By David H. Strassler
There is a long history of intellectual and scientific racism in the modern world that became a basis and support for governmental racial policies. In Nazi Germany, the destruction of European Jewry was made easier by the 19th century racist theories of Joseph A. Gobineau and Houston S. Chamberlain. While the centuries of Christian anti-Semitism and the conspiracy theories about Jews in the forged document "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" played a role in Nazi anti-Semitism, the crowning and defining feature was the notion of race, which meant that even a minute Jewish ancestry resulted in the individual being doomed to death.
In the United States, volumes were written justifying slavery and later Jim Crow legislation on the grounds of alleged Black inferiority--genetic and immutable.
Therefore it is astonishing that in 1994 a book - "The Bell Curve" by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray - would appear that introduces the concept of genetic inferiority of Blacks back into the public dialogue. Yet since its publication, Charles Murray has sought to play down the issue of race in his book. If his object were simply to try to assess the connection between I.Q. and genes and their connection to success in society, why in the world the need to introduce the concept of race at all into the analysis? Would it not have been sufficient to study I.Q.s of individuals regardless of race?
Considering how racial theories have been used in this century, one should address such issues with the greatest trepidation and sensitivity. Not Mr. Murray. He draws conclusions about race and I.Q. that are questionable at best. He pretends to have made a serious study of the impact of various social programs on Black I.Q.s. He concludes that they have had relatively little impact, leading him to say that this lack of progress demonstrates the overwhelming influence of genes and race on I.Q. Why not argue that those policies may not have been sufficient in themselves, that matters such as prenatal care, family culture and the like have never been properly addressed, thereby leaving untested enormous areas for improvement?
Moreover, as social critic Stanley Crouch recently pointed out, Murray and Herrnstein have accepted the definition of the Black race as it was designated by a racist America in the 18th and 19th centuries, which defined a Black as anyone having some Black blood. Of course, there was and is nothing genetically accurate about that definition. Thus when I.Q. scores are measured along racial lines, they are based on false assumptions and inevitably produce questionable results.
This is only one of many weaknesses of "The Bell Curve" analysis which make it insidious for the authors to draw broad conclusions on race and intelligence. Murray's denial that his assumptions need result in any derogation of Blacks, or that Blacks themselves need not feel offended by the analysis, or that Blacks need not be discouraged about their prospects as a result, or that school administrators might not inevitably feel complacent about the lack of progress by their Black students. is disingenuous. Suggestions by the author that "realism" on this subject could produce more constructive social policies goes against the entire history of politics in the modern era.
As noted, there is a long history in our country of books and articles portraying Blacks as genetically inferior in intelligence. For most of our history these works received legitimacy from an intellectual climate dominated by white racism. With the rise of the Civil Rights Movement, however, such racial approaches fell into disrepute. When in the 1970's people such as Arthur Jensen and William Shockley authored modern versions of the old racial inferiority hypothesis, they were met with widespread rejection.
Unfortunately, recent trends within the Civil Rights Movement ironically give greater credibility to a book like "The Bell Curve". A new respectability has emerged for thinking in terms of groups, rather than individual rights, this time coming from some within the Black community. It manifests itself in a focus on quotas, race-based redistricting, and extreme forms of multiculturalism. Moving away form Martin Luther King's focus on judging people "by content of one's character rather than the color of one's skin," the group became all. And so when Murray and Herrnstein chose to resurrect the concept of race and intelligence, they could be emboldened by this new legitimacy for thinking in group terms, coming from those who should have an interest in weakening this thrust that has been so destructive to Black life in America.
If any good can come from the publication of and attention of a book propounding racist theories, it is to remind all of us of the moral and practical power of the message of equality and dignity of Martin Luther King.
David H. Strassler is national chairman of the Anti-Defamation League.
In “Race, Intelligence, History...Old Tricks with New Twist”, David Strassler discusses a 1994 book, The Bell Curve, by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, and how it reintroduces “the concept of genetic inferiority of Blacks back into the public dialogue.” Strassler believes that the book would be sufficient enough in trying to assess a connection between IQs and genes, but it is not necessary to incorporate the idea of race. In the book Murray presents questionable conclusions about race and IQ, and does not consider other possibilities that could lead to connections between IQs and genes. Furthermore, Herrnstein and Murray wrote the book while accepting the definition of Blacks that was developed in the 18th and 19th centuries, a definition that had no genetic accuracy whatsoever. Murray believes that Blacks should not be insulted by the book for it has no degrading statements towards them.
I chose this article because it shows that there is still discussion on scientific racism in the modern world. While this article was from 1994, it was not a year in the 18th or 19th century when scientific racism was first discussed. To some people this is still a highly debated topic even though science has given no evidence connecting genetics and race. I still think that it is shocking that people still make this connection. Race is not set in stone… it is an idea that humans created, altered, and developed over time.
Scientific racism is the idea that science was the only way to explain the difference between blacks and whites. Thomas Jefferson may be the first person to start the theory of race, but he certainly set “American science on the path of trying to figure out what it is scientifically that makes blacks inferior to whites. And of course, if that’s the question the scientist asks, then that’s the question that the scientist will answer” (Race…The Story We Tell). While this idea was more than prominent in the 18th century, it still has not disappeared from our society today. Just like The Bell Curve discussed, people still believe that genetics connects to race. Science has given absolutely no evidence on this. Just like in Race: The Power of an Illusion, Part I, The Difference Between Us, when the students analyzed their DNA to see how different they were from each other because they were of different races, they found no evidence connecting genetics and race. So many people believe that we are all so different from one another, but the video shows that we are all actually genetically very alike. But unfortunately, race is a cultural creation that, over time, has been developed and manipulated in ways that has classified people into certain groups, with certain characteristics.
The idea of scientific racism also incorporates the idea of privilege: “the idea that one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they’ve done or failed to do” (Johnson 35). Furthermore, Johnson writes that whites developed the idea of whiteness and defined a privileged social category where they were above everyone else who was not like them (46-47). Whites probably feel that this whiteness separates them from blacks, and puts them higher on the hierarchy scale. And with this thinking they developed scientific racism to further separate the two races. It does not matter if science does not prove anything because whites have white privilege, and blacks have none at all.
It was interesting to read how Herrnstein and Murray did not think that their book would be insulting to blacks in any way. They are pretty much degrading them, so to say that it is not insulting shows denial at a very high level. No matter how many times people say that there is no connection between race and genetics, it is never going to subside. I think that that is sad because it in a way shows a narrow-minded way of thinking. People in the 18th and 19th century were thinking this way. To still think this way, even with so many advances in science and society, is kind of absurd. Just like we created race, we created scientific racism, and we are the only ones who can get rid of it.
Johnson, Allan G. Privilege, Power, and Difference. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006.
Race: The Power of an Illusion, Part I, The Difference Between Us. 2003.
Race: The Power of an Illusion, Part I, The Story We Tell. 2003.
Strassler, David H. “Intelligence, History...Old Tricks with New Twist.” The Philadelphia Tribune. 111. 105 (1994): 6-A. Ethnic NewsWatch. 14 July 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment