Viking Multiculturalism
The Asatru Folk Assembly, which invoked Odin in a ceremony conducted over the 'Kennewick Man' skeleton, makes much play of its belief in the rights of indigenous peoples. Parts of its Web presentation read like the kind of multiculturalist rhetoric that circulates in American universities today; others like the kind of Romantic racist mumbo-jumbo you might imagine German students lapping up in the 1930s.
There's no contradiction here. Multiculturalism, or at least those tendencies in it that emphasise the obstacles differences are said to place between groups, is the successor to Romanticism. Asatru may not have been quite what Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein had in mind when they coined the term "conservative multiculturalism", but it fits their bill.
The AFA have simply taken to an extreme the misconception that the Kennewick specimen is 'Caucasoid' and therefore of European descent. From what we know of the skeleton, it seems to resemble the handful of other American specimens of similar age, in having a collection of features that does not correspond to any modern population. The nearest living group may be the Ainu, who lived in Japan before the ancestors of modern ethnic Japanese arrived. If studied, Kennewick might undermine misconceptions about race; instead, the controversy is reinforcing them.
Archaeology 50(1) January/February 1997
Race Debate Debacle
The debate on 'Race,
Intelligence and Censorship', which was to have taken place at
Edinburgh's Cyberia Cafe on Thursday 22 August 1996, was cancelled at
the last minute by the cafe proprietor. This followed threats of
violence by the Anti-Nazi League, who objected to the fact that the
'scientific racist' psychology lecturer Chris Brand was to have taken
part, and advice from the police that they could not guarantee to
maintain order.
'Race, Intelligence and Censorship' was supposed to take place during
the Edinburgh Festival. But it was to have been a debate, not the
piece of fringe theatre it turned out to be. The only public
speaking, apart from unsuccessful attempts by Kenan Malik and myself
to make ourselves heard, were a series of demagogic rants from the
Anti-Nazi League pickets surrounding the entrance to the Cyberia
Cafe, congratulating themselves on having prevented the debate from
taking place by threats of violence. When Kenan demanded a go on the
ANL megaphone, he was refused and shouted down.
One particularly low point was a speaker's cheap invocation of
Auschwitz, which he boasted of having visited. I've been there too,
during the communist period, and one of the lessons I learned there
was that of how its meaning - its historical truth, lest there be any
misunderstanding - has been selectively distorted for ideological
reasons. As one of the people supporting the debate called out, the
Nazis also burned books.
The other was when a professional comedian, in town for the Festival,
denounced freedom of expression as "liberal rot". This from a man
whose entire livelihood depends on the existence of an ethos of free
expression - an ethos which many have struggled and suffered for.
A prominent theme of the speeches was the suffering caused by racism.
The thing about this style of argument is that it can be applied to
many issues that matter to us, from a variety of ideological
positions. The violence and cruelty inflicted on women, for example,
could be used to justify the suppression of views considered sexist
or simply anti-feminist. Nationalists could invoke the thousands of
young lives laid down for their country to justify the suppression of
anti-nationalist or anti-chauvinist views. Members of one faith, or
ethnic group, could demand the censorship of another on the grounds
of historical injustice.
We can go down this road, or we can decide that we should stand up
for freedom of expression. It's regrettable, if understandable, that
the Cyberia Cafe bowed to the ANL's threats. If they were prepared to
back the debate in the first place, they should have stuck to their
guns. There's not much point supporting freedom of speech in
cyberspace if you don't support it in the real world too.
The Brand Curve
See chapters 6, 8 and 9 of The Race Gallery
The row over Edinburgh University psychologist Christopher Brand is unfolding with unerring predictability. As detailed in What's Been New, Brand's book on intelligence was withdrawn days before publication by publishers John Wiley, after the Independent on Sunday reported on his eugenic and scientific racist views. Students at Edinburgh University have called for him to be sacked.
There's a blue ribbon on the Intro page of this site. That means I believe in free speech on the Net, which arises from the fact that I believe in free speech everywhere else too. So I think the knee-jerk calls for his suppression are wrong in principle. I also think they're wrong in practice. The Race Gallery is based on the premise that not only can you be against racism and for free expression, but that the best way to counter scientific and related forms of racism is through the free expression of ideas. Denial is not only wrong in principle, but counter-productive. Maybe I'm preaching to the converted. I've been impressed to find that several anti-racist sites have links to racist ones - they believe in knowing one's enemy, and they aren't scared to let people make their own minds up.
But what
do you think? As for
the publishers, it would be helpful if John Wiley were to clarify
exactly what it has discovered to be so "repellent". If they are
referring to policy recommendations or statements of personal opinion
made by Mr Brand, then they are merely left with egg on their faces
for having commissioned and promoted his book. If the material they
find unacceptable consists of statements Brand claims to be
"scientific fact", then they are in the uncomfortable position of
pulling a book on the grounds of its claims to scientific truth. One
thing is for sure: this episode will enter the mythology of modern
race science as another case of censorship and martyrdom. I bet it
made Roger (Mankind
Quarterly) Pearson's
week.
It has also emerged (Independent on Sunday 21 April) that Brand advises West Lothian Police on
IQ. This is a clear illustration of The Race Gallery's argument that race science can be influential
despite public denunciation by the scientific establishment.
The students' knees are not the only ones jerking
up in Edinburgh. Brand himself has been sounding off about "political
correctness". This gives me an opportunity to note that
The Race
Gallery is
guaranteed
free of that
particular cliche.
Bereczkei, r/K, and the Roma
Evolutionary psychologists, the
Scholars Formerly Known As Sociobiologists, are at pains to affirm
that their project is one of determining universal aspects of human
nature. This, they claim, is its alibi against charges that it may
now or in the future contribute to a revival of racial science - it
is concerned with what all peoples have in common, not their
differences. (Similarly, population geneticists like to claim that
their discipline automatically deconstructs racial categories.
Behavior geneticists, on the other hand, don't seem to care.)
My own view is that evolutionary psychology is a newish discipline
whose future directions are not yet clear, and which may come to
include a concern with ethnic difference. Its present embrace of the
quest for human universals is in large part a defence mechanism, like
its change of name, against the kind of political challenge which met
sociobiology in the 1970s. Although it is currently preoccupied with
sexual difference, its theoretical toolkit already contains
techniques which may lend themselves to arguments about group - i.e.
racial - diversity.
J. Philippe Rushton recently sent me a very interesting paper which
provides a striking illustration of my argument. Entitled 'r-Selected
Reproductive Strategies Among Hungarian Gipsies: A Preliminary
Analysis', it draws upon Rushton's ideas about the reproductive
strategies of 'Negroids' (he believes these make black people more
promiscuous and less socially disciplined). The author, Tamas
Bereczkei, of Pecs University in Hungary, acknowledges the help of
the well-known evolutionary thinkers Laura Betzig and Henry
Harpending; the paper
appears in Ethology
and Sociobiology, the journal of the Human Behavior and
Evolution
Society (14: 71-88, 1993).
Bereczkei observes that there are "no sharp ethnical or racist
tensions" between Roma, or Gipsies,and other Hungarians. (However, a
poll published in The European, 27-30 September 1991, found that 79
per cent of Hungarians dislike the Roma.) Gipsies, he says, have a
way of life which "differs drastically from that of Hungarian
non-Gipsies as far as daily customs, dressing, temperament and other
activities are concerned". He gives figures showing that Romani women
are sexually active longer, and give birth more frequently. Nearly
half have another child within a year after the birth of the previous
one, as compared to a quarter of non-Roma. Romani babies are smaller,
and more often premature.
The basic principle of r/K population theory is that there is a
continuum of approaches to reproduction. At the r end, organisms have
many offspring, but devote few resources to looking after them; at
the K end, organisms have few offspring, but take good care of them.
A K strategy is suited to stable conditions; an r one to
unpredictable circumstances. Bereczkei discusses Rushton's
controversial application of r/K theory to human populations, as well
as work by Patricia Draper and Henry Harpending on the
'father-absent' family, which argues that boys in such households
grow up to value sexual conquest rather than paternal responsibility.
Another factor, he adds, is a relatively high rate of criminality.
