Those Whom Donald Trump Called Racist

Someday there may be a source in which all of Donald Trump's speeches and media appearances can be researched. Until then, we have his Twitter archive.

Since joining Twitter on May 4, 2009, up through the end of 2016, Donald Trump has posted over 34,000 times [source] or 12.1 tweets per day. Some of these are photo-only, however, over 31,000 of these tweets are available for text searching at TrumpTwitterArchive. This is a sufficient amount of material to find out what he has to say about many topics.

Since I have been exploring issues of race, I looked to see what Trump has said about it. Fifty of Trump's tweets include the words "racist" or "racists."

• 24 were directed towards individuals whom Trump called racist.
• 13 were directed at groups or entities which Trump called racist.
• 2 mentioned people being called racist, but did not seem to agree with the accusation.
• 6 referred to people calling Trump racist which overlapped with:
• 3 referenced apologies from persons who called Trump racist.
• 3 said a person was not racist.

So, whom did Trump call racist?

• 19 tweets directed at 4 black men.
• 4 tweets directed at 3 Jewish men.
• 1 tweet directed at a white woman.

A gallery of those Trump declared racist.

From right to left: Bryant Gumbel, Touré Neblett, Barack Obama, Tavis Smiley

Bryant Gumbel. (6x [six tweets calling him racist])

TV Personality. His television career beginning in 1971, he is currently host of Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel, in its 22nd season on HBO. He has won 4 Emmys. Graduated Bates College with a degree in Russian history.

Trump made 12 tweets altogether regarding Bryant Gumbel. Six called him racist.

Along with calling Gumbel a racist, Trump called him: dumb, really dumb (x2), and I mean dumb, dumbest, dope, arrogant dope, really jealous, condescending no talent jerk, no talent, long and deep record of failure.

Touré Neblett. (10x)

Writer, journalist, TV Commentator. In the 90s, he contributed to national magazines such as the Rolling Stone, The New Yorker, and Time. He began his television career in the 2000s and from 2012 to 2015 was co-featured in MSNBCs commetary show, The Cycle.

Trump made 17 tweets altogether regarding Touré. Ten included the term racist.

Along with calling Touré a racist, Trump called him: dumb, very dumb, dumb racist moron, dummy, simpleton, stupid, bad speller, angry, doesn't have a clue about money.

Barack Obama (2x).

Former U.S. Senator, Illinois. Two terms U.S. President. Nobel Prize Winner. Graduated Harvard Law School, 1991.

Trump has made over 2400 tweets regarding Barack Obama.

One tweet questioned whether Obama was a racist. Four hours later, a second tweet stated he was a racist.

Trump often referred to Obama's policies and decisions as stupid. On two occasions he called Obama stupid and once a dope. On six more occasions, he asked whether Obama was stupid, most aggressively in this form:  "How totally stupid is this guy?"

Tavis Smiley (1x).

Talk Show Host, Commentator.

Beginning in the 1990s Smiley has been a radio commentator. He graduated Indiana University in 2003 with a degree in Public Affairs.

Only one tweet referred to Tavis Smiley, calling him a hater and racist.

The Other Four.

Trump has also called these four other individuals racists: Jon Stewart, Anthony Weiner, Danny Zuker, and Elizabeth Warren.

Jon Stewart (2x).

Talk Show Host, Comedian. Headed The Daily Show from 1999 to 2015. During his tenure, The Daily Show won 22 Primetime Emmys. Graduated from College of William & Mary in 1984.

Trump made two tweets questioning whether Stewart was racist, both of which linked to a YouTube video where Trump hosted evidence of Stewart's alleged racism.

Trump has made 33 tweets regarding Jon Stewart. Most often he refers to Stewart as overrated, but also has called him: dummy, dopey, a joke, not smart, a pussy, phoney [sic], asshole, loud and obnoxious and a very little man.

Anthony Weiner (1x).

Six term Congressman, representing New York's 9th Congressional District. Bachelor of Arts in Political Sciences from The College of William & Mary. During his tenure, Weiner became involved in a "sexting" scandal and resigned.

Trump delivered a dig at Weiner's Twitter alias, "Carlos Danger," declaring him a racist. A ready target for ridicule, Trump directed 80 tweets at Weiner, calling him, among other things, a pervert in 25 tweets.

Danny Zuker (1x).

Television writer and producer since the late 80s. Best known for "Modern Family." He has won five Primetime Emmys.

Trump has had a long-standing feud with Zuker. In 77 tweets, along with calling Zuker's remarks racist, he has called Zuker a loser (12x), stupid (4x), and dummy (3x).

Elizabeth Warren (1x).

U.S. Senator. She received a law degree from Rutgers University in 1976.

Along with referring to Warren as a racist, he directed 25 tweets her way, calling her goofy in 23 cases and Pocahontas on 8 occasions.

 

Left to right: Jon Stewart, Anthony Weiner, Danny Zuker, Elizabeth Warren

Calling Trump Racist.

Trump made several tweets about others calling him racist, including three cases where he stated apologies were made by those he said called him racist.

From Trump's Twitter account, these are those who called him racist.

• David Letterman.
• Donny Deutsch.
• Al Sharpton.
• Joe Scarborough.
• Mitt Romney.
• Maryland Democrat flyer.

Those whom he said apologized:

• Donny Deutsch.
• Al Sharpton.
• David Letterman.

This is an excerpt of David Letterman's apology. [Full text below]

Letterman: This is my apology, yes. So I'm saying it's possible that I was wrong that he's [Trump is] not a racist because we don't want to think that of anyone. But he's just a dope, how about that? [Kisses hand and places hand over heart.] From the heart.

Oct 10, 2012 9:28:35 AM .@DavidLetterman @Late_Show fully apologized last night for calling me a racist. Thank you David--we are again friends.

"I'd called him out and said he's too smart to be a racist. Well, I was wrong." David Letterman interview at the New Yorker festival, October 6, 2016.

Not a Racist.

On three occasions, Trump has gone out of his way to declare one person "not a racist:" Donald Trump.

Donald Trump. Heir to the Fred Trump real estate fortune. President. Bachelor's in Economics from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. No Emmys.

Jun 11, 2016 7:18:19 AM Mitt Romney had his chance to beat a failed president but he choked like a dog. Now he calls me racist-but I am least racist person there is.

Full text of David Letterman apology, October 9, 2012. [YouTube]

Letterman: I have been struggling with something and I talked to close friends on my staff. That's right I have friends. Um, you know, Donald Trump. Remember when Donald Trump used to be on the show? And it was fabulous. Donald Trump would come out and we would make fun of him and he'd laugh. And we could say things about his hair and about being a slumlord and about how he evicted old ladies and we'd laugh. Donald would have quips and I would have quips and he'd always be in this dopey-looking tie and I'd say, "What is that Donald a tie or your tongue?"

Well, um, one thing leads to another and Donald starts, as he is wont to do, starts shooting his mouth off, and he was saying things about President Obama and I said on the air about I think Donald if you are saying these things I think that means you might be a racist. If you keep on saying these things, are you in fact a racist? Is Donald Trump a racist? I flat out called him a racist. Well, he didn't think that was funny.

And so he said, "I'm never coming back on this show unless you apologize to me and tell people you are sorry you called me a racist. And so I've been thinking about this and thinking about this and ruminating about this and ruminating about this and so, you know, I always want to believe the best in people. I don't want to believe that in 2012 a guy in his position could be a racist. We don't need that. That goes away. We don't need that. There's no room for that anywhere. So, I am, um, thinking, well maybe it's that he's not just a racist. Maybe it's just... well, I don't mean in addition to being a racist. Oh, believe me, he's a racist but he's so much more. Ha, ha. That's not.

