Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 06:19:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Racism & genes (reply to Joe Flanagan)


When Ruth Hubbard, famous Harvard biologist, came to SUNY Geneseo last
year (or maybe it was the year before) and gave a lecture on "Genes and
Violence," she ultimately asked our audience to realize what a waste of
time and resources it was to attempt to trace "families" where violence
seems to be widespread.  "If the government and research institutions were
to invest the money on schools and neighborhoods," Hubbard concluded, "the
problem would almost disappear."

When I asked Hubbard whether she would embrace the conclusion our WMST
seminar reached in the 80's--after reading her and the work of other
feminist scientists--that there is NO NATURE OUTSIDE CULTURE, to the 
dismay of the scientists in that lecture hall, Ruth said YES!



On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Wolf Factory wrote:

> We seem to have our wires crossed here. If my tone
> appeared mocking then it was entirely unintentional.
> 
> Like you, I dislike simple evolutionary explanations
> because, as you have pointed out everyone can play the
> evolutionary detective and come up with a different
> interpretation of the same evidence.
> 
> However there are few points that I would like to take
> up from what you said:
> > that
> > some kind of "racist" gene that would warn them not
> > to interact with Europeans is idiotic.
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, I said no such thing.
> If that is what you deduced from what I had written
> then I apologise for my lack of clarity.
> First of all, only an idiot would suggest that there
> is actually one gene special for racists.
> Just as it would be idiotic to assume that there is
> one gene to explain intelligence or any other complex
> trait. 
> 
> However if racism has any biological constituent, then
> one can not look for a 'single gene' or even a group
> of genes that would be coding directly for it. Again
> that would be foolish. However if you break down
> racism into smaller components; into factors that if
> assembled might lead to racism, then it becomes
> possible to see how genes might have something to
> contribute. For example one factor might be violence,
> or the tendency to be violent. This of course doesn't
> apply to ALL forms of racism but to some. Is it not
> possible that this or other constituent factors of
> racism might be missing from our hypothetical island
> race? After all not all (real) islanders were so
> welcoming to European (or other) colonists. 
> 
> Of course, cooperatively confers evolutionary
> advantage. We are social creatures and much of our
> survival depends (and has depended) upon getting along
> with one another. The point you make about interaction
> being useful for developing immunity is a valid one
> but up to a certain extent. A mother's milk contains
> primed white blood cells that have dealt with the
> dangers of her immediate environment to which her baby
> will be exposed. She doesn't need to walk the earth,
> interacting with every race in order to give her baby
> a complete immunity package. And so to say
> cooperativty is a better option for our hypothetical
> islanders because it would have strengthened their
> immune system is to arm evolution with foresight, and
> allow it to anticipate the arrival of the colonists.
> 
> I notice that you are still avoiding the central
> question: could genetics be a contributing factor to a
> mode of behaviourism such as racism? 
> If the answer is categorically No, then please don't
> hold back on the explanation of how that is so.
> 
> I think that it is really difficult to answer such a
> question because dissecting the role of genes for any
> complex trait is notoriously troublesome. One tool for
> answering such questions is studies carried out on
> identical twins separated at birth. However, even this
> powerful resource can throw up things that are hard to
> understand. Two identical twin sisters, reared apart
> were found to have the same habit of walking into the
> sea backward. Well what does that mean? That there is
> a gene for 'the way we go into the sea?'. Of course
> not. However, genetics is at play here in some way.
> 
> Ultimately the constituents that pour into racism
> might be extremely diverse and shared with other types
> of behaviour. For example the element of violence that
> pours into 
> 'racism' also contributes to 'murder'.  Hence the
> effect of the genes may be too dilute to pick up
> easily. However, that doesn't exclude it from being
> there.
>    
> You also said:
> >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.
> 
> I would appreciate it if you could expand on this
> point. How can a concept such as 'survival of the
> fittest', which I agree is an unfortunate phrase and
> can often make people draw the wrong conclusion, be
> said to have 'a masculine bias'? 
> 
> 
> --- Joseph Flanagan III
> <flanagan-AT-odin.english.udel.edu> wrote:
> > 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 ---
> 
> 
> ====> "All the wolves in the wolf factory paused at noon, 
> for a moment of silence."
> ........from laughing Gravy by John Ashbery.
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Looking for something good and original to read?
> Check out: http://www.mesopotamia.free-online.co.uk
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get Yahoo! Mail  Free email you can access from anywhere!
> http://mail.yahoo.com/
> 
> 
>      --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 



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