[
Views
]
[
Top Five Views
]
[
Blog Roll
]
Discuss:
The Science of Racism
Member Comments
-
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By:
JLF31972 at 11/13/2008 9:02:14 PM
Comment:
Check out the documentary "Red Clay Hills" on Youtube. Race is still a major issue in this country. -
Posted By:
PCFactor at 08/31/2008 3:02:31 PM
Comment:
I find that Howard Gardner's theory of Multiple Intelligences more appropriately addresses differences in intelligence and is not based on race. I wonder how James Watson would argue this?
The introduction of Multiple Intelligence's allows for the fact or at least possibility that there is actually a much closer relation between people when it comes to their intelligence. Our current, or when I was in earlier school, the main system of teaching and expectations were mostly designed towards strictly Linguistic and Logical-Mathematical intelligence causing those that had learning skills more proportionate in others of the 8 multiple intelligences to perform either more poorly or have to work harder to accomplish the same as those the system was seemingly designed for. This not only contributed to a lower level of success, a higher drop out rate, but also a lower self confidence and self view in a majority of students. -
Posted By:
PCFactor at 08/31/2008 2:56:36 PM
Comment:
How does the theory of DNA traits contributing to intelligence hold up to Howard Gardner's recognized theory of Multiple Intelligences?
The introduction of Multiple Intelligence's allows for the fact or at least possibility that there is actually a much closer relation between people when it comes to their intelligence. Our current, or when I was in earlier school, the main system of teaching and expectations were mostly designed towards strictly Linguistic and Logical-Mathematical intelligence causing those that had learning skills more proportionate in others of the 8 multiple intelligences to perform either more poorly or have to work harder to accomplish the same as those the system was seemingly designed for. This not only contributed to a lower level of success, a higher drop out rate, but also a lower self confidence and self view in a majority of students. -
Posted By:
harmoniousmonk at 08/06/2008 12:15:06 PM
Comment:
First and foremost, there's no such thing as race although it has been made to seem like a truth. It's simply a term that evolved from bogus science. Plain and simple, it's a fiction created by scientists who mistakenly thought they were helping mankind to understand differences among people from different parts of the world by focusing on outward appearances as a measure of a group's biological, indeed psychological, makeup. But there is skin color and that is the real issue; more specifically, how skin color is used for all kinds of reasons to discriminate and segregate. And you don't have to be "white" to do these things although owing to slavery "whites" have been more culpable historically. All colors discriminate because it is a convenient way to denigrate and marginalize others who look different than us and thereby preserve a position of superiority or authority. Thankfully, discrimination on the basis of color seems to be lessening generation by generation but it is still a cancer in human relations. Until we can put color aside as a measure of inferiority or superiority we will continue to undermine the foundations of human freedom and individual accomplishment. -
Posted By:
eugenicswatch at 07/22/2008 11:18:30 AM
Comment:
Klortho refers us to two blogs. Herewith my comments on the second blog. This blogger wants to say that it isn't denigrating to say that Africans have a genetic IQ deficit with respect to European culture since they have a perfectly viable culture of their own. The point is however that this suggests that African-Americans are at permanent disadvantage in American culture for genetic reasons. I suggest that those who agree with this second blogger should really meditate on whether a closed circleof self-reinforcing believers is likely to produce science. That is what the eugenics societies are; that is why in their first two tries they produced error, then fraud; that is why Burt's fraud went undetected. How likely is it that the boneheads who missed Burt's fraud and who trained this generation of IQ researchers have now produced science? Think about it. -
Posted By:
eugenicswatch at 07/21/2008 7:22:05 PM
Comment:
Klortho (see post below) refers us to two blogs. Herewith my comments. It is my position that the field of IQ studies, now and always, has been dominated by members of eugenics societies ??? a self-referential circle which has led in the past to documented error and fraud. The first round of IQ testing (1918-1937) led by eugenics society members like Yerkes used culturally biased tests-error. The second (1937-1979) led by Cyril Burt, a eugenics society member, used falsified data prepared by Burt. The major figures in the field were eugenicists trained by Burt or users of Burt's data. None spotted the fact that Burt's statistical studies kept turning up a coefficient of correlation which was the same from study to study. Now we are referred to the third round of IQ testers, mostly eugenics society members, mostly referring to each other, mostly trained by Burt or by those he trained like Arthur Jensen. Why should anyone listen? The eugenics society members in the first blog are Richard Lynn, Arthur Jensen, TJ Bouchard, JC Loehlin, Arthur Jensen, AWF Edwards, Sandra Scarr and David C. Rowe -all the major references. What price ???open and fair intellectual climate??? when this group acts together to advance racism but dares not speak its name? -
Posted By:
eugenicswatch at 07/17/2008 6:20:31 PM
Comment:
The choice of the battlefield is potentially decisive in war while good intelligence on the enemy and the enemy's goals and capabilities is crucial in battleground choice. So here. It is crucial to understand that the eugenic societies of England and America still exist and it is their members - past and present - who have spread and are still spreading the idea of a genetic African IQ deficit. Members include Robert Yerkes, Cyril Burt, Arthur Jensen, Plomin, HJ Eysenck, and Chris Brand. They are the enemy and the battleground is eugenics.
The eugenicists focus on an alleged African inferiority is a taint that entered eugenics with its founder, Francis Galton. Galton's ancestors were immersed in the slave trade - as slave owners, slave voyage financiers and makers of guns for the slave trade. Galton believed that intellectual and moral qualities are a physical inheritance. If then the slave trade was an abomination, he had inherited a physical curse along with his money. He chose instead to believe that Africans were by nature slaves so that the apparent degradations and injustices of the slave trade and slavery were not actually felt by the slaves. They did not really feel the lash (though why use it if that were so?) and their intellects and talents were fully employed by unremitting supervised field labor.
Kathie O'Keefe
notgalton@aol.com -
Posted By:
Klortho at 07/13/2008 10:30:59 PM
Comment:
Anyone who thinks that Watson was wrong, should really do a little bit more research. I highly recommend this blog post: "James Watson tells an inconvenient truth", at
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php
In it, Jason Malloy does a good job defending Watson. One of his conclusions: "Everything Watson got in trouble for saying was entirely correct!"
Here's another one that I recommend:
http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2007/11/watson_populati.html -
Posted By:
two crows at 07/13/2008 8:23:17 PM
Comment:
Watson and Crick both finally admitted, under scrutiny, that they stole Rosalind Franklin's notes. Yet they're still credited for her work.
