I recommend reading this article: Forensic anthropologists can try to identify a person’s race from a skull. Should they? It appears the article you posted is based on the debate discussed in this article. However, this article offers a more robust discussion of the issue. If I'm seeing reactionary behavior, it's from the person who is dismissively labeling this "political correctness" and calling the debate going on among experts in the field "dumb" and "counterproductive." Here's another article that discusses the imprecision of race in the field: Study: Let’s Replace ‘Ancestry’ in Forensics With Something More Accurate I think it's a good thing that scientists are questioning whether their approach needs to improve, whether it is still too entangled in its racist roots, and whether there's a better way of doing things. This sort of open debate and reevaluation is how science progresses.
I was going to post something similar to this but was hoping somebody would say it in a less inflammatory way then I would. Thanks.
I hate to read stuff like this. Librarians typically are the last line standing against stupidity. (I am sure there are stupid librarians)
She worked at the Three-Mile Hog Ranch. The ranch was three miles from Fort Laramie, and had nothing to do with raising hogs.
Agree with all of that but if we are to follow the mantra of gender identification history will be rewritten simply because of the clothes whe wore.
LOL, is there anything that you find annoying that isn't the cause of the Democrat's woes? Save us some time.
It’s actually the same stuff that I regularly mention (identity issues, be it gender or race primarily), but I think it’s sweet that you seem to want to fastidiously keep track of it for me.
Seeing as how literally no one in the party is running on anthropology from top to bottom (or any of the stuff you bring up that annoys you), there are much simpler explanations for why democrats aren't polling well, like general incompetence and inability to effectively govern or improve people's lives. If they cant even do that, I'm not sure they can suppress cultural trends you find problematic.
The imprecision is mentioned in the article, archaeology is a science that is based on imprecision, because nothing is really testabl and they almost never have the full story. I gave an example as to why it might be needed, and pointed out that most scientists use it as a tool to better understand. If you want to have a debate about tie accuracy it’s fine. comparing it to eugenics or saying it a tool of white supremacy, which were both used as racist tools used to subjugate and minimize is what is reactionary.
I didn’t claim they were running on this (though they are running on some of the other things I mentioned at some levels and I specifically gave the 2012 example as to why all these small things add up to matter. And I completely agree that they have had other issues, but this is the most solvable. They might not be able to get bills past Manchin and Sienema on the economy, but they can still focus on it instead of identity stuff, which turns off middle of the road voters. Again, I don’t want seditionists back in power, that scares the hell out of me. I just want the Democrats to realize what America cares about most and focus on it. Not that racism or sexism should be tolerated, but that right now in the midst of a near recession with inflation, job insecurity coming back, that isn’t close to where the general electorate’s concerns are. They have gotten better with it to some degree recently, but my ultimate point was that until they are willing to call out the crazies, they will rightfully get tagged with it. That’s what can be fixed most readily, but they won’t.
I'm not sure what any obscure academic debate has to do with politics, and IMO, you are doing the work of the seditionists you fear making a big deal out of this stuff by saying the reactionaries have a point and demanding people be called out. You don't have to be a 'useful idiot' for the fascists.
