6/29/97, James M. Blaut wrote, addressing dlj:
>dlj: If you think its in the genes, how would you respond if someone were to
>point out that this sounds just a bit like racism?
No doubt, Jim, it was with a wry expression that you posted this
deceptively simple question.
My observation is that well-minded folk have rightly recoiled from
situations where people have been hated, discriminated against, enslaved,
massacred, etc., on the basis of race.
As an over-reaction to this, I claim, there has been a "liberal" tendency
to pretend all races are the same, that all observed differences are
environmental. This has been accompanied by a tendency to discredit ideas
of inherited traits in general. If people can only be brainwashed into
being "color blind", the reasoning seems to go, then equality and justice
might prevail.
Well-minded or not, an over-reaction is an over-reaction - well-meaning
falsehood is not truth, and in the long run counter-productive.
The refusal to recognize that inheritance of behavioral characteristics
(both at the species and parental levels) does happen makes it impossible
to properly interpret human evolution and the human potential, and fatally
confuses thinking about what kind of conditioning or education would
actually be useful in making society more harmonious. Keeping toy guns
away from kids, for example, will not banish warfare from the world, nor
even reduce its frequency.
There ARE racial differences. The most important proviso to these
differences - a proviso that needs to be understood widely - is that the
WIDTH of the various by-race bell curves (IQ-ability, running ability,
musical ability, basketball ability, whatever) is very broad: individual
differences are greater than racial differences. One race's bell curve
(for a given metric, and after adjusting for environmental advantage) may
be off-center from another's, but the two mostly overlap. A given person,
regardless of race, may be the best or worst person for a given job, to
have as a neighbor, etc.
Race alone, regardless of aggregate differences, is never a very useful
discriminator in any individual case, for any particular preference
criterion (intelligence, industriousness, etc.)
To deny diffences in such bell curves is to deny reality, and such denial,
in my opinion, has lent fuel to what seems to be a resurgance of overt
racism. The liberal line, so to speak, has been discredited by experience,
and respect for liberal-minded thinking in general has declined. That's
what I mean by saying that non-truth is ultimately counter-productive.
Racism is partly the confusion of aggregate differences with individual
differences, the belief that bell-curves have zero width, and that one race
can be considered "superior" on that basis, for whatever given metric.
Another aspect of this question is IQ-chauvanism. Where did the idea come
from that IQ is more important or valuable to humanity than artistic
ability, musical ability, ability to work harmoniously with others, or the
ability/tendency to love and nurture? Where is it written that the best
society includes only Mensa members? Boring! Diversity is not only
strength - it is also delightfully interesting.
IQ-chauvanism is more generally harmful than simply its racist application
- for example, it distorts the education system for everyone. Education is
too focused on individual, left-brain, intellectual development - at the
expense of creativity, art, teamwork, and exploration of personal
preferences and potential.
Sorry - have to stop here - girlfriend just arrived to take me to the pub.
rkm