The derisive phrase "scientific racism" has been thrown around frequently by opponents of racism. However, it is important to distinguish between racism (i.e. ethno-tribalism and prejudice against those who do not belong to the ethnic "in-group") and discussion of the concept of "race". Attacking the immorality of racism must be kept separate from criticism of the biological concept of race itself. While it is true that historically some anthropologists who researched "race" were ethnocentric and therefore produced biased classifications, their flaws must be distinguished from racists who misuse accurate biological data to support pseudo-scientific conclusions.
By lumping together the concepts of racism and "race" itself, anti-racists have made a grave mistake. Such a strategy allows racists to disingenuously bolster their racism with scientific data without opposition. In order to defeat racism, anti-racists must fully acknowledge that human groups have genuine biological differences and not shy away from discussing "race" in a biological (i.e. non-sociological) context. Once this is achieved, we can directly wage war on racists from two fronts: directly attacking the immorality of racism (i.e. ethno-tribalism) itself, and demonstrating how racists develop dishonest and pseudo-scientific conclusions from genuine scientific data.
Racism existed long before anthropology was formalized as a science, racists have and continue to use many other justifications for their prejudice other than purely biological differences, and--most importantly--racism will not go away by refusing to counter claims made by racists. In fact, it is very likely that racism itself and, more generally, all forms of tribalism have biological foundations! The sooner anti-racists accept this and ditch the idea that all discussion of "race" and human differences are worthy of ridicule, the sooner we can begin to put a halt to the growing influence of the HBD movement.
Ultimately, to reverse the damage that has been inflicted by centuries of ethnocentric classifications of race and begin gaining ground in the fight against the innate tendency of tribalists towards prejudice, we must introduce an entirely new way of looking at race. The final blow against ethnocentric classification of human variation can only be dealt once the True Left is able to replace Racial Identity with Racial Idealism as the default way of thinking about the topic of "race" in biological and sociological contexts.
***
To get us started, check out how easy it is to demolish common HBD beliefs using the work of early 20th century anthropologists which HBDers claim to admire (and whose work is most strongly identified with "scientific racism" by PC ideology):
Additional articles in this series:
beneficii wrote:
ReplyDeleteI didn't see an email so I will post it here. I've been interested in the possible link the Anglo-Saxons possessed with the Huns, as mentioned here:
http://www.caitlingreen.org/2015/07/were-there-huns-in-anglo-saxon-england.html
This passage from Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People Book V Chapter 9 says the Anglo-Saxons were partly descended from Huns:
>He knew that there were very many peoples in Germany from whom the Angles and the Saxons, who now live in Britain, derive their origin... Now these people are the Frisians, Rugians, Danes, Huns, Old Saxons, and Boruhtware (Bructeri); there are also many other nations in the same land who are still practising heathen rites to whom the soldier of Christ proposed to go... (8)
Of course, the passage has been interpreted differently, but Green here says that as James Campbell argued, the "sense of the Latin" is that the Anglo-Saxons were descended from these groups, which included the Huns. Green looks at a lot of evidence which suggests the Huns really were present in Anglo-Saxon England and at least some of the Anglo-Saxons were Hun subjects.
There does seem to be a small amount of East Asian ancestry among the British (especially Orcadians) that is not found among the French and Germans:
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep09500
Of course, this is a just a single study. but I have noticed that the British do look a little different from the other Europeans, and that the English stand out a bit, but I don't know what to make of it.
I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.
I'm not sure what the full significance of this would be, other than the fact that ethnic groups seem not to be as monolithic as they are commonly perceived to be!
Looking at the research paper, if this 'EAS' DNA in Britons is from Hunnic ancestry, why would Germans (who, on the continent, directly bordered/were part of the Hun lands, and must have mixed somewhat with the Huns if they coordially migrated to Britain together with the various Germanic groups) have so little 'EAS'? Northern Europe, such as Russia and Finland have much higher EAS than Britain, so perhaps Scandinavian Vikings who were admixed brought over this ancestry? This would make sense for the island of Orkney, which is known to have had large influence from the Vikings. (Green's article mentions that four Hun kings appear to be referenced in Norse history, interestingly).
It seems that the authors estimate the admixture took place in Britain before the Vikings or Huns invaded. But accounting for the small sample sizes and variable generation times, there is some wiggle room with the dates.
"We would like to point out that the EAS gene flow to EUR we observed in this study might not exactly came from EAS, instead, it could come from some EAS-related people who no longer live in East Asia."
My take on this is that it probably represents, more generally, some Turanian element in Britain. Perhaps this is why exploration and colonial conquest seem to be traits which were highly instinctual to the Huns and British, but were not as strong in neighboring France and Germany.
Regarding Britons looking different, even if the Huns were one of the ancestral components of Britons, I don't think the amount of Hunnic heritage would have been enough to make them significantly different from the French or Germans.
JJ,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response. I wonder if some of the apparent inconsistencies comes from a lack of coverage of the population. Also, re-looking at the article, CEU is University of Eastern Utah that looks in general people of northwestern European descent. So it might be a particularity of the sample. Also, as always, this study could have gotten it wrong.