Tom Paine
Race is a Myth, Genetic Bases for It Are a Myth
Fri Jul 4 03:42:55 2003
208.152.73.97

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Race is a Myth, and So-called Genetic Bases for It Are a Myth
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 22:34:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Paine tompaine1917@yahoo.com

07/04/03 - Friday

Dear All:

The allegation that there's a genetic basis for racial
differences is anti-scientific hogwash.

Spencer Wells, one of the world's eminent modern
geneticists, and Richard C. Lewontin, another of the
world's eminent modern geneticists, have demonstrated
well beyond a reasonable doubt that so-called
differences in intelligence supposedly genetically
based are pseudo-science in the service of social and
political ideology. Very bluntly, race is a myth.

It is unfortunately not always easy to say that,
either to those who alibi racism from the right, the
obvious place, or, on the other hand, to those who
falsely present themselves as some kinds of "leftists"
and argue for some essentially politics of "people of
color," thereby by that phrase essentially eliminating
from the category of color whites.

The problem is, every single human being on the planet
earth is of African background. Every one of us. Bar
none. That means, quite literally, every person
living in America is, precisely and scientifically
speaking, African-American. Everyone. Bar none.

Race is a social and a political construct. That's
historically what it's always been.

The Nazis argued there was some kind of fundamental
scientific basis for race. They developed an entirely
spurious "eugenics" based on this false view.

But the best minds among anthropologists, including
the eminent black anthropologist, Dr. J. A. Rogers, in
any number of his fine books in the teens and 1920s of
the 20th Century, demonstrated that, as one of his
great books was entitled, "Nature Knows No Color
Line."

The great and highly enlightened and progressive
anthropologist, Ashley Montagu, away back in the 1940s
and even in the 1950s when it was highly unpopular,
argued two very controversial views: (1) that race
was a myth, and man's most dangerous one, and (2) that
women were naturally superior to men. Montagu was
anti-racist, and very liberal in his viewpoints.

In the 1970s, the great scientist, the late Stephen
Jay Gould, authored one of the finest works on the
pseudo-science -- essentially fake "science" -- on the
basis of which centuries of people working in science
held to the fiction that there were inherent racial
differences. This great book of his was entitled,
"The Mismeasure of Man," and it remains to this day
one of his greatest books on the history of science,
and, particularly, the history of the mis-use of
science in the service of racial oppression. Gould
pointed to the similarity of the pernicious and
anti-scientific notions of "phrenology" -- essentially
the false and bogus and now completely discredited
notion that skull size and shape had something to do
with intelligence -- used by many scientists in
earlier times to the kinds of fake notions the Nazis
used to rationalize putting Jews into a different
category than non-Jews.

In 1985, Gould compiled a collection of some of his
essays from the American Museum of Natural History
magazine, "Natural History," into a wonderful book
entitled, "The Flamingo's Smile." One of those essays
on the contingency of human equality went at great
length into allegations of some kind of genetic basis
for so-called and supposedly "fixed" differences among
people. The essay demolished the entire basis for the
allegation. Gould based his argument on the very
meticulous genetic work of his colleague, Richard
Lewontin, who, by the way, had authored one of the
great standard college textbooks in genetics, "The
Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change." Lewontin had
shown by the scientific technology in use by
geneticists in the 1970s and 1980s that the
differences among diverse populations were, from a
statistical standpoint, trivial. That's another way
of saying, throughout the entire planet earth, in
terms of our DNA and our genetics, from the blackest
black person to the whitest white person and everyone
in between, we're essentially one species.

More recently, Spencer Wells in his very interesting
documentary on PBS, "The Human Journey," based on his
book of the same name, followed Homo Sapiens -- the
name of the species of humankind who now inhabit the
planet earth, and have inhabited and dominated the
planet earth for roughly the past 100 thousand years
-- all the way back to our origins. Modern genetics
based on the technology of following genetic markers,
and much more sophisticated methods of looking at
population migrations, can follow them back thousands
upon thousands of years.

At the end of his documentary, Wells is unambiguous.
He says, "The result of my work is very simple.
Racism is not merely divisive. It is, from the
standpoint of irrefutable hard scientific data,
wrong."

Modern science, in other words, has concluded that
race is a myth.

Or, in other words, it's been a social and a political
construct for centuries and millenia.

Those who argue the old, tattered, and utterly
discredited notion of so-called "genetic" bases for
racial differences are, quite literally, either lying,
or, if they're not lying, speaking simply from utter
and complete ignorance.

Best to all,
Al (Allan B.) Greene
"tompaine1917@yahoo.com"

PS: One of the best articles on the work of the late
Stephen Jay Gould was an article which appeared on his
life's work in science, particularly as it pertained
to the demolition of every shred of racism's alleged
"credibility" in the Marxist political newspaper,
"Workers Vanguard." It appeared some months ago, and
was entitled, as I recall, "In Honor of Stephen Jay
Gould." Gould was no Marxist. He was a liberal.

But he was an objective, hard-nosed scientist, and he
was ruthless and merciless in demolishing the lying
racist crap that goes for "science" in circles of
people who put forth lies and fictions as "science."




