Monday, April 12, 2010

Racism isn't exactly racism

As a scuba diver I should have realized this: racism isn't racism.

It's actually a natural part of speciation--the way in which one species of animal or plant divides into different races, then into different species (more on this later).

Our race has outgrown the need for what we call racism, but treating it as innately evil is a big mistake.

You can't "cure" people of a natural trait, nor can you stamp it out with moralizing and accusations. Those can shut people up--but they'll keep on muttering the things you don't want them to say, and they'll say them out loud to like-minded people, while using cover terms with you that give them plausible deniability.

Thus "keep the Negro down" morphs into "states' rights" and a devotion to "limited government." And that makes it triply hard to do anything about it, even when proponents of these things don't hesitate to trample on states' rights and aggressively expand government when it suits them.

So first we have to understand just what racism/speciation is.

Basically, it's the way in which a new part of a species consolidates whatever evolutionary advantage that caused the new race to develop in the first place. Humans are visual animals, so the differences we use are mainly visual. A scent-oriented species would focus more on differences in smell.

Suppose some members of some animal species start to exploit a new ecological niche. I'll illustrate this with a neutral example, from another species.

The Namib desert beetle was originally a black beetle, and it still is across most of southern Africa's Namib desert. The beetle's black shell enables it to crawl out into the sunlight at dawn and warm up quickly (remember, insects are cold-blooded). It goes about its business until the heat of the day, when it hides from the sun and takes a siesta to avoid overheating. In the late afternoon it comes out again, and uses its dark shell to stay active as late as possible.

But some of these beetles wound up living on the coastal strand of the Namib desert. There the noonday heat isn't so hot. There a beetle with a light-colored shell can stay active through the heat of the day, which more than makes up for them having to wait longer to get going in the morning (because the light shell doesn't absorb heat so well).
s
Where what we call racism comes in is how did each Namib beetle race "fix" its geographical advantage? Speciation works not just from isolation, but from the speciating races coming to prefer their own kind when it comes to mating. That preference preserves the advantage. Otherwise you'd get a mid-hued beetle that's inferior to the white and black phases in each one's ecological niche.

I brought up my experience as a scuba diver because tropical coral reefs are the richest, most diverse habitats on this planet. And it has become clear that the wild color and fin variations among similar races/species aren't just mating displays--they help those races/species preserve the advantages they have in each one's ecological niche.

That advantage doesn't have to have anything to do with the differentiator. Thus one butterfly fish might have a longer snout but a smaller mouth, letting it get at prey in crevices that others can't reach. However, its color/fin scheme could be what helps males and females find each other.

And once two races become reproductively separated, they progress to becoming actual different species--i.e., the different species don't produce fertile offspring if they mate with each other. A horse can breed with a donkey, but the resulting mule or hinny is sterile, and so take no part in evolution.

The trick with the human species is that we've been around long enough--perhaps 100,000 years--to divide into different races and subraces, each adapted to a different environment, but not long enough for those races to become different species. And once we started adapting the environment to ourselves instead of vice versa, and started flying all over the place, the process of speciation stalled, and will probably never occur now, although we keep evolving at a microscopic level.

So--racism is really just an aspect of speciation. It isn't immoral or moral. It's an evolutionary holdover designed to keep, for example, the Oriental's epicanthic fold over their eyes and flatter nose and thicker, coarser hair, all to protect their eyes and faces and heads from the incredibly harsh winters on the steppes of central Asia. These adaptations to nothing to help a Han Chinese in Shanghai or an Indonesian living on the equator, but they stick around because the adaptations don't reduce their effectiveness elsewhere either.

Whereas Oriental skin tone does vary from Siberia to the equator, because that does make a difference. Though now there are light-skinned Han Chinese living in equatorial Sulawesi. They just use lots of sunblock.

You might ask why, then, is there so much plastic surgery done in Asia to make Orientals look more Caucasian; why Tehran is the world nose job capital; why the first black millionaires in America made their fortunes from skin lighteners and hair straighteners; why there are more bottle blondes of every race than real blondes. And why so many mixed-race marriages occur.

The answer is that the human mind is flexible. You can find individuals who go against the tide about almost everything. Also, there's an additional human trait, which pushes against incest (children never fall in love with parents they were raised with, nor siblings), and towards exogamy (hybrid vigor--visit Pitcairn Island and you'll understand).

It's also possible that blondes are regarded as prettier for biological reasons we don't fully understand. The zoologist Desmond Morris has some interesting speculations about this in his book "the Naked Woman."

Racism is speciation. It exists, and its universal, not just among humans, but among most if not all living organisms. For humans it's also obsolete (unless we start colonizing other planets with really different conditions). But the way past it isn't enraged accusations of immorality. At worst the racists are just atavistic. Mainly it's an educational challenge.

That still leaves us with about 20% of Americans unable to admit that President Obama is a smart guy (independent of whether you agree with his policies), solely because of his skin color.

We just have to keep patiently pointing out the flaws in their reasoning. Or, if you share my mischievous streak, you could try to explain to fundamentalists (as most of them are) that they're just being Darwinian when they do this.

8 comments:

Senna said...

Racism is a social construction. All the evidence we have about the behavior of historically racist societies (South Africa, the Americas----Mexico, Brazil, the United States, Canada, Australia, the Caribbean----shows that racial discrimination is exploitation based on ancestry and appearance. (See The White Slave of Nootka, an account of a white man enslaved by Natives living in what is now British Columbia.) Harvard Professor Orlando Patterson in his monumental study of racism found it to have a vulgar, haphazard form and a systematic institutional form. In South Africa and the post-Civil Rights protests the racism was systemic/institutional, as well as cultural, against black Americans. In Mexico and Brazil, it was haphazardly cultural and the racial barriers to black social advancement were porous. If racism were simply speciation, it ought to have led to separate lives of the 2 species. But in the modern era, racism collapses into a society of racially exogamous relationships (See the works of anthropologist Gonzalo Aguirre Beltran of the creation of the so-called "Mexican" race (La Raza) from the violent destruction of the endogamous tribal consanguinity of African slaves, Indian natives, and Spanish Conquistadors. The process of exogamy has been going on since at least the time of the Pharoahs. (See reflections of endogamy in the world of the ancient Greek playwright Aeschylus with his cycle of plays about Greek women and "black" Egyptian princes): The Suppliants in 463 BC (Hiketides): "In the play, the Danaids, the fifty daughters of Danaus, founder of Argos, flee a forced marriage to their cousins in Egypt. They turn to King Pelasgus of Argos for protection, but Pelasgus refuses until the people of Argos weigh in on the decision, a distinctly democratic move on the part of the king. The people decide that the Danaids deserve protection, and they are allowed within the walls of Argos despite Egyptian protests. The 1952 publication of Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 2256 fr. 3 confirmed a long-assumed (because of The Suppliants' cliffhanger ending) Danaid trilogy, whose constituent plays are generally agreed to be The Suppliants, The Aegyptids and The Danaids. A plausible reconstruction of the trilogy's last two-thirds runs thus: In The Aegyptids, the Argive-Egyptian war threatened in the first play has transpired. During the course of the war, King Pelasgus has been killed, and Danaus comes to rule Argos. He negotiates a peace settlement with Aegyptus, as a condition of which, his fifty daughters will marry the fifty sons of Aegyptus. Danaus secretly informs his daughters of an oracle predicting that one of his sons-in-law would kill him; he therefore orders the Danaids to murder the Aegyptids on their wedding night. His daughters agree. The Danaids would open the day after the wedding. In short order, it is revealed that forty-nine of the Danaids killed their husbands as ordered; Hypermnestra, however, loved her husband Lynceus, and thus spared his life and helped him to escape. Angered by his daughter's disobedience, Danaus orders her imprisonment and, possibly, her execution. In the trilogy's climax and dénouement, Lynceus reveals himself to Danaus, and kills him (thus fulfilling the oracle). He and Hypermnestra will establish a ruling dynasty in Argos. The other forty-nine Danaids are absolved of their murderous crime, and married off to unspecified Argive men. The satyr play following this trilogy was titled Amymone, after one of the Danaids." It's no accident that when Obama visited the Great Pyramid he turned around inside the tomb and found a stone image strikingly resembling him (including his pronounced ears). But the image of his face and head was created at least 3-5 millennia ago. The Greeks were the first Westerners to record racist views about non-Greeks. If the Danaids cycle of plays are any indication, particularly the Supliants and Aegyptus, the "black" Egyptians must have embittered the Greeks for centuries.

Ehkzu said...

Dude, organize your thoughts into paragraphs. Most people won't read long entries that show no signs of internal organization (i.e. no paragraphs) or which are written in ALL CAPS.

That said, your critique is primarily literary/historical, while mine is biological. Of course racism is a social construction--based on biological roots.

So a refutation of my assertion will work best if it's also biological--that is, if you can show that rejection of "the other" of one's own species, across the animal kingdom, isn't part of the process that leads to distinct species.

That's going to be a difficult task, though, since this is hardly a novel observation--I believe it's pretty standard stuff in the world of evolutionary biology.

Therefore it would only fail to apply to us if we're not animals. Human exceptionalism denies that we are and asserts that we're uniquely distinct from every other creature on Earth.

But it has become obvious, over the centuries, that we're more animal than most can admit.

The other area of refutation would be biologically-trained ideologues who let their ideology rule their reason, who then claim that there's no such thing as race. This is biologically absurd, but the claim serves the social agenda of those who have an emotional need to deny that racism has any biological basis whatsoever.

And claiming that racism is a social construction without any qualifiers to the statement makes it ideology, not biology. And none of the historical facts you cite refute a biological argument like mine. We're a very smart animal, and that makes us more protean than other animals, such that our biological drives find expression in a more diverse manner than it does in other species of animal.

My primary purpose in writing this was to show that playing the race card--even when true--rarely works to achieve constructive social change.

I can't tell you how many arguments between liberals and conservatives are truncated by namecalling on both sides. Liberals crying "You're a racist!" is a prime example, and I'm trying to get people to try a little harder, realize the biological roots of what they're railling against, understand the motives of their opponents a little better, and keep the conversation going longer.

Because accusations of racism are usually self-defeating, even when true (and they're often true).

Senna said...

Pejorative epithets are cultural inventions. And calling someone "dude" expresses an attitude, a cultural value that some would interpret as a put-down. This is a blog, not an op-ed column. And formatting has nothing to do with content, unless the format expresses an attitude than the content. I didn't put anything that I can see in my response to your blog in caps unless it was the first letter at the beginning of a sentence or the first letter of a proper noun. As Francis Bacon wrote: "What is truth, asked jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer."

Senna said...

Dude: Biology doesn't explain faith and trust.
We don't deduce concepts of justice from observations about animal behavior.
And people everywhere shun descriptions of themselves as animals.
Darwin, incidentally, studied animal evolution, not human society or history.

Ehkzu said...

Sorry, biology actually does explain faith and trust, and in considerable detail.

Try "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright (1994).
(http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Animal-Science-Evolutionary-Psychology/dp/0679763996/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272843434&sr=1-1)

And while we don't consciously "deduce concepts of justice from observations about animal behavior," that's where we can find the roots of such concepts.

Literary types call anthropomorphization (ascribing human motives and thoughts to animals) the "pathetic fallacy."

But we bio types would as easily call human exceptionalism (treating humans as 100% separate from animals) the "even more pathetic fallacy."

That is, we all exist on a continuum. We're part of the animal kingdom. Animal rights activists exaggerate the connection; many others exaggerate the separation. I, of course, strike a perfect balance. :)

Animal ethologists have found that vampire bats will share blood with buddies that didn't get a drink on the hunt that night. Dogs demonstrate possession of a basic concept of fairness. Smarter social animals such as anthropoid apes and cetaceans, even moreso.

I'm not saying we should ape dogs, so to speak. Just that studying how the relationships of social animals are structured can yield insights into the origins of our own moral behavior--and that the moral systems of primitive hunting and gathering tribes can show what what we evolved to deal with.

People certainly tend to "shun descriptions of themselves as animals." But that may stem as much from the infusion of mystery cult ideas into ancient Christianity as anything else--plus our natural tendency to see ourselves as the exalted pinnacle of creation.

I submit that this denial of our underlying animal nature leads to endless, interlayered stacks of errors.

The best literary analysis of this is William Blake's "Marriage of Heaven and Hell."

And while Darwin certainly focused on animal nature and behavior, he did think about their implications for human nature and behavior, but hesitated to say much about it because he feared popular backlash--and the wrath of his very devout wife. "The Moral Animal" talks about this in some depth, BTW.

Many are reluctant to deal with our animal nature for fear that it leads to thinking that we're nothing but animals, hence that there's no basis for morality--it's just "dog eat dog" so to speak.

I've found that the exact opposite happens, however--the more we deny the animal foundations of our behavior, the more our animalistic underpinnings control us and simple use our rational faculties to justify "animalistic" behavior.

Senna said...

Dude: There's a big difference between people and animals (Have you ever seen an animal bouncing a bank check or exchanging money for food? Do animal couples go through nasty divorces?).
Show me an example of "bad faith" in animal behavior.
Even if, as you argue, that some animals (vampire bats) share blood with one another, have you ever seen vampire bats making excuses for not sharing blood?
Do animals kill one another for religious heresies?
We're the only animal that explains and also makes excuses, or through ad falsum arguments seeks reductio ad absurdam conclusions.
You're making excuses, dude, not explaining any parallels between us and animals when you describe animal behavior as "moral." It's not. Animals can't make immoral decisions either.
Reread your E.O. Wilson.
Incidentally, your reference to your reading Blake's inspirational "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" doesn't explain how his visions of hell are rooted in his biology, rather than rooted in the biological makeup of his contemporary artist Thomas Stothart.
Just what is the connection between our animal nature,(and what's your point here?) when Blake writes in TMHAH "The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom;
The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction;
One law for the lion and ox is oppression"?
I have nothing against biologists reaching for inspired language of visionaries to explain biology. But you don't do it here. Blake's "The Divine Image," in His "Songs of Innocence and Experience" for me, explains how we cannot connect directly our behavior or misbehavior through scientific reductionist observations drawn from animals.
("For Mercy has a human heart; Pity, a human face; And Love, the human form divine: And Peace, the human dress..."---Wm. Blake).
Blake isn't referring to apes when he invokes The Divine Image.
Mercy indeed has a human heart.
We don't, for instance, prosecute killer whales or Siberian tigers for killing the animal's trainers.
(And when is the last time you've seen an animal beg forgiveness from us for killing its human trainer?
But tigers and killer whales kill other animals for food whenever they can do so. Without apologies for killing another animal, including us!)
Scientific reductionism neither explains human moral or immoral behavior nor finds animals making excuses for their animal social behavior.
We're not ants, not even ant like, in our social behavior, as social biologist E.O. Wilson observed in one interview.
See Marshall Sahlins's work "The Use and Abuse of Biology."

Ehkzu said...

Agreed that analogies and literary references are no substitute for arguments--they're just a way to illustrate points, to convey a viewpoint that may serve the interests of intersubjectivity.

Hence my Blake reference.

I'm going to commune with nature right now, but I'll get to the rest of your arguments later.

You seem to be attacking the fundamental essence of sociobiology (called by some "evolutionary psychology")--labeling it "scientific reductionism," and advancing the age-old cause of "human exceptionalism." Let me know if that's the case.

Wright does tackle this issue head on, and so does recent research on moral reasoning in social animals such as dogs, parrots, anthropoid apes (the social ones) and others.

None of this is reductionism unless someone-who-is-not-me-nor-any-other-sociobiologist claims that animals = people. That would be PETA types, not us.

We're just saying where we came from, and that human beings are on a continuum, and that this continuum includes self-awareness, some moral reasonaing, some logical analysis (research on ravens in this area is fascinating), some affective stuff (many example of lifelong pair bonding among many vertebrates right down to fish).

So pointing out that wolves don't engage in Ponzi schemes is true but it isn't germane. Unlike PETA nutjobs, sociobiologists know what the differences are. The question is, do human exceptionalists know what the similarities are?

It's not reductionism to follow trails back into time.

Senna said...

I am not attacking any scientific discipline. I am a critic of the pseudo-scientific and baseless social conclusions about human beings often used in false analogies to explain human behavior as an unbroken continuum of animal behavior.

The argument for speciation as an explanation for racism, to me, is one such false analogy. It's akin to suggestions that animal territoriality explains (and in some cases, such as the displacement of Native Americans by Europeans, justifies) genocide.

Moral reasoning, for me, involves moral choices, based on ethical principles and a premise of free choice between actions that reflect ethical values. There is such a thing in human behavior as right and wrong, not just more or less.

We do not make up the laws of nature, such as the laws that guide the social behavior of ants, bees, birds, fish and pack animals: we study the natural law guiding nature and animals. We do not dictate it. But we make up laws for our behavior. We break our laws, and we change them.

Animals do not make good lawyers.