There are Beneficent Zoo Keepers, and Well-Meaning Plantation Owners

Recently I received a very interesting letter from a man who describes himself as “a teacher and physician.”  He has a view of Darwin’s teachings that he feels runs counter to mine.  ...And it does.  His letter was thoughtful and gentile.  On the basis of his letter, I am led to believe that Dr. Richard D. is a very nice, and honest man, at least that is how he comes off.  As always, I will include the entire contents of his letter verbatim at the end of this article.  Dr. Richard D’s letter starts off like this:

Dr. Richard D:  Dear Goodschools--Darwin may well have been a racist. It is certainly historically accurate to say the racism was common in English society during Darwin's time. Racism is an unfortunate theme in human history.

Goodschools’ Response:  To this point I am in complete agreement with Dr. Richard.

Dr. Richard D:  As a teacher and physician, I see the entire concept of race as a faulty one. Race itself is a socially constructed and racist concept. People who identify themselves as black in the United States are usually defining themselves culturally as people who identify with a particular history and experience. People who share an Afro-American heritage have a rich and wonderful intellectual and artistic heritage which they are rightly proud of. Genetically, Afro-Americans share a few traits but their genetic diversity is extremely great.

Goodschools’ Response:  It is at this point that I begin to question Dr. Richard’s thinking.  He writes that he sees “…the entire concept of race as a faulty one.  Race itself is a socially constructed and racist concept.”  Let’s analyze his words.  It could be fine (logical) to think that the “entire concept of race” is a faulty concept; however, it follows that if one is to make such a statement, one should then explain and defend that statement.  Dr. Richard does not do that, at least not in an acceptable fashion, as he uses a form of the very term he is defining (race) in his definition.  He writes:  “Race itself is a socially constructed and racist concept.  That constitutes a circular argument, and should never be done.  The rest of what he writes here does not explain or defend his charge, it merely summarizes the obvious:  …Of course African Americans have a “rich and wonderful’ heritage; of course they are proud of it; and of course there is a great deal of diversity within the group of Americans who consider themselves African Americans.  All that is rhetoric—nothing more.

It was at this point that I felt I needed to know whether or not Dr. Richard considered himself African American or White.  So I asked him following question:

“Would I be correct in assuming that when you walk down the sidewalk, the simple-minded observer sees a "white man?"

…To which Dr. Richard D. answered:  “You are correct in your assumption...though I would be a minority in some other classifications.”

I have no idea what he meant by his statement that he would be a minority “in some other classifications,” but that is not important for this discussion.  The point is, Dr. Richard is a white man.  In his whole life he has never walked down a street and had people automatically think less of him simply on the basis of his skin color; he has never been pulled over by the police for a “random” search of his car; he has never had his promotions in life constantly chalked up to affirmative action.  This list could go on and on.  But what would be the point?  Racism exists in America, and throughout Europe.  …And it does so largely on the teachings of one man’s work—Charles Darwin.  Whether I need to or not, I will repeat a short summary of what Charles Darwin wrote in this regard: 

Unfortunately Darwin exhibited a strong pre-disposition against dark-skinned people, whom he referred to as "savages."  To Darwin, the term “savage” represented an animal, not a real human being--an animal which had a brain smaller than the “civilized” man [read: "white man"]; was less athletic; was weaker; was dumber; cheated more; was not noble; was prone to alcoholism; was not capable of being a genius; smelled badly; represented a different sub-species than “civilized” man, if not a totally different species altogether; had much in common with idiots; and had smaller “brain cases” than did “civilized man.”  …And, of course, Darwin’s favorite “savage” whipping boys were those whom he called “Negroes.”  (For a more thorough evaluation of Darwin’s writings about those he called “Negroes,” read my Review of Darwin’s “Descent” on this site:  Darwin--The Munificent Zoo-Keeper, A Short Study in Darwin's 'The Descent of Man'.)

So, my comment to Dr. Richard on this matter would be this:  Just because a faulty model works to explain certain phenomena, does not mean we should cease looking for a better model.  If Einstein thought like this, never would he have developed his Theory of Relativity.  It would not have happened.  I am sick and tired of lazy “scientists” and teachers, who are willing to live with what they know (or should know) is a faulty theory, simply because that is what they themselves have been taught.  I cannot help but think that there exists some racist motivation behind this behavior, perhaps, I suppose, a racist motivation of which they may not even be aware.  At the risk of being “over redundant,” (I think I just invented a new new term), I am going to repeat the above quotation again.  I have to do this because some people are just not getting it:  This is what the “esteemed” Darwin thought about the African peoples:

Unfortunately Darwin exhibited a strong pre-disposition against dark-skinned people, whom he referred to as "savages."  To Darwin, the term “savage” represented an animal, not a real human being--an animal which had a brain smaller than the “civilized” man [read: "white man"]; was less athletic; was weaker; was dumber; cheated more; was not noble; was prone to alcoholism; was not capable of being a genius; smelled badly; represented a different sub-species than “civilized” man, if not a totally different species altogether; had much in common with idiots; and had smaller “brain cases” than did “civilized man.”  …And, of course, Darwin’s favorite “savage” whipping boys were those whom he called “Negroes.”

