White Fantasies About Raced-Based Intelligence
http://www.counterpunch.org/washington10242007.html
It's Elementary Racism, Dr. Watson
White Fantasies About Raced-Based Intelligence
By NATALIE WASHINGTON-WEIK
The idea of race-based intelligence has historically proved to be an unintelligent notion. Let one just question the premise: what is race and what is intelligence? Neither idea is physical, fixed, nor cross-cultural. Certainly, race and intelligence are real-but only as a social construction. For instance, ten of thousands of African Americans who are described as racially "black" in America, would undoubtedly be designated as "whites" in places like Brazil and Nigeria-because of their skin color, economic status and/or language. Additionally, an Anglo-Saxon visiting Mali or Sri Lanka may be labelled as unintelligent because he cannot recount the names of all his ancestors sixteen or two generations before him, nor provide food for himself by himself, nor can he speak five languages. While in his country he may be a designated a genius, a Nobel Prize winner even.
James Watson, a Nobel laureate for discovering the structure of DNA, hopes that there will soon be a genetic breakthrough that determines a gene for intelligence. He also proposes genetic intelligence can be measured in terms of race. If this so, how would it be done? Who will create the tests? Would one take "random" samples of blacks, whites, reds and yellows? How could we trust these samples are representative of the so-called races? What about the people who are in-between or a combination of the "races"? Are people born with a genetic limit, a cap on the amount of intelligence they can have? At what age do we test people? These questions are rhetorical and meant to illustrate some reasons why scientific studies on race intelligence have failed in the past and will continue to fail in the future.
Where did this unfruitful obsession with determining a race-based intelligence come from? Undoubtedly, race-based intelligence is a mutant concept of racism, a modern pillar of it, in fact. Many believe that, racism stems out of the slave trade, imperialism and colonization, but these ideas are older than that. They are even older than the world's most popular religions, which have also had an early hand in fostering racism. Racism has existed since various cultures began to co-mingle.
One of the earliest documented records of ideas on race is from the writings of Herodotus, the 'father of History.' Writing approximately 440 B.C.E. he researched marvelous histories of people such as Egyptians and Ethiopians. He describes many Africans as having black skin and wholly hair. On occasion, he refers to people that were not Greek-mainly yellow and black people, as "barbarians." However, it should be noted people of other cultures at that time also regarded those not of their own group as barbarians.
In particular, scientific studies on race-determining-intelligence have unsuccessfully been conducted for centuries. The failure to prove this theory is not for lack of trying. The scientific avenues of inquiry on intelligence according to race have been studied from numerous angles. Psychology, Epidemiology, Statistics, Phrenology, Palentology, Anthropology, Eugenics (not only the Nazis used this "science"), Forensics, Social Darwanism, Biomedicine, and of course, Genetics are sciences that have all contributed to the hundreds of studies on, surrounding, or motivated by this topic.
Samuel George Morton 'tested' his collection of Native American, Egyptian and Caucasian skulls in the 1830s and 1840s by comparing brain sizes, which he defined as correlating to mental capacity. From the hundreds of skulls (retrieved through questionable methods) he surprisingly determined that caucasions were superior. Stephen Jay Gould is one of many scientist to prove the inconsistencies, omissions, miscalculations and pure absurity of this barbaric study and others like it.
In the 1900s the litany of "tests" racially comparing students' IQs began not long after the turn of the century, but is famously associated with Lewis Terman. Innovating IQ tests in 1916, Terman tested children from various "races"-namely whites, blacks and reds. He determined that of the reds and blacks "their dullness seems to be racial." A contemporary of his in the 1920s, African American psychologist, Horace Mann Bond refutingly analyzed Termans work uncovering his racism, as well as contributed scientific studies to academia that demonstrated the primary role of envirnoment and culture to the varying styles of cognative processing.
Ralph Bunche was another scholar who reiterated the overwhelming role of social circumstances in determining education results-a.k.a. 'intelligence.' This African American 1950 Nobel Peace Prize winner was a living example of the tremendous intellectual capacity of someone from any "race," but he didn't stop there. In a 1936 article "Education in Black and White," Bunche provides sound logic that evaluating blacks and "other peoples in the nation cannot be divorced from the dominant political, social and economic forces active in the society."
Yet in 2007 James Watson argues he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa[because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really." As if addressing Watson himself, Bunche concludes in his 1936 article: "The difference between the problems of black and white working masses is one of intensity rather than in kind." Of the two Nobel laureates, Ralph Bunche was the best qualified commentator on Africa, having been one of the most knowledgeable foreign experts on Africa of his time.
Surely, Bunche would have noted the problems of Africa have more to do with a brain drain, a minority of unscrupulous leaders and most importantly, foreign manipulation. At the same time, he also would declare that the continent of Africa is vibrant and continues to remarkably contribute to the betterment of mankind. Wangari Maathai's "Green Belt Movement" is excellent evidence of the bright future Africa may hold. This Kenyan female, a biologist, veterinarian, politician and Nobel laureate too (2004), has motivated hundreds of women to plant tens of millions of trees in Africa over the last 31 years. So, after all, it seems that intelligence can measured in different ways? Certainly reversing the trends of global warming to help save the earth for future generations is one sort of intelligence that will be helpful to all of the 'races.'
Natalie Washington-Weik is currently researching Traditional Healing as an African History doctoral student at The University of Texas, Austin. She can be reached at: i_sea_@hotmail.com
It's Elementary Racism, Dr. Watson
White Fantasies About Raced-Based Intelligence
By NATALIE WASHINGTON-WEIK
The idea of race-based intelligence has historically proved to be an unintelligent notion. Let one just question the premise: what is race and what is intelligence? Neither idea is physical, fixed, nor cross-cultural. Certainly, race and intelligence are real-but only as a social construction. For instance, ten of thousands of African Americans who are described as racially "black" in America, would undoubtedly be designated as "whites" in places like Brazil and Nigeria-because of their skin color, economic status and/or language. Additionally, an Anglo-Saxon visiting Mali or Sri Lanka may be labelled as unintelligent because he cannot recount the names of all his ancestors sixteen or two generations before him, nor provide food for himself by himself, nor can he speak five languages. While in his country he may be a designated a genius, a Nobel Prize winner even.
James Watson, a Nobel laureate for discovering the structure of DNA, hopes that there will soon be a genetic breakthrough that determines a gene for intelligence. He also proposes genetic intelligence can be measured in terms of race. If this so, how would it be done? Who will create the tests? Would one take "random" samples of blacks, whites, reds and yellows? How could we trust these samples are representative of the so-called races? What about the people who are in-between or a combination of the "races"? Are people born with a genetic limit, a cap on the amount of intelligence they can have? At what age do we test people? These questions are rhetorical and meant to illustrate some reasons why scientific studies on race intelligence have failed in the past and will continue to fail in the future.
Where did this unfruitful obsession with determining a race-based intelligence come from? Undoubtedly, race-based intelligence is a mutant concept of racism, a modern pillar of it, in fact. Many believe that, racism stems out of the slave trade, imperialism and colonization, but these ideas are older than that. They are even older than the world's most popular religions, which have also had an early hand in fostering racism. Racism has existed since various cultures began to co-mingle.
One of the earliest documented records of ideas on race is from the writings of Herodotus, the 'father of History.' Writing approximately 440 B.C.E. he researched marvelous histories of people such as Egyptians and Ethiopians. He describes many Africans as having black skin and wholly hair. On occasion, he refers to people that were not Greek-mainly yellow and black people, as "barbarians." However, it should be noted people of other cultures at that time also regarded those not of their own group as barbarians.
In particular, scientific studies on race-determining-intelligence have unsuccessfully been conducted for centuries. The failure to prove this theory is not for lack of trying. The scientific avenues of inquiry on intelligence according to race have been studied from numerous angles. Psychology, Epidemiology, Statistics, Phrenology, Palentology, Anthropology, Eugenics (not only the Nazis used this "science"), Forensics, Social Darwanism, Biomedicine, and of course, Genetics are sciences that have all contributed to the hundreds of studies on, surrounding, or motivated by this topic.
Samuel George Morton 'tested' his collection of Native American, Egyptian and Caucasian skulls in the 1830s and 1840s by comparing brain sizes, which he defined as correlating to mental capacity. From the hundreds of skulls (retrieved through questionable methods) he surprisingly determined that caucasions were superior. Stephen Jay Gould is one of many scientist to prove the inconsistencies, omissions, miscalculations and pure absurity of this barbaric study and others like it.
In the 1900s the litany of "tests" racially comparing students' IQs began not long after the turn of the century, but is famously associated with Lewis Terman. Innovating IQ tests in 1916, Terman tested children from various "races"-namely whites, blacks and reds. He determined that of the reds and blacks "their dullness seems to be racial." A contemporary of his in the 1920s, African American psychologist, Horace Mann Bond refutingly analyzed Termans work uncovering his racism, as well as contributed scientific studies to academia that demonstrated the primary role of envirnoment and culture to the varying styles of cognative processing.
Ralph Bunche was another scholar who reiterated the overwhelming role of social circumstances in determining education results-a.k.a. 'intelligence.' This African American 1950 Nobel Peace Prize winner was a living example of the tremendous intellectual capacity of someone from any "race," but he didn't stop there. In a 1936 article "Education in Black and White," Bunche provides sound logic that evaluating blacks and "other peoples in the nation cannot be divorced from the dominant political, social and economic forces active in the society."
Yet in 2007 James Watson argues he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa[because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really." As if addressing Watson himself, Bunche concludes in his 1936 article: "The difference between the problems of black and white working masses is one of intensity rather than in kind." Of the two Nobel laureates, Ralph Bunche was the best qualified commentator on Africa, having been one of the most knowledgeable foreign experts on Africa of his time.
Surely, Bunche would have noted the problems of Africa have more to do with a brain drain, a minority of unscrupulous leaders and most importantly, foreign manipulation. At the same time, he also would declare that the continent of Africa is vibrant and continues to remarkably contribute to the betterment of mankind. Wangari Maathai's "Green Belt Movement" is excellent evidence of the bright future Africa may hold. This Kenyan female, a biologist, veterinarian, politician and Nobel laureate too (2004), has motivated hundreds of women to plant tens of millions of trees in Africa over the last 31 years. So, after all, it seems that intelligence can measured in different ways? Certainly reversing the trends of global warming to help save the earth for future generations is one sort of intelligence that will be helpful to all of the 'races.'
Natalie Washington-Weik is currently researching Traditional Healing as an African History doctoral student at The University of Texas, Austin. She can be reached at: i_sea_@hotmail.com
Straight talk from Hort
In psychology this behaviour is known as a « narcissistic personality disorder » and unfortunately, Westerners have suffered from this pathology since they went toAfrica and saw the genius of African people, so we should expect to hear these kinds of comments all the time. Listed below is the critera that doctors use to diagnose this pathology which I found on Wikepdia. At least five of the following are necessary for a diagnosis
- has a grandiose sense of self-importance
- is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
- believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people
- believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people
- requires excessive admiration
- strong sense of entitlement
- takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
- lacks empathy
- is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her
Africa at large: Dr Watson’s racist findings and Africa’s chronic slide (commentary)
The Monitor (Uganda),
The Monitor (Uganda),
by Nicholas Sengoba October 30,2007
One of the world’s most prominent scientists, Dr James Watson who shared a Nobel Prize with Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins for co-discovering the structure of the DNA molecule in 1962 burnt his fingers when he tried his hand at the hot potato of race and intelligence.
Dr Watson claimed that “most tests” had shown that overall Africans were not as intelligent as people of European descent and that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa.” He later apologised “unreservedly” for the comments adding that “there is no scientific basis for such a belief!” Sadly, Africans always come at the tail end of most important aspects of human development and progress, somewhat lending credence to the purveyors of the racially prejudiced idea that attributes intelligence -or the lack of it- to race.
Many stand on these premises and claim that perhaps Africans would have been “better off” if the colonialists had stayed on “a little bit longer” to see through their dubious project of “civilising” the supposedly backward Africans. The proponents of this argument sneer when challenged by those who assert that colonialism and its effect on governace, was the bane of Africa’s progress. They point to the fact that many other parts of the world such as Asia and the Americas whose (occupants are not predominantly black) were also colonised at some point but have come off much better than (black) Africa.
Because, Africa was one of the last places to be colonised, by the time the colonialists came to Africa they had learnt great lessons from their abortive experience elsewhere and perfected the art of colonisation. They knew that colonialism would never be acceptable as a permanent condition and would at some point in time be resisted by the “natives.” They had to be shrewd. Ways were devised to gain eternal control and that the continent would be in a state of everlasting dependence and chaos.
A global economic system was perfected to ensure that the South (Africa) perpetually provided raw materials for processing in industries based in the North (Europe) at a minimal cost. To access lucrative markets, unfeasible standards were set such that African finished products found it impossible to gain entry. The territories in Africa that were not colonised would later suffer this consequence and end up like the rest of the continent– economies with uncertain and insufficient economic bases.
Furthermore to fit into this arrangement, Africans were disadvantaged since they had to abandon their language (and culture) as a medium of communication in trade, education and daily operations, for predominantly English and French. A good percentage of their life time would be spent trying to learn and “catch up;” with their European counterparts as a necessity. When colonialism ran out of fashion, power was handed back to the “wrong” people ie “democratically elected” fellows (the Obotes) instead of kings and chiefs who “owned” it at the onset of colonialism, in “republics” which were in effect different nationalities that were hastily and haphazardly merged. The contentions between nationalities would feature prominently in the politics of the continent with disastrous consequences.
Naturally these “democratically elected” leaders were resisted. They in turn dug in to protect their new found privilege of power. They fell back onto their tribes mates whom they could trust for their protection and perpetuation. (The concept of Generals coming from one area is no accident). Politics and leadership became a game of one tribe displacing another and trying to hang on as long as possible. With this came along the evils of sectarianism, and corruption since recruitment was not on merit. Inefficiency, low motivation and productivity set in because being at one’s best did not guarantee promotion in ones field of expertise. Knowing the right people, did. The military coups of the late 60s and the early 70s funded by the dynamics of the cold war, stifled democracy, free thought and created an atmosphere of perennial fear and uncertainty which was definitely not conducive in bringing out the best of Africans.
It sparked unending devastation, with a good amount of the (productive) human resource (16-45 years) wasted either as refugees or as “combatants” practicing the art of destruction and not construction. Foreign aid and its high interest became inevitable yet in real terms encroached further on the continent’s resources, since most of it is either stolen or goes back to the donors as payment to expatriates tied to it. The continent’s revenues ended up in unproductive defence expenditure instead of research, education, health, infrastructural development and investment and yet these are the aspects that would set a favourable environment and Africans would function and be judged correctly. Many Africans and blacks, who have had studied and worked in (European) environments that cherish merit, invest in human resource, value and pay fairly for the input of individuals and their ideas, plus create an atmosphere of certainty, security progress and development have shot holes in the idea of race and intelligence
One of the world’s most prominent scientists, Dr James Watson who shared a Nobel Prize with Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins for co-discovering the structure of the DNA molecule in 1962 burnt his fingers when he tried his hand at the hot potato of race and intelligence.
Dr Watson claimed that “most tests” had shown that overall Africans were not as intelligent as people of European descent and that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa.” He later apologised “unreservedly” for the comments adding that “there is no scientific basis for such a belief!” Sadly, Africans always come at the tail end of most important aspects of human development and progress, somewhat lending credence to the purveyors of the racially prejudiced idea that attributes intelligence -or the lack of it- to race.
Many stand on these premises and claim that perhaps Africans would have been “better off” if the colonialists had stayed on “a little bit longer” to see through their dubious project of “civilising” the supposedly backward Africans. The proponents of this argument sneer when challenged by those who assert that colonialism and its effect on governace, was the bane of Africa’s progress. They point to the fact that many other parts of the world such as Asia and the Americas whose (occupants are not predominantly black) were also colonised at some point but have come off much better than (black) Africa.
Because, Africa was one of the last places to be colonised, by the time the colonialists came to Africa they had learnt great lessons from their abortive experience elsewhere and perfected the art of colonisation. They knew that colonialism would never be acceptable as a permanent condition and would at some point in time be resisted by the “natives.” They had to be shrewd. Ways were devised to gain eternal control and that the continent would be in a state of everlasting dependence and chaos.
A global economic system was perfected to ensure that the South (Africa) perpetually provided raw materials for processing in industries based in the North (Europe) at a minimal cost. To access lucrative markets, unfeasible standards were set such that African finished products found it impossible to gain entry. The territories in Africa that were not colonised would later suffer this consequence and end up like the rest of the continent– economies with uncertain and insufficient economic bases.
Furthermore to fit into this arrangement, Africans were disadvantaged since they had to abandon their language (and culture) as a medium of communication in trade, education and daily operations, for predominantly English and French. A good percentage of their life time would be spent trying to learn and “catch up;” with their European counterparts as a necessity. When colonialism ran out of fashion, power was handed back to the “wrong” people ie “democratically elected” fellows (the Obotes) instead of kings and chiefs who “owned” it at the onset of colonialism, in “republics” which were in effect different nationalities that were hastily and haphazardly merged. The contentions between nationalities would feature prominently in the politics of the continent with disastrous consequences.
Naturally these “democratically elected” leaders were resisted. They in turn dug in to protect their new found privilege of power. They fell back onto their tribes mates whom they could trust for their protection and perpetuation. (The concept of Generals coming from one area is no accident). Politics and leadership became a game of one tribe displacing another and trying to hang on as long as possible. With this came along the evils of sectarianism, and corruption since recruitment was not on merit. Inefficiency, low motivation and productivity set in because being at one’s best did not guarantee promotion in ones field of expertise. Knowing the right people, did. The military coups of the late 60s and the early 70s funded by the dynamics of the cold war, stifled democracy, free thought and created an atmosphere of perennial fear and uncertainty which was definitely not conducive in bringing out the best of Africans.
It sparked unending devastation, with a good amount of the (productive) human resource (16-45 years) wasted either as refugees or as “combatants” practicing the art of destruction and not construction. Foreign aid and its high interest became inevitable yet in real terms encroached further on the continent’s resources, since most of it is either stolen or goes back to the donors as payment to expatriates tied to it. The continent’s revenues ended up in unproductive defence expenditure instead of research, education, health, infrastructural development and investment and yet these are the aspects that would set a favourable environment and Africans would function and be judged correctly. Many Africans and blacks, who have had studied and worked in (European) environments that cherish merit, invest in human resource, value and pay fairly for the input of individuals and their ideas, plus create an atmosphere of certainty, security progress and development have shot holes in the idea of race and intelligence
.
Publicité