We Please Define “Racism”?
2007 Selwyn Duke
Watson, the geneticist who helped unravel the structure of DNA, came under fire
for saying that Africans are not as intelligent as Westerners.
Aside from his remarks being deemed baseless and unscientific, he has
quite predictably been labeled “racist.”
Why, some thought police even want him charged under Britain’s
Orwellian “racial hatred laws” (Watson is conducting a speaking tour in
light of this tendency to apply the “R-word,” one that claims as victims
late sportscaster Jimmy “the Greek” Snyder, manager of the Cincinnati Reds
Dusty Baker, former baseball commissioner Al Campanis, late NFL player Reggie
White and many others, I have a question.
it simply voicing beliefs about differences among races?
Am I a racist if I say that blacks have darker skin and frizzier hair?
No, I suppose not. What
about if I point out that blacks commit an inordinate amount of crime and that
70 percent of black children are born out-of-wedlock, versus 27 percent for
whites? Well, in our culture that
is borderline. But why?
On what basis should we determine what is “racist”?
might think that pointing out negative characteristic qualities or the
weaknesses of a race makes a person a racist, but even this cannot be so.
After all, we take pains to emphasize that sickle cell anemia
predominantly plagues blacks and that they are more likely to develop heart
disease. Then there is the fact
that Tay-Sachs Disease is found only among certain distinct groups, mainly
Jews. In fact, were we to claim
that these crosses are borne equally by all, we would be labeled “racist”
for ignoring what ails minorities. It
would be said that we really didn’t care if they lived or died.
This gets confusing, though; on the one hand we’re castigated for
pointing out differences, on the other we’re complimented for doing so.
might seem that we mustn’t bring to light differences when doing so can lead
to discrimination, but not so fast. When
we emphasize the fact that only certain groups suffer from certain diseases,
they receive attention and funding that others will not.
Moreover, showcasing disparities in performance among the races has
long been used to justify quotas and set-asides.
this is where one must start to think that there is more here – or less –
than meets the eye. Is it that we
cannot point out differences which, when brought to light, can lead to
discrimination that doesn’t benefit politically-favored groups?
Ah, now we’re getting somewhere.
That certainly is part of the equation.
though, should be our standard? Well,
it cannot be discovered by analyzing what has been said about Dr. Watson but,
rather, by what is usually left unsaid.
no one has said his remarks were not true.
was the case with the reception given to The
Bell Curve, critics tend to take the position that the issue should
not be raised, much less debated. And
this brings us to the crux of the matter. All
intellectual inquiry, be it scientific or philosophical, should be a search for
Truth. This search must be sincere
and remain unfettered by agendas or dogmas, and we do otherwise at our own
is why the politically correct thought police are so destructive.
When they criticize a man like Watson, not only do they rarely say his
statements are untrue, but the Truth of the matter doesn’t even seem to enter
their minds. No, it doesn’t
because they are blinded by their agenda.
having an agenda or hypothesis doesn’t make them unusual, but an
intellectually honest seeker of knowledge will alter his hypothesis when the
data contradicts it. To these folks,
however, their agenda is deified and takes precedence over Truth; thus, when the
Truth contradicts their agenda, instead of altering the latter, they simply
suppress or rationalize away the Truth. Or,
that is, anything they may fear is Truth.
ironic, too, because these leftists are the same people who usually condemn
Christianity for stifling scientific enterprise (a false claim).
How many times have we heard about Galileo (his story has been
mischaracterized)? But who is
stifling scientific inquiry and open debate now?
Even more egregiously, these modern-day inquisitors would imprison those
who violate their dogma. They have
become guilty of what they decry.
Truth is that the outrage here isn’t Dr. Watson’s remarks; they’re either
true or not. What’s outrageous is
that we’re suffering under the yoke of those to whom Truth means nothing –
the practitioners of a dark faith. They
don’t care if a statement is correct, only whether it’s politically correct.
They hate the Truth when it contradicts their agenda, and they’ll stop
at nothing to still the tongues of those who would dare voice it.
Racists? These miscreants are
infinitely worse. They are
what is the Truth about racial differences?
For one thing, is it logical and rational to claim that, except for
appearance and a few diseases and conditions of the body, every group is
the same in every way?
is the left’s implication, and it’s absurd.
It seems especially odd when you consider that most of these inquisitors
are secularists who subscribe to the theory of evolution. Yet, despite their
belief that different groups “evolved” in completely different parts of the
world, operating in different environments and subject to different stresses,
they would have us believe that all groups are identical in terms of the
multitude of man’s talents and in every single measure of mental capacity.
Why, miracle of miracles, all these two-legged cosmic accidents, the
product of a billions-of-years journey from the primordial soup to primacy among
creatures, whose evolution was influenced by perhaps millions of factors, wound
up being precisely the same. It’s
really the best argument for God I’ve ever heard, as such a statistical
impossibility could only exist if it was ordained by the one with whom all
things are possible.
if we really care about a race’s welfare, shouldn’t we “diagnose” its
condition – whatever that condition may be – properly so that its gifts may
be best utilized, its inherent weaknesses best mitigated and its problems best
remedied? If this makes sense with
physical crosses such as sickle cell anemia and heart disease, it makes sense
for all crosses, be they spiritual, social or, dare I say, intellectual.
Stating this isn’t wrong or racist, and it shouldn’t be repressed.
And as Dr. Watson might say, that’s something you don’t have to be a
Sherlock to understand.
Selwyn Duke is a freelance writer out or Larchmont, NY. He has written for various publications including: IntellectualConservative.com, AmericanThinker.com and is a regular columnist for RenewAmerica.us.