Can We Please Define “Racism”?
James Watson, the geneticist who helped unravel the structure of DNA, came under fire for saying that Africans are not as intelligent as Westerners. Aside from his remarks being deemed baseless and unscientific, he has quite predictably been labeled “racist.” Why, some thought police even want him charged under Britain’s Orwellian “racial hatred laws” (Watson is conducting a speaking tour in Britain presently).
In light of this tendency to apply the “R-word,” one that claims as victims late sportscaster Jimmy “the Greek” Snyder, manager of the Cincinnati Reds Dusty Baker, former baseball commissioner Al Campanis, late NFL player Reggie White and many others, I have a question.
What is “racism”?
Is it simply voicing beliefs about differences among races? Am I a racist if I say that blacks have darker skin and frizzier hair? No, I suppose not. What about if I point out that blacks commit an inordinate amount of crime and that 70 percent of black children are born out-of-wedlock, versus 27 percent for whites? Well, in our culture that is borderline. But why? On what basis should we determine what is “racist”?
One might think that pointing out negative characteristic qualities or the weaknesses of a race makes a person a racist, but even this cannot be so. After all, we take pains to emphasize that sickle cell anemia predominantly plagues blacks and that they are more likely to develop heart disease. Then there is the fact that Tay-Sachs Disease is found only among certain distinct groups, mainly Jews. In fact, were we to claim that these crosses are borne equally by all, we would be labeled “racist” for ignoring what ails minorities. It would be said that we really didn’t care if they lived or died. This gets confusing, though; on the one hand we’re castigated for pointing out differences, on the other we’re complimented for doing so.
It might seem that we mustn’t bring to light differences when doing so can lead to discrimination, but not so fast. When we emphasize the fact that only certain groups suffer from certain diseases, they receive attention and funding that others will not. Moreover, showcasing disparities in performance among the races has long been used to justify quotas and set-asides.
So, this is where one must start to think that there is more here – or less – than meets the eye. Is it that we cannot point out differences which, when brought to light, can lead to discrimination that doesn’t benefit politically-favored groups? Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. That certainly is part of the equation.
What, though, should be our standard? Well, it cannot be discovered by analyzing what has been said about Dr. Watson but, rather, by what is usually left unsaid.
Few have said his remarks were not true.
As was the case with the reception given to The Bell Curve, critics tend to take the position that the issue should not be raised, much less debated. And this brings us to the crux of the matter. All intellectual inquiry, be it scientific or philosophical, should be a search for Truth. This search must be sincere and remain unfettered by agendas or dogmas, and we do otherwise at our own peril.
This is why the politically correct thought police are so destructive. When they criticize a man like Watson, not only do they rarely say his statements are untrue, but the Truth of the matter doesn’t even seem to enter their minds. No, it doesn’t because they are blinded by their agenda.
Oh, having an agenda or hypothesis doesn’t make them unusual, but an intellectually honest seeker of knowledge will alter his hypothesis when the data contradicts it. To these folks, however, their agenda is deified and takes precedence over Truth; thus, when the Truth contradicts their agenda, instead of altering the latter, they simply suppress or rationalize away the Truth. Or, that is, anything they may fear is Truth.
It’s ironic, too, because these leftists are the same people who usually condemn Christianity for stifling scientific enterprise (a false claim). How many times have we heard about Galileo (his story has been mischaracterized)? But who is stifling scientific inquiry and open debate now? Even more egregiously, these modern-day inquisitors would imprison those who violate their dogma. They have become guilty of what they decry.
The Truth is that the outrage here isn’t Dr. Watson’s remarks; they’re either true or not. What’s outrageous is that we’re suffering under the yoke of those to whom Truth means nothing – the practitioners of a dark faith. They don’t care if a statement is correct, only whether it’s politically correct. They hate the Truth when it contradicts their agenda, and they’ll stop at nothing to still the tongues of those who would dare voice it. Racists? These miscreants are infinitely worse. They are Truthists.
And what is the Truth about racial differences? For one thing, is it logical and rational to claim that, except for appearance and a few diseases and conditions of the body, every group is the same in every way?
This is the left’s implication, and it’s absurd. It seems especially odd when you consider that most of these inquisitors are secularists who subscribe to the theory of evolution. Yet, despite their belief that different groups “evolved” in completely different parts of the world, operating in different environments and subject to different stresses, they would have us believe that all groups are identical in terms of the multitude of man’s talents and in every single measure of mental capacity. Why, miracle of miracles, all these two-legged cosmic accidents, the product of a billions-of-years journey from the primordial soup to primacy among creatures, whose evolution was influenced by perhaps millions of factors, wound up being precisely the same. It’s really the best argument for God I’ve ever heard, as such a statistical impossibility could only exist if it was ordained by the one with whom all things are possible.
Lastly, if we really care about a race’s welfare, shouldn’t we “diagnose” its condition – whatever that condition may be – properly so that its gifts may be best utilized, its inherent weaknesses best mitigated and its problems best remedied? If this makes sense with physical crosses such as sickle cell anemia and heart disease, it makes sense for all crosses, be they spiritual, social or, dare I say, intellectual. Stating this isn’t wrong or racist, and it shouldn’t be repressed. And as Dr. Watson might say, that’s something you don’t have to be a Sherlock to understand.
Possibly related posts...
Selwyn Duke is a columnist whose work is widely published on the Internet. His articles have also appeared in the print media, on both the local and national levels. | More from Selwyn Duke
Stumble It!
Obla-di, isn’t this exactly the problem in Amerika? We can’t have dialogue about ANY PC issues. It’s why the 52% minority of women yell and holler at every suggestion that there are differences between the sexes. If true, there’s a bunch of questions to be answered.
Same same w/race.
Without the dialogue there’s no real answer to Watson’s statement. What if it is true?
Then what? The whole earth blows up?
Read Clarance Thomas’ recent statements about his Yale education, he always felt people wouldn’t hire him because he feels they looked at him as a quota, not a real lawyer.
The problem in our culture really is the emporer has no clothes on, we all know but are afraid to voice the argument.
Sure there are plenty of really stupid white people, hell look at George Bush, but to make a statement about a black or latino, in ANY regard risks being charged with a hate crime.
No discussion = No real answers.
Same with ANY discussion about females. That’s why Katie Couric makes 15 million bucks a year and disparages men. No ONE will stand up to her.
I’m not a genealogist either. However, it seems rather clear to me that there is a genetic link to intelligence and many other attributes. That is not to say that only genetics determines ones intelligence, but is a component. Just look at canine breeds, Australian sheep dogs have higher measured intelligence than golden retrievers. However, the value of golden retrievers to a hunter is substantially higher in comparison to that of the sheep dogs. All dogs are equal in the eyes of God, and each dog has its own strengths and weaknesses, neither breed is any less of a dog. There is no such thing as the perfect dog, they are all unequivocally imperfect. Some may call me a “breedist”, but I hold these truths to be self evident.
The fact that one breed has different strengths and weaknesses, doesn’t conflict with theories of environmental influences. On the contrary, it proves the opposite. All dog breeds came from one source, the Wolf. Yes, they evolved into separate breeds through environmental and cross breeding techniques. Thus, they are all equal as dogs, but with different attributes.
Fred Reed couldn’t keep quiet and covers this subject impeccable detail in his latest rant.
See: http://www.fredoneverything.net/watson.shtml
‘ Aside from his remarks being deemed baseless and unscientific, he has quite predictably been labeled “racist.” ‘
I’d say that with the way the press has handled things, it was only a matter of time before someone called him a racist. In fact, it might have been the “journalists” writing sensational articles giving the impression of racism who used the label in their own second breath.
I think I’ll wait until his book is made into a movie that is shown on TV or at least is out on DVD before making a decision. Sorry for seeming to pull out – but I’m old – and I’ve seen this sort of thing too many times before. Despite the importance of the issue, these constant cycles of conflict (often manufactured by trouble-makers for the most trivial self-involved reasons) have gotten old.
Evolution of culture: I watched a documentary recently – this was something related to real science rather than sci-fi – which related rapid advanced cultural development in / from the “furtile crescent” to the ability to sustain agriculture. This ability was linked to climate and to the evolved flora (including quite importantly grains) and fauna sustainable in some regions such that agriculture could flourish. This in turn allowed organized agricultural practices to be successful, that freed time and labor for other types of cultural development. Regions in which cultural development has been much poorer do not have a climate suitable for these practices and exploitation of native plants and animals are extremely labor intensive; not allowing free time to pursue development of other elements of culture.
I’ll admit to watching Logan’s Run recently, including a second time to listen to the commentary included with the DVD. I also watched Silent Running twice. These two movies had an enormous impact on my generation. The latter may have created the hideous monster known as Al Gore. “Things to Come” and other ancient, deeply philosophical (
) expressions of wisdom are on order.