Listen, good thing, good thing I'm not in Congress because right away I'd be on Rachel making a deal with Chicago. [Uncertain meaning, but Rachel Maddow was the guest that night.]

So maybe it's that he's not a racist, maybe he's just a guy who pulls out who says stupid things to get people's attention. I can live with that. We have that in common.

Paul Shaffer: Okay. Yeah. So we'll go with that [uncertain: as the aspersion] So the bottom line is that he doesn't do the show anymore.

Letterman: But I'm saying, I'm saying I would like him to be on the show. Because it's an element that we miss, especially now with the [2012] campaign nearing its fruition to have the dopey [pokey?] Donald Trump here, you know, waah-waah, waah-waah, waah-waah, waah-waah, waah-waah [makes hand gestures suggesting Trump's hair is flapping].

Paul Shaffer: So this is your way of saying to him.

Letterman: This is my apology, yes. So I'm saying it's possible that I was wrong that he's not a racist because we don't want to think that of anyone. But he's just a dope, how about that? [Kisses hand and places hand over heart.] From the heart. That would be great if he comes back on.

-----

 Martin Hill Ortiz is the author of Never Kill A Friend, Ransom Note Press.

Never Kill A Friend, Ransom Note Press

Never Kill A Friend is available for purchase in hard cover format and as an ebook.
The story follows Shelley Krieg, an African-American detective for the Washington DC Metro PD as she tries to undo a wrong which sent an innocent teenager to prison.

Hard cover: Amazon US
Kindle: Amazon US
Hard cover: Amazon UK
Kindle: Amazon UK
Barnes and Noble 

Continue reading →

What Do We Mean When We Talk About Race? Final part.

How Can I Tell If My Behavior Was Racist?

• No! It wasn't me! It was the One-Armed Man! (pause, switches voice to that of a gangster) All right, I confess! I did it, ya hear? And I'm glad! Glad, I tell ya! [Jim Carrey cycling through characters as The Mask. The Mask, 1994]

One of the great confounders of justice is that an innocent person claims innocence and a guilty person claims innocence. In cases of murder, those accused most likely know the truth. In the case of an accused racist, does the perpetrator know?

Do We Recognize When We Are Racist?

I've put together several posts  [1], [2], [3], [4] to bring the reader to this juncture. Essentially, the proposition is this:

#1. Most people have a negative opinion of racism.
#2. Most people who are racist don't see themselves as being racist.
#3. Therefore, if people recognized their racist behavior, they would strive to change their behavior.

Along the way, I've made several essential points.

First, race and racism is not only about black and white and Asian. By its definition, race includes nationality and ethnicity among other divisions.

Second, rather than focus on whether a person is a racist (noun), I believe it is best to focus on whether an action or behavior is racist (adjective). This allows consideration of an individual's actions without necessarily having to focus on motive. A sufficient number of racist actions allows you to determine whether a person is racist.

Third, there are identifiable behaviors that are racist. Some of these might seem non-racist to the perpetrator.

From the 1970s television show, HOT L Baltimore:

A cranky old white man is playing checkers with a young black man.

• The old man: You cheated.
• The young man: What?
• The old man: You cheated because you're black.
• The young man (angrily): Say what?
• The old guy: I said you're black. I'm red. You moved the wrong checker!

Was What I Did Racist? 

These Behaviors Are Racist.

#1. Judging a person based on their race rather than as an individual.

Or: Judging people using their race as a negative factor.
Or: Stereotyping a group of people saying they have a flaw in common.

How this expresses itself.

This gets back to the example in the previous post where the store owner declared he would not allow young black men into his shop. There are a lot of stereotypes out there for matching everyone to something bad. When it happens to you, you know it's wrong. When we do it to others, it is equally wrong.

How to fight back against this personality flaw. When encountering a group to whom you may feel prejudice, perform a quick mental check-up to determine the reasons for your emotions and decisions. Recognize the inherent problem in any statement that lumps people together. Treat people as individuals. Don't judge a person until you walk a mile in his shoes.

#1a. Racism by proxy.

Most times, racism is expressed more subtly than: "I'm disgusted by black people." Instead, traits are substituted for people. Between ethnic groups, there are many cultural differences. Quite often, over time, what was seen as bad in another culture becomes widely accepted. Jazz music was once demonized almost as much as hip-hop was twenty years ago.

How this gets expressed.

"I'm disgusted by the thugs who turned the urban landscape into hell." "It's their culture." Inane editorials about clothes, the word "urban" replacing black, condescending concern about black on black violence.

How to fight back against this type of racism. Recognize that your culture is not perfect. Try to distinguish between "not my preference" and that which is truly wrong. Tolerance.

#1b. When insulting someone you insert a racial characteristic or stereotype. 


In response to a questionnaire for a weekly arts newspaper, Carl Paladino, co-chair, New York State Trump for President, provided these responses.

• 1. What would you most like to happen in 2017? Obama catches mad cow disease after being caught having relations with a Herford. [snip]
• 2. What would you like to see go away in 2017? Michelle Obama. I'd like her to return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla.

"I'm certainly not a racist." [Concluding line of Paladino's defense regarding the above remarks.]

#2. Seeing the same things as flaws when they are done by another race.

This is an extension of a basic human fault. When someone else does the same thing I do, they are wrong. I know my motives that drive me to a particular action. In others, I see only the action.

How this expresses itself:

"All those blacks on welfare. Sure I take ridiculous tax breaks, but they're legal."
"I've been on food stamps and welfare, did anybody help me out? No." Actor Craig Nelson.

Years back, an article written by a white person decried a black poet talking about a white conspiracy to destroy black lives. I'm not going to argue whether the black poet's claim has validity. The writer could easily have picked on a thousand delusions in his own culture's view of history and there are conspiracy theories all over. (And some conspiracies are true!)

How to fight back against this type of racism. Keep your side of the aisle clean: if you think someone has a racist view of history, make sure your view of history isn't racist. The statement "Why don't they take responsibility" inherently points away from where responsibility begins.

#3. Whether I like it or not, I have a fear of certain people.

This is difficult to get around. Some people have been hurt or damaged by a member of another race. This can be a white person mugged by a black person. Similarly, those YouTube videos of a black person being mistreated (or worse) by a white police officer bring out a visceral reaction in many who can imagine themselves in the same situation.

I've been mugged three times. Or, rather, it is a little more complicated than that. One was a traditional mugging, one was an attempted mugging (I told them to back off, I didn't have my wallet, and they backed off), and one was a cold-cock, one member of a passing group surprised me with a punch and ran.

For years, when I passed a group of strangers in the night, my adrenaline raced. Even in those instances where I could see fear was ludicrous I still had the urge to run.

How to fight back against this type of racism. Try your best to separate fear from judgment. Treat each situation as an individual. Keep in mind the individual caused the offense and other members of the same race are not to blame. To the extent that there is institutional racism, fight that.

#4. I'm not racist. I have black friends. But. . .

In a previous post, I pointed out that this narrative is a not a dismissal of racism, but is a feature of a certain type of racism.

How to fight back against this type of racism. The bad people are not "over there." Assume that other people of a certain group are similar to the ones you know: we each have lives, hopes and dreams.

#5. I've read this statistic that says. . .

Or: This awful crime was committed by Willie Horton.

The internet now recognizes who you are and will try to feed you articles that agree with sites where you have previously visited and the searches you have made. Websites will cater to your opinions and your prejudices and reinforce them

How to fight back against this type of racism. Recognize when anecdotes and statistics are feeding into your prejudices. If a website passes along phony data or exaggerated anecdotes, avoid that site. Treat each person as individuals. Do not pass along negativity. If you think you know an anecdote, read up on the full story. Sometimes it is as bad as it looked at first glance, most of the time it was exaggerated for effect.

