Question Description
The union government’s present position vis-à-vis the upcoming United Nations conference on racial and related discrimination world-wide seems to be the following: discuss race please, not a caste; caste is our very own and not at all bad as you think. The gross hypocrisy of that position has been lucidly underscored by Kancha Ilaiah. Explicitly, the world community is to be cheated out of considering the matter on the technicality that caste is not, as a concept, tantamount to a racial category. Internally, however, allowing the issue to be put on agenda at the said conference would, we are patriotically admonished, damage the country’s image. Somehow, India’s ritual beliefs elbow out concrete actualities. Inverted representations, as we know, have often been deployed in human histories as a"balm for the forsaken" – religion being the most persistent of such inversions.Yet, we would humbly submit that if globalizing our markets are thought good for the ‘national’ pocket, "globalizing our social inequities" might not be so bad for the mass of our people. After all, racism was uniquely institutionalized in South Africa as caste discrimination has been within our society: why then can’t we permit the world community to express itself on the latter with a function of the zeal with which, through the years, we pronounced what on the former?As to the technically about whether or not caste is admissible into an agenda about race (that the conference is also about ‘related discriminations’ tends to be forgotten), a reputed sociologist has recently argued that where race is a "biological"construct, caste is a "social"one. Having earlier fiercely opposed implementation of the Mandal Commission Report, the said sociologist is at least to be complemented now for admitting, however tangentially, that caste discrimination is a reality, although, in his view, incompatible with racial discrimination. One would like quickly to offer the hypothesis that biology, in important ways that affect the lives of many millions, is in itself perhaps a social construct. But let us look at the matter in another way.If it is agreed – as per the position today at which anthropological and allied scientific determinations rest – that the entire race of homo sapiens derived from an original black African female (called ‘Eve’) then one is hard put to understand how, on some subsequent ground, ontological distinctions are to be drawn either between races or castes. Let us also underline the distinction between the supposition that we are all God's children and the rather more substantiated argument about our descent from ‘Eve’, lest both positions are thought to be equally diversionary. It then stands to reason that all subsequent distinctions are, in modern parlance, ‘constructed’ ones, and, like all ideological constructions, attributable to changing equations between knowledge and power among human communities through contested histories here, there, and elsewhere.This line of thought receives, thankfully, extremely consequential buttress from the findings of the Human Genome project. Contrary to earlier (chiefly 19th-century colonial) persuasions on the subject of race, as well as, one might add, the somewhat infamous Jensen offerings in the 20th century from America, those findings deny the genetic difference between "races". If anything, they suggest that environmental factors impinge on gene-function, as dialectic seems to unfold between nature and culture. It would thus seem that ‘biology’ as the constitution of pigmentation enters the picture first only as a part of that dialectic. Taken together, the original mother stipulation and the Genome findings ought indeed to furnish ground for human equality across the board, as well as yield policy initiatives towards equitable material dispensations aimed at building a global order where, in Hegel’s stirring formulation, only the rational constitutes the right. Such, sadly, is not the case as every day, fresh arbitrary grounds for discrimination are constructed in the interests of sectional dominance.Q.An important message in the passage, if one accepts a dialectic between nature and culture, is thata)the results of the Human Genome Project reinforce racial differencesb)race is at least partially, a social constructc)discrimination is at least partially, a social constructd)caste is a least partially, a social constructCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The union government’s present position vis-à-vis the upcoming United Nations conference on racial and related discrimination world-wide seems to be the following: discuss race please, not a caste; caste is our very own and not at all bad as you think. The gross hypocrisy of that position has been lucidly underscored by Kancha Ilaiah. Explicitly, the world community is to be cheated out of considering the matter on the technicality that caste is not, as a concept, tantamount to a racial category. Internally, however, allowing the issue to be put on agenda at the said conference would, we are patriotically admonished, damage the country’s image. Somehow, India’s ritual beliefs elbow out concrete actualities. Inverted representations, as we know, have often been deployed in human histories as a"balm for the forsaken" – religion being the most persistent of such inversions.Yet, we would humbly submit that if globalizing our markets are thought good for the ‘national’ pocket, "globalizing our social inequities" might not be so bad for the mass of our people. After all, racism was uniquely institutionalized in South Africa as caste discrimination has been within our society: why then can’t we permit the world community to express itself on the