Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.
Difference between revisions of "Talk:race denialism"
(New page: Garbage, but oviously in the right category. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_interpretations_of_race http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteness_studies All racists? You`re kidding. Of cou...) |
Anarchangel (Talk | contribs) (...Darn) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
All racists? You`re kidding. | All racists? You`re kidding. | ||
Of coure race in the simplified forms as used (or "useful" as a definition of people) is a social construct, relaying on nationalist or biologist prejudice, what else should it be? Deconstructivist views are quite the opposite of insane. | Of coure race in the simplified forms as used (or "useful" as a definition of people) is a social construct, relaying on nationalist or biologist prejudice, what else should it be? Deconstructivist views are quite the opposite of insane. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == Darn == | ||
| + | I thought I had it all worked out, and now it appears that either race denialists do not understand the connotations of the word denial, or the people who so far have written about them on WP etc do not. This is what I was going to write; it is based on what I understand denial to be, as it is used in Holocaust denial, for example. Note that it defines denial the opposite of the way the article currently does: | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Race denialism''' is a description of a political dogma, albeit a small and (with many practical social reasons) marginalized one, that attempts to categorize current scientific understanding as Denial. A recent avalanche of scientific evidence in the field of genetics made the concept of race obsolete almost overnight; Race Denial is the reaction of those unwilling to subscribe to this change in scientific understanding. The means by which race denial is advanced varies; it may attack genetic science itself, claiming that the results are flawed or falsified, or it may advance scientific hypotheses in opposition, but the major thrust of those supporting it is either not scientifically based, or anti-scientific, and as a whole, its motivation can be categorized as itself racist. | ||
| + | advance the dogma of Race | ||
| + | Denial is a term currently reserved for hypotheses that are promoted against all available scholarly evidence, whether in the field of history or genetics. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==See Also == | ||
| + | [[holocaust denial in Japan]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | It all seemed fine to me, and then I gave one final thought to the article as a whole, and it struck me, what if the race denialists got it wrong? Maybe they think denial means that um... Doesn't even make sense. See, my definition is that they say that scientists are denying the existence of race, but the article definition, and the definition on the 'deleted' (actually redirected, but it counts almost the same) articles on WP, is that the race denialists are denying...something. Are they denying what scientists know? That makes sense. Anyway, even if it were so, they would still be using it the opposite way to how it is normally used, as a denial of X, where X is Holocaust or Race. I do not know enough, it seems, to put this up yet. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] 09:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 09:15, 29 December 2010
Garbage, but oviously in the right category. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_interpretations_of_race http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteness_studies
All racists? You`re kidding. Of coure race in the simplified forms as used (or "useful" as a definition of people) is a social construct, relaying on nationalist or biologist prejudice, what else should it be? Deconstructivist views are quite the opposite of insane.
Darn
I thought I had it all worked out, and now it appears that either race denialists do not understand the connotations of the word denial, or the people who so far have written about them on WP etc do not. This is what I was going to write; it is based on what I understand denial to be, as it is used in Holocaust denial, for example. Note that it defines denial the opposite of the way the article currently does:
Race denialism is a description of a political dogma, albeit a small and (with many practical social reasons) marginalized one, that attempts to categorize current scientific understanding as Denial. A recent avalanche of scientific evidence in the field of genetics made the concept of race obsolete almost overnight; Race Denial is the reaction of those unwilling to subscribe to this change in scientific understanding. The means by which race denial is advanced varies; it may attack genetic science itself, claiming that the results are flawed or falsified, or it may advance scientific hypotheses in opposition, but the major thrust of those supporting it is either not scientifically based, or anti-scientific, and as a whole, its motivation can be categorized as itself racist. advance the dogma of Race Denial is a term currently reserved for hypotheses that are promoted against all available scholarly evidence, whether in the field of history or genetics.
See Also
It all seemed fine to me, and then I gave one final thought to the article as a whole, and it struck me, what if the race denialists got it wrong? Maybe they think denial means that um... Doesn't even make sense. See, my definition is that they say that scientists are denying the existence of race, but the article definition, and the definition on the 'deleted' (actually redirected, but it counts almost the same) articles on WP, is that the race denialists are denying...something. Are they denying what scientists know? That makes sense. Anyway, even if it were so, they would still be using it the opposite way to how it is normally used, as a denial of X, where X is Holocaust or Race. I do not know enough, it seems, to put this up yet. Anarchangel 09:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
