Posted on 12/04/2014 6:37:22 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Let’s suppose that James Watson, who co-discovered the structure of DNA together with Francis Crick and Rosalind Franklin, is wrong about race and intelligence. And let’s even suppose that it was immoral for him to say that this fact “makes me despair about Africa.”
Does this abolish Dr. Watson’s free speech rights? No.
Well, does James Watson merit the merry media witch hunt that has followed him, ever after making that Verboten remark, so that he is now known as “the disgraced scientist James Watson”?
I do not think so. Media witch hunting is a fundamental wrong, no matter who the target witch may be. Burning witches is wrong.
James Watson has hit the news again, because he is selling his Nobel Prize medal, supposedly “because he is broke,” having been “disgraced” by talking about race and IQ. The bit about being broke seems to be mythical, a little journalistic “narrative” to dress up a tale of sin and moral comeuppance.
As it happens, Dr. Watson is still the Chancellor Emeritus of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories, one of the foremost biological research centers in the world. Dr. Watson could easily live from the proceeds of his best-selling books, including The Double Helix. For that matter, the many billionaires who became wealthy from DNA-based technology would be happy to help Dr. Watson stay out of the homeless shelters. After all, they owe him their vast fortunes.
But let’s suppose the Mob Media are right that Watson is “broke” and selling his Nobel medal for food and shelter. We are obviously supposed to believe that.
The fact is that nobody, not even our despicable media, can ever take away James Watson’s Nobel Prize.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I”ll bid 99¢ for Obama’s.
Why would you buy a participation trophy? Most kids have some lying around nowadays they would probably give you.
All of this is part and parcel of the secular left not really believing in Darwinian evolution, just wanting it as a creation myth with which to displace Christianity.
If one really believes in Darwinian evolution, it is impossible to credit the notion that human populations living in vastly different environments (the African rainforest, the African savannah, Siberia, the Mediterranean basin, Scandinavia,...) for tens of thousands of years would not develop measurably different characteristics of a non-cosmetic nature, including cognitive characteristics. Of course, evolution being a slow process and almost all measurable human characteristics having some survival utility in almost all environments, one would expect the distributions of the measurable characteristics to overlap, but one would expect the means and standard deviations to vary in some way on the basis of the different selection pressures afforded by the radically different environments.
Which means, of course, that humans are presently in the process of evolutionary convergence due to interbreeding, not divergence.
Those populations are not isolated so much, anymore.
Also, Caucasians and East Asians contain measurable proportions of DNA from species of Homo other than sapiens.
Black Africans don’t.
I have no clue what that means, except that we aren’t “one race” other than metaphorically.
“Race” simply means breed, variety or sub-species, and is still used that way in other areas of biology.
Racists, of course, try to make race mean “species.” “Anti-racists” deny that humans are divided into races at all.
Recall what they did to William Shockley, co-inventor of the transistor, after he started speaking about race.
RE: I”ll bid 99¢ for Obama’s.
How much for Paul Krugman’s?
How much for Al Gore’s?
How much for Yaser Arafat’s?
For Krugman, Gore, Arafat, and Obama’s Nobel’s....
Hmmmm...$1.98...going, going...
Watson is analytical and speaks what he sees is truth based on facts, not PC. Given the average intelligence of Liberians which is below normal, his statements are based in logic. He is being vilified on PC, not what is real.
As you wrote: Which means, of course, that humans are presently in the process of evolutionary convergence due to interbreeding, not divergence. And add to that that modernization has created more similar selection pressures world-wide than existed in the past, and that is most certainly the case.
Though I think you go a little too far in asserting, “Racists, of course, try to make race mean ‘species.’ ‘Anti-racists’ deny that humans are divided into races at all.” Racism usually doesn’t get that far, and just decides that for some reason one group conceived of as a race ought to be maltreated (or at least differently treated) solely on the basis of group membership, usually for the perceived benefit of one’s own group, also conceived of as a race. Nor does anti-racism need to deny the existence of races, just regard every human being as uniquely valuable in a way that supports a presumption of equality before the law.
Unfortunately self-proclaimed ‘anti-racism’ has now become, itself, a species of racism what wishes to maltreat people of European (and often Asian) ancestry, and the only actual anti-racists left are Christian humanists (cf. MLK, Jr.’s remark about the content of character) and classical liberals (called conservatives in America).
When I used the term “anti-racist” I was referring to the variety that is itself a type of racism. What J. Derbyshire calls ethno-masochism. Except that many of the practicioners use it as a weapon against a race other than their own.
This type anti-racism is similar to anti-anti-communism. It’s more of a ploy to hide pro-racism or pro-communism.
Your first definition of “anti-racism” I agree with completely.
“Racists, of course, try to make race mean ‘species’”
Should have said “something like species.” They assign more divergence than actually exists.
I do not suggest that we ought to disparage any race or species. But this deliberate promotion of ignorance is a profound disservice to all of us, of every race, sub-race, or other definable classification. It is the equivalent of the mythical ostrich with its head buried in the sand. How can anyone possibly benefit from not looking at the realities of life?
Incidentally, Jefferson deplored the lack of such studies in his day.
William Flax
Don't entirely agree. Witch hunts were wrong because there were no witches.
A media "witch hunt" against people who really are trying to destroy our society might not be wrong, if kept within appropriate bounds so that innocents were not hurt. It might more appropriately be called exposure.
Burning witches is wrong.
Actually, burning anybody is wrong.
The attacks on Watson were wrong because they misstated his true opinions, not because they described them accurately. They were also based on politics, not science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.