How to argue with a racist | The Voltaire Lecture 2019 | Dr Adam Rutherford
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 05. 2019
- The birth of scientific racism coincided with the age of exploration, exploitation, and plunder. As Europeans built empires, the subjugation and othering of people in invaded countries was facilitated and justified with new and pseudoscientific taxonomies of humans, almost exclusively based on pigmentation. These ideas were propagated by some of the most influential thinkers in modern history. For all their achievements in philosophy and spreading goodwill to all men, some of these figures were themselves profoundly racist - even for their time - including Immanuel Kant, and that great voice of Enlightenment thinking, François-Marie Voltaire. Their voices echo loudly into the present.
Now, in the age of personal genetic genealogy, race science is once again part of the public discourse, and real genetics is being misrepresented and co-opted by white supremacists.
Dr Adam Rutherford is the presenter of BBC Radio 4’s flagship science radio programme, Inside Science, as well as many documentaries, on the inheritance of intelligence, on MMR and autism, human evolution, astronomy and art, science and cinema, scientific fraud, and the evolution of sex. His critically acclaimed first book, 'Creation' - on the origin and future of life - was published in 2013, and was nominated for the Wellcome Trust Book Prize. He is also the author of 'A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived', 'Genetics: A Ladybird Expert Book', and 'The Book of Humans'.
Adam has a PhD in Genetics, a degree in evolutionary biology, is an honorary Research Fellow at UCL, and is a former Editor at the journal Nature.
Conflating criticism of religion with racism is a duplicitous move. I have valid concerns in regards to the tenets of Islam, Judaism and Christianity; that doesn’t make me a racist.
Saying a website is owned by a Jew therefore it’s not credible is not criticism of Judaism
Go ahead please. Congratulations
Wonderful presentation! I enjoyed very much! It is very complex theme as presenter said, and he has done his best in limited time to explain it. It was lovely. Thank you humanists! I scrolled down to see some coments. Sadly, too many people are ready to criticize and not give support to this lecture. Perhaps next lecture from Humanist could be "why evil is more organized than good" ;). Humanism needs support, and in my opinion, this Planet can not support any more ego... any more critique in the name of celebrating individuality. People who want good need to be suported... no more "yes, but...". Just YES!
It is beautiful to see that there is a movement of humanists to fight against lies, misinformations and prejudice that pollute general media! More humanist ideas have to be propagated! If evil can be organized and use tool called propaganda, so can good! ✌👍👍👍
Great talk! More like this, please.
Great lecture!
Rutherford shows that if you live in an environment, where, for example, running is important to your life, then evolution means that natural selection will select alleles that lead to better running ability.
The environment determines everything, and genes and alleles change as a response to the environment.
The supervillan Stormfront on the show The Boys was named after stormfront radio. Holy shit.
This was fascinating. Thank you.
Iron, naming it the Voltaire lecture, when Voltaire would say (for the blacks) "And one could say that if their intelligence is not of another species than ours, then it is greatly inferior. They are not capable of paying much attention; they mingle very little, and they do not appear to be made either for the advantages or the abuses of our philosophy."
Why is ironic? Voltaire is subject to his own biases. There is no black race. There are different black groups of people which you can stratify on the basis of nationality, ancestors and possibly genotypes.
@@TejasM14 which we collectively call the black race?
Adam Rutherford. Thankyou.
Is there a way to NOT argue with racists?
Genetics make us who we are and we are fools to reject that for the sake of "humanist" ideals.
Disingenuous?
He's explaining how Genetics demonstrates that 'race' is not a thing in the world of biology. It's a social construct. Moreover, he specifically admonishes us not to dismiss perceptions of 'race' as manifestations of the human experience, but to overcome them. Humanism asks only that we contend the ideologies that would divide us.
@@jeuandavidjones race is no different than classification of different species. Technically lions and tigers are also the same "race".
Hmmm I wonder why all the white sprinters were before the 1950s...
Good point.
James, did you come up with an explanation yet?
Because those in Africa only participated from the 50s onwards seriously. Now Africans completely dominate.
Jessie Owens?
I really liked the analysis of historic racism, but I felt Adam was weak on establishing the extent of racism in the modern day. I think the lecture would have been improved with more detail on how racism is still endemic.
Ian Foote The lecture would have been improved as you say , he couldn’t detail how racism is still endemic because it isn’t , otherwise he would have shown just that . Wow , he’s going back to “The Iliad “, that’s rich ....wait ....no , he’s going all the way back to Adam and Eve ,the original racists . I actually think the field of genealogy should be outlawed , it is only giving white supremacist a tool to give credence to their fanciful tales of racial purity. Again they are using science for their purposes , outlaw it because , DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH !!!
Debate Edward Dutton
A geneticist "debating" a theologian, who was fired from the University of Oulu for scientific misconduct and dishonesty (plagiarism).....I'd like to watch this as well lol
Religion is not race.
@buzjimbo2128 but racism takes many forms. Cultural racism/bigotry is a reality, unfortunately
Religion is a belief system, not a race. This bothered me so much! Of course people are skeptical of thought regimes.
Very glad that Dr. Rutherford has recovered from coronavirus!
Strangest thing I've noticed since I'm in the UK, is wherever I register, they ask me my race as a required data. Not used to it.
That is bizarre. In Germany, noting I had a physical disability, they forced me to register and carry a card in my wallet noting that fact. Each nation has its...demons I suppose.
It's due to Equal Opportunity legislation, registered charities need to comply with regulations to monitor how much their user/membership base reflects the ethnic diversity in their area or nationally.
organisations might have to comply with equality monitoring legislation, but an individual does not have to provide such information. @@andybeans5790
Amazing!
In "A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: The Human Story Retold Through Our Genes" He seemed to be arguing that there's no such thing as racial differences and that selective breeding has no effect in human populations (Reason for that: we are the world, we are the children) which pretty silly. It seems like his own background as a mixed person drives the idea that aren't any racial differences, even though there are average differences among populations.
@Jude M You're a hateful, ignorant, individual.
Yup. He's in denial because of his biases.
It is clear that different human population groups have different distributions of various qualities such as testosterone levels, genetic disease, and dare I say differences in their brains too since brains are also a product of evolution.
Regarding the Jesse Owens comment, Anyone who trys to deny that black africans are generally more dominant in athletics is really not seeing the elephant in the room.
He's a great speaker but focused too much on the historical situation. Would have liked to have heard information on the link between race and intelligence.
There's no way this moron would delve into the link between race and IQ, it wouldn't suit his narrative.
@@themoog924 He literally says at 18:00 that he won't be covering intelligence because it would require its own lecture series. Adam has a PhD, in the specific subject at hand, from one of the most prestigous universities in the world. So... this begs the questions: and who the fuck are you? Hey, i might be going out on a limb here, but i'm gonna put bets on it being you, YT-comment-section-crusader Moog, who's the moron.
@@themoog924 "There's no way this moron would delve into the link between race and IQ, it wouldn't suit his narrative." You might enjoy his book. There's an entire chapter about the supposed link between race and IQ.
This was rather disappointing and not the source of inspiring clarity and evidence that I had hoped for. If you used these arguments with someone who was interested in race and genetics I fear you would get a hard time. Too many mushy, unclear sections and gaps in arguments. Too many insults to people that might not be fair. The way to start arguing with a genuine racist is surely to point out the lack of any compelling practical reasons for researching racial differences and, especially, those solely due to genetics. Further headway is surely made by pointing out how apparent differences in productivity and morality between races are reduced as environments become more similar.
I suspect that Dr Rutherford felt that, occupying the moral high ground and talking to a receptive audience, he didn't really need to have a tight or compelling argument, or avoid unfair insults.
Not sure how being concerned about a marriage to a Muslim equates to racism.
It's a conservative and bigoted reality denialist ideology. People's skin colour or whatever racialised features they might have don't say anything about the personal values of prospective spouse.
People might be concerned if someone wants to marry a Scientologist or Amish.
It might be more accurate to call race a false idea. But with very real consequences. Pity that Dr. Rutherford stumbled at the end, referring to misconceptions as crutches. But are any of us completely free of bigotry?
A curious blend of good science with non-stop blaring self-righteous holier-than-thou Woke piety.
What are these f downvotes? LOL Amazing lecture. Thanks Adam.
Adam's hero Charles Darwin said that the creatures at the top of status hierarchies (whether they're based on physical strength, intellectual capacity, social skills, good looks, wealth or some blend of other qualities) are more likely to pass on their genes than people at the bottom of status hierarchies. Eugenicists take up this idea and run with it, suggesting a range of social policies aimed at encouraging people with the right combination of dominant characteristics to breed with one another. That's what every parent I know wants for their children: my friends all want their kids to go to top-tier universities or institutes of sport then on to top-tier employers where they'll meet similarly talented mates. We are ALL to a very high degree eugenicists - advocates of sexual selection - because we know eugenics works.
@Pee jay how do you give ugly, unintelligent, socially inept people the same starting point as beautiful, intelligent, socially adept people?
Sexual selection is when an individual selects which individual he/she will mate with. Eugenics is when other people decide who is permitted to breed and who isn't, i.e. social control of the pool of possible mates. These are two different things.
By the way, eugenics doesn't work. The most robust populations are those with the _most_ variation, not the least.
@@wmyst1797 yes, eugenics works. Ask any racehorse breeder. Eugenics informs the choice many people make to send their children to posh schools and universities, where they'll meet other posh kids.
He is only talking about white racism, that is racist itself.
Whiteness is an invention by whites, as is blackness. What on earth are you going on about>
Deal with your history, Racism is your culture, you created it, theorized it, and made it a system
Thank you! It made a better person if me and I do not consider myself racist! I hope other people find it convincing and enlightening.
If race is a social construct then I must be a genius because I can tell race before its constructed: I can tell race at birth.
Brilliant!
You can tell the colour of the skin at birth and the race is one and only ,
the H U M A N race ! You are genius! 🤣
@@veralucky6157 We use "race" as short for "sub-race" because its easier to say it.
Every animal race has sub-races why cant humans have it too?
@@veralucky6157 You are making a political point unrelated to biology. As Kevin has said in his reply,all species have different populations where those populations are genetically isolated.It makes little difference what you call them but where artificial selection (ie by humans) has created the differences we use the word breed eg for dogs.Where it is natural selection (eg tigers or humans) we can use the word sub species or race.North Koreans and South Koreans are clearly of the same race but due to the slave conditions in the north and the biologically healthy conditions in the south ,north koreans are on average 6 inches shorter.Any less than that and they would die.Now go to Wikepedia and look up Pygmies.Scroll down and you will see a european flanked by two adult pygmies .Even you will notice the vast difference in height.But it is differences in IQ that are vastly greater.....like it or not.Woke or not.Environment plays a role but genetics rule.A huge proportion of our genome is shared with other apes (different species) The small differences are all important.Next time you need a brain operation choose a chimp.
After reading Robin Di Angelo's book on White Fragility, I'd like to ask Adam, or anyone, if there is an acid test I can use to indicate if I am 'anti-racist' and what is it?
If you look into a mirror & see a black man looking back then you're anti-racist!!
@@thomasbeveridge6643 That makes no sense for anyone who fails your test Thomas
@@pfscpublic Only joking.I was just agreeing with Ian Foote that racism is endemic. There are black racists too,& yellow ones.Look at the Chinese.
I wouldn't take the work of Di Angelo to seriously, or at least offset it with something else.
But is it not clear that only whites can be racist?
6:00, not only is that not a Conservative party leaflet, but Johnson's comments were in reference to Blair's Blairite brand of moralistic interventionism. I was trying to decide if I should buy your new book, I'm still undecided.
From my experience racist peoples that i have met don't have problem with the color of peoples skin, but maybe they have. Idk
If people will go back to our time in a thousand years i bet there will not be much citations regarding skin pigmentation (in a negative sense at least).
We didn't all come from a single place in Africa. That is such an old theory now. We came from multiple regions of Africa, where we evolved separately.
but still evolved to walk on two legs. hence the Homo Sapiens shares a close common ancentors with Homo Erectus & Neanderthals. some of us might have interbred.
I don't think anyone ever thought that there was some 'ground zero' adam and eve scenario.... Of course we evolved gradually from an existing species which was widely populated. People can't get their minds around the enormous scale of time and events that are encapsulated in evolutionary theory.
“Evolved” ffs evolution occurs when speciation happens, that means the bifurcation of a species where the resulting members of each side of the split cannot reproduce with each other. Humans of all races can reproduce with one another, it is not evolution to have a different skin colour.
That bit at the end was a little awkward with the awarding the Voltaire medal but the trained seals seemed to quite enjoy it and the lecture ! Jolly Good Job for all ! I’m in the states so I’ll not be expecting a rap on the door from the local enforcers of correct speech as you folks are currently experiencing , not yet at least. Hip hip carry on , we shall see what tomorrow brings ! 🇺🇸🏴🇬🇧
he addresses this at 27:00
Survive the jive better to listen too
Communities are real. Cultural groups are real. Extended kinship groups are real. But race is not real. Races aren't even valid as cultural constructs. Adam says that "cultural construct" races are real, because he knows that race is still a big part of many people's identity, and he doesn't want to challenge that - but drill down, and embedded within every example of those "cultural construct" versions of race there are still big chunks of the old false pseudo-scientific biological beliefs. He refers to some of them, like the widespread belief among many African Americans that black people have denser bones and so can't float. That's clearly a false belief from the old biological racism, but it's also part of the cultural construct "black people". You can only pretend that the cultural constructs of "black people" or "white people" or "asian people" aren't based on the old, debunked claims that races are biological if you refuse to look at them closely.
So yes, many people think of themselves as a member of a particular race. Yes, that's part of their identity. But it is still a false belief, something they have been taught about themselves which is not true.
Racism, though, is very real. And we can't end racism while insisting that races are real - real in any way - because racism can exist only while racial categories are seen as valid. But all racial categories are, and have always been, pure gaslighting. And your own race, if that is part of your identity, is the result of that gaslighting. It is a false category imposed on you and your family and your community. And, difficult as it is to do, it's time to start to free ourselves from the false racial categories imposed on us by long dead strangers. You also identify with your community, with your nationality, with your profession, with your personality traits - there are many parts of your identity which are based on very real things. But race is not one of them.
Communities are real. Cultural groups are real. Extended kinship groups are real. And of course, racism is a real belief system. But races themselves do not exist in the real world.
Races do not exist. What do exist are different genetic populations.
👍
Charles Murray was right.
He was proven to be wrong 30 years ago lol
I bought his book after reading “who we are and how we got here”. Was super excited about reading more on ancient DNA and the accent of humankind. Fully wasn’t expecting it be all about racism. I felt duped. I wanna learn about science not your opinion on racism. But hey! Gotta earn some coin somehow right. Just don’t expect people to take you seriously.
The study of evolution and anthropology is being targeted by anti-racists because actually human beings like all species are the product of our genes.
LOL Voltaire was a racist.
How to argue with the racial crime stats.
No one argues with the crime stats, which are due to socioeconomics.
This felt very politically driven, and not very scientific. You can tell by how he places a high burden of proof on the genetic explanations, but accepts "racism" as an explanation as a kind of default, that doesn't itself need direct evidence. That's an example of political bias, not science.
For example. He claims that there are so few gold medalists in the 100m sprint that you can't really infer anything from such a small sample size. He ignores the rather obvious fact that it's not just the gold medalists. The top 100 sprinters in every given year are mostly black as well. So the sample size over 40 years is actually massive.
He then switches to swimming and points out that a higher proportion of black people didn't learn how to swim. Immediately, without evidence, he then concludes this is "structural racism". Well no, it's not evidence of that at all. Black people have a much higher rate of single-parenthood than white people in every western country. That means black kids are less likely to have a parent teach them ANYTHING than white kids (due to sheer time constraints of single parenthood). Epidemics of single parenthood is actually a very recent phemonema, and does not coincide with the history of racism. It coincides with the welfare state and the economic support given to single mothers. (i.e something almost entirely pushed by left-wing people).
I think Adam does a good job of showing why racism is making a comeback. People like him approach the subject with such a massive political bias, that they regularly end up making false accusations of racism against people and institutions that are completely innocent. That overuse of the accusation of 'racism' has lead to a diluting of the concept, where we now have millions of people who just don't take racism that seriously any more, and are much more likely to just ignore it than oppose it.
I'll admit your first point is valid. But I have no idea were your making any connections in the other one. Like I know Thomas Sowell likes to make the arguement that welfare increases single motherhood but everytime I read it, its sounds more like a symptom rather than a cause. It seems more like the "de facto" segregation in urban areas where African Americans typically live as well as the war on drugs contribution to mass incarceration, among other things seem to be the main cause of single motherhood in those communities, how that(or even your explanation) would relate to lack of swimming is beyond me.
They're trying their best now to keep people from knowing the truth about genetics etc. They don't like that intelligence is determined by genes because they know what conclusions could be drawn from that.
@@lobosolo7675 he's using linear logic on a systemic non-linear phenomenon filled to the brim with feedback loops like group belief formation. Whenever you do that you are bound to end up in silly chicken or egg dilemmas
Expected more instead the lecture was mostly mediocre not satisfied.
It didn't even rise to the level of mediocrity....
Voltaire was a racist polygenisist. Ah, at 27:00 he remarks that himself. very ironic, indeed
You need to be absolutely certain of what you are asserting when it comes to matters pertaining to the social construct of race if by your assertions you mean to bring about some relief from the pain that it inflicts on so many lives day in and day out...I'd suggest you think twice about why it is such a 'hot topic' on white supremacist websites...proving their superiority has very little to do with why that is the case...The name of the global system that every non-white person is subject to isTHE SYSTEM OF WHITE SUPREMACY RACISM. either those who have sufficient political and economic clout to legally classify themselves as white and the rest as non-white are 'supreme'(in the dictionary sense of the word) or they are not. the evidence says that they are in all areas of human activities: economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, war/counter-war (N.Fi;;er, 2016)
The milk chugging thing was supposed to be ironic btw.
Most of the "racist" things described here are really common sense when anyone interacts with others and forms an opinion.
Rutherford is an evolution denier. People evolved in Europe to have white skin and other adaptations. Aborigines in Australia were isolated from other populations and evolved. The Himalayas mark the boundary between South Asians and East Asians where each genetic grouping evolved differently. And isolated populations in Africa separated by geographical distance and/or the Sahara also evolved.
But Rutherford is an evolution denier, who denies that isolated populations evolve in different ways.
No he isn't, and there are no genetically isolated populations. Never have been.
@@NanakiRowan Of course there haven't been any genetically isolated populations. Not 100% isolated.
As no populations have ever been genetically isolated, Indigneous people in the Americas obviously would have had immunity from diseases brought by Europeans - after all, they had never been isolated from Europeans, had they?
You know perfectly well what is meant by isolated, and why isolation produced the enormous genetic diversity that we (and Rutherford) finds in Africa.
You sound like a Bible-thumper fabricating reasons why there are no contradictions in the Bible.
@@stevencarr4002 Hmmm, ok, then I suppose you should be able show, using genetic data, how races are separated. And yes, I'm sure that isolation is why Africa is the most genetically diverse place on the planet, because as we all know, societies that only breed with each other, produce the most genetic variation. Just like the Amish, and the Mormons in Utah. *Very* genetically diverse people lol
@@NanakiRowan Oh god..... Now you are claiming that isolating groups of breeding pairs does not produce diversity....
@@stevencarr4002 I'm not claiming. It doesn't. Isolation is literally antonym of diversity. Still waiting for you to show, using genetic data, how races are separated.
The racist watching this video are not going to like it, cant wait till some high school drop out working at Walmart comments on how this geneticist is wrong and how they know more than him. It should be funny.
I think you'll find James Watson would consider this 'geneticist' wrong. But then he's only the Nobel Prize winning geneticist who jointly discovered DNA.
@@angusdrey8930 i could care less what James Watson thinks, i am not a geneticist nor am i a racist (as Watson is), when you have 8 out of 10 scientist who study anthropology and Genetics who say there is nothing different, i am going with the 8 instead of the 10. Or look at it like this, if 8 out of 10 doctors say i need a operation to live and 2 say i dont, i am going with the 8. You must be one of those racist i was speaking of, so you are hanging your argument on Watson, who says just because a person is black they are less intelligent, first you cant measure intelligence because it is subjective and not objective. Take 2 people, of different color they have the same financial resources and are expose to the same education, take away bias in society and how these two people treated i am sure you will find no difference. Second, a example of this working the other would be this, take you and a San man of the Kalahari and tell both of you that you have to survive 30 days without modern conveniences, you must make your own shelter, find your own water and provide for your own food and defense, i am pretty sure at the end of those thirty days, you would be dead and the San man would be alive. Does this make you less smart than him, no it does not, it just means you were not exposed or taught these techniques to survive and thrive. Now on the flip side bring a San man to your city and do the same test, i am pretty sure the San man would survive, but it would be barely depending on the time of year.
@@mikeaskme3530 "i could care less what James Watson thinks", yes because you're only interested in listening to people who reinforce your childish, ignorant views.
@@themoog924 so its childish thinking no one is superior to any other person, well i guess i will just be childish.
@@mikeaskme3530 No, it's childish to think no one is DIFFERENT to any other person. Who mentioned superiority?
does he address the difference between iq? some parts of Africa have averages as low as 60.
blackflag 33rd facts
He sounds like a racist to me.
Does Rutherford watch TYT? LOL
TYT?
@@Pumplekin1 The Young Turks? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Young_Turks
This whole 1:11h speech is based on the false premise that having a preference is discrimination. Ridiculous.
Well done for making it so obvious that you didn't watch the video without using the words "I didn't watch the video".
Why are you calling yourself Voltaire? Voltaire said that he defends the right to speak of people who disagree with him. You want to shut down everybody who disagree with you. Aren't you a bit hypocrites?
@Pee jay Insults are not arguments, apparently you are the illiterate.
Not one person is going to listen to Adam Rutherford and walk away thinking that Algerians, sub-Saharan Bantus and San people, Japanese people and Aboriginal people in Australia have no significant genetic differences. They might be convinced for 24 hours by listening to him and then reality will kick in. Because that's what reality does.....
@@racialistslayer1395You have to admit when it comes to physical beauty there is no match for the white european, particularly the Nordic peoples.
If your reality is defined by feelings only then why even bother learning anything
Nothing about feeling, gene flow NOT invalidation of race @@Ko0okieeZ
@@WeiWenqing don't conflate race with genes
No conflation I say admixture gene exchange occurance does not mean race not real. Race=average system differences @@Ko0okieeZ
Ethiopians does not translate from the the Greek to ''burned face'' but when your audience is oblivious to facts, you can pitch in whatever crap fits your narrative ... omg , the ignorance all these people hang on to is amazing
According to the Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, aithos can mean burnt and ops can mean face. Hence this is a plausible translation.
@@wmyst1797 "can mean face" ... 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Opi = opus in Latin
Ops - another word you might know is Optics ... So try again what ops means ....
Also aithali is the chared residues of smoke
@@epimetheus9053 The Latin word "opus" means "work". Latin for eye is "oculus". Ops in Greek can also mean eye, but many words have more than one meaning.
More science, less sociology please. Literally nothing in this I hadn't heard before.