I'm not surprised to hear, now, that Watson is a racist. Obviously, he's also a misogynist. Would he have stolen a man's research? -
Posted By:
two crows at 07/13/2008 8:20:29 PM
Comment:
fwiw, Watson and Crick have admitted they stole Rosalind Franklin's notes. yet they still get the credit for her work.
I'm not surprised to hear, now, that he's also a racist. obviously, he's a misogynist. -
Posted By:
katherine at 07/13/2008 12:24:37 AM
Comment:
This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You don't find "blacks" here in America. I believe they all have white blood unless they're immigrants. Then with the whites, who knows what their ancestry really is. We're all mixed together and our DNA does decide some things. However, intelligence can be increased. We now know that. When I first read Piaget I knew he was wrong. So is this guy. Mental stimulation does help increase intelligence. The more you learn the more you learn. This applies to all races. The Japanese were ahead of us, as were the Germans in Math, simply because they received more and better education. -
Posted By:
HawkCW4 at 07/12/2008 8:00:29 PM
Comment:
Well Hooooooraaaaaayyyyy for DNA...
They just got to put us all in compartments like they have a clue to this universe. I'M white as far as I know,,there are men (Black) who are 10 times smarter than I am, so what happened to my DNA,, can I get a refund..There are whites that are not near as smart as I am..so what does all this really really really mean. I suppose it comes under the heading of PROPENSITY but so much of that never pans out, so who really cares...Now finding a way to prevent serious illnesses is a different story, bring that on but to say one race, color has a dumb gene is dumb... -
Posted By:
crose at 07/12/2008 3:58:27 PM
Comment:
Skip - insightful and scary precis of an inherently flawed position. The danger of the fundamental premise -- forming models based on retrospective data -- is well known in many communities (such as various types of forecasting). A model becomes science when it is predictive. However, without doing the controlled experiments which show predictive ability, any modeling effort is, at best, suspect. One can always find a model to fit data retrospectively. One can dress it up and claim "elegance" or parsimony or any of the other Occam's Razor arguments which often fruitfully guide scientific study.
However, the proof is in the predictions and either 1) experiments impossible to do or 2) relevant INDEPENDENT data sets do not exist. Financial forecasters are very familiar with the dangers of retrospective analysis.
So, in short, none of this is science.
Unfortunately , it is dressed up as science and often espoused by scientists who are indeed expert in other areas -- and therein lies the danger.
So, thanks again for pursuing the interview and laying it out objectively.
Chris Rose -
Posted By:
hootowl41 at 07/12/2008 3:44:03 AM
Comment:
I would submit that if the broad canvas of history was studied with anywhere near the intensity DNA has received, we would find much more compelling answers and hard, incontrovertable truths than DNA will ever offer. There are more than sufficient facts there to take social theories and evaluate them scientifically.
Of course, when I mention history here, I don't mean the whitewashed version we recieve in school where 75% of the planet has no history worth mentioning and there is no problem inflating the 25% as if it is responsible for all knowledge and all discoveries. Oh, and as if all of this was obtained honestly and by the sweat of their collective brows. Harrumph.
To be honest, whatever accolades a man achieves and at whatever age, coming to the conclusion that any one of our contemporary races is inherently inferior to another is either a gross show of ignorance or just plain stupid.
Finally, perhaps if we as a people would spend more time demonstrating our intelligence and less time worrying about whether others are impressed by it, our accomplishments and what we do with them would make all the difference. . . this website being a prime example. -
Posted By:
geoaerocfi at 07/12/2008 12:10:43 AM
Comment:
One small dissent. Speaking as a cell biologist (PhD, Univ of Michigan), I doubt very much that biology labs will ever put to rest racist, or other preposterous social notions. The problem - or benefit - is that people have always looked to science to support their social theories. The problem is that they bend the science to fit the social theory.
The historical litter of great scientists using their science in just this way is enormous. I don't expect it to cease growing any time soon. -
Posted By:
thejakeman at 07/11/2008 8:34:57 PM
Comment:
ah, well it was 1953, so of course she wasn't black. but indeed, watson and crick did refuse to acknowledge another minorities help in the form of rosalind franklin.honestly, these guys have no morals anyway. -
Posted By:
thejakeman at 07/11/2008 8:25:48 PM
Comment:
well, some time ago i read an interesting book detailing how an assistant (who happened to be a black woman, or just a woman, i can't recall which) did the REAL work behind the DNA model. apparently this woman was brushed aside by Watson and Crick almost immediately upon discovery. though she did partake in some of the hullabaloo surrounding the discovery, her name was omitted from the nobel prize. let me see if i can discover the name of that book, and i'll get back to you. -
Posted By:
thejakeman at 07/11/2008 8:23:55 PM
Comment:
well, some time ago i read an interesting book detailing how an assistant (who happened to be a black woman, or just a woman, i can't recall which) did the REAL work behind the DNA model. apparently this woman was brushed aside by Watson and Crick almost immediately upon discovery. though she did partake in some of the hullabaloo surrounding the discovery, her name was omitted from the nobel prize. let me see if i can discover the name of that book, and i'll get back to you -
Posted By:
faymicha at 07/11/2008 8:03:23 PM
Comment:
Dr. Gates provides a sympathetic view of the world of research science during the last half of the Twentieth Century in the United States. It is unfortunate that the political problem of race has played a major part in the popular dialogue on function of public policy in serious research science. I do suspect that Dr. Gates is correct in his assumption that Watson was not a racist in the vernacular sense of the word. Watson was communicating his social observations in the common terms of the more educated members of his generation. Dr. Watson's deepest thoughts on the political issue of race theory went with him where ever he is. Dr. Watson's greatest gift to mankind remains his intellectual discussion to the understanding of the DNA theory.
Michael Fay, College Station, Texas -
Posted By:
MGreen at 07/11/2008 7:45:45 PM
Comment:
I am a clinical psychologist who has conducted thousands of test batteries, including IQ and Achievement tests, on individuals of almost every background over the past 30 years. As an undergraduate in the early 1970s the so called Race-IQ controversy was a hot topic, as psychologist Arthur Jensen wrote a controversial work on the area, not all dissimilar to Waton's arugments. The area was also explored in a more recent work, "The Bell Curve," by Hernnstein and Murray. I have a number of observations on this topic, as someone who is actively working with individuals, and not just an armchair speculator.
First, it is my experiences that on a day to day basis, in terms of how people really live, the issue is completely irrelevant, and not worth pursuing. When I have a student, black, white, or whatever, who has intellectual and learning deficits, all I care about is how to help that individual, in terms of helping with medical and education resources or social services assistant. This is all that matters in the real world. I have always said, let the speculators do my job for one day, and have some real experiences with people, and how they live, then their half baked positions would chage that day.
Another thing to keep in mind is the very nature of intelligence itself. I just finished a detailed biography of Einstein by Walter Isaacson. Just as Einstein and Watson were geniuses in their fields, they are/were clearly not in any other fields. Watson is no more than a layman on the question.
My biggest problem is with the people who bring this topic up to begin with. What is the purpose, if not to stir up racism? -
Posted By:
kirchnerd at 07/11/2008 5:30:10 PM
Comment:
oh. and you can say that science is not concerned with race and gender, but show me a SCIENTIST who isn't concerned with race and gender (and that does not mean, simply, a white man...who might be 'unconcerned' to the extent that he takes his own race and gender to be the standard by which others are judged) -
Posted By:
kirchnerd at 07/11/2008 5:26:37 PM
Comment:
how completely insane. The term "black" is thrown around as if it were given what that means...from the point of view of science, wouldn't this term be pretty problematic in and of itself? And to throw out ALL OTHER FACTORS, as if they were irrelevant, when it's been shown in other areas of science that the human brain is pliable, that it changes, that its development depends on other factors, external factors, to throw all of that out and then expect to find any sort of realistic result, is absurd.
Also, and this is a huge deal, no mention whatsoever is made of what sorts of variations, what sort of range, exists between individuals of the same group. This comes up a lot when they do studies comparing men's brains to women's brains. It makes for a juicier story to trumpet the supposed differences between two groups, even when the variation within the group is greater than the differences between groups.
Life, people, the world....all far more complex than Science likes to point out. Not to mention that science isn't so much about the search for truth as it is the search for funding, or, the search for evidence to support various prejudices and assumptions that take hard work and soul-searching to actually change. Much easier to just say, "oh, well there's a "scientific" explanation for inequality between races, sexes, etc.", than to examine or challenge the power structures that prop up those inequalities. -
Posted By:
Augury at 07/11/2008 5:14:16 PM
Comment:
I read all three pages. The article had some "poor ole me and my color" moments in it. Personally, I cannot see where Dr. Watson said anything inaccurate. I noticed one word was kept out of the article--stereotype. Stereotypes have their basis in fact or observation or media reinforcement. Is a stereotype ever a profile?
DNA is everything about us. It is the master's plan. DNA determines what we look like, where we will live, what we will eat, our size, how long we will live, etc., etc. No one knows how or why we have super-geniuses. They occur and we have no control over it.
Going back to the stereotypes, what can you make of this:
Haiti is the poorest nation in the Caribbean, yet, when the blacks ousted the French, it was the richest island in the Caribbean.
Kenya was a wealthy nation until the British left, now it is mired in internal conflict; the same for Haiti. Zimbabwe and South Africa were exporting food and were stable under foreign rule. Now under black rule, the nations have to import their food and also have much internal conflict.
Spain dominated many countries. Some of her colonies have become greater than Spain. Yet, none of the black ruled countries have attained the stature that some of the Spanish colonies have.
I think it all comes down the the basic premise : It is not how much brains you have, it is how much you use that counts.
If we had half as much foresight as we have hindsight, we would have twice as much insight. -
Posted By:
sm98yth at 07/11/2008 3:19:42 PM
Comment:
i think it is nice to have scientific evidence of superiority of the white race but i believe that this theory was for economic reasons through many centuries of colonialism. during these periods, people of color made many contributions to mankind that were thought to be the discoveries of the white master or overseer. one thing is for certain, children who have good nutrition for the first six months of life are smarter than those who don't this is not a matter of color it is a matter of poverty. there are many other examples to show that when the playing field is equal so then are the statuses of the human race regardless of color. my grandmother used to say "thank GOD that HE made white folk dumb or else we would be extinct." -
Posted By:
NancyinNC at 07/11/2008 3:17:43 PM
Comment:
I, too, am very dismayed by Dr. Watson's views regarding race. In fact, dismayed is too mild a word. I am shocked. I am not a scientist. I am an educator, and I have been surrounded for most of my career with students and collegues of every conceivable description, orientation and background. Common sense tells me that for members of one race to have an edge on intelligence or other attributes is completely UNscientifc. Nature, to my understanding, exploits and promotes differences so that a species can have the best possible chance of survival. If a rampant, viral melanoma (which doesn't exist, as far as I know, except in science fiction) wipes out all light skinned people, there will be plenty of surviviors to carry on human life.
Also, who is cast into the racial divide? Who is black and who is not black? My daughter is racially mixed, as is my granddaughter. My dearest friend's grandchildren are a blend of African-American and Italian-American. Does this mean they will be great athletes who will also have award winning cooking shows on HGTV?
Most of my career, I have advised and taught students in the community college system. One of my teaching goals was to encourage students to develop a sense of logic. To pause in those moments when something that they read or heard, especially in the world of ideas, did not make sense. What is shocking to me, is that this brilliant man, apparently, has never developed the capacity to know when something is just not logical. He is not able to have a thought, reflect upon it, and say, "Uh oh, where did that come from? That can't be right."
Dr. Gates' conclusion, that the racial battlefield is now in the "test tube, under a microscope, in our genome, on the battleground of our DNA," is very chilling.
Sincerely,
Nancy Cramer -
Posted By:
Meleager at 07/11/2008 2:29:09 PM
Comment:
An excellent piece.
Ironically, I suspect that Watson's "racialist" views are based primarily on the social environment in which he grew up as opposed to incontrovertible scientific evidence he has been exposed to. In other words he is predisposed to interpret the "data" according to his concept of the world, conscious or otherwise.
Beyond regretting the damage his ill-considered musings have done, I feel a certain sadness about a fine scientist undone when his personal views could not keep pace with the scientific progress of which he was a noted representative. -
Posted By:
HM60 at 07/11/2008 1:42:02 PM
Comment:
Aren't human beings an African species? Isn't genetic diversity greatest among Africans because of that? How many Americans are hybrids of many ethnicities? It seems to me that genes are only one factor, if they are a factor at all. Early nutrition, education and exposure to the life of the mind all have much to do with the intelligence of adults. The effects of discrimination and poverty are powerful , too. Perceived race affects a person's experiences, but is it a real category at all, biologically? -
Posted By:
mattmc at 07/11/2008 11:36:01 AM
Comment:
...this from the man who, with his cohorts, stole their "findings" from Rosalind Franklin. -
Posted By:
tombesson at 07/11/2008 10:33:20 AM
Comment:
After reading your article, I reminded myself that the difference between a "racialist" and a "racist" is the difference between an analogy and a metaphor. Both arrive at similar conclusions through different pathways. However, both can get lost along the way and stumble into a false destination. Our adherence to outmoded points of view assures that we will happily remain befuddled for a long time to come, which is to bad because we have evidence that Watson's views are without merit.
I submit as evidence that the educational Project Followthrough of the 1970s showed that, with sound instruction, students from backgrounds that previously relegated them to the lowest quartile of achievement could succeed at the same level as their more advantaged counterparts.
The more we reinforce the idea that intelligence is genetically determined for different races, the more we keep ourselves from living lives that liberate us from the negative effects of such thinking.
Sincerely, Tom Besson -
Posted By:
dsmith at 07/11/2008 10:33:16 AM
Comment:
One should not dismiss the idea that there could be differences in abilities in people of different races, even if the implied differences seem unflattering. Black people have darker skin than white people, yet this is a racial difference and it does relate to ability of sorts: the ability to survive in strong sun. So when it comes to tolerating strong sun, black people are "superior" to white people.
It's easy to observe that the winners of Olympic sprints are always black. This is far too unlikely to occur by chance. Could there be an environmental cause? Perhaps if black people evolved in Africa where predators are sprinters, thenpeople who run quickly would survive and the slower ones wouldn't. Over time, that would make the local people faster.
In addition to environmental factors, cultural factors could lead to genetic differences over time. There is reference to "Jewish intelligence". I don't know if that exists, but I have been told that Israel has the highest average IQ in the world. If true, part of this could be explained by a cultural value of education. Also, if intelligence is valued culturally within the Jewish community, then smarter Jews will be more desirable and more likely to marry and reproduce. Over time, that would lead to smarter Jews.
Within the black community, we hear that there are a large number of kids born to teenage girls. We also hear that sometimes kids who achieve academically are ostracized by their peers. Putting those two together, the implication might be that teenage black girls don't have sex with the smarter teenage boys but with the less intelligent boys. If so, babies born from these relationships would be less intelligent than if the teenage girls chose smarter partners. I don't know if this causal chain actually happens within the black community, but if it does, it can explain lower intelligence test scores in a way that is based on cultural factors and not some notion that genes responsible for dark skin color also create lower intelligence. As such, it would suggest that differences among the races are not inherent, but can be addressed through social change.
However, as long as we are sensitive to honest discussions about differences between people, it is hard to imagine how we can come up with real solutions. If we are quick to claim that all intelligence tests are racially biased or that anyone who argues white people outscore blacks is inherently racist, we may be blind to potential factors that really are producing effects that we would like to see changed. -
Posted By:
worth at 07/11/2008 10:22:15 AM
Comment:
Dr. Gates, the subtle distinction between racialism and racism is very insightful on your part.
I believe a great danger is the one posed by everyone's "enlightened" attitudes that allow them to feel at ease making statements along the lines of "I'm not a racist, but it seems clear to me that...[insert ensuing racialist remark here]."
Many, many non-racist people embrace this practice, and is very damaging in the sense that it allows race-based nonsense to be perpetuated, usually unintentionally, by otherwise intelligent and respected human beings. It's a problem, and it's particularly difficult to overcome because those who have it are not aware that it IS a problem; like their Enlightenment forefathers, they believe they are engaging their higher faculties of reason and observation, while in actuality they are clearly not seeing the individual trees that make up the forest of our cultural and ethnic stereotypes. -
Posted By:
fsilber at 07/11/2008 10:18:23 AM
Comment:
Recent news articles report the discovery of genes that affect the likelyhood of autism. It is quite likely that one day genes will be found that affect the likelihood of high or low intelligence. If it is determined that the prevalence of these genes differs by among various ethnic groups (due to different histories and different forces affecting their survival and development), what then? What if, worst case, it is determined that this distribution is consistent with the perception of low intelligence being more common among blacks and high intelligence being less common? If it be true, will ignorance of the fact really help black people or somehow make it less true?
Assuming this worst case, here are my predictions. Programs such as Head Start will continue to be supported because people with low intelligence need all the help they can get. Those blacks in the ghetto who _do_ have the genetic markers for high intelligence will be more easily identified so that their potential can be developed and promoted. The fact that black people, on average, tend to make less money than average may come to be seen as inevitable, and not necessarily an idictment of American society.
The most difficult question is what to do with the lower half of the black population -- those with IQs below 85 (probably averaging below 80) -- who constitute the bulk of the gang-ridden inner-city ghetto. Right now we tend to ignore the problem, hoping it will ameliorate itself as soon as teachers discover the secret of how to educate them effectively, or when white people suddenly decide to stop being racist, begin disregarding the cultural bias of IQ tests (and other educational standards), and hire teenage gang members as apprentice rocket scientists (paying them at first to learn how to read and do math, I suppose). If it turns out that this will never (and in fact can never) happen, then we may begin to consider a more paternalistic society for them -- with adequate economic benefits coupled to closer supervision and direction of their behavior in realms that most people would consider to be private matters.
The difficulty will be in reconciling our ideal of social and political equality with the recognition that different people have different needs. People with IQs of 120 are not going to want to be treated as though their IQ were only 80, and the push for diversity at high levels of leadership may have to make due with something less than proportional representation.-
Posted By:
fritz at 07/11/2008 3:14:28 PM
Comment:
"If it turns out that this will never (and in fact can never) happen, then we may begin to consider a more paternalistic society for them -- with adequate economic benefits coupled to closer supervision and direction of their behavior in realms that most people would consider to be private matters."
It's called slavery. -
Posted By:
fritz at 07/11/2008 3:13:07 PM
Comment:
If it turns out that this will never (and in fact can never) happen, then we may begin to consider a more paternalistic society for them -- with adequate economic benefits coupled to closer supervision and direction of their behavior in realms that most people would consider to be private matters.
It's called slavery!!
-
-
Posted By:
Enoch Wisner at 07/11/2008 9:55:15 AM
Comment:
If some proposition is true, it is little use to complain that the fact discomfits some interested party or parties. I have no basis upon which to argue that, among the genes that distinguish blacks from whtes (for example, pigmentation) there is one or more that predispose one or the other to equal distinctions in native intelligence. If, however, such a gene were to be found, it would argue for a truth as irefutible as the truth that blacks and whites are of two, definite colors. Anecdotally, such a gene seems likely.
The socio-economic situation of blacks, both on their own, native continent, and in their self-described diaspora, is markedly inferior to that of non-blacks elsewhere the world over. This observation is not seriously disputed. The question, then, is why such an observation might be affirmed. Accounting this fact to the evils of European whites is to argue that blacks are unable to adapt to adverse conditions and, once relieved of those conditions (e.g. European colonialism, slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc.), to assert their formerly suppressed nature in transcendence of oppressions past. The paralell fact that some blacks have adapted, have transcended the oppression of their race renders the argument all the more convincing that the condition of the general black population reflects an equally general cause unrelated to that which some exemplars have overcome. That is, some blacks having overcome the legacy of their race, it is what is unique in these exemplars, not what is unique in the legacy of their race, that distinguishes them, and they are distinguished insofar as their unique quality is (apparently) wanting in the balance of their racial kindred.
The danger of admitting these truths is their illegitimate construction as permission to identify the individual by the general qualities of his race. It is no more true that a given white person will possess exactly the median IQ of his race than that an individual black person will possess exactly the median IQ of his: every average is reached by particulars both higher and lower. Necessarily, then, a random example of the black race possesses an equally random, but perfectly equal potential to possess an IQ higher or lower than the median. That is, the odds are exactly one in two that the individual black will be more intelligent than the statistical average for his race - and some, considerably so. It is rank folly, to say nothing of gross injustice, to presume the worst case upon such odds. -
Posted By:
krink at 07/11/2008 9:43:19 AM
Comment:
Panchimaal's post is absolutely right. Watson's achievements in the micro-verse offer no greater, or more valid, validity to his perceptions of the macro-verse, most of which seems anecdotal at best. What exactly are his academic credentials with regards to social or biological evolution? Further, as a student of evolutionary biology and social dynamics with a degree in Ecology, it would seem obvious that while certain specific and distinguishing physical characteristics would be selected for based on environmental pressures (i.e. height, girth, pigmentation, etc.), for the human animal, particularly given its inherent disadvantages in the wild, intelligence would be universally selected for regardless of environment - arctic, arid, temperate or otherwise. -
Posted By:
hgmp1971 at 07/11/2008 8:59:55 AM
Comment:
Maybe the Root should fund a study to see if people like Watson have a "racist gene". It could be that a gene mutated as the Bushmen migrated to Europe. -
Posted By:
panchimaal at 07/11/2008 8:32:03 AM
Comment:
Why is it that we Americans cannot critically filter information according to its source? How does Watson's prowess with minuscule structures in the lab make him an authority on race, ethnicity, or intelligence? P-l-ease!! -
Posted By:
conscience7155 at 07/11/2008 7:22:39 AM
Comment:
When I encountered this story, i was transported back to the firestorm of controversy unleashed by the (now largely discredited) bestseller "The Bell Curve." That book, which was based on a mountain of statistical evidence, concluded that for the most part people of roughly equal intelligence tend to form friendships, and economic and social coalitions more readily than those of disparate IQ. However, the more provocative sequel to this reasonable observation, is that neighborhoods, and their characteristic socioeconomic classifications, are themselves formed largely along such lines, and that the likelihood of engaging in criminal acts is in turn related to IQ. All of this suggests that programs of social remediation are doomed to failure and that intervention in the lives of children of low socioeconomic class will make no difference in the quality of life for those children. In short, each of us would have a life shaped by the strong hand of genetic determinism (to the extent that it determines that quantity measured by IQ tests). However, to the extent that such theories embrace genetic determinism and social darwinism, they also fail to examine closely the power of cultural factors in shaping the expression of intelligence. James Watson is certainly a scientist of the first water, and yes he is provocative (!), but regrettably he is himself a product of the distorted perspectives of the times in which his own formative development occurred, a time when many were prone to conclude that blacks were innately inferior in intelligence without fear of broad censure of further scrutiny. All of the subsequent experiences and education of Dr. Watson could not fully eradicate what may have been put in place long ago. I would like to think that I lived in a world where we each, as individuals, examined not only the pronouncements of our fellows, but also the life experiences that conditioned them, and that we also subjected our own conclusions to the same careful scrutiny. The real danger, of course, is that the scientifically illiterate person (and that is most of them) will accept Dr. Watson's pronouncements uncritically because of his eminence alone (thereby committing the logical fallacy of argumentun ad verecundiam). Equally dangerous, though perhaps more socially acceptable because it carries the cachet of "tolerance," is the stance of rejecting Dr. Watson's position without closely examining it. In short, that which is most dangerous is not the conclusion reached by an eminent scientist, a conclusion which is unsettling in that it raises the damningly reactionary specter of racism, but rather the unreasoning posture of a population that is by turns titillated and outraged by that conclusion, a posture that itself speaks to an all-too-willing participation in the greta social experiment that has replaced education with entertainment and critical thinking with uninformed ideological posturing. -
Posted By:
tryreason at 07/11/2008 7:11:36 AM
Comment:
The notion that the status quo is just and enduring and that mankind has answered all of the questions worth asking is the real root of the problem. Those who believe they have uncovered a self evident absolute truth have been the bane of progress and change, which is the only real constant, since civilization began. -
Posted By:
alann at 07/11/2008 5:26:14 AM
Comment:
Why is that none of these discussions about intelligence never start with questioning the very concept of intelligence as the Western World defines it? Dr. Watson's IQ may in fact have been a true reflection of his actual level of intelligence. Is someone, who makes a serendipitous connection and perhaps "peaked" over the shoulder to copy a few concepts that allow them to reach basic conclusions regarding the tertiary chemical structure of a piece of biological material, truly of high intelligence? Or where they just in the right place at the right time? Luck, being the by-product of hardwork and preparation, is nevertheless luck in some part. Any discussion of intelligence should always start and settle what exactly intelligence is on a universal scale (i.e. not narrowly focused in accordance with the perspective of one society) before proceeding to any conclusions regarding intelligence (or the lack of) within any race. Since such analysis of intelligence can never be objective; therefore, intelligence will remain undefined. Certainly no one will look at the state of the world and how we got here, and conclude that we have been led to this dismal state by intelligent people. Perhaps the most intelligent people on the planet live in the jungle in Papua New Guinea isolated from so-called "intelligent civliized" people? But that type of thought would require too much mental exercise for persons of Dr.Watson's level and dogmatic approach. The beauty of Einstein was that he never viewed himself to be so much more intelligent than anyone else. A truly intelligent person questions the very concept of intelligence. This would exclude Dr. Watson and anyone who thinks like him. -
Posted By:
44 at 07/10/2008 7:37:09 PM
Comment:
My last comment and then I'm done. It was proposed that whites might have evolved to be smarter due to differences in habits between Africans and Europeans. That is truly absurd for one more reason. The majority of Caucasians were illiterate until what, 50 years ago? 60 or 70 years ago maybe? even if you wanted to really stretch it and say 100 or so years even give or take a few hundred if you want, (keep in mind there were whites in many other nations less privileged than the united states and among them many were farmers which did not spend a whole heck of a lot of time reading chaucer) how can you propose that evolution, which says these changes happen over hundreds of thousands of years could have done anything to make for an extra gene for intelligence through out an entire race? what kind of stupidity is that? The wealthy .01% that could read could not have caused the entire race to develop an extra gene for proficiency in literacy math and science which seems to be what was proposed here. The more I think about this the more silly it becomes to me. No race is smarter than the next, sorry to bust your bubble. Look to culture for your answers about success and lack there of between races. -
Posted By:
Bob540 at 06/29/2008 5:49:52 PM
Comment:
Truth: Science is NOT objective. It DOESN'T want to know the unpalatable. It won't (mainstream science, that is) truly investigate racial differences because it DOESN'T want to know anything contrary to what it WANTS to know. FACT -
Posted By:
amrivers at 06/17/2008 6:10:41 PM
Comment:
After reading the article and reading the comments below, I am mistified that people seem to have a need for a scienctific contruct for race. Last year the Illinois Humanities Council has a state wide project called "Furure Perfect: Conversation on the meaning of the Genetic Revolution." One of the main things that came out for me, was that there wasn't a scientific bases for race as we define it biologically. To have a biological race means to have a sparate species like in the rest of the aminal kingdom. That doesn't exist in man. Also with all the data being collected on our DNA, it depends on who is collecting the data and how it is being contructed to explain the findings. This point was made clear at a panel discussion that was held at the DuSable Museum of African American History, where Troy Duster, Professor of Sociology at New York University put a chart on how DNA markers are used to group the four "races". The he regouped them to show six "racial" distinctions, the sixteen and so on. By manipulating the data the same data was able to give different outcomes, causing different explanations. To say that genes can determine intelligence means what? If you are using IQ tests to verify the findings then it becomes flawed. IQ tests are flawed! Most are developed to measure knowlegde that a child would have by living and interacting in a specific social contruct - Anglo Saxon/European; and at a certian sociol level - middle class. If a child doesn't meet that criterial then they will not score. That would be across the board, not depending on race.
As a child of a middle class background I always did well on the test alongwith my firends, my "poor" school mates did not. They were white and my friends and I are black. I could take the genetic markers of all of us and construct the data to state that based on the population of the my school (350) white people are intellectually inferior.
In each if the programs aound the state and in Chicago, IL the complexity of human genetics was emphasized. Yes there are variations. There are variations in your own DNA as you become older. There are variates between bothers and sisters. It was also stressed that this complexity cannot be simplified.
With genetics we are entering into a brave new world. It is important that we don't take the constructs and concepts developed during the time of Enlightenment, expansionism, slavery and colonialism and try to make this new data fit them.
Angela R. -
Posted By:
Henry at 06/17/2008 9:35:42 AM
Comment:
There's been very little discussion of the role of variation. Even if there are genetic effects on intelligence, how big are these effects in the face of the wide variability in human intellectual abilities?
Indeed, variability itself may be useful. Recent work by Scott E. Page has suggested that variability in a workforce is at the very least useful, and under many circumstances, optimal. The clarity of Watson's early findings have become misleading - although genetic variation can lead to simply defined characteristics, many acquired characteristics are not so easily defined, especially in terms of their functional consequences - nor is their genetic basis. The human world is complex, and Watson's palette (gene -> phenotype) cannot do justice to this complexity. -
Posted By:
Chris Major at 06/15/2008 3:26:26 PM
Comment:
Gates says: "Watson's error is that he associates individual genetic differences (which, of course, do in fact exist) with ethnic variation (which is sociocultural and highly malleable)."
Surely Gates doesn't believe that his own black skin is malleable, haven been created by society and culture instead of gene expression. His own behavior belies his assertion, given his activities in tracing roots through DNA.
.
His statement is also self-contradictory. After all a group, by definition, is merely its set of attributes. For example the group "blacks" consists of the set of persons of partially-or-wholly-African ancestry recognizable as such, and more and more so, by the very genes that Gates enjoys tracing.
Whether such a conceptual ethnic grouping originates in culture is irrelevant, and here's why: behavioral geneticists have already demonstrated that genes account for the largest part of measurable intelligence within any population group.
But then again, those pesky scientists with their inconvenient truths also believe that global warming is man made, so let's ignore them!
Is it physically possible that Jews as a group can be possessed of a higher innate intelligence. Sure, just like it's possible that Jews as a group can be possessed of noses that, on the average, are longer that other groups, or that blacks as a group can have flatter noses on average. My pointing that out doesn't imply any emotion on my part either for or against any group.
Even if "blacks" as a group identifiable by Gates himself via tracing "roots" could also be identified as a group with a slightly lower-than-average innate intelligence, so what? The fact that such information might be used by bigots still wouldn't justify suppressing whatever scientists might discover. -
Posted By:
m1brand at 06/13/2008 11:26:40 PM
Comment:
A main determining factor of intelligence seems to be culture. Compare the Euro-Med cultural synergy to that of the Indo-Chinese/Oriental. Considering the knowledge that was generated by the major Asian cultures, those peoples should be considered among the most intelligent. However, the knowledge they have generated has been largely developed by more curious and adaptive cultures. -
Posted By:
bluegreen at 06/13/2008 6:56:04 PM
Comment:
One thing Watson says that I agree with is that he doesn't know enough about the role of genetics in determining general intelligence. I think every person has special gifts and weaknesses that make him or her unique. What I'm wondering is, what will happen in the future when, let's say, we can "spot" each and every fetus 20-30 IQ points? What will we gain and what will we lose as we inch closer towards uniformity? Designer kids as bright and shiny as the latest handbags, and perhaps as quickly outdated. This would make a good script! -
Posted By:
Freedom_Jury at 06/10/2008 9:26:50 PM
Comment:
Although I will say that the greatest argument for black mental inferiority is the fact that this comment page does not autodetect URLs. (But if you can show me that it was a white programmer who made that decision, I will happily say it's the best argument for why McCain should not be president. LOL) -
Posted By:
Freedom_Jury at 06/10/2008 9:24:46 PM
Comment:
"dinosaur(s)," "deadbeat(s)" and "has-been(s)." ...All of which can easily describe Watson (and his government-funded human genome project) if you compare him to Mark Dean (a black research scientist at IBM) or J. Craig Venter (the man who first and most successfully sequenced the human genome, in spite of being targeted for failure by Watson and his $5 billion government project to do the same).
I strongly recommend "A Life Decoded" by Craig Venter, for those interested in dispelling what Watson has to say. It is an irony that Gates says that Watson's "individualist" perspective is limited ---because Watson's view is the collectivist and "un-American" view, both with regard to race, and with regard to the practice of science. (Nothing reveals this more than Venter's account of Watson in "A Life Decoded", where Venter also dispels the myth of racial superiority. Genes are free-floating in the human population. I have genes that cause me to learn faster than Venter in a given environment, as he has genes that cause him to dramatically outperform Watson in a given environment. Interestingly, Venter's private and individualist sequencing of the human genome totally put Watson's own efforts to shame. Yet Venter was a "self-desribed surf bum" --with a high IQ-- before he was drafted into Vietnam ---a war he disagreed with. Yet is was the stress of the environment that led Venter to a life of greatness that outshined Watson's greated achievement.)
There are genes that, in conjunction with environment determine intellect, along with every other phenotype. Of course, hard work and dedication can overcome most genetic and environmental limitations. It's all a mix.
...But I'd like to hear how Watson explains Mark Dean and Elijah McCoy if genetics has that much to do with intelligence, and how he explains whites (like me) who are subnormal at complex mathematical computation, but good at logic. It may be a certain gene, or gene complex.
But does it have to do with skin color? Probably not, or only in certain cases. (There may be "white stupid genes" and "black stupid genes", and for all anyone knows, "white supid genes may outnumber "black stupid genes" 100 to 1".)
Again: the interpretation of the genetic code has to do with the expression of individual genes. I would expect that occasionally there were genes that aided intelligence, just like there are genes that aid stamina. I would also expect nearly all permutations and combinations of those genes to exist, with ecosystems favoring the smart, the strong, and the indefatigable.
http://www.alifedecoded.org -
Posted By:
Freedom_Jury at 06/10/2008 9:23:49 PM
Comment:
"dinosaur(s)," "deadbeat(s)" and "has-been(s)." ...All of which can easily describe Watson (and his government human genome project) if you compare him to Mark Dean (a black research scientist at IBM) or J. Craig Venter (the man who first and most successfully sequenced the human genome, in spite of being targeted for failure by Watson and his $5 billion government project to do the same).
I strongly recommend "A Life Decoded" by Craig Venter, for those interested in dispelling what Watson has to say. It is an irony that Gates says that Watson's "individualist" perspective is limited ---because Watson's view is the collectivist and "un-American" view, both with regard to race, and with regard to the practice of science. (Nothing reveals this more than Venter's account of Watson in "A Life Decoded", where Venter also dispels the myth of racial superiority. Genes are free-floating in the human population. I have genes that cause me to learn faster than Venter in a given environment, as he has genes that cause him to dramatically outperform Watson in a given environment. Interestingly, Venter's private and individualist sequencing of the human genome totally put Watson's own efforts to shame. Yet Venter was a "self-desribed surf bum" --with a high IQ-- before he was drafted into Vietnam ---a war he disagreed with. Yet is was the stress of the environment that led Venter to a life of greatness that outshined Watson's greated achievement.)
There are genes that, in conjunction with environment determine intellect, along with every other phenotype. Of course, hard work and dedication can overcome most genetic and environmental limitations. It's all a mix.
...But I'd like to hear how Watson explains Mark Dean and Elijah McCoy if genetics has that much to do with intelligence, and how he explains whites (like me) who are subnormal at complex mathematical computation, but good at logic. It may be a certain gene, or gene complex.
But does it have to do with skin color? Probably not, or only in certain cases. (There may be "white stupid genes" and "black stupid genes".)
Again: the interpretation of the genetic code has to do with the expression of individual genes. I would expect that occasionally there were genes that aided intelligence, just like there are genes that aid stamina. I would also expect nearly all permutations and combinations of those genes to exist, with ecosystems favoring the smart, the strong, and the indefatigable.
http://www.alifedecoded.org -
Posted By:
jehosafats at 06/10/2008 9:43:43 AM
Comment:
Solid response. Prof. Gates. This is J.J. Horton. I wrote the 'Eminent in Speculation' opinion piece for The Cud magazine, discussing this very issue. I greatly admire your taking up this task and find your closing points particularly astute. -
Posted By:
jehosafats at 06/10/2008 9:43:22 AM
Comment:
Solid response. Prof. Gates. This is J.J. Horton. I wrote the 'Eminent in Speculation' opinion piece for Maye 2008 issue of The Cud magazine, discussing this very issue. I greatly admire your taking up this task and find your closing points particularly astute. Thanks. -
Posted By:
Omugabe at 06/09/2008 10:32:15 PM
Comment:
Here's another point:
If racist Watson and those of his ilk are rational enough and could truly believe that Africans are not as 'intelligent', then why would the racists TO THIS DAY expend so much efforts in preventing African people from becoming fully grounded in literacy, at least?
The fact is that human development, like the development of all life forms, can be stifled and stunted for any number of reasons.
Africans have been exceptionally literate and learned for thousands of years. The remains of Egyptian civilization, say, prove those facts without a doubt.
However, the likes of Watson are too wrapped up in themselves, their narrow-mindedness, and in their ignorance to realize and accept African history as 'told' by Egyptian remains. -
Posted By:
Omugabe at 06/09/2008 10:09:44 PM
Comment:
There is no fool like an old fool, as Watson obviously is.
Important point not to miss:
Having a good understanding in one superficial area of life does not automatically translates to good understanding in other areas of life.
Having a good understanding of the chemical make up of DNA does not mean that one automatically has good understanding in other areas of life and human affairs.
All one needs do is to look at Watson's mannerism as he answers the questions.
Watson's uneasy responses to Gate's questions betrays the devilishness, deceptiveness and disingenuousness, that is typical of racists, who are filled with ill will and ignorance with respect to the natural differences between non-Europeans and Europeans.
The African is the First Man, Template of Mankind and the Image of the Creator on Earth.
So to hold the view that non-Africans could possibly be endowed with any faculty of value that is not already possessed by Africans in great abundance is childish.
When the learned Africans in Egypt 4,000 years ago were moving huge slabs of granite with the power of their minds alone to build monuments and civilizations lasting thousands of years, where were the upstarts of Europe and there so-called 'intelligence' (whatever that is)?
The fact that Watson is in effect accepting that his so-called IQ is culture-based, and the fact that he is taking back the foolish words from his second childhood, means that Watson hasn't the courage of his conviction (typical of racists); because such a conviction would be built on his ignorance of human make up outside of the narrow and superficial world of theDNA molecule! -
Posted By:
gtsailor at 06/08/2008 10:28:22 AM
Comment:
Oh, bunk! Did Watson and Crick forget that Herman Branson did so much of the physics and math that laid out the Alpha Helix and got someone else the Nobel Prize? Could their work have come to fruition -- or that of the "racialist" founder of Fairchild Semiconductor was built on the discoveries of Samuel Elmer Imes, the first scientist to trace quantum effects in molecular structure? How can the whites who build on the discoveries of blacks continue to ignore the people upon whose shoulders they are standing? As Great a scientist as James Watson is, he is not alone in possessing extraordinary abilities. The whole sweep of black innovation in the sciences and technology has already rebutted his stuff and nonsense. He's just too narrowly focused to see it.
Garland L. Thompson -
Posted By:
jansegers at 06/08/2008 9:09:20 AM
Comment:
Very interesting and well nuanced article. But I have a question. Kenyan runners are well-known to win more and more running competitions.
The suggestion that it could be in their genes has been made without anyone really questioning this.
Why is it that the battle about IQ and intelligence is so much difference from the rest of genetics ?
Intelligence and IQ aren't the same. The latter measuring something that only can be called "something measured by an so-called IQ-test".
It's not because the fictional white Robinson has survived (with the invaluable help of Friday) thanks to his intelligence that the Caucasian type of Flesh and blood will survive any difficulty...
Last but not least, the influence of nature and nurture, of genes and culture are both so embedded that isn't clear what's due to what.
I'm wondering what the hell whites will do discovering their genetics aren't the best at all... I'm betting the Asians are smarter than us - if there would be any difference at all. -
Posted By:
jansegers at 06/08/2008 9:08:05 AM
Comment:
Very interesting and well nuanced article. But I have a question. Kenyan runners are well-known to win more and more running competitions.
The suggestion that it could be in their genes has been made without anyone really questioning this.
Why is it that the battle about IQ and intelligence is so much difference from the rest of genetics ?
Intelligence and IQ aren't the same. The latter measuring something that only can be called "something measured by an so-called IQ-test".
It's not because the fictional white Robinson has survived (with the invaluable help of Friday) thanks to his intelligence that the Caucasian type of Flesh and blood will survive any difficulty...
Last but not least, the influence of nature and nurture, of genes and culture are both so embedded that isn't clear what's due to what.
I'm wondering what the hell whites will do discovering their genetics aren't the best at all... I'm betting the Asians are smarter then us. -
Posted By:
proud at 06/07/2008 5:24:33 PM
Comment:
It should be noted that black americans are not african americans.Black americans are born in the United States. Therefore we should not call ourselves african americans. We are americans! IF color is used than we are black americans. Some whites love the word african american because it disassociates us from being , technically, americans.-
Posted By:
Freedom_Jury at 06/10/2008 9:29:10 PM
Comment:
I agree.
-
-
Posted By:
IndiPundit at 06/07/2008 1:41:09 PM
Comment:
It always seems to be those who do not harbor feelings of hatred towards members of other racial groups who are the most naive about racism. Watson simply can't imagine anyone wanting to use his beliefs as a basis for much more radical beliefs, ones that do restrict opportunities for people and prevent them from being treated as individuals from the earliest years of their lives.
Makes me think of this free dating site where every group is listed by geographic origin under "ethnicity" with one exception, African descendents. With Caucasian, Middle Eastern, Asian, and a few other designation for different regions of the world, you also find Black. I even raised the point in the site's message board community, only to have one person after another, including several people of African ancestory, claim that Black was a better term because Black people do not feel like they come from Africa. (That is truly a mark of the miseducation of African peoples in the diaspora.) To this day the site continues to subtly send out a message that all people come from somewhere on Earth, except African peoples who come from a planet called Black. -
Posted By:
CLazenby at 06/07/2008 12:17:01 PM
Comment:
There is clearly a trend to discredit these comments based solely on what has been deemed generally acceptable for public discussion. While high-minded ideals espouse the "everyone is equal" mindset, the hard facts such as FBI statistics on criminal behavior tend to agree with the good doctor. It is a constant source of suprise that university student-types with exactly zero hours experience in the real world are quick to assume that a man of such credentials has no idea what he's talking about. Luckily for students everywhere, there is no law against speaking from the viewpoint of the naive, just make sure your bike is locked up first. -
Posted By:
geb at 06/07/2008 8:36:27 AM
Comment:
Very interesting article. We studied Mr. Watson and his partner Crick in my Genetics class a few years ago. Sandmadd is correct in listing the books Stolen Legacy...etc. I would look further and suggest "The Making of the Whiteman" by Paul Lawrence Guthrie. Which specfically outline the genetic making of an morally, spiritually, and intellectually weak people. There is no way that you can claim that Black people are inferior without throughly thumbing through our history(pre-slave trade of course). The case of genetic inferiority has holes in it. The biggest hole according to my Genetics professor would be. The Human Genome project only mapped the genes of a caucasian male, which is being used to compare to other aboriginal people both male and female. Secondly, according to my Genetics professor. The scientist never found genes, they found ORF's (Open Reading Frames) which are repeating nucleotides which are in close proximity to actual genes. Also, the fact that Caucasian cannot use sunlight adequately like all other living organisms be it plant life or otherwise which makes you account for over 400,000 new cases of skin cancer per year. How can a group of people living in Europe be almost genetically annihilated be the Moors of Africa hence (Alexander The Great, Beethovan...etc) be smarter than The aboriginal people of the Earth. It was our light (Genetic Intelligence) that civilized you from your sure destruction at your own hands. Lastly, a through knowledge of the mis-education, treatment and institutionalized racism that permeates every nook and cranny of the U.S.A, Europe, and the World be virtue of Occidental influence as it ill-effects the darker people of the planet must be obtained studied and then weighed!
-
Posted By:
sandmadd at 06/06/2008 2:58:02 PM
Comment:
James Watson may know about DNA, but his understanding of black capability is sorely lacking. He needs re-education and I'd like to suggest a few titles to begin with: THE AFRICAN ORIGIN OF CIVILIZATION, by Cheikh Anta Diop, INTRODUCTION TO AFRICAN CIVILIZATIONS by John G. Jackson, and THE STOLEN LEGACY by George G.M. James. These will help Dr. Watson understand that African (black) people created great civlizations while his European ancestors were still in caves. That's the real I.Q. test score! -
Posted By:
Hank at 06/06/2008 12:30:23 PM
Comment: