The Fallacy of Racism
Kirk Straughen
(Investigator 155, 2014
March)
Racism is the belief that there are fundamental
differences in
intelligence between the various races of Mankind, and that these
differences have determined their respective cultures. In addition,
there is also the associated belief that there are superior races
(usually ones' own) that have the right to exploit those who are deemed
to be lesser breeds of men.
These ideas are exemplified by such works as the Reverend Buckner H
Payne's The Negro: What is His Ethnological Status? (1867), in which he
arrived at the conclusion that Negroes were soulless animals; Charles
Carroll's The Negro a Beast (1900) and The Tempter of Eve (1902), in
which he argued that Negroes were merely higher apes created to serve
the white race, that the Serpent was a Negro, and that Negroes should
be considered more animal than man. Unfortunately, some of Carroll's
views still find favour in parts of the American South.
As can be seen, Negroes have been subjected to considerable
discrimination, therefore this article will focus on the claims made
concerning their alleged inferiority, and address the following
questions: Are Negroes, or for that matter any other race, more like
apes than men? Is there such a thing as racial purity or a Master Race?
Are there differences in intelligence between the various races of
Mankind? If so, then is the cause heredity, environment or both?
The Nature of Race
Because the word "race" is often misunderstood and misused, it is
essential that I correct any misconceptions people may have before
proceeding further:
"Very
broadly
speaking a race is a population of individuals of similar physical type
occupying the same area, habitually interbreeding and having historical
continuity. Modern anthropologists recognise about thirty of such
races, although the number could be made much higher or lower according
to the criteria used." (R. Carrington: A Million Years of Man, page 119)
Mankind can be divided into the following groups: (l) Major
Geographical Races - the populations of the Earth's continents. (2)
Local Races - the distinguishable populations within continental
divisions. (3) Micro-races - the distinguishable populations within
local races.
In this article, I shall only list the major geographical races, which
are as follows: (1) Amerindian. (2) Polynesian. (3) Micronesian. (4)
Melanesian-Papuan. (5) Australoid. (6) Asiatic. (7) Indian. (8)
European. (9) African, commonly referred to as Negro, or Black.
As can be seen, race refers to purely physical characteristics. Culture
and mental attributes such as intelligence and temperament do not enter
the definition. Indeed, racial differences are merely physical
adaptations to different environments — skin colour (the primary source
of prejudice), for example, is due to different concentrations of the
pigment melanin, that helps protect our skin from the harmful effects
of ultraviolet light which, in excessive amounts, can cause skin
cancer.
Not surprisingly, races with high concentrations of melanin, and
therefore dark skin, are usually found in the equatorial regions of the
world where sunlight is more intense, whereas pale skinned races are
usually native to less sunny climes. Naturally, there are variations in
the skin colour of people inhabiting hot climates. For example, the
people of the North African desert region have skin colours ranging
from light tan to almost black, and from this fact it is clear there
are additional factors responsible for Mankind's variety of skin
colours, one of which is probably the intermarriage between different
racial groups in antiquity.
From a biological point of view, there is no such thing as an inferior
race, as each one is suited to the environmental conditions that led to
its development. Unfortunately, these facts are ignored by racists who
often claim that Negroes display ape-like characteristics, and are
therefore less evolved than Europeans. This belief is totally
unjustifiable because the human evolutionary line diverged from that of
all other primates approximately 35 million years ago. Indeed, all
modern races are descended from fully human ancestors:
"All
human
varieties living at present derived from a relatively small group of
early men of the Homo sapiens type, originating perhaps half a million
years ago. As this small but variable group increased numerically, and
segments moved into different climatic and geographical regions,
genetic isolation and differential selection probably led to the
formation of numerous population strains. These, in turn gave rise to
further races down to the present time. With continuous changes taking
place, clearly no contemporary population exactly resembles the
original Homo sapiens men, nor can it be claimed that any particular
races are purer or less changed than others." (P.J. Fisher: The
Universe, Life & Man, page 211)
Racists fail to realise that because of our evolutionary heritage, all
human beings, irrespective of race, have ape-like features. For
example, the features of Whites that most resemble those of apes are
our thin lips and extensive body hair, whereas these features are least
ape-like in Negroes. Given that this is so, is it justifiable to claim
that Whites can be classified as subhuman because of these facts? Is it
logical to deny a person their humanity on such spurious grounds as the
colour of their skin, or the size of their lips?
