Skip to navigationSkip to content

Why race science is on the rise again

By the Guardian

After the second world war, the belief that differences between so-called ‘races’ are genetic became taboo. Now, with the far right resurgent, it’s backRead full story

Comments

  • Also share to
  • I have had to debunk these theories so many times that I have lost count. As a ferm believer in free speech I have always embraced debates on controversial « scientific theories » but in the case of race science so many of the methods have been developed by caucasians (oftentimes with obscure motivations

    I have had to debunk these theories so many times that I have lost count. As a ferm believer in free speech I have always embraced debates on controversial « scientific theories » but in the case of race science so many of the methods have been developed by caucasians (oftentimes with obscure motivations) that these « demonstrations » can rely on tons of biased arguments.

  • As a black woman who obtained undergraduate and graduate degrees from elite universities during the beginning of the *race science* renaissance, I've spent almost three decades being treated as either a racial anomaly or an academic fraud. At some point, I finally had to accept that no amount evidence--be

    As a black woman who obtained undergraduate and graduate degrees from elite universities during the beginning of the *race science* renaissance, I've spent almost three decades being treated as either a racial anomaly or an academic fraud. At some point, I finally had to accept that no amount evidence--be it SAT & GMAT scores or degrees & transcripts--will change the opinions of people determined to believe that the color of skin is definitive proof of my supposed inferiority.

    Consequently, we can't stop people like Charles Murray and Steve Bannon from promoting and believing racist junk science and theories, because they simply want and need them to be true. The best we can do is hope that rational individuals will be able to see through their quasi-academic veneer, and recognize them for the hate-mongers that they are.

  • What a world. There’s a challenge we face in the way we use language. The title of this article, unintentionally perpetuates - or gives credibility to - the very subject it is trying to objectively discredit. Ultimately, race is a social construct and the oppression that exists is systemically maintained

    What a world. There’s a challenge we face in the way we use language. The title of this article, unintentionally perpetuates - or gives credibility to - the very subject it is trying to objectively discredit. Ultimately, race is a social construct and the oppression that exists is systemically maintained out of fear, control, and power, however it can be maintained. White supremacy is real. It is deeply imbedded into the foundation of American history and still a part of much of European culture as well. It is not scientifically real, this concept of racial superiority. And it is scary as hell to see the momentum this idea has in our present storyline.

  • I believe race, as a social construct, has very little empirical empirical backing as a good subject variable. It's nearly impossible without abstract statistical analysis to isolate any true causal relationships between race and other things. I think that there should be work to find good cultural variables

    I believe race, as a social construct, has very little empirical empirical backing as a good subject variable. It's nearly impossible without abstract statistical analysis to isolate any true causal relationships between race and other things. I think that there should be work to find good cultural variables as I believe cultural background (general upbringing/traditions/early knowledge) may be a more instructive and progressive way of studying the differences between 'groups' of people.

  • This article makes me angry and sad the things I want to say are not as eloquent as what has already been written .

  • Homo sapiens are troop animals & race can be an easy identifier. The racist diatribe is as visible in the far left as the far right. We should espouse a strong commitment to tolerance & condemnation of intolerance in all forms. If education is to be a civilizing force, I'm not seeing much evidence it

    Homo sapiens are troop animals & race can be an easy identifier. The racist diatribe is as visible in the far left as the far right. We should espouse a strong commitment to tolerance & condemnation of intolerance in all forms. If education is to be a civilizing force, I'm not seeing much evidence it is being successful. We need to ask why? What are we doing wrong? Or, not doing at all?

  • When you don't want a people to know where they really come from you create science to match your narrative and repeat the lie over and over again and people will start believing it. Americans are overwhelmingly uneducated and the power elite would like to keep it that way because you can't enslave an educated population.

  • “Race Science” is a misnomer, there is nothing scientific in the way these pseudoscientists study “race”. It’s a highly damaging political bias carried out under the guise of a blatantly specious scientific “theory”. It’s an attempt to prop up the rising political fascism with some raison d'être that

    “Race Science” is a misnomer, there is nothing scientific in the way these pseudoscientists study “race”. It’s a highly damaging political bias carried out under the guise of a blatantly specious scientific “theory”. It’s an attempt to prop up the rising political fascism with some raison d'être that has already been disproven to the satisfaction of all credible scientists. Even the word “race” can no longer be seen as anything but a mass illusion, lacking any scientific validity. This effectively banishes “Race Science” to the fringes of Pseudo-Science, it must be actively countered as pure political bias.

  • This should have been consigned to the dustbin of history along with medical treatments based on the body's four humors and weather predictions based on augury (the observation of birds).

    The danger here is that in proving these allegations to be so erroneous, we can inadvertently give them a greater

    This should have been consigned to the dustbin of history along with medical treatments based on the body's four humors and weather predictions based on augury (the observation of birds).

    The danger here is that in proving these allegations to be so erroneous, we can inadvertently give them a greater weight just in appearing beside legitimate science. A concerted effort is needed to push back at every opportunity to say not only whatever specific allegation is being made is wrong, but also clearly state that this is in no way and has never been science.

    The denial needs to be clear and unequivocal, using plain language. That means no quibbling over proper use of words such as "theory". That's where those who want to confuse the discussion are looking to focus it and take up all of the air time. This is one of those few situations where significant nuance is not anyone's friend.

  • Christ. What’s next, phrenology?

  • To sow seeds for the third one

  • So real differences don’t matter?

  • It is facinating how something that is argued so regularly on the basis of genetics constantly misses the fact that our color is less than half a percent of our actual DNA coding.

  • There's an ulterior motive for this kind of research is to generally discredit science highlighting ours inability to contradict patently absurd claims like the ones may by race scientists.

  • I don’t want to go to war against the nazis again

  • a vicious, self prophetic virus.

  • Disheartening...

  • This sounds like a made up, contrived story. It’s no story at all. So what’s the motivation promoting it?

  • Real differences count but "real differences" don't.

  • 👮🏻‍♂️‼️

Want more conversations like this?

Join the Quartz community for all the intelligence, without the noise.

App Store BadgeGoogle Play Badge
Leaderboard Screenshot

A community of leaders, subject matter experts, and curious minds bringing nuance back to how we talk about the news.

Editors' Picks Screenshot

No content overload: our editors will curate the most notable and discussion-worthy pieces for you every day.

Share Screenshot

Don’t just read the story, tell it: contribute your ideas and experience to the dialogue.