Home / Stratification and Inequality / Race: The World's Deadliest Social Disease

Race: The World's Deadliest Social Disease

Racism is a socially-constructed disease of the mind. Racism is an infectious disease that is caused by a specific form of ignorance: a groundless, pre-scientific belief that race is based in fundamental biological differences among humans. Nothing could be further from the truth. When it comes to biology, humans are all like (Gregor Mendel’s) peas in a pod. Fortunately, since racism is a socially-constructed, ignorance-cultivated disease, there also happens to be a cure: science and education. With adequate doses of science and education, it just might be possible to cure the scourge of racism within our lifetimes.

When it comes to biology, humans are all essentially the same (Chiras, 2005, p. 464). We are all one species, Homo sapiens, with one shared genome. A species can be defined as a group of organisms that are biologically similar enough to breed and generate viable progeny. That’s what keeps the evolutionary process going. In turn, speciation occurs when a single species sub-divides—quite often this is driven by geographical isolation—into biologically-differentiated groups that can no longer breed and generate fertile progeny (Nosil, 2012).

Beginning with Galton (1909), eugenicists have argued that racial group differentiation can be understood as an example of sub-human speciation in progress. Indeed, not only do eugenicists claim that there are indisputable biological distinctions between human racial groups, but eugenicists also argue that such distinctions are also qualitatively value-laden, i.e., again, Hitler’s extermination of “inferior” Jews. It is worth noting that eugenicists are dead wrong on both counts for the following reasons:

  1. Humanity in all of its (comparatively limited) variety is everywhere derived  from one genome. Consequently, race-hatred is equivalent to self-hatred: if we despise other people because of their genetic attributes, then, because all humans derive from the very same genome, we also, by implication, hate ourselves.a. There is hardly a more emphatic illustration of the ignorance upon which race-hatred is based.
  2. Humans of every race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, skin pigmentation, hair style, diet preference, etc., can, and do!, successfully interbreed and generate viable progeny.  Thus, barriers that distinguish human groups—whether we rightly or wrongly refer to such groupings in terms of race, ethnicity, nationality, political party, etc.—are unquestionably socially-significant, however they are biologically insignificant (Dawkins, 2004).
  3. Genetic variation cannot be judged in a legitimate, scientific sense in terms of good vs. bad, or better vs. worse (Darwin, 1859). In scientific terms, genetic traits can only be understood as adaptive vs. non-adaptive. Any additional value judgments concerning the relative “desirability” of genetic traits (e.g., dark vs. light pigmentation, short vs. tall, brown-eyed vs. blue-eyed, etc.) are purely a product of unscientific prejudice (McWhorter, 2009).

In his original work, Charles Darwin (1859) did not ascribe value judgments to the evolutionary process. From Darwin’s perspective, life forms either evolved random genetic solutions to environmental challenges, or they did not; those that survived were not “better” than those that went extinct, only different.

When it comes to human diversity, eugenicists[1] strenuously disagree. From the eugenicist perspective, markers of racial distinction evince either fundamental virtues or irredeemable vices (Carlson, 2001; Entine, 2000, 2007; Herrnstein and Murray, 1994; Stoskopf, 2002). Again, from this perspective, excellence is defined in terms of racist pecadillos, e.g., Aryans are “the bomb” (Weikart, 2004). Eugenicists are so passionately persuaded by their own logic that they have repeatedly advocated horrific social policies (e.g., Hitler’s Final Solution, forced sterilization exercises in early 20th century Europe and the USA, Herrnstein and Murray’s “budget cuts for dummies,” etc.) that have been explicitly designed cull genetically-undesirable humans from the gene pool (Bashford and Levine, 2010). For eugenicists, such policies make perfect sense because, once the gene pool has been cleansed of undesirables, the genetically-gifted will enjoy unfettered opportunities to cultivate excellence by breeding a superior race of humans (Mann, 2005). Of course, the fact that undesirables can readily propagate with their presumptive superiors is prima facie evidence that humans are all members of the same close-knit family, but, since eugenicists and racists tend to be deficient in scientific credentials and rationality, it is not surprising that their beliefs lack intellectual coherence.

