FAQ #67 - Melanist Theory Debunked

P.L. Mason

Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 14:58:59 EST
From: patrick l mason PMASON%WAYNEST1.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

Subject: afrocentric theory X-UIDL:798254908.011

I found the additional info on Van Sertima interesting and I don't have anything to disagree with in that regard. I didn't know his work has been so heavily challenged. You also wrote:

You clearly have a problem of identifying Jeffries and Cress Welsing| as Afrocentrists, just as I have a problem identifying Van Sertima as one, but for different reasons. Many of the assertions Van Sertima makes in his books are simply inaccurate, and they have been drawn to his attention, but he refuses to correct them. This is simply bad scholarship.

Given the reported strength of evidence presented by your mathematician friend, you reject Van Sertima's claims. I reject Welsing's and Jeffries ideas on both empirical and methodological grounds. As an aside, Jeffries "theories" are especially difficult to accept because Jeffries does not have any body of published work. Or, if he does have published work, I have never seen it. I'll spell out my objections below.

Keeping in mind my criterion that Afrocentricity has a lot to do with an orientation toward data, I would argue that I *could* understand persons classifying him as such, but would call their attention (as I am doing now) to flaws in his ruminations on math and science. Van Sertima is not dealing with theory but in facts. Cress-Welsing and Jeffries are. Remember, Frances calls it the "Cress *Theory* of Color Confrontation" Theories can lead to concrete conclusions concerning data, and I *still* believe that their theories on biological differences among races will yield data to show that this is the case.

Several points.

No biological theory of race can possibly be Afrocentric if race is considered a social construction. Today, modern antropologist and biologist have abandoned racial classifications as providing useful information. This was Frederick Douglass' point as early as the 1840s. Race has always been a social construction. In classical Greece, the great dividing line was culture, i.e., the Greeks saw themselves as superior to those who did not understand or who were not knowledgable of Greek culture. For the Romans, the great dividing line was citizenship -- Ceasar's citizens were to be treated with respect, non-citizens had few rights a Roman was bound to respect; hence, the Apostle Paul (a Jew and a Roman citizen) had to be treated quite differently than Peter -- a Jew but not a Roman citizen. For the Biblical Jews, the great dividing line was (and to some extent still is) whether or not one accepted the Jewish God, i.e., the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;" if so, then one was a brother (regardless of skin color) and if not, then one was merely a Gentile (non-Jew) regardless of skin color.

What makes a theory of race Afrocentric then is how that theory goes about explaining the importance of skin color within the context of modern (post-1492) world economy. Remembering, of course, that there are no white people in Europe and no black people in Africa; Europe has Irish, English, Saxon, Gauls, Bavarians, Czechs, Slavs, Italians, etc, while Africa has Zulus, Kikoyus, Haseaus, Ibos, Yurobas, etc.

This is necessarily so since biological theories of orginated with white Americans in the last century. Jeffries and Welsing are methodological indistinct from these 19th century racist and 21st century racist such as Murray and Hernnstein. Let me demonstrate.

Let X = amount of melanin (or cranial capacity or sun culture v. ice culture or IQ level); Y = an index intelligence, moral and ethical development, and criminal propensity.

19th century racist: melanin content inversely related to brain capacity 21st century racist: melanin content inversely related to IQ levels Jeffries : sun people have more melanin than ice people

There are then rather simply transformation functions connecting melanin, exposure to sun, IQ levels, and cranial capacity. So, we can simplify things by focusing only on melanin.

Mathematical structure of white racist model:

Y = a + b*X + e, where a > 0, b <0, the mean of "e"="0," and the standard deviation of "e"> 0.

In this model "a" represents the average level of intelligence for all humans. "e" represents random fluctuations in intelligence, moral and ethical development, and criminal propensity.

Since b <0, as the value of X (the amount of melanin) increases intelligence falls further and further below average.

Mathematical structure of Jeffries/Welsing model:

Y = a + b*X + e, where a > 0, b > 0, the mean of "e" = 0, and the standard deviation of "e" > 0.

In this model "a" represents the average level of intelligence for all humans. "e" represents random fluctuations in intelligence, moral and ethical development, and criminal propensity. Since b > 0, as the value of X (the amount of melanin) increases intelligence rises further and further above average.

