Posted on 01/11/2007 12:40:05 PM PST by pabianice
Scientist James D. Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and a Nobel Prize winner, says anti-Semitism is justified, in a recent magazine interview.
The ADL called Dr. Watson's remarks about Jews "disturbing" and is asking Watson to clarify them.
Watson, 78, who lives in Cold Harbor, N.Y., tells Esquire magazine in its January edition that anti-Semitism, in some circumstances, is justified.
In an interview profile for the magazine Watson asks rhetorically, "Should you be allowed to make an anti-Semitic remark?" He answered: "Yes, because some anti-Semitism is justified. Just like some anti-Irish feeling is justified. If you can't be criticized, that's very dangerous. You lose the concept of a free society."
Apparently a firm believer in eugenics, Watson also feels "Ashkenazi Jews" - Jews descended from the medieval Jewish communities in the area of Germany - have higher intelligence than other people.
"I've wondered why people aren't more intelligent," Watson says. "Why isn't everyone as intelligent as Ashkenazi Jews? And it may be that societies work best when there's a mixture of ability - the bright people would never be an army."
Watson's remarks were part of the magazine's January cover story, which consists of interviews with famous and notable people who reveal "What I've Learned" from life. Included are interviews with Katie Couric, actor Peter O'Toole and magicians Penn & Teller, among others.
Ken Jacobson, the deputy national director of the ADL, reacted strongly to Watson's statements.
"Those are very strange comments coming from an individual like that," Jacobson told NewsMax. "At the very least I think he needs to clarify his remarks. It sounds like he was trying to make some general comment about political correctness. He makes a reference that groups can be criticized, that not to be able to criticize a group isn't right. That's not to say you can't make comments about Jews, but anti-Semitism is a very specific statement, not just criticism, but a specific type of statement."
Jacobson not only objected to Watson's "disturbing" endorsement of anti-Semitism, but also objected to Watson's statement that Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent than other people.
"That also is a genetic stereotype," Jacobson said. "We believe that if Jews have succeeded in a certain field, it has been due to Jewish traditions, culture, and the valuing of education. We don't get into all the genetic stereotyping."
Jacobson added, "Obviously, the impact of anti-Semitism through the century has been devastating to Jews, and I would hope that's not what he really meant. In and of itself, the statement that some anti-Semitism is good is a disturbing statement. He needs to clarify it."
I read this guy's rant. It was more than a little incoherent.
I suspect strongly, based on his Irish analogy, that what he meant to say was that criticism of Jews is sometimes justified, just as it is for any other group.
He is, BTW, quite old and has a long history of saying outrageous things.
So... Anti-Muslim sentiment is justified by this logic. So, CAIR, STFU.
The Ashenazi Jews practiced a type of social eugenics. They supported their brightest young people, instead of saddling them with tax obligations to assist the old and the poor, like we do. Bright young couples were encouraged to have as many children as possible, and they were subsidized by the community.
There is evidence of some past polygamy in the genetic makeup of today's Ashkenazi Jews, in the form of Tay Sachs and Lupus disease, a recessive trait.
Of course, you are allowed to say a lot of foolish things; we all know that. As Churchill said, "Where there is much freedom, there will be much foolish talk." That's what a free country is about. And the give and take of debate does help to debunk nonsense. But based on his apparent support for anti-Semitic talk, we would all rightly ask: is it moral, is it correct, is it reasonable to say those things? We wouldn't say, "You have no right to say it." And if it were moral or reasonable, we would want him to explain why.
He seems to be all over the place when he tries to explain away his support for that type of talk. And this is another example of someone outside his real realm of expertise trying to speak as an authority when in fact the average guy on the bar stool next to you is just as likely to make more sense, even at 2:00AM than this guy does apparently sober. We don't expect an athlete to be exceptional in all sports, but for some reason we tend to expect an academic to be able to speak intelligently on all topics even though it's all too often transparent that they're as clueless as a movie star.
Just what we need: another stupid scientist.
This was the core of what he was saying. It doesn't sound too outrageous to me.
Accept the question was about other things he was saying. It was a dodge.
Actually it does very little good to pretend that there are no genetic differences in intelligence and not that much harm to those who avoid the public school system.
I meant "except" and not "accept."
I'm basically a libertarian. I don't want to restrict anyone from doing anything unless it's going to harm me. I don't want pass a law stopping someone from smoking. It's just too dangerous. You lose the concept of a free society. Since we are genetically so diverse and our brains are so different, we're going to have different aspirations. The things that will satisfy me satisfy you. On the other hand, if global warming is in any way preventable and it's likely to come, not doing something be irresponsible to the future of our society.
Should you be allowed to make an anti-Semitic remark? Yes, because some anti-Semitism is justified. Just like some feeling is justified. If you can't be criticized, that's very dangerous. The whole Larry Summers thing, to say that men strange and their strangest quality is their ability to understand mathematics—you're not supposed to even think it.
turned against the left wing because they don't like genetics, because genetics implies that sometimes in life we fail we have bad genes. They want all failure in life to be due to the evil system.
I've wondered why people aren't more intelligent. Why isn't everyone as intelligent as Ashkenazi Jews? And it may be societies work best when there's a mixture of abilities—the bright people would never be an army. Or has our intelligence been limited by leaders killing off any potential competitors? I suspect time is not a factor. The Ashkenazi Jews have a thousand years. So these are the sorts of things we'll find out—how many mutations would you need to be more intelligent?
Whatever. Switch groups out and see if you like the result any better: "Should you be allowed to make an anti-Semitic remark?" becomes, "Should you be allowed to make an anti-Democratic remark?".
There shouldn't be any restrictions on free speech. Period.
High volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel, WOT
..................
Excerpt from the Esquire article in post 14. The headline "Anti-Semitism Justified" is very misleading.
Was there any mention of... 'comfortable shoes'?
The lamestream media did as good a job then, as they do on Iraq, today. Furthermore, Wilkins (who stole the photograph) did no work on the key scatter-photograph which was made by Franklin
and of a DNA strand WHICH SHE had previously separated
in its form from its A form.
FACT: Wilkins took the photograph from Franklin's laboratory file and handed it to Watson and Crick.
That is theft.
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.