greek social scientists working in my field I am not much interested.
Stassa: That is a declaration of Discipline War!!!! Awesome!!!
Ah Math is philosophy using numbers instead of words(which is a very respectable thing if you aren’t a hard science nazi:)). There is nothing scientific in it. It has no empirical data, it has no experimentation, and it’s laws are deductively created.They are very rigorous but they are the creation of human minds, not the results of experimentation or of observation of the physical world(well not totally but you get the point I hope).
Lakatos and Kuhn gave a very good argument about why the physical sciences are not completely as objective as they like to think. Furthermore I do get tired of all the abuse heaped by physical scientists( and even worst practitioners like architects and engineers) on social scientists just because we obey the moral norms of society and do not experiment on our unit of study : societies and human beings. Revoke those moral norms and we will become just as scientific as the “hard” sciences. Of course you would need to answer first if that is the correct thing to do (which is a philosophical question:)) So please stop dissing the Social Sciences because of limits imposed on them from outside. Attack society or human morality if you wish (I won’t join you though on the last)
I am of course a political scientist in the making:) (BA Panteion, MA University of Chicago, and PhD currently 2nd year University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaing)
Anyway on the point been I think that there structural reasons for racism. I disagree that the educational system in Greece reinforces that[ at least when I was a student in the 80s and 90s (Except when it comes to Turkey and Albania maybe). It doesn’t do anything to stop it. Racism in Greece is a folk racism which is fed by irresponsible politicos, and then feeds on foreign ideas of racism that are more pseudo-scientific.
And yes, races are a social construct, If Tommie everybody became an albino(not that far fetched mind you) would the conceptualization of race make sense? No. So if something can change so simply by levels of melanin in your body it aint really that important.
Travle: I agree with most of that, with one or two qualifications. The first is that social scientists do need to understand numbers and maths, if only to handle empirical data and theorise quantitatively.
The second is that there are difference between the traditional Newtonian physical sciences and social science — Popper describes this well. Nowadays, quantum theory looks far more like social science hypothesising — and origins of the universe is far more speculative than most social science. In other words, the gap between social and natural sciences — at their best — is quite small.
The third quibble is about structures and racism. The point is that the actual problematic — racism — is not understood well, therefore we are not entirely clear what needs to be explained. My view is that racism is a natural human instinct — to exclude outsiders — and requires education and positive experiences for its minimisation. It is also the result of adult socialisation in many societies — usually building on natural fears of the unknown. The third origin is ideological, where part of a society (a very large part in the case of Weimar Germany) adopts it as a solution to problems.
Which of these is structural? I do not think the human instinct route is so deeply embedded that it is a structural problem to change it. No. 2 — which is the folk racism of the Balkans (peasant mentality in my language)– is arguably structural, but I am not convinced that it is beyond repair. The 3rd — political ideology — actually is more serious, because it is a structure devised by humans to divide human society, always benefiting the sector to which those particular humans belong.
Konstantine,
You make good points but I must disagree with (some of) them
You say that maths is philosophy with numbers. However, numbers are only incidental in maths; they are the premise of arithmetic. Maths, I’d say, are more like structure without content, a scaffold if you like, for other disciplines like philosophy, physics or, yes, the social sciences to build on. You are of course right to make the connection with philosophy and it’s true that the people who placed the foundations of modern maths (or laid a tombstone over its head, depending on your perspective!) like Russel, Gödel or Wittgenstein, considered themselves more philosophers than engineers. On the other hand, since their time, there has been an about turn towards the practical, applied branch of mathematics: informatics. So most mathematicians today happen to be engineers first and philosophers only in their spare time. And this of course means that there is a quantifiable, concrete body of empirical data to work with. That’s why engineers can be such smug bastards some times: a processor architecture either works or it doesn’t and there’s no two ways to go about it!
Oh, I don’t really look down upon the social sciences. Come on, I was just gently pulling your leg
I understand perfectly well that you people can’t just put together a social experiment to prove your theories, without violating every sense of ethics- and contaminating your samples in the process! Of course, some people go ahead and do it anyway (I’m thinking of the Milgram experiments or the Stanford prison experiment) and you also have a bunch of “natural experiments” to look into, so I think even the lack of experimentation in social sciences is overstated. To be honest though, I do find that anthropologists tend to be a bit less speculative and a bit more rigorous than sociologists. I may also be a bit preconceived because I often come across very strongly biased views expressed by some (like, guess who) and they turn out to be sociologists more often than not. So it seems to me there’s a lot of sloppiness and a lot of, well, like I said, bias, in the field.
As about the racism of Greek society… well, I can’t figure out where we pick it up from, so I’ll go by your explanation, but I sure notice it a lot around me. But not just in Greece. It’s just, people form groups and they’re very strongly, uh, delineated? It’s weird to experience it, for the first time. I’m afraid also that our upbringing and our education, by not doing anything to stamp it out, even as it enforces a strict definition of “us” and “them” (particularly in the teaching of history, at least for those students who stay awake during it) ends up perpetuating the discrimination and the inevitable prejudice. But anyway, just my unprovable hypothesis there
… and a peasant to boot. Tut tut, people just don’t respect authority anymore do they? Des picable…
Stassa: your opinion of bias is of no interest to me. You do not have a sufficient reading or experience of the social sciences to know what your are talking about. Hell, I am not sure that you are entitled even to talk about mathematics.
FYI: social anthropologists are the most unscientific in methodology because they tend to take small samples and generalise from their detailed case studies. The best social science is done by people who use large-scale sampling, randomised detailed case-studies, and have enough personal experience of the subject area to use their intuition to guide them. Using complex empirical material, theoretical ideas can then be rejected, affirmed, or developed. But you wouldn’t know about this, because you don’t know social science.
Stassa states…
That race is a social construct is easy to figure out if you’ve lived in Western or Northern Europe, where Mediterrannean people are considered “brown” by the locals. I’ve recounted before how, although I’m deathly pale after years of living in the UK, friends of mine have recommended chocolate-hued make-up to me, because “that should match your skin tone”. People learn I’m Greek and somehow perceive me, with my fair hues, as “olive-skinned”.
This, in no way precludes the genetic basis of race. Who cares what “others” think if you are too dark or too pale? The fact that there are major races that can be genetically determined using SNPs is well known and verifiable. For example, here…
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2.....netic.html
Besides that, it’s impossible to classify people of mixed race accurately, using any genotypic or phenotypic characteristics, without making a political statement about what set of characteristics constitutes which race. For example, it’s often remarked about the current USA president that he’s considered “black” although he’s half white. This social construction of race is particularly problematic when you try to define “race” in terms of ethnicity (ie, “the Greek race” or “the Italian race” or whatever). And moreso when you work with populations that have historically blended and shared a good deal of their gene pools.
Absolutely wrong. You can make accurate assessments of mixed race individuals just as accurately as unmixed ones. From the link above, you can see that sub-races can be teased out and have their own identifiable genetic markers. Some sub-races, such as Italians and Greeks are very close, though they still are identifiable. Your assertion that mixed races blurs things though mixed breed dogs such as a poodle and golden lab which is termed a “golden doodle” makes it impossible for us to identify either pure breeds, which as we all know is not true.
To make it crystal clear: the “science” you refer to, is mostly research that begins with the assumption that there is such a thing as human races and that it’s possible to tell them apart by looking at a) phenotype and b) genotype. The races however are classified using phenotype alone- ie, colour of skin, shape of hair, craniofacial structure and so on. Then, individuals of a certain race are checked for genotypic characteristics that may define their race, to prove or disprove the assumption that people of same race share common genotype.
Wrong again. Races are as easily identifiable using pheno and genotype. These races, that being white, black, yellow, red and brown are not new nor are they some form of hocus pocus that was pulled out of thin air. They have been with us for ages and as science progressed, it has shown that genetically, these races are in concordance with their phenotypes.
They go ahead and try to explain social conditions or anything else that may strike them as “different” between populations or even cultures, by those purported “genetic” differences that are supposed to constitute race. In short, they don’t just say “there are white people and black people”, they say “black people are lazy and that’s why they’re poorer than white people” and so on. The same thing happens with research on “gender differences” incidentally.
As a self proclaimed person of math and science, it appalls me that you would want to prevent science from moving forward and outright reject findings because you may not want to hear the results as they do not fit neatly in your preconceived notions of global harmony. Unfortunately, the human species is far from neat and orderly. We are a species that is filled with defects and the sooner the social marxists understand and accept this, the better for all.
Xenos,
Pilar Ossorio and Troy Duster (2005): ‘Race and Genetics’, American Psychologist, 60/1, p. 115
Why do you give me a footnote to an article in a psychology journal as some sort of refutation to current data I linked to in an anthropology and genetics website that posts up to date research? I think you need to “re-research” your data and come to a newer conclusion that is in line with the current findings.
Cyd: I do not accept blogs as repositories of serious research, sorry. I have read the latest genetic research and my understanding of it is in my previous replies.
THe quotation I gave you is a few years old, but still stands, and it is a retrospective on the shameful lack of scientific objective research in the area of race. This view has not been changed by the discovery of some new genetic markers. Race is a social construct; genetic differences are genetic differences. When you mix the two, you get a social construct (supposedly justified by science) which is not science-based. End of story.
There are plenty of closet racists out on the web who latch onto genetics to justify their ideas. THe internet is not a suitable source for this area of science.
I do not accept blogs as repositories of serious research, sorry.
Ummm, it is a blog that posts and links to “serious research” from reputable researchers, universities, and journals. Maybe if you actually went to the link, you would have seen that.
I have read the latest genetic research
No, you have not. What you have done is spout off old, disproven, and politically (correct) motivated ideology.
This view has not been changed by the discovery of some new genetic markers.
LOL, by definition, it most certainly does do that.
Race is a social construct; genetic differences are genetic differences. When you mix the two, you get a social construct (supposedly justified by science) which is not science-based.
Oh good God! Did you actually say that? Did you actually mean that?
There are plenty of closet racists out on the web who latch onto genetics to justify their ideas. THe internet is not a suitable source for this area of science.
