Saturday, December 06, 2008

Nothing to See Here....

Mrs. Sandmich and I stopped by the Cleveland Museum of natural history a little while back and they had a traveling exhibit called 'Understanding Race' that sought to examine, generically, race. I was expecting something hard hitting (i.e., overly politically correct), but the exhibit itself was incredibly banal, at least the portion I saw. It's message was: "people are different". Gee, thanks.

Out of curiosity I checked the web site for the exhibit and came upon their 'educational aids'. As can be expected, their indoctrination materials had a bit more bite.

Now the whitey bashing and ghetto-tribal-chic crap is bad enough, but the authors of the guide (no doubt under the aegis of some PC god) then go through great lengths to torture language and science until they squeal in pain.

From here:

The idea of race was invented only a few hundred years ago and neither explains nor accounts for human biological variation. It is because the idea of race was entangled early on in science, the notion of human biological races persists. The following activities demonstrate why human biological variation is not racial.
Does any of that make a lick of sense? If I have to explain to you why that's 100% hog gas then you're already too far gone. More...

The term 'evolved' suggests that, in addition to ecological conditions, time is also important as a factor in human biological variation. Changes in skin color occurred over tens of thousands of years – actually not a very long time in evolutionary terms! In fact, this was long enough to produce skin color and other relatively "cosmetic" changes across populations, but not long enough to produce the fundamental or "deep" biological changes implied by 'racial' classification.
Ahh delicious. Since evolution would at least dictate the possibility of different races, then evolution must be invalidated. I wonder how 'deep biological changes' would need to be before these PC zealots would consider the idea of separate races. I can't help but think of the different species of sparrow where binoculars and a dose of patience is required in order to differentiate groupings.

Lastly, the main bugaboo:
Students will be able to recognize and cite examples of how things can ‘go together” in many different ways and how different cultures can select different criteria for classifying the same things. Students will recognize that most IQ tests are at least partially based on cultural knowledge that is learned and that is culturally-specific.
I remember reading a Steve Sailer piece that pointed out a very, very basic IQ test where the subject would be asked to subtract, or 'add backwards'; for instance 100-4-19-3-10, etc. I wonder what's culturally specific about that? Moreover, when I took the U.S. military's glorified IQ test it was all about gears, ropes, pulleys, etc. Is the point of the exhibit organizers that if the gears are shaped like turtle shells or some other tribal bull, that people will magically score higher on the test? I take it then that they've done several thorough studies to back up that claim, correct?

A very naughty thought entered my head while going over these items: isn't the diversity racket just a scheme to cover behavioral issues and other inadequacies in those of sub-Saharan African descent? After all, the educational aids were quick with excuses for anti-social behavior and knocks against IQ tests, but they didn't feel the same compunction to talk down the uneven distribution of athletic ability between races.

My last question is, since the 'Understanding Race' show is propaganda, then what does that make the museum that hosts it?

No comments: