> But you can't separate science from its social consequences. How big a
> it from 'Blacks are better athletes' to 'Blacks are less intelligent: When
> captured slaves, we obviously only brought back the ones who didn't get
> the least fit/clever. When we bought slaves from local tribes, we were a
> lucrative and easy way of getting rid of the least productive, most
> members of the community.'
I'm sure the anglo Australians on the list will take exception to this point. After all, what does it say about a bunch of convict decendants? Pretty much what is deserved, I expect.
This might not count for those of Irish descent (everyone was leaving Ireland in those days), and I get an out because of my Welsh background (surname was Evans). I'm bred primarily to be short (with not so much success), rather than inheriting the worst genes the UK had to offer.
It is a source of some pride in this country to be able to trace your family back to the "first fleet", especially convicts I think, and yet I would be suprised if those same people would give a job to someone with a criminal record!
> Now this should really make the hairs on the back of
> your neck stand up, but there are people who'll say 'Hey, it's just
science - it
> 's objective reality. I'm not a racist, Blacks are just dumb.' That gets
> into social policy - we pay less attention to crime and poverty in black
> communities, and put the money where it can do some good: clever, college
> suburban white-boys.
If that were the thinking in Australia, more recent migrants and the indigenous people would be running the country. That's not really happening though...