Enough. It is clear you are a close minded, well indoctrinated, not very bright parrot of politically correct ideology and no amount of “fancy new genetics” will change that. You are the modern day equivalent of one of Galileo’s persecutors. I could hear your words back then…gosh darnit, the Sun revolves around the Earth!
Sorry Cyd: I have had this sort of argument time and again with people on the internet. Let me say yet again: I conduct and publish serious academic research, I have read most of the relevant scientific journals (that you do not even have access to) up to about a year ago. Your blog link (which I did go to) is about ONE piece of research from 2008 which I already knew.
Please just accept that you are out of your depth. You are not a research scientist, as I understand, and you are not a social scientist specialised in racial issues. Presumably, you are an amateur with some interest in the matter. You have to accept advice from experts in this area — not especially me, since I am expert on migration. Nevertheless, I believe that I have a good grasp of the issues, which I have discussed at length over the years with medical experts and others.
As far as my intelligence is concerned, I find your comments hilarious. Your own lack of comprehension of how scientific paradigms are challenged or confirmed is clear. You simply do not understand.
Cyd,
I’ll repeat this because I don’t think you considered it:
Furthermore, scientists abandoned the concept of “major” races when it became clear that if genotypic variations were taken as the basis for them, there should be a few hundred “major” races, and all of them overlapping on several instances. The idea that there are clearly delineated “major” races that can be identified genetically is inaccurate. Maybe you’ve read otherwise, but the truth is that it’s the latest findings that show how people do not fall in neat, distinct genetic groups, and not the oldest ones. Look up “cline” for a start.
To give you a very dumbed-down example of why there is no such thing as “major races” that are clearly defined genetically consider this: although you could, for instance, find genetic similarities between people of African descent when it comes to skin pigmentation, the same does not hold true when you look at, say, blood type. In plain English: you can’t define race by blood type, for example, or eye colour, or hair colour, or the incidence of certain genetic diseases, or bone density and a host of other genetic markers. You can choose to define, “race” by skin colour, craniofacial structure and hair shape.
But- why do you choose skin colour etc. as the defining genetic marker for race? Because you arbitrarily state that it’s the important one. Which means you’re making a political decision. Which dilutes the science with political motivations. Hence, a) the “science” of race is bad science and b) the whole concept of “major races” is shown to be bunk. And there you have it: race is socially constructed and not a scientific truth. It’s all in your mind and you’re reading the data upside down to justify your political ideas.
Like I said, when you have clear political motivations and your texts exude obvious political bias, you’re not doing science but politics. The two just don’t mix. And I’m afraid research bias doesn’t help to move science forward but backwards.
Incidentally, Xenos, that goes for you too.
Cyd for once a subject where Stassa, Xenos and myself agree on – are we entering some twilight zone may haps?
In any case, the forensic anthropologists can talk of phenotype differences between basic “races” as it makes their life a lot easier but whenever I hear of such constructs as “subraces” I can only think of the racist mindset (based on German Romanticism and ethnophileticism) that permeated European culture in the 19th and first half of the 20th century and culminated in you-know-what (the Nazis had a perfectly thought-out tier of races and subraces).
The problem arises when fuzzy concepts (both self- and hetero- defined) such as ethnicity/culture are mixed with malleable political ones (nationality – mind you I’m not talking of citizenship) and someone decides to call them “racial” for what deep down is politics: We are “racially” Greek which is why we are ethnically (and furthermore nationally) Greek. Someone who shares our ancestry and is not nationally (or even ethnically) Greek is really a lost sheep. etc. etc.
Here’s a recent piece of published work that tears a hole in that argument (for another ethnic group).
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1.....9/abstract
Aside from that Xenos cannot help himself from letting his arrogance destroy any credibility he can rightfully claim in his actual field of work: The mathematics that social scientists (essentially statistics) and even most economists (OK some work with stochastic PDEs as well) deal with are nowhere near what allows them to have an opinion (as opposed to a good joke) about quantum mechanics. And since you insist on harping about your ability to know better than the rest of us even on subjects that you have not published anything on, keep in mind that if you were some gift of the scientific world to Greece, the Mediterranean or Southern Europe in general you’d be holding a chair in a top-tier institution (the UK has at least 2 even if one were to exclude the UoL colleges), not be co-director of a small outfit connected to Pantios. I have no doubt that among your Greek colleagues you can find a lot (quite likely most) of people that are completely unworthy of the positions that they hold on to and that your disgust towards them is wholly justified. It has unfortunately colored your overall attitude to the point of being racist (it was not only me but others that saw the following statement in a completely different light than what you’d like to present it as)
and – more importantly – counterproductive. Seriously, I was very happy to see someone try and make some sense out of the numbers etc. of migrants (legal and non-legal) in Greece and read your MMO reports from first to the last page. But when it comes to policy suggestions I’m afraid that given your attitude I’d feel that as an expert you cannot be trusted to be looking out for what is best for the citizens of Greece.
Oath Taken: aside from your personal rude remarks, I understand that you think I should have a better position than I do. Many Greeks tell me so, and that it is a disgrace that I have not been given an important position. I make no comment on it. AS there are no posts overseas that have interested me, I have applied for only one in the last 7 years (still in process). Your assumption that US and UK posts are decided on merit is out of date: collection of money is the main criterion.
I claim no expertise on genetics and race, merely the effort of reading through the literature in order to grasp the essentials and discussing this with people in other fields. This is what educated people do, to come to terms with adjacent areas of research. It is not arrogant, it is merely professional.
I am sorry that you cannot see how Greeks (and others) falsify history: this is your own deficit. You need to come to terms with reality, instead of blaming those who have already done so.
Stassa: don’t try to tell me how to do research. When you have achieved something, published some serious articles, made a reputation…,maybe then. You see, you are still a Greek in cultural terms, and think you can get away with saying something anonymously when you have no right to say it.
Incidentally, your argument is in the form:
(1) Xenos says things I don’t like or agree with about my culture
(2) Xenos is a social scientist who does research on things that I do not research on, and am not familiar with the literature
(3) Ergo, Xenos is a biased researcher and is not very good.
Do you see how pathetic your argument is? It is the ultimate in bias, since you have no data — only your personal opinion.
Xenos it is so hard every time one ends up discussing things with you not to go completely off-topic with your attitude that I have to make myself promise to respond one last time now and leave you with the last word this time:
a) You write:
Allow me to disagree (from looking at the people working in the offices next to me) – top universities do care about the ability of their faculty to attract research funding but (a) when it comes to junior faculty they judge on merit as that’s the best they can go on at that stage and (b) a world authority is something they always want to attract, for prestige reasons if nothing else, which is why some of them entice senior faculty members at great costs to switch over towards the end of their careers.
(b) When (as you put it elsewhere)
the rational thing to do (especially given that you hold no particular link to the land or its people – quite the contrary in fact) is to seek at least equivalent if not better employment elsewhere. If you are as much of an authority as you claim to be that should be easy even if it’s not an endowed chair at an Ivy League university or a named professorship at Oxbridge. Given that, the “there are no posts overseas that have interested me” line sounds so much like sour grapes that I cannot but chuckle: A world renowned researcher stuck in a little outfit called MMO attached to a little known (outside Greece) university called Pantion… If you were Greek and doing so because of your attachment to your family etc. it would at least sound more believable. If you think that pointing this out is a rude remark I’m sorry but it was your own self-advertising that provoked it. And keep in mind that I’m not claiming that you are some fraud etc. as (unlike others here) I know of your academic output and recognize you as an expert in migration studies and certainly the most proficient person in the area among the people commenting in DD’s blog. But to claim that UK Ph.D.s are for failures and to compare yourself to Newton
goes well overboard. I was taught by some of these failures and some others that were students alongside me are now faculty members whose CV (of far fewer years) is far more impressive than your circa 1996 one. Again, I’m not putting down your work but please do not try and make yourself into some intellectual giant of the social sciences.
c) You claim expertise over the rest of the people you debate with in areas that you don’t even specialize in – even going to the extent of talking about quantum mechanics… That is arrogant however much you want to dress it up as “professional”.
d) Before you preach to anyone here about falsification of history go over the cases where I’ve corrected you on your errors when it comes to Greek history. My own views of Greek history are neither mainstream nor based on the usual national fables – but I also know to acknowledge my mistakes, something you seem incapable of.
In any case I wish you (genuinely) success in your application so your suffering can end.
Enough from me on this.
Regarding the issues of Roma and discrimination against them there’s much to be said and Travlos already hinted at some but I see no-one wanting to see things beyond a simple “bad racist attitudes” angle (not that these don’t exist BTW).
Oath: you simply do not know what you are talking about. First, I do not accept that you are competent to judge my work, even concerning an out of date CV. I actually referee and influence the published output of mainstream journals across the world — which means that my authority is accepted as determinative of what can be published.
Secondly, I can assure you that there have been no posts (bar one) advertised in the last 7 years or so that were appropriate for me. Why? Because UK unis do not actually have any positions for migration work: only for general sociologists, geographers, etc.
Thirdly, senior appointments in the UK are now held only by those who collect money, or have stayed in the department for decades. This is fact: please dont argue about facts.
Finally, in terms of my published work (as opposed to casual chats) you may like to ask the senior Greek historians what they think. I have worked with many, and not one has found fault with my approach. Quite the contrary, one leading prof in Athens told me about the preparation of a book, “It’s better to avoid using Greek scholars on Greek history, they just create trouble”. Others have publicly lauded my published work.
So, my dear colleague. who are you to pass judgement? I work with the top people of Greece and Europe, my publicationz are ciated globally and in large numbers. THe MMO research is cited as authoritative by the IMF, the World Bank, the European Commission, many refereed journals even reference the webpage. You labour under the delusion that top jobs go to top people. WRONG. Top jobs go to safe, conformist candidates and friends. Nobel Prize winners get preferential treatment: this is an exception. Wake up from your delusion, and try to see what is happening in the world.
