Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (96761)	1/25/2005 5:12:34 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793717

Had I known that article was so long, I wouldn't have encouraged you... <g>

To: Ilaine who wrote (96761)	1/25/2005 5:51:37 PM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793717

Thanks. This sentence ...says it all. To clarify our thinking, we must take to heart Duster's admonition to use and understand racial categories as part of a "complex interaction of [43] social forces and biological feedback loops." n179* Now I have all the data I was ever looking for on *43 forces and n179 loops. Is Duster the man in the moon? I admit I missed a belt loop this morning, but that was accidental.

To: Ilaine who wrote (96761)	1/25/2005 6:02:08 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 793717

On the other hand, linking genetic variation to racial groups may also contribute to what anthropologist Alan Goodman has noted as a "comeback" in "racialized notions of biology." n20 Given our nation's long and troubled history of mistreatment and oppression of racial groups based on (mis)understandings of biological difference - not least in the area of medical research n21 - such a "comeback" should give us pause That nicely sums it up. If we learn that something "meaningful" actually is racially linked, we should pause and consider whether this is acceptable. Because if it is, lots of people will clamor to become jerks again. Duh, pick up a 2x4 and wack the jerks on the head! Metaphorically! Don't deny the science! But, 45% of Americans deny a very wide swath of science anyway because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. So I'm barking up the wrong tree I guess. Well, I've added my 2'cents worth to this, so later.. PS How long did lawyers argue that tobacco did not cause cancer? This will give one some indication of how long they may argue that there can't possibly be any significant racially linked difference between humans. Meanwhile a bunch of biotech companies who are not blinkered will haul a bunch of cash to the bank. God bless America!

To: Ilaine who wrote (96761)	1/26/2005 3:32:24 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793717

CB, it is really surprising that DNA wasn't mentioned (that I could see) in that article. I did skim it, but didn't see that it did. The other thing that is bothersome to me (and you probably know what it is....) is: I don't see the Government, Scientists, or anyone else define what is an "African American" or a "Black American" or a "White American"..... What determines these "titles"....? How many generations of parents/ancestors qualify that "any of those titles" for a person....????