They refer to it in terms of social stratification and endogamy, without getting at distinctions giving rise to these classifications and groupings.
Presumably West Eurasians not only conquered ANIs, but also looked quite different. The meanings of the term caste comprise racial and ethnic differences, which Wikipedia and Reich both omit, yet Reich calls out the sexual dominance of W Eurasian males as disturbing, refers to racial features of African American slavery white mating facts, and to caste and endogamy (but not race or ethnicity) among Jews.
Why shouldn't his account confront the racial and ethnic features of this prehistory head on, rather than limiting his account ostensibly to caste defined as strictly as "social stratification" and "endogamy", while nevertheless using polemical analogy, innuendo, and aspersion, to bring race and ethnicity back in through the back door? He can't have it both ways.......
You have to ask him.
It seems that such a pattern of population mixing is typical of hominids throughout prehistory, going back over a million years.
What is unnatural or disturbing about in the least, unless one assumes a Lockean or Rousseauian origins theory?
No comments:
Post a Comment