Race & Intelligence
Intelligence tests have shown that there are differences in
intelligence quotients (IQ) between Negroes and Whites. However, the
question is: are these differences the result of environment or
heredity. Before I examine this question, it will be helpful if I
outline some of the assumptions associated with intelligence and
intelligence tests.
The first assumption many people make is that intelligence is an
unchanging innate cognitive ability that can be measured independently
of environmental factors, and that IQ scores accurately reflect mental
abilities. This belief is erroneous.
Research has shown that there is a link between IQ scores and the level
of education of the person tested. For example, during World War I the
psychologist Robert M Yerkes persuaded the United States Army to
conduct intelligence tests on recruits. The data obtained from the
tests indicated that Blacks scored much lower than Whites, and this was
taken as evidence that the result was due to genetic factors.
However, when the data was re-examined by Ashley Montagu in 1945, he
found that there was a direct correlation between education and IQ
score — 50% of Negro recruits
from
Northern states had reached 5th grade and 25% had completed primary
school, whereas in the South, 50% had not gone beyond 3rd grade and
only 7% had completed primary school. As a consequence, the average
scores for Negroes from the four highest Northern states exceeded the
White mean for nine Southern states. Moreover, there was also a high
correlation between the education expenditure of a state, and the
average score of its recruits.
Additional evidence that IQ scores measure education, rather than
innate intelligence, comes from such studies as the one conducted by
Professor IH. Rohrer on the Osage Amerindians, and published in the Journal
of Social Psychology, in 1942.
The Osage Indians were very fortunate in that oil was discovered on
their reservation after the land was given to them by the US
government. As a result of the income derived from this find, the Osage
were able to attain social, educational and economic standards well in
advance of most Amerindian communities. The results of the test, and
conclusions are as follows:
"On
two
different tests, one a non-language test, the second depending on
language, they obtained average IQs of 104 and 100 respectively. The
apparent inferiority of American Indian children disappeared
completely; if anything, they were slightly superior to the white
children. There can be no doubt in this case that when American Indian
children are given educational opportunities comparable to those of
whites, their test results improve correspondingly." (O. Klineberg:
Race and Psychology, page 193 in Race Science and Society)
In view of the
fact that
the degree and quality of education, and other environmental factors
play a role in determining IQ scores, it is more accurate to say that
these tests measure scholastic achievement rather than genetically
determined innate intelligence:
“IQ
is not, and
could not be, a measure of cognitive abilities abstracted from all
social and motivational factors. In as much as IQ tests measure
anything, they measure the likelihood of educational and social success
in a particular society. This is not to deny that cognitive abilities
do contribute to such success, but rather to claim that it is
impossible to consider such abilities in isolation from their social
determination and expression. The assumption on the part of
intelligence-test constructors that this is possible, combined with
their preoccupation with the technical details of test construction,
has given the concept of IQ a quite spurious aura of scientific
respectability." (J. Ryan: IQ - The Illusion of Objectivity, page 54 in
Race, Culture and Intelligence)
As well as sociological factors, there are also psychological factors
that can influence IQ test scores, and this is demonstrated by the fact
that the race of the person supervising the test can influence the
performance of the subjects — Negroes in America score, on average, six
points lower when tested by Whites than when tested by members of their
own race:
"As
early as
1936 it was known that when the IQ of American Negroes was tested by
white and Negro testers, the Negroes scored, on average, six points
lower when tested by whites than by Negroes ... between 1936 and the
1960s at least two other studies had shown results strikingly similar
to this earlier one." (P. Watson: Can Racial Discrimination Affect IQ?,
page 59 in Race, Culture and Intelligence.)