And one further issue, on which you insulted me. The reference to Newton was made not to compare myself with him (how ridiculous you Greeks are) but to point out to you that the UK has a modern history of intellectual shaping of the modern world which equals that of ancient Athens, and has not done it through awarding certificates for passing exams or whatever. Shakespeare, as far as we know, did not even attend a university. There is a long list of British giants who did not conform to what you Greeks would consider the correct process of validation.
Perhaps you can understand why British intellectuals find the Greek bureaucratic mentality to be ridiculous. The whole European academic approach promotes conformity and mediocrity. Something similar can be said of the USA, which deliberately focuses on minimum standards and not maximum. They get away with it, partly through population size and partly through the Ivy League privilege which is non-meritocratic but needs regular injections of legitimacy. Private and military financing is also relevant in the USA, for global positioning.
Oath,
Hah, yeah, that gave me goosebumps too
Damn! I completely let that slip, didn’t I? I must be getting old…
Er. I guess you’re not gonna bother pointing out the blindingly obvious… you know, that Greek academics are peasants with fraudulent degrees and that if that’s all Xenos has to base his reputation on… etc etc… I guess, what’s the point of arguing with a man who keeps poking himself in the eye?
Xenos,
what is pathetic is your complete inability to deconstruct the simplest of arguments to even a basic degree. Your bullet points are just a sad attempt at spin, that a high school student would consider beneath him.
You can’t even think of anything original to say. You just keep banging on the same tired “arguments” (ο θεός να τα κάμει): “Greeks are peasants” and “I am an esteemed academic”. Well, if you were an esteemed academic you wouldn’t waste your time flaming mere students and peasants. You’re a common troll of the internets, is what you are. And not a very skilled one at that.
On the other hand, this:
Made me smile a bit. Here’s 10 XP from me (out of 1000 you need for lvl 1) for a bit of classic chicanery. You accuse me of being cowardly anonymous- but who are you to speak? Why do you use a pseudonym? Obviously, because if you have any reputation to speak of, it will sink to the bottom of the sea the moment your name is connected to all the hateful drivel you keep posting in here. And if you’re just a sad nobody, your name will speak for itself; or fail to, as it were. In any case, you’re the one who really doesn’t want his name to be known, not me.
But anyway. Here’s all you ever need to know about me: my full name is Stassa Patsanzis and I’m a second year Computer Science student, at the University of Brighton (in my defense, I started in Hull, but I had to leave when the town fell to the zombies).
So what was your name again?
Xenos states
I conduct and publish serious academic research, I have read most of the relevant scientific journals (that you do not even have access to) up to about a year ago.
Please just accept that you are out of your depth. You are not a research scientist, as I understand, and you are not a social scientist specialised in racial issues. Presumably, you are an amateur with some interest in the matter. You have to accept advice from experts in this area — not especially me, since I am expert on migration.
As far as my intelligence is concerned, I find your comments hilarious. Your own lack of comprehension of how scientific paradigms are challenged or confirmed is clear. You simply do not understand.
Which are simply fallacies. There is no meat to any of it aside for pleas to “accept” your expertise, age, intellect, condescension etc. The only “evidence” you provided was a psychological journal link without providing anything else, such as genetically revolving, and you expect all to bow down to your knowledge and wisdom. Well, please show us this knowledge and wisdom first so we can at least critically judge if you are truly worthy of this “respect” because so far, your arguments have consisted of fallacies and extremely outdated, politically correct racial ideology and nothing more.
I also find your presumptions quite telling as well as another sign in your lack of true intellect.
Stassa (as well as Oath now),
You are no better with these fallacies. “Experts say”, you say. Which experts, Stassa, and how have they come to these conclusions you put forth? Here is one expert that does not agree with your and your expert’s stance…
What makes the current study, published in the February issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, more conclusive is its size. The study is by far the largest, consisting of 3,636 people who all identified themselves as either white, African-American, East Asian or Hispanic. Of these, only five individuals had DNA that matched an ethnic group different than the box they checked at the beginning of the study. That’s an error rate of 0.14 percent.
According to Neil Risch, PhD, a UCSF professor who led the study while he was professor of genetics at Stanford, the findings are particularly surprising given that people in both African-American and Hispanic ethnic groups often have a mixed background. “We might expect these individuals to cross several different genetic clusters,” Risch said. This is especially true for Hispanics who are often a mix of Native American, white and African-American ancestry. But that’s not what the study found. Instead, each self-identified racial/ethnic group clumped into the same genetic cluster.
http://bts.ucsf.edu/pspg/faculty/pages/risch.html
http://news.bio-medicine.org/b.....s-13224-1/
You see, your information is quite dated as well. Not just Xenos, the expert. All three of you, who Oath states are in agreement, know nothing of what you speak here. You parrot political correctness. That you three do quite well, mind you.
Let me just add, this appeal to your intellect and authority has reached the end of its course. Back and forth discussions should be based on logic and facts, which need to be supported with evidence that your opponent should have access to in order to review the veracity of it. Maybe you three should start there?
Oh, I see Oath provided a link. Thanks for that, at least one person threw one out there to be critically assessed. After doing that, it was clear the errors of it. Oath, do you know the errors of that study you linked to that, unfortunately, does nothing to prove your point? Hint: There is even a name for the fallacy it puts forth.
Once again, this turns into an “I’m cleverer than you” fight. Is this at all constructive? Is it even of any interest to those of us outside the academic circles you talk about. No. It’s not. Your expertise on various subjects IS interesting. And so are different points of view and different opinions. Can we not just accept that we are all intelligent people at least? Some of us here have never been to university or didn’t finish high school but we are still able to discuss things in an intelligent and meaningful way.
I really have NO interest in your qualifications. I am only interested in what you have to say.
Can we please get back to the issues in the posts and stop this posturing and showing off? Sorry, but that’s how it comes across to me.
Once again, I’d like to point out that this blog is, for the most part, not about YOU.
DD: I agree completely. But I think what you do not grasp is that this is a continuous problem that I have with Greeks. There is no respect in Greece for accomplishments and professional attainment: you will observe this student Stassa insulting me above. Quite frankly, I am sick to the back teeth of the arrogance of semi-educated Greeks.
If you don’t get it, then sorry DD. I do not choose to get into these debates on your blog, I try to have interesting discussions and to correct people on basic issues that I am competent in. If you think that this is some sort of ego trip for me, then I find it highly offensive. I OBJECT STRONGLY to having to defend myself continuously on this blog. And, to be frank, you have not helped at all DD.
Cyd, I must point out that although I’m not claiming any authority or superior intelligence, you do, and you don’t seem to be paying any attention to what I’m telling you either. The study you link to, showcases the problem I explained above: that a) the concept of race and b) the genetic markers associated with it are identified in an arbitrary manner and always with a clear motive in tow.
Consider the study you quote. The team, it says, allowed the participants to self-identify by ticking some boxes on a form- so the “races” that the team was trying to prove are genetically identifiable, had already been selected by the researchers. They had already decided what constitutes race and what races there are, which is what they were trying to find in the first place. A few of those “races”, Black, Hispanic, White, Chinese and Japanese, are mentioned in the article; it is not specified how many they identified exactly. It should be immediately obvious why it is problematic to determine “Chinese” and “Black” as equally broad classifications- but the team says they proved otherwise. How?
Well, the team looked at genetic markers by putting the data through a computer program. At this point, they could have been analysing any kind of data with any set of criteria- but neither is specified, so we don’t know what they looked at, how they looked at it and what they looked for, and we only have their word for what they found. Apparently, they found that the “hispanic race” which is “often a mix of Native American, white and African-American ancestry”, according to the researchers, “clumped into the same genetic cluster”. Surprising finds indeed- especially considering that “genetic cluster” is like saying “a bunch of stuff”. It doesn’t mean anything. If you identify one such “cluster” as the most pervalent genetic markers for a group of people who share Native American, Caucasian and African ancestry, and you look for those in a group of people who share Native American, Caucasian and African ancestry, then you shouldn’t be surprised if that’s what you find they share. Which appears to be exactly what happened.
Now, the article says the team examined “326 DNA regions”, but there is no indication of what those “regions” are, except that they “vary between people”. That can mean anything at all- from the genes that code for the patterns of peoples’ fingerprints to their propensity to haemorroids. So basically the reasearchers could have mixed-and-matched their favourite “racial identifiers” and used those to prove the existence of their favourite races. Once more, this goes to show what I and everyone else here keeps telling you: that you can identify a race as the people who share X, Y and Z characteristic, but that doesn’t mean that the people who share X, Y and Z characteristic are objectively members of that race- only that you consider them to be such.
Then comes the conclusion of the study: we should give people forms with race boxes to tick and use those to treat them, instead of striving to tailor treatments to their specific genetic makeup. That made me want to eat my screen, but it’s borrowed so I didn’t. Nice though of them to have such a noble cause, for this study, to find a better way to treat people. Aaaw. Only, they were actually looking for the cheapest way to treat people. And I think, when you have a little box that tells you peoples’ economic and social background (which do depend on such things as skin colour and ancestry) it’s easy to figure who’s going to get the expensive treatment because “it tagets their genetic cluster” and who’s going to be given the second-rate garbarge leftovers. There you go, a clear motive for biased research. Full house.
Btw, I note that the team found there are no significant differences between Northern and Southern Europeans- which kinda contradicts your claim that there are distinct Italian and Greek sub-races. Oh but don’t tell Xenos or we’ll never hear the end of it!
Finally, I also note that the article does not mention a publication date or journal issue, which leads me to believe that it has never been published, or indeed peer reviewed, or that if it has, it was not found to stand up to acceptable standards. In short, once more: bogus.
Oh, btw, Xenos. I didn’t think that you’d have the balls to practice what you preach, re anonymity etc etc. But at least, with Oath’s last post, Konstantinos can do as I did and find your CV on the MMO site and
tear you a new oneverify or counter your claims of academic omnipotence as he sees fit.Oh, er, not that Oath hasn’t done that already. Just, you know. I think it’s only fair if everyone joins in on the fun.
Stassa, Needless to say, though it appears I must say it, I am left utterly astounded at your thought processes. Are you sure you are a university student and in math, no less?
