PZ Myers responded with typical ignorance to an article by Medved today.
Medved cites two books recently released, that argue that many Americans are genetically disposed to active, aggressive, ambitious behavior, because of the selection mechanism that brought them here. Basically, you had to be really adventurous to voluntarily give up your life in Europe and start fresh on the frontier, so the genetic trait causing that adventurous spirit became overrepresented in the US.
They authors further argue that this selection mechanism differentiates the blacks whose ancestors were brought against their will, by slavers, from those blacks who came voluntarily, in the traditional vein of the ambitious immigrant.
Myers, in an unusually profound moment of stupid, portrayed this idea as racist. How dare Mr. Medved portray the descendents of slaves as lazy, etc.?
But that's not what Mr. Medved even said.
Racism is differentiating based on race -- saying, "Blacks are this way because they are black; whites are this way because they are white."
These guys are differentiating based on the selection mechanism that brought people to America. Thus "stay-at-home white Europeans" are in the same category as "slaves brought here against their will." Similarly, "White immigrants who came out of a sense of adventure" are in the same category as "Black immigrants who came out of a sense of adventure."
There's simply no racism to be found. The argument is that people who come out of a sense of adventure tend to pass that trait on to their descendants, regardless of race, and those who come (or remain) for some other reason do not have such an over-represented adventurous spirit.
Regardless of race.
How is it that people (like Myers) who have been through so much schooling can be so transparently stupid? I don't know. My little sister, a particularly precocious Junior in college, could see right through this bogus argument. Why is Myers unable to maintain logical thought? I don't know.
Maybe there's another selection mechanism in academia: "Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach." Not universal, of course. But maybe a factor?
As to the idea itself, I find it intriguing, but I'm also skeptical of "genetics explains everything" arguments. I'd be more inclined to believe that the selection mechanism favoring an adventurous spirit created a culture of ambition and energy, which continues to attract people who think the same way, and perpetuates itself through the acculturation process.
I'm open to the idea of a gene, of course; but until they actually find the gene i reckon they should shut up about it.
Bird Flight Automaton
1 year ago
6 comments:
Ungtss, this post really concerns me. Surly you don't think that sentiment that black Americans are genetically inferior to white Americans is entirely free of racism. Medved is certainly soft spoken and reasonable, but he uses these skills for racist ends.
Racism is differentiating based on race -- saying, "Blacks are this way because they are black; whites are this way because they are white."
This characterization of racism is particularly useless. It doesn't mater WHY you think black people are inferior, it doesn't even mater if you think ALL black people are inferior. Thinking that the color of ones skin is a meaningful indication of anything of significance is racism, no mater how restricted you think the correlation may be.
"stay-at-home white Europeans" are in the same category as "slaves brought here against their will." Similarly, "White immigrants who came out of a sense of adventure" are in the same category as "Black immigrants who came out of a sense of adventure."
There's simply no racism to be found.
Let me say it again: Medved says black Americans are genetically inferior to white Americans.
From Medved: The idea of a distinctive, unifying, risk-taking American DNA might also help to explain our most persistent and painful racial divide – between the progeny of every immigrant nationality [and] . . . African slaves . . . .
How can DNA help explain a 'painful racial divide'? I think it is abundantly clear from the context that Medved thinks the answer is that the Socioeconomic status of American blacks can be explained by their lack of entrepreneurial zeal. Thus Medved choices to ignore an ENORMOUS amount of scholarly research into racisms documenting sizable and persistent discrimination in employment, housing and education.
In other words scholarly research shows that the socioeconomic status of American blacks can be explained because white business people don't train black people to replace them, don't invite black people over for dinner, don't want to live next to them, etc.
Even if these ideas where not created by Medved, adopting and propagating racist ideas based on poor scholarship is still racist.
Some ideas cannot be evaluated in an idle fashion. I cannot idly consider the possibility that eugenics is good, or idly wonder if women should be dispossessed of all property. In the same way I cannot simply wonder if there is some scientific justification for racism in America. It is perhaps a valid scientific question, if an uninteresting one, but I would only accept it on the grounds of the most compelling of evidence. To accept it on the basis of flimsy fantisy simply shows that you want to believe in racist ideas regardless of the scientific validity, and, again, this just means you are a racist.
That PZ Meyers criticized Medved for Medved's behavior is a credit to Meyers. Please do not let your dislike of Meyers' methods lead you to accept an idea which is fundamentally logically unsound and promotes social injustice and moral depravity.
In summary, and I hope that Stephen Gould would agrees with this sentiment (*sigh* a tragedy I could not meet him in this life), in science, you should really prove that a phenomenon exist before you attempt to explain why it exist.
You should demonstrate that there are real racial differences before you try attribute the cause of the differences to genetics.
I'm sorry, but I just cannot understand how you could think that Medvid wasn't being racist.
To accept it on the basis of flimsy fantasy simply shows that you want to believe in racist ideas regardless of the scientific validity, and, again, this just means you are a racist.
Just to clarify, here "you" means, "an arbitrary person", so I should rephrase to
.. that a person wants to believe in racist ideas regardless of the scientific validity, and, again, this just means that person is a racist.
Matt -- thanks for the comment. I don't think medved said that black Americans are inferior to white Americans. He said that americans of any race who come here voluntarily are more energetic/entrepreneurial than those who did not. Thus blacks who come here voluntarily have the same characteristic as whites who come here voluntarily, and blacks who did not have the same characteristic as whites who did not. It's a race-neutral characterization. An idea is not racist if it categorizes according to something other than race.
