How to Argue With a Racist: What Our Genes Do (and Don't) Say About Human Difference

by Adam Rutherford

Race is real because we perceive it. Racism is real because we enact it. But the appeal to science to strengthen racist ideologies is on the rise - and increasingly part of the public discourse on politics, migration, education, sport and intelligence. Stereotypes and myths about race are expressed not just by overt racists, but also by well-intentioned people whose experience and cultural baggage steers them towards views that are not supported by the modern study of human genetics. Even some scientists are uncomfortable expressing opinions deriving from their research where it relates to race. Yet, if understood correctly, science and history can be powerful allies against racism, granting the clearest view of how people actually are, rather than how we judge them to be.

How to Argue With a Racist is a vital manifesto for a twenty-first century understanding of human evolution and variation, and a timely weapon against the misuse of science to justify bigotry.

5 CDs, running time: 4 hours and 49 minutes

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Race, Politics, History, Audiobook, Sociology

224 pages, Audiobook

First published February 6, 2020

About the author

Adam David Rutherford is a British geneticist, author, and broadcaster. He was an audio-visual content editor for the journal Nature for a decade, is a frequent contributor to the newspaper The Guardian, hosts the BBC Radio 4 programme Inside Science, has produced several science documentaries and has published books related to genetics and the origin of life.

Reviews

[NAT.orious reads ☾ · Rating 3 out of 5]

3 STARS ★★★✩✩

This book is for you if… you harbour an interest in genetics. At least to me, the title was somewhat misleading.

⤐ Overall.
Pre reading, I thought the title of this book was more attractive than the cute ginger I sat next to at the library that day I discovered it.

Post-reading, I must admit that I was hoping for more than I actually got. As the title suggested, I really thought I'd be given tons of inspiration to shut down racist behaviour, speech and thinking patterns. That's not entirely the case, however. I feel like the book is only suitable for arguing with racists who specifically go down the DNA lane to set their argument, and not so much the daily karenings.

How to Argue with a Racist is very accessible in its language and proves vast knowledge of colonial history, which makes me believe this book is definitely suitable for teenage readers.

Also, there sure as heck were tons of informative bits and pieces in there. For instance, I didn't know that in certain parts of Islamic Philosophy, the opinion prevails that both White Europeans and Africans, one due to their ignorance and lack of discernment, the other due to their fickle and foolish characters, were suitable for slavery. Then again, religion is often based on oppression and othering, so I'm not really surprised. I read the Bible last year and discovered those same thinking patterns and arguments there.

Before reading this book, I was also one to believe that all humans have Black ancestors at one point. Turns out,

‘Not only were we diverse in our skin colour long before the dispersal from Africa, we were diverse in our skin colour before we were our own species.’

Although I never believed it to be true anyways, I was glad to have written proof by actual scientists that there is absolutely no proof that genetic differences catering to racist thoughts (the other, the savage, the athletics) being true.

I guess you see where this is going. It's more of a ohhhh and ahhhh kind of book than one that actually helps me set a case when... well arguing with a racist.

⤐ The book is structured as follows.
A Note on Language
Introduction

1 SKIN IN THE GAME
2 YOUR ANCESTORS ARE MY ANCESTORS
3 BLACK POWER
4 WHITE MATTER

Conclusion and Recapitulation
Acknowledgements
References
_____________________
3 STARS. Decent read that I have neither strongly positive nor negative feelings about. Some thinks irked me and thus it does not qualify as exceptional.

[Jenna ❤ ❀ ❤ · Rating 4 out of 5]

"If you are a racist, then you are asking for a fight. But science is my ally, not yours, and your fight is not just with me, but with reality."

I didn't bother reading the blurb for this book before putting a hold on it. The title was enough for me. I thought it would be suggestions on how to be a better anti racist, providing key talking points to counter racist speech.

I was delighted to start reading it and find that it's those things, yes, but based on the science of genetics!

Hell, yeh! That's my kind of book!

Author Adam Rutherford is a geneticist and wrote How to Argue with a Racist to show that though science has been misused by racists and white supremacists to institutionalize and spread racism, scientific facts refute racism. In fact, as the author notes, "When properly understood, modern genetics refutes any meaningful biological basis for racial categories." 

Mr. Rutherford uncovers what science has to say about race and shows that it's only real as a social construct. That doesn't mean it's not real, because we perceive it to be real and act on it. However, just because we perceive something to be real, doesn't mean it's scientifically accurate and it doesn't provide an excuse or basis for racism.

The author shows how we are all related. All of us had ancestors that originally came from Africa and were dark skinned. This is pretty basic and something I already knew. However, he goes on to show exactly how we know this through the study of genetics and it is fascinating!

We don't even have to go back all that far in the history of humanity to find a common ancestor to ALL living people. If we go back to the 14th century BCE, everyone alive today is descended from all the people living then who passed on descendents. If that's not cool, I don't know what is!

Bringing it forward further in time, "if you were alive in the tenth century in Europe, and you have European descendants alive today, then you are the ancestor of all Europeans alive today". 

Everyone with European ancestry, and that includes Black people who have even minimal European ancestry, shares common ancestors from just 1,000 years ago, if not sooner.

Indeed, as the author notes, "Every Nazi has Jewish ancestors. Every White supremacist has Middle Eastern ancestors. Every racist has African, Indian, Chinese, American Indian, and Aboriginal Australian ancestors, as does everyone else, and not just in the sense that humankind is an African species in deep prehistory, but at a minimum from classical times, and probably much more recently."

The book goes on to investigate common racist myths, from Black brawn to superior white brains. It shows what we can know from DNA and the fact is, racial differences are only skin-deep. There are no genes that make white people intellectually superior and Black people inferior. There isn't a white gene and a black gene and an Asian gene and a Jewish gene. 

It's much more complicated than that. As far as we've learned from unravelling the human genome, we know there are many genes responsible for pigmentation and production of melanin, over 200 genes influencing the pigmentation of hair alone. 

We all share DNA and we all share common ancestors and there is no valid or scientific excuse for racism.

You need not have prior knowledge of genetics in order to enjoy this book. It is well-written and easily accessible, written in clear, precise language that I found easy to follow and understand. It's not very long and I would have liked it to be more in-depth, thus the four stars instead of five.

If you're interested in genetics or you're interested in learning how to scientifically refute racism, How to Argue with a Racist is the book for you!

 I leave you with the following from the book:

"Racism is not wrong simply because it is based on scientifically specious ideas. Racism is wrong because it is an affront to human dignity. The rights of people and the respect that individuals are due by dint of being a person are not predicated on biology. They are human rights."

[Trevor · Rating 5 out of 5]

The short answer to the question posed by the title of this book on how to argue with a racist is probably not to bother. Certainly, this guy has approached the question as if racists will respond well to logical arguments. This seems a little optimistic to me – I mean, half his luck, obviously, but most racist I’ve ever met haven’t particularly struck me as being capable of following the reasoning outlined in this book.

And there is a further problem, that race and eugenics are much more than merely accidental side features of capitalism. Capitalism needs to present itself as essentially a meritocracy. The only problem with that is that it is clear that capitalism is also grossly unequal. To explain grossly unequal outcomes, while retaining the idea of merit, involves finding innate characteristics in some people that are lacking in others. It isn’t easy to come up with something that is a simple explanation for this wide diversity of outcomes all due to ‘merit’. And since so much of capitalism relies on notions of freely acting individuals – the kinds of answers available in slave societies, or even feudal ones, simply aren’t available here. You know, ‘God did it’.

Which is where genes come to the rescue – and have been effectively doing since before genes were discovered. If some of us have been gifted with more intelligence, well, it’s not our fault we are better than the rest of you. If some of us have better ‘guts’ for business – this is literally the argument Trump makes for his own business ‘success’ in The Art of the Deal – then, clearly, they deserve to be wealthier than the rest of us. Trump has certainly learnt this lesson particularly well – he goes on and on and on about the excellence of his genes.

The guy writing this book is a geneticist. Now, geneticists have, over the years, acquired a hell of a lot of blood on their hands, so it is nice to read one seeking to set the record straight. Some non-geneticists who argue racists start by saying that race is simply not a scientific concept and that since we are one species and that there is as much genetic diversity within populations as there is between them, that talk of ‘race’ is simply not supported by the evidence. He sort of argues this too, but points out that regardless of what people might say, it is clear that groups do have genetic traits – and even if these are mostly superficial, such as skin colour – these genetic traits also clearly can be used to categorise folk. Racism may be a cultural category, but that didn’t stop it being used to kill millions upon millions of people over the years, and this isn’t something that stopped suddenly with the end of the Second World War. You might wonder how the ability to become badly sunburned might have proved a key indicator of genetic superiority, but such are the mysteries of life.

It is possible that there is a man in your family, perhaps even in your household, who spends much of his time watching sports on television. Now, if you were to ask this man what ithe highest pinnacle of human endeavour might be, he would, without hesitation, provide the name of one of the world’s many sports. If, for some reason, you were unable to escape, he would almost certainly then provide you with a near endless commentary on both the reasons for this particular sport’s superior nature, but also a series of key events that have irreparably changed the nature of game in recent years, taking away much of its beauty and skill. Much of the rest of this review will take it as a fact that sport is, in fact, the highest manifestation of human achievement…

One of the things mentioned in this book is that you never see Black people on the winning podium for Olympic swimming events. Some people attribute this to Black people having denser bones than white people – and so, therefore a tendency to sink. You know, if something sounds like it might be bullshit, that doesn’t necessarily mean it is bullshit, all the same, as a working hypothesis, bullshit is as good a place to start as any other. And sadly, it turns out that Black people don’t have denser bones than white people. A neat solution tragically falling short before it really got going.

Rather, the explanation for this curious fact is that Black people are simply more highly evolved than white people. You see, all land-based animals evolved from fish – so, being good at swimming proves a closer affinity to fish and other aquatic based ancestors, than does the lack of this regressive trait. The sports that Black people tend to be good at – say, running, for example – are all decidedly land-based – and therefore proof of them being a step or two further up the old evolutionary ladder.

You will be able to confirm this theory beyond any reasonable doubt next year during the Tokyo Olympics. You will be able count the number of dark-skinned people on the podiums at swimming events, and then you will also be able to count the number of light skinned people on the podiums during the track and field events – and see who proves closer to land-based (more highly evolved) and sea-based (more fish like) upon our evolutionary ladder. In fact, you can also count the number of people by skin colour in boating events – yet again, the yachts will be full of white people, yet another proof of white people’s tragically close affinity to fish.

Now, I’m not suggesting that a mass extermination process needs to be put in place for all white people merely because we are less evolved – I’m not even suggesting a sterilisation process be started of all successful swimmers, although, to be fair, on much less evidence than this, these have been exactly the decisions that were made in the past in the name of science when deciding whether or not exterminate or sterilise or experiment upon people with dark skin. Luckily for people like me, science has gotten over its desire to perfect the human genome just as conclusive proof for white genetic inferiority came to light.

One of the great lies that is often associated with Darwin’s theory of natural selection is that it is about ‘the survival of the fittest’ or about ‘purity of bloodlines’. The opposite is actually the case. Darwin’s theory is premised on the idea that the environment inevitably will change in ways we cannot predict. If a species would like to avoid extinction then the best way is to have as much diversity in the gene pool as possible.

This book is not really for racists – they are not going to be able to follow the arguments and it is cruel to pretend otherwise – but rather, it is for non-racists so that they will know just what it is about the arguments racists use that makes those arguments so silly – particularly in relation to what the latest science says.

The bottom line is that saying someone is condemned to some trait you don’t particularly like due to their genes ought to be the last conclusion we come to, rather than the first. The reason why is that there are so many factors that influence how we come to be us – but the thing about virtually all of those factors, other than our simple-minded understanding of how genes work, is that those factors are able to be changed and that changing them changes us. This isn’t what people think happens with genes. Genes are supposed to predetermine who we can ever be. They fix us and once fixed we are stuck. To say shit like ‘Black people are genetically less intelligent’, ‘Jews are genetically better with money’, ‘the Irish as genetically superior lovers’ – all of these (well, other than the last one, obviously, which I can attest to be undeniably true) do nothing other than box people in ways they can never escape. Our humanity demands that we explore all other explanations for a supposed trait before condemning people prior to them being born. This book shows why such imprisonment in one’s genes is not only morally repugnant, but also scientific nonsense. A good read, but not really for racists.

[Mehrsa · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was great. It goes point by point on some of the genetic studies that some people use to argue for traits inherent to races and he debunks them point by point. I've read a bunch of other books on genetics that have made similar points, but as part of a whole text on genetic evolution, but this one really hones in on some of the most common arguments and shows why they are wrong.

[Michael Perkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting background story to all of this....

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/us...

==================

My favorite book on genetics is by this same author. (Link below). The book under review here was a strong reminder of how complex the science of genetics is. It takes a trained and experienced geneticist to understand it.

By contrast, “science reporters,” never mind journalists and political scientists, are not qualified to write knowledgably on this topic. I’ve read those books and they’re an exercise in confirmation bias, with a clear agenda for advocating racism for personal gain.

For example, the often invoked 2006 study of Ashkenazi Jews (recently touted by an ill-informed columnist at the NYT----see more on him below) is grossly outdated and inaccurate. (It is perhaps telling that one of the authors of that study allied himself with a right wing, fascist group).

“Race science” is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. It has been most often invoked to justify slavery, imperial domination or, more recently, to deny the supposedly inferior social services, including education.

Of course, the U.S. has a long history of injustice that we prefer to double down on rather than own up to. We'd rather opt for the specious arguments of the ill-informed.

-----------------

From the latest issue of The Baffler.....

"Bret Stephens, a conservative former Wall Street Journal columnist who is good for an absurd controversy every two to three months. In December, Stephens cited an academic paper coauthored by a white supremacist to argue that Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQs than the average population. A full two days after the column ran, the Times removed reference to the paper and posted a long editor’s note at the top of the column. Many rightfully asked why Stephens, so ill-suited for his role, is getting paid in presumably handsome fashion by the Times to write columns in the first place. Why didn’t an editor tell Stephens not to traffic in racist conspiracy theories? Perhaps if the Times had not decided to eliminate its public editor position, enough pressure would have built internally to short-circuit his tenure long ago."

===================

A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: The Human Story Retold Through Our Genes

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

==============

the unwelcome return of “race science”….

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018...

[Jill H. · Rating 4 out of 5]

How to argue with a racist?.......you don't nor would most of us even attempt to. Stereotypes and myths of racism are pervasive and entrenched in modern society and are based on, basically, nothing but hatred of the "other". The rise of white supremacist groups add fuel to the fire and enlist followers who are attracted to that hatred.

The author uses this book to explain how even well-intentioned people believe that racial categories are based on outdated ideas. We have all heard that Black individuals are better athletes, have natural rhythm; that East Asian children are better scholars; that Jews are good with money. He goes on to show that these ideas are culturally, rather than scientifically, based.

This is not an easy book to read, as the author is a geneticist and sometimes provides information that is difficult for the layman to follow or completely understand. So it is a slow read but he shows that racism which is a prejudice , has no basis in science whereas science is free from subjectivity and judgement. He uses the DNA and genetic codes of various races to trace the history of race and he states, our differences are so minute, that most of all, they serve as evidence of our shared humanity. It is unfortunate that racists will never read this book or, if they did, would strongly disagree and scoff at the scientific approach to their beliefs. Sad, isn't it?

[Steve Kimmins · Rating 5 out of 5]

An educational and interesting popular science book on a topic of profound importance. My view on it changed as I read it because my expectations developed as I read it. I initially wanted bite sized, easy to understand, points covering the genetics vs. Race question. Easy, simple science explanations are always welcome! But the author is an active scientist as well as a good science populariser, and in honesty he had to demonstrate what a complicated issue it is to relate genetics to human behaviour and ability. It’s primarily a detailed popular science exposition on human genetics though one fairly straightforward conclusion made early on is how hard it is to define a genetic basis for Race itself. A genetic definition is vague at best compared to the social construct of Race we often use based on skin pigmentation. Indeed there are typically bigger genetic variations between individuals within Africa, where humanity was born, than between Europeans and East Asians.

We have 20000 genes in the human genome producing proteins, less than once expected, and a bit less than in a mouse genome and far less than in rice. So identifying individual genes with perceived human complexity and superior abilities is not feasible - genes and combinations of them perform multiple tasks in humans so we can certainly say that something like intelligence, defined by IQ for example, has a no simple genetic explanation. There’s evidence of hundreds, if not thousands, of genes being linked to cognitive abilities. Even genes identified with simple, physical traits like hair or eye colour don’t always get expressed simply to give the expected colour.

Looks like I’m in danger of giving too detailed a review of this interesting summary of the complexity of genetics and it’s consequences (the genotype and how it is linked to the phenotype)! This book doesn’t give tips on how to shout down racists of the more ignorant or stupid variety who nowadays have the megaphone of social media and the internet to express their prejudices. As the author quotes from Swift, it’s hard to reason with people who have no reason for their beliefs. At a more thoughtful level it shows that they and especially their more intellectual mentors have no scientific basis to their racism. The author doesn’t step back from the issues often popularly highlighted as having racial causes, why humans from specific backgrounds seem to always win certain sports at the highest level, and win Nobel prizes in science. He explores the science behind these patterns, where heritability may play some role, how to separate it from cultural issues and where past genetic explanations have been overstated! He also discusses issues such as the undoubted heritability of intelligence (to a degree, and with caveats on what intelligence means!). Ultimately the author shows in a forensic scientific manner that any genetic links between Race, genetics and aforementioned abilities have links that are far from deterministic and are really only perceived to have simplistic links because it’s so much easier to believe in the simple without good reason.

If you read this book expecting to be exposed to the complexity in links between the human genome and sophisticated human abilities then you’ll get a lot from it. I learnt a lot. It makes the scientific case against a racist interpretation of human capabilities. And it includes some polemics against the stupid and ignorant who pretend to use science to maintain racial prejudices. He has, after all, been insulted, thanks to his 25% Indian ancestry, by one of the discoverers of DNA (and a racist in his later years)!

[Nicky · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’ve enjoyed Rutherford’s work before; he communicates clearly, and he’s clearly delighted by the intricacies and weirdnesses of DNA and inheritance. In this book, he tries to provide people with the tools to argue back with some key racist talking points about skin colour, intelligence, milk-drinking, ancestry and proficiency at sport. For the most part, he doesn’t argue with a specific study or source of an idea, but offers up general points. It’s actually a very ineffective way to argue with anyone who’s going to ask for evidence, however true his points are; you can explain to a horse how to get to the water, but it’s not going to go and drink no matter how long you talk at it. Or, as my grandmother says, “You can’t educate pork.”

Really, the main problem is that some people are never going to believe you, even if you can talk the hind leg off the proverbial donkey and you can provide the sources. It’s not really clear who benefits from this book — mostly, I guess, people who know people who are sat on the fence, but can listen to reason. If you know any of those, I’ll send you my copy (assuming I haven’t already sent it to someone else) and best of luck to you!

It’s still clear and engaging, but preaching to the choir (by definition, if it’s aimed at people who want to argue with racists) and without a really clear guide to how to use these talking points. Vaguely replying “yes well everyone is related to everyone else if you go back through the family lines to the 16th century” doesn’t cut it for most racists.

If you’re on the fence and you want to understand why Ashkenazi Jews aren’t inherently more intelligent than other people and African runners aren’t inherently better at sprinting than anyone, it might be useful!

[Zuky the BookBum · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mini-review: I really enjoyed this book that used science and genetics to dismantle old-school racist beliefs. Some of the things he tackled were as simple as myths such as ‘Black people are better sprinters due to slavery’ which he would then break down in step-by-step stages with science alongside him to back up all his points. Sometimes I did find this a little complex as there is a lot of genetic science terminology used, but overall it was an interesting read!

[Mugren Ohaly · Rating 1 out of 5]

Yet another deceptive marketing ploy. It’s a book about genetics, not discussing racism. Yes, Mr. Rutherford, we are all related to each other. But, how is that piece of information going to help me?

[Ivonne Rovira · Rating 5 out of 5]

My answer, heretofore, to the titular question would have been “Don’t bother.” But I picked up this book because I figured that the brilliant Dr. Adam Rutherford, author of the runaway bestseller A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: The Stories in Our Genes, would have an answer if there was one to be had. And we in the West, especially in the United States, desperately need an answer if there is one to be had.

Alas, Dr. Rutherford does not have an answer to this question; indeed, he’s the first to admit he does not because arguing with racists is a waste of time. But what Dr. Rutherford provides is scientific proof that racism — despite what racists might say — has no scientific basis. Rutherford, a geneticist, exhaustively chronicles how there are much more variations within groups — however you define them — than between them.

Dr. Rutherford also provides the perfect refutation for conspiracy theorists of all stripes who claim that the science backs up their particular strain of tomfoolery but is being hidden by political correctness or some shadowy world-controlling cabal.

The idea that we are hiding some truth from the public for political reasons is absurd. As with equally mad antiscientific ideas such as creationism, if I could demonstrate that Darwin was wrong or that race is a scientifically valid and useful description of human variation, I would be the most famous biologist in history, and the riches that would follow would surely be magnificent.

If you doubt that, ask yourself what downside there has been for a radiologist, an adulterous lady preacher and a literally dripping lawyer who tell a mad president what he wants to hear. It was the Koch brothers, not George Soros, who established nearly 70 fake think-tanks to grind out whatever “science” was needed.

You would not think that a scientific tome like this would be spellbinding, but this one is; I read it in two days. And let me give Dr. Rutherford the final say from the last chapter of this amazing book:

The sweet irony is that the whole science of human genetics was founded by racists in a time of racism, and singularly has become the field that has demonstrated the scientific falsity of race…. If you are racist, you are asking for a fight. But science is my ally, not yours, and your fight is not just with me, but with reality.

[Kara Babcock · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a few other people on Goodreads have remarked, the subtitle of this book is more accurate than the title. How to Argue With a Racist: What Our Genes Do (and Don't) Say About Human Difference definitely discusses genetics as it relates to race. It is less useful if you’re looking for rhetorical tips on arguing with or debating racists or white supremacists. Adam Rutherford clearly and coherently lays out why such people are wrong to base their beliefs on a genetically-codified notion of race. Nevertheless, he dances around the ultimate problem with arguing with racists. I’ll come back to that later in my review. For now, let’s talk about what’s actually in this book, which I received for free via NetGalley and the publisher.

Rutherford starts with a history lesson of racism-as-science. Some of this was familiar to me, but he keeps it interesting and doesn’t go too far into the weeds. Basically, he examines how the post-Enlightenment world’s obsession with categorizing and classifying everything included classifying people, and many scientists used this as an opportunity to try to codify their particular biases and prejudices. Yet the fact that no single, reliable system of linking race to actual biological attributes has emerged after over 3 centuries of trying really demonstrates that race is socially constructed. Rutherford emphasizes that this is true for genetics as well, pointing out the flaws inherent in breakdowns of one’s ethnicity provided by private genomics companies like 23andMe. I particularly like his point regarding the resolution of genetic data available to these companies. Rutherford points out that 23andMe can only compare your genes to the genes it already has on file—i.e., to anyone else who has paid to have their genome sequence, i.e., disproportionately people from wealthier countries that are often descended from a European population. This type of selection bias is, of course, notably absent from these companies’ marketing material.

The next part of the book questions the utility of linking gene-tracing with ancestry. This had a lot of interesting mathematical and scientific points that were new to me. For example, Rutherford points out that, mathematically, it’s impossible for you to go back more than a handful of generations before you encounter overlap in your family tree. As a result, for any given population, we can trace backwards to a most-recent common ancestor—in the case of the entire world, it’s 3400 years. That means that claims like “all of my ancestors come from this one place in Scotland” are spurious—if true, you would be very, very inbred, because there just aren’t enough unique individuals within that population to create an unbroken lineage as far back as you care to trace it. Indeed, Rutherford’s overall thesis throughout the book is that global migration of human populations, and the resulting admixture of genes, makes it impossible to establish any concrete definition of race on a genetic level.

The final part of the book is devoted to challenging claims that we can easily connect genes to certain types of superiority, be this intellectual or physical. Are West Africans genetically predisposed to being the best at sprinting 100 m? Rutherford points out that there’s precious little evidence for such a belief. Not only does he outline the problem of using elite Olympic athletes (small sample size) for such research, but he points to the numerous environmental factors at play, not to mention the overriding confirmation bias (the idea that certain types of people are better at a sport means we invest more in finding and training those types of people, so of course more of them go on to excel in that sport). Similarly, while Rutherford provides an interesting defence of IQ tests as general indicators of large populations, he challenges the idea that an individual’s IQ test is a meaningful metric for evaluating them; moreover, he points out that the link between genetics and intelligence is still not well-understood.

All of this is well and good, and I enjoyed spending about 2 hours hanging out with Rutherford and listening to him refresh me on what I learned in Grade 12 biology and then stretch my understanding further still.

And yet.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this review, this book doesn’t fundamentally deliver on the promise implicit in its title. I suppose the idea is that, armed with these scientific facts, you’re supposed to bravely go forth and use them next time someone in your company spouts a racist line of reasoning. I guess? Except that it’s fairly well established that facts don’t change people’s minds. I can easily anticipate a racist with whom I’m arguing falling back on one of the numerous conspiracy theories Rutherford himself acknowledges in this book: scientists know that race exists, but they just refuse to admit it because it’s politically incorrect; the Jews are controlling the scientific establishment; look at this one article by a discredited and very racist scientist that repeats all the garbage I just spent fifteen minutes debunking … and so on.

I don’t think we’ll win debates with racists with facts. Truth be told, I‘m not interested in debating racists at all. I’d rather deplatform them.

That being said, if you are interested in being anti-racist and having a better understanding of why scientific ideas of biological race are bunk, you couldn’t do much better than read this book. You’ll come away with an accurate, up-to-date-as-best-we-know-right-now understanding of how our genes actually influence our development. I’m going to follow this up with Superior by Angela Saini as soon as possible for a look at the socio-historical side of this as well.

So, I highly recommend this book, but maybe not for the reasons implied in its title. Educate yourself; try to educate the racists if you feel like it but don’t hold your breath that logic is going to win the day here.

[Stetson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Adam Rutherford's misleadingly named How to Argue with a Racist is actually more of a polemic against eugenics, race science, and "race realism" with some basic genetic ancestry content than a practical guide to promoting the liberal ethic of individualism. There is no direct guidance about debunking racial animosity trying instead to attack only a doctrine of racial hierarchy or historical stereotypes about race. Rutherford also fails to provide a substantive discussion of the ideas raised by the subtitle (i.e. human differences). He chooses to largely ignore or gloss over all of the major findings about genetically or biologically influenced human differences, including insights from the fields of population genetics and behavioral genetics (for a basic primer on the latter see Robert Plomin's Blueprint or Kathryn Harden's The Genetic Lottery). For the most part, the actual claims in the book are generally accurate though the presentation of these claims is periodically plagued by cases of oversimplification and misrepresentation.

The topic of this work is an important issue and one that is hotly and actively debated both within the academy and in public discourse, especially on Twitter/X (among both good faith and bad faith actors). I have listed some of the issues with this book (my apologies if some of these are trivial or too esoteric):

1) Misleading portray of his own credentials: Rutherford slyly presents himself as an active research scientist in the field of genetics and genomics. This is completely inaccurate. He is a lecturer and scientific communicator. He doesn't run a lab or even participate in active genetics research. A basic literature search shows that Rutherford hasn't authored a peer-reviewed original research article in biomedical science since 2004 (PMID: 14744875), which was during his doctoral studies. He actually only has a single first-author scientific publication. For perspective, one first-author article is typically only half the requirement to complete a PhD in a biomedical science. The other entries in PubMed for Rutherford include a few review articles or editorials on race and eugenics (basically redux of this book and his other books on eugenics) and ethics consultations he's provided to studies that basically contradict many of the spirt of his prior arguments (PMID: 40140606). This is all a small point as I don't buy into credentialism, but I think it helps underscore that Rutherford is not an unimpeachable authority on the subject of population genetics or even genetics in general.

2) Oversimplification and misrepresentation of the biological import of genetic ancestry: Yes, race, in our colloquial usage, is a social construct without a discrete genetic or biological basis. And yes, it should not be invoked in a scientific context (terms like populations or ancestry should be used) nor should it be mobilized to systematically harm or disadvantage anyone (these are basic liberal principles). However, Rutherford should be more specific and balanced in his discussion of this issue. He should say something more along the lines of, "All genetic variation among people today is limited (the sum total of variation is small compared to other older species), continuous (no fixed, exclusive variants barred from flowing throughout the entire population), and extensively shared (no reproductive barriers and plenty of recent and ancestral admixture) within the same species, Homo sapiens, but there is population structure and selection pressures are pervasive but act locally and together this is overwhelmingly likely to affect the distribution of traits in groups of different ancestral histories." Rutherford's insistence to downplay difference and play up the obvious shared ancestry of all humans obscures the extent to which biogeographic ancestry is a real phenomenon that often correlates with casual, non-academic understandings of ethnicity and/or race. It also tries to elide complex and thorny questions about how sub-structure in human populations and differences in allele frequencies may correlate causally with traits of social import and what that means for society (i.e. What if certain differences cannot be readily remedied by allaying discrimination or environmental disparities? What is population-specific adaptations of the past are a hindrance in modern society?). Moreover, Rutherford is intent upon criticizing direct-to-consumer genetic ancestry approaches, arguing their claims are overinflated or sometimes misleading (which can be the case of course but is a marginal concern that become less meaningful every passing day as the technology and sampling improves). This elides the amount that is known about both current and ancient genomes, and the general statistical power and accuracy of current ancestral classification approaches. He also dismisses the importance that social isolation, geographical isolation, endogamy, assortative mating, or other social forces could play in population histories and the unknown selection pressures of the recent and deep past and together what the effects on population-specific allele frequencies and subsequently trait frequencies are. There is no discussion of founder effects at all of which there are many numerous examples. The discussion of introgression/admixture also obscures how such processes have been very critical in evolutionary change (e.g. Denisovan introgression in Himalayan region drove height adaptation in certain S. Asian human population). Nor does he address the extent to which reciprocal relationships between genetic variation and social custom (culture) and how these can create their own selection gradients. Given what is already known here, it is reasonable to construct some counterfactual claims. And generally, there is plenty of active debate about this and it is currently a subject of research.

3) Pretends many open research questions are already settled or too complex to answer: Rutherford tends to label research into human differences that arrive at answers he finds anathema to his worldview as "scientific racism" or pseudoscience. This isn't a productive or balanced way to conduct scientific inquiry. It is a political project that is insecure and anxious about what the facts are. All questions should be on the table and the most rigorous methods should be used to get at the truth of the matter. Substandard research and inaccurate claims should be dismantled with better research and accurate claims. Yet Rutherford's priorities have less to do with doing excellent science and more to do with propagating a particular worldview. In fact, there are plenty of active scientists who present evidence and make claims that are inconsistent with Rutherford's (see the work of David Reich's lab).

4) Unjustified pessimism about genotype-phenotype correlations: Rutherford repeatedly claims that genotype-phenotype correlations outside of limited Mendelian traits are ambiguous at best and potentially misleading because of phenomena like epistasis, incomplete penetrance, or gene-by-environment interactions exist. If he had bothered to look at the genetics literature, he would have learned that for most socially relevant traits, the architectures of traits are almost entirely additive, meaning epistasis is not a prevalent or significant issue. Even if we're missing a bunch of epistasis, which appears unlikely, it hasn't been shown to be a source of much noise when using additive assumptions to do trait prediction. There are of course challenges and much remains to be elucidated, but there are a lot of evolving experimental and computational approaches that are resolving genotype-phenotype questions, especially in the context of prediction. For example, scientists are now using approaches like saturation mutagenesis linked to functional assays to link gene variation to precise molecular effects. Moreover, the release of AlphaFold from DeepMind has made the possibility of accurately predict an enormous number of human protein structures with high confidence (this occurred after publication of this book).

5) Inaccurate discussion of psychometrics: Rutherford's discussion of intelligence and IQ testing is somewhat out of step with what the experts in psychometrics say. Just as an example, Rutherford sort of flippantly agrees that IQ tests are culturally biased when extensive research on this questions has shown that this largely isn't the case or the culture bias is so pervasive and is embedded in major civilizational and historical differences (in which case it wouldn't be an explanation for difference between population within the same broad culture). He somewhat misrepresents what is known about the malleability of intelligence - most in psychometrics point out that controlled interventions to raise IQ or change any cognitive/non-cognitive ability fadeout with distance from the intervention, meanwhile the heritability of IQ increases with age (i.e. the Wilson effect). Relatedly, Rutherford briefly discusses the Flynn effect (i.e. the trend of increasing IQ gains over the last century that is often attributed to improved nutrition/environment) without discussing whether these gains are considered to be on the latest factor assessed by IG (g). We've also seen a recent plateau of the Flynn effect.

Fortunately, Rutherford is careful to be more balanced than many other critics of sociobiology or sociogenomics so as not to fall into obvious mistakes. For example. he is willing to criticize Richard Lewontin's well-publicized claim about genetics differences within and between populations. Unfortunately for Rutherford, there are just a lot of better works on questions about human ancestry and human differences. I would recommend starting with David Reich's book Who We Are And How We Got Here, Dalton Conley's The Social Genome, or Razib Kahn's Unsupervised Learning blog. Also, I strongly recommend active research in the field from scientists like Alex Young. Peter Visscher, and Loic Yengo.

P.S. There is now new and unambiguous data from scientific research that refutes many of Rutherford's direct or indirect claims:

1) Robust selection on intelligence from within-family data -> https://tinyurl.com/IQselect
2) Evidence of selection on intelligence in ancient genomes from Western Eurasia post-Agricultural Revolution -> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39314...
3) Genetic ancestry explaining group differences in traits -> https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.11...
4) The Resolution of "Missing Heritability" with rare variants -> https://www.nature.com/articles/s4158...

[Nicola Michelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think this is an important book for anyone to read, whether scientist or science enthusiast or any member of the human race, as race no matter who you are, is all around us in what we see in racism, White privilege and science to name just a few.

I loved that this book was from a genetic standpoint, blowing normal arguments for racist remarks out of the water with science, such as Jews being good at maths and how such statements as those are just downright unfounded.

I am a white woman, scientist and I recognise the privilege I have with how I interact and encounter the world and I think reading books like this help to broaden anyone’s mind and perspective.

