What if a person, citing relevant statistics by Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow, offers insights based on these statistics? Apparently, the best response is to get that person fired because such a Tweet would allegedly be "racist." That's what happened in the case of David Shor, as reported by Vox. The video posted above post-dates the firing of Shor, but I am posting it to illustrate.
Mass demonstrations work, in other words, but looting and disorder are counterproductive. This was Shor’s sin: repeating Wasow’s findings that marching is good but looting and vandalism are counterproductive.
...
Shor did not say that protesting is harmful; he said that rioting is harmful. And he didn’t say that data should dictate how people feel. And while one data scientist’s tweet of one political science paper should not be the last word on social movement tactics, the reasonable response to Shor would be to counter with some other form of evidence. Instead, the dialogue followed a pattern in progressive circles that often involves making evidence-free assertions about how members of various groups feel.
My concern is that we have entered an era where many people and institutions exuberantly accept feelings as a the best way to understand the world, and that feelings are more compelling than careful analysis of facts, even when the factual analysis is based on statistics. I am seeing ubiquitous examples where intelligent-seeming people declare that anecdotes are superior to careful analysis, both on the political left and right.
We seem to be entering a new Dark Age, where important conversations can no longer be had and where thoughtful people need to choose among these two options, where there are only these two options: A) Your need to express your thoughts freely in a nation created upon the assumption that people must talk with each other freely and B) Your need to not get fired from your job.
John McWhorter sees what might be a light at the end of the tunnel:
I hope McWhorter is correct. I seem to be losing 1% of hope each day.
What would you think if a Fortune 500 Corporation Human Resources Director walked up to a podium and announced the following to a big crowd: "Whiteness and white racialized identity refer to the way that white people, their customs, culture, and beliefs operate as the standard by which all other groups of are compared.”
Say what?
Assume further that this HR Director then announced that the following are the “common characteristics of most U.S. White people most of the time”:
White people are self-reliant;
White people are independent and they highly value autonomy;
White people use the Scientific Method, with objective rational linear thinking, cause-and-effect relationship and quantitative emphasis;
White people delay gratification and follow rigid time schedules.
White people believe the ideal social unit is the nuclear family of father, mother and 2.3 children;
The children of white people have their own rooms and they are independent;
White people believe hard work is the key to their success and they believe “work before play”;
White people plan for the future by delaying gratification and they follow rigid time schedules.
Upon hearing this list, you would strongly suspect that you were listening to a white supremacist or that you had unwittingly stepped into a time warp that threw you back 200 years. Upon reminding yourself that this is actually the year 2020, you would conclude that this big corporation should be sued out of existence based on civil rights violations for creating a hostile work environment for its Black employees.
How does one even begin to articulate the many problems with these ideas? How should concerned people respond when false information is being used to divide us. What is the solution when a public museum dedicated to African American history mocks the words of Martin Luther King?
I write this article fully acknowledges that racist conduct can still be found in many places in 2020 and that this bigotry should be dealt with aggressively through civil rights laws and social condemnation. We must condemn all real instances of racism, but we must simultaneously question the foundational concept of "race" from which the possibility or racism sprouts. In short, anyone who wants to eviscerate racism needs to fight a two-front war. NMAAHC's "Whiteness" page doubly fails to fight this two-front war on racism.
Advocating that we should treat people differently based on skin color (as NMAAHC is enthusiastically doing) is throwing gasoline on our racial fires. The "Whiteness" page is stunningly divisive and it is factually unhinged. I would no more expect NMAAHC to be teaching us to be racist than I would expect the American Museum of Natural History to be teaching us that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and that modern humans co-habited our planet with the dinosaurs.
It is demonstrably false that people are born color-coded such that others can determine their personalities, habits and skills by noticing their skin color. That's because immutable traits of individuals, such as skin color, do not determine personality, resilience, aesthetics, capacity for empathy, intelligence, aspirations, parenting skills or any of the other human traits discussed on the NMAAHC "Whiteness" webpage. Skin color doesn't dictate content of character any more than the many other things over which we have no control, things such as eye color, hair color, whether we have six toes, our birth date or the types of bumps we have on our heads. Constricting the way we evaluate people by using an Overton Window of black versus white uses the exact same flawed approach used by astrology and phrenology, which also proclaim content of character by reference to equally irrelevant observations.
Many of the human traits listed on the museum’s website ("work before play" and "rational thinking") are demonstrably not true of many “white” people. Many of these same traits are compellingly true of (and embraced as valuable by) many successful Blacks.
By analyzing the genes of present-day Africans, researchers have concluded that the Khoe-San, who now live in southern Africa, represent one of the oldest branches of the human family tree. The Pygmies of central Africa also have a very long history as a distinct group. What this means is that the deepest splits in the human family aren’t between what are usually thought of as different races—whites, say, or blacks or Asians or Native Americans. They’re between African populations such as the Khoe-San and the Pygmies, who spent tens of thousands of years separated from one another even before humans left Africa.
Nor is there any meaningful basis for declaring that there is any unified "white culture" or a unified "Black culture." No people of any color all think the same. Not even close. No person has been authorized by all whites or all Blacks to speak on their behalf. Not even close. "Race" is a stunningly unscientific concept.
[W]hen scientists set out to assemble the first complete human genome, which was a composite of several individuals, they deliberately gathered samples from people who self-identified as members of different races. In June 2000, when the results were announced at a White House ceremony, Craig Venter, a pioneer of DNA sequencing, observed, “The concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis.”
If you have having difficulty keeping up with all of the things purported to be racist in recent times, "Radical Intersectionalist Poet" Titania McGrath offers this scorecard (click the charcoal rectangle on the right).
Cognitive linguist Steven Pinker has had an illustrious career as a teacher and prolific author. His politics have often leaned to the left. None of this immunizes him from baseless attacks by hundreds of people who apparently don't see any value in Pinker's willingness to contribute his expertise to national conversations on critically relevant issues. They are unwilling to give fair readings to Pinker's statements. They also appear to be threatened by Pinker's use of germane statistics in order to shed light on complex claims involving police behavior and racism.
In reaction to this letter, Jerry Coyne, eminent Professor of Professor of Ecology & Evolution, concludes as follows at his website: "I’m really steamed when a group of misguided zealots tries to damage someone’s career, and does so dishonestly."
I invite you to read both sides of this dispute. I suspect you will be outraged at the way Pinker is being treated. You might also wonder how it is that hundreds of people who claim to be highly knowledgeable in linguistics are such inept readers. The phrase "social conflagration" might come to mind as you review the evidence. The name Robespierre might periodically pop into your thought process.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
