Just about two years ago, people were speaking of a new era: post-racial America. Well, it occurs to me that if we get any more post-racial, we’ll have a race war. And the latest on this front is a new exhibit at the Boston Museum of Science (MOS) called “RACE – Are we so different?” Reports American Thinker’s Peter Wilson:
The exhibit offers a fascinating window into the fun-house mirror world of race theorists, racial "scholars," and a good part of the anthropology profession. Even a sympathetic reviewer in the Boston Globe admits that "there's a wearying didacticism to the show," and it's no surprise that the didactic lessons about race are all slanted toward the left.
As for that Globe reviewer, Mark Feeney, he writes:
[There is] a display called "Affirmative action: undoing inequality.'' That's not science or even sociology; that's politics. Right or wrong, some people think affirmative action furthers inequality. Another display is called "White – the color of money.'' It shows stacks of dollar bills whose height corresponds to the relative wealth of whites, Asians, blacks, Latinos, and "others'' in US society. A section on discrimination and real estate has two street signs, "Privilege Place'' and "Racism Road.'' It's like an MSNBC production of "Sesame Street.''
Now, question: What would be the reaction if the MOS erected a display entitled “Jewish – the religion of money”? It would be called anti-Semitic. But if such a presentation would create animosity toward Jews, why would anyone think that MOS’ display doesn’t create animosity toward whites?
Whatever the target, the implicit message is that the group somehow achieved its success through oppression and exploitation. Yet this is simply not true. While there are individual exceptions (criminals), successful people of all races generally behave in a certain positive manner: They get an education, develop a marketable skill, follow just laws, obtain gainful employment, avoid destructive behaviors and don’t squander wealth. If the MOS had simply used a certain group as an exemplar of this success ethic, it would be one thing. They, however, engaged in race-baiting.
But the MOS display is just the latest example of the modern West’s racial contradictions. We’re told we shouldn’t generalize about race; that is, until it’s time to blame whites for the world’s ills. The very people who tell us to be colorblind are the first to ask for racial identification on all sorts of applications, surveys and census forms. And while these social engineers condemn discrimination, they want this information so they can more effectively discriminate in school admissions, hiring and the affording of benefits.
The kicker here is that this contradiction is on stark display within the MOS exhibit itself. While the museum seems very sure about the validity of racial categorization when speaking of “white” privilege, its stated goal is to advance an idea currently very popular among half-baked intellectuals: that “race” is a “social construct” with no biological basis.
A typical exhibit, in an online video, shows students from Cambridge attempting to guess the racial make-up of people in photographs. In one case, students guess "Filipino," but in fact, the young man is "Hawaiian, Chinese[,] and German."
According to the show's creator, the American Anthropological Association, this undermines our racist belief that seven billion humans fall neatly into four or five categories.
Actually, it might undermine the belief that anthropologists know word definitions. “Filipino,” “Chinese” and “German” are nationalities, not races.
Now, when promoting social-construct theory, anthropologists will point out, writes theory critic Armand Marie Leroi, “that most human genetic variation can be found within any given ‘race.’ …the difference between an African and a European would be scarcely greater than the difference between any two Europeans....” Sure, and there’s no difference at all if their sample includes only white Afrikaners or Frenchmen of Nigerian descent. But since by “African” and “European” they mean “black” and “white,” their theory is self-refuting. After all, to compare the genetic make-ups of different “races” is to tacitly acknowledge that race exists. Of course, some may say that they’re studying groups categorized based on what we call race. But then, is it simply semantics that troubles them? What is the “what” to which we’ve applied the term? A rose by any other name….
As for genetic differentiation, of course “most human genetic variation can be found within any given ‘race’” – we’re all human. But when it comes to genetics, a dab ‘ll do ya’. We share 96 percent of our DNA with chimpanzees, yet no one says that we can’t distinguish between man and ape. And the disruption of one single gene among our 30,000 can cause a severe form of mental retardation. Heck, we share about 50 percent of our DNA with the banana and have about the same amount of it as a peanut (which, actually, may help explain San Francisco). I should also add that genetic analysis of DNA can now very easily reveal the race of the individual from which a sample is taken.
So are these anthropologists a bit heavy on the chimp DNA? No, they’re not stupid. They just don’t want to know the Truth.
I’ll introduce this with a hypothetical: If evidence appeared showing definitively that one race were more intelligent than another, would you accept it? Would you at least acknowledge in your own mind that it was possibly true? Or would your own private church consider this truth such heresy that you’d banish it to the dungeon of your subconscious?
The anthropologists in question would do the latter. The damning truth is that much of social science today is an effort to deny reality in deference to ideological imperatives. For example, the idea of traditional sex roles contradicted the feminist agenda, so we were told that they, too, were merely “social constructs.” In fact, psychologists once preached that boys and girls were identical except for superficial physical differences; this lasted until hard science showed that these soft scientists were soft in the head.
And the equality agenda is also at work in the non-study of that non-existent thing, race. There are many (insofar as good intentions drive the science) who fear that research demonstrating aptitude differences among the races would lend legitimacy to bigotry and discrimination, so they would spin such data. And, they figure, a sure way to eliminate “racism” is to simply eliminate the concept of race.
The philosopher G.K. Chesterton addressed this thinking when he wrote, “Since the modern world began in the sixteenth century, nobody's system of philosophy has really corresponded to everybody's sense of reality; to what, if left to themselves, common men would call common sense.” And the problem is that delusion, even when scientifically crafted, also won’t work. You can’t remedy real problems by denying reality.
And it’s no coincidence that this denial has become common during a secular time in which equality is felt to be the highest value. You see, when people believe in nothing beyond this world – which includes no morality, as the concept implies God – then the things of this world assume paramount importance. It then follows that your yardstick for judging others’ worth will more likely be worldly measures, such as ability, intelligence, success and income. Thus, by this world view’s lights, when certain people are thus lacking, they are deficient in the very thing that determines their value. They aren’t merely less gifted – they’re actually worth less.
This explains modern secularists’ frenzied attempts to rationalize away group differences. It also explains why they try to silence those who speak of them; not only does such discussion shatter their rationalization, but, when you say that a group’s underperformance in an area may be partially due to innate ability, they interpret it as a claim that the group is worth less – ergo bigotry.
But the problem is theirs: They simply cannot view people as they are, warts and all, and love and value them equally anyway. This is why, when dealing with individuals they look down upon, secularists make the worst snobs. It is why, when they want to feel good about themselves by promoting equality, they make the worst social engineers. And it is why, when they have power and have shed this emotional imperative, they become the worst killers (e.g., eugenics, forced abortion).
The real solution here is not to deny group differences but embrace them as part of God’s plan. It is to understand that people are valuable not because of what they can do but because of what they are: children of God, created in His image.
As for those anthropologists, what they are is sad. Imagine, spending money and studying hard for a Ph.D. all so you can deceive self and others with credibility.