latter with a function of the zeal with which, through the years, we pronounced what on the former?As to the technically about whether or not caste is admissible into an agenda about race (that the conference is also about ‘related discriminations’ tends to be forgotten), a reputed sociologist has recently argued that where race is a "biological"construct, caste is a "social"one. Having earlier fiercely opposed implementation of the Mandal Commission Report, the said sociologist is at least to be complemented now for admitting, however tangentially, that caste discrimination is a reality, although, in his view, incompatible with racial discrimination. One would like quickly to offer the hypothesis that biology, in important ways that affect the lives of many millions, is in itself perhaps a social construct. But let us look at the matter in another way.If it is agreed – as per the position today at which anthropological and allied scientific determinations rest – that the entire race of homo sapiens derived from an original black African female (called ‘Eve’) then one is hard put to understand how, on some subsequent ground, ontological distinctions are to be drawn either between races or castes. Let us also underline the distinction between the supposition that we are all God's children and the rather more substantiated argument about our descent from ‘Eve’, lest both positions are thought to be equally diversionary. It then stands to reason that all subsequent distinctions are, in modern parlance, ‘constructed’ ones, and, like all ideological constructions, attributable to changing equations between knowledge and power among human communities through contested histories here, there, and elsewhere.This line of thought receives, thankfully, extremely consequential buttress from the findings of the Human Genome project. Contrary to earlier (chiefly 19th-century colonial) persuasions on the subject of race, as well as, one might add, the somewhat infamous Jensen offerings in the 20th century from America, those findings deny the genetic difference between "races". If anything, they suggest that environmental factors impinge on gene-function, as dialectic seems to unfold between nature and culture. It would thus seem that ‘biology’ as the constitution of pigmentation enters the picture first only as a part of that dialectic. Taken together, the original mother stipulation and the Genome findings ought indeed to furnish ground for human equality across the board, as well as yield policy initiatives towards equitable material dispensations aimed at building a global order where, in Hegel’s stirring formulation, only the rational constitutes the right. Such, sadly, is not the case as every day, fresh arbitrary grounds for discrimination are constructed in the interests of sectional dominance.Q.An important message in the passage, if one accepts a dialectic between nature and culture, is thata)the results of the Human Genome Project reinforce racial differencesb)race is at least partially, a social constructc)discrimination is at least partially, a social constructd)caste is a least partially, a social constructCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The union government’s present position vis-à-vis the upcoming United Nations conference on racial and related discrimination world-wide seems to be the following: discuss race please, not a caste; caste is our very own and not at all bad as you think. The gross hypocrisy of that position has been lucidly underscored by Kancha Ilaiah. Explicitly, the world community is to be cheated out of considering the matter on the technicality that caste is not, as a concept, tantamount to a racial category. Internally, however, allowing the issue to be put on agenda at the said conference would, we are patriotically admonished, damage the country’s image. Somehow, India’s ritual beliefs elbow out concrete actualities. Inverted representations, as we know, have often been deployed in human histories as a"balm for the forsaken" – religion being the most persistent of such inversions.Yet, we would humbly submit that if globalizing our markets are thought good for the ‘national’ pocket, "globalizing our social inequities" might not be so bad for the mass of our people. After all, racism was uniquely institutionalized in South Africa as caste discrimination has been within our society: why then can’t we permit the world community to express itself on the latter with a function of the zeal with which, through the years, we pronounced what on the former?As to the technically about whether or not caste is admissible into an agenda about race (that the conference is also about ‘related discriminations’ tends to be forgotten), a reputed sociologist has recently argued that where race is a "biological"construct, caste is a "social"one. Having earlier fiercely opposed implementation of the Mandal Commission Report, the said sociologist is at least to be complemented now for admitting, however tangentially, that caste discrimination is a reality, although, in his view, incompatible with racial discrimination. One would like quickly to offer the hypothesis that biology, in important ways that affect the lives of many millions, is in itself perhaps a social construct. But let us look at the matter in another way.If it is agreed – as per the position today at which anthropological and allied scientific determinations rest – that the entire race of homo sapiens derived from an original black African female (called ‘Eve’) then one is hard put to understand how, on some subsequent ground, ontological distinctions are to be drawn either between races or castes. Let us also underline the distinction between the supposition that