Friday 29 May 2009

Races

“[T]he whole idea of discrete, concrete races is bunk.” [1] I do not know of anyone who believes that human races in the sense under consideration are discrete biological groups, i.e., species in the sense of exclusive groups of interbreeding organisms which are incapable of producing fertile offspring with organisms of other groups. Certainly, the political-fantasy paradigm of racists — the dreaded Nazis (accompanied as always by sinister and mental-background music, just so you know to hate them) — didn’t believe so. I cannot recall that anyone in the present era has taken human races to be discrete species. [2] I cannot therefore imagine of what use the debunking of the idea would serve, except to insinuate that there is no biological reality to races as intra-specific subgroups, the denial of which is a curious and recent phenomenon — some might say a politically-inspired and -useful delusion — strangely applicable to only one species.

[1] Sarah Ditum, in the commentary to her own “How Churnalists Become Friends to the BNP”, Liberal Conspiracy (weblog), 27th May 2009.
[2] Charles Darwin presents a treatment of the matter in Chapter VIII of The Descent of Man; and Selection in Relation to Sex, Vol. I. (London: John Murray, 1871).

7 comments:

dearieme said...

"to insinuate that there is no biological reality to races as intra-specific subgroups, the denial of which is a curious and recent phenomenon": that's denial in words, of course. I don't suppose that anyone denies it in their actions.

The Dandy Highwayman said...

Indeed, not even biological species meet your definition of "discrete biological groups". Wolves, coyotes and dogs are all considered different species and yet they may interbreed to produce fertile offspring.

There is a particularly good example of the fluidity of species in Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea:

As we look at the herring gull, moving westwards from Great Britain to North America, we see gulls that are recognizably herring gulls, although they are a little different from the British form. We can follow them, as their appearance gradually changes, as far as Siberia. At about this point in the continuum, the gull looks more like the form that in Great Britain is called the lesser black-backed gull. From Siberia, across Russia, to northern Europe, the gull gradually changes to look more and more like the British lesser black-backed gull. Finally, in Europe, the ring is complete; the two geographically extreme forms meet, to form two perfectly good species: the herring and lesser black-backed gull can be both distinguished by their appearance and do not naturally interbreed.

Deogolwulf said...

The species problem is even worse in the case of extinct organisms. I have fondish memories of grappling with Homo habilis and H. rudolfensis as an undergraduate.

xlbrl said...

Henry Adams was personal secretary to his father, Charles Adams, ambassador to the United Kingdom during the Civil War.
One day Darwin walked into Henry's office to seek ways in promoting his ideas in America. Henry was very pleased to oblige.
From The Education of Henry Adams (with liberties)--

"Henry Adams was a Darwinist because it was easier than not, for his ignorance exceeded belief, and one must know something in order to contradict something. The idea was only too secuctive in its perfection; it had the charm of art. Steady, uniform, unbroken evolution from lower to higher seemed easy.
Ponder over it as he might, Adams could see nothing in the theory of Sir Charles but pure inference. Sir Charles labored only to heap up the evidences of evolution, to cumulate them till the mass became irresistible. With that purpose, Adams gladly studied and tried to help Sir Charles, but behind the lesson of the day, he could prove only Evolution that did not evolve; Uniformity that was not uniform; and Selection that did not select. Darwimism was a form of religious hope, a promise of ultimate perfection. Adams wished no better, he warmly sypathaxed with the object; but when he came to ask himself what he truly thought, he felt that he had no Faith; that whenever the next new hobby should be brought out, he would surely drop of the Darwinism like a monkey off the perch.

Malcolm Pollack said...

Dandy, I was struck by that gull example myself, and even scribbled a little musing of my own on the topic a few years ago, if I may...

James Higham said...

mental-background music

Or metal-background music?

Paul said...

"Indeed, not even biological species meet your definition of "discrete biological groups". Wolves, coyotes and dogs are all considered different species and yet they may interbreed to produce fertile offspring."

Species are fluid even in a strict taxonomical sense. The above three are were once conferred special status (by most), but are now (by most) considered subspecies (or races) of C. lupus, along with Dingos.