File spoon-archives/postcolonial.archive/postcolonial_2000/postcolonial.0007, message 210


Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 04:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wolf Factory <wolf_factory-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Racism & genes 


Sure studying families can only get you so far.  Twin
studies are probably more helpful. However, this
debate hasn't been about the practical end of the
problem i.e how we can go about studying whether
racism has a genetic basis or whether this is a
worthwhile endeavour. 
We are still discussing whether racism is shaped to a
degree by genetics.

As far as the statement 'NO NATURE OUTSIDE CULTURE' is
concerned. It is unhelpful because this is like asking
which came first the
Chicken or the egg. I doubt whether Ruth Hubbard would
have refuted the statement ÔTHERE IS NO CULTURE
OUTSIDE NATUREÕ if it was put to her.

--- Maria H Lima <lima-AT-geneseo.edu> wrote:
> 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
> 
=== message truncated ==

===="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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005