The Lack of Need for Judgment.

Woody Allen has been accused of some awful things. And you know what? I don't need to judge him. If he was on trial and I was on a jury, yes, I would need to. If he was offering to babysit my son, yes. To be clear: I'm not saying he is guilty or innocent, or that he even that he should live under a cloud of maybe, I'm saying judging him would be wasting my time: he is related to me only as someone who makes films I have seen. Judging celebrities does not need to take up a sizeable part of my brain.

But, aren't there those who are definitely guilty? Lots of them. I can judge them and file it away.

We live in a culture of a pecking order. Someone looks down on me, I need to look down on someone. When the mighty fall, we celebrate. Don't play into it.

An exception to the above is for those who do affect our lives, for example, politicians and authorities. Changing the world for the better is the place to direct our energies.

I began this series with an ambition: to identify types of racism and prescribe ways in which to counteract them in ourselves. Within ourselves is a necessary part to affecting change.

These posts became longer that I thought they would and still I feel as though I've only broached the subject. Nevertheless, I've learned a few things along the way. Thanks to all of you who have taken time to read these posts.
-------------


Martin Hill Ortiz is the author of Never Kill A Friend, Ransom Note Press.

Never Kill A Friend, Ransom Note Press

Never Kill A Friend is available for purchase in hard cover format and as an ebook.
The story follows Shelley Krieg, an African-American detective for the Washington DC Metro PD as she tries to undo a wrong which sent an innocent teenager to prison.

Hard cover: Amazon US
Kindle: Amazon US
Hard cover: Amazon UK
Kindle: Amazon UK
Barnes and Noble 

Continue reading →

What Do We Mean When We Talk About Race? Reverse Discrimination

In this series of posts, [1], [2], [3], I have been describing racism and its various forms. In the previous post I spoke about reverse racism. I thought it would be best to add an exercise and graphic to illustrate the point.

A Depiction of Racist Versus Reverse Racist Sentiments: Racelandia.

For this exercise, let's construct a place called Racelandia:

• There are 10,000 people in Racelandia.
• In Racelandia, whites make up 90% of the population and blacks, 10%.
• Reverse racism is racism directed from the minority to the majority: black against white.
• Forward racism is directed from the majority to the minority: white against black.
• We'll call a unit of racism, 1 rc.
• An individual person produces an average of 2 rcs per year*. Some produce none, others much more.
• The average person from each group has an equal degree of racism, i.e., the average white person is as racist against blacks to the same degree the average black person is racist against whites.

From the above, we can calculate.

• 18,000 rcs directed against blacks.
• 2,000 rcs directed against whites.
• 18 rcs directed against the average black person. (18,000 rcs / 1,000 persons)
• 0.18 rcs directed against the average white person. (2,000 rcs / 9,000 persons)

Conclusions from above exercise. Reverse racism exists. It is much smaller in force and effect than "forward" racism.

*Don't get hung up on these numbers. It's a thought exercise which illustrates a point, not any sort of precise quantification.

The numbers in the above exercise, illustrated.

Individual Versus Institutional Racism.

The above exercise illustrates individual racist sentiment and individual action. One of the major forms of racism is based not on individuals, but on institutions. In this case, racist effect is not measured by population, but by power. In 1860, South Carolina was 41% white, 57% black slave, and 1.4% free blacks. The black population had little to no power or rights and the laws reflected the institutional racism of slavery. For example, in South Carolina as in every Southern state, it was illegal to teach a black person (free or slave) to read or write.

Many other and less extreme cases exist. It is still possible to have "minorities" as the majority population, but with little influence. One prime example of this has been the history of women's rights. Although in a slight majority in terms of numbers, in terms of governance, women have been in the minority and many laws have reflected that.

In the final installment in this series I will look at how we can recognize racism inside ourselves. 

Continue reading →

What Do We Mean When We Talk About Race? Part Three.

Continuing With The Various Forms Of Racism.

"As for the immigrants, they are the ones to whom it can be accounted a merit to be Americans. For they have had to take trouble for their citizenship, whereas it has cost the majority nothing at all to be born in the land of civic freedom." Albert Einstein [1].

In the first post I discussed basic definitions surrounding racism. In the second post in this series, I looked at some of the most common forms of racism. Beyond blatant racism, it is racist to:

• Prejudge someone based on race.
• Use the behavior of an individual (or individuals) to judge others in a race.
• Exaggerate our fears of the threats of others.
• To claim that having a friend of a certain race is a defense while being prejudiced against others of that race.
• Select anecdotes to prove a racist point.

I will continue to look at the various forms in which racism expresses itself.

Various Forms of Racism, Part Two.

• Statistics and racism.
•   Selective statistics.
•   False statistics.
•   Exaggerating the meaning of statistics.
• Sins of omission.
• Reverse discrimination.

Why do we fear those whom we fear? I know someone who is afraid of bears. This person has never encountered a bear outside of a zoo and has never lived in an area where bears are prevalent. Other than those who wrestle bears for a living, the rest of us are thousands of times more likely to be killed by a human than a bear. So, why aren't we afraid of humans? Oh, that's right, we are afraid of humans, and that's what I'm writing about.

Statistics and Racism.

Statistics don't lie: people lie. People can lie with words and they can lie with statistics. At their best, statistical processes act like a sieve to wash out the sand and save the gold nuggets.

However, statistics are often wielded like they are pre-packaged and indisputable truths. A few basic tests will allow you to flag statistics that are probably lies. These same tests can be sorted into means by which statistics are misused by racists.

Other websites point out how false conclusions can be packed into statistics. For example, they look at how the average is misleading and how linking two findings together doesn't mean they are related. I'll talk a little bit about these at the end of this section, under the section of good statistical hygiene. However, I find that racists tend to misuse statistics in a much more basic way: they select out statistics that prove their point and ignore the context or statistics that disagree; they exaggerate what the statistics say; and, they just out-and-out invent statistics.

Selective Statistics, or: Statistical Anecdotes.

I ended my previous post by describing racism by anecdote. Similar to this is using selective statistics. This is one of the most common forms of lying with statistics. It is easy to select a single bit of information that misleads or which even contradicts the overall picture.

I have written a fair amount on the decrease in violent crime that has taken place in the United States since its peak in the early 1990s. Overall, the violent crime rate has dropped by approximately 50% with murders down by a similar number.

A popular game among fear-mongers is demonstrating the violent crime rate is going up by grabbing a small bite of the data.

Here are the figures for murder rates in Alabama by year, per 100,000 population:

• 2014, 5.7
• 2015, 7.2

Now, this represents an alarming 26.3% increase. However, if we look at these years in context, we have:

• 2012, 7.1
• 2013, 7.2
• 2014, 5.7
• 2015, 7.2

It is bad that the numbers rose from 2014, however, the bigger picture says that 2014 was unusually low and that the murder rate has stayed steady. Individual numbers that jump around are called blips. Rule one: Do not pay attention to blips. Rule two: whenever the focus of a claim becomes strangely narrow, the person is probably trying to distract you from the bigger picture.

While the murder rate in Alabama could possibly be the stuff of racist comments (Alabama is 33% minority) or demonstrate anti-Southern sentiments, let's look at an example more directly applied to racism.

Trump not only chose anecdotes to support his statement that illegal aliens brought crime, he provided statistics. "Thousands of Americans have been killed by illegal immigrants."

As detailed in this article, Trump gave no time frame and provided examples which included a case of a legal alien who injured but did not kill someone in 1990. Illegal aliens make up about 3.5% of the national population. With approximately 16,000 homicides per year, if this population murdered at an equal rate, this would be about 500 murders per year. Given enough years, the number can total into the thousands.

The states bordering Mexico (California, Arizona, Texas and New Mexico) have all had dramatic decreases in violent crime in murder in the past 25 years, outperforming other areas of the country, some of which have shown increases. California has had the second largest improvement of any state. [detailed here]

It is very common these days to say "urban crime is rising" by pointing to an individual city where crime has gone up. In this case, there is two dimensions to the lie: a slice of time and a slice of geography.

False Statistics.

Those promoting an agenda often simply resort to invented statistics. For Donald Trump, inner city and African-American appear interchangeably (even though blacks in metropolitan areas mostly live in the suburbs).

Similarly, from the second debate, Trump referenced "inner city" on nine occasions. In seven of these he referred to the residents as African-Americans or Latinos.

"But I want to do things that haven't been done, including fixing and making our inner cities better for the African-American citizens that are so great, and for the Latinos, Hispanics, and I look forward to doing it." Donald Trump, October 9, 2016.

 

Murders, 1960-2014, U.S., FBI Uniform Crime Report [source]

Beyond the lie that inner city crime has reached record levels (it has dropped to its lowest numbers in fifty years), Trump has presented invented numbers to state that black crime is rampant. He passed along this graphic that claims that 81% of whites are murdered by blacks, a retweet from WhiteGenocide. This is a wholly invented statistic, a lie and extreme racism. Blacks are the perpetrators in 15% of homicides where the victim is white in the 62% of cases where the perpetrator is found. (About 9% overall.)

A Trump Tweet.

Hysteria around violent crime rates in big cities is a common theme in recent news stories with phony statistics added to support the argument.

This story which ran on the last day of 2015 from Breitbart has both phony statistics and statistics out of context. It points out a 54% homicide increase in Washington, D.C. in 2015 over 2014. This is using a statistical anecdote to contradict a long term trend. The homicide rate in the period 2012 to 2014 homicide rate was the lowest since the 1960s and through December 30th, have dropped approximately 16% for 2016 (162 in 2014, 136 this year). [Numbers here]

The same article goes on to mention a 20% increase in homicides in New York City. The actual number was 5.7%. (It is down 3.8% through 12/25 this year, with totals 333, 352 and 330 (so far) 2014, 2015 and 2016, respectively). [numbers here]

Nevertheless, there will always be a city to pick on where crime has gone up.

How do you defend against the false statistic sort of racism? Not easily. These statistics are often "hit and run," they appear in the middle of a piece, sometimes without supporting background info, sometimes with a phony source (Trump's tweet about homicide rates: there is no Crime Statistics Bureau - San Francisco).

If a person or website puts out these sorts of statistics several times, it is not a coincidence. They have an agenda. Avoid going there.

Statistics without hygiene.

For a statistic to be honest it should compare scrubbed apples to scrubbed apples. The amount of yearly deficit (the annual amount by which governmental spending exceeds income) must be adjusted for inflation. Dollars in 1975 are 22% of dollars in 2016. In terms of financial health, the numbers should be adjusted by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

In 1985 there were 89 murders in the city of Phoenix. In 2015 there were 113. This represents a 27.0% increase. The population in 1985 was 890,746. In 2015, it was 1,563,025, a 75.5% increase. Consequently, the murder rate fell by 27.7%. [Uniform Crime Report, FBI, derived from their historical table for Phoenix]

Not adjusting for this is a lie. Expect a minimum amount of hygiene with the statistics. Otherwise, someone is selling you a lie.

Exaggerating the meaning of statistics.

As mentioned in a previous post, the exaggeration of fear leads to prejudice. Even when a statistic does elucidate a fact accurately, it is necessary to place that fact in relation to others.

This story at US News & World Report discusses some of the actual differences in race crimes. Do African-Americans have a higher crime rate than whites in America? Yes. And from an honest starting point accounting for such factors as poverty, crime rates can be discussed.

And, when it's all said and done, they still don't support racism; they don't support danger from some random individual of another race (fear of others). In America, 41.7% of murders are performed by family and those you know, 45.4% of unknown relation, and 12.8% by strangers. Not a mysterious stranger on which we project our fears. (3.3 times more likely to be murdered by someone you know than by a stranger [Source].

Sins of Omission.

That car that was stolen in Washington, DC which I spoke about in the previous post. After it was found I got a call to pick it up at an Anacostia tow-yard. When I got there, there was another individual waiting to pick up his car, a young black man. We were not far different in age, he was dressed a little better than me. Before claiming his car he was asked for his driver's license for ID. He (foolishly) didn't bring it and was told he'd have to return. That was reasonable. I wasn't asked for an ID.

I tell this story because for me, it was an instance in which discrimination was both subtle and vivid.

Reverse Discrimination.

What is reverse discrimination? I started this process by going to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary online.

Reverse discrimination: discrimination against whites or males (as in employment or education).

(In England, the term reverse discrimination refers to discriminating in favor of a minority rather than against a set of individuals.)

After having twice being rejected for admission at the University of California Davis Medical School, Allan Bakke sued the school citing the fact that school had set aside 16 openings (out of 100) to minorities and that this practice discriminated against him for being white. In 1978, the Supreme Court sided with him, saying that although schools could use race as a consideration in admission, they could not create specific numbers (quotas or set-asides). (California was one-third minority by population in 1980. Being a state-run medical virtually all admissions would be in-state. Sixteen out of one-hundred admissions set aside still underrepresented the state demographics.)

At that time, I was a pre-med undergraduate student. An alumnus, a former pre-med student, came visiting our campus on an official recruiting visit promoting the medical school where he'd been spent his first year. He declared that by considering his school you didn't have to worry about reverse discrimination: only one student out of two hundred was a minority. I raised my hand and asked how did they manage to keep it down to a single student without forward discrimination? I was told the school was rural and minorities prefer urban environments. (Insulting on several levels and ludicrous: there is no medical school applicant who is going to turn down acceptance solely because a school is rural.)

These were my introductions to the concept of reverse discrimination and affirmative action. From early on, it seemed to me to be a numbers game. Bakke applied for admissions where there were 100 spots. Sixteen were set aside for minorities. That meant he definitely didn't score in the top 84. Let's make an ungenerous assumption (ungenerous against the minority applicants): only half of the sixteen would have been accepted by the standards of the top 84. That leaves Bakke among or below the bottom eight (possibly being below the bottom eight because there is little reason to believe that he had exactly the 101st best application in both times he applied). In other words, he didn't have that impressive an application.

There are deeper issues here. Why is minority used as a near synonym of disadvantaged? Yes, there are other forms of being disadvantaged which are not adequately addressed. Yes, there are good numbers of minorities who come from a background of financial well-being. Yes, there are a good number of white people who come from poverty. None of these change the fact: being a minority is a disadvantage.

Forward discrimination exists and is a potent force. More on this below, but an example here. There have been many studies that have shown discrimination against minorities. Typical of these is a résumé sent out with an "African-American sounding" name (e.g. Jamal and Lakisha) or a "white sounding" name (e.g. Greg and Emily). The qualifications are identical, the names are switched. The same application got 50% more requests for interviews for the "white-sounding" names.

In summary, I believe reverse discrimination exists. However, overall, it is a small arrow pointing in the opposite direction of the huge arrow that is discrimination.

Reverse Discrimination as Racism Against the Majority.

