The Science of Racism
6 Responses | Leave a Comment »
I’m sure most of you remember the controversy with James Watson just half a year ago. If you don’t, you can read about it here. In the controversy, James Watson said that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa … because all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”.
There was an interesting follow-up interview between Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and James Watson on MSN just yesterday. Read an excerpt of the interview here, and read Gates’s follow up here. I like the Gates’s follow up because he’s right: Watson is a racialist but not a racist. Gates writes:
I don’t think James Watson is a racist. But I do think that he is a racialist—that is, he believes that certain observable traits or forms of behavior among groups of human beings might, indeed, have a biological basis in the code that scientists, eventually, may be able to ascertain, that the “gene” is some mythically neutral space and what it purportedly “measures” or “determines” is independent of environmental factors, variables and influences.
Gates clarifies:
But I did leave Cold Spring Harbor convinced that Dr. Watson believes that many forms of behavior—such as “Jewish intelligence” (his phrase) and the basketball prowess of black men in the NBA (his example)—could, possibly, be traced to genetic differences among human beings, although no such connection has been made, and will probably never be made on any firm scientific basis, it seems to me.
In his conclusion he says,
As I drove away from Cold Spring Harbor, I realized that my conversation with Dr. Watson only confirmed something I already, with great trepidation, have come to believe: That the last great battle over racism will be fought not over access to a lunch counter, or a hotel room, or to the right to vote, or even the right to occupy the White House; it will be fought in a laboratory, in a test tube, under a microscope, in our genome, on the battleground of our DNA. It is here where we, as a society, will rank and interpret our genetic difference.
Brilliant observations.
I just want to say that this “racialism” probably affects no one more than Asian Americans. In Asian America, we voice this racialism without fear because it’s so ingrained in our culture. Witness, for example, the eugenics debate between one of the bloggers at 8Asians and our black belts Makulita and Minbo. I don’t demonize Asian Americans for thinking like the 8Asians blogger, but we need to recognize that it’s a problem and that, as Gates says, is so far not based on any real science or fact. And we also need to realize that this racialism isn’t “just another” perspective; it’s a philosophy of life (and we can refer to it as such since so many Asian Americans believe it) that causes real problems in both individuals and the general culture. People literally kill themselves and others over these so far unsubstantiated racial theories. We need to confront it head-on.
As a means of getting these issues on the table, another blogger from 8 Asians generously recommended that we have a discussion about it. Certain other parties, however, did not respond. Dialectic and I are always ready for debate, as are many of the 44’s black belts, as are the guys on Fallout Central. If any racialists ever want to debate the issues or discuss them in real time, our doors are always open, and we are ready. These are issues that affect us and our children, and we will not ever back down from voicing the arguments against blind racism or blind racialism that need to be heard.
Leave a Comment »
Share
Entries (RSS)
minbo
2:50 pm | Jun 04, 2008I do not entirely disagree with Watson, I just mostly disagree with him. In the wide range of humanity, there ARE genetic differences and some populations will have specific adaptations that make them better suited to survive in certain environments and situations than other. That is where we agree. Where we disagree is that these different traits do not make one person superior than another, or make anyone more evolved. Nor do these differences affect higher functions such as intelligence and athletic ability to play basketball.
Who is better or superior is a very subjective judgement that can vary over time and environment. For example, the often brandied sickle cell anemia trait. It was significantly more beneficial than detrimental when it arose and spread. If some new pandemic should arise that this mutation defended against, then it once again would be significantly more useful than detrimental. Then there is the mutation that grants some people of Northern European descent resistance to HIV if they have one copy of the mutation and neigh immunity two if they have two copies. There is no currently known detriment to having this mutation, but for thousands of years there has been no advantage to having this mutation.
When you start to go beyond simple situations that are directly provable through lab tests (not blind/double blind/triple blind cultural studies), then the application of genetics fails. For example, I have mentioned before, there had been a belief that Inuit had a genetic resistance to heart disease. When studied, it was discovered that their lower heart disease rate was not due to nature (genetics), but rather nurture (diet). Their diet, being high in fish, had a large amount of omega-3 fatty acids, which has proven correlative but not yet directly causal to reduced heart disease. The discovery of anti-oxidants contained in tea also comes from studies on why some populations who drink a lot of tea had different health considerations. Similarly for discovery of the anti-oxidants in red wine.