If up to it, I will go through your long winded and off the mark comment later when I have more time, however, a few glaring points that need to be made:
1) With your level of “discrimination” regarding racial categories, you would have a hard time “proving” animal breeds and so forth.
2) The study was published and reviewed. Simply google the author and title and viola, you would have known that. The link was to a synopsis and in that synopsis, you do not get all the details you were so confounded by.
3) The study did not have the power to identify sub-races and again with a touch more delving, you may have known that. Other studies using larger amounts of SNP markers were able to do that.
4) The study was to identify whether people’s perception of what race they were correlated with the underlying genetics, so over 3500 people seem to understand race perfectly where you fail to do so.
5) It appears the only “motive in tow” comes from you and the people that taught you that race was socially constructed. Because with your line of thinking, all species are socially constructed, as well as buildings, cars, books…hell, everything on this planet is a social construct according to Stassa and her nihlistic, socially marxist professors. Hey, you being a “math” student, even 2+2 is a social construct! LOL
Unbelievable.
Glad you liked it.
There’s no study title to google. If you have a link, please provide it.
Stassa: fuck you too. You are an undergrad with no experience and nothing achieved. I have a global reputation, 20 years of university teaching and don’t need your Greek arrogant shit.
DD: You have maintained no control over this blog, and repeatedly you allow personal attacks on me and others. You should know by now that Greek standards in this area are rock bottom and the nasty mentality of a peasant society comes out. I am tired of explaining it to you, and wonder if you understand anything of what is going on.
Cyd: you are just an idiot. I have given up being polite to you.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g.....id=1196372
Stassa, since you are only an undergrad, assuming Xenos is correct, I will overlook your zeal, bit of arrogance (cockiness), and depth of knowledge. I apologize for being so abrasive. I am roughly 20 years older than you and can understand where you are coming from, as I too was in your shoes at one time. Some friendly advice, know your limitations in the here and now though do not let them be permanent barriers to your potential.
As for not knowing one’s limitations, Xenos certainly wins that prize. Listen my good man, my father always told me that OTHERS should do your bragging for you and NOT YOU. Maybe you have difficulty understanding that fine line. You may have a “global reputation”, though those who you impress may simply be bigger retards than yourself or they just laugh behind your back. You have not shown me anything here that would cause me even a fleeting pause. I think you have imbibed in your own press clippings. The ones you wrote yourself! LOL
And stop insulting an entire nation you ignorant twit.
Cyd, I must point out that although I’m not claiming any authority or superior intelligence, you do, and you don’t seem to be paying any attention to what I’m telling you either. The study you link to, showcases the problem I explained above: that a) the concept of race and b) the genetic markers associated with it are identified in an arbitrary manner and always with a clear motive in tow.
Consider the study you quote. The team, it says, allowed the participants to self-identify by ticking some boxes on a form- so the “races” that the team was trying to prove are genetically identifiable, had already been selected by the researchers. They had already decided what constitutes race and what races there are, which is what they were trying to find in the first place. A few of those “races”, Black, Hispanic, White, Chinese and Japanese, are mentioned in the article; it is not specified how many they identified exactly. It should be immediately obvious why it is problematic to determine “Chinese” and “Black” as equally broad classifications- but the team says they proved otherwise. How?
Well, the team looked at genetic markers by putting the data through a computer program. At this point, they could have been analysing any kind of data with any set of criteria- but neither is specified, so we don’t know what they looked at, how they looked at it and what they looked for, and we only have their word for what they found. Apparently, they found that the “hispanic race” which is “often a mix of Native American, white and African-American ancestry”, according to the researchers, “clumped into the same genetic cluster”. Surprising finds indeed- especially considering that “genetic cluster” is like saying “a bunch of stuff”. It doesn’t mean anything. If you identify one such “cluster” as the most pervalent genetic markers for a group of people who share Native American, Caucasian and African ancestry, and you look for those in a group of people who share Native American, Caucasian and African ancestry, then you shouldn’t be surprised if that’s what you find they share. Which appears to be exactly what happened.
Now, the article says the team examined “326 DNA regions”, but there is no indication of what those “regions” are, except that they “vary between people”. That can mean anything at all- from the genes that code for the patterns of peoples’ fingerprints to their propensity to haemorroids. So basically the reasearchers could have mixed-and-matched their favourite “racial identifiers” and used those to prove the existence of their favourite races. Once more, this goes to show what I and everyone else here keeps telling you: that you can identify a race as the people who share X, Y and Z characteristic, but that doesn’t mean that the people who share X, Y and Z characteristic are objectively members of that race- only that <em>you</em> consider them to be such.
Then comes the conclusion of the study: we should give people forms with race boxes to tick and use those to treat them, instead of striving to tailor treatments to their specific genetic makeup. That made me want to eat my screen, but it’s borrowed so I didn’t. Nice though of them to have such a noble cause, for this study, to find a better way to treat people. Aaaw. Only, they were actually looking for the <em>cheapest</em> way to treat people. And I think, when you have a little box that tells you peoples’ economic and social background (which do depend on such things as skin colour and ancestry) it’s easy to figure who’s going to get the expensive treatment because “it tagets their genetic cluster” and who’s going to be given the second-rate garbarge leftovers. There you go, a clear motive for biased research. Full house.
Btw, I note that the team found there are no significant differences between Northern and Southern Europeans- which kinda contradicts your claim that there are distinct Italian and Greek sub-races. Oh but don’t tell Xenos or we’ll never hear the end of it!
Finally, I also note that the article does not mention a publication date or journal issue, which leads me to believe that it has never been published, or indeed peer reviewed, or that if it has, it was not found to stand up to acceptable standards. In short, once more: bogus.;…
CYD said:
Maybe you have difficulty understanding that fine line. You may have a “global reputation”, though those who you impress may simply be bigger retards than yourself or they just laugh behind your back.
Cyd, Please don’t insult people with the term “Retard”. This perjorative insults the many “handicapable” people living full and happy lives. Please apologize!
Right. So from what I understand (especially from Xenos), I should delete pretty much every comment from all of you ? You have all decided to continue to engage in insulting each other but in the end you want me to babysit the whole thing so that you don’t get your feelings hurt. Sorry but either I leave comments open (apart from those that are automatically flagged) or I close comments completely. You can’t have it both ways. I cannot continue to be insulted and shouted at about censorship and then accused of not moderating. Choose one thing or the other. I cannot sit here and start editing your comments can I ? And how on earth do you expect me to allow one persons insulting comment and not another ? Please remember YOU don’t see what I DO moderate. Decide and let me know individually or I will just ban you all because I cannot do it any other way. I don’t have time and this is not what this blog is about.
This perjorative insults the many “handicapable” people living full and happy lives.
Of course there are. Look at Xenos! FYI…
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/retard
re⋅tard
/rɪˈtɑrd, for 1–3, 5; ˈritɑrd for 4/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-tahrd, for 1–3, 5; ree-tahrd for 4]
4. Slang: Disparaging.
b. a person who is stupid, obtuse, or ineffective in some way: a hopeless social retard.
Political correctness has run amok in our western society and is bringing it to a standstill. I do not cater or indulge the “eternally offended” because, as you can see above, there is more than one definition of “retard”.
Yep. You have a problem. The way Xenos is commenting on all your posts how everything you report is the fault of the Greek peasant mentality, makes your own blog look as if that’s what it’s all about, to bash the Greeks. You don’t want to ban him, because you don’t want to be that blogger. But while he’s around, there will always be someone who takes offense at his insults. And while there’s someone who takes offense at his insults, Xenos will feel important, so he’ll keep coming back for more- that’s his little emotional reward from all this, that he pisses people off and that all the discussions here end up being about his wonderful self.
So your problem is how to deal with Xenos, without inflating his little self-importance further. Obviously you want to be fair, and not single anyone out, not even Xenos. But, if you ban everyone who’s ever had an altercation with him, Xenos will just think it was everyone else’s fault, and once you unban him he’ll be back here and up to his old tricks again- you’ve banned him before, haven’t you? On the other hand, if you only ban him, it will just confirm his self-importance, that this blog is all about him; he’ll still come back for more.
So, tough.
Have you tried just asking the people you don’t want posting here not to? Maybe Xenos, and others, just need to get the hint, ’s all?
Cyd, it’s nice to be able to see the study’s methodology. Now can you show how it proves the existence of objective, biologically defined races?
I mean, you know- by analysing the study’s methodology, now that we know it?
DD
Don’t delete my Roma comment. That was on the matter. Everything else yes:)
DD: I don’t think I should tell you how to run your blog. But I am entitled to complain about personal attacks against me, invasion of my personal privacy and continuous attempts to cast doubt on my academic expertise and expert knowledge of certain areas. Claims of professional expertise are not egotism: they are claims of professional expertise. This is not to say that I am always right, but my opinions on these issues have some backing and legitimacy.
When I am continously insulted by untrained undergraduate students (or even postgrad, but I do not accuse Konstantinos of insulting me), especially in my area of expert knowledge, then it is time for the moderator to intervene. The very fact that kids studying in second class unis think that they know better than me in my area of acknowledged expertise, is an indicator of a serious problem with such kids.
There are also continued (and sometimes malicious) misrepresentations of what I have said on the issue of race. I am at a loss to understand at which point there has been any discussion of species, or where I have said that there are southern and northern European genetic differences. The scientific debate is highly complex, and the stupidities and personal insults being traded here are of no help in grasping those issues. Maybe Cyd is right that most people are guided by political correctness, but this is not my defect. I say what I believe to be correct, which is always evidence-based and sometimes theory-based. Ideology does not come into my professional opinions.
One point of clarification, DD: I do think you should delete personal attacks made by anyone. That would include my rude remark to Cyd, which was made in sheer frustration. The discourse here has degenerated into personal attacks, as has happened in the past.
Cyd,
I think our discussion was whether race is socially constructed or not. According to that bit of research, it is: the reasearch team arbitrarily identified four races (white, African American, East Asian and Hispanic), then research subjects had to classify themselves as one of those races. So, for example, a Jewish person or an Arab, would have to tick the “white” or “Hispanic” box. Furthermore, it is clear from the study that the biological criteria for those “major” races where just as arbitrary. The research actually shows that the concept of race is socially constructed. What I said still stands: the study’s methodology was flawed and it was politically motivated.