"An important question is whether high verbality and violence are
characteristic of Gipsy men and promiscuity of Gipsy women, as
products of the father-absent family arrangement."
Being poor in material resources and education, Bereczkei suggests,
the Roma live in unpredictable conditions and so are drawn towards an
r strategy. This could be the product, he says, of a 'conditional
strategy' which 'switches on' under particular environmental
conditions. But he also notes the possibility of innate r-selected
characteristics. Like Ivan Bernasovsky, who studies the Roma in
neighbouring Slovakia, Bereczkei notes the low birthweight of Romani
babies, and suggests that this is a 'racial property'. This,
Bereczkei suggests, is an r characteristic requiring a lower level of
maternal investment in any one child. However, Bernasovsky (whom
Bereczkei does not cite) has found that Romani girls have their first
periods about 8 months later than non-Romani girls. This is
inconsistent with Bereczkei's hypothesis.
Bereczkei ends with a discussion of possible further research, and
the role of biological factors. Many authors, he notes, say Roma have
large families because they don't use contraception and they want the
social security benefits for which children qualify. But wealthier
Roma also appear to have many children, he says, implying that the
trait is racial. "In view of the evolutionary approach," he
concludes, "the Gipsies need more tolerance from the Hungarians ...
Evolutionary biology emphasizes the particularity of the biological
adaptation of the Gipsy people, and I think only the appreciation of
the differences between the two ethnic groups can establish their
social equality and mutual respect". But if one group is said to be
adapted, at a biological level, to conditions of social inferiority,
how will such claims encourage society as a whole to become more
equal, or mutual respect to develop?
As usual in such expositions, talk of tolerance rings hollow. Much of
the discussion of Eastern Europe in The Race Gallery explores the persistence of traditional
racial-scientific ideas discarded elsewhere. It also demonstrates a
reinvention of racial science inspired by contemporary Western
evolutionary thought. Like the rest of the Central European racial
thinking discussed in the book, it is Romantic, in that it asserts
that a people may have an essential character, or Volksgeist. But in
this case, the idiom is modern.
Comments from anthropologist
Alaina Lemon:
-I found it odd that Bereczkei observes "no social tensions" in a
society where Roma live in segregated housing, are massively
unemployed, and where racially motivated attacks occur.
-I also found it odd that B. seems to have included in his sample
only those who clearly have a way of life that "differs drastically"
from that of others in Hungary. Many Roma appear assimilated (whether
or not they speak Romani at home), and could thus be overlooked by a
study that did not include asking people who they identified as. One
wonders if more well-off Roma would not have higher weight
babies.
- "r organisms have many offspring, but devote few resources": Do the
people included in the sample, the r organisms, have ACCESS to many
resources? Just a thought.
- The characteristic "Gypsy promiscuity" is unsupported by the data.
Where is the evidence of this? How has the researcher discerned the
actual sexual activity of the entire group of women in question?
Numerous other researchers of Romani cultures (especially
Vlax-speaking Roma) find, to the contrary, a high value placed on
virginity and female fidelity, and heavy sanctions against
promiscuity.
- My own field experience since 1989 is that many urban or
urban-intellectual Roma in Russia have very small families (1 child).
Semi-urban Roma, merchants or workers, had 2-3. Even in villages, I
never knew any Romani family who had more than 4. Actually, I have
known several Romani families who have waited now up to 2 years for a
first child to be born -- Roma are NOT in fact, all effortlessly
multiplying!
* Henry Harpending reviewed Rushton's book 'Race, Evolution, & Behavior' in Evolutionary Anthropology, 4(3), 1995. While unconvinced by Rushton's use of r/K theory, he describes the book as a "a very important pioneering work". He concludes:"Perhaps there ultimately will be some serious contribution from the traditional smoke-and-mirrors social science treatment of IQ, but for now Rushton's framework is the only game in town". However, it's a two-reviewer treatment, and the second is not exactly as complimentary. George Armelagos dismisses the book as "an encyclopaedia of the latest in racist thought coated with a veneer of science". His conclusion: "What we see in Rushton's response to criticism is the compiling of more and more highly selected data to support his conclusions. I am not impressed with that mass of data and do not see it as science."
Short Notes
Introduction