we are all God's children and the rather more substantiated argument about our descent from ‘Eve’, lest both positions are thought to be equally diversionary. It then stands to reason that all subsequent distinctions are, in modern parlance, ‘constructed’ ones, and, like all ideological constructions, attributable to changing equations between knowledge and power among human communities through contested histories here, there, and elsewhere.This line of thought receives, thankfully, extremely consequential buttress from the findings of the Human Genome project. Contrary to earlier (chiefly 19th-century colonial) persuasions on the subject of race, as well as, one might add, the somewhat infamous Jensen offerings in the 20th century from America, those findings deny the genetic difference between "races". If anything, they suggest that environmental factors impinge on gene-function, as dialectic seems to unfold between nature and culture. It would thus seem that ‘biology’ as the constitution of pigmentation enters the picture first only as a part of that dialectic. Taken together, the original mother stipulation and the Genome findings ought indeed to furnish ground for human equality across the board, as well as yield policy initiatives towards equitable material dispensations aimed at building a global order where, in Hegel’s stirring formulation, only the rational constitutes the right. Such, sadly, is not the case as every day, fresh arbitrary grounds for discrimination are constructed in the interests of sectional dominance.Q.An important message in the passage, if one accepts a dialectic between nature and culture, is thata)the results of the Human Genome Project reinforce racial differencesb)race is at least partially, a social constructc)discrimination is at least partially, a social constructd)caste is a least partially, a social constructCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The union government’s present position vis-à-vis the upcoming United Nations conference on racial and related discrimination world-wide seems to be the following: discuss race please, not a caste; caste is our very own and not at all bad as you think. The gross hypocrisy of that position has been lucidly underscored by Kancha Ilaiah. Explicitly, the world community is to be cheated out of considering the matter on the technicality that caste is not, as a concept, tantamount to a racial category. Internally, however, allowing the issue to be put on agenda at the said conference would, we are patriotically admonished, damage the country’s image. Somehow, India’s ritual beliefs elbow out concrete actualities. Inverted representations, as we know, have often been deployed in human histories as a"balm for the forsaken" – religion being the most persistent of such inversions.Yet, we would humbly submit that if globalizing our markets are thought good for the ‘national’ pocket, "globalizing our social inequities" might not be so bad for the mass of our people. After all, racism was uniquely institutionalized in South Africa as caste discrimination has been within our society: why then can’t we permit the world community to express itself on the latter with a function of the zeal with which, through the years, we pronounced what on the former?As to the technically about whether or not caste is admissible into an agenda about race (that the conference is also about ‘related discriminations’ tends to be forgotten), a reputed sociologist has recently argued that where race is a "biological"construct, caste is a "social"one. Having earlier fiercely opposed implementation of the Mandal Commission Report, the said sociologist is at least to be complemented now for admitting, however tangentially, that caste discrimination is a reality, although, in his view, incompatible with racial discrimination. One would like quickly to offer the hypothesis that biology, in important ways that affect the lives of many millions, is in itself perhaps a social construct. But let us look at the matter in another way.If it is agreed – as per the position today at which anthropological and allied scientific determinations rest – that the entire race of homo sapiens derived from an original black African female (called ‘Eve’) then one is hard put to understand how, on some subsequent ground, ontological distinctions are to be drawn either between races or castes. Let us also underline the distinction between the supposition that we are all God's children and the rather more substantiated argument about our descent from ‘Eve’, lest both positions are thought to be equally diversionary. It then stands to reason that all subsequent distinctions are, in modern parlance, ‘constructed’ ones, and, like all ideological constructions, attributable to changing equations between knowledge and power among human communities through contested histories here, there, and elsewhere.This line of thought receives, thankfully, extremely consequential buttress from the findings of the Human Genome project. Contrary to earlier (chiefly 19th-century colonial) persuasions on the subject of race, as well as, one might add, the somewhat infamous Jensen offerings in the 20th century from America, those findings deny the genetic difference between "races". If anything, they suggest that environmental factors impinge on gene-function, as dialectic seems to unfold between nature and culture. It would thus seem that ‘biology’ as the constitution of pigmentation enters the picture first only as a part of that dialectic. Taken together, the original mother stipulation and the Genome findings ought indeed to furnish ground for human equality across the board, as well as yield policy initiatives towards equitable material