|
September 29, 2005
I've just seen that Keith Windshuttle has an op.ed in the Murdoch owned Australian on Andrew Fraser's article Windshuttle says that:
The censored article is an extended version of a review of my book The White Australia Policy, which Fraser originally wrote last February for the neo-racist journal American Renaissance. His underlying premise is the now conventional academic interpretation that the White Australia Policy was an expression of British race nationalism. The only major difference between Fraser and the leftist historians who originated this thesis in the 1970s is that whereas they thought racial nationalism a bad thing, Fraser believes it is good.
Not quite 'the only major difference.' We still have the question of Fraser defending the biological determinants of race versus the leftist historians defending the social constructivist ones. As I mention earlier Fraser asks a good question:
But what if Windschuttle is wrong? What if racial differences are, in large part, biologically or genetically grounded? What if even culture is not simply a social construct but, rather, a phenomenon with a substantial biological component?
Windshuttle merely repeats his argument in his book, 'argues that Australian nationalism was defined not by race but by loyalty to Australia's democratic political institutions. It was qualitatively different from the racial nationalism'--presumably Windshuttle is using the distinction between ethnic and civic nationalism. Philosophy is not one of Windshuttle's strong points. He says that 'Fraser's version of the sociobiology of race is yet another of the "just so" stories to which that field is notoriously vulnerable, and which allow writers to deduce any conclusion they fancy. ' There is no argument presented.
Windshuttle is more interested is tracking the left currents in Fraser's thinking.
|
But what if Windschuttle is wrong? What if racial differences are, in large part, biologically or genetically grounded? What if even culture is not simply a social construct but, rather, a phenomenon with a substantial biological component?
It's a question which I sometimes ask myself. The answer I give myself is:
Suppose there are irresolvable genetic differences between the races. Suppose African Americans are genetically disposed to be more loving, just, supportive, noble than their white capitalistic cousins. What does this mean for us whities.
It still remains the case that we are all human. Our genetics have that similarity - even if no other. We all belong to the homosapiens genus (I think - my science isn't what it used to be).
And because we are human we all have access to universal human rights (whatever they may be worked out to be). Even though differences exist, belonging to the samed specie, provides us access to universal human rights - such as right to self expression, right to be free from harm.
Any way, that's the way I approach it. Reality of genetics makes no difference. We are all human - hence we all get rights we can't be forced/coerced to go beneath.