Talk:Scientific racism

This article was nominated for deletion on January 21 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

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!

Neutral?

Saying outright that it is racism disguised as science doesn't seem very NPOV to me. -Disko

It is science that is maligned in this perjorative (sic) term, a point that is not made in the current stub. Wetman 03:00, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I see that as POV. Science was very racial for a long period of time, far longer than the current era of wherein minimum import is placed on race. If science is maligned, rightly so :) Sam [Spade] 03:04, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Scientific racism is racist propaganda disguised as science. The phrase is used either as an accusation or to describe what is generally considered to be historical racist propaganda about the supposed inferiority or superiority of certain races. The phrase has been applied retroactively to publications on race as far back as the 18th century."

The first sentence alone shows that the article is not neutral, as it is only a charge against scientific opinions some people don't like. That the phrase had been used in 18th century is a silly claim, since there is virtually no publication from before 1930 were racism as a word is used at all.

While I do not like the first sentence myself, it does not mean what you think it does. When people say "Scientific racism" they do mean racist propaganda disguised as science; the question is not what the term means but whether or not anything accused of being it actually is "scientific racism." In any case, you have misread the reference to the 18th century: it does not say the term was used then, it says it is often retroactively applied to works from 18th century. --Fastfission 15:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by that, Wetman. "Scientific racism" is usually meaned to imply that the work labeled as such is not really science at all, but is using a veneer of science to justify notions which are simply racist at their core, at least in my experience (as someone who has done a lot of professional work on the history of "scientific racism"). This doesn't imply that science itself is racist, which is how I'm reading your comments as is. I've tried to make the entire article a little more NPOV by trying to put it all into historical context, without commenting on whether any particular work is actually an example of "scientific racism" except where it is relatively safe, such as the racial theories of the Nazis and early 20th century eugenicists, which are pretty well established as being politics wrapped in a blanket of statistics. --Fastfission 03:49, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps what's meant here is Pseudoscientific racism. The heading "Scientific" racism is false and maligns science, by which naturally I mean genuine science. See Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man. Wetman 03:55, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've read the Mismeasure of Man -- what part are you talking about? (Page #s would be fine, I can look it up) "Scientific racism" is a very common term and is used to describe what you are calling "Pseudoscientific racism," which is a term I've never seen in any reputable literature (I can't remember whether it is in Gould or not to be honest, it has been a few years). "Scientific racism" as a term is used as I have used it, in my experience: to describe work which is purported to not be science at all. I've never seen it used in a way which implies that all science is racist in anything reputable -- if you have an example of that, I'd love to see it. And though it's not the end-all metric, "Pseudoscientific racism" gets 220 hits in Google, "Scientific racism" gets 6,900. If you want to add a line that says that Gould doesn't like the term "scientific racism," and explains why, that would be fine by me and would, I think, keep this article useful. --Fastfission 04:04, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) (also, I can't find "psuedoscientific racism" in the index of Mismeasure of Man, though I do see that Gould uses the term "scientific racists" all over the place in the book to indicate people who purport to use science to justify racism.. if there's something I'm missing here please let me know, and I don't mean to come off snotty with that)

I think it could be reworded from "disguised as science" to something less biased looking. -Disko

-The opening sentence is poor phrasing. Has anyone here read their Thomas Kuhn? "Science" as a practice and institution, when done right or wrong, is something full of cultural ideas, aesthetics, and, consequently it would seem to follow, social and political ideas. It can have incorrect premises, methodology, conclusions, etc, have biases, etc, and still be science. "Scientific racism" is something, then, that envelopes both racist pseudoscience and authentic science that is bad science which purports there is meterial legitimacy to the concept of race, superior and inferior races, etc. -Tom

 -There is no explanation for why the skulls drawn by Samuel George Morton illustrate scientific racism.  What is it about these skulls that is racist?  Forensic anthropologists can tell the race of a skull in an instant, so the racism cannot be simply that the drawing compares skulls.  If the skulls are mis-drawn, an accurate drawing or photograph should be presented for comparison.  (Be sure that the African skull is of a Congoid as some African (Somalis, Khosians) have a Eurasian heritage.)  
  The same can be said of the other skulls.  What is it exactly about the angle the skulls are at that makes them racist?  The ape skull is presented for comparison.  If it is not accurate, then the discussion should point out the distortions.
 Samuel George Morton is a respected natural scientist.  The American Philosophical Society has assembled and catalogued a complete collection of his works.  By suggesting, without submitting an explanation or evidence of his error, that he has in some way mis-used science this entry does him an injustice.  rdfuerle 15:57, 22 January 2007

I have a question... is this scientific racism? Is it merely "propaganda" to suggest that natural selection may have continued to occur after the races separated 40,000-100,000 years ago? I have to agree with the Disko. That opening paragraph is extremely non-NPOV. -- Big Brother 1984 20:17, 16 February 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 Jun 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

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

Template:RFCsci 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)

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)

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)