dispensations aimed at building a global order where, in Hegel’s stirring formulation, only the rational constitutes the right. Such, sadly, is not the case as every day, fresh arbitrary grounds for discrimination are constructed in the interests of sectional dominance.Q.An important message in the passage, if one accepts a dialectic between nature and culture, is thata)the results of the Human Genome Project reinforce racial differencesb)race is at least partially, a social constructc)discrimination is at least partially, a social constructd)caste is a least partially, a social constructCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The union government’s present position vis-à-vis the upcoming United Nations conference on racial and related discrimination world-wide seems to be the following: discuss race please, not a caste; caste is our very own and not at all bad as you think. The gross hypocrisy of that position has been lucidly underscored by Kancha Ilaiah. Explicitly, the world community is to be cheated out of considering the matter on the technicality that caste is not, as a concept, tantamount to a racial category. Internally, however, allowing the issue to be put on agenda at the said conference would, we are patriotically admonished, damage the country’s image. Somehow, India’s ritual beliefs elbow out concrete actualities. Inverted representations, as we know, have often been deployed in human histories as a"balm for the forsaken" – religion being the most persistent of such inversions.Yet, we would humbly submit that if globalizing our markets are thought good for the ‘national’ pocket, "globalizing our social inequities" might not be so bad for the mass of our people. After all, racism was uniquely institutionalized in South Africa as caste discrimination has been within our society: why then can’t we permit the world community to express itself on the latter with a function of the zeal with which, through the years, we pronounced what on the former?As to the technically about whether or not caste is admissible into an agenda about race (that the conference is also about ‘related discriminations’ tends to be forgotten), a reputed sociologist has recently argued that where race is a "biological"construct, caste is a "social"one. Having earlier fiercely opposed implementation of the Mandal Commission Report, the said sociologist is at least to be complemented now for admitting, however tangentially, that caste discrimination is a reality, although, in his view, incompatible with racial discrimination. One would like quickly to offer the hypothesis that biology, in important ways that affect the lives of many millions, is in itself perhaps a social construct. But let us look at the matter in another way.If it is agreed – as per the position today at which anthropological and allied scientific determinations rest – that the entire race of homo sapiens derived from an original black African female (called ‘Eve’) then one is hard put to understand how, on some subsequent ground, ontological distinctions are to be drawn either between races or castes. Let us also underline the distinction between the supposition that we are all God's children and the rather more substantiated argument about our descent from ‘Eve’, lest both positions are thought to be equally diversionary. It then stands to reason that all subsequent distinctions are, in modern parlance, ‘constructed’ ones, and, like all ideological constructions, attributable to changing equations between knowledge and power among human communities through contested histories here, there, and elsewhere.This line of thought receives, thankfully, extremely consequential buttress from the findings of the Human Genome project. Contrary to earlier (chiefly 19th-century colonial) persuasions on the subject of race, as well as, one might add, the somewhat infamous Jensen offerings in the 20th century from America, those findings deny the genetic difference between "races". If anything, they suggest that environmental factors impinge on gene-function, as dialectic seems to unfold between nature and culture. It would thus seem that ‘biology’ as the constitution of pigmentation enters the picture first only as a part of that dialectic. Taken together, the original mother stipulation and the Genome findings ought indeed to furnish ground for human equality across the board, as well as yield policy initiatives towards equitable material dispensations aimed at building a global order where, in Hegel’s stirring formulation, only the rational constitutes the right. Such, sadly, is not the case as every day, fresh arbitrary grounds for discrimination are constructed in the interests of sectional dominance.Q.An important message in the passage, if one accepts a dialectic between nature and culture, is thata)the results of the Human Genome Project reinforce racial differencesb)race is at least partially, a social constructc)discrimination is at least partially, a social constructd)caste is a least partially, a social constructCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The union government’s present position vis-à-vis the upcoming United Nations conference on racial and related discrimination world-wide seems to be the following: discuss race please, not a caste; caste is our very own and not at all bad as you think. The gross hypocrisy of that position has been lucidly underscored by Kancha Ilaiah. Explicitly, the world community is to be cheated out of considering the matter on the technicality that caste is not, as a concept, tantamount to a racial category. Internally, however, allowing the issue to be put on agenda at the said conference would, we are patriotically admonished, damage