Thomas Sowell argues at length in one of his books that some "stereotypes" have a foundation. As just one of his examples, he asserts (with citations) that Italians are over-represented in the fishing industry of many countries: Argentina, Australia, the US, etc. One only need contemplate the geography of Italy and its easy access to water to get a sense of how a large proportion of Italians might come to love fishing.
Usury is a strong term. I wish Catholics and other Christians would put less emphasis on this undefined yet accusatory word. Still, even the conservative Rabbi Lapin recently made a case that "Jews are good with money." Those less financially adept might conclude usury, which I think is a mistake. I've never met a gypsie, but a friend told me of his encounters with gypsies. As he told it, the ones he met were expert at separating a man from his wallet. I realize, as do we all, that individuals are individuals and must not be judged by the group to which they belong. Still, common tendencies may commonly apply to some groups for a period of time.
As to Chesterton's opinions, I think it better to identify which are right and which are wrong. Agreement with Nazis, whether apparent or real, is irrelevant.
Agreeing with the Nazis on basic arithmetic is qualitatively different from agreeing with the Nazis about the 'Jewish Question'. In fairness, Chesterton emphatically disagreed with the Nazi answer to the 'Jewish Question' but his discussion of the Jews as an alien and unreliable presence in Europe is still fairly repugnant. Here is the essay I quoted from: The Problem of Zionism.
All this, however, is tangential to my main point: guys with the waterheaded pastime of trying to discredit evolutionary science by trumpeting the unsavory politics of some of its practitioners probably shouldn't be quoting Chesterton. Unless they're comfortable being giant hypocrites, I guess.
As to Chesterton's opinions, I think it better to identify which are right and which are wrong. Agreement with Nazis, whether apparent or real, is irrelevant.
Well put. I would also add that his opinions should be understood in the context of his environment, and it is unreasonable to strictly judge any historical person by hindsight standards. I only ask that this same standard be applied to J. B. S. Haldane and Ronald Fisher.