Race: The Reality of Human Differences

Rating:
Summary: Honesty about race
Review: After years of non-stop media and academia misrepresentations, suppressions, and outright lies about race, it is wonderful to have another famous scientist break free of Politically Correct (PC) conformity and tell the public the truth.

This book was written to refute the highly PC Public Broadcast System (PBS) television program, "Race: The Power of an Illusion." That program laid out 10 points about race, of which the authors say 8 are "facts" that they refute and the remaining two they reject "for economic and ethical reasons." The book carefully and convincingly shows that evolution requires variation and that variation carries across racial groups, even, or especially, in the highly-charged area of IQ. There is even a frank discussion of the most politically incorrect fact anywhere - that the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans is only 70.

I have only two quibbles about this excellent book. First, they make this fascinating statement, "As we have shown, the morphological differences between human races can exceed those found between subspecies [i.e., races] or even species of our nearest relatives, the chimps and gorillas, and other nondomesticated animals." In particular, the racial distance between the common chimpanzee and the bonobo chimpanzee is 14.6%, which exceeds the racial distance between some human races. An explanation of why the two chimpanzees groups are different species but the human groups are only different races seems to be needed here, but is not supplied.

My second quibble is that the authors accept the Out-of-Africa theory of human origins based on DNA, mtDNA, and Y chromosome data. While they do show how that data supports Out-of-Africa, I don't think the debate is quite over yet. As an example of another view see: www.rafonda.com.

Rating:
Summary: Long overdue
Review: I agree with Dr. Ralph L. Holloway, Professor of Anthropology, at Columbia University. He states that "Miele is exactly that antidote to the pernicious loss of respect for our own evolutionarily-derived biological diversity, and it will hopefully reach all who are ready and willing to think more clearly and empirically about our diversity and celebrate it. This reader has been very favorably struck by the careful and non-sarcastic exposure of some of our most common chestnuts regarding racial diversity, and in particular some of the sillier pronouncements regarding within- and between-group differences in genetic frequencies that have abounded in all of the media, academic and non.

As more genetic research, particularly at the molecular level comes to our attention, it seems clear to this writer that this book will represent an important milestone in reducing the millstone of the myths that have accumulated denigrating and/or ignoring our genetic diversity. This book will certainly be a must for my students, and it is surely long overdue!"

Rating:
Summary: Long overdue
Review: I agree with Dr. Ralph L. Holloway, Professor of Anthropology, at Columbia University. He states that "Miele is exactly that antidote to the pernicious loss of respect for our own evolutionarily-derived biological diversity, and it will hopefully reach all who are ready and willing to think more clearly and empirically about our diversity and celebrate it. This reader has been very favorably struck by the careful and non-sarcastic exposure of some of our most common chestnuts regarding racial diversity, and in particular some of the sillier pronouncements regarding within- and between-group differences in genetic frequencies that have abounded in all of the media, academic and non.

As more genetic research, particularly at the molecular level comes to our attention, it seems clear to this writer that this book will represent an important milestone in reducing the millstone of the myths that have accumulated denigrating and/or ignoring our genetic diversity. This book will certainly be a must for my students, and it is surely long overdue!"