It was an incredibly interesting and well written book (and as a fan of Adam’s work, this was no different from the other material of his that I’ve encountered) and would enthusiastically recommend to all to read this, and especially if you have an interest in genetics. Great book!

[Becky · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this. When I picked it up, I didn't really know that it was about genetics, because I don't read descriptions (but you all know that already), and so when I learned that it was about genetics, and more specifically that Rutherford was going to use genetics to disprove all of the lame "racial purity" arguments out there, I was a happy girl. I love me some science, and I love shutting down shitty racist arguments even more.

Highly recommend. :D

[Vivek KuRa · Rating 5 out of 5]

This small book is a must read for anybody wanting to self-educate themselves with the latest and greatest science based genetic facts on Race. We can trust its content as the author is an expert in genomics and is a geneticist. Though, I am not sure if this book will help win an argument with a Racist as it is mostly an impossible task and often futile. But it will definitely help a Non-Racist revising and correcting their traditional outdated understanding of genotype and phenotype relationships , hereditary and human migration.

Genetics is more powerful tool than other fields such as Anthropology in defending the case against Racism. So, In this book the author picks few human phenotypes (both physical and mental) commonly attributed to superiority or inferiority of a Race by Racists and establishes its lack of association with the genotype. They are skin color, Ancestral Racial purity/superiority and finally physical and intellectual superiority. To the disappointment of all the racists, science mercilessly debunks all the popular Racial stereotypes and prejudices based on skin color, racial purity, physical and mental advantages”. There is no scientific evidence to support the othering. On the contrary, it shows how closely related we are, and the variations are very minimal. So, the revelation “Race is just a social construct” will be a tough pill to swallow for most of the Racists.

One thing is for sure. It is absolutely imperative to stay abreast with the latest scientific break throughs in this field as they are happening more frequently than we think. If not, there is a very high chance we promote wrong outdated ideas .

Finally, this book’s simple short message is “Scientific Racism is an Oxymoron” !

A quote I liked from this book- "When all you have known is privilege, equality feels like oppression"......

[Reid tries to read · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is mistitled; it has little to do with constructing arguments against racists and more to do with explaining how science and geneticism disprove the concept of ‘race’. It has flaws, especially when the liberal author talks about the supposed anti-semitism (aka any anti-Israel stance right wingers could use to bludgeon any political figures who smelled of even a whiff of pro-unionism in Britain) of the Jeremy Corbyn faction of the Labor Party, but overall it is a must read for anyone who still thinks ‘race’ has any validity. Race was socially constructed by humans under specific historical conditions, and it can therefore be de-constructed under different historical conditions. Understanding why ‘race’ is fundamentally unscientific is the first step towards abolishing the concept entirely.

Skin color is determined by genes and the effect exposure to the sun has on those genes. Since humans rely more heavily on our visual sensations than any other senses, we have gravitated towards attempting to make skin color a signifier for other traits, such as intelligence and athleticism. In the 20th century, genes were defined as the basic unit of inheritance; they were information passed down hereditarily from parent to offspring. When looking at broad categories, such as the hard-to-define and constantly shifting category of ‘intelligence’, hundreds of genes interact with each other in order to play a role in determining what makes a person ‘intelligent’. This also ignores the complete other side of the coin: how environmental factors such as how one was nurtured (from their literal nutrishment to the social environment they grew up in) effect a person’s intelligence; how society has impacted a person’s access to tools which could build or expand their intelligence (ex: education); how society itself even defines ‘intelligence’ and what society deems to be ‘intelligent behavior’; and how the environment impacts gene expression all effect someone’s supposed “intelligence”. To try and say that traits such as intelligence are easily quantified, that they can be linked to a single gene or handful of genes, and that these supposed ‘intelligence genes’ are also directly correlated to physical features like skin color, is ridiculous and unscientific.

Melanin is the pigment that plays the main role in determining skin color. It affects how much UV radiation the skin absorbs from the sun, so the more melanin one has the more UVs the skin absorbs and the darker the skin becomes (and vice versa). Millions of years ago in Africa, our ancestors evolved to lose their hot fur and developed more melanin (as well as sweat glands) to cope with the hot sun. The pigmentation of a paler person from Scotland and a tan person from Spain are very different, yet both are referred to as “white”. Likewise, the pigmentation of the skin of someone from Africa can vary greatly. Some people have extremely dark skin, some not dark at all, yet these skin colors are referred to as “black“. These concepts of ”blackness” and “whiteness” are socially constructed and do not have any scientific validity. Nobody, from scientists to philosophers, has ever been able to determine how many races there are or the fundamental characteristics and features of each race. The labeling of humans into races was socially constructed by European thinkers as European nations were expanding across the globe building empires, conquering trade roots, and partaking in the slave trade. It stands to reason that the concepts of race, racism, and that the white race is the most superior of all races or has more favorable characteristics than other races were self-serving and reinforced by desires to ideologically justify European expansion, conquest, colonialism, and domination.

We also know that science has quite definitively proven that Homo sapiens all evolved out of Africa; the first humans migrated out of Africa and then spread across the globe. All humans today share most of the same DNA because of how recently our ancestors migrated out of Africa. Once out of Africa, groupings of humans never remained quite as isolated from other groups of humans as we have been led to believe. The earliest human migrants out of Africa did not leave in a single event, and many who left died out and have no direct relation to modern humans whatsoever. Human migration out of Africa occurred over a timespan of tens of thousands of years, as generation after generation of humans wandered out of Africa and the. sometimes wandered back into the continent. This processes’ slow pace and recent occurrence mean that humans have had a very short time to ‘evolve’ and adapt in separate regions of the world. The interaction and overlap between the various groupings of peoples in different regions mean that no human communities have remained fully isolated long enough to evolve any significant genetic variation from other groups of peoples. Some physical traits like skin color are the result of some very small genetic differences between groups of humans, but these groups in no way correlate to any concrete or definable ‘race’. As is often stated, genetic variation and variability within so-called races is greater than genetic variation and variability between so-called races. Genetics refuses to be molded into artificial and superficial racial categories based on features such as skin color, skull shape, height, weight, or any other of the dozens of proposed racial “types” hypothesized over the past few hundreds of years. Genetically, a person living in Africa today has less in common with another African person than they do with any other person on the planet. How could the concepts of ‘race’ and ‘blackness’ possibly be able to reconcile that fact?

We inherit half of our DNA from our dad and half from our mom. They, in turn, share half of their DNA from each of their parents. Each time a person goes back a generation in their ancestry, from their immediate parents to their grandparents to great-grandparents ad-infinitum, the number of ancestors a person has doubles (2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, etc). Looking back 1,000 years, a person has over 1 trillion ancestors. This is far more people than have ever lived (approximately 100 billion people), which means we all share many common ancestors. This destroys any concept of ‘racial purity’. No matter how one attempts to define ‘race’, their ancestry will be filled with a mind boggling number of different ‘races’. Understanding this functions as an equally effective rebuttal against ethno-nationalists who never shut up about fears of a “great replacement”. America’s ethno-nationalist commander in chief has grandparents from Scotland and Germany, and has been married to multiple women born outside of the United States. What makes him an “American” and not a person whose grandparents were from India, China, or Mexico? Ethno-nationalists never have a firm grasp on when a person becomes an ‘indigenous’ member of a nation or area and stops being an immigrant. Usually, ethno-nationalism really means “we want to keep the dominant racial group of a certain nation as the dominant group, and preferably the majority” as they then fumble about trying to define what aspects make someone a surefire member of this dominant racial group.

Genetic reshuffling also negates the idea that a certain race has longstanding traits that have been present from their distant relatives up until today. While each person takes half their DNA from their dad and half from their mom, the other half is completely lost. Over generations, descendants begin to shed the actual DNA from their ancestors as some genes get passed down and some do not. Going far enough down one’s ancestral line, many people will find that they actually share no DNA with their most distant relatives. A person today might be genetically unrelated to someone who they are literally related to from the 1700s.

Genetics also plays a key role in sports (ex: you have to be tall to be an elite basketball player, which is mainly genetics based) and racists latch on to this to incorrectly state that one’s race and ancestry is what makes someone good at a certain sport. Doesn’t the dominance of black athletes prove this? You don’t see any white sprinters in the Olympics right? Well, you definitely did all the way up from the founding of the Olympics until the 1980s. If black people have only dominated sprinting for the past 40 years how could you possibly attribute this very recent success to inherited ancestral traits that span millennia? What about African American dominance in football and basketball? Isn’t that proof that the selective breeding of slavery made modern African Americans stronger and faster than other ‘races’? Well, no, for a few reasons: It would take much longer than a few hundred years to produce those effects. African slaves in America had many different jobs; there were house slaves and field slaves, and even field slaves did not have jobs that would correlate with success today in sports. If you are literally breeding human beings to be good at picking and carrying cotton, you’d think that what you would want to engender in them is physical strength, yet we do not see a predominance of black people in powerlifting competitions at the highest level. In the early 1900s, Finnish people dominated long-distance running winning golds and the most prestigious marathons (Paavo Nurmi set the world 22 official world records in the 1920s), and white supremacists used this as an argument for the physical superiority of white people. Now the argument has been reversed: black people have physical superiorities but mental deficiencies.

When scrutinizing the ”slavery bred athletically superior African American” narrative, it is important to note the only genetic differences scientists have found between African Americans and Africans today are these: African Americans are more likely to have genes which are correlated with higher risks for hypertension, prostate cancers, and bladder cancers, while having a lower frequency of genes that cause sickle cell anemia. It is quite possible, and in fact likely, that these genetic differences are due to pure chance. 200-300 years is simply not enough time evolutionarily to create a fixed genetic difference between the descendants of slaves and the rest of humanity, even if selective breeding programs had been endemic and systematized. In fact, selective breeding programs of slaves by slave masters were not uniform; they were haphazard and infrequent, and they did not occur on all plantations nor did they occur in the same way. Theories based on race also cannot explain why black Americans are overrepresented in pro basketball but not baseball or tennis (hint: rich people play sports like tennis and golf, and guess which racial group in America has systematically been hampered from accumulating wealth for hundreds of years?). Why should the apparent genetic superiority of black strength and quickness only translate to a handful of sports? The most popular sport on the planet, soccer, is still relatively dominated by white people after all. There must be a culture to supplement the genetic advantages some people have when it comes to athleticism. There must be money, time, effort, and passion across generations poured into these sports to make the best athletes possible if one is going to compete at the highest level. The greatest marathon runners today come from two very small districts in Kenya and Ethiopia because these districts have high elevation, which helps with stamina, but also because they have poured time, talent, and resources into constructing the best running programs possible here that have not occurred in other areas of high elevation like Mexico or Tibet. The genetics of some people can be significant but not entirely unique. All people have inherent potential, but there must be structural forces already in place to mold people, their genetics, and their psychologies into elite athletes, chess grandmasters, or anything else that people attribute to “race”.

What about IQ? Black people and predominantly black countries have lower IQs right? While IQ tests were originally developed by eugenicist racists, like any scientific instrument their validity has been honed in over time as the tests have received ever more scrutiny and subsequent adjustments to said scrutiny. An IQ test measures, at the most basic level, how good someone is at taking IQ tests. However, a person’s score on the test highly correlates to other positive life factors such as income, life expectancy, and such. Just like an Olympic sprinter can be expected to have an incredible 10 meter dash time (which, although simply measuring how fast someone can run 10 meters, this time correlates to things like not smoking and having both of your legs), a relatively smart person can expect to have a high IQ score. But, the important thing is that while IQ is a single measurement which can correlate to other areas of intelligence without actually explicitly proving what someone is intelligent at, IQ also is not solely determined by one’s genes. The Flynn Effect is a proven phenomenon that shows IQ scores in places where the population consistently take IQ tests have risen over time (a few points per decade), which has nothing to do with genetics (since this rise has occurred over a time-span which is far too short to relate to “evolution” in a biological sense). Rather, increases in nutrition, access to education, changes in education standards/techniques, rises in standards of living and life expectancy, and other factors are all believed to be determinants of the Flynn Effect. Systematic racism, colonialism, and imperialism are the reason why black people and African countries tend to have lower IQ scores, because the determinants mentioned above have all been hampered for “black” people by these 3 phenomena. The IQ scores of many countries in Africa are equivalent to the IQ scores of most European countries in the 1950s because that is roughly the same level of economic development those African countries are at today.

[Annie · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was excited for this book, but it was kind of a letdown. For one thing, it was a little insulting - because I get the sense that the author doesn't really think much of his readers' intelligence. He adds in details, footnotes, and qualifications that I think any reasonably well-educated, or self-educated, person already knows. (And it's reasonable to assume that the reader of a popular science book is at least somewhat educated or self-educated). To the extent that it often really feels like he's belabouring the point.

The other issue (which is somewhat related) is that this book taught me almost nothing new. I came into it expecting some cutting edge science but everything in this book can easily be learned by reading a few short articles in Time magazine or Wired.com - that is, if you don't already know it. And the thing is, I did already know most of it, because I DO tend to read those kinds of articles - and I'm not a scientist or unusually well-read on the subject of genetics or anthropology, so I'm guessing a lot of you will already know pretty much everything in this book. (The one exception is the fact that the genetic diversity of humans in Africa is more diverse than anywhere else on earth - in fact, two San people from different tribes, both living in southern Africa, have more different genetics than a Brit does from a Sri Lankan or a Maori. That's a cool fact to keep on hand).

One final complaint: the author is so uncritical of science as a concept. He really believes that science is cold, hard, objective facts and that's that. It's a little ridiculous. That is why we invented science: to free ourselves from the shackles of perception, to see things - including people - as they really are. That's an astonishingly unnuanced take on science, and I find it really hard to take any scientist seriously who says things like that. Science is exciting and helpful but to believe it delivers this extra-human objective truth - when it's a method and a field invented entirely by humanity, and not existing in any objective sphere outside of humanity - is just childish.

Anyway, two stars, because although I admire the idea, it didn't deliver what I hoped it would. If you know absolutely nothing about human history or any general understanding of genetics, you might get something out of it, but I think most of us are smarter than Rutherford gives us credit for.

[Carlos Martinez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book, calmly and systematically demonstrating that 'scientific racism' isn't at all scientific, but is definitely racist. It's particularly useful that the author is an expert in genomics, precisely the field that white supremacists jump on to provide pseudo-scientific justification of their theories.

The section on anti-semitism and the various claims made about the genetic predisposition of Ashkenazi Jews for science and music was very interesting. A shame that Rutherford adopts the media narrative that anti-semitism is a particularly deep problem in the Labour Party (ignoring the way it has been weaponised to undermine the Corbyn leadership and to mute justified criticism of Israel); however, his point about anti-semitism being an unusual "punching up to power" type of racism is valuable. Ideas of Jews being uniquely associated with wealth and power were, after all, key to Nazi ideology.

Overall the book gets 4.5 stars, rounded down because a lot of it is a recapitulation of A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: The Stories in Our Genes.

I listened to the audiobook, read by the author. The reading was excellent.

[Geoff · Rating 4 out of 5]

A concise, readable rejoinder to those who try to use simple arguments about race, sports, and IQ to make racist claims. The author did a great job explaining genetic concepts, discussing what different genetic studies can and can't say about people, and dove deep into the major limits of race as a genetic concept. But I'm left somewhat unsatisfied. None of that is the fault of the author; it's more the fault of reality. Racist arguments are malicious and evil and wrong and misleading and a perversion of science, but they are simple and easy to soundbite and communicate. Reality, and especially the way genes and environment interact to create thinking, feeling, and behaving, is complex and messy and takes time and nuance to explain. It's incredibly frustrating to not have a simple valid argument better than "it's a lot more complicated than you are saying it is."

**Thanks to the author, publisher, and NetGalley for a free copy in exchange for an honest review.

[Esme Kemp · Rating 4 out of 5]

He lost me at White Matter, because I couldn’t wrap head around GWAS, and my tiny brain can’t comprehend the human genome. But reGARDLESS this is actually fantastic and not what I was expecting at all.
I hated science at school so it was very refreshing to be taught some facts about biology and not be playing Snake under my desk.

I do want to raise that saying antisemitism is “rampant” in the Labour Party is surely hyperbole and it was jarring after 173 pages of well delivered, structured and explained objective, impartial facts.

Won me back in the conclusion and recapitulation though.

[Constantin Beda · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Cum să combați un rasist" este o combinație de sociologie și genetică, prin care Adam Rutherford încearcă să demonstreze că rasismul nu are niciun sens, și că nu are nici un fel de susținere științifică pentru cei care pretind că o rasă sau alta este superioară celorlalte. Ba mai mult, autorul afirmă că rasele nu există, și că sunt doar o invenție socială. Și-s de acord cu el aici, din punctul meu de vedere suntem diferiți ca indivizi, însă ca specie suntem toți la fel. Iar diferențele dintre noi nu ar trebui să ducă la ură.

Melanina este substanța care protejează pielea de razele ultraviolete, dar și cea care îi dă culoarea. Daca simplificăm problema asta a rasismului, aceia care îi urăsc pe oamenii cu pielea neagră, galbenă, roșie, albă sau verde (aka extratereștrii de pe Marte), urăsc de fapt un compus chimic. O substanță. La fel de bine ar putea să îi urască și pe cei care au ochii și părul de culori diferite, pentru că și acolo tot melanina acționează. E absurd să spui despre culoarea pielii că ar influența comportamentul indivizilor, care e influențat de mediu, educație, cultură etc.