The Virtues of Variety

The crucial flaw in eugenicist logic is that the genetic differences upon which advocates of ethnic cleansing have chillingly rationalized the grisly murder of millions (Lieberman, 2006) are biologically-disadvantageous only in the twisted minds of racist xenophobes. Darwin (1859) recognized that variation is present in all species. No two broods of chickens, fields of wild flowers, or pods of peas or whales are identical. Variation is an endemic quality of life–particularly among sexually-reproducing species, such as (to name only a few) humans, peach trees, and honey bees.

Sexual reproduction arguably increases the survival potential of any particular species by introducing a mechanism through which to increase advantageous genetic diversity within a particular species (Sadava, 2013). Thus, it is scientifically-valid to argue that, contrary to eugenicists’ irrational denunciations, genetic diversity is adaptively-advantageous and is, therefore, biologically-speaking a good thing. Species that are genetically uniform are more likely to be plagued by parasites that need to evolve only a single strategy to capitalize on their host’s genetically-unvarying vulnerabilities (Sherratt and Wilkinson, 2009, p. 42). Species with wider variation in their gene pools present multiple challenges to parasites and other undesirable invaders, such as bacteria and viruses. Indeed, it is possible that it was only due to crucial variations in the human gene pool that Homo sapiens avoided extinction at the hands of the bubonic plague, or other “bottleneck” near-extinction crises (Santos, 2012, p. 80). Thus, when it comes to biology—and in contrary to the bilious protestations of eugenicists—in any case where survival is the key criterion to judge biological merit, genetic variation is unquestionably a good thing.

References

Bashford, Alison, and Philippa Levine. The Oxford handbook of the history of eugenics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Carlson, E. A. (2001). The unfit: A history of a bad idea. Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.

Chiras, D. D. (2005). Human biology. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Darwin, Charles (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. 1st ed. London: John Murray.

Dawkins, R. (2004). The ancestor’s tale: A pilgrimage to the dawn of evolution. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Entine, Jon. Abraham’s Children: Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People. New York: Grand Central Pub., 2007.

Entine, Jon. Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We’re Afraid to Talk about It. New York: PublicAffairs, 2000.

Galton, F. (1909). Essays in eugenics. London: Eugenics Education Society.

Herrnstein, Richard J., and Charles A. Murray. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free, 1994.

Lieberman, B. D. (2006). Terrible fate: Ethnic cleansing in the making of modern Europe. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.

Mann, M. (2005). The dark side of democracy: Explaining ethnic cleansing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

McWhorter, Ladelle. Racism and sexual oppression in Anglo-America a genealogy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009.

Nosil, P. (2012). Ecological speciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sadava, D. E. (2013). Life: The science of biology. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Santos, Filipe Duarte, 2012. Humans on Earth: From Origins to Possible Futures.  New York: Springer.

Sherratt, Thomas N., and David M. Wilkinson. Big questions in ecology and evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Stoskopf, Alan, 2002. Race and membership in American history: The eugenics movement. Brookline, Mass: Facing History and Ourselves National Foundation.

Weikart, R. (2004). From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary ethics, eugenics, and racism in Germany. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.


[1] It is worth pointing out that the vast majority of eugenicists are not professional biologists. As such, eugenicists lack the scientific credentials to understand, much less credibly dispute the findings and opinions of expert geneticists.

Cite This Article

Timothy McGettigan (2013). Race: The World's Deadliest Social Disease. The Socjourn. [https://sociology.org/race-the-worlds-deadliest-social-disease/]

Summer Snow

By: William T. Hathaway

SUMMER SNOW is a spiritual novel set now amidst the war on terrorism as an American warrior falls in love with a Sufi mystic and learns from her an alternative to the military mentality. As US Special Forces battle al-Qaeda, the escalating violence threatens their future together and the lives of thousands in her country. To save them, she shows him an ancient transcendental way to bring peace to the collective consciousness and prevent terrorism. But can they make it work in time? A story of love in the shadow of destruction, SUMMER SNOW blends passion, adventure, and mystic wisdom to convey its theme that higher consciousness is more effective than violence and that women may be more able than men to lead us there


[ Amazon.com | Book Finder ]

About Timothy McGettigan

2 comments

  1. Racism is a socially constructed disease.

    “Fortunately, since racism is a socially-constructed, ignorance-cultivated disease, there also happens to be a cure: science and education. With adequate doses of science and education, it just might be possible to cure the scourge of racism within our lifetimes.”

    Agreed.