Rating:
Summary: Hype and Hubris
Review: I picked up this book as a critical companion to o Joseph Graves book The Race Myth. I was interested to hear the authors critique of the PBS series also. The first chapter quickly made it clear that this was a book born of more anger than analysis. The authors set up a straw man--the "no race" perspective--and proceed to offer a long and disconnected string of arguments ranging from sociology to highly selective genetic research to prove races do exist. Most often they are content to simply say they are challenging the status quo and therefore must be listened to. But what are they saying? In part, they are agreeing with a great deal of the science in the PBS series regarding genetic variation. The PBS series does not say that there are no genetic differences among humans. What it does say is that skin color and other physical features are not a useful marker for categorizing those differences. Miele and Sarich never, in my judgment, explain how human races can be coherently differentiated or how we would identify them. They discuss the dominance of "Africans" in track and field but their evidence is all drawn from a small group of Kenyans and African-Americans who, as Dr. Graves points out, could well be as European genetically as African. So, what does "African" mean? Why is it a coherent genetic category? The authors never tell us. THe book frustrates the reader continually in this regard--unless the reader already assumes that the authors' arguments are correct. In their introduction, they say that Chapter 6 will show there are sub species among human beings. But chapter 6 is mostly about the development of language. The following chapters don't answer the question either. Given the harsh history of racism in the United States, those who would rehabilitate race as a concept have both the scientific and moral responsibility to make clear how we are to determine who are members of a given race. They also have a moral responsibility to say what we are to do with our received racial categories which are are based largely on visual cues which have been given powerful sociological meanings. Otherwise, these authors are telling the lay person, with evidence presented in a manner that seem intended to impress and obfuscate, that the racial categories that society has taught them to view as "common sense" are indeed valid. Blacks are athletic, Asians are smart, whites are pretty good at everything--its all true. But at the end of the book, none of those things have been proven. This is simply another book which uses its claim to being "anti-PC" as a way to challenge the integrity of critics and shield their work own work from close examination. It simply extends the justifications for racism.

Rating:
Summary: Timid and disappointing
Review: I was very disappointed in this book and expected to get some serious discussion of racial differences as evidenced by genetic analysis. Very little of that. Its approach was to say, "gee mister, you know all those left-wing Jewish anthropologists who said that race was a meaningless construct and purely fiction, well, ummmm, they weren't entirely right." A timid book that adds nothing. Sarich knows far more than he is willing to say as he clearly is trying to avoid controvery. Why did he bother to write this book? If you really want the straight story on racial differences, read Rushton and Jensen.

Rating:
Summary: Timid and disappointing
Review: I was very disappointed in this book and expected to get some serious discussion of racial differences as evidenced by genetic analysis. Very little of that. Its approach was to say, "gee mister, you know all those left-wing Jewish anthropologists who said that race was a meaningless construct and purely fiction, well, ummmm, they weren't entirely right." A timid book that adds nothing. Sarich knows far more than he is willing to say as he clearly is trying to avoid controvery. Why did he bother to write this book? If you really want the straight story on racial differences, read Rushton and Jensen.

Rating:
Summary: Solid science and common sense
Review: Most people who consider themselves intellectuals pride themselves on how far removed their theorizing is from contact with mundane reality. After all, if daily life could provide answers to lofty questions, we might not need so many professional intellectuals. And that subversive thought must be suppressed at all costs!

Consider the topic of race. The trendiest idea among intellectuals is that Race Does Not Exist. Last year, a three-night PBS documentary summed up the new orthodoxy: Race: The Power of an Illusion. That this strikes the vast majority of Americans as a self-evidently stupid notion only heightens its appeal to those who view themselves as superior because of their ability to mentally juggle esoterica.

Geneticist Vincent Sarich, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Berkeley, and journalist Frank Miele, senior editor of Skeptic magazine, have stepped in to this debate with a new book Race: The Reality of Human Differences. It documents overwhelmingly that the weight of scientific knowledge is on the side of the man-in-the-street's commonsense view of race. Sarich and Miele demonstrate that all ten of the PBS documentary's summary statements on the nonexistence of race are wrong. Indeed, they bring so much firepower to bear against the series' assertions that it's a little like breaking a butterfly on a wheel. (Or, considering the mendacity of the PBS offering, a more accurate phrase might be "like crushing a cockroach with a cannonball.")

Rejecting the straw man argument that the existence of race would require a race for everyone and everyone in his race, Sarich and Miele call races "fuzzy sets." They write, "Human races are not, and never were, distinct, mutually exclusive, Platonic entities into which every living person, unearthed skull, or set of bones could be pigeonholed."

Miele is perhaps the best interviewer of scientists in the business. He's also a dog enthusiast, and his deep knowledge of breeds (which are artificially selected races) adds perspective to "Race."