Although I have not seen Idiocracy, it seems to me that the problem with dysgenics is that the incentives produced by a more advanced culture would be short lived if it worked. People would become too stupid to maintain them with any success and the stupid population would collapse. Nature would then have its way, with an advantage for those better able to survive.
The comment above by ebjjs reminds me of a movie that I will confess to watching recently. It’s called “Idiocracy.” It is a pretty dumb movie, but it starts with a premise that seems to have some validity. Humanity is at the point of “evolving backwards” today, because people with lower IQ’s tend to be the ones with the largest progeny. If you accept the hypothesis of Darwinism, then you have to accept the fact that evolution can go both ways when a species tends to selectively reproduce for incentives other than “survival of the fittest.” Shockley, who by the way invented the transistor, said it and was branded a heretic. If this were the 17th century he probably would have been burned at the stake.
Anybody else admit to seeing “Idiocracy”? What did you think?
I’ve commented elsewhere that what I’ve read in the press (which always prefers conflict and contraversy) is that Watson thinks we are different. My impulsive reaction was more along the lines of buying the book to find out more about what Watson really says and what he believes. (Another motivation of writers presenting a book of course – to sell the book – still might be falling for a promotional trap.)
What does seem clear from the small amount of information in the article is that Watson, a Nobel Laureate in the field of genetics, thinks that populations that were historically separated could be genetically different. If he’s wrong about the prinicple, then we all have to rethink Darwinism. He apparently believes – not surprisingly I think – that if there is a genetic difference related to intelligence, then we will eventually find a genetic difference after discovering intelligence genes. Not being a geneticist myself – I don’t really know how contraversial that idea is among genetisists. My thoughts on what intelligence is leads me to think the genetic relationship to intelligence might not be that simple.
But let’s assume for the sake of argument that it turns out that Watson is correct. That would mean that there is a genetic relationship betwen intelligence and the history of culture. So might those people be correct that have claimed that IQ tests are culturally biased. OK now that’s just for the sake of argument.
What’s at stake it seems to me, has to do with public reaction if genetisists tell us that they found intelligence genes (I suspect some will claim to) and then tell us that there’s a difference in the makeup of these intelligence genes based on race. What then? Regardless of genes providing a very physical basis for differences, there are interpretations to be made and perhaps attitudes to be adjusted. If we can face such a thing intelligently, (“it’s not a problem, it’s an opportunity”) then the outcome of such a discovery need not be negative.
It has to do with the way we learn and solve problems. If I can compare to the whole deadbeat dad propaganda effort, some of you may recall how many people failed to look deeply enough, and proceeded from the superficial assumptions about deadbeat dads. The only way we found to battle the negative was to dig deeper – which a few researchers did.
Much as Shockley’s work was labeled “racist” when he supposedly said similar things his premise wasn’t that blacks were inherently less smart than whites, it was that those blacks who were less smart were multiplying at a much faster rate than those at the other end of the bell curve thus creating the intelligence gap. While I’m at it I think I will develop an outrage that Orientals generally show up 7 or 8 IQ points ahead of whites on standardized testing and demand congressional hearings to suppress this
“inconvenient truth”.
Okay this is really bad: Nobody would assert that Africans are without rhyme or reason, but an argument must be made that they prefer rhyme with their reason.
James Watson’s comment was “Africans are not as intelligent as Westerners.” He had extended comments I can’t find right now, but the context was clearly evolution. Only people who accept Christianity have the irrational moral high ground to judge the evil in this statement based on scriptures. All who accept Darwinism must rationally accept the scientific method of observing the fossil record, looking at raw data about human behavior, presenting a theory, testing that theory to prove whether it is true or false. This man is a scientist and is only subject to the rules of science. If anybody doesn’t like that then stop making science absolute and stop making scientists the experts to which you turn for all your answers. It was this kind of Darwinism that led to the Nazi idea of survival of the fittest group theirs, and genocide to the inferior groups. This statement about Africans is a theory being presented in a scientific method and demonstrates to everyone that the evil that drove the Nazis lives on.
Only Christians who believe in a recent creation have the irrational moral authority to judge this as evil racism. Probably many scriptures fit but the one that popped into my head was Acts 17:26 “From one man God made every nation of men that they should inhabit the whole earth.”