Anthropologists deny violence and race

SciAm publishes:

In 1986, Adams gathered a group of 20 scientists, including biologists, psychologists, and neuroscientists, to issue what became known as the Seville Statement on Violence. It declared, among other things, that “it is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behavior is genetically programmed into our human nature.” The statement, later adopted by UNESCO, an agency of the United Nations that promotes international collaboration and peace, was an effort to shake off the “biological pessimism” that had taken hold and make it clear that peace is a realistic goal. ...

“I think the growing evidence about innate propensities for violence have shown [the Seville statement] rather clearly to be simplistic and exaggerated at best,” says Wrangham.

And more likely, an outright lie perpetrated by blank slate leftists who deny human nature.

My guess is that they are worried that if they admit that there are genes for violence, then that suggests that some people will be innately more violent than others. That seems obvious to me, but I guess that some deny it.
The article is from another site, that features this article from a black professor:

The word “Caucasian” is used in the U.S. to describe white people, but it doesn’t indicate anything real. It’s the wrong term to use! ...

One reason we keep using the term “Caucasian” is that the U.S. legal system made use of Blumenbach’s taxonomy. As early as 1790 the first naturalization law was passed, preventing foreigners who were not white from becoming citizens. ...

A second reason the term has had staying power is that, as new immigrants began to stream into the country in the 20th century, political leaders and scientists supported a new racial science called eugenics that built on 19th-century notions of race. Eugenicists divided Caucasians into four ranked subraces: Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean, and Jew (Semitic). I’m sure you will not be surprised to learn that the Nordics were ranked highest intellectually and morally. ...

Today, the word “Caucasian” is still used in many official government documents, and it continues to carry a kind of scientific weight. For example, it is found in social science and medical research, and is used by some colleges and universities in their data collection and distribution of student, staff, and faculty statistics. ...

What can we do to change it? We need to acknowledge that the word “Caucasian” is still around and that its continued use is problematic. We should use terms that are more accurate, such as “European-American.” Doing so would at least be consistent with the use of descriptive terms like “African-American,” “Mexican-American,” and others that signify both a geographical and an American ancestry.

The bottom line is that it is time for a modern — and accurate — terminology. The use of an outdated and disproven term that falsely purports to describe a separate race of people has no place in the U.S.

-- Yolanda Moses is a professor of anthropology and the associate vice chancellor for diversity, equity, and excellence at the University of California, Riverside. Her research focuses on the broad question of the origins of social inequality in complex societies.

She can call herself negro, black, African-American, or anything else, and no one cares. It is odd for her to tell others how to identify themselves.

She says the term inaccurate, outdated, and disproven, but her only arguments are that she does not like some of the reasons that some people have used the term historically.

Some call themselves Mexican-Americans, but they often call themselves hispanics, latinos, chicanos, or la raza.

I see this article as another academic attempt to de-legitimize white Americans. The author is obviously pre-occupied with her black skin, and hates white people.

The site also has this:

In space and on planets like Mars, our environment must be thought of as precious. ...

As we build new societies in space, cultural difference and all forms of diversity will also be precious assets, the results of millions of years of evolution and thousands of years of experience and history. ...

The United Nations reports that there are now more refugees than at any time in human history since WWII, and that “one in every 122 humans is now either a refugee, internally displaced, or seeking asylum.” This humanitarian crisis, the environmental crisis of climate change, ongoing wars, inequality, and injustice are all tests of our ability and will to build a future for the planet and all the species who share it. How we respond to these challenges today will demonstrate whether we are prepared to go back to the moon, onward to Mars, and beyond.

As bigotry, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and fear continue to shape policy and debates, I am reminded of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, who warned: “If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there.”

This is pretty crazy stuff. If we send colonists to Mars, we are not going to meet any Martians, and adding some blacks and Moslems for diversity will not help. Diversity creates extraneous difficulties.