Btw, I am not a Marxist in any way, shape or form- but your ideas, far from being “the scientific truth” are the readily identifiable rhetoric of the far right. So is your insistence that the concept of race has been discredited because of “political correctness”, or that it hasn’t been discredited at all.
LOL
Maybe you missed this statement of mine way back when…
One scientific field, that being forensic pathology, is capable of identifying the race of deceased individuals from single hair fragments or mere cells from any tissue. That does not sound socially constructed to me. If you are going to now go into the “categories” of race are what is socially constructed, do not bother. We can call these races “A”, “B”, “C”, and so on and still be correct that they are based on reproducible scientific fact.
What you are arguing is the bolded text above, that being the “term” white is socially constructed etc. Gee, how convenient that we are reduced to arguing semantics. As I said, the terms can be anything and as long as people know what the terms mean, then genetically they are identifiable and reproducible. Also, your concerns regarding Jews and Arabs, which are identifiable as well, did not seem to play havoc with the 3500 participants in the study. You see, again, THEY don’t have a problem with race, which is both superficially and genetically determined.
Btw, I am not a Marxist in any way, shape or form
But you are. Reminds of the theory of relativity. How do you know YOU are the one moving without a frame of reference. You do not have a frame of reference, though you think you do. Maybe you will at some point, maybe not.
but your ideas, far from being “the scientific truth” are the readily identifiable rhetoric of the far right.
So any thoughts of the reality of race is “far right” in your view? And you still do not fancy yourself an indoctrinated cultural marxist?
So is your insistence that the concept of race has been discredited because of “political correctness”, or that it hasn’t been discredited at all.
Both. You see, I have traveled the world, have several degrees, and have read a library of books on many subjects, including this one. Not bragging at all, just letting you know that I speak from a position of, at least, some knowledge and experience. Funny thing is that all races of people I have come across, which is pretty much everyone under the sun, know and understand what I have been trying to get through the heads of the several antagonists here. Only the leftist ideologues trip over this subject and these leftist ideologues are almost invariably, white. It is clear the people who view race as a social construct were the ones clamoring about race not existing at all beforehand. Their ideology is based on lies, which needs to continue in order for them to continue their no such thing as race mantra. They are the ones with some form of motive, to paraphrase you. What else can one say when we have genetic markers proving race and here you, as well as a slew of others, continue to deny it?
Let’s try this. Why don’t you give me an example or two of scientific data that is not socially constructed and I’ll play the devil’s advocate, i.e. YOU.
Cyd
No mind reading needed. Even when hard scientists don’t even think of the political implications of their research, those are there. Especially in biology. As I said they either whistle, react in pathetic horror, or abjure responsibility.
Put please tell me what do you think the political repercussions of accepting that races are biologically distinct would be?
Put please tell me what do you think the political repercussions of accepting that races are biologically distinct would be?
Well sir, the short answer to that would be, I don’t give a f**k. You see, were it not for giants in our collective history who stood up to the current day dogma churned out by various restrictive institutions, you would not be jabbering your tripe on the internet to someone half way around the world. They did not care to “alter” or worse, avoid research with its concomitant “unpleasant” finding because of any political repercussions. You say you are a social “scientist”? I now understand why the concept of scientific rigor seems alien to you.
Yes, like the eugenicists,Maxim, Mengele, or the doctors of Unit 731. I mean they didn’t let foolish current day dogmas to stop them. They went forward with there research and damned by the consequences!!
Too bad they don’t force you guys to read Camus. Very helpful for all would be destroyers of the world.
Anyhow the biggest coward is someone who does evil without even knowing he does so. I would happily tolerate research with bad results if the researchers have the intellectual honesty to say that yes these are the bad results.
And I am more rigorous then you ever will be. I actually think of all the aspects of my research. Obviously you don’t give a f…k about one important part.
Cyd: I am sorry, but what you have written above — “One scientific field, that being forensic pathology, is capable of identifying the race of deceased individuals from single hair fragments or mere cells from any tissue” — is a fraudulent lie.
This is because the idea of “race” is in the minds of the scientists, and is not an objective fact. They have decided that a certain genetic combination is likely to be a certain race, with no cross-checking or attempts to research a counterfactual truth. That’s bad science.
Indeed, standard medical textbooks in the USA describe certain genetic defects/ medical conditions as being statistically correlated with race. What they mean, is that the black American population has a statistical tendency to show such patterns; it does NOT mean that you are black if you have that genetic combination, not that you have to be black to have it. Do you see the problem? It is about probability, not clearly defined differences.
in fact, the black population of Africa shows very different patterns across the continent. There is, by all genetic research, no such thing as a black person, although there are several markers indicating aspects of skin colour. Furthermore, the genetic diversity of Africans is so wide, that this is the basis of the current almost unanimous scientific belief that we are all descended from African migrations, with Africa as the beginning of life on Earth.
So, race is in the eye of the beholder. You can construct bogus “scientific” validations of your personal opinions, but they are not science. The categorisation of any set of data constitutes a value judgement, unless the data clearly just fall into separate categories. This is NOT the case with the current genetic evidence. I suggest you read the latest scientific journals to see that.
Funny you should bring up eugenics as it was a movement that found its peak following with the “Progressives” of the US in the late 19th and early 20th century. For example…
But I’m sure that was not your intended target, was it? Progressives of today like to bury such unpleasant truths and direct us to their next lunatic cause célèbre instead of focusing on embarrassing moments of their past. Currently we are being told that eugenics is bad and there is no such thing as race. Oh wait, nasty facts being what they are, we have to alter that last bit and state that race is a social construct. It seems all the great ideas arose from the left, wouldn’t you say?
Maxim, I’m assuming you are referring to the inventor of the first self-powered machine gun. Excellent logic there. Why don’t we ferret out the first person who picked up a rock? That appears to be the natural progression of such logic though with the unmentioned twist that it will be people like you who will determine on where it will and will not be “acceptable” to draw the line.
As to Mengele and Unit 731, I simply am dumbfounded on why you would bring up such hideous examples because they were examples of atrocities that were never a “dogma”, nor were they ever accepted by everyone in their OWN societies at the time. They were done by militaristic nations in the midst of war controlled by power hungry individuals. Mengele was insane, as is the ultra left, and for you to use an isolated case(s) shows lack of intellect of mendacity.
Nothing you’ve mentioned disproves how research will lead to atrocities or how widespread dogma suppressing research has led to good. The examples I was thinking of were more in line to Catholic Church persecuting Galileo for abandoning the geocentric view of the solar system for the heliocentric view. Not to mention Copernicus, Darwin, and Galton. Stem cell research as well has been hindered along these lines in the US. All of these examples are universal dogma of the time that kept or hindered advancement. Currently, one of the biggest sources of dogma comes out of the ivory towers of academia, principally in the social sciences. This is where the racial bogeyman originated from, going back to Franz Boas, and through incestuous hirings and advancements, many major US universities have departments full of barely competent, barely literate, cultural marxists spouting the same garbage that you do. This isn’t mere chance and has been a methodical movement for generations to where we are now. We are now left with lunatics running the asylum and poisoning young minds, like Stassa’s with their hideous intolerance masked as “tolerance”. The good thing is that the human mind eventually sheds this brainwashing as it begins to experience life and identifies the realities of it. Many people realize that what they have been fed for their entire schooling, from elementary school and especially through university has been an idealistic fabrication. Unfortunately, some do not shed their brainwashing.
A simple thought exercise to show this is correct would be to see that much racial research, including the genetically driven kind, is either not done or not put to print. Not because people are not interested in doing it, but more because of fear for researcher’s livelihood and careers. When you have entire departments and the backing of major governments willing to come down on any researcher “doing” or publishing research that does not conform to their current beliefs, why would anyone want to risk what they have achieved? They are hindered and stifled. Unfortunately for the left, science moves ahead and some data just cannot be kept hidden as well as some researchers would rather seek truth over fear and lies. One example of such would be the “no such thing as race” garbage that was laid to rest a while back.
Getting back to you, I am still shocked that you proudly avoid truths that have political connotations. Shame that you are Greek considering the Greeks of antiquity certainly did not have that mindset, thankfully. Not seeking the truth…the very notion is anti-Greek and anti-science.
Xenos, thank you for your even toned comment. I understand your points and have answered them twice. Once in my initial post and the second was a few comments above yours to Stassa. The gist to my answer to your comment is…
1) It is semantics to argue what is in the “minds of the beholder” when all beholders know what race is and what can be determined genetically, which correlate quite highly.
2) Blurring of the edges or whatnot does not preclude the existence of race.
3) It is not necessary for ALL races to have unique features in order to be considered a separate race etc. We do not expect this of various breeds and even amongst species, so why races?
4) A common origination, again, does not preclude the existence of separate races as major migratory obstacles kept the five major races separate long enough, which is not really that long (~5-10K years), for divergences to begin to appear.
Cyd: you fail to understand. It is NOT blurring at the edges: it is the mere fact that genetics cannot identify clear races that correspond at all well with popular and traditional “common knowledge”. Much of the genetic discovery is in CLEAR contradiction of common understandings of race. I tried to explain to you that Africans have all of the diversity of other so-called races and there is more in common between most white people and Africans in general than there is between certain African groups.
So, you have not answered these points at all, and I presume that you did not know these things. The relationship between genetic knowledge and commonsense ideas about race is that there is very little support for these notions. It is hardly surprising, since racist ideas about race are based entirely on physical appearance. Most of your genetic structure is not about appearance: you fail to understand this essential point about how organisms are constructed. Things are not necessarily as they appear, although humans always try to insist that they are.
Science since the Renaissance has constructed theories that fly in the face of commonsense “observed reality”. You, youself, mentioned the Catholic Church’s dictum that the Earth is the centre of the universe. You seem to want to embrace new science, but your methodology is not scientific. You are repeating the mistakes of the Church and popular narratives since the emergence of man.