Whether it's true or not is another question entirely -- I agree with you that history and culture are huge determining factors and I dislike "genes explain everything" stories.
But racist? Not even. The same categorization could differentiate whites who came as pioneers from whites who came as prisoners. Or Americans from Australians.
His reference to the "racial divide" is simply speculation that maybe this difference in personality traits causes a conflict. The same conflict could be identified between whites from Texas and whites from new York -- or Americans and europeans.
I think that the definition of racism is differing treatment based on race, and I think that racism is wrong. I think that it's PC these days to define racism as "anything critical said about a person who happens to be a minority, regardless of the motive." I think that definition is overly broad.
Again, my purpose is not to defend the "science" in these studies (which I agree is pretty sketch) but to point out that these studies (which did not originate with medved) do not fit any reasonable definition of racism because they do not discriminate based on race ...
An idea is not racist if it categorizes according to something other than race.
Historically you are entirely incorrect. Almost every racist idea categorizes by something other than race, because racism needs to appeal to other considerations to gain logical assent.
You can't hide behind a logical syllogism. If I say that black people have broader noses, and that people with broader noses are less intelligent, then I am still a racist, even though I am classifying people based on their noses and not skin color.
So even though you are classifying people as genetically superior based on route of immigration, the bottom line is, by simple logic, you are still a racist.
[Medved's ideas] do not fit any reasonable definition of racism because they do not discriminate based on race
Wikipedia: Racism is "the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective culturies, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate others."
My Claim: The idea that people can be genetically superior based on route of immigration is racist.
Now, let us classify people into immigrant races and non-immigrant races.
1) Medved, himself a part of the American immigrant race asserts that the American immigrant race is distinctively adventurous that this trait is an inherent virtue which make the American immigrant race superior to non-immigrant races. Furthermore the unique American race's DNA is responsible for American culture and finally, just to clear up the waters and deomnstrate the racism of this idea, Medved asserts that Americans blacks are not part of the American immigrant race.
they do not discriminate based on race ..
You define racism as racial discrimination. This is far to narrow. There must be a ideology which motivates discrimination, and that ideology is clearly the belief in the inherent superiority of a race, which Medved clearly demonstrates, as previously discussed.
I simply cannot believe you have the temerity to defend racist ideologies.
I think that it's PC these days to define racism as "anything critical said about a person who happens to be a minority, regardless of the motive." I think that definition is overly broad.
This is beside the point. Medved did was not critical of a minority, but instead asserted that he belong to a superior races. This is the textbook definition of racism.
Matt:
Thanks again for your comment.
Historically you are entirely incorrect. Almost every racist idea categorizes by something other than race, because racism needs to appeal to other considerations to gain logical assent.
I'm curious about some examples here -- the only one I can think of is literacy tests for voting. Personally, I'm thinking of slavery, Jim Crowe, the constitutional treatment of blacks, the Holocaust, etc. I consider those all to be explicitly racist, because they discriminated explicitly based on race. What are you thinking of?
You can't hide behind a logical syllogism. If I say that black people have broader noses, and that people with broader noses are less intelligent, then I am still a racist, even though I am classifying people based on their noses and not skin color.
The important difference here is that he's not saying "black people have broader noses." He's saying, "Some whites, blacks, Asians, Australians, and Indians have broader noses. And some have narrower noses." He explicitly talks about the varying appearances of Americans, coming from our different racial backgrounds -- but says that there's a selection mechanism that cuts across race that selects the "hypomanic" personality in every race. That's not racist.
Whether this characteristic is "superior" or not is an open question -- he doesn't even say it's "better" -- he does say it gives us an advantage in the global economy -- but I'm sure we can all agree that there are things more important in life than economic achievement.
In fact, in my experience, many Europeans, American blacks, and stay at home Africans (I grew up in Africa) agree with this characterization of American whites -- they only apply a different value judgment. They see us as "pushy, aggressive, money-grubbing, uptight, loud, hyper, thoughtless, etc." Just ask a Frenchman what he thinks of Americans. Or a rapper what he thinks of white folks. They agree with the "hypomanic" characterization -- they just judge it differently -- in fact, negatively.
In fact, I'd put myself in that camp. I think that Americans are much more pushy and aggressive than folks in other parts of the world, and I actually prefer the other way. I find myself much more comfortable in West Africa (where I grew up) than in the US(where I came for college).
If Medved was running around saying we were "superior," that would be one thing. But look at the titles of the papers he's reviewing -- they review to the characteristic as "mania" and "hypomania." Hardly Hitlerian:).
My Claim: The idea that people can be genetically superior based on route of immigration is racist.
Assuming the route of immigration does not correlate with race, it would be "route-of-immigrationist." To claim that one person is "superior" to another of course assumes a particular value set. Which value is better -- the pushy, money-grubbing, hypomanic American, or the laid-back, sophisticated, intellectual European?
That's a whole other issue that Medved didn't even get into.
You define racism as racial discrimination. This is far to narrow. There must be a ideology which motivates discrimination, and that ideology is clearly the belief in the inherent superiority of a race, which Medved clearly demonstrates, as previously discussed.
Which race is he saying is superior? Black or white? If you say white, then what about his classification of white Europeans? If you say black, then what about his classification of black immigrants?
I simply cannot believe you have the temerity to defend racist ideologies.
I don't. I hate racism. A good black friend of mine was almost killed on the way to church by skinheads in Moscow, and I hate them and everything they stand for. I have been insulted, spit on, and physically assaulted by black racists, as well.
But this isn't racist -- not even a little bit.
Post a Comment