re: We have mountain lions y'all.

quote:

---

quote:
It's a "race" thing. [American scientists aren't allowed to use the word "race" any more in regards to non-human organisms. British, German, French, Russian, et al, scientists still do. Since 1946 there has been a movement in America to play down the 'fact' that race DOES exist across the animal kingdom. But this is neither here nor there except that it is]. [unquote]

That is extremely interesting - I had no idea. It is also one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. American scientists aren't "allowed" to use the word "race" regarding non-human organisms? Wth is the point of this?!?!? But scientists in most other countries do??? If race in the animal kingdom exists, then it exists - not using the word "race" doesn't make it untrue or disappear. ... That is astoundingly laughable. And I didn't realize the PC concept even existed in 1946. Wow.

---

Here is where I'll set myself up to sound like an idiot.

AGAIN I've long since forgotten the title/author of the book in which I read this. It WAS a book. I have spent some minutes on Google trying to find you some source but have given up on it. (The Age of Information has its inherent limitations: often there is just TOO MUCH information diluting that singular item you pine for). Googling Race, Science, 1946, American yields TONS of irrelevant information. A lot of this having to do with the concept of "scientific racism", which was the view widely held by white (American and European) biologists from Darwin to- NOT ironically- 1946 whereby it was all but law that certain races be less evolved (eg "more chimpanzee" [and- humorously- sometimes "less Greek" ]) than others.

Here is a nutshell breakdown of what I read circa 18 years ago:

In the immediate aftermath of WW2 Americans found themselves digesting the realization of The Holocaust and facing the threat of their new enemy, The Soviet Union. These were essentially the two greatest social concerns of 1946. It was a 3-pronged dilemma:

1) Germans, once held by many Americans to represent the pinnacle of civilization, had behaved unimaginably heartlessly.

2) America was obviously one of the, if not the, most racist "civilized" nations on the planet.

3) Communism was based, and the Soviet constitution reflected it, on, among other ideas, that of absolute racial (as well as gender) equality.

Thinking Americans realized that the Soviets would inevitably use American racism in a campaign of global propaganda to sway the world against America and toward Russia. Wealthy Americans (and so therefore The Government) recognized that communism was thier most terrible enemy. Both groups saw that America herefore had either of two (2) choices regarding its racism: 1) Build Nazi-like concentration death camps and get rid of the problem before the commies could launch their "Americans hate their brethren" campaign [which was thankfully NOT an option!], or 2) Launch a campaign to systematically rid America of racism. It chose the latter.

Academia was enlisted by Truman's post-war government to get this party started at the onset. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, National Geographic, Scientific American, the New England Journal of Medicine, etc. were put on Truman's mailing list. The book I read proffered copies of some of these letters. The government of a constitutional democracy couldn't ban, per se, ANY article of free speech. Nor could it openly promote any philosophy, social, political, or otherwise, over that of science (which is, of course, the search for absolute truth [and so can have no other philosophy above it {or so it should be}]). Such would reflect the hated essence of both Nazis and Commies. But it could and did ask science to alter some of its wording, to move in a more socially conducive direction, and to accentuate the "postitive" and keep the "negative" in its own tight circles, not to be promoted openly, not to be published in great numbers. Not, at least, until the marxist threat had subsided.

"Scientific racism" (aforementioned) effectively died that year. Never immensely popular among the masses anyway, its major proponents were persuaded to turn their attentions to other concerns. Again, this wasn't a "You can't say it" mandate; it was a "If you say it then I won't buy the book nor go with you to the faculty dance" type thing. Political correctness, as you have already called it, WAS born in 1946.

Anywho~ since 1946 American biologists have been using the word "subspecies" a hell of a lot and the word "race" decreasingly ever. (They are one and the same, of course. Its just a matter of syntax). Humans have had races and everything else has had subspecies. To call a human race a subspecies was ever frowned upon, knowing that the ignorant masses would misinterpret the "sub" as meaning "under" in a qualitative context. England, France, Russia, and, irnoically perhaps, Germany have not known racial stresses as Americans have known, and so their scientists have had no concerns about continuing to use "race" when refering to- say- differently marked butterflies. (...of a common species obviously)

Googling for your source I DID discover that during the 21st century scientists all over the world have been asked to deny the existence of race. [Seriously. Do Google it!] Everything is a subspecies now and humans don't even have race! (And you still can't say humans have subspecies', either, obviously, or you're an equally racist asswipe!)

