Post by Paul S. PersonOn Sat, 6 Feb 2016 23:30:36 +0000 (UTC), Julian Bradfield
[ the one drop rule ]
Post by Paul S. PersonActually, as you admit below, it is the traditional definition.
Even by your standards, that's a remarkable argumentative tactic,
asserting I admit what I am at pains to deny. Perhaps
you would care to repost this reply, pointing out where exactly I
admit that? I've re-read, and can't see it.
Post by Paul S. PersonAll you have to do is watch Alfred Hitchcock's /Murder/ to judge the
truth of situation in Britain in the 1930's.
And I can watch "Birds" to find out about the behaviour of seagulls, I
suppose. The 1930s were a particularly bad time for (obviously) mixed
race children - there were plenty of eugenicists here as well as in
Germany - but not invariably so. If you want to experience reality
rather than entertainment, try watching the BBC history "Mixed
Britannia".
Post by Paul S. PersonAs for the grandparents rule -- you have to wonder, was that a matter
of how hard it was to check past records, or of a lack of records from
more than two generations back, or was it to avoid embarassing certain
Very Important Aryans who would not have been Aryans any longer if the
criterion had been extended a generation or so back?
It was pragmatic boundary for the purposes of the population at
large. SS officers, who were intended to go out and procreate to allow
a pure Aryan race to fill the spaces left by the exterminated or
enslaved Slavs, were supposed to have a clear ancestry back to
1750. Of course, you can ask the same question about 1750 - and the
answer would be the same, a one-drop rule is not pragmatic even for
the most fanatical racial theorist who would like to have one.
Post by Paul S. PersonNote that, as usual, the granparents rule made no sense in its own
terms: how can you tell that all four grandparents were Aryan unless
you can tell that, for each of them, all four of their grandparents
were Aryan?
By showing that the four grandparents were not known to be Jews,
mostly. Again, you're obsessing with badly applied logic. Indeed,
limiting it to n generations or y years makes the notion consistent
and usable, while the one-drop rule is, as you observe, impossible to
get a non-trivial answer from given the realities of human descent.
The definition goes:
If you have three or four Jewish grandparents (meaning practising
Jews), you're Jewish; if you have two, you're a first-degree
Mischling; if you have one, you are a second-degree Mischling
(equivalent to German-blooded for most purposes); if you have none,
you are German-blooded.
Of course, one can speculate how this would have evolved if the Third
Reich had lasted long enough to consider such questions as "what is
the child of two first-degree Mischlings". Most other such questions
were intended to be rendered moot by the Endlösung.
Post by Paul S. PersonAnd South Africa had a separate racial category for those of "mixed
blood", back in the days of Apartheid.
Which again was defined by appearance and social network.
Post by Paul S. PersonPost by Julian BradfieldAnd indeed Tolkien doesn't use a one-drop rule either. The Edain
diminish slowly and gradually by admixture of "lesser men", not all at
once.
This presupposes that JRRT was talking in racial terms, ie, that he
considered the Numenoreans to be a "race". My reading suggests that he
considered them "Men", and, although the Men of Gondor did have such a
classification, I see no reason to believe JRRT approved of it.
Well, he also said "Elves and Men are evidently, in biological terms,
one race". And he writes in Letters:
The view is that the Half-elven have a power of (irrevocable)
choice, which may be delayed but not permanently, which kin's fate
they will share. Elros chose to be a King and 'longaevus' but
mortal, so all his descendants are mortal, and of a specially noble
race, but with dwindling longevity: [...]
Post by Paul S. PersonPost by Julian BradfieldI repeat: what invalidity of "race" does not also apply to "language"
or "colour"?
Good question.
By "colour", IIRC, you are talking about, say "red" and "green". The
difference here is that they have scientifically-specified
definitions, based on wavelength. Neither "race" nor "language" do.
Rot. No language in the world defines "red" by an analysis of
wavelengths, and that's not how we perceive them. (Even the company
that bases its business model around a definition of several thousand
numerically identified colours doesn't use wavelengths, though that's
far outside the realm of colour terms.)
Colour terminology has been extensively studied. Speakers of a given
language tend to agree well on what the "best" examplar of a colour is,
but they don't agree well on the boundaries between colours.
Post by Paul S. PersonThe best definition of a "language" is that it is what native speakers
of that language understand when they hear it. This can be much more
than the various formal grammars would suggest.
Um, that doesn't define "a language", since you're begging the
definition.
Post by Paul S. PersonSuppose the genome of every resident of Scotland was obtained and
compared and the question was asked: "is there such a thing as a
Scot?". Suppose a list of specific alleles of specific genes was drawn
up as defining a "Scot". In that case, I would agree that "Scot" could
be defined as that set of alleles -- whether any person currently
alive actually had all of those alleles or not.
But I suspect that such a study would actually find either or both of
1) No such set exists, but two (or more) sets do exist. IOW, that
"Scot" is intrinsically ambiguous, but at least two
scientifically-definable "racss" can be found in Scotland.
2) Nobody living actually possesses all of those alleles -- the set of
Scots is empty.
Definition (1) is not ambiguous. It would simply define "Scot" has
someone possessing all of any of those sets, and provide some
subdivisions.
I agree that (2) is likely. But no reasonable (as opposed to genocidal
maniac) person would define "race" by an all-or-nothing definition
anyway, and out here in the world the rest of us inhabit, even the
madmen don't do that. (Except in Virginia.)
Post by Paul S. PersonThere is no "core" definition for language or for race -- and there
will not be one until it is established scientificallly.
Rot, again. Pretty much every language based out of a developed
country has a fairly firm notion of core (or several cores, in the
case of Norwegian).
But, on your own terms, why are you not led to the ineluctable
conclusion that language, like race, is meaningless? If so, what do
you think linguistics is? To say nothing of a dictionary or
grammar. And what do you think Tolkien's universe was about?
Post by Paul S. PersonAnd then, since this involves people and not colors, we will be
hearing about how cold and unsatisfactory the scientific definition
is, and how much better the traditional definitions are.
You seem to confuse "science" with "physical science". It's nothing to
do with "cold", but everything to do with
"unsatisfactory". Lab-science-based definitions do not and cannot
capture the concepts being defined - only an intellectual incompetent
would try to define a social construct by physics.
Post by Paul S. PersonThis is similar to such questions as "do animals have culture", "do
animals use tools", or "are animals conscious". There is some
evidence, for specific animals, that they do -- but it all depends on
how "culture", "tools", and "consciousness" are defined. Those who
want humans to be unique one or another of these aspects are free to
attack the definitions used in the various tests.
For once, I agree with everything. in a paragraph of yours. But we
don't stop talking about consciousness (though I wish we would)
despite not have a measure for it.
