The Study of Paleontology Now Being Accused of Structural Racism and Colonialism
“One by one, every area of science is falling prey to the ‘we need to purge ourself of racism’ syndrome.”
As I have said repeatedly, there is no field of study which will be expempted from the left’s agenda.
From the Why Evolution Exists blog:
Now it’s paleontology that gets accused of being rotten with structural racism, colonialism, and white supremacy
One by one, every area of science is falling prey to the “we need to purge ourself of racism” syndrome. It’s in genetics, animal behavior, ecology, chemistry, physics and now, at least for the first time I’ve seen, in paleontology. It wouldn’t be so bad if I really thought that all the fields of science are permeated with hatred and bigotry at present, but I just don’t see that. There are accusations, but rarely do we get evidence. (See the Sci Am article on E. O. Wilson the other day.)
Of course in the bad old days, when racism and misogyny were acceptable behaviors, yes, many scientists evinced racist and sexist attitudes. And yes, there are still some bigots in science, as there are in every field of endeavor, and we should call out those behaviors and ensure that they’re not common. But the kind of overall accusations of the kind leveled in this article are pure hyperbole, and, to my mind, do more to signal the authors’ virtue than to actually create equal opportunities (not equal outcomes, which are “problematic”) for oppressed people.
To really see the lack of force of accusations of rampant bigotry in STEM, look for surveys, or even examples, of bigotry in papers such as this. They’re notably lacking. The paper below, which just appeared in Paleobiology, has a lot of citations, but a big lacuna when it comes to examples. Perhaps they’re buried in the citations, but no reader is going to trawl through a gazillion citations to find instances of bigotry. And so we’re subject to a long list of accusations, which are virtually identical from field to field. In fact, in many cases you could substitute “chemistry” or “mathematics” for “paleontology” in these papers and then publish it in the discipline -appropriate journal.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
/falls out of chair/
It’s too close to physical anthropology, which is an absolute no-no.
The cites in these racial articles tend to be from brand new racial journals with brand new racial editors using pretend academic standards. Although they’ve been preparing this for a while so “brand new” might be 10 or 20 years, and they look on the surface like actual articles. I warn you though, put down your coffee cup before reading these cited articles or you might spurt coffee all over with laughter. If you got B’s in writing in HS, you were doing better than that stuff.
I read the article and some of the comments–it’s just embarrassing that a publication called “Scientific American” would publish such poorly written and sourced material. We can safely confine Scientific American to the dust heap where it belongs–it’s no longer scientific, and probably not American either. I hope the woke editor is happy with ruining what was once a fine publication.
It is easy to see racism under every stone when that is where you live, scientifically speaking.
Science is facts, like them or not, and all data, good or bad, is still data. The left wants to cherry pick their “facts” to support their projectionist racist fantasies.
They’re saying that paleontology, like everything else, is “racist.” Soon, they’ll be demanding a quota of white dinosaurs and “dinosaurs of color” that must be represented in any diorama, museum, or artist’s work.
Of course, we don’t know what colors most dinosaurs were. The “anti-racists” will figure out how to get offended and demand something anyway.
I’m waiting for them to turn geology to scheiss.