[colinbaker62]

Introduction

On the front page of Britain's Independent newspaper of 17th October 2007, the headline read as follows;

'Africans are less intelligent than Westerners' says DNA pioneer

The highly controversial American geneticist, Dr. James Watson, was the man responsible for making this particular claim. A man well versed, in the stoking of theoretical fires, by suggesting in the past, among other things; a possible link between skin colour and sex drive; genes and homosexuality; and genes and stupidity. Essentially, Watson is a genetic reductionist when it comes to explanations of human characteristics and behaviour. No doubt, it is only a matter of time before he asserts that thumb twiddling, backside scratching and all the rest of it, are also genetically determined forms of human behaviour. His most recent genetic-based claim argues that Africans are inferior to Westerners in the intelligence stakes. Indeed, he asserts, "genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade". Genes moreover, that produce their effects in abstraction from social, historical and environmental factors. Based on this kind of reasoning, Watson is, by his own admission, "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa",

The implication of such theoretical reasoning of course is obvious, for Watson's 'inferior intelligence' theory permits 'Westerners' (by which I take him to mean all those naturally born to an industrially developed capitalist world, most of whom are white, and of which he is one) to logically deduce that they are intellectually, and thus politically and culturally, superior to the majority of humans on the African continent. It was just such a sense of superiority of course, that ideologically stood to justify the murderous activities of several European colonial powers over the past few hundred years across parts of Africa.

Discussing Watson's most recent genetic arguments, Charlotte Hunt-Grubbe writes in The Times (online) that, "critics may see his [Watson's] acceptance of 'softer-science' studies - that attempt to link IQ with specific genes, but remove society and other factors from the equation - as a dangerously flippant approach to a complex issue". To a degree, it would appear that Hunt-Grubbe's concerns are well founded. For example, in the Independent's full story treatment of Watson's theoretical remarks (p. 2), we learn that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is pouring over its every word. Similarly, Steven Rose, professor of biological sciences at The Open University, accuses Watson of being "out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically". And anti-racism campaigners for their part, angrily argue that Watson's remarks relating to purported levels of 'inferior African intelligence' might well contravene, one or other aspect of racial hatred laws as such laws currently exist.

I too, have concerns with Watson's genetic-based theory. In what follows, and not withstanding the fact that Watson has achieved great scientific heights in the biological sphere, not least regarding his 1960's Noble Prize-winning work relating to human DNA structure, I intend arguing:

1. That Watson's 'inferior intelligence' theory, given a little thought, can be seen as flawed, both logically and empirically.

2. That Watson's particular theory speculating about an African people's 'inferior intelligence', is essentially a consequence of capitalist society, based as his theory is, not on racial prejudice per se, but on aspects of class ideology and political power.


It is undoubtedly correct to believe there exists an inherited contribution to the potential for the development of human intelligence. The general genetic constitution of any human being is a consequence of inheritence. It is a mistake however, to downplay, or else ignore completely the inevitable interaction of this biological aspect with the social, namely, the numerous historically determined social and environmental factors. In this sense, Watson's desire to know, I fear, has been supplanted by his metaphysical desire to think he knows.

A Logical And Empirical Critique

Different Kinds Of Intelligence
Watson of course, is no pioneer when it comes to issues of the intelligence quotient (IQ) and the seeking of such pure human intelligence. "Intelligence testing [has] its origins in the psychological laboratory of University College, London, where [around 100 years ago] Professor [Charles] Spearman broke new ground...when he added to his experiments on vision, hearing...and the rest, his attempt to isolate from other factors a measurable quotient for pure intelligence, which he called g" (Lewis, 1974, p. 149-50). The Independent article does not explicitly state the exact kinds of methods and concepts applied by Watson in his own quest to discover evidence of the illusive 'g'. Suffice to say that such methods and conceptions, along with Watson's various interpretations were almost certainly glazed, (or else dripping) with Western cultural bias as to what constitutes human intelligence. In this sense, "[IQ] intelligence is not intelligence. It is simply what the tester has decided to test" (Lewis, 1974, p. 155).

In other words, and this is the essential point, there are different kinds of intelligence. If, for the purposes of this work, we take intelligence to mean 'the capacity and application of the human brain for / to engage in the task of practical problem solving, and under definite material conditions' then the diversity of human intelligence both within and between cultures or races becomes obvious. "The agricultural worker has a vast knowledge and a shrewd judgment that would nevertheless give him a very low score in [Western IQ tests]. [Indeed] we are slow to recognise that professional footballers are a type of intellectual and that 'savages' are clever [in their own way]" (Lewis, 1974, p. 159). An African peasant in this regard, draws upon vastly different stores of knowledge with which to guide his or her intelligent, practical activities when compared with, say, the day-to-day intellectual activities of one or other Western car salesman. Similarly, a Western solicitor exercises a different kind of intelligence to that of a Western doctor, or a Western accountant, or a Western garage mechanic, or a Western engineer, or a Western graffiti artist, or a Western engine driver and so on.

IQ tests then, are at best limited given such considerations, and only relevant when applied to people of a similar culture and social environment, for it is impossible to formulate an intelligence quotient common to an imagined 'general intellect' of all humans. In the not-too-distant past, the National Literacy Trust here in Britain, formulated and applied the following working definition in its efforts to gauge levels of British (Western) adult intelligence with regards to literacy skills;

'the ability to cope with written material in the information age'

Now then, and given just a little thought, it is obvious that such a 'Western' definition as to what constitutes a characteristic of intelligence in an adult would be all but meaningless were it applied to test, let us say, the intelligence of an adult sub-Saharan Bushman or peasant. In this sense, if generally accepted Western conceptions of intelligence are uncritically applied as the primary means of inferring IQ levels of non-Western peoples (most humans living on the African continent for example), then should we truly be surprised when Westerners come out on top in such tests?

And what if positions were reversed? What if, for example, African Bushmen or peasants were to apply one or other criteria of their own to test one or other dimension of the intelligence of a representative group of Western peoples? How well would the typical Westerner fair with such IQ tests then do you think? In practical terms moreover, what do you think might happen, if a completely ignorant Westerner (ignorant in terms of African cultural practices, topography, history etc..) were to be parachuted deep into the sub-Saharan bush, and then instructed to apply his / her (Western) intelligence with a view to surviving unaided in such a context? How effective would his / her intelligence be in such circumstances? Perhaps not useless in an absolute sense, but a lot less effective I'm sure, than the specific intelligence of someone who has lived in the African bush all of his / her life. The latter would almost certainly prove to be a far more 'intelligent' human being under such circumstances.

Different kinds of human intelligence then, depend not solely upon genetics, (how can a suggested genetic constant explain away so much intellectual variability?) but instead upon an interaction between the natural and the social. Humans are obviously biological beings, but the essential point to grasp is that people's biological potentialities, become their actualities, in inseparable relationship with the historically specific social and natural environment in which the people in question live out their lives. Dr. Leslie White (1969, p.149) in his book 'The Science Of Culture', appears to advance a similar kind of argument when he suggests that "human nature is merely culture, thrown against a screen of nerves, glands, sense organs, muscles etc". It is from within such diverse socio-cultural contexts, that the myriad forms of human intelligence, and the myriad criteria for defining and understanding such human intelligence arise throughout human history. Thus, Dr. Lewis argues that "[IQ] intelligence is not purely biological - it is tested by performance, and the result is not merely a reflection of the biological endowment, but measures that part of it which has been developed and the way in which it has been developed [in relation to historically specific, and culturally specific environmental and social factors]" (Lewis, 1962, p. 117-8). Moreover, even if one is minded to accept limited and controversial comparative findings implying that Western peoples in general are more intelligent along certain measures than the average African, does that then give Westerners the right to go ahead and recklessly exploit Africa's natural resources along with its people? To deprive Africans en masse of their various political, economic and cultural rights whether as individuals or groups? Of course, Western peoples have in the past, and many continue today, directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, to exploit the natural resources and / or peoples of the African continent. And as we shall see, racist arguments were used in the past to justify mass murder of Africans by British and German colonial powers.



Intellectual Overlap
Meanwhile, another problematic implication in respect of IQ testing is this. Any attempt to conceptually juxtapose an imagined homogenous, superior group of people with those of an imagined homogenous, inferior group of people as Watson has done with regards 'Westerners and Africans' is to committ a logical and empirical fallacy. It is to subjectively represent what does not exist objectively. For even if Watson's particular IQ tests demonstrate that a tiny tested group of Westerners came out with higher IQ scores than a tiny tested group of Africans, it does not then follow that such limited findings can then be generalised across both these groups. Throughout African and Western culture, one is able to remark, (and applying just about any culturally established IQ criterion one wishes to choose) the entire range of human intellectual potential, and as we have seen, a diversity of kinds of intelligence to-boot !

There are both literate, and illiterate Westerners then, just as there are both literate, and illiterate Africans along with a range of intellectual abilities existing within these two polar extremes. The assertion of intellectual group superiority / inferiority therefore, is surely a meaningless one. Africa for instance, is undoubtedly backward in terms of industrial and scientific development as it currently exists across the continent as a whole (see below for one explanation for this). Partly no doubt as a direct consequence of this, one source notes that around 30% of males and 40-50% of females are currently classed (from a Western IQ perspective) as illiterate across the continent south of the Sahara (Literacy, 2007, online). Yet despite this, there are countless intelligent Africans (whether we apply western, or non-Western criteria as an IQ measure) who live in, or else have emerged from the context of this largely non-industrialised continent. To begin with, it should be recognised that even those Africans described by one or other Western source as 'illiterate', exercise their own form of intelligence on a day-to-day basis in their various practical activities. Without such context-bound intelligence, these so-called 'illiterate people' would almost certainly perish. From an individual (Western) perspective on the other hand, Nelson Mandela is surely an obvious example of an intelligent African, so too Doris Lessing (writer), Dikembe Motombo (sportsman), Dr. Chris Ouma (National AIDS Program Coordintor) along with thousands upon thousands of other such Africans. Africans' purportedly inferior intelligence is clearly not a matter of pure genetics - something fixed once and for all. And circumstances matter. For example, two years ago, the multi-millionaire businessman Sir Richard Branson, announced that his personally funded 'school of entrepreneurship' "ha[d] been opened at a unique South African university, which provides virtually free education for poor students" (BBC News, 2007, online). If there were any truth in the fact that Africans were genetically inferior concerning their various intellectual capabilities, then I am sure that Mr. Branson would not have risked investing his millions under such circumstances, for his ultimate motivation was to guide young Africans onto a "golden highway to economic freedom". In other words, Branson's aim was and is, to educate would-be future capitalists. The very fact however, that Branson did invest his money, implies not only that he expects a positive outcome in a general business sense, but more importantly in my view, that he sub-consciously at any rate, embraces the principle that if material circumstances are changed, (in this case, the provision of better educational opportunities for poor, young South Africans) then people's various qualities in turn, can be changed, and in this particular case, for the better intellectually speaking.

Perhaps this is one reason why there has been an Association of African Universities in existence since 1967, championing the cause of African higher education generally, and in 45 countries across the continent (AAU, 2007, online). Particular higher education instutions can today be remarked across the entire African continent. In Eastern Africa, in Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. Across Middle Africa, in Angola, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe. Across Western Africa, in Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Côte D'Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leoneand Togo. Across Northern Africa, in Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Sudan and Tunisia. Finally, within Southern Africa, there are universities in Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland (Universities and Colleges by Country - Africa, 2007, online). The existence of such institutions almost certainly reflects the fact, not only that many native Africans succeed in higher education, but also the principle once again, that changed circumstances make for changed people. Africa then, is by no means the intellectual basket case that Watson would have us believe, although there can be no doubt, that illiteracy levels across the continent as a whole are very real, and reasonably high.

Such illiteracy however, is by no means an absolute African phenomenon. Let us now therefore, briefly consider the concept of illiteracy from a Western perspective generally, and begin with Britain in particular. For instance, a 2000 United Nations report into illiteracy rates (illiteracy defined as: 'relative inability to read and write at a level adequate for communication, or at a level that lets one understand and communicate ideas in a literate society, so as to take full part in that society') found that "[a]t least seven million adults in the UK are functionally illiterate" (BBC News, 2007, online). In the same year, data from The National Literacy Trust (NLT) found that "Britain has the fourth highest level of unemployment among people with the poorest modern literacy skills". NLT's working definition of adult 'literacy' was worded thus; "the ability to cope with written material in the information age". NLT subsequently discovered on applying such a working definition, that among other things, many adult Britons were "unable to understand [basic] dosage instructions on a packet of medicine" (NLT, 2007, online). No doubt partly as a reflection of such an objective situation, key skills courses aimed at teaching very basic English and maths skills (i.e. aimed at forming the basis for increases in intelligence) are now reasonably ubiquitous across the UK. And in 2005, the then UK Education Secretary Ruth Kelly asserted, "It is totally unacceptable that at least 70,000 16-year-olds a year are weak in the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic" (BBC News, 2007, online). While such figures contain further sub-categories of interest such as differences in gender literacy across Britain, they nonetheless offer one kind of general snapshot of the UK's collective intellect at the dawn of the 21st century.

Similarly, and still in a UK context, it has recently been shown, that some first year undergraduates arriving at one or other British university, including the much-lorded top two - Oxford and Cambridge - are found wanting in the most basic of (Western) intellectual skills. Research published by the Nuffield Review into Higher Education for example, found among other things that; " Physics admissions tutors complained: 'They can't even write in sentences. Their spelling is appalling. They can't be understood ... they graduate with a 2:1 but they still can't spell or write English'. And from biology admissions tutors: "Elementary maths is missing. They can't put decent sentences together' and 'Students hate numbers, they're scared stiff of numbers' " (Nuffield Review, 2007, online).

Turning our attention to the United States (US) for a moment, and remaining with the notion of illiteracy in a Western context, writing in The Washington Post in March this year, Keith Alexander suggests that the number of functionally illiterate Americans on a national scale totals 21% (that's around 41 million people which is roughly equivalent to two-thirds of the British population) while in the US capital city Washington DC, functional illiteracy rates are significantly higher than the national average, at an estimated 36% of the adult population (NowPublic, 2007, online). From an employment perspective, it is estimated by another source, that at the beginning of the 21st century, around 15 million employees across America were categorised as functionally illiterate (Functional Illiteracy, 2007, online). No doubt these figures conceal as much as they reveal, not least because America in general has a large migrant population sourced from all regions of the world with all this implies in the (il)literacy stakes with regards language barriers and the like. Nonetheless, it is a little perplexing to read such figures while at one and the same time, an American (pseudo) scientist (Watson) is asserting the superior intelligence of Westerners generally over that of Africans and claiming as he does that he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" (The Times, 2007, online). If Watson ever turns out to be correct in his assertion that 'stupidity is a disease'. then I for one, know of at least two industrially advanced Western countries, currently in urgent need of treatment.



Biological Sameness
Interestingly, just as the existence of intellectual diversity and overlap among and between people of differing cultures and race largely serves to undermine Watson's general assertion of an intellectually homogenous and 'genetically superior Western culture', (or for that matter his conception of an homogenous and 'intellectually inferior non-Western people') so too paradoxically, does the existence of similarity. For it is important to remember, that humans, unlike others in the animal kingdom have not splintered into biologically distinct groups, with fundamentally different genetic constitutions. According to Professor Steve Jones, "Modern genetics does show that there are no separate groups within humanity" (1993, p. 185). He adds; "[w]hen gene geography is used to look at overall patterns of variation, it seems that people from different parts of the world do not differ much on the average. Colour does not say much about what lies under the skin" (Jones, 1993, p. 192). Similarly, Dr. Lewis convincingly argues that "[t]he genetic constitution [in man] is basic, universal and has hardly altered in the bare 200 generations of recorded history. It shows no evidence of fundamental change since the Stone Age" (Lewis, 1962, p. 107). Of course, there are many varieties of humans, with regards hair form, skin colour, eye colour, height, weight and so forth. Such variety itself, is easily accounted for however, when we realise that "In the case of man (whose reproductive cells have 23 chromosomes) this gives some 16 million possible kinds of individual for each conception" (Lewis, 1962, p. 15). Variety in this sense, truly is the spice of life.

This being so, an obvious problem arises if we are initially minded to take Watson's 'genetic intelligence' theory at face value. Namely, there is a need for Watson to explain the reason(s) for why it is, that from an obvious foundation of species and genetic sameness, certain humans, (in this case 'African people') have developed what can only be described as a negative, genetic pre-disposition all of their own. Namely, hereditary of a gene pattern, that produces inferior levels of intelligence. There are obvious differences in terms of peoples various capacities, but can we truly develop a scientific understanding of such differences by confining ourselves to genetic study alone? Given we are but one species who share a common genetic constitution, are we not logically obliged to seek for natural factors also, to account for such general differences in capacity including when it comes to differences of human intellect? Such natural factors like vastly differing cultural, political, economic and social experiences? We have returned it would seem, to the undeniable fact that our biological potentialities become our actualities in the context of our day-to-day- life experiences.



Overgeneralising
A further argument we must direct at Watson's assertion of superior Western intelligence is that which questions the representative nature of Watson's evidence. In this regard, I would question his obvious tendency to overgeneralise from wholly limited data. There are many, many millions of people currently living on the African continent. Similarly, there are many millions of people living in the region we loosely term the West. In a practical sense then, Watson can only have possibly engaged with but a tiny fraction of these people in his research into so-called genetic intelligence. Yet for some reason, and leaving aside the countless other contradictions to his 'supremacist theory' already noted above, he feels confident enough to assert that he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" en masse, Africa of course being a very large continent. This being so, we might well ask how it is, that Watson logically permits himself to project his limited and highly questionable findings relating to human intelligence, onto the population of the African continent? Edward Said it was, who coined the term 'othering', as a way of describing a process whereby a dominant culture (the West generally) defines itself in comparison with another believed-to-be inferior race or culture, with the former, ideologically describing itself, in terms of what it is not. In other words, the suggested inferior race or culture is seen not in its own terms, not objectively, but in subjective terms suited to the dominant race or culture. It is my view, that Watson has taken it upon himself to unjustly and illogically 'other' an entire continent's people, by overgeneralising his highly limited and questionable data relating to aspects of human intelligence.



Theory And Logic
Common sense also stands to problematize Watson's line of theoretical reasoning. Watson certainly tries very hard to persuade people by means of reason, to accept his theoretical argument that our genes determine our intelligence, and once and for all. He has published books, written in scientific journals and so on with regards this very subject matter. Yet, if his theory of genetically determined intelligence is true, it then logically becomes a self-defeating theory. For as Dr. Lewis points out, "Any system of explanation which seeks to impugn the method of persuasion by reason, by representing it either as neurologically [or genetically] determined, or pure rationalisation, or the expression of a fixed behavioural pattern, is obviously a self-defeating theory. If it is true, there are no grounds for believing it" (1974, p. 178). In this sense, each time Watson argues a reasoned case for the existence of genetically determined human intelligence (or any other human character for that matter), in effect, he spectacularly contradicts himself.



Geography And Environment
At this point, I think it appropriate to offer an alternative explanation for the origins of Africa's ills. Such an alternative approach, seeks to explain these origins as being a general consequence of natural, as opposed to genetic causes. It is undeniable, that much of Africa is still at a stage of tribal or peasant existence when it comes to the kinds of socio-economic relations at work across much of the continent. There are of course, obvious exceptions. For example the modest and patchy industrial capacity evident in parts of South Africa, areas of Egypt in the north and so on. However, most people with a lively interest in African affairs would probably agree that Africa is the least industrialized continent on the planet, as the world currently exists.

Judging by appearances then, it might well be tempting to conclude, as Watson no doubt does, that Africans, along with Eskimos and other such peoples are indeed, of inferior intellectual stock when compared to their industrial Western cousins, for these former peoples are so far behind our own achievements. How is it, that we in the West could have attained such advances in our cultural and material productive techniques, scientific knowledge and such like while Africans in particular, are still largely living in a sub-industrial, tribal and peasant world? A genetic pre-disposition to greater intelligence on the part of Westerners? Poppycock! would be my reply to such an explanatory claim. For this kind of metaphysical explanation overlooks critical geographical and environmental factors, not least the phenomenon we term, the 'fertile crescent'. A concept coined by the archaeologist, James Henry Breasted. And a significant slice of history and geography it proved itself to be too. "The Fertile Crescent is a historical crescent-shape region in the Middle East incorporating the Levant, Ancient Mesopotamia, and Ancient Egypt...Watered by the Nile, Jordan, Euphrates and Tigris rivers and covering some 400-500,000 square kilometres, the region extends from the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea around the north of the Syrian Desert and through the Jazirah and Mesopotamia to the Persian Gulf". (Fertile Crescent, 2007, online).

According to Dr. Lewis, "[cultural] backwardness [across much of the African continent]...is entirely explicable in terms of differences in opportunity and environment. Natural conditions gave peoples in the fertile crescent (where alone in the world wheat and barley were originally found)...a great start. Compare their conditions with...the inhabitants of Africa south of the Sahara, people who, because of historical or geographical accident, were outside the main stream of cultural development and were unable to advance, no matter what their racial background may have been" (1962, p. 106). It is arguably this historical and geographical accident then, that is the primary objective cause for why Africa en masse, is a backward region of the world along just about any measure one wishes to apply when compared to the industrially developed West. Moreover, since times of slavery in ancient Greece, and up to the present day, production has been carried out in accordance with the needs of a minority exploiting class (whether slave owner, feudal lord or capitalist) as opposed to the general material and cultural requirements of all in a given society. Such socio-economic (inter)national factors, have further served to compound Africa's general plight.

Capitalism And Ideology

Capitalism
Why then, is Watson saying the controversial things he currently is, about purportedly determined human intelligence and 'inferior African people'? To begin answering this question, we must pose another. Namely, 'What is this social system we call capitalism?' This latter question must be answered, albeit here in the most general and briefest of terms, if we wish to understand the social origins and sources of social significance of Watson's particular thoughts about intelligence generally, and black Africans in particular, for the historical context in which he makes such bigoted comments, is one of advanced industrial capitalism.

Capitalism, is the most advanced form of exploitative human association known to mankind, and follows in the historical wake of two previous social systems also based on particular social relations of exploitation, namely feudalism and slavery. Capitalism involves the contradictory existence of two broad classes of people; Firstly there are those who, for historical reasons, (not least the ongoing division of labour), own means of production (all the necessary means at the disposal of human beings to undertake and complete the general process of production, such as land, raw materials, buildings, instruments of production, modes of transport etc..) Second, there are those people who do not own means of production. These property-less people for their part, are compelled to sell their labour-power (intellectual, physical, or else a mixture of both) to one or other owner of means of production as their primary means of securing their respective share of socially produced wealth.

During the production process, such working people collectively produce much more than they require to survive as human beings. This has been the case since times of slavery and is obviously the case under conditions of global social production. Such surplus forms the basis for human exploitation, for the owners of the means of production are able to subsequently appropriate all surplus value. Under conditions of capitalism this means all value above and beyond the initial cost of production. The production of surplus value through the sale of commodities is the entire raison d'être of the capitalist system.

The unavoidable antagonistic material interests of worker and property-owner arising from such a state of affairs, are necessarily conditioned and regulated, both legally and politically, above all through the legal establishment and subsequent, and ongoing political defence of socially binding property relations. Such production relations make clear who is entitled to what, who owns what, how social wealth is to be divided up and so on. They legally function to subordinate the various fruits of social production to the process of private appropriation. Under conditions of private ownership juxtaposed with social production, it becomes necessary to legally and politically regulate people's mutual, yet antagonistic relations to the privately owned means of production and the resulting social product.

Finally here, and as one might expect given all the above, capitalism is an inherently unequal and uneven social system with regards both its productive geography, and its (in)ability to distribute the resulting social product to meet the needs of all of humankind. Its purpose is not to meet the material and cultural needs of all humanity, but to produce ever-greater amounts of surplus value for the minority, property owners of means of production.



Ideology And Africa
Capitalism is the dominant basis of Western society, and provides the objective backdrop to Watson's derogatory remarks about Africans. Under such antagonistic conditions of exploitation, people's various views, arising as they do from the material life of society, must never be regarded as merely the expression of disinterested beings. Instead, such views are bound to be the ideological reflection of the given people's particular concrete existence and resulting material interests. Watson in this regard, can usefully be thought of as an ideological mouthpiece for the dominant capitalist class. A natural theoretical defender and apologist of capitalistic property relations and the numerous consequences thereof. The fact that he is unaware of his historical role in this regard, does not devalue the fact that this is indeed, the role that he, and others like him fulfil.

Not everyone of course, living under conditions of capitalism is minded to verbally write off an entire continent of people as intellectually inferior. So why did Watson say such things? Marx, in his work 'The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte', explains why it was, that many seemingly disparate social groups in mid-nineteenth century France were collectively drawn, in an ideological, and thus also in a practical sense, to the revolutionary French petty-bourgeoisie. "What has made [these disparate classes of people] become the [collective] political representatives of the petty bourgeoisie" he argued "is this; Intellectually, they have failed to transcend the limitations which are materially imposed upon the petty bourgeois by the [concrete] conditions of petty bourgeois existence. Consequently, they are, in the theoretical field, impelled towards the same aspirations and solutions as those towards which in practical life, the petty bourgeois are impelled by material interests" (1943, pp.58-9).

Watson, I believe, in much the same way, is drawn to naturally and spontaneously denigrate the bulk of Africa's people, basically because he is intellectually unable, (at least at this stage in his life) to transcend the myriad concrete limitations born of capitalist socio-economic activity. Or to put it another way; he is logically compelled to theorise in terms suited to the dominant property relations of the day. In this regard, Watson was no more born a capitalist than Marx was born a Marxist. The reason why Watson stands on the side of the capitalist class, ideologically and practically speaking, while Marx did not, is that unlike Marx, Watson naturally and uncritically regards the capitalist system (regardless of its historical origins and obvious contradictions) as a materially beneficial and endearing socio-economic phenomenon; something that is here and here to stay. This explains why, for example, Watson is a natural advocate of the controversial technique of genetically modified (GM) foods, not least concerning the activities of capitalist giant, Monsanto, and is minded at one and the same time, to label anti-GM environmental activists, 'cavemen' (Genetics and Health, 2007 online). The material fact that productive capacity under conditions of industrial capitalism now means it is technically possible to feed the entire world without the need for GM crops; and the fact that the only thing preventing people from doing so is the subordination of capitalist social production to the pursuit and realisation of private profits, completely passes Watson by.

Watson's specific remarks about Africans' purportedly inferior intelligence levels when compared to Westerners, is but the most recent example of this kind of crippled thinking. Similar views of course, have functioned in the past to ideologically justify the murder of Africans en masse at the hands of Western capitalist powers. More recently, socio-economic exploitation of Africans is more in vogue. Britain's not-too-distant colonial past in relation to the country of Kenya, provides one example of the former, when spurious arguments of racial superiority were advanced and subsequently acted upon in a political sense, principally to justify mass murder in Britain's pursuit of Kenya's natural resource wealth. Pilger (1998, p. 24), when discussing Britain's colonial role in 1950's Kenya, quotes the then Governor as asserting that 'The task to which we have set our minds...is to civilise a great mass of human beings, who are in a very primitive moral and social state'. Pilger adds; "The [ensuing] reality was a kind of colonial fascism. The slaughter of thousands of nationalists was British Government policy - [much like] the British policy in Ireland of 'shoot to kill' [only in Kenya] practised on a massive scale".

A similar example of mass murder of African peoples by agents of a developing capitalist power took place a little earlier in the same century (1904-7). Germany it was this time that set about its capitalistic colonial ambitions with political and militaristic gusto by attempting among other things, to exterminate the Herero and Nama peoples of south-west Africa. Known now as the Herero and Namaqua Genocide, around 80% of the Herero peoples, and around 50% of the Nama peoples were exterminated. In the aftermath of protracted battles, "[s]urvivors, mostly women and children, were eventually put in concentration camps...similar to those used in British South Africa during both the First and Second Boer Wars. German authorities attributed to each Herero a number and meticulously recorded every death of a Herero, whether in camps or due to forced labor...German enterprises were able to rent Herero people for manpower, and death of workers was permitted...Forced labor, disease, and malnutrition killed an estimated 50 to 80 percent of the entire Herero population by 1908, when the camps were closed" (Herero and Namaqua Genocide, 2007 online). It was, to all intents and purposes, a dress rehearsal for the Jewish Holocaust.

Of course, in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century, the endless and necessary drive for profits by the capitalist class as a whole on the African continent, no longer involves the overt bullying and when needs must, extermination of Africans. This would not be tolerated by the bulk of 'intelligent people' in today's world. Instead therefore, more acceptable / appropriate means of exploitation are used. For example, through international institutions like the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Britain, America and other capitalist states are continuing virtually unabated to plunder many of Africa's natural resources. As Curtis (2003, p. 367-8) argues, and thanks chiefly to the British Broadcasting Corporation's veracious appetite for the making of nature programmes in Kenya, "we should all by now have expert knowledge of the mating habits of cheetahs [but] television audiences will know nothing of human poverty in Kenya". Curtis continues; "Britain is...heavily engaged in Africa...It is a leading champion of rewriting the rules of the global economy to benefit transnational business and to lock in African countries to promote further neo-liberal (that's capitalist to you and me) economic strategies which have already had devastating consequences in poor [African] countries".

In the late twentieth century for instance, "70% of Nigerians still live on less than $1 a day [while] Shell [Oil] is still making superprofits...This is what keeps Africa poor: Not a lack of political will but the tremendous profitability of [its natural resource wealth]. Sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest place on earth, is also [the] most profitable investment destination. It offers, according to the World Bank's 2003 Global Development Finance report, 'the highest returns on foreign direct investment of any region in the world'. Africa is poor because its investors and its creditors are so unspeakably rich" (The Progress Report, 2007, online).

These, and a myriad other examples of human exploitation on the African continent by one or other capitalist enterprise, are at least in part superficially explained away / justified, if one is minded to embrace the logic of theories claiming the existence of cultural superiority, genetically superior intelligence and so on. Moreover, under such material conditions, the last thing the capitalist world wants is an educated and thus, at least in theory, politically enlightened African people, at least not on a continent-wide scale. For the essential purpose of all capitalist activity in Africa as elsewhere, is the exploitation of the people and in Africa's particular case, the plunder of their various resources for the maximum profitable return on investment. This is as true today as it was in colonial times. Such an ongoing and endless task of human and natural resource exploitation is obviously made easier, if the people being exploited are industrially and culturally backward in relative terms, when compared to the dominant group.



Superiority / Inferiority
What racist attitudes in general all boil down to, is not issues of race per se, but the practical existence and exercise of ruling class power. If we wish to understand both the ideological and the practical aspects associated with antagonistic race relations, then it is to the material conditions of human existence that we must direct our analytical senses. That this is so, is evident in the fact that Watson's 'inferior intelligence' theory does not simply juxtapose so-called 'inferior black Africans' with a so-called 'superior Caucasian people' (although many Africans belong to the Negroid race while a majority of Westerners are undoubtedly Caucasian). No, he specifically uses the term Western, implying that people from all three major races, - Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasian - are collectively superior in a cultural sense to the bulk of humans living on the African continent. Watson is essentially arguing that those people within the shared social space of industrially developed capitalism, (a system he regards as both superior and endearing) are superior (in economic, cultural and political terms) to the bulk of industrially backward peoples in Africa. And he explains this superiority, as we have seen, in genetic terms.

Yet no one is born inferior or superior in a biological sense. Dominant individuals and social groups naturally, and spontaneously invent and apply such categories as justification for defending and pursuing their own dominant political, economic and cultural material ends, and for denying these imagined 'inferior people' their equal rights when it comes to politics, law, their respective share of socially produced wealth and knowledge and so on. And they do so as was argued above, because they are essentially incapable (not least as a consequence of their own particular material interests) of theoretically transcending the practical problems associated with the ruling class of their day.


There is nothing new of course, about Watson's class-based, elitist, and crippled form of reasoning. The Greek philosopher Plato for example, undoubtedly believed that the slave society of ancient Greece, was the pinnacle of human achievement. For him, the Greece of his day, was as good as it was going to get. As one way of logically justifying this state of affairs, Plato argued that human beings belonged to one or other kind. There were those laced with iron and brass, (the slaves) and these were hopelessly condemned to a life of toil. Then there were those laced with silver (who might now be termed the Middle-Class) who were, Plato argued, born to be administrators. Finally, there were those laced with gold. This latter group were superior, and put on the earth to rule all others. Needless to say, Plato was conveniently laced with gold, or at least he believed as much. Interestingly, when Greece was at the head of a flourishing Mediterranean culture, and Britain for its part, was a largely barbaric culture, "Cicero said of...[the British] - 'Do not obtain your slaves from the Britons, for they are so stupid and dull that they are not fit for slaves' - " (Lewis, 1974, p. 164). In a similar kind of way, Watson has come to believe that 'capitalist man' is laced with superior genes and that the Africans are 'stupid and dull'.

History however, teaches us that apparently omnipotent and ever-lasting societies, along with the particular views to which they give rise, are never enduring phenomena in material terms, but are, instead, historically transient phenomena. Ancient Greece (Plato and all) came and went. So too the Roman Empire and many other societies besides, all of whom imagined themselves in some or other fashion to be all-powerful and immortal, but in reality never were. Moreover, this coming and going could have had little to do with genetic factors, and much to do with historical conditions. As Lewis reminds us, "Egyptians, Hittites, Babylonians, Cretans came and went. That their rise and decline could possibly be due to genetic causes is quite out of the question. Genetic changes are extremely slow. But the rapid rise of new civilisations is to be explained by geographical and historical reasons, not by a sudden mutation in the direction of intelligence. As far as hereditary endowment is concerned, the same people may be as intellectually competent and artistically creative as the Greeks in one period and in the next, decline to a tenth rate, backward and corrupt society" (1974, p. 164). Political America may well be the dominant Western nation in the world as it currently exists, but in twenty, thirty, fifty years from now? What of China or India as emerging global powers?

Conclusions

Three days have now passed, since James Watson uttered his thoughts about purportedly intellectually inferior Africans. For whatever reason, he has thought it proper to publicly apologise for making such remarks. My own view as to why he was minded to do so, is that he sought to prevent millions of people from logically reasoning, and subsequently concluding, that he was one of Joseph Gobineau's siblings. That said, it is hoped by now, that the reader is sufficiently convinced that Watson's initial comments about Africans (which certainly were repugnant and racial to the core) cannot be comprehensively understood from issues of race alone.

His theory of genetically inferior human intelligence is essentially an intellectual consequence born of capitalism, of a socio-economic system that culturally, politically and economically prevents humans from being human(e) to varying degrees, in their myriad relationships with one another whether such relationships be face-to-face, or more distanciated in form. Moreover, such a theory reacts back on the society whence it came, serving among other things to justify, and to rationalise the existing social order. Watson himself, is intellectually unable at present, to theoretically transcend the concrete problems born of an exploitative class system of human existence and therefore, is naturally compelled to theorise within the framework of capitalism and capitalist ideology itself.

Given some thought, it is clear that deterministic theories such as those advanced by Watson among others, naturally aimed as they are at justifying the present social order are at root, deeply flawed, both logically and empirically. Yet unless and until enough people come to realise that capitalism is not a permanent social system, but an historically transient one with all this implies as to the potential changed content of ideas and theories, then such reactionary theories like those put forward by Watson, will not only continue to surface, but will continue to enjoy widespread ideological support in the minds of fellow inmates. Inmates that is, whose minds are also locked away in the very same dungeon of capitalist exploitation.

References

Association of African Universities, [Accessed online, October, 2007] Available at: Association of African Universities - 40 years… Serving Higher Education in Africa


BBC News, Branson Backs African Students, [Accessed online, October, 2007] Available at: BBC NEWS | Education | Branson backs African students


BBC News, Teenagers Must Pass 3R's Test, [accessed online, October, 2007] Available at: BBC NEWS | Education | Teenagers 'must pass 3Rs tests'


BBC News, One in Five UK Adults Illiterate, [Accessed online, October, 2007] Available at: BBC News | UK | One in five UK adults 'illiterate'


Curtis,M. (2003) Web of Deceit:Britain's Real Role in the World, Vintage,London.


Genetics and Health, Dr. James Watson Go on GM Food, [Accessed online, October, 2007] Available at: Dr. James Watson Go on GM Food


Independent Newspaper, 17 October, 2007.


Jones, S. (1993) The Language of the Genes, Biology, History and the Evolutionary Future, HarperCollins, London.


Lewis, J. (1962) Man and Evolution, Lawrence and Wishart, London.


Lewis, J. (1974) The Uniqueness of Man, Lawrence and Wishart, London.


Marx, K. (1943) The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, George Allen & Unwin Ltd London.


National Literacy Trust, Literacy standards in the developed world - adults [Accessed online, October, 2007]Available at: http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/data...ernat.html#lag


NowPublic, Illiteracy: A Problem in USA Capital City, [Accessed online, October, 2007] Available at: Illiteracy: A Problem in USA Capital City | The News is NowPublic.com


Nuffield Review, Higher Education Focus Groups Preliminary Report [Accessed online, October, 2007] Available at: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-file...iteratepdf.pdf


Pilger, J. (1998) Hidden Agendas, Vintage, London.


The Progress Report, Should Outside Speculators Control Your Life? [Accessed online, October, 2007] Available at: Africa's Natural Resource Wealth Should Benefit Africans


The Times [Accessed online, October, 2007] Available at: The elementary DNA of Dr Watson - Times Online


White, L. A. (1969) The Science Of Culture, A Study of Man and Civilisation, Doubleday Ltd. Toronto.


Wikipedia, Fertile Crescent, [Accessed online, October, 2007] Available at: Fertile Crescent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wikipedia, Herero and Namaqua Genocide [Accessed online, October, 2007] Available at: Herero and Namaqua Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wikipedia, Literacy, [Accessed online, October, 2007] Available at: Literacy - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wikipedia, Universities and Colleges by Country [Accessed online, October, 2007] Available at: List of universities and colleges by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia













Colin Baker BSc (Hons) October, 2007

[Rudy]

I like your essay very much. I suspect you will not get many positive responses since most of the people who might respond are themselves benefactors of the the racist systems in place. I will give your essay high ratings. Excuse my informal writing.

The following is just a comment in response to reading your essay:

I like your essay, but there is way too much intellectualizing of issues that are perfectly obvious to a third grader. The idea of superiority of the west as far as intelligence is concerned seems like absolute nonsense to me.

Take a bunch of people, rape and murder them, have them work for free for a couple hundred years, then call yourself superior. That is how you build an empire. The empires were not built by intelligence alone, but by the exploitation of humanity at the end of a whip. Men, women, and children raped, sodomized , and threatened with death. That is how you build a western empire. It is easy to then pontificate about intelligence and submit culturally specific tests of intelligence.

Even today, the institutionalization of racism in the United States helps to keep people from attaining education, work, housing , and so on. Corporations in the U.S. are nothing more than racist cliques. Even so, Americans are as stupid as ever as a whole. I need not go into statistics. Take my word for it.

Here is a comment I made somewhere concerning the U.S. This comes straight from the gut. No intellectual clap-trap. Straight and simple. Perhaps this can shed some light into the working of an evil empire and indirectly on intelligence and its attainment.

And what Noam Comsky ( google video Prof Nom Chomsky) says is related to a global influence. The global wickedness of the United States, but if you take it to an individualistic level, the corruption is much more evident and intense.

To say the media is propagandistic is an extreme euphemism. I suspect you are all American and that is why you are debating something so extremely obvious. I suspect the reason you debate this is because of the insular nature of your lives. Most of you are probably mono-linguistic and likely have little reference to the outside world other than what you see on TV. I am by no means condemning you for this.

But if you are a fish in a fish bowl, then you can hardly speak of the world outside. And the American media helps to keep you as stupefied as is humanly possible.

All major entities in the United States i.e. the health care industry, the media, and the military industrial complex, work in tandem.

Thus, in order to make the American moron even more apathetic about the violence in the world, they create generation after generation of gratuitous violence in the media so as to de-sensitize the public to the horrors committed in the name of freedom and democracy.