"Ce mai putem spune, înarmați cu arsenalul științific actual, este că, deși culoarea pielii este primul și cel mai evident lucru pe care îl observăm, este o cale superficială de a înțelege diversitatea umană și o metodă foarte proastă de a clasifica oamenii. Perspectiva noastră asupra asupra realității, limitată în mod atât de profund, a fost cooptată într-o minciună politică intenționată. Spunem "negru" când de fapt vrem să spunem "descendent recent al unui continent cu mai multă diversitate genetică și pigmentară decât orice alt loc de pe Pământ."

Am amici evrei, țigani/(r)romi, negri/de culoare - că nici nu mai știu cum se spune corect, dar niciodată nu i-aș judeca pentru că sunt altfel decât mine, vorbind strict doar despre culoarea pielii. Am și amici rasiști, cărora le-aș înfige cartea asta în cap. Metaforic, bineînțeles. Dar nu știu cât de eficientă ar fi în a le combate credințele. E interesantă lucrarea lui Rutherford, nu e nici greu de citit, pentru că limbajul de specialitate nu predomină.  Însă genetica, care e un domeniu încă puțin cunoscut, și știința sociologiei nu ar ajuta prea mult să convingi un rasist să schimbe niște idei bine fixate. Tot educația și o minte deschisă ar putea face asta. Dar mai sunt și aceia care vor să-și depășească limitările impuse de societate, familie, prieteni; cei care sunt mai puțin rigizi. Lor le-aș recomanda-o.

[Jak · Rating 2 out of 5]

As a result of the BLM movement I purchased several books that were recommended to help broaden my knowledge and equip me for further debate. As the title of this book gets straight to the point, 'How to Argue With a Racist' is the first of these books that I have read. Unfortunately it was a great disappointment.

I’d expected a ‘how-to-guide’ or a ‘road map’ for how to shoot down the common arguments/tropes of the far right and casual racist. However, it’s a dissertation on genetics and how the pseudoscience born from eugenics and Georgian racism is factually as wells as empirically wrong. I knew that already. Black people are not genetically different to white people (or indeed other ‘races’), they just have more melanin in their skin.

As a book about genetics (not a subject I’m well researched on) it seemed good enough, and I’m sure is excellently researched. But if you're not a science geek, it’s a bit boring

I’m guessing my main gripe is that it doesn’t exactly deliver on the title. This is not a book that will help you win an argument with a Tommy Robinson supporter, the bigot down the pub or the racist Auntie that continues to miss the point and insist that ‘All Live Matter’. These people don’t argue from a place of logic and science, just gut feelings, mistrust and fear. If their argument is that they are ‘coming to take our women/jobs/benefits’ what good is a pointing out that genetically, black people are no different to us?

Rutherford probably explains it best himself when quoting Jonathan Swift. “Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired.”

[Tammie]

Super interesting, especially if you are interested in genetics. This is a deep dive into genetic differences, in direct contrast to racist pseudoscience. I think the title could potentially be misleading - this book isn't actually a how-to guide on how to argue with racists. It simply provides you with a concise history of genetics and how it's been used to reinforce racial stereotypes, and gives you a foundation on which to speak about how race is not founded in biology. I liked that Rutherford didn't just say "race is a social construct" and call it a day - he backed it up with examples, and explained areas in which genetics do play a part in how humans are different, but also why it's misleading to use genetics to explain race. Overall, a really quick but interesting read and one that I would recommend!

[John Devlin · Rating 1 out of 5]

…IQ is real…average IQ by race is unfortunately also real and has great explanatory power…

To believe that Homo sapiens who existed for 300,000+years and then diasporad out of Africa over the last 100,000 years haven’t been subjected to evolutionary pressure is simply not tenable…

Compare a steatopygian hottentot, a Masai, a Tongan, a Tibetan, an Australian aborigine, a Spaniard, and a Scandinavian and the differences are apparent…everything from lactase tolerance, alcohol sensitivity, sickle cell, cystic fibrosis, bone density, an extra molar, hair quality, to the fact that European stock carries 1-4% of Neanderthal DNA and Africans have zero simply highlights that evolution didn’t stop having its way with humans 300,000 years ago.

Finally, the absurd notion that the human brain, the pinnacle of evolution, has somehow been locked in concrete as soon as Homo sapiens stepped into the African veldt is a complete refutation of Darwin’s theory and a huge wish cast to avoid unpleasant, anti western beliefs about human potential…

So AR argues this, “This book [shows] that race is biologically meaningless

A book on genetics spends a helluva lot of time talking about current events…and gets them almost all wrong
“against police brutality that raged after a White cop pressed his knee down on a Black man’s neck for eight minutes and forty-six seconds, killing him.”

George Floyd died from taking a massive amount of fentanyl…

“how deadly the combination of racism and power can be, when he crushed the life out of forty-six-year-old George Floyd.”

This hyperbolic language alone shows the bias of AR, and no Chauvin was doing an approved restraint…

“helping fuel the dangerous way police treat Black people as “other”—in the pages that follow.”
In the last few years there’s been on average about one dozen unarmed black men killed by police…black men are Under represented in police shootings in relation to their violent criminality…

Now AR is going to claim that Covid was unfairly radicalized..
“and it rapidly became racialized via two discrete routes. The first was that the provenance of the virus became the source of hostility in casual and, in some cases, extreme ways.”

Covid came from a Chinese lab and was covered up by the Chinese govt…

“it leapt the species barrier from bats to humans via the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, a “wet market” in Wuhan, where meat and seafood are traded.”

This has been disproven so you’d think that AR would be embarrassed and omit that from the e-book

“may have been transferred via scaly mammals called pangolins, though none are listed in the market’s inventory (perhaps omitted because pangolin trading occurs illegally, albeit persistently).”
—-more falsehoods…around 200 species and 5,000 animals were tested for Covid and zero were found to be the carrier…

“thousands of racial attacks were indiscriminately directed against Korean Americans as well as Chinese Americans.”
Huh? Where’s the source for this? Is the author claiming someone was counting online posts bc there were nearly zero physical attacks on Asians in America around the Covid outbreak…

Trying to claim Covid deaths were racist
“In Chicago, where one third of the population is Black, almost three quarters of people who died were Black”
—or bc Covid killed the very old and the obese, and the obesity rate amongst blacks is substantially higher than for other races…

Things the author gets right—homo sapiens been around for about 300k years, probably quite a few migrations out of Africa but they didn’t stick until about 70k years ago…

AR trying to dodge here
“Much of our global success is a result of local adaptations, fine-tuned by evolution to best survive environments on an ecologically diverse planet.”

—Local adaptations ARE evolution..

More mischaracterizing history
“Or as occurred in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, after unarmed teenager Michael Brown was killed by police, just as had happened to Freddie Gray in Baltimore in 2015…in 2013 of the man who fatally gunned down Trayvon Martin a year and a half earlier”

All of these above episodes the people involved were exonerated…

“In one sense, nothing has changed. The US has never resolved its racist history..Structural racism is everyday—and rooted in the everyday. It is rooted in indifference to the lived experience of the recipients of racism.”
—AR supplies no proof of this, so let me state categorically…there is NO systemic, structural, institutional racism in America. Anyone can grow up to achieve their life’s ambition with hard work and luck, and sometimes just luck, but never just hard work…unless your aspirations are quite modest.

Oh wait, I guess this is what constitutes proof of SYSTEMIC racism
“Similarly, in US schools in 2019, there were reports of bunches of bananas being left in locker rooms and watermelons being brandished when White football teams played against predominantly Black ones. And in basketball, a Cincinnati school team was kicked out of a youth league for fielding players with jerseys featuring nicknames including “coon” and “knee grow.”

AR seems to want to argue that anti-Islamic attitudes run parallel with racism…
“sometimes argued that as Islam is a religion, then Muslims are not a race; therefore prejudice against Muslims cannot be racism. This is true in a very literal sense. However, for the purposes of the comparison between the 1983 and the 2017 statistics, the bigotry and prejudice against a specific group of people often resembles racism very closely”
—Muslims, regardless of race, have a belief system that in great parts in antithetical to western beliefs…the comparison with a religion and racism is completely false.

AR has to have a problem with 23&me bc if you believe your swab then you believe in race in some general macro way.
“genealogy companies, who, for around a hundred bucks and a tube full of spit, will provide you with a map of the people on Earth whose DNA yours most closely resembles.”

