I just want to list a few thoughts about our readings this
week, but I think that we’re in for a thrilling conversation on Friday.
On Kim TallBear: I wonder if the tendency to link genetics with racial and ethnic categories is a failure of American education to clarify what “race” means, or is it the outcome of a science in service of white supremacy? These categories did not exist before it became necessary to document and subjugate through the violent interpellation of taxonomy which were bound up in ideas of creation – who came first, who fell from grace, and the determination (aka justification) of who could be subordinated and whose land could be taken. Certainly such linkages derive from this history, but has American education dropped the ball on righting these wrongs, or (more likely) has such violent interpellation never stopped?
On Bolnick et al.: I don’t have much to say here, other than
that I amused by the authors’ admonition of fellow scientists, as if to say, “Your
reckless use of genetics and ‘race’ is inflaming an already dire state of
mistrust in vulnerable communities, such that you are ruining it for the rest of us.”
On Bardill: The most interesting thing about this article is
in how it helps me think about the afterlife of our research. It resonates with
my ethics of photography, in fact, especially as photography and biological
taxonomies are both colonial forms of extraction.
So basically: Strap in, folks - I'm going to continue on my science and colonialism tear.
No comments:
Post a Comment