Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 16:25:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joseph Flanagan III <flanagan-AT-odin.english.udel.edu>
Subject: Re: White men et al.(reply to Joe Flanagan)


Well, I never claimed a deep knowledge of evolution, but if we want to
trade jibes, sure. 

1) I know you meant the reference to Island races as hypothetical, but,
come on,-this is by far the most simplistic argument i have ever heard. Of
course disease was responsible--island populations had a limited gene pool
due to geographical isolation. With the introduction of diseases against
which they had little defenses, they were wiped out (not to say
colonialists didn't do their best to do the same). But to deduce from that
some kind of "racist" gene that would warn them not to interact with
Europeans is idiotic. We could, of course, make the opposite
argument--those who did interact with other races (whatever the term
"race" means) build up over time a stronger immunity defense that those
who did not or who were isolated (of course, plague out-breaks still
wreaked havoc from time to time). There's also a theory that that's what
wiped out Neandathrals--they were a relatively isolated group compared
with Cro-Magnon--and were wiped out by the introduction of new diseases
when they contacted other groups.  So, again, an instinct to shun other
races might work in the short-term, but when such interactions inevitably
occured, that particular group would have been wiped out. I'm simply
saying you have no basis to make a claim that race-aversion is
always and simply evolutionary advantageous. 

As opposed to the other comments, I don't have a simplistic understanding
of male behavior--I was quoting arguments I have heard from so-called
social-evolutionists to explain behavior. I am also not the only one to
notice that the whole tooth and claw notion of evolution depends upon a
stereotypically male (notice I say stereotypically) conflict. Feminist
scientists have also called this into question, and have argued that the
whole "survival of the fittest" paradigm is a masculine bias that gets
transposed into nature.

Finally, I did not mean to suggest a Star Trech notion of primitive
humanity. (Aren't you taking a Klingon one?) But are you denying tout
court that such cooperative interactions could have occured? On what
basis? That is goes against nature? THAT'S WHAT WE ARE ARGUING! Making
assumptions about past behavior based on present observations is
foolhardy, and I doubt a biologist would subscribe to that type of method.
Yes, it is noteworthy that racism appears transhistorical and across
cultures. So are a lot of other actions (as you yourself observe, not all
native populations immediately killed settlers) I am a bit skeptical about
any theory than can prove anything and its opposite--that was the whole
point of my thought-experiment--we can deduce an evolutionary advantage on
anything if we try.  Besides, how do YOU think such information got
transferred, if there was some kind of "racist" instinct that made groups
shun one another? Seems to me you are making rather simplistic assumptions
about early humanity, based upon presentist, and, yes, masculinist. biases
and assumptions about "primitive" behavior. So, yes, by all means
criticize my understanding of evolution (which, by the way, I don't
question as to biology but to social practices) but could is it possible
to do so in a way that doesn't depend upon simplifications,
mischaracterizations and name-calling in its own right?  Joe




     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---