Constantly, we hear of atrocious crimes such as the recent case of a 19 year old male murdering a nanny that responded to an ad on craigslist.

And the media people who are themselves diseased work very hard to manipulate this media in racist ways as well, always diminishing culpability based on race so that the racial discriminatory nature of the societal structures remain firmly in place.

It's crime layered upon crime. And all of this works against the society. The very people the society seeks to assure of dominance themselves are victims as well.

Because they believe ( the so-called whites) that the are entitled and that they are white, they then adhere more closely to the propaganda and stupefication that the media perpetuates.

Thus you see these morons everywhere seeking to become like the characters they see in the media.

So it is no coincidence that the corruption of the person is so pervasive and particularly offensive.

It is a nation of violence prone, narcoleptic imbeciles who in their ignorance allow and legitimize the status quo.

Give them bread and circus.

[colinbaker62]

Hi Rudy and thank you for your reply.

And to a degree, I agree with you, when you suggest that there is far too much discussion (intellectual or otherwise) about social phenomena that are often glaringly obvious to the average person in the street. This, of course, is partly the trouble. People like Dr. Watson are all but isolated from mainstream day-to-day living when it comes to the world of survival. Couple this with such people's obvious inability to theoretically transcend the concrete here-and-now in terms of a scientific understanding about social problems born of a class-ridden society, and one has a recipe for crippled thinking with all this implies in the material world.

Watson, in my view, is crippled to the core when it comes to his theories of human existence. It is necessary however, in my opinion, to fundamentally critique such stilted reasoning as advanced by Watson and others, because otherwise, such people would merely laugh off all those who simply ranted and raved about superficial racist comments. I tried to do this by showing that Watson's thinking was at root, a consequence not of a racist mind per se, but of capitalist relations of production.

Your remarks outlining a snapshot of your thoughts of Americans / American life are also very interesting. I think you are not too far off the mark when you argue that sometimes, (political) America, tends to debate the obvious. You suggest one cause of this might be the insular lives led by Americans generally. I think there is undoubtedly some truth in this. I remember a survey not too long ago in which a majority of those Americans polled did not know where Iran or Iraq was. You are right to highlight, among others, the media in its role in keeping people reasonably ill informed (whether they be Americans, British or whatever).


I think I would urge caution however, about labelling Americans per se, as "a nation of violence prone, narcoleptic imbeciles". Or if they are, so too I would suggest, are a majority of British, and French, and Dutch, and German etc....... It is important to realise I think, that changed social circumstances in turn, lead to changed people. Of course, for such change to become possible, many people have to come to a conscious awareness as to the anomalies at work in a given society before radical social change is possible. But should such awareness arise, then anything is potentially possible. In America at the present time, there are many, many brave people (a minority yes, but a significant minority) who have taken a stand for example, and continue to take a stand against American military involvement in Iraq. Similarly, many Americans take a stand against White House ambitions to pursue the Star Wars project. Many Americans campaign against WTO activities in its unfair dealings with African countries, and so on and so forth. If enough people of this kind of mind were to grow in American society, then the dominant ideology, conceptions and so forth would, in turn, radically alter. I suppose what I'm trying to say is the current level of consciousness in America, is no measure of its future potential. Ditto for Britain and any other country for that matter.



Thanks again for your very interesting comments,



Colin

[Rudy]

Hi! Thanks for the comments. I'd like to address the issue of so-called minority communities in the United States as this is indirectly related to Africa because there are many African Americans in the U.S. I think one of the problems is the methodology of "divide and conquer" that is the mainstay of the west.

One of the ways communities of so-called color are divided is due to the aspirations of consumerism, and also what I like to call slave-brain syndrome ( feelings that whites are superior or that one is a victim of these so-called whites). To a large extent communities of color deserve their oppression because instead of taking a stick and beating the crap out of the enemy they seek to be like the one that oppresses them.

They compete against each other for crumbs-jobs, material possessions, skin color and so forth. They are in effect socio-politically asleep.

I come from a Spanish/Cuban background. And although I look like any other white guy (many of us do), I do not adhere to the cynical traditions of my homeland in the U.S. I do not ignore the fact of all the abuse against people of color, many are kindred spirits of mine, and some are even family.

I was not raised Anglican . I was raised Hispanic. So I tend to think in a socialistic way ( the man is worht more than the money). The mere mention of socialism to the TV parroting imbecile American is enough to send them into a frenzy. They'll tell you "I saw it on TV."

Anyway, my advice is simple. Beware of the enemy and be prepared to hammer him into the dust on the slightest provocation.

I have a nice aluminum baseball bat just in case I come across some abuse and have an opportunity to persuade the victimizer. I have never had to use it yet, but I did slap the crap out of a guy that was insulting a black woman once.

Instead of always complaining. Use a more persuasive approach. Heheh!

I welcome you to read my fictional story: Latino Thor.

I am not as advanced as you are in the writing department, but I have a lot to say.

Walk quietly and carry a big stick.

[xtremelady]

A great and very well thought out argument...you addressed all my personal thoughts on the subject one by one. Ah well one could say for such a so called intelligent Nobel prise winner, his theory is beyond logic...for all the reasons stated. If such an intelligence metre existed separating humans, the only way to conclude this would not be by the sort of intelligence test used. I mean to even make such a comment with any degree of certainty – one would have to experiment extensively {with such things as white children growing up in exactly the same environment as Africans + vice versa} anything beyond this becomes conjecture...but then we enter the realm of ethics. On the other hand evidence exists that Africans growing up in western families – do as well as the other children in that family.

Racism or capitalism? Now you know I fully believe capitalism has created some major issues in our lives and isn’t this marvellous system most fully support – you echoed my thoughts on how enslaving it can be....yet I do find it a bit of a leap to believe capitalism creates racism or that the scientists belief stemmed from any other reason but racist. For me racism follows from tribal times where any outsider is considered with distrust and fear, so it’s hard to accept transferring racism to a capitalist evil and not based on an inner natural distrust for outsiders coupled with social conditioning, which magnifies this instinctual mistrust. I kinda think racism would exist regardless of the social system – people of other nations will always be stereotyped as a collective, rather on individual merit, the colour of ones skin making little difference to this outward perception of other races.

Does capitalism foster racism? Unsure about this; – it has brought us closer to other ppl’s and needs the compliance of nations to create trade between them. Pointing a finger and stating one peoples are less intelligent, thus not capable of self reliance – serves no capitalist function. Their plight is already cemented by years of western interference and slavery, anybody with half a brain knows this. The reason why our capitalist society made an apology necessary, ppl are just not as gullible as they once were. Which leads me to consider the age factor and a possible diminished mental process.

I guess I am of the mind that slavery of others transcends any social system; in the past it was our own ppl’s, long before Africans.

I agree capitalism isn’t sustainable at the present rate of growth, sooner or later practicalities will burst the almost euphoric bubble developed countries are existing in. All the benefits gained from capitalism will be the very things which will eventually destroy the system.

