It is another example of 19th century science gone amuck. The belief by otherwise sane people that we can predetermine what is in someone’s mind by skin color is a fatuous lie perpetrated by a liberal establishment.
Sitting above my desk is a very thick volume called Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. It is a study of every word in the Bible. In reference to a group of people the word race is not mentioned: not once. It mentions race four times but never as a substitute for tribe or group of humans.
The dictionary says race is a term for broad categories of humans along the lines of physical attributes such as, hair color, skin color, eye color, the shape of the body, the size of the head, or various combinations of all the above. Perhaps this could include categories of inheritable characteristics but that level of specificity is indeed thorny at best.
Different ethnic groups have over time tried to pinpoint physical features as a relation to group identification. This is a sort of taxonomical hocus-pocus that people seem to enjoy engaging in for political reasons.
Credibility for this sort of activity is no more than nebulous if one is looking for actual empirical markers to find subsets in the human species. At best simplistic notions that garner popular approval based on this physical trait or the other are little more than persistent legends.
The predominantly liberal big-government science establishment shows duplicity on the “race” issue. These days the practitioners of science disagree about what constitutes “race”. Yet at one time they were not so circumspect. To be sure it was science that evolved the contemporary view of “race” as an add-on to the theory of evolution: old ideas are hard to kill.
Now with the technology of genetics and DNA and all the paraphernalia and money that attends the various cults of science the determination as to whether or not certain sub-sets of people actually are sub-species of Homo sapiens remains a mystery. No evidence seems to support the notion of “race” but the boys in the white coats soldier on in this pursuit none-the-less.
The old classifications of Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasoid as the “races of mankind” seem sort of stupid if you think about it too long. Could we say that three horses in the pasture one black, one white, and one spotted are different “races” of horses?
Like politics “race” is a construction. Genetic definitions are poorly understood or non-existent when it comes to “race”. In an odd coalition of anthropology, archeology, genetics and some other additives to the intellectual witches brew a consensus is sometimes arrived at by conflating genetics and ethnography.
But this only opens another Pandora’s Box of creepy unintended consequences running around the world making an already tenuous situation even more squalid. It opens the door that equates “race” and ethnicity.
I once owned an old picture book for children from the early 20th century. It told the story of the nations. In each chapter it had a picture depicting a characteristically costumed person with dress appropriate to their nation. Each drawing was complete with a caption something like, “A person of the Irish race”, “A person of the Dutch race”, “A person of the Chinese race”, “A person of the Siamese race”, “A person of the Zulu race”, and on and on. This was a description of the crackpot world of evolution science combined with political and ethnic stereotypes.
Today we combine science, Marxism, demagoguery, and lots of money to determine “race”. With the coveted title of “victim” associated with “race” the political operatives and their lawyers stay up late into the night inventing more and more cunning devices to inject “race” into the body politic.
Recently I have seen the term “Mexican race” associated with the liberal agenda of open borders. How about the “Puerto Rican race”? Yes, I’ve heard that from civil-rights activists. Then there is the ever popular “Asian race” so why not the “female race” or the “homosexual race”? There is really no end to this creepy virus once it has escaped its box.
In the world of left-wing political theorists like James Carville we divide groups up into smaller and more manageable political subsets and then turn them against one another. Is it little wonder that “race” is so much in vogue? (read more)
If you uphold the theory of “race” you are by definition a “racist”, that is, someone who takes action or is motivated by “race”. Using color differences as a political tool and calling it something else is the everyday grist of many politicians but these days we see it used by the Left most efficiently.
Convoluting the definition of human subgroups is an effective strategy. But using that strategy is the disgusting refuge of the cynical, the socialists, and the theomachist. Played over and over again on TV and in the dominant media this program of ethnic hatred reminds me of recent history in Rwanda and other African countries. A tactic that is designed to put ethnic minorities in power includes the uniting of various tribes and then hacking as many of the opposition to death as possible: the prototype of “race” based politics.
Illustration: “Carville’s World”, pen and ink drawing, 2009