>>11629640Science can't be racist. Only people can be racist. Science, can, however, render results that might make people racialist or racist. Racism claims that one group of people is "superior" to another group, that says nothing about what the basis of judging something as superior is.
So, can a person accept that science shows us that there is a genetic difference between blacks and whites that can account for difference in IQ scores? Yes, it can, and actually seems to.
But automatically correlating IQ with superiority is another, though subtle, step that people make in their judgment here. And this is something we all have to have a conversation about.
Kobe Bryant was superior to me IN REGARD to physical ability, no doubt. But I might ever so slightly be mentally superior to him, if he were still around, and part of this might slightly have to do with the fact of my white genetic makeup compared to his.
Does this automatically mean, AS A PERSON, I am superior? No. We just have different traits.
What's hard to swallow is the idea that we are superior to other animal life that doesn't match up with our relatively high intelligence as animals. The arguments there are usually "we can eat this, cuz it's dumb", which I actually think is a dumb argument. It's their capacity for suffering that matters, not the pig or lamb's IQ numbers.
Anyways, you get my point. These are hard problems that require hard conversations, but we're nowhere near ready to have them, if we ever will be.
In fact, I'd wager that humans will have sufficiently mixed all of our genes and only retroactively look back at our differences now with the sober lens that I'm trying to use right now.
Sad, but it's just the way it is.
