Fade the Butcher
02-22-2006, 06:05 AM
[Peter Brimelow (http://www.vdare.com/pb/index.htm) writes: Steven Goldberg, former Chairman of the Department of Sociology, City College of New York, was long listed in the Guinness Book Of Records as author of the book rejected by most publishers before being published “to acclaim”—69, in the case of his 1973 classic The Inevitability of Patriarchy (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?link_code=ur2&tag=vdare&camp=1789&creative=9325&path=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fgp%2Fproduct%2F0688001750%2Fqid%3D1140574769%2Fsr%3D1-1%2Fref%3Dsr_1_1%3Fs%3Dbooks%26v%3Dglance%26n%3D283155).http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=vdare&l=ur2&o=1 (It was revised and reissued (http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Goldberg/SELIG.html) in 1993 as Why Men Rule (http://www.vdare.com/misc/%22http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?link_code=ur2&tag=vdare&camp=1789&creative=9325&path=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fgp%2Fproduct%2F0812692373%2Fqid%3D1140574845%2Fsr%3D2-1%2Fref%3Dpd_bbs_b_2_1%3Fs%3Dbooks%26v%3Dglance%26n%3D283155%22)http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=vdare&l=ur2&o=1.) Goldberg’s documentation of the universality of differentiated gender roles is now quietly accepted by social scientists, although of course still anathema in institutions controlled by feminists, such as public education. But race remains controversial. This essay was rejected by the Atlantic, the New York Times, Newsweek, and the New York Review of Books as well as by nominally “conservative” publications like National Review (natch (http://www.vdare.com/pb/buckley.htm)), and Public Interest. We are proud to post it on VDARE.COM)].
By Steven Goldberg
http://www.vdare.com/misc/060221_goldberg.htm
For the past three decades many social scientists have, for reasons of both compassion and ideology, promulgated "explanations" increasingly divergent from those believed by the common man—to the credit of the common man and the shame of these social scientists.
Thus, it has become widely-accepted, in some cases to the point of received wisdom, that the "concept of race is genetically meaningless”. In the New York Review of Books, Andrew Hacker has stated flatly that "Most of us agree that the notion of 'race' is a human creation, with no basis in genetics or biology." [August 14, 2003 (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=16516)] Indeed, there are more than a few biologists who, when speaking in public, say this.
I have yet, however, to find even one biologist who can, in private, look you in the eye when making the claim.
The claim that the concept of race is meaningless is difficult to refute because it is inevitably supported by no argument at all, simply by the mere assertion that belief in the existence of race is "pseudoscience (http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/special/pseudoscience-race.html)", or by argument so effervescent as to defy presentation sufficiently coherent to permit refutation.
Nonetheless, one can sense the arguments implied, however chaotically, by the claim in order to demonstrate that the arguments are wholly without merit.
Race is perhaps best-defined as, in Gregory Cochran’s words, "a group that has been subject to strong enough selective pressures (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050605_iq.htm) for long enough, with low enough gene flow, to end up demonstrably different from other groups."
Note that, even if it were true that manifestation of these differentiated characteristics were, like the spectrum of light, virtually entirely continuous, this would not call into question the existence of race. Just as one can distinguish red from blue, one can distinguish Zulus (http://www.vdare.com/francis/south_africa2.htm)from Norwegians (http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_101503.htm).
(Perhaps the most ridiculous argument that "race" has no genetic meaning is one found on the internet. The genetic basis of race is denied because "races can’t interbreed" while Blacks, Whites and Asians (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/rule_of_three.htm) can. But for a hundred and fifty years biologists have used the term, "race", to describe sub-species that can interbreed. The internet author might as well have argued that there are no "families" by claiming that families can not interbreed.)
With reference to any specific characteristic, the characteristics of a race are, of course, statistical, not absolute. They permit many "exceptions" (though far fewer exceptions than would be required to cast doubt on the statistical regularity). Thus the existence of tall women and short men does not cast doubt on the accuracy of the statistical observation that "men are taller than women".