In 1968 and 1971 experiments were conducted by Peter Watson on West
Indian students in Britain with similar results — the Black students
produced scores several points higher when a Black person was
conducting the test when compared to when a White person was conducting
the test. These results suggest the following:- Many Blacks are aware
that some Whites have a poor opinion of their abilities, and when
placed in a situation where they feel they have to "prove" their
intelligence to a White person, become intimidated, and the resulting
stress diminishes their performance.
Naturally, some people may still maintain that differences in IQ scores
between Negroes and Whites indicate a difference in innate genetically
determined intelligence. This belief, which can be called a
hereditarian theory of IQ, is unsound because it rests on two basic
fallacies:
"The
hereditarian fallacy is not the simple claim that IQ is to some degree
"heritable" ... The hereditarian fallacy resides in two false
implications drawn from this basic fact: The equation of "heritable"
with "inevitable." To a biologist, heritability refers to the passage
of traits or tendencies along family lines as a result of genetic
transmission. It says little about the range of environmental
modification to which these traits are subject...
2. The
confusion of
within — and between — group heredity... The common fallacy consists in
assuming that if heredity explains a certain percentage of variation
among individuals within a group, it must also explain a similar
percentage of the difference in average IQ between groups — Whites and
Blacks, for example. But variation among individuals within a group and
differences in mean values between groups are entirely separate
phenomena. One item provides no licence for speculation about the
other." (S.J. Gould: The Mismeasure of Man, pages 155-156.)
Because Negroes are subjected to different environmental influences
(due to discrimination) than Whites, it is not logically possible to
make a connection between biological differences in race and
differences in IQ scores between the races. This becomes apparent when
we use a less emotive example:- If a bag of seeds is divided equally
into two groups — Sl and S2, with Sl being planted in fertile soil and
S2 in barren soil. Naturally, the plants that develop from S1 flourish
while those from S2 are stunted.
Now, if we study the height of the Sl and S2plants, in an attempt to
determine the extent to which heredity is responsible, we are likely to
find genetic differences between these plants and the parent plant from
which the seed was harvested, as well as genetic differences between Sl
and S2. However, these differences can't be linked to differences in
their respective height as this is due to different environmental
conditions. The same situation applies to the difference in QI scores
between Negroes and Whites.
Race, Geography and Culture
Racists often assume that the level of technology is an indicator of
superiority/inferiority, and their argument usually runs something like
this: "The various cultures of Africa were not as technologically
advanced as that of Europeans. Their culture was backward because it
was the product of inferior minds." This belief is false because there
is more to civilization than the ability to manufacture fast cars or
atomic bombs. Indeed, the findings of those anthropologists,
archaeologists and historians who have studied the cultures of Africa
can be broadly summarised as follows:
"Though
far
behind Europe in their technical knowledge, Africans are now known to
have been skilfully inventive in many ways. They developed tropical
farming techniques that have scarcely been bettered to this day. They
were good miners and metalworkers, producing, among other things, a
steady supply of the gold that went into medieval European currencies,
and without which those currencies might well have been impossible.
They were astute businessmen, as more than one non-African merchant had
occasion to know. They operated political and social systems of
considerable flexibility and sophistication. They were superb
sculptors." (B. Davidson: African Kingdoms, page 22.)
The civilisations of Africa, at the time of their discovery by
Europeans, were not as technologically advanced as those of Western
people; however, this is not an indication that African people were
incapable of achieving an advanced culture. The level of technical
achievement is dependent on other factors that will become apparent
when we consider the following brief sketch of Western civilization's
indebtedness to other cultures.
Our culture's art, ethics, philosophy, politics and science are all
derived from, or have been influenced by the ideas from ancient Greek
civilization, and the Greeks, in turn, were stimulated by contact with
the older civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia. Rome and her empire
were also influenced by Greek thought, and to the Romans we owe much in
the way of law, administration and engineering.
