Conservative Eddie wrote:
I could have more categorical if you like.
And it's based on his own words, yes, across a few posts. Bimbo, after all, insisted that I consider the context of the discussion with regard his initial post on sickle-cell anemia, which I did.
You can't inveigle your way to an assertion. Show it.
Inveigle? Is that what I've done?
Consider just the one post of his that I quoted above:
1) Chuckles discusses the definition of race as "...broad, nebulous, and disconnected..." and so broad that you might just be able to fit a relgious belief system under its rubric. It describes it as not being scientific and the fact that biology would be uninhibited by its passing.
2) Bimbo responds, not in the affirmative, and raises sickle-cell anemia and the idea of being "racially African" as at least, linked or dependent. I'm not sure what other way one is supposed to interpret that post. He clearly posits a connection. And he clearly disagrees with Chuckles' more nuanced argument.
What assertion do you draw from that?
a) he sees "race" as a scietific category (subsequent posts indicates he does)
b) his conception of race is more narrow than Chuckles'
c) he sees a necessary connection between race and traits - it's the only point he makes in response to a post about race being nebulous and unscientific
I could go on...
Now, I'm considering the context in which this is being said, and I take a further look at his other posts. His phraseology in subsequent posts simply lends credence to the above, e.g. his use of "particular heritage".
Now, I don't think he's a racist but I do think he's repeating a racial trope. My initial response to him wasn't an attack, nor was it abusive. I pointed out that evidence exists that complicates the idea of simple race/trait relationships. That the variation in allele frequency, penetrance and geographical distribution mean that sickle cell anemia is not simply an African disease or "racially African".