--- ranger116@webtv.net wrote:
> In Defense of Racism, Part 1 - Overview
> In Defense of "Racism"
> Part 1 - Overview
> by Edgar J. Steele
> June 30, 2003
> Part 1 - Overview (released June 30, 2003)
> Part 2 - Intellectual Myths (to be released)
> Part 3 - Genetic Realities (to be released)
> Part 4 - Cultural Imperatives (to be released)
> Part 5 - National Disasters (to be released)
> Part 6 - The Future (to be released)
> "Racism works. Racism is good."
> (with apologies to Gordon Gecko, as played
> by
> Michael Douglas in "Wall Street")
> Of course, whether racism "works" depends upon one's
> definition. One
> man's racism is another's multiculturalism,
> another's hell and yet
> another's nirvana. I'm not even going to bother
> with dictionary
> definitions. Let's deal in today's realities,
> instead.
> "Racist" is a term applied not only to one who
> prefers one race to
> another, but also to those who think their race is
> superior and more
> deserving. Racist is an epithet in almost all
> contexts. Even those
> who might properly be called racist prefer to think
> of themselves as
> "racialists," as though the slight word change makes
> a difference to
> anybody but themselves. Racist connotes bigotry,
> the unthinking
> rejection of another based upon his or her skin
> color. Racist implies
> stereotyping, whereby certain negative
> characteristics found in certain
> members of a race are attributed to all members of
> that race. Are we
> on the same page here?
> In truth, "racist" is just as quickly applied to
> many who seek simple
> equality with others, most notably outspoken white
> people in America
> these days. In fact, there are those who argue,
> with a straight face,
> that only white people are capable of being racist.
> Thus, the term
> has lost much of its currency, together with its
> legitimacy.
> Racist has become like "antisemite;" applied with a
> broad brush to
> swaths of humanity, usually those simply disliked by
> jews for any
> reason, who have co-opted the term "semite" for
> themselves, just as they
> previously co-opted the word "jew."
> Interestingly, often the very same people quick to
> accuse one of
> antisemitism are the very ones who label others
> racist, too.
> Accusation, conviction and sentence, all in a single
> word: racist.
> There is no defense. Those who bluster about how
> they are not racists
> merely become more tightly embraced by that
> particular tar baby.
> However, just as I previously have written credibly
> in support of
> antisemitism ( In Defense of Anti-Semitism
> ), so, too, is racism susceptible of being
> defended.
> Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes to the bone,
> some cynically
> jest. Many argue that the only difference between
> the races is skin
> color. If true, our discussion would end right
> here, because then
> racism of any sort truly would be reprehensible
> conduct. However,
> they are wrong. Race goes beyond the bone, in fact,
> and is lodged
> deeply in our DNA.
> A popular current myth is that there is no
> intellectual difference
> between races, despite contrary results derived in
> virtually every study
> of intellect ever done by anybody. This myth also
> flies in the face
> of the personal experience of nearly every human
> being alive.
> If one can inherit a superior muscle structure, as
> can readily be
> confirmed by the barest of glances at the racial
> makeup of pro sports
> rosters, then why is it such a stretch for so many
> to believe that
> superior intellect is genetically encoded, as well?
> Because those
> same myth purveyors believe that superior intellect
> makes for
> superiority, period, that's why. The good news is
> that they are wrong
> about the superiority thing. The bad news is that
> they are wrong
> about the lack of racial intellectual differences.
> The worse news is
> that they are in charge.
> Because raw intellect is measured so easily, there
> really can be no
> rational contesting the obvious differences in
> racial IQs. That has
> become, for me, a singularly uninteresting
> question. For those who
> might take issue with me on this topic and come away
> disappointed by my
> disinterest, there are many books and research study
> reports. Perhaps
> the best is "The Bell Curve." Read it. Do your own
> research.
> Think it out for yourself. Until you can overcome
> your programming by
> this simple precursor, the rest of my discussion
> will be a waste of time
> for you.
> The more interesting questions concern differences
> brought about by
> racial culture, on the one hand, and one's genetic
> structure, on the
> other. IQ merely is one result of genetic
> determination, after all,
> as is skin color. Character, for lack of a better
> term, is a far more
> important result, one that only recently is being
> recognized for having
> a genetic component at all. We come to life with a
> full set of
> matching luggage, already partially filled on the
> day we are born;
> indeed, on the day we are conceived. As we grow up,
> our culture,
> composed of those around us, especially those with
> whom we identify,
> allows us to complete the packing of our matching
> luggage, which we then
> drag with us through every moment of our lives.
> Culture and genetic predispostion or proclivity are
> mere kissing
> cousins, in my opinion. I like to think of genetics
> as being culture
> and prior behavior gone to seed. By the way, this
> outlook works
> whether one believes in evolution or creation as the
> source of man.
> In animals, we call this cuture-gone-to-seed
> "instinct," of course.
> We humans often confuse it with reincarnation or
> various forms of
> extrasensory perception. It is a far more important
> cause of racial
> differences than intellect and has led to some, if
> not most, of the
> national disasters throughout history.
> By now, you should be agreeing with how irrelevant
> skin color
> differences are, incidentally, yet another
> uninteresting question. We
> have much bigger fish to fry in this particular
> series.
> I know - some reading this wonder if I am a racist.
> Well, it depends,
> of course. The more interesting question is whether
> you are a
> racist. Stick around and find out. By the end of
> this series, the
> answer to both questions should be more than
> apparent.
> -ed
> "I didn't say it would be easy. I just said it
> would be the truth."
> - Morpheus
> Copyright ©2003, Edgar J. Steele
> Forward as you wish. Permission is granted to
> circulate
> among private individuals and groups, post on all
> Internet
> sites and publish in full in all not-for-profit
> publications.
> Contact author for all other rights, which are
> reserved.
> On-Line link to this article in HTML format:
> http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/racism1.htm 
>
>