With the collapse of the Roman Empire, Western Europe declined, and
only fragmentary classical texts on science were preserved. For
example, Plato's Timaeus (first 53 chapters), some of Aristotle's
logical works (Logica Vetus), Dioscorides' Materia Medica, excerpts of
Lucretius' De Rerum Natura, Vitruvius' De Architectura, Seneca's
Quaestiones Naturales, and Pliny's Historia Naturalis.
Fortunately, a large amount of Greek learning was transmitted to
Islamic civilization. The Arabs in turn were stimulated by Greek ideas,
and also by their contact with Indian civilization. Sicily and Spain
became the chief centres of Arabic and Greek science, and from here
knowledge flowed back into Europe so that by about 1000 to 1100 AD the
following Latin translations of Arabic texts were known (note, this is
not a complete list):
The Jabir ibn Hayyan corpus (various works on chemistry);
Al¬Khwarizmi's Liber Ysagogarum Alchorismi (arithmetic),
Astronomical tables (trigonometry), Algebra; Alkindi's De Umbris
Aspectibus, De Umbris et de Diversitate Aspectuum; Thabit ibn Qurra's
Liber Charastonis (on the Roman balance); Rhaze's De Aluminibus et
Salibus (a work on chemistry), Liber Continens (a medical
encyclopedia); Alfarabis' Distinctio super Librum Aristotelis de
Naturali Auditu; Haly Abbas' Liber Regalis (a medical encyclopedia); a
pseudo-Aristotle work - De Proprietatibus Elementorum (an Arabic work
on geology); Alhazen's Opticae Thesaurus; Avicenna's physical and
philosophical part of the Kitab al-Shifa (a commentary on Aristotle),
De Mineralibus (geological and alchemical part of the Kitab al-Shifa),
Canon (a medical encyclopedia); Alpetragius' Liber Astronomiae
(Aristotelian concentric system); Averroes' commentaries on Physica, De
Caelo et Mundo, De Anima and other works; and finally Liber Abaci by
Leonardo Fibonacci of Pisa, the first complete account of Hindu
numerals.
This flow of ideas from Greek and Islamic culture stimulated European
civilization and eventually led to the Renaissance, and the beginnings
of modern science in the 17th and 18th centuries. As can be seen,
Western civilization achieved its greatness because it was able to
build on the achievements of other cultures. The reason why African
peoples never developed a civilization comparable to our own is because
they were geographically isolated from the intellectual ferment that
stimulated Europe and produced the culture we enjoy today.
Another factor that can hinder the development of a culture is the
absence of domesticable plants and animals — the very foundations of
civilization. For example, the Australian Aborigines have often been
considered inferior because they did not develop beyond the
hunter-gatherer stage. However, what native Australian plant could fill
the role wheat played in the development of civilization in the Near
East? And what native Australian animal could fill the role horses
played in agriculture and warfare?
In the Near East there were more than twelve varieties of plants that
were highly productive in the wild, and therefore easily domesticated
and transformed into cereals such as wheat. In addition there were
domesticable animals such as horses, cows, pigs and goats. By contrast,
Australia had none of these species, and it is little wonder that in
their absence, Aboriginal culture never advanced beyond the
hunter-gatherer stage:
"Continental
differences in civilization, then, weren't an accident caused by a few
individual geniuses. Nor were they the result of average differences in
inventiveness among whole peoples. Instead, they were determined by
geography, which sets ground rules for the biology of all plant and
animal species, including our own. In the long run, and on a broad
scale, where we live makes us who we are." (J. Diamond: The Accidental
Conqueror, page 76 in Discover, Vol. 10 No. 12.)
Racism: Its Origin and Cause
Finally, no essay on racism would be complete without some attempt to
get to the heart of the matter and address the following question: What
is the origin and cause of racism? However, before I begin to outline
the origins of racism, it is best to list the three basic conditions
that can give rise to the phenomena:
1.
There must
be two or more social groups, identifiable by their visible physical
characteristics or cultural practices. Unless people are aware of
differences between the groups and are able to identify people as
belonging to one group rather than another, racism cannot develop.
2.
