Superior - Book Summary

Unraveling the tangled threads of race science and its enduring myths

Imagine stepping within the hallowed halls of the world's grandest museums — the towering edifices like the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York or the sprawling expanse of the British Museum in London. What draws your attention? Where do your feet take you instinctively? For many, it's the exhibits that echo their ancestry, like the rich tapestries of Indian galleries, or the eloquent silence of the Greco-Roman statues.

What drives this quest to trace our roots within museum walls? What profound connection exists between our origins and our race? We're about to delve into the tangled history of race science — exploring and dismantling the myths that have given it life, despite the most advanced scientific insights confirming that race isn't grounded in biology but rather in social constructs shaped by language and culture.

Our journey will take us through the classification systems of humanity that once seemed logical to the establishment, challenge the supposed biological underpinnings of intelligence, and witness the ways history is being reshaped by those in power. Let's embark on this exploration, unraveling the complex weave of race science to reveal the truths beneath.

Before we proceed — a word of caution: This script involves descriptions that may be disturbing, as it touches upon themes of sexual violence and murder. If you feel this could affect you, please exercise care when listening.

By the end of this exploration, you’ll gain fresh perspective on:

- The legacy of Carl Linnaeus and his impact on perceptions of humanity;

- The reality behind perceived differences in intelligence among various racial groups;

- The political manipulation of historical narratives to suit contemporary ideologies.

Archaeology's darker side: A tool for reinforcing racial hierarchies

Four millennia have passed since our planet was shared by various species of upright-walking, tool-using relatives. Homo sapiens, however, stood the test of time while Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homo erectus faded into the annals of history. One may wonder — does our survival signify an inherent superiority?

This question has not only intrigued the curious mind but has also sparked a contentious belief — one that extends beyond comparing Homo sapiens with its extinct cousins. A dangerous and divisive idea emerged, suggesting a hierarchy of worth within the human species itself. Various civilizations, from the ancient Egyptians to the European conquerors of new worlds, have grappled with a troubling assumption: Could some groups of Homo sapiens be more "human," more evolved than others? Archaeologists and scientists have been digging, quite literally, for evidence to fuel such debates.

Key insight ahead: Archaeological studies have not been immune to notions of racism.

Let's consider two prominent theories about the origins of Homo sapiens. In the West and in Africa, a popular narrative is the "out of Africa" hypothesis, a belief that underscores a singular African cradle for all humanity, with waves of migration populating the globe in prehistoric times.

In contrast, in China, the "multiregional hypothesis" has gained traction. Proponents here argue for the simultaneous evolution of humans in various global regions, rather than a single African exodus.

These explorations into our past might seem solely academic, but they've been anything but benign. During the peak of the Enlightenment, when European thinkers set the baseline for human classification, the earliest archaeological endeavors focused on European fossils, fostering a Eurocentric view of human evolution. As Europeans spread their empires worldwide, they encountered indigenous peoples who didn't fit their constrained definitions of humanity. This perceived deviation was used to rationalize horrific acts of colonization and oppression.

The multiregional hypothesis harkens back to these biased beliefs of the Enlightenment, sparking notions that certain "kinds" of humans outstrip others in terms of evolution. Yet, despite our pursuit of the ultimate origin narrative, one thing eludes us – certainty. We've collectively agreed that human rights should be universal, recognizing our shared humanity. So the question remains: Why do we keep searching for divisions when our common humanity should be enough?

When science wears a mask of racism

It's comfortable to envision science as a realm governed by objectivity, a relentless quest for the truth that stands apart from the influence of societal biases. Yet, the individuals behind scientific inquiries — scientists themselves — are people shaped by the same prejudices that pervade broader society.

Take, for instance, Carl Linnaeus, the Swedish botanist renowned for devising the system we use to classify life forms. He held the view that human beings, much like plants and animals, could be sorted into categories based on their physical traits.

But Linnaeus's classifications transcended mere descriptions of physicality. They evolved into a pecking order of human "types," with rankings ingrained in prevailing prejudices of the time. Indigenous Americans were branded "red" and "subjugated" — language that imbued racial categorizations with value judgments, effectively wielding science as a tool to cement racial hierarchies.

Here's the crucial takeaway: Racism has a history of masquerading in the guise of scientific truth.

The era of European colonialism was rife with convictions about racial superiority and inferiority. Proponents of these views sought out biological justifications to reinforce their dominance. If certain races were inherently inferior, so the argument went, colonial subjugation was not only justified but necessary.