Reverse discrimination is also used to describe racism directed from a minority against the majority. Of course, such racism exists. Minorities are not saints who are immune from fear or hatred. Is there less racism from minorities? One argument is that being a minority "sensitizes" an individual to prejudice. Einstein, whom I have quoted at the beginning of these posts, mentioned this. He described how, being Jewish, having just escaped from Nazi Germany, he felt the plight of the African-American. A second argument is that if one is a minority in an environment where most of the population is majority, then there is less fear of the other. Many "others" are among the people you know. A third argument is that the media for a long time has provided many idealized examples of whites. They are Brad Pitt, Bruce Willis, Chris Evans, stars who sometimes work with a black sidekick. Yes, more recently there are positive role models for blacks in media. [Completely by coincidence and because I have a nine-year-old son and didn't personally choose the station, on the television while writing this are several really painful black stereotypes being played for laughs].

In contrast to reverse discrimination, "forward" discrimination has the force of a majority. Forward discrimination also shapes public attitude and public policy in the way that a majority can. The numbers behind this are explored in this post..

In summary, this section has looked at how statistics can be used selectively to promote racist statements, looked at racism by omission, and the matters of reverse discrimination in terms of affirmative action and in racism directed toward the majority.

The notion of reverse discrimination as a numbers game is further explored in the coming post.

In the final section I hope to put this together to answer the questions: Is what I did racist? Is there a way to reduce prejudging on my part?

[1] Albert Einstein as cited in Einstein on Race and Racism. Fred Jerome and Roger Taylor, Rutgers University Press.
-------------


Martin Hill Ortiz is the author of Never Kill A Friend, Ransom Note Press.

Never Kill A Friend, Ransom Note Press

Never Kill A Friend is available for purchase in hard cover format and as an ebook.
The story follows Shelley Krieg, an African-American detective for the Washington DC Metro PD as she tries to undo a wrong which sent an innocent teenager to prison.

Hard cover: Amazon US
Kindle: Amazon US
Hard cover: Amazon UK
Kindle: Amazon UK
Barnes and Noble 

Continue reading →

What Do We Mean When We Talk About Race?

In my previous entries (1), (2), (3), I've talked about white supremacy and some of its fallacies. In these next several posts, I will talk about racism: what it is, how to recognize it, and how to recognize it in ourselves.

First, unfortunately, I have the tedious task of laying the groundwork. I hope to make the subsequent entries more interesting. Let's look at the terms: race, racism, racist, prejudice and discrimination.

What Do We Mean When We Talk About Race?

"Race prejudice has unfortunately become an American tradition which is uncritically handed down from one generation to the next. The only remedies are enlightenment and education." Albert Einstein [1].

"Donald Trump is for Americans first. ... And Mexico, Mexicans, that's not a race. You’re not racist if you don't like Mexicans. They're from a nation." Ed Martin, former head of the Missouri Republican Party [2].

The words race, racism and racist get tossed around and too few seem to recognize what they mean. This confusion comes in part because, as with most words, they have multiple meanings and multiple layers. These include dictionary definitions and historical meanings.

For the purposes of this essay, these three definitions from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary apply to race (noun) [3].

• a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock
• a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics.
• a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits

So, race is not only a major subdivision of the human species such as black or white (definition 3), it is used to refer to people of a nation (definition 1) or with shared interests (such as religion, definition 2).

Using pseudoscience or genetics are more recent approaches to defining race, therefore, historically, the above definitions were once roughly the same: the categories of humankind were nation, ethnicity and culture. Nations were often described as separate races to fit prejudices.

There was (is) the notion of the Irish race and Irish racism.

"[Of Ireland:] I am haunted by the human chimpanzees I saw along that hundred miles of horrible country...to see white chimpanzees is dreadful; if they were black one would not see it so much, but their skins, except where tanned by exposure, are as white as ours."
—Cambridge historian Charles Kingsley, 1860 (more on this topic can be found at reference 4.)

In summary, race can be any of a variety of groups: people are described at times by nation, ethnicity, culture, or religion. In some cases and sometimes for purposes of discrimination, such as Jews and Mormons, religion and race have been used interchangeably.

Racism, Prejudice and Discrimination.

Again, Merriam-Webster.

Racism: racial prejudice or discrimination [5].


This is somewhat helpful, but introduces two more critical terms: prejudice and discrimination.

Prejudice.

Merriam-Webster has several overlapping definitions of prejudice. Here are two.

• preconceived judgment or opinion.
• an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.

These describe thought processes: judgment, opinion, and attitude.

Discrimination (M-W).

• the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually 
• prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment

Put together, not surprisingly, racism is prejudging a someone of a different race (a thought process) or discriminating against the person (most commonly, an act).


Racist

This leaves one more definition on my list: racist.

Merriam-Webster fails here, saying only that it is derived from racism. The Oxford Dictionary online presents two significant meanings. The first of these is an adjective.

racist, adj. Showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.

The second is a noun.

racist, noun. A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

The first problem is that these include the words "feels" and "believes." Short of mind reading, or having the person inform us (truthfully), we don't know what a person feels or believes.

"Shows" discrimination or prejudice is easier to judge. However, even when the person performs a seemingly racist action, there are some potential problems. A person may be rude to everyone. Alternatively, the person may be insensitive toward the member of a particular race without that insensitivity being race-based. And finally, there are, on occasion, genuine misunderstandings, particularly those between cultures unfamiliar with each other. Beyond this, of course, is the degree of racism displayed, mild is more easily misattributed than flagrant. I'll talk about the different forms of racism in the coming posts.

I'd like to propose this rule for racist as an adjective. It doesn't matter whether you can prove intent. In the case of someone who is rude to everyone, I would put that person in the category of "racist-plus." In the second and third examples where insensitivity is misattributed to racism or where a misunderstanding occurs, these are rare enough so that, for an innocent person, a single incident can be shrugged off (assuming that it was not particularly flagrant or hostile), and multiple incidents fall beyond the realm of coincidence: they demonstrate a pattern of racism.

The second problem is for the noun: how often does a person have to commit racist acts before they are a racist? Once? Twice? Regularly? To some extant, there is a "I know it when I see it" factor here.

Again, I'm going to make a radical suggestion. Rather than worrying about whether a person is a racist, look at whether they perform racist acts. If they perform racist acts, they are functioning as a racist, even though the true intent or how hardcore a racist that person is, may be difficult to determine.

My ultimate goal is this. To construct a means by which we (myself included) can examine ourselves and answer the question: Is what I did racist?

Coming up next: the different forms of racism.

Citations and notes.


[1] Albert Einstein. Interview the Cheyney Record, October, 1948 as cited in Einstein on Race and Racism.
[2] Ed Martin, as quoted in St. Louis' Riverfront Times, August 30, 2016.
[3] The Oxford Dictionary online presents this sentence example along with its definition of race:
A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group.
'we Scots were a bloodthirsty race then'

[4] As cited in Wikipedia.
[5] The Oxford Dictionary has a more complete definition of racism. "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
[6] The four relevant definitions of prejudice at Merriam-Webster.

• preconceived judgment or opinion
• an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
• an instance of such judgment or opinion 
• an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

A couple of other relevant definitions moved here to speed along the above discussion which is already definition heavy.

bigot: (noun)
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. (The definition of bigotry doesn't add much. It is ""the state of mind of a bigot" or "acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot.")


intolerant: (adjective)
unable or unwilling to endure
unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters
unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights

--------------
Martin Hill Ortiz is the author of Never Kill A Friend, Ransom Note Press.

Never Kill A Friend, Ransom Note Press

Never Kill A Friend is available for purchase in hard cover format and as an ebook.
The story follows Shelley Krieg, an African-American detective for the Washington DC Metro PD as she tries to undo a wrong which sent an innocent teenager to prison.

Hard cover: Amazon US
Kindle: Amazon US
Hard cover: Amazon UK
Kindle: Amazon UK
Barnes and Noble 

Continue reading →

The Bell Stops Here. God, Democracy, Evolution, Human Migration and Prehistory.

I have dedicated these several posts to examining the fallacies of the white supremacist's creed. I believe this is an important effort because a superficial look at questions of race cause some to adopt toxic behaviors and promote toxic public policies.

In the first entry, I described how geography and climate combine to define where knowledge accumulates. This knowledge led to the technological advancement of civilization occurring more rapidly in some places than others.

In the second entry, the topics of genetics, intelligence and race were introduced. Intelligence is complex and is represented by a variety of genes. Race has little meaning in the context of genetics.

In this entry, I will look at whether race can genetically define intelligence. First, however, one advantage of the transition between posts is that it allows me to take a necessary diversion.

Genes and Humans and God.

Until the late eighteenth century, the predominant theory of the differences among groups of people was: God ordained it. This justified the birthright of kings and aristocracy, the birthwrong of those in the lower classes, and the enslavement of those "others."

Among some, this is still an explicit or implicit belief. Halley's Bible Handbook, a guide to the Bible, which has sold over five million copies included up until in the late 1990s, the story of how Noah had cursed black people to live a life of subjugation.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, two major assaults came to the theory that God had ordained the rulers and the ruled. The first was that democracy took hold as both a philosophy and as a practice. The people, not the king, knew what was better for the people. The founding fathers of America kicked King George's ass, not only on the battlefield, but intellectually. Simón Bolívar one-upped Washington by winning independence for several nations while at the same time freeing their slaves.

The second challenge came in the mid-19th century: Darwin detailed the elements of evolution. Evolution not only impacted science but profoundly changed philosophy and how people saw the world. The meaning of evolution varied according to people's viewpoints. Those who believed in democracy over aristocracy saw evolution as a validation of merit, those who performed better succeeded. Some saw evolution as not only an assault on King, but on God. Beyond the notion of whether God created the whole diversity of life at the time of Genesis, churches had hierarchies who claimed that God had decided such matters as that only men could become priests (and bishops and popes).

Evolution sparked revolution. If people should be allowed to succeed on merit, then why shouldn't women be evaluated according to their abilities? If individuals should be allowed to succeed or fail, why not open universities to women and to all races?

In contrast, others interpreted evolution in favor of the empire. Those believing in the subjugation of races and nations saw those who had not succeeded as being inferior and those who had succeeded as superior. Now, "God ordained it" did not need to be their battle cry: science ordained it. With the 20th century, evolution, genes and intelligence theories, the supremacists had new elements needed to decorate their hatred.

Neither evolution nor God dictate any such conclusions. Those seeking to justify their bigotry will claim any and everything validates their beliefs, whether it be The Sermon on the Mount, evolution or their latest fart.

Survival of the fittest? I'm fond of saying that if evolution allowed only the strongest to survive, the kiwi bird would have disappeared long ago. (For those who aren't familiar, the kiwi is what would happen if you made one of those bobbing sippy bird toys out of pipe cleaners and a potato.)

Let's look at survival of the strongest in another light. Eugenicists are people who worry that weak genes are infiltrating humankind. A woman has type-1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes, a genetically heritable trait. That woman can take insulin and survive and have a productive life. Why? Because mankind has the ability and compassion to discover the need for insulin and produce that insulin. Evolution is not about whether that woman would survive for long if shipwrecked on a desert island. Not many of us would, and of those who did, half would start talking to volleyballs. Humans have the ability to modify their surroundings and their lives in order to live and thrive.

In Norway, it gets very cold, especially in the winter. Naked humans do not have the genes for surviving the cold outdoors. So a long time ago humans invented warm clothing. Humans invented shelter. Genes have provided us with the ability to adapt, so we adapt. People who use clothing and houses are no different from the woman who uses insulin, the latter being a more recent invention. Both enhance their lives and survive using things someone else invented.

Back to Race and Genes and Intelligence.

When I ended the last post, I mentioned that race has relatively little meaning genetically, but that it does have some meaning. Is it possible that intelligence might cluster with race?

Let's state this as a theory.

There exists a genetic difference among the intelligence of people that is defined or described by race.

Problem #1. The Polygenic Nature of Intelligence.

The first problem is that, as previously described, intelligence is extremely multi-faceted. Each aspect is a trait. With so many different traits, we can say that intelligence is polygenic, mapped on different genes. It is unlikely that all the genes should exist on the same chromosome.

As mentioned in the previous post, inheriting genes is, to some extent, like rolling dice. Each chromosome is a dice being rolled. With all of the dice throws that take place from generation to generation among large groups of people, the intelligences will balance out.

But evolution is not only dice throws: evolution involves selection. Could there have been selective pressures that required more intelligent people in one set to survive?

Problem #2. If selection pressures aided in the survival of one set of intelligent humans over another, when did this happen? And how could it have happened genetically?

Let's look at the migration of humans throughout the world.

Timeline of Human Migration.

• 200,000 years ago. Homo sapiens appear, Southern Africa.
• About 80,000 to 60,000 years ago. Humans migrate out of Africa into the Middle East and spread across Asia.
• About 70,000 years ago. Evidence suggests 3,000 to 10,000 humans.
• About 45,000 years ago, Humans moved to New Guinea and on to Australia.
• About 40,000 years ago, Homo sapiens make it to Europe.
• About 14,000 years ago, Humans migrate into North America.
• (All times are approximate and argued, but not so much as to make these numbers meaningless)

Here we have a major problem. Races, to the extent that they exist genetically, diverged tens of thousands of years ago. If one group was smarter than the other, why did it take thousands to tens of thousands of years for one group to contrive the most basic of inventions? And how is it that the most basic of inventions appeared in diverse places? (Table below.)

How is it even possible to have a polygenic trait spread over a sizeable group, such as a founding population? Within a group, a small number of some who are smarter seems within the realm of possibility, but how does this help the "average" intelligence? Genes are handed down, not passed around.

This gets back to one of the fundamental principles put forth in the first post, and one that has the most and most obvious evidence to support it: you don't have to invent something if you acquire it. We can live in skyscrapers, talk on cell phones, visit the internet not because we are smarter than those people 150 years ago, but because we adopt and assimilate inventions into our lives. Acquired knowledge is good enough.

How does this relate to the perils of cave living? If a group of cave dwellers is being challenged by a particular nasty winter, if smarts are needed to survive, they don't need the smarts of the group as a whole. Not everyone invented a better way of sheltering their fires. If one person did and the others adopted it, that was enough. And that one person who may have been bright, did next to nothing to change the gene pool.

Here is a table listing the major inventions of the last 200,000 years and their locations, up to the invention of writing. I left out a few that were repetitive, e.g., the domestication of yet another animal.

Prehistoric Inventions.

