Posted on 11/08/2025 5:28:43 AM PST by sopo
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
He didn’t dislike or have animosity for other races.
His comments about Africa were meant to be observational and pragmatic, not condemnatory of a race.
He was actually kind of dumb about a lot of things, knowing how to communicate was one.
Interesting—I thought his communication on the particular “Africa” point was crystal clear and valid.
National Review didn’t get government funding, I would imagine Woods Hole gets a lot.
So you’re saying you think he was racist?
That what he said was racist and meant to be racist?
I cannot read anyone’s mind.
I think that is what we are talking about here.
Ok. Do you think what he said was racist?
I know what his epitaph should be.
He had good genes.
lol
By my definition I would claim it is racist. My definition would be the belief that in large samples race matters—even though there could be many exceptions for individuals.
But—I understand that the term is used in many different contexts—and can see how another person could see it differently.
My father, a physician who held a Masters in genetics, had a license plate that read “2Helix.” He was a fan of Watson.
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.