The white racist and Jeffries/Welsing models are methodological and structurally identical. The only disagreement is over the sign of a coefficient. Mathematical structure of social construction model: Y = a + e, where a > 0, the mean of "e" = 0, and the standard deviation of "e" > 0. In this model "a" represents the average level of intelligence for all humans. "e" represents random fluctuations in intelligence, moral and ethical development, and criminal propensity. In the social construction model, biology produces no differences in intelligence, moral and ethical development, or criminal propensity. Hypotheses (empirical implications) of the Jeffries/Welsing model: a. dark-skinned African Americans are more intelligent, have a higher level of ethical and moral development, and are less prone to crime than light-skinned African Americans. b. Pure Africans are are more intelligent, have a higher level of ethical and moral development, and are less prone to crime than impure mix-raced Africans, e.g., African Americans. c. racial categories are fixed across time and cultures. d. let sigma1 = standard deviation of e from white racist equation let sigma2 = standard deviation of e from Jeffries/Welsing equation if either of the biological theories are correct then it must be the case that :sigma1 - sigma2: >= sigma1 and :sigma1 - sigma2: >= sigma2. In other words, it must be the case that interracial differences in Y (an index intelligence, moral and ethical development, and criminal propensity) exceed both measures of intraracial differences in why. Hypothesis d is a killer. According to every biologist I've ever spoken with, it is factually incorrect. There is greater variation within so-called "racial" groups than across so-called "race-groups." Race can- not have a biological basis. Q.E.D. The 19th and 21st century racist would accept point c as is, but switch around dark-skinned and light-skinned in hypothesis a and African and African Americans in hypothesi b. Hypotheses a and b are clearly foolish. Point c is denied by the history of "whiteness" in America and race in Europe. The English did not consider the Irish to belong to their race, but in fact thought they belonged to an inferior race. The Romans thought Africa worthy of conquering, while they thought the English too stupid to bother with. Ben Franklin was clear on who was and was not white: whites were limited to German Saxons and Anglos. If the Franklin definition were still the social standard, most so-called white people in American today would not be white. Indeed, during the late 19th and early 20th century the older generations of whites in America (Germans, English, Dutch) considered the new immigrants (Slavs, Irish, Italians) as members of racially inferior groups; hence, the notion of the "melting pot" theory among European immigrant groups and their defenders as a way of arguing that everybody could fit into American society. These European immigrants fought very hard to obtain whiteness and thereby many have identities bound in this racist typology. Finally, given the structural and methodological identity of the Jeffries/ Welsing and white racist models they have the same methodological and empirical weaknesses. Hence, Stephen J. Gould's book, The Mismeasure of Man, not only destroys Murray and Hernnstein but it obliterates the Jeffries/Welsing perspective as well.

Glenn Loury's position related...[ed.] Indeed, Loury's claim to fame rests on two papers which demonstrated the following. Suppose we have a capitalist economy characterized by what orthodox economists call "perfect competition." Suppose further that in the past this economy has been characterized by wicked and extensive racial discrimination in employment, training, wages -- the whole labor market. Suppose further that laws were passed that made discrimination illegal and very costly for those firms which attempted to discriminate. Suppose also that these laws were stringently enforced. In other words, suppose we have the best conceivable circumstances for eliminating racial inequality in income. Loury queried, "Would market forces eliminate discrimination? If so, how long would it take?" Loury answered, "Acting alone, market forces would not eliminate racial inequality in income." Not tomorrow, not ever.

The upshot of Loury's argument is that past advantages provide whites with a nearly insurmountable advantage in the economy due to a host of nonmarket advantages (connections, schools, information, housing). Hence, Loury's support of affirmative action in education and also his support of housing desegregation.

In Loury's own words, "My argument turns on the extent to which social discrimination among today's citizen's will perpetuate indefinitely the group inequality engendered by past economic discrimination. Because the antidiscrimination principle does not extend into the most intimate of private, associational choices, it is compatible with the continued practice of racial discrimination in such choices. Yet this practice, together with a history of racial discrimination in the public sphere, will ensure that the consequences of past bigotry become a permanent part of the social landscape. To avoid this possibility, I argue, the use of group-conscious public action is justified."

(Glenn C. Loury, "Why Do We Care About Group Inequality?" in S. Shulman and William Darity, Jr., editors, The Question of Discrimination, page 286-287). This is a nontechnical article geared towards noneconomists.

P. Mason 4/95