racist rhetoric

[Martin Doering]

Did one of you ever read Latour (Have we ever been modern?) about NatureCulture?
I think the problem lies inbetwenn or somerwhere in  this dichotomie of Nature
and Culture and the problem that the Natur of Culture comes always back throught
some other doors when you have already shut the others (our own cultural impact
in science)! I think that we should reduce (in a positive way!!!) our
investigations to radical contextualisation...! Genes and brains a quiet
interesting, but what about culture?

These are just some Ideas of an linguist working together with colleagues from
the natural sciences who always reduce man/woman to genes and brains!

Thanx for reading this mail anaway and kind regards from from Hamburg (always
this rain...)!

Best, Martin
>
> I feel a little like the elephant's child getting dragged into the Limpopo
> River. I knew if I didn't want to enter an extended discussion, I should have
> shut down my mail program immediately. I appreciate Larry's thoughtful
> comments and I agree that one should not duck the issues with students. I
> knew, too, that the word "attempt" might become a problem. It was not an apt
> choice. Let me just say that I was not attacking the person -- only the
> rhetoric, and in spite of the points raised I continue to see it,  in the
> given context, as inappropriately presented.
>
> Gary
>
> Larry Gorbet wrote:
>
> > Gary Palmer <gbp at nevada.edu> wrote
> >
> > >I agree with Rudy that come-ons such as "Are blacks genetically
> > >programmed for promiscuity?" are inappropriate in that they attempt to
> > >elevate racist stereotypes to the status of a scientific problem and
> > >thereby foster the very stereotypes that they purport to question.
> >
> > I have tremendous respect for Gary, but I beg to disagree here.  The
> > quoted question does not in my view qualify as a "come-on", for
> > several reasons.  Putting my linguistic anthropology hat on
> > seriously, I'll note where it appears --- in a fairly serious online
> > publication, not in a tabloid newspaper; that has implications for
> > the backgrounds, and reading and critical thinking skills of those
> > who will see it.  Second, it is followed within about three seconds
> > of online reading time by text that makes it clear that the quoted
> > material is not an assertion but a question that is addressed in the
> > list about which the article is written.  And that in turn is
> > followed, on the same page, by an article (in a larger typeface, by
> > the way than the alleged come-on) that describes what the list in
> > question is like.  If were truly a come-on, it would make it easy to
> > join the list itself and would not bother giving information that
> > would discourage many from joining it (which it does, in my opinion).
> >
> > The principal point of that article is that such controversial
> > questions are discussed on the Evolutionary Psychology list and that
> > the list (it is claimed) manages to address them without the usual
> > degree of simple personal invective that too often typifies
> > discussion of such issues.  It seems to me that the position that
> > Gary and others are taking is that discussion of such issues should
> > be limited to *assuming* their utter lack of merit and then moving on
> > to the power issues etc. in which they play a part.  Rhettorically,
> > this just doesn't work if your audience doesn't already know/believe
> > that the question has an obvious answer that's the same as the one
> > you would give.  I teach an introduction to general anthropology and
> > see one of my primary responsibilities there as helping the students
> > *see for themselves* why, for example, many racist propositions lack
> > merit (and, especially, are based on false presuppositions).  I don't
> > see how I can do this by ducking the questions or *simply* attacking
> > those who ask them.
> >
> > The question quoted *is* a scientific problem at least in the sense
> > that "Do languages of tribes in the Amazon only have 25 words?" is a
> > scientific question:  carefully acquired and analyzed information may
> > allow us to answer it (and/or show that the question assumes things
> > we can demonstrate not to be true).
> >
> > I would also question whether Gary's use of the term "attempt to
> > elevate..." is appropriate, since it clearly attributes motives which
> > the immediately available evidence makes at least questionable.
> >
> > I confess that my willingness to respond to this thread is surely
> > itself an emotional response to what I see as an eagerness to not
> > only believe but publicly claim that people we don't know and about
> > whom we are unwilling to learn even a little from easily available
> > evidence are somehow evil-doers.  To me, that's the same gullibility
> > that provides fertile ground for the socially and personally damaging
> > -isms we work hard to combat.  Casual misrepresentation or
> > representation with inadequate evidence of others' positions also
> > damages our credibility to represent in any way the languages and
> > cultures not our own which are our professional domains.  I am
> > particularly dismayed that several here have virtually boasted that
> > they hadn't bothered to read what they were at least indirectly
> > attacking.
> >
> > >On
> > >the positive side, the incident provides a good classroom example of the
> > >pragmatic language-and-power issues that provide much of the subject
> > >matter of linguistic anthropology.
> >
> > As does the response of linguistic anthropologists to it.
> >
> > - Larry
> > --
> > Larry Gorbet                         lgorbet at unm.edu
> > Anthropology & Linguistics Depts.    (505) 883-7378
> > University of New Mexico
> > Albuquerque, NM, U.S.A.
>