Xenos, don’t presume.
it is the mere fact that genetics cannot identify clear races that correspond at all well with popular and traditional “common knowledge”. Much of the genetic discovery is in CLEAR contradiction of common understandings of race.
This is absolutely not true. The links I’ve provided prove this to NOT be the case.
I tried to explain to you that Africans have all of the diversity of other so-called races and there is more in common between most white people and Africans in general than there is between certain African groups.
This is generally true. For instance, roughly 85% of the genetic diversity among humans is found within populations and 15% between populations. However, this does not in any manner imply that races do not exist/cannot be discerned since most of the information that distinguishes populations lies in a correlation structure rather than mere variation of individual factors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin’s_Fallacy
You, youself, mentioned the Catholic Church’s dictum that the Earth is the centre of the universe. You seem to want to embrace new science, but your methodology is not scientific. You are repeating the mistakes of the Church and popular narratives since the emergence of man.
Hardly. Let’s play devil’s advocate for a moment and assume you are correct above. Why is then careers are destroyed and people smeared or worse with such “frivolous” or “unscientific” research? No one seems to care about the Flat Earthers, do they? They still harp about their issue though, rightfully, when it is brought out into the open and seen for what it appears to be, that being, ludicrous gibberish, then people realize that Flat Earthers are nuts. Not so in this case. I’m afraid it is your side that is behaving along the lines of the Catholic Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy
Xenos, reading back on some of your latest comments…
How is forensic pathology a “fraudulent lie”? I know what you’ve posted, though HOW is it a fraudulent lie? Statements like these, along with others, is where you lose tremendous credibility. People with your line of thinking is how we’ve gotten to where news casts tell of suspects being tall or short with a “plaid” shirt and brown shoes all the while omitting race, which just so happens to be THE biggest identifier that police use.
The relationship between genetic knowledge and commonsense ideas about race is that there is very little support for these notions. It is hardly surprising, since racist ideas about race are based entirely on physical appearance. Most of your genetic structure is not about appearance: you fail to understand this essential point about how organisms are constructed.
Why do you use strawmen? I know full well about “how organisms are constructed”. Sheesh, I’m sure much more than you. You continually spout off “relationship between genetic knowledge and commonsense ideas about race is that there is very little support for these notions”, or a variation of, yet you ignore all links and data that clearly show you to be wrong.
Sorry, but I can only laugh when you cite wikipedia. It’s a joke, right?
There are two other points. !) Blogs do not constitute representative sources of scientific knowledge. I have already told you that, but you appear not to understand. You have to read serious journals and reputable books, as I have done. Your links are not worth one piece of excrement in comparison. Did you ever hear of peer review? I know it has defects, but it also stops crap from being published. Your claims are just wrong.
2) Re forensic pathology. It is a fraudulent comment epistemologically, because you present it as a validation of race, when all it is is an arbitrary categorisation according to pre-established beliefs. In longer form: The complex genetic structure of a dead individual allows the pathologist to predict (with a degree of probability) that the deceased had a certain skin colour, or came from a certain ethnic group. The commonsense racial groups are used, for social purposes, to try to identify who the person was, where he came from etc. This is the use of science for policing work: it is NOT a scientific proof of races.
3) There is no strawman. It is absolutely central that the biologically minor genetic differences of physical appearance constitute the entire reality of racialism and its adherents. If you examine genetic structure generally, you will find much more interesting patterns of distribution, variations and commonalities than the popular racial prejudices contain. I am not opposed to mapping of genetic patterns across the globe, and identification of predominant “types” of humans. These are not races: they are patterns of genetic distribution. Only in extreme cases of zero mobility over millennia will these “types” be sufficiently distinct that your word “race” might make sense. Since the word itself is so laden with a history of prejudice, discrimination, exploitation etc then it can never be used. Indeed, some geneticists have started using alternative scientific words for that reason.
Cyd
I have read Daniel Flynn, and Horowitz, and Hayek so please spare me the bad recap.
“the unmentioned twist that it will be people like you who will determine on where it will and will not be “acceptable” to draw the line.”
I see, now it is you who has mind powers? Sorry no, I would think that your conscience would do so. Oh wait, that is not a scientific fact…..bummer.
My examples are crude but they are valid. All of the people I mentioned operated exactly on the principle you extol
“I don’t give a f**k. You see, were it not for giants in our collective history who stood up to the current day dogma churned out by various restrictive institutions, you would not be jabbering your tripe on the internet to someone half way around the world.”
They too did not give a f…k about the moral dogmas of their days. So spare me the horror. If they had come up with some useful medical discoveries (As some of the Nazi doctors did) then you would be eulogizing them.
Then you bring up the 19th and 20th century Progressives. So? They were moral degenerates.So were there opponents. And all helped along by “scientists (considered at the time legitimate)” that based there arguments on Darwin. And Darwin did not help by not stating what his wonderful discovery should not be used to argue for. See I don’t want to ban research. I demand that you have some sensibility to it’s consequences. A nice small article telling people what conclusions not to take out of it would be good. But since those who follow the “f…k the consequences dogma” you extol are incapable of or unwilling to ,conduct of moral thought, others , like politicians and intellectuals you decry have the opening to do as they wish. And many times they use it for evil. But that is the result of people abjuring there responsibilities.
As for us social-scientist ruling over you (oh man I didn’t know I had so much power) since you guys never seem to listen to us, please spare me the right wing nut-speak. You want to whine about politicians that interfere in your work. Great. But part of my work isexactly TO find and predict the consequences for society and politics from your actions (since you have abjured responsibility for them).Tough Luck.
Like Socrates was for the Athenian demos (which put him to death btw )we will be the horsefly around your ears.
Konstantine: I feel that your appeal to Cyd to acknowledge the potential consequences of certain research “approaches” is inapposite. Cyd is no scientist: he is an amateur who has read up on some basic genetic research (through low quality internet sources) and — far from reluctantly coming to the race conclusion on the basis of science — has been actively looking for anything “scientific” to support his personal opinion.
So, the question actually should be: Cyd, why do you want science to prove the existence of races?
If we were to get an honest answer to that question (we will not) then all would be transparent. Some people follow logic to its inevitable and undesired conclusions while others eagerly search for justifications of their own personal prejudices. The gap between these two sorts of individual is massive and unfathomable; thus far, Cyd has shown himself to be in the latter category.
Cyd,
There is no conspiracy to stiffle scientific truth, like the one you imply (with your comment about the giants who fight for truth etc). There is such a thing as a scientific consensus, and there are procedures by which it is established. They are not perfect, but I think you will find that the vast majority of scientists, especially in “hard” scientific fields, are far from being marxists, cultural or otherwise, exactly because marxism is not a very scientific idea, especially in the modern Western world. Not to mention it doesn’t really pay well. Anyway, don’t use that “they’re all against the truth” argument, it’s a classic hallmark of false science, to claim that it’s “ahead of its time” or that “it gets up the nose of the establishment” and that’s why people do not accept it. If anything, the idea that race is objective, was the established one, before it was discarded.
And why was it discarded? You’re surely correct to assume that the Holocaust had something to do with it. Obviously, scientists, when they realised the implications of accepting as scientific truth an idea that could have such abhorrent consequences, smartened up and decided to look into the matter more closely. And what they found was that there was a very good reason why the “science” of race had led to such atrocities, that are completely against every possibly perceivable concept of what science is for and about: because it was utterly, inherently and entirely unscientific. There is no such thing as clearly defined, genetically identifiable races and that’s not semantics at all. It’s the inability of data to conform to the expectations of the human mind.
The thing is, why was “the science of race” accepted before WWII and the Reich’s atrocities? Incidentally- where were the cultural marxists then, do you think? Anyway, the reason is precisely what you say: that “everyone knows what races are”. In other words: it’s common sense. But common sense is not scientific knowledge. It used to be common sense that the Earth is flat, otherwise we’d be falling off. It used to be common sense that if your skin is “black” then everything about you is “black” and that should go right down to every last bit of your DNA (not to mention, your personality). Only, it turns out this isn’t so. You can’t identify the race of skinned corpses. You keep thinking otherwise because you keep confusing context and interpetation with actual data. And that’s classical research bias. You just see the results you think you already know are there.
Oh and what you say about forensic anthropology- that’s inaccurate. There is no way to tell a person’s “race” out of hair or nail clippings (no, not even with red-haired people), let alone with stuff like blood, spit or semen. I mean seriously, how did you come up with that? That’s just factually wrong.
I don’t think they did. The Standord study is flawed in so many ways it jumps out at you the moment you read the abstract. Apparently people fall into neatly defined biologically identifiable groups congruent with their self-identification. Wow- did they just discover some telepathic ability of people, to analyse their own and others’ genetic material? Wheeew!
Of course, people, even in the States, self-identify as many more things than for example, “white”; they self-identify as Jew, or Irish, or Italian- and obviously, there’s so many more “races” that people self-identify as besides those four the study used. So where’s the “Semite” tick box in the study, and where’s the “Arab” or “Middle Eastern” one (even ignoring that Arabs are considered Semitic)? If you prove peoples’ self-definition of “major races” then how come you find their self-definition of “sub-races” are wrong? Surely, human types do not fall into a few broad categories, and that’s it- if your categories are broad enough to encompass whole populations, like all the self-identified “whites” of the United States (oh, and, Taiwan), then where are the sub-populations that make those supra-populations up? What the hell? I’m going on just as those questions come to me but that’s a really crappy study… It doesn’t really prove anything but that you can really mess up your interpretation of your data big time.
Something more. The Social Sciences in the US are not dominated by Marxist paradigms. Only departments that pass into the humanities(which are dominated by Gramscian or post-modern paradigms), like area studies, or social group oriented studies have Marxist ideas dominating (and typically very bad readings of Marxism).
The dominant social-scientific paradigm is behaviorism, and the dominant methodology inductive empiricism (also know to it’s enemies as barefoot-empiricism:)).
If you had taken a serious social-science class this come apparent quickly enough. Area and group studies are not pure social science. They pass into the humanities.
