"Malik is one of the most interesting and perceptive
voices operating in the disputed territory where science, culture
and politics meet. A stalwart defender of free speech, he is a formidable
enemy of fuzzy or wishful thinking. But what sets him apart from the
plain-speaking polemicist is the impressive breadth of his research
and his critical grasp of scientific methodology. Few targets escape
the reach of his forensic intelligence. For once, the subtitle - 'Why
Both Sides Are Wrong in the Race Debate' - is no mere provocation."
Reviews of Strange Fruit: Why both sides are wrong in the race
debate
"'It is in the interest
of every person to be fully integrated in a cultural group', the sociologist
Joseph Raz has written. But what is to be fully integrated? If a Muslim
woman rejects sharia law, is she demonstrating her lack of integration?
What about a Jew who doesn't believe in the legitimacy of the Jewish
State? Would Galilleo have challenged the authority of the Church
if he had been 'fully integrated' into his culture? Or Thomas Paine
supported the French Revolution? Or Salman Rushdie written The
Satanic Verses?"
'Identity is that which
is given'
butterfliesandwheels.com
9 July 2008
"Historically, antiracists
challenged both the practice of racism and the process of racialisation;
that is, both the practice of discriminating against people by virtue
of their race and the insistence that an individual can be defined
by the group to which he or she belongs. Today's multiculturalists
argue that to fight racism one must celebrate group identity. The
consequence has been the resurrection of racial ideas and the imprisonment
of people within their cultural identities."
'Mistaken identity'
New Humanist
July/August 2008
" For some so-called 'race
realists' there is a macho element to defending the race concept:
insisting that population differences are really race differences
is, for them, a way of combating the scourge of political correctness.
For their anti-racist critics, introducing population differences
into genetic studies is to go down the road of eugenics and racial
science."
'The race debate: Nothing
to do with race'
The Times, 2 July 2008
"Contemporary anxieties
about diversity can be reformulated into different political idioms.
In part this is because diversity has today become so ambiguous, indeed
incoherent, in its meaning that both sides in the debate can simultaneously
be for and against it... Diversity has become the bridge between the
cultural and the biological and between the liberal left and the reactionary
right. Because we now view diversity as a good in itself, so cultural
diversity and biological diversity are seen as on a par."
'Why both sides are wrong in
the race debate'
spiked review of books
July 2008
"When Australian Muslims
demand the right to polygamy, they are not seeking to return to an
authentic past. After all, an authentic Muslim past would contain
no notion such as 'rights' that are a modern invention. Rather what
they are seeking to do is to use an invented past to shape the present.
The demand for legally-recognised polygamy is an attempt to reshape
the relationship between Muslim communities and the state and to assert
the right of so-called community leaders to define the needs of 'their'
community. That is another reason why it should be resisted."
'Law and the wives of others'
The Australian, 28 June 2008
"The debate about race
is not about whether genetic differences exist between human populations,
but about the significance of such differences. The fact that a BMW
saloon is of a different colour to a Boeing 747 is of little significance
to most people. The fact that one has an internal combustion engine
and the other a jet engine is of immense consequence. If we want to
understand the significance of any set of differences, in other words,
we have to ask ourselves two questions: Significant for what? And
in what context?"
'Racial division'
Prospect online
June 2008
|
and 
buttons to stop and start the scroller.