In the 1800s, an American physician, Samuel Cartwright, concocted a diagnosis he labeled "drapetomania" — a supposed mental disorder that caused enslaved Africans to flee captivity. By asserting that black individuals' natural state was one of enslavement, Cartwright lent a veneer of scientific credibility to the perpetuation of slavery.

As science marched on, racism adapted to its rhythm. Darwin's theory of evolution gave birth to eugenics — the belief that selective breeding could enhance human traits like beauty or intelligence. Eugenics found a disturbing degree of acceptance, gaining traction from London to Berlin, where it underpinned the atrocities of the Holocaust in the quest for an unblemished Aryan race. In the United States, it spurred legislation endorsing the forced sterilization of those viewed as unfit, including criminals, mentally ill persons, and individuals of lower economic status.

Science thus becomes a shrouded figure, a bearer of truths deeply disfigured by the prejudices of its practitioners. As we journey through humanity's complex relations with race, we must unmask these false prophets and rethink the genome of our society's understanding of race and science.

The stubborn shadows of race science

In the glare of modern sensibilities, the grim chapters of eugenics seem like relics from an era of ignorance and insensitivity, yet the undercurrents of race science have not been completely banished from our collective consciousness. Some vestiges have proven resilient, with laws supporting involuntary sterilization lingering on the books until 1974 in Indiana and until as recent as 1996 in Japan.

The end of World War II marked a crucial turning point, casting race science into disrepute. Scholars who once contributed to this field found their work shunned by reputable journals. Anthropologists embarked on a mission to dismantle the archaic concepts of racial differentiation. Echoing this shift, in 1949, an alliance of scientists and dignitaries formed UNESCO with the goal of countering racism and advocating for human solidarity.

Despite these efforts to discredit race science, a stubborn dedication to it persists in some quarters.

Here's the central point: Although discredited, race science endures in the beliefs of a tenacious few.

By the middle of the 20th century, scientists began to invalidate longstanding myths surrounding race. Ashley Montagu, an anthropologist, contested the idea of significant genetic disparities among human populations as early as 1942. His assertions received concrete validation in 1972, when geneticist Richard Lewontin revealed that individual genetic variation within any given population is greater than variations between populations. This insight gained further support from a study in 2002 corroborating Lewontin's findings.

Mark Jobling, a genetics professor, articulated that even if a catastrophe left only the people of one country, 85 percent of human genetic diversity would persist — an indicator of our tight genetic kinship owing to our species' relatively recent emergence.

Diversities in appearance across populations are often the result of environmental adaptations and the founder effect, which signifies traits carried through migration.

Yet, the desperation to find inherent biological differences between races has not vanished. Post-World War II, race scientists veiled their inquiries under new guises, such as the study of blood types and their geographic distributions — a topic that gained traction in the 1960s. Although not all researchers on this subject harbored racist intentions, some sought to unearth racial distinctions through the prism of blood.

The rebranding of race science in the modern era

The year 1960 marked a turning point for Reginald Ruggles Gates, a frustrated race scientist repeatedly snubbed by established scientific journals. His solution? Launch his own publication. Partnering with a former Nazi scientist and a British eugenicist, Gates gave birth to the Mankind Quarterly, a journal claiming to present legitimate scientific research — yet its content primarily served as fodder for political rhetoric.

Though largely dismissed by credible scientific entities, the Mankind Quarterly carved out a niche for itself. Its contributors, undeterred, adopted the moniker “race realists,” branding their approach as one grounded in hard, irrefutable scientific fact.

The core message here is: "Race realism" is the modern-day incarnation of race science.

Distribution of the Mankind Quarterly might be relegated to the obscure recesses of the internet, but its writers have still managed to seep into mainstream awareness. Take Jared Taylor, a figure associated with white supremacy and the founder of the American Renaissance Foundation. This organization is a nexus for individuals with a penchant for racism, neo-Nazism, and eugenics. The label "race realist" is bandied about at their gatherings, an attempt to distance themselves from outright racism and assume the guise of neutral truth-seekers.

Jared Taylor isn't solely recognized in extremist circles — his notoriety extended into mainstream political discourse when Hillary Clinton called him out as a Donald Trump supporter in a 2016 campaign ad.

Taylor epitomizes the emboldened attitude of white nationalists in recent times. There's an emerging contingent claiming to oppose "political correctness," illustrated by the harrowing events of a neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, which led to tragic violence and loss of life.