At the time of writing, Marx’s analysis of the transition from feudalism to capitalism, his groundbreaking analysis of the workings of capitalism, and his theory of class were indisputably the hardest science of man, society and economy that the world had ever seen. The fact that the world itself has changed since 1850 does not make his work unscientific.
And yes, the US academics are absolutely opposed to Marxist analyses. When American students come to European universities, we have to explain to them that Marxism in social science is a theory and not an ideology (although if the theory holds, then some conclusions may follow). Usually, they are horrified by the discussion of “communist ideas”.
The political correctness about race in the USA is an educated middle class attempt to hold the society together, since race is the most dangerous and divisive problem in the USA even now. It has nothing to do with Marx.
Of course we could happily fight for 200posts over whether Marx actually had any real idea of what he was talking:)Suffice to say that his analysis of capitalism was wayyyyy off.
I suggest you read some economic and social history of the UK, Belgium and Germany, Konstantine. in particular, you should look at the emergence of capitalism in the early 19th C. The fact that American social scientists generally don’t read history before reaching their conclusions is a serious problem. In the ROW, Marx’s historical analysis is accepted as probably the best written: there is much dispute over the value of the political ideology, though.
For my part, I consider that his ideology had a massively important (and generally positive) influence in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century, along with the rather negative case of the Russian Revolution. In western Europe, his writings were a contributory part of the trend in formation of labour unions and socialist parties (since the poor had no political representation or influence in politics), the formation of functioning welfare states (in contrast to the shit that the USA has), and the gradual and variable emergence of universal franchise.
Post WWII, we can talk about rather negative implementations of Marxism-Leninism, although there were positive aspects even in some of the communist bloc countries.
Also post WWII, the real emergence of highly developed social democratic/centre right political management systems in western Europe made the Marxist class analysis look rather weak. Presumably, that is what you refer to. Marx actually changed the world, and in so doing made his political ideology look out of date and even incorrect. Only one other social scientist — Keynes — significantly changed the world, and he was part of that very same centre politics that defined the state’s management of economy and society.
I will stop at the emergence of such horrors as Thatcher and Reagan, lest I vomit. They led directly to the mess that we are all in now.
If you want to debate this, please email me(I am not posting my email here, but you can find it fairly easily), I would love to do so. Suffice to say I disagree, and on hisotrical reasons. We already have hogged DD’s blog with not relevant things. Starting a Marx debate would kill it.
Xenos,
Suffice to say you are simply a blithering idiot with an unwarranted high opinion of your self proclaimed importance. My initial impression of you was right on the money and you confirm with each post what I knew to be true. Let’s start for the last time, as I will no longer be responding to any more of lunatic ramblings.
Sorry, but I can only laugh when you cite wikipedia. It’s a joke, right?
Why is that? It was a link to an EXPLANATION of Lewontin’s Fallacy. It was not “new research” nor was it on a controversial topic that may have been biased, idiot. It was a well organized, easy to read description on why Lewontin’s “there is more variation within groups than between groups” fallacy is not to be given much weight. There certainly are other resources of this same topic, though Wikipedia provides, at times, easy reading and understanding with appropriate references.
There are two other points. !) Blogs do not constitute representative sources of scientific knowledge. I have already told you that, but you appear not to understand. You have to read serious journals and reputable books, as I have done. Your links are not worth one piece of excrement in comparison. Did you ever hear of peer review? I know it has defects, but it also stops crap from being published. Your claims are just wrong.
And you expect respect and deference to your “world renowned” authority when you cannot even comprehend what the fuck you read nor do you even attempt to open your mind by going to links provided, which is much more than what you have done. You simply bloviate about your own super-duper intellect. For the LAST TIME, the website published the ABSTRACTS to RESEARCH that was PUBLISHED in PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS, stupid! It provided links to organizations and journals such as American Society of Human Genetics, PLoS (Public Library of Science – A peer reviewed open access journal), Molecular Medicine, Science, Molecular Biology and Evolution , Journal of Human Genetics, Annals of Human Genetics, NIH, US National Library of Medicine to name only a few. You see, you dimwit, the blog serves as a ONE-STOP to current research. It does not do the research. You not understanding this or simply are too conceited look into it or too ignorant to understand it, which speaks volumes on your profound idiocy.
2) Re forensic pathology. It is a fraudulent comment epistemologically, because you present it as a validation of race, when all it is is an arbitrary categorisation according to pre-established beliefs. In longer form: The complex genetic structure of a dead individual allows the pathologist to predict (with a degree of probability) that the deceased had a certain skin colour, or came from a certain ethnic group. The commonsense racial groups are used, for social purposes, to try to identify who the person was, where he came from etc. This is the use of science for policing work: it is NOT a scientific proof of races.
The only things fraudulent are your credentials, if you have any. It proves that this “arbitrary categorisation” is understood, reproducible, and identifies exactly what we view races to be. Pretty hard to argue with that, unless one is an idiot. Another point that seems to be recurring is your “arbitrary categorization to pre-established beliefs” meme that Stassa has parroted here as well. ANYTHING can be categorized as such if one is allowed to speak in nihilistic mumbo jumbo as you and your ilk are want to do. Numbers, buildings, cars, dirt, mud, air, stars, planets, the universe ARE ALL arbitrary categorization to pre-established beliefs you idiot. What is real then? Nothing. Is THAT your whole point and stance? LOL
3) There is no strawman. It is absolutely central that the biologically minor genetic differences of physical appearance constitute the entire reality of racialism and its adherents. If you examine genetic structure generally, you will find much more interesting patterns of distribution, variations and commonalities than the popular racial prejudices contain. I am not opposed to mapping of genetic patterns across the globe, and identification of predominant “types” of humans. These are not races: they are patterns of genetic distribution. Only in extreme cases of zero mobility over millennia will these “types” be sufficiently distinct that your word “race” might make sense. Since the word itself is so laden with a history of prejudice, discrimination, exploitation etc then it can never be used. Indeed, some geneticists have started using alternative scientific words for that reason.
Yes, way to repeat Lewontin’s Fallacy yet again and strawman your way into “pure”, “distinct” contortions that no one has made, which are not even required for SPECIES, LET ALONE RACES. Yet you state… Only in extreme cases of zero mobility over millennia will these “types” be sufficiently distinct that your word “race” might make sense without even realizing that that is exactly what has happened with physical obstacles to mobility leading to isolation of large genetic groups that evolved into distinct races. You are painfully stupid and rigid and not only indoctrinated, but also and frightful indoctrinator.
I feel that your appeal to Cyd to acknowledge the potential consequences of certain research “approaches” is inapposite. Cyd is no scientist: he is an amateur who has read up on some basic genetic research (through low quality internet sources) and — far from reluctantly coming to the race conclusion on the basis of science — has been actively looking for anything “scientific” to support his personal opinion.
So, the question actually should be: Cyd, why do you want science to prove the existence of races?
If we were to get an honest answer to that question (we will not) then all would be transparent. Some people follow logic to its inevitable and undesired conclusions while others eagerly search for justifications of their own personal prejudices. The gap between these two sorts of individual is massive and unfathomable; thus far, Cyd has shown himself to be in the latter category.
LOL! The pièce de résistance! Project much, oh wise one? Our great genius leader who knows all will tell us what to think and do!! You have no idea who you are speaking to, yet you have no qualms in making a complete ass of yourself with your blather. I hope it is clear for all how dangerous it is when you surround yourself with low intellect, like minded drones. You become one and Xenos certainly is one. In their little circle jerk, they all know why people question race, it is their latent racism that comes to the surface, of course. Just ask them and they will no doubt be happy to go on and on about it.
You sir, are a joke and a definite waste of my time. You may respond if you wish, though I have zero tolerance for stupidity nor do I have any desire to rehash points that children understand. You go on thinking you are some respected guru as it does not matter to me; though do not expect me to go along with all your other bootlicks. Good day!
Stassa,
You too are becoming a burden to answer over and over again. I have given you some leeway due to your youth and inexperience, so you need to understand that. This is not some stupid “internet debate” in order to win points. You really need to critically think things through before spouting off one silly point after another, especially when they have been discussed and referenced. I will not be responding to you any longer as well because I do not think it will help you much at present. You have to want to expand your mind instead of parrot stupid ideas that have come from people with hidden motives, as you say. The same people that claimed race did not exist. The main reason I will no longer respond is that you seem to be too lazy to do basic research on my points and say stupid things like this…
Oh and what you say about forensic anthropology- that’s inaccurate. There is no way to tell a person’s “race” out of hair or nail clippings (no, not even with red-haired people), let alone with stuff like blood, spit or semen. I mean seriously, how did you come up with that? That’s just factually wrong.
Well, you better get on the phone and tell the FBI that they don’t know fuck all about what they are doing, to name only ONE organization that thinks you do not know what you are speaking of.
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/.....edric1.htm
This is regarding simply looking at the human hair and being to identify races and does not even begin to go into assessing the DNA sample from the cells at the hair root, which I was talking about.
You see, you make these profound statements with this aura of absolute certainty and you have no idea what you are talking about. You need more learning and less talking, imo.
BTW, I used the term forensic pathology, of which forensic anthropology is a part of.
Mr Travlos,
You will be the only person I will want to discuss anything further with though you are on shaky grounds as well. You are in the social sciences, and I do understand there are differences amongst them, though many are nutjobs none the less. You, at least, know what you speak of for the most part and are willing to admit the occasional mistake. I’ve already typed enough and will only leave you with a question in regards to your statement of…
As for us social-scientist ruling over you (oh man I didn’t know I had so much power) since you guys never seem to listen to us, please spare me the right wing nut-speak.
Why was Larry Summers forced to resign?
BTW, I don’t know who Daniel Flynn, and Horowitz, and Hayek are, so enough of the mind reading.
Sorry Cyd, I am not going to be polite to you with your arrogant rudeness to me. You are one of the stupidest people I have conversed with for some time. You are clearly not trained in any serious scientific subject, you have no grasp at all of the philosophy of science, and you think you are really smart. Try running for political office — you will find many idiots of your sort there.