There must be
competition between groups for valued resources, such as power, land,
or jobs. In this situation, members of one group will be inclined to
secure their own interests by denying members of the other groups full
access to resources.
3. The
groups must be
unequal in power, enabling one of them to make good its claim over
scarce resources at the expense of the other group or groups. At this
stage inequalities become structured into society." (I. Robertson:
Sociology, page 287)
Racist ideas started to develop after European powers seized vast
tracts of land in Africa, Asia and the Pacific, thus fulfilling
condition 1 — contact between different cultures and peoples.
This in turn led to condition 2 — Europeans wanted the resources of
those lands they invaded and, as they were more technologically
advanced, could easily dominate the indigenous population, thus
fulfilling condition 3.
Racism, then, originally arose from the sociological and psychological
factors associated with colonialism, where Europeans subjugated
non-Europeans and, as a consequence, were forced to justify their
actions — it is easier to dominate, enslave and abuse other human
beings if you can convince yourself that they are little better than
animals.
No evidence exists that is capable of supporting the assumption that
Mankind can be divided into superior and inferior races. Indeed, those
who claim to be superior have, on the whole, treated those they deemed
to be inferior in such a reprehensible manner, that their very actions
have negated all claims to a higher rank among human beings.
Bibliography
Carrington, R. A. Million Years of Man, The New American
Library of World Literature Inc., New York, 1964.
Crombie, A.C. Augustine to Galileo, Mercury Books,
London, 1964.
Davidson, B. African Kingdoms, Time-Life International, 1967.
Diamond. J. The Accidental Conqueror, Discover, Vol. 10 No. 12,
Discover Publications Inc., New York, 1989.
Fisher, P.J. The Universe, Life & Man, William Heinemann
Ltd., London, 1970.
Gardner, M. Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science, Dover
Publications Inc., New York, 1957.
Gould, M. The Mismeasure of Man, W.W. Norton & Co., New
York. 1981.
Klineberg, O. Race and Psychology, in Kuper, L. (Ed) Race Science
and Society, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London. 1975.
Robertson, I. Sociology, 2nd Edition, Worth Publishers
Inc., New York, 1977.
Swartz. M.J & Anthropology: Perspective on Humanity, John
Wiley & Sons, Jordan, D.K. Inc., New York, 1976.
Watson, P. Can Racial Discrimination Affect IQ, in Richardson, K. (Ed)
& Spears, D. (Ed), Race, Culture & Intelligence,
Penguin Books Ltd., England, 1973.
ON RACE
(Investigator
156, 2014 May)
Mr Straughen (#155) argues that no "races" are inferior to other races.
He accepts that distinct races exist and lists nine of them but has
relied excessively on older books published 40 or 50 years ago.
Gail Vines in New Scientist (1 July 1995) reviews Jonathan
Marks' book Human Biodiversity and writes:
Marks
uses a
combination of history and biology to show that conventional notions of
human "races", as well as scientific theories current earlier this
century, are and were intellectually bankrupt; modern molecular
genetics has established that genetic profiles cannot divide humanity
into any definitive types. There are no genetic markers for "race" or
"ethnicity": even the few genes apparently found only among "Africans"
or "Jews" or "Chinese", for instance, are by no means possessed by all
the individuals designated to such groups…the very idea of "race" is
biological nonsense.
Scientific
American (September 2003) says:
…individuals
from different populations are, on average, just slightly more
different from one another than are individuals from the same
population.
Polymorphisms
[small
variations in DNA] that occur at different frequencies around the world
can, however, be used to sort people roughly into groups…
Given
that people can be
sorted broadly into groups using genetic data, do common notions of
race correspond to underlying genetic, differences? In some cases they
do, but often they don't. For instance, skin color or facial features —
traits influenced by natural selection — are routinely used to divide
people into races. But groups with similar physical characteristics can
be quite different genetically. Individuals from sub-Saharan African
and Australian Aborigines might have similar skin pigmentation…but
genetically they are quite dissimilar. (pp 52, 53, 55)
Anonymous