One of the difficulties in discussing the phenomenon of "scientific racism" is the fact that there is no precise definition of what exactly it means. At the most inclusive, PC egalitarians claim that anyone who believes in the concept of "race" or attempts to classify humans into "types" based on biological differences follows the doctrine of "race"-ism (not necessarily because they are racist, but merely because they believe in the concept of "race". In this sense, their being a racist is merely implied from this vocabulary).
This is troubling because it (1) obscures racism's real definition (ethno-tribalism), as well as devaluing it as a cheap insult for viewpoints one disagrees with, and (2) makes racist reactionaries believe those who are morally opposed to racism have a vendetta against biological science (and even worse, many anti-racists believe them and attempt to fight the morality of racism through empirical "scientific" observations!).
Racists are less clumsy with their use of vocabulary: instead calling themselves "racialists" or "race realists" when referring to their beliefs on the concept of "race". If the absurd phrase "scientific racism" was never coined in the first place, HBD racists and "racialists" would never have had the perfect counterpoint from which to distinguish themselves! Puzzlingly, in the late 19th century "racialism" was used in the same manner as the term racism (ethno-tribalism) is today. Why anti-racists have chosen to invent a new term instead of accepting the racists' preferred term of "racialism" is odd indeed.
Science vs. Pseudo-science vs. Racism
Another definition of "scientific racism" claims it includes anyone who uses scientific or pseudo-scientific data or studies to promote racism. While such people are deplorable, calling them "scientific racists" merely creates confusion and leads us to dispute their conclusions for the wrong reasons.
The problem with 19th and 20th century racists--and the 21st century HBD movement--is not necessarily their "scientific data" in itself. It is (1) because they are ideologically driven to ask certain questions but ignore other, logically-related ones, and why they probe at these questions from certain angles but not others, thereby gathering data with a systematic bias (or disingenuously manipulating the data in order to support their racist hypotheses); and (2) the ignoble conclusions they try to support with this data due to their underlying personal support of tribalism.
Anti-racists need to understand that "science" and racism exist in completely disjoint realms of thought, and "scientific racism" is therefore a meaningless term. Science cannot promote racist conclusions; science merely gives us data. The interpretations and social repercussions reached from this data depend on the viewpoint of the individual making conclusions from it!
For example, from the fact that there are phenotypically and genetically observable ethnic clusters, racists conclude that "the races" should remain separate to preserve "human biological diversity" and go further to say 'immigration is therefore intrinsically bad since it mixes human populations and damages this diversity'. The anti-racist responds by saying: the fact that there are different ethnic groups does not imply that "ethnic preservationism" (segregation) is positive or that this data is somehow evidence that preserving this variation for the sake of preserving it is an imperative moral obligation. Moreover, trying to derive a "scientific" opinion on the social phenomenon of immigration from this data is quite a stretch, to say the least...
Furthermore, people who use pseudo-science as a justification for racism are by no means scientists. In the same way, people who misconstrue actual scientific data to promote racism are not scientists themselves, nor do they invalidate the actual data they are "commandeering."
In recent years, no effort has been spared to demolish the pseudo-scientific biological claims of "creationists". Indeed, most people were justifiably angered when creationists tried to rename their beliefs to the more-respectable-sounding phrase "Intelligent Design"... Why then, do people insist on elevating racism to the more-respectable-sounding category of "scientific racism"? If a racist, or anyone else, promotes pseudo-science, why not call them pseudo-scientists? We should not give racists the time of day, let alone lend some ideological credence to their movements by debating their supposed "science" as if invalid data or pseudo-scientific conclusions are debatable...
***
Sometimes genuine scientists promote absurd claims and biased personal opinions with no hard data to back them up (or even misuse data and/or portray it in a knowingly misleading way).
- These claims should not be taken seriously simply because someone famous or certified by academia said them.
- Using pseudo-science to support their biased claims does not falsify their genuinely scientific work (but it does mean we should take extra care to be critical of the perspective that led them to their conclusions, to conduct research, and formulate research questions in such a manner).
For example, James Watson, part of the team who discovered the structure of DNA, has promoted racist ideas in recent years.
- Does this retroactively make his work on DNA "scientific racism," pseudo-science, or junk science?
No, this work is scientifically-valid irrespective of his personal opinions.
- Did he choose to research DNA specifically to find evidence to support his racist beliefs? (Did his racism inject a systematic bias in his work?)
Unlikely.
- He is a respected figure within the field of biology, does this mean his personal opinions on biological matters (such as "race") are more reasonable than if a similar opinion had come out of the mouth of a random blogger?
No, absolutely not. Racism is an immoral attitude no matter how famous or how numerous its supporters might be. It does not become more "scientific" or worthy of support simply because a scientist is a racist or because a random blogger inserts a "scientific" chart into his racist rant! If he backs up his opinions with data, this neither makes the data "pseudo-science" or false (assuming it is valid in the first place), nor does it make his racist conclusions any more worthy of moral support.
DNA doesn't care about Watson's racism or personal opinions; it exists independently of him. In the same way, skull shapes, skin pigment, and criminals don't really care what nonsense Political Correctness, "scientific racists," "racialists," or the HBD movement believe.
Few scientists are correct all the time, and no scientist's work should be taken as dogma. Today, we frequently dissect the work of great scientists of the past using a calm head. For example, as we learn more about biology and physics, many of Darwin and Newton's claims and ideas are scrutinized. Much of Galton's work on biology, especially, has come under criticism because it was tainted by his pro-eugenics opinions. Does this mean we should reject all of Galton's ideas and data because he was biased, or all of Darwin's ideas and data because he is "old" and "outdated"? Absolutely not; we merely analyze them while keeping potential sources of bias and error in mind.
People have used all sorts of justifications for racist beliefs. Should we call those who argue the Old Testament "mark of Cain" or "Curse of Ham" is the cause of dark skin, and therefore "blacks" are cursed and inherently evil, "theologic racists"? Should we call those who supported colonialism and slavery because of its economic benefits to the colonizer nations "economic racists"? No, that seems like quite a needless over-complication. Here's a simple idea, how about we just call all of them "racists"? It doesn't matter if one uses science, pseudo-science, or no science at all to support their claims: a racist is a racist.
***
The phrase "scientific racism" as it is used in the rest of this article generally refers to physical anthropology and the beliefs in this field which predominated before 1950. The familiar post-1950s attempts at linking certain mental and psychological traits (e.g. IQ, aggression, promiscuity, etc.) to "race," as well as ongoing attempts to resurrect traditional, and outdated, racial categories from the pre-1950 typological era, should be understood as a distinct phenomenon--often referred to as the Human Biodiversity (HBD) movement.
Morality is is not derived Empirically
Anti-racists are conceding the entire field of biology and study of human variation to racists and naturalists (i.e. those who reach moral conclusions based upon appeals to empirical observations, specifically natural selection in this case) through their refusal to address the biological claims of HBD (instead deflecting the conversation by claiming "race" is purely a "social construct," flatly rejecting it as "not real" and refusing to discuss biological variation any further, etc.). Moreover, by using the phrase "scientific racism" they explicitly tell racists that their study of "race" is actually the "scientific" way (which, even if it is poor science, appears more valid in the layman's eyes than anti-racist moral arguments without "scientific" backing).
To pinpoint exactly where anti-racists went wrong, we must untangle this mess. The most serious error is arguing against the existence of "race" and human variation as if it were a moral position, thereby making the morality or immorality of racism contingent upon empirical "scientific" observations.
To properly fight against racists, we need to realize there are two separate issues at play here: science and morality.
Anti-racists cannot win by trying to fight as if "science" is some kind of moral battleground. The sad fact of the matter is that ethno-tribalism very likely has a large biologically hereditary component. Natural selection is not a moral force and, in fact, actually favors the proliferation of ignoble traits over noble traits.
This is why Politically Correct arguments revolving around "race" and biology have become increasingly fervent and illogical in recent years: deep down, they know their position is untenable. When morality is derived from naturalism, all the racist has to do is prove racism is "natural," and the validity of anti-racism falls apart completely. They know that HBD racists are very close to this goal (and may have succeeded already), but the the real question remains why do False Leftists continue to conflate morality and "science"?