Please stop trying to justify your racism with poor science. Nobody is going to be convinced, so you are wasting your time.
Oh, BTW, as I just read your insults again. FUCK OFF you cretin. Who do you think you are, you arrogant little toiletbrush?
Cyd,
You are being condenscending and patronising and I haven’t given you any reason to be rude to me. If you don’t want to discuss, fine that’s your choice.
However, your link is inappropriate. No, you can’t tell a person’s race just by looking at their hair, unless you define race as hair type and nothing else. What the FBI quote actually means is that, within the narrow confines of the United States, a person with Afro hair is likely to be dark-skinned and of African ancestry. That may be useful to police officers of that great egalitarian nation that has never had to deal with any issues of racial discrimination in policing, but it is completely useless as proof of a genetic definition of “race”, especially on a global scale. That’s because, globally, hair types are shared by populations that span different racial types -by any definition.
To give you an example, “Afro” hair is expressed by three populations, Africans, Melanesians and Andaman islanders. To classify those groups as one racial type, is obviously arbitrary. It wouldn’t even stand up to “common sense” classifications since they look different enough that you couldn’t confuse an African for a Melanesian. You certainly won’t find much genetic evidence to support a common classification of the three groups, since they have been geographically distant for quite some time. In any case, I know that the Andaman islanders are considered genetically closer to the people of mainland India; I’m not sure about the Melanesians.
In other words, “all Africans have afro hair, but all people with afro hair are not Africans”, (and I’m not even sure about the first part of that sentence) so there goes the forensic certainty. Basically, forensic evidence is not proof of genetically distinct races.
In any case, that’s why you can’t take any single trait as a determinant of “race”- because you will end up with classifications so broad as to be meaningless. Conversely, if you look at all the traits that are different between populations, you’ll end up with groups too narrow to be meaningful. And yeah, that’s a problem with all science. Up to a point, everything is a matter of interpretation and the context that the human mind must provide. Those are the limitations of the hardware (that is, the human brain). Even in maths, the innermost heart of the hardest core of science, context is ever present- for example, the use of zero. Not quite a common sense concept, if you haven’t been schooled in the modern western world… And yet, we make progress.
But, what progress has the “science” of race led to? And what progress do you expect it will lead to in the future?
Cyd
Summers was forced to resign for many reasons, some just some unjust. One of them is the fact that he arbitrarily decided to provide a causation story for a correlation effect.I personally was very let down by a good economist forgetting the oldest thing driven in a burgeoning social-scientist’s mind by their Stats 500 prof. Correlation is not causation. For him to go forward and provide a causal story for a correlational effect, one among many contending one, and not necessarily proven, was unscientific and unprofessional. Especially for an economists who should know better.
To put it simply he waded in our waters unprepared and made unsubstantiated remarks as scientific knowledge. The only part that he had scientific authority on was the economic explanation. He should had explained that, cited references and then said that other possible ones out there are a and b, but that he was not competent to evaluate them (with references to specific work).
As for Mr.West he is not, and never was a social scientist. He has been given that title by some unthinking people(people on the left to support him, and people on the right to use him to attack the soc-sci). He is philosopher or a humanities scholar.
As for the writers: Well then you have come to the same conclusions as them. If you grew up in the US, and have even vaguely republican political views there is no way you haven’t heard of Hayek.
For more info:
On your reference to Progressives and Eugenics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Flynn
http://www.amazon.com/Conserva.....amp;sr=1-1
On your attack on the social-sciences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek
Careful because of Hayek though. He attacked scientificism in the social sciences (on philosophically shaky grounds IMHO)
Summers was forced to resign for many reasons, many just and unjust.
But the fact that he went and proposed, in his capacity as a scientist, a casual story for a correlational effect, without any reference to works that have conducted experiments to prove it, was a huge indication of lack of scientific rigor. Instead of just laying forth and evaluating the only of the three explanations he had scientific authority to evaluate, the economic one, he laid forth another two for which he really lacks disciplinary competence to evaluate (one social-scientific, the other biological-neuro-scientific), and then arbitrarily, with no reference to the relevant literature declared one as true. It would be like a trained mathematician trying to evaluate between the Steps to War paradigm, vs. Euclidean geometry, vs. Advanced bio-genetics. Does that seem to you as something a good professor, and even more president of a research university should do.
This is the president of a major research university, and a trained economist and here he is doing the antics of some crappy collage president, or politico, and forgetting a cardinal rule of research: Correlation does not denote Causation. Rule that most soci-science, and econ PhDs have drilled in their heads by the end of there first years.
As for West. He is not a social scientist and never was one.
On the writers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Flynn
ummers was forced to resign for many reasons, many just and unjust.
But the fact that he went and proposed, in his capacity as a scientist, a casual story for a correlational effect, without any reference to works that have conducted experiments to prove it, was a huge indication of lack of scientific rigor. Instead of just laying forth and evaluating the only of the three explanations he had scientific authority to evaluate, the economic one, he laid forth another two for which he really lacks disciplinary competence to evaluate (one social-scientific, the other biological-neuro-scientific), and then arbitrarily, with no reference to the relevant literature declared one as true. It would be like a trained mathematician trying to evaluate between the Steps to War paradigm, vs. Euclidean geometry, vs. Advanced bio-genetics. Does that seem to you as something a good professor, and even more president of a research university should do.
This is the president of a major research university, and a trained economist and here he is doing the antics of some crappy collage president, or politico, and forgetting a cardinal rule of research: Correlation does not denote Causation. Rule that most soci-science, and econ PhDs have drilled in their heads by the end of there first years.
As for West. He is not a social scientist and never was one.
On the writers you can find all three on Wikipedia. I am surprised that you don’t know Hayek.
I think you waste your time, Konstantine, in discussing correlation versus causality. Fundamental scientific principles are lost on people who merely use science to validate their bigoted opinions.
It is no surprise to me that our middle-aged two-degree and well-travelled Cyd has not heard of (let alone read) Friedrich von Hayek — the philosophical basis of the last three decades of neoliberalism. After all, we need only read Wikipedia in order to understand everything. Hahahahahaha!
Are Horowitz and Flynn really that well-known outside the US?
Konstantinos,
First, a little pet peeve of mine is to not refer people as scientists who are not true scientists. Economists to me, are just that. Reminds me of the fad over the last decade to refer to anyone who was not a moron, as “bright”.
Your explanation certainly makes sense though has the benefit of a few years of hindsight. At the time of “the event”, the true reaction was obscenely hysterical and his money quote to National Bureau of Economic Research, in reference to an opinion of boys and girls, went thus…
Big deal. You are making the argument that 1) No other person in a similar position has ever made a passing comment that was, and I’ll use quotations, “inappropriate” and 2) Any person of similar position was forced to resign after such flagrant disregard of correlation and causation. Now, I don’t think you are actually making that argument. Though I do think you are neatly packaging the hysterical reaction of the fringe left at Harvard towards Summer’s passing quote, that we all sort of know to be true in varying degrees, with the benefit of time to sterilize their reaction.
Whether one believes his quote to be true or not, is not the point. The point is his resignation came after pressure from the fringe departments in the social sciences who you said had no or minimal effect on others.
As to the attention seeking, sniping dog with the bruised ego in our midst that seems intent on nipping at my ankles; the difference between us is what comes out of my mouth is the truth along with my utter disdain for liars happens to be in stark contrast to what comes out of your mouth, which is a bunch of self-inflated bullcrap. What I’ve said about myself is true, to the very letter. As is what I’ve said about you, that being you are still an idiot.
Cyd has not heard of (let alone read) Friedrich von Hayek — the philosophical basis of the last three decades of neoliberalism.
Yes, imagine that. I have no qualms in admitting that, as it IS THE TRUTH. I know how that word is foreign to your ilk. I do not need to inflate my accomplishments, as some do without mentioning any names. Pity that Hayek is not the litmus test between inferiority complex idiocy and truth seeking confidence. If only…
“1) No other person in a similar position has ever made a passing comment that was, and I’ll use quotations, “inappropriate” and 2) Any person of similar position was forced to resign after such flagrant disregard of correlation and causation.”
You asked on Summers, not on others. But I would say that if they did the same thing they should resign from the presidency of a research university (I do not really care about community collages).
Again the correlation vs. causation problem. Yes there was a rabid attack from the fringe left against him. That doesn’t mean that he left because of that. I don’t know, I wasn’t in his mind, neither was I there to know what the reaction of department heads was, or of alumni. Maybe it was the cause and maybe not. That would require rigorous research. Do you have this kind of information? If not then neither you nor I can prove a causal story.
I suspect that he was unwelcome from the start by various groups as he did not have the stale approach that many were accustomed to at Harvard. His comment was simply the match.
If you know academia (and really any similar employment place) this is always the case. Someone always has a bone to pick with someone else. Politics actually may just be a thin veneer under which budgetary wars are fought. I am sure people did not like him. But for him to resign he had to either piss off some very powerful people (which humanities profs are not since they have to beg for funding from the president)or had been at war already with powerful departments who used the thing for a coup (usually a president and department will be in loggerheads over funding).
Cyd: at no point did I accuse you of being a liar. You are a buffoon, with a remarkable sense of self-righteousness about your ability to “know” the truth. Sadly, you do not have the intellect or learning required to make such judgements. The inflation of self is on your side, not mine. My achievements stand on their own merits, despite my continuously being forced to defend myself against attacks from nonentities such as yourself.
As promised Xenos I will leave you with the last word. Just note however that had I wanted to insult you I would have used the “peasant” language of my “Albanian” forefathers to get the message through.
I would seriously suggest that DD follows Abravanel’s example of something equivalent to Troll’s nest and just move any block of off-topic Xenos (or non-Xenos) related war to that. Alternatively a xenos-wars.blogspot.com site can be setup where we can all be redirected to when the inevitable (unfortunately) happens.
This post was about racism towards Roma and ended up being about Xenos and Cyd’s infatuation with races. In the end some interesting ideas from Travlos’ comments that could have been followed up on went nowhere.