There are still some scientists out there going, "Uh. YEAH. Humans have race. The definition is well established!" But the scientific community is, as it has since 1946 been, pressing to downplay this particular "negative" concept, the vaulted quest for truth be damned.

These things don't mark the first time science has bowed to the fear of ignorance. The terms "moron", "imbecile", and "idiot" were strictly scientific terms in Sigmund Freud's time. They denoted levels of substandard IQ Test results. Because the ignorant masses started throwing these terms around ala on the proverbial playground, people began to feel insulted when the doctor told them, "Good news! Your daughter isn't an idiot! She's an imbecile!"

EDIT:

I meant to mention this, and I will add it here: The "science" of sociology as we now know it was effectively born out of Truman's post-war anti-racism campaign. This is ALL I am going to say about that. Reading between those few lines could fill up a library.

quote:

---

Here is where I'll set myself up to sound like an idiot.

---

Hardly

quote:

---

Thinking Americans realized that the Soviets would inevitably use American racism in a campaign of global propaganda to sway the world against America and toward Russia. Wealthy Americans (and so therefore The Government) recognized that communism was thier most terrible enemy. Both groups saw that America herefore had either of two (2) choices regarding its racism: 1) Build Nazi-like concentration death camps and get rid of the problem before the commies could launch their "Americans hate their brethren" campaign [which was thankfully NOT an option!], or 2) Launch a campaign to systematically rid America of racism. It chose the latter.

---

Wow. I had no idea about this. They don't teach this kind of interesting stuff, even in most college history or science classes - they didn't when I was in school 100 years ago, at least,

quote:

---

The government of a constitutional democracy couldn't ban, per se, ANY article of free speech. Nor could it openly promote any philosophy, social, political, or otherwise, over that of science (which is, of course, the search for absolute truth [and so can have no other philosophy above it {or so it should be}]). Such would reflect the hated essence of both Nazis and Commies.

---

Yeah, that had to be a dilemma ...

quote:

---

But it could and did ask science to alter some of its wording, to move in a more socially conducive direction, and to accentuate the "postitive" and keep the "negative" in its own tight circles, not to be promoted openly, not to be published in great numbers. Not, at least, until the marxist threat had subsided.

---

So they figured that the way to "rid America of racism" was to start by censoring scientists, who are in search of unbiased truth, from using the word "race," which was being applied by them as a valid, scientific description in the truest form of its meaning? Brilliant. ... Seems like instead of prohibiting the use of the word "race" in science, a perfectly accurate word per its definition, and forcing scientists to find another term to substitute for it, they maybe should've addressed the social & cultural racist issue in the U.S.

quote:

---

Anywho~ since 1946 American biologists have been using the word "subspecies" a hell of a lot and the word "race" decreasingly ever. (They are one and the same, of course. Its just a matter of syntax).

---

"Subspecies" sounds worse, imo.

quote:

---

Political correctness, as you have already called it, WAS born in 1946.

---

Well, good to know its origin, and it was equally as ignorant then (maybe even more so) as it is now. ... Started out as a stupid concept & still is.

quote:

---

There are still some scientists out there going, "Uh. YEAH. Humans have race. The definition is well established!" But the scientific community is, as it has since 1946 been, pressing to downplay this particular "negative" concept, the vaulted quest for truth be damned.

---

Seriously sad.

quote:

---

These things don't mark the first time science has bowed to the fear of ignorance. The terms "moron", "imbecile", and "idiot" were strictly scientific terms in Sigmund Freud's time. They denoted levels of substandard IQ Test results. Because the ignorant masses started throwing these terms around ala on the proverbial playground, people began to feel insulted when the doctor told them,

"Good news! Your daughter isn't an idiot! She's an imbecile!"

---

OMG!! If a doctor used those terms today in that manner, as scientific terms to use to describe someone's kid, he'd have his license revoked & probably beaten.

Not buying what derSturm is selling, but I am at work so I can hardly respond substantially at the moment.

Edit: typo

quote:

---

It has been a controversy for years whether or not people were full of shite who sighted mountain lions in Arkansas. I have personally heard a few times what I thought must have been a mountain lion while out hunting in the Ouachitas.

Now a guy has finally shot and killed one.

---

I saw/shot at a big black one a couple times when I was a kid in the woods around Clinton.