Roots of Racism rejoined
Written by: Professor Timothy Crowe
This piece is a rejoinder of David Matthewsâ reply to my piece in which I criticized two of his commentaries on race and racism.
Dear Mr Matthews,
Thank you for your speedy and frank reply.
I reply in kind.
No, I was not âclearly deeply upset and morally offended by [your] interpretation of the origin and nature of âracismââ. I was and still am saddened by it because it fails to reflect much beyond opinion based solely on your âlived experienceâ. You need not be âsorryâ about disturbing me. I enjoy discussion and debate.
I do, however, take offense about your characterizing my arguments being based on outraged emotion and lacking in calm objectivity and assessment of âfactsâ.
Furthermore, the only âself-inflictedâ aspects of my life are 12 years of post-school education and study in evolutionary biology and another 30+ years of teaching and research conducted on five continents and being relevant to my considered and objective argumentation.
Perhaps the most fundamental difference between us is how we discuss intergroup differentiation. You are correct in identifying the ancient âothernessâ that occurs between peoples who âevolvedâ separately and subsequently live in close geographical proximity. Indeed, the multi-millennium-old Khoi word âSanâ means: the âothersâ who live a hunter-gather lifestyle as opposed to one based on pastoralism.
âRaceâ is a profoundly different way of negatively categorizing the âothersâ. In extreme instances, it denies their humanity to âjustifyâ genocide.
You are not correct in assuming that, because most (all?) peoples exhibit some form of prejudice against âothersâ, that âthere [is] likely to be a good biological reason for thisâ. Identical twins reared with different âothersâ are almost certain to acquire the prejudices of the community within which they develop.
In short, youâve got to be taught to mistrust, hate and fear.
Perhaps in the âbad old daysâ, trying to live a life characterized by a hybrid culture was non-adaptive. These days, itâs the kids who pick and choose attributes amongst cultures that succeed. The use of race, virtually without exception, has been designed to enshrine and subsequently protect unfair privilege. We seem to agree on this one.
Given my advanced age, high unfitness and unfettered retirement lifestyle, I donât âeagerly jumpâ to anything, let alone to âentirely false conclusionsâ. I donât for a minute believe that you believe that racism or even race is âa good thing todayâ. Itâs just that you maintain that it might have been in the past. This is the kind of âZilleismâ that anti-white racists jump on to denigrate âwhitesâ.
If you are condemning me for saying that there is no âvirtueâ and âmoralityâ in believing in âraceâ and using it to justify racism, I am guilty.
If the thesis fundamental to your argument is âthat everybody is racist to some degree or otherâ, then you have lost the debate or, worse still, have played into the hands of anti-âwhiteâ racists. It is untenable for anyone to prejudge a personâs character based on his/her âracialâ characteristics. Racism, like pregnancy, is not a sometime or âbitsyâ thing.
You go on, like fallists, to insist that âsocial science [whatever that is] really has to explain in rational terms just why it is that every human being, or, pedantically, every normal human being, possesses this [racial] particular behavioural predisposition.â Thatâs no different from the ignorant Fallist student who demanded that physics must adapt locally to explain how a witchdoctor can summon lightning.
Yes, most (maybe all?) âhuman being[s] [are] predisposed to be suspicious or averseâ to âthoseâ people â the âothersâ. But it is inhuman/immoral to act on this suspicion/aversion to that personâs detriment without substantive supporting evidence. Itâs even worse when one âjustifiesâ such nefarious actions because thatâs what society ânaturallyâ does. My Irish volk are not half-black bog-trotters. Melanistic humans are not ni**ers or ka**irs. Melanin-deficient people are not crackers or honkies. Southern Europeans and Middle Easterners are not wogs or gyppos. People from India are not c**lies. Tutsi are not cockroaches.
The ârealâ fundamental thing is that, neither from a biological perspective (on which I am a widely-published expert) nor a cultural one (just Google - Crain Soudien) are there arguably âsignificant differencesâ between geographically definable human entities. The closest to that are various peoples from Africa, especially the KhoiSan. But even they fall far shy of âmaking the gradeâ.
I freely admit that I have atavistic âprejudicial feelingsâ against âEnglishmenâ (you?), because they ruthlessly colonized Ireland for seven centuries and deliberately caused the deaths of a million of my compatriots and the emigration of a million more. Just to give you a crystal-clear example of that âracismâ, my 92-year-old grandmother justified the fact that my cousin was dating a âblackâ boy by saying: âWell, at least heâs not English.â I also resent the artificial hierarchy that UCT inherited from the ethos of certain English universities. Having said these things, I helped to dismantle that legacy at UCT and I donât immediately distrust every English person I encounter. And, yes indeed, some of my best friends are Englishmen!
Contrary to your assertion, I have made it my business to learn âwhat all others feelâ about âothersâ since Iâve educated university students from 32 different countries, 23 from Africa alone. More locally, a close relative by marriage was a friend of Hendrick Verwoerd. When I nursed him during an illness, we had robust debates about the âmeritsâ of Apartheid, but we remained good friends until he died.
You are correct in asserting that no one is âtotally without any prejudiceâ. But, only self-identified individuals without sins can cast racist stones. I donât damn people without good reason (e.g. Hitler and his close kith), but I will not tolerate even nuanced racism.
Now to your âsecond fundamental argumentâ: racism has existed âthroughout the whole of human historyâ. Sadly, youâre wrong again. Although slavery (resulting from conquest) goes way back, âtrueâ racism (denigrating the humanity of a âdiagnosably differentâ group of humans) dates to at most, to the 16th Century. This historical fact is recently outlined succinctly by Alex Taylor.
Race and racism are also not the social norm in all societies on Earth. It was, and sadly remains, a phenomenon developed largely by Western Europeans. This historical fact is recently outlined succinctly by James Tyner.
I canât speak for âeverybodyâ, but during my nearly seven decades on Earth, I have met very few people who defended the views that it was âexpected [for them] to be racistâ. Most of these people were fellow soldiers (from the US south) I met during the Vietnam War and hard-core Apartheid activists some years later. Having said that, several of these individuals have, after thinking the matter through, recanted.
Yes, since the 1970s in the USA and the 1990s in South Africa, there has been at least a âvery brief current period of [non-racialism if not] anti-racismâ. This is a very good thing. Sadly, racism in South Africa is rearing its ugly head once again, even at my beloved UCT. But, now most of the racists are âBlack Nationalistsâ.
As you close your reply, you refer to the âhistorical factâ of the âmoral enlightenmentâ some (even South Africans) âbenefit from todayâ. Thank God, Nelson Mandela, Helen Zille, whoever (maybe even ourselves?) for this. But, I wonât let you get away with suggesting âthat racism was socially approved of for so long simply because it had served a biologically positive functionâ. It didnât make sense in 1652. If anything, it makes âless senseâ today, no matter the âdifferent social circumstancesâ.
I have been described by some as âemotional and dogmaticâ. These are, generally, opponents in debate once they run out of rational, fact-based arguments. Others, mainly fallists, call me âJim Crowâ, âeugenicistâ, âApartheid activistâ, âkiller of black peopleâ or just plain âracistâ. Luckily for me, itâs been âotherâ members of UCTâs âsilenced majority that have fallen prey to fallistsâ sticks and stones.
Mr Matthews â I donât âdamnâ you or characterize you as âimmoralâ. I simply maintain that your arguments are fallacious. âRacismâ is simply a âmoral crime or aberrationâ. Those who argue that it âonce-upon-a-timeâ made contextual sense are wrong at best or, at worst, racial recidivists. Those who continue to practice (or wish to resurrect) racism, regardless of however they self-identify, should be exposed, counselled and, if necessary, punished. âRacismâ cannot be ârationally considered to be an inherent (or maybe acquired) social predispositionâ today or 400 years ago no matter what the âhistorical circumstancesâ. It was inhuman then as it is now.
Timothy Crowe is an emeritus professor of evolutionary and conservation biology.