the country’s image. Somehow, India’s ritual beliefs elbow out concrete actualities. Inverted representations, as we know, have often been deployed in human histories as a"balm for the forsaken" – religion being the most persistent of such inversions.Yet, we would humbly submit that if globalizing our markets are thought good for the ‘national’ pocket, "globalizing our social inequities" might not be so bad for the mass of our people. After all, racism was uniquely institutionalized in South Africa as caste discrimination has been within our society: why then can’t we permit the world community to express itself on the latter with a function of the zeal with which, through the years, we pronounced what on the former?As to the technically about whether or not caste is admissible into an agenda about race (that the conference is also about ‘related discriminations’ tends to be forgotten), a reputed sociologist has recently argued that where race is a "biological"construct, caste is a "social"one. Having earlier fiercely opposed implementation of the Mandal Commission Report, the said sociologist is at least to be complemented now for admitting, however tangentially, that caste discrimination is a reality, although, in his view, incompatible with racial discrimination. One would like quickly to offer the hypothesis that biology, in important ways that affect the lives of many millions, is in itself perhaps a social construct. But let us look at the matter in another way.If it is agreed – as per the position today at which anthropological and allied scientific determinations rest – that the entire race of homo sapiens derived from an original black African female (called ‘Eve’) then one is hard put to understand how, on some subsequent ground, ontological distinctions are to be drawn either between races or castes. Let us also underline the distinction between the supposition that we are all God's children and the rather more substantiated argument about our descent from ‘Eve’, lest both positions are thought to be equally diversionary. It then stands to reason that all subsequent distinctions are, in modern parlance, ‘constructed’ ones, and, like all ideological constructions, attributable to changing equations between knowledge and power among human communities through contested histories here, there, and elsewhere.This line of thought receives, thankfully, extremely consequential buttress from the findings of the Human Genome project. Contrary to earlier (chiefly 19th-century colonial) persuasions on the subject of race, as well as, one might add, the somewhat infamous Jensen offerings in the 20th century from America, those findings deny the genetic difference between "races". If anything, they suggest that environmental factors impinge on gene-function, as dialectic seems to unfold between nature and culture. It would thus seem that ‘biology’ as the constitution of pigmentation enters the picture first only as a part of that dialectic. Taken together, the original mother stipulation and the Genome findings ought indeed to furnish ground for human equality across the board, as well as yield policy initiatives towards equitable material dispensations aimed at building a global order where, in Hegel’s stirring formulation, only the rational constitutes the right. Such, sadly, is not the case as every day, fresh arbitrary grounds for discrimination are constructed in the interests of sectional dominance.Q.An important message in the passage, if one accepts a dialectic between nature and culture, is thata)the results of the Human Genome Project reinforce racial differencesb)race is at least partially, a social constructc)discrimination is at least partially, a social constructd)caste is a least partially, a social constructCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The union government’s present position vis-à-vis the upcoming United Nations conference on racial and related discrimination world-wide seems to be the following: discuss race please, not a caste; caste is our very own and not at all bad as you think. The gross hypocrisy of that position has been lucidly underscored by Kancha Ilaiah. Explicitly, the world community is to be cheated out of considering the matter on the technicality that caste is not, as a concept, tantamount to a racial category. Internally, however, allowing the issue to be put on agenda at the said conference would, we are patriotically admonished, damage the country’s image. Somehow, India’s ritual beliefs elbow out concrete actualities. Inverted representations, as we know, have often been deployed in human histories as a"balm for the forsaken" – religion being the most persistent of such inversions.Yet, we would humbly submit that if globalizing our markets are thought good for the ‘national’ pocket, "globalizing our social inequities" might not be so bad for the mass of our people. After all, racism was uniquely institutionalized in South Africa as caste discrimination has been within our society: why then can’t we permit the world community to express itself on the latter with a function of the zeal with which, through the years, we pronounced what on the former?As to the technically about whether or not caste is admissible into an agenda about race (that the conference is also about ‘related discriminations’ tends to be forgotten), a reputed sociologist has recently argued that where race is a "biological"construct, caste is a "social"one. Having earlier fiercely opposed implementation of the Mandal Commission Report, the said sociologist is at least to be complemented now for admitting, however tangentially, that caste discrimination is a reality, although, in his view, incompatible with racial discrimination. One would like quickly to offer the hypothesis that biology, in important ways that affect the lives of many millions, is in itself perhaps a social construct. But let us look at the matter in another way.If it is agreed – as per the position today at which anthropological and allied scientific determinations rest – that the entire race of homo sapiens derived from an original black African female (called ‘Eve’) then one is hard put to understand how, on some subsequent ground, ontological distinctions are to be drawn either between races or castes. Let us also underline the distinction between the supposition that we are all God's children and the rather more substantiated argument about our descent from ‘Eve’, lest both positions are thought to be equally diversionary. It then stands to reason that all subsequent distinctions are, in modern parlance, ‘constructed’ ones, and, like all ideological constructions, attributable to changing equations between knowledge and power among human communities through contested histories here, there, and elsewhere.This line of thought receives, thankfully, extremely consequential buttress from the findings of the Human Genome project. Contrary to earlier (chiefly 19th-century colonial) persuasions on the subject of race, as well as, one might add, the somewhat infamous Jensen offerings in the 20th century from America, those findings deny the genetic difference between "races". If anything, they suggest that environmental factors impinge on gene-function, as dialectic seems to unfold between nature and culture. It would thus seem that ‘biology’ as the constitution of pigmentation enters the picture first only as a part of that dialectic. Taken together, the original mother stipulation and the Genome findings ought indeed to furnish ground for human equality across the board, as well as yield policy initiatives towards equitable material dispensations aimed at building a global order where, in Hegel’s stirring formulation, only the rational constitutes the right. Such, sadly, is not the case as every day, fresh arbitrary grounds for discrimination are constructed in the interests of sectional dominance.Q.An important message in the passage, if one accepts a dialectic between nature and culture, is thata)the results of the Human Genome Project reinforce racial differencesb)race is at least partially, a social constructc)discrimination is at least partially, a social constructd)caste is a least partially, a social constructCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The union government’s present position vis-à-vis the upcoming United Nations conference on racial and related discrimination world-wide seems to be the following: discuss race please, not a caste; caste is our very own and not at all bad as you think. The gross hypocrisy of that position has been lucidly underscored by Kancha Ilaiah. Explicitly, the world community is to be cheated out of considering the matter on the technicality that caste is not, as a concept, tantamount to a racial category. Internally, however, allowing the issue to be put on agenda at the said conference would, we are patriotically admonished, damage the country’s image. Somehow, India’s ritual beliefs elbow out concrete actualities. Inverted representations, as we know, have often been deployed in human histories as a"balm for the forsaken" – religion being the most persistent of such inversions.Yet, we would humbly submit that if globalizing our markets are thought good for the ‘national’ pocket, "globalizing our social inequities" might not be so bad for the mass of our people. After all, racism was uniquely institutionalized in South Africa as caste discrimination has been within our society: why then can’t we permit the world community to express itself on the latter with a function of the zeal with which, through the years, we pronounced what on the former?As to the technically about whether or not caste is admissible into an agenda about race (that the conference is also about ‘related discriminations’ tends to be forgotten), a reputed sociologist has recently argued that where race is a "biological"construct, caste is a "social"one. Having earlier fiercely opposed implementation of the Mandal Commission Report, the said sociologist is at least to be complemented now for admitting, however tangentially, that caste discrimination is a reality, although, in his view, incompatible with racial discrimination. One would like quickly to offer the hypothesis that biology, in important ways that affect the lives of many millions, is in itself perhaps a social construct. But let us look at the matter in another way.If it is agreed – as per the position today at which anthropological and allied scientific determinations rest – that the entire race of homo sapiens derived from an original black African female (called ‘Eve’) then one is hard put to understand how, on some subsequent ground, ontological distinctions are to be drawn either between races or castes. Let us also underline the distinction between the supposition that we are all God's children and the rather more substantiated argument about our descent from ‘Eve’, lest both positions are thought to be equally diversionary. It then stands to reason that all subsequent distinctions are, in modern parlance, ‘constructed’ ones, and, like all ideological constructions, attributable to changing equations between knowledge and power among human communities through contested histories here, there, and elsewhere.This line of thought receives, thankfully, extremely consequential buttress from the findings of the Human Genome project. Contrary to earlier (chiefly 19th-century colonial) persuasions on the subject of