Race & Ethnicity
In an ideal world, there wouldn't be much need for us to pay attention to race and ethnicity. In the real world we all inherited, however, we are compelled by political necessity to carefully investigate these topics. A natural history of cosmic injustice and a vast majority of human history, in nearly every civilization, characterized by human injustice (i.e., ubiquitous tribal warfare, slavery, violence, conquest, rape, theft, and oppression) have both contributed significantly to present differences and inequalities among human populations we generally refer to as races or ethnicities.
After its "long march through the institutions" beginning at least as early as the 1960s, the far-Left now dominates public discussions about many aspects of identity and politics--especially the topics of race and ethnicity. With the help of "useful idiots" in the cultural and political mainstream, a radical revolutionary vanguard has successfully elevated the philosophical assumptions, norms, and commitments of intersectional socialism above those of empiricism, reasonable pluralism, and liberal democracy in the institutions they dominate or whose decision-makers they successfully coerce (e.g., the social sciences, humanities, journalism, education, popular culture, social media, corporate HR departments, etc.).
There are, however, reasonable alternatives to the intersectional socialist perspective on race and ethnicity. Yet, these alternative views are rarely discussed in good faith and are, instead, most often met with fierce, moralistic invective and/or dismissal without thoughtful consideration. Americans' general inability or unwillingness to tolerate, let alone thoughtfully consider, such views has resulted in the entrenchment of social justice orthodoxy in our central institutions. This particular form of anti-intellectualism has artificially constrained public deliberations on these issues, resulting in the gradual normalization of unwarranted and unethical neo-Marxist perspectives in our country.
Is Race a Social Construct?
During the twentieth century, Franz Boas, Stephen J. Gould, Richard Lewontin, and Richard Levins, among other Marxist scholars, helped to establish a mainstream academic consensus that the identity category of race is a ‘social construct’ with no significant biological basis. This consensus has morphed into a firmly entrenched orthodoxy in the academy and other spheres of power dominated by the Left.
The impassioned identity politics and volatile political climate of the past few years compelled leading population geneticist David Reich to weigh in on this subject, providing an updated expert assessment on the status of race as a scientific category. In “How Genetics is Changing Our Understanding of Race,” an op-ed in The New York Times, Reich wrote:
"It is true that race is a social construct. It is also true… that human populations 'are remarkably similar to each other' from a genetic point of view… But over the years this consensus has morphed, seemingly without questioning, into an orthodoxy... that the average genetic differences among people grouped according to today’s racial terms are so trivial… that we should be anxious about any research into genetic differences among populations.
The concern is that such research, no matter how well-intentioned, is located on a slippery slope that leads to the kinds of pseudoscientific arguments about biological difference that were used in the past to try to justify the slave trade, the eugenics movement and the Nazis’ murder of six million Jews… I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism.
But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among 'races.' …Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology have been made over the last two decades. These advances enable us to measure with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years.
With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real… Recent genetic studies have demonstrated differences across populations not just in the genetic determinants of simple traits such as skin color, but also in more complex traits like bodily dimensions and susceptibility to diseases."
While these claims are fair targets for critical scrutiny, Reich is among the most well-informed experts in the world on the question of whether genes have a significant influence on human behavior. However, dismissing his claims without examining their warrants, purely on the basis of identitarian, ethical, or political concerns would be a serious mistake. He continues with several points that illustrate why this is the case and demonstrate the need to clearly distinguish among a claim’s epistemological warrants, the identity of the claimant, and the claim’s potential moral/political implications:
"I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science. I am also worried that whatever discoveries are made — and we truly have no idea yet what they will be — will be cited as “scientific proof” that racist prejudices and agendas have been correct all along, and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims…
This is why it is important, even urgent, that we develop a candid and scientifically up-to-date way of discussing any such differences, instead of sticking our heads in the sand… And since all traits influenced by genetics are expected to differ across populations (because the frequencies of genetic variations are rarely exactly the same across populations), the genetic influences on behavior and cognition will differ across populations, too…
You will sometimes hear that any biological differences among populations are likely to be small, because humans have diverged too recently from common ancestors for substantial differences to have arisen under the pressure of natural selection. This is not true. The ancestors of East Asians, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were, until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work…
To understand why it is so dangerous for geneticists and anthropologists to simply repeat the old consensus about human population differences, consider what kinds of voices are filling the void that our silence is creating… This is why knowledgeable scientists must speak out. If we abstain from laying out a rational framework for discussing differences among populations, we risk losing the trust of the public and we actively contribute to the distrust of expertise that is now so prevalent. We leave a vacuum that gets filled by pseudoscience, an outcome that is far worse than anything we could achieve by talking openly…
So how should we prepare for the likelihood that in the coming years, genetic studies will show that many traits are influenced by genetic variations, and that these traits will differ on average across human populations? It will be impossible — indeed, anti-scientific, foolish and absurd — to deny those differences."
Furthermore, self-reported "socially constructed" race/ethnicity/nationality categories have very high correspondence with genetic markers of geographic ancestry.
The resources below highlight diverse perspectives on race and ethnicity:
After its "long march through the institutions" beginning at least as early as the 1960s, the far-Left now dominates public discussions about many aspects of identity and politics--especially the topics of race and ethnicity. With the help of "useful idiots" in the cultural and political mainstream, a radical revolutionary vanguard has successfully elevated the philosophical assumptions, norms, and commitments of intersectional socialism above those of empiricism, reasonable pluralism, and liberal democracy in the institutions they dominate or whose decision-makers they successfully coerce (e.g., the social sciences, humanities, journalism, education, popular culture, social media, corporate HR departments, etc.).
There are, however, reasonable alternatives to the intersectional socialist perspective on race and ethnicity. Yet, these alternative views are rarely discussed in good faith and are, instead, most often met with fierce, moralistic invective and/or dismissal without thoughtful consideration. Americans' general inability or unwillingness to tolerate, let alone thoughtfully consider, such views has resulted in the entrenchment of social justice orthodoxy in our central institutions. This particular form of anti-intellectualism has artificially constrained public deliberations on these issues, resulting in the gradual normalization of unwarranted and unethical neo-Marxist perspectives in our country.
Is Race a Social Construct?
During the twentieth century, Franz Boas, Stephen J. Gould, Richard Lewontin, and Richard Levins, among other Marxist scholars, helped to establish a mainstream academic consensus that the identity category of race is a ‘social construct’ with no significant biological basis. This consensus has morphed into a firmly entrenched orthodoxy in the academy and other spheres of power dominated by the Left.
The impassioned identity politics and volatile political climate of the past few years compelled leading population geneticist David Reich to weigh in on this subject, providing an updated expert assessment on the status of race as a scientific category. In “How Genetics is Changing Our Understanding of Race,” an op-ed in The New York Times, Reich wrote:
"It is true that race is a social construct. It is also true… that human populations 'are remarkably similar to each other' from a genetic point of view… But over the years this consensus has morphed, seemingly without questioning, into an orthodoxy... that the average genetic differences among people grouped according to today’s racial terms are so trivial… that we should be anxious about any research into genetic differences among populations.
The concern is that such research, no matter how well-intentioned, is located on a slippery slope that leads to the kinds of pseudoscientific arguments about biological difference that were used in the past to try to justify the slave trade, the eugenics movement and the Nazis’ murder of six million Jews… I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism.
But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among 'races.' …Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology have been made over the last two decades. These advances enable us to measure with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years.
With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real… Recent genetic studies have demonstrated differences across populations not just in the genetic determinants of simple traits such as skin color, but also in more complex traits like bodily dimensions and susceptibility to diseases."
While these claims are fair targets for critical scrutiny, Reich is among the most well-informed experts in the world on the question of whether genes have a significant influence on human behavior. However, dismissing his claims without examining their warrants, purely on the basis of identitarian, ethical, or political concerns would be a serious mistake. He continues with several points that illustrate why this is the case and demonstrate the need to clearly distinguish among a claim’s epistemological warrants, the identity of the claimant, and the claim’s potential moral/political implications:
"I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science. I am also worried that whatever discoveries are made — and we truly have no idea yet what they will be — will be cited as “scientific proof” that racist prejudices and agendas have been correct all along, and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims…
This is why it is important, even urgent, that we develop a candid and scientifically up-to-date way of discussing any such differences, instead of sticking our heads in the sand… And since all traits influenced by genetics are expected to differ across populations (because the frequencies of genetic variations are rarely exactly the same across populations), the genetic influences on behavior and cognition will differ across populations, too…
You will sometimes hear that any biological differences among populations are likely to be small, because humans have diverged too recently from common ancestors for substantial differences to have arisen under the pressure of natural selection. This is not true. The ancestors of East Asians, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were, until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work…
To understand why it is so dangerous for geneticists and anthropologists to simply repeat the old consensus about human population differences, consider what kinds of voices are filling the void that our silence is creating… This is why knowledgeable scientists must speak out. If we abstain from laying out a rational framework for discussing differences among populations, we risk losing the trust of the public and we actively contribute to the distrust of expertise that is now so prevalent. We leave a vacuum that gets filled by pseudoscience, an outcome that is far worse than anything we could achieve by talking openly…
So how should we prepare for the likelihood that in the coming years, genetic studies will show that many traits are influenced by genetic variations, and that these traits will differ on average across human populations? It will be impossible — indeed, anti-scientific, foolish and absurd — to deny those differences."
Furthermore, self-reported "socially constructed" race/ethnicity/nationality categories have very high correspondence with genetic markers of geographic ancestry.
The resources below highlight diverse perspectives on race and ethnicity: