Darwinism and Racism

[Peter P.]

Recently, I have come to the conclusion that anyone that is a Darwinist adherent and also an advocate of racial equality must be doing so at their own political convience, so that they do not appear as a bigot. Racism, or in this specific event white-supremecy, seems to be endorsed by the typical Darwinistic perspective of natural selection. A closer examination of Darwin's theory would yield that populations adapt to their own enviroment, in which case it can be argued that Europeans, the typical caucasians, and Africans, the typical black race, are adapted for different purposes. However, whether one is superior is a matter of opinion depending on what traits consitute superiority, intelligence, physical stamina, etc.

I was hoping I can be proved with some meaningful feedback.

[Coragyps]

Being adapted for different environments, e.g., having less melanin in my skin so I can make more Vitamin D in the winter at 50 degrees latitude, doesn't appear to me to have diddly-squat to do with racism or white supremacy. I view racism as a cultural hold-over from the xenophobia of tribes at war with each other. Race just makes xenophobia "easier" because it's easier to tell that "he's not one of us."

[Peter P.]

However, one could argue that as a result of adaptations more adaptation has taken place than simply the observed skin color, although that tends to be the predominant characteristic.
As much as I hate to compare dogs to humans (unless I am describing ex-s), some dogs are differently adapted than just coat color and size, although that appears to be the most marketable characteristic.
I by no means am advocating racial superiority, but I am rather questioning the political thoughts of people that believe in Darwinian evolution and equality.
And for everybody's sake, please stay calm...

[Brad Messenger]

[quote]Originally posted by Coragyps:
<strong>Being adapted for different environments, e.g., having less melanin in my skin so I can make more Vitamin D in the winter at 50 degrees latitude, doesn't appear to me to have diddly-squat to do with racism or white supremacy. I view racism as a cultural hold-over from the xenophobia of tribes at war with each other. Race just makes xenophobia "easier" because it's easier to tell that "he's not one of us."</strong><hr></blockquote>

Racism is not a strong indicator that one is "not one of us" since evolutionarily, warring tribes were of the same skin color. Few tribes traveled to regions of the world where they would find others of differing skin color, so finding a difference between skin colors would not be advantageous. All things being equal except skin color, and racial identification would most likely take place.

Recently, there was an experiment done that confirms this. People were shown 10 men on a basketball court arguing, with half of them in red jerseys and the other half in white. There were an assortment of races on each team. The people were asked to give their reactions. When they identified the members, they said "the guy on the red team" rather than "the white guy." When all the men wore the same jersey colors, the subjects identified the men in the scene by their race. Thus, a tribes unique dress style or face painting would be far better an indicator of the enemy than their skin color.

[Kachana]

Whather the physical characteristics of a black man are any more or less amenable to life in a particular environment than mine is an issue that is totally irrelevant to any view on white supremacy as traditionally held.

You are conflating the traditional view of white supremacy (that whites are somehow inherently 'better' as moral people deserving of respect than blacks), whith a totally separate view of supremacy, that of being potentially marginally better adapted to a particular environment.

This latter view is not related in any way to the former except by the word 'supremacy', which has totally different connotations in each case.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Um, you're also forgetting the fact that there is only one race, the human race. What you're talking about is differences in how complex genetic mixes within that race react to different environments over centuries of remaining in those particular environments.

If you (as a "white" human; pardon the presumption) lived on the Serengetti, your skin would darken in order to protect yourself and your atheltic abilities would increase dramatically as a direct resut of the harshness of the environment or you'd die.

If you lived and procreated there over centuries, there would be a natural increase in the amount of skin pigmentation and musculature (as well as the sharpened ability to use both effectively) in your offspring so that, centuries later your original "whiteness" would no longer be in evidence.

Just watch "Survivor" re-runs to see how adaptive the human body is to its environment over the course of just one month and then extrapolate that adaptability over centuries and you'll see what I'm talking about.

The reason a pot full of disparate, various ingredients is called, collectively, a "stew" is due to the slow heat applied over time :D .

[Pantera]

Recently, I have come to the conclusion that anyone that is an Intelligent Design adherent and also an advocate of racial equality must be doing so at their own political convience, so that they do not appear as a bigot. Racism, or in this specific event white-supremecy, seems to be endorsed by the typical perspective of Intelligent Design. A closer examination of Hovind's theory would yield that populations are designed for their own enviroment, in which case it can be argued that Europeans, the typical caucasians, and Africans, the typical black race, are designed for different purposes. However, whether one is superior is a matter of opinion depending on what traits consitute superiority, intelligence, physical stamina, etc.

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

[Peter P.]

The other scope of the arguement is whether or not Darwin was himself as racist, and whether or not Darwinian evolution, as Darwin wrote it (not as interpreted), implies or even states a certain "racist" viewpoint. I was not questioning the status of modern evolution but rather the methology of individuals who tote themselves as Darwinists as well as supports of equality.
With regard to Darwinian evolution, the same arguement could be used against the "white supremacy" movement. For example, who is to say that people of African descent aren't superior, or that people of Asiatic descent aren't superior, who knows?

I enjoyed the Intelligent Design piece...

[copernicus]

[quote]Originally posted by Peter P.:
<strong>...A closer examination of Darwin's theory would yield that populations adapt to their own enviroment, in which case it can be argued that Europeans, the typical caucasians, and Africans, the typical black race, are adapted for different purposes...</strong><hr></blockquote>

That is a very vague statement. Why would a "closer examination" yield any such conclusion? What are the "different purposes" that you are talking about? Your claim is absolutely meaningless without some specific argument about what environmental features the different so-called "races" are adapted to. Furthermore, you don't discuss what you mean by "equality". Are you talking about political equality? That has nothing to do with environmental adaptations to different climates. Why should humans adapted to different climates have different political rights? Your post makes no sense at all.

[DarkDruid]

[quote]Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
<strong>If you (as a "white" human; pardon the presumption) lived on the Serengetti, your skin would darken in order to protect yourself and your atheltic abilities would increase dramatically as a direct resut of the harshness of the environment or you'd die.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Athletic abilities increase? How so? If you're assuming I'm a fat white computer nerd in the US, you are correct. However, that is not because of my race, nor is it on par with the shade of my skin. Assuming that somehow "white" humans not only lack pigment but athletics as well is silly. Pigment defficiency come from my genes, but my athletic abilities do not. I don't think you can claim that Norway is somehow more hospitable than the Serengetti.

[Bill]

Population groups diverge from one another only when they can breed in isolation (and the isolation need not be totally spatial ... there are instances of the same species evolving into "daytime" and "nighttime" varieties that were totally isolated from one another).

The only widely accepted definition of what constitutes a "species" is based upon the capability to interbreed. If humans could interbreed with Bonobos, then we and the Bonobos would be one species. The fact that we cannot interbreed with Bonobos, but that most members of any "race" of humans can easily interbreed with most opposite sex members of any other "race" of humans leads eventually to the inevitible conclusion that the entire concept of "race" has no biological basis. The variations within allegedly "purebred" "race" groups are far larger than are the alleged differences between alleged "race" groups. There is quite literally no reason to separate a dark-skinned Spaniard into the "White" racial group while separating a very-light-skinned African into the "Negro" racial group.

In fact, the human concept of "race" simply doesn't fit into the taxonomic structure of biological classification very well at all. The human concept of "race" is more like animal breeds, where cross-breed fertility is presumed. This means that you get a fairly large number of half-breed and multi-breed dogs, which is certainly what you are left with in the human population here in the USA.

By looking at breeds of dogs, we can hopefully see the parallels with the ways we treat different groups of humans. It really amounts to a question of fashion. Certain looks and abilities are "in fashion" or "out of fashion" at any given moment in time, but those "fashion" qualities are really not very important in the way of distinguishing between different groups of dogs (or cats or whatever...). Just as it would not be appropriate for the Westminster Dog Show to declare that the "Best of Show" honor will always go to a dog of the breed of "X," so too it is not appropriate to declare that some particular honor (such as the office of President of the United States) shall always go to a person of the "breed" of "X."

Frankly, Darwin would have been the last person to assert that even all humans are necessarily better than all animals. Darwin was an early advocate of animal rights and was known to vociforously upbraid those whom he caught abusing animals in public. Accordingly, I believe that those who accuse Darwin of racism are simply misrepresenting what Darwin actually believed in that regard.

== Bill

[echidna]

[quote]Originally posted by DarkDruid:
<strong>Athletic abilities increase? How so? If you're assuming I'm a fat white computer nerd in the US, you are correct. However, that is not because of my race, nor is it on par with the shade of my skin. Assuming that somehow "white" humans not only lack pigment but athletics as well is silly. Pigment defficiency come from my genes, but my athletic abilities do not. I don't think you can claim that Norway is somehow more hospitable than the Serengetti.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ummm unfortunately yes. Olympic sprinters are very disproportionately represented by those from west Africa, while (less so) distance runners are disproportionately represented by those from east Africa.

This appears to be a genetic disposition rather than a cultural one. Similarly I suspect the lack of black swimmers may also point to a genetic difference as well.

The problem is that these differences are only apparent at the extreme percentiles such as Olympic performance. Thus within 3 sigma distributions of the norm there is little if any perceptible difference. By judging on a racial stereotype and ignoring the individual characteristics, one may well be making a mistake.

As for genetic influences on the brain, the brain is far too complex to simplify down to using genetics to predict behaviour and ability. What conclusions do we draw from the fact that the male brain is 10% heavier than the female brain ? :D This example above all should demonstrate the lack of correlation between brain genetics and brain ability.

Racial supremacy, apart from being morally repugnant, holds no credibility (Darwinian or Hovindian).

[elwoodblues]

Hell, Darwinism can help explain a lot of the differences between the races (if not all of them). In this way, it can help work against racism.

One of my favorite examples is how black people are much more prone to have sickle cell. Some idiots interpreted this as a mark of inferiority. It turns out that this vulnerability is caused by a mutation that ALSO gives the person some degree of immunity to malaria (which is wide-spread in Africa). It isn't that they're inferior; they're simply adapted to their environment, and being resistant to malaria was just more important than being 'resistan't to sickle cell.
<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/disease/sickle.html" target="_blank">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/disease/sickle.html</a>

Darwinism does NOT necessitate racism. Hell, knowing enough about Darwinism informs you about WHY the races are different, and how little it really means.

[Vorkosigan]

Originally posted by Pantera:
Recently, I have come to the conclusion that anyone that is an Intelligent Design adherent and also an advocate of racial equality must be doing so at their own political convience, so that they do not appear as a bigot.

ROTFL. You beat me to it. I think I've been on these boards too long.

Michael

[Vorkosigan]

Ummm unfortunately yes. Olympic sprinters are very disproportionately represented by those from west Africa, while (less so) distance runners are disproportionately represented by those from east Africa.

Yes, because in east africa, they practice at 3000 meters and run from the day they are born. Nothing to do with genetics, everything to with altitude. Almost none of the great kenyan runners are kikuyus, because those people live at normal altitudes and conduct agriculture, which does not involve running. Were there an olympic hoeing competition, the kikuyus would kick butt.

The west and east africans separated less than 1000 years ago, and are a mixed crowd anyway, with genes from all over.

Michael

[scigirl]

Peter P,

Why focus just on skin color? Do you think that is the only distinguishing characteristic that exists in different populations of humans that might have an evolutionary explanation?

Why not focus on T cell production? Or hair length? Or bone structure? Or propensity to develop depression? All of these things have a genetic basis and perhaps a 'natural selection' darwinian explanation. So what?

You focus on one small difference, I focus on the millions of similarities. Humans are humans, no matter how much melanin their melanocytes produce. Since we have "evolved" to be smart inventors of sunblock and shelter, it hardly seems to matter now whether some population is more adapted to the sunlight.

scigirl

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

[RufusAtticus]

Here is something I have written before about races and evolution.

[quote]On the topic of interracial marrages you said, "There is only one race of mankind. It is called the human race. Ungodly evolution introduced the concept of races'." I would just like to correct you. The concept of races existed long before Victorian science. In English the word, 'race' dates back to 1580 (www.m-w.com, race[3,noun]), almost 300 years before Charles Darwin. How can evolution be responcible for a concept that existed prior to it? In fact, evolutionary biology and genetics has shown that for humans no population is anymore superior than other ones, and we are all of one closely knit population. The genetic differences between populations are so slight, that it almost pointless to attempt to determine a person's ethnicity from his/her DNA. In the last 100 years, science has done more to dispel the myths sorrounding human races/ethnicities, than philosophy and theology ever did.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]The concept of races did not originate with Darwinism. Scientific inquiry into races was about a hundred years old when Darwin came along. Before Darwin, the common thought was that there were three originally created races. Some nationalities were considered to be descended from one race, while others mutiple races. Evolutionary Biology changed everything by showing how nationalities can come about by natural and sexual selection on local populations. No creation of races necessary. Today, scientists use the term human races to mean human subpopulations.

AFAIK, the "three race" concept is only used today to broadly categorize human skulls based upon certain features. It is useful in the US, because forensic scientists can tell whether a skeleton most likely belongs to a white, black, asian, etc. person.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. If you have theological problems with it, that's okay. Just don't try to say that it is bad science promoted by non-christians. A good portion of my department is Christian. (My advisor for one.) Evolution is not a religion; it's good science. In fact, I took Evolutionary Biology from a scientist just about as conservative as you probably are.<hr></blockquote>

Athletic ability:
In some parts of Africa (Keyna) the environment plays an important role in athletic ability. Blacks also have better genes than the rest of the world, which is inbreed compared to Africa. In the US, African-Americans tend to have more "fast-twitch" mussels than other groups. That is why there are almost no starting white WR,RB, or CB in the NFL. Also when was the last time the US had a white sprinter in the Olympics. I don't think swimming ability refects genetic potential. Most Blacks (in America and abroad) don't have access to the pools etc. needed to train for competive swimming.

-RvFvS

[RufusAtticus]

Peter,

How do you explain that most US white-supremacists, are fundamentalist christians, who reject godless science (i.e. evolutionary biology)? If you are right, then The World Church of the Creator are pro-Darwin and the KKK was/is teaming with college biology professors.

You need to observe the supremacist behavior more "in the wild," to test your "hypothesis."

-RvFvS

[Oolon Colluphid]

[quote]Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
<strong>If you (as a "white" human; pardon the presumption) lived on the Serengetti, your skin would darken in order to protect yourself and your atheltic abilities would increase dramatically as a direct resut of the harshness of the environment or you'd die.

If you lived and procreated there over centuries, there would be a natural increase in the amount of skin pigmentation and musculature (as well as the sharpened ability to use both effectively) in your offspring so that, centuries later your original "whiteness" would no longer be in evidence.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry Koy, but unless you're suggesting that the different breeds of Homo sapiens don't breed true (patently false), and unless you're assuming interbreeding with darker-skinned natives (which would undermine the experiment anyway), then your thought experiment sure sounds like Lamarckian nonsense. Getting a sun tan is not the same as altering your genotype to a darker-skinned one... that requires differential survival.

Cheers, Oolon

[Bill Snedden]

The labeling of Darwinism as a "racist" theory is a sadly fallacious attempt to "poison the well" and thereby encourage otherwise rational individuals to reject the theory out of hand.

However, the charge is as ridiculous as it is untrue. In point of fact, there is no biological or scientific definition of race. The distinction is sociological and driven almost entirely by morphology.

Further, for many traits, the differences within ethnic/racial groups are greater than those between such groups.

In other words, for many heritable traits there exists greater variation between individual African-Americans (for example) than between the "average" African-American and European-Americans.

Whoever said it before was absolutely correct. There is only one "race": the human race.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ecco]

[quote] Nothing to do with genetics, everything to with altitude.<hr></blockquote>

I really must disagree. In this country (USA) the majority of professional athletes in basketball and football are people of African heritage. In these two sports physical strength and endurance are very important and both are available to vast numbers of blacks and whites in school programs. Athletes in both of these sports make salaries far above average. If more young people of African descent were exposed to, and given opportunities, in tennis and hockey for example, they would dominate these sports also.

Genetics does play a part in physical capabilities just as it does in facial features, skin color, etc.

However, it is very wrong to equate genetics to racism.

Edited to add:
Apologies to RufusAtticus. I didn't see you already covered this, since I responded after having only read the first page.

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: ecco ]</p>

[Peter P.]

[quote]Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
<strong>Peter,

How do you explain that most US white-supremacists, are fundamentalist christians, who reject godless science (i.e. evolutionary biology)? If you are right, then The World Church of the Creator are pro-Darwin and the KKK was/is teaming with college biology professors.

You need to observe the supremacist behavior more "in the wild," to test your "hypothesis."

-RvFvS</strong><hr></blockquote>

I am not suggesting that white-supremesists actually use the arguement, I am trying to get thoughtful debate out of the topic of political contradictions. However, I do with your statement, but you must also consider the time frame in which Darwin wrote his material, and the time in which many white supremesist groups (KKK, etc) were founded. When Darwin's material was published, roughly aroud the time of the American Civil War, most white people, including the President, Abe Lincoln, were in fact white supremesists. They believe that whites were supreme in most ways over the black race.

To quote Darwin (p. 445 in the Penguin Edition, in the Chapter of Recapiltulation):
"As natural selection acts by competition, it adapts and improves the inhabitants of each country only in realation to their co-inhabitants; so we need feel no surprise at the species of any one country, although on the ordinary view supposed to have been created and specially adapted for that country, being beaten and supplanted by the naturalised productions from another land."

This can be interpreted to mean that the white race and black race, although of the same species are adapted to different purposes. And according to Darwin once again, "If then, animals and plants do vary, let it be ever so slightly or slowly, why should not variations or individual differences, through natural selection, or the survival of the fittest?" Therefore, it is safe to draw conclusion that Darwin believed that one race was superior to the other, because each habitant can only be adapted to make them more fit for their own enviroment, therefore Caucasians and Africans must be fit for independent tasks, as the enviroment Caucasians and Africans originate from differ. Furthermore, "being beaten and supplanted by the naturalised productions from another land" can be directly adapted to the antebellum American slave society, or the modern societal depression of the African race (although it is thankfully decreasing).
Darwin's terms can be interpreted by supremesists to aid their own arguements. As was stated by in a previous posts, it appears as though people of African descent are more fit for althetics than Caucasians. A similar analogy can be drawn to academic competitions, why are whites more prevalant than blacks at academic competitions held at the national level. One could argue the societal depression of blacks, which has no doubt occured, but even with that taken into account, I fell representation by blacks at nationwide academic competition is disproportionate. However, against white supremecy, it is interesting to note the number of Asiatics in national academic competitions, especially in the areas of math and science, despite considerable supression of the Asians (the first anti-immigration law was passed against Chinese immigrants because they were outperforming their white counterparts on the transcontinetal railroads and Washington feared a racial revolt).
I do not intend to suggest that any race is superior I am rather suggesting that Darwinian evolution can be used to argue in favor of a racial supremecy, and that classic arguement as no doubt been applied to white supremecy in the past.
As for the reason the KKK doesn't use Darwinian evolution in a supremecy arguement is that I think they are stupid...

Peter P.

[Quetzal]

Peter P. I'm not sure you are aware of it, but your fundamental question: is Darwinism inherently racist, has been thoroughly refuted for nearly 80 years. The first proponents of this view - who used it to justify conceptions of white racial superiority (Homo mediterraneus) - were a group founded by Ernst Haeckel in a vain attempt to justify the slaughter of WWI. These folks called themselves Monists. Their premise formed one of the philosophical pillars upon which Hitler based his resurgent Germanic nationalism - and his belief that Germany was destined to rule the untermenschen of the rest of humanity.

I think a bloody war that resulted in 25 million dead provided an effective refutation of the Monist position.

I have to question both the motivation and intellectual honesty of anyone who would attempt to use this spurious and long-buried "social Darwinism" in an attempt to call into question the Theory of Evolution.

[echidna]

[quote]Originally posted by Peter P.:
<strong>This can be interpreted to mean that the white race and black race, although of the same species are adapted to different purposes. And according to Darwin once again, "If then, animals and plants do vary, let it be ever so slightly or slowly, why should not variations or individual differences, through natural selection, or the survival of the fittest?" Therefore, it is safe to draw conclusion that Darwin believed that one race was superior to the other, because each habitant can only be adapted to make them more fit for their own enviroment, therefore Caucasians and Africans must be fit for independent tasks, as the enviroment Caucasians and Africans originate from differ. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes I’d concur that Darwin probably believed in racial superiority for certain selected tasks. Australians enjoy the highest rate of skin cancer in the world which is a sad combination of our love of the sun together with inappropriate skin pigmentation amongst most of our north European immigrants.

This proviso of racial superiority for certain tasks is completely different to racial superiority per se. One simply cannot say Race A is superior to Race B. One must state what the characteristic is, and then objectively and scientifically demonstrate it, not with demographical statistical studies, but with clear identification of the genes at work and how they physically affect the genetic type in question.

Also, allocating areas of superiority in physical terms is more easily proven and understood. But again, the human brain (of any genetic type) is far too complex and adaptable to ascribe relative characteristics based on genetics. So given homo sapiens’ high value placed on the attributes of the mind, racial superiority in the area of mental ability and characteristics simply holds no credibility.

Darwin was not seeking to extend his theory to human social behaviours. Quite revolutionary enough to notice physical differences between tortoises on different islands.

However aside from that, yes sadly he will always be quoted in the worst of terms "survival of the fittest". His was a scientific theory, not a moral one. Clearly there are some people who are not as fit for survival as others. I wear glasses, some have cerebral palsy, others heart conditions. Does this mean that Darwinism is prescribing an authoritarian edict that the less-fit should not survive ? Of course not, and nor would Darwin think so.

If anything, his explanation of our underlying animal instinct to enforce "survival of the fittest", helps us understand the battle to bring greater morality to the world.

[Peter P.]

[quote]Originally posted by echidna:
<strong>

Yes I’d concur that Darwin probably believed in racial superiority for certain selected tasks. Australians enjoy the highest rate of skin cancer in the world which is a sad combination of our love of the sun together with inappropriate skin pigmentation amongst most of our north European immigrants.

This proviso of racial superiority for certain tasks is completely different to racial superiority per se. One simply cannot say Race A is superior to Race B. One must state what the characteristic is, and then objectively and scientifically demonstrate it, not with demographical statistical studies, but with clear identification of the genes at work and how they physically affect the genetic type in question.

Also, allocating areas of superiority in physical terms is more easily proven and understood. But again, the human brain (of any genetic type) is far too complex and adaptable to ascribe relative characteristics based on genetics. So given homo sapiens’ high value placed on the attributes of the mind, racial superiority in the area of mental ability and characteristics simply holds no credibility.

Darwin was not seeking to extend his theory to human social behaviours. Quite revolutionary enough to notice physical differences between tortoises on different islands.

However aside from that, yes sadly he will always be quoted in the worst of terms "survival of the fittest". His was a scientific theory, not a moral one. Clearly there are some people who are not as fit for survival as others. I wear glasses, some have cerebral palsy, others heart conditions. Does this mean that Darwinism is prescribing an authoritarian edict that the less-fit should not survive ? Of course not, and nor would Darwin think so.

If anything, his explanation of our underlying animal instinct to enforce "survival of the fittest", helps us understand the battle to bring greater morality to the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree, just because one race is different, as inherently they are does not mean they are superior in anyother way.

First I would like to say this are not representative of my beliefs. Now I am going to go out on huge limb and offend every person of African descent I know and most other people too, but that aside here I go.


How Darwin Can be applied to White Supremecy...

In modern times the Europeans, and their descendents, have come to control the world in most every aspect, playing home to the world's largest religion, the world's largest and most powerful militaries, and furthermore the world's most influential leaders. Caucasians have come to dominate the world today like never before.

As the leaders of the world, it can be extrapolated from Darwin, that because Caucasians have becomes the powerful ones that they must be "the fittest", or all around have the most favorable combination of traits. These advantages may be ever so slight, but for what they are, these advantages must exist as to enable Caucasians to become the ruling race.

Chew on that...

[hezekiah jones]

[quote]Originally posted by Peter P.:
Now I am going to go out on huge limb and offend every person of African descent I know and most other people too ...<hr></blockquote>

When you're talking about "every person of African descent," then there aren't any "most other people."

[DarkDruid]

[quote]Originally posted by ecco:
<strong>I really must disagree. In this country (USA) the majority of professional athletes in basketball and football are people of African heritage. In these two sports physical strength and endurance are very important and both are available to vast numbers of blacks and whites in school programs. Athletes in both of these sports make salaries far above average. If more young people of African descent were exposed to, and given opportunities, in tennis and hockey for example, they would dominate these sports also.

Genetics does play a part in physical capabilities just as it does in facial features, skin color, etc.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Excuse me for saying this again, but I'm afraid you are missinformed. The classic pattern, in the US at least, is that the repressed groups usually turn to sports and excel there. Around the turn of the century, Italians and Jews were just like the African-Americans today... they dominated sports. Does this mean that Italians and Jews were somehow better adapted genetically for sports?

You must define what you mean by atheltic ability and prove why blacks are better at it. If you think about it this way, who would win in a wrestling match? A pygmy or a scandinavian?

[hezekiah jones]

[quote]Originally posted by turtonm:
Were there an olympic hoeing competition ...<hr></blockquote>

I was in a few of those, in my wilder days.

[Wizardry]

[quote]Peter P:
<strong>How Darwin Can be applied to White Supremecy...</strong>

In modern times the Europeans, and their descendents, have come to control the world in most every aspect, playing home to the world's largest religion, the world's largest and most powerful militaries, and furthermore the world's most influential leaders. Caucasians have come to dominate the world today like never before.
As the leaders of the world, it can be extrapolated from Darwin, that because Caucasians have becomes the powerful ones that they must be "the fittest", or all around have the most favorable combination of traits. These advantages may be ever so slight, but for what they are, these advantages must exist as to enable Caucasians to become the ruling race.
Chew on that...<hr></blockquote>

That is far to narrow a view to be a convincing case. It ignores a great number of historical factors which were probably much more influential. Also, you are equating a few centuries worth of historical evidence with biology. Doesn't it matter that for most of the rest of the history of the species(a couple hundred thousand years), Europe was the backwater of the world. For much longer periods of time, the Chinese and the Arabs ruled the world. Arab travelers through Europe referred to them as innately inferior and unintelligent. The dominance of the West comes from the self-imposed isolation of the Arab and Asian worlds along with the geographically imposed isolation of Africa and the Americas contrasted with the European quest for knowledge that stemmed from their desire to eliminate the Dar-al-Islam as well as a general greed that was not looked favorably upon in most other cultures.

In terms of pure Darwinism, though, I have no doubt that there is a difference in the traits of the various human ethnic groups. It is not an accident that most of the world class sprinters are from West Africa, while most of the world-class long distance runners are from East Africa. It is extremely rare to find good sprinters from Ethiopia and it is likewise difficult to find good marathon runners from Sierra Leone. White people have been found to have more upper body strength on average. Look at the number of white quarterbacks compared to the number of whites in other positions.

Physical differences are very easily affected by Darwinian evolution. However, intelligence is far more subtle. I don't think that there are substantial differences in the mean intelligence of a particular racial groups. There are also far more red herrings in the intelligence department. Great scientists do not necessarily beget great scientists. The greatest mathematician of the last century came from an Indian family not well known for its mathematical skills. Ramanujan also pretty much destroys the white supremacy argument due to the fact that he basically rederived the last 100 years of advanced Western mathematics almost entirely on his own in the matter of a few years.

Racism is dangerous because you can never say that one race is inferior to yours because it is very likely that there are quite a few individuals in that group who are better than you at pretty much everything.

Peace out.

[Asha'man]

Just a side note about blacks and swimming: as a former lifeguard, I had one clear difference pointed out to me. Blacks tend to have denser bones, and therefore don't float as well as whites. This may influence their interest in swimming as a sport. (As a 150lb moderately athletic white guy, my lifeguard test included pulling a very athletic 200lb black guy two lengths of the pool, and he sank like a brick.)

Athletic ability, just like most other individual characteristics, has a genetic component. Truely exceptional athletes always have both training and genetics on their side. It appears that blacks have a tendancy to excel at athletics, but I don't know if that is more from genetics or training. When doing staticstical surveys across populations, it is often difficult to separate cultural and environmental influences from genetic ones.

On the main topic of this thread, however, I don't think racism and has any correlation with speciation theories. Racists seem to use any available excuse to justify their beliefs of superiority, both scientific and religious.

[echidna]

[quote]Originally posted by Asha'man:
<strong>Just a side note about blacks and swimming: as a former lifeguard, I had one clear difference pointed out to me. Blacks tend to have denser bones, and therefore don't float as well as whites. This may influence their interest in swimming as a sport. (As a 150lb moderately athletic white guy, my lifeguard test included pulling a very athletic 200lb black guy two lengths of the pool, and he sank like a brick.)</strong><hr></blockquote>

I did suspect body density was a factor.

On a side note I am half Chinese and half north European and similarly am unable to float which I blame for my poor swimming ability. Using this excuse I try to forget that our school swimming captain was also negatively buoyant.

[echidna]

[quote]Originally posted by Peter P.:
<strong>As the leaders of the world, it can be extrapolated from Darwin, that because Caucasians have becomes the powerful ones that they must be "the fittest", or all around have the most favorable combination of traits. These advantages may be ever so slight, but for what they are, these advantages must exist as to enable Caucasians to become the ruling race.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ummm … wrong !!

As others have replied, there are numerous other factors, environment and most significantly culture. A classic case of correlation not proving causation. Once one enters into the realm of human behaviour, factors multiply well beyond what genetics can understand or explain.

On which area of brain genetics could this conclusion possibly be drawn ?

Statistically most car crashes involve red cars.
Therefore red makes the car crash.
False.

Just as certain genes may be better adapted for certain environments and physical attributes, so too certain cultures perform better at certain tasks than others. A culture which religiously forbids lending money for profit is clearly at an economic disadvantage to one which does not. A culture which uses the Roman counting system is at a disadvantage from one which uses a Hindu-Arabic one, but better off than one which counts 1, 2, 3, many. Traditionally it is the cultures which prove adaptable which prosper economically.

Rise and fall of cultures is simply a part of history. By this conclusion the ancient Egyptians were genetically superior when their civilisation prospered, but suddenly genetically inferior to the Romans, then genetic superiority shifted to the Khmer, the Aztecs, the Incas, etc etc etc. Illogical.

It doesn’t take much to realise how versatile the human brain is (regardless of race or appearance), and how much we rely on learning to affect our behaviour. Change the material and the behaviours learnt and you’ll end up with a very different person.

You won’t find any credible scientific evidence for linking racial genetics with any behaviour characteristics. This is simply sloppy (and obscene) thinking from people who don’t understand Darwin’s scope.

The rich tapestry of Life ? Vive la difference.

[echidna]

[quote]Originally posted by DarkDruid:
<strong>

Excuse me for saying this again, but I'm afraid you are missinformed. The classic pattern, in the US at least, is that the repressed groups usually turn to sports and excel there. Around the turn of the century, Italians and Jews were just like the African-Americans today... they dominated sports. Does this mean that Italians and Jews were somehow better adapted genetically for sports?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Seeing as no one else has picked this up …

The turn of the century was also marked by racial segregation (against blacks), extreme racism (by today’s standards) and a wholly different social climate prohibiting blacks from participating in mainstream competitive sports. With Jews and Italians never subjected to slavery, blacks were considered to be socially well below anyone of European descent.

The disgust of Hitler at the ’36 Olympics refusing to shake Jesse Owens’s hand despite his winning achievements. Only Nazi anti-semitism compares with the atrocity of black slavery. Little wonder it’s been a slow process to see all races treated equally.

[RufusAtticus]

Peter,

You claim that evolutionary biology or "Darwinism," as you call it, can be used to support racist ideas. What does this have to do with its scientific validity? EB can also be used to show that there is no such thing as a "superior" population. Every population has both negative and positive features. They are locally adapted and the notion that one is universally superior then the others can hardly be supported by available evidence.

Ecology and evolutionary biology (EEB) has shown that most populations that persist and grow do so not by killing of the competition, but by surviving events that kill of the competition and expanding into the newly opened habitats.

It has also shown that all humans are related, that no population is more blessed by a creator than any other one, and that characteristics are not the result of past curses.

On the surface, "Darwinism" can be used to support many philosophical arguments because evolution is the unifying concept of biology that explains the diversity of life. Though, in actuality, the evidence can only support some of these philosophies and racism is not one of them.

-RvFvS

Edited for grammar.

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

[ConsequentAtheist]

[quote]Originally posted by Peter P.:
<strong>Recently, I have come to the conclusion that anyone that is a Darwinist adherent and also an advocate of racial equality must be doing so at their own political convience, so that they do not appear as a bigot.

Recently? I seriously doubt it.

Racism, or in this specific event white-supremecy, seems to be endorsed by the typical Darwinistic perspective of natural selection.

What "typical Darwinistic perspective" might that be?

A closer examination of Darwin's theory ...

Isn't this just a little pedantic.

... would yield that populations adapt to their own enviroment, ...

Might I suggest reading "The Beak of the Finch"

... in which case it can be argued that Europeans, the typical caucasians, and Africans, the typical black race, are adapted for different purposes.

Much like farmers, steelworkers, and mariners, (given their different environment).

However, whether one is superior is a matter of opinion depending on what traits consitute superiority, intelligence, physical stamina, etc.

Huh?

I was hoping I can be proved with some meaningful feedback.

Actually, I suspect that you were hoping to gain an advantage by playing the race card.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

[Peter P.]

Maybe Reasonable Doubt should read follow up posts before inserting his 2 cents...

Peter P.

[Peter P.]

[quote]Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
<strong>Peter,

You claim that evolutionary biology or "Darwinism" as you call it can be used to support racist ideas. What does this have to do with its scientific validity? EB can also be used to show that there is no such thing as a "superior" population. Every population has both negative and positive features. They are locally adapted and the notion that one is universally superior then the others can hardly be supported by available evidence.

Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (EEB) has show that most populations that persist and grow do so not by killing of the competition, but by surviving events that kill of the competition and expanding into the newly opened habitats.

It has also shown that all humans are related, that no population is more blessed by a creator than any other one, and that characteristics are not the result of past curses.

On the surface, "Darwinism" can be used to support many philosophical arguments because evolution is the unifying concept of biology that explains the diversity of life. Though, in actuality, the evidence can only some of these philosophies and racism is not one of them.

-RvFvS</strong><hr></blockquote>

You blew me out of the water...Battleship down.

Peter P.

[Matty]

Hell, Darwinism can help explain a lot of the differences between the races (if not all of them). In this way, it can help work against racism.

One of my favorite examples is how black people are much more prone to have sickle cell. Some idiots interpreted this as a mark of inferiority. It turns out that this vulnerability is caused by a mutation that ALSO gives the person some degree of immunity to malaria (which is wide-spread in Africa). It isn't that they're inferior; they're simply adapted to their environment, and being resistant to malaria was just more important than being 'resistan't to sickle cell.
<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/disease/sickle.html" target="_blank">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/disease/sickle.html</a>

Darwinism does NOT necessitate racism. Hell, knowing enough about Darwinism informs you about WHY the races are different, and how little it really means.


Nicely put

[BioBeing]

This is a revival of an old thread from 2002. If we really need a new discussion on this, please start a new thread. Otherwise, this thread is being locked.

Thanks, BioBeing
S&S Moderator