Anthropologist Jonathan Marks points out that race science persists because certain factions, often aligned with conservative politics, continue to bankroll race research. Their aim? Craft and promote policies that perpetuate societal inequalities, dressing these policies in the respectable garments of scientific rationale. In doing so, they conveniently meld the concepts of race and culture, well aware that while biological race is widely discredited, cultural differences are recognized and accepted. The ultimate goal of these self-styled "race realists" is to erect impediments to social progress under the guise of science where, in reality, no such barriers should exist.

The evolving language of pseudoscientific racism

In 1998, as an anthropology professor at the University of California, Berkeley, Jonathan Marks encountered an intriguing email in his inbox. It was from Steve Sailer, a journalist known for his writings in the National Review, a conservative publication. Sailer's proposition? An invitation for Marks to join an email forum for intellectuals to discuss human variability.

Marks, having authored a textbook titled "Human Biodiversity" where he celebrated cultural differences, had a very different take on the concept of biodiversity compared to Sailer and the forum members. To them, biodiversity was a euphemism for racial disparities – a modern twist on an age-old tradition of race science.

Herein lies an important point: The lexicon of race science is continually rewritten.

The year 1991 saw the launch of the Human Genome Project, aiming to map out human DNA. Concurrently, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, an Italian geneticist and a proclaimed antiracist, initiated the Human Genome Diversity Project. Cavalli-Sforza's intent was not to demarcate rigid genetic boundaries between people but rather to investigate the intriguing statistical prevalence of specific genes in particular groups.

To explore this genetic variability, Cavalli-Sforza was drawn to isolated populations, theorizing that less genetic mingling might hold clues to these patterns. His mission was to leverage this information to debunk racial stereotypes, yet echoes of archaic race science could still be heard. Terms like "race" morphed into "population," and "racial differences" transitioned into "human variation." Despite the change in terminology, the crux of the issue remained — how would analyzing these genetic divergences promote inclusivity rather than further entrench divisions?

To those harbouring racist ideologies, the specifics of human distinctions are immaterial; what counts is the mere existence of differences. To truly progress our conversations on race, we must resist the inclination to segregate people through our language. It's not about finding new terms for old concepts but about challenging the very urge to categorize humanity on such divisive grounds.

How race narratives shape and threaten our collective identity

The year 1903 brought an archaeological revelation to Cheddar Gorge in Somerset, England, with the discovery of the skeletal remains dubbed the Cheddar Man. Initial speculation painted a portrait of a short, well-fed man with curly hair, rosy cheeks, and pale skin. However, in a 2018 bombshell, DNA analysis revealed the Cheddar Man likely had dark skin, sending ripples through English society and challenging many Britons' views of their ancestral identity.

Here's the essential takeaway: Race crafts a narrative about who we are, a narrative that can be perilous.

Contemporary ideas of race are closely tied to physical traits. Yet, research into the appearance of ancient humans shows that our predecessors varied significantly in looks, not just across time but also from one another.

It's often assumed that light skin is a distinctly European trait. However, the San hunter-gatherers of Southern Africa, holders of the most ancient genetic lineages known to us, were light-skinned. This suggests that light skin existed in human genes even before the migrations into Europe, contradicting the notion that dark skin tones were never native to the continent.

Many find it challenging to reconcile their current self-concepts with these reshaped historical truths. Anchoring our identity to these mutable narratives can lead to dangerous attempts to contort history.

In 2018 in India, Hindu nationalist politicians initiated an official effort to reshape historical narratives to align with their religious texts, presenting myth as reality. This revisionism extended to educational frameworks and directives for archaeologists to confirm the existence of mythical entities. Geneticists were enlisted in this pursuit of a glorified past, and dissenting scientific voices became targets of vilification.

These acts of religious nationalism laid the groundwork for heinous justifications of violence, as demonstrated when two government officials supported individuals accused of a heinous crime against a Muslim girl, driven by the fervor of perceived ancestral supremacy.

This chilling instance exemplifies how the erroneous belief in a noble lineage can unleash egregious acts against humanity. It underscores the critical need for a vigilant examination of how we allow race-based narratives to define our identities and the potentially devastating implications of clinging to such distorted views.

Unraveling the true influences on intelligence

Imagine the Bajau, a nomadic community thriving amidst the Southeast Asian seas, their lives fluidly entwined with the undulating ocean. Renowned for their breathtaking diving skills, they hunt beneath the waves, holding their breath with seemingly inhuman endurance. This ability, as research has unearthed, is linked to their enlarged spleens, a remarkable adaptation to their aquatic lifestyle.

This evolutionary marvel of the Bajau raises the question: Could certain groups have similarly evolved cognitive traits, such as heightened intelligence?

Here lies a contentious domain within psychology: the examination of racial disparities in IQ scores. Evidence points to variations in IQ test results across different populations both within and beyond national borders. Yet, these gaps in cognitive performance are almost entirely attributable to environmental contexts.

The essential insight is this: Environmental conditions, far more than genetic makeup, determine IQ levels.

Twentieth-century studies sought to decipher the inheritance of intelligence. Notably, Thomas Bouchard's 1979 research on twins raised apart suggested a substantial genetic component to IQ. From his perspective, 70 percent of IQ variance was inherited, with the remaining 30 percent influenced by factors such as education and socioeconomic status.

Advocates of racial hierarchies have clung to studies like Bouchard's, interpreting them as validation of innate intellectual disparities across racial lines. Recent scientific findings, however, challenge this narrative, indicating that familial IQ resemblances account for just a fraction — 15 percent — of the variance. The environment's role cannot be overstated in shaping intellectual capabilities.

Consider the United States, where economic and social disparities starkly delineate the lives of black and white Americans. Research has shown that black children adopted by middle-class white families achieve IQ scores markedly higher than those in black families by an average of 13 points — a testament to the implications of socioeconomic privilege, which has traditionally favored white Americans, on cognitive development.

So, it seems that socioeconomic standing wields a more profound influence on intelligence than race. This is evident in the United Kingdom, where despite the overall societal advantages of being white, it is working-class white boys who consistently notch the lowest IQ scores. Thus, the landscape of intelligence is sculpted not by the genetics of race but by the terrain of environmental opportunity and challenge.

The persistent myth of genetic fate in medicine and biology

Gregor Mendel, the Austrian scientist who cross-bred pea plants, laid the groundwork for modern genetics. However, what is less known is how his insights have also cast a long shadow over the study of race. Mendel's experiments implied that genes trump environment in determining an organism's fate — a perfect example of genetic determinism.

Yet Mendel's experiments, conducted under idealized conditions with hand-picked subjects, lack the messiness that infuses real-life scenarios. Although the limitations of his work are recognized today, the lingering belief in genetic determinism — that our genes dictate our destinies — remains influential.

Here's the crux of the matter: Genetic determinism continues to exert undue influence in healthcare and biological sciences.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, notions that race has a biological basis persist, particularly in the realm of health. Consider schizophrenia: In the UK, it is often labeled as a "black disease" due to higher diagnosis rates among people of black Caribbean descent. Yet, a comprehensive study uncovered only a minuscule genetic susceptibility to the disorder.

Other illnesses, too, are mistakenly ascribed to specific races, ignoring the actual environmental factors at play. Hypertension is one such condition, which, although more prevalent in black Americans, is not a "black disease" considering the low hypertension rates in Africa. Stress-induced by racial dynamics in the US or dietary habits should be scrutinized instead.

In an era where people are enthralled by the simplicity of biological determinism, there remains a reluctance to confront the societal factors at play in health disparities. The comforting narrative that health outcomes are written in our genes absolves society of fault, shifting the blame onto "genetic destiny." But to get to the heart of the matter, it's imperative to address the real culprits — systemic racism, pervasive bias, and our collective obsession with categorizing humanity. Only then can we foster a healthcare system that is truly informed by realities rather than obscured by myths.

Reckoning with race: Understanding its story, identity, and the myth of biological underpinnings

The narrative of race science has a long and troubled history, gaining momentum during the Enlightenment era and holding sway well into the 20th century. Its most sinister permutation, eugenics, played a key role in the horrors of the Holocaust, marking a turning point leading to its widespread disavowal post-World War II. Notwithstanding the mounting evidence against its scientific validity and the global acceptance of more enlightened views, race science has managed to persist, taking on new forms and infiltrating various domains.

Race, while deeply interwoven with our sense of self and our connection to our lineage, fails to stand up to biological scrutiny. As a social construct, its implications stretch far beyond physicality, influencing perceptions, politics, and power dynamics. In grasping this reality, we're better positioned to discard the fallacies of the past and embrace a future where we see beyond the superficial divides of race to the shared humanity beneath.