Sarich won't make himself popular with the politically correct at Berkeley, but he is a hard man to intimidate. A hawk nose and piercing eyes make him look like the world's tallest ayatollah. Approaching 70, he still has the dimensions of an NBA quick forward at 6'6" and a muscular 215 pounds. (In fact, he holds the world record for his age group in the small sport of indoor rowing.) Being the rare scientist who is also an enthusiastic fan of spectator sports makes Sarich far more aware of racial differences than his colleagues, who tend to only pay attention to unthreatening subjects for which they can win grants from the government or big foundations.

In a 1989 book review in the New York Times, Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene, praised "the enormously important work of the American biochemist Vincent Sarich." As Sarich recounts in an autobiographical section of Race, as a graduate student back in 1967, he famously teamed with Allan C. Wilson to launch the use of the "molecular clock," which led to a revolution in evolution studies. At a time when experts on fossils believed that proto-humans had diverged from our closest ape relatives around 25 million years ago, Sarich and Wilson estimated, by counting the number of mutations that distinguished humans from chimpanzees and gorillas in a single serum protein, that our ancestors had broken away only about five million years ago. Although greeted with howls of protest from famous paleontologists, their figure has stood up well, and their molecular clock technique has become fundamental to both physical anthropology and population genetics.

Stephen Jay Gould insisted we chant along with him, like Dorothy trying to get home from Oz, "Say it five times before breakfast tomorrow: ... Human equality is a contingent fact of history." As a staunch Darwinist, however, Sarich understands that natural selection requires hereditary inequalities. Sarich and Miele write, "Simply stated, the case for race hinges on recognition of the fact that genetic variation in traits that affect performance and ultimately survival is the fuel on which the evolutionary process runs."

Sarich became the rare physical anthropologist expert on both genes and bones. So, when he saw PBS proclaim, "Despite surface differences, we are among the most similar of all species," he dusted off the measurements of 2,500 human skulls from 29 different racial groups and compared them to 347 chimpanzee skulls from the two separate species of chimp (the common chimp and the bonobo). Sarich discovered that the dissimilarity in head and face measurements between these species was less than half that found between the two most morphologically dissimilar human racial groups in the sample (the narrow-faced Taita of Kenya and the wide-faced Buriat of Siberia). Sarich concludes, "I am not aware of any other mammalian species where the constituent races are as strongly marked as they are in ours... except those few races heavily modified by recent human selection; in particular, dogs."

The book is packed with fascinating information. For instance, in response to PBS's claim that, "Race is a modern idea. Ancient societies did not divide people according to physical differences..." Miele writes a definitive chapter showing, "The art of the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Greece, Rome, India, and China, and the Islamic civilization from AD 700 to 1400 shows that these societies classified the various peoples they encountered into broad racial groups. They sorted them based upon the same set of characteristics -- skin color, hair form, and head shape -- allegedly constructed by Europeans when they invented 'race' to justify colonialism and white supremacy."

Will Race: The Reality of Human Differences change the minds of the prominent advocates of the Race Does Not Exist theory? No, because I can't imagine they'll even read it. One striking difference between the two schools is that the realists pore over the writings of the social constructionists, while the No Race theorists prefer to keep themselves ignorant of all troubling facts.

