Steven H's Reviews > Race: The Reality of Human Differences 1st edition by Sarich, Vincent, Miele, Frank (2004) Hardcover

ANOTHER PURPORTED ‘SCIENTIFIC’ DEFENSE OF ‘RACIAL’ IQ DIFFERENCES, ETC.

Vincent Matthew Sarich (1934-2012) was an American anthropologist and biochemist, who was Professor Emeritus in anthropology at UC Berkeley; he is perhaps best known for his use of molecular data in estimating a ‘timeline’ of evolutionary developments. Frank Miele (born 1948) is a senior editor at Skeptic magazine, as well as a contributor to ‘Mankind Quarterly.’

They wrote in the Preface to this 2004 book, “While we were preparing the final draft of this book, [PBS]… aired a highly acclaimed documentary, ‘Race: The Power of an Illusion.’ The contemporary scientific and ethical consensus in both the media and the social sciences regarding race was concisely summarized in … ten numbered statements … The authors of this book… disagree with each of these ten points… we present the evidence we believe refutes the first eight points and explain why we reject points nine and ten, not only for economic but ethical reasons as well… We present what we believe is compelling evidence to support the propositions that race IS a valid biological concept, and that human variations… reflect both genetic and environmental factors. On matters of social policy, we are both individualists. We oppose any governmentally sanctioned benefits or handicaps being applied SOLELY on the basis of group membership.”

In the ‘Acknowledgements,’ they state, “We could not have written this book without the help, encouragement, and patience shown by so many. First, we thank Michael Shermer, publisher and editor-in-chief of Skeptic magazine, and its entire staff for inviting us to write and speak freely on so controversial an issue as race, even when our views conflicted with those of others.”

They outline, “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… Strong evidence in the case for race comes from examining the amount of variation actually present in a proper a comparative context… human racial differences exceed those for any other nondomesticated species. Also important is … how long it took for human racial differences to evolve. The amount of variation that took approximately one million years to evolve in chimpanzees took only 50,000 years to evolve in humans. This much shorter time for the evolution of comparatively larger racial differences must mean that these differences are more (not less) significant, and that adaptation, not chance, is the only mechanism capable of explaining this.” (Pg. 8-9)

They assert, “If ‘race’ were a mere social construction based upon a few highly visible features, it would have no statistical correlation with the DNA markers that indicate genetic relatedness… Unless race is a biological reality that gives important information about an individual’s degree of genetic resemblance to the various human populations… it would be inconceivable to achieve the level of accuracy obtainable through the DNAPrint methodology. Indeed… such analysis is capable of not only identifying race but predicting skin tone as well.” (Pg. 23)

They note that Samuel G. Morton (born 1799) was a physician and professor of anatomy. “The PBS documentary states that in his measurements Morton ‘made systematic errors in favor of his assumptions’ that whites should have ‘decided and unquestioned superiority over all the nations of the earth.’ The accusation that Morton … finagled his measurements gained popularity in Stephen Jay Gould’s book ‘The Mismeasure of Man’… The obvious way to resolve the issue would be to measure the skulls in Morton’s collection. This has, in fact, been one. The results show that any errors were Gould’s, not Morton’s; Gould, though made aware, simply ignored them in his second edition… The most extensive study of race differences in cranial capacity to date measured 20,000 skulls… and reported East Asians, Europeans, and Africans … Asians [were] now slightly on top, but the average cranial capacity of Africans remains significantly below them.” (Pg. 71-72)

They explain that “[Carleton] Coon believed that race was a central issue and his job as an anthropologist was to study race. [Ashley] Montagu felt his was to banish race to the periphery and replace it with the concept of ‘ethnic group.’ He began his effort … in his 1942 book, ‘Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race. When he was selected to draft the initial (1950) UNESCO Statement on Race, Montagu was given a platform from which to present his view to a much larger, nonacademic audience.” (Pg. 92)

They add, “The most important of Coon’s books for this discussion is ‘The Origin of Races’… What made the book and its author the center of a raging controversy was that Carleton Putnam… used it in support of his campaign against the U.S. Supreme Cout’s ‘Brown v. Board of Education’ decision. Putnam’s book, ‘Race and Reason,’ was denounced as a work of racist pseudoscience by many in anthropology… Coon was elected to a two-year term as president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA) in 1961. He replaced his friend, W. Montague Cobb, an African America from Howard University… a resolution was proposed that the AAPA declare that there were no race differences in intelligence. Cobb agreed with Coon that the honest scientific position was agnosticism and so no vote should be taken.” (Pg. 94-95)