• About 170,000 years ago, Evidence of clothing, Southern Africa.
• About 63,000 years ago, Bow and arrow invented, Southern Africa.
• About 42,000 years ago, Deep sea fishing, New Guinea.
• About 40,000 years ago, Cave art, Spain and New Guinea.
• About 36,000 years ago, Weaving, Turkey.
• About 28,000 years ago, Clay figures, Czechoslovakia.
• About 20,000 years ago, Clay pottery, China (and we still call dishes china!)
• About 15,000 years ago (or earlier), Humans domesticate dogs, first clear evidence, Germany.
• About 11,000 years ago, Agriculture, Middle East, Eastern Mediterranean, China.
• Agriculture developed along a band of latitude stretching from China (rice, e.g.); to the Mediterranean (e.g., wheat, barley).
• About 11,000 years ago, Domestication of sheep, Mesopotamia.
• About 11,000 years ago, First villages, Middle East.
• About 8,700 years ago, Lead smelting, Turkey.
• About 6,500 years ago, Copper smelting, Serbia.
• About 5,500 years ago, The Wheeled Vehicle, uncertain as to Central Europe, Southern Russian or Middle East.
• About 5,200 years ago. Writing is invented, Middle East.
• *Although I talk about Middle East and Mesopotamia, the current popular phrasing is the Levant region which includes the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean.

In the first post, I wrote about historical progress through knowledge. When you had writing, knowledge was made solid and passed along and things moved forward at a relative quick pace. The invention of writing is the official definition of the beginning of history versus prehistory. So, what drove prehistorical progress? In this case, climate superseded geography.

Okay, climate is, in a sense, applied geography. What do I mean by that? First of all, obviously, our planet is very cold in the Arctic and Antarctic and warm in the middle. Beyond this, the location of deserts and jungles are determined by rainfall and latitude, the former of which is defined by bodies of water and mountain ranges. The latter is location.

It might surprise some to learn that we are currently in an Ice Age. This is not a comment on global warming, nor is it a comment on the number of sequels the movie Ice Age has generated,  it's just that the time when  the world was very cold from 110,000 years until approximately 10,000 years ago was a "glacial period" and part of the current Ice Age which began about 2.5 million years ago. Okay, with that bit of trivia out of the way, let's have one more table. This will list the major climate events of the last 200,000 years.

Climate Events of Human Pre-History.

• 110,000 years ago. Glacial period began. Why this is significant. Glaciers covered Northern Europe. Europe and Northern Asia remained relatively inhospitable. Glaciers prevented transit across Siberia to Americas.
• 25,000 years ago, Peak glaciation. After this point the glaciers recede.
• 15,000 years ago, With the relative warming, the Sahara is moist and habitable.
• 15,000 years ago. With the relative warming, humans can cross from Siberia to the Americas.
• 10,000 years ago, Major glaciation has disappeared.
• 8,200 years ago, the collapse of the Laurentide ice shelf in North America leads to drier conditions in Mesopotamia. This concentrates the population around the Fertile Delta.

Climate and geography explain why Mesopotamia area and the Levant region in general became the cradle of civilization. With the desert at either side and the fertile land in the middle, agriculture became a better idea than hunting and gathering. It is widely accepted that agriculture drove human progress for millennia.

In summary:

• For much of history, God was considered the power behind class divisions.
• When democracy and evolution took hold as ideas, two thought-lines diverged. One group said that evolution proves people should be judged by their merit. The other group said evolution proves that some had less merit.
• It is virtually impossible for a polygenic trait to cluster in what are called races.
• The migration of humans is inconsistent with the theory that one race is smarter than the other and does not support genetic differences in intelligence.
• The pre-historic progress of humans was not defined by race but was defined by climate and geography.

Up next: What do we mean we talk about race?
--------------
Martin Hill Ortiz is the author of Never Kill A Friend, Ransom Note Press.

Never Kill A Friend, Ransom Note Press

Never Kill A Friend is available for purchase in hard cover format and as an ebook.
The story follows Shelley Krieg, an African-American detective for the Washington DC Metro PD as she tries to undo a wrong which sent an innocent teenager to prison.

Hard cover: Amazon US
Kindle: Amazon US
Hard cover: Amazon UK
Kindle: Amazon UK
Barnes and Noble 

Continue reading →

The Bell Stops Here: Genetics, Intelligence and Race

What we have thus far.

In my previous post, while addressing the myth of white supremacy, I discussed at length how geography and climate affect the advancement of civilization.

• The acquisition, storage and maintenance of knowledge defines the advancement of civilization.
• The ability to acquire, store and maintain knowledge is most determined by geography and climate.
• The places where civilization advanced are those that had the optimal geography and climate.

Here I will begin to tackle the alternative theory, the one embraced by white supremacists: superior genes have provided certain races with more intelligence thus advancing those races.

Genes and Intelligence.

My contentions combine information from several different subjects: genetics, intelligence, race, evolution, prehistory, history, geography and climate. I am not following someone else's template to put this together, but rather weaving the various threads on my own and trying not to end up with an ugly Christmas sweater. After trying for a too-ambitious presentation which would have had this a very lengthy post, I decided to divide up this post into more modest-sized chunks, even though that means critical pieces will be presented later. In this post, I hope to add to the picture the basics of genetics, intelligence and race.

An Introduction to Genetics.

I liken genetics to the study of atomic physics. The theory of atoms comprising the particulate building blocks of matter goes back to ancient Greece and India, although early theories thought of every material having their own atom, i.e., wine was composed of wine atoms. The idea that only a certain number of elements mixed and matched to make molecules and chemicals was championed by Dalton at the beginning of the 19th century. It was only at the beginning of 20th century that we determined that atoms were made up of protons, neutrons and electrons, a microscopic solar system which is still easy to wrap the mind around. But then these were found to be made up of six types of quarks, six types of leptons, twelve regular bosons, and the Higg's boson. Waves are particles and particles are waves. Uncertainty is the ruling principle. Atomic physics is complicated.

Genetics is the same. Many people have a basic concept of Mendelian genetics: the genes from one parent mix with the genes of another and the child has a mix of traits. For centuries breeding has told us that if you put together a schnauzer with a Chihuahua you get a Chi-schnauzer. Many people know that genes are written out in something called DNA, a chemical that looks like a spiral staircase.

In reality: genetics is complicated. DNA doesn't look like a spiral staircase. It exists all bunched up with parts of it being shut down by proteins or chemically modified. There are jumping genes, silent genes, silenced genes, epigenetic events, transposed sections, promoters, etc.

The increasing complexity of DNA conformation from double-helix to chromosome.

And even when DNA is expressed, the products can be bound up with hairpins, blocked by antisense coding, and have to overcome molecules which attack them.

Rule #1 of genetics: Anyone who claims genetics is simple is lying.

Rule #2: Because genetics is not simple it is easy to weave jargon around their pet theories. These people will tell you the others are liars. Don't trust them.

Rule #2a: Don't trust me.

Seriously. Maintain a degree of skepticism toward anyone claiming to be expert. Test everything. Hold fast to what is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21) Being able to separate the real from the bullshit is a necessary survival skill, more so these days with the internet tailoring information to feed biases.

A Brief Genetics Glossary.

I have a habit of talking over some people's heads, even when I think I am being clear. So that everyone is on the same page, here is a brief glossary of the genetic terms I'll use.

Trait: Any feature of an individual, whether it be physical, functional, or mental.
Heritable: Something that can be passed from parents to child or, in the bigger picture, from ancestors to descendants. A tall parent can have tall children. A parent who loses a leg in a car accident will not have a child who is missing a leg.
Gene: A single heritable trait. Sometime the word is used imprecisely to refer to a chromosome (below).
Genes: Collectively, all traits that can be inherited.
DNA: This is the chemical that makes up the genes. Your DNA can be thought of as a long series of letters that spell out the blueprint that is you. In humans, 3 billion letters long. In book form, this would be about equal to 5,000 books with 100,000 words of six letters apiece, a decent-sized library.
Chromosomes: Genes are bundled into long strands of DNA called chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs of these, one member of each pair is received from each parent.
Evolution: The science of diversity within species and between species.

Before I go on to genes and intelligence, let's look at intelligence.

An Introduction to Intelligence.

One reason I brought up the analogy of atomic physics is that a parallel argument can also be made in regards to the second topic: intelligence.

For centuries, intelligence was not quantified, but rather expressed as a relative term: one person versus another, one group versus another. The proof of intelligence was individual mental skills, either basic (e.g., the ability to read) or advanced (e.g., the ability to compose abstract arguments or music or invent), or group skills (e.g., the degree of civilization). The last of these three was often retrofitted to define the ruling class and the ruled.

Near the beginning of the 20th Century, when humans finally got around to quantifying individual intelligence they came up with a single number: IQ. (Intelligence Quotient). Seriously. So-called intelligent people put forth that an individual's intelligence could be summarized as a single point on a line. Intelligence had no breadth, no width, no height, no shading.

Around 1940, intelligence was given two forms. Over the course of the 1990s, the modern theory developed and there were eight broad abilities each with their own bundle of narrow abilities. Linguistic intelligence is not necessarily mathematical intelligence, etc. This is the theory of Howard Gardner. Others have focused on the dimensions of intelligence, by analogy, depth being acquired knowledge, width being ability to process the knowledge, and length being editing, imagining, etc.

So how does one go about determining who is more intelligent given multiple forms of intelligence? Do you average them up? Why? Why should each be treated as an equal part to overall intelligence? Do you determine that some forms are more important than others? Which? Don't some of them overlap? Are these seventy forms of intelligence even the last word?

Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences, another and influential way of dividing up intelligence

Let me add a few more aspects of intelligence. I once had a boss who was intelligent. He had a PhD and at times he could give brilliant, thought-provoking presentations. The problem was he had the emotional control of a two-year-old and this served to dim any amount of brightness and it sabotaged any intelligent output. When confronted with a personal error, he would insist on a conspiracy. He interpreted the most benign of statements as a personal attack. Having determined the conspiracy, he would rewrite his own work and dismiss those of his employees. In summary, he was a self-destructive buffoon. Intelligence has an emotional component.

In a different line, numerous studies have shown that child nutrition is linked to educational performance. In other studies, in third world countries where intestinal worms can lead to anemia, eradicating this parasite led to an increase in IQ. These findings makes instinctive sense: low energy and trouble concentrating equal low intellectual performance.

Energy level and ability to concentrate are also related to hormones. Too little thyroid or too much glucocorticoids can dull one's intelligence (or dull brain development). This is not only need to be seen as a disease condition in life, but could be related to the inherited levels.

Too little sleep can make a person dull. Beyond environmental or lifestyle causes, this could be the result of a variety of heritable factors, such as anatomical obstacles which lead to sleep apnea.

I have taken two formal IQ exams as an adult. I don't respect these tests enough to present the results, but I will say on the two days they were 20 points apart. That much, I believe. There are days when I'm smarter than others.

Low blood sugar, too much sugar, anemia, too little sleep, emotional control. Taken together, I'd like to propose the obvious: on top of all of the various forms of intelligence, intelligence has a dimmer switch. In the right circumstances it can be put on high or low.

Intelligence and Genetics: What We Have Thus Far.

Adding the above to the discussion of genetics, let's define two more terms.

Polygenic traits: Features of an individual that can be mapped to different genes.

Intelligence, with its many forms and influencers, is a polygenic trait. It appears on different genes and, because it has so many components, it is likely spread out over several chromosomes.

What does this mean when it comes to inheriting intelligence? This is a bit like Yahtzee. Yahtzee is a game where you role five dice. Even if your first role is a six, there is no guarantee you will have a high total, the numbers tend to balance out. Another way of putting this (for those who have no experience with Yahtzee), is saying that intelligence is like the lottery. Not that 1 in 10 million lottery, more like the Pick 3. Luck happens, but luck cannot be reliably counted on.

The results of this can be often seen historically. Although there have been geniuses who have had children of equal genius, there are many more with children of ordinary accomplishments.

Up to this point, I have not delved much into environment and intelligence. How much of intelligence is genetic and how much is the environment you grow up in? No one has the answer (or rather, everyone has a different answer). I've seen the number 50/50 just because people like to compromise and the reason why that number is chosen is because the person is making a statement that in the absence of a rigorously defined number, both should be considered equally. In the absence of a definitive answer, I guess that's an okay, although not precise way of looking at it.

I've seen many in favor of gene theories toss out numbers like 90% genes, 10% environmental. I look at these with suspicion because of the complexity of intelligence and how that can't be a single number. At least the 50/50 people admit that it isn't scientific.


There are those who believe they can translate "divided twins studies" into genetic versus environmental influences. Identical twins have the exact same genes. Those identical twins who are divided at birth and adopted by two different families in theory would provide a perfect opportunity to look at to what degree specific traits are inherited and to what degree they are environmental. They do provide some insight with the following limitations: the pregnancy environment was the same for both children; intelligence, being many things, it ends up with a lot of things to study and compare; epigenetic events (described below) which are both environmental and genetic; biases that can affect intelligence assessment (if both have dark skin, they may be treated with the same biases in intelligent assessment, in upbringing, or in teaching). In regards to the last of these, a world prejudice, genes can define environment and interactions.

There is another way in which environment and genes are linked. People inherit not only those genes that shout out their traits, they inherit genes that only speak up in the proper circumstances. This leads up to the next definition.

Epigenetic events: DNA is not only written down and passed down from parent to child, DNA can be turned on or off. If a gene is kept silent, it is as good as not being there. For example, without the person having the proper nutrition a gene might not be expressed.

To me, this is somewhat comforting. We not only inherit traits, we inherit potential.

In summary, X percentage of intelligence is genes; Y percentage is environment.  Even when saying intelligence is in the genes, it is not the same as saying intelligence is passed along: there is a mix and match of a various clusters of intelligence. As with anything you get from your parents, you get a little of this and a little of that.

On to the next subject.

Race and Genetics.

Hoo-boy. Where to start and more important how to limit a discussion about race? Something must be said about race, because the supremacy in white supremacy has an adjective in front of it. I'll keep it short, because, although the internet is free and you may think this is all I do, my time is not infinite.

Perhaps this sums up genetic research into race the best: ". . .racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance. . ." Richard Lewontin as quoted in Race Finished. What does this really mean? As described in the link, the overwhelming amount of differences between people are differences within individuals and not between what are called racial groups (about a 10-fold difference in favor of individuals). By lumping people together as groups, we miss out on 80-90% of who that person is. By analogy, race is noise; individual people are the signals. To rely on noise to get the message, we lose the message.

Wait a minute. Not much is defined by race? That's not nothing. And skin color, eye color, hair color, well several things at least, if not absolutely proscribed, do tend to strongly cluster in what are commonly called races. Why not intelligence?

I'll continue this in the next installment.

In summary:

• Genetics is complicated.
• Intelligence is complicated.
• Intelligence is many things and polygenic.
• It is difficult to reliably inherit intelligence.
• In terms of genetics, race does not mean a lot.

In my upcoming post I will look at how several diverse topics apply to this discourse: God, Democracy, Evolution, The Migration of Humans and Prehistory.

--------------
Martin Hill Ortiz is the author of Never Kill A Friend, Ransom Note Press.

Never Kill A Friend, Ransom Note Press

Never Kill A Friend is available for purchase in hard cover format and as an ebook.
The story follows Shelley Krieg, an African-American detective for the Washington DC Metro PD as she tries to undo a wrong which sent an innocent teenager to prison.

Hard cover: Amazon US
Kindle: Amazon US
Hard cover: Amazon UK
Kindle: Amazon UK
Barnes and Noble 

Continue reading →