Racism will always be immoral, even if it is empirically demonstrated to be "natural". Even if it is empirically demonstrated to be hereditary (and even if it is empirically demonstrated that hereditary tribalism is more influential than socially-conditioned tribalism). Even if the majority of humans are "naturally" predisposed to racism due to their genes--and even if the majority of societies once again fall into to a state where racism is the socially-accepted norm--racism will still be utterly repulsive to anyone with an ounce of morality in their heart.
If people who abused "scientific data" to promote racism in the past were "pseudo-scientific racists," then modern people who try to ignore or downplay the biological differences in humans in a misguided attempt at anti-racism should be properly called "pseudo-scientific anti-racists". This includes academics who have made genuine contributions to the field of biology, but should have known better than to fight racism as if were a "scientific" debate.
Racism and anti-racism had existed for millennia before biology became a formalized field of science in the 18th century. Anti-racists did not need "scientific data" to argue against racism before then. Why? Because anti-racists idealistically argue for what people and society should be, not praise our existing flaws which were responsible for racism in the first place. Scientific discoveries finding that racism is natural should only strengthen the idealist's belief in the fact that natural selection is ignoble and should not be propped up as a source for morality. If racism is "natural," then this is irrefutable proof of why idealism is necessary.
If nature cannot make humanity more noble, then the untiring will of the compassionate, selfless, and heroic among us can---this is the true spiritual foundation of anti-racism.
Separating the "Science" from "Scientific Racism"
Some PC views on race are easily argued against by racists because they appear to be contradictory or based on logical fallacies. Sometimes this can be excused, because PC is not a unified, singular worldview (and therefore some PC individuals might have views which are at odds with other PC individuals). Other times there is no excuse.
For example, a common PC argument as to the major reason why "race" isn't real is because it is determined almost solely by skin color, and is therefore laughably crude. The fact is that no serious physical anthropologist or 'racial typologist' (aka "scientific racist") would think that using skin color as the sole criterion is sufficient to classify "races," but PC seems to have repeated this straw man so many times that they themselves have come to believe in and promote the "three colors/three continents" racial typology--which has succeeded in making this definition of "race" the only one used in everyday conversation!! Leading intellectuals tell us that a vast proportion of scientists no longer think race is "real," yet this crude skin-based system of classification still permeates almost every aspect of life--rare is the application, form, or survey which doesn't provide a box listing the traditional racial categories (which have supposedly fallen out of favor and been disproven long ago...). Even worse, some people are talking about the longevity benefits that "race-based medicine" will surely provide..! Do liberals have the courage to wage a war on the field of medicine should such ideas take hold?
"Human races can be, and have been, classified in different ways by different anthropologists. ...Such a classification does not depend on any single physical character, nor does for example, skin colour by itself necessarily distinguish one major group from another." -UNESCO (1951)
***
"The biological fact of race and the myth of 'race' should be distinguished. For all practical social purposes 'race' is not so much a biological phenomenon as a social myth. The myth of 'race' has created an enormous amount of human and social damage. In recent years, it has taken a heavy toll in human lives, and caused untold suffering." -UNESCO, "Statement on Race" (1950)
While this particular quote seems to focus around the alleged uses and misuses of "race" by National Socialist Germany (and therefore implicitly ignores the much more deep-seated power of race and racism in the victorious Allied powers: colonial conquests of the British, French, Belgians, and Dutch; apartheid in South Africa which lasted from 1948-1994; the United States' ethnic cleansing of Native Americans, race-based slavery and segregation, and the confinement of Americans of Japanese heritage to concentration camps during WWII; and ethnic cleansings carried out by the Soviet Union), it says nothing which should make us assume humans have no meaningful biological differences. So why do some egalitarian adherents of Political Correctness dogmatically treat it this way?
No sane individual would disagree that all humans are different. Indeed, "there is more variation within 'the races' than between them" is a common saying amongst anti-racists. The sobering truth is that physical anthropologists knew how significant intra-population variation was. So, why have False Leftists adopted an even less-nuanced view of "race" and have a weaker understanding of intra-population variation than the so-called "scientific racists"? Observing the physical and aesthetic visual differences described by physical anthropologists is a much more powerful and easier to understand way of demonstrating intra-population variation than abstract appeals to genetic clustering graphs.
I think anti-racists can benefit greatly in their arguments against the crude worldview of WNs, HBDs, and other racists by relearning some things which were common scientific knowledge in the past.
***
19th and early 20th century anthropologists often had better arguments against racism than present-day anti-racists.
Below are some quotes you'll never find on any website promoting the "white race". Yet, these same authors are accused by ignorant adherents of PC to be "scientific racists"!
"In every science which deals with man we may discover some trace of a division of opinion, similar to that which is responsible for the great controversy in which the biologists have recently been engaged. Two schools of investigators almost everywhere appear. One of these attaches the greatest importance to race, to transmitted characteristics or heredity; while the other regards this factor as subordinate to the influences of the environment. This antagonism is clearly marked in the science of physical anthropology, and especially, for example, in the discussions over the causes of variations in the stature among the different populations of the world. In the early days, when race was an adequate explanation for everything, the problem was simple. But since the doctrine of evolution has shaken faith in what Cliffe-Leslie terms "the vulgar theory of race," another competent explanation is to be found in the mere influence of outward circumstances. Too often, however, the choice between these two possible causes of the phenomenon, or their relative importance when both are recognised as effective, will vary, in absence of more definite proof, with the personal bias of the observer. ...Fortunately, however, there is in anthropology a tendency among all the later authorities--Beddoe, Collignon, Livi and others--to admit both causes as alike efficient according to circumstances." -William Ripley, The Races of Europe (1899).
Racial typologists knew that both heredity and the environment have a huge impact on human development. "Blank slate egalitarians" who advocate the absolute supremacy of environmental influence should have been defeated centuries ago. In the same way, those who place supreme emphasis on "race" in matters which also have massive environmental influences (such as crime) are also fools. This debate is not new.
"It may smack of heresy to assert, in the face of the teaching of all our text-books on geography and history, that there is no single European or white race of men; and yet that is the plain truth of the matter. Science has advanced since Linnaeus' single type of Homo Europaeus albus was made one of the four great races of mankind. No continental group of human beings with greater diversities or extremes of physical type exists. That fact accounts in itself for much of advance in culture. We have already shown in the preceding chapters that entire communities of the tallest and shortest of men as well as the longest and broadest headed ones, are here to be found within the confines of Europe. Even in respect of the colour of the skin, hair, and eyes, responsible more than all else for the misnomer "white race," the greatest variations occur. To be sure, the several types are to-day all more or less blended together by the unifying influences of civilization; there are few sharp contrasts in Europe such as those between the Eskimo and the American Indian, or the Malay and the Papuan in other parts of the world. We have been deceived by this in the past. It is high time for us to correct our ideas on the subject, especially in our school and college teaching.
Instead of a single European type there is indubitable evidence of at least three distinct races, each possessed of a history of its own, and each contributing something to the common product, population, as we see it to-day. If this be established it does away at one fell swoop with the most of the current mouthings about Aryans and pre-Aryans; and especially with such appellations as the "Caucasian" or the "Indo-Germanic" race." -William Ripley (1899)
Scientists had already rejected the notion of "the white/Caucasian race" in the 1800s! Why do Politically Correct egalitarians (and HBD "race realists") have a more dogmatic, biased, and less nuanced understanding of biology, and insist on dividing humans into cruder "races," than 19th century scientists? If leftists and anti-racists understood human variation as well as Ripley, White Nationalists (whose entire worldview revolves around the notion of a "white race") would have all of their arguments demolished in an instant. ...Maybe we should start calling these old anthropologists "scientific anti-racists"?
"Three stages in development of our proof must be noted: first, the distribution of separate traits; secondly, their association into types; and, lastly, the hereditary character of these types which alone justifies the term races. We have already taken the first step: we are now essaying the second. It is highly important that we should keep these distinct. Even among professed anthropologists there is still much confusion of thought upon the subject--so much so, in fact, that some have, it seems to us without warrant, abandoned the task in despair. ...We may fail because we have grasped too much at once." -William Ripley (1899)
Every serious physical anthropologist (aka "scientific racist") would have considered the present-day definitions of the "white race," "black race," and "Asian race" to be much too crude and inconsistent to fit the definition of a "type"--let alone that of a "race".
"Under close scrutiny, the division into races according to the colour of skin turns out to be quite the crudest and most obvious method, since there are noticeably inheritable characteristic racial differences among people of identically coloured skins." – Alfred Rosenberg
Even National Socialist race theorists knew this very clearly.
"...let us bear in mind that in no other part of the world save modern America is such an amalgamation of various peoples to be found as in Europe. History, and archaeology long before history, show us a continual picture of tribes appearing and disappearing, crossing and recrossing in their migrations, assimilating, dividing, colonizing, conquering, or being absorbed. It follows from this, that, even if the environment were uniform, our pure types must be exceedingly rare. Experience proves that the vast majority of the population of this continent shows evidence of crossing, so that in general we can not expect that more than one third of the people will be marked by the simplest combination of traits." -William Ripley (1899)
What is this? A scientist telling us Europe is more anatomically diverse than anywhere else on the planet, that migration and mixing has been part of European history since time immemorial, and that there is no such thing as the "white race" (and the "vast majority of the population" of Europe is extremely mixed anyway)???
How can it be that a so-called "scientific racist" gives us better arguments against WN racial beliefs (and views on immigration) than PC so-called anti-racists who reject physical anthropology wholesale?
Perhaps it is not the physical anthropologists who were mistaken, but Political Correctness? By rejecting over 100 years of anthropological work, False Leftists give racists free reign to pick and choose anything from this scientific field which supports their arguments (while ignoring anything which opposes them). Little does the left realize that anti-racists can also study this scientific field and provide evidence to show that WN and HBD views on "race" are wrong. We have previously established that racism is morally wrong independently of "science," but racist ideas rarely stack up scientifically, to boot.
Do you see how much easier it is to defeat WN ideas by straight up telling them that the notion of a "white race" is flawed--not because "race isn't real" or "genetic differences between populations aren't significant," but because all mainstream physical anthropologists and 'racial typologists' knew over 100 years ago that WNs are wrong.
The "scientific racists" PC treats as enemies already knew how significant "variation within the population" was; PC egalitarians who promote the crude 3 colors/3 continents (or worse, the "whites" vs "non-whites") classification of "races," which ignores the fact that such intra-population variation exists in the first place, are sabotaging their own argument. Even "racialists" like Madison Grant (who "commandeered" much of Ripley's work in pursuit of racism) admit there is no such thing as a single, united "white race"!
"The term "Caucasian race" has ceased to have any meaning except where it is used, in the United States, to contrast white populations with Negroes or Indians or in the Old World with Mongols. It is, however, a convenient term to include the three European subspecies when considered as divisions of one of the primary branches or species of mankind but it is, at best, a cumbersome and archaic designation. The name "Caucasian" arose a century ago from the false assumption that the cradle of the blond Europeans was in the Caucasus where no traces are now found of any such race..." -Madison Grant (1916)
It's incredible, isn't it? Racists who tried to prop up their ethno-tribalism with "science" 100 years ago are at odds with HBDers and "race realists" today. The fact that Madison Grant's ideas unwittingly pose a greater threat to present-day racists who gloat about the greatness of the "white race" than PC arguments shows us what a sorry state the False Left is in...
"The northwestern corner of Europe, including Scandinavia, Denmark, and the Baltic plain of Germany, throughout the prehistoric period has been characterised by backwardness of culture as compared with the rest of Europe. It was populated from the south, deriving a large part of such primitive civilization as it possessed from the south and southeast as well." -William Ripley (1899)
"Tardy in its human occupation and its stone culture, Scandinavia was still more backward as compared with the rest of Europe, in its transition to the age of bronze. This is all the more remarkable in view of the rich store of raw materials on every hand. Nowhere else in Europe does the pure stone age seem to have been so unduly protracted." -William Ripley (1899)
"This bronze age, like that of stone, lasted a very long time--far longer than anywhere else on the continent. Central Europe passed through three stages of metallic progress while Scandinavia was evolving two. Not until the second or third century of our era--not until the time of the Romans, it would appear--did iron begin to supplant bronze." -William Ripley (1899)
To add the final nail to the coffin, Ripley criticizes those who use pseudo-science to promote unfair personal opinions:
***
I have quoted extensively from Ripley in the previous section, but he is only one of many scientists unfairly discredited as a "scientific racist". Below are a few more quotes from other anthropologists to demonstrate this. My inclusion of quotes from Ripley and others should not constitute an endorsement of their work, but if we want to honestly and fairly assess the scientific value and conclusions of the research done by physical anthropologists, we must start with an unprejudiced mind. I sincerely believe these individuals were serious scientists who should not be treated as mortal ideological enemies; if they are found to be in error, new hypotheses should be formed, new questions investigated, and existing theories scrapped or modified.
We should not assume that every anthropologist wrote with a malicious ideological intent, nor should we revere their work as infallible. Making errors and then correcting them is how knowledge is learned using the scientific method. Who knows, maybe anti-racists and leftists can learn something from reading and arguing against these authors' work (instead of arrogantly rejecting it without so much as having read it)?
***
"Is the fundamental superiority of one race really betrayed outwardly by some material sign? We are still in ignorance upon this point. But when we examine it more closely, we are led to think that it is not so." -Armand de Quatrefages, The Human Species (1879).
"Within each and every race there is great individual variation in physical features and in mental capacity, but no close correlation between physique and mentality has been scientifically demonstrated. ...While there may be specific racial abilities and disabilities, these have not yet been demonstrated. There are no racial monopolies either of human virtues or of vices." -Earnest Hooton
Despite being an outspoken eugenicist who advocated sterilization of the "unfit," Hooton was absolutely resolute in his opinion that "the races" could not, and should not, be used as a criteria for determining an individual's worth. (Meanwhile, Hooton's racist contemporaries in the US Public Health Service began a "scientific study" in which they pretended to treat "blacks" for illness while actually observing the fatal effects of syphilis on their bodies. Similar studies were conducted on other ethnic groups, such as Hawaiians and Guatemalans).
Those who repeat the assertion of Israel Ehrenberg Ashley Montagu that "race" is merely a "folk taxonomy" (and therefore nonscientific) have never bothered to read the work of anthropologists who directly addressed such concerns decades before Montagu! (They don't know the real definition of what a folk is, either).
"In order to class peoples, nations, tribes, in a word, "ethnic groups," we ought to take into consideration linguistic differences, ethnic characters, and especially, in my opinion, geographical distribution. It is thus that I shall describe the different peoples in the subsequent chapters, while classing them geographically. But for a classification of "races" (using the word in the sense given to it in the introduction), it is only necessary to take into account physical characters. We must try to determine by the anthropological analysis of each of the ethnic groups the races which constitute it; then compare these races one with another, unite those which possess most similarities in common, and separate those which exhibit most dissimilarities.
On making these methodic groupings we arrive at a small number of races, combinations of which, in various proportions, are met with in the multitude of ethnic groups." -Joseph Deniker, The Races of Man (1900).
If the Ripley quotes didn't convince you, Deniker also was a strong proponent that there were no such thing as "pure races"--all populations were mixed. In other words, the PC strawman that "race" cannot be real since "pure races" do not exist never bothered serious anthropologists, as they had always taken for granted that such mixture existed! Besides, HBD racists who use genetic data in an attempt to bolster their claims are not afraid to admit that populations are mixed...
"Rarely is an ethnic group composed almost exclusively of a single race; in this case the notion of race is confused with that of people. We may say, for example, that the tribes called Bushmen, Aetas, Mincopies, Australians, are formed of a race still almost pure; but these cases are rare. Already it is difficult to admit that there is but one race, for example, among the Mongols; if we pass to the Negroes we find among them at least three races which, while being connected one with another by a certain number of common characteristics, present, nevertheless, appreciable differences. Now, each of these races may be combined, in an ethnic group, not only with a kindred race, but also with other races, and it is easy to imagine how very numerous may be these combinations." -Joseph Deniker (1900)
Again, old anthropologists have a much better understanding of "variation within 'the races'" than PC...
"Of all parts of the world Europe presents the most favourable conditions for the interblending of peoples. Easy of access, a mere peninsula of Asia, from which the Ural mountains and straits a few miles wide hardly separate it, Europe has a totally different configuration from the continental colossus, heavy and vague in outline, to which it is attached. Indented by numberless gulfs, bays, and creeks, provided with several secondary peninsulas, crossed by rivers having no cataracts, and for the most part navigable, it offers every facility for communication and change of place to ethnic groups. Thus from the dawn of history, and even from prehistoric times, a perpetual eddying has taken place there, a coming and going of peoples in search of fortune and better settlements.
These migrations, combined with innumerable wars and active commerce, have produced such a blending of races, such successive changes in the manners and customs and languages spoken, that it is very difficult to separate from this chaos the elements of European ethnogeny, and that is in spite of the great number of historical and linguistic works published on the subject." -Joseph Deniker (1900)
Why is it that both Ripley and Deniker, arguably two of the world's two most influential physical anthropologists at the time, strongly assert Europe's long heritage of immigration and inter-ethnic mixing? That seems like the opposite of what a pseudo-scientific racist would do.
"The subject of racial intelligence has, on the other hand, not progressed far enough to merit inclusion in a general work of racial history; it has furthermore provided too ready a field for political exploitation to be treated or interpreted as a side issue with scientific detachment. Races, in the present volume, are studied without implication of inferiority or superiority." -Carleton Coon (1939).
Carleton Coon was a physical anthropologist and a member of the last generation of typologists (aka "scientific racists"). His work has therefore been heavily influential within HBD, WN, and other racist circles. While some of his theories no longer hold up in the face of more recent research, it would be a major error to reject his work as "pseudo-science".
He was one of 22 anthropologists who signed off on the 1964 UNESCO statement on race (see above for excerpt). Since he is dead and can no longer speak for himself, it is up to anti-racists to prevent WNs and HBDers from perverting his work.
"During the entire Neolithic, almost all of Norway, as well as central and northern Sweden, remained in a food-gathering stage of culture, although Neolithic axes and other objects were traded to them from the south. There can be little doubt that to a large extent the northern hunters were direct descendants of Mesolithic, and hence of Late Palaeolithic, man. Many traits of their so-called Arctic culture have survived until recent times.
Without the knowledge of Neolithic movements and continuities provided by the careful work of the Scandinavian archaeologists, and without a previous study of the Neolithic racial situation in other parts of Europe, it would be difficult to interpret the human remains from the Danish and Swedish sites, since this is racially the most complex and most mixed section of the continent. The concept of Scandinavia as the home of a pure Nordic race or of any other single group during the Neolithic is a completely false one." -Carleton Coon (1939)
Conclusion
At the dawn of the 20th century, Ripley and others explicitly stated there was no such thing as a "white" race. As the need to maintain colonial hegemony became more pressing as the 20th century went on, anthropologists did tend to downplay the differences within ethnic clusters, causing the newly monolithic "white race" to become the clear opponent of the colonized "black" and "yellow races"... Why did the UN and PC fall in line with the opinion of ethnocentric anthropologists? It could have instead given us idealistic suggestions on new ways to look at populations, or simply not have endorsed any method of classification. (Also, why do you think "race realists" are eager to use the UN's classification of race, rather than the less ethnocentric and more detailed classifications of older anthropologists?)
To recap, the "types," "varieties," or "races" that 19th and 20th century typologists came up with weren't pulled out of thin air. The traits which they observed and described have a factual basis. This does not mean, however, that the groupings they came up with were without ethnocentric bias or the most meaningful (or even the most accurate) way of grouping these traits. Moreover, recent genetic studies are shedding light on human variation in ways physical anthropologists never had access to.
