February 2020


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Phil Gasper <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 13 Feb 2020 22:23:21 -0600
text/plain (12 kB) , text/html (19 kB)
How to turn racists’ genetic arguments against them*Every white supremacist
has African ancestry, and every Nazi has Jewish heritage*

about 24 hours ago

Neil Briscoe <>
[image: Supporters of Karpaty Lviv hold a Nazi flag at a soccer match
against Dynamo Kiev in Kiev in 2007. Photograph: Reuters]Supporters of
Karpaty Lviv hold a Nazi flag at a soccer match against Dynamo Kiev in Kiev
in 2007. Photograph: Reuters

It was funny once. The perfectly square bit of dirt on the window. The
shocked reactions of Craggy Island’s Chinese community. The local farmer
who doesn’t have much time to be a racist, because he just likes to have a
cup of tea in the evening. The feckin’ Greeks …

Dermot Morgan’s finest televisual moment – that evocation of Nazi
speech-making in front of the greatest window in comedy – is perhaps a
little less funny now that prime minsters or presidents of Hungary
the United Kingdom
and the United States
are happy and comfortable to spout racist statements, and not merely get
away with it but be applauded for it by their supporters.

How have we reached this point? It’s the very question asked by geneticist
and broadcaster Dr
He’s the Rutherford in the BBC’s popular radio programme The Curious Cases
of Rutherford and Fry, in which he and Dr Hannah Fry
try to solve listeners’ scientific queries.

In the case of the resurgence of publicly acceptable racism, Rutherford
decided that a radio show was insufficient and that a book would be needed.
How to Argue with a Racist is published this week, and Rutherford will be
delivering a lecture on the subject during the Northern Ireland
<> Science Festival.

So, how did we get back here? “I find myself asking the same question,”
Rutherford says. “I find myself in lectures thinking how strange it is that
I’m now talking about this, because these are mostly questions that were
parked, in my field – genetics – years ago. Maybe decades ago. And we keep
discovering interesting things about evolution and population differences,
and migration, and so on, but the question of how race as a concept relates
to biological diversity, that ended a while back.

“Having these conversations in the academy is one thing, but as someone who
tries to communicate science, to talk about it, as a broadcaster and as a
writer, I found I was suddenly having very different conversations.
Conversations about race, when we were talking about ancestry … In some
ways, science has failed to convey to the public what is correct, and so I
want to equip people with what current scientific thinking is, so that when
the question comes up, they have the tools to respond. To say, ‘Yes, there
hasn’t been a white man in the Olympic 100m final since 1980, but no that’s
not because of any lack of African-American ancestry.”
‘Genetically better’

It’s precisely that sort of casual, inauspicious racism that Rutherford
looks to quash with his book. The idea that Olympic athletes with African
heritage are somehow better because their genes are imbued with extra
strength is rubbish, he says. For a kick-off, using athletes as a test
sample is a daft idea because anyone with the sort of genetic gifts that
allow them to perform at the highest level is a poor sample of what a
broader population is like. Beyond that, there’s a simpler rebuttal – if
those with African heritage are inherently genetically better at running
very quickly than others, then where are the Olympic 100m champions from South
or elsewhere with populations that can trace heritage to Africa?

Besides, tracing your genetic lineage in that manner, looking for secrets
and answers to why you are so underprivileged compared with others, is a
nonsense, says Rutherford. “I do think that part of the change in culture –
which means I kind of had to write this book – is to do with the rise of
nationalism and the more open discussion of race. Certainly there are more
open discussions of public racism than at any point I can remember in my
lifetime. There are other factors, though, such as the rise in genetic
ancestry testing kits. Now, they’re not pernicious in themselves, but I
argue that they have fostered a misunderstanding of what genetics means,
and specifically in the form of a sort of reversion to essentialism. So a
notion that we’re determined by our genes and our ancestry, which as a
geneticist I just don’t think are scientifically valid nor verifiable to
the extent that people adopt them.

“So, when you take one of these tests and it comes back saying that you’re
10 per cent Swedish, or 15 per cent Irish, these are very broad strokes,
that are not scientifically meaningless, but they are of only trivial
relevance. But people attribute very great significance to them. For
instance, I sometimes talk about the fact that, genetically speaking, there
is no such coherent ancestral group as Celts
But try telling that to an audience in Glasgow
and see what happens.

“Over in Ireland you’ve got some of the best genetic genealogists in the
world, people like Dan Bradley
[head of the school of genetics at Trinity College
Dublin] who has been tracking the story of the Irish for years, and that’s
really important work, it’s important to understand the movement of peoples
and the migration of peoples. But they’re always complex. Ancestry is a
matted web, not linear family trees.

“For example, I have a friend who told me that he’s descended from Niall of
the Nine Hostages, and they can trace their ancestry back to him. Well,
there’s two things about that. One, no one is actually really sure if Niall
of the Nine Hostages existed, which is problematic for a starter.

“The second thing, though, is that if he did exist, he lived in the fourth
or fifth century, and that’s a date which comes before the ‘isopoint’,
which is the time at which everyone in Europe is descended from everyone
else. So if Niall did exist, and if my friend Bill is directly descended
from him, then so too am I. And so are you. And so is a guy in southern
and in Turkey, and literally everyone else in Europe. So if you can attach
some kind of tribal identity to that, that idea that you’re descended from
some fifth-century Irish king, well everyone else is too.”
Overgrown shrub

This is a relatively recent revelation. One that has the power to stun
those who claim kinship with any royal lineage, or who might have notions
of “racial purity”. The simple, genetic, fact is that your family tree
isn’t a neat family tree at all. It’s more like an overgrown shrub,
especially the farther back you go. And because everyone else’s is, too, it
means that the family shrubs intertwine and merge until, once you go back a
surprisingly few generations, we’re all related to everyone else.

Thus the late actor Christopher Lee’s claim to be directly descended from
Charlemagne is accurate, but also meaningless. “Not everyone can prove it
using family trees. Christopher Lee
could, because he was the descendent of an Italian contessa, so they had
the paper trail of her family going back. The whole Danny Dyer
story, which showed that he was a direct descendent of Edward III, they
were able to paper-trail that too, and very few people can actually do
that, but I calculated out a mathematical proof that anyone with
long-standing English heritage is also 100 per cent descended from Edward

At which point I suggest that we should use our – now undisputed and
mathematically proven – royal lineage to, shall we say, take back control,
but Rutherford politely declines my invitation to insurrection. The point
is, of course, more profound than working out where you stand in line for a
throne. It’s the fact that every white supremacist has, if you trace their
genetic code back, African ancestry. Every Nazi has Jewish heritage. Every
Briton is a mish-mash of European bloodlines.

The problem, of course, is that while all of this science is correct and
provable, it’s also useless in the face of racism. As someone once said:
You can argue with a racist; you can argue with a Labrador
retriever, too, for all the good it will do you.
Misunderstanding genetics

Rutherford agrees, but says there’s a more important battle, on two fronts,
to be fought. “Part of the book discusses actual neo-Nazis and white
supremacists, because they are obsessed with genetics. And their
misunderstanding of genetics makes them think that they can prove some sort
of racial purity, which is a nonsense. Arguing with those guys using
science is a demonstration of the old Jonathan Swift maxim that you can’t
reason someone out of a position that they didn’t reason themselves into,
he says.

“Who I’m really interested in reaching, though, are those who aren’t
racists, and who don’t think like that. But because of relying on
stereotypes, or myths, or the cultural sphere that says that race is real,
or that some factors are biologically encoded and that those factors
segregate by race, I want those discussions to be the ones that are
informed by science. Because those people aren’t fundamentally racist, so
when you’re armed with facts, and you’re armed with a knowledge of history,
then I think that is your best route to change. Science is a powerful ally,
it’s the best ally we have, I think. But what’s the Bob Dylan
line? ‘I know my song well before I start singing.’

“One of the ideas I explore is that scientists need to get more involved.
It’s no longer good enough to simply say: ‘Here’s the data and let society
decide.’ Racists have no such compunctions, and will use every tool at
their disposal to spread their message. So if we. as scientists, sit back
and say, ‘Hey, it’s just the data and I don’t know what the political
ramifications are, that’s for others to discuss’, then we’re volunteering
ourselves to defeat, and for our voices to be silenced in favour of
populist, emotive arguments, and that’s the political landscape in which we
now live.

“Racism isn’t wrong because it’s drawn from and based on a
misunderstanding, or specious scientific ideas. Racism is wrong because
it’s an affront to basic human dignity. What I’m saying is, if you want to
be a racist, fine, fill your boots, go ahead, but you can’t have my
scientific tools, my weapons, to justify your position.”

*How to Argue with a Racist by Adam Rutherford is published by Orion
Northern Ireland Science Festival runs February 13th-23rd. <>*