Rating:
Summary: Doubtful races
Review: This book has the advantage that it is by a serious human geneticist and anthropologist(Sarich--Miele seems to be purely a journalist, helping Sarich write the prose and adding some minor points). Sarich knows about human evolution and explains it well, though professionals will have various quibbles. Previous racist books have been rendered worthless by ignorance of the simplest human genetic truths. Sarich is aware that "race" is only 15% of the variance between any two distant-origin individuals, and, more important, that one can recognize any number of "races" by making finer and finer distinctions--there could be thousands of "races" in Europe alone. (Anthropologists abandoned "race" not because they don't believe in human differences, but because the number of different populations they could recognize got unmanageably large--we work with thousands now.) Sarich reasonably critiques the claims that "race does not exist," but seems not to realize that this claim, when seriously made, refers to the ridiculous "races" of American folk speech--Mexican, Latino, Asian-Pacific, Irish, Arab, and other non-biological categories. (Even "African-American" refers not to a biological population, but to a gradient from basically African to almost pure white--remember, "one drop of African blood" makes you African-American in the US.)
The book points out that human races differ enough biochemically to necessitate some differences in medical treatment. True enough (though the differences are very minor and merely statistical). But Sarich and Miele don't emphasize enough the point that this is true only of actual biological populations (Europeans vs Sub-Saharan Africans, for instance), not of folk or social races. American doctors treating African-Americans who are 98% White as if they were "Africans" are doing no one a favor.
The serious problem with this book concerns IQ differences. Here, Sarich does not control the relevant psychological and behavioral-genetic literature so well. Intelligence is now known to be affected by countless genes and environmental factors, and they do not work together in some neat, harmonious system. If local populations differ in innate intellectual gifts, this could well involve a bunch of verbally superior people next to some not-so-verbal math geniuses, or a bunch of spatial-perception hotshots next to some who are weak in that area. Sarich buys the claims of a "g factor" that underlies intelligence; this "g" shakes out of factor analyses of IQ test performance, but remains impossible to ground in genetics or brain physiology, both of which indicate a much more complex reality. It is not demonstrated in psychological performance other than standard IQ tests, either; again the evidence is for more complexity. For instance, a unique gene found among certain Amish makes them more prone to bipolar disorder, which would surely screw up their performance on at least some tests. In any case, IQ testing has avoided like poison any attempts to control for malnutrition, illness, lead poisoning, lack of knowledge of tester's language (monolingual Spanish speakers are still tested in English in my area), etc.
The worst thing in the book is that Sarich accepts the guesstimate of 70 as the IQ of Sub-Saharan Africans, which is ridiculous in view of the high levels of education and performance seen in those African cities and regions that have anything like a functioning educational system (to say nothing of adequate nutrition). An adult with a 70 IQ can barely walk or talk; African nations now produce physicists and biologists and poets. To their credit, Sarich and Miele present a lot of evidence that Africans are perfectly sharp people, but don't really know what to do with it and wind up unconvincingly trying to explain it away. (And, just to prove that African-American IQ testing problems aren't genetic, those 98% White "African-Americans" test the same as the 100% African ones.)
The other really silly thing in the book is comparing human races with breeds of dogs. Dog breeds have been artificially selected for differences in behavior and ability. Human groups have not. They are more comparable to wild subspecies of animals. If there are any demonstrated differences in intelligence and behavior between naturally evolved subspecies of any species of animal, I don't know about it.
I think this book will be valuable in that it will teach racists something about actual human evolution and variability. Above all, it will teach them that real races are, as Sarich says, "fuzzy sets"--loosely defined regional populations--not ironclad and utterly different creatures, and not the ridiculous "races" of American folk speech. It will teach them something about actual human evolution and genetics. However, psychologists and psychological anthropologists will cut it to pieces when it trespasses on their turf. (See e.g. U. Neisser, ed., THE RISING CURVE; Jencks and Phillips, ed., THE BLACK-WHITE TEST SCORE GAP.)