They recount, “After the Coon affair, anthropology increasingly drew away from the subject of race. First, in 1969 psychologist Arthur Jensen returned the question of the nexus between intelligence, race, and genetics to the mainstream of behavioral science… Then in 1995 another psychologist, J. Philippe Rushton published ‘Race, Evolution, and Behavior’… around the world, he reported, Asians and blacks fell at the opposite ends of a continuum with whites in between…” (Pg. 100)

They acknowledge that ‘Races aren’t species,’ and “This has made it difficult to decide objectively among the competing scenarios. Once possible gene flow is factored into the equations, and that is essential when dealing with races, then a measured genetic distance among populations cold refer to any number of times of original separation… This makes the time dimension of the within-human trees… potentially very squishy. Thus, the area is by definition messy…” (Pg. 133)

They argue, “Richard Lewontin… apportioned the variability observed into its within- and between-population components… 85 percent of the genetic variability was seen among individuals within populations, and only an additional 15 percent was added by comparing individuals in different populations. Lewontin’s assessment was correct for its time…But the 85:15 somehow still feels wrong---and it is in two ways. First, it is simply an average across the genetic loci… Eighty percent of the variation in skin color? In hair form? … Hardly, and no calculations are necessary to know it…” (Pg. 166-167)

Sarich asserts, “It is time to revisit African dominance in road and track. Well, let me say this: (1) It’s genes, genes, and more genes; (2) nobody knows why Africans should be so dominant… the results over the past few decades are consistent with a genetic model, and inconsistent with the ‘it’s all society and culture’ model. If the latter model held, then… The NBA would be about 10 percent black; we’d see a Kalenjin only every few years at the cross-country championships… Body-fat levels seem to be at a minimum among African populations… and Africans in training can apparently achieve lower body-fat levels more readily than is the case for Europeans and Asians. These factors are an adequate springboard to explaining such African dominance as exists in the sporting world.” (Pg. 181-182)

They state, “The most extensively documented research on race differences in behavior concerns the fifteen-point difference between the average IQs of white Americans and African Americans, whites being higher, but Asians have a slightly higher average IQ than whites… What is in dispute is the cause or causes of the difference… During the ongoing controversy surrounding ‘The Bell Curve,’ in 1994 the American Psychological Association appointed a special task force to .. evaluate the book’s conclusions… the task force for the most part agreed … that within the white population the heritability of IQ is ‘around .75.’ As to the cause of the mean black-white group difference, however, the task force concluded: ‘There is certainly no support for a genetic interpretation.’ (Pg. 196-197)

They contend that “we have ‘improved’ the environment… as much as possible,” and that [‘Bell Curve’ co-author] Charles “Murray’s results suggest that much the same is happening with respect to cognitive improvement… That is a controversial viewpoint, but we haven’t seen a substantive critique of Murray’s work… [His] basic conclusions are holding up…” (Pg. 224-225)

Very controversially, they argue, “Whites with 70 IQ are obviously substantially handicapped over and above their IQ scores… Black kids with an IQ of 70 … are eminently normal. Happy, functional, and so on… The same is of course true for Africans in Africa. Interacting with them belies any thought that one is dealing with IQ 70 people…” (Pg. 225-226) They add, “no one has demonstrated a method of compensatory education that produces relatively permanent increases in mental ability, as opposed to learning how to answer specific test questions correctly… there is a significant heritable component to virtually every human ability, and … there is substantial evidence for some genetic component in average group differences.” (Pg. 239)

Most controversially, they also suggest, “In selecting an instructor for … largely minority youth, it may be desirable to select a qualified candidate from that race because arguably the person might establish better rapport. But under the principles of the meritocracy, the argument could also be turned around: The world of work still remains largely one of white, male bosses, and thus it might be preferable to select such an applicant so that the students learn as soon as possible to deal with what they are likely to face in the real world.” (Pg. 244) They add, “Society is not omnipotent. It can provide opportunity, but it cannot mandate that individuals will make equal use of those opportunities. It can in no sense make groups equal. It cannot level up---only down---and any such leveling is necessarily at the expense of individual freedom and, ultimately, the total level of accomplishment.” (Pg. 246) They conclude, “[Arthur] Jensen’s laws and [Richard] Herrnstein’s syllogism re the bitter facts of life that come with meritocracy. That is one reason so many people find it ethically unacceptable.” (Pg. 261)

Sarich’s prominence in the evolutionary field perhaps gives this book more ‘respectability’ (superficially, at least) than it deserves. Miele’s contributions to Mankind Quarterly (which has been characterized as a ‘white supremacist journal’) also casts doubt on his ‘skeptical, scientific’ claimed orientation.