It may be that a lot of folks are unfamiliar with Regnery, but I always found it most astonishing that Shrier had to go there to find a publisher for her work. 20 years ago if you had told me someone with Shrier's worldview would get her work published there I would have said "No way." As I look at my shelves, Regnery publications/reprints are from people like James Burnham and Claes Ryn, i.e. rather crunchy paleo-cons, and a world away from the Shrier's of the world. Yet, here we are in 2020, in a world so back-assward and repressive that it requires the Regnery's to pick up the civilizational slack.
It seems clear to me the reason they have gone after her and her work so hard is that she is right and they know it.
I also find it interesting that you make the connection to the idea of "repressed memory". It was the parallels to RM that made me pick up Shrier's book in the first place. She doesn't really make the connection in Irreversible Damage as she focuses on the similarities to cutting and anorexia, as they are also health concerns for girls, but anyone who witnessed how RM could destroy family members, as it did a beloved aunt of mine, can't help but see the same story playing out again only with a different cast of characters and different victims.
I swear this New Yorker excerpt is on point. Scientists seeking to learn what happened in an an ient “mass death event” in the Himalayas, first needed to find out whose these people were, and where they came fro. So they reached out to their peers in the Genetics department. “Not so fast!” screeched woke bystanders. And the wheels of research froze in defensive fear. Research into human origins and the differences between populations is always vulnerable to misuse. The grim history of eugenics still casts a shadow over genetics—a field with limitless appeal for white supremacists and others looking to support racist views—even though, for half a century, geneticists have rejected the idea of large hereditary disparities among human populations for the great majority of traits. Genetic science was vital in discrediting racist biological theories and establishing that racial categories are ever-shifting social constructs that do not align with genetic variation. Still, some anthropologists, social scientists, and even geneticists are deeply uncomfortable with any research that explores the hereditary differences among populations. Reich is insistent that race is an artificial category rather than a biological one, but maintains that “substantial differences across populations” exist. He thinks that it’s not unreasonable to investigate those differences scientifically, although he doesn’t undertake such research himself. “Whether we like it or not, people are measuring average differences among groups,” he said. “We need to be able to talk about these differences clearly, whatever they may be. Denying the possibility of substantial differences is not for us to do, given the scientific reality we live in.”
In 2018, Reich published a book, “Who We Are and How We Got Here,” about how genetic science is revolutionizing our understanding of our species. After he presented material from the book as an Op-Ed in the Times, sixty-seven anthropologists, social scientists, and others signed an open letter on BuzzFeed, titled “How Not to Talk About Race and Genetics.” The scholars complained that Reich’s “skillfulness with ancient and contemporary DNA should not be confused with a mastery of the cultural, political, and biological meanings of human groups,” and that Reich “critically misunderstands and misrepresents concerns” regarding the use of such loaded terms as “race” and “population.”
Hi Matt, there must be a bug on your site or something. I am a year long subscriber and this article isnt available but I'd like to read it. Hope its resolved soon
Same comment as Gilbert Ratchet below. I subscribed for a whole year in November and can prove it- as you can if you check your records. Please give me my full access now, AND put a button somewhere visible in your site where subscribers can log in. Seeing only a "subscribe now" button when one is already subscribed is a very good way to lose readership.
It may be that a lot of folks are unfamiliar with Regnery, but I always found it most astonishing that Shrier had to go there to find a publisher for her work. 20 years ago if you had told me someone with Shrier's worldview would get her work published there I would have said "No way." As I look at my shelves, Regnery publications/reprints are from people like James Burnham and Claes Ryn, i.e. rather crunchy paleo-cons, and a world away from the Shrier's of the world. Yet, here we are in 2020, in a world so back-assward and repressive that it requires the Regnery's to pick up the civilizational slack.
It seems clear to me the reason they have gone after her and her work so hard is that she is right and they know it.
I also find it interesting that you make the connection to the idea of "repressed memory". It was the parallels to RM that made me pick up Shrier's book in the first place. She doesn't really make the connection in Irreversible Damage as she focuses on the similarities to cutting and anorexia, as they are also health concerns for girls, but anyone who witnessed how RM could destroy family members, as it did a beloved aunt of mine, can't help but see the same story playing out again only with a different cast of characters and different victims.
I swear this New Yorker excerpt is on point. Scientists seeking to learn what happened in an an ient “mass death event” in the Himalayas, first needed to find out whose these people were, and where they came fro. So they reached out to their peers in the Genetics department. “Not so fast!” screeched woke bystanders. And the wheels of research froze in defensive fear. Research into human origins and the differences between populations is always vulnerable to misuse. The grim history of eugenics still casts a shadow over genetics—a field with limitless appeal for white supremacists and others looking to support racist views—even though, for half a century, geneticists have rejected the idea of large hereditary disparities among human populations for the great majority of traits. Genetic science was vital in discrediting racist biological theories and establishing that racial categories are ever-shifting social constructs that do not align with genetic variation. Still, some anthropologists, social scientists, and even geneticists are deeply uncomfortable with any research that explores the hereditary differences among populations. Reich is insistent that race is an artificial category rather than a biological one, but maintains that “substantial differences across populations” exist. He thinks that it’s not unreasonable to investigate those differences scientifically, although he doesn’t undertake such research himself. “Whether we like it or not, people are measuring average differences among groups,” he said. “We need to be able to talk about these differences clearly, whatever they may be. Denying the possibility of substantial differences is not for us to do, given the scientific reality we live in.”
In 2018, Reich published a book, “Who We Are and How We Got Here,” about how genetic science is revolutionizing our understanding of our species. After he presented material from the book as an Op-Ed in the Times, sixty-seven anthropologists, social scientists, and others signed an open letter on BuzzFeed, titled “How Not to Talk About Race and Genetics.” The scholars complained that Reich’s “skillfulness with ancient and contemporary DNA should not be confused with a mastery of the cultural, political, and biological meanings of human groups,” and that Reich “critically misunderstands and misrepresents concerns” regarding the use of such loaded terms as “race” and “population.”
well-played Jack
Matt is testing us. Although we've subscribed financially, have we truly subscribed emotionally? Subscribe again to find out
Matt you are being censored on your own site.
Hi Matt, there must be a bug on your site or something. I am a year long subscriber and this article isnt available but I'd like to read it. Hope its resolved soon
Select archive from the drop down in the upper right corner. The version with the lock symbol under it is the full story (thanks for tip Be!)
Can anyone help? If I am subscriber, why can I not see this full article?
Select archive from the drop down in the upper right corner. The version with the lock symbol under it is the full story
Same problem. I prefer to read articles on the Substack site, not in email. What's up with the site?
Same problem
same
Looks like an error folks — hopefully opens up soon
I'm also a subscriber and can't read the post.
h
Same comment as Gilbert Ratchet below. I subscribed for a whole year in November and can prove it- as you can if you check your records. Please give me my full access now, AND put a button somewhere visible in your site where subscribers can log in. Seeing only a "subscribe now" button when one is already subscribed is a very good way to lose readership.
Same here. My subscription is only a couple of months old...
Same issue; i can't read the full story and I'm a subscriber
What's going on, Bro?
Select archive from the drop down in the upper right corner. The version with the lock symbol under it is the full story (thanks for tip Be!)
Same problem
Link to full version https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-abigail-shrier