The Bell Curve is labeled racist because it is myopic about the existence and importance of race. Race is not a valid scientific categorization: it is not based on statistical grouping of DNA, or anything concrete other than "people used to be assholes to foreigners." There is an order of magnitude more genetic + cultural diversity among each race than there are between the races.

Examples, please, of books that investigate socioeconomic status & race that have not been called racist? Because I can't think of any. By the way, I'm not talking about literary explorations of race like "Huckleberry Finn". Although that was called racist too.

There are orders of magnitude more genetic [...] diversity among each race than there are between the races.

Hold it right there, buddy. License, registration, and sources please. Mostly sources.

Or you could read The Bell Curve. It is positing a small difference between "races", a difference so small that it is very minor compared to the expected range of deviation for a populace.

The idea that there is a scientifically definable thing called "race" lacks data. That is your row to hoe if you believe other. Skeptics are not required to disprove the existence of the tooth fairy, Nessie, or "race".

Or that asians and whites have wildly different reactions to milk.

Or that some diseases only affect blacks, or whites, or whatever?

This is not data? People use freely the same techniques to categorize humans, to categorize other animals with significant variations in their species, why only humans you must not use the word "race" and use other words to describe the same thing?

Asians and whites don't have wildly different reactions to milk. Adult mammals are generally lactose intolerant. There is a mutation that, in humans, is found far more often in people with ancestry in Northern Europe (which isn't coextensive with "whites") than any other origin, but which is neither universally absent in all other people or universally present in people of that origin that results in lactose tolerance.

Most supposed "racial" differences (EDIT: that is, most that refer to anything that is actually a measurable difference between real human populations at all) are of this type -- things that are statistically more or less common in a population of a particular origin that is not coextensive with any of the usual "race" categories with which the supposed hard-and-fast difference is popularly associated.

Thanks Wikipedia. Regarding being labelled racist, fine, everything gets labelled that. Even this post. I took your statement for something bit more meaningful than the cynic's "woe is the opinion of The Populous".

This is completely f'n stupid...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/12/to-classify-h...

[edit]

BTW, I find it funny that you're wiki-scholaring using old sources that date back to before we learned all non-african humans have some neanderthal dna in them.

Yawn...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewont...