Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
It’s not Murray’s game at all. Murray’s game is genetics. He doesn’t concede the social or cultural construction of “race.” He ultimately hangs his hat on statistical differences in tests, income, etc. This is why he’s so problematic and controversial. It isn’t really science.
And he knows better, which exposes his bias. In a recent book called Coming Apart, he assessed the increasing spread between bifurcating lower and upper class whites. White is a cultural thing that can be assessed using anthropological data for him, but assessment of minorities must always involve data building a genetics argument. He’s lazy and biased on minorities.
|
Murray covers ugliness with a veneer of science. My point was that your language suggesting as much.
Quote:
|
Scientific analysis of all cultures, oppressed and oppressive, can be done. There are endless examples of it. But it always involves “fuzzy” data, as anthropology is a soft science.
|
Seriously, wtf are you talking about? What is a good example? If you build a stone house on a muddy foundation, it will fall down. If you pretend to do "science" with material that is the product of a biased culture, you will replicate those biases, even if you use the word "science" to try to imply that what you are doing is free of bias.
That, by the way, is part of what Klein was saying and Harris did not want to hear. It is an example of the way that the dominant culture (or "white people") want to pretend that they themselves are objective, free thinkers, unbiased and pure as the driven snow, rather than inevitably sharing and spreading the culture around them.