We must always keep in mind that the data itself does not have to be wrong for us to argue against the conclusions an observer derives from it. In the same way, studies on crime or IQ cited by racists need not be factually incorrect for us to argue against the racist's viewpoint. We must ask why do racists insist on studying the link between crime and ethnic group, and not the correlation between crime and gender, or crime and somatotype (both of which have a stronger correlation with criminal behavior than "race" or ethnic heritage), etc.?
What is their motivation for non-arbitrarily deciding to research the specific link between ethnic group and crime; is it the immoral and politically-motivated goal of "proving" one ethnic cluster is "inferior" or possesses greater amounts of a negative quality than another? Why do they remain so fixated on studying the relation of these specific traits, despite being faced with the overwhelming facts that non-hereditary factors play a huge part in criminal behavior and IQ variation, and that other hereditary factors have a demonstrably more significant correlation?
The answer, of course, is because these people do not really care about "science," nor do they sincerely care about studying the biological diversity of humans. They only care about finding "scientific" or pseudo-scientific "facts" which support their racist viewpoints. The HBD movement studies biological traits with the intent of further dividing people along traditional ethnic/"racial" lines and demonstrating some of these "races" are simply better than others.
This condemnation of pseudo-scientific racism and HBD does not, as Political Correctness asserts, mean there are no meaningful ways in which to group traits into "races," nor does it even follow that all of these "races" must be equal (or unequal) in every respect. The reality is that the traditional "racial" groupings (which are really ethnic clusters)--that PC has allowed to continue and which HBD seeks to resurrect in full force--are a terrible way to group traits.
An increasing number of leftists are beginning to realize the ineffectiveness of the so-called "colorblind" attitude towards "race" in regards to actually stopping racism. By portraying skin color as the most important racial trait to be overcome, "colorblind" egalitarians only make ethnic divisions more deeply entrenched in our consciousness. Even worse, the failure of "colorblindness" has caused some False Leftists to advocate strengthening racial identity as a way to overcome racism; some even go so far as to imply the unifying sentiment behind "colorblindess" itself is racist!!!
Acknowledging that diverse biological traits exist among humans does not mean that we must accept the traditional "race" categories which have caused so much conflict and strife (as HBD advocates). Likewise, the acknowledgement that socio-cultural expressions and impacts of racism do not always neatly follow the historic biological definitions of "race" does not mean we must accept these definitions or waste effort trying to redefine "race" to the even more crude and patronizing categories of "white" and "non-white people of color" (as many False Leftists advocate).
Instead, we need an entirely new definition of race--something which is positive and can promote unification, rather than division. Something which can uplift our spirits and give us an optimistic view of a more noble future, rather than something which only demoralizes us with a pessimistic insistence on dwelling on the evils of the past.
A much more meaningful definition of race takes into account the selective pressure which would have resulted from a given prehistoric survival strategy (i.e. hunting, herding, and farming). Before the development of civilizations and complex economies, natural selection would have worked most strongly by eliminating those who were unable to obtain food (and defend it from attackers). Based on this, we would expect the chosen mode of food procurement to have been one of the strongest influences in prehistoric human evolution, working consistently for millennia. All three of these strategies (and hence three entirely different modes of selective pressure) could have existed within a single regional population, and therefore individuals in this population subjected to different selective pressures would differ racially despite being ethnically similar to other members of this population. This is the real reason why there are more differences within the traditional racial groupings than between them. We further hypothesize that the hereditary root of tribalism strongly correlates with these modes of selective pressure.
Link: Race means quality, not ethnicity: Why Race Matters and Why "the Races" Don't
Link: Racial Identity vs Racial Idealism: Is "Race" the New "Class"?
Anti-racists can believe in the scientific validity of "race," while at the same time recognizing that the traditional way of looking at "the races" needs to be scrapped. We must also remain keenly aware that the immorality of racism is not contingent upon whether or not it is "natural". This is critical to defeating racists, who increasingly seek to absolve themselves of moral wrong-doing by appealing to empirical science.
If you are someone who morally condemns racism, but likes physical anthropology, genetics, biology, archaeology, or related fields, feel free to contact me to see what we can do to reclaim anthropology from both the False Left and rightists.
