Racism 30 July 2008
Posted by Lao Tzu in anthropology, biology, evolution, sociology.Tags: ethnicity, genetics, prejudice, race, racism, stereotyping
add a comment
So we have written a series of posts and comments lately discussing racism. I think I would like to write one more defining racism. I think that writing such a post would not have been neccessary 10 years ago – that the average adult had a decent understanding of the concept. However, recent events (e.g., 9/11, the subsequent war, and the immigration problem) have caused a rampant misue of the word and improper application of policies and subsequent fear. Hence, I feel it is currently neccessary to clarify.
Racism is the belief that a certain race is biologically inferior (or superior depeding on the context of the sentence). Now let’s break down this statement.
Race = an ethnic groupd defined solely by their genetics (i.e., not locale or culture) and sharing distinct geneotypes and phenotypes unique and common to that group. These physical traits (e.g., hair type, shapes of facial features, etc.) are distinct within these races. Skin color varies broadly within each and across each such that there is great overlap and is therefore not a distinguishing feature. There are three (3) and only three (3) races on this planet. The technical terms are caucosoid, negroid, and mongoloid. In slang terms, white, black, and Asian. This means the following ethnic groups are not races: Hispanic, Native American, East Indian, Pacific Islander, Inuit, Arabic, Hebrew, etc. They are ethnic groups within one of the 3 races defined above.
Biologically implies that the differences are genetic and inherent with the group and therefore not attributed to culture, environment, upbringing, etc.
The inferior / superior term has an obivous connotation, but is not defined or scoped in this context. What is meant by inferior when comparing two populations? Does it refer to physical ability, intelligence, size, behaviour, etc? An indivual can be superior or inferior when compared to another individual at a specific task; but to suggest that all memebers of a group are superior or inferior across all tasks is silly if not impossible to prove. But it is not neccessary to attempt to define a component of a theory that is flawed to being with, and I say so for the following reason. Is the inability to get along with others a superior trait? Obviously not.
In addition, it should be noted that racism is different from stereotyping and prejudice, although they are related, and I will write separate posts defining these concepts as well. To relate, stereotyping is a psychological mechanism that normally serves a positive purpose, but can also cause racist beliefs. Racism is a belief that causes prejudice behavior. Ethnic groups are divisions of peoples based on any of the following criteria: race, culture, geographic location, religion, other genetics.
In addition, there is an inherent logic within many people based on binary thinking that assumes that if two groups are truly different (e.g., with respect to a trait), then one group is inferior and the other is superior. The truth is that groups can be different and neither be wholly inferior or superior because there are many traits that define a race, and all of those would have to be weighed and compared – which is essentially impossible. Not to mention that the variance in most traits across individuals within a group is probably greater than across groups.
Race and Intelligence, Once Again 2 June 2008
Posted by Lao Tzu in anthropology, philosophy, psychology, sociology.Tags: crick, dna, intelligence, race, watson
add a comment
Apparently there is renewed discussion on the correlation between race (genetics) and intelligence, and the nature vs. nurture debate (I prefer to call the seed vs. soil debate). This time the discussion is based on some alleged comments by the famous Dr. Watson of the great Watson and Crick duo that discovered DNA. The concept that we are a product of our genetics and our envrionment is explained in most BIO 101 classes; however, this concept seems to be forgotten, or at least downplayed, when someone wants to propose a controversial theory on the subject. To my knowledge (and I am not up on the latest news on this topic), no one has derived the proportions of these 2 factors. So I would like to take a shot based on deductive reasoning.
First, in most cases, without significant physical or mental disabilities, we have great latitude in our range of possiblilities, capabilities, and accomplishments from both. This typical case is a product of our genetics. While these genetics strictly dictate our hair color, eye color, or even more complex traits, they also grant most of us with the trait of accomplishment – the ability to be many different things at a wide range of levels of ability. Hence, it is most likely, if not obvious, that the variance within a life is greater than the variance between racial groups.
Second, it should not be a surprise at all that if we don’t spend time thinking about certain topics or performing certain skills (essentially training) that we will not excel in those domains (hence, the basketball argument). But, it is not just what we think about, but also how we think. If your most complex thought of the day is how to get a ball in a circle, then you are not exercising your brain as much as you are your body.
Hence, I argue that one’s environment most likely plays a much larger role in intelligence than genetics. But do not forget that culture is part of environment. Many people, surprisingly, still think culture is genetic.