Talk:Scientific racism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

THIS is propaganda

That different races have different genetic characteristics is NOT racism and it most certainly is NOT propaganda. It's FACT. It's SCIENCE. Otherwise, please explain why blacks have a higher chance of developing diabetes and high blood pressure than whites and asians. Also please explain why the texture of their hair is different than whites and asians. And not to mention the color of our skin - which is determined SOLELY by genetics. I guess albinos don't have any different DNA than the rest of us either then.

www.blackhealthcare.com That site has some good facts about things that African Americans need to be aware of regarding their health.

Racism is: 1) To believe/state that your ethnicity is superior to another, based on your skintone and the generalizing stereotypes associated with different ethnicities (asians are short, blacks are all crack-addicts, jews are greedy and control everything, gingers are scary, mexicans are lazy, and the white man marches on or some bullshit like that). 2) To state hateful remarks associated with someone's ethnicity

Neither of those appear anywhere in the research that's being done on racial genetic differences. At all. So how the hell is it racist? Is stating that we have different races what makes it racist? We have three: Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasian (debatable also "mulatto"). Somehow "caucasian" is frequently used (I use the word "white", similar to how I use the word "black"), but the other two are banned - most likely because there are negative feelings and a lot of awful history associated with those words. "Negroid" just means "black". That's all it means. But it has negative associations, so using it would be inappropriate.

Are there actually any people of color who think this is racist? Should we close down all african american hair salons? I doubt that any black person would feel comfortable with a white hair stylist; I know lots of white stylists who have managed to use a relaxer on african hair. That was... less than successful. Is it racist when makeup and beauty supplies are marketed to specific ethnicities? Or would blacks and asians prefer using makeup designed for white people? I'm sure "Ivory" is a beautiful tone for a Nubian princess. Should I be offended when I see hair- and skin products marketed for scandinavian skin/hair? Or should I go "Thank god!" since other types of skin/haircare products don't cut it?

For the record: No, I'm not racist. Yes, I believe that we have different races (why shouldn't I?). No, I do not believe that races, ethnicities or the color of our skin have any importance at all outside of the medical field.

This article sure as hell is not NPOV, it's not necessary, it's blatant propaganda, and I'd like to see the whole thing removed. You can rather make a (NEUTRAL) section about it in the racism article. There is already an article for research on race and genetics, which makes this article even more redundant.

Also, check out this site: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2271134

--Theatheama (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you would like to then explain to us how the "different races" all have the same mapping for DNA, blood cells, and genetics on a whole? A 0.01% difference in the genetic make up that makes a group of people susceptible to some diseases or deficiencies doesn't classify them as a "race." Sorry, there's still only one race, and it's called the human race, and we all belong to it. This is not the 16th century any more. It's long overdue for people to realize the only differences between people are the ones we like to make up in our minds. 98.244.243.96 (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

1 gene's mutation bears a baby with down syndrome. Would you have us ignore down syndrome b/c it's a small percentage of DNA changed? The % is irrelevant, the differences are. There are physical differences between people. Some correlate to physical features and so may be grouped into races.

The unabomber's manifesto mentioned some very similar stuff about how all names become derogatory over time, if the group isn't white/male/priviledged. But imho, the article needs to be clear whether or not scientific racism is as prevalent in the 22nd century as in the last couple (or if its actually declining or gone altogether).

Read about Haplogroups and work it out from there, but dont become a Nazi!...--86.29.242.75 (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this article is totally fucked up. It SHOULD be titled "Race Realism", which is what people who you guys call "scientific racists" actually call themselves. Instead that page appears to have been Orwelled into the memory hole by providing two supposed definitions for that term before eventually saying, "The second definition is the older and far more common definition. Critics often claim that racial realism is a euphemism for scientific racism." Yeah, no shit. And THAT'S how you excise hate-facts. Look, I don't know whether it's best that humanity be allowed to admit to themselves that there are different racial averages in various abilities and proclivities. On the surface Slavery and the Holocaust appear to be at least worth giving one pause - but this IS a fuckin encyclopedia. None of us are certain whether people are better off knowing about all forms of mental illnesses that they could fall prey to either, or a whole bunch of other facts besides, but we ought to leave social engineering to the puppeteers and the puppets while we the independently-minded, self-educating, high-IQ, evolutionary-weeds play in our intellectual sandbox in freedom where none shall make us scared because it's all fuckin irrelevant anyway. In the sacred space of a work that claims to be an encyclopedia, let it fuckin be one. - mnuez

Creationism?

Why is this article linked up to the "Creationism" wikipedia article when nearly all racial theories were derived from alternative theories of Evolution? I'm removing this article from the category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.29.177 (talk) 05:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at the Historical definitions of race you'll see that there were many proponents of polygenism, the idea that not only there were strong racial differences, but that different races were created separatedly by God. There's also the whole think of the curse and mark of Cain and the curse of Ham, which may include a sort of "evolution", but is still within the range of "microevolution" (evolution restricted to arbitrarily larger groups than species, like genera or suborders, but somehow never linking with the other members of higher taxons), usually accepted by most creationists. Perhaps the link with creationism could be addressed more deeply in this article. --Extremophile (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving of Phoyograph

On August 1 I moved the 1857 photograph showing skulls. I WAS NOT DELETING it. My reason for moving it is this: The photo is dated 1857. It was located in the Earliest Examples of Scientific Racism section. That section only gives examples up to 1774. I moved the photo down one page to the !9th Century Examples page because that page covers the 1800's. I STRONGLY BELIEVE THE PHOTO SHOULD STAY IN THIS ARTICLE! I AM NOT TRYING TO DELETE IT!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.171.138 (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Why was this removed?

' works such as J. Philippe Rushton's book Race, Evolution and Behavior, IQ and the Wealth of Nations and The bell curve, many volumes by Darwin and his contemporaries and many more. '

? Sam [Spade] 15:42, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I took on the specific references to works though their authors, and a few others, are all in there, just moved down a bit. Darwin is not generally listed as "scientific racism" though certain volumes of "The Descent of Man" are often looked at critically (especially by certain creationists) as being racist but generally Darwin's work lacks the sort of statistical arguments that are generally what "scientific racism" pertains to. That's just my take on it, though.

Basically when I thought about it further I figured there should be a distinct drawing between people in the 19th and early 20th century who were labeled as "scientific racism" and those people who are sometimes accused of it today. I see the latter as being a reference to the former, which is generally unchallenged as actually being "scientific racism." I tried to draw that out a bit more clearly but I may have not communicated it well. That is, when Herrnstein is accused of "scientific racism," he's being accused in part of being like, say, Madison Grant, who nobody really questions was more of a racist than a scientist. So, I wouldn't put, say, Darwin and Herrnstein in the same category; in part because nobody accused Darwin in his time of being a "scientific racist," if that makes any sense. --Fastfission 16:43, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ok, but can you clarify the distinction, and find a way to work these links back in, perhaps as an example of scientific racialism? Sam [Spade] 16:55, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

actually I merged it into racialism. Sam [Spade] 16:58, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

thats better thanx, good edit. Sam [Spade] 17:28, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is the "individual differences" linked to there the same thing as individual differences psychology or is it something else? --Fastfission 15:58, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Because the history of science contains many such works -- even some of the work by Charles Darwin himself on the evolution of man looks especially colored by pre-held conceptions of race -- the question of whether a current work is an example of "scientific racism" or not is often a question of whether it is like these past works which are widely accepted to be very short in science and very heavy in racism." In the past these racial beliefs were part of the entire mindset of society and the idea of 'racism' in the modern sense didn't exist, so you can't say works that say the same things today are innocent by comparing them so. Today racism is a firm concept and comparison to a past time that held different ideas is incorrect. Also, it's nonsense to claim that Darwin's ideas were "short in science and very heavy in racism" because it's simply not true. --ArcticFrog 14:16, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)ArcticFrog

Some of Darwin's statements in Descent of Man are short on science and heavy in racism, but not all of his ideas of course -- it is only the latter that I mentioned. I disagree that you can't compare them but I do agree that past works can't be called "scientific racism." That was what I was trying to emphasize, actually. Much of Darwin's work is what we would now call racist, but it wasn't much of a conscious category at the time (or, as a measure of comparison within his time, Darwin wasn't any more racist than, say, Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson, who also believed in the inferiority of Blacks in terms of intelligence and capability -- see Gould, ch.2). I think that when we talk about "scientific racists" in the past, we are chiefly referring to people like Madison Grant or the other early 20th century eugenicists, but the line between them and Descent of Man is fuzzy at best, and then we have to wonder where that line between them and the present lies anyway (the consciousness of racism as a category?). I'll try to edit it up a bit, but I'm looking for input on this -- it's an easy thing to get wrong and I'm trying to put it into correct perspective as well as give it appropriate nuance. --Fastfission 16:49, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Also, I just wanted to note, that my primary motivation for keeping something along those lines in there (is what I currently put better?) is because I want to emphasize exactly what you are mentioning: that past works should not be considered "scientific racism" necessarily, even though they contained what we would now consider to be "racist" sentiments. I only think this is important because a number of people like to take these sorts of statements out of context (I'm thinking about Answers in Genesis in particular) to say that Darwin was a racist ergo we should abandon his theory (obviously a few steps in logic missing there), or other people, supporters of people like Jensen or other alleged "scientific racists," like to point out that science has always been that way and that it is only modern political correctness that keeps people from making similar observations today (an assessment which I also don't agree with). Anyway, that's all. (for the record, I think Jensen and Herrnstein are "scientific racists," but that's neither here nor there). --Fastfission 17:07, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK, I see your point; that's kinda what I meant about the mindset. We can compare them, but what I meant is that the differences between the outlook of that day and the modern outlook should be taken into account. Basically, you can't really call Darwin a racist because much (but not necessarily all) of his writing that is seen in modern terms as 'racist' consists in ideas that were taken for granted in his time; it was practically unconscious, or at least there was little awareness of it actually or as a concept. In the same light, you can't say modern racist writings are innocent because of what was written in Darwin's time, or back-condemn him for it. A writing of today containing sentiments that were essentially benign in Darwin's time can't really be said to exist on the same plane. "whether it is like these past works" just caught my eye. Perhaps the statement is just worded badly; reading it again, I'm not really sure what is being said, so I may have been wrong in my interpretation. If I am please replace the statement and work on the wording. Thanks for the response; I'm glad to offer input.--ArcticFrog 17:14, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anachronism may be a better term than ahistoricism; but yea, that sounds much better.--ArcticFrog 17:19, 17 June 2004 (UTC)

Wait a minute I don't think Jefferson viewed blacks as inferior, see the Sally Hemmings Article.

NPOV

The article seems to imply that "Scientific racism" is a primarily a "pejorative", only secondarily an actual historical thing. On the contrary, the reason people find it pejorative is because they oppose the older scientific racism and don't like to see modern things connected to it. In any event, an NPOV page would point out that this term is still used to refer to things like Sara Baartman and that some people think race and intelligence research falls in this vein. AaronSw 23:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, the problem with the term is that while most people agree on the old applications, labeling modern things as it is a pejorative. Perhaps what is needed is for the entry to start with a historical approach, and then a segue into modern uses. The problem with it as a term is that it is a modern creation—we now label aspects of the past with it, with the purpose of asserting that certain modern works are simply re-iterations of those past forms. Now, I'm of the opinion that often such associations are true ones, but I'm willing to acknowledge there is no easy demarcation there. In any event, I'll try to refactor it a bit this week if I get the time. --Fastfission 00:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did a complete re-write of the entire topic, encompassing its meaning, its controversial application, the history it refers to, etc. I've removed the NPOV notice as it currently stands as it seems to satisfy your initial (and valid) objections. If anybody wants to put it back on for any new objections, or simply discuss them here, please feel free. I've tried to be neutral and historical on the question. --Fastfission 01:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Country Clarification

Under "History: Early scientific studies of race and racial differences," last sentence of section reads: "...physically inadequate to reproduce or enter the country."

The article suggests that the country in question the USA, but the paragraph / section is unclear if this is so. Can this be confirmed?--Pariah 04:58, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

I added "In the United States...". --Fastfission 16:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Cool--looks good--Pariah 19:28, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ignoracism

It can be observed that, as it is now, the article contains no reference to ignoracism. -hitssquad 17:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see that it is relevant here. Can you explain why you think it should be added to this article in specific, and not to a more general article on racism? --Fastfission 18:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

My observation is that it is generally used as a corollary to the term scientific racism. -hitssquad 18:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Google only brings up 56 hits for "ignoracism". We probably shouldn't even have an article about such a little-used neologism. By comparison, "scientific racism" brings up arund 21,000 hits. The two terms are used together on just 17 webpages. -Willmcw 18:49, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking. There is no "generally" here and you haven't provided any evidence that the terms have anything to do with one another, except for the fact that you tried to insert a link to this one on the other page, using the same POV "marketing speak" nonsense that you tried to insert on this one. --Fastfission 13:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Factors affecting the publication of objective research

In September 2005, Charles Murray said:

Many academics who are familiar with the state of knowledge are afraid to go on the record. Talking publicly can dry up research funding for senior professors and can cost assistant professors their jobs. [1]

If this is true, it would explain the reluctance of scientists to publish research which defies the status quo. Elabro 17:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Racist and racialist

I probably don't even need to describe this change but the proposed intro by User:Lindosland of "Scientific racism refers to research which promotes or appears to promote a racialist ideology..." (swapping "racialist" for "racist") is just factually and logically false. Scientific racism refers to accusations of racism, not racialism. Hence the name. --Fastfission 19:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• In that case, surely the opening sentence is wrong. It states that the term refers to research. I suggest it should say 'is a term used by some in condemning certain research on the grounds that it is racist'. In other words, racism is in the eye of the critic, not the reporting of the researcher - whose theory may racialist, but must not be assume to be racist. Lindosland 01:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• • The definition is not in the eyes of the critic, but the application of it to given research is. There certainly has been work which was "scientific racism" -- deliberately done to promote racist theories. The controversy over the term is not whether such a category exists, but whether it actually applies to certain people's works (a position this article takes no stance on). --Fastfission 03:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I would agree that there is work deliberately done to promote racialist theories. I would say though that in general those doing the work see (or saw in non-PC times) nothing wrong in promoting racialist theories. They believed race mattered, to varying extents in varying ways, which an encylopedia has a duty to report. I don't think many people wasted their time making up theories to upset people, to create conflict, which I would call truly racist. On the contrary they often tried to explain conflict (which certainly happens, like it or not) in terms of racial theory. Modern evolutionary psychology is taking some scientists back there but in terms of genetic subsets, recognising, as even Stoddard did, that Races are not 'pure'. Its not for anyone to say that this is wrong (value judgement); science looks for what is true, and must be taboo-free. Lindosland 12:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if Im wrong. People are against the concept of race because they want everyone to think they are the same and fit smoothly into a new world order. Right right?

Against merge

It doesn't make sense to merge this article with the racism article, scientific racism is a separate subject with lots of significant and relevant detail that would likely get lost in any merge. zen master T 23:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• No joke. And if one is not aware of it being a separate term, one could easily consult the books references (one of which features it as a primary part of the title), or any of the over 66,000 Google hits or over 5,800 Google Books hits. Not a neologism, but a specific "type" of racism, one which claims to be based on scientific facts (sometimes contrasted with "base" racism). --Fastfission 02:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Specific changes

I think it is important to say very clearly that scientific racism is a term, and that it is almost always applied without controversy retroactively (that is, we now call 19th-century and early 20th-century works which were considered legitimate science in their day "scientific racism", to indicate that we now no longer think their work is actually "science"), and that whenever applied today it is almost always controversial (that is, whether one thinks research into the differences in, say, intelligence between different "races" is "scientific racism" or not depends largely on how one feels about the issues ahead of time).

I think some of the "history" edits were simply incorrect, or removed very important things (such as Civil War physiological studies, which were not only very popular among scientists and physicians but are the direct precursors to work being done today on "racial differences").

Obviously I am not in support of works of scientific racism and I do happen to think some (not all) of modern work on "racial differences" falls into this category as well (the methodology often seems purposefully sloppy), but I think it is important to get a very good NPOV balance here. It is not completely appropriate to just deride works of the past as "propaganda" -- many of them were done by top scientists of their day with top methodologies of the time. Simply deriding them as propaganda not only is incorrect in a basic sense, but it underemphasizes the fact that these were not done by cranks or fringe characters but by major biologists and anthropologists -- a lesson worth keeping in mind for the present. We have a much better sensitivity to these things since the 1930s, when a lot of work was done to show how "scientific" studies of race were often highly flawed. --Fastfission 14:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

In many cases critics of some modern day research directly accuse it of being propaganda disguised as science, the article does no deriding directly but accurately reports citable view points. zen master T 16:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

How someone feels about the issues ahead of time is not how the term is being used by research critics in the present day, critics of "intelligence" research directly or indirectly accuse it of being propaganda disguised as science. zen master T 16:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• I don't have a lot of time to discuss this further for the moment (going out of town), but I will say just briefly that I think the original introduction was both more NPOV, more complete, and more accurate than the current one, with its airy discussion of "propaganda" (the works were not always propaganda in either the literal or figurative sense; most often they were presented as works of "legitimate science" and in fact much of the racist aspect of them was often not purposeful at all, but a consequence of bad methodology or bad a priori assumptions). But anyway I'll be back in a week or so. --Fastfission 01:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission, I totally agree with you that those "scientifical" studies were not just the work of some cranks... Until at least the 1930s (I'll try to find if you wish this reference of a French medical study that really amazed me...) racism was commonly scientifically justified. However, this simply means that racism has been tightly tied to Occidental's (but we should'nt even reduced it to an Occidental story, since Japan is also like this...) "civilization". And this led to various genocides, which, if you believe Sven Lindqvist's Exterminate all the brutes (a book that reads lot better than its title taken from Joseph Conrad), started with 19th century's colonialism. Human zoos are a particular good examples of this quasi-unconscious racism. Lapaz

What exactly does the term "Scientific Racism" mean?

I'm having a hard time understanding what the term "Scientific Racism" means and/or how the term might be properly employed. Is "Scientific Racism" merely racist acts and/or statements by those who are also scientists? If so, than why the term "scientific?" Or is it science as it relates to race? If this, than why the term "racism?" After these concerns there is the additional problem created when this category is assigned to the work of some scientists who are involved in such controversial areas as mental testing, where, frankly, it appears to be a vehicle used to attack ideas ad hominem.

Critics of some modern day research fields directly accuse the research as being "scientific" racism, which I interpret their usage to mean propaganda designed to influence public opinion negatively. In almost all modern day cases proponents of the controversial research deny the charge. zen master T 16:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

But isn't calling an idea "propaganda," and stopping there, little more than an ad hominem attack? I think that's the problem here. The term "Scientific racism" doesn't address the merits and neither does the term "propaganda."

Are you arguing the historical examples are not propaganda? In my interpretation they are obviously psychologically manipulative and the exponential lack of the scientific method is too great to be considered an inadvertent mistake, had to be intentional. The article does not state that any modern day controversial research is definitely propaganda, it simply notes the phrase's usage as an accusation of propaganda. If a phrase is used as an ad hominem attack are you saying Wikipedia must not report about it? The word "propaganda" is good because it correctly implies media complicity, did the historical publications ever do anything to double check or correct subsequently disproven claims? Perhaps "attempted brainwashing" or "flawed science intentionally and repetitively published to fear the masses for the purpose of control" is more accurate than just "propaganda"? Perhaps we should somehow clearly disassociate between accusations of inadvertent error, and accusations of intentional fear-pandering disguised as science, and do it in a way that encourages a scientific analysis? zen master T 07:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It's mainly a vehicle for ad hominem attacks. Oftenly the scientists as a person are attacked instead of their research. Freely available hard evidence for pseudo scientific racism is rare as well. There is not enough support on Wikipedia for broader viewpoints than the PC one however. --Scandum 02:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a controversial modern day scientist is being ad hominem attacked randomly, it's more likely critics were upset with their research or propaganda. I also think the phrase "pseudo scientific" is insufficient, its more accurate to say what is claimed to be or is represented as science.

Concerning the AfD... I understand your point, as for now, I do believe you in that the expression is used in this pejorative way - however, i would also like to point out Pierre-André Taguieff's specific use of the word "racialisme" ("racialism") as exact synonym of your use of the term "scientific racism". "Racialism is the theory of human races" , "used by racist ideologies trying to pass as sciences" (this is not word from word from Taguieff, but if you really want i'll look up the ref). I'm not a native English speaker as you may have noticed; therefore, I would be interested in knowing if "racialism" is sometimes used like this in English. The actual entry in Wiki about it seems to me quite irrelevant. Lapaz

Getting back on this. In English, "racialism" is usually used to mean "the belief that races of people exist". It is usually used by supporters as different than "racism" -- i.e., they are argue that you can believe in the concept of race without being a racist, someone who believes in superiority of races or institutionalized discrimination. However this is a relatively new usage of the word. The older usage of the word is synonymous with "racism". I tend to lean towards the "newer" use of the word in particular because the old usage is almost completely unknown outside of literature from the 1930s, and while I personally am very suspicious of the modern "racialists" I don't think their point is entirely incoherent and there are more than a few prominent people who identify with that position. --Fastfission 19:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The Brand Affair and its multiple appearances in this article

The Chris Brand Affair appears twice in this article. Should we have it in the Self-consciousness section or the Modern Usage section? --hitssquad 21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• While I'm not opposed to the way you've edited it (I'm somewhat surprised at that fact, I have to admit), it probably belongs in the "Modern Usage" section. The Jensen affair was a very particular one in the "self-consciousness" -- when scientists started really and in earnest accusing contemporaries of being scientific racists -- whereas the Brand affair (which I admit I don't know a lot about) seems to be simply another iteration of controversy. --Fastfission 12:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I acted on your suggestion. Thanks for offering your perspective. (Yes, I believe Brand is more obscure than he might prefer to be.) --hitssquad 12:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Fisher and UNESCO

I am curious about the reference here: "To this day, the 1950 UNESCO Statement is controversial among some scientists because of its message (some, such as R. A. Fisher, vehemently disagreed with it)..." Where does this come from? I have scoured Fisher's Biography "Life of a Scientist" and haven't found any reference to it. There is nothing in his bibliography so far as I can see, so it appears not to have been published. Unless there is a reference, it should be removed, I think. And who were the other scientists referred to? DonSiano 11:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I also looked through the biography of Darlington, which has an extended treatment of the controversy over the UNESCO statement, and there is no mention of Fisher there either. DonSiano 12:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I am changing the reference about Fisher to Darlington and Muller, which I know to be accurate from Darlington's biography, p 236, 237.DonSiano 12:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, I've got the reference on my computer somewhere, I'll dig it up (I think it was from a Will Provine article). It's really a rather funny quote, if I recall. --Fastfission 14:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I found the reference, but there is a lot of potentially useful text (in the form of quotes), so I'll type it up a little later today when I have more time. The reference specifically is William B. Provine, "Geneticists and Race" Amer. Zool. 26 (1986): 857-887.

• Ok. Here's the details about the UNESCO statement(s) Provine's article. There is more below that belongs in the article but hopefully it will sort out the confusion.
  • First committee was convened in 1949; the statement which resulted said that, 1. race is a social myth, 2. scientific evidence indicates range of mental capacities in all ethnic groups is much the same, 3. no evidence that race mixture is biologically harmful, 4. biological studies lend support for "ethic of universal brotherhood".
  • Geneticists and anthropologists objected vehemently: they were amazed that no geneticists or anthropologists were on the UNESCO committee; that there was some biological reality to the idea of human races; that they suspected there might be some differences in mental capacities; didn't like the invocation of mutual cooperation. The objecting biologists included L.C. Dunn, T. Dobzhansky, Julian Huxley, H.J. Muller, and Curt Stern.
  • UNESCO committee convened to try it again in 1951, this time including geneticists (Dunn, J.B.S. Haldane, A.E. Mourant, Hans Nachscheim, Dobzhansky, and J. Huxley). Final result removes the mutual cooperation/brotherhood language, and slight rewording of the rest, but essentially the same conclusions. The rewording specifically focused on naming things in the negative: "no evidence", "no basis", etc. for racist beliefs, rather than stating positive evidence against them.
  • 1951 statement sent out to 106 prominent physical anthropologists and geneticists; 80 responded, of these, 23 accepted it completely, 26 agreed to the tenor but not the particulars, and the others disagreed strongly with it.
  • Greatest criticism directed at the statement that "Available scientific knowledge provides no basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development." R.A. Fisher, K. Mather, A.H. Sturtevant, C.S. Darlington, W. Landauer, and H.J. Muller the most prominent geneticist objectors to this statement. Fisher recommended revising it to read: "Available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development, seeing that that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes." (differences highlighted) Muller wrote that he agreed "with the chief intention of the article as a whole", but thought there likely were different averages and medians in intelligence between races.
• All of the above is from Provine, pp. 874-876. There is a lot more on Muller's comments and some of the back and forth between him and Dunn; if you are interested I'd be happy to e-mail the article to you. I think the main problem the article currently has is that I think I got confused on the fact that there were two UNESCO statements very close in time, with somewhat different origins, that led to different receptions. --Fastfission 16:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks a lot for that detailed reply, and I would actually be interested in the article (you can send it to dimona@comcast.net) you mention. Perhaps it would be worth putting in a reference to it, maybe expanding it a little too. I'll leave it to you... btw, I liked your fix to the Darwin para on his attitude on race, etc. Much better now. DonSiano

See The Race Question. Fastfission in particular might be interested in reviewing it. Tazmaniacs 15:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Challenges from within the scientific community

The quote "However, modern studies on race and intelligence have overcome many of these concerns, and the subject remains one of intense interest because they continue to show differences between races. In fact so called 'culture-fair' tests of abstract visual skills tend to show even higher racial differences than verbal tests" contradicts the main points in this section. Has someone retroactively added it? It doesn't belong.Kemet 02:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Article should be deleted

There is no such thing as "scientific racism". Not much more to say. This Wiki seems to have been constructed by a bunch of people that have no understanding of science or the scientific method, and definitely not the nuances of concepts such inductive and deductive reasoning.Ernham 19:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The sources cited in this article don't agree with what you are saying. The goal here isn't to say that "scientific racism" is real, but rather to show that some people have identified it as a trend in the sciences. The fact that this trends has been identified is a verifiable fact. I think the article, as it stands is quite balanced in showing that using this term is an ideas restrict to a large number of critics of early research especially in to the areas of race and intellegence. futurebird 21:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is a mess, but I agree it shouldn't be deleted. It needs heavy, heavy editing to make it conform to wikipedia standards, though. Cite sources and don't give us your opinion, people. Currently, the intro of this article reads like it was written from memory by a college student based on the jawings of a Marxist professor.

Merge Racial groups in India (historical definitions) here

I propose to merge Racial groups in India (historical definitions), per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV, as well as WP:Naming conflicts, etc. The latter article is complete non-sense, based on totally unreliable sources which carries on old racist stereotypes. In other words, it has nothing to do on wikipedia, and any interesting content, if there is some, should be moved here. The only interest of it might reside in historical archive aspects, but it is not Wikipedia's aims to present such irrelevant theories as "true". Tazmaniacs 15:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has a lot of content that is India-specific (for eg. classification by Megasthenes, and analysis by Hodson and Wyse). I don't see how can Scientific racism (already 49KB long) can accommodate this content. I don't know why you feel this is WP:SOAPBOX; the article is neither propaganda nor advocacy and doesn't present the theories as true -- the intro clearly says that "most of these theories are pre-1940 and only of historical interest now". What do you mean by "article is complete non-sense, based on totally unreliable sources" -- it clearly lists reliable sources (see the References section). The classification of humans into races is considered by many (including me) as nonsense today, but the article doesn't try to establish racial theories as true. It just talks about the theories which at one time were important in academic and political circles (and even legal circles, for eg. United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind). utcursch | talk 16:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Your last point in particular is a legitimate argument. However, I think we could then reconsider the title of the article and its scope, maybe moving it to Racism in India, in order to provide an article in the lines of Racism by country. Tazmaniacs 17:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone might be interested in following the debate at Talk:Racial groups in India (historical definitions) and the proposal to rename it Scientific racist theories concerning India. Tazmaniacs 16:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge Race science here

POV forks. Tazmaniacs 17:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• support merge·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• support merge, also note clean up and putting this article into date sequence is sorely needed. .. dave souza, talk 13:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• against merge, i think race science is an objective science whereas scientific racism is not. they should be kept separate thus.Muntuwandi 14:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• against merge, In my opinion, race science is merely the study of racial differences and how they affect life, while scientific racism is the scientific community actually supporting racism. Smart194 17:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support merge. There's no well-defined criterion by which one could sort an allegedly scientific study of race as being race science or scientific racism without an implied POV as to its validity. If scientific racism is "the scientific community actually supporting racism", then should all studies in the article Scientific racism that don't specifically advocate government or personal policy against races be moved to Race science? If a study suggests that race X is less intelligent than race Y, with no further recommendations of active discrimination against race X, is it scientific racism or race science? What if it claims race X is less intelligent based on indisputably fabricated evidence? How about evidence of disputed authenticity? Rather than trying to sort out which works are scientific or not, and which works advocate racism or not, both of which are outside of our responsibilities as editors, we should at least merge the subjects together under some more neutral title like "science and race". Ideally, I'd even like to see both articles merged into Race, as having a separate article on race science implies the content in Race is not scientific. -- Schaefer (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• against merge. I agree with Schaefer's comments above. The articles should be merged, but under an NPOV title. I agree with Schaefer that a better solution is a redirect from both articles to "Science and Race" or some other NPOV title. To label a scientific endeavor as "racist" is inherently POV. To merge Race Science under Scientific Racism is to argue that there is no possibility of a non-racist reseach that uses race as a central variable. For example, research studying racial variation in heart disease would now fall under "Scientific Racism" in Wikipedia, which strikes me as ridiculous.Verklempt 20:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. One editor found it reasonable to take off the merge template. I've put it again. One quick look at Race science shows that we're dealing with the same subject, and that this is a POV fork. For one, the article cites Stephen Jay Gould and The Mismeasure of Man (same as here), and for other The Bell Curve (same as here). I don't see how one can claim that they make for different articles when the same people are invoked and the same subject treated. Tazmaniacs 17:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thematic or chronological organization

Re: to Dave Souza's last comment (above): although some chronological ordering might be a good thing, I don't really know if it's absolutely the best way. Thematic organization seems a good way to proceed as different people in different times really had the same concerns. I don't know how you see it? Tazmaniacs 15:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem I'm finding is that the main headings are laid out chronologically, but the content hops about: thus the "19th century theories of race" keeps popping back into the eighteenth century, as with the "Philosophers of the Enlightenment and racial classifications", then gets into the twentieth century with "Scientific racism and eugenics" before going back to the first half of the nineteenth century with "Justification of slavery in the nineteenth century". The point about thematic organisation is appreciated: perhaps the answer is to begin with a chronological overview of the three centuries, followed by separate main sections for each theme or by a main heading such as "Types of scientific racism". It would be good to reposition the themes in relation to the development of ideas. Will think about it, have tried to straighten out Darwin's first mention a bit but don't have time at the moment to do much more for a while. .. dave souza, talk 17:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting.

This article has proved my theory that Darwinism is rooted in a philosophy that resembles Nazism. When I thought about evolution, I realized that if it is true, then I should be sterile, as a hybrid of two species, like a mule. I haven't found out whether I am sterile yet, but I don't think that I am. I think that all races are the same species.--69.234.206.177 05:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)J

Great. What does that have to do with the article? This isn't your diary. Afabbro 17:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I got a little out of control there. I guess I should continure writing in my diary again.

--69.234.206.177 05:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)J

If you are indeed the a hybrid of two species (as opposed to races), I would be very interested in doing research on you. Can you give me specifics? Human and chimp? Centaur?88.77.145.65 (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Rockwell

"Rockwell's use of these statistics is a textbook example of a statistical fallacy used to propagate scientific racism." It would be nice if which fallacy was specified. Afabbro 17:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Introduction ; obsolete scientific theory or racist propaganda ?

I've reversed a recent change to the introduction. Although some new additions were welcome, I disagree in removing parts on phrenology, etc. Furthermore, I question the definition of "scientific racism" as being simply "racist propaganda disguised as science".
I think we need to distinguish two uses of this term: the first, proper one, refering to obsolete scientific theories. The second one, refering to contemporary discourses which claim to ground racism in science. While the latter is obvious propaganda and, to be blunt, is restricted to far-right discourses, it is a bit easy to qualify the first one as simple propaganda. Doubtlessly these theories (phrenology, etc.) were racists. But there's a step from asserting this truth and from claiming they were only a form of propaganda — which would imply that the 19th century scholars who worked on these themes were cynical racists attempting to give a legitimate formulation to their racist POV. The issue is much more complex, and is related to the birth of physical anthropology, the discovery of other ethnic groups starting with the Age of Discovery, etc. To dismiss all of these researches as simple "racist propaganda" is, to my eyes, a simplist short-cut. It is all too easy to dismiss what yesterday was considered truth and scientifical as ideology and propaganda ; but that would be claiming that all obsolete scientific theories were, in fact, only ideology. Which is, according to various philosophers of science and others (Michel Foucault, Louis Althusser, etc.) a retrospective and teleological view which does not convey the reality of the past and of historical change. Tazmaniacs 17:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think any definition should include, not to the exclusion of other definitions (sorry), a mention of something to the effect of "racist propaganda disguised as scientific research". Note that that quotation comes from an 6+ months old version of this article, someone has been corrupting this article. I think it's hard to take any scientific research seriously if its been tainted by propaganda and the article needs to do a much better job explaining and disassociating both/multiple definitions. zen master T 17:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Precisely the reason why I've kept your addition to the intro. Note that, IMO, your definition of "racist propaganda disguised as scientific research" only applies to the 20th century, not to the 19th century, for the reasons above-mentioned. The question concerning science's relation to ideology (or propaganda if you like) is a difficult one. Some (Althusser, Foucault, etc.) have argued convincingly that no science is pure from opinion. Actually, other have argued that Plato himself was of the same thought, and that this precisely explains the difficult status of philosophy and its difference towards other sciences. Tazmaniacs 17:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the formulation: "Scientific racism are obsolete scientific theories... which provided ideological legitimation to racism, colonialism and imperialism" is not far away from your definition, but is, IMHO, a bit more correct historically and epistemologically speaking. To endorse your definition, you would need to prove that these 19th century scholars were only racists trying to veil their propaganda in scientific formulation, something for which you need sources ! And even if you did find sources claiming this, the bibliography of this article will provide you with plenty of sources arguing my POV. Tazmaniacs 17:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As an example of what I'm advancing:

As an example: in discussing the belief of Elias

Auerbach, a Berlin physician of the early twentieth century who believed that Jews had maintained their racial purity, Efron states that "his zeal in defense of that theory shows that his Zionism impinged on his science" (p. 139). In Foucauldian terms, it is hard to see this as at all surprising. Indeed, it is difficult to argue that any scientific work would be untainted by contemporary

discourses.[2]

Tazmaniacs 12:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I happen to dislike the introduction, refering to some theories as "racist propoganda disguised as science" It implies that any theory about race is wrong and immoral. However, there must bee at least some genetic difference between, say, africans and caucasians, or else they wouldn't be separate "races." Besides, just because past theories may have not had firm scientific evidence doesn't mean that they all do. However, this is not an issue, because critics of these racial theories do not even argue on a sceintific basis. They say that the theory is immoral and call the scientist a Nazi. In reality, morality should not interfere with science. If a theory has good scientific evidence, it should be published even if it means national humiliation of a certain race or group and a setback in their equal rights campaigns. Science is science. Fusion7 21:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What makes writing a definition of "scientific racism" so difficult is that the term is used almost exclusively by its opponents, who are usually of the opinion that there is no such thing as unbiased science that supports racist beliefs. If we suppose, as a hypothetical, that some unbiased scientific study were to reach conclusions typically found only among racists, would this study constitute scientific racism? If not, then there's nothing wrong with defining scientific racism as a particular type of bias or fraud in science. If it is, though, it would be a gross violation of NPOV to insist that all science that seems to support racism is merely "disguised as science". I tend to favor the latter definition, because the first puts us in the awkward situation where "scientific racism" is, by definition, unscientific. Thus, if an example of scientific racism were found to actually be both scientific and racist, it would no longer be scientific racism. But any clear definition in print should obviously take precedence. -- Schaefer (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about that recently. The title can probably be interpreted as equally meaning "racial science" as "pseudoscientific bigotry" - it's a matter of how one reads it. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 04:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope none of you take this as a rude comment, as it is not meant to be so. But perhaps you should take into account, in this discussion, that if the concept of "race" is very common in US culture for a variety of reasons (and is included in the Race and ethnicity in the United States Census - which, by the way, has been renamed "Race and ethnicity" and not only "Race" for a reason - see also the problematic Racial demographics of the United States), in the huge majority of the world it is not accepted at all. Other places prefer the term "ethnic group" (see the United Nations's The Race Question, 1950). Henceforth, when a lot of US Wikipedians are arguing in favor of the use of "race" or "race science" when in fact they only mean study of differences between populations, they're is always an ambiguity left for other Wikipedians who feel, in accordance with the UN The Race Question, that the concept of "race" does not mean anything in science. This POV is not only shared by the UN, but by a vast majority of scientifics. I've seen some people here qualifying "Africans" or "Caucasians" as a "race", which might mean something in every-day language in the United States, but has absolutely no sense elsewhere, and least of all in scientific studies. "Ethnic group" is really lot more precise a concept, and demographists are used to speak of "populations", which may be white, black, yellow, blue, and, more often than not, all of these colours together. Cheers! Tazmaniacs 04:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

historical info should be moved out of intro

The introduction should be a short self contained definition and summary of the article, I think all historical information should be moved out of the introduction. zen master T 17:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, you can't explain what "scientific racism" is if you remove references to specific disciplines (again, phrenology, etc.) and take away the historical content. One can not explain what this is by making abstraction of history. Tazmaniacs 17:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section (moved here)

I've moved this recent addition here, mainly because of its anachronical nature and misunderstanding of the term of "scientific racism".

Critics of the concept "scientific racism" argue that science has rarely had racist motives. In their view this is evidenced by the treatment of native Indian peoples. According to Frank Miele and Vincent Sarich if race was essentially a convenient ideological device to justify slavery, the European ruling classes of the sixteenth century should have eagerly embraced the theory of polygenism (multiple origins of races). Yet in 1537, in Sublimis Deus, Pope Paul III upheld monogenism and the capacity of native Indians to receive Christianity. Similarly, in 1550, at a council convened by Emperor Charles V to consider colonization, the rights of native peoples were upheld.<ref>Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele: Race, Reason, and Reality, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2004</ref>

Although racism certainly existed in the 16th century, this article makes clear that "scientific racism" is posterior to the 16th century. SR refers to a set of sciences, phrenology, etc., which were used to classify humanity into different races, and is intrinsically related to the birth of biology — see scientific revolution. I hoped this article made it clear, but maybe not enough... As the introduction states, SR has also been used in the 20th century to refer to racist theories attempting to disguise themselves as science ("race & intelligence" issues, etc.). There is a lot to say about racism in the 16th century, especially racism, slavery and colonialism, but it belongs to Racism#Racism in the Middle Ages and during the Renaissance and not here. Tazmaniacs 12:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Original research

This is total Original research. A synthesis of primary sources is not acceptable (see WP:PSTS). Tazmaniacs 12:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Scientific racism, like science, does have its antecedents in the ancient world. The impulse to classify, the Great Chain of Being, clearly, all of this stuff came from somewhere and didn't just spring into being when Linnaeus or Buffon came along. The thing is, to include discussion of this in the article, we have to cite reliable sources that argue for such a link, not just assert one ourselves. The converse is true as well; if reliable sources demonstrate such a link, then a discussion of such should be included in the article.--Proper tea is theft 15:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Europeans thus have by nature a strong, courageous character and "endurance in body and soul" due to living in rigorous, cold, wintry climates. This theory is known nowadays in genetics, race-realist and anthropological circles as the "cold winter theory of intelligence"

This is of course the most outrageous statement, flying in the face of true anthropological thought on the subject. (What is a race-realist?) Further, all of these statements from ancient authors are expressions of ethnocentrism, which anthropologists have long observed is common in cultures the world over. All of these early documented examples of ethnocentrism should not be juxtaposed as part of a section of "early examples of scientific racism," as this is not what they in fact are, whether they are sourced or not. Scientific racism concerns much later ideas.

The article also must not confuse genetics with ethnicity. These ancient authors are referring to entire ethnic groups, which anthropology considers to be largely a matter of self-identification, not biology. Brando130 18:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ethnocentrism or even racism are not the same as scientific racism, which is a theory created in the 19th century. Contradictory claims would need sources, which would be difficult to find, as no serious scholar makes such claim. Tazmaniacs 21:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The section is legitimately sourced to Isaac, who certainly considers the ancient authors to contain what he calls "proto-racist" ideas, and to be scientific - by the standards of the day. Unfortunately the author of the section completely misrepresents what Isaac says to pursue his agenda, which seems to be to promote the idea that the superiority of Europeans was univerally asserted by ancient wrters. Paul B 23:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What is misrepresented? If anything is misrepresented, correct it. Anyone can go on Amazon.com, click on "see inside the book", go through the very exact pages and see for themselves... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to see selected pages online when I can read the whole book itself in the library, as I have done. Paul B 07:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Then change what you think is misrepresented, while keeping the previous citations. There is no conspiracy here. All of the cited text is non-fraudulent. The two main concepts in Isaac's account of Hellenistic proto-scientific racism are 1) the importance of winter and seasonal variation (Hippocrates, etc.) and 2) the importance of climate for character traits, with bias against extreme climes in favor of the temperate, slightly northern middle parts for the evolution of civilized instincts; in other words, Central and Mediterranean Europe and the corresponding stretch of land across the globe. So what is misrepresented? Supplement your own understanding then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "slightly northern" means. North and south are entirely relative in cultures which have no knowledge of the equator. The standard Aristotelian view is that centrality is best. As for "across the globe", ancient writers knew nothing about most of the globe - though they had some rather fantatical ideas about parts of it. They certainly typically argue that climate is important, but other judgements are a compendium of discrete claims about idiosynctatic bodily features that often can't be mapped neatly onto racial categories. Paul B 21:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Confusing scientific racism with Ancient racist statements is baffling. The theoretical framework is very different, and to argue that there is a continuity between both is to overlook what constitutes modern science. I mean, take a look at Thomas Kuhn's work or at Michel Foucault's work on the history of science, the paradigms (or episteme) are completely different. Furthermore, you can't mix a secondary source with primary sources: this is original research and is not accepted here. Finally, when you present the thesis of an author, you should present it as such, not as a fact. Other authors disagree with such a simplist vision of history. Finally, please abstain from ad hominem attack, in edit summary or on talk pages, this may be a motive for a block. Thank you, Tazmaniacs 16:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Still other attempts, this time at least more interesting. This diff is not un-interesting, but the new content should be included in Racism, not here. Herder & Humboldt do not belong to scientific racism, but to racial classifications of the Age of Enlightenment. There is a very important misunderstanding here about what constitutes scientific racism: it has no sense whatsoever outside of biology and of an essentialist, biological notion of race. A hierarchy of races was certainly supported by various scholars in the Age of Enlightenment, but race was conceived as a conjectural construct (a Black would become White if he changed climate, for instance) not as an essentialist (i.e. permanent) construct. Biology did not exist at the time (natural history is a completely different paradigm; claiming that racist theories in the Age of Enlightenment is the same as scientific racism in the 19th century is like claiming that there is no difference between the physics of Ptolemy and Copernic - the shift being known as the Scientific Revolution, although it is not the only one - and of Einstein). Tazmaniacs 19:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Taz," you are constructing an arbitrary, possibly quasi-Foucaultian obscure definition of scientific racism, and then pretending reality has to conform to this construction. The seeds of scientific racism existed long before the so-called "scientific revolution." Aristotle, Eratosthenes, Archimedes, etc. have inspired scientists for generations; Leucippus and Democratis succesffully anticipated the contemporary understanding of atoms, etc.; you are engaging in the fallacy of pretending there is some sort of ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE between the naturalistic students of the ancient world and our own... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.46.69 (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this denote with interest uncertain about what side I should weigh in in favor of. The important tie breaker is the following: Do the sources for this section explicitly mention "scientific racism" in those exact words? futurebird 12:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Like Futurebird, I'm having a hard time deciding who is right here, such that it might be best when discussing antiquity to include only sources that explicitly mention "scientific racism" and explicitly tie ancient race categories to the emergence of modern science.

I think a big part of the problem here is that scientific racism is a bit like pornography--we all "know it when we see it" but the exact definition is different depending on the criteria we use. --Proper tea is theft 16:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My point is precisely the one supported by Proper tea is theft. The user insisting in conflating Ancient science with 19th century biology, despite obvious epistemic changes (a fact agreed upon by all those who believed that something such like a Scientific Revolution happenned, thus being far from a "quasi-Foucaultian obscure definition"), has not given any reliable sources which explicitly states that Aristotle was supporting "scientific racist" thesis equivalent to thoses of the 19th century — again, for obvious reasons. To the contrary, I have provided sources, on the Racism article, that even show that more or less racist theories of the Age of Enlightenment (to be precise, of the 17th and 18th century) had very widely different presupposals than those of 19th century (see Racism#During the Age of Enlightenment and Ann Thomson, Issues at stake in 18th century racial classification). In other words, the user here is engaging in WP:OR by using primary sources showing that Aristotle had some racist or Eurocentric opinions (no one will dispute his Eurocentrism) to claim he was a supporter of 19th century scientific racism (an obvious misinterpretation). I would also like him to stop calling me a vandal and making use of ad hominem attacks, which are no substitute for rational arguments. Tazmaniacs 12:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

criticism paragraph in the intro

I am not exactly sure what the statement of a 16th century pope on monogenism has to do with the sort of 19th and 20th century scientific racism that this article focuses on. There must be more relevant criticisms to be made of the notion of scientific racism. In any case, whoever put the citation there didn't get the title of the text right--it's actually called Race: The Reality of Human Differences. --Proper tea is theft 18:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this statement is totally irrelevant. Tazmaniacs 12:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. futurebird 12:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The 1951 UNESCO Statement on race

The 1950 UNESCO Statement was a failure and it was withdrawn by UNESCO after it was strongly criticised in scientific journals. It was compared to the pseudoscientific doctrines of the Nazis.

According to the 1951 statement "the concept of race is unanimously regarded by anthropologists as a classificatory device providing a zoological frame within which the various groups of mankind may be arranged and by means of which studies of evolutionary processes can be facilitated". (p. 11)

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000733/073351eo.pdf

It no longer recommended that instead of race the term "ethnic group" should be used. Also, according to the 1951 statement it is possible, though not proved, that some types of innate capacity for intellectual and emotional responses are commoner in one human group than in another, but it is certain that, within a single group, innate capacities. vary as much as, if not more than, they do between different groups". (p. 13)

The 1951 statement was also accompanied by (perhaps) "scientifically racist" critical commentaries. According to an expert UNESCO interviewed blacks and whites did not belong to the same species: "If an unprejudiced scientist were confronted with a West-African Negro, an Eskimo and a North-West European, he could hardly consider them to belong to the same ‘species’.

According to some other experts blacks were intellectually inferior to whites and miscegenation possibly harmful. (See the articles about R.A. Fisher and C.D. Darlington for information about their views)

The current information about the 1950 UNESCO statement is misleading as after one year a larger body of experts wrote a new statement and the authors of the original statement agreed with the new statement titled “The Race Concept: Results of an Inquiry”. MoritzB 10:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please provide sources for your claims. Furthermore, doubtlessly some of the interviewed experts had racist views, the whole point of the UNESCO was to include a very large panel of scientists. However, a close reading of The Race Question will easily demonstrate that such views were not endorsed by the report. Any precise information on the following reports are welcome, Tazmaniacs 16:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Tazmaniacs, The Race Question was the 1950 statement. In 1951 Unesco made a new statement titled “The Race Concept: Results of an Inquiry”. The source is the 1951 statement:

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000733/073351eo.pdf~

MoritzB 20:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And other statements were made afterward. This does not answer my question. For instance, you say that "the 1951 statement was also accompanied by (perhaps) "scientifically racist" critical commentaries" and then cite an expert UNESCO who spoke of different species. If you read the 1950 statement, you will see that nowhere is he cited. It is very probable that, of all the people interviewed in the process of creation of this statement, one did say such a thing. The important thing is that it was not registered by the statement and not endorsed by the UNESCO. This is why I don't understand your comments. I certainly agree that they are contestable things about the 1950 statement, but they are not where you say they are. Tazmaniacs 19:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is that according to the 1951 opinion of UNESCO experts the claims made in the 1950 statement were inaccurate/false and UNESCO published a new statement in 1951.

The 1951 document included a critical comment by prof. Fritz Lenz: “In my opinion, the Linnaen theory that all men belong to a single species is inaccurate. Moreover, it is by no means true that this theory is accepted by scientists in general. In his well-known Lehrbuch der Anthropologie (Manual of Physical Anthropology), Rudolf Martin speaks of the ‘Sub-groups of the Hominids’; ‘Opinions are divided on the question whether these sub-groups are to be regarded as species or simply varieties of species in the zoological sense of the term.’ (2nd Ed., Vol. I, Jena, 1928, p. 7. ... “If an unprejudiced scientist were confronted with a West-African Negro, an Eskimo and a North-West European, he could hardly consider them to belong to the same ‘species’. Numerous ‘good’ species by no means reveal such considerable differences. Only one thing is certain: all men belong to the same genus. The possibility of fertile crossing is not a conclusive criterion of a common stock. Many species of plants and animals produce, through artificial crossbreeding, fertile and readily mendelizing hybrid offspring and are nevertheless true species. “As far as I am aware, neither African pygmies nor Bushmen interbreed with Negroes or with Europeans; thus, owing to their natural instincts and their habits, they are physiologically isolated. It would no doubt be possible to crossbreed them artificially with other races, but that would be no proof that they belong to a common stock."

Source: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000733/073351eo.pdf

UNESCO noted that "by printing, with the text of the Statement, all the comments to which it has given rise, Unesco hopes to enable the general public to appreciate the fluctuations of scientitic thought on the problem of race." Some other scientists argued that miscegenation was biologically harmful and that races were inequal. MoritzB 20:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Earliest examples of scientific racism section

The section is off topic and needs to go. It's been some time since we requested a third-party source that calls all of these things "scientific racism" --The research is useful and well sourced in terms of being examples of racism but it will not do for scientific racism. futurebird (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. This section is off-topic & smacks of original research, as already stated in the above section (Talk:Scientific racism#Original research). Elias, you're the only one insisting in putting this OR. Tazmaniacs (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the introductroy sentence is POV

Scientific racism is a term that describes either obsolete scientific theories of the 19th century or historical and contemporary racist propaganda disguised as scientific research.

While I have no feeling for racism, this senteces does not read very encyclopaedic and should be changed to a more neutral tone. I have boldfaced the words I find problematic 80.61.183.71 (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Other editors have expressed a problem with this phrasing as well. For a moment it was changed by someone to read "Scientific racism is a term that describes scientific theories that purport to support concepts and beliefs which are typically perceived as racist."

Reverted by Taz, but you may need to compromise a bit on this point Taz, in the face of continued objection to the term propaganda, perhaps something like "...describes either obsolete scientific theories of the 19th century or works of science (or pseudoscience) which claim to support hypothesis' typically perceived as racist." ? Brando130 (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Southern states and scientific racism

However, the Bible also sanctions slavery, and from the 1820s to the 1850s it was cited in the Southern States of the United States of America to support the idea that negroes had been created unequal, suited to slavery, by writers such as the Rev. Richard Furman, Joseph Smith Jr. and Thomas R. Cobb.

This addition does not seem very well referenced or informed. That it was 'cited in Southern States.. by writers such as..' Joseph Smith (who wrote largely in Ohio and Missouri) and Thomas Cobb, (an Indiana statesman) -- all from northern states, doesn't seem very consistent or coherent. Perhaps writers that are actually from the south would better illustrate the point? -- The reference for this section seems very POV anyway, and may not be in accord with WP:EXT. Brando130 (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a first go at balancing what seemed to me a biblical whitewash, suggesting that the Adam and Eve brotherhood of man was overthrown by those nasty scientific racists, when there does seem to have been widespread use of scripture to justify slavery and racism, particularly in the Southern States. Agree that it's not an ideal reference, which is why I've been having a hunt. One pretty good source seems to be Audrey Smedley (2007). "Welcome to Encyclopædia Britannica's Guide to Black History". race. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved 2007-12-30., and I've also found a pdf – John S. Haller, Jr. (1970). "The Species Problem: Nineteenth-Century Concepts of Racial Inferiority in the Origin of Man Controversy" (pdf). American Anthropologist, 72:1319-1329. Retrieved 2007-12-31. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) – more specifically discussing the US situation. Work in progress...... dave souza, talk 09:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Schools

Scientific racism played a role in justifying the segregation of schools in the US. I think we need a section on this. futurebird (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

1st paragraph not neutral

The opening paragraph is certainly not neutral, using the words "obsolete", "propoganda", etc. 71.141.89.135 (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View means that we must describe and report without editorial bias, not that we should mollycoddle hogwash or avoid clear and useful terminology. "Obsolete" is an accurate term for craniometry &c, as they are no longer used except maybe by a few fringe practitioners; "propaganda" accurately describes how and why some of these theories were promoted. WP:SPADE may also be of interest when considering how to treat such topics. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you, Eldereft. I feel that 71.141.89.135 is right. The phrasing/wording "propaganda disguised as scientific research" smacks of a negative bias. It implies that scientific racism is inherently invalid; rather, it's simply propaganda garbage which is made to look legitimate by being given the appearance of a scientific aura. That's not neutral at all. I'm going to add a POV tag to the article. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Phillips, but I don't agree. Merely talking about any kind of racism (even having racism in the title) comes with the implicit assumption that racism (scientific or otherwise) is an inherently invalid and negative thing. The article is biased against racism, just like an article about rape would be biased against rape. The article is otherwise neutral, so I'm removing the POV tag.--Pariah (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pariah - racism is an inherently negative concept. Scientific racism is not the same as racial science.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 05:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Racism, like anything else, isn't inherently anything -- "positive", "negative", etc., these are qualities we assign to things based on our POV. If your POV is that racism is wrong, you think it's negative. If your POV is that racism is right (i.e. the KKK), you think it's positive. Regardless of what your personal views on racism may be, a truly respectable professional encyclopedia article will be totally neutral and not express a POV. Even if everyone -- or almost everyone -- thinks racism is a bad thing, we must still strive for objectivity in an encyclopedia. I'm going to re-add the POV tag to the article for this reason. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Phillips, you are abusing the NPOV policy. At a certain point, POV is inescapable and a matter of interpretation. It can never be entirely eliminated. Yes the article has a POV, but you yourself are expressing a POV by continually adding the tag to the article--a POV, I might add, that suggests that racism might be a positive value--as if the KKK's position on the subject is equally valid when it is clearly not. See NPOV: Giving "equal validity". Racism is inherently unjust and irrational. Justice and rationality both mean a sense of fairness/balance and objectivity (consider the scales of justice, and the notion that justice is blind to outward appearances such as race). Racism is neither fair, nor objective, making it inherently unjust and irrational. Racism, like rape, is one of the few things in this world we can say without doubt is absolutely wrong. The KKK might think otherwise, but they can write their own encyclopedia. I am removing the POV tag.--Pariah (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Phillips is quite right in that "racist" (in its stricter sense) refers to a value-neutral personal opinion. (Similarly, "pacifist", "communist", "democrat", "republican", "evolutionist", "creationist"...) Only when combined with actions that are detrimental to others (say, beating up members of another race because they are of that race) can it be consider evil or worthy of condemnation. Those who fail to see the distinction should take some time apart to think their position through.88.77.145.65 (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) The lead needs to reflect the article, and obsolete and propaganda accurately describe the uses and abuses of the research so related. On the other hand, it could be simpler. What if we replace the first sentence with the following:

Scientific racism is the use of science or scientific language in support of racist ideals.

The second paragraph of the lead needs at least some copyediting, and could also contain a brief mention that race is a current but deprecated variable in e.g. epidemiological research untainted (one hopes) by racist undertones. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Eldereft for your proposal. However, while I don't wish to overstate the point (my last post was admittedly more emotional than I would have liked), I don't feel that a compromise is necessary, or even appropriate in this circumstance. I agree wholeheartedly that Wikipedia must strive for objectivity, but I don't feel that this article has breached that policy by using words like obsolete and propaganda. If scientific racism isn't accurately described by these words, then what is? It would be different if this was an article discussing two potentially valid perspectives, such as Marxism and capitalism, but it isn't. The NPOV policy is intended to make articles balanced and fair, but racism is by definition unfair; and I don't believe it warrants inclusion as a valid point of view. Referring to the abuse of science for racist purposes as propaganda is a factual, objective statement. It does not further any overarching political agenda, it is simply what scientific racism is.--Pariah (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that "Referring to the abuse of science for racist purposes as propaganda is a factual, objective statement" -- but I disagree that that's all scientific racism is. "Scientific racism" does not inherently entail either (a) abuse of science, or (b) propaganda. On a lark, I went to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary to get their definition for 'racism', which is: "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" -- see, that's what the article should sound like. There is no POV expressed in that definition whatsoever. It's completely detached and objective, expressing no point of view whatsoever. It simply says that racism is 'an idea' -- not 'an unfair, propaganda-laden idea derived from the abuse of...' -- do you get my point? I understand that you think racism is not a potentially valid perspective -- but that doesn't justify writing about it with a POV. If we said it was okay for articles to express a POV, just so long as it was the right POV, well...you see where the paradox lies. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Gosh Pierce, when I looked at a couple of your edits like this one you made to Tim Duncan I thought to myself now that is a person who writes from a non-POV point of view. Gimme a break with your weak ass argument above.--208.58.197.14 (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Or Pierce, perhaps this edit you made to Staceyann Chin better reflects your non-POV style? --208.58.197.14 (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand, and respect, that you disagree with my points of view on certain political/social issues. That does not make me incorrect in saying that this article needs to conform to NPOV standards, like any other article. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 10:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I understand Phillips, and I agree with you that the article must be objective/NPOV. I do, however, believe that the use of the term propaganda in this case is an objective statement. The word "abuse" might cross the line, but propaganda is what scientific racism is.--Pariah (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not just propaganda. It's also things which people -- some of them scientists -- genuinely believed, back before modern research and technology proved them wrong. Also, there are people today -- some of them scientists -- who believe things which are considered "racist" by some folks; if these believers don't do anything to spread their views and try to convert others, then it's not "propaganda" by definition. Not to mention that the word "propaganda" has some very negative, dismissive connotations. I've edited the opening section of the article; please read it and let me know what you think. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Pierce! I've had this article on my watchlist for several months and have always been dismayed by the obvious POV of its lead and the quick beating down of anyone who tried to bring it up to standards of neutrality. You have succeeded. --CliffC (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pierce/Phillips--I have reviewed your changes and can accept them. I still believe scientific racism often takes the form of propaganda, but I can concede that propaganda does not describe it in entirety. Please understand that my arguments, while charged, were undertaken in good faith. Unfortunately, we live in a world where there are racists who feel it is okay to be unfair to anyone different, and yet demand fairness and equality for their own views. It's difficult to be open and objective in such conditions. Kudos for keeping your cool sticking it out through the inevitable emotional reactions. Also, thanks to Eldereft for offering patience and compromise.--Pariah (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good job Mr. P. S. Phillips, that edit is a keeper. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 06:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the new wording but the fact that the 'Race Question' is a notable opinion signed by internationally respected scholars belongs in the lead. It meets notability requirements and is worth mention. Brando130 (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It boggles the mind that you folks cheer on Pierce, the racist, for making this article on racism reflect a neutral point of view. I'm sure it must be hard for Pierce to tough it out on this article when he could be vandalizing Wikipedia with racist epithets as he has so often in the past. --208.58.197.14 (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing Pierce's edit of Staceyann Chin, I can understand what you're saying 208.58.197.14. But in this discussion, Pierce only called for dispassionate language, in keeping with an encyclopedic tone. He did not say anything overtly racist in this case, and I'm sure he knows how inappropriate his earlier comments were. However, I have faith that Wikipedia readers know how silly and self-contradictory racism is without us having to tell them. If Pierce wants to play by the rules, then he is welcome to do so. Maybe he'll learn something in the process.--Pariah ([[User

talk:Pariah|talk]]) 05:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Almost every word in the English language has some negative or positive connotation to it. You are wasting your lives defending these amoral scientists who spent their lives intentionally blurring the lines of science and confusing the masses. You will never agree.Lizfletcher (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"Scientific racism" has contradictiory meanings and uses

I believe the intro paragraph of this article should specifically note that the phrase "scientific racism" has 2+ potentially contradictory meanings. It can mean both racist publications and opinions from an ostensibly scientific viewpoint and/or it could mean alleged propaganda with the veneer of science which exists solely to trick people into being racist. Convergence Dude (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "scientific racism" is used as an accusation of alleged racist progaganda

Wikipedia guidelines can not possibly prevent the use of the most accurate word being used in describing one possible definition for the phrase "scientific racism". I have sufficiently caveatted the use of "propaganda" by using "alleged". Convergence Dude (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe you two are edit warring over which unsourced phrase should be used. Yes, I'm quite aware that the article's lead does not necessarily need citations; however, I think it's safe to say that the word "propaganda" is reasonably contentious, and hence it really should be sourced. Alternatively, a less contentious form of words should be agreed upon. Just my non-involved opinion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

James Watson

Something about James D. Watson Should probably be in this article. Either in the contemporary section or the race and intelligence section. --128.186.53.210 (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Something about Samuel Cartwright should also be in this article. He is primarily known for the drapetomania, a definitively racist psychiatric diagnosis.Lizfletcher (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that Watson's recent remarks are far from being classifiable as part of scientific racism. Making an analogy with creationism and scientific creationism, it's kind of "there are no transitional fossils" or "why there are still monkeys", type of argument, or even lower; just "common sense creationism", an average-Joe-esque degree of unsophisticated prejudice. The "scientific" is more adequate when we have a more sophisticated sort of reasoning, Paley's watchmaker and Behe's molecular irreducible complexity analogues. --Extremophile (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hadding, your efforts to make the article more NPOV are fine; even encouraged, but if you plan to replace EliasAlucard as the article's resident racist you must remember that WP:UNDUE is a part of NPOV. The methods used to promote varying forms of 'Scientific racism' are widely criticized as flawed or invalid, and this article will reflect that "in proportion to the prominence" of that view. Brando130 (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed a sentence which insisted that Swedish-speakers and Finnish-speakers do not differ genetically. This is false. According to genome-wide SNP scans Finland Swedes genotype cluster with mainland Swedes, not with Finns (Hannelius, 2008).

Podomi (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kleine Rassenkunde cover.png

The image Image:Kleine Rassenkunde cover.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Rasse und Selle female.png
• Image:Rasse und Seele title.png
• Image:Rasse und Seele photos male.png
• Image:Kleine Rassenkunde photos.png
• Image:Kleine Rassenkunde dolicho.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Male menstruation"

The article mentions at some point "male menstruation", which for anyone with basic biology knowledge, wouldn't make sense to be wikified as "male menstruation", as it cannot be simply menstruation occurring in males. I've recently changed the wikilink to the nonexistent article "male menstruation" , but it has been undone with the reasoning that there's no article for that. As far as I know, there's no such rule that we should avoid linking to articles that are yet to be created, when there's no extant suitable article. I won't, however, just redo the same edit in order to not start some silly "edition war", but I'll maintain that the link to the real "menstruation" article does not make sense at all in this context. We need either a some clarification on what it "is", either in the current, or in a new article. Or maybe, some section on the "menstruation" article dealing with male menstruation, but I think it would be rather odd. --Extremophile (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Bifurcate the article

May I suggest that this article be split into two articles. One would be something like Historical scientific racism and would be listed in List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. The other would be Modern scientific racism, which would not be listed as a pseudoscience. This latter article would focus only upon modern issues such as Race and intelligence and similar issues which are scientific, but is simultaneously embroiled in passion and controversy regarding the motivations of researchers and the implications of the data. Bifurcation would be in keeping with subjects such as religion, where it would not be appropriate to besmirch certain modern religions as being inhumane because they can trace their roots back to the practices of the Roman Catholic Church and its inquisitions. Similarly, the Periodic table should not be listed as a pseudoscience just because at one time, there was thought to be only four elements, earth, wind, fire, and water. 67.185.247.179 (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The only way science can be racist is if its motive from the outset of research is to prove an _untrue_ racist contention. As far as I know, facts cannot be racist. Therefore, if science is done for non-racist _reasons_, and scientifically comes upon a factual racial conclusion that some people don't like, it nonetheless cannot be termed racist. It is just science and facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.116.14 (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Smith Jr.

While I do not claim to have read everything that Joseph Smith Jr. has written or said, I am unaware of him ever claiming that "negroes had been created unequal" or that they are "suited to slavery." From what I have read, he preached and acted in a way contrary to those views. Inasmuch as Joseph Smith Jr. is the founder of a religion, it would be appropriate and professional to include primary sources providing evidence that support the claims made in this article. Until such sources can be found, I recommend that this reference to Joseph Smith Jr. be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.43.49.11 (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Bell Curve

I've cut this paragraph from the end of the article as it (a) focusses on a single book and moreover (b) provides an entirely one-sided and hence POV view of it:

In the New York Review of Books, Charles Lane characterized The Bell Curve's sources as "tainted", noting seventeen researchers cited in the book who had contributed articles to the Mankind Quarterly, of whom ten had been editors. He describes the Mankind Quarterly as "a notorious journal of 'racial history' founded, and funded, by men who believe in the genetic superiority of the white race".

93.96.236.8 (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)