    1.Humanity in all of its (comparatively limited) variety is everywhere derived from one genome. Consequently, race-hatred is equivalent to self-hatred: if we despise other people because of their genetic attributes, then, because all humans derive from the very same genome, we also, by implication, hate ourselves.a. There is hardly a more emphatic illustration of the ignorance upon which race-hatred is based.

    While that is a snappy and logical reasoning, I also believe that some racisms stem from oppressive/abusive behaviors inflicted by a particular culture. (either ethnic or social and sometimes both) Social Scientists Berger and Luckman wrote about how the behaviors that are repeated within a culture become habituated and evolve into norms for that group. This includes bad ideas and beliefs. These behaviors are passed on from generation to generation, until common sense (or science, ie education) steps in and resets the thinking. For example, if a particular individual is being downtrodden upon from a greedy group of Klingons and Klingons were taught that they need to hold on to every bit of wealth in every shape and form to prove their superiority to maintain domination over their surroundings, well, yeah, Mr. Downtrodden is going to set himself up to believe that all Klingons are Greedy. The ignorance lies on both sides where the Klingons have been indoctrinated to selfish values and Mr. Downtrodden has developed a racism against the Klingons because of the pattern of greed they have displayed. My point is that Mr. Downtrodden does not have self-loathing but rather a dislike of being stepped on and pushed around and has no other recourse. It is difficult for him to see that that the Klingons are the same as he is; a human who is or can be veiled with ignorance.

    This happens all the time. Whether you belong to the Brotherhood of Clowns, Power Puff Girls Club or the Ladies Auxillary of Good Establishment, a good question is “Why do people need to form groups that exclude?” What is it about dominating others or putting down another human that makes another feel better about themselves?

    People acting and reacting upon each other, indeed.

  2. In this day of super technology, we still use our advances to destroy each other. Cell phones, CCTV are part of the Global Panopticon and are great tools in genetic sanitation of an entire family, community or any other group that appears to be a threat (mere competition that offers a better peaceful means of life) to the Oppressive System. It is the ignorance in fear of a few that destroys the many.

    “The crime of destroying or conspiring to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

    Genocide can be committed in a number of ways, including killing members of a group or causing them serious mental or bodily harm, deliberately inflicting conditions that will bring about a group’s physical destruction, imposing measures on a group to prevent births, and forcefully transferring children from one group to another.

    Genocide is a modern term. Coined in 1944 by Polish scholar of International Law Raphael Lemkin, the word is a combination of the Greek genos (race) with the Latin cide (killing). In his book, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, Lemkin offered the definition of “a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves” (Lemkin 1944, 79). The book studied in particular detail the methodology of the Nazi German genocide against European Jews, among whom were his parents. Later, he served as an advisor to both the U.S. War Department and the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi leaders for War Crimes. He dedicated his life to the development of international conventions against genocide.

    The contemporary archetype of modern genocide is the Holocaust, in which German Nazis starved, tortured, and executed an estimated six million European Jews, as well as millions of other ethnic and social minorities, as part of an effort to develop a master Aryan race. Immediately upon coming to power in Germany in 1933, the Nazis began a systematic effort to eliminate Jews from economic life. The Nazis defined persons with three or four Jewish grandparents as being Jewish, regardless of their religious beliefs or affiliation with the Jewish community. Those with one or two Jewish grandparents were known as Mischlinge, or mixedbreeds. As non-Aryans, Jews and Mischlinge lost their jobs and their Aryan clients, and were forced to liquidate or sell their businesses.

    With the onset of World War II in 1939, the Germans occupied the western half of Poland, forcing nearly two million Jews to move into crowded, captive ghettos. Many of these Jews died of starvation and disease. In 1941, Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The Nazis dispatched 3,000 troops to kill Soviet Jews on the spot, most often by shooting them in ditches or ravines on the outskirts of cities and towns. Meanwhile, the Nazis began to organize what they termed a final solution to the Jewish question in Europe. German Jews were required to wear a yellow star stitched on their clothing and were deported to ghettos in Poland and the Soviet Union. Death camps equipped with massive gas chambers were constructed at several sites in occupied Poland, and large crematories were built to incinerate the bodies. Ultimately, the Nazis transported millions of Jews to concentration camps, in crowded freight trains. Many did not survive the journey. Once at the death camps, many more died from starvation, disease, shooting, or routine gassings, before Allied forces liberated the survivors and forced the Nazis to surrender in 1945.

    Following the exterminations of World War II, the United Nations passed a resolution in an effort to prevent such atrocities in the future. Known as the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (78 U.N.T.S. 278 [Dec. 9, 1948]), the resolution recognized genocide as an international crime and provided for its punishment. Proposed and partially formulated by Lemkin, who had lobbied nations tirelessly for its adoption, the convention also criminalized conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, attempted genocide, and complicity in genocide. Its definition of genocide specified that a person must intend to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Thus, casualties of war are not necessarily victims of genocide, even if they are all of the same national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. The convention requires signatory nations to enact laws to punish those found guilty of genocide, and allows any signatory state to ask the United Nations to help prevent and suppress acts of genocide.

    The convention was, by itself, ineffective. Article XI of the convention requires the United Nations’ member countries to ratify the document, which many did not do for nearly 50 years. The United States did not ratify the convention until 1988. Before doing so, it conditioned its obligations on certain understandings: (1) that the phrase intent to destroy in the convention’s definition of genocide means “a Specific Intent to destroy”; (2) that the term mental harm used in the convention as an example of a genocidal tactic, means “permanent impairment of mental faculties through drugs or torture”; (3) that an agreement to grant Extradition, which is part of the convention, extends only to acts recognized as criminal under both the country requesting extradition and the country to which the request is made; and (4) that acts in the course of armed conflict or war do not constitute genocide unless they are performed with the specific intent to destroy a group of people.

    On November 4, 1988, the United States passed the Genocide Implementation Act of 1987 (18 U.S.C.A. § 1091 [1994]). This act created “a new federal offense that prohibits the commission of acts with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group; and to provide adequate penalties for such acts” (S. Rep. No. 333, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 [1988], reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4156).

    In 1990 the U.S. Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C.A. § 1182), a comprehensive reform of immigration laws. As part of this reform, Congress mandated that Aliens guilty of genocide are excluded from entry into the United States, or deported when discovered. However, the INA lacks a clear definition of genocide, referring only to the U.N. convention drafted more than 40 years earlier.

    The unclear definition of genocide makes its prevention and punishment difficult. Whether massive, and often barbaric, loss of life within ethnic, national, religious, or racial groups rises to the crime of genocide—or is simply an unpleasant by-product of war—is open to debate. Until international trials in the late 1990s, the Holocaust of Nazi Germany was the only example recognized throughout the international community as genocide.

    Apart from the Holocaust, there have been a number of other events that at least some commentators have described as genocide. These include the devastation of numerous Native American tribes through battles with European settlers and exposure to their diseases; the killing of some 1.5 million Armenians by the Turks during and after World War I; the deaths of approximately 1.7 million Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia between 1975 and 1979; the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians during the Vietnam War; the deaths of more than 20,000 Christian Orthodox Serbs, Muslims, and Roman Catholic Croats in “ethnic cleansing” arising out of the civil war in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina during the early 1990s; and the deaths of more than one million Rwandan civilians in ethnic clashes between the Hutu and Tutsi peoples, also during the early 1990s.

    During the 1990s, the United Nations Security Council twice convened international tribunals to prosecute genocide and other flagrant humanitarian violations. The International Criminal Tribunals for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR) were convened in 1993 in the Hague, the Netherlands, and in 1995 in Arusha, Tanzania, respectively. As the first courts of their type since World War II, their work, which sought to fix personal responsibility for mass murder, continued into the new millennium.

    Given the vast scope and complicated nature of trying crimes of genocide, neither body has moved swiftly. By 2003, the ICTR had indicted 52 people and had completed nine trials stemming from the Rwanda slaughter, while also becoming the first international court in history to hand down a conviction for genocide. By comparison, the ICTY had indicted 87 people and had concluded 23 trials. During 2002, worldwide attention focused upon the opening of the ICTY’s long-awaited trial of former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, accused of ordering atrocities in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo at various times between 1991 and 2001. Arrested after flouting the tribunal’s indictment for two years, Milosevic’s delivery to the Hague in 2001 made him the highest-ranking European leader since the Nazi era to face trial for war crimes.

    Humanitarians, politicians, and international legal scholars are struggling to find an effective way to prevent and punish genocide. Many have called for revising the genocide convention to better meet the needs of the current political, social, and economic environment, by creating a broader definition of genocide and establishing procedural guidelines. Still others have proposed international military intervention in order to prevent or stop genocide.”

Leave a Reply to lucy Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*