“The gene mutations that allow this enzymatic ability—known as lactase persistence—arose in Europe around eight thousand years ago, and the ostentatious showcasing of a random mutation that nature selected to allow some people to drink milk throughout life without minor tummy troubles is somehow associated with their assertion of racial superiority.”
—AR trying to hide the ball here…no, noting lactase intolerance does not denote “racial superiority” but that genetic change irrefutably shows populations under different evolutionary pressure changing to survive their environments…

“My subject has a dark past, rooted in colonialism, in White supremacy, and in persecution. My own academic ancestry is intrinsically linked to the birth of scientific racism, to eugenics, and to the greatest atrocities in human history.”
—AR comes back to this quite often…somehow his understanding of history is quite myopic…slavery has been a part of human culture for all those 300,000 years Homo sapiens sojourned on this planet…colonialism or conquest has existed just as long. There is nothing new about what the human condition has suffered through and perpetrated over the last few centuries that it hasn’t dealt with previously…

Nine years ago and Leftists are still talking about this
“Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 felt compelled to carry tiki torches (a Polynesian technology) while chanting “Jews will not replace us!” The following day, amid civil unrest and violence between various factions of racists and anti-racist protestors, thirty-two-year-old Heather Heyer was murdered by a White supremacist.”

“People have moved around the world throughout history and had sex wherever and whenever they could.”
—well until quite recently folks were stuck walking places…so not so much

AR the geneticist suddenly wants to suddenly make a prosaic legal declaration…
“However, you remain 100 percent British because that is how citizenship legally is determined. Genetics won’t change that.”

“slave trade itself continued within America until President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation fifty-five years later, and 3.5 million enslaved Americans were freed.”
—-not to be picky but actually Lincoln freed zero slaves, the North winning the civil war did that, and the emancipation proclamation just symbolically freed slaves in the rebelling slave holding South…

“The Atlantic slave trade was a pernicious nadir of man’s capacity for cruelty to fellow humans.”
—except the ottoman and Arab slave trade was greater, and see my earlier comments on human culpability over the last 300,000 years.

In fact slavery had existed, and existed without complaint, for time immemorial, until the West and capitalism and its handmaiden technology demanded slavery’s end.

“Prominent White nationalist Richard Spencer”
—the guy couldn’t fill up a 200 seat venue. The SPLC, the left’s go to hate crime monitors, claims there’s about 15,000 Americans involved with white supremacy…in a nation of 330 million color me underwhelmed.
But AR the scientists loves to rhapsodize about their influence..

On claims scientists stay away from race for fear of getting cancelled
“It is comically insulting to thousands of scientists, whose lives are dedicated to pursuing objective truths about people and nature, and it is devoid of any evidence in support.”
—and then we remember how the scientists told us that Covid came from a wet market, that we all needed masks, that natural immunity was negligible, that not getting vaxxed was a death sentence for us and those around us, that if we did get vaxxed we wouldn’t get sick…
—oh and that men can get pregnant, that children should be pumped with cross sex hormones and given mutilating surgeries…
Those scientists?

“famous football television commentator named Jimmy Snyder said”
—he was known as Jimmy the Greek…AR mentions him twice…I get it… your British and don’t know football so you read a Wikipedia piece to shove into this slim monograph”

There does appear to be some evidence for genetic differences in African Americans compared to Africans.
…These include the increased frequencies of genes that pose higher risks for hypertension, prostate and bladder cancers, and sclerosis, and lower frequency of alleles that cause sickle cell disease.”
—okay, but not the mind, right?

“heat, and these physiques abound in East Africa, quite possibly adaptations to the local hot climate (in contrast to Tibetan or Inuit body shapes that tend to be shorter and more rotund to retain heat in the cold).”
—-Okay, but not the mind, right?

“that our ancestors spent time in: pigmentation, diets, exposure to diseases, elevation from sea level—these are all things that have crafted our bodies so that we would survive.”
—okay, but not the mind, right?

Watch out AR folks might accuse you of racism here
“The number of science Nobel Prizes won by Jewish people currently is 144. The number won by Black people is zero.”

Now, AR starts dealing with IQ. To his credit he doesn’t dispute its value, hand waves over the flynn effect, even excepts Ashkenazi Jews high numbers. So what does he do? AR attacks the suppositions that folks have spitballed over the genetic component: forced into moneylending, genetic diseases with surprising upsides, cloistered communities…
—admittedly IQ is vastly polygenic, and what genetic codes make some excel is unknown but one can’t dispute that Jews make up less than 1% of the population but earned almost 20% of the Nobel prizes, and sorry AR, claiming that Jews study a lot of Talmud doesn’t make anyone a high end theoretical physicist…genes do that!

“but fluctuate wildly during adolescence.”
—IQ does not fluctuate wildly during adolescence…test a kid’s IQ at 8 and then at 38 and at most you might see a 5 point change.

“This is hardly surprising, as IQ is a test of current skills, which are developed, rather than some innate immutable intellectual power.”
—yes, it is…see earlier comment on theoretical physics, math, science…that’s why IQ doesn’t barely budge through all that schooling.

“Is it not simply more scientifically parsimonious to suggest that a culture that values scholarship is more likely to produce scholars?…we find the answers not in DNA but in culture.”
—ARs final failing…culture is massively influenced by evolution…culture in many respects is evolution…

Proof: chimps, gorillas, and bonobos…all are closest genetic kin.. have vastly different societal/ cultural set ups.
Chimps are male and female hierarchical with a lot of infidelity…think Rome.
Gorillas are isolated claims with one central male and many females…think the harems of a sultan…
Bonobos are matriarchal with females controlling the society with sex…think…umm OnlyFans girls and their subscribers.

My point is did the chimps, gorillas, or bonobos DECIDE that their society should be run this way? Of course not, evolution has decided that for them. Oh but I hear you say, humans are special…

Yes, humans are special. We were the only species to figure out what the game was and how the rules play out..thank you Darwin, but we’re also so stupid to think that once we figured out the rules the game no longer applied to us…even more farcical…we figured out the rules a mere 150 years ago so somehow those earlier 300,000 years were retconned so that we somehow weren't being victimized by the diktats of evolution…

I wanted to believe just like AR that everyone on average was the same once you took away the hindrances of racism, sexism, etc…and I did for along time bc it appealed to my liberal sensibilities and my my inculcated western ethos that found the history of eugenics rather grotesque…

I read Diamond’s book Guns, Germs, and Steel and was gladdened that the central thesis confirmed my worldview: the West and all it advances were just luck…some forces came together and Europe happened to strike it rich.

But then you examine the societies of native Americans, Australian aborigines, and sub Saharan blacks…and you ask yourself why these cultures never came up with writing or even the wheel, why some didn’t even have ways of expressing the future tense…and low IQ suddenly squares that circle.

Finally, if culture was the only thing holding blacks back then this fact couldn’t be true…but it is…children of black parents who make more than $300k and/or have PhDs score on the SAT as well as the poorest whites and lower than the poorest Asians…

[Melania 🍒]

3.75|5

[Dylan Childs · Rating 1 out of 5]

The following passage is preceded by a recounting of a massacre in an American synagogue 2019.

"Britain is currently beset by antisemitism, notably centered around the left wing of the Labour party, one of the two major political parties. Seven members of Parliament resigned from the Labour Party in 2019, primarily because of Labour's failure to deal with antisemitism within it's ranks. This is the defining issue for the Labour in the current era, and in 2019 general election contributed significantly to their biggest parliamentary defeat in more than eighty years."

The author is quick to provide damning quotations for actual racists like James Watson and Richard Lynne but curiously fails to do so in this case. The accusation that Labour under Corbyn became uniquely antisemetic relative to the UK population, or that Labour under Corbyn is uniquely resistant to disciplining it's occurrence relative to other political parties, has never been shown in anything close to a scientific way. It was all a politically motivated hit job perpetuated by the notorious right wing media and other cynical parties. The bloody Tories are in power and the Royals (actual Nazi collaborators in the 1930s) still occupy their thrones, it's laughable to think those institutions don't harbor antisemitism as well and yet we are spared an endless media cycle. A media cycle that apparently will continue forever in this case.

I have to say, having Corbyn's Labour party share a paragraph with actual synagogue serial killers is really beyond the pale. Shame on the author!

A fine book otherwise, this section just made me see red

[Jeff Bobin · Rating 1 out of 5]

Completely miss-titled to sell books. A book about genetics without any real how to involved.

While there was some interesting data on genetics I found even some of those arguments questionable and at time conflicting.

If you are looking for something to help you form an argument this will not be helpful except in a very narrow way.

[sidney · Rating 5 out of 5]

‘race is real because we perceive it. racism is real because we enact it. neither race nor racism has foundations in science.’

pretty essential reading, especially for biology pals!succinct, informative, wide-reaching. classic technical-but-accessible rutherford style. excellent, highly recommend!!

[Isca Silurum · Rating 2 out of 5]

DNF

Not sure if another BBC hatchet job, but started off very jumbled.

Obviously, when arguing with rascists, their starting point is genetics and all the civil niceties of debate!

When return to at a later date but doubtful.