Rating:
Summary: Doubtful races
Review: This book has the advantage that it is by a serious human geneticist and anthropologist(Sarich--Miele seems to be purely a journalist, helping Sarich write the prose and adding some minor points). Sarich knows about human evolution and explains it well, though professionals will have various quibbles. Previous racist books have been rendered worthless by ignorance of the simplest human genetic truths. Sarich is aware that "race" is only 15% of the variance between any two distant-origin individuals, and, more important, that one can recognize any number of "races" by making finer and finer distinctions--there could be thousands of "races" in Europe alone. (Anthropologists abandoned "race" not because they don't believe in human differences, but because the number of different populations they could recognize got unmanageably large--we work with thousands now.) Sarich reasonably critiques the claims that "race does not exist," but seems not to realize that this claim, when seriously made, refers to the ridiculous "races" of American folk speech--Mexican, Latino, Asian-Pacific, Irish, Arab, and other non-biological categories. (Even "African-American" refers not to a biological population, but to a gradient from basically African to almost pure white--remember, "one drop of African blood" makes you African-American in the US.)
The book points out that human races differ enough biochemically to necessitate some differences in medical treatment. True enough (though the differences are very minor and merely statistical). But Sarich and Miele don't emphasize enough the point that this is true only of actual biological populations (Europeans vs Sub-Saharan Africans, for instance), not of folk or social races. American doctors treating African-Americans who are 98% White as if they were "Africans" are doing no one a favor.
The serious problem with this book concerns IQ differences. Here, Sarich does not control the relevant psychological and behavioral-genetic literature so well. Intelligence is now known to be affected by countless genes and environmental factors, and they do not work together in some neat, harmonious system. If local populations differ in innate intellectual gifts, this could well involve a bunch of verbally superior people next to some not-so-verbal math geniuses, or a bunch of spatial-perception hotshots next to some who are weak in that area. Sarich buys the claims of a "g factor" that underlies intelligence; this "g" shakes out of factor analyses of IQ test performance, but remains impossible to ground in genetics or brain physiology, both of which indicate a much more complex reality. It is not demonstrated in psychological performance other than standard IQ tests, either; again the evidence is for more complexity. For instance, a unique gene found among certain Amish makes them more prone to bipolar disorder, which would surely screw up their performance on at least some tests. In any case, IQ testing has avoided like poison any attempts to control for malnutrition, illness, lead poisoning, lack of knowledge of tester's language (monolingual Spanish speakers are still tested in English in my area), etc.
The worst thing in the book is that Sarich accepts the guesstimate of 70 as the IQ of Sub-Saharan Africans, which is ridiculous in view of the high levels of education and performance seen in those African cities and regions that have anything like a functioning educational system (to say nothing of adequate nutrition). An adult with a 70 IQ can barely walk or talk; African nations now produce physicists and biologists and poets. To their credit, Sarich and Miele present a lot of evidence that Africans are perfectly sharp people, but don't really know what to do with it and wind up unconvincingly trying to explain it away. (And, just to prove that African-American IQ testing problems aren't genetic, those 98% White "African-Americans" test the same as the 100% African ones.)
The other really silly thing in the book is comparing human races with breeds of dogs. Dog breeds have been artificially selected for differences in behavior and ability. Human groups have not. They are more comparable to wild subspecies of animals. If there are any demonstrated differences in intelligence and behavior between naturally evolved subspecies of any species of animal, I don't know about it.
I think this book will be valuable in that it will teach racists something about actual human evolution and variability. Above all, it will teach them that real races are, as Sarich says, "fuzzy sets"--loosely defined regional populations--not ironclad and utterly different creatures, and not the ridiculous "races" of American folk speech. It will teach them something about actual human evolution and genetics. However, psychologists and psychological anthropologists will cut it to pieces when it trespasses on their turf. (See e.g. U. Neisser, ed., THE RISING CURVE; Jencks and Phillips, ed., THE BLACK-WHITE TEST SCORE GAP.)

Rating:
Summary: Excellent, but goes on too long...
Review: This book should be must reading for everyone, especially for those who have been telling us (for many years) that "there is no such thing as race."

Well, some salient facts to consider, as Sarich presents them: first, race is a real concept directly related to DNA. You can send a DNA sample to the lab and the lab can tell you that the DNA came from a person who is 85 percent African-American and 15% Native American. Really! This sort of information can be invaluable to police trying to find a dangerous murderer.

Next up is the fact that collies cannot be given heartworm vaccine. So what? Well, reactions to medicine vary with the genes, and we are now learning that the different races sometimes tolerate various medicines differently. Life and death decisions may hinge on your race, and your doctor's awareness of such issues. It is hard to imagine how a medicial instuction such as "Xaprofill is poorly tolerated by some Japanese and Chinese" could be regarded as racism.

I won't go any further than that. Sarich upset the whole world of paleontology with his discovery of the molecular clock, and now he's doing his very best to upset the whole world of chat-show "intellectuals," and their silly idea that race is just a figment of our imagination.

By the way, there is one other very startling number in this book! Sarich estimates that modern man (homo sap sap) arose just 50,000 years ago -- not 150,000 or 250,000!! When this man talks about prehistoric dates, it's probably a good idea to listen!