Maybe already it is too late for a smooth transfer to an alternative collective consciousness; there have been reports that in just a few years time, there will not be enough food produced to feed the entire world’s population. If this is correct then someone has to starve....scary thought! No system is going to halt the rise in population.

[colinbaker62]

Originally Posted by xtremelady

A great and very well thought out argument...you addressed all my personal thoughts on the subject one by one. Ah well one could say for such a so called intelligent Nobel prise winner, his theory is beyond logic...for all the reasons stated. If such an intelligence metre existed separating humans, the only way to conclude this would not be by the sort of intelligence test used. I mean to even make such a comment with any degree of certainty – one would have to experiment extensively {with such things as white children growing up in exactly the same environment as Africans + vice versa} anything beyond this becomes conjecture...but then we enter the realm of ethics. On the other hand evidence exists that Africans growing up in western families – do as well as the other children in that family.

Racism or capitalism? Now you know I fully believe capitalism has created some major issues in our lives and isn’t this marvellous system most fully support – you echoed my thoughts on how enslaving it can be....yet I do find it a bit of a leap to believe capitalism creates racism or that the scientists belief stemmed from any other reason but racist. For me racism follows from tribal times where any outsider is considered with distrust and fear, so it’s hard to accept transferring racism to a capitalist evil and not based on an inner natural distrust for outsiders coupled with social conditioning, which magnifies this instinctual mistrust. I kinda think racism would exist regardless of the social system – people of other nations will always be stereotyped as a collective, rather on individual merit, the colour of ones skin making little difference to this outward perception of other races.

Does capitalism foster racism? Unsure about this; – it has brought us closer to other ppl’s and needs the compliance of nations to create trade between them. Pointing a finger and stating one peoples are less intelligent, thus not capable of self reliance – serves no capitalist function. Their plight is already cemented by years of western interference and slavery, anybody with half a brain knows this. The reason why our capitalist society made an apology necessary, ppl are just not as gullible as they once were. Which leads me to consider the age factor and a possible diminished mental process.

I guess I am of the mind that slavery of others transcends any social system; in the past it was our own ppl’s, long before Africans.

I agree capitalism isn’t sustainable at the present rate of growth, sooner or later practicalities will burst the almost euphoric bubble developed countries are existing in. All the benefits gained from capitalism will be the very things which will eventually destroy the system.

Maybe already it is too late for a smooth transfer to an alternative collective consciousness; there have been reports that in just a few years time, there will not be enough food produced to feed the entire world’s population. If this is correct then someone has to starve....scary thought! No system is going to halt the rise in population.

Hi xtremelady and thank you very much for these comments. And I am in broad agreement with you in your assessment as to the validity or otherwise of IQ testing. They are indeed, deeply flawed. In my view, it is an abstract way of suggesting human intelligence levels, naturally born of a socio-economic system that is unavoidably crosscut with class antagonisms. It is to the justification of the inevitable superior / inferior human relationships resulting from such social antagonisms that IQ testing has been directed.

I think also to a degree, your concern as to whether or not capitalism per se causes racism is a valid one. How to define 'racism' itself, is an issue in its own right, but if we use even the most basic of definitions - 'any form of discrimination based on human characteristics' - then it becomes obvious that this kind of discrimination has a long history. For example, we could label Plato a racist in this regard, given his assertions as to the relative (albeit unobservable) scale of purported inferiority / superiority in ancient Greece. Some laced with gold, others silver etc....

I think what capitalism does, just as slave relations did in ancient Greece, given that both systems were founded on the exploitation of some humans by other humans, is to necessitate the forming of discriminatory views in the minds of those unable (or unwilling) to see beyond the given form of antagonistic existence, both in a concrete, and thus in a theoretical sense. Watson, as I suggested, is unable to conceptualise capitalism as a transient phenomenon. Something that has arisen, existed and one day, must cease to exist. Therefore, he, and all others like him to varying degrees, is compelled to reason in a way logically suited to the dominant social system to-hand. Or to put it another way, their thinking on such matters is hopelessly crippled.

This is why, for example, Watson supports the activities of Monsanto and others in their efforts to develop GM crops. The fact that such crops are sought is a reflection not of the objective need for such crops (as Monsanto might have us believe), but of the fact that legally enshrined, capitalistic property relations are preventing some humans from helping other humans who are currently starving to death. The fact that social productive capacity here in the West is now able to feed the world's people without any need for GM crops passes Watson completely by. Capitalist property relations subordinate all productive activity to the pursuit of profit through the production of surplus value. It is the amassing of ever-more surplus value that concerns Monsanto, not the assisting of starving people. The fostering of human capacity, the meeting of material and cultural needs and so forth is not, and never could be the aim / function of capitalism, or any other form of exploitation for that matter.

This issue of GM crops ties in with your concerns relating to population in your closing remarks. The issue of population is assuming an accute edge, precisely because the legal and political relations here in the western hemisphere prevent us as mere humans, from addressing such matters in a fundamental way. For example, if we were minded to pour our western scientific and productive capacities into the African continent with the aim of developing the cultural and material requirements of such people (i.e. not relating to them on capitalistic terms), then over time, it is almost certain to be the case, that the objective need for many Africans to have large families would wane away and eventually die out completely.

It is not to issues of race per se then, that we must look if we wish to understand (racial) discrimination (whether in ancient Greece, feudal England or capitalist America and other such places today), but to the kinds of objective, and legally enshrined relationships governing people's productive activities wheresoever in the world these people may be. As you rightly point out (here we must leave aside the particular, concrete qualitative nature of such capitalistic unification), capitalism, more than any other social system has served to 'unite' many millions of people across the globe. Thus it would seem that such a 'uniting of people' alone, is somewhat contrary to the suggested association between capitalism and racism. But this would only be the case if racism and the articulation of particular racist attitudes, such as the recent outburst by Watson, were based on considerations of race and racial supremacy, but in my view they are not. They are based instead, as I argued in the essay, on objective differences of socio-economic class power. Thus, not only can discrimination in one or other form be remarked throughout the entire recorded history of human existence (i.e. not merely under conditions of capitalism), it is also clear that discrimination involves not only antagonistic relationships between groups of black people and groups of white people, but also between white people and other white people, between black people and other black people and so on. Watson himself argues that westerners are more intelligent than Africans. The term 'Westerners' of course subsumes not only those of the Caucasian race but also those from the Negro and Mongoloid races also.

It is worth remembering that before humans can do anything, they must assume one or other historically conditioned form of social organisation as their only collective means of securing the means of life. Since the dissolution of the primitive communes and the emergence of exploitation in times of slavery, it has been one or other pattern of such exploitative social organisation that has ultimately given rise to, nay necessitated, the birth of discriminatory ideas in some people's minds in their relationships to others. To understand issues of race, we must understand issues of class power.





Thanks again Xtremelady for commenting.


Colin