Talk:Race and intelligence (history)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indians were seen as a homogeneous group of savages despite the fact that individual groups varied extensively and had several well developed social systems. Black people were also portrayed as savage, uncivilized and having low intelligence. By creating these social constructs, expansion into North America was justified.

Was it only on the basis of their being "savage" that this expansion was justified? And doesn't this mean that slavery of blacks had the same justification? --Uncle Ed 12:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, for balance I'd like to see:

• (A) saw Indians as a homogeneous group of savages
• According to (B), individual groups varied extensively and had several well developed social systems

It should be easy to source "B", since this is the prevailing modern view.

We need to explain the relationship between the following:

• colonial expansion
• encounters between civilizations
• encounters between "civilization" and "primitive people"
  • what does it mean to be "civilized" or "savage"
• what "intelligence" is, e.g.,
• capability of abstract thought

Many of these concepts are not unique to the History of r & i. --Uncle Ed 12:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article flow

Intro implies that R&I is nothing but a justification of mistreatment - which I largely agree with, but it should be written neutrally.

Later, it mixes up racial stereotpying with the astonishing discovery that in the racist US South, the dumb whites weren't even as smart as northern Blacks.

Perhaps the best way to write the article is simply to list the conceptions held by various advocates at various times. And for those who explained their reasoning, some quotes and/or summaries.

I'm particularly interested in people who announced discoveries which contradicted the pre-WW2 consensus that "blacks are born stupid" (BABS) - as this seems to be the most pernicious or at least contentious idea of them all. Two writers are mentioned in the intro as accusing even modern researchers of such racism, and The Bell Curve is often portrayed as supporting BABS.

If there's a dispute about "what views does TBC advocate", then we need a section on that dispute. Like:

• (C) calls TBC racist, on the grounds that it advocates BABS
• (D) denies that the book advocates BABS

All right, that's all the analysis and commentary I have time for today. I hope someone can fix this up. --Uncle Ed 12:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Equalitarian dogma

In 1961, the psychologist Henry Garrett would coined the term equalitarian dogma to describe the then politically fashionable view that there were no race differences in intelligence, or if there were, they were purely the result of environmental factors. Those who questioned these views often put their careers at risk.^{[1][off-topic?]}

Don't know if this was all that historically notable. Did anyone else use this term? It's not like it became a household word. In any case in makes no sense for the introduction to the section on "modern work" futurebird 15:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It is notable enough that historians of psychology, Winston, Butzer and Ferris have examined the claim by examining psychology textbooks from 1930-1970, they demonstrate how almost all psychology textbooks in this period discuss race differences in intelligence and suggest whether they are due to environment or genetics is an empirical question, the researchers conclude that at least within psychology the "equalitarian dogma" never held sway, and that the labelling of such work as 'taboo' was a rhetorical strategy by pro-heriditarian race difference researchers. I can't find a electronic version of the article, the reference is Winston, A.S., Butzer, B. and Ferris, M.D. (2004) Constructing Difference: Heredity, Intelligence and Race in Textbooks 1930-1970 in Winston, A.S. (Eds) Defining Difference: Race and Racism in the History of Psychology (pp. 199-230) Washington, D.C. American Psychological Association. If folks think it is useful for the article I'll add it in. JonathanE 07:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha. Thanks. futurebird 13:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)