Those who deny the reality of race will often invoke the fact that, whatever the characteristic in question, the range is greater within race than between races. This is true of nearly any variable for which two groups are compared. But to deny a statistical group difference on this basis would force one to claim that it is meaningless to speak of "men" and "women", (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050220_summers.htm) or statistical differences between them, because the height difference between the shortest man and the tallest man, or between the shortest woman and tallest woman, is far greater than the few-percent difference between the mean heights of men and women.
This example makes clear the key fact that a small difference in means often complements a huge difference at the extremes; how many seven-foot tall women does one see? The difference in running speed between the average white and average black male is only a few percent, but virtually all of the two hundred fastest men in the world are black. And it is on the upper tail of the curve—the extreme—that public perceptions—stereotypes—are based. That this "within-group" argument is so often made is a measure of the desperation of those who wish to deny that which is undeniable.
By Steven Goldberg
http://www.vdare.com/misc/060221_goldberg.htm
For the past three decades many social scientists have, for reasons of both compassion and ideology, promulgated "explanations" increasingly divergent from those believed by the common man—to the credit of the common man and the shame of these social scientists.
Thus, it has become widely-accepted, in some cases to the point of received wisdom, that the "concept of race is genetically meaningless”. In the New York Review of Books, Andrew Hacker has stated flatly that "Most of us agree that the notion of 'race' is a human creation, with no basis in genetics or biology." [August 14, 2003 (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=16516)] Indeed, there are more than a few biologists who, when speaking in public, say this.
I have yet, however, to find even one biologist who can, in private, look you in the eye when making the claim.
The claim that the concept of race is meaningless is difficult to refute because it is inevitably supported by no argument at all, simply by the mere assertion that belief in the existence of race is "pseudoscience (http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/special/pseudoscience-race.html)", or by argument so effervescent as to defy presentation sufficiently coherent to permit refutation.
Nonetheless, one can sense the arguments implied, however chaotically, by the claim in order to demonstrate that the arguments are wholly without merit.
Race is perhaps best-defined as, in Gregory Cochran’s words, "a group that has been subject to strong enough selective pressures (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050605_iq.htm) for long enough, with low enough gene flow, to end up demonstrably different from other groups."
Note that, even if it were true that manifestation of these differentiated characteristics were, like the spectrum of light, virtually entirely continuous, this would not call into question the existence of race. Just as one can distinguish red from blue, one can distinguish Zulus (http://www.vdare.com/francis/south_africa2.htm)from Norwegians (http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_101503.htm).
(Perhaps the most ridiculous argument that "race" has no genetic meaning is one found on the internet. The genetic basis of race is denied because "races can’t interbreed" while Blacks, Whites and Asians (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/rule_of_three.htm) can. But for a hundred and fifty years biologists have used the term, "race", to describe sub-species that can interbreed. The internet author might as well have argued that there are no "families" by claiming that families can not interbreed.)
With reference to any specific characteristic, the characteristics of a race are, of course, statistical, not absolute. They permit many "exceptions" (though far fewer exceptions than would be required to cast doubt on the statistical regularity). Thus the existence of tall women and short men does not cast doubt on the accuracy of the statistical observation that "men are taller than women".
Those who deny the reality of race will often invoke the fact that, whatever the characteristic in question, the range is greater within race than between races. This is true of nearly any variable for which two groups are compared. But to deny a statistical group difference on this basis would force one to claim that it is meaningless to speak of "men" and "women", (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050220_summers.htm) or statistical differences between them, because the height difference between the shortest man and the tallest man, or between the shortest woman and tallest woman, is far greater than the few-percent difference between the mean heights of men and women.
This example makes clear the key fact that a small difference in means often complements a huge difference at the extremes; how many seven-foot tall women does one see? The difference in running speed between the average white and average black male is only a few percent, but virtually all of the two hundred fastest men in the world are black. And it is on the upper tail of the curve—the extreme—that public perceptions—stereotypes—are based. That this "within-group" argument is so often made is a measure of the desperation of those who wish to deny that which is undeniable.