Contents:

  1. Introduction
  2. Key quotes from both articles
  3. From: How to Talk About ‘Race’ and Genetics
  4. From: How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’

1. Introduction

In 2018, two articles written by leading Harvard geneticist, David Reich, were published in the New York Times: How to Talk About ‘Race’ and Genetics and How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’. In both articles, he argued that the “social construct” (man-made categorization) of race accurately maps to the genetic/biological reality of race. However, the articles were, essentially, a plea for sanity on the Left-Wing.

Reich warned that by denying biological reality and clinging to scientifically untenable positions, the Left is leaving the field of genetics completely undefended from nefarious Right-Wingers, who may use genetics research as a trojan horse to advance “scientific racism.” Which is 100% true. Unfortunately for David Reich, there’s nothing that Leftists could do to defend genetics from so-called “scientific racism,” even if Leftists weren’t race-denying lunatics. Genetics is the very embodiment of “scientific racism” and all genetics research vindicates the racialized biological worldview — as Reich himself was forced to admit.

Did Leftists heed Reich’s warning? Nope. Of course, not. They mercilessly lambasted him as an evil racist “Nazi,” even though he repeatedly denounced Nazism in both articles, is strictly anti-racist, a Liberal, and ethnically Jewish. Reich is by no means Right-Wing, racist, or sympathetic to the nationalist cause, whatsoever. He has consistently used his genetics research to advocate in favor of increased immigration and miscegenation. In a 2018 interview published in the Atlantic, David Reich describes how his research has vindicated German archaeologists’ theories on the ‘Aryan’ (Indo-European) invasions, but concludes with the following paragraph, summarizing his personal ideology:

  • “It’s revealing that the differences among populations we see today are actually only a few thousand years old at most and that everybody is mixed. I think that if you pay any attention to this world, and have any degree of seriousness, then you can’t come out feeling affirmed in the racist view of the world. You have to be more open to immigration. You have to be more open to the mixing of different peoples. That’s your own history.“

2. Key quotes from both articles

To list below consists of mixed quotes from Reich’s How to Talk About ‘Race’ and Genetics and How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’ articles, compiled in a logical order.

  • “As a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among ‘races.'”
  • “While race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real.”
  • “To insist that no meaningful average differences among human populations are possible is harmful. It is perceived as misleading, even patronizing, by the general public.”
  • “Genetic studies have demonstrated differences across populations not just in the genetic determinants of simple traits such as skin color, but also in more complex traits like bodily dimensions and susceptibility to diseases.”
  • “Genetic variations are likely to affect behavior and cognition just as they affect other traits.”
  • “Given that all genetically determined traits differ somewhat among populations, we should expect that there will be differences in the average effects, including in traits like behavior.”
  • “Present-day human populations […] have in a number of instances been largely isolated from one another for tens of thousands of years. These long separations have provided adequate opportunity for the frequencies of genetic variations to change.”
  • “The ancestors of East Asians, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were, until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work.”
  • “Well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science.”

3. Extracts from: How to Talk About ‘Race’ and Genetics

“how should we handle the eventuality that for a few traits, average differences among populations arising from genetics will be discovered? I do not think that the right approach is to pretend that scientific research has shown there can be no meaningful average genetic differences among human populations, because that message is contradicted by scientific facts.

From my point of view, it should be possible for everyone to hold in their heads the following six truths:

1. “Race” is fundamentally a social category — not a biological one — as anthropologists have shown.

“2. There are clear genetic contributors to many traits, including behavior.

“3. Present-day human populations, which often but not always are correlated to today’s “race” categories, have in a number of instances been largely isolated from one another for tens of thousands of years. These long separations have provided adequate opportunity for the frequencies of genetic variations to change.

“4. Genetic variations are likely to affect behavior and cognition just as they affect other traits, even though we know that the average genetic influences on behavior and cognition are strongly affected by upbringing and are likely to be more modest than genetic influences on bodily traits or disease.

“5. The genetic variations that influence behavior in one population will almost certainly have an effect on behavior in others populations, even if the ways those genetic variations manifest in each population may be very different. Given that all genetically determined traits differ somewhat among populations, we should expect that there will be differences in the average effects, including in traits like behavior.

“6. To insist that no meaningful average differences among human populations are possible is harmful. It is perceived as misleading, even patronizing, by the general public. And it encourages people not to trust the honesty of scholars and instead to embrace theories that are not scientifically grounded and often racist.

“In short, I think everyone can understand that very modest differences across human population in the genetic influences on behavior and cognition are to be expected.”

4. Extracts from: How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’

“…a consensus was established that among human populations there are no differences large enough to support the concept of “biological race.” Instead, it was argued, race is a “social construct,” a way of categorizing people that changes over time and across countries.

“It is true that race is a social construct. […] But over the years this consensus has morphed, seemingly without questioning, into an orthodoxy. The orthodoxy maintains that the average genetic differences among people grouped according to today’s racial terms are so trivial when it comes to any meaningful biological traits that those differences can be ignored.

“The orthodoxy goes further, holding that we should be anxious about any research into genetic differences among populations. The concern is that such research, no matter how well-intentioned, is located on a slippery slope that leads to the kinds of pseudoscientific arguments about biological difference that were used in the past to try to justify the slave trade, the eugenics movement and the Nazis’ murder of six million Jews.

“I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”

“Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology have been made over the last two decades. These advances enable us to measure with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years. With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real.

“Recent genetic studies have demonstrated differences across populations not just in the genetic determinants of simple traits such as skin color, but also in more complex traits like bodily dimensions and susceptibility to diseases. For example, we now know that genetic factors help explain why northern Europeans are taller on average than southern Europeans, why multiple sclerosis is more common in European-Americans than in African-Americans, and why the reverse is true for end-stage kidney disease.

“I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science. I am also worried that whatever discoveries are made — and we truly have no idea yet what they will be — will be cited as “scientific proof” that racist prejudices and agendas have been correct all along, and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims.

“You will sometimes hear that any biological differences among populations are likely to be small, because humans have diverged too recently from common ancestors for substantial differences to have arisen under the pressure of natural selection. This is not true. The ancestors of East Asians, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were, until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work. Indeed, the study led by Dr. Kong showed that in Iceland, there has been measurable genetic selection against the genetic variations that predict more years of education in that population just within the last century.”