As science progresses, the more complex differences between the different human “races” are proving to be due to nurture, environment or culture. A recent study has proven that the “math gap” between boys and girls, where boys were considered superior to girls in math is a cultural myth. Girls function just as well as boys, possibly even better, when they are raised in different cultures. There is no underlying genetic superiority or inferiority between sexes for math ability.
http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2008/06/more_gender_equal_countries_ha.php
Aside from culture suppressing the abilities of it’s population, intelligence is very hard to measure without cultural bias. Koko the gorilla has a measured IQ decidedly lower than her actual IQ may be due to human/gorilla cultural testing bias. For example, when she was tested, she was marked wrong on the questions of what was good to eat and where was good to sleep. This is because the list contained items that she eats as a gorilla, but humans cannot eat, and because she selected a tree as a good place to sleep. This is a more extreme example of cultural bias, but it is illustrative that bias for testing intelligence does exist and can impact test results.
The fallacy of calling differences between populations some sort of inherent property of their genetic makeup can be seen by the change of stereotypes over the course of history. In Roman times, Jews were not considered scholarly or smart, but rather violent savages, and a greatly valued export from Judea was mercenaries. In the early 1800s, the Dutch were among the shortest populations, now they are among the tallest.
caocao
8:34 pm | Jun 04, 2008pretty much Minbo has it right on in terms of the other factors that contribute to human variations.
don’t forget with human beings, cultural and technological factors are significant causes of human variations.
for “jewish intelligence,” has watson ever considered that jews have a history of promoting education and knowledge?
for black NBA players, has watson ever considered that black kids in the cities play b-ball nonstop day and night in hopes of making it pro and making millions?
these are loaded questions because of the US&A obsession with race, and are probably more culturally/socially influenced. whereas for sickle-cell anemia or the Asian alcohol flush are not and the real genetic factors.
with watson, it seems the old adage “to a kid holding a hammer everything looks like a nail” seems particularly true.
watson is probably only familiar with genetics causes and thus to him everything must have a genetic component.
Xian
12:03 am | Jun 05, 2008And whites tends to be utterly self-serving when they add their own value judgments to cultural variations.
But that’s just my quasi-scientific interpretation…:)
jaehwan
3:38 pm | Jun 05, 2008Minbo:
My position is probably similar to Gates’s. We just don’t know. And sometimes it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that wasn’t true to begin with but now is. And caocao is right about culture, but we still don’t know how much of a factor that plays.
Jon Entine wrote an interesting book some years back called “Taboo.” He mentions how at the highest level of sprinting, it’s almost always black people who lead, whether they come from the U.S. or Africa or Europe. Entine thinks there is a genetic component to physical gifts, but he doesn’t believe that there is necessarily one that goes along with mental gifts.
This is a hard problem because as Gates points out, the conclusion itself affects people. If, for example, Liu Xiang had read and believed that he didn’t have the genes for success in track, he might not be out there breaking records today. Similarly, if Gates believed he didn’t have the capacity to become an intellectual, he might not be doing that. Then we’d just be blaming genes, even though our pseudo-scientific inquiry is what caused the problems in the first place. This is what makes the question thorny.
But is there any stopping it? To a certain extent, many Asian Americans like that 8A blogger have already started to revive this new tradition of racial determinism. As Gates points out, people might continue to ask these questions, and people could continue to rank us. And no one seems to get a free pass except for white people.
minbo
11:45 am | Jun 06, 2008As far as genetic differences being superior or more evolved, that is a subjective perceptive issue, not a scientific fact.
Starting with extreme cases and narrowing in again, sharks have not changes significantly for millions of years. This does not mean that they are more or less evolved, or genetically superior or inferior than Dolphins who are much more recent inhabitants of the deep, and which have undergone far more genetic change due to evolution.
The gene that causes sickle cell is “superior” in an environment where malaria is rampant, uncontrollable and incurable by other means. In areas where there is little to no malaria, and diagnosis and treatment of the disease is common, it suddenly subjectively becomes an “inferior” trait. The nature of the gene and it’s inherent properties have not changed, the environment it interacts with has changed.
jaehwan
6:49 pm | Jun 06, 2008Though I may be more evolved than a shark, I certainly wouldn’t want to go swimming with one.