There is not one shred of empirical evidence to back up all this nonsense, yet that was what Darwin published.  Is it too hard to understand why I am offended by the work of this pseudo scientist?  …And even more offended by lazy (perhaps even racist) teachers who are willing to propagate this nonsense? 

Enough said about this.  Dr. Richard does go on:

Dr. Richard D:  To somehow take the logical jump that because Darwin shared the racism of England during his time, evolution and modern genetics should not be studied is faulty thinking.

Goodschools’ Response:  Dr. Richard here accomplishes two things, in my view.  First of all, he enlightens me as to a possible mistake (or assumption) I have been making.  For that I am grateful.  Second, he then makes a fundamental mistake of his own.  Upon both I will comment. 

Regarding his enlightening me:  Dr. Richard states that my objection to the teaching of Darwin in public schools was based on Darwin’s racism.  Upon self evaluation, and a cursory examination of what I have written, I can easily see how he got that impression.  In fact, I have even stated that my objection to Darwin was that he was a racist, while in reality my objection is to the racist teachings of Darwin, not Darwin’s racism.  There is a difference. 

While I have written that had Darwin’s chosen field of study been mathematics, I would not be concerned about his racism, I have to admit that many times I have cited Darwin’s racism, without pointing out that his works reflected that racism.  However, I will not be too hard on myself here, because in most instances, the racist teachings of a major personality, teacher or writer do not have to be demonstrated in order for that person to be discredited.  It happens all the time.  Play-by-play sportscasters have been fired on the spot for making racially-sensitive comments.  My mistake here (if I actually made one) would be that I have not every time included the fact that Darwin’s works reflected his egregious racism.  I think the problem here is that I assumed an ellipses that included that fact.

Dr. Richard’s mistake is his assumption that I object to the study of modern science.  He asserts that I believe “evolution and modern genetics should not be studied.”  Far be that from fact.  My interest is in promoting real scientific study, without all the racist baggage.  Again, had Einstein worn the blinders that Dr. Richard wants us all to wear, we never would have progressed in physics.  I believe it is because of those blinders that modern biology remains stuck in a rut (the existence of which few real scientists dispute).

Dr. Richard then concludes with this comment:

Dr. Richard D:  I would recommend that you discuss your views with a spectrum of non-white scientists chosen from the general scientific community. There are large numbers of graduate students, medical students, physicians, and scientists who are Afro-American.  …Have the same kind of courage that Malcolm X had when he took off his cultural blinders and saw his racist errors.

Goodschools’ Response:  These last comments, while well intended, are really from left field.  First of all, Dr. Richard is telling me that I should talk to African American med students, physicians and scientists to find out how well they have been able to apply Darwin’s racist theory to their scientific pursuits [read:  how well they have settled on the white man’s plantation].  Second, Dr. Richard encourages me to take off my cultural blinders and see my own racism. 

This boggles my mind.  Here this white physician is telling me that I should have the courage of Malcolm X, and admit that I, too, am a racist.  While I really think that Dr. Richard views himself as a good man, a kind man, a good teacher, and a good physician; I have to view him as a plantation owner.  What he is in saying is this:  “Listen up, you Black Boys.  You need to be thankful that we have included you in our fraternity.  Find your place, and stay there.  …And in case you think you are equal to the white man, study Darwin's model to understand just who you are in our eyes.  Then shut up.” 

Apparently it is OK for Dr. Richard to continue to uphold (perhaps even revere) the racist teachings of White Man Racist Darwin, but those of African heritage must look inside themselves to root out their own racism. 

Pinch me!  Is the year really 2006?  

As promised, here is Dr. Richard D's entire first letter verbatim:

Dear Goodschools--

Darwin may well have been a racist. It is certainly historically accurate to say the racism was common in English society during Darwin's time. Racism is an unfortunate theme in human history.

As a teacher and physician, I see the entire concept of race as a faulty one. Race itself is a socially constructed and racist concept. People who identify themselves as black in the United States are usually defining themselves culturally as people who identify with a particular history and experience. People who share an Afro-American heritage have a rich and wonderful intellectual and artistic heritage which they are rightly proud of. Genetically, Afro-Americans share a few traits but their genetic diversity is extremely great.

To somehow take the logical jump that because Darwin shared the racism of England during his time, evolution and modern genetics should not be studied is faulty thinking. It also downgrades the vast contribution of "non-white" (by non-white I mean people who do not identify themselves culturally as white) scientists to the study of evolution and genetics. I would recommend that you discuss your views with a spectrum of non-white scientists chosen from the general scientific community. There are large numbers of graduate students, medical students, physicians, and scientists who are Afro-American, Asian, South American, Caribbean, and from other diverse cultures who use concepts from evolution and genetics in every step of their scientific research. Have the same kind of courage that Malcolm X had when he took off his cultural blinders and saw his racist errors.

Dr. Richard D.