race, as well as, one might add, the somewhat infamous Jensen offerings in the 20th century from America, those findings deny the genetic difference between "races". If anything, they suggest that environmental factors impinge on gene-function, as dialectic seems to unfold between nature and culture. It would thus seem that ‘biology’ as the constitution of pigmentation enters the picture first only as a part of that dialectic. Taken together, the original mother stipulation and the Genome findings ought indeed to furnish ground for human equality across the board, as well as yield policy initiatives towards equitable material dispensations aimed at building a global order where, in Hegel’s stirring formulation, only the rational constitutes the right. Such, sadly, is not the case as every day, fresh arbitrary grounds for discrimination are constructed in the interests of sectional dominance.Q.An important message in the passage, if one accepts a dialectic between nature and culture, is thata)the results of the Human Genome Project reinforce racial differencesb)race is at least partially, a social constructc)discrimination is at least partially, a social constructd)caste is a least partially, a social constructCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The union government’s present position vis-à-vis the upcoming United Nations conference on racial and related discrimination world-wide seems to be the following: discuss race please, not a caste; caste is our very own and not at all bad as you think. The gross hypocrisy of that position has been lucidly underscored by Kancha Ilaiah. Explicitly, the world community is to be cheated out of considering the matter on the technicality that caste is not, as a concept, tantamount to a racial category. Internally, however, allowing the issue to be put on agenda at the said conference would, we are patriotically admonished, damage the country’s image. Somehow, India’s ritual beliefs elbow out concrete actualities. Inverted representations, as we know, have often been deployed in human histories as a"balm for the forsaken" – religion being the most persistent of such inversions.Yet, we would humbly submit that if globalizing our markets are thought good for the ‘national’ pocket, "globalizing our social inequities" might not be so bad for the mass of our people. After all, racism was uniquely institutionalized in South Africa as caste discrimination has been within our society: why then can’t we permit the world community to express itself on the latter with a function of the zeal with which, through the years, we pronounced what on the former?As to the technically about whether or not caste is admissible into an agenda about race (that the conference is also about ‘related discriminations’ tends to be forgotten), a reputed sociologist has recently argued that where race is a "biological"construct, caste is a "social"one. Having earlier fiercely opposed implementation of the Mandal Commission Report, the said sociologist is at least to be complemented now for admitting, however tangentially, that caste discrimination is a reality, although, in his view, incompatible with racial discrimination. One would like quickly to offer the hypothesis that biology, in important ways that affect the lives of many millions, is in itself perhaps a social construct. But let us look at the matter in another way.If it is agreed – as per the position today at which anthropological and allied scientific determinations rest – that the entire race of homo sapiens derived from an original black African female (called ‘Eve’) then one is hard put to understand how, on some subsequent ground, ontological distinctions are to be drawn either between races or castes. Let us also underline the distinction between the supposition that we are all God's children and the rather more substantiated argument about our descent from ‘Eve’, lest both positions are thought to be equally diversionary. It then stands to reason that all subsequent distinctions are, in modern parlance, ‘constructed’ ones, and, like all ideological constructions, attributable to changing equations between knowledge and power among human communities through contested histories here, there, and elsewhere.This line of thought receives, thankfully, extremely consequential buttress from the findings of the Human Genome project. Contrary to earlier (chiefly 19th-century colonial) persuasions on the subject of race, as well as, one might add, the somewhat infamous Jensen offerings in the 20th century from America, those findings deny the genetic difference between "races". If anything, they suggest that environmental factors impinge on gene-function, as dialectic seems to unfold between nature and culture. It would thus seem that ‘biology’ as the constitution of pigmentation enters the picture first only as a part of that dialectic. Taken together, the original mother stipulation and the Genome findings ought indeed to furnish ground for human equality across the board, as well as yield policy initiatives towards equitable material dispensations aimed at building a global order where, in Hegel’s stirring formulation, only the rational constitutes the right. Such, sadly, is not the case as every day, fresh arbitrary grounds for discrimination are constructed in the interests of sectional dominance.Q.An important message in the passage, if one accepts a dialectic between nature and culture, is thata)the results of the Human Genome Project reinforce racial differencesb)race is at least partially, a social constructc)discrimination is at least partially, a social constructd)caste is a least partially, a social constructCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.